CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the existing environment that may be affected by Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B (Proposed Action). The affected environment is described according to two broad categories: physical/biological environment and the human environment. The physical/biological environment includes natural resources such as geology and soils, water, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, and air quality. The human environment includes human- influenced resources such as facilities and transportation, cultural resources, recreation, visual resources, and economics.

The standards, methods, and analysis areas specific to each resource are described in the introductions to each resource.

3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOIL RESOURCES

3.2.1 Standards Applicable to Geology and Soil Resources

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) provides guidance for all land managed by the LNF and specific guidance for individual MAs affected by the Proposed Action.

General geology and soil resource standards are identified for the LNF. The geology and soil standard that applies to the proposed project states that “All management practices will be designed or modified as necessary to maintain land productivity.”

Regional Soil Quality Standards “apply to lands where vegetation and water resource management are the principal objectives…” The standards do not apply to intensively developed sites such as mines, developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or rock quarries (R1 Supplement 2500-99-1, Section 2554.1:3).

Management direction for geologic resources related to mineral development is in MAs 8, 16, and 25 of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan states that mineral materials permits will not be issued for MA 8 (page III-24). MA 16 and MA 25 standards state that mineral resource permits will be issued on a case-by-case basis. Applicable oil and gas prescriptions recommended for inclusion as oil and gas stipulations are identified for each MA. No soil standards are listed for MA 8. In 1996, Section 701(j), Title VII, Division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act (Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996) withdrew all NFS lands in permitted ski area boundaries from mineral entry, subject to valid existing rights. All NFS lands within the boundaries of ski area permits are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing (Drake 1997). The withdrawal continues for the full-term of the permit, including any modification, reissuance, or renewal of such permit. Unless otherwise requested by the Secretary, the withdrawal is automatically cancelled upon expiration or other termination of the permit.

The MDEQ regulates the discharge of stormwater into state waters. The Proposed Action would require an NPDES stormwater discharge permit because more than 5 acres (total) would be

Final EIS 3-1 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment disturbed for utility installation, construction of lift infrastructure, and grading of ski trail/road intersections and bike trails.

Additional standards and regulations related to sediment and water quality are in Section 3.3, Water Resources.

3.2.2 Geology and Soil Resources Methods

This section was compiled using published information, site visits to the project area, and contacts with LNF and MSB personnel. Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MSB MDP (2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan (MA descriptions), from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF soil specialists. Specific literature was reviewed and incorporated to document mitigation measures and their effectiveness.

3.2.3 Geology and Soil Resources Analysis Area

The area of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on geology and soil resources is the proposed expansion SUP area on TV Mountain.

3.2.4 Geology and Soil Resources Affected Environment

3.2.4.1 Geology Affected Environment

The MSB is located in the Rocky Mountain physiographic province. TV Mountain is composed of Precambrian-age argillite, siltite, and quartzite that underlies much of northwestern Montana. Drainages below the mountain and south of the proposed expansion area are filled with Tertiary and Quaternary-age sediments.

Mineral Potential

No economic mineralization has been discovered in the proposed expansion area, and no active mining claims are present.

Geologic Hazards

The MSB and the proposed expansion area on TV Mountain are located in a region with low seismicity levels. The U.S. Geological Survey national hazard map (USGS 2006) shows that MSB and proposed expansion area are in a relatively low seismic hazard area.

3.2.4.2 Soil Resources Affected Environment

Soil features in the proposed expansion area are closely related to the geology described above. Weathering, erosion, and stream activity have modified these rock materials into the current soils. Loess (wind-deposited dust) especially has been added to the surface soil. Most of this loess fell as volcanic ash, mainly from the eruption of Mt. Mazama (approximately 7,000 years ago).

Soil resources in the proposed expansion area were mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service as part of the Missoula County

Final EIS 3-2 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Survey (NRCS 1990) and by the LNF as part of the Land Systems Inventory (Sasich and Lamote-Hagen 1989). Table 3-1 lists the land-type mapping units that comprise the proposed expansion area.

Table 3-1. Land-type Mapping Units in the Proposed Expansion Area Map Map Unit Management Limitations Unit Components Soils Setting Related to this Project Skidtrails and firelines have a Moderate relief 30QE Andic Cryochrepts moderate erosion hazard. Native mountain slopes road surfaces can be dusty. Andic Dystric Eutrochrepts- Moderate relief 30QG Native road surfaces can be dusty. Dystric Eutrochrepts Complex mountain slopes Skidtrails and firelines have a 32QA Andic Cryochrepts Broadly convex ridges moderate erosion hazard. Native road surfaces can be dusty. Skidtrails and firelines have a 64QE Andic Cryochrepts Steep mountain slopes moderately low erosion hazard. Native road surfaces can be dusty. Andic Dystric Eutrochrepts- Skidtrails and firelines have a 64QG Steep mountain slopes Dystric Eutrochrepts Complex moderately low erosion hazard.

Soils in the proposed expansion area are covered with a surface layer of partially decomposed organic matter including conifer needles and other plant parts. This layer is approximately 1 to 2 inches thick and protects the surface from raindrop impact and surface flow erosion.

Soils are formed predominantly from bedrock that has weathered in place (residuum) or moved slowly downhill under the force of gravity (colluvium). The silt loam surface soil is volcanic ash- influenced loess that is 2 to 13 inches thick. This ash-influenced layer is thickest at the highest elevations, on northerly aspects, and in concave areas. The ash-influenced surface layer has a high moisture and nutrient retention capacity. The subsoil usually has a sandy loam or loam texture with a rock content ranging from about 25 percent in the upper subsoil to 70 percent in the lower subsoil. Soil depth is mostly very deep but is shallow to moderately deep near rock outcrops.

Current soil issues within the proposed expansion area and existing SUP area are associated with erosion from roads and MSB facilities. Ratings discussed in this section are taken from the LNF Land Systems Inventory (Sasich and Lamote-Hagen 1989) unless otherwise noted. Landslide potential is rated low for all of these soils. Erodibility is rated moderate in the surface soil and low in the subsoil for all these soils. Revegetation potential is rated as good.

A logging road on the hillslope above La Valle Creek (identified as FR 19080) serves as the boundary of the proposed SUP area (Figure 2-1). The distance between the road and the edge of the stream ranges from approximately 150 feet slope distance (at the switchback in the middle of Section 28) to over 2,000 feet in Section 5 (Figure 2-1).

The switchback location was the site of a landing for a Forest Service timber sale in the late 1990s. During this activity, fill material was pushed over the side of the hill toward La Valle Creek to within approximately 50 feet of the creek edge. The fillslope now appears to be revegetating, and no ongoing erosion or mass movement can be observed. The surface on this

Final EIS 3-3 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment road is stable due to vegetation and native gravel. No locations were observed where sediment was migrating from roads or timber harvest units either chronically or in the past.

Erosion of a forest road surface depends on numerous factors (see Sugden and Woods 2007 for a review of the studies documenting these factors) including:

 Soil and parent material characteristics  Road age  Presence or absence (and depth) of aggregate surfacing  Quality of surfacing  Frequency and type of vehicle traffic  Rainfall characteristics  Amount of vegetative cover  Roadbed slope  Presence of vehicle ruts on the road surface  Road maintenance regimen.

On western Montana road slopes, the amount of time since last grading, roadbed gravel content, and precipitation were the main predictive variables in sediment yield from forest roads (Sugden and Woods 2007). La Valle Creek has a low slope (less than 2 percent for most of the segment nearest La Valle Creek) and moderately high native gravel content, and it appears from the grass growth on the road tread that it has been several years since the last grading. All of these characteristics offer evidence that the sediment yield from this road is low.

Sediment travel distances below roads have been studied extensively in landscapes with granitic parent materials (Ketcheson and Megahan 1996) and in areas of high precipitation (Brake et al. 1999). More recently, sediment migration below roads in Belt Series metasedimentary parent materials (such as those in the analysis area for this EIS) has been evaluated (Parker 2004; Woods et al. 2006). These studies found that sediment travel distance below driveable drain dips ranged from 0 to approximately 175 feet, with the mean sediment travel distance being approximately 12 feet. Seventy-eight percent of the studied sites had a sediment travel distance of less than 15 feet.

No drain dips or culvert outfalls on FR 19080 are in this potential travel distance from La Valle Creek.

One dry draw tributary to La Valle Creek is crossed by FR 19080 near the north edge of Section 5 (T14N R19W). This draw was evaluated qualitatively in June and September of 1997 for any signs of erosion or sediment movement either directly from the road or from the watershed above the road (USDA 2007a). There is no indication of either erosion or downslope sediment movement at this location.

Existing ski trails at MSB have sufficient vegetation cover to prevent excessive soil erosion. Plants are a mixture of native species that re-established after ski trail construction and introduced species including seeded grasses and weeds. Erosion and sediment delivery to Butler Creek has been known to occur at the MSB base area and main parking lot. In the past, a sediment filter on the downhill edge of the main parking lot was constructed to attempt to mitigate this impact. As fill material has become available through the Snowbowl Road widening project, the main parking lot and lower base area has been reshaped to more effectively manage runoff. A drain was installed on the west side of the main parking area with a sediment

Final EIS 3-4 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment settling basin. Sediment in stormwater settles to the bottom of the basin before the stormwater discharges through a pipe under the parking lot to the fillslope adjacent to the parking lot. The discharge point is approximately 75 feet from Butler Creek and approximately 30 feet above a heavily vegetated area adjacent to the stream.

The sloping of the parking lot away from Butler Creek, installation of effective stormwater management techniques and the vegetated area adjacent to Butler Creek appears to effectively be limiting sediment delivery in most locations adjacent to the parking lot. However, sediment has impacted Butler Creek at its outfall beneath the parking lot, most likely due to snowplowing activities.

Currently, other potential contaminant sources include the wastewater drainfields, which are located within 200 feet of Butler Creek, and the maintenance building, which is located 500 feet from Butler Creek. These existing components of the MSB have the potential to impact existing water quality conditions; however, there has not been a single incident reported regarding the degradation of water quality linked to these potential contamination sources. Erosion is also present at the lower lift terminal for the La Valle Chairlift adjacent to La Valle Creek. Increasing vegetation cover would likely eliminate this erosion. Further erosion control efforts such as water bars and sediment basins could be employed if vegetation alone is not effective.

3.3 WATER RESOURCES

3.3.1 Standards Applicable to Water Resources

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4)

Also known as the Federal Clean Water Act, this Act provides the structure for regulating pollutant discharges to waters of the U.S. As stated in Section 101 of the Act, its objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution are among the means to achieve the stated objective. The EPA is charged with administration of the Act, but there is provision for the delegation of many permitting, administrative, and enforcement functions to state governments. In Montana, the designated agency is the MDEQ.

Sections 208 and 319 of the Act recognize the need for control strategies for nonpoint source pollution. Section 305(b) requires states to assess the condition of their waters and produce a biennial report summarizing the findings.

Waterbodies that have water quality determined to be either impaired (not fully meeting water quality standards) or threatened (likely to violate standards in the near future) are compiled by MDEQ in a separate list under Section 303(d) of the Act. This list must be submitted to EPA every 2 years. Waterbodies on the 303(d) list (known as Water Quality Limited waters) are to be targeted and scheduled for development of water quality improvement strategies on a priority basis. These strategies are in the form of total maximum daily loads (TMDL), which technically consist of the quantity of pollutants that may be delivered to a waterbody without violating water quality standards. In practice, they are plans to improve water quality in a listed waterbody until water quality standards are met (i.e., until designated uses are fully supported).

