Helena National Forest

Elkhorns Wildlife Management Unit

Past, Present, and Future

Elkhorns: History: Past, Present, and Future

The Elkhorn Mountains: Past, Present, and Future

Text from a slide presentation developed by

Jodie Canfield, Elkhorn Coordinator 1991 - 2005

Mark Meloy said in an article in Montana Magazine “Undoubtedly, all long-time residents have a soft spot in their hearts for some wild place in Montana.” While the Elkhorns have been my full time job for the past 11 years, I must admit that they have also become my “soft spot”. In addition to being a source of endless challenges, they have given me solace and fed me spiritually. The Elkhorns seem to be one of those places that cast a spell on the people who go there often, and like Mark, I am willingly under their spell forever.

Surrounded by highways on 3 sides and fading into the Boulder Valley to the south, the Elkhorn Mountains are an island mountain range in southwest Montana.

Depending on where you are, the view of the Elkhorns can be very different. Because of weather patterns and geology, within the Elkhorn Mountains, a variety of landforms and vegetation communities are represented.

A variety of wildlife species are at home in the Elkhorns and are the reason for their special designation as a Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) – the only entire mountain range in the National Forest System with that designation.

About 21 miles long and 19 miles wide, there are 160,000 acres of National Forest Lands (the WMU) and about 70,000 acres of BLM lands, some State school trust lands. The private lands consist of many inholdings within the public lands (small mining patents, larger homesteads), as well as private lands, which surround the mountains that include large ranches as well as subdivisions.

These mountains didn’t always look the way they do now. Out of a shallow sea, the Elkhorns were thrust up as buckled and fractured layers of sedimentary rock over 70 million years ago.

10 million years later, enormous volumes of molten lava spewed from volcanoes and covered large portions of the sedimentary rocks. The molten rock hardened and later eroded exposing granitic landforms.

In the past 2million years, a repeated advance and retreat of glaciers has carved even finer details into the landscape. The high mountain lakes that add such a delicate touch to the rugged landscape of the Elkhorns are a legacy of the powerful glacial flows that gouged deep cirques into the seemingly impenetrable face of volcanic rock.

The first humans were likely aboriginal peoples that migrated through the ice-free Helena Valley during the late glacial period. The Flathead-Salish and Blackfoot Native American tribes hunted and gathered food in the Elkhorns for over 500 years.

The first Europeans were likely members of the Lewis and Clark expedition who undoubtedly hunted the foothills of the Elkhorns as they made their way up the Missouri River. Trappers soon followed and nearly depleted the beaver populations of the area.

Those same geologic forces that shaped the mountain range also left behind deposits of gold and silver. Of all the humans who have left their mark on the Elkhorns, none was so dramatic and long lasting as the Mining operations that began to spring up overnight beginning in the 1860’s.

Initially, mining was of the placer type since lode mining was limited by the availability of transportation to and from smelters. The first placer camp was called “Ruddville” in Tizer Basin at the head of Wilson Creek. A Dr. Rudd leased it to about 300 Chinese miners. Today this is all that remains of Ruddville.

Following the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad and smelters in E. Helena and Wickes, lode mining began in earnest (4 distinct mining districts) and continued at a pace that would never be repeated in the area’s history. Those mines in the Elkhorns are still geographic landmarks in the Elkhorn Mountains. Local people refer to these by such names as Elkhorn (townsite), Diamond Hill, Pataloma, Center Reef, Golden Age, East Pacific, Kleinschmidt, Vosburg, Iron Cross, and Marietta.

During their era, miners built towns, roads, moved water, cut trees and shot game animals to extinction.

As the lure of gold faded, humans turned their attention to other, as yet, unexploited resources offered by the Elkhorns. Cattle, horses, and sheep grazed “free range” on the foothills, along streams, and in the high lush mountain meadows.

Based on the Forest Reserve Reports that deal with the Elkhorn Mountains (1904 and 1907), the Elkhorn Forest Reserve was permanently withdrawn (by proclamation) from the public domain in 1905 (with an addition on the west in 1908) to protect forests and watersheds in the area. There had been vast areas cut over for saw timber, mine lagging and cordwood and there was public concern relative to the amount of water available for downstream irrigation. It became the Elkhorn National Forest in 1907 and was transferred to the Helena National Forest by executive order in 1908. The southwest portion was transferred to the Deerlodge National Forest in 1931.

