DOCSLIB.ORG

Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Lolo National Forest-Administered Land

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Lolo National Forest-Administered Land Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Lolo National Forest-Administered Land Open-File Report MBMG 476 April 2003 Phyllis A. Hargrave Michael D. Kerschen Catherine McDonald John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region 1 Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Lolo National Forest-Administered Land Open-File Report MBMG 476 April 2003 Phyllis A. Hargrave Michael D. Kerschen Catherine McDonald John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region 1 Contents Page List of Figures ............................................................... iii List of Tables.................................................................v 1.0 Introduction ...............................................................1 1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................2 1.2 Abandoned and Inactive Mines Defined ...................................2 1.3 Health and Environmental Problems at Mines ..............................3 1.3.1 Acid-Mine Drainage ...........................................3 1.3.2 Solubilities of Selected Metals ...................................4 1.3.3 The Use of pH and SC to Identify Problems ........................5 1.4 Methodology ........................................................6 1.4.1 Data Sources .................................................6 1.4.2 Pre-Field Screening ............................................6 1.4.3 Field Screening ...............................................7 1.4.3.1 Collection of Geologic Samples ..........................9 1.4.4 Field Methods ................................................9 1.4.4.1 Selection of Sample Sites ...............................9 1.4.4.2 Collection of Water and Soil Samples .....................10 1.4.4.3 Marking and Labeling Sample Sites ......................10 1.4.4.4 Existing Data ........................................11 1.4.5 Analytical Methods ...........................................11 1.4.6 Standards ...................................................12 1.4.6.1 Soil Standards .......................................12 1.4.6.2 Water-Quality Standards ...............................13 1.4.7 Analytical Results ............................................13 2.0 Lolo National Forest .......................................................15 2.1 History of Mining ...................................................15 2.1.1 Production ..................................................17 2.1.2 Milling ....................................................19 2.2 Geology ...........................................................20 2.3 Economic Geology ...................................................20 2.4 Hydrology and Hydrogeology ..........................................23 2.5 Summary of the Lolo National Forest Investigation .........................24 2.6 Mining Districts versus Watersheds versus Ranger Districts ..................25 3.0 Blackfoot, Flint Creek/Rock Creek, Upper Clark Fork, and Bitterroot Drainages ........26 3.1 East Fork of Brewster Creek Mill and Adit ................................34 i 4.0 Middle Clark Fork Watershed including the Ninemile Drainage .....................41 4.1 Frances Copper Mine .................................................56 4.2 Nugget Mine .......................................................61 4.3 Silver Cable Mine ...................................................69 4.4 Last Chance Mine ...................................................73 4.5 Tarbox-Mineral King Mine ............................................79 4.6 Meadow Mountain Mine ..............................................86 4.7 Saltese Consolidated .................................................90 4.8 Rock Island Mine ....................................................95 4.9 Copper Gulch ......................................................100 4.10 St. Lawrence Mine and Big Sunday Creek Adit ..........................104 4.11 Crystal Lake Adit ..................................................110 4.12 Upper Keystone Mine ..............................................115 4.13 Prosperity Mine ...................................................120 4.14 Vulcan Tunnel (Nancy Lee Mine) .....................................125 4.15 Iron Mountain Mine ................................................129 4.16 Stobie-Hermiston Mine .............................................134 5.0 Lower Clark Fork Watershed (including the Plains Ranger District) .................138 5.1 Johnny Miller Mine .................................................145 5.2 Raven Mine (Copper Mask) ..........................................149 6.0 Summary of Mining Impacts on LNF-Administered Land .........................154 7.0 References ..............................................................159 Appendix I USFS-MBMG Field Form Appendix II List of Sites in the Lolo National Forest Appendix III Description of Mines and Mill Sites Appendix IV Soil and Water Analytical Results ii List of Figures Figure Page 1. The location of a mine is found as shown.......................................8 2. The Lolo National Forest ..................................................16 3. Generalized geologic map of the Lolo National Forest ...........................21 4. The Seeley Lake Ranger District ............................................27 5. The Missoula Ranger District...............................................29 6. The generalized site map from the Spink Point 7.5-min. quadrangle .................36 7. The mill on the East Fork of Brewster Creek site map ............................37 7a. East Fork of Brewster Creek mill site looking to the west .........................38 7b. The tailings-pond dam at the East Fork of Brewster Creek mill site .................38 8. The Ninemile Ranger District lies within a portion of the middle Clark Fork watershed . 