DOCSLIB.ORG

West Zone Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
West Zone Report Template Marshall Woods Restoration Project Heritage Report Prepared by: Sydney Bacon 9/30/2014 1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction This report discusses the results of the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program’s evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources that may be caused by the proposed actions of the Marshall Woods Restoration Project. All materials referenced herein are maintained at the Heritage Program, Lolo National Forest in Missoula, Montana. Cultural resources can span both prehistoric and historic temporal periods, and may include buildings, structures, sites, areas, and objects of scientific, historic, or social value. They are irreplaceable, nonrenewable resources documenting the legacy of past human use of the area currently administered by the Forest Service. Forest Plan Direction and Regulatory Framework The primary legislation governing cultural resource management is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended 1976, 1980, and 1992). Federal Regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources), and Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM 2360, Heritage Program Management) provides the framework for consultation, identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources on National Forest System lands. In Montana, the Forest Service conducts cultural resources reviews of proposed actions in accordance with the “Programmatic Agreement Regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Montana” (USDA 1995). Stemming from this PA is the “Site Identification Strategy Prepared for the Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo National Forests” (McLeod 2003), which is used to help identify cultural resources on the Lolo National Forest. Furthermore, the Lolo National Forest Plan (USDA 1986) identifies specific standards that are required for cultural resources in different management areas across the Forest. These Forest – wide standards are: 54. Cultural resources will be considered during the planning process for all proposed Forest undertakings. Inventories will be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities as an integral part of project planning. All sites located will be evaluated for possible nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Those properties determined eligible for the National Register listing will be managed in a manner consistent with the standards specified by the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) as well as applicable USDA regulations (p. II-20). 55. The Forest will coordinate, on a yearly schedule, with representatives from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes to discuss the types and location of proposed Forest undertakings. This is a requirement specified within the American Indian 2 Religious Freedom Act to ensure that areas on National Forest System lands which are important to contemporary Native Americans for religious reasons are not inadvertently impacted. Coordination with other Native American groups could occur if there was reason to believe traditional or contemporary religious areas, important to these groups, were present on the forest (II-20). The Heritage Program refers to the Forest Plan for all projects to ensure that decisions are consistent with established standards for management of significant cultural resources. Management Areas within the project area relevant to Cultural Resources include: o MA 16 and MA 19 - The Forest cultural resources and recreation specialists will be consulted about mitigation measures to protect the values associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail as a part of the environmental analysis process for projects within the foreground viewing area from this trail. o MA 25- The Forest recreation specialist will be consulted about mitigation measures to protect the values associated with the National Historic and Recreation Trails (identified in the Management Area description) as part of the environmental analysis process for projects within the foreground viewing areas from the trails. In addition, Appendix O-4 of the Lolo NF Plan Provides includes Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) for the Rattlesnake Drainage for MA 28 (O-4 as amended, 2009). Analysis Area Boundary or Area of Potential Effect The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Marshall Woods Restoration Project is in Missoula County within the Rattlesnake and Marshall Creek drainages northeast of Missoula, Montana. While the project boundary (based on the watershed) encompasses land south to Interstate-90, its lower reaches are predominantly private land. It is located on topographical maps Blue Point (#106) and Southeast Missoula (#107). The 13,023-acre project boundary is defined by the Rattlesnake Watershed and encompasses areas well outside individual treatment units. It includes the lower ends of Spring Creek and Frasier Creek in the Rattlesnake portion of the project area. The APE boundary, however, is focused on the project units themselves. Legal location for the APE is Township 13 North, Range 18 West, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6; Township 13 North, Range 19 West, Sections 1, 2 and 12; Township 14 North, Range 18 West, Sections 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34; Township 14 North, Range 19 West, Sections 13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 and 36. See Appendix D, Map 3 Area of Potential Effects. Project Description The Marshall Woods Project, which includes 3,959 acres of treatment units, was designed to: 1) restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing natural ecological processes; 2) emulate fire’s natural role on the landscape through vegetative treatments including prescribed fire; 3) provide education opportunities to build support for restoration; and 4) provide for diverse trail-based recreation opportunities and reduce road density in Section 31 previously owned by Plum Creek 3 Timberlands (PCT). Treatments to accomplish the project’s objectives include using tree thinning and slashing; prescribed fire including ecosystem management burns (EMB); and weed, road and trail treatments. Please see Appendix A for unit treatment table. This project does not include proposals to construct new permanent road. Three segments of temporary road totaling about 1 mile would be constructed, and about 0.1 miles of non-system road would be constructed as temporary road. This temporary construction will facilitate removing larger material in the Woods Gulch area. These roads would be used for one to