Full text of "Wilderness planning amendment/environmental impact statement for the Dillon Resource Area, Beaverhead and Madison counties, Montana : draft"

See other formats

WILDERNESS PLANNING AMENDMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE DILLON RESOURCE AREA

DRAFT

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
May 1982

GOVEF
WE S I t

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Depart¬
ment of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nation¬
ally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes
fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources,
protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental
and cultural values of our national parks and historical places,
and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor
recreation The Department assesses our energy and mineral
resources and works to assure that their development is in
the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a
major responsibility for American Indian reservation com¬
munities and for people who live in Island Territories under
as. administration.

DRAFT

m
. m

J)SH

\a3l

y.i

WILDERNESS PLANNING AMENDMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT

for the

DILLON RESOURCE AREA

Beaverhead and Madison Counties
Montana

Prepared by

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

dl'vu^Q.TSW/

STATE DIRECTOR
MONTANA STATE OFFICE

MAY 1982

ABSTRACT: This Wilderness Planning Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement considers the suitability or
nonsuitability of eight Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the Dillon Resource Area for inclusion in the National
Wilderness Preservation System. The proposed action recommends that portions of three WSAs— the Ruby
Mountains, the Blacktail Mountains, and Farlin Creek— totaling 27,21 1 acres, be designated as wilderness. The
proposed action also recommends that the remaining areas totaling 67, 1 98 acres, not be designated as wilderness.

For Further Information Contact:

Bruce Botsford

Project Manager

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 1048

Dillon, MT 59725

(406) 683-2337

Comments must be received by:
July 26, 1982

?•

SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF STUDY

As required by Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1 976 (FLPMA), the purpose of
this study is to determine the suitability or nonsuitability
of eight Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for designa¬
tion as wilderness, in accordance with guidelines in the
Wilderness Act of 1964. These WSAs are located in
Beaverhead and Madison counties in southwestern
Montana and managed by the Bureau of Land Man¬
agement (BLM) in its Dillon Resource Area, Butte Dis¬
trict.

STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

The BLM proposes wilderness designation for 27,21 1
acres of public lands located in portions of three
WSAs— Ruby Mountains, Blacktail Mountains and Far-
lin Creek— and nonwilderness for 67,198 acres of pub¬
lic land located in the remaining portions of the above
WSAs and the other five WSAs.

A total of 15,615 acres in the Ruby Mountains WSA,
and 10,986 acres in the Blacktail Mountains WSA are
recommended for wilderness. The recommendations
for both WSAs provide wilderness protection for the
areas with the highest wilderness quality; improve wil¬
derness manageability; and minimize or eliminate con¬
flicts with other activities such as timber, motorized
recreation, minerals, grazing, and access to private
inholdings. One area with high potential for the occur¬
rence of talc is included in the recommended wilder¬
ness portion of the Ruby Mountains WSA, but there are
several other high potential areas to the south, both
outside the WSA and in the nonwilderness portion of
the WSA, that are more accessible and available for
development.

The Farlin Creek WSA proposal recommends 610
acres for wilderness designation as a tack-on to the
Forest Service’s proposed East Pioneer Wilderness,
and transfer of management authority to the Forest
Service if the area is designated wilderness. If the Forest
Service unit is not ultimately designated as wilderness,
Farlin Creek is not a viable independent candidate for
wilderness status. The Farlin Creek proposal would add
to the physiographic unity, scenic quality, and man¬
ageability of the adjacent portion of the proposed East
Pioneer Wilderness.

The five remaining WSAs— East Fork of Blacktail Deer
Creek, Hidden Pasture Creek, Bell and Limekiln
Canyons, Henneberry Ridge, and Axolotl Lakes— are

recommended for nonwilderness due to one or a com¬
bination of factors, including low wilderness quality;
wilderness manageability problems; and conflicts with
other resources such as timber, minerals, livestock
grazing, and motorized recreation.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Three alternatives were initially considered for all
WSAs— all wilderness, partial wilderness, and no wil¬
derness. Partial wilderness alternatives were developed
only if they presented an opportunity to improve man¬
ageability or wilderness quality or to reduce resource
conflicts. For some WSAs there was not enough differ¬
ence between the partial and all wilderness alternatives
to warrant separate analysis; therefore, alternatives for
partial wilderness designation were analyzed for only
four WSAs— Ruby Mountains, Blacktail Mountains, Far¬
lin Creek, and Henneberry Ridge.

PUBLIC ISSUES

Some of the more important issues raised by the public
included the effect of wilderness designation on such
activities as mining, timber, grazing, motorized recrea¬
tion activities, and the related impact on the economy
of the local area.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

Impacts resulting from the study recommendations are
described below.

Wilderness

Wilderness values would be provided long-term (legis¬
lative) protection in all areas recommended for wilder¬
ness. In those areas recommended for nonwilderness,
wilderness values could be degraded through multiple-
use trade-offs.

Recreation

There would be a minimal impact on motorized recrea¬
tion. Eight miles of vehicle ways would be closed.

Scenic Values

Provide additional protection for scenic values in areas
recommended for wilderness. In areas recommended
for nonwilderness, scenic values would be managed in
accordance with the current land use plan.

Cultural Resources and Watershed

Wilderness designation would have a slightly more
beneficial effect on cultural values and soil and water
resources than would nonwilderness designation.

Wildlife

Wilderness designation would provide certain types of
long term protection for wildlife, but nonwilderness
designation could also provide protection for wildlife.

Minerals

Opportunities for exploration or development could be
restricted or forgone in areas recommended for wilder¬
ness.

Livestock Grazing

There is no anticipated effect on stocking levels, and
relatively low additional costs to livestock operators due
to possible restrictions on motorized vehicles in WSAs
recommended for wilderness designation.

Timber

In the Farlin Creek WSA, a potential timber harvest of
0.4 million board feet per decade would be forgone.
About 3.8 million board feet per decade would be
released for timber management.

Socio-Economic

Regional effects of the study recommendations are too
small to measure. Local economic effects primarily
involve restrictions to mineral and timber development.
Restrictions to timber harvesting would result in the loss
of about one-quarter of a job per year in all facets of
logging and milling.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

Purpose of Study . i

Study Recommendations . i

Alternatives Considered . i

Public Issues . i

Environmental Consequences . i

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of and Need for the Action . 1

Area Description . 1

The Planning Process . 1

Statement of Nonconformance . 3

Issues and Criteria . 3

CHAPTER 1: THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Analysis of Factors Common to all WSAs . 7

Wilderness Overview . 7

Socioeconomic Overview . 11

Air Quality . 14

Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals . 15

Watershed . 15

Cultural Resources . 15

Analysis of Individual Wilderness Study Areas . 16

Background . 16

Ruby Mountains WSA (MT-076-001 ) . 17

Blacktail Mountains WSA (MT-076-002) . 23

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA (MT-076-007) . 30

Hidden Pasture Creek WSA (MT-076-022) . 34

Bell and Limekiln Canyons WSA (MT-076-026) . 39

Henneberry Ridge WSA (MT-076-028) . 44

Farlin Creek WSA (MT-076-034) . 49

Axolotl Lakes WSA (MT-076-069) . 53

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Formulation and Description of Alternatives . 61

Ruby Mountains WSA (MT-076-001) . 61

Blacktail Mountains WSA (MT-076-002) . 61

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA (MT-076-007) . 62

Hidden Pasture Creek WSA (MT-076-022) . 62

Bell and Limekiln Canyons WSA (MT-076-026) . 62

Henneberry Ridge WSA (MT-076-028) . . . 62

Farlin Creek WSA (MT-076-034) . 63

Axolotl Lakes WSA (MT-076-069) . 63

Selection of the Preferred Alternative . 64

Ruby Mountains WSA (MT-076-001) . 64

Blacktail Mountains WSA (MT-076-002) . 66

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA (MT-076-007) . 66

Hidden Pasture Creek WSA (MT-076-022) . 67

Bell and Limekiln Canyons WSA (MT-076-026) . 67

Henneberry Ridge WSA (MT-076-028) . 67

Farlin Creek WSA (MT-076-034) . 68

Axolotl Lakes WSA (MT-076-069) . 68

Cumulative Impacts . . • • • . .

Requirements for Areas Recommended as Suitable for Wilderness Designation . .

Public Comment .

Local Social and Economic Effects .

Energy and Mineral Resource Values .

Consistency with Other Plans .

Impacts on Other Resources .

Impacts of Nondesignation on Wilderness Values .

Evaluation of Wilderness Values .

Diversity in the National Wilderness Preservation System .

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Analysis of Factors Common to All WSAs .

Wilderness .

Cultural Resources .

Watershed .

Geology and Minerals .

Livestock Grazing . . .

Social and Economic Conditions .

Analysis of Individual Wilderness Study Areas .

Ruby Mountains WSA (MT-076-001 ) .

Blacktail Mountains WSA (MT-076-002) .

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA (MT-076-007) . •

Hidden Pasture Creek WSA (MT-076-022) .

Bell and Limekiln Canyons WSA (MT-076-026) .

Henneberry Ridge WSA (MT-076-028) .

Farlin Creek WSA (MT-076-034) .

Axolotl Lakes WSA (MT-076-069) .

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Process .

Distribution . ' .

APPENDIXES/GLOSSARY/REFERENCES/INDEX

Appendix A: Summary of Wilderness Status .

Appendix B: Grazing Systems .

Appendix C: Methodology Used to Determine Timber Potential .

Appendix D: Legal Description of Lands in the WSAs .

Appendix E: Ecosystem Representations by Acreage .

Appendix F: Soils and Water Characteristics of WSAs .

Appendix G: Cultural Resources .

Appendix H: List of Preparers .

Glossary .

References .

Index .

70
70
73
73
73

76
76
76

77
81
81
85
88
90
92
94
96
98

101

103

109

111

115

125

127

131

133

135

139

143

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Regional Wilderness Opportunities . 7

Table 2: Existing and Proposed Wilderness Areas and Areas Under Wilderness Study . 9

Table 3: Percentage of Lands Affected by Wilderness or Wilderness Study . 10

Table 4: Effects on Naturalness: Ruby Mountains WSA . 18

Table 5: Present Net Worth of Timber: Ruby Mountains WSA . 23

Table 6: Effects on Naturalness: Blacktail Mountains WSA . 24

Table 7: Present Net Worth of Timber: Blacktail Mountains WSA . 29

Table 8: Effects on Naturalness: East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA . 31

Table 9: Present Net Worth of Timber: East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA . 34

Table 10: Effects on Naturalness: Hidden Pasture Creek WSA . 35

Table 11: Effects on Naturalness: Bell and Limekiln Canyons WSA . 40

Table 12: Present Net Worth of Timber: Bell and Limekiln Canyons WSA . 44

Table 13: Effects on Naturalness: Henneberry Ridge WSA . 46

Table 14: Effects on Naturalness: Farlin Creek WSA . 50

Table 1 5: Present Net Worth of Timber: Farlin Creek WSA . 53

Table 16: Effects on Naturalness: Axolotl Lakes WSA . 55

Table 17: Present Net Worth of Timber: Axolotl Lakes WSA . 59

Table 18: Summary of Preferred Alternatives . 65

Table 19: Timber Values and Suitability Recommendations . 71

Table 20: Wildlife Habitats in Areas Recommended as Nonsuitable for Wilderness Designation . 72

Table 21: Wildlife Habitats in Areas Recommended as Suitable for Wilderness Designation . 72

Table 22: Ecotypes and Suitability Recommendations . 74

Table 23: Assay Values for Economically Viable Operations . 78

Table 24: Additional Costs to Livestock Operators . , . 80

Table 25: Summary of Present Net Worth of Timber: Ruby Mountains . 82

Table 26: Total Potential Harvest Volume/Decade: Ruby Mountains . 83

Table 27: Summary of Present Net Worth of Timber: Blacktail Mountains . 86

Table 28: Total Potential Harvest Volume/Decade: Blacktail Mountains . 87

Table 29: Potential Harvest Volume/Decade-Partial Wilderness: Blacktail Mountains . 88

Table 30: Summary of Present Net Worth of Timber: East Fork . 89

Table 31: Total Potential Harvest Volume/Decade: East Fork . 90

Table 32: Summary of Present Net Worth of Timber: Bell and Limekiln Canyons . 93

Table 33: Total Potential Harvest Volume/Decade: Bell and Limekiln Canyons . 93

Table 34: Total Potential Harvest Volume/Decade: Farlin Creek . 97

Table 35: Total Potential Harvest Volume/Decade: Axolotl Lakes . 99

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE
ACTION

The purpose of this study is to determine the suitability
or nonsuitability of eight wilderness study areas for
designation as wilderness, in accordance with guide¬
lines in the Wilderness Act of 1964. These wilderness
study areas (WSAs) are on land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its Dillon
Resource Area, Butte District, Montana.

Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Manage¬
ment Act of 1 976 (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the
Interior to have the BLM study all public lands under its
jurisdiction for their wilderness potential. Following the
study, the Secretary of the Interior will make recom¬
mendations to the President as to which areas or por¬
tions of areas should be designated as wilderness. The
President then will make a final recommendation to
Congress. Congress must ultimately decide which
areas, if any, will be designated wilderness.

If Congress decides that some or all of the WSAs are to
be designated wilderness, the BLM will amend the Dil¬
lon Management Framework Plan (MFP), which was
completed in 1979, to indicate wilderness manage¬
ment of those areas. This study does not consider how
the WSAs will be managed if they are found to be
unsuitable for wilderness designation, since nonwilder¬
ness land use decisions already are detailed in the
Dillon MFP. Any of the WSAs that are designated wil¬
derness by Congress will then be managed in accor¬
dance with the Wilderness Management Policy docu¬
ment published by the BLM in September, 1981.

The study process has been guided by the Bureau of
Land Management’s draft wilderness study policy and
by BLM planning regulations. Much of the information
used in this study also appears in the Dillon MFP and in
the Mountain Foothills Grazing Management
Program: Environmental Impact Statement
(BLM 1980— hereafter cited as “Mountain Foothills
E1S”). All maps referenced are contained in a separate
map supplement which accompanies this document.

AREA DESCRIPTION

The eight WSAs are all located in Beaverhead and
Madison counties in southwestern Montana, within the
BLM’s Dillon Resource Area which contains about
950,000 acres of public land (See Location map).
Topographic and natural features within the resource
area are extremely diverse, ranging from nearly level,

broad valleys with elevations above 5,000 feet to irri¬
gated uplands, sagebrush/grasslands, and mountain
peaks reaching above 1 1 ,000 feet. The WSAs in the
Dillon Resource Area contain examples of most of
these features. The eight WSAs discussed in this study
cover a total of 94,228 acres, which is slightly less than
10% of the public land in the resource area.

There are two other WSAs in the Dillon Resource Area
that will not be covered by this study: the T obacco Root
Tack-ons, MT-076-063, 860 acres; and the Madison
Tack-ons, MT-076-079, 1 ,509 acres. The Tobacco Root
Tack-ons will be studied in conjunction with the Forest
Service’s further planning area, Middle Mountain-
Tobacco Roots, as part of the Deerlodge National
Forest management plan. The Madison Tack-ons unit
has been included in the Forest Service’s draft study of
the Taylor-Hilgard Wilderness Study Act area, which
was published in September 1 980.

There are three former BLM primitive areas in the Dillon
Resource Area. Wilderness inventory and study of one
of these areas, the Centennial Mountains, has been
postponed. Preliminary partial wilderness recommen¬
dations have been issued for the other two areas: Bear
Trap Canyon (5,463 acres, including adjacent national
forest land) and Humbug Spires (1 1,175 acres).

THE PLANNING PROCESS

The process used in this study incorporated various
aspects of the BLM planning regulations, the Draft
Wilderness Study Policy and Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations. This document serves both
as an amendment to the Dillon MFP and as a draft
environmental impact statement. The major steps in
the wilderness study process are as follows:

1 ) Scoping and issue identification

2) Public input

3) Data collection

4) Development of affected environmental chapter
(Chapter 1 )

5) Definition of alternatives

6) Evaluation of impacts of alternatives

7) Selection of the preferred alternatives

8) Publishing draft document for public review

9) A 60-day comment period, including public hear¬
ings

1 0) An analysis of public comments

11) Preparation of final Wilderness Planning
Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement (WPA/
EIS)

M \Or^N T A N A

Great Falls

Missoula

Butte

District

HELENA

Billings

■Will —

Location Map

Dillon Wilderness Planning Amendment/ElS
for the Dillon Resource Area

Anaconda

Dillon Resource Area

SILVER BOW

MADISON

Sheridan

001 Ruby Mtns.

034 Farlin Creek

Virginia City

Dillon

028 Henneberry Ridge

002 Blacktail Mtns.

007 E. Fork of Blacktail Deer Cr

022 Hidden Pasture Cr.

1 2) BLM Washington office review of final WPA/E1S

13) Secretary of the Interior’s release of final WPA/
EIS and recommendation to the President

14) The President’s recommendation to Congress

1 5) Congressional action

The current schedule calls for the public comment
period on this, the draft document, to end July 26,
1 982, and a preliminary final WPA/EIS to be submitted
for Washington office review by September 30, 1 982.
The recommendations made by the Secretary of the
Interior will become final 30 days after the final
WPA/EIS is released to the public.

STATEMENT OF
NONCONFORMANCE

The proposed action is not in conformance with the
existing Dillon MFP because the MFP did not include
wilderness suitability recommendations as part of its
multiple use decisions. The MFP indicated only that the
wilderness inventory was in progress and recommen¬
dations concerning the suitability or nonsuitability of
any areas under study would be made later. This doc¬
ument is the vehicle through which those recommen¬
dations are being made. They will ultimately be incor¬
porated into the existing Dillon MFP.

ISSUES AND CRITERIA

Planning Criteria

The Wilderness Study Policy (WSP) directs the BLM to
base its wilderness suitability recommendations on the
following planning criteria.

Requirements for Areas Recommended as Suitable
for Wilderness Designation

Benefits. The BLM will determine what resource
values are present and whether those values would be
adversely or beneficially affected by wilderness desig¬
nation. The multiple resource benefits and intrinsic
wilderness values must balance those resource uses
which would be forgone over the long term.

Manageability. The BLM will determine whether the
area is capable of being effectively managed to pre¬
serve its wilderness character over the long term.

Public Comment

The BLM will consider comments received by inter¬
ested and affected publics at all levels— local, state,
regional and national. Wilderness recommendations
will not be based exclusively on a vote-counting major¬
ity rule system. The BLM will develop its recommenda¬
tions by considering public comment in conjunction

with its analysis of a wilderness study area’ s wilderness,
multiple resource, and social and economic values and
uses.

Local Social and Economic Effects

The BLM will give special attention to adverse or favor¬
able social and economic effects which wilderness
designation would have on local areas.

Consistency with Other Plans

The BLM will consider the extent to which the suitability
recommendation is consistent with officially approved
and adopted resource-related plans of other federal
agencies, state and local governments, and Indian
tribes (and the policies and programs contained in
those plans).

Impacts on Other Resources

The BLM will consider the extent to which other
resource values or uses of the area would be forgone or
adversely affected as a result of wilderness designation.

Impacts of Nondesignation on Wilderness Values

The BLM will consider the alternate use of the land
under study If the area is not designated as wilderness,
and the extent to which the wilderness values of the area
would be forgone or adversely affected as a result of this
use.

Evaluation of Wilderness Values

The BLM will consider the extent to which each of the
components listed below contributes to the overall
value of an area for wilderness purposes.

Mandatory Wilderness Characteristics: the quality of
an area’s wilderness characteristics— size, naturalness,
and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive
recreation.

Special Features: the presence or absence, and the
quality of the optional wilderness characteristics —
ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historic value.

Multiple Resource Benefits: the benefits to other
multiple resource values and uses which only wilder¬
ness designation could ensure.

Diversity in the National Wilderness Preservation
System (NWPS)

The BLM will consider the extent to which wilderness
designation of the area under study would contribute to
expanding the diversity of the NWPS with respect to the
factors listed below.

Ecosystem and Landform: expanding the diversity of
natural systems and features, as represented by ecosys¬
tems and landforms.

Proximity to Population Centers: assessing the
opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation within

a day’s driving time (5 hours) of major population
centers.

Geographic Distribution: balancing the geographic
distribution of wilderness areas.

Major Issues

Specific issues addressed under the above criteria were
formulated from an analysis of all public comments
received during the inventory phase of the wilderness
review process between the fall of 1978 and spring of
1980, comments received during a formal 30-day
comment period on issue identification that ended
June 13, 1981, and the professional judgements of
BLM specialists. BLM specialists based data require¬
ments and their method of analysis on these issues,
which follow below. Cinder each issue is indicated the
relevant planning criteria on which the suitability
recommendation for specific WSAs is based.

Energy Resources and Leasable Minerals: the poten¬
tial a WSA might have for oil and gas, coal, oil shale, and
other energy resources or leasable minerals, and what
effect wilderness designation would have on the devel¬
opment of these resources. This issue is addressed
through the application of criteria 4 and 6 of the WSP.

Locatable Minerals: the potential a WSA might have
for hardrock minerals, both those listed in the national
Defense Stockpile Inventory of Strategic and Critical
Materials and all others, and what effect wilderness
designation would have on the development of these
resources. This issue is addressed through the applica¬
tion of criteria 4 and 6 of the WSP. That application
includes consideration of the rights granted by the
1872 mining law, access rights and needs, potential
mineral withdrawal, and the provisions of the BLM Wil¬
derness Management Policy.

Livestock Grazing: the existing uses (including level of
use, vehicle access, and use and maintenance of exist¬
ing improvements), proposed management and
improvements, long-term forage potential, and the
effect wilderness designation would have on livestock
operations. This issue is addressed under criterion 6 of
the WSP. Consideration is given to the increased cost
and inconvenience of livestock operations, what new
range improvements would be allowed, any potential
forage that would be forgone, and any change in prop¬
erty values.

Timber: the timber potential of each WSA, taking into
account such limiting factors as slope, soils, and other
factors affecting the feasibility of harvesting timber. The
issue is addressed under criterion 6 of the WSP. The
potential for supplying domestic fuelwood is also con¬
sidered.

Adjacent Lands and Land Gses: the existing and
potential uses of WSAs and land adjacent to WSAs, and
the extent to which wilderness designation would affect
adjacent lands. The issue is addressed under criteria 6
and 8c of the WSP. Consideration is given to the effects
of possible air quality redesignation, displacement of
motorized recreation onto adjacent lands, and trespass
problems on private lands caused by an increase in
visitors. Also considered are possible benefits such as
the maintenance of scenic vistas and essential wildlife
habitat for populations found seasonally on other lands.

Recreation Opportunities: the opportunities for
recreation afforded by a WSA. We consider both the
opportunities for motorized recreation that would be
forgone if the area were designated wilderness and the
opportunities for primitive recreation that would be
gained. This issue is addressed through the application
of criteria 6 and 8 of the WSP.

Wildlife: the effect wilderness designation would have
on wildlife populations, distribution, and habitat and on
the opportunities for wildlife management. These
effects, which could be either positive or negative, are
dealt with through the application of criteria 6 and 8c of
the WSP.

Threatened and Endangered Species: the presence or
absence of any threatened or endangered plant or
animal species within a WSA, as well as any potential
there may be for the reintroduction of such species.
Wilderness designation could prove to be either benefi¬
cial or detrimental to a threatened or endangered spe¬
cies; therefore, this issue is addressed under either
criterion 6 or criterion 8c of the WSP.

Watershed Values: the present condition and uses of
watersheds within each WSA, the water quality and
quantity of streams within and downstream of each
WSA, and the relative sensitivity of those watersheds to
development activities. We consider the adverse or
beneficial impacts to watershed values that would result
from wilderness designation. The issue is addressed
under criteria 6 and 8c of the WSP.

Wilderness Quality: the wilderness values of each
WSA— size, naturalness, outstanding opportunities for
solitude or primitive recreation, special features, and
multiple resource benefits. The issue is addressed
under criterion 8 of the WSP.

Ecological Diversity and Geographical Distribu¬
tion: the degree to which each WSA might contribute
to expanding the geographical distribution and ecolog¬
ical diversity of the National Wilderness Preservation
System. The Bailey-Kuchler system is used to display
the existing ecological diversity of the NWPS and the
ecotypes present in each WSA. We address this attrib¬
ute through the application of criteria 9a and 9c of the
WSP.

Outside Sights and Sounds: the kinds and severity of
outside sights and sounds that are apparent from within
a WSA and to what extent they affect the wilderness
qualities of an area, especially the apparent naturalness
and the opportunities for solitude. The issue is
addressed under criteria 8a and 1 b of the WSP.

Manageability: the ability of the BLM to manage each
WSA as wilderness in perpetuity. We consider the
nature of the boundaries, the configuration of the area,
patterns of ownership, nonconforming existing rights,
and the potential for reducing manageability problems
through boundary revision. The issue is addressed
under criterion 1 b of the WSP.

Local Socioeconomic Effects: any significant positive
or negative effects on local social or economic condi¬
tions. Consideration is given to the effects of designa¬
tion or nondesignation on employment, income,
timber supply, energy and mineral development,
community stability, and recreation demand. This issue
is addressed under criterion 3 of the WSP.

These issues and criteria were used in this study to
choose necessary data, define alternatives, evaluate the
impacts of the alternatives, select a preferred alternative
for each area, and then evaluate the cumulative impact
of the preferred alternatives. In most cases the data
related to these issues have been analyzed relative to
specific WSAs, while in some cases the application has
been in a general fashion for those aspects common to
all WSAs.

For the Farlin Creek WSA, as a tack-on to a Forest
Service roadless area recommended as wilderness, the
following additional factors will be considered:

1 . Will designation of the WSA as wilderness benefit
the values and uses of the existing or proposed wilder¬
ness area?

2. Would the WSA be a viable independent candidate
for designation as wilderness if Congress does not
designate the contiguous lands?

3. Could the BLM portion be more effectively man¬
aged as wilderness if the management responsibility
were transferred to the agency which administers the
contiguous existing or proposed wilderness area?

Finally, there were some public concerns expressed
during issue identification that are covered by provi¬
sions of the BLM’ s Wilderness Management Policy and
are not directly related to wilderness suitability. These
concerns centered on effects of wilderness designation
on adjacent lands and land uses, particularly in regard
to noxious weeds, insects and disease, and fire man¬
agement. Basically, these elements can be controlled
under wilderness management if they pose a real and
significant threat to adjacent lands, or to uses within a
wilderness area. However, the methods used will gen¬
erally be the least impairing to the wilderness resource.

(

Chapter 1

The Affected Environment

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS COMMON TO ALL WSAS

The eight WSAs discussed in this report are in Beaver- WILDERNESS OVERVIEW
head and Madison counties, Montana. They cover a

total of 94,228 acres, as follows: Wilderness Opportunities

Ruby Mountains
Blacktail Mountains
East Fork of Blacktail Deer
Hidden Pasture Creek
Bell and Limekiln Canyons
Henneberry Ridge
Farlin Creek
Axolotl Lakes

MT-076-001 26,611 acres
MT-076-002 17,479 acres
MT-076-007 6,230 acres

MT-076-022 15,509 acres
MT-076-026 9,650 acres

MT-076-028 9,806 acres

MT-076-034 1,139 acres

MT-076-069 7,804 acres

National and Regional Opportunities

The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS)
comprised 263 units as of December 31 , 1980. These
units covered a total acreage of 79,810,741 acres. Of
this, 56,393,201 acres (about 70%) is in Alaska;
23,41 7,540 acres are in the lower 48 states and Hawaii.

The acreages listed here differ slightly from those
reported in the intensive inventory because they have
been recalculated with greater accuracy.

The Farlin Creek WSA, which is less than 5,000 acres, is
considered here only as a possible addition (“tack-on”)
to the East Pioneer area of the Beaverhead National
Forest, which has been proposed for wilderness desig¬
nation.

A three-state area— Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming— is
considered the affected region for purposes of this
study. Table 1 summarizes by state the designated
wilderness areas, areas that have received presidential
recommendations for wilderness designation, and
areas that are to be studied further for possible wilder¬
ness designation. The three-state region, which essen¬
tially encompasses the Northern Rocky Mountains,
contains some of the most extensive opportunities in
the country in designated and de facto wilderness
areas. The Regional Wilderness Opportunities map
shows the locations of these.

TABLE 1

REGIONAL WILDERNESS OPPORTUNITIES

Designated Wilderness Areas

Presidentially Endorsed Areas

Further Study Areas

State

Agency

Number of

Acres

Agency

Number of

Acres

Agency

Number of

Acres

Areas

Montana

3,107,342

NPS

1,084,660

1,207,769

FWS

64,997

681,812

BLM

486,655

FWS

161,480

Idaho

3,835,479

1,240,424

571,931

NPS

43,243

BLM

1,727,030

Wyoming

2,194,303

627,100

414,870

NPS

1,848,744

BLM

578,161

BLM = Bureau of Land Management
FS = Forest Service
FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service
NPS = National Park Service

Opportunities in Montana

Montana contains 3,172,339 acres in 14 designated
wilderness areas, 1,927,952 acres in 51 presidentially
endorsed areas, and 1,677,774 acres in 70 further
study units. About 28% of the acreage in further study
areas in the state is on BLM-administered land. There
are no designated wilderness areas or areas that have
received presidential endorsement on BLM land in
Montana.

Two cities that qualify as “standard metropolitan statis¬
tical areas” (SMSAs) as defined by the Bureau of the
Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, are within five
hours’ driving time of some of the study areas being
considered here. Billings, Montana, which has a metro¬
politan population of 1 08,035, is within five hours of two
of the WSAs; Great Falls, where the SMSA population is
80,696, is within five hours of six WSAs.

The two cities are near unusually rich wilderness oppor¬
tunities. Within five hours of Billings there are 5 desig¬
nated wilderness areas totaling 2,007,274 acres, 27
presidentially endorsed areas totaling 1 ,449,062 acres,
and 40 further study areas totaling 1 ,024,627 acres.
The opportunities within five hours of Great Falls are 1 2
designated wilderness areas, 4,122,934 acres, 33 pres¬
identially endorsed areas, 2,669,180 acres; and 35
further study areas, 1,236,580 acres. Appendix A con¬
tains a summary of the status of wilderness and wilder¬
ness study areas in Montana.

Supply and Demand Factors

The National Wilderness Preservation System contains
50 of the 241 basic ecosystems recognized by the
Bailey-Kuchler classification system as existing in the
United States and Puerto Rico. Sixty-two more ecosys¬
tems are represented in presidentially endorsed areas,
and 78 additional systems are represented in further
study areas. None of the areas that have received presi¬
dential endorsement or are under study are known to
contain the remaining 51 ecosystems (Davis 1980;
Kuchler 1 964; C1SDA, FS 1 976, 1 978a, 1 978b). In gen¬
eral, the existing wilderness system includes a relatively
large number of examples of high elevation mountain
ecosystems and alpine, subalpine, and glacial land¬
scapes.

Both designated wilderness and undesignated, de facto
wilderness areas contribute to the supply of primitive
recreation opportunities. While the supply of congres-
sionally designated wilderness has increased since
passage of the Wilderness Act of 1 964, the supply of de
facto wilderness areas has been declining. While one
factor in this decline is the conversion of de facto
wilderness to designated wilderness, other factors are
involved as well. An indication of the overall decrease in
de facto wilderness areas is the loss of Forest Service

trail mileage, chiefly to roads for resource extraction. A
loss of more than one-third of the total mileage is
documented for the period between 1946-1971
(Spencer et al. 1980). While other factors may be
involved in this loss, it still indicates a decrease in supply
of de facto wilderness opportunities.

The demand for recreation opportunities and the need
to provide diverse, high quality recreation are factors in
wilderness decisions, although by themselves they do
not clearly indicate that wilderness is or is not needed. In
general, primitive recreation has shown tremendous
growth since the mid-1960s. Various surveys show that
there was a threefold or fourfold increase in hiking and
backpacking from the 1960s to the late 1970s. This
growth apparently has leveled off since the late 1970s,
but it is expected that there will be major growth in the
1 980s in snow-based activity, day use, and family hiking
and backpacking (Spencer et al. 1980).

When a large number of persons seek a wilderness
experience, the opportunities for such an experience
can decrease. It has been documented that this hap¬
pened as early as 1971 , when a study of three wilder¬
ness areas revealed that more than half of the hikers
using the areas were dissatisfied with the opportunities
for solitude (Stankey 1971 ). A recent survey of manag¬
ers of existing wilderness areas found that crowding
was perceived as a problem in 49% of those areas (Cole
and Washburne 1981).

An additional factor in the demand for wilderness
opportunities is the fact that existing wilderness use is
concentrated in the summer, since most areas cur¬
rently in the NWPS are best suited for summertime use.
The system contains relatively few low elevation areas
in which environmental conditions are not harsh in all
seasons but summer.

While primitive recreation use has grown, the same can
be said of potentially competing uses such as motor¬
ized recreation. For example, snowmobile registrations
in Montana were increasing at an annual rate of about
15% in the late 1970s. The growth in both motorized
and primitive recreation is reflected in an analysis of the
relative need for additional opportunities in the Mon¬
tana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks regions (MDF&G SCORP
1978). Region 3, which includes the area under study
here, is listed as having the second highest relative need
for additional nonmotorized trail opportunities and the
highest relative need for additional cross-country ski
and snowshoe trail opportunities. Region 3 also is listed
as having high relative needs for additional motorized
recreation opportunities; it is second in snowmobiling
and four-wheel driving and third in motorcycling.

Wilderness in the Local Area

Two of the WSAs covered in this report are entirely
within Madison County, five are in Beaverhead County,
and one lies in both counties. Approximately 57,893
acres addressed in this study are in Beaverhead
County; 36,335 acres are in Madison County.

In addition to the units addressed here, the two counties
contain two designated wilderness areas, seven pro¬
posed wilderness areas, and four areas under further
study. Table 2 shows the existing, proposed, and further
study areas by county.

Federal lands make up a significant percentage of
lands in the two-county area. Approximately 58% of the
total land within Beaverhead County and 46% of the
land in Madison County is managed by federal agen¬
cies. Slightly less than 1 0% of the land managed by the
BLM in the two counties is involved in this study.

Table 3 shows the percentage of federal land in the two
counties that is designated as wilderness or under wil¬
derness study.

Consistency with Other Plans

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) requires that BLM plans be as consistent with
state and local plans as federal laws, policies, and regu¬
lations will allow. When the decision is made to
recommend a WSA as suitable or nonsuitable for wil¬
derness designation, the consistency of these recom¬
mendations with other federal, state, local and tribal
plans will be considered. However, the BLM cannot
base its wilderness recommendations solely on consis¬
tency with these plans.

All state agencies will be notified of BLM plans, and
affected state agencies will be asked to document any
inconsistencies. When the draft recommendations are
released, parties that might be affected will be notified
so that any inconsistencies with the specific recom¬
mendations may be surfaced.

TABLE 2

EXISTING AND PROPOSED WILDERNESS AREAS AND AREAS UNDER

WILDERNESS STUDY

Type

Beaverhead County
Name

Acres1

Madison County

Name

Acres

Existing Wilderness Areas

Red Rock Lakes (FWS)
Anaconda-Pintler (FS)

32,350

72,537

None

—

Total

2 areas

104,887

Proposed Areas2

East Pioneer (FS)

West Big Hole

North Big Hole
(Anaconda-Pintler addition)

93,859

56,008

6,532

Taylor-Hilgard (FS with
contiguous BLM)

Spanish Peaks (FS)

Bear Trap Canyon (BLM
and FS)

Lionhead (FS)

148,663

31,349

5,463

13,905

Total

3 areas

156,399

4 areas

199,380

Further Study Areas3

Centennial Mountains (BLM)
Mt. Jefferson (FS)

Italian Peaks (FS)

30,030

4,600

12,996

Middle Mountain-Tobacco
Roots (FS with contiguous
BLM lands)

37,500

Total

3 areas

47,626

1 area

37,500

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; FS = Forest Service; FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service.

’Acreages shown are those in affected counties only.

2“ Proposed Areas” may refer to areas that the administering agency has recommended for wilderness designation or
to areas with presidential endorsement.

3“ Further Study Areas” does not include any areas for which the administering agency has made a final
recommendation to Congress.

TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE OF LANDS AFFECTED BY WILDERNESS OR WILDERNESS STUDY

Type

Dillon Resource Area
wilderness study areas

Designated wilderness

Proposed wilderness

Other further study areas

Beaverhead County1

Madison County2

Two-county Area

Percentage
of Federal
Lands

Percentage
of Total
County Area

Percentage
of Federal
Lands

Percentage
of Total
County Area

Percentage
of Federal
Lands

2.8

1.6

3.5

1.6

3.0

5.0

2.9

3.4

7.5

4.4

19.0

8.8

11.4

2.3

1.3

3.6

1.7

2.7

of Total
County Area

1.6
1.8
6.1
1.5

federally administered lands in Beaverhead County comprise about 2,080,000 acres of the 3,564,000 acre total
county area.

federally administered lands in Madison County comprise about 1,050,000 acres of the 2,259,000 acre total
county area.

Federal Agency Plans

Forest Service. Five of the areas considered in this
study are contiguous to Beaverhead National Forest
roadless areas that have been reviewed for wilderness
potential. National forest lands contiguous to four of the
BLM WSAs were reviewed in the 1978 Beaverhead
National Forest land management plan. These national
forest lands, which are in the Gravelly and Tendoy
ranges, were not considered in the RARE II wilderness
review process but were released from further consid¬
eration for wilderness designation after having been
reviewed in the management plan.

In discussions between the BLM and the FS in February
1981 , it was revealed that FS policy is not to consider
previous wilderness decisions in the first generation
forest plans. It was agreed that the BLM would include
no contiguous FS lands in the scope of its study.

A cooperative agreement between the BLM and the FS
covers mutual wilderness study concerns.

/Mr Force. During the issue identification stage of this
study, a representative of the Air F orce indicated that
the Air Force program of low level training flights could
be affected by wilderness designation. This concern is
dealt with in the BLM’ s wilderness management policy,
which directs the BLM to confer with military authorities
where such flights may become a problem when land is
being managed as wilderness. Since this issue relates
to managing areas that have already been designated
as wilderness and not to whether areas are suitable for
wilderness designation, it will not be discussed further
in this document.

State of Montana Plans

Blacktail Game Range. The Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP) manages the Black-
tail Game Range, which is contiguous to the East Fork
of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA. Although there is no
formal, approved plan, the department has a manage¬
ment program that emphasizes maintaining adequate
forage and limiting human and vehicle disturbance.
Management of adjacent federal lands is related to the
success of the state’s management program.

Natural Resources Council. A recently signed mem¬
orandum of understanding between the BLM, the FS,
and the governor of Montana created the Natural
Resources Council, which will serve as a clearinghouse
for consultation on all natural resource issues. The
specific recommendations resulting from this study will
be evaluated for consistency by this group.

Local Plans

Beaverhead County. The Beaverhead County
Comprehensive Plan (Beaverhead County Plan¬
ning Board 1976), which was prepared in 1976 and
adopted in 1977, specifically mentions a policy to “dis¬
courage all wilderness areas in Beaverhead County.
This policy is in conflict with the directives of FLPMA
and the BLM wilderness program policy. Under
FLPMA, wilderness preservation is part of the BLM’s
multiple use mandate, and wilderness values are rec¬
ognized as part of the spectrum of resource values and
uses to be considered in the planning process. A
blanket policy discouraging all wilderness preservation
is not consistent with this mandate.

The basis of the Beaverhead County policy is the effect
of wilderness on the local economy— primarily the
livestock, timber, and minerals sectors. Other related
goals and objectives are to diversify the local economy;
to provide diversified, quality recreation; to increase
recreation-related tourism; and to protect key fish and
wildlife habitats as they contribute to the economy and
livelihood of local outfitters.

The plan says on page 117 that growth in the recreation
sector “must be integrated with, and not detrimental to,
the production of livestock, timber, and minerals.” In
addition, the action plan calls for an exchange of infor¬
mation on future land uses between the county plan¬
ning board, larger private companies, and state and
federal agencies. This latter provision is consistent with
FLPMA directives and the current wilderness study.

Although it is apparent that the BLM cannot completely
resolve the inconsistency between this county’s plan
and the agency’s legal mandate and program policy,
the study has incorporated an analysis of economic
effects of wilderness designation and nondesignation.
Local economic concerns will be considered as a major
factor in deriving recommendations from this analysis.

Madison County. The Madison County Com¬
prehensive Plan (Menasco-McGuinn Assoc. 1973)
contains some provisions that relate indirectly to this
study. The plan recognizes agriculture and tourism-
recreation as the two mainstays of the Madison County
economy. Positive factors influencing recreation’s con¬
tribution are the proximity to Yellowstone Park, the blue
ribbon status of area trout streams, and “an abundance
of scenic natural areas.” Two of the areas listed as
scenic natural areas are areas being considered in this
study — Axolotl Lakes WSA and Ruby Mountains WSA.

Mining is mentioned as a potentially positive factor for
county employment as the economic feasibility of min¬
eral extraction improves. There appear to be no incon¬
sistencies between the formal county plan and this
study, as the study has incorporated the relevant fac¬
tors.

SOCIOECONOMIC OVERVIEW

Demographic Information

The WSAs discussed in this report are all in Beaverhead
and Madison counties. The preliminary 1980 census
indicates a population of 8,204 for Beaverhead County
and 5,437 for Madison County.

The area is generally rural. Approximate populations
are 1 .5 per square mile in both counties. Growth in the
Beaverhead County population has been relatively
slow, with an increase of 0.2% between 1970 and 1 980.
Madison County had a larger increase of 8.4%, which
was still below Montana’s average of 12.9%.

Nonfarm private employment accounts for 61.0% of
total employment in Beaverhead County and 50.1% in
Madison County. Overall, the largest sectors of the
economy of Beaverhead County by numbers
employed are retail trade, state and local government,
services, and farm, in that order. In addition, Beaver¬
head County has fairly large transportation, wholesale
trade, manufacturing, and federal government sectors.
In Madison County the largest sectors of the economy
are state and local government, farm, services, and
retail trade, in that order.

The average age of the population is older than the
national average of 30. This indicates a population that
is growing older at a faster rate than the national popu¬
lation, which means the young people of the area are
moving away in order to find jobs. It may also mean that
some older people are moving into the area to retire.

Social Well-Being and Attitudes

Social well-being as measured by economic factors
shows relatively low per capita income, community
services, and housing quality. However, when a non-
structured survey was made in May 1 979, the majority
of those interviewed expressed little concern about
these statistics. The majority felt that their social well¬
being and quality of life were satisfactory. A large major¬
ity liked the sparse population and the wide variety of
outdoor activities available in the area (GSD1, BLM
1979).

Attitudes toward wilderness were mixed. In Madison
County approximately half of those asked felt there is
now enough designated wilderness in their area. Of
others questioned, most felt that the amount of wilder¬
ness in the area was too great. Some expressed a desire
to have more wilderness in the area. The residents
interviewed in Beaverhead County tended to be more
opposed to wilderness designation than those ques¬
tioned in Madison County. In general, local opinion
appears not to favor additional wilderness designation.

The majority of residents interviewed in Beaverhead
and Madison counties had a favorable opinion of live¬
stock grazing in the area. Many felt that grazing should
be favored because of its importance to the area.

The majority of respondents in both counties also
favored increased mineral production and develop¬
ment. About 40% favored slower growth in minerals
development with more safeguards regulating rehabili¬
tation of mine sites.

In the opinion of those surveyed, water and wildlife
resources appear to be in satisfactory condition. Some
respondents did mention specific areas where wildlife
numbers would be increased.

Attitudes in both counties appear to favor slow growth
rather than rapid growth. A majority of people inter-

viewed in Beaverhead County felt that the current rate
of growth was satisfactory.

Economic Conditions

Timber Management

Commercial stands of timber exist in the Ruby Moun¬
tains, Blacktail Mountains, East Fork of Blacktail Deer
Creek, Bell-Limekiln Canyons, Farlin Creek, and Axolotl
Lakes WSAs. Beaverhead County in 1980 had two
sawmills, one at Wisdom that processed less than 3
mmbm (million board feet measure an expression of
yearly capacity) and one in Dillon in the 10 to 25
mmbm size class. There were six sawmills in Madison
County, but all were in the smallest size class— less than
3 mmbm. Each county also had three post and pole
operations.

A University of Montana study indicates that Beaver¬
head County mills received more than half of their
timber from public lands (BLM and national forest) in
1 976, while Madison County mills got more than half of
their timber from private lands.

Large mills— those producing more than 10 million
board feet (mmbf)— produced 96% of the lumber in
Montana in 1976. An average gain or loss of about six
jobs in the lumber industry occurs for every gain or loss
of 1 mmbf in timber output (Johnson 1972).

Given the cyclical nature of the forest products industry,
mill capacity and demand is normally at, or above, the
timber supply level on a sustained yield basis. At the
present time, mill capacity in western Montana is gen¬
erally greater than production, due to the slowdown in
the housing industry.

Timber resources in the area also contribute to domes¬
tic fuelwood supplies. The availability of the areas under
study here for fuelwood supplies is not a significant
issue, however, due to their small sizes, scattered loca¬
tions and relative inaccessibility, and availability of other
much larger tracts of forested public lands in the local
area.

Recreation

Statistics on visitors to southwestern Montana indicate
that 46% come from Montana and 54% from other
states and Canada. The largest numbers of out-of-state
visitors come from California, Idaho, Utah, Washington,
and Oregon, in that order (Epple 1 977). Therefore, this
area is important as a regional center for tourism.

Recreation provides substantial income to the econo¬
mies of Beaverhead and Madison counties. Proximity
to Yellowstone National Park and the national reputa¬
tion of the area for hunting and fishing contribute
greatly to the recreation economy.

A survey of visitors to this area indicated that a majority
(56%) were seeking a primitive or semi-primitive,

undeveloped recreation experience. The use of undevel¬
oped campsites results from a desire for privacy and
solitude (Epple 1977).

There are 239 developed camping units in Beaverhead
County and 226 units in Madison County. Opportuni¬
ties for dispersed recreation are widespread in this part
of Montana. The areas available are not generally
designated as wilderness, but many are roadless. They
are generally in the mountains in Beaverhead and Mad¬
ison counties and in surrounding counties. Although
roadless areas now in existence are being used, an
estimate of the demand for such areas is not available.

The demand for recreation such as hunting and fishing
exceeds supply in this area, but the demand is con¬
trolled because the MDFWP regulates the opportunity
to harvest some species.

Vehicles are used primarily as transportation, generally
they are not themselves used as a form of recreation.
The demand for off-road vehicle areas is increasing but
has not reached the level that it has in other parts of the
country.

On the national level, a survey done by the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service indicated that
48.1 million Americans engaged in backpacking. That
number of people represents 28% of the population.

Future trends for recreational uses appear divergent.
The demand for all forms of recreation will increase as
the population increases. The popularity of backpack¬
ing and wilderness use increased in the 1970s, as did
the popularity of off-road vehicle travel. If this trend
continues, more conflicting recreation demands will be
made on the public lands.

Geology and Minerals

Information necessary to calculate the value of miner¬
als is not available for the WSAs discussed in this report.
Whether and when a mineral deposit is developed
depends upon many factors: the price of the commod¬
ity, the cost of extraction, the ready availability of pro¬
cessing, the demand for the commodity (to some
extent reflected in price), and other developments in the
area. Supply and demand for each commodity that
could be developed are analyzed so that the possibili¬
ties of development can be gauged. This method is
based on the assumption that the grade of the ore and
the size of the deposit are sufficient to make develop¬
ment profitable. This assumption may or may not
reflect the actual case.

Mineral deposits are classified as leasable, locatable, or
salable. Leasable deposits include oil and gas, coal,
geothermal energy, and phosphate. Locatable miner¬
als are metals, such as gold and silver, and other miner¬
als for industrial use like talc and limestone. Examples
of salable minerals are gravel and building stone. The
minerals discussed below have at least some potential
for occurrence in the local area.

Locatable Minerals. The demand for gold has les¬
sened in recent months because the price dropped to
around $400 per ounce. This drop has slowed devel¬
opment of new mines for the present. A sustained
increase in gold prices could again increase interest in
finding and developing new sources of supply. Based
on mining and milling cost estimates, for underground
operations, ranging from as low as $40/ton, under
nearly ideal conditions, to $200/ton, minimum grades
of between .2 oz/ton to .83 oz/ton of gold would be
needed for a viable gold operation to take place in this
area (Cumins and Given 1973 and USDA, FS 1980b).
A surface mining operation could operate at a profit
with ore grades significantly less than this.

The price of silver has declined from a high of $50 per
troy ounce in January 1 980 to the present $9 per troy
ounce. While the price was high, money was used to
open new mines and to work existing mines. Prices
were high long enough that the demand began to
decline as other materials were substituted for silver.
Incentives for development are now low; however, this
could change at any time, particularly during periods of
political or financial unrest, because markets for pre¬
cious metals are volatile. Interest in exploration for gold
and silver can be expected to remain high even when
prices are low.

The world market for copper has been soft in recent
years. World production has exceeded current
demand— a surplus of 1 50,000 metric tons is expected
in 1981. Given the current oversupply, high interest
rates, and slack demand, it is likely that future increases
in demand will be met first by expansion to existing
capacity rather than development of new, major open
pit mines as was common in the last decade (Mining
Engineering 1981.).

Lead is used primarily for lead acid batteries, with lesser
amounts going to paint additives and gasoline addi¬
tives. With the slowdown in the auto industry, the
demand for lead has declined. Estimates for 1980
show that lead supplies produced in the United States
will equal this country’s demand for lead. Growth is
expected in the lead industry as demand for lead acid
batteries increases. Pressure for development of new
resources of lead in the United States will probably not
increase soon. Long-term prospects depend on innova¬
tions such as the development of electric vehicles.

With the present slump in the auto and construction
industries, the demand for zinc decreased in 1980.
Inventory stocks of zinc being held by industry have
been dropping; the market is not expected to improve
until the economy improves. An increase in demand
could result in a shorter supply and higher prices; how¬
ever, present mining operations appear adequate to
provide sufficient supplies for the near future.

The demand for nickel was slow in 1 980. Industry was
reducing inventory rather than buying new supplies,

and some producers were discounting prices. The
demand for nickel could increase when the economy
improves, because industry inventories are now
depleted. Production of nickel in the United States is
small; for strategic reasons nickel deposits in this coun¬
try could be important. At this time it is more economi¬
cal to import nickel. Most of our imports are from
Canada.

The demand for iron has been slack because of the
auto industry slumps and shifts to smaller and lighter
cars. Demand can be expected to recover somewhat
within the next two years. The small size of deposits and
the traditional western problem of distance from
markets means that development of iron resources in
the near future is unlikely.

Prices for uranium are declining and demand is weak in
this industry because of large supplies and production.
The price of uranium dropped 35% between December
1 979 and December 1 980. At a price of $27 per pound,
uranium in this area is not likely to be mined soon. At
present, production is outpacing consumption at a rate
of about two to one.

Vanadium is used in producing steel alloys with a high
strength to weight ratio. Western world production
capacity in 1 980 exceeded usage by 26 million pounds.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency is proposing to reduce the strategic stockpile
by almost 8 million pounds. The demand for vanadium
would increase if steel production increased.

There have been no chemical analyses for silicon diox¬
ide (SiC>2) in this area. There is some potential for parts
of the Quadrant quartzite to be used as glass sand. Any
potential for silica within the Quadrant Formation in any
WSA would be speculative.

Because housing markets are depressed, the produc¬
tion and demand for gypsum is down. Twenty-two
states now produce gypsum, and given the depressed
housing and construction industries, any increase in
demand will likely be met by expanding production at
existing facilities.

The demand for talc declined approximately 20% in
1980. Much of this decline is due to the general reces¬
sion. This demand can be expected to rebound some¬
what as the economy recovers. Additionally, new export
markets may be developed that will take up the slack
left by falling demand in the United States.

Mational production of talc in 1 980 was approximately
1 ,300,000 short tons. Montana was the second largest
producer of talc in the United States in 1 980, producing
312,000 short tons valued at 1 1.3 million dollars. The
national reserve base as determined bytheU.S. Bureau
of Mines is 150,000,000 tons (USDI, BM 1981). The
producing talc mines in the state are all in Beaverhead
and Madison counties. The presence of these facilities
increases the likelihood of development of other depos-

its in the area as demand increases or as currently used
deposits become exhausted.

Leasable Minerals. There is considerable interest in
the oil and gas potential for the study area, since it is
within the Overthrust Belt. The demand for oil and gas
is high and obviously will continue.

Oil shale in the United States contains staggering
reserves of oil; however, at the present level of technol¬
ogy only the richest deposits approach being economi¬
cally recoverable. There is little likelihood that there will
be any interest in low grade oil shales in the future.
Some oil shales contain anomalously high metal
values; this could improve their development potential.

Western states produce 10% of the nation’s phosphate.
The national demand for phosphates probably will con¬
tinue to increase at 4 to 6% per year as new export
markets develop; however, the regional demand for
phosphate declined slightly in 1980. Western phos¬
phate producers delivered 1 3% less phosphate in 1 980
than in 1979. Existing deposits in southeastern Idaho
will continue to supply most of the West’s needs for
some time. As production declines in Idaho, western
production may shift to accessible deposits in south¬
western Montana.

Carbon dioxide is used by the oil industry for injection
into older oil wells to improve the recovery of oil. Geo¬
logic structures in southwestern Montana tend to favor
the presence of carbon dioxide; however, development
in other areas would tend to reduce the chances of
carbon dioxide being developed here. Carbon dioxide
at high pressure is known to be present in the Cut Bank,
Montana, area, and many of the same rock units occur
throughout southwest Montana. However, the need for
and location of any carbon dioxide resource in south¬
west Montana is uncertain.

There is little active interest in geothermal resources in
western Montana. Current geothermal activity in the
western United States generally centers on younger
acidic volcanic terrain, predominantly in Nevada, Cali¬
fornia, and Oregon. While much of southwestern Mon¬
tana may have above average heat flows, at present
technology levels any development of geothermal
resources away from population centers in southwest¬
ern Montana is unlikely.

Salable Materials. Limited amounts of some salable
minerals (building stone, sand and gravel) occur in
some of the WSAs discussed in this report; however,
the demand for such materials can easily be met by
more accessible deposits.

Livestock Grazing

Two grazing associations and 31 individual operators
currently use parts of the WSAs. Eight currently leased
allotments are totally within a WSA; 25 more are par¬
tially within a WSA. The number of animal unit months

(AUMs) permitted within WSAs ranges from a low of 4
to a high of 1,139.

