Hotri 2010 Plan

Connecting the Landscape:
A Proposal for Collaborative Conservation

in the High Divide Region of Montana and Idaho
2010
Connecting the Landscape:
A Proposal for Collaborative
Conservation in the High Divide
Region of Montana and Idaho
2010
Table of Contents
Preface … …………………………………………………………………………………………………3
Executive Summary … …………………………………………………………………………………………………5
Chapter
1 Introduction… ………………………………………………………………………………… 11
2 Process for Identifying High-Priority Private Land in the High Divide……………………… 17
3 Bitterroot Focal Area … ……………………………………………………………………… 21
4 Upper Clark Fork Focal Area ………………………………………………………………… 29
5 Upper Yellowstone Focal Area … …………………………………………………………… 35
6 Salmon-Lemhi Focal Area …………………………………………………………………… 41
7 Upper Missouri Focal Area …………………………………………………………………… 47
8 Big Hole Focal Area … ……………………………………………………………………… 53
9 Beaverhead-Red Rock Focal Area … ……………………………………………………… 59
10 Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby Focal Area … ……………………………………………………… 65
11 Lost River Focal Area ………………………………………………………………………… 71
12 A Proposal for Private Land Conservation in the High Divide……………………………… 77
Appendix
A Bibliography… ………………………………………………………………………………… 87
B List of High Divide Focal Area Workshops and
Participating Agencies and Organizations…………………………………………………… 88
C Description of the High Divide Planning Process…………………………………………… 89
D List of GIS data used in High Divide Workshops…………………………………………… 91
Technical Appendix: Supplemental Information for Each Focal Area …………………………………… 93

Bitterroot Focal Area … ……………………………………………………………………… 94
Upper Clark Fork Focal Area… …………………………………………………………… 101
Upper Yellowstone Focal Area … ………………………………………………………… 104
Salmon-Lemhi Focal Area ………………………………………………………………… 108
Upper Missouri Focal Area ………………………………………………………………… 117
Big Hole Focal Area … …………………………………………………………………… 122
Beaverhead-Red Rock Focal Area … …………………………………………………… 126
Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby Focal Area … …………………………………………………… 129
Lost River Focal Area ……………………………………………………………………… 134
Connecting the Landscape: A Proposal for Collaborative Conservation in the High Divide Region of Montana and Idaho | 1
Maps
1 Heart of the Rockies Conservation Planning Areas………………………………………… 12
2 The High Divide Geographic Area …………………………………………………………… 13
3 Focal Areas of the High Divide Ecosystem … ……………………………………………… 18
4 Bitterroot Focal Area … ……………………………………………………………………… 24
5 Upper Clark Fork Focal Area… ……………………………………………………………… 30
6 Upper Yellowstone Focal Area… …………………………………………………………… 38
7 Salmon-Lemhi Focal Area …………………………………………………………………… 44
8 Upper Missouri Focal Area …………………………………………………………………… 50
9 Big Hole Focal Area … ……………………………………………………………………… 56
10 Beaverhead-Red Rock Focal Area … ……………………………………………………… 61
11 Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby Focal Area… ……………………………………………………… 68
12 Lost River Focal Area ………………………………………………………………………… 74
13 Lands with High Value for Voluntary Conservation in the High Divide … ……………… 8, 78
Tables
1 Acreage summary for focal areas in the High Divide … …………………………………… 14
2 Acres of private land with high value for conservation and
ten year conservation goals, by focal area… …………………………………………… 9, 77

COVER PHOTO CREDITS: (clockwise from top)

Upper Clark Fork photo by Paul Lebel;
Jefferson area photo courtesy of Montana Association of Land Trusts;
Bighorn sheep photo by Greg Painter;
Cattle photo by Dale Ford
2 | Connecting the Landscape: A Proposal for Collaborative Conservation in the High Divide Region of Montana and Idaho
Preface
T
his document outlines
a plan and strategies
for conserving key
private lands in the High
Divide region of Montana
and Idaho. The purpose
of this plan is to advance
the goal of maintaining
landscape-level ecological
processes and functions
in the High Divide while
sustaining the heritage of the
people who live and work
on the land. All proposed or
implied land transactions
presented here are based
on the understanding that
they can move forward
only with the cooperation
and support of willing
landowners and other
partners. The organizations
that participated in
developing this plan support and respect private property rights and seek to work Looking east
across Little Basin
with landowners who are interested in conserving properties through voluntary, Creek Drainage in
willing-seller/willing-buyer transactions. the Beaverhead
focal area
BLM File Photo
The Heart of the Rockies Initiative
This plan was created by the Heart of the Rockies (HOTR) Initiative, which is a
collaboration of 25 national, statewide, and local land trusts that work along the
Continental Divide in Alberta, British Columbia, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Land trusts formed the HOTR Initiative in 2002 with the idea that focused and
collaborative conservation could increase the rate of private land conservation
in this vast, largely untrammeled, and yet highly threatened landscape. Through
collaborative conservation planning, cooperation to increase individual land trust
organizational capacity, and collective fundraising for identified conservation
priorities, the HOTR land trusts seek to leverage their efforts to conserve the
northern Rockies’ most irreplaceable landscapes.
About Land Trusts and Conservation Easements

A land trust is a private not-for-profit organization that, as all or a part of its
mission, actively serves private landowners who seek to voluntarily conserve their
land from subdivision and inappropriate development. The primary tool land trusts
use to help landowners conserve their land is the conservation easement.
A conservation easement is a voluntary, legally binding recorded agreement

between a property owner and a land trust that typically maintains the land’s
traditional uses while generally prohibiting or limiting uses that would diminish the
agricultural or conservation value of the land. Conservation easements are flexible
and can be written to meet the particular needs of each landowner. The property
stays in the ownership of the landowner, who may continue to live on it, sell it, or
pass it on to heirs. A conservation easement runs with the title to the property and
future owners are bound by the easement’s terms.
A conservation easement may be donated by the landowner, or in some instances,

a land trust may purchase a conservation easement from the landowner. Easements
can significantly lower estate taxes. In fact, sometimes a conservation easement can
actually make the difference between heirs being able to keep land in the family or
needing to sell it. Easements can also potentially reduce income taxes. In the case of
a purchased conservation easement, easements provide cash to landowners that can
be used for reinvestment on the land, building improvements, new equipment, debt
reduction, or as a retirement fund.
Land trusts believe that agricultural landowners should not

have to make a choice between their livelihood, which is
derived from working on the land, and the maintenance of
biological diversity and ecosystem function— it is possible to
have both. Through the use of conservation easements and
stewardship, land trusts can help willing landowners sustain
this vision into the future.
Acknowledgements
This plan could not have taken shape without the input from
the dozens of participants who attended a series of High
Divide conservation planning workshops to share their
valuable knowledge and expertise. They represent agencies
Badger Creek in and organizations concerned about the biological, agricultural, and community
the Lost River
focal area. values found across this region.
Photo by Bart Garnett
This document was prepared by Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc and is based on a
planning process completed by the land trusts in the High Divide region under the
auspices of the Heart of the Rockies Initiative. Major contributions to the document
were made by Michael Whitfield, HOTR Coordinator, as well as a wide range of
land trusts and their conservation partners. The GIS skills and technical assistance
of Ken Wall and Robin Wall were instrumental to the success of this effort. Graphic
design of the final plan was expertly completed by Chontos Design.
The development of this conservation plan was made possible by generous

support from the Brainerd Foundation, the LaSalle Adams Fund, the Wilburforce
Foundation, and the Turner Foundation.
The Heart of the Rockies Initiative owes its origination and continued growth
to generous support from the Wilburforce Foundation, the Henry P. Kendall
Foundation, the Paul G. Allen Forest Protection Foundation, the Land Trust Alliance,
the LaSalle Adams Fund, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Brainerd
Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the
David and Lucille Packard Foundation, and the Resources Legacy Fund.
Executive Summary
Connecting the Landscape: A Proposal for Collaborative Conservation in the High
Divide was created by the Heart of the Rockies (HOTR) Initiative, a collaboration
of 25 national, statewide, and local land trusts that work along the Continental
Divide in Alberta, British Columbia, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. One goal of
the HOTR Initiative is to produce dynamic plans for the conservation of priority
private lands needed to maintain wildlife migration, functional ecological systems,
and viable agriculture and forestry enterprises from the headwaters of the Bow
River in Alberta in the north to Lander Wyoming in the south. The High Divide
plan is the third of four plans covering the HOTR region, with plans completed
for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Crown of the Continent/ Idaho
Panhandle in 2003 and 2005, respectively.
The High Divide planning process was launched in 2008. The planning area includes
over 21 million acres, extending across a large belt of mountain valleys, from the
Lost River, Lemhi and Salmon River Valleys in Idaho across western Montana to
the Smith River in the east. The High Divide is an important east-west linkage
zone between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the vast Salmon-Selway
Wilderness, and a north-south linkage to the Crown of the Continent ecosystem
and beyond into Canada. This varied region, with lower elevation river corridors,
valley meadows, sagebrush steppe, and wetlands and higher
elevation montane forest and alpine terrain, is tremendously Top to bottom:
important to the continued viability of large, mobile ungulates Ferruginous hawk

in Beaverhead area.
and carnivores and many other fish and wildlife species in the BLM File Photo
region. It is also a landscape of working lands where ranches, Hiker in Jefferson
farms, and timber operations are integral to the social and focal area.
Courtesy of the Montana
economic fabric of the entire region. Association of Land Trusts
A diverse group of six local land trusts in Idaho and Montana, Pivot irrigation in
the Jefferson valley.
together with five statewide and national land conservation Courtesy of the Montana
organizations, each of which has the capacity to conserve Association of Land Trusts
only a portion of the land in the High Divide, come together
to achieve this plan. They seek to develop and implement a collective strategy to
ensure that, by working with willing private land owners, the most significant
private lands in the High Divide are conserved in perpetuity. Each land trust
recognizes that successful conservation of natural resources in the High Divide
hinges upon sustaining and engaging local communities.
The land trusts partnered with local community leaders, representatives from
state wildlife agencies, state and federal land management agencies, and non-
governmental organizations to map the conservation values found on private land.
They used the best available biological and agricultural information to prioritize
lands for conservation importance so that their organizations can focus their
limited resources in the best locations.
The High Divide: The Case for Private Land Conservation

Although private land accounts for only 31% of the High Divide landscape
(including industrial timber land), these lands are disproportionately important,
both ecologically and economically. They also provide connections to core habitat
areas on public lands. Conservation of productive lower elevation wildlife habitats,
river corridors, and habitat linkage areas on private lands in the High Divide are
critical to sustaining the rich wildlife heritage and ecological integrity of the entire
region’s vast natural ecosystems and network of publicly conserved national parks,
wilderness areas, national forest lands, public BLM lands, and
wildlife refuges.
Almost all the private lands in the High Divide are working
lands, the ranches, farms and timbered areas that sustain
the cultural heritage and economic foundation of the area’s
local communities. Most of the High Divide is rural and the
working open spaces found here define a High Divide sense
of place.
The High Divide contains the headwaters of several major

river systems, including the Salmon/Snake, the Clark Fork,
the Missouri, and the Yellowstone River headwaters. In
addition to serving as a plentiful source of clean water, these
rivers provide hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands
and riparian areas and are a last stronghold for native fish.
As local economic and demographic profiles shift and

the human population of the High Divide grows, chances
increase that ecologically and agriculturally critical lands
will be converted to developed uses. For example, there is
growing economic pressure on ranchers and farmers in
the region. Much of the private land in the High Divide is
still owned by people who make a living in agriculture. As
the ability of farmers and ranchers to make a living off the
land declines, and as the opportunity presented to them by
escalating property values increases, more and more land is
likely to be converted to other land uses.
The Salmon River
riparian corridor
is a reserve of
Population growth, rural sprawl and energy development threaten the ranching
biodiversity in and farming way of life that characterizes private land use in the High Divide.
the arid Salmon- These pressures also threaten the functionality of the wildlife core and connectivity
Lemhi focal area.
Photo by Jon Flinders habitats that add to this region’s landscape importance for conservation.
Identifying High-Priority Private Land in the High Divide

The High Divide planning process deliberately engaged diverse partners outside
the land trust community. First, a broad-based steering committee was formed to
help guide the planning process and to refine the geographic scope of the planning
region. This group helped delineate ten focal areas, based primarily on watershed
boundaries. In some cases, watersheds were combined, based on the ways rural
communities identify their regions. The steering committee also reviewed and
adapted the conservation criteria used in the previous two plans:
Biological
• Linkage areas, migration corridors, and other areas critical to
interconnections of large ecosystems.
• Low elevation habitats containing significant wetland and riparian areas.
• Habitats containing nationally or regionally rare or uncommon wildlife or
plant species.
Agricultural
• Landscapes containing a critical mass of productive agricultural lands for
farming, ranching, or timber harvest.
• Landscapes where agriculture is still a predominant use and land
conservation contributes significantly to maintaining agricultural viability.
Community
• Landscapes in which communities are striving to conserve local open land
priorities through action and leadership.
• Landscapes of vital importance to communities for recreational access,
scenic vistas, or sense of place.
Land trusts hosted workshops in six focal areas and the HOTR Initiative hosted
workshops for three focal areas that lack local land trust presence. Although the
Smith River watershed is included as a focal area at the eastern edge of the High
Divide planning region, a workshop for that focal area was not developed in the
current planning process, and high-priority private land was not identified for
that area. For all nine focal areas where workshops were held, experts were invited
from watershed groups, state and federal agencies, local government, and other
conservation organizations to meet together to identify lands of high value for
conservation. This broad engagement by a wide range of stakeholders helped
ensure that the best resource data and conservation science were used to inform
conservation priorities.
Private Lands with High Value for

Voluntary Conservation
Map 13 includes the results of the
HOTR process for identifying private
lands of high value for voluntary
conservation. A total of 3,486,768 acres
were identified; this represents 51% of
private land in the High Divide. These
3.4 million acres will be the focus of
collaborative land conservation efforts
in the High Divide region by the HOTR
Initiative. Table 2 summarizes the
acreage totals and conservation goals
for each focal area.
As High Divide partners set

conservation goals and developed strategies to implement the High Divide plan, Wood family ranch
in the Bitterroot
several factors inform those deliberations. First, three of the High Divide focal areas
focal area.
lack local land trust presence and some of the existing local High Divide land trusts Photo © Keith Fialcowitz
have limited capacity. Work by state and national organizations in the High Divide
is limited to a few targeted initiatives. This is an important factor in strategizing to
implement the High Divide plan since local land trusts or targeted initiatives by
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy often act to build local community
support for private land conservation. Second, the High Divide planning process
involved a wide-range of expertise from agency and organization partners,
compared with the previous two plans. This broad involvement and buy-in may
provide opportunities for deeper collaboration as the HOTR Initiative partners
work to implement the High Divide plan. Third, given the scale and focus at which
this plan was developed, it will be critical that the land trusts working in the High
Divide further prioritize among these private lands to develop their own, more
detailed, conservation plans to identify near term priorities.
Map 13 Lands with High Value for Voluntary Conservation in the High Divide
Establishing a 10-Year Goal for Voluntary Private Land Conservation
High Divide conservation partners developed goals, by focal area, for those areas
where there is land trust presence. They established a goal to work with willing
private landowners to conserve 300,000 acres of land in the High Divide over the
next 10 years. The conservation easement is the primary tool for this work.
Table 2. Acres of private land with high value for conservation and ten year conservation goals, by focal area.
ACRES OF ACREAGE
EXISTING
ACRES IN ACRES IN PRIVATE LAND GOAL TO
TOTAL FOCAL CONSERVATION
FOCAL AREA NAME PUBLIC PRIVATE WITH HIGH CONSERVE
AREA ACRES EASEMENT
OWNERSHIP* OWNERSHIP** VALUE FOR OVER 10
ACRES***
CONSERVATION YEARS
MONTANA
Beaverhead 1,749,963 1,109,878 640,085 22,859 384,844 15,000
Red Rock
Big Hole 1,789,197 1,314,445 474,753 48,826 357,836 10,000
Bitterroot 1,556,383 1,181,858 374,525 31,790 182,578 30,000
Jefferson 1,847,484 1,008,094 839,390 27,688 317,148 10,000
Boulder-Ruby
Upper Clark Fork 2,365,196 1,237,954 1,127,243 71,924 626,663 90,000
Upper Missouri 1,840,500 814,560 1,025,940 91,133 427,126 15,000
Upper Yellowstone 1,263,008 243,894 1,019,113 97,171 435,154 25,000
Total Montana 12,411,731 6,910,683 5,501,049 391,391 2,731,349 195,000
IDAHO
Lost River 5,350,385 4,396,588 953,796 17,443 492,657 60,000
Salmon-Lemhi 4,063,062 3,729,551 333,511 15,135 262,762 45,000
Total Idaho 9,413,446 8,126,139 1,287,307 32,578 755,419 105,000
High Divide Total 21,825,177 15,036,822 6,788,356 423,969 3,486,768 300,000
* “Public” land includes: City Government, Montana Dept of Corrections, Montana Dept of Transportation, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game,
Montana State Trust Lands, National Park Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Dept of Defense, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
US Forest Service, Water both state and federal claims, Water navigable (state Dept of Natural Resources), Water reserved/withdrawn by federal agency.
** “Private” includes lands owned by Plum Creek Timber Company, lands owned by land trusts, and private water.
*** “Existing Conservation Easements” includes conservation easements on private and public lands, including land owned by land trusts. Data sources include
HOTR 2008 conservation easement statistics, and 2010 data from The Nature Conservancy of Idaho and Lemhi Regional Land Trust.
Strategies for Achieving the 10-Year Goal

Focused action by land trusts, both individually and collectively, will be needed
to achieve the goal set out above. The rate, quantity, and efficiency of private
land conservation in the High Divide must increase dramatically if 300,000
additional acres are to be conserved by 2020. Achieving the goal also depends on
the willingness of private landowners to voluntarily conserve their land through
partnerships with land trusts.
To support individual land trust efforts in the High Divide, the HOTR seeks
“added value” strategies that leverage the power of participating organizations to
collaboratively enhance one another’s ability to work with willing land owners to
conserve priority private lands. Strategies that add value are those that require the
collective participation of a critical mass of land trusts to achieve higher levels of
success and efficiency at effective landscape scales.
With these considerations in mind, the Heart of the Rockies Initiative has identified
the following collaborative strategies to achieve the 10-year goal for the High Divide:
• Focus new capacity on un-served areas of the High Divide. Create new
collaborative efforts to deliver conservation capacity to focal areas without
land trust presence in staged action steps that recognize geographic
priorities.
• Increase the capacity of land trusts. To ramp up the rate of conservation,
the High Divide land trusts need to enhance their existing organizational
and programmatic capacities.
• Implement a revolving loan fund in the High Divide. A revolving loan
fund with advantageous rates and terms enables land trusts to conserve
some properties that might otherwise be sold to a non-conservation
oriented buyer.
• Enhance public funding. Various federal, state, and local programs are
critical sources of funding for purchased conservation easements and fee title
acquisitions. These programs need to be maintained and enhanced.
• Enhance private funding. Maintain existing sources of private funding and
obtain new sources of funding from foundations and major donors. Explore
ways to develop non-traditional sources of private funding. Apply the Heart
of the Rockies collective capital fundraising strategy to conservation of the
High Divide’s highest priority private lands.
• Provide for perpetual stewardship. A dramatic increase in private land
conservation in the High Divide also necessitates increasing the capacity for
long-term stewardship of those lands.
In this High Divide conservation plan, as in the prior two HOTR conservation
plans, the HOTR Initiative and participating land trusts and partners have
attempted to identify those lands of high value for conservation through application
of the best available resource geospatial data and local expert opinion. The stated
purpose of this conservation plan as noted in each of the three plans completed to
date, “is to advance the goal of maintaining landscape-level ecological processes
and functions in the . . . while sustaining the heritage of the people who live and
work on the land.”
To achieve these desired outcomes, the HOTR Initiative must facilitate dynamic
conservation planning that incorporates the latest in resource information,
continually pay attention to changing environmental and social conditions,
provide land trusts with encouragement and incentives to refine focal area
based conservation planning to the scales needed for plan implementation, and
successfully implement added value conservation strategies.
We now have our best window of opportunity for private land conservation in the
High Divide—the canvas upon which land trusts can work only gets smaller with
time. If private land protection efforts over the next ten years are not informed,
focused, and vigorous, significant natural and agricultural lands in the High Divide
may be lost for the conceivable future.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Heart of the Rockies Conservation Planning

The purpose of the Heart of the Rockies Initiative’s collaborative conservation
planning is to help maintain a rich wildlife legacy and landscape-level ecological
functions in the northern Rockies while sustaining the heritage of the people who
live and work on the land. The High Divide plan is the third of four plans covering
the HOTR region. Map 1 illustrates the geographic scope of the three completed
plans (a fourth plan will show conservation priorities for a region of central Idaho).
In 2003, HOTR published its first conservation plan, Rewarding Landowners

for Doing it Right: A Proposal for Voluntary Land Conservation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). It identified 2.8 million acres of high-value private
lands. The plan used three criteria: biological importance, agricultural value,
and community support for conservation. The 11 land trusts then working in
the GYE established an ambitious 10-year goal to conserve a million acres of
those high-value acres, a near tripling of the 2003 rate of conservation. The plan
outlined conservation strategies for work with willing private
landowners and used eight focal areas within which the Top to bottom:
Rock Spring Creek
relevant land trusts pulled together experts to identify high- Ranch, East Fork of
value lands. Blacktail
BLM File Photo
In 2005, the HOTR partnership presented its second Waxwing in the
conservation plan, Conserving the Gems: A Proposal for Jefferson region.
Collaboration and Partnership in the Crown of the Continent Courtesy of the Montana
Association of Land Trusts
and Idaho Panhandle (COC&IP). The plan covered the 27
Beaverhead River
million acre geographical area where the provinces of British BLM File Photo
Columbia and Alberta and the states of Idaho and Montana
come together. Fourteen land trusts developed a proposal for collaboration and
partnership to conserve the gems of the COC&IP and identified 2.2 million acres
of high-priority private land. The same criteria used in the GYE were employed in
the COC&IP plan. The land trusts established a goal of conserving 516,000 acres
over a ten-year period. The plan focused largely on the many opportunities for
partnerships to conserve land in this large landscape. It expanded on the same suite
of conservation strategies identified in the GYE plan.
The High Divide plan was launched in August, 2008. The HOTR geographic
definition of the High Divide is somewhat different from other groups’ use of the
term. The planning area includes nearly 22 million acres, extending across a large
belt of mountain valleys, from the Lost River, Lemhi and Salmon River Valleys in
Idaho across western Montana to the Smith River in the east (Map 2). The High
Divide is an important east-west linkage zone between the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem and the vast Salmon-Selway Wilderness, and a north-south linkage
to the Crown of the Continent ecosystem and beyond into Canada. This varied
region, with lower elevation river corridors, valley meadows, sagebrush steppe, and
wetlands and higher elevation montane forest and alpine terrain, is tremendously
important to the continued viability of large, mobile ungulates and carnivores and
many other fish and wildlife species in the region. It is also a landscape of working
lands where ranches, farms, and timber operations are integral to the social and
economic fabric of the entire region.
Map 1 Heart of the Rockies Conservation Planning Areas
Map 2 The High Divide Geographic Area
The overall goal of HOTR conservation planning is to linkage areas on private lands in the High Divide is critical to
produce a dynamic plan for the protection of priority private sustaining the rich wildlife heritage and ecological integrity of
lands needed to maintain wildlife migration, functional the region’s vast natural ecosystems and network of publicly
ecological systems, and viable agriculture and forestry conserved national parks, wilderness areas, national forest
enterprises from the headwaters of the Bow River in Alberta lands, public BLM lands, and wildlife refuges.
in the north to Lander Wyoming in the south. By linking the
Almost all of the private lands in the High Divide are working
large, protected core areas in the U.S. Northern Rockies and
lands—the ranches, farms and timbered areas that sustain
Canadian Southern Rockies through the High Divide, the
the cultural heritage and economic foundation of the area’s
HOTR Initiative can help protect critical private lands in one
local communities. Most of the High Divide is rural and the
of America’s signature landscapes.
working open spaces found here define the High Divide sense
of place.
The High Divide: The Case for Private Land Many signature wildlife species in this vast region range
Conservation over large areas and require protected connectivity habitats
Private land accounts for only 31% of the High Divide that tie together seasonal habitats in core protected areas.
landscape, including industrial timber land, with only 14% Furthermore, genetic connectivity among these habitats,
private land in the Idaho portion of the High Divide, and for populations of large predators and similar species whose
44% in the Montana focal areas (Table 1). However, these population densities are relatively low, is critical to the
lands are disproportionately important, both ecologically long-term persistence of such species. Some of the region’s
and economically. They also provide connections to core strongest populations of elk and bighorn sheep are found in
habitat areas on public lands. Conservation of productive High Divide habitats.
lower elevation wildlife habitats, river corridors, and habitat
Table 1. Acreage summary for focal areas in the High Divide
TOTAL FOCAL ACRES IN PUBLIC % OF FOCAL ACRES IN PRIVATE % OF FOCAL

FOCAL AREA NAME
AREA ACRES OWNERSHIP* AREA TOTAL OWNERSHIP** AREA TOTAL
MONTANA
Beaverhead 1,749,963 1,109,878 63 640,085 37
Red Rock
Big Hole 1,789,197 1,314,445 73 474,753 27
Bitterroot 1,556,383 1,181,858 76 374,525 24
Jefferson 1,847,484 1,008,094 55 839,390 45
Boulder-Ruby
Upper Clark Fork 2,365,196 1,237,954 52 1,127,243 48
Upper Missouri 1,840,500 814,560 44 1,025,940 56
Upper Yellowstone 1,263,008 243,894 19 1,019,113 81
Montana Total 12,411,731 6,910,683 56 5,501,049 44
IDAHO
Lost River 5,350,385 4,396,588 82 953,796 18
Salmon-Lemhi 4,063,062 3,729,551 92 333,511 8
Idaho Total 9,413,446 8,126,139 86 1,287,307 14
High Divide Total 21,825,177 15,036,822 69 6,788,356 31
* Public land includes: City Government, Montana Dept of Corrections, Montana Dept of Transportation, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, Montana State
Trust Lands, National Park Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Dept of Defense, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, Water both
state and federal claims, Water navigable (state Dept of Natural Resources), Water reserved/withdrawn by federal agency.
** Private includes lands owned by Plum Creek Timber Company, lands owned by land trusts, and private water.
The High Divide contains the headwaters of several major According to the Western Governors Association, “economic
river systems, including the Salmon/Snake, the Clark Fork, vitality is also a major concern. Open space provides for a
the Missouri, and the Yellowstone River headwaters. In viable production base to accommodate worldwide food
addition to serving as a plentiful source of clean water, these and fiber demands. Agriculture is a major contributor to
rivers provide hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands and our Western economy and provides for the wise use of our
riparian areas and are a last stronghold for native fish. land and water resources so that future generations may also
prosper and enjoy. Our vast open spaces also attract millions
The Western Governors Association has endorsed the need to
of tourists, sportsmen, and outdoor enthusiasts each year,
conserve western open lands, so critical for wildlife habitat,
boosting local and state economies.”
recreational opportunities, scenic values, and agricultural
viability.1 “Recent trends in Western states indicate a rising A diverse group of six local land trusts in Idaho and Montana,
rate of land fragmentation due to dispersed residential together with five statewide and national land conservation
and commercial development. This trend has important organizations, each of which has the capacity to conserve
consequences for agricultural/forest lands and for wildlife only a portion of the land in the High Divide, come together
migration corridors and seasonal habitat. We recognize in the High Divide to develop and implement a collective
that the Western state’s economic diversity, our wildlife and strategy to ensure that, by working with willing private land
natural resources, and the culture that defines the West will be owners, the most significant private lands in the High Divide
jeopardized unless open space is part of our future.” are conserved in perpetuity. Each land trust recognizes that
The private lands are what more than

216,000 people who live in the High
Divide call home. 2 They support a
proud and rich tradition of ranching
and farming. Early settlers selected
low-elevation land with the best soil,
vegetative productivity and available
water. Not surprisingly, people today
continue to inhabit, cultivate, ranch,
and develop these same places. Private
lands provide critical winter range
and migration corridors for migratory
ungulates, and the concentrated
wetlands and riparian areas serve as
critical seasonal habitat for a host of
species. Private lands in the High Divide
also link large tracts of public land and
play an integral role in providing critical
connections across the landscape.
The fate of these private lands— Looking east to

whether they are developed or the Snowcrests successful conservation of natural resources in the High
from Cooks
conserved—will significantly affect Divide hinges upon sustaining and engaging local human
Lake in the
both the socioeconomic and ecological Beaverhead communities.
future of the High Divide. Ranching, focal area
BLM File Photo In this planning effort the region’s land conservation
farming, logging, mining, and oil and
organizations partnered with local community leaders,
gas development have long been staples of the High Divide
representatives from state wildlife agencies, state and
economy and are likely to continue to be important influences
federal land management agencies, and non-governmental
on the landscape, in spite of the fact that the economy of the
organizations to map the conservation values found on
High Divide has grown and diversified significantly over
private land. They used the best available biological and
the last 30 years. These changes have played a major role
agricultural information to prioritize lands for conservation
in shaping the current patterns of population growth and
importance so that their organizations can focus their limited
development in the area.
resources in the best locations.
1 Western Governor’s Association, 2008.