Final EIS 3-5 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Forest Service Manual Sections 2532.02 and 2532.03

Forest Service Manual (FSM) Sections 2532.02 and 2532.03 describe the objectives and policies relevant to protection (and, where needed, improvement) of water quality on Forest Service lands so that designated beneficial uses are protected. Guidelines for data collection activities (inventory and monitoring) are also described.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

This Executive Order requires that agencies avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains. It applies to all floodplain locations, as a minimum, to areas in the 100-year, or base, floodplain.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

This Executive Order states that agencies shall minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and shall preserve and enhance their natural and beneficial values. Agencies are to avoid construction in wetlands unless it is determined that there is no practicable alternative and are required to take all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.

Montana Water Quality Act (Title 75, Chapter 5, Montana Code), Revised October 1999

This Act describes water quality management requirements, water classifications, and water quality standards for Montana. It is the document that describes the water quality permitting and enforcement powers delegated by EPA to states under the federal Clean Water Act. The MDEQ is the agency responsible for administration of the Act.

In addition, under the Montana Water Quality Act, waterbodies in Montana are classified according to the present and future beneficial uses that they should be capable of supporting (MDEQ 2006). Beneficial uses of Montana’s Water Classification System include:

 Drinking, culinary use, and food processing  Aquatic life support for fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers  Bathing, swimming, recreation, and aesthetics  Agriculture water supply  Industrial water supply.

A waterbody receives one of several classifications according to the Montana Surface Water Classification System. State water quality standards for temperature (Administrative Rules of Montana [ARM] 17.30.6, 2000) are based on water use classification. Temperature standards are written in terms of decreases or increases relative to “naturally occurring” water temperatures. State sediment standards are described in two respects. There is a maximum allowable increase in turbidity of 5 nephelometric turbidity units above naturally occurring turbidity levels, except as permitted in ARM 17.30.637 [17.30.623(d)].

Nephelometric turbidity units are a measure of the amount of light scattered by a water sample. There is also a standard that states, “No increases are allowed above naturally occurring concentrations of sediment or suspended sediment..., settleable solids, oils, or floating solids,

Final EIS 3-6 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment which will or are likely to create a nuisance or render the waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife." (ARM 17.30.623(2)(f)).

The following documents contain the specific water quality standards enforced by MDEQ:

 Montana Surface Water Quality Standards and Procedures for Waters in B-1 Use Classification (ARM 17.30.623, as of June 2000)  Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards (Circular WQB-7, September 1999). Water quality standards have also been established to protect designated beneficial uses. The State of Montana must assess compliance with applicable water quality standards to determine whether designated beneficial uses of waterbodies are supported. Beneficial use support determination consists of four categories: o Fully supporting: water quality is at its natural or best practical condition. o Partially supporting: a broad designation that extends from ‘slightly impaired’ to ‘barely supporting’ beneficial uses. o Not supporting: fails to support designated beneficial uses due to acute toxicity, human health risks, or biological and physical indications of severe degradation. o Threatened: currently supports all beneficial uses but there is a downward trend in water quality or new industry or population growth may pose a threat to water quality.

In some instances, insufficient information is available to make a determination, or an assessment has not yet occurred.

If waterbodies meet established water quality standards, the designated beneficial uses of the waterbody are considered to be fully supported and the waterbody is not impaired. If water quality standards are not met, the waterbody may be considered impaired, and one or more designated beneficial uses may be considered either partially supporting, not supporting, or threatened. A list of impaired waterbodies, also known as water quality limited waterbodies, is prepared (303(d) list), and plans for water quality restoration are developed, including TMDLs when impairments are pollutant related.

State of Montana Best Management Practices for Forestry, State Stream Side Management Zones Law and Rules

The DNRC is responsible for oversight of forestry and road management practices to protect resources in Montana. Best Management Practices are voluntary, preferred measures to protect soil and water quality. They are developed for riparian and for upland management. The Forest Service uses BMPs as mandatory minimum measures for protecting watershed resources, generally exceeding them. Use of Montana BMPs is required in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and the State of Montana as part of the Forest Service’s responsibility as the Designated Water Quality Management Agency on Forest Service lands.

The LNF BMPs, which are also mandatory, equal or exceed the protection afforded by Montana BMPs. Other MOU parties include the Plum Creek Timber Company, (former) Champion Timberlands, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Flathead Agency, DNRC, and the MDEQ. This memorandum direction went into effect in April 1987.

Final EIS 3-7 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

By action of the Forest Plan relative to INFISH requirements (Section 3.6), State Stream Side Management Zones are replaced by more conservative protection zones called Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA).

Montana Stream Protection Act (SPA) 124 Permits; Short-Term Exemption from Montana’s Surface Water Quality Standards (3A Authorization)

Activities that would physically alter the bed or immediate banks of a stream require permits under the Montana SPA. Such activities proposed by federal, state, county, and city government agencies require a SPA 124 permit from Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP); this is the counterpart of the 310 permit required from DNRC for projects proposed by private individuals. Land ownership does not necessarily determine which permit is needed; rather, the party in charge of the project determines permitting requirements. SPA 124 permits are required for new construction or for modification, operation, and maintenance of an existing facility, and may apply to intermittent drainages as well as perennial streams. Culvert removal and replacement, stream channel rehabilitation, and other such actions are examples of activities that would require these permits.

If construction would cause unavoidable short-term violations of state water quality standards (mainly sediment), a 3A Authorization must be obtained from MDEQ.

Lolo National Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Plan identifies a tiered approach that guides management of water and fisheries resources on the Forest (USDA 1986). An important standard is that land management practices shall be designed to minimize impacts to aquatic ecosystems and not impose long- term unnatural stressors on these aquatic systems, as determined by an appropriate indicator or suite of indicators.

The Forest Plan also identifies a desired future condition for fisheries resources on the LNF. The Forest Plan states that by 1995, the habitat needed to support threatened and endangered species will be protected consistent with recovery goals. Furthermore, by 2035 there should be sufficient habitat for TES to meet the objectives of recovery plans, and that factors limiting recovery will be eliminated where possible.

Goals, Objectives, and Standards

 Forest-wide Goal 4. “Provide a…healthy environment, including…clean water, and diverse ecosystems.”  Forest-wide Goal 8, and Objective, p.II-1. “Meet or exceed State water quality standards.” “…through strong Forest goals, Forest-wide standards, MA standards and direction, and an extensive, affordable Monitoring Program that emphasizes protection of water quality…”  Forest-wide Standard 9. “Riparian vegetation, including overstory tree cover, will be left along water bodies as needed to provide shade, maintain streambank stability, desirable pool quality and quality for aquatic organisms, and promote filtering of overland flows.”  Forest-wide Standard 13. “Roads will be managed to control use and avoid damage to drainage systems and resource values. Roads will be constructed and managed in a manner to keep sedimentation hazard low.”

Final EIS 3-8 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

 Forest-wide Standard 15. “…application of best management practices will assure that water quality is maintained…that meets or exceeds Federal and State standards.”  Forest-wide Standard 17. “A watershed cumulative effects analysis will be made of all projects involving significant vegetation removal prior to these projects being scheduled for implementation. These analyses will also identify existing opportunities to mitigate adverse effects on water-related beneficial uses, including capital investments for fish habitat or watershed improvement.”  Forest-wide Standard 19. “Human-caused increases in water yields will be limited so that channel damage will not occur as a result of land management activities.”  MA 16 and MA 25. Includes a goal of maintaining water quality and stream stability (Goal 4) and standards that maintain riparian vegetation to filter overland flow (Standard 7 and Standard 5, respectively).  Implementation, Project Planning. “As part of project planning, site-specific water quality effects will be evaluated and control measures designed to insure that the project will meet Forest water quality goals; projects that will not meet State water quality standards will be redesigned, rescheduled, or dropped.”

Guidelines

Forest Plan guidance that would help to achieve goals and objectives include:

 Maintain natural habitat or restore conditions for indigenous aquatic organisms, including fish, by management of vegetative conditions and channel structure, and by limiting those activities or developments that are adverse to these organisms or systems.  Implement fisheries habitat and watershed improvement projects to rehabilitate impacted areas via the use of restoring natural processes.  Maintain riparian vegetation to shade, stabilize, and create in-channel structure for the maintenance of aquatic organisms.  Design management activities to minimize impacts to water quality and other riparian values.  Minimize the need to construct riparian roads.  Provide fish passage and natural flow patterns and channel morphology at stream crossing sites.

These goals and objectives have been further clarified through the adoption of INFISH into the Forest Plan. Section 3.6, Fisheries, summarizes the objectives and standards described in the INFISH.

3.3.2 Water Resources Methods

For the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives, evaluation and analysis of real conditions on the ground, application of professional judgment, and accurate characterization of physical conditions in the study area was determined to be the most reliable method of characterizing potential watershed impacts. The potential inaccuracies of this method are primarily that any observer can describe only what is seen at that moment in time. Careful observation of the current conditions does not necessarily capture the potential impacts of future erosion events.

This analysis was completed using published studies, information gathered during site visits to the analysis area, and contacts with LNF and MSB personnel. Environmental documents prepared for other ski area expansions were surveyed for effective approaches to analyzing ski

Final EIS 3-9 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment area impacts. These expansion projects included those at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, Ski Discovery, White Pass, Mount Ashland Ski Area, and Vail Pass. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan (especially MA descriptions), from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF resource specialists.

Potential impacts to water quality from sediment delivery were evaluated during seven site visits to the analysis area, including adjacent private land. The primary physical conditions that were observed and assessed on the ground were:

 Stream channel stability  Fine sediment in the stream substrate  Riparian vegetation  Road conditions  Drainage features, both natural (e.g., ephemeral draws) and manmade (e.g., cross-drain pipes)  Hillslope erosion (on ski trails, timber harvest units, and mature vegetation hillslopes)  Stormwater and sediment management associated with base area operations.

Two data collection visits to the analysis area watersheds were made on August 4 and 6, 2009. These visits were immediately before and immediately after a record rainfall (more than 2 inches on August 5, 2009). By evaluating erosion, sediment delivery, and stormflow evidence immediately after a major rain event, a sufficiently accurate understanding of potential future impacts was gained.

It was determined by the LNF and the contractor completing this EIS that computer modeling of water yield and sediment was not necessary for this project due to the observed watershed condition and the buffer distance between any proposed new ground-disturbing activities and any stream channel. These buffer areas were evaluated by direct observation for effectiveness in sediment filtering on several site visits. On projects that cover a large area, sediment and water yield modeling may be the only way to reliably evaluate potential impacts to water quality and quantity. Models, however, have serious limitations, and the results they produce should be used with caution. Technical documentation (Elliot et al. 2000) for one of the most widely used sediment models (Water Erosion Prediction Project [WEPP]) states the following:

At best, any predicted runoff or erosion value, by any model, will be within only plus or minus 50 percent of the true value. Erosion rates are highly variable, and most models can predict only a single value. Replicated research has shown that observed values vary widely from identical plots, or for the same plot, from year to year (Elliot et al. 1994; Elliot et al. 1995; Tysdal et al. 1999 [all as cited in Elliot et al. 2000]). Also, spatial variability and variability of soil properties add to the complexity of erosion prediction (Robichaud 1996 [as cited in Elliot et al. 2000]).

3.3.3 Water Resources Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to water resources is the proposed expansion area on TV Mountain and the portion of the existing SUP area that includes the water diversion system and base area where Lift C would be constructed (Figure 2-1). The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds from the headwaters to I-90. These watersheds drain the area containing the existing SUP area and the

Final EIS 3-10 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment area of the proposed expansion and are the most likely to receive surface water or groundwater impacts.