Improvements planned for allotments that are com¬
pletely or partially within WSAs range from none to
extensive development of springs, wells, pipelines,
stock tanks, fences, cattleguards, one reservoir, and
prescribed burning in three areas.

Management of allotments is divided into those with
allotment management plans (AMPs), which are inten¬
sively managed, and those without AMPs, which are
less intensively managed. Those with AMPs have var¬
ious grazing systems: rest-rotation, deferred grazing,
deferred rotation, or alternate rest systems. Appendix B
describes the various grazing systems.

Designation of an area as wilderness could have an
effect on the manageability of those allotments or parts
of allotments now in a WSA. In addition, some of the
range projects designed to improve the range resource
might have to be altered or eliminated in those areas.
Therefore, some of the potential of the range could be
lost. Use in these areas takes place in the late spring,
summer, fall, and early winter. Grazing periods range
from 1 5 days to almost six months in these allotments.

Most ranch operations require some borrowing of
operating capital. In practice a BLM grazing permit has
value for borrowing money and adding value to the
base property at the time of sale. This permit value
could be affected by changes in the status of land uses
such as wilderness designation.

AIR QUALITY

All eight WSAs were classified as class II air quality by
the Clean Air Act amendments of 1 977. It is BLM policy
that the agency will not recommend any change in air
quality classification as part of its wilderness study pro¬
cess, and future wilderness designation does not carry
with it mandatory reclassification to class I air quality.

It is the state, not the BLM, that has the authority to
reclassify air quality, whether or not the BLM has made
any recommendation as to air quality classification.
The state has the prerogative to reclassify any area to
class I if it so desires. The reclassification process must
include a study of health, environmental, economic,
social, and energy effects. Public hearings and a report
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as
outlined in section 164(a) of the Clean Air Act amend¬
ments of 1977, are also required.

Section 164(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, says
that a national wilderness area of more than 10,000
acres may be reclassified only as class 1 or class II if it
was established after the date of the act (August 7,
1977). Therefore, wilderness areas designated in the

future can either remain as class 11 or be reclassified as
class I.

Class 1 air quality limitations are stringent, allowing very
little deterioration. This designation is applied to areas
where practically any change in air quality would be
detrimental to air quality related values, including visibil¬
ity. Very little, if any, industrial and population growth
would be accommodated in a class 1 area. Class II
limitations allow for moderate deterioration associated
with moderate, well-controlled industrial and popula¬
tion growth. A proposed pollution source will be evalu¬
ated by a computer model (called an atmospheric dis¬
persion model) to predict the distribution through
space of emissions from the proposed source. The
determination will be made whether the source would
or would not meet the air quality limitations of the areas
it would influence.

In summary, class 1 air quality reclassification does not
accompany future wilderness legislation.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED
PLANTS AND ANIMALS

Plants

There are no officially recognized threatened or endan¬
gered plant species in the resource area; however, four
plant species have been identified as potentially threat¬
ened or endangered in Montana on the basis of an
unpublished study conducted in 1976 for the Forest
Service by T. J. Watson, Jr., an assistant professor of
botany from the University of Montana (Watson 1 976).
None of these species has been found in the eight areas
under study here.

Animals

Bald eagles, an endangered species, are fairly common
in the larger river drainages of the resource area during
winter months. An estimated 20 to 30 bald eagles
normally winter on the Beaverhead, Madison, and Big
Hole rivers. Transient eagles may use some of the
WSAs occasionally, but there are no resident popula¬
tions in any WSA.

Although peregrine falcons have not been observed in
any WSA, there is suitable unoccupied habitat for them
in the Ruby Mountains and Blacktail Mountains WSAs.

Reports of the endangered northern Rocky Mountain
wolf have been concentrated largely around the Ten-
doy Mountains and along the Continental Divide
between Lemhi Pass and Monida Pass. Roughly 35
fall-winter observations of varying reliability (tracks,
scat, sightings) have been recorded in this vicinity

within the last ten years; about 20 observations have
been reported throughout the entire resource area.

Intensive investigations were made in the vicinity of the
Tendoy Mountains and Horse Prairie in the winter of
1979-1980, but no evidence of wolf use was found.
(The Hidden Pasture Creek and Bell-Limekiln WSAs are
near the area of the investigation.) After the investiga¬
tion, it was concluded that the Tendoy Mountains area
was suitable unoccupied habitat for wolf.

WATERSHED

Only limited data are available on the quantity and
quality of surface water in the WSAs described here.
Appendix F shows the surface water characteristics of
each WSA. Water quality is believed to be generally
good to excellent in the WSAs that contain surface
water. The only significant nonpoint source pollutant (a
pollutant that occurs in more than one place) is fecal
contamination from livestock and wildlife. Suspended
sediment may be a problem in some streams. This may
be a result of livestock grazing practices, mineral activ¬
ity, geologic influences, or some combination of the
above.

An assessment by the state of Montana indicates that
groundwater quality in western Montana is generally
good. Only limited specific information is available on
the groundwater for each WSA.

Generally, groundwater has not been developed in the
Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks common in these
WSAs, but small to moderate quantities of good quality
water should be available. Few wells have been drilled in
the Mesozoic rocks; however, those that exist are
thought to contain small to moderate quantities of
good quality water.

Appendix F discusses the soil associations found in
each WSA and describes their major characteristics.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resource inventories for the Dillon Resource
Area MFP and environmental analyses for project
implementation have provided significant information
on the prehistoric and historic usage of lands within the
Dillon Resource Area. Variable amounts of inventory
have been accomplished for the wilderness study areas
themselves, but the functional attributes of cultural
resources within the areas can be expected to mirror
those outside the areas in similar environmental, geo¬
logical, and topographical settings. Appendix G sum¬
marizes the known occurrence of prehistoric and his¬
toric sites, inventory status and known cultural resource
values within each wilderness study area.

ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

BACKGROUND

The various resources in each WSA are discussed in
the sections that follow. Legal descriptions of the lands
in each WSA are found in Appendix D.

Wilderness

The section on wilderness for each WSA analyzes the
area’s wilderness quality, including naturalness, out¬
standing opportunities, and special features. The con¬
figuration (shape) of each area is considered. Configu¬
ration is important because opportunities for solitude
and for travel in a natural setting are more likely to be
present in a WSA that has a “block,” or roughly rectan¬
gular, shape than in a long narrow strip where outside
sights and sounds might intrude. Also discussed in the
wilderness sections are the ecosystems represented in
each area, its manageability as a wilderness unit, and
the opportunities and objectives for each area.

Recreation

Sections on recreation discuss the existing recreation
opportunities and use, both motorized and nonmotor-
ized, that are available in each WSA.

Visual Resources

Scenic quality ratings and Visual Resource Manage¬
ment (VRM) classes are shown on the Visual Resources
map for each WSA. The quality rating system employs
three categories: Class A, outstanding scenic values;
Class B, above average scenic values; and Class C,
average scenic values.

VRM classes are established by first defining the
cumulative effect of scenic quality and two other fac¬
tors, the sensitivity of user groups toward maintenance
of visual resources and the degree to which the land¬
scape can be seen from major viewing routes and key
observation points. Then VRM classes are established
through multiple use analysis and the decision-making
process.

The classification system ranges from Class 1 for spe¬
cial areas such as designated wilderness and wild and
scenic rivers to Class V for areas where substantial
rehabilitative measures are needed to qualify an area
for one of the four higher classifications. Class V also is
used as an interim class until an area can reach the
objectives of another class.

Various management objectives must be met in each
VRM class for scenic values to be maintained. These
management objectives vary from Class 1, where only
natural ecological changes and very limited manage¬
ment activities are allowed, to Class IV, where visual
impacts from management activities can be a domi¬
nant feature of the landscape.

Further information on the VRM system can be found in
a BLM publication, Visual Resources Manage¬
ment Program (CJSD1, BLM 1980b).

Geology and Minerals

The Geology and Minerals sections summarize avail¬
able information on the geology and the mineral poten¬
tial of each WSA. These sections are condensed from
more detailed reports on file at BLM offices in Butte and
Dillon, Montana. Most of the information in these
reports was abstracted from Dillon MFP data and other
available reference material.

Information on each WSA was solicited from industry,
local residents, mining claimants, universities,
government agencies, mining societies, and other
sources. Much of the information generated was quite
general and often did not identify an area s potential for
specific mineral commodities.

The geology and minerals sections of this document
were prepared without field checking and should be
considered preliminary. For each WSA recommended
as suitable for wilderness designation in this study, a
detailed Geological Survey/Bureau of Mines mineral
report will be prepared and considered before the
Secretary of the Interior makes a final recommendation
on designation or nondesignation as wilderness.

Because southwestern Montana lies in the now famous
Overthrust Belt, there has been considerable interest in
the area’s potential for oil and gas.

Livestock Grazing

All data on allotments are taken from the Mountain
Foothills Grazing E1S. All acreages and AUMs are for
the BLM-administered portions of the allotments only.
AC1M figures are based on surveyed grazing capacity.

Timber Management

The Timber Management sections analyze each unit s
potential for timber production.

BLM specialists discussed the areas with the local
timber industry and evaluated operability, access, and
the possibility of commercial production. Past informa¬
tion from extensive inventories was analyzed for pro¬
ductivity figures and acreages by strata (grouping by
tree height and crown density).

In evaluating timbered lands for their value for produc¬
tion of forest products, foresters must first determine
which lands can be used for timber production without
irreversible damage to the environment. In this analysis,
areas steeper than 70% were automatically dropped
from the productive base as too steep. Areas with
slopes between 40% and 70% were considered poten¬
tial cable logging areas. Slopes of less than 40% are
operable with track and wheeled machinery.

After areas were classified by percentage of slope, the
remaining base acreages were further reduced by iso¬
lated stand locations, damageable sites, soil restric¬
tions, problems of regeneration, and economic con¬
siderations.

The basic unit of analysis for timber resources is the
economic analysis unit (EAG). The EAG is an area
served by a network of vehicle ways with a single point
of entry into the study area. EAGs are discussed further
in Appendix C, where the method of calculating the
timber values is also explained.

RUBY MOUNTAINS WSA
(MT-076-001)

The Ruby Mountains WSA contains 26,611 acres of
BLM-administered land. Within the WSA boundaries
are about 996 acres of private land and one state
inholding of 640 acres. The unit is 15 miles east of
Dillon and 2 miles west of Alder, Montana. It is bordered
by legal boundaries of state, private, and other BLM
lands not included in the WSA, except that a section of
the southwest boundary less than 1 mile long is formed
by a ridge. There is no legally established public access
to reach the WSA. Some private access roads are not
now posted, but that condition could change.

The unit is roughly rectangular on a southwest-
northeast axis. Its width narrows to 1.5 miles in the
south central portion because a finger of private land
along McHessor Creek extends into the roughly rectan¬
gular area. There are three inholdings near the south¬
east boundary and one near the center of the unit.

The dominant topographic feature is the main north-
south Ruby Range ridgeline, which forms the backbone
of the Ruby Mountains. The north end of the range is
drained by approximately 20 major and minor canyons.
There are a few springs, but otherwise no water flows
through these canyons except during snowmelt.

The south end of the unit, in the Garden Creek-Hinch
Creek area, is well dissected but less precipitous than
the northern section. Aspen and streamside meadows
are common. Garden and Hinch Creeks are small
spring-fed streams. Exposed, open ridges, timbered
bottoms, and slopes protected from the elements are
characteristic of this southern area.

About 80% of the WSA is forested; the greatest concen¬
tration of forested terrain is in the northern half.
Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and Engel-
mann spruce are the predominant species. Rock out¬
crops, talus, and open grassland are found in the 20%
that is not forested.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. Table 4 details the human imprints in
this WSA. Among other relatively minor imprints are
4.5 miles offence and 17.5 miles of vehicle ways. (See
the Ruby WSA Developments and Allotments map.)

A number of these imprints— all of the fencing, 6 miles
of vehicle ways, about 1.5 miles of the stock driveway,
one partially logged area, and the line shack and
corral— are in the south central part of the WSA,
roughly between Garden Creek and Hinch Creek. Most
of the other human imprints are dead-end vehicle ways
that extend short distances up some of the canyons.
None of these extends farther than 1 .5 miles into the
unit, and none shows evidence of regular use except
the lower (eastern) end of the Laurin Canyon way.

The most substantial impact on naturalness in the WSA
is the stock driveway extending from the south central
part of the unit to the western boundary. Much of the
driveway has been constructed with substantial cuts
and fills. The part of the driveway near Big Dry Creek is
in timber; therefore, it is less noticeable than the parts
along open slopes south of Ruby Peak.

The bench cuts on the face of a cliff in Spring Canyon
have a low to moderate impact.

Most of the north end of the unit (roughly 1 2,640 acres)
is not used for livestock grazing; therefore, the natural
composition of vegetation is not affected.

Outstanding Opportunities. The size, diversity, and
challenging terrain of the WSA afford excellent oppor¬
tunities for both daytime use and trips of several days’
duration among the canyons, peaks, and other points
of interest.

TABLE 4

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS

RUBY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-001)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

Fence #1

T7S, R5W, Sec. 6

Divide between T rout

Creek and Garden Creek

1 .0 mile

Very low

Through timber.

Fence #2

T6S, R5W, Secs. 20,21,

28, and 32

Garden Creek-Hinch

Creek

3.5 miles

Moderate

Mostly through open county, not skylined. Blends into
grass foothills. Includes corral at Hinch Creek campsite.

Vehicle Way 1

T6S, R5W, Sec. 32; T7S,
R5W, Secs. 4 and 5

Garden Creek

2.5 miles

Low

Up creek bottom, many places undefmable. Some
creek crossings have slumps and ruts.

Vehicle Way II

T6S, R6W, Secs. 28 and

Hinch Creek

2.0 miles

Low

Mostly through timber in Sec. 28. Some trees removed
in this section. Parts of Sec. 34 appear more used, but
visible only along creek.

Vehicle Way III (system)

T6S, R5W, Secs. 29, 30,
and 32

Divide between

McHessor Creek and
Garden Creek

2.0 miles

Very low

Very light impact • three sections of way; two are 1/4
mile long or less.

Vehicle Way IV

T6S, R5W, Secs. 32 and
33; T7S, R5W, Secs. 4
and 5

Garden Creek;

Warwhoop Spring

1 .5 miles

Low

Somewhat visible from divide between Hinch and

Garden creeks, but low physical impact except in
drainage bottom Sec. 5.

Vehicle Way V

T5S, R5W, Secs. 31 and

Spring Canyon

1 .5 miles

Low

Two-wheel track. Access to mine workings and spring.

Vehicle Way VI

T6S, R5W, Secs. 10, 11
and 12

Laurin Canyon, Porier
Canyon, and prairie to
east

3.5 miles

Moderate

Most of mileage is on prairie in Sec. 12. Fairly well used.
Also evidence of some use in lower part of Laurin
Canyon, some apparently associated with livestock
operation. Little use above forks in Sec. 10,
SW1/4NE1/4.

Vehicle Way VII

T6S, R6W, Secs. 23, 26,
and 35

T rout Creek

1 .0 mile

Low

Two wheel tracks, light impact.

Vehicle Way VIII

T6S, R5W, Sec. 24

Taylor Canyon

1.0 mile

Low

Two wheel tracks, light impact.

Vehicle Way IX

T6S, R5W, Sec. 29

Drainage north of Spring
Canyon, north edge of
WSA

0.5 mile

Low

Two wheel tracks, light impact.

Vehicle Way X

T6S, R5W, Sec. 6

Drainage north of Big

Dry Creek, west edge of
WSA

1.0 mile

Low

Two wheel tracks, light impact.

Vehicle Way XI

T6S, R5W, Secs. 6 and 7

Big Dry Creek, west edge
of WSA

1 .0 mile

Low

Includes small corral along vehicle way.

Stock driveway

T6S, R5W, Secs. 7, 17,

18, 20, and 28

Hinch Creek ridge to Big
Dry Creek - southeast to
west central part of WSA

5.5 miles

Moderate
to high

Cut and fill construction over all but 1 mile; generally
not passable for vehicles. About 1 mile south and west
of Ruby Peak and 1 /2 mile in Sec. 28 are cut into open
hillside and visible from parts of open ridges in south
central part of unit. Also visible from Ruby Peak.

Spring #1

T6S, R5W, Sec. 21

Upper Hinch Creek

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Spring is in crease in steep, well-dissected, open
country.

Spring *2

T6S, R5W, Sec. 6

Northern tributary of Big
Dry Creek

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Spring box, trough in open drainage bottom.

Material removal area

T5S, R5W, Sec. 32

Spring Canyon

Less than
5.0 acres

Low to
Moderate

Mainly a few bench cuts in a large cliff face.

Logging evidence

T7S, R5W, Secs. 5 and 6

South of Garden Creek

Near Low

junction of

Garden Cr.
and tributary.

Scattered
high grading
over 100

High grade, scattered stumps. Evidence of old sawmill;
large sawdust pile across creek from line shack.

acres.

Logging evidence

T6S, R5W, Secs. 9 and

Laurin Canyon

Scattered
logging
evidence
over more
than 100

Low to
Moderate

Stumps in several drainages and on benches • mostly
scattered, but occasionally several in view at once.

acres.

Line shack

T7S, R5W, Sec. 5

Garden Creek, edge of
unit

1 .0 acre

Moderate

Aluminum-sided shack and pole corral next to old
sawmill site off Vehicle Way 1.

Cabin remains

T6S, R6W, Sec. 26

On Trout Creek, less
than 1/4 mile inside
boundary

Low

Historic structure?

Cabin remains

T6S, R6W, Sec. 13

On McHessor Creek
tributary, 1/8 mile inside

Low

Historic structure?

boundary

The topography contributes to outstanding opportuni¬
ties for solitude. The terrain in 95% of the unit is steep
and dissected; the remaining five percent is moderately
rolling. The rolling terrain is in the lower prairie and
along some of the rather rounded ridges.

The core-to-perimeter air distance of the unit is just over
two miles, but the rough topography makes the actual
travel distance more than 4 miles. Elevations vary from
about 5,320 feet on the prairie at the east edge of the
unit to 9,391 feet on Ruby Peak. The elevation of more
than half the unit is above 8,000 feet.

While most of the unit is steep and rugged, there are
complete barriers to foot travel in only a few areas. The
number of canyons and the feasibility of travel within
the unit would act to disperse visitors.

There are distant views of the Ruby and Beaverhead
valleys from the higher peaks and some of the open
ridgelines. These views have an insignificant effect on
solitude. The Cottonwood Creek haul road is visible
from the Mormon Peak ridge (8,500 feet high) at the
extreme south end of the unit, and sounds of the Tri-
State strip mine occasionally are evident from that area.
However, the ridge effectively screens the sights and
sounds of the mine from the rest of the unit. Some
blasting noise may penetrate a short distance beyond

this ridge. Overall, the external influence of the mine is
not significant north of the Mormon Peak ridge.

The opportunities for diverse types of primitive recrea¬
tion are excellent. Visitors can hike, backpack, or ride
horseback in spring, summer, and fall. The opportuni¬
ties are excellent for winter recreation, including hiking
in the lower elevations and skiing and snowshoeing in
the high country.

The unit’s diverse terrain provides opportunities for
scenic backcountry travel. The southern and central
parts of the unit provide the best terrain for horseback
riding. Challenging hiking is the only possible mode of
travel in the rugged terrain of the forested northern part
of the unit.

Opportunities for hunting mule deer, and grouse are
outstanding, and big game hunting is the primary
recreation use at this time.

Special Features. A number of geologic and asso¬
ciated scenic features are present in the Ruby Moun¬
tains WSA. Free-standing rock walls, caves, and cliff
faces add to scenic interest. The complex geology of
the Ruby Range is a supplemental feature of interest.

As many as 1 3 different mountain ranges can be seen
from high peaks and ridges in the unit. The scenic

Hinch Creek drainage from near Ruby Peak

quality and variety of the WSA is high, with steep
canyons, cliffs, timbered slopes, ridgetop parks, and
sagebrush-grassland slopes and meadows.

Cultural resource values are considered significant.
Occupation sites, ceremonial sites, and hunting blinds
have been recorded.

The diverse habitats of the WSA provide yearlong or
spring-summer-fall habitat for a variety of wildlife,
including elk, which calve in this area, and mule deer.
Habitat for mule deer is considered superior. A total of
1 2,640 acres within the WSA was designated by the
Dillon MFP as wildlife habitat where no domestic live¬
stock grazing is permitted.

Summaiy of Wilderness Quality. The pristine char¬
acter of the core area of the WSA, its diversity and
rugged topography, and its excellent vegetative screen¬
ing contribute to the high quality wilderness character¬
istics of the unit. Its relatively large size, overall good
configuration, and diverse special features are added
benefits.

Impacts to wilderness quality in the unit include poor
configuration in the south and a concentration of
human imprints in the south central part.

Ecosystem Representation

Most of the WSA lies in the Douglas-fir ecosystem;
however, part of the unit’ s conifer forest is a subtype not
covered by the Douglas-fir type system described by
Baily and Kuchler (Kuchler 1964; USDA, FS 1976,
1978a, 1978b). This subtype, which occurs on high
elevation ridges and upper slopes of the range, consists
of extensive, nearly pure stands of limber pine
interspersed with small parks. The unit contains about
2,500 acres of this subtype, which is more common to
the central and southern Rockies.

Sagebrush steppe and foothills prairie types also are
present in the unit. Appendix E describes the major
ecotypes found in the Dillon Resource Area and lists the
acreage of each ecotype in each WSA. Also see the
Ruby WSA ecotypes map.

Manageability

The core of the Ruby Mountains WSA would be man¬
ageable as a wilderness unit. Steep terrain in most of
the unit forms a barrier to cross-country vehicle travel.

Management as a wilderness could be more difficult in
the southern part of the unit because of poor configura¬
tion in the southwest. Three inholdings of private land
are in the southern part of the unit, and there is a
state-owned section near the center. Problems in man¬
agement could occur over nonconforming uses or
access rights. The state inholding includes Ruby Peak
and the upper portions of Laurin and Porier canyons.

There are no existing oil and gas leases, but applica¬
tions for leases covering less than 20 % of the area are
pending.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. Most of the unit’s vehi¬
cle ways would return to a natural-appearing condition
if traffic was restricted.

The old timber harvest areas in Garden Creek and
Laurin Canyon, which will remain somewhat noticeable
for a long period, would eventually become less evi¬
dent. Cabins and corrals could be removed, but they
are near the edges of the unit and do not affect quality
substantially.

Rehabilitation of the material removal area in Spring
Canyon would require heavy machinery. The stock
driveway is, over much of its length, a substantial
imprint. Unless mechanical means of rehabilitation
were used, the driveway would return to a relatively
natural condition only over a very long period.

Boundary adjustments could be made that would elim¬
inate some human imprints. One possible change
would be redrawing the boundary along topographic
lines and constructed features, leaving the south end,
where human imprints are concentrated, outside the
boundary. All or part of the stock driveway might also
be excluded from the WSA in this manner.

Improving Manageability. Certain land tenure
adjustments would eliminate manageability problems
associated with inholdings. One possible adjustment
would be BLM acquisition of Section 16, T6S, R5W,
now owned by the state of Montana. This acquisition
would have the highest priority because the section,
which is in the center of the unit, contains significant
physical features related to manageability and wilder¬
ness quality, including Ruby Peak and the heads of
Laurin and Porier Canyons.

Acquisition of the other inholdings also would improve
manageability because a topographically defined
boundary would then be possible south of Hinch Creek
in T6S, R5W, Section 27 and Section 33, Wl/2. These
lands are privately owned.

The patented mining claim in Sections 23 and 24, T6S,
R5W, is within the 1 /8 mile of the unit boundary; how¬
ever, acquisition of this parcel would forestall problems
of access up T aylor Canyon and bring the entire length
of the canyon into the WSA.

Recreation

In terms of both quality and quantity, the WSA offers
good to excellent opportunities for camping, hiking,
sightseeing, backpacking, photography, and hunting
for big game and upland game birds. It is estimated that
there are 300 recreation visits to the area each year.

The dominant recreational use of the area is light to
moderate hunting of elk and deer, generally involving
the use of motorized vehicles. The incidence of all other
activities is extremely light (Epple 1977; USDI, BLM
1978).

Aerial and ground surveys indicate that day visits are
the primary type of visit for all forms of recreation in this
WSA. Visitors generally park their vehicles immediately
outside the boundary of the unit. This is primarily
because the rugged terrain of most of the unit physi¬
cally precludes the use of motorized vehicles.

Although the Dillon MFP prescribed travel restrictions
in this area for the benefit of wildlife and recreation, the
off-road vehicle (ORV) travel plan prepared for this area
in 1981 did not implement such restrictions, pending
further inventory to determine the type and degree of
travel management required. The Ruby Developments
and Allotments map shows the vehicle ways now in the
unit. These represent most or all of the travel routes
now usable by wheeled recreation vehicles.

Generally the south end of the Ruby Range is more
suitable for vehicle travel than the north. Decisions in
the Dillon MFP propose that several routes be provided
for public access to the WSA, but that the WSA itself
remain in a relatively primitive condition even if it is not
designated wilderness.

Wildlife

The MDFWP has intensively studied elk in the Gravelly-
Snowcrest range and the adjacent Ruby Range since
1957. They are described by Rouse (1957), Eustace
(1967), Reichelt (1972), and MDFWP (1980).

There is diverse spring-summer-fall habitat for elk
throughout this WSA, but winter range is mostly out¬
side the unit. There is also important calving range
within the WSA. Reichelt determined that the calving
period for elk is from May 1 7 to June 4.

Mule deer are found at nearly all elevations within the
unit, which provides superior habitat. The current deer
population in the unit is high.

The WSA provides excellent habitat for blue grouse,
ruffed grouse, and spruce grouse. Blue grouse are the
most common mountain grouse species found here.

Geology and Minerals

Geologic Setting

The part of the Ruby Range included in the WSA con¬
tains about 5,000 feet of Paleozoic marine sedimentary
rocks overlying a Precambrian metamorphic rock
basement. Mesozoic rocks are represented only by sev¬
eral hundred feet of a nonmarine conglomerate, the
Beaverhead Formation (USDI GS 1 976). T ertiary rocks

composed of mudstone, siltstone, and sandstone crop
out along the margins of the range.

Quaternary deposits within the range consist of tufa,
conglomerate, alluvium, colluvium, and glacial depos¬
its. Small intrusive bodies of Tertiary-aged basalt,
andesite, and rhyolite occur along some faults present
in this part of the range (see the Geologic Map of the
Northern Ruby Range).

The Precambrian metamorphic rocks outcropping in
the southern portion of the WSA consist chiefly of
hornblende and biotite gneisses, granitic gneiss, dolo-
mitic marble, quartzo-feldspathic gneiss, and silliman-
ite schist. Iron formation, associated quartzite, and
diopsidic gneiss outcrop in the southeastern portion.

The last metamorphic event in the Ruby Range took
place about 1,600,000 years ago (Giletti 1966). The
hardrock mineral potential that is available in the range
originates from rocks and minerals of this age.

Rock Units

Tysdal (CJSD1, GS 1 976) mapped the Paleozoic rocks of
this region. He found that they make up most of the
sedimentary sequence (about 5,000 feet) present in the
Ruby Range. Ordovician, Silurian, and Permian rocks
are not present. The mapped units include virtually the
entire sequence of paleozoic rocks typical to southwest
Montana.

The Beaverhead Formation (Upper Cretaceous to
Lower Tertiary) is the only Mesozoic rock preserved in
the range. This formation, which is made up of three
types of conglomerate, is several hundred feet thick.

Geologic Structure

Isoclinal folding of the Precambrian rocks during two
periods of intense folding has left a conspicuous, well-
developed regional foliation in the rocks.

Faults of variable trends and ages are present, but their
exposure is poor. A major high-angle northwest¬
trending fault system truncates against the northeast¬
trending faults.

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. Only two occurrences of beat¬
able minerals have been reported in the area, neither on
federal land. Berg (Mont. Bur. Mines & Geol. 1979)
notes that talc chips were found on Ruby Peak in the
Wl/2 of Section 16, T6S, R5W, which is state-owned.
There also are numerous talc mines and prospects in
the Precambrian rocks immediately south of the WSA.

The Kelly Iron deposit outcrops in Sec. 25, T6S, R5W,
which is private land. According to Wilson (1981), por¬
tions of this deposit may extend into the SI /2S 1/2 of
Section 24, T6S, R5W.

Data on the chemical and economic potential of the
Kelly Iron Deposit are scarce. Wilson (1981) references

three chemical analyses of this iron formation. The total
iron oxide percentage (FeO + Fe2C>3) of these analyses
ranged from 50.00% to 51 .78%. According to Compu¬
terized Resource Information Base (CRIB), a system by
which the Geological Survey categorizes mineral de¬
posits, the grade of the deposit ranges from 20% to 35%

Fe (C1SD1, GS 1981). It has been estimated that this
magnetite-high deposit contains about 1 80,000 tons of
34% Fe. There are several similar low tonnage iron
deposits in the Tobacco Root and Ruby ranges.

Leasable Minerals. Information on leasable materials
in this WSA was taken from the Dillon MFP. The Geo¬
logical Survey, G.S. Department of the Interior (GS) has
said that a large part of this WSA is potentially valuable
for oil and gas and for coal.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

No mining claims have been reported to the BLM for
any of these lands, and no mining has ever taken place.
About 20% of the lands in the WSA are under applica¬
tions for oil and gas leases but no leases have been
issued to date (see the Ruby Mountains Mining Claims
and Mineral Leases map). No sales permits have been
issued by the BLM for mineral materials in this area.
There was one free use permit, but it has expired.

Mineral Resource Potential

If the Kelly iron deposit is ever developed, it is certain
that a portion of the WSA, Section 24, T6S, R5W, would
be involved in the operation. Any iron deposits in the
Ruby Range are likely to be small, in the 200,000-ton
range.

Talc occurrences in the Precambrian metamorphic
units are restricted to marble units. These are identified
on the mineral potential map as having the highest
potential; however, there are no known occurrences of
ore grade talc within those areas. The remainder of the
Precambrian metamorphic units have moderate poten¬
tial for iron, kyanite, sillimanite, graphite and other
metamorphic minerals.

Two of the largest talc mines in the West lie just outside
the southwestern boundary of this WSA. One of the
companies, Pfizer, Inc., feels that the land has a high
potential for talc exploration.

It is difficult to estimate the area’s oil and gas potential.
The geology of the Ruby Range, Precambrian, is un¬
favorable for oil and gas. Much of the Ruby Range is less
favorable for oil and gas than other ranges in south¬
western Montana.

Livestock Grazing

The Ruby Mountains WSA contains parts of two grazing
allotments for which AMPs are proposed and four cus¬
todial allotments. A total of 13,557 acres of this WSA
are not leased for grazing.

AMP Allotments

The Garden Creek Allotment (0479) contains a total
of 10,169 acres; 6,900 acres (68%) are inside the WSA
boundaries. The total of ACIMs is 857; 525 AUMs are
within the WSA. Cattle graze in this allotment in July,
August, and September on a deferred rotation system.

It is projected that this allotment will have 1 ,003 AGMs
by 2010 (GSDI, BLM 1980a). There is about 5 miles of
fence along the boundary between this allotment and
the McHessor Creek Allotment. A stock driveway also is
in the allotment, and its use will be reviewed under the
Dillon MFP. In addition, the unit contains a line shack
and a seasonal camp that are used by the permittees.

Improvements proposed for this allotment are one
spring development and approximately 900 acres of
prescribed burning. The primary purpose of the burn
would be to achieve better distribution of livestock to
reduce the impacts on riparian habitat, particularly in
Garden and Hinch creeks. About a 90 AUM increase in
grazing capacity would result, but considerably less
than the full amount would likely be allocated to live¬
stock.

Of the total area shown as proposed for burning on the
Developments and Allotments map for Ruby, about
half of the most suitable sites would be burned. The
highest priority area for burning is that north of Garden
Creek.

The McHessor Creek Allotment (0530) contains a
total of 4,864 acres; 2,760 acres (57%) are inside the
WSA boundaries. The total of AGMs is 1 32; 72 of these
are within the WSA. Cattle graze this allotment in July,
August, and September. The Mountain Foothills EIS
projects that there will be 1 54 AGMs by 201 0. Alternate
rest, deferred rotation, and deferred grazing systems
are proposed for different parts of this allotment.

There is approximately 5 miles of fence between this
allotment and the Garden Creek allotment, as men¬
tioned above.

One spring development inside the WSA is proposed
for this allotment.

For each of these allotments, motorized equipment
may be needed for construction of proposed develop¬
ments and on an occassional basis for major mainte¬
nance and reconstruction of both proposed and exist¬
ing improvements.

Custodial Allotments

The following custodial allotments are within the Ruby
Mountains WSA:

Acreage

AGMs

Allotment Name and Number

Inside WSA

Total

Inside WSA

Total AGMs

Season of
Gse

Spring Canyon (0527)

530

7/15-10/1

Laurin Canyon (0463)

1,077

114

7/1-10/31

Pierce Canyon (0493)

605

6/1-7/31

Garden (0601)

1,147

5/15-11/1

Timber Management

The WSA contains approximately 1 7,500 acres of for¬
estland. Of this, 6,287 acres (36%) are on slopes of
more than 70%. The acreage on slopes suitable for
cable yarding is 8,908 (51 %). Only 2,271 acres ( 1 3%) of
the harvestable timber is on land suitable for ground
skidding.

The ruggedness of this range is one reason it has
remained undeveloped. The entire north end of the
range is considered inoperable for economic and/or
topographic reasons. South slopes are dry and rocky
with scattered stands of stunted Douglas-fir and juniper.
Habitat types are often Douglas-fir/ pine grass, Douglas-
fir/bluebunch wheatgrass, or Douglas-fir/ldaho fescue.
Regeneration after cutting in any of these would be
difficult. Exposed ridges of bare rock are common;
road development would be expensive.

The south end of the WSA, which contains the greatest
percentage of operable ground, is evaluated in table 5.
Appendix C describes the assumptions used in the
BLM timber analysis.

TABLE 5

PRESENT NET WORTH OF TIMBER:

RCJBY MOUNTAINS WSA

Economic Analysis Unit (EAU)
12 3 4

Present timber

acreage1 526 999 617 1,368

Miles of road 4.6 5.1 3.9 8.2

At 4% discount rate

BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS WSA
(MT-0 76-002)

The 17,479-acre Blacktail Mountains WSA is approxi¬
mately 12 miles south of Dilion, Montana. Roughly
rectangular, it measures more than 1 1 miles long by 1
to 5 miles wide. There are no inholdings.

All boundaries are formed by the border between pub¬
lic and nonpublic land except on the west, where a road
and a fence form a portion of the boundary. There is no
legal public access to reach this area. Some private
roads are not now posted, but that situation could
change.

The WSA consists primarily of the summit of a high
plateau that extends more than 1 1 miles in a northwest-
southeast direction. Drainages leading north and north¬
east from the plateau are also in the WSA; many of
them are deep, timbered canyons with dramatic cliffs
and headwalls at the tops of the ridges. Spruce,
Douglas-fir, and limber pine are the dominant tree spe¬
cies in these canyons. Roughly half the drainages are
seasonally dry. The top part of the plateau is character¬
ized by open, rolling topography and grassland¬
sagebrush communities.

Wilderness

Present value of

timber $65,617

Road costs 1 24,862

Present net worth -$59,245

At 7-3/8% discount rate

Present value of

timber $17,674

Road costs 97,380

Present net worth -$79,706

$66,173 $42,908 $76,416
154,893 73,315 54,954

-$88,720 -$30,407 +$21,462

$7,050 $3,052 -$2,252

88,532 30,226 16,432

$81,482 -$27,174 -$18,684

'After timber production capability class (TPCC) reductions
(see Appendix C).

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. This unit contains less than 8 miles of
vehicle ways, about 3-1/2 miles of which are within 1 /4
mile of the boundary. Most of the other imprints
detailed in table 6 also are within 1 /4 mile of the bound¬
ary. There is low to moderate impact in the bottom of
Ashbough Canyon and in the bottom of the north fork
of Jake Canyon where timber was harvested in the early
part of this century.

Overall, the WSA is in a nearly pristine condition. A
3,880-acre area in the northwest part of the unit is not
leased for domestic grazing.

TABLE 6

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS

BLACKTAJL MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-002)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

Vehicle Way 1

T10S, R8W, Secs. 4
and 8

Begins in southwest corner
of unit and passes through
west central portion

2.5 miles

Low

Very faint wheel tracks across open country.

Vehicle Way II

T10S, R8W, Sec. 14

Passes through a narrow
finger of public land in
the south central part of
the WSA.

0.75 mile

Low

Two wheel tracks that become very faint in places.

Vehicle Way III

T10S, R8W, Sec. 14

Passes through a narrow
finger of public land in
the south central part of
the WSA.

0.5 mile

Low

Two wheel tracks across a hillside - at one time it
connected with Vehicle Way IV, but an old sidehill cut
has filled in and it is impassable to vehicles.

Vehicle Way IV

T10S, R8W, Secs. 12
and 13

Passes through central
part of unit on ridge
above North Fork, Jake
Canyon road.

1 .0 mile

Moderate

Extension of North Fork, Jake Canyon road. Goes
through timber with trees cut out and other minor
construction. No maintenance, occasional use.

Vehicle Way V

T10S, R7W, Sec. 18

Runs up the bottom of

Jake Canyon

1 .0 mile

Low

Once constructed but shows no sign of recent use.

Vehicle Way VI

T10S, R7W, Secs. 17
and 21

Cuts across the corners
of two sections on the
southeast edge of the
unit

1 .0 mile

Low

Consists of two wheel tracks.

Vehicle Way VII

T10S, R7W, Sec. 27

Runs up the bottom of
Cottonwood Creek in
extreme southeast
corner of unit

0.5 mile

Low

Essentially a two-wheel track that was once constructed
through the forest.

Vehicle Way VIII

T10S, R7W, Sec. 17

Swings just into
boundary of unit east of
Silver Queen mine

Less than
0.25 mile

Low

Has been bladed, but its impact is low because only a
small portion is in the unit.

Vehicle Way IX

T10S, R8W, Sec. 12

Runs up open slope near
boundary on east side of
unit

0.25 mile

Low

Because of its location, this way is visible from many
areas, but this is mitigated by short length.

Spring development

T9S, R8W, Sec. 19

In timber in northwest
corner of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Visible only in immediate vicinity, as it is in timber.

Reservoir

T10S, R8W, Sec. 6

Near west boundary of
unit

Less than
3.0 acres

Low

In small basin within 1/4 mile of boundary.

Timber harvesting

T10S, R8W, Secs. 33
and 34

Bottom of Ashbough
Canyon

80 acres*

Low to
moderate

Harvesting was done many years ago. Evidence very
obvious in some places; hardly noticeable at all in
others.

Timber harvesting

T10S, R8W, Sec. 12;
T10S, R7W, Sec. 7

Bottom of North Fork of
Jake Canyon

20 acres

Low

Scattered stumps along bottom of creek.

Cabin site

T10S, R7W, Sec. 21

In drainage in southeast
comer of the unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Stone foundation and chimney just inside boundary.

Cabin site

T10S, R7W, Sec. 17

In drainage in southeast
part of unit.

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Cabin, which is just inside boundary, is deteriorating.

Cabin site

T10S, R8W, Sec. 6

Near boundary on west
edge of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Very deteriorated cabjn is not very noticeable.

Prospect pits

T10S, R7W, Sec. 21

Near boundary on
extreme southeast edge
of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Consists of two shallow dozer scrapes that are now
revegetating.

Prospect pits

T10S, R8W, Sec. 12

On slope above the

North Fork of Jake

Canyon

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Two shallow dozer scrapes are now revegetating.

Looking towards Ashbough Peak from Blue Mountain.

Outstanding Opportunities. The area is roughly rec¬
tangular on a northwest-southeast axis, but it narrows
and becomes irregular on the southeast end. This
irregular boundary is caused by landownership patt¬
erns. The core-to-perimeter air distance is approxi¬
mately 1-1/4 miles, but the actual travel distance is
greater because of rough topography. Monfederal
lands that intrude into the boundary in several places
cut off topographic routes of travel.

Topographic relief varies from about 6,200 feet at the
mouth of Irishman’s Hole to 9,477 feet at the top of an
unnamed peak near the center of the unit. Teftain in
85% of the unit is steep and well dissected; the remain¬
ing 1 5%, mainly along the ridges, is rolling. All or parts
of the headwaters of ten major drainages are in the
WSA, and many smaller drainages also head within the
unit.

The dominant feature of the unit is the high northwest-
southeast trending ridge from which the deep drain¬
ages flow generally northeast. These deep drainages
and their associated cliffs constitute moderate to severe
barriers to foot and horseback travel. Since several of
the canyons have running water most of the year, they
would be the primary recreational attractions, along
with the high, open, scenic ridgetop.

The WSA is roughly 60% forested; the remaining 40% is
either rock outcrops, scree slopes, or grassland.
Timber, which is mainly in the drainages, provides
excellent screening in these areas.

Irrigated farmland and the town of Dillon are distantly
visible from almost any high point in the unit, but these
have only an insignificant impact on the opportunities
for solitude. The Silver Queen Mine can be seen from a
very small portion of the unit in Jake Canyon. If the mine
were active, sounds would penetrate into the unit for a
short distance.

In general, topography and vegetation combine to pro¬
vide excellent screening throughout most of the unit.
The numerous canyons help disperse visitors, and the
lack of significant outside sights and sounds adds to the
sense of isolation. All these factors contribute to the
excellent opportunities for solitude in the unit.

The diversity of the WSA provides many opportunities
for primitive and unconfined types of recreation. Back¬
packing, camping, and big game hunting are probably
the major attractions, but the opportunities for day
hiking, horseback riding, sightseeing, nature study, and
rockhounding are also excellent. Opportunities for
cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are good in win¬
ter. The steep slopes and cliffs of the drainages make

cross-country travel difficult and challenging. All these
factors combine to provide high quality opportunities
for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Special Features. The WSA provides important habi¬
tat for a variety of wildlife species, including mule deer,
elk, and moose. There is some winter range for mule
deer in Jake Canyon, and parts of the WSA have been
identified as elk winter range and calving grounds. Elk
and deer also use the WSA in spring, summer, and fall.
There is also suitable, unoccupied bighorn sheep and
peregrine falcon habitat in the WSA.

The complex folded and faulted geology of the area
offers opportunities for study by amateur geologists.
Cultural resources are moderatley significant.

The five peaks higher than 9,000 feet offer outstanding
panoramic views, some of which exceed 80 miles on a
clear day. Scenic quality and variety within the unit is
outstanding, with cliffs and free-standing rock walls,
timbered slopes, cirque basins, and rolling sub-alpine
terrain.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. The overall quality
of the area’s wilderness characteristics is relatively high.
Its generally undisturbed natural condition and the
excellent opportunities for solitude and for primitive
and unconfined types of recreation contribute to this
high quality. Although manageability considerations
reduce the quality somewhat, the degree of reduction is
not large. Possible boundary adjustments would mit¬
igate the impacts to some extent.

Ecosystem Representation

The WSA contains four major ecotypes: Douglas-fir
forest, which occurs mainly on the northeast face of the
prominent ridge and in the major drainage bottoms;
sagebrush steppe and foothills prairie, which are gen¬
erally near the top of the ridge and on the gentler
southwest side; and small amounts of alpine meadows
and barren. Most of the area in the foothills prairie
ecosystem is physiographically distinguishable from
the pure Bailey-Kuchler type, as it lies on the crest of the
Blacktail Range, at an elevation of more than 9,000 feet,
and includes some elements of the alpine type. See
Appendix E and the Blacktail WSA Ecotypes map.

Manageability

None of the boundaries of the WSA corresponds to any
readily identifiable topographic features that would aid
in management of the area. Some boundaries are
along identifiable constructed features such as roads
and fences. Configuration in the southeast portion of
the unit is relatively poor because “thumbs” of nonpub¬
lic land intrude into the boundaries. There are no non¬
public inholdings.

The steep terrain of the Blacktail Mountains effectively
acts as a barrier to cross-county vehicle travel, although

travel is possible along the open ridge on the south
edge of the unit.

Although the entire WSA is leased for oil and gas, only a
very small portion is covered by pre-FLPMA leases,
which are not subject to stipulations that protect the
area’s wilderness character. There are no mining
claims in the unit that have valid existing rights preclud¬
ing wilderness protection measures.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. Vehicle ways 1, 11, III, VI,
and IX would all revegetate to the point of being almost
completely unnoticeable in only a short time if traffic on
them was restricted. Vehicles ways IV, V, VII, and Vlll, on
which there was construction at some time in the past,
would take somewhat longer to disappear completely.
They are already substantially revegetated, but some of
the dozer cuts are still visible and will remain so for
some time.

Although the old timber harvesting areas will eventually
become less noticeable, they will remain somewhat
noticeable for a long period. The same is true of the
cabin remains.

Improving Manageability. Land tenure adjustments
in certain areas would eliminate intruding thumbs of
nonpublic land and enhance the overall manageability
of the area. For example, the El / 2, Section 1 0 and the
W1 /2, Section 1 1 , T1 OS, R8W, which are owned by the
state of Montana, are at the head of Riley Canyon and at
the crest of the Blacktail Range.

The state-owned Section 32, T9S, R8W, and the pri¬
vately owned NE1/4NW1/4 of Section 5, T10S, R8W,
encompasses another part of the Blacktail Range crest
and the head of Ashbough Canyon. BLM acquisition of
these parcels would bring the entire ridge, which is a
natural travel route, and the heads of two major
canyons into the WSA. It also would make possible the
use of recognizable natural and constructed features as
boundaries.

Overall, the manageability of this WSA is affected
somewhat because there are few opportunities to use
physiographic boundaries, which are more recog¬
nizable on the ground than are legal subdivision
boundaries.

Recreation

This WSA offers above-average to excellent opportuni¬
ties for hunting of big game and upland game birds and
for camping, hiking, backpacking, photography, and
sightseeing. Current use is light to moderate, 550
recreation visits annually. The dominant use is big
game hunting during the fall, some of which involves
the use of motorized vehicles.

The use of motorized vehicles in the area is limited
substantially by road closures on private land that
borders the unit and by rough terrain over much of the
area. Vehicle restrictions are in effect in the area to
protect wildlife habitat. The Dillon MFP has proposed
public access for recreation in Ashbough Canyon.

Wildlife

The Jake Canyon area in this WSA provides crucial
winter range for 135 to 140 elk. About 200 to 250 elk
inhabit the unit during spring, summer, and fall.

The WSA provides excellent spring-summer-fall range
for mule deer. Winter range is limited primarily to the
Jake Canyon area. The area, which is roadless for the
most part, is ideal summer range for mule deer. The
deer population of the Blacktail Mountains appears to
be increasing, especially in the WSA.

Only an occasional moose is found in the unit; however,
the area is potential moose habitat even though the
population appears to be low. Bears are found in the
unit, but the population is relatively small. There also is
good habitat for mountain lions.

This area contains suitable unoccupied habitat for
bighorn sheep and peregrine falcons; however, there
are no plans at present for reintroducing either species.

Blue grouse and ruffed grouse are found in the unit,
which provides yearlong habitat for mountain grouse
and seasonal habitat for numerous nongame birds.
Important habitat includes forested lands and Douglas-
fir interspersed with nonforested sagebrush/grassland
on open ridges.

Geology and Minerals

Reconnaissance studies have been done by Klepper
(GSDI, GS 1950) and by Scholten, Keenmon, and
Kupsch ( 1 955). Detailed geology in much of the Black-
tail Mountains has been done by Pecora (1981).

Geologic Setting

This WSA lies along the crest of the Blacktail Moun¬
tains, which consist mainly of a structural dome with a
core of highly metamorphosed Precambrian rocks
dated at 2.76 billion years (James and Hedge 1980).
Foliation in these highly metamorphosed rocks trends
generally northeast and dips approximately 70 degrees
northwest.

Lithologies include marble, metaquartzite, amphibolite,
diabase, and quartzofeldspathic gneiss. Gltramafic
rocks are less common. Paleozoic through quaternary
sediments are present in the western end of the WSA.
On the north, the Blacktail Mountains are defined by the
Blacktail Fault, a range front fault separating the moun¬
tains from the downdropped Blacktail Deer Creek

Basin; to the south, a series of smaller faults delineates
the southern edge of the Blacktail Range.

The northwest end of the range consists of a paleozoic
section of rocks that lie unconformably on Precam¬
brian rocks. The main Precambrian core of the Black-
tail Mountains has been faulted up; the overlying pale-
zoic sediments having been eroded away. It is possible
the entire Blacktail Range is a large thrust sheet,
although there is no substantive evidence for this.

Rock Units

Rocks varying in age from Precambrian through Ter¬
tiary are present either in or close to the WSA.

There are metasedimentary gneisses that may be pre-
Cherry Creek-Pony series, but no detailed study of Pre¬
cambrian lithologies has been made. In the Dillon gran¬
ite gneiss along the Jake Creek drainage, there are
occurrences of ultramafic rocks. Some nickel minerali¬
zation is associated with these ultramafic bodies.

Virtually the entire Paleozoic-Teritiary sequence of sed¬
imentary rocks is present in or adjacent to the WSA.

Igneous rocks in this WSA are the pre-Cherry Creek
gneisses and the Dillon granite gneiss, both of which
include dikes, sills, and small bodies of pegmatite and
aplite of undetermined age. Tertiary volcanic rocks
include a variety of predominantly silicic rock types and
intermediate flows and tuffs. Some of the flows are as
young as early Miocene in age.

Geologic Structure

The Blacktail Range is bounded by the downdropped
Blacktail Basin block to the north and a series of small
faults paralleling the range to the south. The prominent
structural element within the range is a series of low
angle, north-trending thrust faults that dip to the west.
North-trending overturned folds are associated with
these thrusts (see the General Geologic map and the
Generalized Geologic Structure Map).

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. The only metalliferous deposit
that has been explored in any detail is the Silver Queen
Mine in Section 17, T10S, R7W. The Silver Queen
property involves several unpatented mining claims.
Underground workings extend for several hundred feet.
The original locations were made in 1 904; some ore
has been shipped to the Anaconda smelter as recently
as 1973. The owners had applied for a patent in 1976
but withdrew their patent application in 1978.

The geology of the surrounding area is Dillon granite
gneiss. To the southeast the geology changes to Pre¬
cambrian pre-Cherry Creek rocks (see the Generalized
Geologic Structure map). Mineralization occurs along a
fault that trends generally northwest-southeast. Closely
aligned with the fault system is a massive quartzite unit

approximately 200 feet thick that dips 20 degrees to 30
degrees to the northeast.

The silver mineralization is in the fault zone. This fault
may be part of the range front fault system along the
north edge of the Blacktail Range. Copper and gold
also are present. Silver values range from a trace to
more than 100 ounces per ton.

Gold values do not appear to be significant; they gener¬
ally are less than 0.05 ounces per ton. Sample values
taken in one of the drifts averaged approximately 1%
copper along 50 feet of the drift. Silver and copper
values are promising; however, there has been no dril¬
ling program to aid in developing tonnage estimates.
From the available information it is impossible to make
any generalization beyond the obvious: values that high
clearly warrant additional exploration to determine if a
profitable mine might be developed.

The Nevada mine in Section 21 , T9S, R8W, is a similar
occurrence along the range front fault. Recorded pro¬
duction is 567 tons of ore yielding 988 pounds of
copper, 8,219 ounces of silver, and 7 ounces of gold.
Production was during 1934 and 1935 (Mont. Bur.
Mines & Geol. 1972). No additional information is
available on this mine.

The Dillon (Wolf Creek) nickel deposit occurs along
Jake Creek to the west of the Silver Queen. Nickel
mineralization is associated with an ultramafic complex
composed of peridotite (75% pyroxene, 25% olivine).
The ultramafic complex occurs in the pre-Cherry Creek
rocks. Some chromium may be associated with the
nickel mineralization. Nickel occurs as an alteration
product. The distribution of nickel is very irregular.
Locally, values as high as 2% nickel have been reported.
The lack of information apparently is due to the spotty
and irregular nature of nickel mineralization and the
generally low grade of nickel mineralization.

No other metalliferous deposits are known to occur in
or adjacent to the WSA. The northwest part of the unit
contains rock of Cambrian through Tertiary age. None
of the sedimentary units except the Permian Phospho-
ria formation are noted for containing anomalous
metal values.

The Phosphoria Formation contains both uranium and
vanadium. The potential recovery of uranium or vana¬
dium depends on the fortunes of western phosphate,
because both uranium and vanadium are uneconomi¬
cal at the present time.

Nonmetalliferous beatable minerals found in the area
are barite and silica. Claims have been staked for barite
in Sections 1 7 and 1 8, T9S, R8W, and some work has
recently been done on one of these claims. Spectro-
graphic analyses show slightly anomalous values in
arsenic, copper, zinc, and molybdenum.

Leasable Minerals. Little interest has been expressed
in oil and gas exploration in the Blacktail Range. The
Blacktail Range contains both source and reservoir
rocks, as do many of the other ranges in southwestern
Montana. The southwestern part of the WSA, which is
composed mainly of Precambrian rocks, has very little
oil and gas potential. If future geophysical work dis¬
closes that the entire block is part of a thrust sheet, there
may be potential for oil and gas below the Precambrian
rocks.

There are horizons of coal in both the Heath formation
and some of the Tertiary. The coal is generally thin and
of poor quality.

Geologic maps show that the Phosphoria Formation
does not crop out within the WSA. Oil shale was quar¬
ried and retorted west of the WSA in Small Horn
Canyon in 1919. The operation proved not to be com¬
mercial. There are extensive outcrops of Heath Forma¬
tion in the WSA. That formation includes oil shale
horizons that may contain anomalous metal values
(vanadium, among others). Oil yields in the Heath show
a range from 0 to 1 9.6 gallons per ton, with an average
of 1 0 gallons per ton (Mont. Bur. Mines & Geol. 1 981 ).

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

There are about 1 09 unpatented mining claims in the
WSA. They are generally along the northeast border
and in the vicinity of the Silver Queen mine in the
southeast.

The entire WSA is covered with oil and gas leases (see
the Blacktail Mining Claims and Mineral Leases map).
Most of these are post-FLPMA leases, which carry the
wilderness protection stipulation. There are no leases
for coal, oil shale, phosphates, or geothermal energy in
the unit.