Local sentiment changed from those who in 1905 were “in favor of the creation of a forest reserve, believing it of vital necessity to protect water in upper basins and timber to not wanting the reserve addition in 1907 on account of the idea of having to ask for anything they desired to get off the reserve.”

Early rangers were once stationed in the town of Elkhorn, near the sawmills on McClellan Creek, and later in Radersburg, Eagle Basin, and Tizer Basin. Their primary purpose was control livestock grazing, to fight fire and to protect against timber theft.

Homestead activity increased in this period as mining faded. Over 3,500 acres were approved as homestead patents in the Elkhorns between 1915 and 1926.

This custodial era was followed by an era of full-fledged multiple use with an emphasis on fire suppression and grazing management.

Reports from the 1920’s indicated that horses, cattle and sheep, during the era of “free range” caused serious overgrazing in the Elkhorns. In the mid-1930’s boundary fences and allotments were established to better control livestock. In the 1940’s, there were 14,502 AUM’s permitted on NF system lands (11,690 in 1980; 9,429 in 2002)

In this same era, several wildlife species were transplanted (34 elk from YNP in 1939 at Elkhorn Creek) (16 mtn. goats in 1956) and in an effort to increase recreational fishing, non-native brook trout were planted in many creeks. Hunting and fishing seasons were established that allowed these populations to grow.

Several pieces of federal legislation influenced the development of the Elkhorn Mountains. In 1960, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) was passed, and by the mid-1970’s, about 2,000 acres of harvest had occurred on NF system lands in Johnny Gulch, Dry Creek, Hog Hollow, Hall Creek and Pole Creek. Things began to change again with the passage of NEPA in 1969.

The period of time that is perhaps most interesting in the administrative history of the Elkhorns is between 1974 and 1986. In 1974 - Senator Lee Metcalf introduced a statewide wilderness study act (S.393) containing 10 National Forest roadless areas, which included a portion of the Elkhorn Mountains.

In 1976 - the Forest Service finalized a Unit Plan that called for timber harvest and a transmountain road through Tizer Basin and upper Crow Creek. The plan caused uproar and 13 conservation groups filed an administrative appeal against implementation of the “unit plan”.

Also in 1976, as a result of S.393 making it through the Senate and before the House, and the considerable public concern and media attention focused on the Elkhorn Unit Plan, Congressman John Melcher (chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee in the House of Representatives) held a hearing on Labor Day in Helena to consider the pros and cons of wilderness in the Elkhorns. Following the hearing, Congressman Melcher separated the Elkhorns out of the statewide study act and introduced legislation establishing a separate study for the Elkhorns.

By enacting Public Law 94-557, Congress directed the Forest Service to evaluate about 86,000 acres of the Elkhorns for possible inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation system.

In 1978 – Forest Service released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the wilderness study, which had a preferred alternative that featured 25,000 acres of wilderness (upper Beaver Creek, Casey Peak and Dutchman Creek), a 20,000-acre wildlife protection area, and a 40,000-acre multiple use area. It was not a popular alternative with wilderness advocates or multiple use advocates. In spite of the lack of agreement about wilderness, a somewhat surprising consensus began to emerge – the wealth of natural diversity in wildlife and habitats, and the associated recreation values of the Elkhorns should be recognized and retained.

At that point, Ruppert Cutler who was President Carter’s assistant Secretary of Agriculture became interested in the Elkhorn controversy and envisioned a creative management approach outside of the Wilderness Act. In 1978, by letter, he directed the Regional Forester and Chief of the Forest Service to begin with the development of a master plan for the Elkhorn Mountains, “which restricts public use, commodity extraction, and all other activities to only those known to be compatible with the long term, well being and survival of the elk, deer, mountain goats, moose, and other wildlife species of this productive area”.

