DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge Montana September 2010 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Airport Road Lewistown, Montana 59457 406 /538 8706 and Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 303 /236 8145 Abstract Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Steve Guertin, regional director, region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abstract: This draft comprehensive conservation plan ation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife and environmental impact statement identifies the pur- populations using both (1) natural ecological processes pose and need for a management plan, outlines the legal such as fire and wildlife ungulate herbivory (grazing) foundation for management of two refuges in Montana, and (2) responsible synthetic methods such as farming Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and describes and eval- use would be encouraged, but economic uses would uates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habi- be limited when they compete for habitat resources. tat, and wildlife-dependent public use. This process has About 106 miles of road would be closed. involved the development of a vision, goals, objectives, Under alternative C’s public use and economic use and strategies that meet the legal directives of the U.S. emphasis, the Service would manage the landscape in Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and has considered cooperation with partners to emphasize and promote the input of interested groups and the public. maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent Under the no-action alternative (A), few changes public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and would occur in managing existing wildlife populations habitats would be protected with various manage- and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained ment tools that would minimize damaging effects to mostly through a fire suppression program with little wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversify- use of prescribed fire. There would be continued empha- ing public and economic opportunities. sis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, Under the Service’s proposed action—alterna- fencing, invasive species control, and water develop- tive D’s ecological processes emphasis—the Service ment. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 would work with partners to use natural, dynamic, units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife- ecological processes along with active management in dependent public use would occur at current levels, a balanced, responsible manner to restore and main- which includes hunting, fishing, and limited interpreta- tain biological diversity, biological integrity, and en- tion and environmental education programs. About 670 vironmental health. Once natural processes were miles of road would remain open. The Service would con- restored, more passive approaches would be favored. tinue to manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness The Service would provide for quality wildlife- and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles dependent public use and experiences and would M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. limit economic uses when they were injurious to eco- Under alternative B’s wildlife population emphasis, logical processes. About 23 miles of road would be the Service would manage the landscape in cooper- closed. Commenting: Comments are due 60 days after the notice will be made available for inspection by the public, and of availability of this document is published in the Fed- copies may also be provided to the public. For further eral Register. Comments should be mailed to U.S. Fish information, contact Laurie Shannon at 303/236 4317. and Wildlife Service, Attention: Laurie Shannon, Plan- Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; ning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, P.O. Box Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department 25486, Denver, Colorado 80225. In addition, comments of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Montana Department of can be delivered to 134 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, Natural Resources; Fergus, Garfield, McCone, Petro- Colorado 80228. Comments may also be sent by email leum, Phillips, and Valley Counties; and Missouri River to [email protected]. All comments received from Council of Conservation Districts (for the previously the public and interested groups will be placed in the listed counties). agency’s record for this planning process. Comments Contents Abstract .........................................................................................iii Summary ......................................................................................xv Abbreviations ................................................................................xxviii CHAPTER 1–Introduction. 1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................2 Decision to Be Made ..........................................................................2 1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge System ......................................3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................3 National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................3 1.3 National and Regional Mandates ............................................................5 1.4 Refuge Contributions to National and Regional Plans ..........................................5 Fulfilling the Promise ..........................................................................5 Bird Conservation ............................................................................5 Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................6 State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy .............................................6 1.5 Strategic Habitat Conservation ..............................................................7 Climate Change ..............................................................................7 1.6 Planning Process ..........................................................................8 1.7 Public Involvement ........................................................................9 Cooperating Agencies .........................................................................9 Tribal Coordination. 11 Involvement of Interested Groups and the Public .....................................................11 1.8 Significant Issues to Address ..............................................................11 Habitat and Wildlife .........................................................................12 Water Resources ...........................................................................12 Public Use and Access ........................................................................12 Wilderness ................................................................................12 Socioeconomics ............................................................................12 Partnerships and Collaboration ..................................................................12 Cultural Values, Traditions, and Resources ..........................................................13 1.9 Issues Not Addressed .....................................................................13 Enhancement Act ...........................................................................13 Exercise of Private Property Rights for Mineral Extraction ...............................................13 Fort Peck Lake Levels .........................................................................13 Livestock Grazing Fees, Transfer of Grazing Permits, and Animal Unit Months .................................14 Refuge Revenue-sharing Payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes .........................................14 Roads under Revised Statute 2477 and Petitioned Roads ...............................................14 Military Overflights ..........................................................................15 1.10 Scope of the Document ....................................................................15 Decision Area ..............................................................................15 Analysis Area ..............................................................................15 CHAPTER 2–Refuge History and Vision ........................................................19 2.1 Establishment, Acquisition, and Management History .........................................19 Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................20 UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................26 Existing Management ........................................................................27 vi Draft CCP and EIS, Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, Montana vii 2.2 Special Values ...........................................................................28 2.3 Vision ...................................................................................29
