Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. Reserve aTN24 M9R43 . 2000 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region December 2000 RECORD OF DECISION ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT MINERAL WITHDRAWAL § 1* g 2^NT0FAG»OS^ United States Department of Agriculture The U.S. Departmei s and activities on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, and marital or family stat disabilities who require aclotnetrancattiUvSeDmAe'sanTsAFf i r t i udiotape, etc.) should To file a complaint National Agricultural Library Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Ir 02) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an e Coverphoto: Muddy Creek Drainage RECORD OF DECISION ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT MINERAL WITHDRAWAL HELENA AND LEWIS AND CLARK FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS Glacier, Lewis and Clark, Pondera and Teton Counties, Montana Secretary ofAgriculture (date) INTRODUCTION I. This record ofdecision documents my recommendation, and consent, to the Secretary of the Interior for a formal withdrawal of405,000 acres ofNational Forest System Lands, known as the Rocky Mountain Front, from future mineral exploration and development. I am amending the Helena and Lewis and Clark Forest Plans to reflect that these lands will not be available for the exploration and development ofmineral resources under the General Mining Laws. The mineral withdrawal would be subject to review by the Secretary ofthe Interior after 20 years. This withdrawal is being recommended to limit mineral-related activities in order to protect other resources. The withdrawal does not apply to private property. On February 3, 1999, notice ofapplication for a withdrawal was published in the Federal Register, which resulted in a two-year segregation (moratorium) on the location ofnew mining claims. Since February, the Forest Service and Bureau ofLand Management have completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and have prepared the Mineral Withdrawal Report required by the Federal Land Policy Management Act. Amendments to the Helena and Lewis & Clark Forest Plans reflect the mineral withdrawal decision. Ifthe Secretary ofthe Interior does not approve the mineral withdrawal, the Plan amendments will not take effect. DECISION II. Based on the analysis ofeffects contained in the Rocky Mountain Front Mineral Withdrawal FEIS, I have selected alternative B, consenting to the withdrawal ofthe Rocky Mountain Front from mineral entry under the General Mining Laws. Alternative B also amends the Helena Forest Plan, Appendix Q, “Withdrawals from Mineral Entry”, and the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan, Table 2.2, “Projected Outputs, Activities and Costs”. The final decision to withdraw the area lies with the Secretary ofthe Interior. REASONS FOR THE DECISION III. RECOMMENDATION OF WITHDRAWAL TO DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Based on the analysis in the Rocky Mountain Front Mineral Withdrawal FEIS, I have decided that a mineral withdrawal is warranted to protect the outstanding natural resources present in this area. The FEIS describes the activities that could take place ifthe area was not withdrawn. The Forecast for Future Mineral Activity projected the likelihood ofmining activities that could occur in the withdrawal area. The activities with the highest likelihood of occurrence within the withdrawal area are prospecting, claimstaking, geochemical and geophysical surveying and exploration drilling and trenching. The withdrawal would forego opportunities for mineral resource development as described under Alternative A. These opportunities are detailed in Chapter 3 ofthe FEIS and include claim staking and exploration activities. I believe that the loss ofthe A opportunities described in Alternative are outweighed by the benefits ofprotecting and preserving the other resources found along the Rocky Mountain Front. The public comments and the description ofresources in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Affected Environment) point out that this particular area provides a unique combination ofspecial places and outstanding resource values important to citizens across the Nation. The FEIS demonstrates that mineral activity could place at risk the scenic, social and wildlife resources found along the Rocky Mountain Front. As pointed out in the FEIS, the setting is adjacent to the Bob Marshall, Scapegoat and Great Bear Wildernesses, Glacier National Park and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. The area includes tributaries ofthe Blackfoot and Missouri Rivers. A segment ofNorth Badger Creek is designated as scenic and a segment ofthe North Fork of Birch Creek is designated as wild. The Heritage Resources section ofthe FEIS describes the rich cultural resources found throughout the withdrawal area. Based on surveys ofthe Lewis and Clark National Forest, the Rocky Mountain Ranger District portion ofthe withdrawal area has some of the highest densities ofheritage sites on the Forest. Pictograph and prehistoric artifact scatters are relatively common. The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail passes through the Helena portion ofthe withdrawal area. Mineral exploration activities that involve ground disturbance may affect cultural sites. The risks ofimpacts to cultural resources in the withdrawal area range from moderate to low. The Wildlife section in Chapter 3 illustrates the abundant wildlife along the Rocky Mountain Front. There has been relatively little human disturbance such as timber harvest, mining, oil and gas development and road construction in the area. The result is a large area ofrelatively undisturbed habitat that has allowed many species to thrive when they have disappeared from most ofthe rest oftheir range. The potential effects on species would vary depending on the location and type ofactivity. The mineral withdrawal would help protect grizzly bear and other wildlife habitat. The Scenery section ofthe FEIS states that the area consists primarily ofundeveloped, unroaded landscapes. The impacts ofman’s activities are typically minimal. The area depicts a natural appearing landscape; many would consider it to be ofwilderness character with vast untouched areas ofhigh scenic integrity and immense scale. This landscape is unique among lands administered by the Forest Service, with the exception ofareas set aside as wilderness. Impacts to the scenic resources would range from unnoticeable ground disturbance to soil disturbance and equipment that could alter a view. The area is noted for its spectacular beauty and outstanding dispersed recreation opportunities. The undeveloped recreation opportunities and the area’s proximity to the