42 9. The Frances Copper Mine, in the Ninemile mining district ........................58 9a. An overview of the Frances Copper Mine .....................................59 9b. The East Fork of St. Louis Creek actively erodes the waste-rock dumps .............59 10. The Nugget Mine ........................................................63 10a. The Nugget Mine adit .....................................................64 10b. The Nugget Mine waste rock surrounds a settling pond ..........................64 11. The Superior Ranger District hosted several mines with environmental concerns ......67 12. The Silver Cable Mine ....................................................71 12a. The Silver Cable Mine’s waste rock..........................................72 12b. The Silver Cable Mine sample site ...........................................72 13. The adits at the Last Chance Mine leaked water ................................76 13a. The Last Chance adit discharged ............................................77 13b. The Last Chance waste dump ...............................................77 14. The Tarbox Mine-Mineral King Mine is located on the West Fork of Packer Creek ....82 15. The Tarbox Mine waste-rock dump and ore pile ................................83 15a. The West Fork of Packer Creek, downstream of the Tarbox.......................84 15b. The waste-rock dump at the Tarbox .........................................84 16. The Meadow Mountain Mine had a brightly iron-stained adit discharge .............88 16a. The Meadow Mountain Mine adit discharge, ...................................89 16b. The Meadow Mountain Mine adit discharge, ...................................89 17. The Saltese Consolidated Mine discharged about 10 gpm .........................93 17a. The Saltese Consolidated Mine’s adit discharge ................................94 17b. The Saltese Consolidated downstream sample site ..............................94 18. The Rock Island Mine .....................................................97 18a. A possible collapsed adit at the Rock Island Mine was in a marshy area .............98 18b. Adit A01 at the Rock Island Mine was sampled (RRIS20M) ......................98 19. The mine near Copper Lake ...............................................102 19a. Copper Gulch had a large, highly visible waste dump ...........................103 19b. Copper Gulch’s adit discharge .............................................103 iii Figure Page 20. St. Lawrence area had two discharging adits ..................................107 20a. The lower adit discharge at the St. Lawrence Mine.............................108 20b. Ponded water on the waste dump and staging area beyond the lower discharging adit at the St. Lawrence Mine.........................................................108 20c. Two waste dumps appear as light colored patches in the forest at the St. Lawrence Mine ......................................................................109 20d. Big Sunday Mine .......................................................109 21. The small discharge from an adit near Crystal Lake ............................112 21a. One of the dry adits near Crystal Lake.......................................113 21b. Near the portal, the discharging adit at Crystal Lake ............................113 22. The Upper Keystone Mine consisted of a discharging gated adit ..................117 22a. The Upper Keystone Mine adit was open.....................................118 22b. Upper Keystone Mine waste dump ..........................................118 22c. The Upper Keystone Mine buildings ........................................119
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Photo Guide for Appraising Downed Woody Fuels in Montana Forests
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. USDA FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT INT-96 NOVEMBER 1981 PHOTO GUIDE FOR APPRAISING DOWNED WOODY FUELS IN MONTANA FORESTS: Grand Fir- Larch-Douglas-Fir, Western Hemlock, Western Hemlock-Western Redcedar, and Western Redcedar Cover Types William C. Fischer INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE OGDEN, UTAH 84401 THE AUTHOR WILLIAM C. FISCHER is a research forester for the Fire Effects and Use Research and Development Program, at the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. His current assignment is to develop techniques and procedures for applying existing research knowledge to the task of producing improved operational fire management plans, with special emphasis on fire use, fuel treatment, and fuel management plans. Mr. Fischer received his bachelor's degree in forestry from the University of Michigan in 1956. From 1956 to 1966, he did Ranger District and forest staff work in timber management and fire control on the Boise National Forest. RESEARCH SUMMARY Four series of color photographs show different levels of ,downed woody material resulting from natural processes in four forest cover types in Montana. Each photo is supplemented by inventory data describing the size, weight, volume, and condition of the debris pictured. A subjective evaluation of potential fire behavior under an average bad fire weather situation is given. I nstructions are provided for using the photos to describe fuels and to evaluate potential fire hazard. USDA FOREST SERVICE GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT INT-96 NOVEM,BER 1981 PHOTO GUIDE FOR APPRAISING DOWNED WOODY FUELS IN MONTANA FORESTS: Grand Fir- Larch-Douglas-Fir, Western Hemlock, We~tern Hemlock-Western Redcedar, and Western Redcedar Cover Types Will iam C.