Mineral Resource Potential

Available information indicates that the overall mineral
potential of the WSA is low, with two exceptions: The
vicinity of the fault along the northeast face of the
Blacktail Mountain range has good potential for small
deposits of silver, copper, and gold, and the area sur¬
rounding ultramafic rocks in Jake Creek has fair poten¬
tial for nickel. The potential for nickel is probably
limited, however, because its occurrence in the area is
limited (see the Blacktail Mineral Potential map).

Some potential for recovery of metals is associated with
oil shale in the Heath Formation. The southeast end of
the unit has a fair potential for talc, chlorite, and asso¬
ciated metamorphic minerals.

Oil shale in the Blacktail Mountains is low grade; there is
little likelihood that there will be any interest in it in the
future.

With little specific information beyond general state¬
ments that the area “has high potential for oil and gas,”
it is difficult to estimate the unit’s oil and gas potential.

Available information suggests the oil and gas potential
is fair to poor. The potential for geothermal energy,
coal, and carbon dioxide is likewise a matter of specula¬
tion.

Livestock Grazing

The WSA contains parts or all of three grazing allot¬
ments for which AMPs are proposed, and one custodial
allotment. The total acreage not leased for grazing is
3,882.

AMP Allotments

The Matador-Blacktail Allotment (0147) contains
8,456 acres, all of which is inside the boundaries of the
WSA. Its capacity is 176 AGMs. Cattle graze on this
allotment from July through September on a two-
pasture, deferred rotation grazing system. The Moun¬
tain Foothills EIS projects that the number of ACIMs will
increase to 199 by 2010.

There are no existing range improvements in this
allotment, and none have been proposed.

The Gallagher Mountain Allotment (0013) contains
14,517 acres; 1,660 acres (11%) are inside the WSA
boundaries. The part of the allotment within the WSA is
the Sheep Canyon pasture, which is used in August of
one year and in September of the next year. Another
pasture outside the WSA is paired with this pasture to
make the rest-rotation system work. The Sheep Canyon
pasture has a grazing capacity of 220 AGMs, of which
138 AGMs are inside the WSA. The allotment’s total
grazing capacity is 4,222 AGMs; it is projected that this
will increase to 4,260 by 2010.

There are no existing or proposed range improvements
in the part of this allotment that lies within the WSA.

The Conover Allotment (0117) covers 4,035 acres of
public land; approximately 2,530 acres (63%) are inside
the WSA boundaries. Sheep use a total of 286 AGMs on
a deferred rotation system from mid-July to mid-
September; 74 AGMs are within the WSA. The Moun¬
tain Foothills EIS projects that there will be 291 AGMs in
this allotment in 2010.

One spring development is proposed for the part of this
allotment that is inside the WSA; there is an existing
spring development in the unit already. Motorized
equipment may be needed for construction of pro¬
posed developments and on an occasional basis there¬
after for major maintenance and reconstruction of pro¬
posed and existing improvements.

Custodial Allotments

All of the 1,114 acres of the Mooney Custodial Allot¬
ment (0178) is inside the WSA. Thirty-five AGMs of
cattle use takes place from July through October.

Timber Management

The Blacktail Mountains WSA contains approximately
9,1 00 acres of forestland. Of this, 2,002 acres (22%) are
on slopes of more than 70%. The acreage on slopes
suitable for cable yarding is 3,640 (40%); 3,456 acres
(38%) are on slopes suitable for tractor logging.

This range is steep and rugged. Much of it that was
logged around 1 900 now has dense stands of Douglas-
fir and lodgepole pine. Wet areas are stocked with
spruce and subalpine fir. Some areas are characterized
by soils made fragile by seepage. Steep glacial cirques
are timbered with alpine fir and spruce. Exposed ridges
of bare rock are common; road development would be
expensive.

The EAGs are evaluated in table 7. Appendix C des¬
cribes the assumptions used in the BLM timber analy¬
sis.

TABLE 7

PRESENT NET WORTH OF TIMBER:
BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS WSA

Economic Analysis Unit (EAU)

Present timber
acreage1

1,567

1,971

761

Miles of road

13.1

20.2

13.0

At 4% discount rate

Present value of
timber

$202,433

$163,606

$31,694

Road costs

327,013

320,149

92,606

Present net worth

-$124,580

-$156,543

-$60,912

At 7-3/8% discount

rate

Present value of
timber

$58,167

$15,053

-$3,392

Road costs

255,248

133,161

28,032

Present net worth

-$197,081

-$118,108

-$31,424

’After timber production capability class (TPCC)
reductions (see Appendix C).

EAST FORK OF BLACKTAIL DEER
CREEK WSA (MT-076-007)

The East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA, which
comprises 6,230 acres of public land, is about 33 miles
southeast of Dillon, Montana. The public can reach the
area via the improved Blacktail Deer Creek road and
then a more primitive road that runs up the East Fork of
Blacktail Deer Creek to the boundary.

This WSA is roughly triangular, with an irregular bound¬
ary that almost entirely follows legal subdivisions. There
is private land on the north; the state-owned Blacktail
Game Range essentially forms the northwestern bound¬
ary. Land on the east and south is Beaverhead National
Forest land. There are no inholdings, but a road corri¬
dor that is excluded from the WSA extends into the
body of the unit for more than 1 mile along the East
Fork road, forming an intruding “finger.”

The unit is dominated by three relatively large drain¬
ages: the East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek; Crows
Nest Creek, which flows into the East Fork; and Robb
Creek. Portions of Taylor, Rock, Indian, and Alkali
creeks are also in the WSA, as are several smaller
streams that flow directly into the East Fork. The WSA,
which is on the west slope of the Snowcrest Range,
contains open sagebrush foothills, grass parks, aspen
and willow groves, alpine meadows, barren talus
slopes, and Douglas-fir and limber pine forests.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. Vehicle ways totaling less than 3 miles
extend into the WSA for short distances. Most of the
fences are adjacent to the boundary, as are a few
undeveloped camps. The naturalness of the East Fork
WSA is one of its outstanding characteristics. Table 8
details the impacts on naturalness, and they are shown
on the East Fork Developments and Allotments map.

Outstanding Opportunities. The configuration of
this relatively small unit is affected by the road corridor
along the East Fork and by the irregular northwestern
boundary. Core-to-perimeter distance is limited to
about 1 mile.

The road up the East Fork effectively divides the WSA
into two pieces with about one-third of the unit south¬
west of the road and two-thirds northeast. Essentially,
users must choose which side of the road to visit.

About 90% of the WSA lies in very well-dissected terrain;
the remaining 10% is moderately rolling. Elevations
vary from about 7,120 feet along the East Fork of
Blacktail Deer Creek to 10,581 on Sunset Peak. Local
relief and dissection serve to separate visitors from one
another. Timber and aspen-willow groves occupy about
60% of the area, providing pockets of seclusion among
the interspersed meadows and parks.

The alpine northeastern part of the unit is the only area
where vegetative screening is absent. The open country
of upper Crows Nest basin would not accommodate a
large number of visitors, but it presumably would attract
visitors. The 3-mile long Crows Nest drainage is the only
drainage entirely enclosed by the unit’s boundaries.

The minimal offsite influences are views of undevel¬
oped state, national forest, and private land. There are
distant off-unit views of land outside the WSA from
many of the open high points. Overall, this effect is not
considered significant.

Opportunities for hiking and backpacking in the unit
are excellent. Horseback riding also is possible, but it is
limited by the steep topography. A feature of interest to
visitors is the way plant communities ranging from
grass-sagebrush to alpine can be seen in a short dis¬
tance.

Opportunities to observe and photograph scenery,
wildlife, and plant communities are excellent in the
WSA. Fossil-bearing formations of geological interest
outcrop along the alpine ridge. Elk and mule deer are
found here; this area offers some of the most outstand¬
ing elk hunting in southwestern Montana. Moose and
black bear also use the area, and mountain goats are
found in the higher elevations. Opportunities for trout
fishing are good in the East Fork.

Although size and configuration limit the carrying
capacity of the area, the variety and excellent quality of
opportunities in the unit render the area’s value rather
high for primitive recreation.

Special Features. The WSA contains important
spring-summer-fall elk range and elk calving habitat,
complementing the adjacent Blacktail Game Range,
which serves primarily as winter range for elk. The WSA
also offers excellent spring-summer-fall range for mule
deer and contains habitat for moose and mountain
goats.

High quality scenery, including views of the high
Snowcrest peaks and the diverse vegetative patterns in
the unit, is an important special feature.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. This WSA has high
wilderness values because of its natural character, spe¬
cial features, and the opportunities for primitive recrea¬
tion associated with its special features. While vegeta¬
tion and topography offer very good potential for
seclusion, the size and configuration of the unit limit
these opportunities and the area’s carrying capacity.

TABLE 8

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS

EAST FORK OF BLACKTAIL DEER CREEK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT -076-007)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Vehicle Way 1

T11S, R5W, Secs. 27,

28, 32, and 33

Southwest corner of unit;
intersects East Fork road
outside unit

Vehicle Way II

T11S, R5W, Sec. 22

Northern edge

Fence

T11S, R5W, Secs. 27.

32, 34 and 35

Along East Fork of Blackl
Deer Creek, in southwest
corner of WSA.

Undeveloped camps

T11S, R5W, Secs. 27
and 34

Along East Fork road

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

2,5 miles

Low

Vehicle way ends just outside unit in saddle in T12S,
R5W, Sec. 4. Upper reaches of way partly constructed al
one time, but is naturally revegetated and recontouring.
Most of way is two wheel tracks. It is now closed to
vehicle traffic.

0.3 mile

Very Low

Two-wheel track extending a very short distance into
unit. Now closed to vehicle travel.

3.5 miles

Low

One mile in extreme southwest comer; 2.5 miles along
road corridor and East Fork.

3.0 acres

Low

Along East Fork road corridor, just inside unit.
Extending the corridor would easily exclude these.

Ecosystem Representation

This unit contains four major ecosystems: Douglas-fir
forest, alpine meadows and barrens, foothills prairie,
and sagebrush steppe. See Appendix E and the Eco¬
types map for East Fork WSA.

Manageability

Vehicle use is already restricted in this WSA under the
Dillon travel plan. The only place where topography is
suitable and vehicle management problems would be
likely to occur is the open, moderately sloping terrain in
the southwest part of the unit.

This unit’s size and configuration present a manage¬
ment problem because the road corridor divides this
small unit and renders it effectively smaller than its
actual acreage.

Except for the boundary along the road corridor, the
boundaries of the WSA lie entirely along legal subdivi¬
sions unrelated to the dominant topographic features.
Thus, the unit’s configuration is not related to features
that would be easily identifiable on the ground.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. The insignificant
number of human imprints does not seriously impair
the unit’s wilderness quality. The existing vehicle ways
will rehabilitate naturally over time with or without wil¬
derness protection, because vehicle restrictions are
already in effect in the area. Only the short portion of
vehicle way 1, which was once constructed, would
require a longer period to become unnoticeable.

Improving Manageability. Closing the East Fork road
at the unit boundary would eliminate the internal con¬
figuration problem; however, the road would remain as
an impact on naturalness without mechanical rehabili¬
tation. In any case, the small size and irregular boundar¬
ies would continue to cause problems in management
of the area.

With compatible management of adjacent lands, this
WSA could be effectively managed as wilderness. The
existing management of the state-owned Blacktail
Game Range and the currently undeveloped national
forest lands complements the use of the WSA as a
backcountry area. However, what the long-term man¬
agement of those adjacent lands will be is uncertain,
and that uncertainty makes equally uncertain the
manageability of the East Fork WSA as wilderness.

Recreation

The WSA offers a variety of opportunities for high qual¬
ity recreation, including fishing, hiking, sightseeing,
photography, camping, and hunting for big game and
upland game birds. The estimated annual number of
recreation visits is 1 ,300. About 65% of these occur
during the fall hunting season, and many involve the
use of motorized vehicles on the East Fork road.

Public lands in this WSA and the adjacent Beaverhead
National Forest provide some of the best elk hunting
opportunities in southwestern Montana, and this is one
of the most popular hunting areas. It is not unusual to
see eight large hunting camps along the road corridor
that partially divides the WSA, with as many as 15
members in each hunting party. Summer visitors come
primarily for weekend fishing and camping.

The only access road into the area traverses the state-
administered Blacktail Game Range for much of its
length, so access is restricted to summer and fall. The
Dillon ORV travel plan restricts vehicle travel within the
WSA to the main access road, and that road, along with
the entire WSA, is closed to all vehicles from December
1 to May 1 5.

Upper end of Crows Nest Creek drainage.

Wildlife

The WSA offers primarily spring-summer-fall range for
elk. The degree to which this area is used in the spring
and fall of any given year is weather-dependent. In the
fall, elk move to lower elevations, crossing the WSA or
remaining there during the hunting season. Depending
on hunter activity and weather conditions, most of the
elk are on the adjacent Blacktail Game Range by the
first week of December. Approximately 800 to 1 ,000 elk
winter in the game range, primarily on south-facing and
east-facing slopes. The entire WSA is important calving
ground for the elk that use the Blacktail Game Range in
winter and spring. This calving occurs primarily from
May 17 to June 4 (Reichelt 1973).

The unit provides spring-summer-fall habitat for a
moderate population of mule deer, and the habitat is
considered excellent.

A moose population inhabits the Blacktail Game Range
and this WSA. Along with the Gravelly-Snowcrest area,
the WSA is considered excellent moose range, and it
could support more moose than now inhabit the area.
A viable population of black bears lives in the WSA,
which provides suitable yearlong habitat. Mountain
qoats are commonly found at higher elevations in this
WSA.

Blue grouse, ruffed grouse, and spruce grouse are
found in the unit, which offers a wide diversity of habitat
for these species. Furbearing species known to occur in
the area include mink, beaver, muskrat, and marten.
Bobcats are occasionally reported in the unit.

The unit contains 3.4 miles of the East Fork of Blacktail
Deer Creek, which originates in the Snowcrest Moun¬
tain Range. The stream is a popular fishing area for
pan-size trout. Species include brook trout, rainbow,
cutthroat, rainbow-cutthroat hybrids, and mountain
whitefish.

Reconnaissance studies in this area were done by
Klepper (CJSD1, GS 1950) and by Scholten, Keenmon,
and Kupsch (1955). This report is based on mapping
conducted by Klepper. No detailed geologic mapping
of the area has been done. A field check of the area was
conducted in August 1981.

Geologic Setting

This WSA lies on the west flank of an overturned anti¬
cline that stretches the length of the Snowcrest Range.
Sediments of Paleozoic through Cretaceous age have
been involved in the anticline. Precambrian granite
gneiss occurs on the upper thrust plate along the west

Geology and Minerals

side of the range (see the Regional Geology map and
the General Geology map for the East Fork WSA).

Rock Units

Rocks varying in age from Precambrian through Ter¬
tiary are present in the WSA.

Geologic Structure

The structural pattern in the WSA trends southwest-
northeast. Throughout the region earlier structures
have been modified and obscured by late Cenozoic
block faulting.

The Snowcrest Range represents the east limb of a long
anticline. Along much of its length it has been over¬
turned and overthrust from the west. The major structur¬
al features were formed during the Laramide Orogeny.
The Snowcrest Range was probably uplifted during the
late Tertiary. Block faulting along range fronts may
have contributed to the present topography. Recent
evidence from seismic exploration seems to indicate
that the characteristic overthrusting has taken place
over pre-existing structures that are Paleozoic or Lara¬
mide in age. These downdropped blocks, or “pull
apart” structures, are perpendicular to the general
structural grain present now.

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. The Precambrian gneisses and
granite gneisses of the Snowcrest Range are not highly
mineralized, and there are no known mineral occurren¬
ces in the gneiss within the unit’s boundaries. None of
the sedimentary units except the Permian Phosphoria
Formation are noted for containing anomalous metal
values.

The Phosphoria Formation, which cuts across the
southeast corner of this WSA, contains both uranium
and vanadium. The potential for recovery of these min¬
erals is discussed in the “Blacktail Mountains WSA”
section.

Gypsum is known to be present in Section 5, T12S,
R5W. There apparently has been no recent activity, and
available information indicates that potential is limited.

Leasable Minerals. Little interest has been expressed
in oil and gas in the Snowcrest Range specifically. The
range contains both source and reservoir rocks, as do
many of the other ranges in southwestern Montana.

Coal is present in some formations within the Tertiary,
but it is generally thin and of poor quality.

The Phosphoria Formation cuts across the southeast
corner of the WSA. Some members of this formation
are known to contain distillable hydrocarbons. No oil
shale values are available for the Phosphoria Formation
in the Snowcrest Range. Values from the same forma¬
tion in the Small Horn Canyon area in southwest Mon¬
tana range from 1 5 to 20 gallons per ton, but oil shale

production probably will remain uneconomical far into
the future.

No analyses of the phosphate in this area are available.
The phosphate in the WSA is not amenable to strip
mining because of the steep dips, so any development
would need to be underground.

No interest has been expressed in the development of
phosphate resources in the Snowcrest Range. Many
other phosphate deposits in southwestern Montana are
more amenable to development than the deposits in
the Snowcrest Range.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

No mining claims have been recorded in the WSA or
the surrounding area, and there are no leases for phos¬
phate or oil shale. The entire WSA is under oil and gas
leases or lease applications (see the East Fork Mining
Claims and Mineral Leases map). The Dillon MFP
recommends no surface occupancy on mineral leases
for virtually the entire WSA.

Mineral Resource Potential

As in the WSAs already discussed, no specific informa¬
tion is available on the oil and gas potential of the WSA.
Recent geophysical work suggests there may be targets
in pre-existing structures below thrust planes northwest
of the WSA. Available information suggests that oil and
gas potential may decline near the crest of the Snow¬
crest Range.

The unit contains potential resources of phosphate and
oil shale, and it may have potential for carbon dioxide
and silica. Its potential for metalliferous deposits is
limited, as is the potential for industrial minerals. On the
basis of currently available information, the overall
mineral potential of this WSA is rated as low.

Livestock Grazing

The WSA contains all of one AMP allotment and no
custodial allotments. The total land not leased for graz¬
ing is 191 acres.

The Robb Creek Allotment (0167) contains 6,039
acres, all of which lie inside WSA boundaries. There are
467 ACIMs in the allotment, which is divided into two
pastures on opposite sides of the East Fork of Blacktail
Deer Creek. Cattle use the pastures on an alternate rest
grazing system— one pasture rests while the other is
grazed in alternate years. Allotments on Forest Service
land adjacent to each pasture are used the same way as
the BLM land. The Mountain Foothills EIS projects that
the number of AGMs for this allotment in 2010 will
remain the same.

There are two spring developments proposed for this
allotment and a total of about 2 miles of fence along the
creek divides the two pastures. Motorized equipment
may be needed for the construction of the spring

developments and on an occasional basis thereafter for
major maintenance and reconstruction of the fence
and spring developments. No further range improve¬
ments are proposed for this allotment.

The importance of this allotment is its use for cattle
grazing each August by members of the Robb Creek
Grazing Association. A rider is kept with the cattle when
they are on this summer range to prevent trespass.

Timber Management

The East Fork WSA contains approximately 2,554
acres of forestland. Of this, 920 acres (36%) are on
slopes of more than 70%. The acreage on slopes suit¬
able for cable yarding is 1,481 (58%); 153 acres (6%)
are on slopes suitable for tractor logging.

This area, which adjoins the Blacktail Game Range, is
important range for elk. For this reason, timber cutting
is restricted under the current Dillon MFP.

Timber values for all EAUs in the WSA are evaluated in
Table 9. Appendix C describes the assumptions used in
the BLM economic analysis.

TABLE 9

PRESENT NET WORTH OF TIMBER:

EAST FORK OF BLACKTAIL DEER CREEK WSA

Economic Analysis Unit
(EACI)

Present timber acreage1

772

457

Miles of road

13.0

4.4

At 4% discount rate

Present value of timber

$88,679

$27,993

Road costs

570,178

31,869

Present net worth

-$481,499

-$3,876

At 7-3/8% discount rate

Present value of timber

$24,779

-$178

Road costs

614,086

9,399

Present net worth

-$589,307

-$9,577

i After timber production capability class (TPCC)
reductions (see Appendix C).

HIDDEN PASTURE CREEK WSA
(MT-076-022)

The 15,509-acre Hidden Pasture Creek WSA is in the
southern T endoy Mountains about 40 air miles south of
Dillon, Montana. It forms a partial “G” shape around
contiguous land of the Beaverhead National Forest.
There is a state-owned inholding in Section 16, T13S,
R10W.

The south and west boundaries of the unit are formed
mostly by roads, with some formed, like the entire
eastern boundary, by the border between public and
nonpublic lands. The boundary on the north and the
inside of the “G” is the border between BLM-
administered land and Beaverhead National Forest.

Most of the WSA is open sagebrush and grassland, with
some small patches of timber and mountain shrubs.

More than 40 minor drainages, most of which are sea¬
sonally dry, radiate in all directions from the center of
the unit. Hidden Pasture Creek, which flows south and
southeast through the unit for about 3 miles, is the only
major drainage.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. The Hidden Pasture unit contains more
than 2 1 miles of vehicle ways, about 1 7 miles of fences,
and 1 1 spring developments, which are near the heads
of shallow drainages.

Sagebrush spraying was done on approximately 9,500
acres in the northern part of the unit in the early 1960s.
At about the same time, contour furrowing was done in
nine separate areas, a total of 722 acres. The effects of
these activities are no longer readily apparent.

Two vehicle ways, two spring developments, and some
of the fencing in the unit were judged to have a low to
moderate impact on naturalness. The other con¬
structed features were judged to have a low impact.
Although the number of impacts is relatively high in this
WSA, their locations and spatial distribution help to
mitigate the cumulative impact on the apparent natu¬
ralness of the whole unit. Table 10 details the impacts
on naturalness, and their locations are shown on the
Hidden Pasture Developments and Allotments map.

Outstanding Opportunities. The core-to-perimeter
distance of this unit is approximately 1 .5 miles. Cross¬
country travel is not difficult because most of the drain-

TABLE 10

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS

HIDDEN PASTURE CREEK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-022)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

Vehicle Way 1

T12S, R10W, Sec. 30

Extreme northwest corner
of unit

1 .0 mile

Low

Two-wheel track leads uphill.

Vehicle Way II

T12S, R10W, Secs. 31,

32; T13S, R10W, Secs.
5,6

Cuts across the northwest
comer of the unit

3.5 miles

Low

Two-wheel tracks lead to a high ridge and along the
ridge.

Vehicle Way III

T12S, R10W, Sec. 32

Northwest part of the unit

Less than

0.5 mile

Low

Two-wheel track is a spur of Vehicle Way II, which runs
along the ridge.

Vehicle Way IV

T13S, R10W, Secs. 8,9

Cuts across north central
part of unit

1.5 miles

Low

Mostly two-wheel track, but constructed in some places.

Vehicle Way V

T13S, R10W, Secs. 17,
20,21,28, and 29

Runs down through west
central part of unit

3.0 miles

Low to
moderate

Once constructed but not maintained and is not used
much. Visible from several high points.

Vehicle Way VI

T13S, R10W, Secs. 15,
21,22, and 28

Runs through central part
of unit

4.0 miles

Low to
moderate

Constructed in places; two-wheel track in others. Visible
from several high points.

Vehicle Way VII

T13S, R10W, Secs. 22,

26, and 27

Runs through south central
part of unit

1.5 miles

Low

Two-wheel track primarily in drainage bottom.

Vehicle Way VIII

T13S, R10W, Sec. 27

South central part of unit

Less than

0.5 mile

Low

Two-wheel track; spur of Vehicle Way VII. Runs up to
high point.

Vehicle Way IX

T13S, R10W, Sec. 26

South central part of unit

Less than

0.5 mile

Low

Faint tracks lead up Hidden Pasture Creek. Spur of
Vehicle Way VII.

Vehicle Way X

T13S, R10W, Sec. 15

Near boundary in north
central part of unit

0.25 mile

Low

Old vehicle way has washed out near boundary.

Vehicle Way XI

T13S, R10W, Secs. 17,

West edge of unit

1.0 mile

Low

Some past construction; little maintenance or use.

Vehicle Way XII

T13S, R10W, Secs. 33,

Southwest part of unit

1 .5 miles

Low

Two-wheel track.

Vehicle Way XIII

T13S, R10W, Secs. 33,

Southwest part of unit

1.5 miles

Low

Two-wheel track.

Vehicle Way XIV

T13S, R9W, Secs. 19
and 20

Southeast edge of unit

1.5 miles

Low

Makes short loop through southeast corner of unit.

Fences

T12S, R10W, Secs. 30,

31 ; T13S, R10W, Secs.

5, 6, 8, 17, 20,21,28,

29, 32, 33, 34, 35; TBS,
R9W, Secs. 7, 18, 19,
and 30

Throughout most of the
unit

17 miles

Moderate

Approximately 1 0 miles of fence are within 0.25 mile of
boundary; the rest are 1 to 2 miles inside. Most is on
west side. Both wood and steel posts.

Spring development

TBS, R 10W, Sec. 31

Northwest corner of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Unmaintained; two water troughs.

Spring development

TBS, R 10W, Sec. 22

Central part of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low to
moderate

Development is in a basin — 1 ,000-gallon tank plus
several troughs.

Spring development

TBS, R 10W, Sec. 28

Central part of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Recently fenced; in steep gully.

Spring development

TBS, R9W, Sec. 19

East edge of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Single trough with associated pipeline is in broad basin.

Six spring developments

TBS, R10W, Secs. 15,

17, 20, 21, and 32

All within 1 mile of
boundary

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

One development has 1 ,000-gallon tank.

Prospect pit

TBS, R 10W, Sec. 26

In Hidden Pasture Creek
drainage, central part of
unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Consists of three trenches, each 1 0 feet x 30 feet x 3
feet.

Old cabin

TBS, R 10W, Sec. 26

In Hidden Pasture Creek
drainage, central part of
unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Cabin is partially decayed.

Sagebrush spraying

North half of unit

9,480 acres

Low

Spraying was done in 1966. Results are not very
noticeable now.

Contour furrowing

TBS, R10W, Secs. 17,

West central part of unit

722 acres

Low

This 1962 furrowing is no longer very noticeable.

20,21,28, and 29

ages are relatively shallow. It is possible to travel up the
drainages and along the open ridges. There is no year-
round water source or other attraction that would tend
to cause people to congregate in a certain area, so use
is likely to be dispersed over the whole area.

Terrain is rolling and moderately well-dissected in
about 80% of the unit, well-dissected in 15% and rela¬
tively undissected in 5%.

There is little vegetative screening in the 80% of the area
that is open sagebrush and grassland. Vegetative
screening is greater in the forested and shrub areas,
about 20% of the WSA, in the southeastern part of the
unit.

Much of the unit slopes toward nonwilderness lands.
Off-unit vistas are primarily undeveloped private, state,
and federal lands; occasionally there are views of irri¬
gated ranch lands. These views have only an insignifi¬
cant effect on the opportunities for solitude.

The intensive inventory found that the WSA did not
have outstanding opportunities for primitive types of
recreation; however, the unit is well suited to cross¬
country hiking, deer, elk, and antelope hunting, and
horseback riding. Most use would probably be for short

visits only because of the area’s size and lack of surface
water. The terrain does not make cross-country travel
particularly challenging. Overall, although the area pro¬
vides opportunities for some types of primitive recrea¬
tion, neither the diversity of opportunities nor the quality
of any one opportunity is outstanding.

Special Features. This WSA provides yearlong mule
deer habitat and good antelope habitat. There is good
spring-summer-fall range for a small elk population,
and reintroduction of bighorn sheep is planned. Cultu¬
ral resource values are considered high.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. Although this WSA
meets the minimum criteria of size, naturalness, and
outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive
recreation as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964, the
overall quality of these characteristics is rather low. The
unit’s configuration and small core-to-perimeter dis¬
tance also detract from its wilderness quality. Its special
features, i.e., its value as a location for the reintroduc¬
tion of bighorn sheep, are its most outstanding charac¬
teristics.

General view of south end of unit.

Ecosystem Representation

The WSA contains three basic ecosystems. The major
ecosystem is the sagebrush steppe community, which
dominates most of the western half of the unit. The
foothills prairie ecosystem is interspersed with the
sagebrush steppe. Small patches of the Douglas-fir
forest ecosystem are found in the southeast and
extreme northwest parts of the unit. See Appendix E
and the Hidden Pasture Ecotypes map.

Manageability

The roads that form most of the south and west bound¬
aries of the unit are easily identifiable on the ground.
The other boundaries, borders between BLM-
administered land and nonpublic or national forest
lands, do not correspond to any vegetative or topo¬
graphic features that are easily identifiable. There are
few barriers to impede vehicles from entering the unit
from the bordering roads or other places, and the short
core-to-perimeter distance and the unit’s overall con¬
figuration would cause problems in managing this unit
as a wilderness.

The entire study area is leased for oil and gas, all of it
under leases issued before the passage of FLPMA.
Leases issued before FLPMA do not have a wilderness
stipulation attached; they could be developed even if
the development would impair wilderness characteris¬
tics.

Problems could arise in management of this unit as a
wilderness because of the “grandfathered” right to use
motor vehicles to maintain the fairly large number of
existing range improvements.

There are no recorded mining claims in this WSA.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. Most of the vehicle
ways in the unit are two-wheel tracks that would revege¬
tate to the point of being almost completely unnotice-
able in only a short time if traffic on them was restricted.
Vehicle ways IV, V, and VI, on which some construction

has been done, would need longer to disappear.

Some boundary adjustments could be made to elimi¬
nate some human imprints near the present boundar¬
ies, including about 10 miles offence and three spring
developments.

Improving Manageability. The only possible land
tenure adjustment that could improve the manageabil¬
ity of this unit would be acquisition of state Section 1 6,
T13S, R10W, which is essentially an inholding. If the
BLM acquired this section it would add one of the major
high points in the area to the WSA and eliminate the
problems associated with an inholding.

The only real opportunity for using physiographic
boundaries is in the southeast part of the unit, where a
shallow drainage could be followed in Section 30,

T13S, R9W. This would eliminate the entire narrow
eastern leg of the “U,” which would be difficult to man¬
age.

Recreation

Recreation opportunities available in the unit are hiking,
sightseeing, photography, and big game hunting. The
quality of deer and elk hunting is considered above
average; the quality of opportunities for other forms of
recreation is considered average. No visitation figures
are available for this unit, but recreation use is relatively
light except during the fall hunting season, and involves
the use of motorized vehicles.

Current vehicle restrictions under the Dillon ORV plan
limit vehicle travel within the unit to four existing interior
routes. T ravel on these routes is permitted from May 1 6
to November 30. All vehicle travel is prohibited from
December 1 to May 1 5.

A part of Section 36, T13S, R10W, which is inside the
WSA, is withdrawn for a BLM recreation site, but there is
no current proposal for construction of such a facility.

Wildlife

A small elk population inhabits the WSA, and it is
considered good spring-summer-fall range for elk.
Crucial elk winter range is also found in the WSA.

Yearlong mule deer habitat is found in this WSA, with
the winter range found in the eastern and southern
parts.

Pronghorn antelope are found primarily on the sage¬
brush/grassland ridges and lower foothills of the unit.

No bighorn sheep currently inhabit the unit; however, a
reintroduction of bighorn sheep is planned.

A sage grouse strutting ground (breeding-nesting
complex) has been identified in the western portion of
the unit.

Geology and Minerals

Mineral resources of the general area of the Hidden
Pasture Creek WSA were studied by Geach (Mont. Bur.
Mines & Geol. 1972). A reconnaissance study of the
area is described in a 1955 article (Robert Scholten, K.
A. Keenmon, and W. O. Kupsch, “Geology of the Lima
Region, Southwestern Montana and Adjacent Idaho,”
Geological Society of America Bulletin 66
[ 1 955], pp. 345-404). This article will be cited hereafter
as “Geology SW Mont.”

Geologic Setting

The Tendoy Mountains, in which this unit lies, flank the
west side of the north-trending Lima Valley, from which
the front rises abruptly and regularly and has character-

istics of a fault scarp (Mont. Bur. Mines & Geol. 1972).
Movements beginning in the Pliocene or earlier may
have caused displacement of as much as 3,000 feet
along the fault (Pardee 1950). The mountains are of
late Paleozoic rocks, metamorphic rocks, and some
Mesozoic strata. See the Geologic Sketch of the South¬
ern Tendoy Mountains.

Rock Units

Rocks varying in age from Paleozoic through Tertiary
are present in this WSA. The unit contains no meta¬
morphic or igneous rocks.

Geologic Structure

According to “Geology SW Mont.,” the most prominent
Laramide structural elements consist of northeast¬
trending folds, northwest to north-trending folds,
northwest-trending low angle thrusts, and northwest¬
trending high angle thrusts.

A prominent structural feature near Hidden Pasture and
Little Water creeks is a sharply folded syncline called
the Little Water. Its axis pitches steeply southwest. The
principal fault, a low angle thrust, is called the Medicine
Lodge Overthrust. The thrust trace winds irregularly
through the Tendoy Range in the area of Little Sheep
Creek and Big Sheep Creek.

The high-angle Tendoy Thrust is in the southeastern
part of the WSA. Muddy Creek basin, near the western
boundary of the unit, is a structural graben bounded on
the east and the west by normal faults.

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. There are no known occurren¬
ces of locatable minerals in the WSA. Concentrations of
gypsum occur in several locations southeast of the unit,
in the shaley and limey beds of the carboniferous Big
Snowy Formation. The formation extends into the
southeast corner of the unit, but no discoveries of gyp¬
sum in this area are known.

Beds of bentonite are intercalated in the Tertiary Medi¬
cine Lodge beds formation. “Geology SW Mont.” says
they are of sufficient purity to be of industrial value only
locally. In almost all occurrences, inaccessibility would
make the cost of transportation prohibitive for com¬
mercial extraction.

Leasable Minerals. Source bed and reservoir rocks
are present in the WSA, so the possibility of oil and gas
production cannot be ruled out; however, this structu¬
rally complex area is far from production areas. T wo dry
oil and gas wells have been drilled just outside the unit
on private land in Section 29, T13S, R10W.

Thin coal beds are intercalated in Tertiary basin beds in
several places in the WSA, but none of them have been
mined. This lignite generally has a high ash content and
is of little value.

Information on oil shale deposits in this unit is limited,
but deposits here are apparently much thinner and
lower in grade than those in Wyoming, Gtah, and Colo¬
rado. Some members of the Permian Phosphoria For¬
mation are known to contain distillable hydrocarbons.

Phosphate is disseminated in two shaley units near Dell,
Montana, which are reported to contain less than 32%
p2°5- Most of the deposits in this area are of low
quality, with some fairly thin high-quality layers; how¬
ever, some deposits such as those in the northeastern
part of T14S, R10W, may be amenable to strip mining.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

No unpatented mining claims have been recorded and
there are no leases for phosphate.

There are ten existing oil and gas leases for this area
(see the Hidden Pasture Mining Claims and Mineral
Leases map). These leases were issued before the pas¬
sage of FLPMA, so they do not carry the wilderness
protection stipulation.

Mineral Resource Potential

The unit’s potential for metalliferous deposits is limited.
There may be potential for gypsum, since there have
been reports of this mineral near the WSA. There also
may be potential for building stone.

Interest shown by industry seems to indicate that the
WSA has good potential for oil and gas. There is also
potential for phosphate, but deposits in the Tendoy
Range probably will remain uneconomical well into the
future, while existing deposits in Idaho continue to
supply the bulk of the western production.

Oil shale deposits in the unit apparently are thinner and
lower grade than those in other states, so prospecting
and development seem unlikely. Coal in the WSA is in
narrow seams and of unfavorable quality; operating
coal mines in eastern Montana offer large-scale opera¬
tions and higher quality coal.

Livestock Grazing

Parts of two AMP allotments, one allotment for which an
AMP is proposed, and one custodial allotment are
within the borders of the Hidden Pasture WSA. Total
land not leased for grazing is 370 acres.

AMP and Proposed AMP Allotments

The Muddy Creek Allotment (0039) covers 14,305
acres. Approximately 9,880 acres (69%) are inside
WSA boundaries. The total of AGMs is 1 ,649; 1 ,548 are
within the WSA. Cattle graze from mid-June through
early November on a four-pasture rest-rotation system.
The projected number of AGMs for 2010 is 1,698,
according to the Mountain Foothills EIS.

Approximately 7.5 miles of fence are inside the WSA.
Most of the part of this allotment that is within the WSA
has been sprayed at some time in the past, and contour
furrowing has been done on about 400 acres. It may be
necessary for motorized equipment to enter the area
periodically to maintain the fence.

Mo further improvements are proposed for the part of
the allotment that is inside the WSA.

The Dixon Mountain Allotment (0022) contains 2,004
acres, with 1 ,242 acres (62%) inside the boundaries of
the WSA. The ACJMs total 291 ; 228 of these are within
the WSA. Cattle use the allotment for one month in the
spring and one month in the fall. The grazing system is
a three-treatment rest-rotation on four pastures (two
pastures receive the same treatment). The Mountain
Foothills E1S projects that this allotment will have 301
ACJMs in 2010.

There are about 1 .5 miles of fence inside the WSA;
another mile of fence forms part of the WSA boundary.
There are two spring developments and about 0.5 mile
of pipeline. It may be necessary that motorized equip¬
ment enter the area periodically for major maintenance
and reconstruction of these improvements.

Mo further range improvements are planned for this
allotment.

The Nicholia Allotment (0699) has a proposed AMP. It
contains 9,617 acres; 3,785 acres (39%) are within the
WSA boundaries. Cattle use this allotment during May
and June on a rest-rotation system for a total of 1 ,454
ACIMs. Of these, 375 are within the WSA. The number
of ACJMs projected by the Mountain Foothills EIS for
2010 is 1,701.

There are no range improvements within the WSA now.
Developments proposed are two spring developments,
one reservoir, and 1 .5 miles of pipeline with four asso¬
ciated water troughs. It may be necessary to enter the
area with motorized equipment to build and maintain
these facilities, which are needed for implementation of
the AMP.

Custodial Allotments

One custodial allotment, Hildreth 1-A (0602), is within
this WSA. It has 200 acres, all of which are in the WSA.
The number of ACIMs is 32. It is grazed by cattle from
June 1 to June 15 and from Movember 15 to
December 31.

Timber Management

The WSA contains 1 ,048 acres of forestland. Of this,
346 acres (33%) are slopes of more than 70%. The
acreage on slopes suitable for cable yarding is 524
(50%); 178 acres (17%) are on slopes suitable for tractor
logging.

Timber stands in this WSA are steep, scattered, and
isolated from one another by steep, rugged terrain.
Regardless of whether this area was designated wilder¬
ness or not, it would not be logged; therefore, it should
not be considered part of the harvestable base. Mo
further evaluation is planned.

BELL AND LIMEKILN CANYONS
WSA (MT-076-026)

The Bell-Limekiln WSA lies at the north end of the
Tendoy Mountains, 2 miles southwest of Clark Canyon
Reservoir. The unit, which is shaped somewhat like a
mirror-image “L,” contains 9,650 acres of public land.
There is a 160-acre inholding of private land in Bell
Canyon in Sections 14 and 23, T1 1 S, R1 1 W. The unit’s
boundaries are almost entirely on legal subdivisions
between BLM and private, state, or national forest lands,
or with other BLM lands. On the southwest, the John¬
son Gulch-Deer Canyon road forms the boundary.

The area is a mosaic of grass, sagebrush, and forested
ridges, canyons, and slopes. The steep, rugged Bell and
Limekiln canyons dominate the topography of the east
side of the unit. The southwestern part of the unit is
dominated to a lesser degree by forks of Deer Canyon
and Johnson Gulch. All drainages are seasonally dry
except some springs in Bell Canyon and Limekiln
Canyon.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. Mearly 14 miles of vehicle ways and
more than 4 miles of fence are distributed throughout
this WSA. Vehicle ways III and V and much of the
fencing are relatively noticeable because of the open
slopes in the area, but the dissected topography and
forest cover in the canyons provide adequate screening
from most impacts in these areas. Impacts from graz¬
ing are evident in the bottoms.

Although the imprints are relatively light and well-
distributed, a visitor cannot travel for any great distance
without contacting some sign of human influence. The
cumulative effect is a reduction of the quality of the
area’s naturalness, which is rated low to moderate.
Table 1 1 details the impacts on naturalness. Also see
the Bell-Limekiln Developments and Allotments map.

TABLE 1 1

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS
BELL-LIMEKILN WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-026)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

Vehicle Way 1

T11S, R11W, Secs. 1,2

Northern edge of unit,
north of Limekiln

Canyon

1 .0 mile

Low

Two-wheel track on open ridge.

Vehicle Way II and spur

T11S, R11W, Secs. 1,2

Bottom of Limekiln

Canyon and northern
spur

2.0 miles

Low

Two-wheel track in stream bottom and on open slope.
Some evidence of timber cutting in drainage bottom.

Vehicle Way III and spurs

T11S, R11W, Secs. 10,

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22

"Ridge road" on ridge
between Bell Canyon
and Limekiln Canyon,
west of Bell Canyon.

Three spurs included.

5.0 miles

Moderate

Partial construction in one 1 /4-mile section. Fairly
visible on open slopes and ridges.

Vehicle Way IV

T11S, R11W, Sec. 24

Bell Canyon and one
short spur leading south

1.25 miles

Low

Two-wheel track up creek bottom. Partially revegetated.

Vehicle Way V

T11S, R11W, Sec. 23

Ridge above Bell Canyon
inholding in south
central part of unit

,0.25 mile

Low to
moderate

Two-wheel tracks are unusually visible from high points
to north.

Vehicle Way VI

T11S, R11W, Secs. 28,

North fork of Deer

Canyon in southwest
part of unit

0.5 mile

Low

Two-wheel track.

Vehicle Way VII

T11S, R11W, Secs. 20,

Just off Johnson Gulch
road in southwest part of
unit

0.25 mile

Low

Two-wheel tracks leading to high point.

Vehicle Way Vlll

T11S, R11W, Sec. 20

In tributary of Johnson
Gulch, southwest part of
unit

0.25 mile

Low

Two-wheel track.

Vehicle Way IX

T11S, R11W, Sec. 20

Johnson Gulch

0.25 mile

Low

Two-wheel track leads up drainage.

Vehicle Way X

T11S, R11W, Sec. 3

Ridge west and north of
upper Limekiln

1.0 mile

Low

Leads short distance into unit, near boundary. Possibly
receives fairly substantial use.

Fence #1

T10S, R11W, Sec. 35;
T11S, R11W, Sec. 3

From northern boundary
to upper Limekiln

Canyon

2.0 miles

Low to
moderate

Visible along open slope except for unnoticeable section
through timber.

Fence #2

T11S, R11W, Sec. 24

Gap fences across Bell
Canyon

1 .25 miles

Low

Through timber, mostly wood posts.

Fence #3

T11S, R11W, Secs. 10,
11, 15

On divide between Bell
Canyon and Limekiln
Canyon

1 .0 mile

Low to
moderate

Fairly visible on high ridge.

Fence #4

T11S, R11W, Secs. 15,
21,22

On divide between Deer
Canyon then down Deer
Creek drainage

2.0 miles

Low to
moderate

Parallels Vehicle Way III for half its distance. Built under
interim management.

Water pipeline

T11S, R11W, Sec. 3

Northeast edge of unit

0.25 mile

Low

Buried pipeline on edge of unit.

Outstanding Opportunities. The configuration of
this WSA is poor. Nowhere is the unit more than 3 miles
wide, and its width narrows to 1 mile or less in three
places. Protrusions of state and private land converge in
the central portion of the unit near upper Bell Canyon
and the ridge between Bell Canyon and Limekiln
Canyon. The inholding, in parts of Sections 14 and 23,
T1 IS, R1 1W, is also near the center of the WSA.

The core-to-perimeter distance of the WSA is less than
1 mile, but rugged topography makes the actual travel
distance somewhat greater. Most of the unit, about
80%, is rugged and well dissected. The terrain in the rest
of the unit is rolling. Relief varies from 8,575 feet on the
main Tendoy ridge west of Bell Canyon to about 6,040
feet in lower Limekiln Canyon.

Canyon walls vary in relief from about 300 feet in the
North Fork of Deer Canyon to about 700 feet in Bell
Canyon. The large number of smaller tributary drain¬
ages adds to the excellent topographic screening.

The potential for dispersion of visitors is limited by the
irregular, narrow configuration. The unit’s irregular
shape means that some natural topographic routes of
travel between points in the unit are outside the WSA.
Examples are the routes between upper Limekiln and
upper Bell canyons and between upper Deer Canyon-
Johnson Gulch and upper Bell.

The WSA encompasses only about 3 miles of each of
the two major canyons. This distance is not great
enough, given the relatively small size of the unit, to

provide exceptional dispersion potential. A positive
influence on dispersion potential is the relative mobility
of visitors inside the unit— there are few inaccessible
points in the WSA.

Vegetative screening within the canyons is excellent.
Douglas-fir and tall shrub cover in the canyons (chiefly
sagebrush and mountain mahogany) provides for vis¬
itor seclusion. However, ridges and south slopes are
generally open, and visibility is typically great from ridge
to ridge across the deep drainages.

From the higher open ridges of the unit there are
distant views of undeveloped private and public lands
outside the WSA in the Medicine Lodge Valley, in the
Tendoy Range, and in the Red Rock-Clark Canyon area.
However, these views are so distant that they have no
significant effect on solitude.

Backcountry travel and sightseeing in varied scenery,
rock climbing or scrambling, skiing, and snowshoeing
are among the recreational opportunities offered by
this unit. Excellent mule deer hunting and good elk
hunting also are available. Open slopes and deep
drainages that could hold snow over the winter contrib¬
ute to significant winter opportunities with favorable
snow conditions.

Primitive recreation opportunities are excellent for the
unit’s size; however, its small to moderate size and poor
configuration limit its carrying capacity. It is expected
that most visitors would stay only for a day or overnight.

Special Features. Excellent, undisturbed yearlong
mule deer habitat is a significant special feature of the
Bell-Limekiln WSA.

“Wedding Ring Rock,” also called “Limekiln Arch,” is a
feature of geological and historical interest. Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks of four formations provide other
erosional features of interest, such as cliffs, ledges,
peaks, talus slopes, caves, and free-standing rock walls.
These features, along with the rugged canyons and the
mosaic of timbered and open slopes, contribute to high
quality scenery.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. Opportunities for
solitude and primitive recreation are relatively good in
this unit, given its size and configuration. The rugged
drainages and varied terrain, wildlife values, and geo¬
logical and scenic features also contribute to the area s
wilderness quality. However, naturalness is low to mod¬
erate, and the unit’s irregular configuration detracts
from overall wilderness quality by limiting routes of
travel and restricting the opportunity to find a secluded
spot away from other visitors.

Ecosystem Representation

Ecosystems in this WSA are Douglas-fir forest, sage¬
brush steppe, and foothills prairie. See Appendix E and
the Bell-Limekiln Ecotypes map.

Manageability

Except for the southwestern boundary, which is formed
by the Johnson Gulch-Deer Canyon road, the bound¬
aries of this unit are along legal subdivisions. Protru¬
sions of non-BLM land on three sides, near the inhold¬
ing, give this WSA a poor configuration, which
increases management problems.

A large number of vehicle access routes and potential
routes affect the WSA. Multiple routes lead to the
higher, open ridges, where vehicle control would be
difficult. Control of access to the canyons would be
relatively easy.

Another problem of manageability is caused by the
inholding. There is an existing application for vehicle
access to remove timber in this land. There are mining
claims in the vicinity of upper Bell Canyon, but there are
no claims in the WSA on which a valid discovery has
been made.

The entire unit is leased for oil and gas. Leases for the
northern and central parts of the unit, including both
Limekiln and Bell canyons, were issued before FLPMA,
so they do not have wilderness protection stipulations.
There is a current application for a permit to drill on one
of the pre-FLPMA leases. The access road proposed for
this area would run through the WSA for about 5 miles,
most of it just upslope from the bordering Johnson
Gulch-Deer Canyon road.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. Parts of vehicle ways 11
and XI, about one-third of the vehicle way mileage in the
unit, would require a substantial amount of time to
revegetate. Most of the rest of the vehicle ways would
revegetate to the point of being essentially unnoticeable
in a relatively short time if traffic was restricted.

Improving Manageability. BLM acquisition of the
inholding in Bell Canyon would improve manageability.
A topographic boundary could be drawn on the north
to eliminate some of the off-unit views, but these are not
considered significant external influences that would
require an adjustment.

Recreation

The quality of recreation opportunities in Bell and
Limekiln Canyons WSA ranges from average to above
average. The unit offers opportunities for hiking, sight¬
seeing, photography, and big game hunting. Current
hunting activity generally involves motorized use of
vehicle ways in the WSA. No estimates of visitation are
available for this area, but use is relatively light except
during the big game hunting season.

Rough terrain limits motorized recreation opportuni¬
ties, but there are several feasible routes up some of the
drainages and on the ridges.

Wildlife

A population of 50 to 60 elk uses the Bell-Limekiln WSA
as part of its yearlong habitat. Small subpopulation
herd units like this one are widely distributed through¬
out the Tendoys. Where livestock grazing is regulated
and forage is left for elk, habitat is good. There is
potential for additional use by elk.

The primary big game species in this unit, mule deer
are found throughout the WSA. Year-round deer habitat
is excellent. Deer Canyon is an important deer winter
range.

Blue grouse are commonly found in the forested areas
of the WSA. Ruffed grouse occur primarily in the aspen
stands and in riparian areas adjacent to Douglas-fir
habitats.

Geology and Minerals

The mineral resources of the general area of the Bell-
Limekiln unit were studied by the Geological Survey
(USDI, GS 1953) and by Geach (Montana Bur. Mines
and Geol. 1972). A reconnaissance study of the area
done in 1955 was reported in an article by Scholten,
Keenmon, and Kupsch (1955), cited herein as “Geol¬
ogy SW Mont.”

Geologic Setting

The WSA is in the northern part of the T endoy Range, a
north to south trending range. Pardee (1950, p. 377)
estimates that displacement along the range front fault
may be as great as 3,000 feet. He says that it may have
resulted from movements that began in the Pliocene or
earlier and that the mountains are of late Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks, metamorphic rocks, and some
Mesozoic strata.

Rock Units

Rock units from Precambrian through Mesozoic are
present in this WSA.

Geologic Structure

Like the other WSAs discussed in this report, this unit
lies in the Overthrust Belt. A low-angle thrust fault, the
Limekiln Thrust, is within the WSA. It may be a branch
of the Medicine Lodge fault to the south. Displacement
along its course is to the northeast. The Geologic
Sketch of the Northern Tendoy Mountains shows the
complex structure of the area.

The straight, steep slopes and parallel northwest trends
of the Tendoy Range are the results of major post-
Laramide block faults.

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. Radioactive minerals have been
reported in the southwestern portion of the WSA and
just outside the southern and western boundaries
(GSDI, GS 1953). Mineralization occurs in pegmatite
dikes. Radioactivity is caused by thorium and minor
amounts of uranium. Some rare earths are present in
some of the prospects.

The Grey Goose claims are located in sections 21 and
22, T1 IS, R1 1W, within the WSA. Samples from these
claims contained about 0.1% thoria and .002% ura¬
nium.

Several lime kilns were once in operation in Limekiln
Canyon, but they were abandoned many years ago.

Leasable Materials. The following information was
taken from the 1 974 GS report on the mineral potential
for the Tendoy Mountains.

Lignite beds up to 5 feet thick in Section 35, T11S,
R12W, have been mined on a small scale in the past.
This lignite-bearing formation is present beneath much
of the Tendoy area; however, the lignite generally has a
high ash content and is considered to be of little value.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

Three unpatented mining claims have been recorded
with the BLM within or just outside of this WSA.

There are six oil and gas leases in this area (see the
Bell-Limekiln Mining Claims and Mineral Leases map).
Four were issued before the passage of FLPMA, so they

do not carry the wilderness protection stipulation. The
other two do.

Conoco Inc. has an application for a permit to drill in the
SW1/4NW1/4 of Section 23, T11S, R11W and also
plans another wildcat well just outside the unit.

Mineral Resource Potential

Good potential for oil and gas in this WSA is indicated
by GS reports and by the fact that both source and
reservoir rocks are found in the unit. Conoco’ s interest
in drilling a well in the unit also may indicate good
potential for oil and gas.

The unit has limited potential for coal. There also may
be potential for uranium and thorium, since there are
occurrences of these minerals in the WSA; however,
development is uneconomical at this time. There may
be potential for lime and silica, since the rocks are
exposed in the WSA. A sampling program would be
needed to determine the feasibility of development.

Livestock Grazing

The Bell-Limekiln WSA has parts of five allotments
within its boundaries. AMPs are proposed for all of
these allotments. All of the WSA is leased for grazing.

The Radio-TV Allotment (0149) contains 1 ,832 acres;
440 acres (24%) are inside the WSA boundaries. Cattle
graze here from mid-August to mid-November for a
total of 388 AGMs, 1 53 of which are within the WSA.
Projected AGMs in 201 0 is 423. The proposed grazing
system is deferred rotation. A fence approximately 1 .5
miles long separates this allotment from the Roe Ranch
Allotment. There is also about 0.75 mile of pipeline in
the WSA that takes water to a location outside the
boundary. No new range improvements are proposed
under this AMP.

The Hansen East Side Allotment (0044) contains
8,048 acres. Approximately 1,180 acres (15%) are
inside WSA boundaries. The allotment is used by sheep
from April 1 to July 1 and from November 1 to February
1 , on a rest-rotation system, for a total of 1 ,201 AGMs.
Of these, 91 are within the WSA. The projection for
2010 is 1,324 AGMs under the AMP. There are no
range improvements in the part of the allotment in the
WSA, and none are proposed for that area.

The Medicine Lodge Allotment (0748) contains
1 0,646 acres; 1 ,960 acres (18%) are inside WSA bound¬
aries. Cattle use the allotment from mid-May through
October for a total of 1 ,880 AGMs on a rest-rotation
system. The projection for 2010 is 2,312 AGMs. The
number of AGMs within the WSA is 4 1 2. A prescribed
burn is proposed for improving range conditions on
about 400 acres within the WSA.

The Roe Ranch Allotment (0727) contains 8,134
acres; 2,860 acres are inside WSA boundaries. The
total number of AGMs available is 1,413; however, the

present use by cattle is 1 ,330 AGMs from July through
January on a rest-rotation system. The number of
AGMs in the WSA is 375. When the AMP is imple¬
mented, use of more than 1 ,330 AGMs will be allowed.
The number of AGMs projected under the AMP for
2010 is 1,723. Range improvements proposed within
the WSA are 1 mile of fence, 1 mile of pipeline, and one
artificial watershed.