In 1981— The final report on PL 94-557 and the Final EIS were released. After analyzing seven alternatives, the Regional Forester recommended to the Chief of the Forest Service that the Elkhorn study area not be designated wilderness but rather a management unit that emphasized the very high wildlife values in the area.

Also in 1981 – The Chief of the Forest Service released the Record of Decision (ROD) on the Wilderness Study. The ROD states, “it is my decision to recommend that the Elkhorn Wilderness Study Area not be designated wilderness. Direction will be developed for the Helena and Deerlodge Forest Plans to establish a management unit which emphasizes the very high wildlife values.” All 160,000 acres of Forest System lands (to include more of the total ecosystem and the key winter range areas that were outside of the Wilderness Study Area) were to be recognized as a Wildlife Management Unit. The decision referenced the 8 criteria found in the Final EIS that were to provide the basis for management direction in the Forest Plans that would be developed for the Helena and Deerlodge National Forests under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976.

In 1982 - President Reagan transmitted to Congress his concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture (John Block) that the Elkhorns were not suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Congress had 4 years to consider that recommendation and act on it, and if not, the recommendation would be automatically implemented. During that 4-year period, the Forest Service was to continue managing the Study Area to maintain its wilderness potential.

By 1986 – in the 4 years, Congress did not act on the President’s recommendation, which automatically implemented the recommendation and released the Forest Service from its mandate to maintain the wilderness potential. So, in 1986-1987, the Helena and Deerlodge Forest Plans, respectively, were finalized and included in each a section establishing goals and standards for each of 8 management areas.

The Helena National Forest had entered into an agreement with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) at this time and supported a biologist who was called the Elkhorn Coordinator. This biologist was responsible for helping to translate the “criteria” from the wilderness study into management direction in the Forest Plans.

These forest plans were developed and finalized in 1986 and 1987. Not surprisingly, since the Forest and FWP had embarked on an intensive study of elk in the mountain range, the management area direction in those plans was pretty general and was focused on the protection of big game seasonal habitats, particularly on the larger winter ranges (a somewhat unique feature of the Elkhorns) that supported the majority of the elk population.

This work also paved the way for an innovative hunting season regulation, implemented in 1987, that allows for the legal harvest of spike bulls with a general license, and the permit-only taking of branch-antlered bulls. This regulation has resulted in a very unique “hunted” elk population having bulls up to 14 years of age.

Although its been challenged over the past 15 years, there is generally overwhelming public support for this season which has resulted in the reputation of the Elkhorns as one of the best places in the state for hunting and non-hunting bull elk enthusiasts.

The decision to designate the Elkhorns as a WMU was also intended to be experimental in nature. The people who crafted that decision wrote that the Forest Service should “actively” manage the habitat for wildlife and to monitor those activities and use the findings in other areas.

Like everything in the Elkhorns, different people had different ideas about how to interpret the Forest Plan direction for the Elkhorns. Between about 1981 and 1991, FWP and Forest Service were at a standstill in being able to agree on how to manage this special area. The relationship between the agencies seemed to bottom out following the intense fire season in 1988 during which over 47,000 acres burned in the Elkhorn Mountains. The debate on the appropriateness and amount of salvage logging in the WMU resulted in a long drawn out analysis, after which the Forest Service decided to cut only a few hundred acres of burned trees on public lands.

In 1991, with the elk study completed and the FWP biologist summarizing the findings, the 2 forests decided to hire their own biologist to serve as the “Elkhorn Coordinator” in an attempt to gain consistency in the management of the 2 Forests and 3 ranger districts and 3 agencies represented in the Elkhorn WMU.

This model of interagency coordination was formalized in 1992, representatives of the Helena, Deerlodge, BLM, and FWP signed a MOU. The Agencies agreed to cooperatively manage all the federal lands in the Elkhorns with emphasis on the management of diverse and healthy wildlife and fish habitats. This was a major step forward in positive working relationships among the agencies and in bringing the BLM on board.

As a first step toward holistic management of the Elkhorn ecosystem, the agencies undertook a landscape level inventory of the components and a study of the landscape level changes.