2 U.S. Census, 2010.
Threats to Resource Values on Private Lands Threats to functional connectivity corridors for wildlife
Population growth, rural sprawl and energy development movement are a critical concern. Through its Priority
threaten the ranching and farming way of life that Linkage Assessments research, which started in 2007,
characterizes private land use in the High Divide. These American Wildlands has identified and rated the most
pressures also threaten the functionality of the wildlife core important wildlife corridors throughout the High Divide.
and connectivity habitats that add to this region’s landscape These assessments document the pressing need to maintain
importance for conservation. secure connectivity habitats, ensure low levels of habitat
fragmentation, and minimize wildlife-human conflicts.
As local economic and demographic profiles shift and
the human population of the High Divide grows, chances Familiar threats to agricultural and natural resources, such as
increase that ecologically and agriculturally critical lands will residential sprawl and energy development, are now coupled
be converted to developed uses. For example, there is growing to and exacerbated by emerging new threats that result
economic pressure on ranchers and farmers in the region. from a rapidly changing climate. Climate change mitigation
Much of the private land in the High Divide is still owned and adaptation are emerging as major issues in long-term
by people who make a living in agriculture. As the ability of conservation planning and on-the-ground delivery. This
farmers and ranchers to make a living off the land declines, interaction of threats to working lands and wildlife habitats
and as the opportunity presented to them by escalating requires many agencies and conservation organizations
property values increases, more and more land is likely to be to think bigger and longer term in their planning. The
converted to other land uses. HOTR Initiative has long advocated for a large landscape
perspective—now that message is more relevant than ever.
A key component of the resource threat is population growth. Land trusts can contribute to resolving these big-ticket
Between 1990 and 2000, the population of the High Divide issues, but meaningful response argues for collaborative
region grew by 13%, although slowing to a 6% increase large-landscape thinking. Land trusts and their conservation
between 2000 and 2010. However, population growth alone partners work within an inherently long time frame. As
is an incomplete indicator of the magnitude of the subdivision alarming changes in resource conditions become ever more
and development pressure on land within the High Divide. evident, we must think about long-term outcomes in entirely
Attracted by the abundant amenity and recreational values of new ways. Permanence takes on new meaning when the very
the region, part-time residents are buying second homes at a ground beneath our feet seems to be in unpredictable flux.
rapid rate in some High Divide areas. Although these part-
timers may not be counted in local population measures, their
property purchases are driving much of the rural subdivision
and development sprawl in High Divide counties. This pattern
is uneven across the High Divide focal areas, with development
pressure more severe, for example, in the Bitterroot and Upper
Clark Fork watersheds and less so in the Jefferson.
Landscape-scale energy infrastructure developments are

a pressing threat across the High Divide. For instance, a
500kV power line is being planned to cross from Townsend,
Montana to Jerome, Idaho in the next decade. The line
is expected to impact a million acres and threaten key
resources, most notably wildlife connectivity habitats. On
the other hand, such development may generate significant
mitigation funding for conservation in the region. There is a
great likelihood that similar transmission lines will be placed
through the corridor as energy demands in the states south of
Idaho and Montana increase.
Chapter 2: Process for Identifying High-Priority
Private Land in the High Divide
I
n addition to land trust participation, The High Divide planning process
deliberately engaged diverse partners outside the land trust community. First,
a broad-based steering committee was formed to help guide the planning
process and to refine the geographic scope of the planning region. This group
helped delineate ten focal areas, based primarily on watershed boundaries (Map 3).
In some cases, watersheds were combined, based on the ways rural communities
identify their regions. The steering committee also reviewed and adapted the
conservation criteria used in the previous two plans:
Biological
• Linkage areas, migration
corridors, and other areas critical
to interconnections of large
ecosystems.
• Low elevation habitats containing
significant wetland and riparian
areas.
• Habitats containing nationally
or regionally rare or uncommon
wildlife or plant species.
Agricultural
• Landscapes containing a critical
mass of productive agricultural
lands for farming, ranching, or
timber harvest.
• Landscapes where agriculture is still a predominant use and land Big Hole workshop
conservation contributes significantly to maintaining agricultural viability. participants,
Wisdom, MT.
Photo by Donna Erickson
Community
• Landscapes in which communities are striving to conserve local open land
priorities through action and leadership.
• Landscapes of vital importance to communities for recreational access,
scenic vistas, or sense of place.
Six land trusts active in the High Divide region hosted workshops in six focal areas
(see Appendix B). The Heart of the Rockies Initiative hosted workshops for three
focal areas that lack local land trust presence—Big Hole, Beaverhead-Red Rock,
and Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby.
Map 3 Focal Areas of the High Divide Ecosystem
Although the Smith River watershed is included as a focal area at the eastern
edge of the High Divide planning region, a workshop for that focal area was
not developed in the current planning process, and high-priority private land
was not identified for that area. For the other nine focal areas, experts were
invited from watershed groups, state and federal agencies, local government, and
other conservation organizations to a series of planning workshops. This broad
engagement by a wide range of stakeholders helped ensure that the best resource
data and conservation science were used to inform conservation priorities.
The goal for each workshop was to use expert opinion to

help identify priority lands for private land conservation (see
Appendix C for more information on workshop techniques).
The outcome of each workshop was a map showing those lands
of high-priority for conservation and narrative comments on
the important biological, agricultural and community values
that drove identification of those lands. At each workshop, a
wide range of landscape-level geographic information system
(GIS) data layers were available and digitally projected for each
of the three criteria (see Appendix D).
However, the High Divide plan was intentionally not

based on a GIS modeling process. The intent was to gather
experts’ opinions about the geographic location of important
resources. Reference layers were available to view on request
by workshop participants. A suitability model composed of
several map layers for each major objective was used in a
short opening exercise to combine and weight data on the
biological, agricultural and community values of the focal area
at the watershed scale. The watershed summaries also enabled
a quick visual validation exercise at the end of the workshops,
comparing participants’ expert opinion to the GIS analysis.
Workshop participants were asked to define polygons of high resource value at a Jefferson-Boulder-
scale coarser than individual ownership parcels and finer than landscape scale. Ruby workshop
participants,
In addition, participants were asked to stay focused on intrinsic resource values Whitehall, MT.
and did not prioritize lands on the basis of particular conservation threats or Photo by Donna Erickson
opportunities.
Workshop methods were refined somewhat from the first through ninth meeting.
The first three workshops used digital resources exclusively; the last six employed
both digital data and paper maps onto which participants drew polygons of
high-value lands. In those six focal areas, separate maps were created for wildlife,
agriculture and community values. For some focal areas, follow-up meetings with
key participants were useful for refining the amounts and locations of high-priority
land. Following the workshops, participants were invited to review the resulting
maps and resource descriptions by accessing an online wiki. (See Appendix C for a
more complete description of methods used in each focal area.)
Given the difference in workshop methods, as described above, the descriptions of

resource values in each focal area varies somewhat in Chapters 3-11. For the Bitterroot
and Upper Yellowstone, resources are described geographically since workshop
participants focused on all pertinent resources within each geographic area. For
the other seven focal areas, the results are grouped by the three criteria—wildlife,
agriculture, and community, mirroring the way workshop data were collected.
Chapter 3: Bitterroot Focal Area
Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,556,383

Lost Horse Creek
The Bitterroot valley is long and narrow, and closely defined conservation Publicly owned acres:
by mountain ranges on both sides. To the west, the Selway- easement.
1,181,858
Bitterroot Mountains tower above the valley, presenting Photo ©Keith Fialcowitz
a clear barrier to east-west movement. They are heavily Privately owned acres:
forested, with steep, rocky peaks and deep canyons. To the 374,525
east, the Sapphire Range is lightly forested, drier, and lower in elevation. In addition % Private land: 24%
to the mountain ranges flanking the valley, the Bitterroot River is the dominant
natural feature in the valley, connecting towns and villages along its course. The Acres under conservation
valley is bisected by Highway 93, routed north-south through the center of the easements: 31,790
valley near the river. Acreage of private land with
high value for conservation:
The towns of the Bitterroot valley are strung along the valley, north to south,
182,578
including Florence, Stevensville, Victor, Corvallis, Hamilton, and Darby. Hamilton,
the county seat, is the largest with a population over 15,000 in 2008. % Private land with high
value for conservation: 49%
The Bitterroot National Forest surrounds the valley on three sides, closing in upon
the narrowing valley at the southern end. The Continental Divide is the southern 10-year conservation goal:
terminus, at over 7200 feet, where Highway 93 crosses Chief Joseph Pass into Idaho. 30,000 acres
Very near the divide, Lost Trail Pass provides a route into the Big Hole valley. Land conservation partners:
Bitter Root Land Trust
To the north, the Bitterroot valley opens out to the Missoula valley, where the
Five Valleys Land Trust
Bitterroot River joins the Clark Fork River. This northern area is flatter and more Vital Ground Foundation
open, one of the oldest continually settled areas of Montana. Historically, small Montana Land Reliance
truck farms, dairies, and orchards dot the landscape. For HOTR purposes, the very Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
northern part of the Bitterroot valley, around Lolo, is included in the Crown of the
Continent/Idaho Panhandle plan. The entire focal area falls within Ravalli County.
Kootenai, Nez Perce, Salish and other Native American tribes traveled through and
occupied the Bitterroot valley. The valley is part of the trail taken by the non-treaty
Nez Perce during the Nez Perce War of 1877. The valley was also on the route of the
Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1805-06.
Summary of Bitterroot Resources space. The proximity to Missoula, which facilitates easy
The Bitterroot has some of the best agricultural values in commutes, drives much of the development pressure.
western Montana, with high quality soils and a good growing
Only 22% of the Bitterroot valley is in private ownership.
climate. It is traditional cattle ranching country, in addition
The valley is unique in that many small parcels, the ‘orchard
to the historic truck farming and orchard uses. However, the
tracts,’ were divided early in the twentieth century. The Big
valley has one of the fastest growing human populations in
Ditch, a 60-mile long irrigation canal from Lake Como
Montana, particularly accelerating over the last two decades.
brought water from the southern end of the valley to Florence
Agricultural land shrunk from 257,000 acres in the early
in the north. Ten acre lots were sold by the Bitterroot Valley
1980s to 216,000 acres in the early 2000s; if that pattern
Irrigation Company for apple orchards. Although large
continues, another 40,000 acres will be lost by 2020.3
parts of the valley are fragmented, there remain many intact
Irrigation systems are an integral part of the agricultural resources and important landscapes. Public support for land
system; about 170,000 acres are irrigated. Delivery of irrigation protection is clearly gaining momentum in the valley. In
water is critical: the uniqueness of the landscape is dependent 2006, Ravalli County voters approved a $10 million bond for
on water. Access to summer range on public land is also retaining farms and ranches, providing financial incentives
important for some ranches, particularly in the southern part for landowners to conserve their land.
of the valley. Open ranch land adjacent to national forest land
Montana Department of Transportation (DOT) has installed
is often beneficial for public land resources.
41 new wildlife crossings as it has reconstructed Highway
Wildlife diversity is also striking, including big horn sheep, 93. They are located in a 40 mile stretch between Florence
moose, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and Hamilton. They range from small pipes to larger
mountain lion, game birds, migratory waterfowl, black bear, culverts and bridges; many include wing fencing to guide
and bobcat. Bald eagle and bighorn sheep are found in the animals. An environmental impact statement done in the
southern end of the valley. Two-thirds of the focal area’s mule mid-90s showed that the second biggest issue in the 93’s
deer and elk winter range is found on private land. Agency safety is vehicle-wildlife collisions. Development pressure is
biologists estimate that 15-25 wildlife species are in decline. intense along this main artery through the valley. For these
The Bitterroot River bottomland is designated as an Audubon crossings to be effective, the private land near them needs
Important Bird Area. to provide functional wildlife connectivity habitat, so this
is an important context for future land conservation in this
The riparian resources in the floodplain of the Bitterroot focal area. A new research project will evaluate the use of the
River are critical. Bitterroot River tributaries support crossings and the impact on reducing collisions. Because the
important bull trout and westslope cutthroat fisheries. Dozens threat of development is high and effective land-use planning
of creeks flow from the east and west into the river. Of those, is absent, DOT is interested in protecting lands adjacent to
several have been identified as intact and in good system the wildlife corridor mitigation structures.
health for native fish species, particularly in the southern end
of the valley. Every creek bottom is a high priority, but some
higher than others.
Conservation Partners
Land trusts active in the Bitterroot valley include Bitter Root
Land Trust (BRLT), Five Valleys Land Trust (FVLT), Montana
Context of Land Conservation Land Reliance (MLR), and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Bitterroot valley farms are rapidly being developed into (RMEF). Vital Ground Foundation is also interested in the
housing subdivisions; growth has been so rampant over the Bitterroot for its potential as grizzly bear habitat. BRLT is
past forty years that many residents complain of the congestion active in the valley, helped pass the open-space bond measure,
they hoped to leave behind in moving to the Bitterroot. and is the community’s primary local land trust. FVLT has a
Development patterns in the Bitterroot Valley are the result long history of conservation work in the Bitterroot valley and
of exurban development and hands-off local government. maintains many strong relationships throughout the valley.
Ravalli County lacks a comprehensive county plan or land-use Through landowner foresight and the land trusts’ activity,
regulations in unincorporated parts of the county. Therefore, nearly 10% of private land is in conservation easements,
conservation easements and fee purchases are the only mostly east of the Bitterroot River. Several large blocks of
tools presently available to conserve high-value lands in the conserved land are located at the eastern edge of the valley
Bitterroot Valley. Lacking land-use controls, development in adjacent to public land.
some areas has critically impacted working land and open
3 Larry Swanson, 2006.
There is much more conservation need in the valley, and HOTR Mapping
many good opportunities. According to a 2007 U.S. Forest The Heart of the Rockies Initiative convened 25 key
Service (USFS) report, development in the Bitterroot valley community members from organizations, agencies, and
is threatening resources in the adjacent Bitterroot National local businesses on October 29, 2008 to a gathering hosted
Forest. USFS ranked national forests according to threats by BRLT. Using the GIS layers available from GeoData
posed by adjacent land uses. “The Bitterroot National Forest Services, and the layers available from the Ravalli County
in Idaho and Montana ranks highest in the nation, with Land Suitability Analysis as reference, participants mapped
projected housing density increases occurring on 42 % of the high value lands for private land conservation, focusing
the private lands within 10 miles of the forest boundary.” 4 primarily on agricultural and wildlife values. In that meeting,
This is, of course, only one measure of development pressure almost all of the private land was shown as important for one
in the Bitterroot, but causes major concern. Residential or more values. Subsequently, HOTR convened five of the
development at the wildland interface is a major issue for participants in order to focus more closely and narrow the
wildfire managers in this landscape. amount of land identified as high-priority. These participants
mainly used the following criteria in their analysis:
A land suitability analysis was completed in 2008 as a
tool to assess development suitability based on existing • Fish habitat quality
infrastructure, water resources, wildlife, working lands, open
• Wildlife corridors
lands, and public health and safety.5 In addition, a Bitterroot
River Sub-basin Plan was completed in 2009, particularly • Parcel size
focused on riparian resources.6 • Proximity to protected land
Agricultural landowners, operators, and agricultural • Agricultural soils and irrigation

organizations are critical partners. The Ravalli County Right • Open, un-built land
to Farm and Ranch Board has played an important role in • River and stream corridors
raising awareness
about the loss
of farmland and
was instrumental
in passing the
$10 million
bond initiative.
Agricultural
enterprise
generates over $30
million annually
in the Bitterroot
Valley7, and
the agricultural
heritage of the
valley provides
a significant
sense of identity
for Bitterroot
residents. Hunting
and angling groups are also potentially The resulting map depicted over 180,000 acres as high
important partners. Hunting alone Salkaho confluence value for conservation (Map 4). The valley contains some of
brought $11.3 million to Ravalli County property western Montana’s most productive soils. Of the focal area’s
Photo by Robin Pruitt
in 2006. total acreage (public and private) almost 7% is important
agricultural land, including land irrigated from high lakes,
and the dry land farming and grazing on the benches.
Riparian and wetland resources are also critical.
4 U.S. Forest Service, 2007.

5 Ravalli County Planning Department, June 2008.
6 The Montana Water Trust, et al., 2009.
7 Larry Swanson, 2006.
Map 4 Bitterroot Focal Area
Although high-priority parcels are spread throughout West Fork
the valley, the landscapes with the highest priority for The flood plain through the West Fork of the Bitterroot River
conservation are clustered in a zone between Florence and is very narrow. The discussion of this area focused primarily
Victor. In this region, high priority lands are located in large on biological values. While ownership in this area is already
blocks west of the Bitterroot River and in more fragmented fractured, there are opportunities for conservation impact,
parcels east of the river and extending up onto the benches, including some small but critical parcels. Wildlife resources
where irrigation from the Big Ditch is critical. This high- include elk winter range (not extensive herds, but critical),
priority zone, in addition to its strong agricultural value, is very important moose habitat, and beaver dam complexes.
one of the only east-west connections for wildlife traveling There are extensive wetlands on private land. In addition,
between the Bitterroot and Sapphire Ranges. In this region, it the Nez Perce Fork is one of the most highly used spawning
is also possible to build on the large conservation easements tributaries for riverine westslope cutthroat trout, so is a high
already in place. The other two main wildlife connectivity priority for fishery values.
zones are the East Fork of the Bitterroot River and the
Skalkaho/Sleeping Child to Lost Horse region.
East Darby
Resource lands around Darby and Conner are primarily east
of the river. Discussion focused on biological and agricultural
Important Resources, by Areas of Interest
values for this area, but also touched on open space values
East Fork and quality of life. This is a particularly aesthetically pleasing
The land along the East Fork of the Bitterroot River near Sula part of the valley. In addition, it is good agricultural land,
is dominated by a few large cow-calf operations. Participants motivating land trusts to work on conservation easements.
compared this area to the Big Hole valley, in terms of its Participants report a number of conservation-minded
traditional use, old-west ranching values, high elevation landowners. Big game species winter on the ranches,
landscapes, and scenic quality. It is the most undeveloped sometimes with as many as 500-600 head of elk found here
landscape in the focal area. The discussion focused on in winter. Wildlife maps and models show a major wildlife
agricultural values, including the need for access to summer crossing at the south end of the valley. According to fisheries
range on public lands. Conservation in this region is a high experts, Rye Creek supports a pure strain of westslope
priority for the Bitterroot National Forest and participants cutthroat and a migratory spawning run of riverine westslope
report that ranchers are interested in protecting parts of cutthroat. Due to a variety of human impacts, the Rye Creek
the East Fork from development; there is a good possibility drainage has significant restoration potential.
for housing development in this area in the future; every
year more land is for sale and a few more houses are built.
Montana Department of Transportation invested significant
amounts of public dollars toward stream restoration on Camp
Creek and purchased 80 acres that is now in state ownership.
In addition, stream restoration was completed on Camp
Creek on private property with public dollars: it is important
that these investments be protected.
The East Fork is also extremely critical from a wildlife habitat

and water resources standpoint. Participants ranked this
valley the highest priority for wildlife habitat conservation
in the Bitterroot watershed, and stressed that agricultural
land use helps keep wildlife habitat intact. This is a cohesive
landscape, providing an important wildlife corridor between
the Big Hole with the Salmon-Selway wilderness complex.
Wildlife resources include bighorn sheep, bald eagle, black- West Darby
Lost Horse Creek
backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and other species. The valley bottom west and north of conservation
The area is a critical fishery for struggling fluvial bull trout, Darby is important for both agricultural easement.
which spawn in the upper tributaries. Well managed working and wildlife values. Much of it is Photo ©Keith Fialcowitz
ranches help provide filters for fish habitat. irrigated from high lakes and the
agriculture on the benches is at 3800-4000 feet. The region is
popular with absentee owners and people seeking small farms
and ranchettes. Ranches in this zone are increasingly listed
for sale, and participants reported that some may be receptive Skalkaho Creek supports a very robust
to conservation options. A citizen-initiated zoning district bull and westslope cutthroat population Salkaho confluence
property
has been put into effect in the lower reaches of the Lost Horse on the Bitterroot National Forest. Photo by Robin Pruitt
Creek drainage. In addition to agricultural value, the area is Development in the lower reaches
significant for wildlife connectivity, particularly the narrow (homes close to stream) is causing rip-
portion of private land between Lost Horse and Rock Creeks rap and stream alteration pressures. Skalkaho Creek through
and the east side of the valley. Moreover, Lost Horse and Tin private land is an important migratory pathway for riverine
Cup Creeks support migratory spawning runs of riverine westslope cutthroat.
westslope cutthroat trout.
Roaring Lion and Sawtooth Creeks

Skalkaho Creek This small Area of Interest lies west of the Bitterroot River
Biologists report that Skalkaho Creek, a large Area of Interest near Hamilton and Grantsdale. Its northern and southern
on the east side of the river is particularly important for its boundaries have experienced significant development. The core
biological values. In addition to Skalkaho Creek, it includes habitat is remarkably intact given the proximity to town and the
parts of Sleeping Child and Little Sleeping Child Creeks. development pressure. There is abundant wildlife habitat, high
Deer, elk, mountain lion and other species use the area. This value agricultural land, and relatively few landowners.
is one of the most productive areas for big game winter range
in the entire valley.
Upper Willow Creek
There are several large ranches (by Bitterroot Valley This area has important agricultural values, with good soils,
standards) that include significant areas of winter range and intact irrigation infrastructure, and contiguous agricultural
Skalkaho Creek. Protecting just a few critical properties operations, together making this another critical area for
in this area could have significant long-term conservation agricultural protection.
effects. Although there is local movement across Highway
93 to agricultural fields, there is no real migration corridor
from summer to winter range as habitat areas are isolated by
development. There are good-sized ranches, some irrigated
land, and mostly grasslands and summer range.
Willow Creek masses. Every creek bottom in this region is high priority. For
The Willow Creek area is a long Area of Interest in the valley instance, Blodgett and Big Creeks through private ground
bottom adjacent to the east side of the Bitterroot River, are important for spawning migration pathways for riverine
extending between Stevensville and Corvallis. It has the best westslope cutthroat. Nine new bridges between Florence
agricultural land in the Bitterroot valley, and is the easiest and Hamilton are equipped for wildlife movement and the
land for building houses. This region, south of Stevensville, land near them is highly valued for conservation. Aside from
has dramatic development pressure and more exurban fisheries values, the housing density here precludes high
subdivisions than any place in the valley. wildlife value. In some places, irrigated land and forest values
create conservation opportunities near Victor.
Agricultural values are predominant; participants ranked
it the highest in the Bitterroot watershed for agricultural
Upper Hughes Creek & Deer Creek
resources. This region is actively farmed, primarily by
Two small polygons were added in the West Fork area at the
longtime ranching families. The irrigation infrastructure is
very southern end of the valley, primarily for their wetland
still intact and the best soils in the valley are found here. Water
and riparian values. Painted Rocks Reservoir supports what
from Lake Como is provided to the Big Ditch for irrigating
is probably the densest migratory bull trout population in the
this landscape. Sprinkler irrigation is used and produces 5-7
Bitterroot. Some of those fish migrate into Slate Creek which
tons per acre of perennial grass hay, where 1-3 tons would
is on the Bitterroot National Forest. The West Fork Bitterroot
otherwise be possible. However, if the irrigation stops, the
and tributaries such as Overwhich and Hughes Creek could
area will revert to sagebrush flats. Protection of these lands
be used by migratory bull and westslope cutthroat trout.
provides the best opportunity for continued agriculture in
the Bitterroot, spurring urgency to conservation easement
transactions in this area. There is a movement to regulate Bitterroot River Floodplain and Stream Buffers
ditch set-backs for development, although stream set-backs Participants chose to create one contiguous Area of Interest
tend to be unsupported in the Bitterroot. along the Bitterroot River. Several of the other Area of
Interests border the river but it makes sense to discuss the river
separately. Any of the Bitterroot River bottomland that is not
North Fork Burnt Creek, Three Mile Creek, and North within the 100 year floodplain is valuable to protect from home
Stevensville site development. A 200 meter buffer was created along the
The discussion of this area focused primarily on biological
most important creeks, based on native fish migration, lack of
and community values, including the protection of both intact
de-watering, and fewer houses (although some of the heavily
ecosystems and important visual resources. Participants placed
built-out tributaries have native fish and some that are unbuilt
value on the historic sites adjacent to the East Side highway.
are lacking fish). The Bitterroot Subbasin Plan was used to help
Wildlife resources include migratory waterfowl, black bear,
identify the most important streams, particularly for bull trout
mountain lions, moose and bobcats. The grasslands provide
and migratory spawning native westslope cutthroat.
big game winter range. Along the river bottom and breaks
there are thousands of white tailed deer, turkey, pheasants, and
quail. McCalla Creek hosts a year-round elk herd and this is a
Prioritization of Area of Interests
hot spot for highway wildlife mortality. New bridges with game
Participants at the Bitterroot Focal Area meeting were asked
underpasses are now in place at McCalla, North Kootenai, and
to rank the high-value areas from 1 (highest) to 12 (lowest)
South Kootenai Creeks.
for agricultural and wildlife values (see Technical Appendix).
Agricultural enterprises here rely on irrigation water from Not all participants turned in a ranking sheet. The areas with
high lakes. There is abundant contiguous open space and the highest priority for agricultural values were, in ranked
generations of landowners committed to this landscape. order, Willow Creek, East Fork, West Fork, and East Darby.
The area outside the floodplain is a working agricultural For wildlife values, the following were ranked first through
landscape. The Burnt Fork area is remarkably intact. Three fourth: East Fork, Skalkaho Creek, West Darby, and North
Mile Creek and Eight Mile Creek in the northeast corner of Stevensville.
the county are undeveloped at the upper reaches.
West Victor
Four discreet polygons of high-value private land were
depicted on the west side of the mid-valley near Victor. This
area has a lot of development, but also some large intact land
Chapter 4: Upper Clark Fork Focal Area
Geographic and Historic Setting Total Acres: 2,365,196

The Upper Clark Fork (UCF) focal area includes the Flint Upper Rock Creek
Valley Publicly owned acres:
Creek, Philipsburg, Deer Lodge, Little Blackfoot, Rock Creek, Photo by Paul Lebel 1,237,954
and Anaconda valleys and is bisected along its northern and
eastern sides by Interstate 90 (Map 5). Encompassing over 2.3 Privately owned acres:
million acres, the UCF lies within parts of five Montana counties—Granite, Powell, 1,127,243
Deer Lodge, Silverbow, and Missoula. % Private land: 48%
The UCF’s ring of valleys is framed by mountain ranges—the Sapphires and John Acres under conservation
Longs on the west, Boulder Batholith on the east and the Flint Creek Range in the easements: 71,924
middle, as shown on Map 5. In addition to the Clark Fork River, originating in the
Acreage of private land with
mountains near Butte, three tributaries help shape the focal area—Rock Creek,
Flint Creek and the Little Blackfoot River. 626,663
The Upper Clark Fork is an area of strong local towns, scenic valleys, and critical % Private and with high value
natural resource values. The focal area is flavored by its strong, viable ranching for conservation: 55%
community and diverse recreational amenities. For example the views along Rock
Creek road, Scenic Highway 1, and Highway 12 along the Little Blackfoot River 10-year conservation goal:
90,000 acres
are of particular scenic importance. Recreational values are significant in the Rock
Creek drainage, at the upper part of the watershed near Butte, around Georgetown Land conservation partners:
Lake, and near Discovery Ski Area. Hall, Drummond, Deer Lodge, and Philipsburg Five Valleys Land Trust
are ranching communities with distinct traditional values. Prickly Pear Land Trust
Montana Land Reliance
Decades of mining activity in and around Butte and Anaconda deposited vast Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
amounts of hazardous substances into the Upper Clark Fork River watershed Clark Fork Coalition
between Butte and Milltown, extensively degrading the area’s natural resources. Watershed Restoration Coalition
Map 5 Upper Clark Fork Focal Area
In addition to damming and mining pollution, water issues
include stream dewatering and flow, sedimentation, and
nutrient build-up.
Summary of Upper Clark Fork Resources

Of the over 2.3 million acres in this focal area, over a million
are privately owned (48%), primarily in lower elevations. The
UCF’s native grasslands are important and unique, but not
well mapped. They provide prime habitat for big game range
and for a myriad of non-game species. Low-lying wetlands
also provide important habitat for numerous species,
including big game, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The UCF
is also critical for landscape connectivity: its large ranches are
particularly crucial for maintaining these linkages.
We do not have a complete picture of wildlife presence,

needs, and threats in the Upper Clark Fork focal area. Most
of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Park’s (FWP) wildlife survey
data focus on big game. Important species include bighorn
sheep, moose, antelope, mule deer, and elk. (Mountain goats
are found in the UCF, but do not rely on private land, but
rather reside in the high country of the Flint and Anaconda
Pintler ranges). Twenty percent of the state’s bighorn sheep
population resides in the UCF in four herds: 1) Anaconda
herd (established through introduction); 2) Lower Rock Creek
herd (mixture of native and introduced); 3) Garrison herd
(small and self-established); and 4) Upper Rock Creek herd.
Moose use private lands heavily, primarily along waterways. Ranch land in the Deerlodge Valley.
The Upper Clark Fork is the only place in western Montana Photo by Paul Lebel
with a sustainable antelope population, with herds near
Deer Lodge, and increasingly around Drummond, Hall, and
landscape changes in the Little Blackfoot valley in the northeast
Garrison. Antelope winter range is located on private land
corner of the UCF. Expanded tourism in the Philipsburg and
and some animals use private lands in the summer as well.
Georgetown Lakes area could also have lasting impacts. The
About 8000 mule deer use the Upper Clark Fork and hunting
difficulty of profitable agriculture in western Montana is one of
is managed in two limited districts. FWP is trying to build a
the biggest threats to the intact landscapes of the UCF.
stable population in the region, where mule deer winter on
those private lands with intact grassland ecosystems. Funding to address resource degradation caused by mining
in the Upper Clark Fork Basin is now available through the
The UCF is nationally significant for elk habitat, with most
Natural Resource Damage Program (NRD). NRD was created
elk wintering on private lands. FWP counted over 6000
in 1990 to prepare the state’s lawsuit against the Atlantic
head of elk in a winter 2007 survey and estimate that over
Richfield Company for injuries to the natural resources in the
8000 may winter in the UCF. For example, about 800 head
Upper Clark Fork River Basin. Mining waste impacted the
winter on private land in the Antelope Range. Grasslands,
water, soils, fish and wildlife of the basin. The lawsuit was to
and therefore agricultural enterprises, are important for
recover damages for the restoration of those natural resources
supporting elk populations.
and the public’s lost use and enjoyment of resources.
Following settlement of that case, up to $20 million may be
available for restoration in the Upper Clark Fork.
Context of Land Conservation
Some private land in the Upper Clark Fork is under heavy The NRD developed a prioritization process to communicate
development pressure, especially along the Interstate 90 where opportunities for fishery habitat protection and
corridor and in the western valleys close to Missoula. In enhancement activities should be pursued in the UCF basin.8
addition, Helena’s growth could potentially cause significant Tributaries of the Clark Fork River were mapped, showing
8 Montana Fish, May 2010.
where the following goals could be Conservation Partners
achieved: 1) restore the mainstream Ranch land in Five Valleys Land Trust (FVLT) is the main land trust
the lower Flint
fishery by improving recruitment Creek Valley. operating in the Upper Clark Fork; this watershed is one of
of trout from tributaries; 2) replace Photo by Paul Lebel five focal areas in the FVLT service area. Other organizations
lost trout angling in the mainstem working in the focal area include Prickly Pear Land
by improving trout populations and fishing opportunities Trust, Montana Land Reliance, and Rocky Mountain Elk
in tributaries; and 3) maintain or improve native fish Foundation. FVLT works with a number of conservation
populations in the basin to preserve rare and diverse gene partners in this region, including Montana Fish, Wildlife
pools, maintain or improve ecological function, and improve and Parks, Watershed Restoration Coalition, Clark Fork
the diversity and resiliency of the trout fishery. Coalition, and Granite Headwaters. FWP is particularly active
in the UCF, due in part to the restoration potentials possible
The potentials for environmental improvement in this focal
through NRD funding. It holds easements in the watershed
area are attracting considerable local, state, and even national
and recently acquired 22,000 acres of critical habitat in the
attention. At the same time, it is possible that successful
Spotted Dog area.
reclamation along the Clark Fork River will increase the
desirability of these valleys for housing: some current The Rock Creek area on the western side of the UCF has
residents have reported that they worry about restoration long been a priority area for FVLT, which completed a
bringing more development and/or land speculation. So the conservation plan for that watershed in 2005. That plan
restoration of the UCF region may be both a threat and an focused on the following conservation targets: native fisheries
opportunity for land conservation, making it all the more and water quality; large ranchlands; high quality and/or
important that conservation be a priority as the restoration limited big game habitat; proximity to protected land; and
work unfolds. degraded stream corridors that contribute to whirling disease.
The top-ranked private land parcels are delineated in the
Rock Creek plan.
Nearly 72,000 acres are under conservation easements in Several other areas were identified for their wildlife resources.
the UCF, located mainly in the upper Rock Creek, near I-90 For instance, Homestake Pass is often overlooked as an
between Drummond and Deer Lodge, and near the Clark important wildlife area. Silver Bow to Blacktail Creek is an
Fork River in the downstream section toward Missoula. important area, but has not been a focus for land protection
activity in the past. The private lands just west of Georgetown
Lake are very important for animal movement, as are lands
HOTR Mapping between Skalkaho and Anaconda. The mouth of Rock Creek
FVLT hosted a workshop in Philipsburg on February 2, and an area east of that confluence has been identified as an
2009, bringing together 19 partners from agencies and important connectivity zone by American Wildlands.
organizations. Using the GIS layers available from GeoData
The riparian zone will be a strong focus in the NRD funding
Services, participants mapped the high-value land for private
for restoration. Streams with native bull trout were identified,
land conservation. In that meeting, over half of the private
with Rock Creek and Upper Willow Creek being particular
land (534,570 acres) was shown as important for one or more
strongholds. The whole Little Blackfoot watershed is also a
values. Subsequently, FVLT refined this map, resulting in
priority area. This stream is important for cutthroats and gets
626,663 acres shown as high priority (Map 5).
a lot of angler use, especially for brown trout. The entire Clark
Participants in the UCF workshop used the lens of the three Fork River is rated highly for recreational use, as are Rock
overarching criteria—wildlife, agriculture, and community— Creek, Flint Creek and the Little Blackfoot.
for defining high-priority land for conservation, while
realizing that there is a good bit of overlap across criteria. For
Agriculture and Community
instance, agriculture and community values were particularly
Seven areas were identified in the Upper Clark Fork for their
difficult to separate, where traditional ranches are anchors of
important agricultural values. They revolve primarily around
both agriculture and community value.
Drummond, Philipsburg and Deer Lodge:
• Gold Creek area

Wildlife
Workshop participants identified seven main areas important • Flint Creek valley
for wildlife habitat. By far the largest, the entire combined • Philipsburg valley
Flint Creek and Philipsburg Valleys were highlighted. The • Little Blackfoot valley
conservation of grasslands on private ranches in this area is of
• Deer Lodge valley
great importance for the winter ranges of multiple species. In
addition, most of the higher grasslands provide connectivity • Upper Rock Creek valley
to surrounding public land, making important connections • Corridor from Opportunity to Butte
between summer and winter ranges. For example, the
Antelope Hills, almost entirely in private hands, are critical Workshop participants stressed that historic ranches are
for elk and deer. important in the UCF for strong economic and community
One goal is to buffer public lands with protected winter range. values. They grappled with a difficult challenge in the
For instance, the John Long Range is a critical region for UCF—what types of agriculture are we most interested in
connectivity. In addition to the uplands, the bottomlands of protecting? For example, the case was made that all of the
these valleys are useful for many species; therefore, all of the important soils in the Lower Flint Creek region should be
private land in the UCF’s western valleys is included in this considered of high value. But are the lower, bottom lands
analysis. with traditional ranch settlements the highest priority, or
rather is the higher grazing ground, with important benefits
The Spotted Dog area is a triangle of land between Garrison, for wildlife, more important? In the end, the workshop
Avon and Deer Lodge, and is a primary connector, facilitating participants made persuasive cases for including both land
north-south movement along the continental divide types in the map of high-value private land. FVLT has
(evidenced by diverse wildlife highway mortalities in the subsequently produced a strategic land conservation plan
area). It is comprised of large land holdings, important for elk that identifies, at a far more specific scale, the lands that are of
and for large-scale ranching. most importance to that organization.
Intact ranching landscapes are paramount in the UCF. The
Deer Lodge Valley is a good example. A study there asked
residents what they want the area to be like in 50 years.
Everyone came together to voice the desire for a working,
agricultural landscape to remain; people in both the east
and west sides of the Deer Lodge Valley are committed to
agriculture for the long term. Most of this land is irrigated hay
ground, except the southern end where ranchers can grow
small grains.
Reconstruction of the Flint Creek Siphon is another indicator

of agricultural commitment in the UCF. Since 1938 the
pipeline has brought water from a reservoir on the East Fork
Reservoir in the
of Rock Creek to the Philipsburg valley for irrigation. The Garnet Mountains.
reconstruction was completed in 2008, with some of the cost Photo by Paul Lebel
borne by 50-60 agricultural water users.
Chapter 5: Upper Yellowstone Focal Area