The Bell Canyon Allotment (0193) contains 7,941
acres; 3,140 acres are within WSA boundaries. The
allotment is used by cattle from June through Sep¬
tember on a deferred and deferred rotation system. The
total number of AGMs is 1,167; projected AGMs for
20 1 0 is 1 ,295. A total of 1 56 AGMs are within the WSA.
A fence about 0.25 mile long is proposed within the
WSA.

For each of these allotments motorized equipment
may be needed for construction and occasional major
maintenance of range improvements.

Timber Management

The WSA contains approximately 1,661 acres of for¬
estland. Of this, 914 acres (55%) are on slopes suitable
for cable yarding; 747 acres (45%) are on slopes suit¬
able for tractor logging.

EAGs for this WSA are evaluated in Table 1 2. Appendix
C describes the assumptions used in the BLM timber
analysis.

TABLE 12

PRESENT NET WORTH OF TIMBER:
BELL AND LIMEKILN CANYONS WSA

Economic Analysis Gnit
(EAG)

1 2

Present timber acreage1

682

Miles of road

10.3

4.0

At 4% discount rate

Present value of timber

$43,442

$1,180

Road costs

157,456

16,474

Present net worth

-$114,014

-$15,294

At 7-3/8% discount rate

Present value of timber

$4,820

-$547

Road costs

126,324

4,798

Present net worth

-$121,504

-$5,345

’After timber production capability class (TPCC)
reductions (see Appendix C).

HENNEBERRY RIDGE WSA
(MT-076-028)

The Henneberry Ridge WSA, which contains 9,807
acres, is about 1 2 miles southwest of Dillon, Montana,
about 5 miles north of Clark Canyon Reservoir, and just
south of the historic town of Bannack. It is roughly
rectangular, about 6 miles long from northwest to
southeast, and from 1 to 4 miles wide.

More than half the unit’s boundary is formed by the
boundaries of state and private land; there are intru¬
sions of state land on the southeast and southwest.
Identifiable features— Grasshopper Creek, a power line,
vehicle ways, and fence lines— form a little less than half
the boundary.

The unit is characterized by open, well-dissected prairie
immediately south of Grasshopper Creek. Higher
ridges on the south and west are partially timbered with
Douglas-fir and limber pine.

The unit contains parts of two major drainages and
most of Madigan Gulch, which runs from south to north
through the center of the WSA. Other features, from
south to north, are ( 1 ) a part of a high, broad basin, (2) a
partially timbered limestone ridge, and (3) steep slopes
leading to a bench in the central part of the unit. A
relatively undefined ridgeline hides the bench from the
area to the north, and there is a maze of small peaks,
ridges, and drainages that lead north toward Grass¬
hopper Creek. The trend of these features is roughly
from southeast to northwest along the main axis of the
unit.

There are higher, timbered ridges and slopes in the
west end of the WSA. This part of the unit also contains
most of two major tributaries of Madigan Gulch.

Public access to this WSA is from a BLM road that
forms part of the southeastern boundary.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. The unit contains just less than 1 1 miles
of vehicle ways, short sections of gap fence, and three
developed springs. The impact on naturalness is low for
all of these except one section of vehicle way about 0.5
mile long and an associated spring development at the
southwest edge of the unit. The impact of those two
features is moderate.

Looking down from timbered ridge into the center of the unit.

All evidence of human occupation is within about 0.5
mile of the unit boundary except vehicle ways 1 and II.
These two ways, which appear to have been used to
distribute salt to livestock, are indistinguishable in many
places, so their impact is very light.

The core of the unit appears very natural; the natural¬
ness of the unit as a whole is one of its most outstanding
characteristics. Table 13 details the impacts on natu¬
ralness which are shown on the Developments and
Allotments map.

Outstanding Opportunities. A thumb of state-owned
land intrudes into the unit on the southwest, narrowing
its width to 1 mile. An irregular boundary on the south¬
east also results from state ownership. The thumb of
state land at the southwest (T8S, R11W, Sections 29
and 32) more or less isolates the part of the unit west of
Madigan Gulch, cutting off routes of travel in the gulch
and along the timbered limestone ridge at the south
end of the unit. This makes the core of the WSA rela¬
tively small, about 6,000 acres in a rectangular configu¬
ration.

The core-to-perimeter air distance is about 1 .7 miles,
but topography makes travel difficult; the actual core-to-
perimeter travel distance is greater.

Topographic relief varies from 5,500 feet to almost
7,300 feet, and there is good local relief. Terrain is
rolling in about 30% of the unit and well dissected in the
rest. There are essentially no barriers to travel.

The unit contains about 1 5% timber, 1 0% tall shrubs,
and 75% low shrubs or grassland. Screening by vegeta¬
tion is available only in the southern and western parts
of the unit.

The broken topography of most of the unit offers excel¬
lent opportunities for solitude for an area of this size,
and the potential for dispersion and mobility of visitors
is high. External influences are minimal; they consist
mainly of distant views of undeveloped lands outside
the unit, as far as Timber Ridge on the south, and as far
as two miles north of Grasshopper Creek on the north
where a high ridge blocks further visibility. None of
these views has a significant impact. However, the
power line that forms a part of the eastern boundary is
visible and relatively noticeable from about 200 acres in
the extreme southeast corner of the WSA.

The major attraction for visitors probably would be the
high ridges on the south and west, where scenic values
are high. This attraction could create a relatively low
potential for a travel corridor. The relatively small size of

■

i)i

TABLE 13

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS

HENNEBERRY RIDGE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-028)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Clnit

Vehicle Way 1 and spurs

T8S, R11W, Secs. 27,

28, 34, 35;T9S, R11W,
Secs. 1 , 2, 1 2; spur in

Sec. 1 ; T8S, R10W, spur
in Sec. 31

Vehicle way on central
bench runs from
southeast edge through
central part of unit.

Vehicle Way II

T8S.R11W, Secs. 22, 27

Runs mostly up
drainage, north edge of
unit to center

Vehicle Way III and spur

T8S, R11W, Sec. 33

From south edge of unit
to limestone ridge

Vehicle Way IV (system)

T9S, R11W, Secs. 1,2, 11

In southwest corner of
unit, on ridge

Vehicle Way V

T8S, R11W, Sec. 20

Access to spring
development #2 in
southwest corner of unit

Gap fence

T9S, R11W, Secs. 11, 12

Southeast edge of unit

Spring #1

T9S, R11W, Sec. 1

Southeast part of unit, in
drainage at corner of
state section.

Spring #2

T8S.R11W, Sec. 20,
NE1/4SE1/4

Southwest edge of unit

Spring #3

T8S, R11W, Sec. 20,
SE1/4SE1/4

Southwest edge of unit

Reservoir

T8S, R11W, Sec. 34,
SW1/4SW1/4

South edge of unit

the unit, relative lack of vegetative screening, and con¬
figuration problems in the southwest are factors that
could adversely affect opportunities for solitude.

Opportunities for primitive recreation were not found to
be outstanding in the intensive inventory analysis. The
main attractions would be year-round cross-country
hiking and horseback riding, and seasonal hunting for
antelope and mule deer. Scenery from the higher
ridges is attractive, and the topographic diversity is
outstanding for an area of this size.

The unit’s size and the lack of surface water would limit
visits to short visits or brief overnight stays. T ravel in the
core of the unit, with its maze of ridges and drainages, is
moderately challenging. Opportunities are neither very
diverse nor particularly outstanding, but recreation
opportunities are generally scarce in natural-appearing
grassland types.

Special Features. The WSA provides important year-
round habitat for mule deer and good to excellent
antelope habitat. There is some elk winter range in the
WSA. Scenic values, particularly scenic erosional rem¬
nants of paleozoic sedimentary rocks, along the south¬
ern and western ridges are a moderately important
special feature.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. The chief wilder¬
ness characteristics of this unit are its natural character;

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

5.5 miles

Low

Many parts of this vehicle way are very faint.

2.0 miles

Low

Extremely faint.

0.8 mile

Low

Extremely faint.

2.0 miles

Low

Fairly well defined, but not visible from large area.

0.5 mile

Moderate

Weil-traveled route.

1 .5 miles

Very low

Sections of gap fence remain. Blends well.

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Hidden in drainage near Vehicle Way 1. Some livestock
damage near drainage.

4.0 acres

Moderate

Fairly well hidden in drainage at end of Vehicle Way V.
Heavy grazing impact.

1 .0 acre

Low

Hidden in drainage.

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Small pond hidden in drainage.

the broken topography that enhances opportunities for
solitude; its general diversity, including a natural¬
appearing block of open grassland; and the scenic view
from the ridgeline.

The relatively small size and the irregular configuration
on the west and east detract somewhat from the wilder¬
ness characteristics of the WSA.

Ecosystem Representation

Most of the WSA lies in the sagebrush steppe ecosys¬
tem. There are small amounts of the Douglas-fir forest
and foothills prairie ecotypes. See Appendix E and the
Ecotype map.

Manageability

Slightly more than half the unit’s boundaries are along
legal divisions that are not readily identifiable. There are
major ridgelines just inside the boundaries of parts of
the south and west portions of the unit that could serve
as manageable boundaries.

There are barriers that would prevent vehicle travel to
the center of the WSA except in the southwest part of
the unit and, to some extent, the south central part.
Vehicle travel is possible up the dry gulch in the north
central portion.

The configuration of the core of the unit would not
impede manageability, but the landownership pattern
along the west side makes the configuration of the unit
as a whole somewhat poor. It is also relatively poor in
the southeast and along the east side, where state-
owned Section 36, T8S, R1 1 W, protrudes into the unit,
isolating a narrow strip of land on the northeast from
the rest of the WSA. Another problem of manageability
is caused by the predominance of pre-FLPMA oil and
gas leases, under which activity cannot be regulated by
wilderness concerns.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. Vehicle ways I, II, and
III would revegetate to the point of being almost com¬
pletely unnoticeable if traffic was restricted. Vehicle
ways IV and V would substantially revegetate, but some
impacts caused by compaction or thin soils would be
likely to remain. Way IV apparently is used in livestock
operations; its impact could be reduced if vehicle traffic
was limited or prohibited.

Livestock damage in the drainages around springs 1
and 2 could be reduced if fences were constructed to
leave the troughs accessible but protect the spring
sources and the drainages leading to the troughs.

Improving Manageability. Although there are no cur¬
rent offsite activities that substantially affect the unit, it
would be possible to eliminate views of other undevel¬
oped lands by moving the western and southern bound¬
aries to follow ridges inside the present boundaries.
However, such an adjustment on the south would
exclude the higher open slopes and basin that provide
diversity in the unit.

A possible adjustment to improve configuration on the
northeast would be to eliminate the part of the WSA in
Sections 30 and 31, T8S, R10W, or, alternatively, to
acquire Section 36, T8S, R11W, now owned by the
state.

Moving the unit’s western boundary to Madigan Gulch
would eliminate the configuration problems on the
west, but it would also remove a large part of the unit as
well as much of its diversity and some of its most
appealing scenery.

Recreation

Recreation opportunities in the WSA are limited in both
quality and quantity. The primary activities are mule
deer and antelope hunting and some upland game bird
hunting, which generally involve some motorized use.
Estimates are not available on use, but it is considered
extremely light.

Opportunities for motorized recreation are limited —
essentially to existing vehicle ways and to a few potential
cross-country routes on the central bench.

Wildlife

Elk use the WSA during various times of the year. The
MDFWP has identified a winter population of approxi¬
mately 160. The WSA includes a small percentage of
the winter range for elk in this area. Madigan Gulch is
especially important as elk winter range. This unit also
provides important year-round and winter habitat for
mule deer, and spring-summer-fall range for prong¬
horn antelope. Some winter range for antelope is also
available, primarily in the lower sagebrush foothills and
benches.

Geology and Minerals

Geologic Setting

The area is characterized by northwest folds and faults.
Henneberry Ridge, a prominent feature along the
southwest boundary of the unit, consists of numerous
relatively thin lower Paleozoic formations. There is a
fairly continuous Paleozoic section to the north-
northeast that leads to a mantle of Tertiary volcanics.

The most important geological area relating to mineral
production is the northwestern end of the unit. The
northern boundary is within a mile of the town of Ban-
nack and adjoins a number of patented mining claims
that had significant gold production. The gold produc¬
tion is related to a Tertiary granodiorite intrusive stock
and to mineralization in the adjoining limestone. The
WSA boundary excludes the stock, but not necessarily
all of the intruded limestone. Grasshopper Creek, which
was the scene of one of the first placer gold develop¬
ments in the state of Montana, forms part of the north¬
ern boundary (see the Geologic Map of the Bannack-
Grayling Area.)

Geologic Structure

A fairly recent report, “Geologic Map of the Bannack-
Grayling Area: Beaverhead County, Montana” (GSDI,
GS 1965) is quite explicit about the area’s geology. It
describes the stratigraphy, structure, and metallic and
nonmetallic ore deposits of the area. This section
summarizes that paper and adds more recent informa¬
tion about the unit.

The oldest exposed rocks in the unit are a Precambrian
gneiss-schist.

The tectonic history of the area includes deformation of
the Precambrian crystalline rocks, with igneous activity
and extensive erosion. The Belt Series is absent. Fold¬
ing and faulting were indicated during mid-Cambrian
time.

The Laramide Orogeny began with gentle folding dur¬
ing late Cretaceous. By Eocene time, strong folds and
thrust faults developed. Steep faults developed along
the thrust plates. Early Tertiary was a time of numerous
thrust faults and basalt-rhyolite flows. This probably

extended from Eocene to Oligocene time. Many older
formations were thrust eastward over younger rocks.

The granodiorite stock containing the gold was
intruded during early Tertiary. This stock was eroded
and partially redeposited in Oligocene and Miocene
conglomerates.

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. There is a highly mineralized
area immediately north of the WSA, along the entire
northern boundary, where rich deposits of gold
occurred with the intrusion of the Bannack granodiorite
stock. When this stock was partially eroded, mineral
values were redistributed downstream in Grasshopper
Creek. Shenon (Mont. Bur. Mines & Geol. 1931) says
$10 million worth of gold came from the Bannack
mining district, of which about $8 million was from
placer deposits and the rest from lode deposits.

Dredges worked the entire length of Grasshopper
Creek. Several patented lode claims share a common
boundary with this unit. It is assumed that all the stream
gravels and bench gravels have been worked, but it is
possible that there could be a missed pocket.

The gold values in this area are attributed to the grano¬
diorite stock. Some of the fluids associated with the
intrusion penetrated the adjoining limestone forma¬
tions, forming a contact metamorphic zone of enrich¬
ment. The gold deposits generally occur between the
marbleized and silicate zones. Generally the contact
zone carried the highest values.

There were extensive workings along the west side of
the stock in Sections 7 and 8, T8S, R1 1W, where ero¬
sion has exposed the contact for several hundred feet.
Many mines were opened on the north side of the stock,
farther from the WSA. The rest of the contact zone, on
the south and east, has not been carefully prospected,
according to Lowell (CISDI, GS 1965). Any gold values
in that area could be inside WSA boundaries.

The Blue Wing mining district, 3 miles northeast of
Bannack, has produced more than $2 million in silver. It
is associated with another intrusive granodiorite stock.
The ore is in the Madison Group limestone adjacent to
the stock. Since the Madison Group limestone is also
found in the WSA, it is possible that this mineralization
could occur in Sections 7, 8, and 17, T8S, R1 1W.

Henneberry Ridge is an anticline in which the older
formations in the center are exposed. On the north and
south flanks there are deposits of the Permian Phos-
phoria Formation, which does not outcrop within the
unit but is buried beneath the Quadrant Formation and
the Tertiary andesite flows. Although the Phosphoria is
not a phosphate producer locally, it is important for this
purpose in other parts of Montana and in Idaho.

Leasable Materials. The WSA may have potential for
oil and gas although there has been no specific interest

in the Henneberry Ridge area. Potential for other leas¬
able minerals appears to be limited.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

All of the public land in this unit is leased for oil and gas,
mostly under pre-FLPMA leases. There are no other
mineral leases or permits on this land (see the Henne¬
berry Ridge Mining Claims and Mineral Leases map).

Sixteen mining claims are in or adjacent to the WSA—
four lode claims held by the Golden Ledge Exploration
and Mining Company, which has other claims outside
the boundary, and 1 2 placer claims of the Bon Accord
Mining Company. The placer claims are all along Grass¬
hopper Creek in T8S, R1 1W, Sections 21, 22, 23, and
24. They probably extend up the hillside from the
stream bed. Most of the creek bed is already patented.

Mineral Resource Potential

The potential of this unit has not been fully explored.
Some of the previously known ore bodies were cut by
faults and were lost in the faulted area. It is possible that
some of them are within the WSA. There is a high
potential for gold mineralization in Sections 7, 8,17,1 8,
and 19, T8S, R11W. This mineralized trend extends
about 6 miles to the north-northeast, crossing two
highly productive mineralized areas (see the Henne¬
berry Ridge Mineral Potential map).

The banks along Grasshopper Creek for 100 vertical
feet above the present stream bed have high potential
for placer gold. The high values formerly produced
came from bench gravels and the stream bed. Time
has changed the erosion levels.

Small streaks in the limestone near Madigan Gulch
were reported to contain 0.5 ounce of gold per ton and
2 ounces of silver per ton. There are no claims on this
site. It was in in the northwest part of Section 21 , T8S,
R11W.

The Phosphoria Formation lies beneath part of the
south and west boundaries of the WSA.

The geology of this unit is less favorable for oil and gas
than that of several other parts of southwestern Mon¬
tana.

Livestock Grazing

The WSA contains part of one allotment with an exist¬
ing AMP and part of one allotment for which an AMP is
proposed. The entire WSA is leased for grazing.

The Bannack Allotment (0015), which has an existing
AMP, contains 10,741 acres; 920 acres (9%) are inside
WSA boundaries. The total number of AUMs is 544; the
projection for 201 0 is 744 AUMs. A total of 53 AUMs is
within the WSA.

Under the AMP, cattle grazing begins in April when
range conditions permit. A four-pasture alternate rest

grazing system has been implemented. Only a part of
one pasture is within the WSA; it is used every other
year, primarily in May and June. There are no existing or
proposed range improvements in the part of this allot¬
ment that is within the WSA.

The Rocky Hills Allotment (0148), for which an AMP is
proposed, contains 16,931 acres; 8,790 acres are
inside WSA boundaries. The total number of AGMs is
1 ,609; the projection for the year 201 0 is 2,220 AGMs.
A total of 729 AGMs is within the WSA.

The proposed AMP would divide the allotment into four
pastures for an alternate rest grazing system, where
cattle would graze from mid-May through October. Two
of the four pastures would be within the WSA. Gnder the
AMP, it is anticipated that 5,400 acres of the allotment
in critical erosion condition will improve to at least
moderate condition. There are two developed springs
within the WSA, about 1 .5 miles offence separating two
pastures, and one small reservoir just inside the south¬
ern boundary.

Improvements proposed within the WSA for this allot¬
ment are 3 more miles of fence to separate pastures, a
well and windmill, nine troughs, and about 3 miles of
pipeline to bring water from the windmill. About 100
acres of the WSA would be included in a proposed
prescribed burn. Motorized equipment may be needed
for construction, and on an occasional basis for major
maintenance of range improvements.

Timber Management

The WSA contains 874 acres of forestland. Of this, 288
acres (33%) are on slopes of more than 70% and 586
acres (67%) are on slopes of less than 40%.

The entire north end of this WSA is on a steep slope that
exceeds 70%. Most of the rest of the timber is on a talus
hillside along the west side of the ridge. Inhibiting rock
makes logging inoperable here. No further evaluation
will be made of timber values in this unit.

FARLIN CREEK WSA (MT-076-034)

The Farlin Creek unit is 1,139 acres of BLM-managed
land contiguous to the 93,859-acre East Pioneer pro¬
posed wilderness (FS RARE II area 1 -008). This tack-on
WSA is about 1 .5 miles southeast of Polaris, Montana,
on the western slope of the east leg of the Pioneer
Mountains. It is partially within the historic Elkhorn and
Baldy mining districts.

The unit’s boundaries are all on legal subdivisions, with
national forest lands adjoining the WSA on the east and
forming part of the north and south boundaries. Private
lands are on the north, west, and south; BLM-managed
land forms a small part of the southern boundary.

Steel Creek and Farlin Creek dissect the unit, flowing
west about a mile apart on either side of a ridge more
than 7,000 feet high. The two forks of Farlin Creek, the
larger stream, head on Baldy Mountain, about 3 miles
upstream on Forest Service land.

Vegetation on the ridge between the creeks and on
north-facing slopes is predominantly timber. There are
aspen stands and meadows along the creeks. Parts of
the western edge of the unit and the area north of Farlin
Creek are open, sagebrush-grassland types.

There is no legal public access to the area.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. Table 14 summarizes the human
imprints present in this unit. See also the Developments
and Allotments map. The chief imprints are a concen¬
tration of vehicle ways in the northern third of the unit,
evidence of selective logging along Farlin Creek, and
the remains of a mine and a vehicle way along Steel
Creek.

The vehicle ways in the vicinity of Farlin Creek generally
have low impact, but the impact of vehicle way I and
nearby logging in the west half of Section 4 is moderate.

Another impact is evidence of heavy grazing, including
large denuded areas along the stream banks, in the
Farlin Creek bottom.

Overall, the unit is substantially natural-appearing
except for an area along lower Farlin Creek.

Outstanding Opportunities. The WSA is a stairstep¬
shaped unit from 0.25 to 1 .25 miles wide on the west
edge of the irregular FS boundary. The forest cover in
most of the unit and the well-dissected topography
provide excellent potential for seclusion, especially
when the unit is considered as part of the larger road¬
less area. The two major drainages and several smaller
tributaries offer good potential for dispersal of visitors,
and the potential for mobility is excellent.

Approximately 70% of the unit has forest cover; the
remaining 30% is open foothills prairie or streamside
meadow. Terrain in about 80% of the unit is well dis¬
sected; the rest is rolling. Elevations range from about
6,480 feet to about 7,760 feet, with significant local
relief.

There are essentially no outside sights and sounds that
affect the unit. The unit’s topography generally funnels
vision upslope toward the FS lands recommended for
wilderness.

TABLE 14

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS
FARUN CREEK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-034)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

Vehicle Way 1 & 2 spurs

T5S, R12W, Secs. 33,
34;T6S, R12W, Secs. 4,

Farlin Creek. The two
spurs lead north from
main way.

1 .5 miles

Moderate

Fairly substantial impact west of creek crossing in

Wl/2, Sec. 4. Eastern spur extends up open ridge and
is visible from south.

Vehicle Way 11 and spur

T6S, R12W, Sec. 4

South of Farlin Creek, up
north-facing slope into
timber.

1 .0 mile

Low

Only part noticeable from any distance is on open slope
south of Farlin Creek Rest is through timber; some
trees have been cut

Vehicle Way III

T6S, R12W, Sec. 8

Steel Creek to high point
north of creek

0.5 mile

Low

Access to mine and cabin remains.

Vehicle Way IV

T6S, R12W, Sec. 8

Saddle south of Steel

Creek

Less than
0.25 mile

Low

Small part of 4WD trail extends into unit from south.

Mine

T6S, R12W, Sec. 8

Steel Creek

1 .0 acre

Low to
moderate

Mine, cabin remains, and prospect pits along Steel
Creek way.

Logging evidence

T6S, R12W, Secs. 4, 5,
and 8

Along Farlin Creek from
WSA boundary to
drainage junction,
NE1/4NW1/4, Sec. 4.
There are slash piles
along vehicle way;
scattered pole cutting in
NE1/4 Sec. 8 and south
part of Sec. 4.

Scattered
over 1 00

acres

Low to
moderate

Low in NE1 /4, Sec. 8 and south part of Sec. 4.
Moderate along Farlin Creek

Developed spring

T6S, R12W, Sec. 33,
SW1/4SE1/4

Open drainage along
north edge.

Less than
one acre

Low

Very small stock water development.

When considered with the FS unit, this WSA provides
excellent opportunities for primitive recreation. Activi¬
ties best suited to this WSA are hiking, backpacking,
horseback riding, and hunting for elk, deer, and moun¬
tain grouse. As an access point or supplemental site,
the unit contributes to other opportunities on national
forest lands such as climbing, nature study, and moun¬
tain goat hunting.

Special Features. This unit provides important
spring-summer-fall habitat for mule deer, important
spring and fall elk range, elk calving habitat, and some
winter range for deer and elk.

Scenic values are moderate in this small unit; however,
as a tack-on to the FS unit, the area adds to the diversity
of the total area by including lower foothills and
drainages— a supplemental scenic value. It also adds to
the larger area a timbered ridge more than 7,000 feet
high, which is part of the system of forested ridges
extending downslope from Baldy Mountain.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. As a tack-on to the
FS unit, Farlin Creek WSA would add somewhat to the
diversity and scenic quality of the part of the larger area
that adjoins the BLM unit. Lower Farlin Creek contains
some substantial human imprints, but the remainder of
the unit is generally natural in appearance.

Ecosystem Representation

This WSA contains two major ecotypes: sagebrush
steppe dominates the northern and western parts of the
unit; Douglas-fir forest covers the rest. See Appendix E
and the Ecotype map.

Manageability

This WSA is not manageable as wilderness on its own,
but must be considered as a tack-on to the FS area.

As mentioned earlier, all unit boundaries are on legal
subdivisions, which would be hard to identify on the
ground. However, the Forest Service’s adjacent East
Pioneer unit is entirely delineated by legal subdivisions
also, so there would be little benefit in establishing
topographic boundaries for the Farlin Creek unit. The
national forest boundary at Farlin Creek is irregular, and
the BLM unit fits into this boundary from the west for a
width of about 0.5 to 1 mile. While the western edge of
the WSA has an irregular boundary, the body of this unit
added to the larger area would result in a less irregular
and presumably more manageable East Pioneer wil¬
derness unit.

Vehicle ways extending up Steel and Farlin creeks are
accessible to motor vehicles. The part of the unit north
of Farlin Creek is open foothills, with few barriers to
vehicle travel. Vehicle access south of Farlin Creek
could be controlled by barriers where the existing ways
enter the relatively dense coniferous forest.

There are no inholdings within the unit, and although
there are parts of more than 20 unpatented claims in
the unit, there are no mining claims on which a valid
discovery has been made. Most of the claims are con¬
centrated in the Steel Creek area. The entire area is
leased for oil and gas; all of the leases were issued after
the passage of FLPMA, so they carry the wilderness
protection stipulation.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. Most of the vehicle
ways in the unit, except for the way along lower Farlin
Creek, are light imprints that would require a relatively
short period to revegetate if traffic were restricted. The
short length of two vehicle ways that pass through
timber and the old logging areas would require some¬
what longer to become relatively unnoticeable.

A boundary adjustment to exclude the Farlin Creek way
as far as the creek crossing and the logging evidence
along the creek would eliminate the major impacts in
the unit. Another adjustment could exclude the lower
Steel Creek way and the mine.

Grazing damage along Farlin Creek could be mitigated
by management. This would greatly improve scenic
quality and water quality.

Improving Manageability. Manageability concerns
center on how the Farlin Creek WSA fits into the Forest
Service’s East Pioneer Unit as a tack-on. Considered as
an addition to the entire FS unit of more than 93,000
acres, the Farlin Creek WSA would have an insignifi¬
cant effect on the larger unit. However, considered as a
tack-on to the adjacent portion of the FS unit, the Farlin
Creek unit would have some effect. It would add the
following qualities to this adjacent area:

Diversity— lower foothills would be added.

Physiographic unity and scenic quality— the tack-
on would add the only timbered ridge extending
west from Baldy Mountain that is not within the FS
unit.

Access— A logical access route to the higher coun¬
try around Baldy Mountain would be provided.

Manageability— There would be an opportunity to
create a less irregular boundary for this portion of
the larger roadless area.

Recreation— Supplemental recreation features
and opportunities that would increase somewhat
(but not significantly) the carrying capacity of this
part of the larger unit would be added.

Addition of some or all of the WSA to the East Pioneer
unit would moderately enhance the manageability of
the section of the larger area that adjoins the BLM unit.

Central portion of unit with Baldy Mountain in the background.

Recreation

Because of this unit’s limited size and its physiographic
relationship to adjacent FS lands, most of the recrea¬
tion opportunities it provides are supplemental to exist¬
ing opportunities and values on the adjacent larger unit.
Viewed from this perspective, the WSA provides above
average to excellent opportunities for big game and
grouse hunting, sightseeing, hiking, photography,
camping, and backpacking.

Estimates are not available on the amount of use this
unit receives, but it is relatively light, with most use
occurring during the big game hunting season. Much
of this use involves motor vehicle use of existing vehicle
routes within the WSA.

Wildlife

The unit provides important spring and fall habitat for
elk, and elk calving range. The unit has only minor
amounts of elk winter range. Mule deer use the WSA
only marginally in winter. However, the unit is important
intermediate range for mule deer during spring,
summer, and fall. The unit provides important yearlong
habitat for blue grouse and ruffed grouse.

The fisheries values of Farlin Creek are unknown at this
time.

Geology and Minerals

Geologic Setting

The unit lies on the west slope of the east leg of the
Pioneer Mountains. The geology of this area has not
been accurately mapped. The older rocks to the north
appear to be a series of Cambrian sandstones, lime¬
stone, and shale. A recent geologic map indicates that
this area is Mississippian Madison limestone and Penn¬
sylvanian Quadrant quartzite. According to the mineral¬
ization reported in the developed mines, it would
appear that the northern part of the unit is late Paleozoic
rather than Cambrian.

The southern part of the WSA is predominantly Missis¬
sippian Madison limestone. The area to the east is the
Tertiary-Cretaceous quartz monzonite, Pioneer batho-
lith. This would have many of the same characteristics
of the larger Boulder batholith to the north. The area to
the west consists of Tertiary sedimentary deposits.
There is abrupt contact between the formations, with
several long, northwest-trending faults (seethe General
Geologic Map of the Polaris Area).

Geologic Structure

The geologic structure of the entire area is determined
by the intrusion of the Boulder batholith. This is locally
called the Pioneer intrusive. This intrusion penetrated
the area by faulting, thrusting, assimilating material,

and updoming in early Tertiary time. The batholith
forms the core of most mountain ranges in southwest¬
ern Montana. Winchell (CISDI, GS 1914) believes the
intrusive is primarily a quartz monzonite. There are
separate intrusions and extrusions that include grano-
diorite, andesite, basalt, pyroxenite, and other related
igneous rocks. The principal mineralization for many
mining districts of the area was near the contact with
the igneous intrusive.

Known Mineral Deposits

The Polaris mining district is quite small in comparison
to several other nearby districts. It is based on the
Polaris Mine (Lost Cloud) and the Silver Star. These
mines are a mile north of the WSA, but the mining
claim complex extends into the WSA. The mineraliza¬
tion occurs along the contact between the batholith and
the Paleozoic countiy rock. The contact zone is faulted,
the main fault being the Polaris fault. The primary ore is
silver, mostly found in tetrahedrite. The ore contained
35 ounces of silver per ton; and some fire assays ran as
high as 57 ounces per ton.

The ore is found in east- west veins, normal to the struc¬
ture. The highest values were in replacement veins in
the Madison limestone. Some ore also occurred in
veins in the quartz monzonite. In addition to the silver
values, some limestone was mined to be used in the
local smelter for processing the ore.

The quartz monzonite-limestone contact is an area of
high mineralization. Several mines are evidence of the
influence of the contact.

Many nearby mining districts, such as the Elkhorn,
Dyce Creek, Argenta, and Birch Creek, are along the
quartz monzonite-limestone contact. Two mines within
a mile of the unit produced more than $400,000 worth
of silver and associated minerals.

The Polaris mine produced $250,000 worth of silver
before 1 905; from 1 905 to 1 965 it produced $1 39,900
worth of ore, most of which was silver. There were
minor amounts of gold, copper, lead, and zinc. Geach
(Mont. Bur. Mines and Geol. 1972) shows a plan of the
Polaris mines, a map of surface workings, and a yearly
production schedule beginning in 1907.

Recent samples taken by a mining claimant from T6S*
R1 2W, Section 8, NE1 /4NW1/4, have shown values of
0. 1 3 ounce of gold per ton and 1.19 ounces of silver per
ton. Three other samples taken from the same group of
claims inside the WSA contained 20, 14, and 8.75
ounces of silver per ton. Samples from the adjacent
Fire Hole claim in the same quadrant, owned by
another miner, showed values of 20 ounces of silver per
ton.

Based on existing information, there is only limited
potential for any of the leasable minerals.

There are no known salable minerals. Limestone was
formerly produced for a smelter flux, but no smelters
remain in the area.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

There are two major groups of unpatented mining
claims within the WSA, the H & H and the Polaris.

Oil and gas leases have been applied for on all of the
lands in the unit (see the Farlin Creek Mining Claims
and Mineral Leases map). There have been no material
sales or free-use permits in this WSA.

Mineral Resource Potential

This unit has no known potential for coal, phosphate, or
oil shale.

There are 24 unpatented claims or portions of claims in
this unit, and there are mines within the WSA. The
entire unit is highly mineralized and has a high potential
for future silver production (see the Farlin Creek Min¬
eral Potential map).

Livestock Grazing

The WSA contains about half of the Farlin Creek custo¬
dial allotment (0191). This allotment contains 1,790
acres; 1,139 acres (64%) are inside WSA boundaries.
The present licensing is for 114 ACIMs; surveyed graz¬
ing capacity is 93 ACIMs, 75 of which are inside the
WSA. The number of ACIMs projected for the entire
allotment in 2010 is also 114.

Cattle now graze on this allotment from June 16 to
September 30. A proposed change would make the
season May 1 5 to November 30.

There is one spring development within the WSA. No
further developments are planned. Motorized equip¬
ment may be needed on an occasional basis for major
maintenance of this development.

Timber Management

The WSA contains 612 acres of forestland. Of this, 490
acres (80%) are on slopes suitable for tractor logging
and 122 acres (20%) are suitable for cable yarding.

The WSA is forested with old-growth stands of Douglas-
fir and scattered lodgepole pine. An existing vehicle way
that comes up the creek from Polaris makes the area
easily accessible.

Two EACJs are evaluated in Table 15. Appendix C des¬
cribes the assumptions used in the BLM economic
analysis.

TABLE 15

PRESENT NET WORTH OF TIMBER:
FARLIN CREEK WSA

Economic Analysis Unit
(EACI)

1 2

Present timber acreage1

518

Miles of road

2.4

0.4

At 4% discount rate

Present value of timber

$37,585

$5,440

Road costs

9,884

1,647

Present net worth

$27,701

$3,793

At 7-3/ 8% discount rate

Present value of timber

$666

$40

Road costs

2,879

480

Present net worth

-$2,213

-$440

’After timber production capability class (TPCC)
reductions (see Appendix C).

AXOLOTL LAKES WSA
(MT-076-069)

Axolotl Lakes WSA is at the north end of the Gravelly
Range about 3 miles southeast of Virginia City, Mon¬
tana. It is roughly rectangular, about 3 miles by 4 miles.
The unit contains 7,804 acres. Elevations range from
7,200 feet at the north edge to more than 9,300 feet in
the southwest corner. A county road going south from
Virginia City leads to the WSA.

Except for a fraction of a mile on the north, where a
boundary is formed by a county road, all boundaries of
this WSA are on legal subdivisions. There are two
inholdings— small patented mining claims totaling
about 24 acres in the northwest corner of the unit in
Sections 13 and 24, T7S, R3W.

This WSA is in the transition area between the high hills
of the Gravelly Range and the lower, open foothills
between the valleys of the Ruby and Madison rivers. The
terrain and vegetation are unusually varied for so small
an area. Open, rolling meadows with sagebrush and
grasses predominate at the north end of the unit, with

Blue Lake in northern portion of unit.

aspen groves in some small drainages and basins.
Farther south there is spruce, then mixed conifer
forests with interspersed meadows. Whitebark pine,
lodgepole pine, and some subalpine fir are found in the
west and southwest parts of the unit, and there are also
open grassland areas. The western portion has a dense
forest canopy and several small perennial streams.

There are many small drainages and basins in the
northern part of the WSA. The basins, of glacial origin,
contain several pothole lakes. Most of the lakes are
small, but Upper Axolotl Lake and Blue Lake are rela¬
tively large. The unique axolotl salamander, for which
the area is named, inhabits Blue Lake. A ridge rising
sharply from the lake basin dominates the scenery in
the northeastern part of the unit.

In addition to the lakes area, the WSA contains a short
stretch of Arasta Creek, upper Buffalo Creek, upper
Bachelor Gulch, several eastern forks of Alder Gulch,
and three upper, northwestern forks of Wigwam Creek.

Wilderness

Quality of the Wilderness Resource

Naturalness. The Axolotl Lakes WSA contains about
20 miles of vehicle ways and 1 6.5 miles of fence. Table
1 6 and the Developments and Allotments map detail
the impacts on naturalness in this WSA.

A constructed vehicle route, the evidence of logging,
and constructed spurs to prospect pits and mines are
concentrated in the northwestern corner of the unit.
The northeastern part, in the vicinity of Axolotl and Blue
lakes, has a number of light vehicle ways; however,
these are expected to revegetate almost completely
because travel in the area is now restricted.

The stock driveway is a moderate linear impact extend¬
ing north-south through the center of the unit. About 7
miles of vehicle ways are concentrated in the south¬
eastern part of the WSA.

The concentration of human imprints in the northwest¬
ern and southeastern parts of the unit and the stock
driveway through the center affect the unit’s natural
appearance. Because of the signs of human activity in
this small WSA, its natural character is somewhat low.

Outstanding Opportunities. While this unit is rather
small, its configuration is generally good except at the
northern and eastern edges, where fingers of the WSA
extend from the body of the unit, and at the western
edge, where the boundary is irregular and there are two
small inholdings. The core-to-perimeter distance is
about 1 .5 miles. Routes to the core vary in difficulty of
travel, but the shortest feasible route would be about 2
miles long.

The unit’s local relief enhances opportunities for soli¬
tude, especially in the western part. Terrain in about

TABLE 16

EFFECTS ON NATURALNESS

AXOLOTL LAKES WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (MT-076-069)

Feature

Legal Location

Location within Unit

Length/

Area

Overall

Impact

Remarks

Vehicle Way 1 (stock
driveway)

T7S, R2W, Secs. 7, 8,

17, 18, 19, 30, 31;T7S,
R3W, Secs. 23, 24, 25

From north to south
through center of unit

5.5 miles

Moderate

Entire stock driveway is denuded; some old selective
timber cutting along way. Goes through center of unit;
short spurs in T7S, R3W, Sec. 23.

Vehicle Way II (system)

T7S, R2W, Secs. 17, 18

Three routes linking
stock driveway to Blue
Lake, Blue Lake to upper
Axolotl Lake system of
vehicle ways

2.5 miles

Low

Very light two-wheel track, most of which would
rehabilitate under travel restrictions. Two sections on
steep slopes south of Axolotl would need long time to
become unnoticeable.

Vehicle Way III (system)

T7S, R2W, Secs. 8, 17

System of vehicle ways
around upper Axolotl

Lake and north of lake

2.0 miles

Moderate

Noticeable around lake, especially section with sidehill
cut, excavation for dam. Now closed; likely to
rehabilitate substantially.

Vehicle Way IV

T7S, R2W, Sec. 18;T7S,
R3W, Sec. 13

Loop vehicle way west of
stock driveway. North
part is access to Vehicle
Way V.

2.0 miles

Low

Mainly two-wheel tracks. Some areas in north deeply
rutted by heavy equipment. South part very rough,
mostly unnoticeable.

Vehicle Way V and spurs

T7S, R3W, Sec. 13

Access to patented
claims and Alder Gulch
area, west part of unit

2.0 miles

Moderate
to high

Substantially constructed and maintained on steep
hillside through forest. Some timber cutting including
two small clearcuts (about 1 acre). Several partly
constructed spurs lead to prospect pits, mine tunnels
on open hillsides to south.

Vehicle Way VI

T7S, R3W, Secs. 24, 25

Bachelor Gulch in west
part of unit. Includes one
spur to south.

1 .0 mile

Low

Way goes up creek bottom, washed out by creek. Little
evidence of use.

Vehicle Way VII

T7S, R2W, Secs. 29,31,
32

Crosses Buffalo Creek at
cabin, southeast part of
unit

2.0 miles

Low

Mostly through timber; some cutting along route.

Vehicle Way VIII

T7S, R2W, Secs. 29, 30,
32

Southeast part of unit

2.0 miles

Low

Very faint. Mostly through open country.

Vehicle Way IX

T7S, R2W, Sec. 32

Southeast part of unit

1 .0 mile

Low

Through timber and meadows.

Fences

Various locations

Central part of unit along
driveway; southeast part
of unit; area near lakes in
northeast

16.5 miles

Low to
moderate

Much of fence is fairly well screened by timber. Removal
of about 2 miles is proposed.

Two cabin mins

T7S, R2W, Secs. 30, 31

Along Buffalo Creek; in
meadow above Bachelor
Gulch

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Both are on stock driveway.

Cairns

T7S, R2W, Secs. 19, 30

In open high plateau
south of Blue Lake, in
east central part of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

On high points marking old sheep trailing route.

Historic value?

Gold Mill Ruins

T7S, R3W, Sec. 13

Western part of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Ruins of large mill structure along Vehicle Way V.

Historic value.

Repeater station

T7S, R3W, Sec. 26

On peak east of Baldy
Mountain in southwest
part of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Small log building, antenna apparently maintained by
use of helicopter. No vehicle access.

Developed spring

T7S, R2W, Sec. 31

Southeast part of unit

Less than

1 .0 acre

Low

Livestock water.

25% of the area is rolling and somewhat dissected; the
rest is well-dissected. About half the unit is forested; the
other half contains a variety of open country— rolling
foothills and basins, steep south slopes, and high pla¬
teaus and peaks ranging from 8,300 to 9,300 feet in
elevation.

The potential for dispersing visitors is excellent. Travel
is relatively easy except where slopes are steep in the
western part of the unit. Travel is feasible along the
many small drainages, and water is readily available,
which also helps disperse visitors. The lakes area in the
north probably would be the greatest attraction, but the
unit is diverse and scenic throughout.

The minimal external influences are views of undevel¬
oped national forest lands from high points in the
extreme south of the unit and occasional views of pri¬
vate lands from widely scattered points at the northern
and eastern edges of the WSA.

Opportunities for solitude are very good for an area of
this size, although the lack of coherent topographic or
physiographic boundaries, especially on the south and
east, limits the size of the area in which solitude may be
found. The irregular boundaries severely limit the
number of natural routes of travel, such as along drain¬
ages and ridges, that are entirely within the WSA. The
unit’s configuration also limits the opportunities some¬
what in the northern and eastern fingers and along the
western edge; however, the varied topography, frequent
stands of timber, and interspersed meadows and open
high country provide many secluded spots for visitors
in much of the unit. The ease of travel and the good
vegetative and topographic screening add to the oppor¬
tunities for solitude.

Opportunities for primitive recreation are diverse and
excellent. The terrain is ideal for horseback riding,
cross-country hiking, and backpacking, and the scen¬
ery and varied habitats provide excellent opportunities
for photography and nature study. Most of the unit
offers excellent cross-country skiing and winter camp¬
ing. Some lakes are stocked with cutthroat and rainbow
trout, so they provide good fishing. Deer, antelope, elk,
and raptor habitats offer good opportunities for wildlife
observation, and hunting for elk, deer, moose, ante¬
lope, and grouse is available.

Special Features. This WSA is listed in the National
Directory of Research Natural Areas. In 1972, a 1 ,520-
acre area around the lakes was recommended as an
“Outstanding Natural Area” by the BLM in the course of
planning for the area, but no formal designation was
ever made. The current Dillon MFP recommends the
area be considered as an area of critical environmental
concern (ACEC).

The axolotl, which is indigenous to the unit, is a unique,
nonmetamorphosing form of the tiger salamander. It is
listed as a species of interest or concern by the state of
Montana and is of scientific and educational interest.

Cultural values associated with the unit are considered
high. Prehistoric occupation, ceremonial sites, and
mass game kill sites have been identified in a small
sample of the area. Historic mine and mill sites are
evident in the west end of the unit.

Scenic views of the surrounding mountain ranges are a
moderate supplemental value. The unusually varied
terrain and vegetation are significant scenic features.

The lake fisheries are important, although they are
limited by lack of spawning habitat. There is a potential
for the introduction of grayling. Wildlife features include
spring-summer-fall range for antelope, elk, mule deer,
and moose.

Summary of Wilderness Quality. The WSA contains
very significant special features and offers excellent
recreation opportunities associated with these features.
However, the number of human imprints and the area s
small effective size when configuration is considered
are major limiting factors.

Ecosystem Representation

The two major ecosystems in this unit are Douglas-fir
forest and foothills prairie. There are minor amounts of
the sagebrush steppe and the alpine meadow/barren
ecosystems. See Appendix E and the Ecotype map.

Manageability

The unit’s configuration is generally good except for the
eastern and northern fingers and the irregular western
boundary, which is formed by the boundaries of pat¬
ented mining claims. The two inholdings isolate a small
piece of the unit on the western edge (T7S, R3W, parts
of Section 1 3). There is a currently used access route to
the two claims which crosses the northwestern part of
the WSA. No need for a new access route is foresee¬
able, but the physical impact of the present route, as
well as its use, poses a problem for wilderness man¬
agement in this corner of the unit.

There are unpatented mining claims in most of the
western part of the WSA and near Buffalo Creek in the
southeast. None are validated claims. Most of the area
is leased for oil and gas, but these are all post-FLPMA
leases to which wilderness protection measures apply.

Opportunities and Objectives

Improving Wilderness Quality. A boundary adjust¬
ment on the northwest could eliminate the corner of the
unit affected by mining-related impacts.

About two-thirds of the vehicle way mileage in the WSA
could be expected to rehabilitate substantially if the
area were completely closed to vehicle traffic.

Vehicle way V is heavily constructed and could not be
expected to rehabilitate naturally. The stock driveway,
vehicle way 1, is deeply eroded and would probably not
return to a natural condition, since the existing use
would be allowed to continue.

Improving Manageability. Options for improving the
manageability of this unit as wilderness are limited.
Acquisition of the patented claims within the boundary
would improve boundary configuration, but extensive
mining impacts in and around these inholdings would
limit their value as additions to the WSA.

Boundary adjustments to eliminate the northern and
eastern fingers would improve configuration; however,
the unit is small enough that any major boundary
changes to topographic or other legal lines could
reduce the area to an unmanageable size.

Recreation

This WSA offers excellent opportunities for sightseeing,
fishing, camping, big game hunting, hiking, snow-
mobiling, and backpacking. It receives light use, an
estimated 300 recreation visits annually.

Glacial pothole lakes provide good camping and fish¬
ing opportunities. A local snowmobile club uses the
area for its activities.

Existing ORV travel restrictions limit vehicles to desig¬
nated routes yearlong, but snowmobiles are permitted
off designated routes from December 1 to June 15.

Wildlife

The Gravelly Mountain range, which includes the WSA,
is excellent habitat for elk. The elk population of the
area has increased during the past 20 years. The WSA
also provides excellent spring-summer-fall range for
mule deer.

A small population of moose inhabits the WSA, which
provides desirable spring-summer-fall moose habitat.

Antelope, numbering about 110 head, make intensive
summer-fall use of open aspect ridges in Sections 19,
20, 29, and 30. This high ridge and plateau area aver¬
ages about 8,500 feet in elevation, and probably consti¬
tutes one of the higher elevation antelope habitats in
southwestern Montana. Habitat quality is excellent.

Blue grouse, ruffed grouse, and spruce grouse frequent
the WSA, with Blue grouse being the most common.

Golden eagles nest within the unit. Other raptors com¬
monly seen are the red-tailed hawk, goshawk, sharp-
shinned hawk, and marsh hawk.

The Axolotl Lakes provide excellent fishing. Since
spawning habitat is limited, periodic stocking is
required to sustain a viable fishery. The lakes have
potential for grayling introduction. The axolotl sala¬
mander, which is listed by the MDFW/P as a species of
special interest or concern, is found in Blue Lake.

Geology and Minerals

Geologic Setting

The rock units underlying the WSA range in age from
Precambrian to Recent. Precambrian metamorphic
rocks and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks outcrop mainly
in the western and extreme southern parts of the WSA.
T ertiary lava flows overlie most of the eastern half of the
unit; that is, the lakes area (see the Geologic Map of the
Upper Alder Gulch Area).

Rock Units

Rocks varying in age from Precambrian to Tertiary are
found within the WSA. The Precambrian rocks host
virtually all the mineralization in the WSA.

Geologic Structure

Manske (1961) mapped two thrust faults that trend
generally north-northeast through Sections 24, 25, and
36, T7S, R3W. The movement on these thrust faults
has been from the west— the west plates were thrust
over the eastern plate. These Cretaceous faults proba¬
bly extend beneath the Tertiary basalt flows farther
northeast.

The Geologic Map of Montana (Mont. Bur. Mines &
Geol. 1 955) indicates that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic
sedimentary rocks are folded into a broad
northeastward-plunging synclinal feature. The nose of
the feature coincides with the WSA, but the structural
details are largely hidden beneath an overlying blanket
of basalt.

Known Mineral Deposits

Locatable Minerals. The western portion of this WSA,
which forms part of the Alder Gulch drainage, is in the
famous Virginia City mining district. Gold was dis¬
covered in Alder Gulch in 1863 and mining has
occurred there ever since. It has been estimated that as
much as $30 million in gold has been mined from Alder
Gulch.

The old mining town of Summit sits less than 0.25 mile
west of the western boundary of the unit. Many lode
claims in the Summit area produced several hundred
thousand dollars worth of gold each.

The Kearsarge mine just south of Summit, at an eleva¬
tion of about 7,300 feet, and just outside the WSA
boundary, was one of the largest producers in the area.
The Kearsarge vein occurs in gneiss and schist and
strikes north 23 degrees east and dips about 65
degrees northwest.

Another major mine in the Summit area was the Oro
Cache mine. It was discovered in 1864 on Spring Gulch
about 0.5 mile from Summit (GSDI, GS 1914). Its vein
strikes north 1 0 degrees east and dips 65 degrees to 70
degrees west. This mine was reported to have pro¬
duced about $500,000 in gold between 1 864 and 1 880.

The Melson mine occurs in gneiss at an elevation of
about 7,800 feet. The Nelson vein strikes east and dips
35 degrees south.

Many of the mining district’s lode mines produced
many more ounces of silver per ton than of gold.

Leasable Materials. No leasable minerals have been
produced in this unit. According to the GS, the lands
within the WSA are not valuable for oil and gas, coal,
phosphate, or geothermal resources.

Mining Claims, Leases, and Permits

There are about 30 unpatented mining claims located
by eight claimants in the western part of the unit. They
are primarily in the area drained by Alder Gulch.

Most of the lands in this WSA are currently under lease
or application to lease for oil and gas. All the leases were
issued after the passage of FLPMA (see the Axolotl
Mining Claims and Mineral Leases map). Current man¬
agement direction provides for no surface occupancy
on leasable minerals in the northeastern lakes portion
of the WSA.

There is a withdrawal for public water reserves affecting
portions of Sections 8, 17, and 18, T7S, R2W, in the
lakes area. The area affected by this withdrawal is
closed to all mineral entry.

No permits have been issued for salable minerals in this
unit.

Mineral Resource Potential

These lands have a low mineral development potential
for leasable commodities.

The potential for development of locatable minerals
(qold) varies from low in the basalt outcropping areas
(mainly the part of the WSA inT7S, R2W) to a moderate
to high potential in the western portions. The ore veins
of many of the early lode mines in the upper reaches of
Alder Gulch trend into the western lands of the WSA.
Mining claims largely blanket Sections 13, 14, 23, 24,
and the north half of Section 26, T7S, R3W (see the
Axolotl Mineral Potential map).

Livestock Grazing

The WSA contains parts of two allotments for which
AMPs are proposed, part of one custodial allotment,

and all of a second custodial allotment. Approximately
200 acres are currently not leased for grazing

The Axolotl Lakes Allotment (0485) contains a total of
7,315 acres; 7,010 acres (96%) are within WSA bound¬
aries. Four operators use this allotment for cattle graz¬
ing in the amount of 645 AUMs, 633 of which are within
the WSA. Grazing season is July, August, and Sep¬
tember on a deferred rotation system. The Mountain
Foothills E1S projects that this allotment will have 729
AUMs by 2010 under the AMP.

Motor vehicles are used on existing vehicle ways for
salting livestock and maintaining fence. About 1 5 miles
of fence are inside the WSA; approximately 3 miles of
this is slated for removal and 0.5 mile is to be recon¬
structed. Three spring developments also are within the
WSA.

Developments proposed for this allotment are 3 miles
of new fence and two spring developments with a total
of 2 miles of pipeline.

The Davey Creek Allotment (0497) contains 5,832
acres; 220 acres (4%) are inside WSA boundaries. Two
operators use this allotment for cattle and horse grazing
in the amount of 318 AUMs, of which 13 are in the
WSA. The grazing season is June through October on a
rest-rotation system. The Mountain Foothills draft E1S
projects that under the AMP there will be 359 AUMs by
2010.

Approximately 1 mile of boundary fence is within the
WSA. Motor vehicles are used on existing vehicle ways
for salting livestock and maintaining fence.

About 1 mile of additional boundary fence is needed.
The part of this allotment that is within the WSA is
probably not highly significant to the total operation;
however, part of the boundary between this allotment
and the Axolotl Lakes Allotment is inside the WSA.

Motorized equipment may be needed for construction
of proposed developments and on an occasional basis
thereafter for major maintenance and reconstruction of
proposed and existing improvements on both of the
above allotments.

The following custodial allotments are in this WSA:

Allotment Name and Number

Blue Lake (0473)

Belle (0672)

Acreage ACIMs

Season of

Inside WSA Total Inside WSA Total AUMs _ ^se

16 16 6/20 to 11/1

4 23 8/1 to 10/15

Timber Management

The WSA contains approximately 4,000 acres of for¬
estland. Of this, 400 acres ( 1 0%) are on slopes of more
than 70%. The acreage on slopes suitable for cable
yarding is 2,400 (60%); 1 ,200 acres (30%) are on slopes
suitable for tractor logging.