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Border Security Threatens Northern Border Wildernesses
    Wilderness In Peril: Border Security Measures Threaten Wilderness along the Northern Border with Canada An Analysis Prepared by Wilderness Watch October 2012 Wilderness Watch P.O. Box 9175 Missoula, MT 59807 406-542-2048 www.wildernesswatch.org For more information, contact: George Nickas, Executive Director Kevin Proescholdt, Conservation Director [email protected] [email protected] 406-542-2048 612-201-9266 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………….Page 3 Introduction………………………………………………………..………..….....Page 4 Background…………………………………………………..………………....…Page 4 A. Early 20th Century Border Easements B. International Boundary Treaties with Canada C. 2005 REAL ID Act D. 2006 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Border Patrol Practices on the Southern Border and Lessons for the North……………………………………………………………….Page 9 A. Border Wall Construction B. Illegal Roads and Vehicle Routes C. Border Security Infrastructure D. Motorized Patrols Emerging Major Threats to Wildernesses near the Northern Border……...…Page 13 A. Congressional Legislation B. Northern Border Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement C. 2006 MOU and Motorized Patrols D. Administrative Waiver of Federal Laws E. Clearing and Construction in Border Reservations F. Conclusion Needed Actions to Reestablish and Affirm Wilderness Protections Along the Northern Border……………………………………….……………..Page 17 A. Existing Homeland Security Laws B. 2006 MOU C. Northern Border PEIS D. Pending Legislation E. Restore Wilderness Protection Appendix - Wildernesses at Risk along the Northern Border………………....Page 18 3 Executive Summary Under the guise of border security, a plethora of new and proposed laws, policies, memoranda, and other governmental actions pose an unprecedented threat to Wildernesses, including in many national parks, along our nation’s Northern Border. This whitepaper describes the threats and presents several recommendations for securing the protection of Wilderness and parks along the Northern Border.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger Dunsmore Came to the University of Montana in 1963 As a Freshman Composition Instructor in the English Department
    January 30 Introduction to the Series Roger Dunsmore Bio: Roger Dunsmore came to the University of Montana in 1963 as a freshman composition instructor in the English Department. In 1964 he also began to teach half- time in the Humanities Program. He taught his first course in American Indian Literature, Indian Autobiographies, in 1969. In 1971 he was an originating member of the faculty group that formed the Round River Experiment in Environmental Education (1971- 74) and has taught in UM’s Wilderness and Civilization Program since 1976. He received his MFA in Creative Writing (poetry) in 1971 and his first volume of poetry.On The Road To Sleeping ChildHotsprings was published that same year. (Revised edition, 1977.) Lazslo Toth, a documentary poem on the smashing of Michelangelo’s Pieta was published in 1979. His second full length volume of poems,Bloodhouse, 1987, was selected by the Yellowstone Art Center, Billings, MX for their Regional Writer’s Project.. The title poem of his chapbook.The Sharp-Shinned Hawk, 1987, was nominated by the Koyukon writer, Mary TallMountain for a Pushcat Prize. He retired from full-time teaching after twenty-five years, in 1988, but continues at UM under a one- third time retiree option. During the 1988-89 academic year he was Humanities Scholar in Residence for the Arizona Humanities Council, training teachers at a large Indian high school on the Navajo Reservation. A chapbook of his reading at the International Wildlife Film Festival, The Bear Remembers, was published in 1990. Spring semester, 1991, (and again in the fall semester, 1997) he taught modern American Literature as UM’s Exchange Fellow with Shanghai International Studies University in mainland China.
    [Show full text]
  • The President of the United States Transmitting
    93d Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 93- 403 PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM COMMUNICATION FHOVI THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING PROPOSALS FOR THIRTY-SEVEN ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM AND DEFERRAL OF ACTION ON FIVE AREAS SUITABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE SYSTEM, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF FOUR OTHER AREAS STUDIED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THE WILDER- NESS ACT OF 1964 [16 USC 1132] PART 31 UL BEND WILDERNESS MONTANA DECEMBER 4, 197 4. - Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1974 THE WHITE HOUSE • WASHINGTON D e cembe r 4, 1974 Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, I am pleased to transmit herewith proposals for thirty-seven additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. As described in the Wilderness Message that I am con­ currently sending to the Congress today, the proposed new wilderness areas cover a total of over nine million primeval acres. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has recommended that Congressional action on five other areas which include surface lands suitable for wilderness be deferred for the reasons set forth below: A. Three areas which are open to mining might be needed in the future to provide vital minerals fer the Nation, but these areas have not been adequately surveyed for mineral deposits. The areas are the • Kofa Game Range, Arizona; Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada and Oregon; and, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [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]
  • Page 1480 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1113 (Pub
    § 1113 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1480 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 13, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation § 1113. Authorization of appropriations System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- There are hereby authorized to be appro- priations be available for additional personnel priated to the Department of the Interior with- stated as being required solely for the purpose of out fiscal year limitation such sums as may be managing or administering areas solely because necessary for the purposes of this chapter and they are included within the National Wilder- the agreement with the Government of Canada ness Preservation System. signed January 22, 1964, article 11 of which pro- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined vides that the Governments of the United States A wilderness, in contrast with those areas and Canada shall share equally the costs of de- where man and his own works dominate the veloping and the annual cost of operating and landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where maintaining the Roosevelt Campobello Inter- the earth and its community of life are un- national Park. trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- (Pub. L. 88–363, § 14, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an CHAPTER 23—NATIONAL WILDERNESS area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its PRESERVATION SYSTEM primeval character and influence, without per- manent improvements or human habitation, Sec. which is protected and managed so as to pre- 1131.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilderness Act of 1964
