DOCSLIB.ORG

A Look at Wilderness Use and Users in Transation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Look at Wilderness Use and Users in Transation Volume 29 Issue 1 Wilderness: Past, Present, and Future Winter 1989 A Look at Wilderness Use and Users in Transation Robert C. Lucas Recommended Citation Robert C. Lucas, A Look at Wilderness Use and Users in Transation, 29 Nat. Resources J. 41 (1989). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol29/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. ROBERT C. LUCAS* A Look at Wilderness Use and Users in Transition ABSTRACT Wilderness has a variety of values for individuals and society. Some of these values are derivedfrom onsite use of the wilderness resource. Other values comefrom offsite uses. Recreationaluse poses a strong challenge to those who manage wilderness. Recreational use of wilderness, after many years of rapid growth, has leveled off or declinedin many areasin recent years. The reasonsfor this change are unclear,but the implications of changes in use patternsand user characteristicsare important for both management and future wil- derness allocation decisions. INTRODUCTION Although "wilderness use" commonly serves as a synonym for "rec- reational use" within wilderness, there are many other wilderness uses, some even taking place outside wilderness boundaries. Manning has dis- cussed many of these uses in an earlier paper in this issue. These uses vary in the degree to which they depend on the wilderness setting. Without wilderness, some uses would scarcely be possible, while other uses take place in wilderness almost coincidentally, for reasons unrelated to wil- derness conditions. This paper discusses recreational uses of wilderness as arguably the most important and certainly the most studied wilderness use. Although wilderness and related land classifications and management are found in several countries, this paper focuses on the United States National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) that now includes about 450 areas and 89 million acres. Understanding wilderness use and users is an essential foundation for any decisions about wilderness management.' Most wilderness values stem from wilderness use, and so do most threats to the resource. Because of this, most management problems arise from wilderness use, and most wilderness management is use management. Management is inherently complex and difficult, and without good knowledge of the character of *Project Leader, Wilderness Management Research and Research Social Scientist, Intermountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, Missoula, Mont. i. J. HENDEE, G. STANKEY & R. LUCAS, WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT 281 passim (USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365, 1978). NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL [Vol. 29 use, effective management is impossible. This is particularly true for recreational use if management seeks to minimize visitor regimentation and rely instead on indirectly influencing use, thus providing visitors more freedom.' Decisions about what lands should or should not be classified as wil- derness also are aided by understanding uses, the benefits they yield, and who receives benefits. Trends in various uses may help form expectations about likely future uses and thus contribute to decisions about possible allocation of lands to wilderness. RECREATIONAL USE Amount of Use Recreational use includes commercial operations by outfitters and guides, as well as general public use. Up to a fifth of the visitors use outfitters in some Rocky Mountain wildernesses.' Most outfitters offer horseback camping trips, especially during hunting seasons. Some provide river float trips while some rent canoes and camping equipment. National Forests in Idaho, for example, have about 300 outfitting businesses with permits to operate. The proportion of visitors using outfitters may be declining." Current recreational use of wilderness totals about 15 million, 12-hour recreation visitor days [RVD] annually. Wilderness in National Forests accounts for about 85 percent of this use, a figure close to the National Forest's proportion of total wilderness acres in the lower 48 States. Wil- derness in National Parks makes up almost all of the remainder, with only light use of wilderness in National Wildlife Refuges and Bureau of Land Management areas. Comparing recreational use among wildernesses managed by the four Federal agencies with wilderness responsibilities (Forest Service, Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management) requires conversions using approximate rules of thumb because units of measure vary among agencies, as do reporting proce- dures.5 Wilderness recreational use can be characterized in many ways, such 2. Lucas, The Role of Regulations in Recreation Management, 9 WESTERN WILDLANDS 6 (Summer 1983). 3. R. LUCAS, VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS, ATTITUDES, AND USE PATTERNS IN THE BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS COMPLEX, 1970-1982, at 7 (USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper INT-345, 1985). 