3.3.4 Water Resources Affected Environment

The MSB and proposed expansion area are located within two 6th hydraulic unit codes (HUC): Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds. The Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds both have a general southerly aspect. The Butler Creek drainage area is approximately 7,940 acres, while the La Valle Creek drainage area is approximately 8,700 acres. Delineation of the hydrologic boundaries in the agricultural areas of these watersheds is difficult, and these acreages should be considered estimates.

Both creeks originate on LNF land within the existing SUP area. A substantial portion of both watersheds is privately owned (Table 3-2). The lower reaches of both creeks have been modified as a result of agriculture and land development. Both creeks are isolated from the Clark Fork River except in high flow events. These creeks are part of the Middle Clark Fork River HUC.

Elevation in the proposed expansion area ranges from about 4,000 feet to 6,400 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Average annual precipitation ranges, with elevation, from 20 inches to 44 inches. The highest monthly totals of precipitation typically occur in May and June.

In watersheds such as these, spring melt of winter snowpack accounts for the majority of the runoff, which occurs concurrently with the high precipitation months of May and June. Significant runoff events may also occur during warm periods throughout the winter months. The runoff regime of the streams responds only slightly to rainfall events during the baseflow periods of late summer and early fall. Seasonal distribution of runoff is highly variable as is the total water yield from year to year. By mid- to late July, a return to base flow conditions occurs, with typically only low magnitude/duration responses from summer precipitation events.

Table 3-2. Ownership of Butler Creek and La Valle Creek Watersheds Acres (Percentage of Watershed Area) in Each Ownership Type Ownership Type Butler Creek La Valle Creek State 196 (2%) 0 (0%) LNF 2,428 (31%) 2,034 (23%) Private 5,300 (67%) 6,640 (77%) Water 49 (< 1%) 0 (0%) Unclassified 0 (0%) 3 (< 0.1%) Total 7,925 8,677

Source: Brewer 2013

Butler Creek

Butler Creek is formed by three, unnamed high-gradient tributaries that enter the east boundary of the existing SUP area. Two of these three tributaries are intermittent and flow only during spring runoff, leaving one tributary that supports most of the flow to Butler Creek. Butler Creek flows through the MSB in a predominantly southwest flow direction and leaves the existing SUP

Final EIS 3-11 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment boundary below the main parking lot. Butler Creek is located approximately 800 feet east of the southeast corner of the proposed expansion area.

Butler Creek is approximately 11 miles long and drains an area of 7,940 acres. Discharge rates for Butler Creek were obtained from measurements taken from September 2003 through April 2004. In March 2004, Butler Creek flowed at a rate of approximately 0.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) below the existing MSB parking lot. Flow measurements taken on Butler Creek on March 13, 2004, approximately 4 miles downstream of the parking lot, indicated that the flow increased approximately 40 percent to a discharge of 0.7 cfs; this demonstrates that Butler Creek is a gaining stream from MSB to the location 4 miles downstream (LWC 2004). Additional flow data are in Section 3.6.

Butler Creek flows through three culverts on the MSB base area. The upstream-most culvert is approximately 900 feet long. This culvert has a trash rack on the inlet to minimize the potential for debris plugging the structure. This culvert is designed to handle a 50-year flood event. In 1997, the culvert inlet plugged and the stream topped the culvert, resulting in a major erosional event. This flood event also caused significant bank erosion to streambanks where ski trails had replaced supporting vegetation. The second culvert is approximately 40 feet long. It was installed during the original construction of the ski trails. The third culvert is 300 feet in length and extends under the Gelandesprung Lodge, the main lodge and a portion of the parking lot. In the vicinity of the inlet to this culvert MSB has lined some portions (approximately 40 feet) of the creek channel in an effort to limit erosion and minimize risk of instability of the foundation of the Gelandesprung Lodge.

On the easternmost unnamed tributary to Butler Creek, a small diversion dam stores and provides water for MSB. This is the only perennial tributary located in the Butler Creek watershed. A separate diversion (sump) is located adjacent to Butler Creek above the Last Run Inn and provides water for snowmaking. Two small reservoirs provide storage for snowmaking water. One reservoir is located in the base area, and a second is located at the Spartan Saddle (Figure 2-1).

La Valle Creek

The headwaters of La Valle Creek originate in the existing SUP area. La Valle Creek also has a predominant southwest flow direction. La Valle Creek is just west of the western boundary of the proposed expansion area.

La Valle Creek is approximately 13 miles long and drains an area of 8,685 acres. No quantitative information is known to exist for flow in La Valle Creek. The creek has no known diversions or impoundments. Source flows originate in between a switchback segment of Point Six Road/FR 9962 (herein identified as Photograph 3-1. Headwaters of La Valle Creek and simply Point Six Road). Stream flow in Associated Ski Trail this headwater section is primarily limited to snowmelt and runoff conditions (Photograph 3-1).

Final EIS 3-12 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Four crossings are located in the LNF portion of La Valle Creek. The first crossing, located immediately below initiation of the channel, is a 48-inch culvert crossing to facilitate the Point Six Road. The second crossing is a 60-inch culvert that was installed in 2009 by MSB to allow a newly cleared trail to cross the stream. The third crossing is also the result of a trail that was cleared in 2009, and is a stream ford that allows access across La Valle Creek to the La Valle chairlift. The fourth crossing is an approximately 150-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter culvert. This structure accommodates an outrun and the lower lift terminal of the La Valle chairlift. It was certified by a professional engineer, approved by the LNF, and installed in 1991. It has functioned without problems since that time, although there is a trash rack on the inlet to prevent plugging by woody material. Concerns have recently been expressed by LNF resource specialists about this culvert being undersized for the 100-year flood flow and not meeting INFISH requirements.

La Valle Creek is located just west of the proposed new SUP boundary. The creek and the proposed SUP boundary are separated by a well-vegetated buffer area. At the bottom of proposed Lift A (Figure 2-1), road fill from a past timber sale has encroached to within approximately 50 feet of La Valle Creek. This fill is stable, and no sediment movement through the existing vegetative buffer has been observed during three visits, including one immediately after the August 5, 2009, record rainfall.

LNF personnel conducted a qualitative survey of La Valle Creek in Section 5 (T14N, R19W) and Section 32 (T15N, R19W) in 1991. In the lowermost reaches (Section 5), they noted a degraded condition as indicated by lack of quality pool habitat and woody debris and by fine sediment in the channel substrate that was elevated above “reference” conditions. In the upper reaches (Section 32), both woody debris and pool habitat were determined to be in good condition (near reference conditions), but fine sediment was “well elevated above reference conditions” (USDA 2007a). LNF personnel made visual observations in 2005; these observations were said to support the findings of the 1991 evaluation (USDA 2007a). While the precise locations of these surveys are not known, the degraded condition was not observed in more recent surveys.

In September 2007, a hydrologist contractor made visual observations along approximately 3,000 feet of La Valle Creek in Section 32. Conditions were evaluated for large woody debris, turbidity, channel substrate size distribution, channel stability, and riparian vegetation. The condition of all of these measures was generally excellent. Woody debris was prevalent, water clarity appeared to be pristine, areas of fine sediment (less than 2 millimeters) in the channel bottom were rare and small in size, no channel instability was observed (except in the location of small game trails), and riparian vegetation was undisturbed and appeared to be in pristine condition. Forest Service fish crews sampled surface fines during electro-fishing efforts in the field season of 2009. Samples were measured in the lower portion of Section 32, and it was determined that surface fines averaged around 5 percent.

Water Quality

Butler Creek and La Valle Creek are classified as “B-1” according to the Montana Surface Water Body Classification System. B-1 waterbodies are suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

Final EIS 3-13 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water quality standards have been established to protect designated beneficial uses. In some instances, insufficient information is available to make a determination, or an assessment has not yet occurred. Butler Creek and La Valle Creek have not been assessed by MDEQ. Water quality restoration planning and TMDL development for the Middle Clark Fork River TMDL Planning Area, which includes Butler Creek and La Valle Creek, is in process.

Existing disturbance in the affected watersheds includes past timber harvest, wildfire, vegetation clearing for MSB facilities, residential development, some mining, and cattle grazing in the lower portions. Possible effects of these past actions may include water yield increases, peak flow increases, erosion/sedimentation, and associated impacts to stream channels and water quality. Past timber harvest impacts to the watersheds resulted from log skidding and road building in mid- to upper elevation watersheds. Timber harvest in the last 30 years has occurred on 128 acres in the La Valle Creek watershed and 90 acres in the Butler Creek watershed (Table 3-3). Wildfire has occurred in the Butler Creek watershed in the last 10 years but was limited to an area of less than 50 acres. Residential development is concentrated in the lower reaches of the watersheds and is low density. There is a livestock grazing allotment (533 acres) in the La Valle Creek watershed, but no allotments are in the Butler Creek watershed.

Table 3-3. Forest Service Harvest History in Analysis Area Road Density Stand-Replacing Harvest* Total Timber Harvest (Miles of Road per (Acres) and Percentage of (Acres) and Percentage Watershed Square Mile) Watershed Area of Watershed Area La Valle Creek 4.1 128 (1.5%) 601 (7.0%) Butler Creek 5.0 90 (1.1%) 518 (6.5%)

Source: USDA 2007a *Stand-replacing harvest is clearcut, seedtree, or shelterwood.

Water yield increases may exist as a result of vegetation removal associated with timber harvest (Harr et al. 1979), fire (Kunze and Stednick 2006), and development of ski areas (David et al. 2008), roads, and residential areas (Dunne and Leopold 1978; Wright et al. 1990; Naiman and Bilby 1998).

Existing MSB ski trails have sufficient vegetation cover to prevent excessive soil erosion. Plants are a mixture of native species that re-established after ski trail construction and introduced species including seeded grasses and weeds.

Erosion and sediment delivery to Butler Creek has been known to occur at the MSB base area and main parking lot. In the past, a sediment filter on the downhill edge of the main parking lot was constructed to attempt to mitigate this impact. As fill material has become available through the Snowbowl Road widening project, the main parking lot and lower base area has been reshaped to more effectively manage runoff. A drain was installed on the west side of the main parking area with a sediment settling basin. Sediment in stormwater settles to the bottom of the basin before the stormwater discharges through a pipe under the parking lot to the fillslope adjacent to the parking lot. The discharge point is approximately 75 feet from Butler Creek and approximately 30 feet above a heavily vegetated area adjacent to the stream.

The sloping of the parking lot away from Butler Creek, installation of effective stormwater management techniques and the vegetated area adjacent to Butler Creek appears to effectively be limiting sediment delivery in most locations adjacent to the parking lot. However, sediment has impacted Butler Creek at its outfall beneath the parking lot, most likely due to snowplowing

Final EIS 3-14 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment activities. A detailed inventory of erosion and stormflow conditions and suggested mitigation measures at the base area is in the Water Specialist Report (PBS&J 2011b).

Logging road FR 19080 serves as the boundary of the proposed expansion; this is the road closest to any stream channel. The distance between the road and the edge of the stream ranges from approximately 150 feet slope distance at the switchback on the boundary of Sections 28 and 29 (T15N, R19W) to more than 2,000 feet in Section 5 (T14N, R19W) (Figure 2-1).

The switchback location was the site of a landing for a LNF timber sale in the late 1990s. During this activity, fill material was pushed over the side of the hill toward La Valle Creek to within approximately 50 feet of the creek edge. The fillslope now appears to be revegetating, and no ongoing erosion or mass movement can be observed. The surface on this road is stable due to vegetation and native gravel. No locations were observed where sediment was migrating from roads or timber harvest units either chronically or in the past. A comprehensive inventory and erosion assessment of all roads in the study area is in the Water Specialist Report (PBS&J 2011b).