A high meadow
The Upper Yellowstone focal area in south central Montana in the Crazy Publicly owned acres: 243,894
includes the portions of the Upper Yellowstone and Shields Mountains.
River watersheds that were not included in HOTR’s Greater Photo by Gallatin Valley Privately owned acres:
Land Trust 1,019,113
Yellowstone Ecosystem plan. The southern part of the Crazy
Mountains separates the Shields River Valley from the Sweet % Private land: 81%
Grass region north of Big Timber.
Acres under conservation
The Yellowstone River flows east through the southern third of the focal area, easements: 97,171
paralleled by Interstate 90. Political jurisdictions include Park and Sweet Grass
Counties. The town of Big Timber is adjacent to I-90; Clyde Park and Wilsall are on
highway 89 in the Shields River valley. All three towns are anchors for the strong
435,154
traditional ranching culture found throughout this focal area.
% Private land with high
The Crazy Mountains rise to over 11,000 feet above the Yellowstone River Valley value for conservation: 43%
northwest of Big Timber, with vertical peaks, sawtooth ridges, and lush alpine
meadows. They cover over 136,000 acres, part of the Gallatin and Lewis & Clark 10-year conservation goal:
national forests. The Shields watershed west of the Crazies covers 543 square miles, 25,000 acres
most of it in private ownership, and ranging from just over 4000 feet to over 11,000 Land conservation partners:
feet in the Crazies. Rangeland is the main land use, although forest, pasture, and Gallatin Valley Land Trust
hay ground is also important. Montana Land Reliance
The Boulder River originates in the Absoraka/Beartooth Wilderness Area at a

elevation of 8,800 feet just south of Big Timber, where it flows north in the Boulder
River Valley. It divides the Absaroka and Beartooth Mountain Ranges. Three forks
of the Boulder River converge near McLeod and flow another 20 miles to the
Yellowstone River at Big Timber.
Summary of Resources Context of Land Conservation
The Crazy Mountains create a special Montana landscape. The Upper Yellowstone is ripe for more conservation activity,
Resource protection, however, is complicated by the but land conservation in this area is complicated by the
checkerboard pattern of land ownership, with many private amount of oil and gas exploration in the region. Much of the
sections alternating with federal ownership. Several efforts land north of Big Timber in Sweet Grass County has been
at legal protection for the remaining wild areas of the Crazy leased for oil and gas drilling. Given the high winds in the Big
Mountains have been attempted in the past, including Timber area, the impact of wind farms will also be a factor in
wilderness designation. Forty alpine lakes dot the Crazies, open land conservation discussions.
with major drainages flowing into Sweet Grass Creek, Big
Ownership changes have the possibility to dramatically affect
Timber Creek, Shields River, Rock Creek, and Cottonwood
land conservation opportunities and challenges in the Upper
Creek. The mountains are home to mountain goats, eagles,
Yellowstone. Old ranches are being purchased in this area,
elk, deer, black bear, and mountain lion. In addition, the
many of them by absentee landowners. The relationships built
Crazies provide part of the habitat needs for resident
between traditional ranch families and newer landowners
wolverines. Wolves are a topic of considerable debate in
will be critical. Some newer landowners lease land to working
the Upper Yellowstone, where predation on livestock is an
ranches, although many ‘lock up’ their land for wildlife
increasing problem, for instance in the Boulder valley.
protection. The workshop participants did not focus on prime
However, the Crazy Mountains are an island in a larger matrix agricultural land as the main priority, but instead talked
of private ranch land. The potential for connectivity from the about not wanting to lose large, intact agricultural landscapes.
Crazies to other blocks of public land, primarily the Absarokas, What is needed is both the sustainability of ranching and the
depends on successful conservation of private land, most maintenance of diverse habitat, both in the uplands and lower
elevations. For instance, the
participants hypothesized
that agriculture is significant
in lowering wildfire
suppression costs.
Conservation Partners
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
(GVLT) is the main local
land trust for the Upper
Yellowstone and Shields
River Valleys, although the
region is at the edge of the
GVLT service area (the
heart of the service area is
Gallatin County). GVLT is
particularly interested in
of which is still intact and functional. conserving connectivity between the Bridger and Gallatin
Most forest areas near the Crazies are in Shields Valley Mountains and the Little Belts: the habitats of the Crazies
pastures with the
grazing allotments, so the connectivity Crazy Mountains in help provide that connection. The Montana Land Reliance
from public to private land is enhanced the background. also holds numerous conservation easements throughout the
and ranchers’ management of the Photo by Gallatin Valley Upper Yellowstone and Shields River Valleys. Other partners
Land Trust
allotments becomes critically important. include the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Trout Unlimited,
and active watershed groups. Trout Unlimited is engaged
The Upper Yellowstone region is rich in historic, scenic, and
in watershed-based stream restoration and is particularly
cultural resources. There are numerous buffalo jumps used by
concerned about de-watering in the Shields River.
Native Americans, whose hunting routes crossed the Shields
River. The Anzick Archeological site near Wilsall, dating to The Park County Conservation District has helped form
11,500 years ago, is known for being one of the largest caches citizen-based watershed groups, including the Upper Shield’s
of Clovis-age artifacts and human burials in North America. Watershed Association, formed in 1997, and the Upper
Yellowstone Watershed Basin in 2004. These groups work on
stream restoration and landowner outreach. In Sweet Grass
County, the Boulder River Watershed Association fosters West Side of Crazy Mountains
collaboration between the agricultural community, mining The private land that borders the southern end of the Crazy
interests, the conservation district, and environmental groups Mountains is primarily owned by just three families. This area
interested in the integrity of the Boulder River. is a unique ecotone between open grasslands and timbered
benches toward the mountains. It has high-elevation
The U.S. Forest Service is focusing on getting information out
meadows that provide habitat for many wildlife species.
to landowners about private land conservation in the Upper
Yellowstone region. It is actively working on land purchases,
exchanges, and conservation easements, and starting to Upper Shields River Valley
identify priority lands for conservation, including lands There are greater conservation values in the upper Shields
adjacent to or near national forest land. River Valley than in the lower part. The emphasis here is on
agriculture, and features old, established ranches. Workshop
Conservation easements are in place on over 97,000 acres in
participants stressed the danger of losing something very
the Upper Yellowstone. The largest blocks include agricultural
special if this area is not protected for its historic agricultural
lands both north of Big Timber and southwest of Big Timber
land use. Biological values include intact cottonwood gallery
in the Boulder River valley. There is little acreage under
forests along the river and extensive elk winter range. Cultural
easement in the Shields Valley.
values include important archeological sites near Wilsall.
HOTR Mapping Workshop Lower Shields River Valley

Gallatin Valley Land Trust hosted a workshop to discuss The area between Clyde Park and Wilsall is already largely
private land resources on March 24, 2009. Representatives developed and there is some concern about keeping future
attended from U.S. Forest Service, Extension Service, MT subdivisions away from streams. However, it is important
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Natural to connect resources, to the extent possible, along the entire
Resources Conservation Service, Montana Land Reliance, Shields River Valley. This area includes the lower reaches of
Park County, Sweet Grass County, and other organizations Duck Creek and Rock Creek, which originate in the Crazies.
and agencies. Map 6 shows the distribution of high-value It has large ranches and is prime agricultural land. It has
private land across the focal area, totaling 435,154 acres stands of pubescent wheat grass, planted for rangeland uses,
which provide nesting cover for upland birds, including
sharp-tailed grouse and Hungarian partridges.
Headwaters of Shields River
This area is one of the only areas without impaired water
quality in the Shields watershed. It is bordered to the north Willow Creek
and east by national forest land and is important for its key A small area in the far southwest of the focal area borders
agricultural ground, beautiful views, and wildlife habitat. Elk national forest land to the west. In addition to Indian
are sparse, but these headwaters provide habitat for moose, hunting routes, as documented in other parts of the Upper
eagles, sandhill cranes, and upland game birds. The Shields Yellowstone, this land has other conservation values,
River is also habitat for the imperiled Yellowstone cutthroat including elk range. This area is largely in a single ownership.
trout. It has abundant aspen groves, a species that has largely
disappeared from many western landscapes. Workshop
Crazy Mountains
participants voiced a concern for identifying and protecting
The Crazy Mountains are sacred Crow Indian grounds.
these areas. In addition, this polygon has only about five
It is one of Montana’s most important pristine mountain
landowners, several of whom are working on conservation
landscapes. Workshop participants placed a high priority
projects with GVLT.
on protecting private in-holdings in this region. The
checkerboard private lands, used for livestock grazing, have
Porcupine and Meadow Creeks largely kept this landscape intact. Particularly on the east
Just south of the Shields River headwaters area, Porcupine side, the land is held by only a couple of traditional ranching
and Meadow Creeks hold significant wetland and riparian families. On the west side, there are fewer private blocks, but
values, with many raptors using the area. This is part of the there are more landowners, many of them absentee, and a
early aboriginal hunting route that has been documented higher risk to development.
from 12-13,000 years ago.
Map 6 Upper Yellowstone Focal Area
Corridor from the Absaroka Mountains to the Crazy lighter gravelly soils than what is found north of the river, and
Mountains has small areas of irrigated agriculture along the creeks. Large
An important corridor is intact from the northern edge of the wildfires burned through the area in 2006. Wildlife species
Absaroka Mountains to the southern end of the Crazies. This include elk, hawks, eagles, and a variety of birds. There is
corridor crosses I-90 and the Yellowstone River at the hamlet a native Yellowstone cutthroat trout fishery of significant
of Springdale, originally a importance in Upper Deer
way station for travelers on Creek. The region is starting
their way to Hunter Hot to see some growth pressure,
Springs. There are good with subdivisions beginning
conservation opportunities to be developed.
in this zone where only
three or four ranchers own
Boulder River
most the land. Important
The Boulder River flows 62
resources are the big, open
miles (45 air miles) north
spaces, agriculture in the
through the Boulder River
bottom lands, recreational
Valley into the Yellowstone
values (particularly fishing),
River at Big Timber. There
and mountain goat and
is some irrigated farmland in
wolverine populations
the bottom land, but a good
near the mountains. The
bit of development is starting.
corridor concept here is
Much of the watershed has
not universally endorsed,
been broken into smaller
however, as ranchers are
parcels. Historically, the valley
concerned about brucellosis
was used for recreation, with
infecting livestock from
church camps in the valley.
wildlife movement over
Historic buildings and old
these distances. A major
mining camps bring some
challenge to conservation is
tourism, with 3000-4000
the transportation and river
visitors in summers. There
corridor cutting through the
is elk and deer habitat in
center of this zone.
the upper valley, but fewer
Swamp Creek elk in the lower reaches. The area has been discovered by
A watershed group is being formed The upper Shields out-of-state buyers and some are implementing conservation
River.
for the Swamp Creek area between Big Photo by Gallatin Valley
easements on their lands. There is the potential to link these
Timber and the Crazy Mountains west Land Trust easements in future conservation efforts. The Upper Boulder
of Sweet Grass Creek. This area has valley has a good fuels reduction program, focused partly on
large, traditional ranches, with grazing cutting timber away from cabins where there are many dead
and flood irrigation. Vegetation is mainly sagebrush, sedges, pines and aspens.
and grasslands. Its cultural resources are also significant, with
buffalo jumps and other archeological sites. It was also part
Yellowstone River downstream of Big Timber
of early hunting routes from 12-13,000 years ago. Wetland
Big Timber is located at the confluence site recorded by the
resources are vital along Swamp Creek, as the name would
Lewis and Clark expedition as the “Rivers Across” over 200
imply, providing habitat for elk, deer and bear, as well as an
years ago – a reference to Big Timber Creek and the Boulder
important corridor for moose.
River joining the Yellowstone on opposite sides from one
another. In addition to historic significance, the land on both
Northern Absaroka Boundary sides of the river downstream from Big Timber is important
An area north of the Absarokas and south of the Yellowstone for its scenic value along I-90, its intact cottonwood forests,
River is essential for diverse wildlife habitat and the and riparian resources. Big wildfires burned through much
movement of species. It borders Forest Service land, with of this region in recent years. There are extensive wetland
traditional grazing uses. Some mining has also been done in areas, especially along the mouth of Sweet Grass Creek.
this area. Parallel creeks—Upper Deer Creek and Lower Deer The river corridor is home to deer, elk, eagles, Hungarian
Creek—emerge from the Absarokas, flow through a relatively partridge and grouse.
dry landscape, and join the Yellowstone River. This area has
Lower Sweet Grass Creek
Sweet Grass Creek traces a large arc through the eastern
side of the focal area, starting in the middle of the Crazy
Mountains and ending in the Yellowstone River, dropping
from 6000 to 4000 feet in elevation. It provides important
resources along its course. The low lands are good for both
wildlife and farming, with extensive deer habitat. In the river
valley, the land is productive and some is irrigated. Wetlands
along the streams are caused by flood irrigation. There are
important stretches of willow and black cottonwood gallery
forest, although not the big cottonwoods found along the
Yellowstone River.
Upper Sweet Grass Creek

The upper part of the Sweet Grass Valley is mostly held in
large intact ranches that use vast grazing acreages. In addition
to agricultural resources, workshop participants identified
its strong community values. It is known to incorporate
early hunting routes from 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. Upper
Swamp Creek is now an important elk wintering area (with
associated wolf activity), and antelope lower down. The
uppermost part of this area is part of the USFS checkerboard
and includes the East Crazy Mountain Zoning District, using
160 acre minimum lot sizes.
Chapter 6: Salmon-Lemhi Focal Area
Geographic and Historic Setting Total Acres: 4,063,062

The Salmon-Lemhi focal area includes the entire Upper A bird’s eye view of
the Salmon River Publicly owned acres:
Salmon River Basin. Its geographic scope extends from the Valley looking south 3,729,551
mouth of the Middle Fork Salmon River to the headwaters toward the city of
near Stanley, Idaho. It includes the North Fork Salmon River, Salmon. Privately owned acres:
Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River, East Fork Salmon River, and
Photo by Jon Flinders 333,511
the Yankee Fork Salmon River drainages, which have a total % Private land: 8%
area of over four million acres.
Acres under conservation
The main towns in this remote, east-central part of Idaho are Salmon, Stanley, and easements: 15,135
Challis. A few smaller villages string out along the river corridors. Salmon and
Private acreage with high
Stanley are the hubs of river recreation activity on the Main stem and Middle Fork
value for conservation:
of the Salmon. 262,762
The Salmon-Lemhi region has unique historic importance. The Salmon-Eater % Private Land that has high
Shoshone and Sheep-Eater Shoshone, who make up the Lemhi-Shoshone value for conservation: 79%
Tribes—Sacajawea’s people—occupied the Lemhi valley prior to the arrival of Euro-
Americans. The Salmon and Lemhi valleys were used for wintering and were key 10-year goal: 45,000 acres
hunting and gathering grounds for these tribes. Land conservation partners:
Lemhi Regional Land Trust,
Four members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition were the first white men to
Wood River Land Trust
explore the region in 1805. They crossed the continental divide at Lemhi Pass 30 The Nature Conservancy
miles southeast of Salmon and followed the Salmon River through the present site
of the city, then floated down to the North Fork of the Salmon. In 1875, the 100
square mile Lemhi Valley Indian Reservation was created for the Lemhi Shoshone,
but was rescinded in 1905 and the tribe was forced to move to Summary of Salmon-Lemhi Resources
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation farther south in Idaho. The Upper Salmon River Basin is home to one of the last
strongholds of wild and naturally reproducing indigenous
Five Montana prospectors discovered rich gold deposits at a
anadromous fish populations. The Salmon River and its
place about 14 miles west of Salmon, which became Leesburg
tributaries once produced some of the biggest salmon and
on July 16, 1866. This discovery started a gold rush that led to a
steelhead runs in the Columbia River Basin. Salmon and
mining town at Leesburg of 3000 people, the creation of Salmon
steelhead runs have declined dramatically throughout the
City in 1867 and the organization of Lemhi County in 1869. In
larger basin and now only a fraction of historic runs return
1880, discovery of lead resulted in a mining boom that created
to the Salmon and its tributaries. In the 1990s, the drastic
the Viola Mine, one of the richest lead mines in the world.
declines led to listing several salmon and steelhead stocks
Mining occurred throughout most of the region’s drainages in
as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species
the late nineteenth century, and resulted in many private land
Act, including all three runs that return to the Salmon River.
inholdings dispersed throughout the area’s public lands.
The factors generally blamed for this reduction are four
The Salmon-Lemhi focal area is surrounded by vast areas H’s—hatcheries, hydropower facilities, harvest, and habitat.9
of public land. It is bordered on the east by the Beaverhead The Nature Conservancy (TNC) estimates that 90% of the
National Forest. On the focal area’s western side, the Salmon- anadromous fish habitats in these watersheds are found on
Challis National Forest covers over 4.3 million acres in east- private land.10
central Idaho. Included within the boundaries of the Forest
The Salmon-Lemhi focal area is home to a range of native
is 1.3 million acres of the Frank Church—River of No Return
wildlife species considered Idaho “species of greatest
Wilderness Area, the largest wilderness in the Continental
conservation need.”11 These include 40 bird species, 10 fish
United States. The focal area is also bisected by two smaller
species, 15 mammal species, and 1 amphibian. Migration
mountain ranges. The Lemhi Range is a linear chain that
corridors for wide-ranging species, as well as winter habitat,
runs from Salmon southeast for 100 miles to the Snake River
occur on private lands or adjacent to private land. The focal
Plain. The Pahsimeroi Mountains parallel the Lemhi Range to
area is notable for large populations of native ungulates,
the south.
including large elk populations, mule deer, white-tailed deer,
The region is dominated by coniferous forests, especially antelope, and some of Idaho’s best bighorn sheep habitat.
Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine communities Many large carnivores follow these big-game herds, including
on the mountain slopes and whitebark pine woodlands in the wolves, mountain lions, and wolverine. These large mammals
higher elevations. Sagebrush and grasslands cover mountain use and need large, connected areas, so are susceptible to
foothills from above the floodplains up to 7,000 feet. The landscape fragmentation. This focal area is one of Idaho’s best
foothills are primarily BLM land used for grazing. Most of contiguous landscapes of sagebrush steppe habitat, one of the
the valley bottoms contain arable lands with limited riparian most endangered ecosystems in the U.S.
forest habitat and are privately owned.
Water resources are, of course, limited and critical. Riparian
The area has a semi-arid climate with an average annual areas and wetlands comprise less than 2% of land cover, but
precipitation of only nine inches in the valleys. Snow pack is are critically important to a great diversity of native fish and
key for stream flow each year and water storage systems are wildlife. For instance, 64% of the 243 bird species that occur
largely absent in these watersheds. in the Salmon region use riparian areas as their primary
nesting habitat. For mammals, these riparian areas provide
Beef cattle are the main agricultural product, and hay the
prey resources, shelter, and migration corridors.12 The Salmon
primary crop, mostly on irrigated ground. Public grazing
and Lemhi Rivers support extensive riparian forests that are
allotments support about 80% of cattle from spring to fall.
home to diverse passerine bird communities, nesting bald
Relatively little logging is done in these watersheds currently,
eagles, and other species. Water withdrawals for irrigation
although timber harvest on the Salmon-Challis National
are a high-profile issue, as they affect passage to spawning
Forest was historically a very significant element of the local
grounds for listed salmon and steelhead. The focus in the
economy. The Lemhi County Forest Restoration Group,
Lemhi, for instance, is on providing water connections in
coordinated by Salmon Valley Stewardship, has been formed
areas of de-watered streams and maintaining in-stream
to work on public and private lands that will restore forest
flows. Of the 31 tributaries of the Lemhi, all but two are
health and create economic opportunities and benefit in
disconnected.
Lemhi County.
9 www.modelwatershed.org
10 The Nature Conservancy, January 2007.
11 http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs_table_of_contents.cfm
12 Ibid
Context of Land Conservation Conservation Partners
Some ranches are being subdivided in the Salmon-Lemhi The Lemhi Regional Land Trust (LRLT) is the main land trust
region, although most purchased ranchland stays in in the focal area, although the service area of the Wood River
agricultural use. Workshop participants predict more Land Trust overlaps in the eastern side in the upper Salmon
subdivisions will be built over time and stress that this is not River. LRLT focuses mainly on conserving ranching and
so much a volume issue as a geographic one. They worry other agricultural landscapes in the Salmon-Lemhi region.
more about housing developments in critical riparian zones TNC is also active in the Salmon-Lemhi region, where its
and in other sensitive habitats than about the sheer number of conservation targets include unique plant communities,
houses built.
The Nature
Conservancy
inventoried
the threats to
conservation
resources in its
central Idaho focus
area: tributary
irrigation diversions;
altered hydrologic
regimes on main
stem tributaries;
excessive livestock
grazing; exurban
development; off-
highway vehicles;
roads and culverts;
invasive species;
and altered fire
regimes. TNC has
developed a set of
key strategies and actions for addressing including many endemic species, and high quality aquatic
these threats, including partnerships Wetlands such habitats for anadromous fish. LRLT works closely with TNC,
as this cattail
with private land conservation marsh at Pennal
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Salmon Valley
organizations. Its conservation target list, Gulch are a rare Stewardship, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S.
in addition to fish populations, includes but ecologically Forest Service in planning its conservation projects. Salmon
important habitat of
willow communities, macro-invertebrate the Salmon-Lemhi Valley Stewardship, for example, is taking on large forest
communities, neo-tropical migrating focal area. stewardship projects in the North Fork Salmon drainage.
birds, greater sage-grouse and other Photo by Beth Waterbury
sagebrush obligate species (i.e., pygmy
rabbit, Brewer’s sparrow), shrub steppe meadows, bald eagles, HOTR Mapping
osprey, and beaver. LRLT hosted a planning workshop for the Salmon-Lemhi
focal area on August 11, 2009. A large and diverse group
A number of other resource conservation plans and
of organization and agency partners attended. Most of the
inventories have been completed in recent years, including
private land in the Salmon-Lemhi Focal Area was identified
a Salmon Sub-basin Plan, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
as high-priority for conservation—262,762 acres, or 79 % of
habitat mapping, American Wildlands Priority Linkage
the private land (Map 7).
Assessment, Idaho Transportation Department Highway-
Wildlife Linkage Workshop, and Lemhi and Custer County
Comprehensive Plans. The Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife
Game’s Wildlife Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Private lands with important wildlife resources were
Strategy was particularly relevant to the mapping that initially mapped by workshop participants for five separate
workshop participants completed for the Salmon-Lemhi. resources—fisheries, greater sage-grouse, riparian woodlands,
It provides a framework for conserving ‘species of greatest other wildlife, and elk/mule deer winter range. A composite
conservation need’ and the habitats upon which they depend.
Map 7 Salmon-Lemhi Focal Area
of those maps was created (see the Technical Appendix). That fisher occurrence along Montana’s Bitterroot Range and
map shows that biological values are strong for much of the clusters of sightings at the north and northwest boundary
private land in the region. of Yellowstone National Park. Wolverine scientists with
the Wildlife Conservation Society include the Beaverhead
Workshop participants placed a 30 meter buffer on the entire
Mountains as one of 6 critical linkage zones between core
Salmon River corridor, for fisheries, nesting songbirds and
wolverine population centers and habitat in the Greater
bald eagles, and other values. Riparian areas are, of course,
Yellowstone, Salmon-Selway, and Northern Continental
critically important for fish and birds. IDFG estimates that
Divide ecosystems (Inman et
64% of the 234 bird species that
al. 2008). Collectively called the
occur in the Salmon-Lemhi region
“Central Linkage Ecosystem,”
use riparian areas as primary
these intervening areas contain
nesting habitat. Chinook salmon,
a significant amount of primary
steelhead, and sockeye salmon are
wolverine habitat in public
the primary anadromous species;
ownership capable of supporting
there are a number of issues
reproductive females…Though
affecting those species’ survival.
fisher habitat associations and
High-priority streams are located
home range size are considerably
throughout the focal area for
different from those of wolverine,
salmon and steelhead spawning
at the landscape scale, both
– in the middle Salmon, Lemhi,
species utilize montane coniferous
Pahsimeroi, and Upper Salmon
forest types and require large,
watersheds. The Lemhi River is the
well-connected habitat refugia
largest producer of Chinook salmon
isolated from broad scale human
in the Upper Salmon River Basin.
influence.”13
For non-anadromous fish, the main
conservation targets are bull trout In the Lower Salmon, an
(listed as threatened under the important wildlife linkage zone
ESA) and cutthroat trout. Good exists from Carmen Creek
populations exist in the headwaters over the divide to the Big Hole valley. This area is home to
Top: Yellow warbler nest
but cutthroat are lacking in the Bottom: Long-toed
wolverine, fisher, lynx, black bear, grey wolf, and martin.
mainstem Salmon River. salamander In addition, in the North Fork of the Salmon up to the
Photos by Idaho Fish and Game Idaho/Montana divide at Lost Trail Pass, there is good
Important willow and black
documentation of those same species, with movement over
cottonwood riparian woodlands
into the Bitterroot National Forest.
exist in the Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, North Fork Salmon, East Fork
Salmon, and mainstem Salmon river corridors, providing Private land in the Lemhi valley includes black bear habitat in
critical nesting habitat for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, some drainages (for example, Bohannon and Geertson Creeks
Lewis’s woodpeckers, and great blue herons. Riparian in the lower valley). Carnivore habitat is found on properties
meadows provide quality breeding habitat for long-billed adjoining public land near the Beaverhead National Forest,
curlew, sandhill crane, and short-eared owl, all Idaho “species where north-south movement is important in the upper
of greatest conservation need.” Riparian areas also provide reaches of private lands that have contiguous forest habitat. In
important year-round habitat for moose populations. addition, the Lemhi valley is home to sage grouse, pronghorn
antelope, elk, and mule deer.
Most private land in the Salmon-Lemhi focal area provides
winter range for deer and elk. Pronghorn and mule deer The private land in the Pahsimeroi Valley is mainly important
use the sagebrush steppe habitats year round. An ongoing for the river and riparian values described above. In addition,
concern is the interactions between domestic sheep and big these lands support sage grouse in relatively small priority
horn sheep on private land and public grazing allotments. zones, as well as pronghorn antelope, elk and mule deer in
the uplands.
Nearly all of the private land on the eastern edge of the focal
area (Lemhi and Lower Salmon drainages) is important for In the Middle and Upper Salmon regions, grey wolf and black
potential wildlife connectivity to the Beaverhead National bear connectivity is important, as well as big horn sheep
Forest. According to the IDFG, “the Beaverhead Mountains populations. Upstream from the confluence of the Salmon
are geographically positioned between verified clusters of River and the Pahsimeroi River, a migration corridor for
13 Waterbury, Beth, 2009.
bighorn sheep crosses the Salmon River between public land age demographic is skewing upward. Perceptions about
in the Pahsimeroi Mountains and the mountains west of the conservation easements have also changed over time. The
river. Several tributaries flowing into the middle Salmon are land trusts are noticing that ranchers who were not at all
vital ranges for fishers and wolverines. As in other parts of interested just five years ago are now open to the idea.
this focal area sage grouse, pronghorn antelope, elk, and mule
deer habitat are present.
Community Values
Finally, the Stanley Basin and Sawtooth Valley contain River recreation and access to public lands were the
important fisheries values and other wildlife habitats. community values highlighted most strongly in the workshop.
IDFG provided a map showing vulnerable places for access
to public land through private holdings. The majority of
Agriculture
these sites are shown as high-priority for conservation
Two main valleys, and a number of smaller sites, were
in Map 7. The Middle Salmon, a Wild and Scenic River
identified for important agricultural values. Nearly all of the
Corridor, is important for recreation, particularly steelhead
private land in the Lemhi and Pahsimeroi valleys is high
fishing and river floating. The Lemhi also has recreational
priority, as well as the Stanley Basin and Sawtooth Valley in
value as a natural river system for wildlife viewing, limited
the southwestern part of the focal area. Participants stressed
development, and fisheries. Around the town of Salmon,
the importance of maintaining agriculture in these valleys and
lands are needed for community expansion and uses such as a
reducing development threats. Compared with other parts
landfill, rifle range, and motor cross track.
of the focal area, the mid-Pahsimeroi has more grazing and
grassland. There is limited production of agricultural crops. Several locations in the valleys have important access to public
The lower Pahsimeroi River corridor includes more cropland, land and the Continental Divide, such as Carmen Creek,
particularly hay production and limited row crops. Dahlonega Creek, and Agency Creek in the Beaverhead
Smaller pockets of agricultural soils are

located generally in the valley bottoms of the
Salmon River, including the Carmen Creek
bottomlands, Big Flat, Bohannon Creek, and
Round Valley near Challis. In the Stanley
Basin and Sawtooth Valley, there is a very
short growing season, so while there is nearly
no hay production, agricultural operators
use ample grazing land. The currently viable
agricultural enterprises are tied to public
grazing allotments.
Workshop participants stressed that

agriculture needs to be an important part of
the conservation puzzle. The most important
wildlife habitat on private land is ranchland,
which provides open space, meadows,
riparian corridors, wetlands, and transitional
habitats to public lands. Sage grouse use agricultural lands Mountains. The Land of the Yankee
extensively. However, agriculture has evolved in important Ranching and Fork State Park near Challis interprets
agriculture have
ways in these valleys. Where dairies were formerly significant, played important
central Idaho’s mining frontier history
now they are largely absent. These valleys were historically roles in the Salmon- and is part of the larger Land of the
built on sheep operations, but there are far fewer sheep now. Lemhi focal area Yankee Fork Historic Area, managed
and continue to be
Fewer grain crops are also grown. Of course, agriculture mainstays of the by the Idaho Department of Parks and
enterprises were far more diverse in the past, with hogs, local community Recreation, Salmon-Challis National
and economy. Forest, and the BLM.
potatoes, and other crops. That has changed completely.
Photo by Dale Ford
Pivot irrigation has also changed the pattern of the Finally, the very southwestern part of
agricultural landscape. Cattle enterprises have changed less, the focal area, along the upper Salmon (Sawtooth Valley,
but ranches have been consolidated over time. According Stanley Basin) is noted for spectacular scenery, river rafting,
to workshop participants, producers now need 350-400 and a rich ranching history, in addition to its critical wildlife
head of cows to make a living; as everywhere, the ranching resources.
Chapter 7: Upper Missouri Focal Area

The Upper Missouri focal area includes parts of four Montana View from the South
Hills looking toward Publicly owned acres: 814,560
counties—Lewis and Clark, Broadwater, Jefferson, and Mount Helena and
Meagher. This is a sub-watershed of the larger Missouri- the city of Helena. Privately owned acres:
Photo by Andrea Silverman
Sun-Smith Basin. It is bordered on the east by the Big Belt 1,025,940
Mountains, stretching 75 miles north-south in the Helena
% Private land: 56%
National Forest. The gulches on the western slopes of the Big Belts were noted
historically for rich gold placer strikes. Acres under conservation
easements: 91,133
To the west, MacDonald Pass crosses the Continental Divide on Highway 12
through part of the Deer Lodge National Forest. The Elkhorn Mountains are a Acreage of private lands with
small island range south of Helena surrounded by both BLM and private land. The high value for conservation:
focal area includes the northern part of the Boulder Valley between the Elkhorns 427,126
and the Boulder Mountains to the west. % Private land with high
value for conservation: 42%
The Missouri River flows northwest through the focal area, widening at Canyon
Ferry Lake, a reservoir created in 1954. This is Montana’s third largest body of 10-year conservation goal:
water, covering over 35,000 acres with 76 miles of shoreline. The dam has provided 15,000 acres
electricity, irrigation, and flood control, in addition to being a popular recreation Land conservation partners:
destination. The other main water body is Lake Helena along Prickly Pear Creek in Prickly Pear Land Trust Montana
the Helena valley. Land Reliance
The Gates of the Mountains Wilderness along the Missouri north of Helena was
designated in 1964 and is part of the public land complex at the eastern side of the
focal area. The Gates of the Mountains of the Missouri is a popular water recreation
area, famous from the Lewis and Clark Expedition onwards. It draws recreational
use not only from Helena but from across the state and beyond.
Over half of this region’s 1.8 million acres are in private enterprises of traditional ranching, but for the contribution of
ownership, with nearly a tenth of the private land placed these lands to community values and wildlife habitat.
in conservation easements. In addition to large swaths of
The region is rich and diverse, framed as it is by vast national
national forest land, BLM and state-owned lands are scattered
forest lands in the Big Belts, Elkhorns, and the Deer Lodge
across the region.
National Forest and Continental Divide. The species that
Helena, Montana’s capital is located at the junction of Highway have been studied and monitored are only a small part of the
12 and Interstate 15, running north-south through the story. We lack data on the full spectrum of biological richness
western side of the watershed. The town lies at the foot of the here. The partial roster includes grizzly bears, large ungulates,
mountains, only eight miles from the continental divide, and important fisheries, and migratory waterfowl.
Context of Land Conservation