    [Show full text]
  • Custer Gallatin National Forest Beartooth Ranger District Information Packet
    CUSTER GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST BEARTOOTH RANGER DISTRICT INFORMATION PACKET www.fs.usda.gov/custergallatin Did You Know? • The highest 41 peaks in Montana are in the Beartooth Mountains. 22 of these are over 12,000ft. • Granite Peak is Montana’s highest peak, at 12,799ft. It is known for its remoteness and extreme weather. • The Absaroka- Beartooth Wilderness is the 6th largest wilderness area in the lower 48 states. • There are over 300 lakes and 10 major sub-alpine tundra plateaus in the Beartooths, with even more lakes across the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness. • At 3.96 billion years old, rock samples from the Beartooths are some of the oldest rocks on Earth. • The Beartooth Highway reaches an altitude of 10, 947 ft. and is often considered one of the most beautiful roads in America. 406-446-2103 ∙ 6811 Hwy 212, Red Lodge, MT 59068 You are camping in bear country. Wilderness Restrictions and Regulations The Beartooth Ranger District has an area of 587,000 acres. Of this, 345,000 acres are within the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness. The boundary of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness continues west into the Gallatin National Forest (in all, the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness is 943,626 acres). General Use 15 people is the maximum group size 16 days at a camp site is the maximum camp stay limit No camping/campfires within 200 feet of a lake No camping/campfires within 100 feet of flowing water No use/possession of motorized vehicles, motorboats, chainsaws and other mechanized equipment Bicycles, wagons, carts, hang gliders or other mechanized equipment cannot be possessed or used Dispose of human waste properly.
    [Show full text]
  • IMBCR Report
    Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2015 Field Season Report June 2016 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies 14500 Lark Bunting Lane Brighton, CO 80603 303-659-4348 www.birdconservancy.org Tech. Report # SC-IMBCR-06 Bird Conservancy of the Rockies Connecting people, birds and land Mission: Conserving birds and their habitats through science, education and land stewardship Vision: Native bird populations are sustained in healthy ecosystems Bird Conservancy of the Rockies conserves birds and their habitats through an integrated approach of science, education and land stewardship. Our work radiates from the Rockies to the Great Plains, Mexico and beyond. Our mission is advanced through sound science, achieved through empowering people, realized through stewardship and sustained through partnerships. Together, we are improving native bird populations, the land and the lives of people. Core Values: 1. Science provides the foundation for effective bird conservation. 2. Education is critical to the success of bird conservation. 3. Stewardship of birds and their habitats is a shared responsibility. Goals: 1. Guide conservation action where it is needed most by conducting scientifically rigorous monitoring and research on birds and their habitats within the context of their full annual cycle. 2. Inspire conservation action in people by developing relationships through community outreach and science-based, experiential education programs. 3. Contribute to bird population viability and help sustain working lands by partnering with landowners and managers to enhance wildlife habitat. 4. Promote conservation and inform land management decisions by disseminating scientific knowledge and developing tools and recommendations. Suggested Citation: White, C. M., M. F. McLaren, N. J.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing and Evaluation of Recovered Traction Sanding Material Fhwa/Mt-13-003/8213
    TESTING AND EVALUATION OF RECOVERED TRACTION SANDING MATERIAL FHWA/MT-13-003/8213 Final Report prepared for THE STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION in cooperation with THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION April 2013 prepared by Robert Mokwa, PE Andrew Foster Western Transportation Institute Montana State University - Bozeman RESEARCH PROGRAMS You are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work; make derivative works; make commercial use of the work under the condition that you give the original author and sponsor credit. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the sponsor. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Testing and Evaluation of Recovered Traction Sanding Material Project Report Prepared by Dr. Robert Mokwa, P.E. Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department and Andrew Foster Graduate Student, Civil Engineering Department of the Western Transportation Institute College of Engineering Montana State University – Bozeman for the State of Montana Department of Transportation Research Programs in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration April 2013 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Access No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-MT/13-003/8213 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Testing and Evaluation of Recovered Traction Sanding April 2013 Material 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Code Robert Mokwa and Andrew Foster 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: a Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators
    USDA United States Department of Agriculture Research Natural Areas on Forest Service National Forest System Lands Rocky Mountain Research Station in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, General Technical Report RMRS-CTR-69 Utah, and Western Wyoming: February 2001 A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and E'ducators Angela G. Evenden Melinda Moeur J. Stephen Shelly Shannon F. Kimball Charles A. Wellner Abstract Evenden, Angela G.; Moeur, Melinda; Shelly, J. Stephen; Kimball, Shannon F.; Wellner, Charles A. 2001. Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-69. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 84 p. This guidebook is intended to familiarize land resource managers, scientists, educators, and others with Research Natural Areas (RNAs) managed by the USDA Forest Service in the Northern Rocky Mountains and lntermountain West. This guidebook facilitates broader recognitionand use of these valuable natural areas by describing the RNA network, past and current research and monitoring, management, and how to use RNAs. About The Authors Angela G. Evenden is biological inventory and monitoring project leader with the National Park Service -NorthernColorado Plateau Network in Moab, UT. She was formerly the Natural Areas Program Manager for the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Northern Region and lntermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service. Melinda Moeur is Research Forester with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation in Moscow, ID, and one of four Research Natural Areas Coordinators from the Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. Stephen Shelly is Regional Botanist and Research Natural Areas Coordinator with the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Headquarters Office in Missoula, MT.
    [Show full text]
  • 5340 Exchanges Missoula, Ninemile, Plains/Thompson
    5340 EXCHANGES MISSOULA, NINEMILE, PLAINS/THOMPSON FALLS, SEELEY LAKE, AND SUPERIOR RANGER DISTRICTS LOLO NATIONAL FOREST MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION LAND EXCHANGE MTM 92893 MINERAL POTENTIAL REPORT Minerals Examiner: _____________________________________ Norman B. Smyers, Geologist-Lolo and Flathead National Forests _____________________________________ Date Regional Office Review: _____________________________________ Michael J. Burnside, Northern Region Certified Review Mineral Examiner _____________________________________ Date Abstract-DNRC/Lolo NF Land Exchange Mineral Report: Page A-1 ABSTRACT The non-federal and federal lands involved in the proposed Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Land Exchange are located across western Montana and within the exterior boundaries of the lands administered by the Lolo National Forest. The proposed land exchange includes approximately 12,123 acres of non-federal land and 10,150 acres of federal land located in six counties--Granite, Lincoln, Missoula, Mineral, Powell, and Sanders. For the Federal government, the purpose of the exchange is to improve land ownership patterns for more efficient and effective lands management by: reducing the need to locate landline and survey corners; reducing the need for issuing special-use and right-of-way authorizations; and facilitating the implementation of landscape level big game winter range vegetative treatments. With the exception of one DNRC parcel and six Federal parcels, the mineral estates of the parcels involved in the proposed land exchange are owned by either the State of Montana or the U.S. Government and can be conveyed with the corresponding surface estates. The exceptions are: the DNRC Sunrise parcel; and, for the U.S. Government, the Graham Mountain 2,Graham Mountain 10, Fourmile 10, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana
    Report of Investigation 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg 2015 Cover photo by Richard Berg. Sapphires (very pale green and colorless) concentrated by panning. The small red grains are garnets, commonly found with sapphires in western Montana, and the black sand is mainly magnetite. Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology MBMG Report of Investigation 23 2015 i Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Descriptions of Occurrences ..................................................................................................7 Selected Bibliography of Articles on Montana Sapphires ................................................... 75 General Montana ............................................................................................................75 Yogo ................................................................................................................................ 75 Southwestern Montana Alluvial Deposits........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Rock Creek sapphire district ........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Dry Cottonwood Creek deposit and the Butte area ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Look at the 1988 Missoula County Lolo Peak Ballot Issue