two years and then obliterated. Areas outside the Rattlesnake (FS Road 99/Trail #515) road/trail bed disturbed by project activities would be revegetated by seeding and mulching. Existing Conditions Prehistoric Context Because Glacial Lake Missoula occupied Western Montana from approximately 17,500 BP to ca 6,000 BP, archaeological interpretation of the area has been compromised (McLeod and Melton 1986; Smith 2010). Margins of the lake may have been occupied by early man, as indicated by sites found along the South Fork of the Flathead River (Thompson 2010). It is generally believed that western Montana has been habitable for the past 10,000 to 12,000 years (Malouf 1952a; McLeod and Melton 1986). The Rocky Mountains of western Montana link passage between the anadromous fish-bearing streams in Idaho to the bison-rich plains east of the Continental Divide (Griswold and Larom 1954; McLeod and Melton 1986; Whisennand 1993). People inhabited the valleys in between, following the harvests that each season produced; hunting, gathering and fishing (Malouf 1982; Juneau 2009; Smith 2010). Generally, tribes can be grouped into ‘Upper’ and ‘Lower’ subgroups, based on their territory. Upper groups traditionally were forest and mountain people hunting big game whereas the lower groups based their subsistence around water and fishing (Flathead Watershed Sourcebook 2010). The earliest inhabitants of the area consist of the Flathead Group and the Kutenai (Malouf 1952c; Smith 2010). The Flathead Group consists of the Flathead, Pend d’Oreille, Kalispel and Spokan tribes; with the Semte’use and Tuna’xe either having assimilated into other neighboring groups or become extinct (Malouf 1952a; Boas and Teit 1927-1928). These tribes are combined because their Salish dialect was mutually understood by each other (Malouf 1998). Traditional homeland included territory from the Bitterroot Mountains extending east of the Continental Divide to the upper Missouri River. The centrally-located Missoula Valley was a favorite hunting, trapping, and gathering ground, although a large camp was located in the Bitterroot Valley (Malouf 1952c; Griswold and Larom 1954; Juneau 2009). Other cultural centers were located at Lake Pend d’Oreille and Flathead Lake. The Kutenai occupied a small portion of what is now northwestern Montana, northern Idaho and a large part of southeastern British Columbia. Although considered a ‘linguistical island’ (Malouf 1952a), the Kutenai often shared culture and even intermarriage with the Salish (Juneau 2009). For the purpose of this report, they are discussed synonymously with the Flathead Group. 4 People would inhabit the mountainous regions in the summer months; collecting roots, seeds, berries and hunting big game such as deer, elk and mountain sheep (Frison 1991). They established temporary camps on either side of the Clark Fork River to seasonally fish and pick berries (Griswold and Larom 1954). Caribou was even hunted in the Missoula area until the early 1880’s (Malouf
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife
    CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description inean T inean © Jeff V Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area This chapter describes the characteristics and re- tics include climate, climate change, geography and sources of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Ref- physiography, soils, water resources, water quality, uge Complex and how existing or past management water rights, and air quality. or other influences have affected these resources. The affected environment addresses the physical, biological, and social aspects that could be affected Climate by management under this CCP. The Service used published and unpublished data, as noted in the bib- The refuge complex covers more than 2,700 square liography, to quantify what is known about it. miles and spans the Continental Divide in north- western and north-central Montana. The Continen- tal Divide exerts a marked influence on the climate of adjacent areas. West of the Divide, the climate 3.1 Physical Environment might be termed a modified, north Pacific Coast type, while to the east, climatic characteristics are The following sections describe the physical charac- decidedly continental. On the west of the mountain teristics of the refuge complex. Physical characteris- barrier, winters are milder, precipitation is more 44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana evenly distributed throughout the year, summers There is no freeze-free period in many higher valleys are cooler in general, and winds are lighter than on of the western mountains, but hardy and nourish- the eastern side. According to the National Oceanic ing grasses thrive in such places, producing large and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is amounts of quality grazing for stock (NOAA 2011b).
    [Show full text]
  • June 9, 2021 by Email and Overnight Delivery Tom Vilsack Secretary U.S
    June 9, 2021 By Email and Overnight Delivery Tom Vilsack Leanne Marten Secretary Regional Forester U.S. Department of Agriculture Northern Region 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. U.S. Forest Service Washington, DC 20250 26 Fort Missoula Road [email protected] Missoula, MT 59804 [email protected] [email protected] Meryl Harrell Mary Farnsworth Deputy Under Secretary Regional Forester Natural Resources and Environment Intermountain Region U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. 324 25th Street Washington, DC 20250 Ogden, UT 84401 [email protected] [email protected] Chris French Glenn Casamassa Acting Deputy Under Secretary Regional Forester Natural Resources and Environment Pacific Northwest Region U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. 1220 SW 3rd Avenue Washington, DC 20250 Portland, OR 97204 [email protected] [email protected] Vicki Christiansen Chief U.S. Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, DC 20250 [email protected] Re: Petition for Regulatory Protection of Wilderness Character in Response to Idaho and Montana’s New Wolf Laws and Wolf-Removal Programs Dear Secretary Vilsack and Agriculture Department officials, This is a petition for regulatory action by the U.S. Forest Service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. § 1.28. I am writing on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, NORTHERN ROCKIES OFFICE 313 EAST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MT 59715 T: 406.586.9699 F: 406.586.9695 [email protected] WWW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Clearwater, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Montana Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch, and Wolves of the Rockies (“Petitioners”).