The conversion of agriculture and
habitat lands to development is most
visible in the housing that expands
into the Helena Valley. The riparian
corridors along Prickly Pear Creek and
Tenmile Creek provide critical habitat
and resources for many species of birds
and mammals in the area. As interest
in developing local food systems
increases, it is important that viable
farm and ranch lands are protected
from rapid development so that the
area maintains its ability to produce
food. Lands adjacent to Canyon Ferry
overlooks the Helena valley. In addition Lake are threatened by increasing subdivision in an area
to the special nature of the area as the Gates of the
that has strong biological and agricultural values. There are
Mountains
seat of government, the area has a rich Photo by Donna Erickson several wildlife corridors in this immediate area, and they
cultural history. Starting in the 1860’s, become increasingly at risk of being cut off by development,
miners combed the gulches near Helena threatening seasonal movements by antelope, deer and elk.
for gold, silver and lead. The city became known as the “Queen More and more homes are appearing in the wildland-urban
City of the Rockies” with the mining booms in the mid- interface in both the South Hills and the Elkhorns, which has
nineteenth century. Helena became the capital of Montana implications not only for wildlife habitat and open space, but
Territory in 1875 and was chosen over Anaconda as the state also increases the risk of damage during wildfires. In addition,
capital when statehood occurred in 1898. The Helena valley the threats posed by mining on public lands impact private
fans out north of the city where ranching became the main lands as well.
livelihood. Townsend is the other main town, with a number of
smaller towns and villages located on primary roadways. Due to the presence of several major dams on the Missouri
River, there are sources of funding available from companies
such as Pennsylvania Power & Light (PPL) which manages
Summary of Resources the dams in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation. To
The heart of the Upper Missouri region is the Missouri River mitigate for the effects of the dams, PPL provides funding
itself, the longest river in the nation, draining a sixth of the for stream and habitat restoration in the area, as well as other
continental U.S. The headwaters are upstream from the focal conservation projects.
area defined in the High Divide, but the river segments within
the focal area are vulnerable and diverse. The Upper Missouri’s The Elkhorn Mountains, at roughly 300,000 acres, comprise
other water resources also contribute to cultural and biological an island surrounded primarily by private land. The
richness—a vast network of streams and creeks, many of them Elkhorns have been managed since 1992 in partnership as
in gulches that saw active gold mining a century ago. the Elkhorn Cooperative Management Area (EMCA), where
different agencies work together to manage the mountain
Agricultural resources are also critical, although they are range regardless of political boundaries. The EMCA is
a small percentage of the total acreage of the region. This managed by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Helena National
agricultural land is important not only for the economic Forests, the Butte Field Office of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Montana Department of Fish, across the region, so hunts are managed conservatively. An
Wildlife and Parks (FWP). The focus has been on the re- elk survey done in 2000 found 6300 elk in the region, 8900
introduction of bighorn sheep, a comprehensive travel plan, mule deer, and 3700 white tail deer. FWP reports good
improved livestock management throughout the mountain mountain lion and black bear populations, particularly in the
range, a strategy for conserving cutthroat trout, maintaining Elkhorns and Big Belts.
and reconstructing trails and trailheads, reintroducing fire as
The Canyon Ferry Wildlife Management area has an
a process on the landscape and reclaiming abandoned mines,
important concentration of wintering waterfowl along the
among other projects.14
Missouri River. It includes four dikes and a series of man-
made ponds. This is an important area for waterfowl. White
Conservation Partners pelicans nest in this area, with the initial formation of the
Prickly Pear Land Trust (PPLT) in Helena is the main local nesting colony in 1990. There are now approximately 2000
land trust involved in private land conservation in the Upper nests. Double-breasted cormorants nest on islands. This is
Missouri focal area. The Montana Land Reliance headquarters also an important staging area for migratory sandhill cranes
are also in Helena and the organization has conserved enroute to their wintering areas; crane fall staging surveys
land across the state, including the Upper Missouri. Other found 200 a few years ago, with numbers now around 600.
important conservation partners are the Natural Resource
Aside from state WMAs, high-priority wildlife areas are
Conservation Service (USDA), The Conservation Fund, Vital
found across this landscape. The focal area can generally be
Ground Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
divided into upstream and downstream halves, where the
and others.
northern, downstream portion has bigger blocks of high-
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks priority land for conservation.
Department (FWP) has an active conservation easement
In the southern, upstream region, the Missouri River corridor
program through the Habitat Montana program. It holds
provides important habitat for many species, including
six conservation easements in the region and two fee title
bighorn sheep, mountain goats, deer, elk, and bear. The area
lands. The Bureau of Land Management recently acquired
is important for fishing and wildlife viewing and much of
three conservation easements, one of them 10,000 acres
the river corridor south of Canyon Ferry Lake is in private
in size. With over 91,000 acres of land protected through
ownership. Wetland areas, such as the Stanfill Slough, provide
conservation easements in the Upper Missouri, only the
sandhill crane nesting and staging areas in the southern
Upper Yellowstone has slightly more acreage conserved
river corridor. Areas on either side of Canyon Ferry Lake are
among focal areas in the High Divide.
important for antelope habitat and the landscape along Dry
Creek to the west of the southern Big Belts is good moose
winter range. A long corridor along the eastern side of the Big
HOTR Mapping
Belt Mountains has good agricultural land that also provides
Prickly Pear Land Trust hosted a workshop in Helena on
big game winter range.
August 5, 2009, with participants from Montana FWP, TNC,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, American Wildlands, US West of the river corridor, big game winter range is important
Forest Service, Trust for Public Land, NRCS, and others. on the western flanks of the Elkhorn Mountains east of I-15.
Map 8 depicts the high-priority private land identified in this Likewise, private land at the southeast corner of the Elkhorns
session, totaling 427,126 acres. near Rattlesnake and Crow Creeks provides key winter range
adjacent to a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation project and
lies within 5-10 miles of public land. An area adjacent to the
Wildlife
north side of the Elkhorn Mountains is important winter
FWP maintains three wildlife habitat management areas
range in an area that lacks this resource on nearby public
(WMAs) in the Upper Missouri. The Beartooth WMA
lands; the private winter range is key here. The area has only
is about 30 miles north of Helena on the west side of the
three major land owners; if these ranches were developed,
Missouri River near Holter Lake. Another small WMA is
antelope habitat would disappear in this area.
located at Lake Helena and the third is at Canyon Ferry
(including 5000 acres at the southern end of the lake.) The The lower Boulder valley is also critical winter range for elk,
focus of FWP management is on big game, with seven deer deer and moose. Upper Prickly Pear Creek, adjacent to a
and elk hunting districts and six antelope districts (mostly in big block of public land, has larger parcels with important
the Townsend Flats region). FWP has three big horn sheep deer, elk, and moose winter range. This area also provides
districts (populations are not robust) and three hunting for wildlife movement from the Elkhorn Mountains to the
districts for moose. However, there are less than 100 moose Continental Divide.
14 http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/elkhorns/history/index.shtml
Map 8 Upper Missouri Focal Area
In the northern, downstream half of River. In addition, the area from the Pass south to the
the focal area, the biggest block of Meadow in the Boulder River and toward Butte is also being inventoried.
northern Elkhorns.
high-priority land is also along the Photo by Andrea Silverman
Missouri River, but includes large Agriculture
upland landscapes on both sides of the Agriculture in the Upper Missouri focal area includes
river corridor. This area provides habitat for antelope, deer, open grazing lands, and some irrigated farmland—mostly
elk, big horn sheep, mountain goats, and bear. Some of the hay. Workshop participants stressed the importance of
private land has important elk and deer winter range. Fishing maintaining agricultural lands not only for farming and
and wildlife viewing is also important in this area north and ranching, but for the important benefits that these lands hold
northwest of Helena. for both wildlife and community values. A good example is
the southeast corner of the Elkhorn Mountains, mentioned
The habitat values in wetlands near Lake Helena were stressed
above for its important winter range, where good grazing land
by workshop participants. Landscape connectors south of
is a basis for strong agricultural enterprises.
the Lake Helena Causeway are essential for wildlife moving
across the river. The area south of Lake Helena includes The largest block of intact agricultural land is in the northern
wetlands with good water bird and song bird habitats, end of the Helena valley, where there are open grazing lands
including the heart of sandhill crane nesting and staging and some irrigated farmland. There are long-time family
habitat. The Regulating Reservoir has significant open space ranches in this area. The important agricultural areas are not
and recreation values. only lowlands of the Missouri River valley. For instance, some
of the land in the Canyon Creek area in the northwestern
West and northwest of Helena, there are important riparian
corner of the focal area is valuable for agriculture as the
resources as well as antelope and bear habitats. This region,
bottom land of the Helena Valley.
adjacent to public land, includes winter range for moose and
the many other species that enjoy riparian habitats. Another large agricultural landscape encompasses nearly the
entire valley between Canyon Ferry Lake and the Big Belts,
Grizzly bears are also being studied in the Upper Missouri
where there is grazing and farm ground that also provides
watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey is coordinating
winter range for big game. An area directly south of the lake
volunteers to comb the landscape to identify bear areas,
along the Missouri River is also good irrigated hay ground.
identifying site-specific, numbered locations where bears
West of Canyon Ferry Lake, there is more good agricultural
are using this region. The scope of these habitats is from
ground at the southern end of the Helena Valley and close to
MacDonald Pass west to Ovando and east to the Missouri
the city. This is primarily grazing land on traditional ranches, Closer to Helena, the South Hills near the city provide an
with some cultivated farmland. iconic scenic and recreational backdrop. Other areas with
recreational, scenic, and open space values are Lake Helena,
the Elkhorn foothills, and the region between Canyon Ferry
Community
Lake and the Big Belt Mountains. The latter area also provides
Community resources were identified in several zones of the
traditional access to public land. Finally, in addition to their
focal area. Canyon Creek and its tributaries in the northwest
values for water quality, several creek corridors were named
corner of the focal area are noted for good hunting access to
by participants for recreation and scenic qualities—Tenmile,
public land. Named for a creek that flows through a canyon
Prickly Pear, Sevenmile, Silver, and Canyon Creeks.
to the Missouri River, this area first established a post office
in 1871 and the settlement area now includes only a general
store and gas station.
The entire Missouri River corridor

is high priority for scenery, history,
wildlife viewing, and recreation
(particularly fishing). The river
corridor includes several lakes
within a short driving distance from
Helena, including Holter Lake and
Hauser Reservoir, created by two of
the three dams on the Missouri River
in this area. These lakes are used
for fishing, swimming, camping,
water-skiing, and boating. Canyon
Ferry Lake, another dammed
reservoir, is only 20 minutes east
of Helena and offers many types of
recreation. As noted above, the Gates
of the Mountains is another popular
destination. View toward the
Upper Missouri
The route up to MacDonald Pass from MacDonald
along highway 12 is another vital Pass.
scenic area, again with deep history
in the region. Much of the route is
through private land. This two-lane highway was originally
a toll road over the continental divide (one of three such toll
roads crossing the divide in this area), becoming a main route
between Helena and the Little Blackfoot valley in the 1930s.
Chapter 8: Big Hole Focal Area

The Big Hole region is one of Montana’s premier historic Warm Spring Creek
near Jackson in the Publicly owned acres:
ranching valleys, known for its high-elevation cattle and Big Hole focal area. 1,314,445
hay production. This is the widest mountain valley in Photo by Donna Erickson
southwestern Montana and much of the valley is above 6000 Privately owned acres:
feet in elevation. It is also one of Montana’s most scenic 474,753
valleys, a sparsely-populated landscape known as the land of 10,000 hay stacks for % Private land: 27%
the many beaver slide structures and loose hay stacks dotting the landscape. Less
than 1000 people live in the upper Big Hole valley. Acres under conservation
easements: 48,826
The Big Hole valley fans out from the Big Hole River, which flows about 150
miles in a clockwise semicircle from its headwaters near Jackson in the southern
end of the region, around the Pioneer Mountains through Wisdom, Wise River, 357,836
and Divide to empty into the Beaverhead River near Twin Bridges. The upper
valley is broad—open ranching country—while the lower valley is narrower and % Private land with high
known for its premier fishing. In addition to the Pioneer Mountains at the center value for conservation: 75%
of this region, the Beaverhead Mountains flank the valley in a wide arc along the 10-year conservation goal:
Continental Divide on the west. 10,000 acres
Downstream of Wise River, the Big Hole transforms from a slow meandering Land conservation partners:
stream to a steeper, cascading river. It flows between canyon walls and over large The Nature Conservancy
boulders. Downstream of Divide, Melrose is a small outfitting hub for fly fishermen Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
on the Big Hole and Wise Rivers. Farther downstream, the small town of Glen Montana Land Reliance
began as a Union Pacific railroad station dating from the 19th century.
Most of the focal area is in Beaverhead County, with small portions of the northern
end falling in Silverbow and Deer Lodge Counties. Interstate highway 15 runs north-
south on the eastern side, with two-lane highways 43 and 278 connecting the entire
Big Hole valley to Dillon and the Beaverhead Valley. Much of the landscape is in
federal ownership, primarily in the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest. Montana
state lands and scattered tracts administered by the Bureau of Land Management are
located in the valley. The Big Hole National Historic Battlefield to arctic grayling survival. Resolving this issue has been a
site is an important cultural and historic site. primary focus of the Big Hole Watershed Committee. A
Land-Use Planning Working Group is addressing floodplain
The Big Hole is a world-renowned native fishery and the only
development issues.
river in the contiguous 48 states that supports fluvial arctic
grayling, a species which has been nominated for ‘endangered’ Separate from the watershed committee, the Big Hole River
status. Wetlands sustain beaver, muskrat, and over 40 species Foundation works to conserve, enhance, and protect the free-
of birds, including abundant waterfowl.15 The Beaverhead and flowing Big Hole River for fish and other wildlife. Its focus
Pioneer mountains, and the private lands bordering them, is habitat for native trout, grayling, and other species, with
provide habitat to river restoration
wolverine, moose, projects and
elk, bear, antelope, educational
mule deer, bighorn outreach.
sheep and many
The Nature
other species.
Conservancy
(TNC) has been
very active in
Context of Land
the Upper Big
Conservation
Hole Valley for
Development
some years. TNC
pressures are
has joined with
increasing in the
public agencies,
Big Hole region,
conservation
primarily along
groups and the
the river for
local ranching
second homes and
community to
fishing cabins. For the most part, the
place conservation easements on more than 40,000 acres
valley’s signature large ranches have View across the Big
Hole Valley. in the Big Hole valley, and TNC’s goal is to increase that by
stayed intact and setback regulations
Photo by Donna Erickson another 10,000 acres. The Nature Conservancy is also raising
keep development 150’ from the Big
funds and providing technical assistance for restoration,
Hole River. There is strong interest
stewardship and weed management. A primary tool for the
from diverse organizations in conservation of the Big Hole
benefit of arctic grayling conservation has been cooperative
landscape. For example, the Wildlife Conservation Society
conservation agreements, often facilitated by TNC, which
and Cornell University completed a landowner survey in
are aimed at protecting grayling habitat. These agreements
the Big Hole watershed in 2009 to understand landowners’
focus on restoring riparian areas, maximizing water flows and
attitudes toward wildlife, planning, and land use. The
making irrigation systems more fish-friendly.
survey was an independent research effort not connected
to government planning processes. The survey revealed There is no active local land trust in the Big Hole region.
widespread landowner interest in conservation of important Both the Bitterroot Land Trust and Lemhi Regional Land
resource values in the Big Hole.16 Trust are interested in the Big Hole landscape, but both
organizations are focused upon building capacity to serve
The Big Hole Watershed Committee is an active local
their primary service areas in the Bitterroot valley and
grassroots effort. The Watershed Committee has 22
Salmon-Lemhi Valley and are not currently active in the Big
governing members, half of whom represent agricultural
Hole. TNC, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Montana
interests. The committee functions as a consensus-based
Land Reliance are the only organizations actively acquiring
voice for addressing Big Hole resources. Relevant state and
conservation easements in the Big Hole. TNC activities are
federal agencies are involved as advisors. The committee
limited to the upper part of the watershed.
has formed a Wildlife Working Group, which focuses on
private and public land hunting issues, the potential problem Agency partners also focus on specific resources in the
of brucellosis transmission from elk to cattle, wolves and Big Hole valley. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for
livestock depredations, and other issues. Irrigation diversion Wildlife program is supporting cooperative on-the-ground
and reduced summer river flows are the primary threats projects in the Big Hole valley but the Service it is not likely to
15 The Nature Conservancy. www.nature.org/wherewewok

16 http://www.wcsnorthamerica.org/WildPlaces/YellowstoneandNorthernRockies/HighDivideMontanaandIdaho/MaintainingWildlifeandPrivateLands/tabid/3962/Default.aspx
acquire conservation easements here as its focus is elsewhere and other edge species. The area provides a critical linkage
in the state. For the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), private in- between elk winter habitats in Idaho and calving and summer
holdings are a particular focus, for example in Isaac Meadows habitats in the Big Hole Valley. The following drainages
and the Trail Creek corridor. provide unique riparian habitats on the west side of the valley:
Big Swamp, Shelley Swamp, Little Swamp, Yank Swamp, and
Hamby Swamp. A zone through the middle of the valley at
HOTR Mapping
Swamp and Moose Creeks has the highest concentration of
The identification of private lands of high value for
moose winter range in the valley. Other important inholdings
conservation was completed in a workshop on November 4,
within the Beaverhead Forest are Isaac Meadows, a riparian
2009. Participants included representatives from the Rocky
meadow and elk travel corridor at McCormick Creek, and an
Mountain Elk Foundation, USFS, American Wildlands, and
elk calving ground at Joseph Creek.
Big Hole Watershed Foundation; a number of other agency
and organization partners were invited to review the mapped The middle Big Hole River between Wisdom and Melrose
results. provides habitat for arctic grayling, as do the following
drainages: Governor Creek; Deep Creek, La Marche Creek,
Nearly all of the private land in the Big Hole valley is
Fish Trap Creek, York Gulch, Swamp Creek, Steel Creek, and
important for conservation. Workshop participants made
California Creek. These streams are part of the Candidate
a compelling case that almost all of the private land in the
Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA), an
watershed is high priority for conservation when the three
agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
criteria used in the High Divide planning process are applied
(USFWS) and non-Federal entities whereby property owners
(Map 9). Over 357,000 acres were identified, three-quarters of
who voluntarily agree to manage their lands or waters to
the private land, with land near small communities omitted.
remove threats to species at risk of becoming threatened or
The other 25% of private land is mainly where development is
endangered receive assurances against additional regulatory
likely to occur and allows locations for expansion of existing
requirements should that species be subsequently listed under
towns and subdivisions.
the Endangered Species Act. These agreements focus on
restoring riparian areas, maximizing water flows and creating
Wildlife
more fish-friendly irrigation systems.
There is very little of the privately-held Big Hole Valley that
is not used by a variety of wildlife species, in part due to the Downstream from Wise River, a wildlife corridor used by
relative absence of human development. The Big Hole River bear and moose crosses the Big Hole River at Dewey. Farther
provides critical riparian habitat for many species and is a downstream, a larger corridor at Maiden Rock provides
blue-ribbon trout stream. Most tributaries to the Big Hole important bighorn sheep, bear and elk habitat. Even further
flow through private lands, and many provide important down the Big Hole, from Melrose to Glen, turkeys are found
habitat for arctic grayling. on both sides of the Big Hole River. The entire Big Hole
corridor from Melrose to Twin Bridges (and continuing
Private lands bordering the west and north sides of the
downstream on the Jefferson) is intact riparian cottonwood
Pioneer Mountains provide important elk winter range, from
gallery forest supporting bald eagle and osprey nesting, and a
the Jackson area downstream to Wise River. In addition,
wide variety of riparian birds and mammals, including beaver
key migration corridors are located on private ground—for
and river otter.
antelope, bear, elk, and other species. Elk passage across the
valley is particularly important where some big conservation
easements already exist in the area north of Wisdom. Agriculture
Particularly important drainages include Squaw, Doolittle, Most of the private land in the Big Hole focal area is extremely
Steel, Francis, Sheep, and Stanley Creeks and Fox Gulch. important for the local ranching economy. This land has high
Inholdings of riparian meadow complexes at Clemow Cow value for either pasture or native grass hay. The entire complex
Camp, Cox Creek and Warm Springs Creek were identified of private valley land from the headwaters of the Big Hole
for conservation. River downstream to Wise River was identified by participants
for strong agricultural resources. Farther downstream, from
To the south of the Pioneers, as shown in the Beaverhead
Wise River to Twin Bridges, the landscape is a mosaic of
focal area, Big Hole pass is a critical wildlife corridor, with
private and Bureau of Land Management ownership. About
major antelope migration. Fence modifications on private
half of this private land, all of it within the main river corridor,
land are being done to facilitate wildlife movement.
was identified as high priority for agriculture.
The west side of the valley contains unique ecotonal habitat
The Big Hole is unusual in that many agricultural owners do
features that are important for elk, moose, bears, raptors,
not rely on grazing allotments on public land for survival in
Map 9 Big Hole Focal Area
ranching. For instance, one operation are located on publicly owned land. Jackson Hot Springs is
View toward the
has 5000 head of cattle and uses no an important cultural site in the valley, as is the Big Hole
Big Hole Valley and
public land. There are two areas in the Beaverhead Range National Battlefield, and the Nee-Nee-Poo (Nez Perce)
north part of the focal area where USFS from Big Hole Pass. National Historic Trail. The historic trail corridor to Chief
grazing allotments are important—one Joseph Pass on the Continental Divide is also significant,
in the northwest Pioneers and one although both corridors are largely on public land. Farther
in the Fleecer Mountains area. Some ranchers also rely on downstream, the Mule Ranch, Pioneer Scenic Byway, and
BLM land, for instance in allotments on the east side of the Glendale Mill Site are significant cultural and historic sites.
watershed. Water rights are also an important consideration
Access to traditional hunting and recreational sites was
on agricultural land in the Big Hole.
discussed by workshop participants. There is more access
to public lands here than in other parts of the High Divide
Community due to the number of USFS roads accessing public lands. In
Several locations were identified for historic and scenic some cases, landowners have joined with roadless advocates
resources in the Big Hole watershed. Starting upstream and in fighting forest service access roads, creating interesting
moving clockwise through the valley, at Big Hole Pass the relationships. Some landowners in the upper watershed do
Hamilton Ranch at Carroll Hill is designated by Montana’s not give hunting access, although some ranches are enrolled
Undaunted Stewardship program, which recognizes in Block Management with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.
agricultural enterprises that sustain long-term productivity In some places in the Big Hole there are sensitive politics
and health of Montana’s grazing lands. Interpretive materials around hunting access generally.
near the top of the pass show the ways in which the Big Hole
valley have been kept intact through ranching.
The Coolidge Ghost Town in the Pioneer Mountains has

historic significance, as does Crystal Park, although both
Chapter 9: Beaverhead-Red Rock Focal Area

Beaverhead river
The Beaverhead-Red Rock focal area contains the entire at Pipe Organ Publicly owned acres:
Beaverhead River watershed, including the Red Rock River BLM File Photo 1,109,878
below Lima Dam. The Beaverhead River is formed from the
Red Rock River and Horse Prairie Creek, the confluence of Privately owned acres:
which is now Clark Canyon Reservoir. 640,085
The focal area is bounded on the west and south by the Continental Divide and % Private land: 37%
includes public lands on the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest. The Tendoy Acres under conservation
Mountains are in the southern part of the focal area, largely on US Forest Service easements: 22,859
(USFS) land. The Horse Prairie and Big Sheep Creek Valleys surround the Tendoy
Acreage of private lands with
Mountains. These valleys in turn are bordered by the Beaverhead Mountains,
the crest of which forms the Idaho border and Continental Divide. This section 384,844
of the Continental Divide contains one of the tallest groups of mountain peaks
in Montana. Along the southern edge of these mountains, grasslands transition % Private land with high
directly to rocky peaks, without the usual band of conifers between these two cover value for conservation: 60%
types.17 Overall, grasslands are an important resource in this part of Montana. 10-year conservation goal:
15,000 acres
At one time, Beaverhead County had the highest hay production in Montana. This
is traditional ranching country, with many ranchers relying on federal grazing Land conservation partners:
allotments. The focal area includes over a million acres of public land, much of it in Montana Land Reliance
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and State of Montana ownership. The Nature Conservancy
Wildlife Land Trust
17 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5052844.pdf
Grasslands dominate this landscape,
making livestock grazing a valued
traditional use. High-priority
agricultural land is mostly used
for producing hay, grain, and
cattle. Ranching valleys include the
Beaverhead valley between Dillon and
Twin Bridges, Grasshopper Creek, the
Red Rock Valley and Horse Prairie west
of Clark Canyon Reservoir. Agricultural
land in this focal area is in increasing
danger of conversion to development.
The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) administers large blocks of
land in the Beaverhead focal area,
and BLM’s influence on the overall
landscape is extensive. The Dillon Field
Office manages over 900,000 acres of
The region is bisected north-to-south public lands within Beaverhead and Madison Counties in the
by I-15. Most of the focal area is within The Snowcrest southwest corner of Montana.
mountains from
Beaverhead County, the largest county Sweetwater
in Montana. As of 2000, the county BLM File Photo
population was only 9,202. Dillon, the Conservation Partners
county seat, is the largest town in the watershed with around There is no local land trust in place within the Beaverhead-
4000 people. The eastern side of the focal area falls within Red Rock focal area, but a range of public agencies are active
Madison County and includes the town of Twin Bridges, in conservation efforts. The BLM has been conducting
located at the confluence of the Beaverhead and Ruby Rivers. watershed assessments since the early 2000s. These studies
West of Dillon is the historic town of Bannack, accessed from assess range and forest health and prioritize projects for
Dillon over Badger Pass. Other small communities in the riparian restoration and other management actions. The
focal area include Grant, in the Horse Prairie valley, and Dell Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is focusing its
in the Red Rock River valley. grassland conservation efforts on sage grouse habitat. Many
private ranches participate in block management programs
with Montana FWP.
Summary of Resources
The Beaverhead Watershed Committee (BWC) was formed
The Beaverhead-Red Rock region is important habitat for elk,
in 2001 by a group of landowners and stakeholders with a
sage grouse, bighorn sheep, pygmy rabbit, antelope, mule deer,
goal of collaborating to improve and restore the watershed.
and large carnivores such as black bear, wolf, and wolverine.
The committee tackles projects that address water quality
The Blacktail, Medicine Lodge, Grasshopper, and Horse
and quantity, fencing and grazing, weed management, and
Prairie regions are particularly critical for wildlife. The focal
landowner outreach. Representatives on the committee
area includes several local wildlife linkages, parts of a larger
include local ranchers, outfitters, local business owners, and
landscape-scale connector that links the Greater Yellowstone
Trout Unlimited, Beaverhead County Commissioners, City of
ecosystem with the Salmon- Selway Bitterroot ecosystem in
Dillon, and the Beaverhead Conservation District.
central Idaho.
Private lands throughout the area provide important winter

range for elk, mule deer and antelope. Riparian resources HOTR Mapping
are particularly vital for a wide variety of fish and wildlife. The Heart of the Rockies Initiative sponsored a workshop
The Beaverhead River below Clark Canyon Dam supports a in Dillon on November 3, 2009, with representatives from
blue-ribbon trout fishery and the river corridor is a regionally NRCS, BWC, BLM, American Wildlands, Rocky Mountain
significant avian flyway for swans, other waterfowl, raptors, Elk Foundation, and Montana FWP. Participants mapped the
and songbirds. Agricultural fields and wetlands along the high-priority lands for each criterion – wildlife, agriculture,
lower Beaverhead River north of Dillon provide important and community values. The resulting map showed the high-
spring and fall habitat for migrating sandhill cranes. priority private lands, totaling 384,844 acres (Map 10).
Map 10 Beaverhead-Red Rock Focal Area
Wildlife Big Hole Pass between the Grasshopper and Big Hole valleys
Important wildlife values were identified in several main zones represents another critical wildlife linkage for several hundred
of the Beaverhead-Red Rock focal area. In the southwestern antelope that migrate between seasonal habitats. This area
part of the focal area, the Tendoy Mountains and the southern has been a focus for fence modifications on private lands to
end of the Beaverhead Range have significant ecological value. facilitate wildlife movement. Residential development in this
Habitats along the Continental Divide link wildlife in the area is also beginning to restrict wildlife migrations.
Centennial, Tendoy, and Beaverhead mountains, and provides
Agriculture
a connection between the Greater Yellowstone and Salmon-
Four areas were identified for agricultural resources. All four
Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystems. Big Sheep Basin between the
have good hay and cattle production, with limited farming
Tendoy Mountains and Beaverhead Range in the far southwest
of small grains and seed potatoes around Dillon and near
corner of the focal area supports critical habitat for interstate
Dell. High elevation and short growing seasons keep this land
migratory populations of sage grouse, elk, carnivores, pygmy
from being as productive as some other parts of the state for
rabbits, and antelope. This area also supports a reintroduced
small grains.
population of bighorn sheep. Although these bighorns occur
mostly on public lands, private lands west of Dell and Lima, A broad swath of land in the Beaverhead valley from south
and along Big Sheep Creek, provide critical seasonal habitat of Dillon northward to Twin Bridges was identified for the
and movement corridors. Symbolic of the importance of highest production of both cattle and hay, and some small
wildlife connectivity, bighorns from this population also grain crops. This corridor is bisected by Interstate 15 and
occasionally migrate to bighorn habitats in the Greater includes the lower reaches of Blacktail Deer Creek, a major
Yellowstone, and thus may provide
important genetic linkages.
The Beaverhead River corridor from

south of Dillon north to Twin Bridges
supports extensive riparian cottonwood
gallery forests, avian flyways, and a
regionally important sandhill crane
staging area. Fall staging areas are
wetlands usually within a day’s flight of
nesting marshes that offer food, social
interactions, and protection prior to
migration.
The Blacktail Mountains lie southeast

of Dillon, with a mix of BLM, state Bull elk in Basin tributary of the Beaverhead. This region includes private
and private land. About half of the Creek area of the land interlaced with a complex system of wet sloughs and
Beaverhead-Red
area is in dense conifer stands at the Rock focal area. associated wet meadows, including California, Baker, Albers,
upper elevations and the other half in BLM File Photo Stodden, Selway, and Smith, among other named sloughs.
sagebrush-grass ecosystems. This region Hay production in this region is four to five tons per acre of
provides an important wildlife linkage between the Snowcrest alfalfa, with two cuttings, whereas other parts of the focal area
Mountains and the Beaverhead River for elk, grizzly bear, produce two tons per acre of grass hay.
wolf, wolverines, and other wildlife species.
Other hay-producing valleys include the Red Rock River,
Lower elevation foothills throughout the focal area provide Grasshopper Creek, and Horse Prairie. Most of the hay
crucial winter range for elk, mule deer, and antelope. Two produced in the Beaverhead-Red Rock area is fed to local cattle
areas southwest of Dillon are particularly important in this herds but some hay is exported to other regional markets.
regard. First, the lands south of the middle section of Horse
Prairie Creek, including the tributaries of Rape, Alkali, and
Barrett Creeks, include a mixture of state, BLM and private
lands. Second, the Rocky Hills south of Bannack provide
another wildlife connection from the national forest to Horse
Prairie Creek along tributary streams including Painter,
Rawhide, Coyote and Spring Creeks.
Community
Numerous historic and prehistoric
Native American sites date back at least
12,000 years in the Beaverhead focal
area, both along river bottoms and
at high elevations. Recreational uses
are concentrated around hunting and
fishing. In addition to the Beaverhead
River itself, Clark Canyon reservoir is a
local fishing destination. It is an earthen
dam, about 20 miles south of Dillon,
completed in the mid-1960s.
Private lands throughout the focal area

provide traditional access points to
public lands in the Beaverhead-Deer
Lodge National Forest. The ghost
town of Bannack and Bannack State
Park is also a well-visited historic site,
drawing visitors throughout Montana
Mountains and the Beaverhead Range. It runs beneath the
and beyond. In addition, the entire Ghost town at
Bannack high rock cliffs of Big Sheep Canyon, under clear, deep pools
Beaverhead River corridor reflects
Photo by Donna Erickson of spring-fed Big Sheep Creek.
strong community identity. The cliffs
along the river at Pipe Organ, Barretts, The Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway is an historic and
and Beaverhead Rock were specifically identified for their scenic route through the middle of the Pioneer Mountains.
community values. East of the road, the granite peaks of the Pioneer range rise
to 10,000 feet. Westward, lower forested lands divide this
In the summer months, the many scenic and historic
valley from the Big Hole. Private lands along the route include
roadways across this focal area provide important community
meadows, lodgepole pine stands, and wide willow bottoms.
assets. These travel routes, of great significance to both
The road rises to a 7800 foot divide between Wise River,
the local community and to the larger state population,
flowing north, and Grasshopper Creek, which flows south. At
include the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail along
the northern end, the road meets state highway 43 at the town
the Beaverhead River through Horse Prairie to Lemhi Pass.
of Wise River. Important sites along this route include the
This valley has considerable private holdings. Nationally
Coolidge ghost town, abandoned Elkhorn silver mine, and
significant sites and routes on the Idaho-Montana border
Crystal Park.
are largely on public land, but workshop participants wanted
them listed in the planning process. The only National
Landmark on the Beaverhead Forest—Lemhi Pass National
Historic Landmark—is located along the Continental Divide
and managed jointly with the Salmon-Challis National Forest.
The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is an important,
though wild, hiking corridor along the Idaho-Montana
border. A segment of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail
also follows the Continental Divide on USFS land.
Blacktail Road is a relatively remote scenic route, a gravel

road through rangelands, rolling hills and low canyons along
Blacktail Deer Creek. It runs southeast from Dillon for about
60 miles, crosses the Red Rock River, and connects with Red
Rock Pass Road in the Centennial Valley. Another solitary,
though scenic, route is Big Sheep Creek National Backcountry
Byway near Dell, a backcountry route between the Tendoy
Chapter 10: Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby Focal Area