One dry draw tributary to La Valle Creek is crossed by this road near the north edge of Section 5. This draw was evaluated qualitatively in June and September of 1997 for signs of erosion or sediment movement either directly from the road or from the watershed above the road (USDA 2007a). There is no indication of either erosion or downslope sediment movement at this location. There is a very low probability, given the amount of vegetation and woody debris in the draw bottom, that any eroded sediment from upstream of the road could make its way into this draw to La Valle Creek.

Minor erosion is present at the lower lift terminal for the existing La Valle chairlift in the proximity of La Valle Creek. Increasing vegetation cover would likely eliminate this erosion. According to Shane Hendrickson of the LNF, sediment inputs to La Valle Creek have also been documented by LNF personnel on private lands downstream of MSB. While these inputs are evaluated as cumulative watershed effects, neither the LNF nor MSB have jurisdiction to address these private land sedimentation issues.

Water Use and Water Rights

The MSB currently owns three water rights associated with the commercial operations of the ski area. These rights list the purposes of commercial and snowmaking and cover both the existing permitted operation area and the proposed expansion area.

 Water right 76M-C084571 describes a January 1, 1993, groundwater development that is physically located upstream of the Last Run Inn on the existing base area. This appropriation consists of a sump/pit used to collect groundwater. A pump located in the sump/pit is capable of directing a flow rate of 20 gpm and total yearly volume of 7.95 acre- feet for various uses that include the small lined reservoir located underneath the Grizzly chairlift and known as the Lodge Reservoir (Figure 2-3). The reservoir capacity is listed as 0.9 acre-feet (293,266 gallons). The purpose is described as commercial.  Water right 76M-P089451 describes an April 26, 1994, surface water development. A small catchment basin constructed in the unnamed tributary of Butler Creek is located in the drainage immediately above and east of the employee housing building (Figure 1-2). Surface water is collected at the diversion dam and piped to a pump house adjacent to the main lodge. An inline booster pump is capable of directing water to the Lodge Reservoir at a

Final EIS 3-15 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

rate of 95 gpm, and a total yearly volume is limited to 20 acre-feet for use in the existing snowmaking system. The place of use is described as approximately 26 acres consisting of the bottom one third of the Paradise and Longhorn ski trails as well as all of the Rope Tow and Sunrise Bowl areas. A limited section of the Spartan Saddle trail has snowmaking coverage. In 1998, MSB applied for permission, and was authorized by the DNRC, to add a place of storage located in the Spartan Saddle to this surface water right. The additional storage reservoir is used to increase system efficiency by storing water for use at a later time and allow for maximizing snowmaking opportunities during ideal temperature conditions. The snowmaking system itself is operated by gravity flow from the Spartan Saddle reservoir. The Spartan Saddle reservoir capacity is 4.9 acre-feet (1,596,670 gallons). The reservoirs are filled at a maximum diversion rate of 95 gpm, but water can be released at more than 1,000 gpm when snowmaking conditions are suitable.  Water right 76M-30004427 describes a November 18, 2002, Provisional Permit for the use of an additional 20 acre-feet for proposed snowmaking on the proposed expansion area.1 This permit does not allow for an increased diversion rate, only an increase in yearly volume. This permit also allows for the construction of a proposed third reservoir located on TV Mountain with a listed capacity of 8 acre-feet (2,606,808 gallons). The place of use is described specifically as the high traffic areas associated with the proposed expansion area and is limited to 25 acres. A remark on the Provisional Permit abstract states that this 2002 permit is associated with the 1994 permit described above and the fact that in combination, the diversion rate would not exceed 95 gpm. This permit also allows MSB to maintain full reservoirs during the entire year as sources of water for fire suppression.

In combination, these three water rights represent an authorization to withdraw a flow rate of 115 gpm up to a total 48 acre-feet each year from two different water developments located at the existing base area. The purposes include commercial and snowmaking uses, and place of use is generally described as both the existing and proposed expansion area. The existing maximum allowed use of 28 acre-feet at 115 gpm would require 1,320 hours (55 days) of constant diversion to achieve.

The DNRC issued a new water use permit for the proposed expansion area in January 2004; the permit specified the use of 15 acre-feet for snowmaking and 5 acre-feet for keeping the two existing and one proposed reservoirs full during the summer months for fire protection. Therefore, although the maximum allowable seasonal withdrawal is 48 acre-feet, MSB would use only 43 acre-feet for snowmaking.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

The existing condition of, and potential impacts to, wetlands and riparian areas are described in Sections 3.4 and 4.4, respectively.

Floodplains

Floodplains associated with La Valle Creek and Butler Creek are limited by topography to narrow zones along each stream. Floodplain widths in the proposed expansion area have been

1 The EA that DNRC prepared for this provisional permit further states, “The USFS will evaluate the impacts of the ski area expansion in an EIS and make the decision regarding authorization of the proposed expansion. If the USFS does not approve the expansion, the water right will not be perfected and will be terminated.”

Final EIS 3-16 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment observed to range from 0 feet to approximately 20 feet. With the exception of stream reaches where road crossings and culverts are present, floodplain areas appear to be undisturbed and hydraulically functional. In the proposed expansion area, there are no official floodplains on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published for purposes of complying with regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

3.4 VEGETATION

3.4.1 Standards Applicable to Vegetation

The standards that provide direction for protection and management of vegetation resources are from the following principal sources:

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended)  FSM 2672.4  National Forest Management Act of 1976  Lolo National Forest Plan (1986)  Lolo Integrated Weed Management Record of Decision (2007c).

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The FSM establishes policy for conducting biological evaluations for threatened and endangered plant species.

The National Forest Management Act provides for balanced consideration of all resources. It requires the Forest Service to plan for diversity of plant and animal communities. Under its regulations, the Forest Service is to maintain viable populations of existing and desired species and to maintain and improve habitat for management indicator species (MIS).

The proposed MSB expansion would result in enlarging MA 8. Vegetation management guidance related to MA 8 includes:

 Tree removal will be limited to that required to eliminate safety hazards or permit construction or expansion of facilities.  Livestock grazing may be permitted if it does not conflict with the recreation use of the area.  Trees with a high potential for physical failure or susceptibility to insects and disease will be periodically evaluated. Hazardous conditions will be reduced by using acceptable methods such as single-tree removal or thinning.

Forest Plan Vegetation Regulatory Requirements. Forest-wide and MA goals and standards related to vegetation that apply to the Proposed Action are:

 Forest-wide Goal 2. Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and increase populations of big game animals.  Forest-wide Goal 4. Provide a pleasing and healthy environment, including clear air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems.  Forest-wide Goal 7. For threatened and endangered species occurring on the Forest…manage to contribute to the recovery of each species to nonthreatened status.

Final EIS 3-17 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

 Forest-wide Standard 18. All management practices will be designed or modified as necessary to maintain land productivity.  Forest-wide Standard 56. Implementation of the principles of integrated pest management will be accomplished through sound silvicultural prescriptions. Silvicultural practices will be designed to consider past, current, and potential impacts from insects and diseases.  Forest-wide Standard 57. Biological and vegetative management practices will be used to control insect and disease infestation.  Forest-wide Standard 58. In mountain pine beetle epidemic areas, all stands will be risk- rated and treatment priorities established on highest risk stands.  MA 8 Standard 1. Livestock grazing may be permitted if it does not conflict with the recreational use of the area.  MA 8 Standard 2. Tree removal will be limited to that required to eliminate safety hazards or permit construction or expansion of facilities. The MA is classified as unsuitable for timber production.  MA 8 Standard 6. Trees with a high potential for physical failure or susceptibility to insects and disease will be periodically evaluated. Hazardous conditions will be reduced by using acceptable methods such as single-tree removal or thinning.  MA 16 Goal 1. This goal provides for healthy stands of timber and optimizes timber growing potential.  MA 25 Goals 1 and 2. This goal provides for healthy stands of timber and optimizes timber growing potential within the constraint of achieving a visual quality standard of Partial Retention.

A LNF Noxious Weed Management Record of Decision signed in 2007 identifies weed control goals and mitigation measures on the Forest. Additional direction on weed prevention is in the 1995 Region 1 FSM Supplement 2080, Noxious Weed Management (USDA 1995c). Goals and mitigation measures in this document applicable to the Proposed Action are in Appendix B.

3.4.2 Vegetation Methods

This EIS was compiled using published information, field visits to the analysis area, and contacts with LNF and MSB personnel. Information about the proposed expansion was obtained from MDP (2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Recent similar projects at Bridger Bowl, Lookout Pass, 49 Degrees North, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed.

Guidance (especially MA descriptions) was obtained from the Forest Plan, from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with the LNF. Forest vegetation information was obtained from site visits, from a report by and interviews with the LNF forest silviculturist, and from vegetation data collected as part of the Vegetation Management Plan (USDA 2010b). Information on threatened, endangered or Forest Service sensitive (TES) plant species was obtained from the LNF forest botanist and from the Montana Heritage Program. A general level plant survey for species of concern was conducted across the entire proposed expansion area. A complete level plant survey was conducted for specific activity sites (ski trails, lifts, buildings, drainfields, and reservoir; see Dutton and Howard 2006 and Dutton 2006 field notes in the project file).

3.4.3 Vegetation Analysis Area

Final EIS 3-18 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on vegetation resources is the proposed expansion area on TV Mountain. The area of analysis for cumulative effects on vegetation resources includes the existing SUP area in the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek drainages.

3.4.4 Vegetation Affected Environment

The vegetation affected environment includes forest types, old growth forest, wetlands and riparian areas, TES plants, and weeds.

Forest Types

Vegetation in the proposed expansion area is dominated by mature mixed conifer stands. Forest types include Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine. Douglas-fir types at TV Mountain are most common on south aspects and on east or west aspects at the lower elevations. Douglas-fir types occupy approximately 659 acres, or 61 percent, of the proposed expansion area. These forests include scattered ponderosa pine on south aspects and western larch and subalpine fir on the east and west aspects. A few grand fir are also present in these Douglas-fir types.

Lodgepole pine types are present on the west aspect of TV Mountain and are most common at the higher elevations. Lodgepole pine types occupy approximately 278 acres, or 25 percent, of the proposed expansion area. These lodgepole pine types also include Douglas-fir, western larch, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce. A few grand firs are also present in the lodgepole pine type.

Subalpine fir types are most common on the north and east aspects and at higher elevations. Subalpine fir types occupy approximately 151 acres, or 14 percent, of the proposed expansion area. Grand fir are found across the lowest elevations in these subalpine fir types; which also include Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and western larch. Small areas of mountain hemlock are present on north aspects near the northern boundary of the proposed expansion area. The majority of these conifer forests are mature and are classified in the sawtimber size class. Whitebark pine are scattered across the highest elevations at MSB (e.g., northwest side of TV Mountain; see B. Dutton 2006 field notes in project file). Table 3-4 summarizes the existing forest types, as reflected in Figure 3-1.

Table 3-4. Summary of Existing Forest Types Percent of Proposed Forest Type Acres Expansion Douglas-fir 659 61 Lodgepole pine 278 25 Subalpine fir 151 14 Total 1,088 100

Habitat types in the proposed expansion area are dominated by subalpine fir types with smaller amounts of Douglas-fir types. Douglas-fir habitat types are confined to the south aspect of TV Mountain and to lower elevations on the southwest aspect (Table 3-5, Figure 3-2). Douglas-fir habitat types occupy approximately 362 acres, or 33 percent, of the proposed expansion area. The most common Douglas-fir habitat type is Douglas-fir/ninebark with smaller areas of

Final EIS 3-19 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Douglas-fir blue huckleberry. Subalpine fir habitat types dominate the remaining aspects and higher elevations. Subalpine fir habitat types occupy approximately 726 acres, or 67 percent, of the proposed expansion area. The most common subalpine fir habitat is subalpine fir/beargrass with smaller amounts of subalpine fir/menziesia and subalpine fir/twinflower.