Natural resource specialists took to the field and researched through the archives to be able to compare the present-day condition of the Elkhorns with what the landscape looked like and how it might have naturally responded to environmental disturbances prior to influence by European man.

The three main findings from the Landscape Analysis included:

• The full diversity of wildlife habitats has been compromised by the loss of vegetative diversity due to the influences of historic livestock grazing, fire suppression and other variables;
• The full range of wildlife should include recovery of native wildlife populations such as bighorn sheep and westslope cutthroat trout; and
• That mining, grazing, recreation and other human uses of the Elkhorns have compromised wildlife values.

The Landscape Analysis gave the agencies a common vision and a solid foundation, enabling the accomplishment of a number of projects that otherwise would not have been completed.

Concurrently as several projects were initiated to move toward that common vision, the Forest Service began the process of amending the Forest Plans using the findings of the landscape analysis. The motivation for this effort was certainly not to “undo” the WMU, but rather to try to clarify and capture the intent of the “Wilderness EIS criteria” in a more specific, measurable way.

Unlike the original plans, the amendment provided for aggressive noxious weed control, restoration of riparian habitats, native species recovery, travel management and road reclamation, protection of big game security, protection of scenery and cultural resources, consolidation of land ownership patterns, and innovative approaches to fire management. The Elkhorn Amendment actually outlined more restrictive standards (then the original plan) for mining and grazing, maintained the emphasis on wildlife habitat improvements with the exact same allowances for the use of timber harvest and roading as the original plans.

What was different however was that the amendment tried to quantify what had changed in the Elkhorns Mountains with the exclusion of fire, and to quantify what the goal for “restoring” those habitats would be using whatever tools (eg. Fire, thinning) were appropriate.

This amendment went into effect in 1996, but was later litigated. In 1999, a district court judge set aside the amendment finding it to be significant under NEPA and NFMA. The Forest Service has appealed his decision in the 9th circuit court and later settled through the help of a mediator.

In spite of the loss of the amendment, the agencies have been able to accomplish the intent of the landscape analysis under the general management direction of the former Forest Plans. Those projects have included: updating allotment management plans to reflect state of the art knowledge of riparian systems and uplands.

In 1995, the agencies completed a comprehensive travel plan was finalized which established area closures and a system of designated routes.

To re-establish some of the natural vegetative diversity, the agencies have planned and implemented prescribed burning projects in the Crow Creek and South Elkhorns areas.

In 1998, we began to implement the Elkhorn Fire Plan (first non wilderness plan which gives managers options for using natural fire starts)

Bighorn sheep have been successfully reintroduced (25 in 96, 30 in 97, 10 in 2000). Through the use of radio telemetry, we have been actively monitoring the population; at last count there were over 100 sheep in 3-4 groups from Crow Creek to Beaver Creek. Now there is limited hunting opportunities for rams.

FWP was able to secure a conservation easement on a ranch in Kimber Gulch that provides key big game winter range and also to establish numerous block management agreements to allow hunters access to private lands in the Elkhorns.

In 1999, as the first strategy to come out under the statewide WCT conservation agreement, we completed a comprehensive westslope cutthroat trout strategy for the Elkhorns with a goal of expanding occupied WCT habitat from the current 6 isolated populations which occupy only about 7 miles of habitat to 10-12 populations which might occupy 70 miles of habitat.

Since 1995, the agencies have worked collectively to cleanup-abandoned mines: Vosburg in 95, upper Indian Creek in 97, Kleinschmidt and lower Indian Creek in 99. These projects included cleanup on both private and public lands.

In 1998, the agencies made the decision to keep the entire Elkhorn Mountain range off limits to Oil and Gas leasing.

Beginning in 1998, the Forest Service has actively been reclaiming closed roads using a combination of physical barriers and recontouring to help with enforcement of the travel plan, weed control, and re-establishing productive native vegetation.

The Elkhorns have always been a popular area to find deep solitude and so the agencies have tried to maintain the dispersed recreation experience in the “core” roadless area as well as provide some additional opportunities for the less adventurous visitors.

These have included the Crow Creek watchable wildlife site, Willard Creek and Eagle Station interpretive trails and the Willard Creek ski trail.