The steep, rugged western half of this unit can be
reached through Alder Gulch. The well-timbered east¬
ern half slopes gently to the east. If a vehicle way were
developed from Alder Gulch, it could serve the entire
unit. Existing vehicle ways from the northeast and the
south are in poor shape and would require easements.

One EAG for this WSA is evaluated in Table 1 7. Appen¬
dix C describes the assumptions used in the BLM eco¬
nomic analysis.

TABLE 17

PRESENT NET WORTH OF TIMBER: AXOLOTL
LAKES WSA

Economic Analysis Gnit
(EAG)

Present timber acreage1 3,303

Miles of road 15.1

At 4% discount rate

Present value of timber $626,746

Road costs 235,269

Present net worth $391 ,477

At 7-3/8% discount rate

Present value of timber $202,470

Road costs 162,180

Present net worth $40,290

'After timber production capability class (TPCC)
reductions (see Appendix C).

Chapter 2

Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative

:!j

FORMULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

At least two alternatives were analyzed for each WSA:
wilderness designation for the entire WSA, and no wil¬
derness designation for any part of the WSA. In addi¬
tion, each WSA was examined for the feasibility of
analyzing an alternative that would recommend wilder¬
ness designation for part of the WSA.

Alternatives recommending partial wilderness designa¬
tion were developed if it appeared that there would be
opportunities to improve manageability or wilderness
quality or to reduce resource conflicts. For some
WSAs, it was not possible to develop a partial alternative
that differed enough from the “all wilderness” alterna¬
tive to warrant separate analysis; therefore, alternatives
for partial wilderness designation were analyzed for only
four WSAs.

In some cases nonpublic lands are completely or par¬
tially surrounded by the boundary of the WSA. In each
of these cases the boundary of each alternative was
drawn to exclude those lands; however, as the “Envi¬
ronmental Consequences” chapter explains, the
acquisition of these nonpublic parcels would improve
the manageability of the WSAs. If an area is recom¬
mended as wilderness, a possible option is to try to
work out an exchange with the owners of these nonpub¬
lic parcels at a later date.

The alternatives described below are shown on the
alternative maps found in the map supplement.

RUBY MOUNTAINS WSA
(MT-076-001)

Three alternatives are considered for the Ruby Moun¬
tains WSA.

Alternative R-l, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for the entire 26,61 1-acre WSA. The
boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives map,
follows the boundary between public and nonpublic
land on all sides except in Section 34, T6S, R6W, where
it follows the top of a prominent ridge for approximately
1/2 mile.

Alternative R-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

Alternative R-3, Partial Wilderness, recommends wil¬
derness designation for 1 5,61 5 acres of the WSA. The
boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives map,
follows the boundary between public and nonpublic
land on the west except that a protruding piece of land
is excluded from wilderness consideration.

The northern boundary is the same as that of Alterna¬
tive R-l.

Another small protrusion is omitted from wilderness
consideration by the eastern boundary of this alterna¬
tive; farther south, part of one section and all of another
section also are excluded. The terrain in the latter exclu¬
sion is relatively flat; the adjacent land included in this
alternative contains the mouth of a canyon and sloping
hillsides. Still farther south, the eastern boundary
excludes another half section from wilderness consid¬
eration.

The southern boundary of this alternative, which fol¬
lows topographic and constructed features, removes
from wilderness consideration the irregularly shaped
southwest part of the unit and the area separated from
the main part of the unit by the protruding finger of
nonpublic land along the McHessor Creek road. Begin¬
ning at the west side of the unit, the boundary goes
east-southeast along a prominent ridge above McHes¬
sor Creek to a high point, then follows a spur ridge
south to another high point in the SW1 /4 of Section 2 1 .

From this high point the Alternative R-3 boundary fol¬
lows a straight line essentially east for about a mile to a
peak 8,438 feet high. Then it follows the top of the ridge
southeast to the dividing line between Sections 22 and
27, running along the dividing line first east and then
south until it rejoins the ridge. It follows the ridge south¬
east to a 7,759-foot peak; thereafter it follows a spur
ridge northeast until it meets the original eastern bound¬
ary of the WSA.

BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS WSA
(MT-076-002)

Three alternatives are considered for the Blacktail
Mountains WSA.

Alternative B-l, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for 17,660 acres. The boundary,
which is shown on the Alternatives map, follows the
boundary between public and nonpublic land on the
north, east, and south. The western boundary is formed
by a road, the boundary between public and nonpublic
land, and a fence.

Alternative B-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

Alternative B-3, Partial Wilderness, recommends wil¬
derness designation for 1 0,975 acres of the WSA. The
boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives map, is
the same as that of Alternative B-l except on the south¬
east, where it follows a ridge above Riley Canyon. This
alternative eliminates from wilderness consideration
the narrow, irregularly shaped southeast part of the
original WSA that is included in Alternative B-l.

EAST FORK OF BLACKTAIL DEER
CREEK WSA (MT-076-007)

Two alternatives are considered for this unit.

Alternative EF-1, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for 6,240 acres. The boundary, which
is shown on the Alternatives map, follows legal bound¬
aries between BLM land and state, private and national
forest lands except for a short distance where it follows
the south edge of the road along the East Fork of
Blacktail Deer Creek. Under this alternative, that road
would be closed at the legal subdivision between Sec¬
tions 27 and 28, T1 1 S, R5W, and the road southeast of
the closure would be included in the area designated
wilderness.

Alternative EF-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

HIDDEM PASTURE CREEK WSA
(MT-076-022)

Two alternatives are considered for this WSA.

Alternative HP-1, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for the entire 1 5,509 acre WSA. The
boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives map,
follows legal boundaries between BLM lands and pri¬
vate, state, and Beaverhead National Forest lands
except on the southeast, where it coincides with the
northwest edge of the Sheep Creek road, and on the
west, where parts of the boundary follow the east edge
of the Muddy Creek road.

Alternative HP-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

BELL AND LIMEKILN CANYONS
WSA (MT-076-026)

Two alternatives are considered for this WSA.

Alternative BL-1, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for the entire 9,650 acre WSA. Most of
the boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives map,
follows legal boundaries between BLM land and private,
state, or Beaverhead National Forest lands. The bound¬
ary in two places is drawn between BLM land found to
lack wilderness characteristics and that found to have
wilderness characteristics.

The western boundary from the radio tower at the north
edge of the unit extends south along a prominent high
ridge. Other parts of the boundary defined by topo¬
graphic features are the north side of the westernmost
protrusion of the unit, which follows the Kissock
Canyon road from east to west, and the boundary of the
southwest part of the unit, which follows the road lead¬
ing south from Johnson Gulch to Deer Canyon. A part
of the southern boundary follows the Deer Canyon road
from west to east.

Alternative BL-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

HENNEBERRY RIDGE WSA
(MT-076-028)

Three alternatives are considered for this WSA.

Alternative H-l, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for the entire 9,807 acre WSA.

Much of the boundary of this alternative follows legal
boundaries between BLM land and state or private land.
Much of the northern boundary is formed by the private
land boundary along Grasshopper Creek, and part of
the western boundary is drawn along a fence line and
two road segments. Part of the boundary on the south¬
east follows a road and a fence line, and part of the
eastern boundary is formed by a power line.

Alternative H-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

FARLIN CREEK WSA (MT-076-034)

Three alternatives are considered for this WSA.

Alternative F-l, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for the entire 1,139 acre WSA. The
boundary follows the legal boundary between BLM and
private and national forest lands except where it crosses
BLM land on a legal subdivision in the southwest part of
the unit.

Alternative H-3, Partial Wilderness, recommends wil¬
derness designation for 5,545 acres of the WSA. As
shown on the Alternatives map, the western boundary
of this alternative runs north along the legal dividing line
between BLM land and the intruding thumb of state
land. When the boundary reaches Madigan Gulch, it
turns essentially northeast, following the gulch until it
joins the original northern boundary of the WSA. The
irregularly shaped western part of the original WSA is
excluded from wilderness consideration under this
alternative.

The northern boundary begins at Madigan Gulch, fol¬
lowing the private land boundary along Grasshopper
Creek east along the original WSA boundary until it
reaches a ridge a short distance west of the original
eastern boundary.

The eastern boundary follows the ridge south to the
boundary between Sections 25 and 30, T8S, R1 1W. It
then follows legal divisions between state and BLM
land, leaving state-owned Section 36 outside the Alter¬
native H-3 boundary. From the south edge of the state-
owned section, it follows a prominent ridge southeast to
a peak 6,461 feet high. From the peak, the boundary
proceeds essentially south by line of sight to a promi¬
nent rocky point at 6,620 feet elevation, a short distance
north of Henneberry Ridge. Again by line of sight, the
boundary proceeds generally southwest to a peak
6,903 feet high on the original southern boundary of
the WSA.

The southern boundary follows the original WSA
boundary west on Henneberry Ridge road and con¬
tinues along the road to a peak 6,916 feet high and
beyond that to another peak 6,929 feet high near the
legal boundary between Sections 2 and 3, T9S, R1 1 W.
From there it follows a fence north and then west,
rejoining the ridge and continuing to another peak
6,560 feet high. It then turns generally north across a
major drainage, reaching a peak at 6,579 feet elevation.
From the peak it follows the top of a prominent ridge
northwest to the original WSA boundary between state-
owned and BLM land.

Alternative F-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

Alternative F-3, Partial Wilderness, recommends wil¬
derness designation for 610 acres of the WSA to be
added to the Forest Service’s proposed East Pioneer
area. The boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives
map, extends south along the dividing line between
Sections 33 and 34, T5S, R12W, from the national
forest boundary to a point 200 feet south of Farlin
Creek. It continues southwest and west along a line 200
feet south of Farlin Creek to the dividing line between
Sections 4 and 5, T6S, R1 2W, then follows the legal line
south until it rejoins the national forest boundary at the
southwest corner of Section 4. This alternative removes
from wilderness consideration the irregularly shaped
western part of the tack-on unit.

AXOLOTL LAKES WSA
(MT-076-069)

Two alternatives are considered for the study area.

Alternative AX-1, All Wilderness, recommends wilder¬
ness designation for the entire 7,804 acre WSA. The
boundary, which is shown on the Alternatives map,
follows legal boundaries between BLM lands and state,
private, and Beaverhead National Forest lands except
for a short section on the northern boundary that fol¬
lows a county road.

Alternative AX-2, No Wilderness, recommends no wil¬
derness designation for any portion of the WSA.

SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives have been evaluated, and the preferred
alternatives selected, on the basis of the planning crite¬
ria identified in the introductory section of this docu¬
ment. These criteria are also used to describe the
cumulative impacts of each preferred alternative.

Public comment to date has been incorporated into the
issues that guided data collection, and formulation and
evaluation of alternatives. Public comments on the
specific draft recommendations that follow will be ana¬
lyzed fully and considered in formulating the final
recommendations.

“Consistency with Other Plans” (criterion number 5) is
addressed in Chapter 1 . Available information shows
no reference to specific areas under study here in any
affected state, local or federal plan, although one local
plan addresses wilderness in general. With publication
of these draft recommendations, the BLM will solicit
comments and consider and attempt to resolve any
plan inconsistencies in preparing the final recommen¬
dations. However, the BLM cannot base its recommen¬
dations solely upon consistency with other approved
plans.

Under “Impacts on Other Resources” (criterion
number 6), watershed and cultural resources have not
been addressed on an area-specific basis, primarily
because projections about future use under nonwilder¬
ness management and the effects of these uses on
watershed and cultural resources are difficult to make.
However, as discussed in Chapter 3, wilderness desig¬
nation would in general have a slightly beneficial effect
on watershed and cultural resources.

Table 1 8 provides a summary of the preferred alterna¬
tives.

RUBY MOUNTAINS

The preferred alternative is Alternative R-3, Partial Wil¬
derness. A total of 15,615 acres would be recommended
for wilderness designation, and 10,996 acres would be
recommended for nonwilderness. This alternative
recommends wilderness protection for the area with
the highest wilderness quality and minimizes both con¬
flicts with other resources and manageability problems.

The ecosystem and habitat diversity under this alterna¬
tive is substantially less than in Alternative R-l, but con¬
flicts with timber, motorized recreation, access to pri¬
vate inholdings, and livestock grazing operations are
also substantially reduced. Gnder the preferred alterna¬
tive, most of the area grazed by livestock, jriost of the
area suitable for motorized recreation, all of the posi¬
tively valued timber, and the portion of the unit includ¬
ing two of the inholdings are recommended for nonwil¬
derness. Most of the elk range included in wilderness
under Alternative R-l is recommended for nonwilder¬
ness under the preferred alternative.

One area with high potential for the occurrence of talc is
included in the wilderness portion, but there are several
other high potential areas to the south, both outside the
WSA and in the nonwilderness portion of the WSA, that
are more accessible and available for development.

The manageability of the area recommended as wil¬
derness under the preferred alternative is considerably
improved over Alternative R-l because the preferred
alternative establishes more regular boundaries, and
eliminates the irregular southwest portion and two of
the inholdings included in Alternative R-l.

The area recommended for wilderness would com¬
prise primarily the rugged, forested north end of the
Ruby range and consist primarily of the Douglas-fir
forest ecosystem, with a limber pine subsystem of
interest. The most challenging terrain with the best
opportunities for solitude, significant mule deer range,
significant cultural resources, and over 12,000 acres
not grazed by livestock would be included in the pro¬
posed wilderness. Two inholdings — a section owned by
the State of Montana and a patented mining claim—
would be included within the boundaries. Acquisition of
these parcels would aid manageability of the proposed
wilderness.

There would be minimal effects on livestock grazing, as
most of the proposed wilderness is not leased for graz¬
ing, and most of the area is inaccessible to vehicles. No
timber considered technically possible and economic
to harvest would be included. Security cover would be
maintained for mule deer, but opportunities to increase
forage would be forgone. A portion of the integral
scenic vista from the Beaverhead and Ruby valleys
would be maintained.

The wilderness characteristics in the south end of the
range, the area recommended as nonwilderness,
would likely be impaired by timber and/ or mining activ-

TABLE 18

SUMMARY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

WSA No.

WSA Name

Acres Recommended As
Suitable for Wilderness

Acres Recommended As
Not Suitable for Wilderness

MT-076-001

Ruby Mountains

15,615

10,996

MT-076-002

Blacktail Mountains

10,986

6,674

MT-076-007

East Fork Blacktail

Deer Creek

6,230

MT-076-022

Hidden Pasture

15,509

MT-076-026

Bell-Limekiln Canyons

9,650

MT-076-028

Henneberry Ridge

9,806

MT-076-034

Farlin Creek

610

529

MT-076-069

Axolotl Lakes

7,804

TOTAL

27,211

67,198

Looking towards Blue Mountain in the northern portion of the
Blacktail Mountains WSA.

ity. A sustained timber harvest of one million board feet
per decade would be available. This timber harvest
would likely have detrimental effects on area elk popu¬
lations.

BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS

The preferred alternative is Alternative B-3, Partial Wil¬
derness. A total of 10,986 acres are proposed for long¬
term wilderness protection, and the remainder of the
WSA is proposed for nonwilderness. This alternative
significantly improves manageability of the area as wil¬
derness over Alternative B-l, and eliminates most of the
only significant resource conflict, that with minerals,
while recommending the area with the highest wilder¬
ness qualities for wilderness management. The major
management concerns, the narrow and irregular south¬
east portion of the WSA and the concentration of min¬
ing claims in the Jake Canyon area, are eliminated
under the preferred alternative.

The area recommended as wilderness can be man¬
aged to maintain wilderness quality over the long term.
However, two sections owned by the State of Montana
and 40 acres of private land protrude into the proposed
wilderness, and acquisition of these lands will be consi¬
dered to improve manageability and quality of the area.
In both cases these lands comprise the heads of major
canyons and a portion of the crest of the Blacktail
range. The only potential conflict created by these
acquisitions would be the use of a seasonal camp south
of Ashbough Peak by a grazing permittee, and the
associated use of motor vehicles. This use can be
accommodated under the Wilderness Management
Policy. However, if these lands are acquired, it is
recommended that language be included in the ena¬
bling legislation to allow use of this camp and moto¬
rized access to it.

The proposed wilderness area would encompass the
rugged north face of the Blacktail Mountains, approxi¬
mately 8 miles of the crest of the range, and over 2,000
acres south of the crest in open, rolling terrain with a few
pockets of timber. The area is relatively diverse, with
viable examples of three ecotypes— Douglas-fir forest,
alpine meadows and barren, and about 2,300 acres of
the relatively underrepresented foothills prairie type.
Spring-summer-fall big game range and suitable unoc¬
cupied habitat for bighorn sheep and peregrine falcon
are included. Excellent opportunities for solitude and
scientific values associated with the ungrazed north
slope are also major wilderness qualities.

There would be few effects on mineral development,
timber management opportunities, existing recreation
opportunities, and livestock grazing operations in the
proposed wilderness portion. Most of the area with the
highest potential for gold, silver, and nickel near Jake
Canyon is recommended for nonwilderness. There is
some mineral potential in small, structurally controlled
deposits along the Blacktail Fault at the north edge of
the area recommended as wilderness. If any existing
claims have a valid discovery prior to mineral with¬
drawal on the date of designation as wilderness or
January 1 , 1 984, whichever is later, these claims could
be developed. Otherwise the area could not be devel¬
oped. There is no timber included in the proposed
wilderness that is presently economic to harvest. Under
wilderness designation, primitive recreation opportuni¬
ties, visual resources, and important wildlife habitats
would be given long-term protection. There would be
relatively low additional operating costs to grazing per¬
mittees.

In the nonwilderness portion, there would probably be
long-term adverse effects on primitive recreation, visual
resources and big game winter range. The areas in the
WSA with the highest mineral potential, the areas
around Jake Canyon, could be developed with corres¬
ponding economic benefits.

EAST FORK OF BLACKTAIL DEER
CREEK

The preferred alternative is Alternative EF-2, No Wil¬
derness. While the WSA has excellent scenic values, big
game habitat and primitive recreation opportunities, it
is not considered to be manageable as wilderness. The
major management concerns are the area’s small size,
irregular boundaries not corresponding to topographic
features, existence of a road corridor within the body of
the unit, and the uncertain long-term management of
adjacent lands that are physiographically a part of the
upper East Fork drainage. Closing the East Fork road
as proposed under Alternative EF-1, All Wilderness,
would improve manageability to some extent, but
would also displace the major recreation use along the
road. There were no other resource conflicts identified
under the all wilderness alternative.

The area’s wilderness qualities and special wildlife fea¬
tures can be substantially retained under nonwilder¬
ness management if current short-term management
is continued. Currently, timber harvest is prohibited,
and there are substantial restrictions on mineral devel-

opment and motorized vehicle travel. The East Fork is
to be considered as an ACEC. Designation of the area
as an ACEC, with an appropriate management plan,
could provide more lasting protection than current
management in the absence of wilderness designation.
However, there is still a possibility of long-term degrada¬
tion of wilderness values if management direction were
to change.

HIDDEN PASTURE CREEK

The preferred alternative is Alternative HP-2, No Wil¬
derness. The Hidden Pasture WSA is not considered
manageable as wilderness due to pre-FLPMA oil and
gas leases, poor configuration and irregular boundar¬
ies, a large number of range improvements requiring
maintenance, and an inholding. The leases and poor
configuration are the greatest impacts.

Wilderness designation would have only marginal
benefits for the area’s diverse and important wildlife
habitats, its primary feature. Oil and gas activity would
be minimally affected due to the nature of the leases,
and would probably impact wildlife habitats. Recom¬
mendation of the area for nonwilderness does not
represent a significant loss to the goals of quality and
diversity in the national wilderness system, and wilder¬
ness values are not sufficiently high to offset the
resource benefits that would be forgone. Existing
motorized recreation and livestock grazing uses would
be somewhat adversely affected by wilderness designa¬
tion, and there would be relatively high additional graz¬
ing operating costs due to possible restrictions on the
use of motorized equipment.

Under nonwilderness management, wildlife habitat
needs and oil and gas exploration and/or production
will at least partially conflict. At least in the short term,
motorized recreation use will continue to be somewhat
limited due to travel restrictions imposed to protect
wildlife. Wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, and
visual resources will probably receive adverse effects
from mineral uses, at least in the short term. In the long
term, motorized recreation could receive some bene¬
fits. If oil and gas production takes place, there will likely
be local economic benefits.

BELL AND LIMEKILN CANYONS

The preferred alternative is Alternative BL-2, No Wil¬
derness. Although the WSA offers relatively high quality
primitive recreation and scenic values and excellent
mule deer range, it is not considered to be manageable
as wilderness. Major management concerns are valid
existing rights associated with pre-FLPMA oil and gas
leases, the private inholding, and extremely poor con¬
figuration with irregular boundaries. Acquisition of the
inholding would provide some improvement. However,
the area’s high oil and gas potential makes some
impairment of wilderness values likely, whether the area
is designated or not. In addition, there would be some
adverse impacts to existing motorized recreation use
and to grazing management and costs of livestock
operations under wilderness designation, without sub¬
stantial benefits to the wilderness resource or to impor¬
tant wildlife habitat.

There will likely be at least short-term adverse impacts
to wildlife, scenic values, and all forms of recreation, but
some local economic benefits due to oil and gas devel¬
opment, under the preferred alternative. Motorized
recreation could receive some benefits over the long
term.

Overall, the wilderness values are not sufficiently high to
offset the other resource values that would be forgone.

HENNEBERRY RIDGE

The preferred alternative is Alternative H-2, No Wilder¬
ness. The major factors considered in this recommen¬
dation are the relatively limited wilderness values, con¬
flicts with livestock grazing management, and potential
wilderness management problems associated with pre-
FLPMA oil and gas leases. A complex of range
improvements necessary to the implementation of the
Rocky Hills AMP would be prohibited under both Alter¬
natives H-l, All Wilderness, and H-3, Partial Wilderness.
An increase of 611 AGMs per year and an opportunity to
improve critical erosion condition while maintaining
livestock grazing would be forgone. Although oil and
gas potential is not high, any future development under
the valid rights associated with the pre-FLPMA leases

would likely impair the area’s primary wilderness value
as a small example of a natural shrub steppe. This
could occur under any of the alternatives. The area s
wilderness values are not considered sufficient to offset
the grazing management opportunities forgone and
the manageability concerns.

Alternative H-3, Partial Wilderness, reduces resource
conflicts compared to H-l, All Wilderness, by recom¬
mending for nonwilderness designation an area with
gold and silver potential and an area proposed for
prescribed burning, both of which would not be allowed
under wilderness management. H-3 also provides more
manageable boundaries. However, it would reduce sig¬
nificantly the size and diversity of the area recom¬
mended for wilderness, and the pre-FLPMA oil and gas
leases and the conflict with livestock grazing would
remain.

Gnder the preferred alternative, there would be adverse
impacts on the WSA’s natural character due to the
concentration of range improvements and any future
oil and gas activity. Mineral development could disrupt
elk and deer movements and use patterns. The Rocky
Hills AMP could be implemented, and the proposed
burn could take place, with a long-term increase of 641
livestock AGMs per year and with probable improve¬
ment in the 5,400 acres of the allotment currently in
critical erosion condition.

FARLIN CREEK

The preferred alternative is Alternative F-3, Partial Wil¬
derness, which would recommend 610 acres for wilder¬
ness designation as a tack-on to the Forest Service’s
proposed East Pioneer Wilderness, and 529 acres for
nonwilderness. This alternative adds the following
values to the adjacent portion of the FS unit: physio-
graphic/scenic unity and protection of scenic values,
by including the timbered ridge extending west from
Baldy Mountain; and, second, an opportunity to form a
less irregular and therefore more manageable bound¬
ary for this part of the larger wilderness unit. The pre¬
ferred alternative provides a logical wilderness access
route to the Baldy Mountain area, and some supple¬
mental wildlife and recreation features.

Compared to Alternative F-l, All Wilderness, Alterna¬
tive F-3 reduces conflicts with minerals and motorized
recreation, while eliminating the habitat diversity and
most of the big game winter range that would be
included under F-l. The preferred alternative recom¬
mends the area of high current mineral interest and
mineral potential for nonwilderness. Such a designa¬
tion would improve manageability. The most heavily
traveled recreational vehicle routes, as well as the route

to the Polaris claim group north of the WSA, is within
the nonwilderness portion. A potential harvest of about
0.4 million board feet per decade would be forgone
under both the preferred and the all wilderness alterna¬
tives. This forgone opportunity would represent for¬
gone economic benefits, but mineral extraction in the
nonwilderness portion would result in economic gains,
as well as some adverse impacts to wildlife.

If the area recommended is ultimately designated as
wilderness, a transfer of management authority from
BLM to the FS is recommended so that only one
agency is responsible for wilderness management.
Given the very small proportion of the total unit that is
currently managed by BLM, transfer of the BLM hold¬
ings is considered feasible and logical. If the FS unit is
not ultimately designated, Farlin Creek would not be a
viable independent candidate for wilderness status.

AXOLOTL LAKES

The preferred alternative is Alternative AX-2, No Wil¬
derness. The wilderness alternative, AX-1 , would assure
long-term preservation of the area’s scenic and primi¬
tive recreation values and significant special features,
primarily wildlife habitat. However, naturalness is rather
low, and manageability is affected by poor configura¬
tion and inholdings and mining claims in the western
portion. Gnder wilderness designation, resource values
forgone would be the relatively important motorized
recreation use, full development of an area with high
potential for gold, and long-term opportunities for a
harvest of about two million board feet of timber per
decade. In addition, there would be relatively high addi¬
tional costs to livestock operations due to possible
restrictions on the use of motor vehicles.

Gnder the preferred alternative, short-term manage¬
ment consists of restrictions on timber and minerals
activity in a small portion of the WSA, and motorized
travel restrictions to protect wildlife and watershed
values. This management protects the special values in
the lakes area, but would allow timber harvest and
mining elsewhere. These activities would adversely
affect wildlife, scenic, and primitive recreation values.
Gnder the Dillon MFP, most of the WSA is to be consi¬
dered as an ACEC for its wildlife, watershed and recrea¬
tion values. Depending on the final decision and man¬
agement plan, many of the area’s special features could
receive realtively long-term protection under nonwil¬
derness management, with use of the area for motor¬
ized recreation continuing and some timber and min¬
eral extraction possible.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

REQUIREMENTS FOR AREAS
RECOMMENDED AS SUITABLE FOR
WILDERNESS DESIGNATION

Benefits

There are no major resource values or uses in conflict
with wilderness preservation affecting the three areas
recommended for wilderness. Relatively high wilder¬
ness values are sufficient to offset minor conflicts with
minerals and additional costs of livestock operations in
the Ruby Mountain and Blacktail Mountain areas. The
benefits of adding the Farlin Creek unit to the NWPS are
that it would add to the physiographic unity, scenic
quality, and manageability of the adjacent portion of the
proposed East Pioneer Wilderness. A potential timber
harvest of 0.4 million board feet per decade is forgone
in the Farlin Creek area, but about 3.8 million board feet
per decade in other WSAs is released for timber man¬
agement under the preferred alternatives.

Manageability

The only management concern in the areas recom¬
mended for wilderness in the Ruby Mountain and
Blacktail Mountain WSAs are non-BLM lands within
and protruding into the areas. These are recom¬
mended to be considered for acquisition. Involved are
640 acres of state lands and about 36 acres of private
land in the Ruby area, and 1 ,280 acres of state land and
40 acres of private land in the Blacktail area. The 610-
acre area in the Farlin Creek WSA proposed as wilder¬
ness is recommended for transfer of management
authority to the FS for most logical and effective man¬
agement.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments received to date, during the inventory phase
and issue identification period of the study phase, have
been used to formulate the issues that guided the anal¬
ysis and draft decision process in this study. Formal
hearings and a formal review period immediately fol¬
lowing publication of this document will provide an
opportunity for additional comments on the specific
draft suitability recommendations. Public comments
will be considered prior to formulating the final
recommendations.

LOCAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
EFFECTS

Regional effects of the proposals are too small to mea¬
sure. Local economic effects of the proposed actions
are primarily restrictions to mineral development and
timber development.

A specific economic effect of forgoing mineral devel¬
opment is not possible without information about their
quality and quantity. This information is not presently
available for these study areas. Before any of these
areas are recommended to Congress as suitable for
wilderness designation, the Bureau of Mines and the
Geologic Survey will do a more detailed analysis of their
mineral potential. The preferred alternatives have
excluded from wilderness recommendations most of
the areas with high mineral potential. Based on existing
information, impacts on the local economy from res¬
trictions on mineral development are unlikely to be
significant.

Timber forgone in the proposed actions is 0.4 mmbf/
decade in the Farlin Creek area. This amount of timber
would result in forgoing about one-quarter of a job per
year in all facets of logging and milling. At present, there
are sufficient alternative sources of commercial timber
in the local area to mitigate this loss. Specific analysis of
the timber forgone can be found in the timber section in
this chapter. About 3.8 mmbf/decade is released for
harvest under the recommendations.

Some relatively small increases in livestock operations
costs would be incurred in the areas recommended as
suitable, as discussed in Chapter 3. Other social and
economic effects are beneficial, related to long-term
preservation of primitive recreation opportunities and
important wildlife habitats.

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCE
VALUES

Five minerals listed on the National Defense Stockpile
Inventory of Strategic and Critical Minerals, and energy
resources of oil and gas, are relevant in the study. The
supply goals referred to below are the goals established
for national defense purposes.

Talc

One area which has geology associated with talc occur¬
rence lies in the Ruby Mountain area recommended as
suitable for wilderness. However, there are several other
more accessible areas outside the WSA and in the
portion of the WSA recommended for nonwilderness
with the same geologic units. Given the current inven¬
tory, it is unlikely that designation of this area as wilder¬
ness will have an adverse impact on the strategic avail¬
ability of talc.

Tungsten

There is some potential for tungsten in the Farlin Creek
WSA. The area in the WSA that is well known as a
mineralized zone (having existing claims and mines) is
recommended for nonwildemess. There is unknown
potential for tungsten in the area recommended as
suitable for wilderness, but there are no claims or other
specific indications of current interest. Given current
stockpile levels, designation of this small area as wil¬
derness is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the
strategic availability of tungsten.

Nickel

The supply of nickel is currently less than the defense
stockpile goal. One area in the portion of the Blacktail
Mountains WSA recommended for nonwilderness has
potential for nickel. Development of this irregular and
low grade deposit is unlikely.

Silver

The inventory of silver is far in excess of the supply goal.
One area of known silver potential in the Blacktail
Mountains WSA has been allocated to nonwildemess.
In the Farlin Creek WSA, the area with high silver poten¬
tial that has received past and present mineral devel¬
opment interest has been recommended for nonwil¬
derness. There remains potential in the area
recommended as suitable for wilderness, but there are
no claims and no known current interest in this small
area. Based on this information, it is believed that
designation as wilderness is unlikely to have any effect
on strategic availability.

Thorium

There is some thorium potential in the Bell-Limekiln
WSA, which is recommended as nonwildemess. Inven¬
tory of thorium is in excess of the supply goal.

Oil and Gas

Two WSAs, Hidden Pasture Creek and Bell-Limekiln
Canyons, have relatively high potential for oil and gas.
These areas are recommended as nonwilderness.
None of the areas recommended for wilderness have
significant oil and gas potential.

Other Minerals

Gold is the other major mineral of interest with good
potential for occurrence in these WSAs. Areas in the
Henneberry Ridge and Axolotl Lakes WSAs with high
potential have been recommended for nonwilderness.
In the Farlin Creek WSA, the area with the highest
known potential and interest is recommended for non¬
wilderness, and an area with high potential for gold, but
no past or present mineral activity or specific indica¬
tions of interest, is recommended for wilderness.

An area with copper, silver, and barite potential in small,
structurally controlled deposits is located on the north
boundary of the area recommended for wilderness in
the Blacktail Mountains WSA. If any existing claims
have a valid discovery prior to mineral withdrawal on the
date of designation as wilderness or January 1, 1984,
whichever is later, these claims could be developed.
Otherwise the area could not be developed.

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER
PLANS

Other local, state, and federal plans of specific signifi¬
cance to this study were examined at the beginning of
the study process. These are discussed under “Consis¬
tency with Other Plans” under “Analysis of the Entire
Resource Area” in Chapter 1 . All affected agencies will
be notified of the specific draft suitability recommenda¬
tions and asked to document any inconsistencies dur¬
ing the formal review period.

IMPACTS ON OTHER RESOURCES

Livestock Grazing

Of the 27,21 1 acres recommended as suitable for wil¬
derness, about 1 0,800 acres are grazed by domestic
livestock for a total of 482 AGMs. In comparison, in the
total area under study here, there are 77,300 acres
leased for grazing for a total of 6,546 AGMs. There is no
anticipated effect on stocking levels under the Wilder¬
ness Management Policy, and relatively low additional
costs to livestock operators due to possible restrictions
on motorized vehicles in each area recommended as
suitable.

About 100 acres of the proposed 900-acre prescribed
bum in the Ruby Mountains WSA are within the area
recommended as suitable. The objective of lessening

impacts on riparian vegetation through better distribu¬
tion of livestock can be met without this portion of the
burn. There are no other proposed range improve¬
ments affected.

Timber

Three WSAs contain timber units that are technically
harvestable and currently economic to harvest. Table
1 9 details these areas.

Of the total of 4.2 mmbf/decade, 3.8 mmbf with a
present net worth (at 4%) of $412,939 is available for
harvest under preferred alternatives. Harvest of 0.4
mmbf/decade with a net worth (at 4%) of $31,494
would be forgone.

Wildlife

Wilderness designation provides certain types of long¬
term protections for wildlife habitats, by restricting the
use of motorized vehicles and development activities
such as mining and timber harvesting. Exceptions to
this would include mineral activities which have valid
existing rights. Nonwilderness management may offer
similar protection. However, in This situation, wildlife
must compete on a more equal, trade-off basis with all
other activities, and the types of long-term protections
provided by wilderness are not guaranteed.

The wildlife habitats in Table 20 are within areas
recommended as nonwilderness. Nonwilderness
management has the potential to protect these habi¬
tats. Two WSAs recommended for nonwilderness are
ACEC candidates. If these areas are ultimately desig¬
nated as such, ACEC management could offer sub¬
stantial protection. In two more areas, short-term pro¬
tection is offered by existing motorized vehicle
restrictions. However, in three of the areas, wilderness
designation would not afford significant additional pro¬
tection due to valid rights associated with pre-FLPMA
oil and gas leases.

The habitats shown in Table 21 are within areas
recommended as suitable for wilderness, and long¬
term preservation will be assured if the areas are desig¬
nated.

Recreation

There will be little effect on motorized recreation under
the preferred alternatives. Of the approximately 90 total
miles of vehicle ways in the WSAs, about 82 miles are in
areas recommended for nonwilderness, and about 8
miles are in areas recommended for wilderness. The
current travel plan would be amended to change about
32,000 acres from limited to open designation, and the
27,211 acres recommended as wilderness would
change from limited to closed designation. The remain¬
ing 35,000 acres will likely remain limited motorized
use areas for protection of resources other than wilder¬
ness. After these changes, about 690,000 acres of the
Dillon Resource Area (72%) will be open to motor vehi¬
cles with no restrictions.

If the areas recommended here— along with two
former primitive areas recommended previously— are
designated as wilderness, the total area closed by wil¬
derness designation will represent about 16% of the
restricted acreage in the resource area.

Of the WSAs and portions of WSAs recommended as
nonsuitable, existing primitive recreation opportunities
could be substantially protected in the East Fork and
Axolotl Lakes areas, both of which have excellent
opportunities. In the other six areas recommended for
nonwilderness, primitive recreation opportunities will
likely be diminished in the long term by other uses.
Three of these areas, though, have less than outstand¬
ing opportunities.

Visual Resources

Preservation of scenic values is an important feature of
each individual wilderness recommendation in this
report. Part of the integral scenic vistas from the Beaver¬
head and Ruby valleys would be preserved by designa¬
tion of the Ruby and Blacktail areas. The Baldy Moun¬
tain area scenic values would be preserved by
designation of the Farlin area.

Of the areas recommended as nonwilderness, current
management direction allows significant change in

TABLE 19

TIMBER VALCIES AND SUITABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS

Present Net Worth

Potential Harvest 4% Discount 7-3/8% Dis. Suitability Recommendation

WSA (mmbf/decade) Rate Rate for Timber Unit

Ruby Mountains

1.0

$21,463

$-24,502

Nonwilderness

Farlin Creek

0.4

$31,494

$-2,653

Wilderness

Axolotl Lakes

2.8

391,476

$40,290

Nonwilderness

TABLE 20

WILDLIFE HABITATS IN AREAS RECOMMENDED AS NONSUIT ABLE FOR

WILDERNESS DESIGNATION

WSA Name _ Important Habitats _ Management Considerations

Ruby Mountains Spring-summer-fall elk range and None

calving habitat.

Blacktail Mountains Elk and deer winter range. Vehicle restrictions currently in

effect.

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Spring-summer-fall elk, deer, and
Creek moose range. Trout fishery.

Vehicle and other restrictions
currently in effect. ACEC candidate.

Hidden Pasture Creek

Yearlong deer and antelope range.
Spring-summer-fall elk range.
Bighorn sheep reintroduction
planned.

Vehicle restrictions currently in
effect. Pre-FLPMA oil and gas
leases.

Bell and Limekiln Canyons Yearlong deer range and some

yearlong elk range.

Pre-FLPMA oil and gas leases.

Henneberry Ridge

Yearlong elk, deer, and antelope Pre-FLPMA oil and gas leases,

range.

Farlin Creek

Elk and deer winter range.

None.

Axolotl Lakes Spring-summer-fall elk, deer, and Vehicle and other restrictions

moose range. Summer-fall antelope currently in effect. ACEC candidate.

range. Trout fishery. Axolotl

salamander.

TABLE 21

WILDLIFE HABITATS IN AREAS
RECOMMENDED AS SUITABLE FOR
WILDERNESS DESIGNATION

WSA Name

Important Habitats

Ruby Mountains

Blacktail Mountains

Farlin Creek

Spring, summer, fall, and
winter deer range.

Spring-summer-fall elk and
deer range. Some elk calving
habitat. Suitable unoccupied
peregrine falcon and bighorn
sheep habitat.

Spring-summer-fall elk and
deer range.

visual resources (VRM Class IV) in three— Henneberry
Ridge, Hidden Pasture and part of the Axolotl Lakes
WSA.

Soil and Water Resources

Wilderness designation would have a slightly more
beneficial effect on soil and water resources than would
nonwilderness designation. Three areas with sensitive
soil and water resources— East Fork, Hidden Pasture
Creek, and Axolotl Lakes — are recommended for non¬
wilderness.

Cultural Resources

Wilderness designation would have a slightly more
beneficial effect on cultural resources than would non-
wilderness designation. There are high cultural
resource values contained in three WSAs. One of these,
the Ruby Mountains, is recommended for partial wil¬
derness, while two, Hidden Pasture Creek and Axolotl
Lakes, are recommended for nonwilderness. An area
with moderate cultural resource value, Blacktail Moun¬
tains, is recommended for partial wilderness.

IMPACTS OF NONDESIGNATION
ON WILDERNESS VALUES

Of the 67,198 acres recommended for nonwilderness
in this study, about 1 1 ,670 acres in two areas will be
considered for special management status as ACECs.
Of the areas not recommended for wilderness, the East
Fork unit (6,230 acres) can reasonably be expected to
retain significant wilderness values. The wilderness
value of the remaining areas will likely be at least some¬
what impaired over the long term by timber harvest,
mining, extensive range improvements, new roads, and
oil and gas exploration and development.

EVALUATION OF WILDERNESS
VALUES

The Ruby and Blacktail areas that are recommended as
suitable offer excellent opportunities for solitude, chal¬
lenging travel over rough terrain, high scenic quality,
and significant wildlife features. The Blacktail area also
has significant ecotype/ habitat diversity, and the Ruby
area has significant cultural values.

The values of the Farlin Creek area are related primarily
to manageability and physiographic and scenic unity
with the adjacent portion of the Forest Service area
proposed as wilderness.

DIVERSITY IN THE NATIONAL
WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM

Ecosystems and Landforms

The ecosystems shown in Table 22 are represented in
the areas recommended as wilderness. Acreages of
each type are indicated.

Viable examples of the basic ecosystems are consi¬
dered to be those 1 ,000 acres in size and larger. Viable
representations are Douglas-fir forest and sagebrush
steppe in the Ruby Mountains, and Douglas-fir, foothills
prairie, and alpine meadows-barren in the Blacktail
Mountains.

The representation of the relatively underrepresented
foothills prairie type in the Blacktail area is considered a
significant addition to the diversity of the wilderness
system. The occurrence of this type at high elevation
along the crest of the range is considered an important
feature. In addition, the Ruby area contains a subtype of
interest within the Douglas-fir type— a ridgetop limber
pine and park association.

Proximity to Population Centers

The Ruby area is within five hours’ drive of Billings, and
all three areas are within five hours of Great Falls.
However, these cities are near unusually rich wilderness
opportunities, and designation of these three additional
areas would have little added effect under this criterion.

Geographic Distribution

These areas are in a three-state region with relatively
extensive wilderness opportunities, and their designa¬
tion would have no effect under this criterion. Locally,
the areas recommended here, along with two former
primitive areas previously recommended, bring the
total of lands recommended for wilderness by the BLM
in the Dillon Resource Area to 42,435 acres, or 4% of
the lands in the resource area.

TABLE 22

ECOTYPES AND SUITABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS

Ecotype

Area

Douglas-fir

Forest

Sagebrush

Steppe

Foothills

Prairie

Alpine Meadows-
Barren

Ruby Mountains

13,400

1,300

400

500

Blacktail Mountains

6,900

600

2,300

1,200

Farlin Creek

440

170

Chapter 3

Environmental Consequences

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS COMMON TO ALL WSAS

WILDERNESS

Wilderness Supply

National, Regional, and Statewide Opportunities

F rom the perspective of the entire wilderness preserva¬
tion system and of the system of units within the three-
state region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, designa¬
tion of the areas under study as wilderness would not be
significant. From the perspective of the system within
Montana, especially the system of designated and
potential wilderness areas within five hours’ drive of
Great Falls and Billings, designation of the areas
included in this study is not significant except insofar as
it would extend the opportunities for a longer season of
wilderness use within the state. All of the areas consi¬
dered here, as well as virtually all of the rest of the BLM
study areas in Montana, have a longer potential season
of use than most existing areas in the state.

Local Opportunities

There are two existing and seven proposed wilderness
areas in the two-county local area. The percentage of
land in the two-county area in designated wilderness is
1 .8%, while the percentage of the United States outside
Alaska in wilderness is about 1%, including large areas
with no designated wilderness. Other localities, particu¬
larly in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Northwest
regions, have a much higher percentage of land under
wilderness designation than both the national average
and the Beaverhead-Madison figure.

Although there are other FS units proposed for desig¬
nation in the Beaverhead-Madison local area, recom¬
mendation of all or parts of the most qualified areas
under study here for wilderness would not in itself lead
to an “overabundance” of wilderness in the local area.
The more pertinent question to be addressed is
whether or not there would be significant effects on the
local economy or on other resources, either positive or
negative, under specific alternative proposals. The
ultimate goal is to determine the “best” long term use
for these lands.

Opportunities for Ecosystem
Representation

Wilderness designation presents an opportunity for
preservation of representative ecosystems in a natural
state for scientific and educational purposes. Four
major ecosystems are represented in the area under
study: Douglas-fir forest, foothills prairie, sagebrush
steppe, and alpine meadows-barren.

In Montana alone, there are examples totaling 192,000
acres of the Douglas-fir forest ecosystem in eight
designated wilderness areas, and examples totaling
825,000 acres of the alpine meadows-barren type in
seven designated areas. These types are well repre¬
sented in existing wilderness in Montana, and including
examples of them should be a significant consideration
in this study only where subtypes of interest are
involved.

There is only one example of the sagebrush steppe
type, about 32,000 acres, in one designated wilderness
in Montana; however, there are numerous opportuni¬
ties other than those in this study for preservation of
examples of this ecotype— in relatively large BLM study
units in northern Nevada, eastern Oregon, southern
Wyoming, and southern Idaho. Therefore, preservation
of sagebrush steppe ecosystems in the areas under
study here would add to the diversity of areas within
Montana, but would not be crucial to preservation of
this type in the wilderness system as a whole.

Available information indicates that there is only one
example of the foothills prairie type in one designated
wilderness in the entire wilderness system. It includes
only 1 ,300 acres of this type, nearly the minimum for
representation of a dynamic ecosystem. Areas under
consideration in this study contain seven examples
totaling about 1 7,000 acres. There are opportunities for
preserving up to 1 7,000 additional acres of the foothills
prairie ecotype in relatively small individual parcels in a
total of nine proposed and further study areas in the
state, not including areas in this study. These are
apparently the only possible sources of additional
representation of this ecotype in the National Wilder¬
ness Preservation System.

Multiple Resource Benefits

In all 8 WSAs, wilderness designation would aid in the
long term maintenance of important wildlife habitats.
Designation would also protect native vegetation
through limiting timber cutting and restricting land
treatments and the introduction of non-native plants.
Restricting vehicle use would protect those cultural
artifacts that could be removed by vehicle and would
reduce stress on some species of wildlife. Wilderness
would ensure the maintenance of scenic values by
requiring that all new projects blend into the natural
landscape. Soil and water resources would be pro¬
tected by the careful placement of range improvements
and restrictions on surface disturbances.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Designation of any of these WSAs as wilderness will
place cultural resources contained therein under the
Wilderness Management Policy. To the extent com¬
patible with wilderness preservation objectives and
objectives for cultural resource management, these
resources are available for recreational, scenic, scien¬
tific, educational, conservation, and historical uses
(including ceremonial or religious use by Native Amer¬
icans). Cultural resources in most instances will be
subject to the forces of nature in the same manner as
other wilderness values.

A decision to remove, maintain, or allow historic or
prehistoric sites or structures to deteriorate naturally is
an undertaking which will affect the resources. Such a
decision is subject to compliance processes detailed in
the provisions of federal regulations (43 CFR Part 3) to
carry out the Antiquities Act of 1 906, the Historic Sites
Act of 1 935, Executive Order 1 1 593, the National His¬
toric Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1 979, as are
all other actions which may lead to adverse effects to
sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places.

Mitigative measures to record and monitor cultural
resources are inherent in the Wilderness Management
Policy, and if applied, wilderness designation of any
WSA will prove beneficial to those cultural resources
within the area through limitations of direct and indirect
impacts resulting from development and unrestrained
use. If such mitigative measures are not applied,
adverse effect is certain to occur to sites of potential
National Register value.

The no wilderness alternatives have the potential for
indirect and incidental adverse effects consequent to
development and unrestrained use. Direct project
impacts will continue to be avoided or mitigated
through existing cultural resource protective regula¬
tions.

WATERSHED

The adoption of all or partial wilderness alternatives
would have a neutral impact on watershed in areas or
parts of areas recommended for wilderness designa¬
tion. Watershed specialists did not identify in the MFP
any areas within the WSAs for mechanical treatment to
improve soil or water conditions. Since management
would for the most part remain as is, little impact, either
positive or negative, would be expected. Some minor
improvement in watershed conditions could be
expected from elimination of vehicle travel in areas
where such use now occurs.

The no wilderness and partial wilderness alternatives
have potential for adverse impacts in areas or parts of
areas recommended as nonwilderness. Mining and
timber harvest activities would be permitted and could
cause adverse impacts to water quality and/or soil sta¬
bility.

GEOLOGY AND MINERALS

As indicated in Chapter 1 , it was not possible to identify
specific information on the sizes of deposits, ore
grades, or dollar values for any particular mineral
commodity. Therefore, the evaluation of impacts was
based on general information of where there might be
mineral potential, given the geology of the area.

Wilderness designation is not an irreversible or irre¬
trievable commitment of mineral resources. Rather, it is
a legislative commitment of resources. Nevertheless,
designation or potential designation can impede or
stop mineral exploration by adding a crucial element of
uncertainty. Explorationists often are unwilling to
commit resources on projects they may not be able to
develop. Even though the Wilderness Act allows for
some development, within certain environmental con¬
straints, legal challenges and opposing public view¬
points often make development an uncertainty.

The short-term impact (before December 31 , 1983) of
wilderness designation would be to limit any explora¬
tion activities to those which would meet the nonim¬
pairment criteria.

The long-term impact of wilderness designation is
more significant. After December 31 , 1 983, or the date
an area is designated wilderness by Congress, which¬
ever is later, operations will be allowed only on those
claims which had demonstrated a valid discovery as of
that date.

After December 31, 1983, or the date designated as
wilderness, if later than that, the areas are withdrawn
from the mining and mineral leasing laws.

BLM policy is to specifically discuss any potential
impacts on critical minerals availability. It is unlikely any
of the WSAs can make any contribution to the nation’s
reserves of critical minerals. Strategic minerals are dis¬
cussed further in the Bell-Limekiln, Blacktail Mountains,
Farlin Creek, and Ruby Mountains WSA sections.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Grazing management in BLM wilderness areas will be
governed by the Wilderness Management Policy
(WMP) and Congressional direction in House Report
98-1128, unless the specific wilderness legislation dic¬
tates otherwise. In general, there will be no curtailment

of grazing simply because an area has been designated
wilderness. Maintenance of existing range improve¬
ments and construction of new improvements neces¬
sary for rangeland and/or wilderness resource protec¬
tion will be allowed. Occasional use of motorized
equipment may be allowed for major maintenance or
reconstruction projects, in emergencies, and in other
situations where practical alternatives do not exist.
However, such use will normally be limited to those
portions of a wilderness where it had occurred prior to
the area’s designation. These guidelines are general in
nature, and must be applied on a case-by-case basis.

The livestock grazing section for each WSA in this
chapter will deal with the impacts of each alternative on
proposed range improvements and stocking levels.
These proposed range improvements and stocking
levels were taken from the Mountain Foothills Grazing
E1S, and no attempt was made to assess long-term
impacts beyond the scope of the grazing EIS. Judg¬
ments as to which proposed improvements would be
allowed are tentative and based on the provisions of the
WMP. Potential impacts to ranch operating costs and
mortgage values are covered in the socioeconomic
section of this chapter.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS

Recreation

Recreationists in southwestern Montana, in BLM and
other surveys, have expressed a preference for primi¬
tive, semi-primitive and undeveloped recreation.
Although the total area of the WSAs considered here is
small, recommendations resulting from this study
could influence to some degree the long-term availabil¬
ity of primitive forms of recreation locally.

Since no developed recreation sites were proposed in
the Dillon MFP for any of the WSAs, and the current
supply of developed sites in the local area exceeds
demand, none of the alternatives will affect developed
recreation opportunities.

Changes in public recreation use due to wilderness
designation or nondesignation in the areas under study
here will most likely not be significant to the local socio¬
economic situation, nor will there be a significant
increase in trespass on adjacent private land. The
WSAs cover a relatively small area and have very light
primitive and motorized recreation use currently. Wil¬
derness designation of the most qualified areas would
most likely not increase use of these areas significantly
due to relatively extensive wilderness opportunities
elsewhere in the three-state region. It is very unlikely that
any of the areas under study here will ever become
primary destinations for out-of-region wilderness users.

Outfitting and guiding enhances some recreation
opportunities and provides a livelihood for a relatively
significant number of individuals in the two-county
area. In general, potential customers have a greater
need for outfitter services in less accessible areas, so
that the outfitter industry is to a great degree tied to the
existence of relatively large tracts of undeveloped land.
This being the case, the relatively small size of the
individual WSAs in this study, and of the total area
under study, limits the potential effects of recommen¬
dations made in this study on outfitting and guiding.
Presently there are only two outfitters using a total of
three of the areas under study here. This number could
increase over time if other public lands in the local area
were developed and some or all of these WSAs
remained undeveloped. However, this would not likely
be a significant number due to the relatively small size
of the area involved.

Gaining public access to any of the WSAs under con¬
sideration could become a management and planning
consideration if any of the areas were designated as
wilderness. However, there are several feasible routes
proposed in the Dillon MFP for access to each of the
affected areas, and there are similar problems related to
many nonwilderness recreation opportunities on public
land in southwestern Montana. Therefore, access to the
more popular and suitable public lands would be an
issue whether they were designated wilderness or not.

Geology and Minerals

The economic viability of possible mineral deposits
depends upon the quality of the ore, the extent of the
deposit, the accessibility of the deposit, the price and
demand for the commodity, and to some extent the
presence of existing refining facilities. The designation
of an area as wilderness affects the accessibility of
known deposits and constrains the exploration for de¬
posits. Prior to sending wilderness recommendations
to Congress, the Bureau of Mines and the Geological
Survey will prepare a more detailed examination of the
mineral potential of those areas recommended as suit¬
able. Based upon the information now available, the
most likely minerals to be developed in the wilderness
study areas are talc, gold, and silver. In addition, interest
has been expressed in exploring for oil and gas, particu¬
larly in the Hidden Pasture Creek and Bell-Limekiln
Canyons WSAs. As this area of southwest Montana is
explored more, a better idea of the oil and gas potential
will emerge.

Existing processing plants in Madison and Beaverhead
counties may act to encourage further development of
the Ruby Mountains talc deposits.

Interest in silver and gold mining remains high even
though the prices of these metals have dropped signifi¬
cantly from the all-time highs of a couple years ago.
Several WSAs, particularly Axolotl Lakes, Henneberry

Ridge, and Blacktail Mountains are near areas which
have seen considerable silver and gold mining activity
in the past.

While many factors contribute to the costs of mining
and milling of gold and silver, estimates can be made to
determine a range of values. The Forest Service esti¬
mated mining and milling costs for small vein deposits
of gold and silver in the West Pioneer Mountains to be
about $200/ton of sorted ore. This assumes under¬
ground mining methods. Average transportation
charges to the smelter in East Helena would be about
$20/ ton. Although the charges for smelting are figured
by a complex formula, an average charge would be
about $80/ton (GSDA, FS 1980). Other information
suggests that the $200/ton figure for mining and mil¬
ling is probably at the high end of the spectrum. A figure
of MO/ton would represent the low end of the spec¬
trum. Transportation and smelting charges would be
the same.

For an operation to be economically viable, the return
must be at least equal to the production costs (mining,
milling, transportation, and smelting). Using the pro¬
duction costs given above and current smelter pay¬
ment formulas, Table 23 gives estimates of the assay
values that would be necessary for economically viable
gold and silver operations.