Table 3-5. Summary of Existing Habitat Types Percent of Proposed Forest Type Acres Expansion Douglas-fir 362 33 Subalpine fir 726 67 Total 1,088 100

Old Growth Forest

The Forest Plan EIS established a strategy for defining and distributing old growth habitat Forest-wide (USDA 1986). The LNF was segregated into 71 drainages, and a minimum of 8 percent (all habitat groups combined) was allocated as old growth in most drainages where wilderness was not available. Old growth was distributed by habitat groups that range from warm dry types at lower elevations to moist types at higher elevations, recognizing the individual needs of various old growth dependent species. MA 21, representing about 2 percent of the LNF, was also designated in the Forest Plan to evenly distribute old age stands for associated wildlife Forest-wide.

Using the definition of old growth in the Forest Plan, conservation estimates derived from FIA data collected between 1995 and 1996 show at least 14.4 percent of the LNF is old growth or over mature timber (Bush et al. 2007). This estimate far exceeds the 8 percent standard in the Forest Plan. Using the Region 1 definition of old growth (Green et al. 1992), conservative estimate from FIA data show the LNF is comprised of 9.6 percent old growth, slight above the standard set forth in the Forest Plan and far above the 2 percent allocated in MA 21 (Bush et al. 2007). The LNF monitoring program for old growth and old growth species is detailed in the May 2010 Monitoring Paper (USDA 2010b).

For the proposed project, the Grant/O’Keefe Ecological Management Area (EMA) was used as an analysis area for old growth forest (Figure 3-3). Old growth forest stands covering approximately 318 acres are present in the proposed expansion area on TV Mountain (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). These areas include 201 acres of Douglas-fir old growth, 31 acres of lodgepole pine old growth, and 86 acres of subalpine fir old growth.

Examination on the ground revealed that these areas meet the minimum old growth criteria (Green et al. 1992). These areas contain patches of trees old enough and in sufficient density to qualify as old growth. These patches range from less than 1 acre to several acres in size within larger stands of mature timber. This old growth falls within the Grant/O’Keefe EMA. Currently, the total acreage of old growth forest in the Grant/O’Keefe EMA is 1,767 acres out of a total EMA acreage of 16,887 acres (10.5 percent) (USDA 2007a). The proposed expansion area makes up 6.5 percent of the Grant/O’Keefe EMA; of which, approximately 29 percent is old growth. One site of old growth forest in the existing SUP area adjacent to the proposed expansion area includes mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) trees and is under consideration for nomination as a Botanical Special Interest Area.

Final EIS 3-20 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-1. Forest Types

Final EIS 3-21 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-2. Habitat Types

Final EIS 3-22 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-3. Grant/O’Keefe EMA

Final EIS 3-23 Montana Snowbowl Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Waters of the U.S. include wetlands, rivers, streams, and special aquatic sites. These areas are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 3.3). Activities that affect waters of the U.S. require a detailed delineation report and permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Wetland specialists conducted a field inventory of the proposed expansion area during the summer of 2006. No wetlands were identified in the proposed expansion area. La Valle Creek is located west of the proposed SUP boundary and is separated along its length by a well- vegetated buffer area. This vegetated buffer is 400 feet to 700 feet wide along most of the western project area boundary. A logging road on the hillslope above La Valle Creek (identified as FR 19080) serves as the boundary of the proposed SUP area (Figure 2-1). The distance between the road and the edge of the stream ranges from approximately 150 feet slope distance (at the switchback on the boundary of Sections 28 and 29) to over 2,000 feet in Section 5 (Figure 2-1).

Threatened, Endangered, and Forest Service Sensitive (TES) Plants

No endangered plants are listed in Montana. Three plant species are listed as threatened in Montana, but these plants occupy wet habitats that do not occur on the proposed expansion area. Two of the three plants listed as threatened occur on the LNF: water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) and Spalding’s campion/catchfly (Silene spaldingii).

One Forest Service Region 1 sensitive species (designation officially took effect December 26, 2011) was identified within the proposed expansion area. Occasional whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is present in the higher elevations of the proposed expansion area (USDA 2011a). Podgrass (Scheuchzeria palustris) was recorded within a 5-mile radius of the proposed expansion area. The recorded podgrass was observed to the east of the proposed expansion area within the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area. Potential habitat for this sensitive species ranges from wet organic soils to wet meadow, seep areas. No areas of this habitat are present in the proposed expansion area.

Table 3-6 lists the TES plant species known or expected to occur on the LNF. Species in Table 3-6, (marked with “Y”) were identified as the most likely to occur at the proposed expansion area (Lavelle 2006). The only species known to occur is whitebark pine (See B. Dutton 2006 field notes in the project file). The most likely of the remaining TES species to occur, but that has not been identified, is the sensitive species clustered lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum), which is found in the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. This habitat type occurs in the proposed expansion area on the south aspect of TV Mountain. This area was surveyed by LNF personnel in 2001, and no clustered lady’s slipper was found. The remaining eight species with a “Y” designation in Table 3-6 have habitats that range from open forest to grasslands and meadows.

No threatened or endangered plants are currently known to occur in the proposed expansion area. Searches conducted by the LNF for past projects in the proposed expansion area detected no TES plant species (Lavelle 2006); however whitebark pine is known to occur as discussed above and was recently designated as sensitive. A survey conducted by Atkins (formerly PBS&J) during the 2006 field season also detected no TES plant species except whitebark pine (see B. Dutton 2006 and Dutton and Howard 2006 field notes in project file). This survey included a general level plant survey across the entire proposed expansion area and a

Final EIS 3-24 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment complete level plant survey for specific activity sites where significant ground disturbance would occur (ski trails, lifts, buildings, drainfields, and reservoir).

The formal survey was conducted on two dates to span the period of potential flowering for clustered lady’s slipper. Plant specialists also made vegetation observations during other field trips to the proposed expansion area and identified no TES plant species (except whitebark pine) (see Dutton 2006 and Dutton and Howard 2006 field notes in project file). TES plant surveys were conducted in the area in 2005 and 2006 as part of the Grant Creek Fuel Reduction Project analysis (USDA 2007a). The only TES plant found during these surveys was whitebark pine, which was not designated as sensitive at that time (see Dutton 2006 and Dutton and Howard 2006 field notes in project file).

Whitebark Pine Whitebark pine is a long-lived, five needle pine and is considered a keystone species in upper subalpine communities. It occurs across much of the western United States and southwestern Canada and is an important food source for Clark’s Nutcrackers, red squirrels, grizzly and black bears, and other wildlife species. In western Montana, whitebark pine is common in subalpine forest at elevations above 6000 feet. Whitebark pine is considered a pioneer species after disturbance and facilitates succession by providing structural complexity. Although it can form pure stands on harsh sites, whitebark pine within the project area grows in mixed stands with subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Whitebark pine was found on the northern portion of the proposed expansion area.

Whitebark pine populations have experienced sharp declines in recent decades due to altered wildfire regimes, forest succession, white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetle, and possibly climate change (USFWS 2011). Studies in northwest Montana have documented population declines exceeding 40% over the last 50-60 years (Keane and Arno 1993; Kendall and Keane 2001). Blister rust is present but not abundant in the proposed expansion area. Mountain pine beetle is present in the existing SUP area and the proposed expansion area.

Final EIS 3-25 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-6. Lolo National Forest Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Potentially Present Proposed Scientific Name Common Name Habitat2 Expansion Area1 Rock slides/moist with cold air Adoxa moschatellina Musk-root N drainage Allium acuminatum Tapertip onion Dry, open forests and grasslands Y Amerorchis Round-leaved Spruce forest/seeps and N rotundifolia orchis streams, limestone soils Sapphire Steep slopes/sparse vegetation/ Arabis fecunda N rockcress warm aspects Athysanus pusillus Sandweed Moist/steep slopes and cliffs N Beck water- Bidens beckii Lakes/rivers/sloughs N marigold Botrychium Peculiar Meadows within spruce and N paradoxum moonwort lodgepole forest Botrychium Wavy moonwort Roadsides/disturbed, open sites N crenulatum Lakes/sloughs/slow moving Brasenia schreberi Watershield N rivers Carex chordorrhiza Creeping sedge Wet organic soils/fens N Wet organic soils/fens/floating Carex rostrata Beaked sedge N peat bogs Dry, open forest slopes with Clarkia rhomboidea Common clarkia Y gravelly soils Sand Mossy, forested, north-facing Claytonia arenicola N springbeauty talus slopes Cypripedum Clustered lady’s Douglas-fir/ninebark and grand Y fasciculatum slipper fir/ninebark types Cypripedum Small yellow Fens/mossy woods/seepage N parviflorum lady’s slipper areas Cypripedum Sparrow’s egg Seepy, coniferous N passerinum lady’s slipper forests/calcareous soils Drosera anglica English sundew Wet organic soils/fens N Wet organic soils/forest margins Dryopteris cristata Buckler fern N of fens Giant Epipactis gigantean Streambanks/lake margins/fens N helleborine Eupatorium Western Rocky outcrops and slopes N occidentalis boneset Gentianopsis simplex Hiker’s gentian Fens/meadows/seeps N Moist forest dominated by Grimmia brittoniae (moss) N Douglas-fir Howell’s Grindelia howellii Ponds/marshes N gumweed

Final EIS 3-26 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-6. Lolo National Forest Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Potentially Present Proposed Scientific Name Common Name Habitat2 Expansion Area1 Heterocodon Western pearl- Moist grassland slopes/mossy Y rariflorum flower ledges/riparian Water howellia Howellia aquatilis Wetlands/glacial pothole ponds N (threatened) Idahoa scapigera Scalepod Moist, open soil on rock ledges N Meesia triquetra (moss) Wetlands N Oregon Wet, seepy, open or partially Mertensia bella N bluebells shaded slopes North Idaho Open conifer stands/open Mimulus clivicola N monkeyflower pockets of exposed mineral soil Phlox kelseyi v. Limestone-derived slopes in the Missoula phlox N missoulensis foothills Y 3 Subalpine forest, treeline and Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine (known to be krummholtz habitats present) Potamogeton Blunt-leaved Lakes/ponds/sloughs N obtusifolius pondweed Scheuchzeria Pod grass Wet organic soils/fens N palustris Scirpus subterminalis Water bulrush Ponds/lakes/sloughs N Spalding’s campion/ Silene spaldingii Grasslands N catchfly (threatened) Trifolium Woolly-head Mixed conifer forest Y eriocephalum clover Trifolium Open woods and Hollyleaf clover Y gymnocarpon slopes/sagebrush to ponderosa Waldsteinia Idaho barren Open ponderosa pine forest Y idahoensis strawberry Source: USDA 2012a

1 Species identified by Darlene Lavelle (LNF Botanist) to be associated with potential habitat located in the proposed expansion area. 2 Habitat descriptions referenced from Species of Concern database (Montana Natural Heritage Program [MNHP] 2011). 3 Forest Service Region 1 sensitive designation took effect December 26, 2011

Old Growth Mountain Hemlock Site

One site of old growth forest in the existing SUP area includes mountain hemlock trees. This site is one of the easternmost occurrences of mountain hemlock in the Rocky Mountains and is being considered for nomination as a Botanical Special Interest Area. It is located adjacent to the proposed expansion boundary approximately 1,000 feet north of the existing snowmaking reservoir at Spartan Saddle (Figure 2-1).