Jefferson River
The Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby (JBR) focal area is a region with near Waterloo with Publicly owned acres:
stunning views across broad arid valleys and a backdrop Manhead Mountain 1,008,094
of high Montana peaks. It contains historic and cultural in the background.
Courtesy of the Montana Privately owned acres:
resources important to the entire state and beyond. The Association of Land Trusts
heart of the Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby (JBR) focal area is the 839,390
Jefferson River, one of the three headwater rivers that form % Private land: 45%
the Missouri River. The Jefferson flows for 80 miles through the Jefferson valley,
north and northeast toward the town of Three Forks, where the Jefferson, Madison, Acres under conservation
easements: 27,688
and Gallatin converge at the far eastern side of the watershed. The Jefferson River
provides a strong historical context for the region. This is a critical segment of Acreage of private lands with
the Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail from the three forks of the Missouri at high value for conservation:
Headwaters State Park, up the Jefferson River to its origin at the forks of the Big 317,148
Hole and Beaverhead Rivers near Twin Bridges.
Other river valleys in the focal area are notable for a range of biological, value for conservation: 38%
agricultural, scenic, and historic values. The narrow Ruby River meanders for 75 10-year conservation goal:
miles from headwaters between the Snowcrest and Gravelly Ranges. It flows north 10,000 acres
through the Ruby River Reservoir, past Alder, then northwest between the Tobacco
Roots and the Ruby Range. It joins the Beaverhead near Twin Bridges. Land conservation partners:
Prickly Pear Land Trust
The Boulder River drains the northern part of the focal area and flows south Montana Land Reliance
through the town of Boulder, meeting the Jefferson downstream of Whitehall. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust
South Boulder River drains the northern part of the Tobacco Roots Range and also
enters the Jefferson below Cardwell.
East and south of the river Almost all land along the
floodplains, the high peaks of Jefferson River is in private
the Tobacco Root Mountains, hands and development
rising to nearly 11,000 feet, is encroaching across the
are surrounded mainly landscape. There is minimal
by BLM and private land. land trust presence in this
The Tobacco Roots include focal area. However, over
sizeable acreages of private 27,000 acres of land with
in-holdings. The western half conservation easements are
of the range, which drains found mainly in the Ruby
toward the Beaverhead and watershed, in the north in
Ruby Rivers, falls within the the Boulder River valley,
JBR focal area. and at the headwaters of
Whitetail Deer Creek.
The focal area includes parts
Montana Land Reliance
of three Montana counties—
(MLR) holds some of the
Jefferson, Broadwater and
easements in this area, as
Madison. I-90 crosses east-
does Montana Fish, Wildlife
west through Whitehall and
and Parks. The Prickly Pear
Three Forks. I-15 also crosses
Land Trust is beginning to
the northern part of the focal
work in the Boulder Valley
area through Elk Park north
and MLR works throughout
of Butte. Historic Virginia
the area on an opportunity
City is located at the far
basis. While Gallatin Valley
southeast corner of the focal
Land Trust is interested in
area between the Tobacco
land conservation in the
Root Mountains and the
JBR, the region is not central
Gravelly Range. A number of
to its service area.
other small communities—
Boulder, Cardwell and Sheridan—provide local services. Watershed groups are the main vehicle
Pasture in the to bring people together around issues
The economy of this region is based, like much of rural northern Boulder
Valley.
of resource use and conservation in this
Montana, around wood products, agriculture, and mining.
Courtesy of the Montanafocal area. The Ruby Watershed Council
Tourism, particularly centered on fishing, is increasingly Association of Land Trusts
has, for example, completed a wetland
important. While the timber industry is less viable in recent
and riparian mapping process to provide
years, ranching remains a mainstay of these local economies
more information for decision-making. It has developed a
and creates, with the river systems, the main fabric of the
groundwater-surface water model as well as channel-zone
landscape. The largest mining operation in the region is the
migration modeling. Jefferson County is using those tools for
Golden Sunlight Mine, an open pit gold-mining operation
land-use planning. The Ruby Habitat Foundation has also made
about five miles northeast of Whitehall on Bull Mountain.
good inroads regarding conservation and restoration, including
The mine, a major local employer, has been in operation on
grazing studies, restoration projects, and wetlands work.
public land since 1982 and is expected to continue operations
until 2015. Similarly, the Jefferson River Watershed Council, created in
1999, is engaged in watershed restoration planning, including
compiling diverse resource assessment data. It focuses on
Context of Land Conservation the Jefferson River between Twin Bridges and Cardwell.
Much of the discussion around JBR resources focuses on fish The Council is comprised of local landowners, irrigators,
survival and stream dewatering. During dry years, the flow outfitters, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies
is so low in the Jefferson River that by mid-summer there is interested in the Jefferson River watershed. The council is
barely enough water to float a canoe. The fish suffer thermal concerned about stream flows, riparian restoration, noxious
stress brought on by high water temperatures. Recent drought weed control, floodplain planning, fisheries, irrigation
years have exacerbated the problem. management, and other issues.
The Boulder Valley has a unique land-use regulation in place Wildlife
to minimize the subdivision of its agricultural lands. An Wildlife values for the JBR focal area are in several large
agricultural zoning district was implemented by Jefferson polygons, largely centered on riparian resources that provide
County through a citizen-initiated zoning process in 2000. critical wildlife corridors. Participants attempted to map
The zoning, aimed at preventing the fragmentation of that lands that both enhance connectivity and provide quality
landscape, creates 640 acre minimum lot sizes in the Milligan habitat. They agreed that these two factors converge at
Canyon-Boulder Valley Agricultural District and covers each main drainage. Every stream is biologically valuable,
about 140 square miles. but the main stem of the rivers are most endangered,
according to workshop participants, particularly in terms of
Other important conservation partners in the JBR include
compromised stream flows. A drought management plan is
Trout Unlimited, which has been working with community
being implemented whereby farmers voluntarily reduce water
leaders and ranchers through the Jefferson Watershed
use. Participants also discussed the threat posed by conifers
Council in an effort to maintain flows on the Jefferson.
encroaching on native vegetation in wetlands within the
American Wildlands has mapped critical wildlife corridors
riparian zones.
throughout the High Divide; those data were used in
JBR mapping. The Jefferson River Canoe Trail Chapter of The entire corridor of the Ruby River was identified since it is
the Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation also aims of critical importance to wildlife and water quality. The upper
to preserve the land in the Jefferson River corridor by Ruby watershed is relatively undeveloped and surrounded by
maintaining the undeveloped character of the landscape as public land. Similarly, the Jefferson River from Twin Bridges
Lewis and Clark would have found it. to the mouth of the Boulder River is a significant wildlife
corridor with intact riparian cottonwood gallery forests that
A 500 kV power line, the Mountain States Transmission
continue upstream on the Ruby, Big Hole, and Beaverhead
Intertie, is proposed for construction through this focal area.
Rivers. The cottonwood forests support osprey nesting and
Alternate routes through the Boulder Valley, over Homestake
year-around bald eagle use, in addition to sandhill cranes,
Pass parallel to I-90, or up the Jefferson River Valley are all seen
waterfowl, songbirds, snow geese, and swans. River otter and
as major threats to wildlife habitat, agricultural, and residential
beaver are also present. The lower Boulder River valley was
developments, and the health and safety of area residents.
selected as high-priority for fish and riparian values. From
Concerned citizens and county officials
the confluence of the Jefferson and Boulder, downstream
have organized to oppose power line Alert antelope
to Three Forks, riparian values are also strong and wildlife
construction which could have a long- Photo by Jill Hanson Tabor
linkage is important.
term influence on conservation efforts
in this watershed.
HOTR Mapping
The Heart of the Rockies Initiative
hosted a workshop in Whitehall
on October 27, 2009. Participants
included representatives of the
Ruby Watershed Council, Natural
Resources Conservation Service,
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks,
Jefferson Watershed Council, and
American Wildlands. Participants
mapped private lands, showing 38%
as high-priority for conservation (Map 11). Following that, Mule deer, elk, moose, and antelope are year-round residents
they identified two levels of priority for each criterion— in the Boulder River watershed, and black bear are present
agriculture, wildlife, and community values (see Technical seasonally. Mink and beaver also use the river and riparian
Appendix). The resource descriptions below discuss only the zone. Downstream from the town of Boulder, the river
highest-priority polygons shown on Map 11. meanders with a gradual gradient and riparian vegetation
consists of cottonwood, aspen, and willow. Some tributaries
of the Boulder River provide habitat for native westslope
cutthroat trout.18 The area at the confluence of the Boulder
18 http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/2004/1652/pdf/ChapB.pdf
Map 11 Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby Focal Area
and Jefferson River provides a wildlife potential access and development could have negative
corridor, linking the Tobacco Roots The Jefferson impacts on mountain goats and other species.
River and Tobacco
and the Boulder Mountains across the Root foothills, Agricultural
Jefferson River valley. This area was from a bridge
near Waterloo. Priority agricultural resources are located in four main
identified by American Wildlands for
Courtesy of the Montana valleys of the JBR focal area. First, the Boulder River Valley
its importance to moose, deer, antelope, Association of Land Trusts
is viable ranchland that is already partly protected through
elk, mountain lion, and black bear.
zoning. The entire valley on both sides of the Jefferson River
However the level of human development in this area and the
is prime agricultural ground, producing cattle, hay and
presence of I-90 probably limit wildlife use of this linkage.
grain. Similarly, the Ruby River valley is predominantly in
Upland from the river corridors, there is important elk winter agricultural operations, although residential development is
range and other wildlife habitat on private lands. Elk winter increasing dramatically. Finally, Whitetail Deer Creek north
range is present in nearly all of the lower foothills of the of Whitehall, a tributary of the Jefferson River includes intact
Tobacco Roots from Virginia City to Twin Bridges, and south agricultural ground.
of Cardwell.
Community
At the southeast end of the focal area, the region around Access to public lands was identified as the most important
Virginia City provides wildlife linkage between the Tobacco community resource provided by private lands in this region.
Roots and the Gravelly Range. This corridor is used by Two main areas were mapped, all with public land access
elk, deer, and large carnivores; it includes state, BLM, and points on mostly undisturbed land. These include a band of
private land. It ranked #2 in American Wildlands Priority land in the foothills of the Tobacco Roots in an arc from west
Linkage Assessment in the High Divide primarily due to the of Twin Bridges to the eastern edge of the focal area. These
increasing level of private land development. (Note: the High private lands border primarily USFS, BLM, and state lands.
Divide has a different geographic scope in the American In the far southern section, a corridor of private land in the
Wildlands mapping). Finally, numerous in-holdings within upper Ruby valley above Ruby Reservoir provides access to
national forest lands in the Tobacco Roots Mountains were state land. Lands near existing fishing access sites were also
identified. Many of these are old mining claims, where identified as important community assets.
Workshop participants recognized a number of specific
A bend in the
sites that exemplify a range of community values. Private Jefferson River in
lands near these features are high-priority for voluntary autumn.
land conservation. These include Point of Rocks hot springs, Courtesy of the Montana
Association of Land Trusts
an undeveloped hot pool about ten miles from Whitehall.
Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park is a tourist destination
featuring spectacular limestone caves lined with stalactite and
stalagmite formations. Pipestone Pass, completed in 1909 for
the Milwaukee Road, was the first pass over the continental
divide near Butte. The railroad line cut under the pass via the
2,290 ft. Pipestone Pass Tunnel. It is still used as Montana
Highway 2. Other abandoned rail lines provide potentially
important routes for long-distance trails.
The landscape around Virginia City and Nevada City along

highway 287 has regional, or even national, historical and
scenic importance. Virginia City is considered an excellent
example of the many placer mining camps that flourished
during the 1860s in the west. Many buildings date to the
1870s and the surrounding landscape has been disturbed little
since mining ended in 1942. Virginia City’s site is significant
for its association with a frontier community and society
based on the mining of precious metals. The town began to
be restored for tourism in the 1950s and is now a National
Historic Landmark, mostly owned by the state government.
Similarly, Nevada City, only one and a half miles from
Virginia City, has historic buildings original to the site plus
historic buildings saved from locations across Montana.
Chapter 11: Lost River Focal Area
Geographic Context Total Acres: 5,350,385

The Big Lost River
The Lost River focal area is dominated by public land, with
with the Lost River Publicly owned acres:
over four million acres of US Forest Service (USFS), Bureau mountain range in 4,396,588
of Land Management (BLM), Department of Energy (DOE), the background.
Photo by Bart Garnett Privately owned acres:
and National Park Service (NPS) holdings. Smaller parcels
of state land are dotted across the landscape, primarily in 953,796
school sections. Fingers of three mountain ranges extend south and southeast into % Private land: 18%
the focal area. From east to west, they are the Beaverhead, Lemhi, and Lost River
ranges. Acres under conservation
easements: 17,443
Farther west, the Pioneer Range in the Sawtooth and Challis National Forests borders
Acreage of private lands with
the western side of the focal area. The Pioneer Mountains region is one of Idaho’s
largest undeveloped areas. Little-known and remarkably unspoiled, the Pioneers 492,657
region supports one of North America’s richest concentrations of wildlife species.
The Little Wood River flows from the Pioneers south towards Craters of the Moon value for conservation: 52%
National Monument; its valley has a mix of private, BLM, and state land.
10-year conservation goal:
Over half of the Lost River Range, home to Idaho’s highest peak, is within the 60,000 acres
borders of the focal area. It extends 70 miles northwest to southeast, from the
Land conservation partners:
Salmon River to the town of Arco. To the west lies the Big Lost River Valley, with
The Nature Conservancy
its corridor of private land, and to the east is the Little Lost River Valley, also with a Wood River Land Trust
narrow band of private land. Teton Regional Land Trust
South and east of these mountain valleys, the terrain flattens out and is comprised Sawtooth Society
of four main landscapes. First, the Mud Lake area in the northeast has the largest
block of private land in the focal area, with flat agricultural ground traditionally
used for growing alfalfa and other hay crops. Southwest of Mud Lake, the Idaho
National Laboratory occupies a large shrub steppe land complex managed by the
DOE. Further south and west, the land is mostly in BLM The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is the most active private
management, with the 400 square mile Craters of the Moon land protection organization in the Lost River region. Three
National Monument & Preserve within the western side on of TNC’s 12 Idaho priority areas are partly within the Lost
the Snake River Plain between Arco and Carey. River focal area—Sawtooth Area, Vanishing Rivers, and
Southern Pioneers/Craters of the Moon. TNC’s Southern
The Lost River focal area is the most remote of the nine High
Pioneers plan is complete and a planning process is underway
Divide regions. It contains high mountain peaks, vast lava fields
for the Vanishing Rivers Initiative. TNC has completed
in the National Monument, and thousands of acres of sagebrush
conservation easements covering thousands of acres in the
steppe grazing land. Only a few small towns nestle along
Lost River focal area. In the Upper Chilly Slough, over a
waterways, most housing a few hundred people at most. Arco
thousand acres were protected with easements, now held by
is the largest, with a population of about 1000. Only one major
agencies. TNC has also targeted nearly 10,000 acres in Birch
highway crosses the focal area—I-15 on the far eastern side.
Creek and the Medicine Lodge areas. Idaho Department of
Fish and Game (IDFG) is also engaged in protecting more
lands in this area.
Summary of Resources
The Lost River focal area is extremely diverse—from There are a number of targeted efforts for specific parts
sagebrush steppes to high mountain peaks and from riparian of this landscape. For instance, there is local interest and
river corridors to the Craters of the Moon lava fields. The collaboration taking place with the Snake River Habitat
region hosts tremendous wildlife populations, large working Management System, particularly in the Little Lost and Little
ranches, and many different ecosystem types. The Lost River Wood rivers, both of which have been over-appropriated
focal area provides important habitats for many types of over the years. In the Big Lost River area, the USFS and IDFG
wildlife, including numerous big game species including have put sizable efforts into conserving bighorn sheep habitat
pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer, white tail deer, moose, and restoring bighorn sheep populations. They are working
bighorn sheep, and mountain goat. Carnivores utilizing with private landowners to ameliorate the danger of disease
the focal area include mountain lion, black bear, wolverine, contamination from domestic to wild sheep. The Wild Sheep
gray wolf, bobcat, marten, weasel, and other more common Foundation has been an active partner in working with both
species. Avian species include numerous neo-tropical migrant agencies and private land owners to address the needs of
birds, waterfowl and sagebrush obligates like the sage grouse. bighorn sheep.
Habitat diversity is supported by the region’s dramatic range The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is engaged
in elevation—from 4000 to 12,000 feet. Lower elevation passes in conservation work in the Antelope Creek area. A number
across the Lost River and Lemhi Mountains provide important of organizations and agencies are working on protection
wildlife connectivity from the Lemhi Mountains to the of sage grouse habitat, not only protecting the bird species
Pioneers. The area is further enhanced by intact river corridors but protecting the grasslands that the grouse use. The Lava
and the relatively untouched nature of the landscape. People Lake Institute and the Wild Sheep Foundation are also active
fish, hike, horseback ride, hunt, and pursue other recreational partners in the Lost River focal area.
activities throughout this region. Intact traditional agriculture
The Pioneers Alliance is a coalition that is attempting to
operations raise sheep, cattle, and hay.
protect the public lands and working farms and ranches
Landscape pressures being faced across the west—energy that together sustain the wild character and wildlife of
development, housing, and others—have not yet been seen the Pioneer Mountains and Craters of the Moon region.
in most of the Lost River focal area. There are still wonderful Members of the Alliance include ranchers, local residents,
opportunities to protect the open spaces, wildlife habitats, elected and agency officials, and representatives of non-
access to public lands, agricultural ground, and small profit organizations including The Conservation Fund,
communities. WRLT, Idaho Conservation League, TNC, and the Lava Lake
Institute for Science and Conservation. Formed in 2007, the
Alliance has launched grassroots campaigns to oppose an
Conservation Partners energy transmission corridor, has developed a long-term
There is no one land trust whose service area covers the Lost vision for the Pioneers-to-Craters landscape, conducted a
River Focal Area. However, the Teton Regional Land Trust’s pronghorn antelope study, and pursues funding for protection
(TRLT) service area includes the southeastern part of the of critically important private lands.
region. In addition, the Wood River Land Trust (WRLT) is
active in the Pioneers and in the Little Wood River watershed.
HOTR Mapping Farther west, Birch Creek flows north-
Upper Thousand
The Heart of the Rockies Initiative hosted a workshop in south east of the Beaverhead Range Springs Valley
Mackay, Idaho on August 12, 2009, with attendees from TNC, and provides excellent antelope range Photo by Michael Whitfield
Sagebrush Steppe Land Trust, USFS, and WRLT. Almost a and sage grouse habitat. This valley is
half million acres, or 42% of the private land in the focal area bounded on the east by the Beaverhead and on the west by
was identified as high priority for conservation (Map 12). the Lemhi Range.
Across the Lemhi Range, the Little Lost River Valley provides
Wildlife good waterfowl habitat and wetlands that support many
Biological resources are the strongest motivation for species. One reach near Big Spring and Warm Spring Creeks
conservation in the Lost River focal area. Although the is important for bull trout spawning. Summit Creek is a
majority of the Lost River country is in public ownership, headwaters tributary of the Little Lost River, where relatively
large blocks of critical private land were identified. small complexes of private lands are particularly important
for waterfowl habitat. Pronghorn antelope migrate out of the
The largest private land area with high wildlife values is in the Little Lost to the DOE Idaho National Laboratory land, which
northeast corner of the watershed, north of Mud Lake and also has important sage grouse habitat.
west of Dubois, where sage grouse leks are important. Also
in this area, the Camas National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) Two blocks of private land within the BLM rangeland at the
and Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area (ID F&G) protect southern end of the watershed provide good sage grouse
significant open water and wetlands with very high water bird habitat. One is adjacent to Atomic City and is used primarily
diversity and numbers, and private lands in the vicinity of for agricultural fields. The other inholding is southwest of
these refuge areas are important for conservation. This area Atomic City a few miles east of the National Monument.
is a mix of BLM land and crop enterprises, mostly in center-
Workshop participants identified the entire Big Lost River
pivot irrigation systems.
Valley as important for biological values. The headwaters of
North of this area, along Medicine Lodge Creek, private the Big Lost River are particularly valuable for fish, wetland
land follows the creek and provides habitat for big game, species, big game, and sage grouse. Downstream, the river
sage grouse and raptors. In addition, the creek itself is an supports mountain whitefish. The Big Lost has a cottonwood
important trout stream. The narrow creek bottom is primarily bottom that provides ungulate winter range and riparian
ranch land. woodland species. Cottonwood gallery forests are critical
Map 12 Lost River Focal Area
riparian corridors for many species; this system is especially provides habitat for grouse and other species. Small seeps
important from Trail Creek to Mackay Reservoir on the Big from the ditches create very important ecological zones.
Lost. The Big Lost River valley provides and important mule Edges of alfalfa fields also create dispersed habitat zones.
deer wintering area and elk wintering area with animals
migrating in from the Pioneers and the Wood River valley.
Community
An area at the edge of USFS land south and east of the
Important community resources are clustered toward the
Pioneer Mountains in the Little Wood River Watershed is
north end of the Lost River focal area. The largest polygon is
particularly rich in wildlife values. Species include antelope,
the Big Lost River valley, noted for the viewshed of the Lost
elk, deer, and wolves. Private land in this region provides a big
River Range and the scenic quality of the valley itself. Access
game migration corridor to Blizzard Mountain winter range.
to public land is important in various locations in the Big Lost
Antelope and Iron Creeks are important for wintering herds.
River valley. Several fishing access points upstream of Mackay
Private lands adjoining the northern edge of Craters of the were also identified. Other traditional access points to USFS
Moon National Monument contain antelope winter range and land were mapped between the Lost River and Lemhi ranges.
historic sage grouse leks. This area also provides both elk and
A long narrow corridor along Birch Creek, with only a small
curlew habitat.
amount of private land along the creek, was mapped for its
proximity to the Birch Creek Campground, managed by
Agriculture the BLM. The area is noted for its historic and recreational
Only a very small percentage of the Lost River focal area significance. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail
is high priority for agricultural resources and workshop traces the northern edge of the focal area on the Idaho-
participants identified only one large polygon. This is the Montana border.
region north and west of Mud Lake, a relatively flat landscape
with prime agricultural soils used mainly for growing alfalfa
hay. Irrigated crop land, mainly center pivot systems, circle
around Table Butte from Dubois to Mud Lake. This area is
also important for wildlife values, as the canal ditch system
Irrigated land on a
ranch in the Little
Lost River basin.
Photo by Bart Garnett
Chapter 12: A Proposal for Private Land
Conservation in the High Divide
Implementing the High Divide Conservation Plan private lands, and valley bottoms with prime ranch and
The conservation priorities depicted in Chapters 3-11, when farmland. As shown in Chapter 2, workshop participants
combined, total 3,486,768 acres of high-priority land; this worked to identify the best of the best private land. However,
represents 51% of private land in the High Divide (Map 13). application of the Heart of the Rockies’ three criteria
These 3.4 million acres will be the focus of collaborative yielded over half of the private land shown as high value for
land conservation efforts in the High Divide region by the conservation (38% to 79%, depending on focal area).
HOTR Initiative. The High Divide planning process yielded
In the HOTR conservation planning to date, the planning
a higher proportion of private land identified as high value
focus has been solely upon identification of those lands with
for conservation relative to the two prior conservation plans.
high resource values associated with three HOTR resource
The GYE and COC&IP plans recognized 44% and 30%,
themes and has not included other elements of conservation
respectively.
prioritization such as threats or opportunities. It is expected
Table 2 summarizes the acreage totals and conservation goals that land trusts will complete the next level of conservation
for each focal area. In general, the high-value lands identified planning for each focal area to develop conservation decision
through this process are characterized by riparian areas, models that examine threats such as habitat fragmentation
wetlands, significant seasonal habitats, migration corridors, and opportunities such as funding and landowner interest to
buffer areas to large tracts of public land and conserved further prioritize lands for conservation from among those
Table 2. Acres of private land with high value for conservation and ten year conservation goals, by focal area.
ACRES OF ACREAGE
EXISTING
ACRES IN ACRES IN PRIVATE LAND GOAL TO
TOTAL FOCAL CONSERVATION
FOCAL AREA NAME PUBLIC PRIVATE WITH HIGH CONSERVE
AREA ACRES EASEMENT
OWNERSHIP* OWNERSHIP** VALUE FOR OVER 10
ACRES***
CONSERVATION YEARS
MONTANA
Beaverhead 1,749,963 1,109,878 640,085 22,859 384,844 15,000
Red Rock
Big Hole 1,789,197 1,314,445 474,753 48,826 357,836 10,000
Bitterroot 1,556,383 1,181,858 374,525 31,790 182,578 30,000
Jefferson 1,847,484 1,008,094 839,390 27,688 317,148 10,000
Boulder-Ruby
Upper Clark Fork 2,365,196 1,237,954 1,127,243 71,924 626,663 90,000
Upper Missouri 1,840,500 814,560 1,025,940 91,133 427,126 15,000
Upper Yellowstone 1,263,008 243,894 1,019,113 97,171 435,154 25,000
Total Montana 12,411,731 6,910,683 5,501,049 391,391 2,731,349 195,000
IDAHO
Lost River 5,350,385 4,396,588 953,796 17,443 492,657 60,000
Salmon-Lemhi 4,063,062 3,729,551 333,511 15,135 262,762 45,000
Total Idaho 9,413,446 8,126,139 1,287,307 32,578 755,419 105,000
High Divide Total 21,825,177 15,036,822 6,788,356 423,969 3,486,768 300,000
* “Public” land includes: City Government, Montana Dept of Corrections, Montana Dept of Transportation, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game,
Montana State Trust Lands, National Park Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Dept of Defense, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
US Forest Service, Water both state and federal claims, Water navigable (state Dept of Natural Resources), Water reserved/withdrawn by federal agency.
** “Private” includes lands owned by Plum Creek Timber Company, lands owned by land trusts, and private water.
*** “Existing Conservation Easements” includes conservation easements on private and public lands, including land owned by land trusts. Data sources include
HOTR 2008 conservation easement statistics, and 2010 data from The Nature Conservancy of Idaho and Lemhi Regional Land Trust.
Map 13 Lands with High Value for Voluntary Conservation in the High Divide
identified as having high resource value. Future conservation the current situation for biological, agricultural and
planning will also need to account for the impacts of climate community resources. The result of that identification effort is
change upon the sustainability of resource values. approximately 3.4 million private land acres of high value for
conservation. In even the most optimal situation for private
With recognition of this large acreage of land of high
land conservation not all of those 3.4 million acres will
conservation value, the HOTR partners wrestled with these
ultimately be protected—this conservation effort is voluntary
questions: What strategies are available to provide more
and each conservation project requires a willing landowner.
opportunities for lasting private land conservation in the
High Divide? How do we best provide additional private land In some cases landowners will decide to develop their
conservation capacity in these areas? High Divide partners lands. Conversely in the High Divide, many properties will
face several factors unique to the High Divide when setting not likely be threatened by development in the foreseeable
conservation goals and developing conservation strategies. future. High Divide land trusts are challenged to identify
Primary among these is limited private land conservation achievable goals that will provide willing landowners with the
capacity. Three of the High Divide opportunity to
focal areas lack a local land trust protect their
presence and some of the existing local lands at the
High Divide land trusts have limited appropriate
capacity. Work by state and national time. Land
organizations in the High Divide trusts in
is limited to a few geographically the region
targeted initiatives. This is an important believe that
factor in strategizing to implement timberland and
the High Divide plan since local land agricultural
trusts in their priority service areas or landowners
national organizations like The Nature should not
Conservancy through their targeted have to choose
initiatives usually act as important between their
builders of local community support for livelihood,
private land conservation. which is derived from working on the land, and the
Jefferson River maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem function.
As an example, the second highest near Silver Star
with the Tobacco It is possible to have both. Through the use of conservation
percentage of private land of high value
Root Mountains in tools and stewardship, land trusts can help willing landowners
for conservation is in the Big Hole focal the background.
sustain this vision into the future. Each land trust recognizes
area (75%). The Big Hole is not included Courtesy of the Montana
Association of Land Trusts that, individually, it has the capacity to conserve only a
in any local land trust’s primary service
portion of the most important natural resources in the High
area, although national conservation
Divide and that the conservation goal for the region can be
groups, primarily TNC, have been active in the upper part of
met only by working collaboratively.
the watershed. Further, most of the High Divide focal areas
are very rural with low human population levels and hence In April 2010, High Divide land trusts and several of their
potentially limited local ability to financially support local partners met as a group to collaboratively identify a 10-
land trust organizations. year private land protection goal for voluntary private land
conservation in the High Divide. The primary consideration for
A positive and promising feature of the High Divide planning
development of this goal was land trust capacity, as discussed
process was the relatively wide-range of expertise from
above. The group decided to develop goals by focal area for
agency and organization partners. This broad involvement
those areas where there is a land trust presence, and to prioritize
and buy-in may provide opportunities for deeper
among specific geographies for those focal areas where there
collaboration as the HOTR partners work to implement the
is not currently proactive land trust work underway. Follow-
High Divide Conservation Plan.
up discussion with conservation interests in each focal area
led to further refinement of the 10-year goals. The land
trusts attempted to develop goals that were both a challenge
Establishing a 10-Year Goal for Voluntary Private and attainable with new capacity. The organizations are also
Land Conservation developing conservation strategies to implement those goals.
This plan achieves a first stage in conservation planning
for private lands in the High Divide: identification of High Divide conservation partners developed land protection
private lands of high value for conservation based upon acreage goals by focal area for those areas where there is a
land trust presence (Table 2). The High Divide land trusts Upper Clark Fork. The Upper Clark Fork has become a
established a goal to work with willing private landowners to priority for FVLT. FVLT is doing targeted landowner outreach
conserve 300,000 thousand acres of land in the High Divide in this area, and has completed more refined conservation
over the next 10 years. This goal includes acreage targets for planning as a follow-up to the HOTR effort. RMEF and MLR
six focal areas as developed through discussion among the work here in response to landowner requests. PPLT is doing
land trusts that serve those areas. A seventh, the Jefferson- some work in the Little Blackfoot. Montana FWP holds some
Boulder-Ruby watershed, includes a conservation target by easements in this area and recently acquired a significant
Prickly Pear Land Trust in the Boulder watershed. The rest of holding in the Spotted Dog area. Significant Natural Resource
that focal area, and the Big Hole and Beaverhead-Red Rock Damage funds may be available for easement acquisition in
focal areas, are not currently served by local organizations, this area, with up to $20 million for the Upper Clark Fork.
but the group established goals with the assumption that After discussion, the groups agreed to a ten year target of
greater capacity will be developed over the next decade. 90,000 acres for the Upper Clark Fork. This includes 2,000
acres for PPLT.
It is anticipated that most of the private land conservation
to be accomplished in the High Divide will be through Upper Missouri. PPLT is focused on this area, and Montana
conservation easements, either donated or purchased in total FWP and MLR are also working in this landscape. The
or in bargain sales. There has been a considerable amount participants set an overall goal of 15,000 acres.
of private land conservation already accomplished in the
High Divide. Over 400,000 acres of private land has been Upper Yellowstone. MLR does some work here on a
conserved in the High Divide, the majority through donated landowner-request basis, and GVLT has completed some
conservation easements (Table 2). However, as many ranch planning with the intent to expand its land protection program
owners near retirement age, agricultural profits decline in this area, although GVLT currently lacks capacity to engage
and the recreational value of land escalates, it becomes very deeply in the Upper Yellowstone. The 10-year private land
financially difficult for many traditional land owners to conservation goal for this focal area was set at 25,000 acres.
donate easements. Land trusts have responded by turning Salmon-Lemhi. The participants agreed that there are
increasingly to purchased conservation easements, taking many high-priority resources throughout this focal area,
advantage of federal funding sources such as the Farmland with notable hot spots in the upper and middle Lemhi and
Protection Program and Wetlands and Grasslands Reserve
programs. To a lesser degree regional land trusts will apply
strategies such as grass banking and stream setbacks. In
limited circumstances these organizations will purchase
land from willing land owners in fee title, either to hold and
manage themselves or to turn over to a conservation owner
or agency.
Below, in a focal area by focal area manner, we provide a brief