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 Source: US House of Representatives Office of the Law This is the 1964 act that started it all Revision Counsel website at and created the first designated http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml wilderness in the US and Nevada. This version, updated January 2, 2006, includes a list of all wilderness designated before that date. The list does not mention designations made by the December 2006 White Pine County bill. -CITE- 16 USC CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 01/02/2006 -EXPCITE- TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -HEAD- CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -MISC1- Sec. 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of policy; wilderness areas; administration for public use and enjoyment, protection, preservation, and gathering and dissemination of information; provisions for designation as wilderness areas. (b) Management of area included in System; appropriations. (c) "Wilderness" defined. 1132. Extent of System. (a) Designation of wilderness areas; filing of maps and descriptions with Congressional committees; correction of errors; public records; availability of records in regional offices. (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classifications as primitive areas; Presidential recommendations to Congress; approval of Congress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado. (c) Review by Secretary of the Interior of roadless areas of national park system and national wildlife refuges and game ranges and suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; authority of Secretary of the Interior to maintain roadless areas in national park system unaffected. (d) Conditions precedent to administrative recommendations of suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; publication in Federal Register; public hearings; views of State, county, and Federal officials; submission of views to Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presidency and America's Public Lands
    Executive Power in Unlikely Places: The Presidency and America's Public Lands Author: Maria Lynn McCollester Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:107219 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2016 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Executive Power in Unlikely Places: The Presidency and America’s Public Lands Maria Lynn McCollester A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Boston College Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences Graduate School September 2016 © Copyright 2016 Maria Lynn McCollester Executive Power in Unlikely Places: The Presidency and America’s Public Lands Maria McCollester Advisor: Marc Landy, Ph.D. By examining the interactions between the presidency and the other branches of government, research illuminates the causes and mechanisms by which the presidency, and its power, ebbs and flows. Due to the nature of the powers directly granted to the president within the Constitution, much consideration has been given to presidential power through the prisms of national security, international affairs, and times of national emergency. Yet the presidency consists of more than the roles of commander- and diplomat-in-chief. By looking beyond the more obvious considerations of presidential power, the complexity of the institution’s development is not only revealed, but more fully explained. Consequently, this dissertation analyzes the development of presidential power by looking at the less obvious. It considers the use of formal executive tools to implement congressionally delegated and supported authority in an area of domestic policy: the creation of federally protected public lands.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
    State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Regional Haze Final Appendix C: Federal Land Manager Air Quality Value Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report June, 2016 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 ON THE COVER Courthouse Towers, Arches National Park, Utah. Photo by Debbie Miller. THIS PAGE: Jumping Cholla, Superstition Wilderness, Arizona. Photo by Steve Boutcher Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 U.S. Forest Service Air Quality Program 1400 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20250 National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Air Resources Division PO Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Air Quality Branch 7333 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 375 Lakewood, CO 80235 October 2010 The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract, Summary
    Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge Montana September 2010 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Airport Road Lewistown, Montana 59457 406 /538 8706 and Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 303 /236 8145 Abstract Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Montana Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Steve Guertin, regional director, region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abstract: This draft comprehensive conservation plan ation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife and environmental impact statement identifies the pur- populations using both (1) natural ecological processes pose and need for a management plan, outlines the legal such as fire and wildlife ungulate herbivory (grazing) foundation for management of two refuges in Montana, and (2) responsible synthetic methods such as farming Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and describes and eval- use would be encouraged, but economic uses would uates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habi- be limited when they compete for habitat resources. tat, and wildlife-dependent public use. This process has About 106 miles of road would be closed. involved the development of a vision, goals, objectives, Under alternative C’s public use and economic use and strategies that meet the legal directives of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Aleutian Islands Wilderness Alaska
    93d Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 93-403 PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING PROPOSALS FOR THIRTY-SEVEN ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM AND DEFERRAL OF ACTION ON FIVE AREAS SUITABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE SYSTEM, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF FOUR OTHER AREAS STUDIED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THE WILDER- NESS ACT OF 1964 [16 USC 1132] PART 13 ALEUTIAN ISLANDS WILDERNESS ALASKA DECEMBER 4, 1974. —Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1974 42 7117 O THE WHITE HOUSE WAS HINGTO N December 4, 1974 Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, I am pleased to transmit herewith proposals for thirty-seven additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. As described in the Wilderness Message that I am con- currently sending to the Congress today, the proposed new wilderness areas cover a total of over nine million primeval acres. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has recommended that Congressional action on five other areas which include surface lands suitable for wilderness be deferred for the reasons set forth below: A. Three areas which are open to mining might be needed in the future to provide vital minerals for the Nation, but these areas have not been adequately surveyed for mineral deposits. The areas are the Kofa Game Range, Arizona; Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada and Oregon; and, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range, Montana.
    [Show full text]