Final EIS 3-27 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds are exotic (non-native) plants that often invade disturbed sites and replace native species. Noxious weeds use a variety of adaptive strategies to compete with other plants and are often more efficient at utilizing moisture and nutrients. Some weeds are considered special threats and are designated as noxious by the State of Montana. Noxious weeds must be controlled according to the Montana County Noxious Weed Control Act (MCA 7-2101 through 2153). Weeds may be controlled by a variety of cultural, mechanical, biological, and herbicide methods. The most effective weed control is prevention of weed establishment by the minimization of soil disturbance and maintenance of healthy and competitive desirable vegetation that is well-adapted to the site. Weeds are present in the existing SUP area, the proposed expansion area, and along Snowbowl Road. Table 3-7 lists weeds of concern on the LNF and those that have been identified on the proposed expansion area. Weed names in bold text are listed as noxious in Montana.

Table 3-7. Noxious and Other Weeds of Concern on the Lolo National Forest and Proposed Expansion Area* Present Proposed Present Expansion Status/Goal Scientific Name Common Name LNF Area Bryonia alba White bryony N N Centaurea repens Russian knapweed N N Centaurea solstitalis Yellow starthistle N N Potential Invaders Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed N N

Currently absent; Crupina vulgaris Common crupina N N goal is to prevent and Echium vulgare Blueweed Y N eradicate promptly if Iris pseudacorus Yellowflag iris N N found. Isatis tinctoria Dyers woad N N Lythrum spp. Purple loostrife N N Tamarix spp. Salt cedar N N Cardaria draba White top Y N Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Y N Hieracium Orange hawkweed Y N aurantiacum New Invaders Hieracium Meadow hawkweed N Y piloselloides complex Goal is to eradicate small Hieracium pratense Yellow hawkweed Y N new infestations and Perennial N reduce larger infestations. Lepidium latifolium Y pepperweed Linaria vulgaris Common toadflax Y N Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup Y N Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort N N

Final EIS 3-28 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-7. Noxious and Other Weeds of Concern on the Lolo National Forest and Proposed Expansion Area* Present Proposed Present Expansion Status/Goal Scientific Name Common Name LNF Area Bromus japonicus Japanese brome Y N Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Y Y Cardus nutans Musk thistle Y Y Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Y Y Chrysanthemum Oxeye daisy Y Y leucanthemem Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Y Y Widespread Cynoglossum Houndstongue Y Y Goal is to contain officinale inside infested area Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Y N and reduce plant Hypericum populations. St. Johnswort Y Y perforatum Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax Y N Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil Y N Sisymbrium N Tumble mustard Y altissimum Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy Y Y Verbascum spp. Mullein Y Y

* Species in bold text are listed as noxious weeds on the Montana Noxious Weed List, effective September 2010 (MDA 2010)

The most common weed in the proposed expansion area is spotted knapweed, which occurs in a spotty distribution along most roads and at the TV Mountain communication site. Knapweed also occurs in a scattered distribution on past timber harvest sites. Other weeds observed in the proposed expansion area and listed above occur in the same locations but are generally limited to very small patches or individual plants.

These same weeds occur across the existing SUP area. Spotted knapweed is common at the main parking lot, base area, lower ski trails, Snowbowl Road, maintenance roads, and bike trails. The remaining weeds listed occur in a more spotty distribution on disturbed sites across the existing permit area. Weeds generally are most common near the base area and roads. They generally decrease in abundance away from roads, at higher elevations, and on north aspects. Past MSB weed inventories have identified approximately 137 acres of infested area (USDA 2007c). All of the weeds present at MSB also occur in the surrounding landscape, especially along Snowbowl Road.

A number of other non-native invasive plants, including wide-leaf plantain and common dandelion, occur in the proposed expansion area. Exotic grasses such as cheatgrass brome, quackgrass, orchard-grass, Kentucky bluegrass, and timothy are also present. These grasses occupy space that could be used by native plants.

Final EIS 3-29 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The MSB is responsible for direct control of noxious weeds in the SUP area. Biological controls may be used to supplement, but may not replace, direct control activities. By March 1 of each year, MSB submits a proposed weed treatment plan for the upcoming season. The plan must include a list of applicators the permittee intends to use and copies of their Montana Department of Agriculture applicator licenses. All herbicide treatments are conducted by a state-certified applicator. By September 30 of each year, MSB reports weed control accomplished (locations, acres, species, and map) and daily diaries (on LNF-provided forms).

The LNF provides MSB a list of noxious weeds to be controlled in the permit area. MSB weed control activities are conducted, in order of priority, as follows:

1. Roads, trails, parking areas, and areas of concentrated public use (such as around warming huts). Roads and ski trails used for motorized access are maintained in a weed-free condition. 2. Recently disturbed areas (such as excavations or grading sites). 3. Ski trails. 4. General forest areas within the SUP boundary.

Weed infestations are mapped and monitored annually to ensure the weed management program is being implemented effectively.

Past weed treatments in the proposed expansion area have been dominated by herbicide applications along roadways. Currently, the Point Six Road joint users contribute to road maintenance and weed control on the road segments used by each user as required by their SUP. The road was treated in 2006 and is checked and retreated as needed.

3.5 WILDLIFE

3.5.1 Standards Applicable to Wildlife

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (As Amended)

The ESA provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The ESA is implemented by two federal agencies, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which have the ability to officially list plant and animal species as “endangered” or “threatened.” Section 7 of the ESA imposes an affirmative duty on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (including permitting) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or modification of their habitat. The only listed species occurring in the analysis area for fish and wildlife are bull trout, Canada lynx, and grizzly bear. Under the ESA, the Forest Service shall carry out recovery programs developed by the USFWS and must prepare a biological assessment for any action that is likely to affect listed species or their habitat.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the ESA directs federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.

Final EIS 3-30 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Migratory Bird Executive Order

An Executive Order of January 10, 2001, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” (USFWS 2001) executive departments and agencies to take actions to further implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Section 3 of the Executive Order states that, “Each Federal agency taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations is directed to implement, within 2 years, an MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations.” and each agency shall “ensure that the environmental analyses of Federal actions required by the NEPA or other established environmental review processes evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.”

In December 2008, the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to further clarify agency responsibilities. The parties agreed that through the NEPA process, the Forest Service would evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. The needs of migratory birds are addressed throughout this analysis, including the individual sections on project impacts to bald eagle, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, Northern goshawk, and pileated woodpeckers as well as other sections of this report that address habitat diversity.

Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan of 1994

The Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan provides guidelines to protect bald eagle habitat and minimize potential violations of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Management includes protecting nest sites and primary use areas from disturbance during the breeding season as well as sites where eagles concentrate to feed in winter.

National Forest Management Act of 1976

FSM 2670 directs the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of sensitive species. Sensitive species are those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers, density, or in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5.19). Protection of sensitive species and their habitats is a response to the mandate of the NFMA to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on suitability and capability of the specific land area” (NFMA Sec. 6 (g) (3) (B)). A biological evaluation must be completed prior to implementation of activities that have the potential to affect sensitive species (FSM 2670.32).

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy

The Canada lynx was listed as threatened in the conterminous U.S. under the ESA in 2000, primarily because resource management plans of federal land-management agencies lacked adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the species (Ruediger et al. 2000). Since listing, a recovery plan has not been prepared. However, the interagency LCAS was developed to provide a consistent and effective approach to conserve lynx on federal lands in the conterminous U.S. (Ruediger et al. 2000).

The LCAS outlines the process for analyzing project effects to Canada lynx productivity, mortality risk factors, and movement and dispersal through the delineation of Lynx Analysis

Final EIS 3-31 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Units (LAU). LAUs have been identified and mapped on NFS lands. The size of an LAU represents the approximate size of a lynx female home range and encompasses all seasonal habitats. LAUs provide a fundamental scale with which to evaluate and monitor the effects of management actions on lynx habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Chapter 1 of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, Final Environmental Impact Statement (NRLMD, USDA-FS 2007, FEIS) provides a thorough history of the regulatory framework for Canada lynx including efforts that led to the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, the Lynx Conservation Agreement, recovery plans, and designation of Critical Habitat.

Programmatic objectives, standards, and guidelines for lynx management are identified in the NRLMD in relation to recreational activities. Objectives define desired conditions for lynx habitat. Standards are management requirements used to meet objectives, and guidelines are management actions (project design criteria) to meet objectives.

The following objectives apply to the MSB proposed expansion (USDA 2007, Attachment 1, p. 6):

All O1 Maintain and restore lynx habitat connectivity between LAUs and linkage areas. HU O2 Manage recreational activities to maintain lynx habitat and connectivity. HU O4 Provide for lynx habitat needs and connectivity, when developing new or expanding existing developed recreation sites or ski areas.

The programmatic standard for recreation management that applies to the MSB includes the following (Ibid. at. p. 1):

ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments and vegetation management projects must maintain connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area.

Of note, ski area expansion projects that permanently remove vegetation for ski runs and other operations are not considered vegetation management projects (defined at p. 15 of the NRLMD ROD). As such, vegetation standards VEG S2, S5, and S6 are not applicable here.

Project guidelines for developed recreation that apply to MSB include:

HU G1 When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris, so winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained. HU G2 When developing or expanding ski areas, lynx foraging habitat should be provided consistent with the ski area’s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes. HU G3 Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat. HU G10 When developing or expanding trails, consider locating access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security habitat if it has been identified as a need.

Final EIS 3-32 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lolo National Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Plan, in compliance with the NFMA, establishes Forest-wide management direction, goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for management and protection of wildlife habitat and species, old growth habitat, MIS and TES species (USDA 1986). Forest-wide Standards for Wildlife are:

 Standard 21. Wildlife features such as wallows, mineral licks, and seeps will be protected by employing the following standards, which are subject to change over time, but which reflect the current state of knowledge.

Within 5 chains (330 feet) of actively used or recently used wallows, licks, seeps, etc., cover status should be maintained with no more than a 30 percent reduction in existing or normal tree canopy. For an additional three chains (198 feet) around the feature, tree canopy removal should be limited to 50 percent. The feature should not be isolated within a larger clearcut unit. Cutting unit boundaries should be adjusted so that the feature is contiguous to forest cover. Skidding equipment should be permitted within 2 chains of the feature and logging debris should be removed from all trails leading to the feature. It should be recognized that timber management may be necessary in or near such features to maintain associated values. Harvest entries should be spaced at least 20 years apart and made to improve or maintain the feature. When departure from the above is deemed necessary, interdisciplinary involvement with a wildlife biologist will be required.

 Standard 22. The Forest wildlife biologist will examine and recommend vegetative objectives for managing and protecting all winter range whenever activity is proposed within it.

 Standard 23. The document “Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study” (Lyon, et al. 1985) which summarizes the results of years of interagency elk/logging research, will be used as a basic tool for assessing the effects of timber harvest upon elk habitat, and for making decisions that affect the overall big-game resource.

When conducting activities in lands with intermingled ownership, the effects of activities by all land owners on the big-game resource will be analyzed. Efforts will be made to develop mutually acceptable project designs with other landowners that minimize impact to wildlife. In some cases, activities on NFS land will be deferred or redesigned to mitigate effects of private land management practices.

 Standard 24. All threatened and endangered species on the LNF including the grizzly bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf (no longer listed under the ESA in Montana), and bull trout will be managed for recovery to non-threatened status. Forest Service designated essential habitat will provide interim management direction for those species until critical habitat is designated by the USFWS. Within essential grizzly bear habitat (Management Situation 1), the Forest wildlife biologist will establish vegetative management objectives for all projects that involve vegetative manipulation. Outside of Management Situation 1, where grizzly bear use is suspected or known to occur on an occasional basis (Management Situation 2), schedule activities so as not to conflict with the grizzly bear.