TABLE 23

ASSAY VALUES FOR ECONOMICALLY VIABLE
OPERATIONS

Mining & Trans. &

Milling Smelting Market Price/ Assay Value
Costs/Ton Charges TroyOz (oz/ton)

Silver $40 - $200 $100 $9 17.95-37.32

Gold $40 -$200 $100 $400 .40 - .83

If the ore were concentrated near the mines, the costs of
production would decrease considerably, and therefore
the assay values necessary for an economic operation
would decrease as well. Heap leaching is one process
that could be used. This process is assumed to recover
85% of the values in the unmined ore, and would cost
about $20/ton. Transportation cost would be reduced
to $5 per ton and there would be no smelting charges
(USDA, FS 1980). In addition, the mining and milling
costs for a surface mining operation would be much

less than for underground operations— in the neigh¬
borhood of $20/ton— which would further reduce the
grade of ore required.

The above also assumes that there are no other valu¬
able minerals in the deposit which may improve the
economic value of a deposit.

Livestock Grazing

The impacts of wilderness designation on ranching and
grazing management considered here are (1 ) the effect
on manageability and operational cost of the ranch due
to use restrictions, and (2) the effect on the value of the
permit for borrowing purposes. Impacts on proposed
range improvements and stocking levels are covered
under the Livestock Grazing sections for each WSA.

The manageability problem involves the use of vehicles
and other equipment to move livestock and salt, build
and maintain range improvements, and inspect herds.
Restricting vehicles to entering WSAs once or twice a
year would create problems in work scheduling for
ranchers and would possibly require the employment
of more ranch workers. Those ranchers who salt every
30 to 35 days while in an allotment would have to haul
some salt with horses. This would take longer than
current methods since they usually carry only four salt
blocks per pack horse. Scheduling of maintenance
may also be affected adversely by limitations placed
upon vehicle use. Present practices include mainte¬
nance in the spring as soon as the snow leaves the area
and continuous maintenance through the summer
months while the livestock are in the areas. With wilder¬
ness designation, the continuous use of motor vehicles
would not be permitted but occasional use could be
approved on a case-by-case basis.

A study done by the BLM in Oregon found that the use
of horses added $.07 per AUM to the cost of the ranch
operation. For the allotments within these WSAs, this
would mean the added costs would range from a low of
$.21 to a high of $108.36 per allotment per year.

A recent study (AMEC 1982) in eastern Montana also
examined the possible increase in costs associated with
using horses instead of vehicles for livestock operations
in wilderness areas. This was done by designing a
hypothetical example to reflect the cost of using a horse
instead of a vehicle to perform the same tasks. The
example and the assumptions used by AMEC have
been revised slightly for use in this effort to better reflect
the existing situation in southwest Montana.

It must be emphasized that the example is only hypo¬
thetical. Each operation will be different, based on such
things as number of miles of fence, distance traveled,
and amount of salting needed. However, the example
provides a general idea of the relative costs of using a
horse instead of a vehicle. The following assumptions
were used in the analysis for this example:

1 . The grazing season is 4 months.

2. Salting requires twice as many trips using a
horse as a vehicle.

3. Checking of fences and minor maintenance
takes one and a half times as long using a horse as
a vehicle.

4. The operator already has an adequate number
of horses to do these jobs.

5. T ravel time is half as long with a vehicle as with
a horse.

6. The operator must travel 1 0 miles round trip.

7. The wage rate is $5/hour.

8. The vehicle gets 5 miles per gallon.

9. The price of fuel is $1. 33/gal.

Gsing these assumptions, the additional costs shown
below were derived.

In the example below, the additional cost of using
horses amounts to $143 per year.

These results are not directly comparable to those of
the Oregon study cited above, because the Oregon
study is based on AGMs and the eastern Montana
methodology is based on a single hypothetical exam¬
ple. However, the assumptions used in the two studies
are similar, and the additional costs turn out to be
similar.

Interviews with representative ranch operators indi¬
cated that for sheep and cattle operations that had a
large number of range improvements, or required
extensive salting, wilderness designation might require
hiring additional ranch hands.

Wages for ranch hands in Montana for 1 980, surveyed
by the Montana Employment Security Commission,
ranged from $653 to $1 ,01 9 per month. Therefore, any
need to employ more workers could be relatively
expensive. In addition, there may be a lack of expe¬
rienced, reliable ranch workers in certain areas. Work
would generally be seasonal and scheduling of vehicle
use in an area would affect the chances of successfully
hiring seasonal ranch hands.

Gsing the example given above and the interviews with
ranch operators, additional operating costs related to
possible restrictions on the use of motorized vehicles
were analyzed on a relative basis for each WSA. No
analysis of individual, specific operations was attempt¬
ed due to the complexity involved and time and cost
considerations. However, information from interviews
with a few livestock operators representative of the
types of ranching operations found in the WSAs were
used. It was possible to assign relative costs using
factors such as the size of individual allotments and the
portion within a WSA; number of AGMs in individual
allotments and the portion within a WSA; season of use;
type, number and location of existing and proposed
range improvements; and the location of the WSA
portion of the allotment relative to the remainder of the
allotment. These factors were aggregated by WSA, and
produced the estimates of possible additional costs
shown in Table 24.

These cost estimates of course do not take into
account the specific financial situation of each opera¬
tor. For instance, they do not consider the effects of a
small cost increase on relatively marginal operations.
However, they are considered valid for an overall com¬
parison of costs by WSA.

Costs Gsing Vehicles
Salting

Fuel Cost
Labor Cost

Initial Fence Repair
Fuel Cost
Labor Cost

4 trips x 10 miles/trip + 5 mpg x $ 1.33/gal
4 trips x 2 hours/trip x $5/hour

Total Salting Cost

3 trips x 10 miles/trip -5 mpg x $1 .33/gal
3 trips x 10 hours/trip x $5/hour

Total Initial Repair Cost
Fence Checking (and minor maintenance)

Fuel Cost = 3 trips x 10 miles/trip +5 mpg x $ 1.33/gal

Labor Cost = 3 trips x 10 hours/trip x $5/hour

Costs Gsing Horses

Salting

Initial Fence Repair
Fence Checking

Total Fence Checking Cost
Total Cost Gsing Vehicles

8 trips x 3 hours/trip x $5/hour
3 trips x 1 1 hours/trip x $5/hour
3 trips x 1 5 hours/trip x $5/hour

Total Cost Gsing Horses

$11

$40

$51

$150

$158

$150

$158

$367

$120

$165

$225

$510

TABLE 24

ADDITIONAL COSTS TO LIVESTOCK
OPERATORS

Relative Additional Cost to
Livestock Operators due to
WSA Wilderness Designation

Ruby Mountains

All Wilderness

Partial Wilderness

Moderate

Low

Blacktail Mountains

All Wilderness

Partial Wilderness

Low

East Fork

All Wilderness

Low

Hidden Pasture

All Wilderness

High

Bell-Limekiln

All Wilderness

High

Henneberry Ridge

All Wilderness

Partial Wilderness

Moderate

Low

Farlin Creek

All Wilderness

Partial Wilderness

Low

Axolotl Lakes

All Wilderness

High

Another possible impact is the effect of wilderness
designation on the value of the public grazing permit for
borrowing money and for determining the market value
of the base property. In practice these permits are
valued due to the grazing fees charged being lower than
the market rate for private grazing. As the price of
federal grazing approaches the private rate, the permit
value will become less important.

The value of the grazing permit for securing a produc¬
tion loan appears to be affected to some extent by
wilderness designation. A survey done on this subject
(AMEC 1 982) asked a variety of lending agencies in
eastern Montana to review a hypothetical ranch and
indicate how much they would loan with or without
wilderness designation in this survey. Wilderness
designation reduced the value of the permit for borrow¬
ing purposes by 20% to 100%. Although the BLM’s
Wilderness Management Policy permits the continu¬
ance of existing grazing activities and facilities, and the
construction of new facilities on a case-by-case basis,
the primary reason given for this reduction was the
uncertainty of what the actual policies of the govern¬
ment would be concerning grazing use by permittees.
Other factors considered by the lending agencies were
the dependency of the individual ranch on grazing in
wilderness, the effectiveness of management of the

ranch, and the ability of the entire ranch to produce
income over the life of the loan.

A recent informal survey of selected Beaverhead and
Madison county lending agencies produced somewhat
different results from those of the AMEC study. In gen¬
eral, the lending agencies contacted indicated that pro¬
duction loans would not be affected provided that
ACJMs and operating costs remained the same. Any
increase in operating costs would result in a propor¬
tional reduction in the amount of the loan. For example,
a 5% increase in cost due to designation would result in
a 5% reduction in the amount the rancher could borrow.
Security for the loan and the ability to repay were consi¬
dered more important factors. There was no consensus
among the lending agencies contacted on the effect of
wilderness designation on loans for purchase. How¬
ever, it appears that the same factors affecting produc¬
tion loans would be the major considerations.

Timber Management

The value of timber forgone by designation of an area
as wilderness was estimated at two interest rates, taking
into account the value of the timber and the cost of
building a road to the timber stands. Construction and
maintenance of the roads are calculated to be born
solely by the forestry activity. This is legitimate if forestry
is the only reason for the construction of these roads. If
there are other reasons for constructing these roads,
the costs should be born by all those activities which
would use the road. Therefore the present net worth
calculated by the model could be higher than shown if
road costs were to be born by activities other than
forestry. The model used assumes current prices for
wood products. If prices increase in the future, these
stands could become more economic to harvest.
Prices would have to increase faster than the costs of
harvesting for this improvement to occur.

The interest rates chosen for analysis are 4 and 7-3/ 8%.
The 4% rate is used by the FS for forestry. The 7-3/8%
rate reflects the rate used for federal water projects. The
choice of the interest rate for timber is a management
decision. The lower the interest rate, the more likely a
timber stand will be cut now.

The only WSA timber stands showing a positive present
net worth at either interest rate are in Ruby Mountains,
Farlin Creek, and Axolotl Lakes. If the 7-3/8% rate is
used, only Axolotl Lakes is currently harvestable at a
profit. If, as the model assumes, 1 0% of the timber is cut
in a decade, employment generated due to timber
production in the Axolotl Lakes area would amount to
about 1 .7 jobs per year in the lumber industry.

Much of the timber in these areas has not been logged
due to the remoteness of the areas and the ruggedness
of the terrain. Some timber has been cut in in the
Axolotl Lakes area and the Blacktail Mountains in the
past.

ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

ROBY MOUNTAINS, MT-076-001

Alternative R-l , All Wilderness

Wilderness

The Ruby Mountains WSA is a diverse, high-quality area
for its size, and its designation would add positively to
the wilderness preservation system. Inclusion of both
the north and south slopes of the range would insure
diversity within the WSA, and though the predominant
Douglas-fir ecosystem is already represented, the
limber pine subtype and sagebrush/grassland types
would provide some diversity in the wilderness system.
Other positive factors are the area’s exceptional oppor¬
tunities for solitude; scenic, challenging terrain; special
features of a large ungrazed area including undisturbed
wildlife habitat, especially for mule deer; and a some¬
what longer season of use than the bulk of the areas in
the wilderness system.

Wilderness designation would aid long term manage¬
ment of important elk and deer habitat, and significant
visual and cultural resources.

There would be manageability and quality concerns,
however. Most of the unit boundaries are irregular legal
boundaries not readily identifiable on the ground. The
southwest portion is essentially isolated from the rest of
the WSA by private land along McHessor Creek and is
extremely narrow and irregular. The extreme south is
affected by sounds from the talc mine. There are four
nonpublic inholdings that could become management
problems if they were not acquired. In particular, provid¬
ing access to the state section around Ruby Peak would
cause major impacts, depending on the route selected.
These inholdings logically would be a part of the
recommended area, as they comprise some of its
major features, particularly in the area around Ruby
Peak and Hinch Creek.

In the south central portion, a concentration of vehicle
ways and range improvements has a moderate impact
on naturalness; and the stock driveway has a noticeable
impact, though it would not be a major management
problem due to the small amount of use it receives. The
core of the WSA could be effectively managed as wil¬
derness, though some of the peripheral areas would
present management problems.

Wilderness designation would aid in long-term man¬
agement of important mule deer habitat, and signifi¬
cant visual and cultural resources.

Recreation

There would be relatively minor adverse effects on
motorized recreation opportunities, as most of the
study area is unsuitable for motor vehicle use. Potential
public access via Hinch, and secondarily, Garden
Creek, would be forgone. Other potential access routes
would be limited to reaching the mouths of the canyons
in the rugged northern portion of the range, with few
opportunities forgone. There would be a slightly bene¬
ficial effect on primitive recreation by curtailing most of
the minor, existing motor vehicle use in the area.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA would be managed as VRM Class 1 and
existing scenic values would be preserved.

Wildlife

Restrictions on timber harvesting and prescribed burn¬
ing would assure a continuing supply of security cover.
However, such restrictions would also result in a lost
potential for enhancement of forage production for
mule deer. That is, since the availability of forage is
currently the limiting factor for mule deer, logging or
burning of forested land on select north slopes would
improve forage production and thus improve mule
deer habitat.

However, restrictions on logging and prescribed burn¬
ing as a result of wilderness designation could have a
beneficial effect on elk habitat, particularly on security
cover in the southern part of the range.

Gnder current management direction the forage in the
northern part of the range is allocated to wildlife and not
to livestock. Although wilderness designation would
guarantee the continuation of this policy over the long
term, it is unlikely that this policy would change even
without wilderness designation, because of the nature
of the area.

Restrictions on mineral development would have a
beneficial effect on widlife by protecting existing secur¬
ity cover and wildlife use patterns.

Other surface-disturbing or vegetative-manipulation
activities, such as the sagebrush burning proposed for
the southern part of the unit, would be prohibited, with
beneficial effects on mule deer.

Geology and Minerals

As discussed in Chapter 1 , the Ruby Mountains area
has a high potential for talc (see the Ruby Mountains

Mineral Potential map). Two talc mines, the Beaver¬
head Mine (Cyprus Industrial Minerals) and the Trea¬
sure Mine (Pfizer Inc.), are located south of the WSA.
The Beaverhead Mine produces approximately 30,000
tons per year with reserves of approximately 450,000
tons. The Beaverhead Mine has been closed because of
economic conditions (January 1982). The Treasure
Mine produces approximately 1 25,000 tons per year.
Reserves are approximately 2,000,000 tons. Since talc
potential in this WSA is largely unknown, it is impossi¬
ble to predict the impacts of wilderness designation on
future commercial availability. However, existing infor¬
mation suggests that the potential for talc is highest in
areas just south of the WSA close to the existing mines.

Talc is listed as a critical mineral in the National
Defense Stockpile Inventory of Strategic and Critical
Materials. The current inventory of talc is approximately
80 times the 1980 supply goal of 28 tons (GSDI, BM
1 981 ). It is unlikely that designation of the Ruby Moun¬
tains WSA as wilderness would have an impact on the
strategic availability of talc.

Potential for other metamorphic minerals and for
metals is largely unknown. Existing information sug¬
gests moderate potential for metamorphic minerals
and low potential for metallics. Potential for oil and gas
is also limited based on existing information.

Livestock Grazing

Allotments, AGMs, and range improvements within the
area recommended for wilderness would be identical to
those described in Chapter 1 . The 900-acre prescribed
burn proposed for the Garden Creek Allotment would
probably be prohibited. The burn would yield about a
90-AGM increase in surveyed grazing capacity.
Increases in livestock AGMs forgone would be consid¬
erably less than the full 90 AGMs; the primary purpose
of the burn is to lessen impacts on riparian habitat by
creating a better distribution of livestock. This goal
could be partially met by an alternative method: gap
fencing, which would create a rest rotation scheme in
the affected creek bottoms. Prohibition of the burn
would not adversely affect implementation of the
Garden Creek AMP. There would be no other impacts
to proposed improvements or stocking levels.

Timber Management

As explained in Chapter 1 , a timber evaluation of the
study area shows the present net worths displayed in
Table 25.

The potential sustained yield harvest from EAG 4 (the
only EAG with a positive PNW) is about 1 ,024 mbf per
decade. Given the probable harvest schedule shown in
the table below, the total board feet of timber foregone
over a 100-year period under this alternative is about
6.3 mmbf. Any future potential of EAG 1 , 2, and 3 would
also be lost.

TABLE 25

SUMMARY OF PRESENT NET WORTH OF
TIMBER

RUBY MOUNTAINS

PNW at Discount Rate of
EAU 4% 7-3/8%

$-59,244

$-79,706

-88,720

-81,482

-30,406

-27,174

+21,463

-24,502

In the short run no timber harvest is planned for this
area due to the roughness of terrain and economics of
logging. In the long run the potential harvest shown in
Table 26 is forgone.

In the long run the proposed action would not change
the potential of the land for forest growth. Ingrowth
would approximately equal mortality. As long as the
area remained wilderness, the removal of forest prod¬
ucts would not be possible.

Alternative R-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Current specific management direction contained in
the Dillon MFP for this WSA is as follows:

—Provide public access to the area with restrictions to
protect wildlife habitat and primitive recreation.

—Allow timber and minerals activity subject to interdis¬
ciplinary review.

—Inspect the stock driveway and mitigate existing
damage through management, relocation, or elimina¬
tion of use if necessary.

—Permit only minor change to visual resources at the
north end of the range (VRM Class II), moderate change
at the south end of the range (VRM Class III), and
significant change on a small piece of prairie on the
east (VRM Class IV).

—Allocate forage in the north end of the range ( 1 2,640
acres) to wildlife.

Seven roads are proposed in the area. Five of these at
the north end of the range are proposed for recreation
access and/or timber management. The recreation
proposals generally would only provide access to the
area, without penetrating it. The more detailed forestry
analysis in this study shows low timber management
potential at the north end of the range, so the forestry
access proposals are not likely to be implemented.

At the south end of the range, roads are proposed in
Hinch Creek and in the Garden Creek-McHessor Creek

TABLE 26

TOTAL POTENTIAL HARVEST VOLCIME/DECADE (MBF)

RCIBY MOUNTAINS

Decade

Volume
(Tractor Logged Areas)

Volume

(Cable Logged Areas)
Total

Volume (All EAU’s)

Volume
EAU #4

-ZJ - I - - - - J 1 ‘ tv/l WUJ

analysis in this study, that some timber harvest would
occur in Garden Creek and possibly other areas in the
southern part of the WSA.

310

256

612

140

489

679

1,451

1,799

230

610

989

1,707

2,063

2,411

641

1,024

sment

and

recreation

would be

managed as VRM Class II,

and its outstandi

visual resources (Scenic Quality Class A) substantially
retained. The south end of the range, also Class A,
would be managed to allow a moderate change in
visual resources (VRM Class III).

Areas considered logical for talc exploration exist in the
southern and central parts of the WSA, and there would
be a possibility of exploration and some development in
the area in the future, depending on the feasibility of
developing other, more accessible talc reserves.

Wilderness

Wildlife

This alternative could result in a larger total mule deer
population. That is, as discussed earlier, timber harvest¬
ing or burning of select north slopes could improve
forage production and thus increase total deer
numbers.

Under this alternative, the north end of the Ruby Range
would likely retain its natural character, at least in the
short term. Proposed recreation and forestry access
and management actions would have the greatest
effect in Garden Creek, in the southern end of the
range. Exploration for talc in the central and southern
parts of the area is a possibility in the future; impacts
could be minimal to major depending on the extent of
the activity and the access route selected. Any pro¬
posed timber and mineral activity, however, would likely
be allowed subject to interdisciplinary review. The MFP
decision concerning the stock driveway could improve
the natural character of that part of the unit if the
driveway were relocated and/or rehabilitated.

Recreation

There would be moderately adverse impacts on primi¬
tive recreation in the southern portion of the range
mainly due to road construction, additional motor vehi¬
cle use, and timber harvest. The central and northern
portions of the range would likely see little change in
primitive recreation opportunities— except for better
public access, which would be similar under all
alternatives— unless future mineral exploration or
timber harvest affected the area. In either of these
cases, motorized recreation opportunities would be
improved.

Visual Resources

It is unlikely that the present management direction,
which allocates the forage in the northern part of the
range to wildlife, would be changed in the future.

In the southern end of the unit, there are proposed
access roads in Hinch and Garden creeks and there is
potential for timber harvesting in those areas. If these
activities were to take place, they would have a detri¬
mental impact on elk habitat and would disturb elk
movements and use patterns. The sagebrush burns,
which are proposed for about 900 acres in the southern
portion of the WSA, would have a short-term detrimen¬
tal impact on mule deer. Any future mineral develop¬
ment would likely have a detrimental effect on wildlife
by reducing security cover and disrupting use patterns.

Geology and Minerals

There would be no impact on mineral exploration and
development. Mineral exploration and development
would still be regulated to prevent unnecessary and
undue degradation of the land.

Livestock Grazing

Grazing management would be based on the Mountain
Foothills E1S. As directed in the Dillon MFP, manage¬
ment of the stock driveway would be reviewed. Man¬
agement of the stock driveway would be similar under
all of the alternatives considered here.

At least in the short term, the north end of the range

Timber Management

Garden Creek (EAG #4) would be available for inclu¬
sion in the district’s timber sale plan, and a potential
harvest of about one million board feet of timber per
decade would be available. Other EAGs would be re¬
evaluated periodically for possible inclusion.

Alternative R-3, Partial Wilderness

Wilderness

A substantial number of the impacts on the natural
character of the Ruby Mountains WSA would be elimi¬
nated, including the concentration of imprints of man
in the south central portion. Also excluded are about
1 .5 miles of the constructed portion of the stock drive¬
way and about 4 miles of vehicle ways on the east side
of the study area. The main impacts remaining are a
few dead end vehicle ways and about 4 miles of the
stock driveway, 3 of which were constructed. The
driveway remains a relatively significant impact for less
than a mile south and west of Ruby Peak; most of the
remainder follows Big Dry Creek through heavy timber
and is much less noticeable.

This alternative significantly improves manageability of
the WSA as wilderness. It would eliminate the irregular,
isolated southwestern thumb; mitigate management
problems associated with two inholdings in the Hinch
Creek area; eliminate the offsite effects of the existing
talc mine at the extreme south of the study area; estab¬
lish generally identifiable features as boundaries on the
south; and establish more regular legal boundaries on
the east and west, some of which correspond roughly to
natural features. The two remaining inholdings would
continue to be management concerns regarding rights
of access and possible nonconforming activities. The
state section around Ruby Peak would be the major
concern. Acquisition of these inholdings would elimi¬
nate the potential for management problems. Man¬
agement of the stock driveway would not present a
major problem due to the small amount of use it
receives, and management would be essentially the
same under wilderness or nonwildemess, given the
consistent directives of the Dillon MFP and the BLM
Wilderness Management Policy. Several logical public
access routes to the area could also be pursued under
this alternative, similar to those in the Dillon MFP deci¬
sions.

The wilderness quality of the area recommended for
designation would be similar to that under Alternative
R-l except that ecosystem and habitat diversity is
reduced under this alternative. About three-fourths of
the sagebrush steppe and foothills prairie acreage in
the original WSA would be excluded. The recom¬
mended area would lie predominantly on the north,-
forested slope of the range, including the entire area not
grazed by livestock, and only about 1 ,700 acres would

remain in sagebrush and grassland ecotypes. Some of
the elk winter range and spring-summer-fall range in
the original WSA is excluded.

The boundaries would also include over 2,000 acres of
pristine ridges and canyons south of the portion of the
stock driveway that would remain in the area recom¬
mended for wilderness.

Recreation

Most of the southern end of the Ruby Range would be
allocated to nonwilderness use, and there would be
adverse impacts on primitive recreation and beneficial
effects on motorized recreation due to the proposals for
road development and timber harvest. Current oppor¬
tunities in the rugged north end of the range would be
essentially unaffected by wilderness designation.

Visual Resources

Gnder wilderness designation the north end of the
range and a small portion of the upper Hinch Creek
drainage would be managed as VRM Class I, and the
existing, outstanding scenic values would be preserved.
In most of the southern end of the range, moderate
change (VRM Class Ill) would be allowed in an area of
Class A scenic quality according to current manage¬
ment direction.

Wildlife

Timber harvesting or prescribed burning of forested
land could take place in the portion of the WSA not
designated as wilderness. This could improve forage
production in those areas. The area designated as wil¬
derness would ensure a continuing supply of security
cover. Other impacts would be the same as for Alterna¬
tive R-l for those areas designated as wilderness, and
the same as for Alternative R-2 for those areas not
designated as wilderness.

Geology and Minerals

While the partial wilderness alternative would remove
one area from wilderness consideration which may
have potential for talc, the Ruby Peak area would
remain in the wilderness study area. The Ruby Peak
area may have the best potential for talc within the
WSA, although other areas south of the WSA may have
a higher potential. Impacts would be similar to the
discussion under the all wilderness alternative.

Livestock Grazing

There would be livestock grazing on about 3,000 of the
15,615-acre area recommended for wilderness. The
area recommended for nonwilderness would be man¬
aged according to the Mountain Foothills EIS.

None of the McHessor Creek Allotment would be
included in the area recommended for wilderness.
About 800 acres (8%) of the Garden Creek Allotment
would be included, along with all or portions of the four
custodial allotments in the original WSA. Two devel-

oped springs and a 4-mile section of the stock driveway
would be the existing range management develop¬
ments within the area. The southern part of the stock
driveway, a seasonal camp, a vehicle access route in
Hinch Creek, and the line shack in Garden Creek are
range management features that would be excluded
from the proposed wilderness under this alternative. Of
the 838 livestock AGMs in the original WSA, 1 90 would
remain in the proposed wilderness— 85 in the Garden
Creek Allotment and 1 05 in the four custodials.

About 100 acres of the 900-acre prescribed burn pro¬
posed in the Garden Creek AMP would remain in the
area recommended for wilderness. The high priority
area north of Garden Creek could be burned, as it
would be located outside the wilderness boundary. An
increase of a maximum of 10 livestock AGMs would be
forgone, and there would be no effect on implementa¬
tion of the AMP. The primary purpose of the burn is to
lessen impacts on riparian vegetation through better
livestock distribution, and this objective could be sub¬
stantially met by burning to increase forage outside the
area recommended as wilderness. There would be no
other impacts to proposed improvements or stocking
levels.

Timber Management

All four EAGs would be completely outside the area
recommended for wilderness designation, and the
impacts would be the same as for Alternative R-2.

BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS,
MT-076-002

Alternative B-l , All Wilderness

Wilderness

As an addition to the wilderness system, the area
recommended under this alternative is a relatively high
quality area for its size. It has significant diversity, with
rugged terrain, numerous canyons and cirque basins
on the north slope of the Blacktail Range, and gentle,
open subalpine grassland at the crest. Important elk
range, a relatively long snow-free season of use at the
WSA’s lower elevations, and the ungrazed north slope
contribute to quality in addition to the mandatory char¬
acteristics.

The area’s irregular configuration raises manageability
considerations. The southeastern portion is very nar¬
row and irregular, and the central and western portions

are affected by protrusions of state and private land.
Acquisition of approximately 1 ,320 acres by exchange
would alleviate this last concern.

Although there is one pre-FLPMA oil and gas lease, it is
in the northwest corner of the WSA and since there
appears to be low oil and gas potential, this lease should
not be a management problem. There is a concentra¬
tion of mining claims in the Jake Canyon-Silver Queen
area. On claims with valid discoveries, maintaining wil¬
derness conditions and at the same time authorizing
mining activity allowable under the Wilderness Man¬
agement Policy could become difficult if several of the
claims were proposed for development. If any such
claims in the interior of the area were patented and
passed into private ownership, management of the
remainder of the WSA as wilderness would be more
difficult. Mining activity on valid claims along the Black-
tail Fault on the north would likely be limited in extent
within the WSA and therefore not be a major problem.

Recreation

There would be little effect on current recreation use or
opportunities. The only existing vehicle routes extend¬
ing any distance into the WSA are very lightly used
routes from the south. Public recreation access pro¬
posed in the Dillon MFP would be affected only min¬
imally as the proposed road would reach only a short
distance up Ashbough Canyon and it could provide
practically equivalent access if it ended at the public
land boundary. Other feasible access routes also exist,
and the public access situation would be similar under
all alternatives considered.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA would be managed as VRM Class I, and
existing scenic values would be preserved.

Wildlife

Deer and elk would benefit by maintaining security
cover. Restrictions on timber harvesting and road con¬
struction would ensure the long term availability of
security cover. There are currently ORV restrictions in
this area to protect important elk and deer winter range.
Wilderness designation would guarantee the long-term
continuation of these restrictions. The Blacktail Ridqe
contains suitable habitat for both bighorn sheep and
peregrine falcon. Although there are no existing plans
for introducing these species, wilderness designation
would preserve suitable habitat for them over the long
term.

Restrictions on mineral development would have a
beneficial effect on wildlife by protecting existing secur¬
ity cover and wildlife use patterns.

Geology and Minerals

As displayed on the Mineral Potential map, the Blacktail
Mountains have some potential for several different
minerals, particularly gold, silver and nickel. Potential

for oil and gas is limited based on existing information.
Potential for other leasable minerals is also limited.
Cinder this alternative, all the areas with potential for
gold, silver, and nickel would be inside the area
recommended for wilderness. If these deposits are not
explored or developed before the area is designated as
wilderness, or by December 31, 1983, whichever is
later, any potential would be forgone over the long term.

Both silver and nickel are listed as critical minerals and
the areas with the highest potential for these minerals
would be inside the area recommended for wilderness
under this alternative. However, given the nature of the
occurrences, it is unlikely that these deposits would
have a significant impact on the availability of either
mineral.

Livestock Grazing

Allotments, AUMs, and existing and proposed range
improvements within the area recommended for wil¬
derness would be as described in Chapter 1. There
would be no significant impacts to proposed improve¬
ments or stocking levels.

Timber Management

The evaluation of the study area timber shows a nega¬
tive present net worth for all EAGs at discount rates of
4% and 7-3/8%. These values are shown in Table 27.

Table 28 shows the potential harvest that would be
forgone under this alternative.

The existing land use plan for this area allows timber
harvest activity subject to interdisciplinary review. Un¬
favorable economics restricts any immediate devel¬
opment. As shown above, in the long run all potential
yield would be forgone.

The proposed action will not change the potential of the
land for forest growth.

TABLE 27

SUMMARY OF PRESENT NET WORTH OF
TIMBER

BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS

PNW at Discount Rate of
EAU_ 4% 7-3/8%

1 $-124,581 $-197,081

2 -156,543 -118,107

3 -60,912 -31,425

Alternative B-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Current management direction for the Blacktail Moun¬
tains WSA consists of the following:

— Restrict vehicle access for wildlife habitat protection.

—Allow timber and minerals activity subject to interdis¬
ciplinary review.

— Permit only minor changes in visual resources in the
northwest portion of the range (VRM Class II), signifi¬
cant change in the higher elevation areas in the south¬
east (VRM Class IV), and moderate change in most of
the rest of the WSA (VRM Class 111).

Recreation access is proposed a short distance up
Ashbough Canyon. This road and three other roads are
also proposed for timber management. The timber
analysis in this study, however, shows that timber man¬
agement potential is relatively low, and while some
future activity is possible, development is not likely to be
extensive. Additional hardrock mining activity in the
Jake Canyon-Silver Queen area and along the Blacktail
Fault is likely, though presumably the latter would not
extend far into the WSA.

Wilderness

The area north and west of the Jake/Riley Canyon
divide would presumably remain in a substantially natu¬
ral condition unless timber and mining operations
become extensive some time in the future. The area
around Jake Canyon would likely receive some adverse
impacts due to hardrock mining activity.

Recreation

In the short term, public recreation access would be
gained to the area as proposed in the Dillon MFP, but
motorized recreation opportunities would not increase
because access would only be provided to the area and
not actually into it. In addition, current ORV restrictions
lessen the opportunities for motorized recreation. Prim¬
itive recreation would be enhanced by access (which
would be similar under all alternatives considered) but
would be adversely affected at least in some parts of the
WSA by mining and/or timber harvest. Motorized
recreation opportunities could be improved in the long
term if new roads for resource extraction were devel¬
oped.

Visual Resources

The majority of the WSA consists of Class A quality
visual resources. At least in the short term, the north
face of the Blacktail Range west of Coyote Canyon
would be managed to substantially retain the existing
values. In most of the remainder of the WSA, moderate
or significant change to the outstanding scenic quality
would be allowed.

Wildlife

Current management direction for this area restricts
vehicle access to protect deer and elk habitat, particu¬
larly security cover. This will protect the habitat values
over the short term, but long-term protection is not
guaranteed. Any future road construction, timber har-

TABLE 28

TOTAL POTENTIAL HARVEST VOLCIME/DECADE (MBF)
BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS

Decade

Volume

(Tractor Logged Areas)
Volume

(Cable Logged Areas)

Total Volume
(All EAUs)

366

613

1,048

1,085

1,382

1,395

232

777

1,111

1,368

1,488

598

845

1,825

2,196

2,750

2,883

vesting or mineral development would have a detri¬
mental impact on deer and elk habitat and could dis¬
rupt deer and elk movements and use patterns.

Geology and Minerals

This alternative would have no impact on mineral
exploration and development. However, such activities
would still be regulated to prevent unnecessary and
undue degradation of the land.

Livestock Grazing

Proposed improvements and stocking levels would be
based on the Mountain Foothills E1S, and would not
differ significantly under any of the alternatives consi¬
dered here.

Timber Management

There would be no impact in the short run. At present,
the cost of road development and the existing market
situation for timber prevent any serious sales planning
in the area. The area would be reevaluated periodically
for future inclusion in the allowable cut base and timber
sale plans.

Alternative B-3, Partial Wilderness

Wilderness

This alternative would significantly improve manage¬
ability of the Blacktail unit as wilderness by eliminating
both the narrow, irregular configuration in the south¬
east portion and the Jake Canyon-Silver Queen mining
claims group. The recommended area under this alter¬
native would have essentially the same wilderness qual¬
ities as the area recommended under Alternative B-l,
with the exception that the elk and deer winter range in
the Jake Canyon area would not be within the recom¬
mended area under this alternative. Management as
wilderness would aid in long-term management of
important spring-summer-fall deer and elk habitat, and
significant visual and cultural resources.

The remaining management consideration is the pro¬
trusion of state and private lands into the central and
western portions of the area. All these lands are primar¬
ily natural in character and physiographically a part of

the Blacktail crest. In the central portion, state land lies
at the head of Riley Canyon and along the crest of the
range, and on the west, state and private lands lie on the
crest and at the head of Ashbough Canyon. Acquisition
of 1 ,320 acres in these two areas would improve man¬
ageability, and would topographically unify the
recommended area by extending it to the crest of the
range, which is a natural route of travel. The only addi¬
tional management consideration would be the use of a
seasonal camp and associated motor vehicle use on
state land in the western area by a grazing permittee, a
use that can be accommodated under the Wilderness
Management Policy.

Public access to the area could be achieved through
Ashbough Canyon following a Dillon MFP decision, or
by some other route such as Riley Canyon.

Recreation

The very limited motorized recreation opportunities in
the northwestern area recommended for designation
would be forgone. The currently limited primitive
recreation opportunities in the nonwilderness south¬
east part would likely be adversely affected by mining
activity. Public recreation access needs and proposals
would be similar under this and the other alternatives.

Visual Resources

The portion of the WSA that would be recommended
for wilderness under this alternative would be managed
as VRM Class I, and existing scenic values would be
retained. Most of the portion recommended as nonwil¬
derness consists of Class A quality visual resources,
and moderate or significant change would be allowed,
according to current management direction.

Wildlife

A major portion of the crucial elk and deer winter range
would be outside of the area designated as wilderness
and consequently not as protected as it might be. Other
impacts would be the same as for Alternative B-l for
those portions recommended for wilderness and the
same as for Alternative B-2 for those portions not
recommended for wilderness.

Geology and Minerals

The partial wilderness alternative removes most of the
area with the highest mineral potential from considera¬
tion. Much of the area along the Blacktail Fault would
be within the area recommended for wilderness. How¬
ever, the Jake Creek area is the area most likely to see
actual mineral development and it would be outside the
area recommended for wilderness. This alternative
excludes from the area recommended for wilderness
most of the areas with high potential for nickel and
silver. In any case, given the nature of the occurrences,
it is unlikely that these deposits would have a significant
impact on the availability of either mineral.

Other potential impacts are the same as Alternative B-l
for those areas recommended for wilderness and the
same as Alternative B-2 for those areas not recom¬
mended for wilderness.

Livestock Grazing

Under this alternative, most of the Matador-Blacktail
Allotment would be excluded from the area recom¬
mended for wilderness. About 1 ,650 acres (20%) of the
allotment, and 10 of its 176 ACIMs, would be included.
Otherwise, allotments and existing and proposed
developments within the proposed wilderness would be
identical to those under Alternative B-l , All Wilderness.
A total of 257 ACIMs are within the area recommended
under this alternative. There would be no impacts to
proposed range improvements or stocking levels.

Timber Management

This proposal would leave half of EACJ 2 and all of EAC1
3 in the allowable cut. Table 29 shows the potential
harvest volume that would be available for timber har¬
vest under this alternative.

The above is approximately 30% of the available Black-
tail volume and would be available in the base acreage
for harvest. The remaining 70% of the potential volume
which is not currently economic to harvest would not be
available for any future harvest.

EAST FORK OF BLACKTAIL DEER
CREEK, MT-076-007

Alternative EF-1, All Wilderness

Wilderness

This alternative, which includes closing the East Fork
road, would enhance opportunities for solitude and
primitive recreation and improve manageability by
including the intruding road corridor in the proposed
wilderness. This alternative would aid, in the long term,
in preservation of the area’s natural character, excellent
primitive recreation opportunities, and special features
such as undisturbed elk and mule deer range and
significant visual resources. Preservation of examples
of four major ecosystems in such a small area would
also be a positive effect. Wilderness management
would also aid in long-term management of sensitive
soils, which, along with wildlife values, prompted the
current vehicle restrictions in the area.

The inclusion of the East Fork road, however, would
add a relatively noticeable human imprint that would
likely return to a natural condition only over a long
period or with mechanical rehabilitation. The unit’s
small size and irregular boundaries would detract from
opportunities for solitude and manageability. Given the
small, irregular area and the uncertain long-term man¬
agement of adjacent lands, the possibility of effective
management of the East Fork as wilderness is doubtful.

Recreation

Under this alternative the East Fork road would be
closed at the public land boundary, and the important
use of vehicles on this road for hunting access and
dispersed camping would be eliminated. Wilderness
recreation would be enhanced by the road closure.

Decade

Volume

TABLE 29

POTENTIAL HARVEST VOLUME/DECADE-PARTIAL WILDERNESS (MBF)

BLACKTAIL MOUNTAINS

1 23456789 10

0 0 288 605 798 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010 1,010

Visual Resources

The entire WSA would be managed as VRM Class I
under wilderness designation. The existing scenic
values, predominantly Class A, would be preserved.

Wildlife

This alternative would provide protection for year-round
elk and mule deer habitat over the long term. It would
maintain vegetative cover and forage for big game,
especially elk, assuring the preservation of winter ther¬
mal cover and security cover for elk calving. This alter¬
native would not change many of the constraints now
being applied to other activities and programs to main¬
tain and/or improve wildlife habitat, such as the no
surface occupancy stipulation which is attached to oil
and gas leases in the area.

Elk appear to be the species most sensitive to vehicle
use in the WSA. Current vehicle restrictions, developed
in cooperation with the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, limit vehicle use to the main East
Fork road which is open from May 16 to November 30 of
each year. Gnder this alternative, the entire area, includ¬
ing the East F ork road, would be closed year-round to
all motor vehicle use, including snowmobiles.

Geology and Minerals

Based on existing information as discussed in Chapter
1 , the East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek WSA has only
limited potential for both locatable and leasable miner¬
als. Therefore, this alternative would have only a min¬
imal impact on minerals.

Livestock Grazing

There would be no significant impacts to proposed
range improvements or stocking levels. The closure of
the East Fork road could adversely affect operations of
the grazing permittee.

Timber Management

As shown in Table 30, the evaluation of the study area
timber shows a negative present net worth for both
EAGs at discount rates of 4% and 7-3/8%:

TABLE 30

SUMMARY OF PRESENT NET WORTH OF
TIMBER

EAST FORK

PNW at Discount Rate of
EAU_ 4% 7-3/8%

1 $-481,499 $-589,307

2 -3,875 -9,577

In the short run, timber harvest in this area is restricted
in the present Dillon MFP by other resource priorities—
elk habitat in particular.

The potential harvest volume forgone in the long run is
shown in Table 31.

This alternative will not change the potential of the land
for forest growth. Ingrowth will approximately equal
mortality. As long as the area remains wilderness, the
removal of forest products is not possible.

Alternative EF-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Management under the current MFP consists of the
following:

—Maintain the area in an essentially roadless condition.

—Allow no timber harvest.

—Restrict vehicle travel to protect wildlife habitat.

—Allow no surface occupancy on mineral leases.

— Reconstruct the East Fork road to mitigate existing
erosion problems.

— Permit only a low level of change in visual resources
in most of the area (VRM Class II) except for the north¬
ern and western edges, where significant change will
be allowed (VRM Class IV).

—Consider the East Fork as an ACEC.

Nonwilderness management beyond the current MFP
is likely to be substantially the same, as timber and
mineral values are not considered high.

Wilderness

The East Fork unit will likely remain essentially road¬
less, with substantial restrictions on major development
activities. Therefore, it should retain, to a large degree,
its present wilderness characteristics, depending at
least partially on the final ACEC decision. However, any
future timber removal, road construction, or mineral
development would have a significant adverse affect on
the area’s wilderness characteristics and special fea¬
tures.

Recreation

At least in the short term, motor vehicle access would
continue to be limited to the main East Fork road in the
summer and fall. Existing primitive recreation oppor¬
tunities would not be adversely affected if current man¬
agement is continued.

Visual Resources

The majority of the unit would be managed as VRM
Class II. The existing, outstanding scenic quality would
be substantially retained, at least in the short term.

TABLE 31

TOTAL POTENTIAL HARVEST VOLUME/DECADE (MBF)

EAST FORK

Decade

Volume

(Tractor Logged Areas)

229

291

266

Volume

(Cable Logged Areas)

417

572

596

640

386

Total Volume
(All EAUs)

483

666

825

931

652

Wildlife

Current management direction, characterized by no
timber harvesting, no surface occupancy on oil and gas
leases, and motor vehicle restrictions, seeks primarily
to protect important wildlife habitat. However, the cur¬
rent MFP also calls for the reconstruction of the main
East Fork road, to correct existing erosion problems.
This could result in some impact on wildlife habitat and,
indirectly, wildlife populations by making access easier
for hunters. Long-term protection is not guaranteed
under this alternative as it would be with wilderness
designation.

Geology and Minerals

Under this alternative the current stipulations placed on
oil and gas leases to protect wildlife would continue, at
least over the short term. Mining operations would still
be regulated to prevent unnecessary and undue degra¬
dation of the land.

Livestock Grazing

Range improvements and stocking levels would be
based on the Mountain Foothills EIS, and would not
differ significantly from that under the wilderness alter¬
native for this WSA.

Timber Management

Over the short term, timber harvesting would continue
to be prohibited according to current management
direction. In the long term, this direction could change
and some or all of the timber could be made available
for harvest.

HIDDEN PASTURE CREEK,
MT-076-022

Alternative HP-1, All Wilderness

Wilderness

The designation of the Hidden Pasture WSA as wilder¬
ness would benefit the diverse wildlife habitats in the
area— those of mule deer, elk, antelope, sage grouse,
and, in the future, reintroduced bighorn sheep— and
would add an example of the sagebrush steppe ecosys¬
tem, a relatively underrepresented type, to the wilder¬
ness system. Wilderness designation would also aid in
long-term management of sensitive watershed values
and important cultural resources.

The area’s values of naturalness and solitude/primitive
recreation are relatively low and would add little to the
national system. In addition, the possible benefits of
designation would be offset by manageability prob¬
lems. The predominance of pre-FLPMA oil and gas
leases, and the area’s potential for exploration and
development, virtually assure some potentially impair¬
ing impacts. The WSA’s poor configuration and loca¬
tion in open terrain sloping toward nonwilderness lands
to the west would make it difficult to protect the unit
from the effects of future, off-unit development. The
irregular boundaries would make inadvertent trespass
a problem, and grandfathered rights of maintaining the
relatively large number of range improvements using
motorized equipment would make management for a
primitive experience somewhat difficult. The state
inholding would also present a management problem
concerning offsite sights and sounds and nonconform¬
ing uses, but acquisition of the section would eliminate
this problem. However, effective management of all, or

any part, of the WSA as wilderness would be extremely
difficult.

Recreation

The four interior vehicle routes currently open to travel
in summer and fall would be closed under this alterna¬
tive. Therefore, it would have a slightly adverse effect on
motorized recreation, and a corresponding slight
benefit for primitive recreation. Oil and gas activity
allowable under this alternative could have a major
adverse impact on primitive recreation if extensive
development occurred.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA would be managed as VRM Class 1, and
existing scenic values would be preserved.

Wildlife

This alternative would result in additional protection of
forage and vegetative cover essential for big game and
upland game birds. Restrictions on vegetative manipu¬
lation projects such as the sagebrush spraying which
occurred in the past, would particularly benefit the ante¬
lope and sage grouse populations.

This alternative also would be intrinsically more com¬
patible with the introduction of bighorn sheep, although
most management constraints needed to accommo¬
date the introduction could still be applied without wil¬
derness designation. Wilderness designation would
guarantee the long-term continuation of these man¬
agement directions.

Existing management direction restricts motor vehi¬
cles to four designated routes which are open from May
1 6 to November 30 each year in order to protect elk and
deer winter range. Under wilderness designation these
four routes would be closed altogether. This could
reduce future deer harvest which would be detrimental
to the population.

Oil and gas exploration could still have some impact on
wildlife habitat under this alternative since none of the
leases have a wilderness protection stipulation. How¬
ever, stipulations could be attached to at least partially
mitigate these impacts.

Geology and Minerals

Based on existing information as discussed in Chapter
1, the Hidden Pasture area has limited potential for
most mineral resources. Oil and gas potential however,
is relatively high.

Since all oil and gas leases in the WSA are pre-FLPMA,
any development on these leases could legally impair
wilderness suitability. For this reason, the impact of this
alternative on minerals would be minimal.

Livestock Grazing

There would be no significant impacts to proposed
range improvements or stocking levels.

Alternative HP-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Management under the current MFP includes the fol¬
lowing:

—Restrict vehicle access for wildlife habitat protection.

Permit significant change in visual resources in most
of the WSA (VRM Class IV), but only minor change in
the eastern portion near Hidden Pasture Creek (VRM
Class II).

A habitat management plan for bighorn sheep has
been approved, and a reintroduction will occur within
two years. A road was proposed for forest management
in the eastern “leg” of the unit, but the timber analysis in
this report has indicated that in all probability, no timber
management will occur in the area. Currently, there is
geophysical work being conducted in the area. With the
area’s known potential and the current activity, it is likely
that some oil and gas exploration and possible devel¬
opment will occur. Due to the nature of the leases in the
area, this could occur whether or not the WSA is desig¬
nated as wilderness.

Wilderness

Adverse impacts to special features— particularly wild¬
life habitat — would occur if there were substantial oil
and gas activity in the area. However, there is little
difference in the wilderness and nonwildemess alterna¬
tives in this regard. A nonwildemess decision would not
be detrimental to the goal of ecosystem representation
or to the goal of providing quality areas to add to the
wilderness system. There are several highly qualified
candidate areas under BLM management that contain
the sagebrush steppe type, and the quality of the Hid¬
den Pasture WSA’s wilderness characteristics is rather
low.

Recreation

Vehicle travel restrictions would continue, at least in the
short term, and current levels of recreation opportuni¬
ties would continue. Any future extensive oil and gas
activity could have a short-term adverse impact on all
forms of recreation, with a possible long-term benefit to
motorized recreation.

Visual Resources

Under current management direction, most of the unit,
consisting of Class A, B, and C visual resources, would
be managed to allow substantial change. The eastern
portion, primarily Class A scenery, would be managed
to allow only minor change.

Wildlife

No timber harvesting is currently planned for this area.
However, if this decision were changed in the future,
there would be a loss of security cover for wildlife.

In the short term, no vegetative manipulation projects
are planned for this area. However, in the long term, if
vegetative manipulation projects such as those which
occurred in the past were to take place, they could have
a detrimental impact on mule deer and sage grouse.
The current habitat management plan for this area
contains the necessary management direction to
accommodate the proposed bighorn sheep introduc¬
tion and the current road closures offer adequate habi¬
tat protection. This management direction could
change over the long term if this area is not designated
as wilderness.

There would be no difference between this alternative
and the all wilderness alternative with respect to the
impacts of oil and gas exploration.

Geology and Minerals

There would be no impact on minerals development or
exploration. They would continue to be regulated to
prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the
land.

Livestock Grazing

Range improvements and stocking levels would be
based on the Mountain Foothills E1S, and would not
differ significantly from those in the all wilderness alter¬
native for this WSA.

BELL AND LIMEKILN CANYONS,
MT-076-026

Alternative BL-1 , All Wilderness

Wilderness

Primitive recreation quality and inclusion of three basic
ecosystems are positive qualities the unit would add to
the wilderness system, but the area’s naturalness and
carrying capacity/solitude would add little to the sys¬
tem. Wilderness designation would aid in long-term
preservation of significant special features such as
scenic values and undisturbed, excellent mule deer
habitat. However, effective management of the WSA as
wilderness would be extremely difficult. The inholding
in Bell Canyon, very poor configuration, irregular legal
boundaries, and pre-FLPMA oil and gas leases are
major problems. Acquisition of the inholding would
alleviate one of the problems, but the other major con¬

siderations would remain. Currently, there is a pending
application for exploratory oil and gas drilling in the
area. The area’s known potential makes further explora¬
tion and development activity likely, which could take
place even if it would impair wilderness values.

Recreation

Primary vehicle routes that would be closed to vehicle
use include the ridge route and short dead end routes
up the main canyons. While motorized recreation use is
relatively light, this alternative would adversely affect
such use, particularly during the big game hunting
season. This alternative would enhance primitive
recreation opportunities somewhat, although oil and
gas development allowable under pre-FLPMA leases
could severely restrict these opportunities.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA, consisting primarily of Class A scen¬
ery, would be managed as VRM Class I, allowing preser¬
vation of existing visual resources.

Wildlife

Restrictions on timber harvesting would be beneficial
by ensuring the long-term maintenance of security
cover. Vehicle restrictions could result in an inadequate
deer harvest, which would be detrimental to the deer
population. Oil and gas activities could have a detri¬
mental impact on deer and elk, especially on their
winter range in the western portion of the area. These
impacts could occur with or without wilderness desig¬
nation.

This WSA also has potential for the reintroduction of
bighorn sheep, although there are no such plans at
present. Wilderness designation would ensure the
maintenance of this habitat.

Geology and Minerals

Based on existing information as discussed in Chapter
1 , the Bell-Limekiln WSA has only limited potential for
locatable minerals but has high potential for oil and gas.

Oil and gas leases in the WSA are both pre- and post-
FLPMA and would have slightly different standards for
what might be allowed on the leases as discussed in an
earlier section.

Thorium is the only critical mineral found in this WSA.
Because of the small size and low grade of the thorium
deposits, it is unlikely that it could make any significant
contribution to domestic supplies of thorium.

Livestock Grazing

The prescribed burn proposed for a 400-acre area in
the Medicine Lodge Allotment would probably be pro¬
hibited if this WSA is designated wilderness. The pur¬
pose of the bum is to improve range condition, and not
primarily to increase AGMs. There would be no change
in the AMP and essentially no short- or long-term loss in

livestock AGMs if the area were not burned. Range
condition, however, would remain static at fair to good,
while it would probably improve to good to excellent
with the burn. Some flexibility in range management
would be lost without the burn. There would be no
impacts to stocking levels, and no further impacts to
proposed range improvements under this alternative.

Timber Management

Economic evaluation of the study area shows a nega¬
tive present net worth through the first rotation as
shown in Table 32.

TABLE 32

SUMMARY OF PRESENT NET WORTH OF
TIMBER

BELL AND LIMEKILN

PNW at Discount Rate of
EACI_ 4% 7-3/8%

1 $-114,014 $-121,504

2 -15,294 -5,345

In the short run, timber harvest is unlikely for economic
reasons. In the long run, the potential harvest volume
shown in Table 33 is forgone.

In the long run, the proposed action will not change the
potential of the land for forest growth. Ingrowth will
approximately equal mortality. As long as the area
remains wilderness, the removal of forest products is
not possible.

Alternative BL-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Current, specific management direction consists of the
following:

—Protect “Wedding Ring Rock,” a feature of geological
interest.

—Permit moderate changes in visual resources due to
management activities (VRM Class 111).

A road has been proposed up Bell Canyon for timber
management. Timber management is not likely in the
area at the present, but could occur some time in the
future. Currently, there is oil and gas exploratory drilling
about to get underway on the main ridge west of Bell
Canyon. More oil and gas activity is likely, and this could
occur whether or not the area was designated as wil¬
derness, due to the nature of the leases. Access across
the WSA has been sought by the owner of the private
inholding for timber harvest on the private land, and by
an adjacent landowner as the preferred route to his
private land.

Wilderness

Adverse impacts to primitive recreation opportunities,
naturalness, and special features such as wildlife habi¬
tat and scenic values would occur with significant oil
and gas activity, any future timber harvest and road
construction, and constructed access to the private
inholding. The oil and gas activity, however, would pro¬
ceed under either this or the wilderness alternative. As
the quality of the area’s wilderness characteristics is
only low to moderate and its manageability as wilder¬
ness is highly doubtful, this alternative would not
represent a significant loss to the national wilderness
system.

Recreation

The system of vehicle travel routes in the WSA would
remain open. Oil and gas development, and any future
timber activity, would likely severely restrict primitive
recreation opportunities. Oil and gas activity would
probably have adverse effects on motorized recreation
in the short term, but could enhance these opportuni¬
ties over the long term.

Visual Resources

Under current management direction, the entire WSA,
primarily consisting of Class A scenery, would be man¬
aged to allow moderate changes in visual resources.