In the early 90’s, this Guard station was restored and is now available as a rental cabin and is the site of the Eagle Station summer Program – a series of workshops, driving tours, and hosted hikes.

In 2003, Eagle Station was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

We have relocated and added drainage to many trails and improved trailhead and trail signing. In 1999, we completed the Elkhorn Recreation and Travel Map. The updated 2002 version has been printed.

In 2000, we released “Non consumptive outfitter guidelines” to provide some opportunities for non hunting and fishing outfitting activities while protecting the natural resources and recreational uses by the general public. This winter, AYA permit operating under these guidelines.

While the accomplishments are tangible, there is still much fodder for controversy.

In November 2001, Supervisor Clifford signed a decision to treat about 650 acres of ponderosa pine in the North Elkhorns with thinning and underburning. This project was appealed and litigated with the Forest Plan Amendment in 1996. We felt strongly enough about the project, which seeks to restore the historic structure of this forest so that fire can be reintroduced periodically to maintain the stands, that we reanalyzed in an EIS. NEC appealed the project. Two environmental groups sued the government in spite of the fact that the project could be implemented as a “stewardship contract” in which the receipts from the timber support projects on the ground instead of going into the general treasury. We lost the case in a 9th circuit court decision in 2005 due to a process technicality. Based on the potential for wildlife habitat enhancement and contributions to research, we have decided to continue to pursue this project. This project is one of 8 study areas identified by the Rocky Mountain Research Station to study the effects of fire and thinning on sensitive bird species. Baseline data has been collected.

With a loss of habitat from development on the north end of the range and a growing intolerance of elk on private land in some other areas, management of the +/- 2000 elk is an on-going challenge.

The drought and cuts in federal grazing permits spurred a debate about elk numbers and livestock grazing that resulted in the formulation of the Elkhorn Working Group; a group of about 20 private citizens and agency representatives assigned the job of making recommendations on how to better manage the forage base in the Elkhorns considering drought and the needs of elk and livestock.

The mining and homestead era left a legacy of private inholdings. It is very difficult to balance the rights of private land with the mandate to protect wildlife and their habitats. Access to private inholdings is a big issue in the Elkhorn Mountains, and conservation easements and consolidation of the land ownership pattern will be the only way to protect wildlife habitat values over the long-term.

What’s in the future for the Elkhorns?

The collaborative Elkhorn Working Group led the charge to complete an evaluation of the existing wildlife, range and vegetation information in the Elkhorn Mountains. The final reports are now available:

Elkhorns Vegetation Study Phase I Final Report - 2004
Elkhorns Vegetation Study Phase II Final Report - 2006

There is no doubt that the integrated weed management strategy which has been successful because of grant funding will continue to be a high priority, as will the 10-year westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) restoration program, which is a collaborative effort between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

With RMEF, we have launched a conservation initiative in the Elkhorn Mountains and also purchased a large inholding on the east flank of the Elkhorns.

click here

RMEF is currently working with the Montana National Guard to explore options to mitigate the loss of public opportunity should the Limestone Hills be withdrawn from the public domain. We have partnered with the Crow Creek Falls Group to clean up Crow Creek Falls and hopefully to purchase the 20-acre mining claim from American Land Conservancy.

We have designed and installed 2 interpretive signs and constructed a foot trail from the picnic area near the town of Elkhorn to the historic cemetery;

We are rejuvenating aspen stands in the Elkhorns with projects in Kimber Gulch and Slim Sam Creek.

We are doing some prescribed burning to enhance bighorn sheep habitat in Crow Creek and elk winter range in Weasel Creek and Kimber Gulch.

We are continuing to identify and reclaim abandoned mine sites. Projects in the works include the Middle Fork of Warm Springs Creek and the East Pacific in Weasel Creek.

We are reemphasizing evaluation and monitoring of our programs.

And what about the Wildlife Management Unit? Because it is an administrative designation, its future will depend on the public and how they want to see their public lands managed during the next round of Forest Planning, which will begin in the near future.

USDA Forest Service - Helena National Forest
Last Modified: Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 10:58:18 EDT