Final EIS 3-33 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

 Standard 25. In the portion of the Forest more than 200 feet from all system roads, sufficient snags and dead material will be provided to maintain 80 percent of the population of snag-using species normally found in the un-managed forest.

 Standard 26. Provide a variety of hunting recreation opportunities by using project planning and road management to assist the MFWP in meeting their goal of maintaining long hunting seasons with minimal restrictions.

 Standard 27. Management practices in essential habitat of threatened and endangered species must be compatible with habitat needs of the species (grizzly bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf [no longer listed under the ESA in Montana], and bull trout) consistent with the goal of recovery to non-threatened status. There are no other known plant or animal species on the Forest that have been identified as threatened or endangered under provisions of the ESA of 1973. If and when such habitats are identified, appropriate measures pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, will be taken to protect the species and its habitat consistent with national goals for species recovery to non-threatened status. Cooperate with future interagency efforts to recover those species for which recovery goals have not yet been defined. For plant or animal species that are not threatened or endangered, but where viability is a concern (i.e., for MIS, which include elk, goshawk, and pileated woodpecker, will be monitored. As monitoring technology becomes available for the goshawk and pileated woodpecker, population trends will be monitored. In the interim, habitat parameters including old growth acres and condition, and snag densities will be monitored as an indicator of population trend.

 Standard 28. Land management practices shall be designed to have a minimum impact on the aquatic ecosystem, free from permanent or long-term unnatural imposed stress. (A long term stress is defined as a downward trend of indicators such as aquatic insect density or diversity, fish populations, intragravel sediment accumulations, or channel structure changes that continue for more than 1 hydrological year as determined by procedures outlined in the Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements). Project-level assessments will address the potential effects of management activities on off-Forest aquatic resources by considering and evaluating downstream data where available.

The MA descriptions included in the Forest Plan provide additional standards for wildlife management within each MA. No specific wildlife standards are listed for MA 8, the existing ski area designation. Tree removal for safety and forest health reasons is permitted (MA 8 Standards 1 and 6). Management Area 16 also includes the following standards applicable to wildlife:

 Dead or down trees may be salvaged as constrained by habitat needs for cavity nesting wildlife species.

 Prescribed burning will be used to accomplish slash disposal, site preparation, silvicultural, ecological, wildlife, and range objectives. In habitat groups where fire is not a useful tool, logging/scattering, tramping, isolation of separate cutting units, fuel break construction, and fue lwood utilization will be used to reduce fuel accumulations, reduce hazards, and prepare sites for regeneration. Slash disposal will be complete enough to provide for free movement of deer and elk or in the case of isolated unit, small enough to avoid impacting major elk/deer through paths. Prescribed burning for natural vegetation enhancement will be prescribed by a certified silviculturist. Use of prescribed fire for hazard reduction and site

Final EIS 3-34 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

preparation will be based on an economic analysis. Utilize the most cost effective alternative that will meet the required resource objectives.

Both MA 16 and 25 include the following standards applicable to wildlife:

 Project plans will incorporate considerations for elk summer habitat, deer/elk winter range management, and the unmapped portions of Management Area 26 where those values are present (Note: the reference to MA 26 is only applicable to MA 16).

 Prescribed fire may be used for big game or grizzly bear habitat or improvement where appropriate, but only in a manner that avoids situations where increased water flows contribute ash or other sediments to Ashley Creek.

3.5.2 Wildlife Methods

USDA Forest Service policy (FSM 2672.4) requires review of all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TES). A Biological Evaluation (BE) is the means for documenting effects to Forest Service sensitive or MIS (FSM 2672.43). A Biological Evaluation (BE) is used to assess impacts to threatened or endangered species to meet Section 7 of the ESA. The BE process (FSM 2672.43) consists of the following steps:

1. Pre-field review: A list of potentially affected species is identified after reviewing official federal and state lists, observation and habitat data.

2. Field reconnaissance: The project site is visited, habitats described, and any incidental sign or sightings of animals recorded. If suitable habitat exists and/or a species is likely to occur in the vicinity, then it is given due consideration regardless of direct evidence found during the site visit. There may be cases where system surveys for animal are appropriate, depending on the issues surrounding the project.

3. Conflict determination: The biologist considers the project design and the existing habitat conditions to determine the effects, if any; the project would have on species. If the potential for adverse conflicts exists:

a. The project may be modified so as to remove the conflict; or

b. If the project cannot be modified:

i. Formal consultation (or conference) with the USFWS is initiated for federally listed (or proposed species, and

ii. An analysis of the significance of effects is initiated and further steps are taken for Forest Service Sensitive species.

To meet the requirements of NFMA and its implementing regulations, the Forest Service focuses on assessing habitat coupled with animal survey and monitoring data to provide for a diversity of species. Region 1 uses a principle-based approach to population viability analysis (PVA) that is widely agreed to and supported in peer-reviewed, scientific literature (summarized in Samson 2006a and 2006b with internal citations omitted here). Computer-based PVA

Final EIS 3-35 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment models have been developed by various researchers; however, it is not feasible to collect enough long-term data for forest-dependent species (i.e., number of individuals in a population, age of each individual, birth rate, death rate, immigration rate, and emigration rate) to test the validity of any of these models in the real world (Ibid.).

Samson (2006a) conducted a Region-wide conservation assessment for the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, and flammulated owl based on a principle- based approach to PVA. For each species, he used peer-reviewed science, all known inventory/observation data in Region 1, vegetation data from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), scientific information on the minimum dispersal distances for species, their home range and body sizes, and well-known conservation principles to assess the availability of suitable habitat and ultimately assess short- and long-term viability on each Forest in Region 1. Habitat for each species assessed is abundant and widely distributed Region-wide. Samson (2006b) also addressed habitat thresholds for maintaining a minimum viable population for the aforementioned species as well as for the fisher and marten. He clearly demonstrated habitat Region-wide for all the aforementioned species is more than adequate to maintain population viability.

The LNF uses a similar approach for all other federally threatened, endangered, Forest Service Sensitive (collectively referred to as TES), and Forest Plan Management Indicator species (MIS) that lack a completed Regional conservation assessment (preparation at the Regional level is ongoing). The LNF’s principle-based approach to PVA during project analysis follows Regional direction in Samson (2002). For each affected TES and MIS, the LNF examined population (and habitat) status, distribution, and trend information and the scientific literature for information on the biological and habitat requirements for each species as well as species’ response to disturbance. The LNF also used the best available vegetation data collected for an area to quantify and spatially display habitat.

In addition, the MFWP Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS) was reviewed to evaluate the relative importance of the analysis area to provide species richness, as well as importance to individual TES and MIS.

Methods for classifying and mapping habitats are described and displayed in the individual species sections that follow.

3.5.3 Wildlife Analysis Area

The MSB is located adjacent to the Rattlesnake Wilderness and Recreation Area that are contiguous to the Mission Mountain Wilderness Area farther to the north. The city of Missoula lies 10 miles to the south of the proposed expansion area.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for most terrestrial wildlife were evaluated in three sub- watersheds (35,332 acres all ownerships) that extend from private land near the Clark Fork River on the south to the Rattlesnake Wilderness boundary on the north. The sub-watersheds range in size from about 7,925 to 18,730 acres and were selected because they encompass all proposed and connected actions as well as existing activities associated with the MSB (including access routes from Snowbowl to I-90), and are large enough in scale to include the home ranges of most wildlife species in the area as well as to evaluate landscape connectivity for wide-ranging species (including grizzly bear, lynx, wolf, wolverine, fisher, and elk) moving in and among the sub-watersheds.

Final EIS 3-36 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The Rattlesnake LAU is within designated lynx critical habitat and overlaps a portion of the existing and proposed MSB SUPs. The LAU is the geographic area to assess lynx habitat and project direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, and thus, compliance with the objectives, standards, and guidelines of the NRLMD (USDA 2007b). It is an area of at least the size used by an individual lynx (female home range), from about 25 to 50 square miles (USDA 2007b). The boundaries of an LAU remain constant and therefore provide for monitoring of the objectives, standards and guidelines of the NRLMD. Areas adjacent to the Rattlesnake LAU, including adjacent LAUs, were also mapped to evaluate landscape connectivity for lynx and other wide ranging species, such as lynx (grizzly bears, wolverine, fisher and elk).

For elk, direct and indirect effects are evaluated in the affected 6th hydraulic unit code (HUC) watersheds, winter range in the North Hills, and the Elk Management Unit, defined by MFWP (2005b).

The temporal bounds of this analysis include short- and long-term effects. Short-term effects include construction of runs and lifts (including tree cutting and hauling), buildings and drainfields that are expected to occur over an 11-year period. Long-term effects extend beyond the close of initial construction, including the long-term operation and seasonal use of the existing and proposed expansion area by the public for the duration of the SUPs. The existing SUP will expire in 2044, and the proposed SUP, if approved, will be for a 40-year period.

3.5.4 Wildlife Affected Environment

3.5.4.1 Habitat

The three sub-watersheds that encompass MSB provide a diversity of forested habitat types with scattered grass/forb parks that range in elevation from 2,500 feet in the Clark Fork River valley floor to subalpine and alpine habitats at 7,600 feet. The base area at MSB is at 5,000 feet. The headwaters for Grant Creek, La Valle Creek, and Butler Creek are located on Forest Service lands in the upper elevations of the sub-watersheds, whereas large subdivisions span private lands in lower elevations that are commonly known as the Missoula North Hills. The ridgeline (hydrologic divide) between the LNF and Flathead Indian Reservation form the northern boundary of the analysis area, with Rattlesnake Creek to the east, Highway 93 to the west, and the Clark Fork River and Interstate 90 to the south.

Table 3-8 displays land ownership patterns which show the Forest Service as the prominent landowner in the Grant Creek sub-watershed, with private the dominant owner in the Butler and La Valle Creek sub-watersheds.

Table 3-8. Snowbowl Wildlife Analysis Area Landowners by Sub-watershed Sub-watershed Landowner Sum Acres

Lolo National Forest 2,428 Private 5,300 Butler Creek State of Montana 196 Water 49 Sum Acres Butler Creek 7,925

Final EIS 3-37 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-8. Snowbowl Wildlife Analysis Area Landowners by Sub-watershed Sub-watershed Landowner Sum Acres

Lolo National Forest 9,295 Private 8,704 State of Montana 716 Grant Creek Water 11 Unclassified 4 Sum Acres Grant Creek 18,730 Lolo National Forest 2,034 Private 6,640 La Valle Creek Unclassified 3 Sum Acres La Valle Creek 8,677 Lolo National Forest 13,757 Private 12,814 Sum Acres All Sub-watersheds State of Montana 912 Water 60 Unclassified 7 Total Lolo National Forest 27,514 Grand Total All Sub-watersheds 35,332

The MSB has been the dominant human feature in the upper elevations of the Butler and La Valle Creek sub-watersheds since 1961. Clearing of forest communities for ski trails, lifts, parking lots, and other facilities has created forest openings, increased human presence (mainly in winter), and increased access for hunters, mountain bikers, hikers, and others. The general character of habitat in the existing SUP area is irregular, narrow clearings (ski trails and lift corridors) alternating with conifer forest of varying ages.

Unpaved roads form much of the perimeter of the proposed expansion area and provide access to the existing SUP area and TV Mountain. The proposed expansion area includes areas of past timber harvest, existing roads, and utilities. The summit of TV Mountain is a designated communications site (under permit with the LNF) with numerous television, radio, and microwave facilities and would be surrounded by the proposed expansion area. A Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) snow course site is also located just north of the communications site on TV Mountain (Photograph 3-2).