TABLE 33

TOTAL POTENTIAL HARVEST VOLUME/DECADE (MBF)
BELL AND LIMEKILN

Decade

Volume

116

149

(Tractor Logged Areas)

Volume

117

303

(Cable Logged Areas)

Total Volume

131

233

452

(All EAGs)

Wildlife

Although it is not presently economical to han/est
timber in this WSA, proposals for roads into the area for
timber management suggest that there is interest in the
area and if economic conditions change, timber har¬
vesting could take place. If this were to occur, it could
have a negative impact on big game through the remov¬
al of security cover and the disruption of big game
movement and use patterns. Similar impacts from oil
and gas exploration or development could occur either
under this alternative or the all wilderness alternative.

Geology and Minerals

There would be no impact on minerals exploration and
development. These activities would still be regulated
to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the
land.

Livestock Grazing

Grazing management would be based on the Mountain
Foothills E1S, and there would be no impacts on pro¬
posed range improvements or stocking levels.

Timber Management

There would be no impact in the short run. At present,
the cost of road development and existing stumpage
values prevent serious sales planning in the area. The
area would be reevaluated periodically for future inclu¬
sion in the allowable cut base.

HENNEBERRY RIDGE, MT-076-028

Alternative H-l , All Wilderness

Wilderness

Designation of Henneberry Ridge WSA as wilderness
would add an example of a natural-appearing, relatively
low elevation sagebrush steppe ecosystem that is rela¬
tively underrepresented in the wilderness preservation
system. This area would also add to the system’s diver¬
sity as the WSA has a relatively long snow-free season of
use. There is also some diversity within the WSA itself,
as this alternative would designate as wilderness the
scenic timbered ridges on the south and west that
would be recreation attractions in the area. Wilderness
designation would aid in long-term management of
important deer and antelope habitats, which are special
features of this area.

The unit’s size and somewhat poor configuration, how¬
ever, limit the solitude/recreation potential, and con¬
tribute to management problems. Areas on the east
and west would present management difficulties due to
narrow configuration. On the south, the location of a
small portion of the unit on a slope facing extensive
nonwilderness lands and irregular legal boundaries are
also potential problems. Pre-FLPMA oil and gas leases
would raise long-term manageability questions
although currently the possibility of major developmen¬
tal impacts appears low. While this WSA would add
somewhat to the diversity of the wilderness system,
effective management as wilderness would be some¬
what difficult. If the oil and gas leases were ever devel¬
oped, the primary wilderness value of the area— as a
natural steppe type— could easily be impaired.

Recreation

The limited motorized recreation opportunities in the
WSA would be forgone. However, there would be no
real enhancement of the limited primitive recreation
opportunities either.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA, consisting of Class B scenery, would
be managed as VRM Class 1, and existing values would
be preserved.

Wildlife

Key deer and elk winter range on the south and west
portions of the WSA would be protected over the long
term by wilderness designation. There is good non¬
game bird habitat along Grasshopper Creek which
would be maintained through wilderness designation
as well. Restrictions on sagebrush burning could be
beneficial to deer and elk by maintaining habitat diver¬
sity.

Geology and Minerals

Based on existing information as discussed in Chapter
1 , the WSA has good potential for small deposits of
gold and possibly silver in the northwest portion of the
unit, and for placer gold along Grasshopper Creek (see
the Henneberry Mineral Potential map).

Potential for oil and gas and phosphate is limited based
on existing information. All of the areas with potential
for gold and silver would be inside the area recom¬
mended for wilderness. If these deposits are not
explored or developed before the area is designated as
wilderness, or December 31, 1983, whichever is later,
any potential could be forgone over the long term.

Livestock Grazing

The proposed prescribed burn for the Rocky Hills
Allotment would probably be prohibited if the area were
designated wilderness. The AMP could be imple¬
mented without the burn, but an increase of approxi¬
mately 30 livestock AGMs per year would be forgone.

The proposed complex of improvements in the Rocky
Hills Allotment, consisting of a well and windmill, 3
miles of pipeline, nine troughs, and 3 miles offence to
separate pastures, would likely be prohibited due to
cumulative impacts in the core area of the WSA if it
were designated wilderness. These improvements are
critical to implementation of the alternate rest grazing
system proposed for the allotment, and no reasonable
substitutes for them which would have less of an impact
on wilderness values are possible. Without the pro¬
posed management system, a long-term increase of
61 1 AGMs per year would be forgone, and the 5,400
acres of the allotment in critical erosion condition
would probably not improve significantly.

Alternative H-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Current specific management direction is limited.
Extensive range improvements are proposed for the
central “core” portion of the WSA, and the entire WSA
is to be managed as VRM Class IV, permitting signifi¬
cant changes to the area’s visual resources. There is
some possibility of oil- and gas-related development in
the area, and the mineral evaluation suggests that
some hardrock mining could take place in the northern
and northwestern portions. The oil and gas activity
would not differ significantly under any of the alterna¬
tives considered here due to the nature of the leases.

Wilderness

The area’s primary wilderness value— as a natural
prairie or steppe— would be impaired by the proposed
range improvements, and possibly by any future oil and
gas activity if it took place in the central portion of the
WSA. Oil and gas activity, and possibly livestock com¬
petition, would adversely affect the supplementary
value of wildlife habitat in the area. There are other
qualified candidates for the wilderness system which
could represent a natural-appearing sagebrush steppe,
although the core area of this WSA is a good example.

Recreation

Limited motorized recreation opportunities would con¬
tinue. The limited primitive recreation opportunities
would be affected by range management activity and
possibly oil and gas activity.

Visual Resources

Under current management the entire WSA would be
managed to allow substantial change in the existing
Class B visual resources.

Wildlife

There would not be many significant short-term
impacts to wildlife, but long-term protection would not
be guaranteed. One short-term impact would be the

proposed sagebrush burn, which would reduce habitat
diversity and be detrimental to deer and elk.

Any mineral development could disrupt elk, deer and
antelope movements, and use patterns.

Geology and Minerals

There would be no impact on minerals. However,
exploration and development would still be regulated to
prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the
land.

Livestock Grazing

Grazing would be managed according to the Mountain
Foothills EIS, and there would be no impacts to the
proposed range improvements and stocking levels.

Alternative H-3, Partial Wilderness

Wilderness

Alternative H-3 would improve manageability of the
WSA by eliminating narrow configuration concerns in
the east and west, and by placing unit boundaries pri¬
marily on identifiable features.

On the east, manageability could be improved by
acquiring the protruding state section and establishing
the boundary on a north-south ridgeline through it. This
alternative also would reduce the number of man-made
features in the WSA slightly, and eliminate near views of
the power line on the southeast. This alternative would
retain the central sagebrush steppe, but eliminate most
of the area’s diversity and, by significantly reducing its
size, reduce its carrying capacity and potential for soli¬
tude. Opportunities for primitive recreation would be
reduced, as the timbered ridges, a primary recreation
attraction, would not be within the area recommended
for wilderness. The WSA would retain its value of pro¬
viding ecosystem diversity in the wilderness system, but
effective long-term management of the area as wilder¬
ness would remain questionable due to the potential for
impairing oil and gas activity under pre-FLPMA leases.

There would be fewer multiple resource benefits than
under Alternative H-l, All Wilderness, since the most
scenic terrain and much of the important deer and elk
habitat would be recommended for nonwilderness.

Recreation

The vehicle ways in the central portion of the unit would
remain in the recommended area and would not be
available for motorized use, although ways on the west
and south would continue to be open for use.

Visual Resources

The portion of the WSA recommended for wilderness
would be managed to preserve existing visual resour¬
ces, and the area recommended for nonwilderness
would be managed to allow substantial change, at least
in the short term.

Wildlife

This alternative would exclude a large portion of the
deer and elk winter range from the area that would be
designated as wilderness. Therefore, the long-term pro¬
tection of this habitat would not be guaranteed. Much of
the nongame bird habitat along Grasshopper Creek
would be maintained by this alternative. The prescribed
burn could take place under this alternative and would
be detrimental to deer and elk.

Geology and Minerals

The partial wilderness alternative would remove much
of the area with highest mineral potential from wilder¬
ness consideration. Much of the area along Grass¬
hopper Creek would remain in the WSA. Other poten¬
tial impacts are adequately covered in the discussion
under Alternative H-l, All Wilderness.

Livestock Grazing

None of the Bannack Allotment would be within the
area proposed as wilderness, but 5,545 acres (33%) of
the Rocky Hills Allotment, including most of two of the
four proposed pastures, would be within the area.

The area proposed for prescribed burning would be
outside the area recommended for wilderness, and the
burn would be allowed. The complex of improvements
proposed in the Rocky Hills AMP would probably be
prohibited. As described under Alternative H-l , a long¬
term increase of 61 1 livestock AGMs per year would be
forgone, and the 5,400 acres of the allotment in critical
erosion condition would probably not improve signifi¬
cantly.

FARLIN CREEK, MT-076-034

Alternative F-l, All Wilderness

Wilderness

This alternative would add some diversity and physio¬
graphic unity to the larger FS area. The boundary con¬
figuration, however, would be irregular, and the
recommended area would include a large number of
mining claims which, if developed, would make man¬
agement of the area as wilderness somewhat difficult.
The lower portion of Farlin Creek would include some
human imprints which have moderate impacts on the
WSA’s natural character.

Recreation

This alternative would adversely affect the relatively
small amount of current motorized recreation use
chiefly associated with hunting. It would benefit primi¬
tive recreation in this small WSA, but these benefits
would be small in comparison with the existing oppor¬
tunities in the larger FS roadless area.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA would be managed as VRM Class 1, and
existing scenic values would be preserved.

Wildlife

Important elk and deer spring-fall habitat would be
protected from surface-disturbing activities such as
timber harvesting. Ecological diversity of the area,
which is important for wildlife, would be maintained.

Geology and Minerals

The Farlin Creek WSA has good potential for silver,
gold, and possibly tungsten (see the Farlin Creek Min¬
eral Potential map). Both silver and tungsten are con¬
sidered to be critical minerals. It is unknown at this time
whether the occurrences in this WSA have the potential
to make a significant contribution to the national supply
of these two minerals. However, if the deposits are not
explored or developed before December 31, 1983, or
the date of wilderness designation, whichever is later,
any potential would be forgone over the long term.

Potential for oil and gas and phosphate is limited based
on existing information.

Livestock Grazing

Allotments, AGMs, and range improvements within the
area recommended for wilderness would be as des¬
cribed in Chapter 1. There would be no significant
impacts to improvements or stocking levels.

Timber Management

Study area timber evaluations show a positive present
net worth of $3 1 ,494 at a 4% discount rate. The PNW at
7-3/8% is slightly negative ($-2,653). The area would be
easy to log.

The potential sustained yield harvest in this WSA is
approximately 410 mbf per decade. Given the probable
harvest schedule shown in Table 34, the total board feet
of timber forgone over a 100-year period is about 2.5
mmbf.

In the long run the proposed action will not change the
potential of the land for forest growth, assuming no
change in productivity and ingrowth equaling mortality.
As long as the area remains wilderness the removal of
forest products is not possible.

Decade

Volume

TABLE 34

TOTAL POTENTIAL HARVEST VO LOME/ DECADE (MBF)

FARLIN CREEK

1 23456789 10

0 0 0 246 246 410 410 410 410 410

Alternative F-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

The current MFP proposes roads up Farlin and Steel
creeks for timber management, and permits moderate
change in visual resources in the entire WSA (VRM
Class 111). Likely future activities include timber harvest
and associated road construction in the central portion
of the unit, and mining activity in the Steel Creek area
and in the northern portion where the Polaris claim
group overlaps the unit.

Wilderness

Under this alternative, the FS East Pioneer area would
retain its original, somewhat irregular legal boundary.
Mining activity would likely cause impairing impacts in
the Steel Creek area, and the timbered ridge in the
central part of the WSA would probably be developed
for timber management. This would result in impacts
on wilderness characteristics and on scenic values seen
from the FS unit.

Recreation

Current motorized recreation use would continue.
Primitive recreation opportunities in the WSA would be
adversely affected by road construction and timber
harvest, and probably, to a lesser degree, by hardrock
mining. Those opportunities associated with the por¬
tion of the larger roadless area around Baldy Mountain
could be slightly adversely affected by timber man¬
agement activity on adjacent BLM land.

Visual Resources

Moderate changes in visual resources, which are about
equally divided between A and B scenic quality classes,
would be allowed, given current management direc¬
tion.

Wildlife

Current management direction for this area proposes
roads for timber harvesting and mining access. It is
probable that some harvesting would take place in the
future. Together, the impacts of timber harvesting and
road development would open up the area and create a
disturbance sufficient to disrupt elk movements and
use patterns.

Geology and Minerals

There would be no impact on minerals. Existing regula¬
tions to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of
the land would continue.

Livestock Grazing

There would be no significant impacts to improve¬
ments or stocking levels.

Timber Management

The area would be available for the harvest of forest
products. Current management direction makes such
harvest in the future a likely possibility.

The potential harvest forgone under Alternative F-l,
about 0.4 mmbf/decade, would be available.

Alternative F-3, Partial Wilderness

Wilderness

Alternative F-3 would provide a more manageable
boundary for the East Pioneer unit and would retain the
physiographic unity of the larger unit. Most of the lower
foothills would be eliminated from the area recom¬
mended for wilderness. This alternative would elimi¬
nate the major impacts to naturalness in the WSA, and
would enhance manageability by eliminating most of
the mining claims within the WSA.

Recreation

Motorized recreation would be slighty adversely
affected, but access routes up Farlin and Steel creeks
would remain open, and the through route to the Silver
King mine area would remain open. Primitive recrea¬
tion in the area not recommended for wilderness could
be adversely affected by minerals and timber activity.

Visual Resources

The area recommended for wilderness, primarily con¬
sisting of Class A scenic values, would be managed as
VRM Class I and existing values preserved. The area
recommended for nonwilderness, primarily Class B,
would be managed to allow moderate change under
current management direction as VRM Class 111.

Wildlife

Wildlife habitat values would be protected over a por¬
tion of the WSA. Roughly 75% of the deer winter range
and 20% of the elk and deer spring-summer-fall range
would not be within the area recommended for wilder¬
ness under this alternative. For those portions not
recommended for wilderness the impacts would be the
same as for Alternative F-2 and for those portions
recommended for wilderness the impacts would be the
same as for Alternative F-l .

Geology and Minerals

Some of the area with high potential for gold, silver, and
possibly tungsten would be inside the area recom¬
mended for wilderness designation. The impacts in this
area would be the same as for Alternative F-l . Impacts
on the remainder of the area would be the same as for
Alternative F-2.

Livestock Grazing

There would be no impacts to improvements or stock¬
ing levels.

Timber Management

All of EAG 2 and about 25% of EAG 1 would be outside
of the area recommended for wilderness designation.
Although the present net worth of this timber would still
be positive, it would be so small and the volume so low
that it would make any sale unattractive to potential
bidders. The overall result in all probability would be the
same as for the all wilderness alternative.

AXOLOTL LAKES, MT-076-069

Alternative AX-1 , All Wilderness

Wilderness

The diversity and significant special features within this
relatively small unit, with associated recreation oppor¬
tunities are positive qualities the WSA would add to the
wilderness preservation system. Multiple resource
benefits of wilderness designation are probable long¬
term benefits to important wildlife, sensitive soils and
significant visual and cultural resources. Apparent
naturalness, however, is rather low and would detract
from these qualities. Relatively poor configuration,
inholdings, an existing vehicle access route, and min¬
ing claims in the western portion would pose manage¬
ment problems ranging from moderate to significant.

Recreation

This alternative would adversely affect motorized
recreation opportunities. The stock driveway/ vehicle
way and the open route in the southeast portion— used
primarily during hunting season— would be closed if
the area were designated wilderness. Snowmobile use,
a popular activity in the area, would be prohibited. The
northwestern part of the WSA, designated as open
under the existing travel plan, would also be closed.
Primitive recreation opportunities, however, would
benefit from closure of the area to motorized vehicles,
especially winter use such as skiing and snowshoeing.

Visual Resources

The entire WSA would be managed as VRM Class I, and
existing scenic values, predominantly Class A, would be
preserved.

Wildlife

This alternative would provide long term protection for
the unique wildlife values of this area. Current man¬
agement direction provides protection for the axolotl
salamander through motor vehicle restrictions and the
exclusion of livestock grazing around Blue Lake. Wil¬
derness designation would guarantee the continuation
of this protection over the long term. The prohibition of
timber harvesting would protect security cover for deer
and elk and avoid disturbances which could cause a
disruption in movement and use patterns. Important
sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk habitat would be
protected.

Restrictions on mineral development would have a
beneficial effect on wildlife by protecting existing secur¬
ity cover and widlife use patterns.

Geology and Minerals

The WSA has good potential for gold in the western
part of the WSA as identified on the Mineral Potential
map.

Potential for oil and gas and other leasable minerals is
very limited based on existing information. The poten¬
tial of any deposits which are not explored or developed
before December 31, 1983, or the date of wilderness
designation, whichever is later, would be forgone over
the long term.

Livestock Grazing

There would be no significant impacts to proposed
range improvements or stocking levels.

Timber Management

As explained in Chapter 1 , the timber in this WSA has a
present net worth of $391,476 at a 4% discount rate,
and $40,290 at a 7-3/8% discount rate.

The potential sustained yield harvest from this WSA is
approximately 2,842 mbf per decade. Given the proba¬
ble harvest schedule shown in T able 35, the total board

TABLE 35

TOTAL POTENTIAL HARVEST VOLGME/DECADE (MBF)

AXOLOTL LAKES

Decade

Volume

(Tractor Logged Areas)

Volume 387

(Cable Logged Areas)

Total Volume
(All EACIs)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

820 1,976 2,005 2,173 2,173 2,173 2,173 2,173 2,173 1,377

499 559 669 669 669 669 669 669 338

1,207 2,475 2,564 2,842 2,842 2,842 2,842 2,842 2,842 1,715

feet of timber that would be forgone over a 100-year
period is about 25 mmbf.

Over the short term, approximately 2,200 acres of this
area are closed to timber harvesting to protect wildlife,
watershed, and recreation values. Therefore, the short¬
term impact of wilderness designation is not great.
Over the long term, however, the entire potential har¬
vest listed above would be forgone as a result of wilder¬
ness designation. This alternative will not change the
potential of the land for forest growth. Ingrowth will
approximately equal mortality.

Alternative AX-2, No Wilderness

Current Management Direction

Current management direction for the Axolotl Lakes
WSA consists of the following:

-Consider 5,440 acres— all of the WSA except the
southwest and extreme west portions— as an ACEC for
its wildlife, watershed and recreation values.

Allow no timber harvest or surface occupancy on
leaseable minerals on about 2,200 acres in the north¬
east portion in the lakes area.

—Restrict vehicle travel on all but about 1,000 acres
(northwest portion) to protect wildlife habitat and
watershed values.

—Exclude grazing around Blue Lake.

—Permit little deterioration of scenic quality in the north¬
east lakes area (VRM Class II), and moderate changes in
visual resources in most of the remainder of the WSA
(VRM Class III), except for the eastern portion where
significant change will be allowed (VRM Class IV).

Additional mining activity in the western portion of the
WSA and timber harvest in the east central and south¬
east portions are possible future activities.

Wilderness

Continued current management direction would sub¬
stantially retain, and to a degree improve, wilderness
characteristics and special features in the northeastern

one-third of the WSA, in the vicinity of the lakes.
Depending on final ACEC action and management, a
larger area could retain these characteristics. However,
it is likely that timber removal south of the lakes area
and mining in the western portion would result in
impairing impacts to wilderness qualities, though
ACEC guidelines could be shaped to minimize effects
on the area s special features, which are its primary
wilderness values. Long-term management is uncer¬
tain, but could impair these values if considerable
development were to take place.

Recreation

Primitive recreation opportunities would continue to be
available off the open vehicle routes in the area, espe¬
cially in the northeastern portion. Opportunities else¬
where in the unit could be affected by future mining or
timber management. Motorized recreation opportuni¬
ties in the area would continue to be limited to protect
wildlife and watershed resources, at least in the short
term.

Visual Resources

At least in the short term, the lakes area would be
managed as VRM Class II, with only minor changes to
existing scenic values permitted. The remainder of the
area, primarily Class A, would be managed to allow
moderate or substantial change, VRM Classes III and IV.

Wildlife

Current management direction for this area considers
classifying 5,440 acres as an ACEC to protect unique
wildlife values. This alternative would also restrict vehi¬
cle travel in all but 1,000 acres (northwest portion) to
protect unique wildlife values. Livestock grazing would
be excluded around Blue Lake to protect the habitat of
the unique axolotl salamander. This management
direction emphasizes maintaining the existing roadless
condition, vegetative cover (including forested lands)
and unique wildlife values of part of the WSA, and
improving the wildlife habitat.

The protection under the existing MFP is only ensured
over the short term, that is, the life of the current MFP.

Long-term protection is not guaranteed as it would be
under wilderness designation.

Geology and Minerals

There would be no impact on mineral exploration and
development. These activities would continue to be
regulated to prevent unnecessary and undue degrada¬
tion of the land.

Livestock Grazing

Range improvements and stocking levels would be
based on the Mountain Foothills EIS, and would not
differ significantly from those under the all wilderness
alternative for this WSA.

Timber Management

Over the short term, 2,200 acres are closed to timber
harvesting and the remainder is available for harvesting
over the long term. This situation could change and the
entire WSA with a potential harvest of 2.8 mmbf/
decade, could be made available for harvest.

100

Chapter 4

Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

PROCESS

During the wilderness inventory process, (completed in
March, 1 980) that designated the eight WSAs covered
in this report, there were two 90-day public comment
periods. Comments were received from state and local
governments, individuals, and organizations. These
comments were used in the preliminary scoping and
issue identification phase of the wilderness study pro¬
cess.

The initiation of this study process was announced in
the Federal Register on May 7, 1981. Public meetings
were held in Lima, Montana, on May 1 2, 1 981 , in Sheri¬
dan, Montana, on May 13, 1981, and Dillon, Montana,
on May 14, 1981. A total of 63 people attended these
meetings. Their purpose was to identify the major
issues to be addressed in the study and to get com¬
ments on the proposed planning criteria contained in
the draft Wilderness Study Procedures.

During May, June, July, and August of 1981, specific
information on the mineral potential of each WSA was
solicited from industry, local residents, mining claim¬
ants, universities, government agencies, mining asso¬
ciations, and other sources. The information received
was used to determine mineral potential and to assess
potential impacts.

State agencies were requested in December, 1981, to
provide copies of relevant state level plans that the BLM
should consider in this and other planning efforts.

Numerous contacts were made with the FS throughout
the process. They were consulted about the relation¬
ship of BLM tack-ons to larger FS areas, and for assist¬
ance in using the FS economic analysis model for
timber.

Following the release of this document, there will be a
64-day public comment period, with public hearings
scheduled in Dillon and Sheridan, Montana. The
recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior will
become final 30 days after the final WPA/EIS is
released to the public. During this 30-day period the
public will have a chance to comment on the final
recommendations.

DISTRIBUTION

Copies of this document have been sent to the follow¬
ing agencies and interest groups for their review and
comment:

Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geologic Survey
National Park Service
Environmental Protection Agency
National Advisory Council For Historic Preservation

Congressional Offices

Office of Congressman Marlenee
Office of Congressman Williams
Office of Senator Baucus
Office of Senator Melcher

State Agencies

Bureau of Mines and Geology

Department of Commerce

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Department of Health and Environmental Sciences

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Department of State Lands

Environmental Quality Council

Governor’s Council on Natural Resources

Office of the Governor

State Historic Preservation Officer

County Commissioners and Planning
Boards

Beaverhead County
Madison County

Businesses

Atlantic Richfield
Burlington Northern
Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company
F. H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company
Janus Mining Company
Kramer Appraisal Service
Montana Power Company
Occidental Mineral Corporation
Pfizer Incorporated

Organizations

Federal Agencies

Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service

American Wilderness Alliance
Anaconda Sportsmens Club
Back Country Horsemen of Missoula
Beaverhead Concerned Citizens
Beaverhead Snow Riders

101

Big Hole River Watershed Association

Center for Public Interest

Defenders of Wildlife

Dillon Chamber of Commerce

Environmental Information Center

Five Valleys Audubon Society

Friends of the Earth

Gallatin Wildlife Association

Inland Forest Resource Council

Madison Gallatin Alliance

Montana Association of Counties

Montana Association of Grazing Districts

Montana Cattlemen’s Association

Montana Chamber of Commerce

Montana 4X4 Association

Montana League of Conservation Voters

Montana Mining Association

Montana Outfitters and Guides Association

Montana Petroleum Association

Montana Public Lands Council

Montana Snowmobile Association

Montana Stockgrowers Association

Montana Taxpayers Association
Montana Wilderness Association
Montana Wildlife Federation
Montana Women for Timber
Montana Wood Products Association
Northern Plains Resource Council
Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association
Sierra Club

Southwest Montana Stockgrowers Association
Western Environmental Trade Association
Wilderness Institute
Wilderness Society

In addition, copies of this document have been sent to
numerous individuals, newspapers, and radio and TV
stations.

102

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS STATUS

TABLE A1

SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS STATUS THROUGHOUT MONTANA

a. Status of BLM Areas UnderStudy

County

BLM

District

Unit

Number

Total

Acreage

Study Dates

Start Completion

Madison

Butte

MT-076-001

26,357

1981

1982

Beaverhead

Butte

MT-076-002

17,639

1981

1982

Beaverhead

Butte

MT-076-007

6,180

1981

1982

Beaverhead

Butte

MT-076-022

15,475

1981

1982

Beaverhead

Butte

MT-076-026

9,588

1981

1982

Beaverhead

Butte

MT-076-028

9,756

1981

1982

Beaverhead

Butte

MT-076-034

1,260

1981

1982

Madison

Butte

MT-076-063

860

1981

1982

Madison

Butte

MT-076-069

6,578

1981

1982

Madison

Butte

MT-076-079

1,509

1981

1982

Teton

Butte

MT-075-1 02

4,927

1980

1983

Teton

Butte

MT-075-1 05

3,085

1980

1983

Teton

Butte

MT-075-1 06

3,086

1980

1983

Teton

Butte

MT-075-1 07

196

1980

1983

Lewis and Clark

Butte

MT-075-110

595

1980

1983

Jefferson

Butte

MT-075-1 14

3,585

1980

1983

Jefferson

Butte

MT-075-1 15

5,976

1980

1983

Park

Butte

MT-075-1 33

1980

1983

Powell

Butte

MT-074-150

11,580

1982

1985

Powell

Butte

MT-074-151a

11,380

1982

1985

Powell

Butte

MT-074-151b

4,257

1982

1985

Granite

Butte

MT-074-155

520

1982

1985

Madison

Butte

Bear Trap Canyon1

4,015

Preliminary partial wilder-

Silver Bow

Butte

Humbug Spires1

11,175

ness recommendation

Beaverhead

Butte

Centennial Mtns.1

30,030

Intensive inventory post¬
poned

Carbon

Lewistown

MT-067-205

3,955

1982

1984

Carbon

Lewistown

MT-067-206

12,575

1982

1984

Carbon

Lewistown

MT-067-207

4,470

1982

1984

Golden Valley

Lewistown

MT-067-212

6,870

1982

1984

Fergus

Lewistown

MT-068-244

5,230

1981

1982

Fergus

Lewistown

MT-068-246

7,855

1981

1982

Blaine

Lewistown

MT-060-250

4,700

1981

1982

Blaine

Lewistown

MT-060-253

12,000

1981

Phillips

Lewistown

MT-060-256

36,200

1981

1982

Phillips

Lewistown

MT-065-266

12,340

1981

1982

Valley-Phillips

Lewistown

MT-065-278

15,000

1981

1982

Valley

Lewistown

MT-064-356

59,112

1982

1986

Garfield

Miles City

MT-024-633

3,480

1981

1982

Garfield

Miles City

MT-024-657

19,677

1981

1982

Garfield

Miles City

MT-024-675

5,650

1981

1982

Garfield

Miles City

MT-024-677

8,050

1981

1982

Prairie

Miles City

MT-024-684

44,515

1981

1982

Rosebud

Miles City

MT-027-701

8,440

1981

1984

Powder River

Miles City

MT-027-702

5,650

1981

1984

Rosebud

Miles City

MT-027-736

1,484

1981

1984

'Former designated primitive areas - under separate study procedures.

103

b. Statutory Wilderness (all agencies) TABLE A1 (cont.)

Agency

County or Counties

Unit Name and Number

Unit Acreage

FS2

Carbon, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Park

Absaroka-Beartooth, NF 106

920,377

Granite, Ravalli, Deer Lodge, Beaverhead

Anaconda-Pintlar, NF 003

157,874

Flathead, Teton, Lewis and Clark, Powell

Bob Marshall, NF 005

1,009,356

Lincoln, Sanders

Cabinets, NF 010

94,272

Lewis and Clark

Gates of the Mountains, NF 027

28,562

Flathead

Great Bear, NF 107

286,700

Lake, Missoula

Mission Mountains, NF 050

73,877

Missoula

Rattlesnake, 1-801

20,000

Lewis and Clark, Powell

Scapegoat, NF 073

239,296

Ravalli

Selway-Bitterroot, NF 074

248,893

Granite

Welcome Creek, NF 103

28,135

Total FS

Number of areas =11

3,107,342

FWS3

Beaverhead

Red Rock Lakes, WR-036

32,350

FWS

Sheridan

Medicine Lake, WR-027

11,800

FWS

Phillips

OIL Bend, WR-047

20,847

Total FWS

Number of areas = 3

64,997

2FS = Forest Service

3FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service

104

c. Recommendations Pending Before Congress (all agencies)

TABLE A1 (cont.)

Agency

County or Counties

Unit Name

(Jnit

Number

Unit

Acreage

Lincoln

Cabinet Face West

C 1670

8,250

Sanders, Lincoln

Scotchman Peaks

ABB 1662

60,416

Sanders

Cabinet Mountain Addition

C 1681

442

Sanders

Chippewa Creek (Cabinet Mountain

Addition)

1682

382

Sanders

McKay Creek

B 1676

6,510

Ravalli

Schley Mountain (Great Burn)

D 1301

12,600

Ravalli

Hoodoo (Great Burn)

Q 1301

65,097

Ravalli

Blodgett Canyon

1061

9,600

Ravalli

North Fork, Lost Horse

1062

8,598

Ravalli

Trapper Creek

1063

2,867

Ravalli

Nelson Lake

1064

3,233

Ravalli

Meadow Creek

M 1845

12,600

Ravalli

Swift Creek

1065

700

Ravalli

Needle Creek

1066

1,175

Ravalli

Selway-Bitterroot Addition

SIBB

12,700

Beaverhead

North Big Hole

B 1001

7,027

Deer Lodge

Storm Lake

1427

6,065

Granite

Quigg (Slide Rock)

Q 1807

60,050

Beaverhead

West Big Hole

I 1943

56,462

Beaverhead

East Pioneer (Torey Peak)

1008

87,746

Madison, Gallatin

Lionhead

1963

20,899

Madison, Gallatin

Spanish Peaks

NF 920

63,300

Park

Republic Mountain (North Absaroka

Addition)

1545

480

Carbon

Lost Water

1362

9,500

Rosebud

Tongue River

1373

16,600

Missoula, Powell

Great Bear-Bob Marshall, Scapegoat-

Swan

B 1485

3,825

Powell, Lewis & Clark

Clearwater-Monture

Q 1485

65,385

Lewis and Clark

Park Bridge

Cl 1485

3,255

Lewis and Clark

Renshaw

W 1485

25,649

Lewis and Clark

Leavitt Creek

T 1485

2,400

Lewis and Clark

Silverking Falls Creek

F 1485

38,300

Lewis and Clark

Big Log

W 1610

9,272

Total FS

Number of areas = 34

681,812

FWS

Garfield

East Seven Blackfoot

FW 923-1

12,184

FWS

Phillips

Mickey Butte

FW 923-2

17,413

FWS

Phillips, Valley

Burnt Lodge

FW 923-3

22,976

FWS

Garfield

Billy Creek

FW 9234

11,556

FWS

Garfield

West Seven Blackfoot

FW 923-5

7,096

FWS

Phillips

Antelope Creek

FW 923-6

5,382

FWS

Garfield

West Hill Creek

FS 923-7

11,896

FWS

Petroleum

Fort Musselshell

FW 923-8

8,303

FWS

Garfield

Sheep Creek

FW 923-9

12,424

FWS

Phillips

West Beauchamp

FW 923-10

6,736

FWS

Garfield

Wagon Coulee

FW 923-1 1

10,528

FWS

Petroleum

Alkali Creek

FW 923-12

6,692

FWS

Petroleum

Crooked Creek

FW 923-13

6,842

FWS

Garfield

East Hell Creek

FW 923-14

15,984

FWS

Garfield

East Beauchamp

FW 923-15

5,568

Total FWS

Number of areas =15

161,480

NPS4

Flathead, Glacier

Glacier

NP-915

917,600

NPS

Park, Gallatin

Yellowstone

N P-928

167,060

Total NPS

Number of areas = 2

1,084,660

4NPS = National Park Service

105

d. Other Agency Areas Under Study

TABLE A1 (cont.)

Agency

County or Counties

Unit Name

Unit

Number

Unit

Acreage

Lincoln

Ten Lakes

1683

33,885

Lincoln

Mt. Henry

1666

21,000

Ravalli

Blue Joint Mountain

A 1941

61,400

Granite, Powell

Flint Range

1428

52,220

Granite, Powell

Dolus Lake

1429

9,100

Granite, Ravalli

Sapphires

1421

98,815

Teton

Deep Creek

P 1485

26,068

Teton

Reservoir North

H 1485

1,520

Beaverhead

West Pioneer

1006

147,992

Madison

Middle Mountain-Tobacco Roots

B 1013

36,640

Jefferson, Broadwater

Bullock Hill

A 1620

59,980

Jefferson, Broadwater

Casey Peak

E 1620

25,000

Madison, Gallatin

Madison

N 1549

80,057

Gallatin

Madison

E 1549

105,760

Madison, Gallatin

Madison South

S 1549

77,559

Madison, Gallatin

Madison

R 1549

32,640

Gallatin, Park

Gallatin Divide

G 1548

81,582

Gallatin, Park

Hyalite

H 1548

22,268

Beaverhead

Mt. Jefferson

1962

4,600

Fergus, Golden Valley

Big Snowies

A, B,S 1739

95,861

Meagher, Judith Basin

Middle Fork Judith

1734

91,000

Beaverhead

Italian Peak

1 1945

12,996

Madison

J 1549

29,826

Total FS

Number of areas = 25

1,207,769

106

TABLE A2

PROXIMITY OF WILDERNESS TO POPULATION CENTERS

Statutoiy Wilderness within One Day’s Travel Time of Identified Population Centers

Total Acres Within

Population Centers

BLM

Other Agency

One Day’s Travel

Within One Day’s

Time of Population

Travel Time of

Number of

Centers

Wilderness Areas

State

Areas

Acreage

Areas

Acreage

2,007,274

Billings, Montana

Montana

None

969,786

Wyoming

None

1,037,483

4,122,934

Great Falls, Montana

Montana

None

3,033,917

Idaho

None

1,089,017

Wilderness Areas Endorsed by the President within One Day’s Travel Time of Identified Population Centers

1,449,062

Billings, Montana

Montana

None

260,152

Wyoming

None

1,188,910

2,669,180

Great Falls, Montana

Montana

None

1,392,102

Wyoming

None

1,013,221

Idaho

None

163,857

Other Study Areas within One Day’s Travel Time of Identified Population Centers

1,024,627

Billings, Montana Montana

221,132

648,637

Wyoming

154,858

None

1,236,580

Great Falls, Montana Montana

222,514

1,014,066

107

APPENDIX B: GRAZING SYSTEMS

REST-ROTATION GRAZING ALTERNATE GRAZING

Under a rest-rotation grazing system, grazing is
deferred on various parts of an allotment during suc¬
ceeding years, and the deferred parts are allowed com¬
plete rest for one or more years (Society for Range
Management 1974). The allotment is divided into pas¬
tures, usually with comparable grazing capacities. Each
pasture is systematically grazed and rested so that live¬
stock production and other resource values are pro¬
vided for, while the vegetation cover is simultaneously
maintained or improved. This practice provides greater
protection of the soil resource against wind and water
erosion (CISDA, FS 1965; Hormay 1970; GSDA, FS
1972; Ratliff and Reppert 1974).

Any of several rest-rotation grazing systems may be
used, depending upon the objectives for the allotment
and the number of pastures.

DEFERRED ROTATION GRAZING

Deferred rotation is the discontinuance of grazing on
different parts of an allotment in succeeding years. This
allows each pasture to rest successively during the
growing season to permit seed production, establish¬
ment of seedlings, and restoration of plant vigor
(Society for Range Management 1974). One or more
pastures are grazed during the spring, while the remain¬
ing one or more pastures are rested until after seed
ripening of key species, and then grazed. Deferred rota¬
tion grazing differs from rest-rotation grazing in that no
yearlong rest is provided.

DEFERRED GRAZING

Alternate grazing is grazing by livestock every other
season, with the area being rested in the alternate year.
Stoddard, Smith, and Box (1975) describe the system:

Rotation grazing, or alternate grazing, involves
subdividing the range into units and grazing
one range unit, then another, in regular suc¬
cession. The rotation system of grazing is
based upon the assumption that animals in
large numbers make more uniform use of the
forage, and that a rest from grazing is bene¬
ficial to the plant, even though it must support
a greater number of animals in the shorter
time during which it is grazed. Certainly, proper
rotation grazing results in more uniform utiliza¬
tion. Larger numbers of animals in small units
are forced to spread over the entire area and to
use the available forage more uniformly.
Trampling is reduced because animals are
held on small areas where feed is more
abundant, and hence less travel is necessary.

SHORT-DURATION,
HIGH-INTENSITY GRAZING

High-intensity grazing permits short-duration grazing
with the stocking rate higher than what would be consi¬
dered normal. The purpose of this type of system is to
obtain uniform use of all plants, desirable and undesir¬
able alike, and to prevent regrazing on regrowth of the
most desirable plants. This system allows desirable
plants to compete for nutrients on an equal basis with
less desirable plants.

Deferred grazing is the discontinuance of grazing by
livestock on an area for a specified period of time
during the growing season. Cinder this system, grazing
would begin after key plants have reached an advanced
stage of development in their annual growth cycle. The
growing season rest provided by this system promotes
plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, or
restoration of the vigor of old plants (American Society
of Range Management 1964).

109

APPENDIX C:

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE TIMBER POTENTIAL

CALCULATION OF PRESENT NET
WORTH

The basic unit of analysis for timber resources in each
WSA is the Economic Analysis Unit (EAG). An EAG is
defined as an area served by a road network with a
single point of entry into the study area. BLM personnel
developed the road networks on the basis of knowledge
of the study areas. Each EAG (and road network) is
independent of every other EAG in a study area. Road
segments are mapped sequentially in segments from
the single point of origin to the terminus points.

EAGs are in turn subdivided into stands which are
attached to road segments. These stands are classified
according to aerial photointerpretation (PI) type and
probable harvest method (clearcut, shelterwood). The
probable method of logging each stand was also
determined, since tractor-logged areas generate higher
stumpage values than cable-logged areas. Commercial
forest stands already allocated to other uses through
the planning system, were left in the timber base for
tradeoff value purposes. For example, timber harvest¬
ing already is restricted in the East Fork of Blacktail
Deer Creek WSA because of wildlife constraints.

An extensive forest inventory was based on tree height
and crown density. Strata (subdivisions for sampling
purposes) from the inventory were used to determine
volume averages by timber type. Extensive inventory
plots taken throughout the Dillon Sustained Yield Gnit
were evaluated as to strata versus actual measured
volumes.

These volumes were equated to timber cover type,
since intensive stand inventories are not available for
the study areas (see Table C-l ).

Harvest schedules for existing stands were developed
by district personnel, who considered factors such as
accessibility and risk of catastrophic loss.

The initial stumpage price for tractor-logged areas is
$64.80 per thousand board feet (MBF). This is the
weighted average high bid value received by the Beaver¬
head National Forest from 1976 through fiscal year
1981. Future harvest values were adjusted to reflect
projected real dollar increases in lumber prices and
production costs.

FS timber sale appraisal figures, methods, and road
costs are normally used in BLM sales. Methodology
used was similar to that described by the Forest Service
in Economic Analysis of Timber: Montana
Wilderness Study Act Areas (GSDA, FS 1980a),

subject to changes in management objectives and
available local data.

Road construction cost estimates were developed by
resource area personnel from FS road cost data. All
cost estimates were based on a minimum standard
road. The decade of construction for each road seg¬
ment was estimated and used to discount road costs to
the present. Reconstruction and maintenance costs
also were calulated.

The calculation of present net worth for the timber
resource is determined both by land expectation value,
(that is, the bare land” or “site” value) and by the value
of the existing stand at harvest date. The regenerated
stand yield data, management cost estimates, stump¬
age valuation equations, and cost and price projections
were used to determine site specific land expectation
values.

In sequence, the calculation of present net worth was as
follows:

1 . The value of existing timber stands at the sche¬
duled dates of harvest and the land expectation value of
associated sites were determined.

2. The existing stand and land expectation values
were discounted to the present and then added
together. This sum is the present value of the stand plus
site.

3. The present value of the stand plus site was added
for all stands attached to each road segment.

4. Road construction, reconstruction, and mainte¬
nance costs for each road segment were discounted to
the present and subtracted from the total timber values.
This produced a present net worth for the site and
timber associated with each segment.

5. The present net worth associated with the road
segments were added from the terminal points toward
the origin. In this process, areas that cannot be
accessed without incurring an economic loss were
identified.

The result is that no road segment terminates in an area
of negative present net worth. Also, road segments with
a negative present net worth may be built if access is
provided to sufficient positively valued timber beyond
the negative segment. When complete, the only portion
of an EAG that will be managed is the area that gener¬
ates a positive present net worth.

The analysis was done using real discount rates of 4%
and 7-3/ 8%. Most EAGs came out with negative values.
This is not surprising however, since the reason that

111

these areas are still roadless is that they have always
appeared difficult and expensive to develop.

Maps used for acreage and volume computations and
computer printouts from the economic analysis are
available at the district office in Butte.

TIMBER PRODUCTION CAPABILITY

The timber production potential of the eight WSAs was
analyzed. BLM specialists discussed these areas with
the local timber industry and estimated operability
criteria, access, and commercial production possibili¬
ties. An analysis was made of past extensive inventory
data for productivity figures and acreages by strata
(strata were based on tree height and crown density).
This analysis is summarized in Table C-2.

In evaluating timbered lands for their value for produc¬
tion of forest products, the first step is to decide which
lands are physically capable of timber production with¬
out irreversible damage to the environment. Those
areas exceeding 70% slope were automatically dropped
from the productive base as too steep for the produc¬
tion of forest products. Areas between 40 and 70%
slope were considered as potential cable skidding
areas. Slopes of less than 40% were considered logga-
ble by tracked vehicles or rubber-tired tractors. Table
C-3 shows the forest base acreages of each WSA.

The remaining base acreages are further reduced by
adverse location, damageable site, soil restrictions,
regeneration problems, and economic considerations.

A decision had to be made on whether or not to include
cable yarding acreages in the base. While cable yarding
is not in use now in the areas under consideration, it has
been used in the past and is considered technically and
economically feasible. Subject to silvicultural and eco¬
nomic considerations, cable yarding areas are consi¬
dered to be within the base acreage.

Silviculture requirements of forest stands often deter¬
mine whether the stand is harvestable and to what
extent the forest canopy can be disturbed or removed.
The following general guidelines are used in determin¬
ing productivity capability:

1 . No south or west slopes will be clearcut.

2. Clearcuts will be considered only in lodgepole pine
on north or east slopes. Most fir stands are in habitat
types where heat and drought prevent regeneration, so
clearcutting is not feasible.

3. A minimum of 3mbf/ acre must be available to log
before cable logging is economically feasible. Other
aspects of the sale area may alter this figure slightly.

4. No precommercial thinning is being considered.

5. Stands will be managed for natural regeneration as
opposed to planting.

6. Only stands capable of producing more than 20
cubic feet per acre per year will be considered com¬
mercial.

7. Forested scree, scattered isolated tracts of less
than 5 acres, and areas nonrecoverable by ordinary
logging methods will not be considered harvestable.

8. Stands on south and west slopes which are charac¬
terized by little or no soil development are excluded
from harvestable acreage.

9. All noncommercial and nonoperable stands have
been eliminated through the reductions made for slope
and the application of assumptions six, seven, and
eight.

1 0. Where practicable this economic analysis will fol¬
low the format of the wilderness study for Mount Henry,
Taylor-Hilgard, and West Pioneer (CJSDA, FS 1980b.)

ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE BLM
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Timber Economics

1 . All prices and costs are adjusted for inflation and
are in first quarter 1 980 dollars.

2. The initial stumpage price for tractor logged areas
is $64.80/ mbf. This is the weighted average high bid
value received by the Beaverhead National Forest dur¬
ing the period 1976 through 1981.

3. In areas that will require cable logging, the initial
stumpage price is reduced to $51/mbf. This is consist¬
ent with FS experiences on the Bitterroot, Lolo, and
Flathead national forests.

4. All timber values are discounted from the midpoint
of each decade (1985, 1995, etc.). Projections of the
real increase in lumber prices and production costs
have been developed by the FS for the Resource Plan¬
ning Act. These projections are used to determine
future stumpage values.

5. It is assumed that the cost of sale preparation and
administration is $9/mbf (from CJSDA, FS 1980a).

6. It is assumed that the annual cost of timber man¬
agement is $ 1.25/acre/ year (from CJSDA, FS 1980a).

7. Site or land expectation values are similar to those
calculated for the Beaverhead National Forest in the
MWSA economic analysis.

Road Costs

1 . All roads are built one year prior to initial harvest.

2. Roads are reconstructed every 40 years at 50% of
initial cost.

112

TABLE C-l

FOREST COVER TYPES EQUATED TO EXTENSIVE INVENTORY STRATA

Extensive Inventoiy Stratification

Forest Cover Type

Average Standing
Volume per Acre
(Gross Scribner-Fixed
Top-Board Feet)1

Strata

Percentage
of Crown
Closure

Diameter at
Breast Height
(inches)

Percentage
of Crown

Density Size Class

Seedlings and saplings

—

.1 -4.9

3,400

Poorly-stocked poles

Less than 40

5-8.9

Less than 40

3,200

Medium-stocked poles

40-70

5-8.9

40-70

4,700

Well-stocked poles

70-100

5-8.9

70-100

7,700

Poorly-stocked sawlogs

Less than 40

3-4

5,800

Medium-stocked sawlogs

40-70

3-4

7,900

Well-stocked sawlogs

70-100

3-4

9,000

Taken from extensive inventory field plots.

TABLE C-2

TOTAL ACREAGES BY SIZE CLASS AND STOCKING PERCENTAGE1

Wilderness Study Area

Seedlings and
Saplings Less
Than 4.9" DBH2
(Size Class 1 )

Poles 5"-8.9" DBH
(Size Class 2)

Percentage of Crown
Closure

0-40 40-70 70-100

Sawtimber 9" + DBH
(Size Class 3)

Percentage of Crown Total
Closure Acreage

0-40 40-70 70-100 (Forested)

Ruby Mountains, MT-076-001

718

2,583

2,128

2,835

1,478

3,459

4,266

17,467

Blacktail Mtns., MT-076-002

1,399

700

962

2,186

262

1,224

2,361

9,094

East Fork of Blacktail Deer

Creek, MT-076-007

155

387

619

464

155

619

2,554

Hidden Pasture, MT-076-022

—

262

175

437

—

1,048

Bell and Limekiln Canyons,
MT-076-026

350

175

350

262

1,661

Henneberry Ridge,

MT-076-028

175

525

874

Farlin Creek, MT-076-034

—

175

612

Axolotl Lakes, MT-076-069

—

273

826

389

1,338

1,174

4,000

’Before reductions in production capability
2Diameter at breast height

NOTE: Data obtained from extensive inventory photo interpretation sample points.

113

TABLE C-3

FOREST BASE ACREAGES

Wilderness Study Area

Ruby Mountains, MT -076-001
Blacktail Mtns., MT-076-002

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek,
MT-076-007

Hidden Pasture, MT-076-022
Bell and Limekiln Canyons, MT-076-026
Henneberry Ridge, MT-076-028
Farlin Creek, MT-076-034
Axolotl Lakes, MT-076-069
Total

Total

Forested

Acreage

Percentage of Slope
Less More

Than Than

40 40-70 70

Acres of More
Than 70 Percent
Slope Removed
from Base

Commercial Forest
Land Acres
(Operable Base)

Tractor Logging

Percentage
of Operable
Acres Base

Cable Logging

Percentage
of Operable
Acres Base

17,467

6,288

11,179

2,271

8,908

9,094

2,001

7,093

3,456

3,637

2,554

919

1,635

153

1,482

1,049

346

703

178

525

1,661

—

1,661

747

914

874

288

586

100

—

612

—

612

490

122

4,000

1,520

2,480

960

1,520

37,31 1

11,362

25,949

8,841

17,108

MOTE: Data obtained from extensive inventory photo interpretation sample points.

3. All roads will require an annual maintenance cost
of $8 1.94/ mile.

Timber Harvesting

1 . All lodgepole pine timber types will be clearcut with
a rotation period of 80 years.

2. All other timber types will be shelterwood cut with a
rotation period of 1 20 years.

3. Harvesting will begin in the decade of access. An
equal acreage will be cut during each decade of the
conversion period.

4. Stands that are in size class 2 will convert to size
class 3 in 40 years. Stands that are size class 3 will be
assumed to remain size class 3 during the entire con¬
version period. Density classes will be assumed to be
constant during the entire conversion period.

5. On shelterwood cut areas, 60 percent of the
volume is removed in the initial (regeneration) entry
with the remaining volume cut 20 years later.

114

115

APPENDIX D: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDS IN THE WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

TABLED

Wilderness Study Area

Ruby Mountains
MT-076-001

Township

Range

Section

Acres

Description

Private

Inholdings

State

Inholdings

Public

Land

SWA

160.00

All

640.00

EVz, EV2W/2, SW/4NW/4, SWASWA

600.00

EV2SEV4

80.00

Lots 6 and 7, EV2

400

All

640.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

Lot 4

51.20

All

690.53

All

680.32

All

680.52

All

716.57

All

680.10

All

640.00

All

640.00

All

645.40

NW!4, SV2

480.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

All

643.16

640.00

All

640.00

All

683.20

Lot 1, NE 14, E1/2MW1/4, NE14SW14, SW14

491.66

All

640.00

All

640.00

All

641.60

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, SV2NV2, W2SV2, SV2SWA,

SWV4SEI4, except for that portion of Lot 5

638.98

patented under the 1872 mining law

1.02

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, SV^NV^,

EV2SEI4, except those portions of Lots 5, 6, 7,

8, 9, and 10 patented under the 1872 mining

law

605.18

34.82

All

640.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

TABLE D, page 2

Description

Lots 1,2, 3,4, NW1/4NE1/4
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, EV2W/2, SV2SEVA
All
W*/2

All

NE1/4SE,/4

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, SEV4NE%,
NEV4SE14

Lots 1, 2, 3, S1/2NE1/4, SEVaNWA, EViSEVa
SEVaSEVa

sviNeva, sEy4Mwy4, sy2swy4, sEy4
Nwy4Nwy4, sy2rswy4, swy4

All

Ey2Nwy4, sy2

ME y4, NE14SE14, portions of Lot 7, MW'/4SEy4,
MEy4swy4, swy4MEy4
Lots 1, 2, NEy4, Ey2MWy4

All

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, MEy4
All

Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, SWy4SWy4
Lots 7, 8, NEy4swy4
All
All

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, My2Mwy4, SEy4Mwy4,

Ny2SEy4, sE'/4SEy4

swy4swy4

Lots 1, 2, 3„ 4, 5, 6, My2MW’/4, SEy4MWy4,

Mwy4SEy4, sEy4SEy4

All

Lots 1 , 2, 3, a portion of Lot 4, Ey2Wy2, E'/2

All

Lots 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6, NWy4NWy4

Acres

Private
Inholdings

320.00

995.84

State
Inholdings

640.00

Public
Land

250.52

456.00

640.00

320.00

640.00

40.00

517.76

320.54

40.00

360.00

280.00

640.00

400.00

230.00

320.67

632.12
632.16

692.12
350.90
320.00

26,611.21

242.84
121.03
576.48
641.22

485.10
40.00

429.96
642.70
640.00
595.00
640.00
610.20
270.24

117

TABLE D, page 3

Acres

Private

State

Public

Wilderness Study Area

Township

Range

Section

Description

Inholdings

Land

Blacktail Mountains (cont.)