rationale for the 10-year private land acreage targets selected
in each focal area.
Bitterroot. Land ownership in the Bitterroot is relatively

fractured with many small parcels. There are currently some
31,000 acres under conservation easement, with active private
land conservation efforts by an array of groups including Pahsimeroi valleys. Additionally, the
BRLT, FVLT, MLR, and RMEF. Most of these groups work LRLT, TNC, and American Wildlands Ribbons of gold
opportunistically in response to landowner requests in the have recognized the importance of the cottonwoods and
red dogwoods
Bitterroot with one conservation easement every other year Carmen Creek drainage as a wildlife near Challis,
on average. The RMEF is working on phased conservation linkage with abundant opportunity. Idaho provide
easements on the CB ranch that could total another 10,000 connectivity across
LRLT and TNC-Idaho are the primary
the landscape for
acres, hence an RMEF goal of 10,000 acres in ten years. BRLT land trusts at work in the Lemhi and migratory birds
protected 1,600 acres in 2009, and expects that with more lower Salmon, whereas WRLT works in and bats.
capacity and continued partnership with FVLT and others it Photo by Greg Painter
the Pahsimeroi and Upper Salmon. The
could conserve 2000-2500 acres per year, or 20,000-25,000 participants agreed on an overall ten
acres in ten years. The groups agreed to a target of 30,000 year target of 45,000 acres for the entire focal area.
acres over ten years as a target for the Bitterroot.
Lost River. There is a considerable acreage under priority areas identified through this planning process and by
conservation easements in this focal area, with thousands of American Wildlands and Wildlife Conservation Society. The
acres of protected private land: in the Upper Chilly Slough participants set an acreage goal of 15,000 acres over the next
area for wetland values; in the Sawtooth area, primarily for 10 years.
scenic value; and in the new Pioneer Alliance project area,
Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby. The watershed group and other
primarily for crucial wildlife habitats and connectivity,
participants in this focal area particularly emphasized the
and for ranchland values. The Pioneer Alliance is targeting
importance of the river corridor cottonwood forests, wetlands
protection of about 50,000 acres (TNC, WRLT, others) over
and a number of wildlife resources. MTFWP highlighted
the next ten years. Additionally TNC will target 10,000 acres
the importance of this area for wildlife linkage. There is little
in Birch Creek and Medicine Lodge. IDFG hopes to protect
land trust activity in most of this focal area, although PPLT is
lands between the Camas National Wildlife Refuge and Mud
beginning to work in the Boulder and MLR works in this area
Lake IDFG Management Area for migratory waterfowl with
on an opportunity basis. The overall goal for the next 10 years
pronghorn antelope around the perimeter of the agricultural
is 10,000 acres.
lands, but a goal for this area has not been identified. This
area is within the TRLT service area, but TRLT has not made
this a priority area for the foreseeable future. The Sawtooth
Strategies for Achieving the 10-Year Goal
Society may complete some additional land protection in
Concerted action by land trusts, both individually and
the Sawtooth area, although its primary focus is now on
collectively, will be needed to achieve the goals set out above.
stewardship and outreach. TNC-Idaho, WRLT, and IDFG
The rate, quantity, and efficiency of private land conservation
have identified priority areas for conservation within their
in the High Divide must increase dramatically if 300,000
respective portfolios, with a total current goal of 60,000 acres
additional acres are to be conserved by 2020. Achieving the
over the next 10 years.
goal also depends on the willingness of private landowners
Big Hole. No local land trusts serve this area, but TNC- to voluntarily conserve their land through partnerships with
Montana has been very active in the Upper Big Hole and land trusts.
has joined with public agencies, conservation groups and
To support individual land trust efforts in the High Divide,
local ranchers to place conservation easements on more than
HOTR seeks to develop and implement strategies that
40,000 acres. TNC’s goal is to increase that by another 10,000
leverage the power of the participating organizations
acres. WCS recently completed a landowner survey for the
to develop “added value” strategies to enhance each
Big Hole, and found widespread interest in conservation
organization’s ability to work with willing land owners to
of most of the area, much as the HOTR Initiative found in
conserve private land. Strategies that add value are those that
its focal-area planning. The High Divide plan participants
require the collective participation of a critical mass of land
agreed that additional land conservation capacity should be
trusts to succeed, to be efficient, or to succeed at the scale
empowered to conserve lands in the Big Hole. The 10-year
necessary to be effective. In contrast, actions that duplicate
target is 10,000 acres.
or compete with existing land trust efforts or project-level
Beaverhead-Red Rock. American partnerships do not provide added value.
Wildlands noted that the Blacktail, Young badger in
the Blacktail With these considerations in mind, the Heart of the Rockies
Medicine Lodge, Grasshopper and Creek area. Initiative has identified the following collaborative strategies
Horse Prairie stood out for wildlife BLM Photo File
to achieve the 10-year goal for the High Divide.
importance within this focal area.
MLR, TNC,
and potentially Strategy: New Collaborative for
the Wildlife Un-served Focal Areas
Land Trust The High Divide land trusts and their
may respond partners agreed to collaborate to deliver
to landowner private land conservation capacity in
requests in this the Big Hole and the upper portion of
area, but it is not a the Beaverhead-Red Rock focal areas
focus for any local as a priority action. The landowner-
land trust. Land driven Pioneer Alliance (see Chapter
trust capacity is 11 Lost River focal area) in Idaho is a
needed here to suggested model for bringing together
respond to high land trusts (local and national),
agencies, organizations, and landowners. Although this type • Provide training and mentoring to land trusts and their
of collaboration takes time and other resources, it can yield leaders to help ensure their growth and success;
conservation results much more cost effectively and efficiently • Support the expansion of existing land trust service
than trying to start a new organization. This strategy also areas and the creation of new land conservation
provides consistent messaging about conservation practices. collaboratives to serve the Big Hole, Beaverhead-Red
For the Big Hole, the most likely local land trust partners are Rock, and Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby focal areas.
the Bitter Root Land Trust (BRLT) and the Lemhi Regional
Land Trust (LRLT). The Nature Conservancy-Montana is
Strategy: Implement a Revolving Loan Fund for High
well established in the upper Big Hole. FVLT might also
Divide Projects
be willing to provide conservation support. Collectively
Land trusts must be both opportunistic and strategic in
these organizations will need to develop capacity for such
identifying and achieving conservation. A revolving loan fund
a collaborative effort (see Strategy #2). BRLT and LRLT, in
is one tool that enables land trusts in certain circumstances to
partnership with TNC-MT, will need to facilitate continued
be more strategic about conservation acquisitions by allowing
conversations about land conservation in the Big Hole
them to respond quickly to a conservation opportunity.
and upper Beaverhead-Red Rock, including fundraising
In some instances, a land trust may need to close on a
strategies for capacity-building for this type of collaborative.
conservation easement or acquisition before financing can
Specifically, these partners will discuss a collaborative
be obtained to close the deal. A revolving loan fund provides
response to the power line mitigation issues forthcoming in
a mechanism to address potential timing issues associated
these regions.
with the immediate need by a landowner to close on a
At a later date there may be potential to develop a new conservation easement transaction and the sometimes longer
land trust to serve the lower Beaverhead-Red Rock and term proposition of obtaining adequate funding
Jefferson/Ruby area since these areas collectively have a larger
Several national organizations working within the High
population base. In the meantime, the existing conservation
Divide have internal revolving loan funds, all of which are or
organizations will focus, where possible, on the high
have been oversubscribed. The HOTR partners in the GYE
priority landscapes defined in this plan and in the American
and COC/IP have long benefitted from a revolving loan fund
Wildlands and Wildlife Conservation Society priorities.
administered by the Resources Legacy Fund (RLF) in delivery
of resources from the Packard Foundation. Application of
Strategy: Increase Land Trust Capacity this RLF revolving loan fund and additional similar programs
The current rate of private land conservation in the High if warranted to the High Divide will help participating land
Divide is approximately 15,000 acres per year (without regard trusts complete projects that contribute to achieving the 10-
to conservation value ranking) with some significant pulses year goal.
above that number when large projects have been completed.
In preliminary discussions with the HOTR, the Resources
If the land trusts are to achieve their 10-year goal, they must
Legacy Fund has committed to making its revolving loan
more than double that pace to protect 30,000 acres per year
fund available for protection of high value lands in the High
of land of high value for conservation. Doubling this rate will
Divide. HOTR will encourage and monitor use of this fund
require land trusts to expand their organizational capacity
and funding processes and terms and periodically evaluate if
to complete land transactions, fundraise for operations
funds available through this tool are adequate for the needs of
and acquisitions, and steward conservation easements in
High Divide land trusts.
perpetuity.
Enhancing capacity is clearly a challenge for each individual

organization. The Heart of the Rockies Initiative has been Strategy: Enhance Public Funding
successful at building the capacity of member land trusts to Public funding for various federal, state and local programs
protect priority lands through its long-standing challenge is critical for purchased conservation easements and
grant program, but this effort must be expanded to meet the fee acquisitions. Federal funding sources include Farm
unique capacity challenges found in the High Divide. Bill programs administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, including the Farmland Protection
The HOTR Initiative and partners will meet this challenge by:
Program, the Wetland Reserve Program and its
• Raising additional funding for a challenge grant enhancements, and the Grassland Reserve Program; U.S. Fish
program for High Divide land trusts and partners and Wildlife Service funding through the North American
to help them enhance their organizational and Wetland Conservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and
programmatic capacity; Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF), and others;
U.S. Forest Service funding through the Forest Legacy Act additional resources that recognize the High Divide’s
and LWCF; Bureau of Land Management LWCF funding; the importance in large landscape connectivity.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and other sources.
The components of the HOTR public funding strategy are
Funding from federal programs has diminished significantly
as follows:
in recent years, and despite promising new federal programs,
the current economy in 2010 diminishes the prospects for • Identifying and overcoming any barriers to full
increased federal funding. subscription to existing funding programs.
A new element of rural development support at the federal • Facilitating information exchange and other steps
level could include funding for locally-based nonprofit necessary to ensure early use of new and emerging
organizations that benefit local economies and keep land public funding programs.
open and working. For example, the NRCS workforce is • Developing coordinated and concerted political
decreasing and the agency is evaluating ways to implement strategies to incrementally increase federal funding by
their programs with fewer in-house staffing resources. An 25 percent.
infrastructure is already in place through local nonprofits to • Identifying High Divide counties where local funding
achieve some of the same goals. initiatives have the greatest likelihood of success and
At the state level in Montana, Montana Fish, Wildlife and providing support for local efforts to initiate and
Parks funding through the Montana Fish and Wildlife enact them.
Conservation Trust, Habitat Montana, and other programs
has generated significant funding for
private land acquisition, restoration,
and stewardship. The Montana
Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation has provided significant
acquisition funding through land
banking. The Idaho Office of Species
Conservation has provided large grants
to land conservation and restoration to
benefit anadromous fish in the Salmon-
Lemhi focal area. Idaho Department of
Fish and Game’s Landowner Incentive
Program is also available to protect
and restore priority private lands in the
Idaho portion of the High Divide.
At the local level, voters in Ravalli

County passed a $10 million bond
measure for open lands conservation.
This bonding initiative has fostered
Bluebird house on Strategy: Enhance Private Funding
significant growth in BRLT’s ranch land in the
Public funding alone is clearly inadequate to meet the
conservation capacity and benefited Jefferson Valley.
Courtesy of the Montana estimated capital funding needed to conserve 300,000 acres,
the work of other land conservation Association of Land Trusts and there is a significant role for private philanthropy. In
organizations at work in the Bitterroot.
addition, most federal and local funding programs require
Potential emerging sources of funding include federal some level of matching funding, and private funding is a
transportation mitigation funding, mitigation funding for critical source of matching dollars. The goal of this strategy
new energy transmission lines expected to cross the High is to 1) maintain existing sources of private funding and
Divide, in-lieu-fee programs developed to mitigate impacts redouble efforts to increase their leverage and effectiveness,
from 404 permits administered by the U.S. Army Corps 2) obtain new sources of funding from foundations and
of Engineers, and local funding initiatives in other High major donors by working collaboratively at a landscape
Divide counties. Despite a very challenging economic setting level, and (3) explore ways to develop new, nontraditional
nationally, there is some hope that new federal initiatives sources of private funding for conservation financing. The
around large landscape conservation might result in some HOTR Initiative has identified collective capital fundraising
as its primary strategic goal, and is developing a collective scale is designed to identify those lands of high value for
capital fundraising program, including dedicated staffing, to conservation that meet desired long-term outcomes:
help land trusts fund the conservation of lands of very high
• Protection of crucial core habitats and connectivity
priority for landscape conservation.
habitats that sustain fish and wildlife resources and
ecologically interconnect large ecosystems;
Strategy: Provide for Perpetual Stewardship • Conservation of those productive lands that support
Establishing a conservation easement that protects an ranching, farming and timber production and the local
agricultural landscape or critical habitat may take only a few communities that depend upon them; and
months or years, but the stewardship responsibilities that • Lands that local communities value for recreational
come with acquiring an easement are perpetual. In acquiring a access, scenic vistas, or sense of place.
conservation easement, a land trust is also acquiring a long- To achieve these desired outcomes, the HOTR Initiative must
term liability, and the estimated cost of that liability must be facilitate dynamic conservation planning that incorporates
calculated into the total costs of acquiring the easement. The the latest in resource information, continually pay attention
current stewardship responsibilities of land trusts already to changing environmental and social conditions, provide
are a major enterprise, and conserving an additional 300,000 land trusts with encouragement and incentives to refine focal
acres, as proposed in the High Divide plan, will further area based conservation planning to the scales needed for
increase that burden and responsibility. Land trusts must plan implementation, and successfully implement the added
provide for perpetual stewardship of a conservation easement value conservation strategies identified earlier with regard to
at the time an easement is acquired, not at a later date after capacity, capital funding and stewardship.
lands have been conserved. Stewardship works to proactively
avoid violations and encroachment, and to promote
positive community support for private land conservation. Dynamic conservation planning and advances in
Conservation land defense can be very costly for easement
resource knowledge. The HOTR partners need to be
or fee property holders. The HOTR Initiative has long fully aware of and appropriately responsive to conservation
investigated collective legal defense as a strategic tool, and now planning underway by state and federal agencies and non-
encourages land trust engagement in the Land Trust Alliance’s governmental organizations. A great deal of planning is
emerging conservation defense insurance program to help underway in the High Divide that impacts upon land trust’s
individual land trusts meet high dollar legal challenges. conservation efforts, and potentially can provide portals to
Stewardship can also go beyond easement monitoring and funding for HOTR’s conservation priorities. For example, the
enforcement to add further value to ensure the sustainability states of Montana and Idaho are upgrading their state wildlife
of protected resources. Increasingly land trusts recognize action plans through more refined identification of crucial and
the need to work with landowners to invest in restoration connectivity habitats. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
and management activities that enhance and sustain and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks are also collaborating
resource values on protected properties. Examples of such with other partners to identify connectivity habitats across
enhanced stewardship activities include riparian and wetland their state boundaries in the High Divide area in a Western
restoration, management of invasive species, timber stand Governors Association Pilot Study. Because these planning
improvements, and natural fire management. efforts are generally at coarser scales than what is needed for
conservation of private land, the HOTR and land trusts need
to be engaged to the degree that they can provide feedback to
Conclusion inform plan development and implementation. The HOTR
In this High Divide conservation plan, as in the prior Initiative also needs to monitor these efforts so as to fill in
two HOTR conservation plans, the HOTR Initiative and gaps in HOTR conservation plans when opportunities arise.
participating land trusts and partners have attempted to There are also currently relatively rapid improvements in the
identify those lands of high value for conservation through understanding of fish and wildlife habitat relationships and
application of the best available resource geospatial data and uses. For example, recent elucidation of antelope seasonal
local expert opinion. The stated purpose of this conservation migration routes in the Lost River focal area by the Wildlife
plan as noted in each of the three plans completed to Conservation Society have dramatically altered conservation
date, “is to advance the goal of maintaining landscape- perspectives for the land trusts that work in that area.
level ecological processes and functions in the . . . while
sustaining the heritage of the people who live and work on
the land.” Conservation planning at the HOTR Initiative
Changing environmental and social conditions. Perhaps Refine, Reshape and Implement the Plan Strategies.
the greatest long term conservation challenge of the current Implementation of this conservation plan and its currently
era is global climate change. The very physical and ecological recommended and to be developed strategies will require
baseline for desired resource outcomes is in flux—planning considerable conservation investment. The HOTR partners
must now consider probabilities for conservation success are committing resources to advance the conservation of
for a largely unpredictable future environmental condition. these high value lands.
Advances in climate adaptation science and application will
Just as land trusts seek permanent protection of priority
most certainly impact HOTR land trust identification of
private lands, key stressors that result in habitat fragmentation
priority lands. In part a consequence of climate change and
and loss of productive land to agricultural uses can have long
in part due to changing social needs, the economic and social
lasting impacts. Now is our best window of opportunity for
dynamics of working lands will also change in ways that will
private land conservation in the High Divide—the canvas
challenge land trusts to provide conservation services that are
upon which land trusts can work only gets smaller with time.
responsive to local community needs. The HOTR Initiative
If private land protection efforts over the next ten years are
is participating in a number of large landscape stewardship
not informed, focused, and vigorous, significant natural and
initiatives that will help land trusts engage with the broader
agricultural lands in the High Divide may be lost for the
conservation community to track and adapt to climate change.
conceivable future.
Incentivize conservation planning at local scales.

A basic premise of HOTR’s conservation planning is that it
collaboratively and proactively identifies the highest priority
lands for conservation and then uses this prioritization to
focus conservation efforts over the long term. However, land
trusts need to consider more immediate time scales as they
apply their limited capital resources to conservation of the
most important portions of the landscapes they serve. Several
planning steps must be added to the HOTR identification
of high value lands. Land trust work is always with willing
landowners on a voluntary basis. Sometimes owners of lands
of very high value for conservation are not ready to conserve
their lands and in many other situations land trusts cannot
immediately find the funding needed to meet a landowner’s
needs. Opportunity is a key driver for near term conservation
priorities. Also some high value lands face much less pressing
threats to habitat fragmentation or other stressors than do
other high value lands. Ideally our top immediate priorities
for conservation are those lands of very high conservation
value, present opportunity with a willing landowner, and
very high threat to loss of conservation value if we do not
act quickly. The HOTR Initiative will apply strategies that
incentivize land trusts to complete finer scale conservation
planning for more near term conservation action.
Appendix A: Bibliography
Cornell University Department of Natural Resources and the Wildlife Conservation
Society. “Montana, the Last Best Place: Maintaining Wildlife and Private Lands in the Big
Hole.” A survey of private landowners, 2009.
Heart of the Rockies Initiative. “A Proposal for Voluntary Land Conservation in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem,” 2003.
Heart of the Rockies Initiative. “Conserving the Gems: A Proposal for Collaboration and
Partnership in the Crown of the Continent and Idaho Panhandle,” 2005.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, “Rating summaries for the prioritization of tributaries of the
Upper Clark Fork River Basin for fishery enhancement,” May 2010.
Montana Water Trust, the Bitter Root Water Forum, Geum Environmental Consulting,
Inc., and Will McDowell, “Draft Bitterroot River Subbasin Plan for Fish and Wildlife
Conservation,” 2009.
Ravalli County Planning Department, “Ravalli County Land Suitability Analysis,” June 2008.
Swanson, Larry, “Growth and Change in the Bitterroot Valley and Implications for Area
Agriculture and Ag Lands.” Research prepared for the Ravalli County Right to Farm and Ranch
Board and Bitter Root Land Trust, April, 2006.
The Nature Conservancy, “Central Idaho Conservation Project Overview,” January 2007.
U.S. Forest Service, “National Forests on the Edge: Development Pressures on America’s
National Forests and Grasslands,” 2007.
Waterbury, Beth, “Salmon region fisher survey report” for Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, 2009.
Western Governor’s Association, Policy Resolution 08-21. “Open Spaces.”
Appendix B: List of High Divide Focal Area Workshops
and Participating Agencies and Organizations
Focal Area Date Hosted by Location

Bitterroot Oct. 29, 2008 Bitter Root Land Trust Hamilton, MT
Upper Clark Fork Feb. 2, 2009 Five Valleys Land Trust Philipsburg, MT
Upper Yellowstone Mar. 24, 2009 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Livingston, MT
Upper Missouri Aug. 5, 2009 Prickly Pear Land Trust Helena, MT
Salmon-Lemhi Aug. 11, 2009 Lemhi Regional Land Trust Salmon, ID
Lost River Aug, 12, 2009 Heart of the Rockies Initiative Mackay, ID
Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby Oct. 27, 2009 Heart of the Rockies Initiative Whitehall, MT
Beaverhead-Red Rock Nov. 2, 2009 Heart of the Rockies Initiative Dillon, MT
Big Hole Nov. 4, 2009 Heart of the Rockies Initiative Wisdom, MT
List of Participating Organizations and Agencies:

American Wildlands Park County, Montana (Conservation District)
National Audubon Society Park County, Montana (Extension Service)
Beaverhead Watershed Committee Powell County, Montana
Big Hole River Foundation Prickly Pear Land Trust
Big Hole Watershed Group Ravalli County, Montana (Board of Commissioners)
Bitter Root Land Trust Ravalli County, Montana (Planning Department)
Bitterroot Water Forum Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Broadwater County, Montana Ruby Watershed Council
Bureau of Land Management Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust
Clark Fork Coalition Salmon Valley Stewardship
Five Valleys Land Trust Sonoran Institute
Gallatin Valley Land Trust Sun Ranch Institute
Geum Consulting Sweetgrass County, Montana (Planning Department)
Granite County, Montana (Board of Commissioners) Teller Wildlife Refuge
Idaho Department of Fish and Game The Conservation Fund
Intermountain West Joint Venture The Nature Conservancy
Jefferson River Watershed Council The Vital Ground Foundation
Lemhi County, Idaho (Board of Commissioners) Trout Unlimited
Lemhi County, Idaho (Extension Service) Trust for Public Land
Lemhi Regional Land Trust U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lewis and Clark County Citizens’ Open Space Advisory U.S. Forest Service
Committee Gallatin National Forest
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Bitterroot National Forest
Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest
Montana Department of Transportation Helena National Forest
Montana Land Reliance Salmon-Challis National Forest
Montana Natural Resources Damages Program Watershed Restoration Coalition
Montana Water Trust Wildlife Conservation Society
Natural Resource Conservation Service Wood River Land Trust
Appendix C: Description of the High Divide
Planning Process
A planning workshop was held in each focal area,

hosted by the local land trust or Heart of the Rockies
Initiative. Workshops lasted from 5-7 hours. Invitations and
a consistent set of map layers was aggregated to 6th code
watersheds. These included:
• Low annual growth rates

a description of the planning process were sent to agency
representatives; conservation organization personnel, local • Low number of existing residences
elected officials, and other key people who could provide • Historic sites and districts
expertise about biological, agricultural and/or community • Prime or significant farmlands
resources.
• Existing conservation easements
The stated goal of each workshop was to use expert input to • Forest productivity
identify high priority lands for private land conservation in
the focal area. • Grazing areas and grasslands
• Irrigated areas
Each workshop included:
• Crucial areas and corridors for wildlife species
• Introduction to the Heart of the Rockies Initiative • Wetlands
• Description of the goals for the High Divide planning • Elk habitat
process
• Mule deer habitat
• Summary of the biological and agricultural resources
in the focal area—usually provided by one or more of • Hunter and angler priorities
the invited participants At the beginning of each workshop, the data list was provided
• Explanation of the mapping exercise that comprised to participants in survey form, and they were given 100
the majority of the agenda weighting points to assign in a manner of their choice to the
13 data attributes. The average value of the groups collective
• Overview of the GIS data layers that were available for weightings were assigned to each watershed and displayed in
participants to reference during the mapping exercise thematic maps during the closing segment of each workshop.
The Bitterroot workshop used a suitability mapping process
We used interactive mapping techniques for participants conducted by Ravalli County that used a different process.
to develop polygons showing important areas of biological,
agricultural and community values. In addition to showing The methods used to solicit this mapped information changed
those areas spatially, participants were asked to describe the as the project evolved. One challenge throughout the nine
specific resource values within each polygon; for instance, to workshops, but especially in the earlier ones, was most of the
list the important habitats, crops, or scenic values. In addition, private land was identified as high-value for conservation. We
participants were asked to identify lands, based on basic attempted to focus in on the ‘best of the best,’ since land trusts
resource values, not on particular conservation opportunities have limited resources and are unlikely to conserve high
or threats. Mapping was done at a scale coarser than individual percentages of private land in any focal areas.
ownership parcels, and finer than landscape scale.
GIS suitability modeling was used as a general reference and Workshop Method #1
as a validation comparison in all the workshops. Map layers For the first workshop, in the Bitterroot focal area, mapping
representing key biological agricultural and social variables was done digitally facilitated by a GIS analyst projecting
were aggregated to a watershed level and weighted to view maps on the screen, and drawing areas indicated by
superimposed on the expert opinion areas defined in the workshop participants using laser pointers. Participants
workshops. Typically this was done at the final portion of created polygons of high-value private land for conservation
each workshop. This method was used as an informal check and described the important resources in each of those
of the areas identified by workshop participants, and as a polygons (see the Technical Appendix for the full results
discussion item for areas that differed in some way from of that session). In an effort to further prioritize the high-
participant mapping. In all workshops except the Bitterroot, value lands, we asked participants to rank the polygons (for
both biological and agricultural resources) once they were last part of the workshop. They were also combined to show
identified throughout the valley. When the workshop was the composite of high-value private land for conservation.
concluded, a very high proportion was included. Therefore, In addition, participants were then asked to cross-reference
we convened a subsequent meeting with seven key workshop these maps with the GIS data layers in order to see
participants to develop more focused criteria for narrowing consistency with particular resources. For instance, it was
the mapped lands. Following that meeting, a smaller possible to compare the maps that participants created with
proportion was included in the Bitterroot map. layers showing elk winter range or prime soils.
The problem of large amounts of private land being identified

Workshop Method #2 as high priority persisted in Method #3. Therefore, for the
The Upper Clark Fork and Upper Yellowstone workshops Jefferson-Boulder-Ruby, Upper Missouri, and Salmon-
were conducted nearly the same as the Bitterroot session. We Lemhi workshops, we added another step at the end of the
still used digital techniques, but asked participants to narrow workshop. Once the participants’ maps were digitized, we
to the best 30-35% of private land. Participants determined facilitated a group discussion to identify the highest priority
which data layers were most important for their mapping polygons. The results, showing both higher and lower
effort. Unlike the Bitterroot, for the Upper Clark Fork and polygons, can be seen in the Technical Appendix. Only the
Upper Yellowstone we asked participants to create separate, highest priority polygons were used in the final maps and
often overlapping, polygons for agricultural, biological and those acreages included in quantitative summaries.
community values. A free-ranging discussion helped develop
The hand drawn polygons on the paper maps were geo-
the rationale for conservation in each polygon. A quantitative
referenced and digitized with higher accuracy after each
ranking of the polygons was not attempted. Again, the result
workshop to use in subsequent processing. These more accurate
was a map with a very high amount of important private land.
boundaries were unioned with public lands and existing
Further refinements by Five Valleys Land Trust narrowed
conservation easements, to enable these areas to be eliminated
the acreage slightly for the Upper Clark Fork, but the final
from the remaining high priority areas of private land.
proportion was still the highest, at 55% of all private land.
Workshop Method #3
We found that group interaction and collaboration increased
when participants could gather in smaller groups around
paper maps and individually draw important areas and
annotate them with notes directly on the maps. It was
difficult to hold everyone’s attention on the digital images
for the length of time needed to produce a final mapped
product. Therefore, for the remaining six workshops we used
a combination of digital mapping and paper maps. GeoData
Services prepared large paper maps of the focal areas,
showing land ownership and primary geographical features.
After orienting participants to the planning process, including
an overview of available GIS layers, participants were asked
to draw polygons on three maps, representing biological,
agricultural and community values. In addition, they made
notes showing what made a particular polygon important.
To enable seeing and discussing all important lands in the

focal area, the GIS analyst used a pen enabled Portable tablet
computer with the GIS software to quickly draw polygons
roughly replicating the areas hand drawn on the paper maps.
A separate layer was created for biological, agricultural and
social areas, so that overlap could be discussed.
We found that this method encouraged more discussion and

interaction between the experts. Once the data was available
in GIS, the resulting maps could then be projected in the
Appendix D: List of GIS Data Used in
High Divide Workshops
Heart of the Rockies Workshop Data Layers (Montana)
For a more thorough description of the data and maps of the focal areas see the Heart of the Rockies
wiki site: http://www.socialtext.net/hotr/index.cgi?heart_of_the_rockies_high_divide
Base Map
• National Agricultural Imagery Program Aerial imagery (2007)
• Shaded relief and elevation model
• Perennial streams and lakes
• Roads
• Towns
• Public Land Survey Sections and Towns
• Watersheds
• Geographic Names Information System
Biological
• Elk Habitat – Montana FWP and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
• Mule Deer Habitat – Montana FWP, Mule Deer Foundation and Utah State Univ.
• Montana FWP Upper Clark Fork species point observations (antelope, bighorn sheep, elk,
mountain goat, mule deer, moose)
• Montana FWP general species distribution (antelope, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, moose)
• American Wildlands Species of Interest
• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partners - Hunting and fishing groups’ areas of interest
• Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory)
• Forest / Non Forest Land Cover (Montana Dept. of Revenue)
• National Land Cover Database
Agricultural
• Forest Productivity (Montana Dept. of Revenue) 2009
• National Resource Conservation Service Soils-Farmland of Importance
• Grasslands (National Land Cover Database)
• Agricultural taxed lands (Montana Dept of Revenue) – Grazing, fallow, irrigated, row crops
Community
• Undevelopable areas – Public lands, easements, lakes, steep slopes
• Utilities - large powerline corridors (EPA)
• Population (ESRI Business Analyst)
• Market profiles (ESRI Business Analyst)
• Historic districts and historic points
• Cadastral - Parcels
Heart of the Rockies Workshop Data Layers (Idaho)
Base Map
• National Agricultural Imagery Program Aerial imagery (2006)
• Shaded relief and elevation model
• Perennial streams and lakes
• Roads
• Towns
• Public Land Survey Townships
• Watersheds
• Geographic Names Information System
Biological
• Elk Habitat –Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
• Mule Deer Habitat – Mule Deer Foundation and Utah State University
• Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory)
• National Land Cover Database
• Northwest Regional GAP Analysis 2009
• ITD District 6 Only: Threatened and Endangered Species Composite Presence Map
• Public Safety - Road Kill Data
• Large Carnivore and Ungulate Wildlife Model (USFWS)
• Hiding cover
• Human influence zones
• Riparian
• Secure core area
Agricultural
• Grasslands in National Land Cover Database
• Agricultural land, and grassland in Northwest Regional GAP Analysis 2009
Community
• Undevelopable areas – Public lands, lakes, steep slopes
• Population (ESRI Business Analyst)
• Market profiles (ESRI Business Analyst)
Technical Appendix
T
his technical appendix provides supplemental material for each of the
nine High Divide focal areas. It includes notes from focal area workshops,
maps developed for each conservation criteria, and the names of workshop
participants. Please note that some polygons shown on the following maps were
later dropped or combined as refinements were made.
For partners involved in the High Divide planning process, this information
is also available on the Heart of the Rockies High Divide wiki site at
https://www.socialtext.net/hotr/index.cgi?heart_of_the_rockies_high_divide.
NOTE: the maps included in this appendix are low-resolution and are duplicated
here in black and white. To see better versions of these maps, see the High Divide
wiki site noted above.
BITTERROOT FOCAL AREA
Workshop held September 25, 2008
AREAS OF INTEREST
Areas of interest were identified at the workshop and revised
at the followup meeting on January 22, 2009.
MAP ID# NOTE
1 East Fork
Discussion primarily focused on agricultural values for this area.
High elevation; Mini Big Hole; Land rich – not cash rich
Cowcalf operators; Need access to summer range on public land
Cattle on summer range/ elk and deer above in summer
Very important to Bitterroot National Forest/Sula Range District
High possibility for development and sub divisions; More houses in upper East Fork every year
Ranchers interested in protecting areas
Big game range; bighorn sheep, bald eagle
Critical fisheries: Struggling fluvial bull trout spawn in upper tributaries
Blackbacked woodpecker, Flammulated owl
Aesthetic values
Continuous ecosystem
More land for sale
Old west ranch values
Montana Dept of Transportation invested a significant amount of public dollars to do stream restoration on
Camp Creek and purchase 80 acres that is now in state ownership. Did some stream restoration on Camp
Creek on private property with public money. Important that this investment be protected.
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
Important to note that, while our discussion may have focused on agricultural values, AO #1 is extremely
critical from a wildlife habitat/water resources standpoint. This area provides an important corridor connecting
the Big Hole with the Salmon/Selway. Indeed, the priority rankings indicated that workshop participants
believed Area #1 was the highest priority for wildlife habitat conservation in the Bitterroot watershed.
2 Conner/Dickson Creek
Discussion primarily focused on biological and agricultural values for this area.
Not a lot of development now; Without zoning development pressure may increase.
Protect some ranches
High slopes: “bench into” for septic systems
Winter range for elk
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
Warm Springs Creek supports a spawning migration of riverine bull trout and is a core area (important) for
bull trout.
NOTE: This polygon was deleted at the followup meeting on January 22, 2009.
3 West Fork
Discussion primarily focused on biological values for this area.
Fractured ownership
Opportunistic area
Winter range: not extensive herds, but critical; Moose habitat very important
Strategic: small critical parcels
Flood plain very narrow; Beaver dam complex, wetland complex on private land
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
The Nez Perce Fork is probably the most highly-used spawning tributary by riverine westslope cutthroat. This
stream and tributaries are a very high priority for fishery values.
MAP ID# NOTE
4 East Darby
Open space/quality of life
Big game and other wildlife species use habitat
Groups working on easements; Lots of conservation minded owners
Pocket of agriculture at river forks
Maps and models show major carnivore crossing at south end of valley
Good agricultural land
New bridge at Blodgett Creek with game trails underneath
500 to 600 elk winter
Very aesthetically pleasing part of valley
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
Blodgett Creek is not in this area. Rye Creek supports a pure strain westslope cutthroat population and a
migratory spawning run of riverine westslope cutthroat. Due to a variety of human impacts, the drainage has
significant restoration potential.
5 West Darby
High lake irrigation
Agriculture on benches: 38004000 ft
Popular for farmettes/ranchettes (absentee owners)
Voluntary zoning district in Lost Horse
Opportunistic area – be receptive
Significant conservation for connectivity
Ranches for sale
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
Lost Horse and Tincup Creeks support migratory spawning runs of riverine westslope cutthroat trout.
6 Skalkaho Creek
Discussion primarily focused on biological values for this area
Deer, elk, mountain lion
Local movement across highway to fields
Isolated by development – no migration corridor
Good sized ranches
Some irrigated agriculture, mostly grass lands, summer range
Some of the most productive big game winter range in valley
No high migration values from summer range to winter range
Winter range on both sides of valley
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT 1:
Skalkaho Creek supports a very robust bull and westslope cutthroat population on the Bitterroot National
Forest. Development in the lower reaches (homes close to stream) is causing rip rap and stream alteration
pressures. Skalkaho Creek on private land is an important migratory pathway for riverine westslope cutthroat
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT 2:
There are several large ranches (by Bitterroot Valley standards) that include significant chunks of winter range
and Skalkaho Creek protecting just a few critical properties in this area could have significant long term
conservation effects.
7 Roaring Lion Creek