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness in the Northern Rockies| a Missoula-Lolo National Forest Perspective
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1993 Wilderness in the northern Rockies| A Missoula-Lolo National Forest perspective Todd L. Denison 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 Denison, Todd L., "Wilderness in the northern Rockies| A Missoula-Lolo National Forest perspective" (1993). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4091. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4091 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. MontanaUniversity of WILDERNESS IN THE NORTHERN ROCKIES: A MISSOULA-LOLO NATIONAL FOREST PERSPECTIVE By Todd L. Denison B.A. University of Montana, 1986 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Montana 1993 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School UMI Number: EP36297 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law 401 UCB Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401 2004 Table of Contents SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION ........................................................... 1 I. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Specific Special Use Provisions............................................................................................. 1 A. Water Rights ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jim Posewitz
    INDUCTION 2016 Table ofof ContentsContents Table of Contents Introduction 4 Pat McVay 12 Introduction 4 Bob Munson 13 Margaret Adams 6 Bob Munson 13 Margaret Adams 6 Jim Posewitz 14 Jim Posewitz 14 BobBob Anderson Anderson 7 7 Bob Ream 15 Bob Ream 15 KenKen & &Florence Florence 8 8 Tony Schoonen 16 Baldwin Baldwin Tony Schoonen 16 George Darrow 9 Bearhead Swaney 17 George Darrow 9 Bearhead Swaney 17 Jim Goetz 10 Pat Williams 18 Jim Goetz 10 Bud Lilly 11 SponsorsPat Williams 2018 PatBud McVay Lilly 1211 Sponsors 20 22 Photo by Jesse Varnado Photo by Jesse Varnado 33 IntroductionTable of Contents Introduction 4 Bob Munson 13 Margaret Adams 6 Jim Posewitz 14 Bob Anderson 7 Bob Ream 15 Ken & Florence 8 Tony Schoonen 16 Baldwin George Darrow 9 Bearhead Swaney 17 Jim Goetz 10 Pat Williams 18 Bud Lilly 11 Sponsors 20 Pat McVay 12 424 e crossed the Rocky Mountain divide on the tenth day of October, 1857 … Instead of the gray sagebrush covered plains of Snake River, we saw smooth rounded grass that waved in “W the wind like a field of grain. A beautiful little clear stream ran northwest on its way to join the Missouri River. … Soon as we came to the divide … bands of antelope … were in sight all of the time … We also discovered as we moved down the valley to Beaverhead that there was plenty of game, consisting of blacktailed deer, big horn or mountain sheep, and also many bands of elk.” This description of Montana comes from one of Two of America’s great national parks sit as the Montana Outdoor Hall of Fame’s inductees, bookends, with the Northern Rockies sprawling Granville Stuart.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bill to Establish the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Management Area in the State of Montana, and for Other Purposes
    98 S.96 Title: A bill to establish the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Management Area in the State of Montana, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Melcher, John [MT] (introduced 1/26/1983) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 10/31/1983 Became Public Law No: 98-140. SUMMARY AS OF: 10/6/1983--Passed House amended. (There are 4 other summaries) (Measure passed House, amended) Lee Metcalf Wilderness and Management Act of 1983 - Designates specified lands within the Beaverhead and Gallatin National Forests in Montana and within the Dillon Resource Area in Montana as the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. Provides that the area lying adjacent to the Monument Mountain and Taylor- Hilgard units of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness shall be managed to protect the wildlife and recreational values of such area. Withdraws such area from all forms of appropriations under mining, mineral leasing, and geothermal leasing laws. Provides that such area shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain its presently existing wilderness character, with no commercial timber harvest or additional road construction permitted. Requires that motor vehicles be allowed in the area only where they are compatible with the protection and propagation of wildlife in the area. Provides that the following areas have been adequately studied for wilderness and need not be managed to protect their suitability for wilderness designation pending revision of the initial plans required for such lands by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: (1) the Mount Henry Wilderness Study Area in the Kootenai National Forest; (2) portions of the Taylor-Hilgard Wilderness Study Area in the Beaverhead and Gallatin National Forests; (3) certain lands in the Gallatin and Beaverhead National Forests identified as area 1549 in the Forest Service Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (II) Final Environmental Statement (dated May 3, 1979); and (4) the proposed Tongue River Breaks Wilderness in the Custer National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Strata Energy Inc.), 2016, Ross ISR Project Annual Surety Estimate, Revised March 2016, March 11, 2016
    Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Materials License SUA-1601, Ross ISR Project, for the Kendrick Expansion Area RAI Question and Answer Responses for the Kendrick Expansion Area Environmental Report Docket #40-09091 Prepared for: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Prepared by: Strata Energy, Inc. 1900 W. Warlow Drive, Bldg. A P.O. Box 2318 Gillette, WY 82717-2318 August 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS General ............................................................................................................... 1 ER RAI GEN-1(A) Response ...................................................................................... 1 ER RAI GEN-1(B) and (C) Response .......................................................................... 3 ER RAI GEN-2(A) Response .................................................................................... 15 ER RAI GEN-2(B) Response .................................................................................... 16 ER RAI GEN-2(C) Response .................................................................................... 17 ER RAI GEN-2(D) Response .................................................................................... 18 ER RAI GEN-3 Response ......................................................................................... 20 ER RAI GEN-4 Response ......................................................................................... 22 ER RAI GEN-5 Response ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 FURBEARER and TRAPPING FWP Montana Trapping and Hunting Regulations
    2020 FURBEARER AND TRAPPING FWP Montana Trapping and Hunting Regulations Bobcat Lynx Rufus TURN IN POACHERS: CALL 1-800-TIP-MONT fwp.mt.gov Regulations are Adopted by the Fish & Wildlife Commission License Availability Chart Excess Take (CR) - the take of a legally harvestable species after the Exposed Carcass or Bait (CR) – No trap or snare may be set within season is closed or an individual’s possession limit has been met. 30 feet of an exposed carcass or bait that is visible from above. Regulations for season dates, structures, and restrictions were License Requirements Cost adopted by the F&W Commission on August 13, 2020, under the Fur Dealer (MCA 87-4-301) – Any person or persons, firm, Inspection by Warden (MCA 87-1-502) - Wildlife taken must be $4 Resident company, or corporation engaging in or conducting wholly shown to FWP Enforcement personnel for inspection when requested. authority granted in MCA 87-1-301 and are valid from the date of (6-17, 62+) adoption, through June 30, 2021. The F&W Commission reserves or in part the business of buying or selling, trading or dealing Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (IWVC) - Montana is the authority to amend the seasons, limits, and regulations herein Conservation Required Prerequisite $8 Resident within the state of Montana, in the skins or pelts of any animal a member of the IWVC. Under the compact, member states (18-62) if deemed necessary for wildlife management purposes. Statutes or animals, designated by the laws of Montana as furbearing or recognize suspensions of hunting, fishing, or trapping privileges.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Resource Management
    Region 1 Lake Monitoring Thomas Dzomba – Air Fire & Aviation Mark Story – Gallatin NF Jill Grenon – Bridger Teton NF (R4) Objectives Overview of Region 1 Air Program Lake Monitoring & Results – purpose, approach, when, where, lake selection, parameters, analysis, conclusions, management difference, lessons Unknowns and questions? Selway Bitterroot Wilderness Bob Marshall Wilderness Lee Metcalf Wilderness AQRV/WAQV Monitoring • Particulate Matter • Visibility • Lakes • Lichens • Snow • Precipitation USFS R1 Wilderness Air Quality Monitoring Plan Mark Story - Gallatin National Forest Thomas Dzomba - USFS R1/R4 Air Fire & Aviation Jill Grenon - Gallatin National Forest & Montana State University February 1, 2008 USFS R1 Class 1 Wilderness Areas – AQRV’s monitoring BMW SGW CMW SBW APW GMW MMW item Phase 3 Lakes Upper & Lower Libby North Kootenai & Lakes Shasta Lakes IMPROVE MONT1 & GLAC1* MONT1 CABI1 & GLAC1* SULA1 & SAWT1* SULA1 GAMO1 MONT1 & GLAC1* visibility IMPROVE site IMPROVE site IMPROVE site IMPROVE site IMPROVE IMPROVE site IMPROVE site site Lichens 12 reference sites 3 reference sites – 16 reference sites – 10 reference 3 reference sites 4 reference sites – – 2002 & 2003, 1992, 2010 1992 - 1994, 2008 sites – 1992, – 2000 - 2001, 2002, 2010 2010 2008 2008 NADP Glacier NP MT05 Glacier NP MT05* Glacier NP MT05* Lost Trail Pass MT97 Lost Trail Clancy MT07* Glacier NP MT05 NADP site* and Clancy MT07* and Priest River NADP site Pass MT97 NADP site NADP site NADP sites ExpFst ID02* NADP NADP site sites Snow USGS snow USGS snow USGS snow
    [Show full text]