4. Id.; Lime, Who Uses Rivers for Recreation and What of the Future? in NATIONAL RIVER RECREATION SYMPOSIUM 15, 19-22 (Oct. 31-Nov. 3, 1984) (Baton Rouge. La). 5. J. HENDEE, G. STANKEY & R. LUCAS, supra note I. Winter 19891 A LOOK AT WILDERNESS USE AND USERS as length of stay, party size, and others. Roggenbuck and Lucas provide the most recent data about wilderness use characteristics. Length of Stay Most wilderness visits are short, and many smaller wildernesses are mainly day-use areas. Average lengths of stay in a few large areas, such as the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota and the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana, both over I million acres in size, exceed five days, but about two to three days is a much more common average in most wilderness areas. Trips of a week or more are uncommon almost everywhere. Differences seem related to area size and type of use, not regional location or managing agency. Stays appear to be a little shorter in recent years. Group Size Groups of wilderness visitors are typically small. From half to three- fourths of the parties at all areas for which data are available consist of two to four people. Lone visitors are rare although more common in National Parks than in National Forests. In most wilderness areas, parties of more than ten people are scarce, usually accounting for only about five percent of all visitor groups. Party size is declining everywhere data are available. Method of Travel Hiking is the most common method of travel in almost all wilderness areas. An exception is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, where about 80 percent of visitors use canoes while most of the rest travel by motorboat in parts of the area where this is permitted.7 In a few western areas-the Bob Marshall Wilderness, for example-more than half the visitors ride horses. Hiking and nonmotorized boating have become more common relative to horse travel and motorized boats everywhere trend data are available. Activities In many wilderness areas, especially in the West, fishing is the leading activity in participation rate (leaving out travel). Photography, nature 6. Roggenbuck & Lucas, Wilderness Use and User Characteristics: A State-of-Knowledge Review, in PROCEEDINGS-NATIONAL WILDERNESS RESEARCH CONFERENCE: ISSUES, STATE-OF-KNOWLEDGE, FUTURE DtRECnoNs 204 (USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-220, 1987). 7. Id. at 215. NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL [Vol. 29 study, and wildlife observation are also common activities, and swimming is common in many areas-all low-impact, nonconsumptive uses. Hunt- ing varies from minor to common in these areas open to hunting. (Almost all National Park areas and part or all of many Wildlife Refuges are closed to hunting.) Mountain climbing is rare in all but a few areas. Season of Use For most places, summer is the main use season. Even in two wilderness areas well known for elk hunting, the Bob Marshall and the Selway- Bitterroot in Montana and Idaho, summer visitors substantially outnumber fall hunters. Many of the areas in the South, Southwest, and low elevations in California receive most of their use in winter or spring) In the North, and at higher elevations in mountain wilderness, winter use is light but more common than a decade ago and growing. In many areas, use seasons are becoming longer, with more people coming earlier and later. Weekend peaks in use also vary, with sharp peaks at some smaller, more accessible areas, but not at many large areas with longer stays and small local populations. Eastern wildernesses seem to show much less peaking, even though many are small. Weekend peaks are probably be- coming less severe over time. Type of Group In almost all wilderness, a large majority of the visitors are family groups, sometimes also with friends. A half to a third of the groups in most areas studied include children under 16. The next most common type are small groups of friends. Organization-sponsored groups range from almost none in some areas to about a tenth in others.9 Distribution of Use The geographical distribution of wilderness recreational use is un- even-heavy in a few places and light in many others. This unevenness is evident among different wilderness areas as well as within individual wilderness areas, whether the focus is on numbers of visitors by trailheads, on trails through the area, or at campsites. Area-to-area variation covers a wide range (Table 1). Total use per National Forest wilderness in 1986 varied from more than I million, 12- hour RVD at the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to only 100 RVD at Hell Hole Bay Wilderness in South Carolina. If use intensity is 8. R. WASHBURNE & D. COLE, PROBLEMS AND PRACTICES IN WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT: A SURVEY OF MANAGERS 18-23 (USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper INT-304, 1983). 9. Roggenbuck & Lucas, supra note 6, at 226.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]