High value agriculture land but wildlife more important
Few owners: second/third homes
Lots of wildlife habitat
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
This area is close to Hamilton and the northern and southern boundaries have experienced significant
development. Core habitat is remarkably intact given proximity to town and development pressure.
MAP ID# NOTE
8 Willow Creek
(Someone said that Liz Mullins, State Land Planner, said that school trust lands will respect adjacent land use
planning in county.)
Best agricultural land in valley and easiest place to build houses
Plowed land with perennial grasses: Usually 13 tons/acre, this area yields 57 tons/acre
Sprinkler irrigation
Big Ditch water is from Lake Como
Not a lot of high wildlife values
High riparian
River bottom/breaks: thousand of white tailed deer
Turkey/pheasants/quail
Urgency of conservation easements on agricultural land
If irrigation stops it will be sagebrush flats
Lots of development pressure, more subdivisions than anywhere else
McCalla Creek: year round elk herd, hot spot for road kill
New bridges with game trails at McCalla Creek, North Kootenai, South Kootenai
Movement to have ditch setbacks for development (although stream setbacks are not supported)
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
Area #8 was highest ranked in Bitterroot watershed for agricultural resources. Still actively farmed, primarily
by longtime farmers/ranchers. Irrigation infrastructure is still intact. Best soils in the Valley. Protection of these
lands provides the best opportunity for continued agriculture in the Bitterroot.
9 & 11 North Fork Burnt Creek & Three Mile
Area #9:
Discussion primarily focused on biological and community values for this area.
Migratory waterfowl – agricultural corridor outside floodplain
Black bear, mountain lion, moose, bobcat
West side agriculture is different – large established ranches on the west side
High lakes irrigation
Generations of commitment to landscape
Contiguous open space
The polygon on the east side (in the Burnt Fork drainage) was discussed as a separate polygon from the L
shaped polygon including the large ranches on the west side. The discussion on the separate polygon focused
on the area adjacent to Stevensville and the importance of keeping open space there, or else the character of
Stevensville would change. Also some discussion of the historic sites adjacent to the East Side Highway.
Big game winter range – grassland
Protection of ecosystems
Visual aesthetics
Area #11
Arable land
Wildlife
MAP ID# NOTE
10 North Stevensville
Discussion primarily focused on biological and community values for this area.
Migratory waterfowl – agricultural corridor outside floodplain
Black bear, mountain lion, moose, bobcat
West side agriculture is different – large established ranches on the west side
High lakes irrigation
Generations of commitment to landscape
Contiguous open space
Originally polygon 10 was drawn from the Burnt Fork on the east side over to the ranches on the west side
with wildlife being the primary focus in terms of the corridor across the river and the wildlife crossings on
Highway 93.
The polygon on the east side (in the Burnt Fork drainage) was discussed as a separate polygon from the L
shaped polygon including the large ranches on the west side.
The discussion on the separate polygon focused on the area adjacent to Stevensville and the importance of
keeping open space there, or else the character of Stevensville would change. Also some discussion of the
historic sites adjacent to the East Side Highway.
Big game winter range – grassland
Protection of ecosystems
Visual aesthetics
12 West Victor
Lots of development
Some large intact land masses
Similar agrarian lifestyles now
Every creek bottom is high priority
Irrigation
Nine new bridges from Florence to Hamilton: all major streams
Housing density precludes lots of wildlife value
Forest values
FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS:
Chris Clancy Blodgett and Big Creeks on private land are important spawning migration pathways for riverine
westslope cutthroat trout
13 & 14 Upper Hughes Creek & Deer Creek

Wetlands values
FOLLOW-UP COMMENT:
Painted Rocks Reservoir supports what is probably the densest migratory bull trout population in the
Bitterroot. We know that some of those fish migrate into Slate Creek which is on the Bitterroot National Forest.
The West Fork Bitterroot and tributaries such as Overwhich and Hughes Creek could be used by migratory
bull and westslope cutthroat trout
Bitterroot We discussed the idea of the Bitterroot River being a focal area. Several of the focal areas border the river but it
River does make sense to discuss it separately. For starters, any of the Bitterroot River bottomland that is not within
Floodplain the 100 year floodplain could be valuable to protect from home site development.
NOTES ACCOMPANYING
MAP ID#
FINAL REVISIONS
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,8 I have added the narrow riparian

corridors of Kootenai, Mill, Sawtooth,
Roaring Lion, and Skalkaho Creeks,
along with the corridors of the West and
East Forks of the Bitterroot River. These
riparian corridors have been identified by
objective data collected for the Bitterroot
Subbasin Plan as having the highest value
for native bull trout and native spawning
westslope Cutthroat trout. Many have
also been identified in the Subbasin Plan
as having exceptionally high value for
terrestrial wildlife because they are intact
riparian corridors.
6 Adjust this polygon south so the southern

boundary parallels Gird Creek.
7 Upper Willow Creek polygon should be

added for its agricultural significance.
Good soils, intact irrigation infrastructure,
and contiguous agricultural operations
make this another critical area for
agricultural protection.
Map with final revisions
AGRICULTURAL & WILDLIFE VALUES RANKING

Participants at the Bitterroot Focal Area meeting were asked to rank the areas of interest from 1 (highest) to 12 (lowest) for
agricultural and wildlife values. Not all participants turned in a ranking sheet. Areas of Interest #13 and #14 were added later in
the meeting and were not included in the ranking. The average priority and the standard deviation are based on the number of
responses for each area of interest.
AGRICULTURAL VALUE PRIORITY: 7 respondents
Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant # AVG

AOI# STD DEV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Scored Priority
1 4 3 3 1 9 1 1 7 3.14 2.85
2 12 NA NA 2 11 7 1 5 6.60 5.03
3 11 NA 12 NA 12 7 2 5 8.80 4.32
4 10 5 5 3 8 7 2 7 5.71 2.81
5 9 NA 6 NA 7 7 2 5 6.20 2.59
6 2 4 4 8 5 6 2 7 4.43 2.15
7 8 NA NA 4 6 7 2 5 5.40 2.41
8 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 7 1.86 1.46
9 7 6 11 NA 10 4 NA 5 7.60 2.88
10 3 NA NA 6 2 7 1 5 3.80 2.59
11 6 1 2 6 3 5 1 7 3.43 2.23
12 5 NA NA 7 4 3 1 5 4.00 2.24
WILDLIFE VALUE PRIORITY: 8 respondents
Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant # AVG STD
AOI#
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Scored Priority DEV
1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 8 1.50 0.93
2 6 4 4 6 1 7 9 2 8 4.88 2.64
3 9 2 3 7 2 8 10 4 8 5.63 3.25
4 10 7 8 3 1 6 6 3 8 5.50 2.98
5 5 1 7 8 1 5 6 7 8 5.00 2.67
6 3 6 2 4 3 2 4 8 8 4.00 2.07
7 4 6 9 9 3 11 4 9 8 6.88 3.00
8 2 NA 12 10 2 3 2 10 7 5.86 4.56
9 7 5 5 5 2 12 5 5 8 5.75 2.87
10 11 NA 11 11 2 10 NA 6 6 8.50 3.73
11 12 8 6 2 2 4 1 6 8 5.13 3.68
12 8 8 10 12 4 9 7 11 8 8.63 2.50
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS:
Pat Basting, MT Department of Transportation
Garrett Budds, Clark Fork Coalition
Barbara Chilcott-Hall, Montana Water Trust
Chris Clancy, U.S. Forest Service
Juniper Davis, Five Valleys Land Trust
Roger DeHaan, Business owner
Donne Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting Inc.
Carlotta Grandstaff, Ravalli County Commissioner
Craig Jourdonnais, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Grant Kier, Five Valleys Land Trust
Sam Lowry, Teller Wildife Refuge
Curt McChesney, U.S. Forest Service (retired)
Vanessa Morell, Ravalli County Planning
Alina Niklison, Five Valleys Land Trust
John Ormison, Bitter Root Land Trust
Tom Parker, Geum Consulting
Mike Pfieger, Business owner
Steve Powell, Bitter Root Land Trust
Gavin Ricklefs, Bitter Root Land Trust
Laurie Riley, Bitterroot Water Forum
Jeremy Roberts, Sun Ranch Institute
Robin Wall, GeoData Services
Ken Wall, GeoData Services
Ruth Wooding, U.S. Forest Service
Map of conservation easements and ownership classifications.
UPPER CLARK FORK FOCAL AREA
Workshop held February 2, 2009
AREAS OF INTEREST
General Comments on Wildlife Criteria • The private lands just west of Georgetown Lake are
very important for animal movement. Lands in between
• Unfortunate that all data is driven by Big Game. The Skalkaho and Anaconda, the John Longs, and Spotted Dog.
conservation of grass lands on private lands and the Spotted
Dog region is very important for connectivity. Antelope • Winter and summer range for elk near public lands is the
range is critically important for elk and deer. The triangle most important. The RMEF try to identify key location that
country which made up of the lands between Garrison, would connect public lands with private lands. Usually they
Avon, and Deer Lodge is also important. A diverse set of set a buffer at about 10 miles out from the public holdings.
road kill comes from this area. This areas helps facilitate Trying to secure the connectivity between summer and
movement from north to south along the continental winter ranges. The RMEF looks for doughnuts of private
divide. Would like to see winter range data used for land around public lands. The idea is to have the center
conserving grasslands. Homestake Pass is often overlooked of the doughnut be used for higher density development.
as an important area. Silver Bow to Blacktail Creek is an Buffering the public lands with protected winter range is the
important area that has not had much easement action in goal. Georgetown to Anaconda there has been some large
the past. purchased by the RMEF.
• On a larger scale the John Longs are probably the most • Mouth of Rock Creek and to the East Centered on I90 is a
important range in Granite County for connectivity. There priority area.
is a narrow corridor of land along Highway 1 that again
show up on the road kill counter as being highly diverse.
General Comments on Fisheries • What we have are three key focus areas that hinge around
agricultural land around Drummond, Philipsburg, and
• Lower and upper willow creeks are very important. Deer Lodge. If these are the focus is seems reasonable
Stronghold for bull trout is Rock and Upper Willow Creek. to meet the major landowners in the area and get some
Racetrack creek is an important bull trout stream. The conservation work done.
whole Little Blackfoot watershed is a priority area. This
stream is important for cutthroats, they are not finding • We have to take a hard look at what type of agricultural land
signs of bull trout, but it gets a lot of angler use days you are trying to conserve. Is it more important to focus on
especially for brown trout. A recreational fishers layer specific types of agricultural land? Do we leave out some
would be helpful. regions that are near to town for growth? Maybe we should
take parcels with high values?
• Middle fork of Rock Creek. See map for all the bull trout
streams. • Recognize the work done on the Silver Bow Greenway.
• Big and Important recreational streams are the Little • Pat Basting MT Department of Transportation: States that
Blackfoot Streams. Warm Springs Creek is a very private we need to refine the definition of agricultural land to be
stream that shows good signs of bull trout. Foster, Barker more specific. The agricultural area around Deer Lodge
Creek (great bull trout). needs to look more like a horseshoe where we exclude some
of the area around Deer Lodge the town.
• There is a telemeter study that is in the works that will point
to specific brown trout area. If there is a native component • The more traditional landscapes like the land South of
you need to prioritize this. Drummond should be prioritized over smaller parcel like
the land say North of Drummond.
• FWP is really trying to focus in on where is the habitat
that needs protection on private lands. NRDP is going • Another thing to look at is the idea of a grass bank. Is there
to investing millions in the Clark Fork flood plain. This a ranch that is up for lease when folks need more grass?
riparian zone is going to a major focus. • The route shown on map as hwy 10, is mislabeled, it should
be hwy 1, if you can use a square box with a 1 in it to
Summary of Important Creeks and Watershed Areas appropriately label the route. DOT will get roadkill data to
Lower and upper willow creeks. Ken and Robin for Hwy 12, I90, I15, and Hwy 1
Rock and Upper Willow Creek.
Racetrack Creek (bull trout stream). FINAL REVISIONS RECEIVED 02/22/2010:
The Little Blackfoot Watershed. “We did refine the attached map took some areas “OUT” and
Middle fork of Rock Creek. brought some new areas “IN”. As for the “NOTES” on the new
Warm Springs Creek additions, just include them with the notes on adjacent areas
Foster Creek as these are just clarification of those boundaries.” Juniper
Barker Creek (great bull trout). Davis, Ryan Chapin, Greg Tollefson, FVLT
Clark Fork Flood Plain.
Flint Creek from the mouth of Trout Creek EDITS PER DONNA ERICKSON. 03/18/2010:
Georgetown Lake. 1. “The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am taking
Browns Gulch out the wildlife polygons that were drawn in the UCF by the
Cottonwood Creek. Upper Missouri folks. That workshop had excellent wildlife
expertise, especially for that area near the divide and those
General Comments on Agricultural and Community Values folks did not get a chance to revise in the UCF. FVLT has its
• Historic Ranches or historic sites are important for a own more specific conservation plan, which can steer away
complete community feel. from that area if needed, but I think it’s useful to keep these
• The layers we are looking at are the soils of importance. polygons in the HORT plan. So that would be adding #25, 27
and 7 back in from the Upper Missouri map.” (These polygons
• Upper Clark Fork, the Deer Lodge Valley is a real key are in the NE part of the focal area.)
area to look at. There was a study in the Deer Lodge area 2. Add Racetrack Creek with 100 meter buffer.
that asked what do you want the area to look like in 50
years? People came together and said they like to see an
agricultural or working landscape focus.
• Lower Flint Creek region all the important soils in this
region should be considered.
Final Revisions 2/22/10
Pat Basting, MT Dept of Transportation
Bret Bledsoe, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Chris Brick, Clark Fork Coalition
Charlene Bucha-Gentry, U.S. Forest Service
Ryan Chapin, Five Valleys Land Trust
Maureen Connor, Granite County Commissioner
Juniper Davis, Five Valleys Land Trust
Kim Davitt, American Wildlands
Donna Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting, inc
Carol Fox, MT Natural Resources Damages Program
Ron Hanson, Powell County
Grant Kier, Five Valleys Land Trust
Brad Liermann, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Jason Lindstrom, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Renee Meyers, Watershed Restoration Coalition
Mike Mueller, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Alina Niklison, Five Valleys Land Trust
Sue Peterson, Rancher
Randy Peterson, Rancher
Tom Rue , Realtor
Andrea Silverman, Prickly Pear Land Trust
Nance Sweeney, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mike Thompson, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Greg Tollefson, Five Valleys Land Trust
Ray Vinkey, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
UPPER YELLOWSTONE FOCAL AREA
Workshop held March 24, 2009
AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP ID# NOTE
Headwaters of Shields River.

Lots of key Agriculture land.
TMDL – One of the only areas not impaired is stretch where river makes bend and goes east.
Prime for development.
1
Beautiful views.
Only about five landowners; three of them working with GVLT.
Not a lot of elk, but moose, eagles, sandhill cranes, upland game birds.
High recreational value.
Pristine Mountain Landscapes.

Lucky that ranching families have kept it the way it is in checkerboard inholdings.
2 From west side, less private than east side, but more owners so higher risk.
Absentee landowners on west side; East side only a couple of traditional ranch families.
Sacred Crow ground/area high mountain peaks.
(merged #3 and #5)

Opportunity here, with only three or four landowners.
Maintain open space.
Linkage to Crazies.
Mountain goat – high density population.
3
Wolverine population in Crazies.
Great connector of the Absarokas and Crazies; extend to mountains.
Agriculture in the bottom land.
Fishing.
Hunters Hot Springs.
MAP ID# NOTE
(merged #6 & #7)

Very diverse wildlife habitat, movement of species.
Borders USFS, traditional grazing.
Burned in 2006 large fires. Big fires through this area.
Old native Yellowstone cutthroat trout fisheries (critical), good value in Upper Deer Creek
Large ranch on market, adjacent to USFS.
Sierra Ranch – no right of way.
6
Parallel creeks coming out of the Absarokas south of Yellowstone River.
North of Yellowstone River has heavier soils, south is lighter gravelly soils.
Small areas of irrigated agriculture along creeks.
Birds, elk, hawks, eagles, etc.
Two creeks go through relatively dry landscapes.
Beginning to be subdivided; some growth pressure.
Some mining.
(merged #8 and #16) Upper and Lower Boulder River.

A good bit of development happening.
Irrigated farmland.
Hired coordinator, Dan Rostad, through Conservation District for collaboration in the Sweetgrass Boulder
River Watershed , $50,000/yr from Stillwater Mine to get folks working together.
Elk in upper portions, more deer and fewer elk in lower part.
8 Some tourism in upper region – church camps, etc. Historic buildings, old mining camps, etc. 30004000
visitors in summer.
Take this polygon all the way to USFS, further south. Includes West Boulder.
This area has been discovered by wealthy landowners with large acreages, some using conservation easements.
Tie these easements together.
Upper Boulder has good fuels reduction program, cutting timber away from cabins. Lot of dead pine and
aspen.
Along both sides Yellowstone River.

Some cottonwood forests.
Lot of deer, some elk
Big fires gone through some of it.
Lot of wetland area on Yellowstone River, along mouth of Sweet Grass Creek.
9
Scenic from I90.
Hungarian pheasants, grouse.
Historical significance of river – Lewis & Clark.
Eagles.
Riparian.
Sweet Grass Creek, extends from the middle of the Crazy Mountains to the Yellowstone River, from
approximately 6,000 to 4,000 foot elevation.
On river valley, land productive, some irrigated.
Low land good for wildlife and farming.
10
Wetlands along streams, some caused by flood irrigation.
Black Cottonwood gallery forest, somewhat but not like along Yellowstone River.
More deer than elk.
Not big cottonwoods, more willow.
MAP ID# NOTE
Big Timber / Swamp Creek Watershed Group, administered by Sweetgrass Conservation District and
coordinated (in interim status) by Dan Rostad. Several projects are starting up, and initially the focus is on
identifying all problem areas (October, 2009 according to Paul Gilbert).
Old ranches, flood irrigation.
Oldtime ranching.
Trying to form a watershed group.
11
Elk, deer, bear, corridor for moose.
Lots of wetlands in Swamp Creek area.
Lot of sagebrush, sedges, grassland.
Buffalo jumps, cultural sites.
Early hunting routes 12,00013,000 years ago.
Wilsall archaeological site – Anasazi site.
Sweet Grass area.

Agriculture, mostly grazing.
Large intact ranches.
Community values.
12 Upper part is checkerboard with USFS.
Includes East Crazy Mountain Zoning District
Elk wintering area. Large elk herd at east edge of Sweet Grass County, so wolves follow.
Antelope lower down.
Porcupine and Meadow Creeks.

Significant wetlands and riparian values.
13
See many raptors here.
Most owned by one landowner.

Elk.
14
Conservation value, opportunity to acquire.
Upper Shields.
More value than lower part of river.
Cottonwood galleries.
15 Old established ranches, likely remaining.
Emphasis on agriculture.
Elk.
From Shields River to Duck Creek; Rock Creek to Crazies.

Large ranches.
Elk herds on east and west side of Crazies.
Stands of pubescent wheat grass.
17 Prime agricultural land.
Upland bird area – sharp tailed grouse, Hungarian pheasants.
Clyde Park to Wilsall, already in a lot of developed uses.
Connect whole Shields river – wetlands, flood irrigation.
West Side of Crazies.

One big landowner, three total.
Some interest in conservation.
18
Historic trail runs through this area.
Unique interface of open grasslands, timbered benches going toward mountains. Ecotone.
High elevation meadows.
19 Several easements in place.
GENERAL NOTES:
• Buffalo jumps in this area: early hunting routes for Indians

crossed this whole focal area around the Shields River.
• Mountain sheep around sheep mountain, historically.
• Wilsall – important archeology sites
• Aspen has disappeared from western landscape. Encourage
aspen groves. Identify them and protect. #1 has a lot.
• Forestry perspective – not restricted by conservation
easements. Forest management important on protected land.
• Tremendous amount of Sweet Grass County is in oil and
gas leases. Complicating, but doesn’t rule out conservation.
A lot of the land north of Big Timer has been leased. Not as
much in Boulder area.
• Discussion about wind farms and their tendency to
diminish open space values.\
• Importance of #15 and #20. Dramatic difference in density
between the Paradise Valley and the Shields. We risk losing
something very special if we don’t protect this area.
Ron Archuletta, Gallatin National Forest
Bill Avey, Gallatin National Forest
Tracy Brewer, Park County Extension
Paige Dringman, Sweet Grass County Planning Department
Jim Durgan, Park County Commissioner
Donna Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc.
Paul Gilbert, Sweet Grass County Conservation District
Mary Hanson, Montana Land Reliance
Dick Moore, MT Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Scott Opitz, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Kelly Pohl, Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Jim Roscoe, American Wildlands
Curt Tesmer, MT Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Ken Wall, GeoData Services, Inc
Michael Whitfield, Heart of the Rockies Initiative
SALMON-LEMHI FOCAL AREA
Workshop held August 11, 2009
DRAFT WILDLIFE AREAS OF INTEREST
The wildlife data are shown in detail on

five maps:
• Fisheries
• Sage Grouse
• Riparian Woodlands
• Other Wildlife
(Black polygons drawn at workshop)
• Other Wildlife
(Red polygons drawn at workshop)
NOTE: Priority 0 areas are for archival

documentation only. They will not be
used to identify High Value Private
Lands for Conservation.
FISHERIES MAP
MAP
NOTES
ID#
Chinook/steelhead
7JL
spawning (fisheries)
6JL Steelhead spawning
1JL Chinook spawning
2RS Fisheries Hayden Creek
4JL Connected Tributaries
Chinook; bull trout;

5RS
steelhead.
2JL Chinook; steelhead
4RS Fish connectivity
Chinook/steelhead
3JL
spawning
Fisheries riparian
1RS
corridor.
Chinook, steelhead,
3RS
tribal interest
5JL Chinook spawning
SAGE GROUSE MAP
WILDLIFE RIPARIAN WOODLANDS MAP (extract Riparian Woodland from REGAP)
MAP
NOTES
ID#
Bald Eagle, Peregrine

Falcon,
2BW
Great Blue Heron
rookeries.
10BW Priority riparian habitat.
8BW Longbilled Curlew.
3BW Winter Bald Eagle.
OTHER WILDLIFE MAP (Black polygons on maps created in workshop)
MAP
NOTES
ID#
PYRA.
1BW Sage grouse; pronghorn;
elk; mule deer
Large carnivore
2JR
connectivity.
Large carnivore
connectivity (undefined
1JR
specific areas); bighorn
sheep.
OTHER WILDLIFE MAP (red polygons on maps created at workshop)
MAP
NOTES
ID#
6BW Fisher/wolverine.
Large carnivore
migration corridor,
includes elk, moose
5BW
bears from Big Hole.
Could extend southward
into Carmen Creek
Migration corridor lg.

4BW
carnivore
8BW Longbilled Curlew.
Bighorn sheep
9BW connectivity/migration
corridor.
wildlife migration
5
corridor
DRAFT AGRICULTURE AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP
NOTE
ID#
1 Carmen Creek bottomlands; Big Flat
5 Bohannon Creek, under conservation easement with LRLT; 5112 acres
6 Maintenance of agriculture; reduce/eliminate development
Upper Pahsimeroi is more grazing/grassland; more heavily tied to

10
public allotments; limited production of agricultural crops
Lower Pahsimero is more inclined to agriculture hay production and

11
limited row crop.
Stanley Area; short season; grazing land; no hay production; still viable
14
agriculture ground/tied to public allotments
15
16
DRAFT COMMUNITY AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP
NOTES
ID#
Wild & Scenic River

Corridor: Recreation,
2RS
Steelhead fishing,
Floating.
Recreational value of
natural river system with
KT5 wildlife viewing potential,
limited development,
fisheries.
Community expansion,
GJ1 i.e. landfill, motor cross
area, rifle range.
Access to public land;

Carmen Creek viewshed,
TK1
access to Continental
Divide.
Steelhead fishing.
1RS
OTHER COMMENTS ON COMMUNITY MAP: Recreation.
• Access to public lands/mountains.
Custer/Yankee Fork State
• Fishing access to tributaries. RS4
Park: Mining, History.
• Lewis & Clark resources.
Sawtooth Valley: Scenery;
• Access to trout fishing/fly fishing on the Lemhi. RS3 Ranching history;
Wildlife.
NOTES FROM EXPERT PRESENTATIONS AT WORKSHOP • For nonadadromous fish, the main concern is bull trout
and cutthroat. Good populations in the headwaters but no
Beth Waterbury, IDFG: cutthroat in the main stem.
Referenced Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy. At risk in
SL area: NOTES FROM FREE RANGING DISCUSSION ON
• 40 birds AGRICULTURAL VALUES:
• 10 fish • Seeing a lot more pivots on agricultural ground. Sometimes
• 15 mammals provides good wildlife cover in the corners.
• 1 amphibian
• Most important wildlife habitat is ranchland. Agriculture
Priority habitats – see plan. Three ecological zones are within
has to be a part of the conservation puzzle.
Salmon-Lemhi.
Valuable in conservation easements to think about tying to • Types of agriculture: Dairy was formerly significant. Not
prioritize habitats from the Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy. now. No more dairies. Cattle business hasn’t changed so
Riparian areas are less than 2% of land cover in Salmon- much here. Most agricultural land that sells does not go into
Lemhi. Very dry area. River corridors and that’s it. Few wet- development. More consolidation of agriculture ground.
lands. Therefore, riparian areas are SO important for fish and Need 350400 head of cows to make a living. This country
birds.64% of the 234 bird species that occur in the SL region historically built on sheep, but fewer now. Was diverse –
use riparian areas as primary nesting habitat. with spuds, hogs, etc. That’s changed completely. Not much
Salmon-Lemhi has one of the best contiguous landscapes of grain now either. Ranchers are older, as everywhere.
sagebrush steppe habitat. Much public but a lot of it is private. • Some ranches are subdivided and we’ll probably see more of
One of most dangered systems in the U.S. Its native species that. Not so much a volume issue as a location issue.
need huge landscapes, so susceptible to fragmentation. • What is general perception of conservation easements? Has
changed somewhat. Some people are interested that were
Tom Keegan, Big Game: not just five years ago. More would be on board if we could
• Winter range for deer, elk really get it going.
• Year round pronghorn and deer habitat on sage steppe
• Concerns about domestic sheep and big horn sheep NOTES ON POLYGONS AFTER DOING PAPER MAP EXERCISE
interactions (not on allotments, but on private land). IN WORKSHOP:
Renee: Big horn sheep added to USFS species of • Tower Creek and Fourth of July Creek – tighten up focus on
concern two weeks ago. upper end of Lemhi.
• Riparian habitats for moose. • North Fork – Salmon Valley Stewardship taking on huge
• Densest population of pygmy rabbits in the world – in projects there.
this region and over into the Upper Big Lost. • Create corridor along whole Salmon River – use 30 m
• Sage grouse using agricultural ground extensively buffer.
• In Custer County – Round Valley and East Valley important
Jeff Lutch, Fisheries: for agriculture.
• Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and Sockeye salmon are main • Bret and Tom could add mapped information on access
concern of anadromous species and there are a lot of issues through private land to public land – vulnerable places for
with those species now. Chinook has particularly received a traditional access.
lot of attention. • Scenic values are captured within Salmon River Recreation
• Tributaries are the focus for the upper Salmon basin. Area.
Lemhi River is largest producer of Chinook Salmon in the • Buffer fisheries throughout. Conundrum is that Upper
Upper Salmon. Lemhi has big tracks that give benefit to some species, but
• Water withdrawals for irrigation is a huge issue. Dewatered lower stretch has good connection for migrant birds. Upper
streams at lower end. Trying to maintain in-stream flows. Lemhi trumps some of the drainages in the North Fork
Of the 31 tributaries of the Lemhi, all but two of them for wildlife values. It makes sense to keep the big circles
are disconnected. Focus in Lemhi is to provide water on Upper Lemhi but narrow it down in the lower riparian
connection. Fish are spawning on tributaries through zone. Do same thing on main Salmon.
private land mostly. • Keep whole landscape of the Pahsimeroi as an important
• Up to half of fish production for Columbia comes from priority.
Upper Salmon? Possibly too high, but still very important. • East Fork – not much private open space.
Perhaps it’s half of fish in Snake system?
MAP NOTES ACCOMPANYING
ID# REVISED MAP
1 Salmon habitat
2 Wintering deer habitat
Historic Yankee Fork mining. Salmon