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1990 Political community and nature| A look at the 1988 Missoula County Lolo Peak ballot issue Michael Maurice Welsh The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Welsh, Michael Maurice, "Political community and nature| A look at the 1988 Missoula County Lolo Peak ballot issue" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 3246. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/3246 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's written consent. UniversityMontana of The Political Community and Nature A Look at the 1988 Missoula County Lolo Peak Ballot Issue By Michael Maurice Welsh B.S. University of Iowa, 1984 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Montana 1990 Approved by / ( i (H ( ( / •<- ' "j ' c L (?L L i . , Chair, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School • ' I J / . / , L Date UMI Number: EP35345 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Mineral resource potential of national forest RARE II and wilderness areas in Montana Compiled by Christopher E. Williams 1 and Robert C. Pearson2 Open-File Report 84-637 1984 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. 1 Present address 2 Denver, Colorado U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/NEIC Denver, Colorado CONTENTS (See also indices listings, p. 128-131) Page Introduction*........................................................... 1 Beaverhead National Forest............................................... 2 North Big Hole (1-001).............................................. 2 West Pioneer (1-006)................................................ 2 Eastern Pioneer Mountains (1-008)................................... 3 Middle Mountain-Tobacco Root (1-013)................................ 4 Potosi (1-014)...................................................... 5 Madison/Jack Creek Basin (1-549).................................... 5 West Big Hole (1-943)............................................... 6 Italian Peak (1-945)................................................ 7 Garfield Mountain (1-961)........................................... 7 Mt. Jefferson (1-962)............................................... 8 Bitterroot National Forest.............................................. 9 Stony Mountain (LI-BAD)............................................. 9 Allan Mountain (Ll-YAG)............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness-Watcher-Summer-2021
    Wilderness WILDERNESS WATCH eeping Wilderness Wild WATCHER The Quarterly Newsletter of Wilderness Watch Volume 32 • Number 2 • Summer 2021 Should We Poison the Scapegoat? by Gary Macfarlane he Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife review of actions that are done pursuant to section 4(c) and Parks (FWP) recently put forth a five- of the Wilderness Act. The extensive helicopter and other year plan to poison 67 miles of the North motorized equipment and transport proposed in this TFork of the Blackfoot River and three lakes in the project are activities that are presumptively prohibited Scapegoat Wilderness. The Scapegoat is the southern in Wilderness under Section 4(c). … If a CE can be used anchor of the famed Bob Marshall Wilderness Com- in Wilderness to exempt projects of this size and scope, plex, an area of 1.6 utilizing a wide array of million unbroken acres generally prohibited uses of designated Wil- and significantly altering derness that is home ecological processes, then to rare species such as one has to wonder if any grizzly bears, wolves, project ever would rise to and wolverines. the level of an EA or EIS in Wilderness no matter The proposal poses a how harmful. myriad of problems beyond poisoning The background behind streams and lakes this shows how ill-ad- and much of the life vised the plan is, beyond that lives in them. its inappropriate impacts There’s the 93 he- to Wilderness. There licopter flights and North Fork of the Blackfoot River, Scapegoat Wilderness. USFS were no trout or likely landings, plus the use other fish historically of motorboats, pumps, above the North Fork and gas-powered generators—all in a place where Falls.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report on the COVER Wolverine Tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
    Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report ON THE COVER Wolverine tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Photo by Jason Wilmot. Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report Authors John Squires Kerry Murphy US Forest Service US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Jackson Ranger District 800 East Beckwith Avenue PO Box 25 Missoula, Montana 59801 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 [email protected] [email protected] (formerly Yellowstone Center for Resources, With contributions from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) Robert M. Inman Wildlife Conservation Society Jason Wilmot Wolverine Program Field Office Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative 222 East Main Street PO Box 2705 Lone Elk 3B Jackson, Wyoming 83001 Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] [email protected] Jeff Copeland Mark L. Packila US Forest Service Wildlife Conservation Society Rocky Mountain Research Station Wolverine Program Field Office 800 East Beckwith Avenue 222 East Main Street Missoula, Montana 59801 Lone Elk 3B [email protected] Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] Dan Tyers US Forest Service Doug McWhirter Gardiner Ranger District Wyoming Game and Fish Regional Office PO Box 5 2820 State Highway 120 Gardiner, Montana 59030 Cody, Wyoming 82414 [email protected] National Park Service Yellowstone National Park Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2011-02 March 2011 Suggested citation: Murphy, K., J. Wilmot, J. Copeland, D. Tyers, J. Squires, R. M. Inman, M. L. Packila, D. McWhirter. 2011. Wolverine conservation in Yellowstone National Park: Final report. YCR-2011-02. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
    [Show full text]