10S

All

648.88

All

648.16

All

649.28

NE!4, that portion of the NW!4NWyt located
south and east of the Sheep Creek Road,

S1/2NW1/4, SV2

585.00

that portion of the SE!4NE!4, NEV^tNE1/^
SW14NE!4, W!/2SE14 located south and east of
the Sheep Creek Road, Ey2SE!4

162.00

NE^NE1^, that portion of the W!/2NE!4,

SE!4ME!4 located north and east of the Sheep

Creek Road

138.00

N’/2, E’/2SW1/4, SEVa

560.00

All

640.00

W/2

320.00

ev2

320.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

NE y4, N‘/2NW'/4, SW1/4NW1/4, NWV4SWM,

Ny2SE14

400.00

NE14

160.00

10S

Lots 9, io, 1 1, Ey2swi4, wy2SEy4, SEy4SEy4

298.65

Lots 1, 3, 4, NE y4, NE14NW14, NVfcSEM

378.67

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Ny2NWy4, SEy4NWy4

284.45

Lots 6, 7, svaiwi/4, sw/4, wy2SEy4

411.75

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Sy2NEy4, E'M, SEy4

541.52

Lots 1 , 2, NEy4, Ey2NW’/4

311.33

•

Ny2, SEy4

480.00

All

655.87

Lots 1 , 2

80.75

All

653.16

NVfe, Ny2swy4, SEy4SWy4, that portion of the
SWV^SWV^ north and east of the jeep trail, SE14

636.00

SE’/iSEVi, that portion of the SW!4SE!4 located
south and east of the Sheep Creek Road

51.00

E'/2Ey2, that portion of the Wy2NE14 and
NW14SEyi located east of the Sheep Creek

Road

250.00

Total

17,479.24

118

TABLE D, page 4

East Fork of Blacktail Deer
Creek, MT-076-007

Hidden Pasture
MT-076-022

Township

Range

Section

Description

1 IS

SteNVfe, S'/2

Lot 4, SE!4SW!4, SV2SEV4, NEVaSEVa

All

NV2, SEV4, all of the SWA except the existing
road paralleling the East Fork of Blacktail

•

Deer Creek

That portion of Lot 2 south of the existing
road which parallels the East Fork of Blacktail

Deer Creek

SV2SWA, SEVa

All

NV2 except for the existing road which
parallels the East Fork of Blacktail Deer

Creek, SV2

All

12S

10W

All

EV2, EV2WV2, that portion of Lots 1 , 2, 3, and 4
east of the Muddy Creek Road

All

13S

10W

All

Lots 1 , 2, 3, that portion of Lots 4 and 5
located east of the Muddy Creek Road,

SV2SEV4, SE!4NW!4, that portion of the

EV2SWA located east of the Muddy Creek

Road, SE!4

NE14, that portion of the NE!4NW!4 located
east of the Muddy Creek Road, NV2SEI4

All

NV2, N!/2SW%, that portion of the SW14SW14
located east of Muddy Creek Road, SE14SW14,

SEVa

Acres

Private
Inholdings

State
Inholdings

640.00

Public

Land

480.00

205.57

640.00

635.00

194.30

240.00

640.00

636.00

640.00

6,230.87

640.00
653.80

626.33
640.00

640.00

543.00

269.00

640.00

639.00

119

TABLE D, page 5

Acres

Private

State

Public

Wilderness Study Area

Township

Range

Section

Description

Inholdings

Land

Hidden Pasture (cont.)

that portion of SE!4NE!4 located east of

Muddy Creek Road

39.00

E!/2, EV^NWVi, that portion of W!/2NW’/4,
NVfeSWft, SE'/4SW'/4 located east of Muddy

512.00

Creek Road, SE!4

All

640.00

All

640.00

NVfcSW!*, NVfeSE 'A, SWASEVa, that portion of
SEV4SE14 located north and west of Big

Sheep Creek Road

625.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

EV2NEI4, that portion of WV2MEI4, SW14SE14
located east of Muddy Creek Road, NV2SEI4,
that portion of SE!4SE!4 located north
and west of Big Sheep Creek Road

304.00

that portion of the NV£NE!4 located north and
east of Muddy Creek Road

18.00

NE14, that portion of the NW14, WV2SEI4
located north and east of Muddy Creek Road,

E1/2SE'/4

409.00

All

640.00

NV^SW’A, W'/2SE!4, that portion of EV2SEVA
located north and west of Big Sheep Creek

Road

603.00

W’/2NW!4, that portion of NE!4NE!4, W!/2rSE’/4,
E’/2NW!4, and NV4SW14 located north of Big
Sheep Creek Road

197.00

14S

10W

NW14, that portion of the NE’/^SW1/^ and
W!/2SE14 located west of Big Sheep Creek

Road

388.00

NE Va, N^NW’A, MzSEVa, SEVaSEVa,

SE14NW14, that portion of SW14MW14,

NV^SW’A, SW14SE14 located north and east of
Muddy Creek Road

542.00

that portion of NW14NW14 located north of

Big Sheep Creek Road

7.00

120

TABLE D, page 6

Acres

Private

State

Public

Wilderness Study Area

Township

Range

Section

Description

Inholdings

Land

Hidden Pasture (cont.)

13S

Lots 2, 3, 4, SE!4NW!4, E'/iSWA, SWASEVa

268.00

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, ME'/4, EV2W/2, W2SEV4

543.04

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, EV2W/2

301.44

Lots 1 , 2, NW^ME^, NW14, that portion of
EI/2NEI4, SW1/4NE1/4) Lot 3, and NEVaSWA

342.00

Total

640.00

15,509.61

Bell and Limekiln

Canyons, MT-076-026

10S

11W

that portion of the SE14 east and south of a
road which provides access up to and south

59.45

of the radio tower

S1/2ME1/4, SEVaMWA, that portion of

SW!4NW’/4 which is south and east of the

road providing access to the radio tower, S’/2

464.65

1 IS

11W

All

633.04

All

647.88

E'/2, that portion of EV^NWLi east of a jeep
trail in that area, that portion of SW'/4 south
and east of a jeep trail in that area

478.05

NE>/4, NE!/4NW'/4, N1/2SE1/4, SEVaSEVa, that
portion of SWLiSE^ south of a jeep trail in
that area

324.35

M‘/2, SW’/4, S'/2SE'/4

560.00

N '/2M V2, that portion of SV^NE’A north of a
jeep trail in that area

231.05

W'/2, SVzSEVa

400.00

IN V2, M^SW’A, SE'/4

80.00

560.00

All

640.00

S’^NE’A, that portion of NW’ANW^ south of
the jeep trail, S!/2NW!4, Sy2

519.15

that portion of rS!/2NE!4 south of Kissick

Canyon Road, S!/2NE14, M!/2SE!4, that portion
of SV^SE’A north of the Johnson Canyon/

Deer Canyon Road

280.35

NE'A, that portion of NW14SW14, SE!4, north
and east of the Johnson Canyon/Deer

Canyon Road, E!/2SE!4, that portion of

WV^SE’A north and east of the Johnson

Canyon/Deer Canyon Road

373.40

All

640.00

M‘/2, SW'/4

480.00

TABLE D, page 7

Acres

Private

State

Public

Wilderness Study Area

Township

Range

Section

Description

Inholdings

Land

Bell and Limekiln Canyons
(cont.)

NE!4, SV6NWV4, SVfe

80.00

560.00

All

640.00

M'/2NE1/4, SEVaNEVa

120.00

m2, NV2 SV2, that portion of SV^SV^t north of the
Deer Canyon Road

553.95

NEV4NEV4, that portion of NWV4NEM,

SEVaNEVa, NE^SE^ east of the Johnson
Canyon/Deer Canyon Road, that portion of
SE!4SE!4 north of the Deer Canyon Road and
East of the Johnson Canyon/Deer Canyon

Road

105.25

Total

160.00

9,650.57

MT-076-028

11W

Lot 13, a portion of Lots 7, 8, and 10, a
portion of WV6SE14

129.00

Lots 11, 12, 13, and 14

65.54

Lots 2, 3, and 4, S V2NV2, SV2

623.00

EV2, a portion of EV£W!£

355.00

EV2, a portion of EV2SNV2

463.00

All

640.00

MW14NE14, S^NE !4, NW14, Ste, that portion
of NE!4ME!4 located south and west of the
Grasshopper Creek Road

633.00

Those portions of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8
located south of the Grasshopper Creek Road,
SW/aNW/a, SW Va, WV2SEI4, SE14SE14

477.00

Those portions of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10
located south of the Grasshopper Creek Road

159.00

Those portions of Lots 6, 8, and 1 0 south of
the Grasshopper Creek Road

39.00

Lots 7 and 8, those portions of Lots 3, 4, 5,
and 6 south of the Grasshopper Creek Road,

W'/2NW'/4, SEttNWVi, SW/aNEVa, WV^SE'^,

SW/a

600.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

EV2, EV2WV2

480.00

NE Va, a portion of EV2W/2 and SE14

360.00

EV2, EV2W/2

480.00

All

640.00

All

640.00

122

Wilderness Study Area

Henneberry Ridge (cont.)

' 'ownship

Range

10W

11W

Section

31
1

Total

Farlin Creek
MT-076-034

12W

Total

Axolotl Lakes
MT-076-069

20
28

TABLE D, page 8

Description

Lot 9, that portion of Lots 2, 8, and 10 south
of the Grasshopper Creek Road and west of
transmission line right-of-way M-5487
That portion of Lots 1,2, and 3 west of
transmission line right-of-way M-5487
Lots 2, 3, and 4, S’/zNW’A, SWA, that portion
of Lot 1 , SV2NE Va, and W16SE% west of
transmission line right-of-way M-5487
All

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, SVfeNVfe

That portion of the NV2 north of road

right-of-way M- 19227

NW14NW14, that portion of NW14NE14,

NEV4NW14, S'/2NW'/4, and N1/2SW1/4 west of

transmission line right-of-way M-5487 and

north of road right-of-way M- 19227

S'/zSE'A

SWA

Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, SV2NV2, SV2

SE14NE14, NEVaSEVa, S'/zSEVa

NE14 and that portion of the EV2NWI4 east

and south of Mineral Survey 10296 (Patent

No. 876062)

SEVaSEVa

SV2NWI4, that portion of NV2NW14 south of

the county road, SW!4

SV2NE14, Nwy4, SV2

All

NV2NWV4

All

Acres

Private
Inholdings

State

Inholdings

Public

Land

165.00

53.00

413.00

576.36

257.96

163.00

115.00

9,806.36

80.00
160.00

518.12
160.00

220.90

1,139.02
40.00

272.00

560.00

601.00

602.92

640.00

80.00

640.00

603.52

602.84

640.00

123

TABLE D, page 9

■

Acres

Wilderness Study Area

Township

Range

Section

Description

Private

Inholdings

State

Inholdings

Public

Land

Axolotl Lakes (cont.)

Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, EV2

23.00

502.07

Lot 12

3.44

Lots 1,9, 14, 15, 16, and 17

120.42

Lots 1, 2, and 3, EV2, E'^NW^, SWA

1.00

624.77

All

640.00

Lots 1, and 2, EVz, E1/2NW1/4, SWATiWA,

SWA

631.18

Total

24.00

7,804.16

APPENDIX E: ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATIONS BY ACREAGE

TABLE E

TOTAL ACRES BY ECOSYSTEM

Wilderness Study Area

Douglas-fir

Forest

Sagebrush

Steppe

Foothills

Prairie

Alpine

Meadows/

Barren

Ruby Mountains, MT-076-001

18,900

4,500

2,300

600

Blacktail Mountains, MT-076-002

9,600

2,600

4,100

1,200

East Fork of Blacktail Deer Creek,
MT-076-007

2,000

1,100

1,400

1,700

Hidden Pasture, MT-076-022

1,400

11,500

2,600

—

Bell and Limekiln Canyons,

MT-076-026

2,600

3,000

4,100

Henneberry Ridge, MT-076-028

900

8,700

200

—

Farlin Creek, MT-076-034

600

500

—

Axolotl Lakes, MT-076-069

4,800

300

2,400

300

Followng is a brief description of each of the ecosys¬
tems represented in areas discussed in this study.

DOCIGLAS-FIR FOREST ( Pseudotsuga )
Type #1 1

Physiognomy: Medium dense forest of medium tall
needleleaf evergreen trees

Dominants: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Other Components: Abies con color, Larix occi-
dentalis, Physocarpus malvaceous, Picea
pungens, P. glauca( northern part), Pinus con-
torta, P. ponderosa (lower elevations), Populus
tremuloides

Occurrence: Northern Rocky Mountains and Washing¬
ton

ALPINE MEADOWS AND BARREN

(Agrostis, Car ex, Festuca, Poa)

Type #45

Physiognomy: Usually short grasses and sedges,
dense to very open with extensive barren areas; many
forbs

Dominants: Bentgrass ( Agrostis spp.); Sedges
( Carex spp.); Hairgrass ( Deschampsia caespi-
tosa ); Fescue ( Festuca viridula ); Woodrush ( Luz -
ula spicata); Mountain timothy (Phleum alpinum );
Bluegrass (Poa spp.); Spike trisetum ( Trisetum
spicatum)

Other Components: Achilla spp., An tenn aria spp.,
Aguilegia spp., Arenaria spp., Castilleja spp.,
Draba spp., Erigeron compositus, lichen spp.,
Oxyria digyna, Pentstemon fruticosus, Phace-
lia spp., Phlox caespitosa, Polemonium spp.,
Polygonum spp., Potentilla diversifolia, Poten-
tilla spp., Salix nivalis, Salix spp., Saxifraga spp.,
Selaginella spp., Sibbaldia procumbens, Sie-
versia turbinata, Solidago spp.

Occurrence: Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, Sierra
Nevada

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE (. Artemisia -
Agropyron) Type #49

Physiognomy: Dense to open grassland with dense to
open shrub synusia

Dominants: Bluebunch wheatgrass (A gropyron
spicatum ); Big sagebrush ( Artemisia trident at a)

Other Components: Artemisia arbuscula (western
part), A. nova (eastern part), Balsamorrhiza sagit-
tata, Festuca idahoensis, Lithospermum rude-
rale, Lupinus sericeus, Oryzopsis hymenoides,
Phlox spp., Poa nevadensis, P. secunda, Pur-
shia tridentata, Sit an ion spp.

Occurrence: Pacific Northwest and eastward to Rocky
Mountains

125

FOOTHILLS PRAIRIE ( Agropyron -
Festuca-Stipa) Type #56

Physiognomy: Open to fairly dense grassland of usu¬
ally rather short grasses

Dominants: Bluebunch wheatgrass (A gropyron
spicatum); Idaho fescue ( Festuca idahoensis );
Rough fescue ( Festuca scabrella ); Meedle-and-
thread grass ( Stipa comata )

Other Components: Achillea millefolium , Agro¬
pyron smithii, Artemisia frigida, Bouteloua
gracillis, Carex filifolia, Eriogonum spp.,
Koeleria cristata, Pentstemon spp., Poa
secunda

Occurrence: Western Montana

SOURCES: Kuchler, A.W Potential Natural Vege¬
tation of the Conterminous United States, Spe¬
cial Publication Mo. 36 (n.p.: American Geographical
Society, 1 964); (J.S., Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Ecoregions of the United States, by
Robert G Bailey (map) (Ogden, UT, 1976).

126

APPENDIX F:

SOILS AND WATER CHARACTERISTICS
OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

SOILS

Physical properties of a soil can largely determine soil
capabilities and limitations. Physical characteristics,
singly or collectively, can influence other characteris¬
tics. For example, size and arrangement of soil particles
(soil texture and structure) influence permeability,
available water capacity, surface runoff, compaction

hazard, erosion susceptibility, and productivity.

The susceptibility of a soil to erosion should be a
determinant in multiple use management. Most of the
soil associations in the WSAs have moderate to severe
erosion susceptibility; and where adequate manage¬
ment precautions to protect watershed integrity have
been lacking, accelerated erosion has resulted.

Erosion condition is an expression of current erosion
based on field observations. The Soil Surface Factor
Method was used to determine erosion condition. Ero¬
sion condition classes are primary factors in determin¬
ing watershed condition.

Water is the primary erosion agent in the Dillon
Resource area; however, there are specific locations
with considerable wind erosion. Short duration, high
intensity convective thunderstorms common to the
area are the most damaging in terms of erosion, and
spring runoff is the next most severe influence.

Compaction is the packing together of soil particles by
some force at the surface, which results in an increase
in soil density and a decrease in pore space. When pore
space is decreased to a point where soil, water, air, and
plant roots have restricted movement, stunted plant
growth often results.

Moist clays are easily compacted; however, contrary to
widespread belief, they are not a necessary major com¬
ponent of soils that are subject to compaction. Studies
show that medium texture soils are easier to compact
to higher bulk densities than fine or coarse textured
soils. A review of the literature indicates that optimum
moisture for compaction is about midway between field
capacity and the permanent wilting point. Trampling
causes the greatest amount of compaction under
moist soil conditions, which occur during spring. This
damage is intensified through vegetation removal by
livestock. Water infiltration is reduced in compacted
soil, so less water is available for plant growth. Permea¬
bility is also slower and surface runoff is increased, and
this increases erosion.

Soil compaction is especially noted along drainages
and near additional water sources, where livestock tend
to congregate. However, significant compaction also
has been found on the open range away from water.
This is an indication of early spring livestock turnout,
when soils are too moist.

Table F-l shows the major characteristics of the soils
associations found in the eight WSAs. Some of the
terms which are used to describe these soils are listed
below.

AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY. The portion of
water in a soil that can be readily absorbed by plant
roots. It is rated on the basis of soil characteristics that
influence the ability of the soil to hold water, such as
content of organic matter, soil texture, and soil struc¬
ture. Soils in an arid climate necessarily have low avail¬
able water capacity because so little water is added to
the soil as precipitation.

COMPACTION. The process of packing firmly and
closely together; the state of being so packed; e.g.,
mechanical compaction by livestock or vehicular activ¬
ity. Soil compaction results from particles being
pressed together, so that the volume of the soil is
reduced. It is influenced by the soils’ physical proper¬
ties, moisture content, and the type and amount of
compactive effort.

EFFECTIVE ROOTING DEPTH. The distance from
the mineral surface to any layer in the soil that is highly
restrictive to air, water, and root movement. The failure
of roots to penetrate some soil horizons may also be
due to deficiencies of moisture, nutrients, or oxygen or
to unfavorable physical conditions. Effective rooting
depth is recognized where roots change in abundance
from common to few in the soil profile over a distance
of 5 to 8 cm (2 to 3 inches).

EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY. The susceptibility of a
soil to erosion when no cover is present. The rate of soil
displacement depends on the physical properties of the
soil, rainfall intensity, and slope gradient.

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP. A class of soils that
have similar general infiltration and water movement
ability through the soil profile and bedrock. Hydrologic
groups are used to estimate runoff after rainfall. Soil
properties that influence infiltration rates and runoff are
depth to a water table, water intake rate and permeabil¬
ity, and depth to layers of slowly permeable soil.

Group A. Soils that have high infiltration
rates when thoroughly wetted. This group
consists chiefly of deep, well-drained to exces¬
sively drained sand and/or gravel. Group A
soils have a high rate of water transmission
and would result in a low runoff potential.

Group B. Soils that have moderate infiltra¬
tion rates when thoroughly wetted. This group
consists of moderately deep to deep, moder¬
ately well-drained to well-drained soils with
moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
Group B soils have a moderate rate of water
transmission.

127

128

TABLE F-l

SOILS CHARACTERISTICS OF WILDERNESS STGDY AREAS

Soil

Association

Occurrence
in WSAs

Slope

Soil Depth

Effective

Rooting

Depth

(inches)

Surface

Texture

Available

Water

Capacity

Permeability

Compaction
Drainage Hazard

Surface Erosion

Runoff Susceptibility

Range

Sites

Hydrologic

Group

Potential
Productivity
(Forage
Pounds per
Acre)

022, 026,
028, 034

Nearly
level— very
steep

Shallow—

moderately

deep

8-24

Loam— very
cobbly loam

Low

Moderate —
rapid

Excessively
drained —
well-drained

Low-

moderate

Medium—
very rapid

Moderate-

severe

Shallow,

stony

550-850

002, 007
026

Nearly
level— very
steep

Deep—

moderately

deep

15-23

Loam-
gravelly loam

Low— high

Slow—

moderately

rapid

Well-drained

Low— severe

Slow— very
rapid

Moderate—

severe

Silty— where
not timbered

600-850

022, 028

Nearly
level— very
steep

Moderately

deep

8-21

Loam —
gravelly loam

Low

Moderately

slow—

moderately

rapid

Excessively
drained —
well-drained

Low-

moderate

Slow — rapid

Low—

moderate

Stony, silty

500-650

002

Sloping—
very steep

Moderately

deep-

shallow

8-13

Loam— very
cobbly loam

Low

Moderate—

moderately

rapid

Excessively
drained —
well-drained

Low-

moderate

Medium-
very rapid

Moderate—

severe

Shallow

100-200

002

Sloping—
very steep

Moderately

deep

8-17

Loam— very
cobbly loam

Low

Moderate—

moderately

rapid

Excessively

drained—

well-drained

Low—

moderate

Slow— very
rapid

Moderate—

severe

Thin, hilly

75-100

001

Moderately

sloping—

steep

Shallow-

deep

1940

Loam—
gravelly loam

Low-

moderate

Moderate —
moderately
rapid

Well-drained

Very low-
moderate

Medium

Moderate

Shallow, silty

1 ,600-2,600

001

Strongly
sloping—
very steep

Deep

24-30

Gravelly

loam—

channery

loam

Low— very
low

Moderate

Well-drained

Low

Slow— rapid

Moderate—

severe

Silty where
not timbered

360-720

069

Strongly
sloping—
very steep

Deep

Gravelly

loam—

channery

loam

Moderate

Moderate —
moderately
rapid

Moderately

well-drained-

well-drained

Low-

moderate

Medium

Moderate

Timbered

N/A

Group C. Soils that have slow infiltration
rates when thoroughly wetted. This group
consists of (1 ) soils with a layer that impedes
the downward movement of water or (2) soils
with moderately fine to fine texture and a slow
infiltration rate. Group C soils have a slow rate
of water transmission.

Group D. Soils that have very slow infiltration
rates when thoroughly wetted. This group
consists chiefly of ( 1 ) clay soils with high swel¬
ling potential, (2) soils with a high permanent
water table, (3) soils with claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and (4) shallow soils
over nearly impervious materials. Group D
soils have a very slow rate of water transmis¬
sion.

RANGE SITE. A range site is a distinctive kind of
rangeland that differs from other kinds of rangeland in
its ability to produce characteristic kinds and amounts
of vegetation.

SOIL ASSOCIATION. A mapping unit used on gen¬
eral soil maps, in which two or more defined taxonomic
units occurring together in a characteristic pattern are
combined because the scale of the map or the purpose
for which it is being made does not require delineation
of the individual soils.

SOIL SURFACE FACTOR. Numerical expression of
surface erosion activity caused by wind and water as
reflected by soil movement, surface litter, erosion
pavement, pedestalling, rills, flow patterns, and gullies.
Values vary from 0 for stable erosion condition to 1 00
for a severe condition.

WATER

Table F-2 lists the surface water characteristics of the
eight WSA’s.

TABLE F-2

SURFACE WATER CHARACTERISTICS OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

WSA

Miles of

Perennial Stream

Spring

Occurrence

Lakes

Ruby Mountains
(MT-076-001)

Numerous

Blacktail Mountains
(MT-076-002)

Numerous

East Fork
(MT-076-007)

Numerous

Hidden Pasture Creek
(MT-076-022)

Few

Bell-Limekiln Canyons
(MT-076-026)

Few

Henneberry Ridge
(MT-076-028)

Few

Farlin Creek
(MT-076-034)

Few

Axolotl Lakes
(MT-076-069)

Numerous

7 lakes totaling

less than 25 acres
surface area

129

APPENDIX G: CULTURAL RESOURCES

Man has utilized southwest Montana for the past 1 2,000
years. During the prehistoric period the subsistence
pattern involved transhumance between areas with an
abundance of resources. Movements of populations
involved both long distance travel and elevation
changes. A wide diversity of animals, birds, fish, roots,
berries, seeds, greens, and other vegetative products
were used for food, clothing, shelter, ornaments and
tools. Various lithic types, bone, and antler were pre¬
pared and used for tools. Over most of the year the
basic group consisted of between 1 5 and 30 people but
during seasons of surplus larger human groups were
able to form. Table G lists the cultural resource site
types known to exist in each WSA. There are other site
types which are believed to exist in the WSAs, such as
prehistoric graves, rock shelters, game traps, and drive
alignments, which have not yet been recorded.

Occupation sites consist of living areas. Skin, brush, or
wooden lodge structures were typically used and occa¬
sionally rock shelters were occupied. Typically all traces
of shelters have disappeared and all that remains are a
scatter of stone tools, fire hearths, and other debris.
Such sites are known as lithic scatter sites. Occasionally
the stones used to secure the base of skin or brush
structures remain in place and these sites are known as
stone circle or tipi ring sites. Standing conical log or
brush structures are known as wickiups and are rare,
because they are vulnerable to decay and fire activity.
Rock shelters are also rare since they are entirely
dependent on geological structures.

Subsistence sites directly relate to activities designed to
gather resources. There appears to be a marked ten¬
dency in the archeological record toward the hunting of
large groups of animals by prehistoric peoples. A de-

TABLEG

KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCE SITE TYPES

Prehistoric

Historic

Wilderness Stucfy
Area

Occupation

Subsistence

Ceremonial

Occupation

Subsistence

Ceremonial

Inventory

Status

Cultural

Resource

Value

Ruby Mountains
MT-076-001

Lithic scatter
Stone rings
Wickiup

Hunting blind

Vision quest
Eagle trap

Open camp

Trails, cairns,
corral, mining,
logging

Unknown

Project-related
Management
framework plan

High

Blacktail Mountains
MT-076-002

Lithic scatter
Wickiup

Lithic procure¬
ment, quarry,
workshop,
chipping station

Vision quest
Rock art

Wooden cabin
Stone cabin
Open camp

Trails, cairns,
corral, mining,
water improve¬
ments, logging

Unknown

Project-related
Management
framework plan

Moderate

East Fork of Black-
tail Deer Creek,
MT-076-007

Unknown

No inventory

Unknown

Hidden Pasture

Creek, MT-076-022

Lithic scatter
Stone rings

Mass game kill,
hunting blind,
lithic procure¬
ment, quarry,
workshop,
chipping station

Rock art

Wooden cabin
Stone cabin
Open camp

Trails, cairns,
corral, mining

Unknown

Project-related
Management
framework plan

High

Bell and Limekiln
Canyons,

MT-076-026

Unknown

No inventory

Unknown

Henneberry Ridge
MT-076-028

Lithic scatter

Butchering

station

Unknown

Wooden cabin

Trails, mining,
logging

Unknown

No inventory

Unknown

Farlin Creek
MT-076-034

Unknown

Wooden cabin

Trails, cairns,
corral, mining,
water improve¬
ments, logging

Unknown

No inventory

Low

Axolotl Lakes
MT-076-069

Lithic scatter

Mass game kill,
chipping station

Vision quest

Wooden cabin
Stone cabin

Open camp

Trails, cairns,
corral, mining,
mill, water
improvements,
logging

Grave

Project-related
Management
framework plan

High

131

posit of bone and butchering tools where no structural
remains are present is known as a mass game kill site.
Stone structures built into hillsides or scree near game
trails are known as hunting blinds and may relate to
cooperative or individual hunting. Individual hunting
sites leave minimal archeological remains and are
often overlooked as sites. All that may remain may be a
projectile point, cutting tools, or heavy butchering tools
and this site type is known as a butchering station.

Sites which relate to the acquisition of raw material for
stone tool manufacture and the actual manufacturing
of tools can take several forms. Lithic procurement
sites relate to the direct gathering of raw materials and
perhaps some preparatory working. When high quality
materials are buried and excavations are present this
type of site is termed a quarry. A workshop site is where
the raw material is converted into tools. This site
resembles a lithic scatter and may only be differentiated
by a greater amount of lithic waste debris and the
absence of such occupation debris as worn and broken
tools. The chipping station site type is marked by a
small collection of flakes and can represent casual tool
sharpening or manufacture secondary to some other
activity.

Ceremonial sites in this category include vision quest
sites, cairns, engraved or painted rock art, graves, or
pits or low rock structures used to trap raptors for their
feathers.

Historic sites in southwest Montana relate to mining,
agricultural, timber, and transportation activities. Inten¬
sive mining in the area began in 1862 and has con¬
tinued to the present day. Early placer mining required
water improvements, timber for housing, firewood, and
sluice systems, and trails and roads for access.

With the exhaustion of the surface placers hard rock
mining began. Milling sites were built and the use of
steam machinery became more widespread. These
activities intensified the need for water systems, auxil¬
iary trails for transportation, cord wood, and wood for
mine timbers.

Agricultural activities generally followed the mining
activities. Within the Wilderness Study Areas, this activ¬
ity involved first seasonal sheepherding and later cattle
and horse grazing. A wide variety of historic site types
accompanies this activity. Perhaps the most spectacu¬
lar are “sheepherder monuments,” large rock cairns
built both as trail markers and for recreational art by the
early sheepherders.

132

APPENDIX H: LIST OF PREPARERS

Project Manager. Bruce Botsford, Outdoor Recrea¬
tion Planner, Dillon Resource Area. Overall manage¬
ment and coordination of the document preparation
process. B.S., Conservation, Wisconsin State Univer¬
sity. Ten years experience as outdoor recreation
planner for Heritage Conservation and Recreation Serv¬
ice, including writing and reviewing recreation-oriented
environmental statements.

T echnical Coordinator. Richard E. Ward, Wilderness
Specialist, Butte District. Served as the assistant to the
project manager and was responsible for providing
technical guidance to study team. Also assisted with
writing the wilderness and other sections of the docu¬
ment. B.S., Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation
Option, Cornell University, New York; graduate work in
Regional Resource Planning and Wilderness Manage¬
ment, Colorado State University. Previously the techni¬
cal coordinator for the Humbug Spires and Bear Trap
Canyon Wilderness Suitability Reports/ElSs. Wrote the
Flat Tops Wilderness Management Plan for the White
River National Forest, Colorado.

Core Team, Wilderness, Recreation, Visual Resour¬
ces. Dean Littlepage, Outdoor Recreation Planner,
Dillon Resource Area. Primary responsibility for prepar¬
ing the wilderness, recreation, visual resources, alterna¬
tives, and other sections of the document. B.A., Political
Science, University of Texas; M.A., Recreation and
Resource Management, Stanford University, California.
Previous experience in backcountry management,
recreation and wilderness planning, forestry, outdoor
education, and cultural resource surveys with the
Forest Service, BLM, and public school districts.

Cultural Resources. John F. Taylor, Archeologist,
Butte District. Primary responsibility for the cultural
resources sections. B.A., Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania; M.A., Anthropology, University of Mon¬
tana. Previously Judith Resource Area Archeologist,
Lewistown District, BLM. Park Archeologist, Theodore
Roosevelt National Park, NPS.

Socio-economics. David K. Nelson, Regional Econ¬
omist, Butte District. Primary responsibility for the
socio-economic sections. B.S., Economics, Montana
State University; M.S., Agricultural Economics, Mon¬
tana State University. Two years as Regional Econo¬
mist, 2 years Land Use Planner with BLM.

Wildlife. Jack D. Jones, Wildlife Management Biolo¬
gist, Butte District. Primary responsibility for the wildife
sections. B.S., Range Management, Montana State
University; graduate work in Fish and Wildlife Manage¬
ment, Montana State University. Previously Range
Manager, Billings District, Montana, and Wildlife Biolo¬
gist, Malta District, Montana.

Watershed. Roger B. Olsen, Hydrologist, Dillon
Resource Area. Primary responsibility for the water and
soils sections. B.S., Watershed Management, Utah
State University. Previously involved with infiltration
research in Denver, Colorado.

Geology and Minerals. R. David Williams, Geologist,
Butte District. Primary responsibility for the geology
and minerals sections. B.S., Geology, Bates College,
Maine; M.S., Geology, University of Montana. Previously
District Geologist, Coeur d’Alene, Id., and Exploration
tion, and Urangeselschaft.

Livestock Grazing. Earl R. Risberg, Range Conserva¬
tionist, Butte District. Primary responsibility for the live¬
stock grazing sections. B.S., Range Management, Uni¬
versity of Wyoming. Previously Range Conservationist
in Rock Springs, Wyoming, and Battle Mountain,
Nevada.

Timber Management. William D. Torgersen, For¬
ester, Butte District Office. Primary responsibility for the
timber management sections. B.S., Forest Resource
Management, University of Minnesota. Previously,
Supervisory Forestry, Denver Service Center, Forester,
Lakeview, Oregon, Forester, Prineville, Oregon.

Lands. Russell E. Sorensen, Realty Specialist, Butte
District. Primary responsibility for the legal descriptions.
B.S., Agricultural Production, Montana State University.
Previously seven years as Realty Specialist with the
Bureau of Land Management in Alaska, Arizona, and
currently in Butte, Montana.

Maps and Graphics. Mark Koski, Visual Information
Specialist, Butte District. Primary responsibility for
coordination and production of graphics and layout of
text. B.S., Geography, Oregon State University. Pre¬
viously worked with Northern Tier EIS Team and
Oregon State Office, BLM.

Writing and Editing. Lou Layman, Writer-Editor,
Casper District, Wyoming, former writer-editor for Butte
District. Primary responsibility for editing the affected
environment and alternatives chapters and appendixes.
B.S., Journalism, University of Colorado. Previously
writer-editor on environmental and planning docu¬
ments for National Park Service; served as writer-editor
on draft and final Mountain Foothills EIS, wilder¬
ness suitability reports/EISs for Humbug Spires and
Bear Trap Canyon, and Butte District Oil and Gas
Environmental Assessment.

Writing and Editing. Millard Hulse, Public Information
Specialist, Butte District. Primary responsibility for edit¬
ing the introduction, and environmental consequences
and consultation, coordination and public involvement
chapters. B.S., Psychology, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, New York; M.A., Geography, University of Mon¬
tana. Previous experience in community planning and
public information work with Mineral County, Montana,
and the General Services Administration. Served as
editor for the Bannack Scenic Withdrawal Environmen¬
tal Assessment.

133

, ■

GLOSSARY

(Including Acronyms and Abbreviations)

AMP. Allotment Management Plan. A concisely writ¬
ten program of livestock grazing management, includ¬
ing supportive measures, if required, designed to attain
specific management goals in a grazing allotment.

AUM. Animal Unit Month. A standardized unit of
measurement of the amount of forage necessary for
the complete subsistence of one animal unit (one cow
or one horse or five sheep, all over six months old) for
one month; also, a unit of measurement of grazing
privilege which represents the privilege of grazing one
animal for a period of one month.

ACEC. Area of Critical Environmental Concern. An
area within the public lands where special management
attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable
damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values,
fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or
processes, or to protect life and safety from natural
hazards.

BAILEY-KUCHLER SYSTEM. A land classification
system which divides the United States into various
ecosystems based upon an integration of the natural
factors of climate, vegetation, soils, and landform.

CEQ. Council on Environmental Quality.

COUNTRY ROCK. A general term applied to the
rock surrounding and penetrated by mineral veins; in a
wider sense applied to the rocks invaded by and sur¬
rounding an igneous intrusion.

CRIB. Computerized Resource Information Base. A
computerized minerals resource file, consisting of
geographic location, commodity, deposit and geologic
information on all nonfuels minerals, metallic and
nonmetallic.

CRITICAL MINERALS OR MATERIALS. Those
materials vital to the national defense, the main source
of which is within the continental limits of the United
States, which may not be produced in quality and quan¬
tity sufficient to meet requirements.

CUSTODIAL ALLOTMENT. A minimally supervised
grazing allotment on which the BLM generally specifies
only the number and kind of livestock and the grazing
season.

DREDGE, DREDGING. A method of obtaining
resources or for deepening streams, swamps, or coast¬
al waters by scraping and removing solids from the
bottom.

EAU. Economic Analysis Unit. An area served by a
road network with a single entry point (See Appendix
C).

FIRE ASSAY. The assaying of metallic ores, usually
gold and silver, by methods requiring a furnace heat.

FLPMA. F ederal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976.

HARDROCK MINING. A term which refers to under¬
ground or open pit mining as opposed to placer or
hydraulic mining.

HYDRAULIC MINING. A method of mining in which
a bank of gold-bearing earth or gravel is washed away
by a powerful jet of water and carried into sluices, where
the gold separates from the earth by its specific gravity.

INGROWTH. The amount of wood fiber added to an
existing stand of timber through natural growth.

INHOLDING. A parcel of nonpublic land surrounded
by public land.

INTEREST RATE (DISCOUNT RATE). The value
used to calculate the present value of a stream of
benefits or costs extending into the future. The rate
which is chosen tends to determine the rate of devel¬
opment of a resource over time. The lower the rate
used, the more likely immediate development is to
occur. At higher interest rates, development is more
likely to be put off into the future, all other thinqs beinq
equal.

LEASABLE MINERALS. Those minerals or mate¬
rials subject to lease by the federal government.
Includes oil and gas, coal, phosphate, sodium, potash,
and oil shale.

LOCATABLE MINERALS. Minerals or materials sub¬
ject to disposal and development through the Mining
Law of 1 872 (as amended). Generally includes metallic
minerals such as gold and silver and other materials not
subject to lease or sale (some bentonites, limestone,
talc, some zeolites, etc.).

LODE. A mineral deposit consisting of a zone of
veins; a mineral deposit in consolidated rock as
opposed to placer deposits.

LODE CLAIM. A mining claim including a lode, fis¬
sure, or fissure vein. In the United States the maximum
length along the lode or vein is 457.5 meters and the
maximum width is 183 meters.

135

MFP. Management Framework Plan. A planning
decision document that establishes, for a given plan¬
ning area, land use allocations, coordination guidelines
for multiple use, and management objectives to be
achieved for each class of land use or protection. It is
the BLM’s land use plan. An MFP is prepared in three
steps: (1) resource recommendations, (2) impact
analysis and alternative development, and (3) decision
making. BLM plans developed after 1981 under an
altered planning system will be called RMPs (Resource
Management Plans).

MBF. Thousand board feet; a measure of timber
volume.

MDF&G. Montana Department of Fish and Game.

MDFWP. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks.

MMBF. Million Board Feet.

NONPOINT SOURCE. Pollutants which originate
from diffuse runoff, seepage, drainage, or infiltration
are said to have a nonpoint source.

NWPS. National Wilderness Preservation System.

ORV. Off-road vehicle.

PATENTED CLAIM. A claim on which title has
passed from the federal government to the mining
claimant under the 1872 mining law.

PLACER MINING. A form of mining in which the
surface material is washed for gold or other valuable
minerals. When water under pressure is employed to
break down the gravel, the term hydraulic mining is
generally used.

PLANNING CRITERIA. The factors used to guide
development of the resource management plan, or
revision, to ensure that it is tailored to the issue pre¬
viously identified and to ensure that unnecessary data
collection and analysis are avoided. Planning criteria
are developed to guide the collection and use of inven¬
tory data and information, the analysis of the manage¬
ment situation, the design and formulation of alterna¬
tives, the estimation of the effects of alternatives, the
evaluation of alternatives, and the selection of the pre¬
ferred alternative.

PNW. Present net worth.

RECREATION VISIT. One person engaged in one
recreational activity for all or any part of a day.

ROTATION PERIOD. The period in years it takes to
convert a natural old growth forest from its existing
state to one of healthy young growing trees.

SALABLE MINERALS. “Common Variety” materials
(sand and gravel, pumice, etc.) which are disposed of
by sale by the federal government.

SCORP. (Montana) Statewide Comprehensive Out¬
door Recreation Plan.

SECURITY COVER (Hiding Cover). The vegetation
and topographic complex capable of essentially hiding
an animal from view.

SHELTERWOOD CUT. Removal of the mature
stand of timber in a series of cuts. Regeneration of the
new stand occurs under the cover of a partial forest
canopy between cuts. A final harvest cut removes the
shelterwood and permits the new stand to develop in
the open as an even-aged stand.

SMSA. Standard Metropolitan Stastical Area. A
county which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhab¬
itants plus any adjacent urban territory.

SOILS. See soils terms defined in Appendix F.

STRATEGIC MINERALS OR MATERIALS. Those
materials vital to the security of a nation which must be
procured entirely or to a substantial degree from sour¬
ces outside the continental limits of that nation because
the available production will not be sufficient in quantity
or quality to meet requirements in time of national
emergency.

TACK-ON. A parcel of public land that is less than
5,000 acres in size, possesses the wilderness character¬
istics of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for
solitude or primitive recreation, and is adjacent to other
federal land that has been designated as wilderness or
is being studied for wilderness designation.

TRANSHUMANCE. Seasonal geographic move¬
ments by human groups, usually repetitive, between
different areas. Transhumanance is a cultural variable
geared toward what a people considers to be a valuable
resource.

VALID DISCOVERY. A discovery where minerals
have been found and the evidence is of such a charac¬
ter 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 valu¬
able mine, and where the requirements of the statutes
have been met.

VISION QUEST. A religious vigil undertaken by
Native Americans to obtain a spiritual guide. Sites indi¬
cating this activity consist of low stone cradles usually
located on isolated mountains or hills.

VRM. Visual Resources Management.

WILDERNESS PROTECTION STIPULATION. A

stipulation attached to post-FLMPA oil and gas leases
designed to protect wilderness values.

136

WSA. Wilderness Study Area. A parcel of public land
that through the BLM’s wilderness inventory process
has been found to possess the basic wilderness charac¬
teristics of being at least 5,000 acres in size, being
primarily natural, and having outstanding opportunities
for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recrea¬
tion.

WPA. Wilderness Planning Amendment.
WSP. Wilderness Study Policy (document).

137

REFERENCES

AMEC, Inc. 1982. “Economic Impact of Wilderness Designation.” Review draft of report, n.p.

Prepared under contract to the G.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

American Society of Range Management, Range Term Glossary Committee 1964. A Glossary of Terms Used in
Range Management. Portland, OR: American Society of Range Management.

Baty, Donald C. 1977. Recreational Use and Resource Analysis of BLM Lands within the Madison
River Corridor. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Prepared under contract to the G.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Beaverhead County Planning Board. 1976. Beaverhead County 1 976 Comprehensive Plan, prepared by
Donald C. Nye, Planning Coordinator. Dillon, MT.

Beck, J.A. 1981. “Phosphates.” Engineering and Mining Journal, March 1981, pp. 93-95.

Cole, David N. and Washburne, Randel F. 1 981 . “Problems and Practices in Wilderness Management.” Review draft
of report, n.p.

Cummins, Arthur B., and Given, Ivan A. 1 973. SME Minin g En gineerin g Han dbook, Volume 2, New York, N.Y.
Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Davis, George D. 1980. “The Case for Wilderness Diversity.” American Forests, August 1980, p. 24.

Engineering and Mining Journal. 1981. “1 12th Annual Survey and Outlook for Mineral Commodities 1980-81.”
Engineering and Mining Journal 182 (3).

Epple, Andrew C. 1977. Recreation in the Dillon Resource Area. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education.

Prepared under contract to the G.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Eustace, C. D. 1967. Food Habits, Range Gse, and Relationships between Elk and Livestock in the Gravelly
Mountains, Montana.” M.S. thesis, Montana State Gniversity, Bozeman.

Giletti, B. J. 1966. “Isotopic Ages from Southwestern Montana.” Journal of Geophysical Research 71:4029-
4036.

Hormay, August L. 1970. Principles of Rest-rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land Management.
Washington: Government Printing Office. A joint publication of the G.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management and the G.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

James, H. L., and Hedge, C. E. 1980. “Age of Basement Rocks of Southwest Montana.” Geological Society of
America Bulletin 91 ( 1 ):1 1-15.

Johnson, Maxine C. 1972. Wood Products in Montana. Special Report on the Industry’s Impact on Montana s
Income and Employment.” Montana Business Quarterly Spring 1972.

Karasevich, L. P. 1 980. “Structure of the Pre-Beltian Metamorphic Rocks of the Northern Ruby Range, Southwestern
Montana.” M.S. thesis, Pennsylvania State Gniversity, Gniversity Park.

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. American
Geographical Society Special Publication no. 36.

Manske, D. C. 1961. “Geology of the Baldy Mountain Area, Madison County, Montana.” M.S. thesis, Oregon State
Gniversity, Corvallis.

Menasco-McGuinn Associates. 1973. Madison County Comprehensive Plan. Helena, MT: Menasco-McGuinn
Associates.

Prepared under contract to Department of Intergovernmental Relations, Division of Planning and Economic
Development, and the Madison County Planning Board.

Mining Engineering. 1 981 . “AMC Mining Convention Reflects Improved Industry Outlook.” Mining Engineering
33(12).

139

Montana. Bureau of Mines and Geology. 1931. Geology and Ore Deposits of Bannack and Argenta,
Montana, by P. J. Shenon. Bulletin 6. Butte, MT.

1 959. Summary of Mon tan a Min eral Resources, by U. M. Sahinen and F. A. Gowley. Bulletin 1 1 . Butte,
MT.

1960. “Geology of the Ruby Mountains,” byE.W. Heinrich. In Pre-Beltian Geology of the Cherry Creek
and Ruby Mountains Areas, Southwestern Montana. Memoir 38. Butte, MT.

1971. Catalog of Stratigraphic Names for Montana, by Clifford A. Balsta. Special Publication 54.
Butte, MT.

1972. Mines and Mineral Deposits (Except Fuels), Beaverhead County, Montana, by R. D.
Geach. Bulletin 85. Butte, MT.

1979. Talc and Chlorite Deposits in Montana, by R. B. Berg. Memoir 45. Butte, MT.

1980a. Gypsum Deposits in Beaverhead County, Montana, by W.M. Johns. Geologic Map 13. Butte,
MT.

1980b. Montana Geologic Atlas Series. No. 52: Dillon Quadrangle. Butte, MT.

\9Q\. Oil Shale Potential in the Heath and Tyler Formations, Central Montana, byW. E. Cox and
G. A. Cole. Butte, MT.

Montana. Department of Fish and Game. 1978. Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP) Helena, MT.

Montana. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 1980. Job Progress Report: Big Game Survey and
Inventory, Region Three, by Howard Chrest. Project no. W-130-R-11; Job no. 1-3 (Segment B), Elk.
n.p.: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Montana. Department of Labor and Industr/. 1980. Selected Wage Information 1980 for Montana and 14
Labor Market Areas. Produced by the Research and Analysis Section, Employment Security Division.
Helena, MT.

Montana. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1980. 1980 Directory of Montana's Forest
Products Industry. Missoula, MT: Forestry Division.

Pardee, J. T. 1950. “Late Cenozoic Block Faulting in Western Montana.” Geological Society of America
Bulletin 61:359-406.

Pecora, W. C. 1981. “Bedrock Geology of the Blacktail Mountains, Southwestern Montana.” M.S. thesis, Wesleyan
University, Middletown, CT.

Peek, J. M. 1961. “Reproduction of Moose in Southwestern Montana.” M.S. thesis, Montana State University,
Bozeman.

Ratliff, Raymond D., and Reppert, Jack N. 1 974. “Vigor of Idaho Fescue Grazed under Rest-rotation and Continuous
Grazing.” Journal of Range Management 27 (6):447-459.

Reichelt, L 1973. “Characteristics of Elk Calving Sites along the West Fork of the Madison River, Montana.” M.S.
thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.

Rouse, R. A. 1957. “Elk Food Habits, Range Use, and Movements, Gravelly Mountains, Montana.” M.S. thesis,
Montana State University, Bozeman.

Scholten, Robert; Keenmon, K. A.; and Kupsch, W. O. 1955. “Geology of the Lima Region, Southwestern Montana
and Adjacent Idaho.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 66 (1955):345-404.

Schuster, Ervin G. 1978. Montana's Timber Harvest and Timber-Using Industry: A Study of
Relationships. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station Bulletin 41 . Missoula, MT: University
of Montana, School of Forestry.

Society for Range Management, Range Term Glossary Committee. 1974. A Glossary of Terms Used m Range
Management. 2nd ed. Denver: Society for Range Management.

140

Spencer, Edward; Echelberger, Herbert E.; Leonard, Raymond E.; and Evans, Craig. 1980. “Trends in Hiking and
Backcountry Use.’ In Proceedings: 1980 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium.
General Technical Report NE-57. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northeast
Forest Experiment Station.

Stankey, George H. 1971. The Perceptions of Wilderness Carrying Capacity. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University.

State University of New York. 1971. Forest Recreation Symposium Proceedings, October 12-14, 1971.
Syracuse, NY. Quoted in Montana, Department of Fish and Game, Montana Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Helena, MT: 1978.

Stoddart, Laurence A.; Smith, Arthur D.; and Box, Thadis W. 1975. Range Management. 3rd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, G. M. 1 981 . “Structural Geology of the Badger Pass Area, Southwest Montana.” M.S. thesis, University of
Montana, Missoula.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1 965. Ro ta ti on, Rest-rotation, and Season-Long Grazing on
a Mountain Range in Wyoming, by W. M. Johnson. Forest Service Research Paper RM-14.

1972. Rest-rotation Grazing at Harvey Valley: Range, Health, Cattle Gains, Costs, by Raymond
D. Ratliff, Jack N. Reppert, and Richard J. McConnen. Forest Service Research Paper PSW-77.

1976. Ecoregions of the United States, by Robert G. Bailey (map). Ogden, UT.

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1978a. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States, compiled by Robert G. Bailey. Ogden,
UT: Intermountain Region.

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use with the map Ecoregions of the
United States.

1978b. RARE II Map B: Ecosystems of the United States, by R. G. Bailey with minor modifications by
G. D. Davis. Reston, VA. Geological Survey.

1980a. Economic Analysis of Timber: Montana Wilderness Study Act Areas.

1980b. Mount Henry, Taylor-Hilgard, and West Pioneer Study Report and Environmental
Statement (Draft). Missoula, MT.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1980. Preliminary Reports: 1980 Census of
Population and Housing, Montana. Washington.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. 1 978. “The Recreation Area Inventory System (RAIS).”
(Typewritten.) On file at the Dillon Resource Area Office, Dillon, MT.

1979. Social and Natural Resource Views of Dillon Resource Area Residents. Butte, MT.

1980a. Mountain Foothills Grazing Management Program Environmental Statement. Butte,
MT.

1980b. Visual Resources Management Program. Stock no. 024-01 1-001 16-6. Washington: Govern¬
ment Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Mines. 1965 .An Evaluation of the Western Phosphate Industry
and Its Resources, Part 2, by C. C. Popoff and A. L. Service. Report of Investigations 661 1 . Washington.

1980. Mineral Resources of the Three Forks Division in Southwestern Montana, byR. A. Miller.
Preliminary Report 176. Spokane, WA.

1981. Mineral Commodity Summaries 1 981. Washington.

141

U.S. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey. 1914. Mining Districts of the Dillon Quadrangle,
Montana, and Adjacent Areas, by A. N. Winchell. Bulletin 574.

1950.71 Geologic Reconnaissance of Parts of Beaverhead and Madison Counties, Montana, by
M. R. Klepper. Bulletin 969-C. Washington.

1953. Uranium and Thorium Deposits in East-Central Idaho and Southwestern Montana, by
Albert F. Trites and Edwin Tooker, Jr. Bulletin 988-h. Washington.

1955. Geologic Map of Montana, by C. P. Ross, D. A. Anderson, and I. J. Witkind. Washington.

1965. Geologic Map of the Bannack-Grayling Area, Beaverhead County, Montana, by W. R.
Lowell. Miscellaneous Geological Investigations Map 1-433. Washington.

1972. Geologic Map of the Kelly fron Deposit, Section 25, T6S, R5W, Madison County,
Montana, by H. L. James and K. L. Weir. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-349.

1976. Paleozoic and Mesozoic Stratigraphy of the Northern Part of the Ruby Range, South¬
western Montana, by R. G. Tysdal. Bulletin 1405-1. Washington.

1980. “Mineral Resource Potential of the Centennial Mountains WSA: Including the Centennial Mountains
Instant Study Area, Beaverhead County, Montana, and Clark and Fremont Counties, Idaho,” by 1. J. Witkind, L.
C. Huff, J. Ridenour, M. D. Conyac, and R. B. McCulloch. Open-file Report 80-922. Washington.

1981. Computerized Resource Information Base (CRIB). Mineral Resources File 12.

Vitaliano, C. J.; Condua, W. S.; Burger, H. R.; Hanley, T. B.; Hess, D. F; and Root, F. K. 1979. Geologic Map of the
Southern Tobacco Root Mountains, Madison County, Montana. Map and Chart Series MC-31.
Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America.

Watson, T. J., Jr. 1 976. “An Evaluation of Putatively Threatened or Endangered Species from the Montana Flora.”
Prepared by the University of Montana for the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Missoula, MT.

Wilson, M. L. 1 981 . “Petrology and Origin of Archean Lithologies in the Southern Tobacco Root and Northern Ruby
Ranges of Southwestern Montana.” M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.

142

INDEX

Area of Critical Environmental

Concern . 56, 67-68, 71, 73, 89, 99

Axolotl Salamander . 54, 56, 57, 98-99

Bailey-Kuchler System . 4, 8, 20, 26, 126

Beaverhead County . i, 1, 7, 9-13, 75, 77, 80,

103-106

Beaverhead National Forest . 7, 10, 30-31, 34,

62-63, 111-112

Blacktail Game Range . 10,30-32,34

Bureau of Mines . 16, 69, 77

Clean Air Act . 14

Cultural Resources . ii, 15, 20, 26, 36, 56, 64, 73,

75-76, 90, 98, 131

Deerlodge National Forest . 1

Dillon Management Framework Plan . 1,15-16,

20-22, 26, 56, 68, 76-77, 83-87, 89-91, 99

Dillon Off-Road Vehicle Plan . 21 , 31 , 37, 57, 71

East Pioneer RARE 11 Area . . i, 7, 9, 49-51 , 63, 68-69,

97, 105

Employment . ii, 5, 1 1, 69, 80

Erosion . 67-68, 89-90, 94, 127-128

FLPMA . i, 1,9-10

Geological Survey . 16, 69, 77

Grazing Permits . 14, 78, 80

Grazing Systems ... 14, 22, 29, 33, 38-39, 43-44, 49,

58, 95, 109

GroundWater . 15

Inholdings . 17, 20, 37, 39, 42, 53, 57, 64, 68-69,

81,90, 92

Interest (Discount) Rate . . .23, 29, 34, 44, 53, 59, 80,

86, 89, 93, 95, 98, 1 1 1

Issues . 3-5, 64, 101

Madison County . i, 1, 7, 9-13, 75, 77, 80, 103,

105-106

Montana Dept, of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MDFWP) . . .

8, 10, 12,21,47, 57, 89
Mountain Foothills EIS . . 1, 16, 29, 33, 38-39, 58, 77,

84, 90, 92, 94, 100
National Wilderness Preservation System .... 3, 7-8,

67, 69, 75,81,98

Overthrust Belt . 14, 16, 43

Planning Criteria . 3, 5, 64, 101

Post-FLPMA Leases . 28, 43, 51 , 56, 58, 72

Pre-FLPMA Leases . 26, 37-38, 42-43, 47-48,

67-68, 71,85, 90-92, 94-95
Prescribed Burning - 22, 43, 68, 70, 81-82, 85, 92,

94-96

Range Improvements . . 14, 22, 29, 33, 39, 43-44, 49,
58, 67, 70, 75, 77-79, 81-82, 85-90, 92-98, 100

SMSAs . 8

Stock Driveway . 17, 20, 54, 81-84, 99

Taylor-Hilgard Area . 1, 9, 112

Threatened or Endangered Species . 4,15

Visual Resources . 16, 66, 71, 73, 81-89, 91-93,

95-99

Water Quality . 4, 1 5, 76

Wilderness Act . i, 7, 76

Wilderness Management Policy ...1,5, 66, 70, 75-77,

80, 83, 85, 87

Wilderness Study Policy . 1 , 3-4, 101

☆ u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1982— 576-053 / 3

143

BL?edeScenter

P.°- &022&

0«nveV

4 ‘

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Wilderness planning amendment/environmental impact statement for the Dillon Resource Area, Beaverhead and Madison counties, Montana : draft"

See other formats