4 mainstem/tributaries salmon/steelhead
habitat
6 SNRA Scenic
7 SNRA Scenic
River Rec. fishing, boating throughout

main stem of Salmon River!
3/18/2010 Edits per Donna Erickson following

spring HOTR meeting.
1. Buffer entire Salmon River (30 meters).
2. Change polygon 5BW Migration Corridor to
Priority 1 and add.
Map revisions received 3/4/2010 from Wood River Land Trust
COMPOSITE MAPS CREATED FOR 01/25/2010 MEETING
Randy Carpenter, Sonoran Institute Gary Power, Idaho Fish & Game
Bob Cope, Board of County Commissioners Jim Roscoe, American Wildlands
Mark Davidson, The Nature Conservancy Renee Snyder, U.S. Forest Service
Karen Dunlap, U.S. Forest Service Ron Troy, The Nature Conservancy
Donna Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting, inc Kristen Troy, Lemhi Regional Land Trust
Vince Guyer, Bureau of Land Management Ken Wall, GeoData Services
Tom Keegan, Idaho Fish & Game Beth Waterbury, Idaho Fish & Game
Gina Knudson, Salmon Valley Stewardship Breann Westfall, Lemhi Regional Land Trust
Jeff Lutch, Idaho Fish & Game Michael Whitfield, Heart of the Rockies Initiative
UPPER MISSOURI FOCAL AREA
DRAFT WILDLIFE AREAS OF INTEREST

MAP ID# NOTE MAP ID# NOTE
34 Antelope 36 Wetlands (Lake Helena); sandhill cranes
38 Antelope 8 Wetlands; winter range; deer/elk/moose
Antelope/deer, some elk; elk/deer WR; 5 Winter range (moose)

Missouri River Corridor bighorn sheep,
mountain goat, deer, elk, bear habitat, fishing, 6 Winter range (moose)
11-12-
wildlife viewing.
13N Winter range (moose).
Missouri riparian corridor. Important wildlife
3 Winter range for moose, riparian habitat.
habitat for many species.
Adjacent to public land.
Important elk range.
2 Winter Range (moose); Easement
DNRC Land Exchange going on conservation
25 opportunity; good elk big game habitat public 33 Winter range
access
Winter range.
Easement; lynx and wolverine; winter range Adjacent to Elkhorns – important winter range
7
for elk and not much available there on public land, so
4
private is important. Three major land owners.
Easement; winter range; elk deer.
For antelope, if the ranch was developed it
9 In Upper Clark Fork. A little piece but very
would be the end of their habitat.
important to wildlife movement corridor.
Winter range
Missouri River Corridor bighorn sheep, A
Good agricultural land.
mountain goat, deer, elk, bear habitat, fishing,
wildlife viewing. Winter range for elk/deer/moose.
13S
Missouri riparian corridor. Important wildlife Elk, deer, moose. Upper Prickly Pear Creek
habitat for many species. Southern end mostly 29 has larger parcels. Important deer, elk, moose
private, good fishing. winter range. Adjacent to big block of public
land. Movement from Elkhorns to the divide.
10 Riparian; antelope; Winter range; bear
26 Winter range; elk deer movement
TNC Finish off exiting Blackfoot project and
30
fill in the holes 27 Winter range; elk deer movement
31 TNC Additions to our existing RMF project Winter range; within public land 510 m; next
1
to RMEF project; key winter range
Wetland; Stanfill Slough;
14
sandhill crane staging area
DRAFT COMMUNITY
AREAS OF INTEREST
1 Hunting Access to public land Recreation

Visual/Scenic values (Upper Tenmile Cr)
Missouri River Corridor Recreation Tenmile
Riparian corridors of Silver Creek, Prickly
Scenic, wildlife viewing Corridor
Pear Creek and Ten Mile Creek are
Recreation aesthetics important for water quality values.
2
Wildlife habitat (see wildlife)
Fishing Recreation.
Prickly
Missouri River corridor: scenic recreation. Riparian corridors of Silver Creek, Prickly
Pear
Pear Creek and Ten Mile Creek are
Scenic values heading up to MacDonald Corridor
4 important for water quality values.
Pass
Sevenmile
Scenic values heading up to MacDonald Visual/Scenic values
5 Creek
Pass
Visual/Scenic values.
South Hills backdrop scenic/rec. Silver Riparian corridors of Silver Creek, Prickly
6 South hills – scenic backdrop to capitol, Creek Pear Creek and Ten Mile Creek are
recreation. important for water quality values.
Black Hole Canyon

Visual/Scenic values
7 Creek
Lake Helena – recreation, scenic, open space
close to town.
8 Scenic Elkhorn foothills Other Comments on the Community Map (no polygons)
• Sleeping Giant Area: visual/scenic values

Between Lake and Big Belts
Recreational value • Around all of the lakes: recreation & scenic values
9 WL corridor • Upper Prickly Pear to Montana City: Historic mining and
Scenic value
ghost towns
Access
• West Big Belts: Access to PL, hunting, scenic
• Move boundary community affiliated more with Smith
River area
DRAFT AGRICULTURE
AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP MAP
NOTE NOTE
ID# ID#
Open grazing lands, some irrigated farmland (3 Buffer to WMA

AB5
polygons) Also important wildlife
1
For same reasons as above, keep open and
functional. Primarily grazing land.
Important winter range.
TC1
Open grazing lands, some irrigated farmland. Combination range land and farm land. Winter
2 For same reasons as above, keep open and range for big game is on private land.
functional.
Primarily grazing land.
Open grazing lands, some irrigated farmland. Important winter range.
Keep it in agriculture for public hunting. Open TC2
3 grazing. Older ownership and best irrigated Ranch. Keep them in production.
ground in Helena valley. Some of Canyon Creek Combination range land and farm land. Winter
land as good as Helena valley. range for big game is on private land.
6 Irrigated hay Primarily grazing land.

Important winter range.
17 Irrigated hay TC3 Keep in agriculture.
Combination range land and farm land. Winter
Lake Helena/Winterburn/Spring Creek range for big game is on private land.
Adjacent to Wildlife Management Area
Still in agriculture Primarily grazing land.
Threatened (2 polygons) Important winter range.
AB1 Lower end of winter range. Three main land
Helena valley’s important agriculture. Wetland TC4
system although channelized. Close to urban owners.
area. Potential for restoration. Has cranes and Combination range land and farm land. Winter
curlews. range for big game is on private land.
Ag production Grazing and farm ground.

AB2 TC5 Combination range land and farm land. Winter
Open space.
range for big game is on private land.
Foothills to Elkhorns
AB3 Productive agriculture
Important visual
Other comments on the ag map (no polygons): Ag Values – short discussion, as ag not well-represented at
• Large intact family ranches (pointing to Meadow Creek area workshop. Andy offered short summary: East side of Canyon
on far eastern side of focal area) Ferry between lake and Big Belt mountains important as is area
• Prime agricultural lands under irrigation as potential
priority for focal area. Other notes from discussion on prioritizing polygons:
• Little Blackfoot needs to be a priority
• Refer to Lois DelgerDeMers, Montana Land Reliance for
this area. • Connections – north of Helena and south of Lake Helena
Causeway – important for wildlife moving across the river.
NOTES FROM EXPERT PRESENTATIONS: • Area south of Lake Helena – wetlands, bird habitat. Heart of
crane nesting/staging habitat.
Tom Carlsen, FWP: • Regulation reservoir – Wetlands and birds. Maintain open
• Wildlife habitat management areas in UCF. First is space around it.
Beartooth, low elevation to high. Second is Lake Helena. • Connect two large polygons above Helena along BLM land
156 acres. Third, Canyon Ferry – south area of lake – 5000 and north of it.
acres. Maintain active conservation easement program
• Many agricultural lands also have important wildlife values.
through Habitat Montana. Have 6 conservation easements
and 2 fee title lands in this area (in Canyon Ferry area or • Add key riparian corridors into the map later: west side
within entire focal area??). of Big Belts, Lake Helena, Canyon Creek, Missouri River
corridor.
• BLM recently acquired three new CEs, one of which is 10K
acres.
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
• Seven deer and elk hunting districts. Focus is on big game.
Andy Baur, Prickly Pear Land Trust
2000 elk surveys: 6300 elk in area. 8900 mule deer, 3700
Jeff Barber, The Nature Conservancy
white tail deer. Six antelope districts. Most are in Townsend
Tom Carlsen, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
flats region. Three big horn sheep hunting districts. Not
Donna Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc
doing real well in any of them. Three hunting districts with
Diane Fitzgerald, Natural Resources Conservation Service
moose. Between them around 95, so hunted conservatively.
Duane Harp, U.S. Forest Service
Good mountain lion populations particularly in Elkhorns
Janet Hess-Herbert, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
and Big Belts. Same with Black Beer.
Gayle Joslin, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks (retired)
• Canyon Ferry Wildlife Mgmt area – 4 dikes, ponds Dennis Milburn, Backcountry Horsemen
manmade. Important area for waterfowl, pelicans Mike Mueller, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
pioneered this area, nesting first in 1990. Now 2000 nests. Robert Rasmussen, Trust for Public Land
Doublebreasted cormorant nests on islands. Other surveys Andrea Silverman, Prickly Pear Land Trust
– 400 whitetail deer. Important concentrations of wintering Dylan Taylor, American Wildlands
waterfowl along Missouri River and Clark Fork. Sandhill Ken Wall, GeoData Services
cranes – winter surveys: 200 at first and now about 600. Michael Whitfield, Heart of the Rockies Initiative
Important staging area.
• Canyon Ferry Trust – Cabin sites from Bureau of
Reclamation .
• One of biggest threats is mining on public land.
• Key wetland habitats? Some around Lake Helena.
Janet Hess-Herbert – statewide assessment of corridors and

connectivity. She handed out a summary.
Gayle Joslin sampling on grizzly bear habitat. Combing the

landscape to identify bear areas. Site specific numbered loca-
tions where bears are using areas. USGS is coordinating vol-
unteers – MacDonald Pass to Ovando, and over to MO river.
MacDonald pass south to Boulder River over to Butte.
FINAL REVISIONS received 02/24/2010 from Prickly Pear Land Trust
BIG HOLE FOCAL AREA
Workshop held November 4, 2009
DRAFT BIOLOGICAL
AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP MAP
NOTES: NOTES:
ID# ID#
BH Big Hole river 150 foot setback MB4 Deep Creek grayling
EWR1 Elk Winter Range MB5 La Marche Creek grayling
EWR2 Elk Winter Range MB6 Fish Trap Creek grayling
EWR3 Elk Winter Range MB7 York Gulch grayling
EWR4 Elk Winter Range MB8 Swamp Creek grayling
EWR5 Elk Winter Range MB9 Steel Creek grayling
EWR6 Elk Winter Range MM1 California Creek private in-holding
Wildlife corridor for elk, moose, carnivores, bears, RR1 Yank Swamp, unique riparian habitat
JR1
connects to Idaho winter range
Elk migration to winter range, Isaac Meadows
RR2
Wildlife corridor, major antelope migration, grassland/meadow complex
JR2 private land fence modification, continues east
into the Beaverhead-Red Rock Focal Area Big Swamp, Shelley Swamp , Little Swamp, Hamby
RR3
Swamp, unique riparian habitat
JR3 Moose winter concentration highest in valley
Elk winter range, Squaw Creek, Doolittle Creek,
Bighorn core habitat, Maiden Rock, wildlife RR4 Steel Creek, Francis Creek, Sheep Creek, Stanley
JR4
corridor Creek, Fox Gulch warm springs; Sage Grouse
JR5 Dewey wildlife corridor, bears, moose Clemow Cow Camp, Cox Park, Warm Springs,
RR5
riparian/meadow complex
Big Hole riparian cottonwood gallery forest,
JR6
continues downstream into Jefferson RR6 Elk travel corridor
JR7 Regional value, sandhill crane staging area RR7 Meadow/riparian
MB1 Sage Grouse RR8 Elk calving
MB10 Governor Creek grayling SER1 Summer Elk Range; Sage Grouse
MB11 Grayling CCAA SER2 Summer Elk Range; Sage Grouse
MB2 Sage Grouse SER3 Summer Elk Range; Sage Grouse
MB3 Mid Big Hole grayling
MAP
NOTE
ID#
JR1 Big Hole battlefield
JR2 NeeNeePoo Trail
Interpretive site:
JR3 Undaunted Stewardship
(FWP?)
JR4 Glendale Mill Site
JR5 Pioneer Scenic Byway
MM1 Jackson Hot Springs
MM2 Coolidge Ghost Town
MM3 Mule Ranch
RR1 Historic Trail Corridor
Historic Settlement
RR2
Corridor
DRAFT AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP
NOTE
ID#
FS1 Grazing allotment
FS2 Grazing allotment
MB1 Ranch, grass, hay, alfalfa
MB4 Ranch, grass, hay, grazing
MB5 Grazing allotments
Grazing, grass, hay,

MB6
pasture
GENERAL NOTES:
• The Big Hole is unusual in that the

agricultural owners do not rely on the
grazing allotments for survival in ranching.
One operation has 5000 head of cattle and
uses no public land (Russ). There are a
couple of areas identified on the agriculture
map where this is less true. See the polygon
that Mike B made around public land in the
Pioneers. Some of the ranchers also rely on
BLM land, for instance allotments on the east
side of the watershed.
• Grayling not found on the forest, are almost
entirely found on streams through private
land. The big agricultural polygon (whole
Upper Big Hole valley) is important for
Arctic Grayling.
• Entire BH River is blue ribbon trout stream.
• Big Hole has 150 setback regulations for
development.
• Elk winter range on the west side of the
Pioneers is important.
• Unique habitat features on the west side of
the valley – predator habitats.
• Some inholdings are interesting to the USFS.
Isaac Meadows, for instance. Also Trail
Creek corridor – inholdings of interest to
USFS.
• Elk passage is important across the valley
FINAL REVISIONS received 02/26/2010 from
in the area with big conservation easements (didn’t get the
Russell Riebe, Wisdom Ranger District
code on this one – area up toward Wisdom?)
• West side of the valley is an ecotone that is important
for raptors, sage grouse, and other edge species. Critical MAP NOTES FOR
transition zone with high diversity. ID# REVISED MAP
• Some landowners in very upper watershed don’t give Riparian biological

1
hunting access. Other places have block management. In values
some places there are very tender politics around whole
2 Historic values
hunting access issue.
• More access to public lands here than in other areas due to Historic value, Nez Perce
many USFS roads accessing timber lands. In some cases, Trail corridor. Also,
landowners have joined with roadless advocates in fighting 3 headwaters of the Big
Hole River biological
forest service access roads. Interesting relationships have
value.
developed between ag and env community.
• Water rights considerations were also discussed. Biological undeveloped
4
inholdings.
• In the end, participants made a compelling case that almost
all of the private land in the Big Hole watershed is high Biological undeveloped
5
priority. However, we can show the very highest priority in inholdings.
the large swaths where biological and agricultural resources
Allow community
overlap (mainly near private public boundary zones). DELETE
expansion areas.

Mike Bias, Big Hole River Foundation
Donna Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc.
Mike Mueller, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Russ Riebe, U.S. Forest Service
Ken Wall, GeoData Services Inc
Robin Wall, GeoData Services, Inc
BEAVERHEAD-RED ROCK FOCAL AREA
Workshop held November 3, 2009
DRAFT BIOLOGICAL AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP
NOTE
ID#
CF1 Oil & gas, electric trans, sage grouse
CF2 Winter range
Wildlife linkage, elk, carnivores, sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, antelope;

CF3
public land access
CF4 Wildlife winter range
JR1 antelope/wildlife linkage, private land fence modification
Linkage corridor between Snowcrest and Beaverhead elk, grizzly bear,

JR2
wolf, wolverine
Wildlife linkage, major antelope corridor between season habitats, private

JR4
land fence modification, continues west into Big Hole
Riparian cottonwood, Beaverhead River, avain flyway, regional sandhill

JR5
crane staging area
#1 wildlife linkage in High Divide. Major elk, mule deer, antelope, sage
JR6
grouse, moose.
MAP
NOTE
ID#
1 Bannack
2 Beaverhead Rock
3 Cliffs
4 Lemhi Pass
Blacktail Centennial
CM1
Byway
Big Sheep Medicine

JR1
Lodge backcountry byway
JR2 Pioneer Scenic Byway
JR3 Lewis & Clark Trail
MAP
NOTE
ID#
High production: hay,

CM1
grain, cattle
CM2 High production hay/cattle
GENERAL NOTES:
• Add the Centennial info now, even though it is in the GYE.

Move boundary of the GYE plan to include this area in
the High Divide. Sage Creek – follow up with Jim Roscoe
on this area, if needed. This wildlife corridor is #1 in their
whole PLA for the High Divide region. One owner owns
most of it.
• Tendoys and south end of Beaverheads – bighorn sheep.
• NRCS – focusing grassland efforts on sage grouse.
• Beaverhead County at one point had the biggest hay
production in the state.
• All agricultural land in this focal area is in great danger of
development.
• No grizzlies confirmed in this area.
Biology Map
• Lima Snowline area has threat from oil and gas
development, major sage grouse JR1, CF1
• Elk movement JR3. Connectivity from Beaverhead to
Tendoys.
• Beaverhead is the very important. Major cottonwood
gallery forests, avian flyway. Continues downstream into
Jefferson
• Sage Creek area – diversity of game there. Important to WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS:
seasonal winter range moving south, east and north. Kelly Bockting, Bureau of Land Management
Tim Bozorth, Bureau of Land Management
Agriculture Map Donna Erickson, Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc
• Polygons identified for productivity. Mike Mueller, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
• CM1 is highest production. Best resource, has some grain Jim Roscoe, American Wildlands
and some 45 Ton alfalfa. Craig Fager, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Kyle Tackett, Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Other three are 2 Ton per acre grasses. Two cuttings on the
Beaverhead River lower ground.
• Still high elevation for farming, so less productive than
some parts of state.
• A little grain grown around Dell.
Community Map
• #1 priorities are Lewis and Clark Trail, scenic roads. Also
#1 priority is Big Sheep Medicine Lodge area. Undeveloped
nature of the habitat there.
• Blacktail Centennial – good portion is one landowner.
• Add cliff area near Dillon onto this map.
• Add Bannock onto this map.
JEFFERSON-BOULDER-RUBY FOCAL AREA
Workshop held October 27, 2009
DRAFT BIOLOGICAL AREAS OF INTEREST
MAP ID# NOTES:
1 Upper Boulder; riparian, wildlife, fish value; broad willow bottoms; placer claims.
Wildlife linkage corridor. Jefferson River riparian cottonwood gallery forest, continuous
3
upstream with Ruby, Big Hole and Beaverhead
BB1 Wildlife linkage
BB10 Core elk winter range
BB12 Core bighorn sheep linkage
BB13 Core bighorn sheep linkage
BB2 Wildlife linkage; elk, mule deer, pronghorn WR
BB3 Elk WR
BB4 Wildlife linkage
BB5 Sage grouse brood rearing and winter range
BB6 Wildlife linkage, Ruby to Tobacco Root
MAP ID# NOTES:
Wildlife linkage corridor, across Jefferson and I90 corridor. Undeveloped part of the valley
JR1 that makes a corridor from the Tobacco Roots to the Highlands. Moose population is
increasing; not tied to the cross valley movement.
JR2 Wildlife linkage corridor across Jefferson valley between Highlands and Tobacco Roots
Wildlife linkage corridor between Greenhorn and Ruby Mountains; bighorn sheep
JR3
migration/expansion. Big Horn Sheep population up as far as Taylor Canyon.
AWL #2 highest priority; wildlife linkage corridor between Tobacco Roots and Gravelly
JR4
Range; large carnivores; elk
Wildlife linkage corridor between Highlands and Whitetail; large carnivores. Wildlife
JR5
agricultural values; Highland Bench.
River corridor and upper Ruby River corridor; All sensitive area of interest for wildlife,
RR9 water quality. Upper Ruby is pristine, relatively undeveloped and surrounded by public land.
Wildlife linkage corridor.
RS1 Wet
RS10 Wet
RS11 Wildlife linkage corridor, Jefferson River riparian
RS13 Upper Boulder: high riparian.
RS2 Wet; development issues
RS3 Wet
RS4 Wet
RS5 Wet
Upper Fish Creek: cutthroat trout, private mining claims. Lower Fish Creek: fish and wildlife
RS7
and agricultural values.
RS9 Lower Boulder: very high fish value, riparian value.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL MAP • In discussion of the ‘best of the best’ on the biological map,
(no polygon) people emphasized linkages. Movement corridors are most
important.
• Add small inholdings, mines, etc., mountain goats, etc. in • Virginia City hill area #2 in AWL priority mapping for their
Tobacco Root Mountains. entire project.
• Upper Ruby is a pristine, intact environment • Dotted lines on this map – these are riparian areas that Ron
• Every main drainage is very important. A few of the marked as high priority.
tributaries more important than others biologically. • Some participants recommend more high priority on
The watershed council has focused on them. A drought quality habitat rather than on connectivity. This debate got
management plan is being implemented, whereby farmers started, but was truncated—HOTR planning process should
voluntarily cut back on water use. A completed TMDL capture best of both.
has been done (DEQ), report focuses on the Jefferson
• Add mining claims within the Tobacco Roots. Add all of
tributaries.
the private inholdings not currently circled. The group as
• Discussion of Montana Rail Link abandoned rail lines, with a whole felt that these should be added, particularly for
potential as community value for distance trails. potential access and development having negative impacts
on mountain goats and other species.
MAP
NOTES:
ID#
1 Ranchland
2 Boulder ranchlands, Carey’s Zoning Regulations
GN Prime agricultural land on either side of river on river bottom
JR1 Elk Park, high elevation grazing land
LS91 Prime farmland
LS92 Prime agricultural land
LS93 Prime farmland
RR9 Predominantly agriculural operations
RS Ranchland
OTHER NOTES REGARDING COMMUNITY MAP:

MAP
NOTES:
ID#
• Elk Park – High elevation grazing near Butte. Threatened by
BB14 Public land access development and a very unique place.
BB15 Public land access • Access – good discussion of the pros and cons or
appropriate/inappropriate issues around access. Tension
BB16 Public land access between increased running/biking trails for some parts of
population and traditional access to public land for other
Railroad corridor, potential rails to trails site
JR1 groups. Ruby River bottom has public access that’s valuable
from Cardwell to Sappington
but east side of 287 has issues of access to public land.
JR2 Rails to trails potential Pipestone Along 287 to Virginia City. Focus on public access to Forest
Service lands ended up being prioritized – see pink swaths
Yearlong recreation, fishing use on Ruby around the Tobacco Roots. North of Twin Bridges there is
JR3
Reservoir
less access to Forest Service land so this should be a priority
Whiskey Gulch access to public lands. Scenic area. Upper Ruby – a lot of public access points to public
LS91 areas, which surround the valley. Wildland urban interface
value.
is more pronounced along the Tobacco Roots.
LS92 Public land access, maintain open land.
• Virginia City to Sheridan – vistas, open relatively
Rails to trails potential, abandoned rail line undeveloped. Important scenically and historically.
RR91
from Twin to Sheridan, potentially on to VC • RailTrails potential from Twin Bridges to Sheridan to
Virginia City.
RR92
• Other important historic resource areas – Lewis and Clark
Mountain recreation access, majority of access Caverns, Pipestone pass, Virginia City area.
points. Open viewsheds. Streams identified in
RR93
TMDC as sediment contributions due to road
use.
Undisturbed landscapes and public access

RR94
points.
RS1 Candlestick Ranch GSM access
RS2 Piedmont swamp, wildlife, access
GENERAL MEETING NOTES:
• The Ruby Watershed Council (RWC) has just completed
a wetland and riparian mapping process for the Ruby
watershed. It will soon be on Arc GIS Explorer. Final
report should be ready soon. Also developing an ecological
database to give more information on the area. RWC has
a ground water to surface water model and working on a
channel zone migration model being done to add as a data
layer. County can eventually use these resources for land
use planning and other projects. Recommendation that we
contact the Missouri Headwaters Partnership.
• Jefferson watershed council is starting a process for
watershed restoration planning. They are also in the process
of pulling together and synthesizing all of the various
assessments and other data that has completed for the
Jefferson.
• Jefferson Watershed Council is focused on river between
Twin Bridges, where Ruby and Beaverhead join the
Jefferson, and Cardwell. A spur group is working in the
lower Jefferson valley – Cardwell to Three Forks (and in
the Boulder?) This group has split off from the Jefferson
Watershed Council. From a fisheries perspective, our
boundaries for this focal area make sense.
• Boulder Valley – zoning in the bottom land, 640 a
minimum lot sizes. Carey family spurred zoning in that
area. Jefferson County created the Milligan Canyon/Boulder
Valley Agricultural District in 2000, encompassing about
140 square miles (check this figure). This was a citizen
initiated zoning effort established to protect agricultural
lands from subdivision. The zoning district has been
successful in halting all nonagricultural development.
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Bob Brannon, MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Gary Nelson, Jefferson River Watershed Council
Rebecca Ramsey, Ruby Watershed Council
Ron Spoon, MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Marni Thompson, Natural Resources Conservation Service
LOST RIVER FOCAL AREA
DRAFT WILDLIFE AREAS OF INTEREST (revised focal area boundary)
CW1 Sinks; amphibians; microinvertebrates. Cottonwood corridor; whitefish;

cottonwood bottom; land/river system;
CW2 Sage grouse leks; summer/winter. MF2 winter range; limited habitat component.
SELECT RIPARIAN WOODLAND
CW3 Critical antelope; sage grouse; winter. FROM REGAP.
CW4.1 Bull trout spawning; call TU. MF3 Migration; winter range.
CW4.2 Waterfowl; wetlands. Look at historic sage grouse leks; antelope
MF4
winter range.
TU; DU: RMEF; fish; wetlands; big game;
ART10
sage grouse. Medicine Lodge Cr; big game; trout; sage
MW13
grouse; raptor corridor.
ART11 few sheep; antelope; elk; deer; wolf(?).
1 Mountain whitefish.
ART12 Big game to Blizzard Mt winter range.
2 Big Lost River mountain whitefish.
ART13 Sage grouse leks.
3 Sage grouse
ART14 Active sage grouse lek; elk; curlew.
4 Sage grouse
16 Waterfowl; wetlands; bull trout.
6 Herd winters; Antelope Cr/Iron Cr.
DRAFT COMMUNITY AREAS OF INTEREST (revised focal area boundary)
MAP
NOTE
ID#
CW1 Birch Cr campground.
1 Access to public land.
2 Big Lost fishing access.
3 Big Lost fishing access.
4 Big Lost fishing access
5 Lost River Range view shed.
6 Significant inholdings.
7 Significant inholdings.
DRAFT AGRICULTURE AREAS OF INTEREST (revised focal area boundary)
MAP
NOTE
ID#
Check soil maps. SELECT

1
PRIME AG LANDS.
LOST RIVER MEETING NOTES • Grouse partnership (didn’t get who/what this partnership is
about) – not only for bird species but protecting grasslands
• TNC has 12 priority areas in Idaho. Three of them include that grouse use. Lek densities are as high south of highway
parts of the Lost River focal area. TNC in planning process 22 as north of it.
for what they call a Vanishing Rivers Initiative. Their • Alan Sands Good TNC expert on grasslands. Also Jeff (?)
Southern Pioneers plan is now done. They are in fourth try and Don Kemmer at Fish and Game.
for a Lost River plan, but actively expanding their work in
• Priority on cottonwood galleries and forested riparian
this area.
corridors regardless of species. Look at cottonwood system
• Discussion of dividing the focal area in half along the from Trail Creek to the reservoir.
Little Wood. See mapped boundary changes. Important
• Discussion of hot springs – a community value?
to overlay the sage grouse and RMEF information. Wood
River culturally totally different than Little Lost, Big Lost, • Mahogany sites are important, but not primarily on private
Antelope Creek and Birch Creek. As big a difference as land.
exists in Idaho. • A lot of local interest and collaboration in Snake River
• A lot of work being done in Antelope Creek by DEQ. Habitat Management System: in Little Lost, Big Wood, Little
Wood, all of which over appropriated over the years.
• Big horn sheep coming into Pioneers.
• Mike Foster’s GIS lab has layers for vegetation, game winter
• Need to come back to agricultural values with NRCS and
range, sage grouse. GIS person is Linda. Chet Work can also
others in this focal area. Weak agricultural representation
get us GIS data from TNC if needed.
at this meeting. Mike Foster will help get us connected,
for instance with Herbie Whitworth (rancher) and Shane • Send Scott Boettger the Lemhi draft map for his review, as
Rosenkranz. he has projects in the western side.
• See antelope study done by Kim Berger with Wildlife • USFS and ID F&G have put a lot of effort into enhancing
Conservation Society. big horn sheep in Lost River. Working with private
landowners to phase out sheep and shift to cattle. Haven’t
• RMEF connections – Dave Torrell, Star Idaho. Helped with
accomplished transitions with landowners, but moving in
sage grouse mapping. Also have Mackay chapter – Mike
that direction and cultivating those relationships. Strategy
Foster coleader.
is to help provide financial incentives to make this switch.
• Kim Trotter at TU, Idaho Falls. For more fish information. More info on big horn sheep – North American Wild Sheep
• Bart Gammett, Mackay USFS Ranger District for fish info, Foundation. Jerry Gregson.
particularly bull trout. • Lava Lake Institute (branch of Lava Lake Land and
• Canal ditch system provides a missing component for Livestock). Mike Stevens – CEO, Hailey. Interest in
grouse. Importance of agriculture land for wildlife values in Antelope area.
this regard. Little seeps coming from those ditches are very • Sawtooth Society also would be interested in what we’re
important ecological areas. Agriculture provides dispersed doing.
habitat areas – such as utilizing edges of alfalfa fields.
Revised map received 03/01/2010 from Scott Boettger, Wood River Land Trust
03/01/2010 Phone call with Scott Boettger and Robin Wall. The
polygons drawn on the map delineate the HVP. Scott has no basis
for HVP lands outside these polygons. A map of Pronghorn migra-
tion (Oct 2008 through Sep 2009) was included with the revised
Lost River map.
Heidi Albano, Sagebrush Steppe Land Trust
Scott Boettger, Wood River Land Trust
Mike Foster, U.S. Forest Service
Jocelin Matkins, Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust
Deb Mignogno, Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust
Art Talsma, The Nature Conservancy
Chet Work, The Nature Conservancy

Hotri 2010 Plan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hotri 2010 Plan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Connecting the Landscape:

A Proposal for Collaborative Conservation

Technical Appendix: Supplemental Information for Each Focal Area …………………………………… 93

COVER PHOTO CREDITS: (clockwise from top)

About Land Trusts and Conservation Easements

A conservation easement is a voluntary, legally binding recorded agreement

A conservation easement may be donated by the landowner, or in some instances,

Land trusts believe that agricultural landowners should not

The development of this conservation plan was made possible by generous

important to the continued viability of large, mobile ungulates Ferruginous hawk

The High Divide: The Case for Private Land Conservation

The High Divide contains the headwaters of several major

As local economic and demographic profiles shift and

Identifying High-Priority Private Land in the High Divide

Private Lands with High Value for

As High Divide partners set

Strategies for Achieving the 10-Year Goal

Heart of the Rockies Conservation Planning

In 2003, HOTR published its first conservation plan, Rewarding Landowners

Table 1. Acreage summary for focal areas in the High Divide

TOTAL FOCAL ACRES IN PUBLIC % OF FOCAL ACRES IN PRIVATE % OF FOCAL

The private lands are what more than

The fate of these private lands— Looking east to

1 Western Governor’s Association, 2008.

Landscape-scale energy infrastructure developments are

The goal for each workshop was to use expert opinion to

However, the High Divide plan was intentionally not

Given the difference in workshop methods, as described above, the descriptions of

Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,556,383

3 Larry Swanson, 2006.

Agricultural landowners, operators, and agricultural • Agricultural soils and irrigation

4 U.S. Forest Service, 2007.

The East Fork is also extremely critical from a wildlife habitat

Roaring Lion and Sawtooth Creeks

Geographic and Historic Setting Total Acres: 2,365,196

Summary of Upper Clark Fork Resources

We do not have a complete picture of wildlife presence,

8 Montana Fish, May 2010.

• Gold Creek area

Reconstruction of the Flint Creek Siphon is another indicator

Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,263,008

The Boulder River originates in the Absoraka/Beartooth Wilderness Area at a

HOTR Mapping Workshop Lower Shields River Valley

Upper Sweet Grass Creek

Geographic and Historic Setting Total Acres: 4,063,062

13 Waterbury, Beth, 2009.

Smaller pockets of agricultural soils are

Workshop participants stressed that

Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,840,500

Context of Land Conservation

The entire Missouri River corridor

Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,789,197

15 The Nature Conservancy. www.nature.org/wherewewok

The Coolidge Ghost Town in the Pioneer Mountains has

Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,749,963

The Bureau of Land Management

Private lands throughout the area provide important winter

The Beaverhead River corridor from

The Blacktail Mountains lie southeast

Private lands throughout the focal area

Blacktail Road is a relatively remote scenic route, a gravel

Geographic and Historic Context Total Acres: 1,847,484

The landscape around Virginia City and Nevada City along

Geographic Context Total Acres: 5,350,385