Final EIS 3-38 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Photograph 3-2. Subalpine Fir on TV Mountain

Wildlife habitats in the upper sub-watersheds that encompass the proposed expansion area consist of mixed conifer stands of predominantly western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce, with small amounts of whitebark pine. Patches of old growth and late-successional forest (318 acres) are present in the proposed expansion area and may provide habitat for wildlife with affinities for this habitat. An old growth mountain hemlock stand is present immediately adjacent to the proposed expansion boundary within the existing SUP area and scattered mountain hemlock is present in the proposed expansion area at the highest elevations.

Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, with a shrub understory of ninebark, occupy the lower elevations on south and southwest aspects. Scattered large ponderosa pine and larch (mostly less than 24 inches in diameter) form an open overstory with younger Douglas-fir forming an intermediate canopy. Communities dominated by Douglas-fir occupy 659 acres (61 percent) of the proposed expansion area. Lodgepole pine communities occupy 278 acres (25 percent), and 151 acres (14 percent) are subalpine fir communities.

On steep east-facing slopes, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir are the dominant trees, with large larch present as widely spaced but prominent species (Photograph 3-3).

Final EIS 3-39 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Photograph 3-3. Mixed Conifer Stand on East-facing Slope

The dominant understory species are beargrass and huckleberry. At the higher elevations on west-facing slopes, dense, even-aged, single-story stands of lodgepole pine, mostly less than 8 inches in diameter, are present (Photograph 3-4). At the highest elevations, mature subalpine fir intermixed with scattered mountain hemlock form dense stands (Photograph 3-5). Rock outcrops are present on steep east-facing slopes. Approximately 50 acres of forest overstory were cut in the last 5 years on the west aspect of TV Mountain in the proposed expansion area. Regeneration in these logged areas is mostly less than 10 feet high (Photograph 3-6), but scattered medium-sized and large trees (western larch and Douglas-fir) were left in many of these harvest areas (Photograph 3-7).

Final EIS 3-40 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Photograph 3-4. Lodgepole Pine Stand

Photograph 3-5. Subalpine Fir Stand

Final EIS 3-41 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Photograph 3-6. Clearcut Area with Young Lodgepole Pine

Photograph 3-7. Logged Area with Scattered Western Larch

Final EIS 3-42 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Non-forested areas are vegetated primarily by grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous species, with tree seedlings and shrubs colonizing some sites.

Non-wilderness forest land adjacent to the proposed expansion area has been managed by the LNF under multiple use directives that include vegetation management (timber harvest and prescribed fire, Table 3-9), road building and use (Table 3-10), recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, hiking, and skiing), and livestock grazing.

The Rattlesnake Wilderness and National Recreation Area form the eastern boundary providing large unroaded areas that are contiguous with the Mission Mountains to the north and beyond. Table 3-9 displays acres of past vegetation management activities that have occurred on Forest Service lands in the analysis area by sub-watershed pre- and post-1980 (map display in project file). Past harvest and prescribed fire on Forest Service lands pre- and post-1980 has occurred on about 4,040 acres (29 percent), of which a modest 815 acres (6 percent) received regeneration harvest to create young age class. The remaining acres were thinned using a variety of intermediate and uneven-aged techniques that retained the overstory component and allowed for varying degrees of regeneration of trees/grasses/forbs/shrubs in the understory. About 4,692 acres (20 percent) were prescribe burned over the last decade to maintain the ecological role of fire in drier forest types by reducing conifer encroachment, stimulating grass/forb/shrub production, and maintaining open forested conditions. No wildfires have occurred in the three sub-watersheds for decades.

Table 3-9. Total Acres of Vegetation Management on Forest Service Lands by Harvest Type and Sub-watershed Sub- Pre- Post- Harvest Type Harvest Objective watershed 1980 1980 Total Regeneration Harvest Butler 142 347 489 Seed Tree; Shelterwood Young age class created Grant 0 164 164 and Clearcut La Valle 0 162 162 Total All 142 673 815

Intermediate Harvest: Butler 0 174 174 Sanitation/Salvage, Stands thinned from below; overstory Improvement Cut, retained Liberation, and La Valle 0 444 444 Commercial Thin Total All 0 618 618

Butler 0 1,047 1,047 Young stand thinned from below; Precommercial Thin Grant 0 299 299 treatment promotes growth of overstory La Valle 0 130 130 Total All 0 1,475 1,475

Overstory with multiple canopy layers Butler 0 232 232 Uneven-age Harvest: retained, treatment promotes Single Tree and Group regeneration in the understory by day Selection lighting individual trees or groups of La Valle 0 176 176 trees Total All 0 408 408 Prescribed Fire: Reduces conifer encroachment in Butler 74 38 112 Ecosystem understory, stimulates grass/forb/shrub Grant 0 16 16

Final EIS 3-43 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Sub- Pre- Post- Harvest Type Harvest Objective watershed 1980 1980 Total Maintenance Burn Production, maintains open forest La Valle 0 595 595 conditions Total All 74 649 723 Butler 216 1,838 2,054 Grant 0 479 479 GRAND TOTAL La Valle 0 1,507 1,507 Total All 216 3,824 4,040

Table 3-10 shows past vegetation activity information for the Rattlesnake sub-watershed, separated by upper, to include designated wilderness, and lower, to include the national recreation area. The sub-watershed is included as part of the cumulative effects analysis area for wide-ranging species (grizzly bear, Canada lynx, wolverine, and fisher).

Table 3-10. Total Acres of Vegetation Management on Forest Service Lands by Harvest Type in Rattlesnake Sub-watershed Sub- Pre- Post- Harvest Type Harvest Objective watershed 1980 1980 Total Regeneration Harvest Seed Tree; Young age class created in 1963 38 0 38 Shelterwood and Upper Clearcut Rattlesnake1 High severity wildfire created young Wildfire 0 4,107 4,107 age class in 2003 Intermediate Harvest: Sanitation/Salvage, Stands thinned from below; Improvement Cut, 0 188 188 overstory retained (2002-2009) Liberation, and Commercial Thin Young stand thinned from below; Lower Precommercial Thin treatment promotes growth of 2 0 402 402 Rattlesnake overstory Reduces conifer encroachment in Prescribed Fire: understory, stimulates Ecosystem grass/forb/shrub production, 0 4,208 4,208 Maintenance Burn maintains open forest conditions (1985-1999) GRAND TOTAL 38 8,905 8,943 1 Upper = Designated Wilderness 2 Lower = National Recreation

Roads on Forest Service land in the proposed and existing MSB SUP areas are restricted to public motorized use, and large unroaded areas occur in the Rattlesnake Wilderness and Rattlesnake National Recreation Area. Table 3-11 provides a tally of roads in the sub- watersheds that comprise the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects area.

Table 3-11. Sub-watershed Total Miles of Roads (All Ownerships) Sub-watershed Road Type/Ownership La Valle Butler Grant Lower Upper Creek Creek Creek Rattlesnake Rattlesnake Forest Service System Roads 16.55 28.90 3.88 14.75 9.2*

Final EIS 3-44 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Sub-watershed Road Type/Ownership La Valle Butler Grant Lower Upper Creek Creek Creek Rattlesnake Rattlesnake Forest Service Undetermined and Not 3.79 9.86 0.00 6.27 5.1* Needed Roads (Jammers)* Private Roads 3.18 5.21 10.35 7.18 0.00 Interstate and highways 1.83 0.79 2.58 0.70 0.00 County 2.27 5.33 5.72 13.78 0.00 Other State or Other Federal Roads 0.00 0.61 4.36 4.66 0.00 Decommissioned Roads 1.54 0.15 1.75 0.56 0.00 *Roads in Upper Rattlesnake watershed are actually trails only with no public vehicle travel allowed. Forest Service undetermined roads are either not drivable or closed to public vehicles. Administrative use of drivable roads occurs infrequently.

3.5.4.2 Special Status Species

Special-status species are those species that are listed or proposed for listing under the ESA of 1973 and Forest Service sensitive species (TES), as well as Forest Service MIS (USFWS 2013, USDA 2012a). TES species that may occur in the proposed expansion area are three threatened species (bull trout, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx) and one species proposed for listing (North American wolverine). A total of 15 sensitive species (not including the wolverine) are addressed in this EIS. Bull trout are discussed in Section 3.6.

Forest Service MIS include species commonly hunted and trapped or species with special management needs that are affected by forest management and other species whose population changes are believed to indicate effects of management activities on a major biological group. There are three MIS addressed in this EIS.

The following species are not addressed further in this EIS, with rationale provided in Table 3- 12, as well as short descriptions provided below, as the project has no potential to impact the species and an effects analysis is not necessary: bighorn sheep, northern bog lemming, common loon, Harlequin duck, Coeur d’Alene salamander, and northern leopard frog.

Canada Lynx (Threatened)

The main factor driving lynx behavior and distribution is the distribution of boreal (spruce/fir) forests that experience deep snowy winters and support snowshoe hare, their primary prey (35– 97 percent of lynx diet). Snowshoe hares prefer dense vegetation to provide food, cover and security from predators. The historical and present range of the lynx includes Alaska, the portion of Canada that extends from the Yukon and Northwest Territories south across the United States border and east to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Lynx populations in the contiguous United States occur at the southern periphery of a widely-distributed metapopulation whose core is located in the northern boreal forest of central Canada (USFWS 2007). In Canada and Alaska, lynx populations undergo extreme fluctuations in response to the cycling of snowshoe hare (USFWS 2007). However, in the contiguous United States, vegetation communities are more naturally, patchily distributed, the forests generally support lower snowshoe hare densities, and hare populations do not appear to be as cyclic. Therefore, lynx densities are naturally lower in the United States compared to the northern boreal forests (USFWS 2007).

Final EIS 3-45 Montana Snowbowl Table 3-12. Potential Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species in Proposed Expansion Area Species Present Habitat Present in Analysis Area Species Status on LNF Preferred Habitats in Analysis Area (Y/N) (Y/N) Subalpine fir habitat types (including pure or mixed subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western Y; part of project area within a Lynx Canada Lynx Threatened, larch, and hardwoods) above Y Analysis Unit; occupied habitat, (Lynx Canadensis) Critical Habitat 4,000 feet in elevation, vertical critical habitat structural diversity in the understory (down logs, seedling/saplings, shrubs, forbs) for foraging and denning Y; analysis area is outside but adjacent to NCDE Recovery Zone Alpine/subalpine coniferous boundary, outside occupied Grizzly Bear forest, lower elevation riparian Threatened Y distribution area (USFWS 2004), but (Ursus Arctos) areas in spring, lack of human inside 10-mile buffer used to monitor disturbance. mortality and trend of the NCDE population. North American Sensitive/ Large areas of unroaded security Wolverine (Gulo Proposed for Y Y habitat; secure denning habitat. gulo) Listing N; MSB analysis area is outside of Steep slopes, open habitats that an existing sheep herd unit (MFWP Bighorn Sheep Sensitive facilitate predator detection and N CAPS big-horned sheep range map Ovis canadensis provide ample graze and browse. in project file). Therefore, removed from further analysis. Nesting platforms near a large Bald Eagle open water body (> 80 acres) or Y; nesting documented on Grant (Haliaeetus Sensitive major river system; available fish Y Creek, foraging habitat present. leucocephalus) and water bird species prey, secure nesting habitat.

Final EIS 3-46 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Species Present Habitat Present in Analysis Area Species Status on LNF Preferred Habitats in Analysis Area (Y/N) (Y/N) N; no documented cliff nest sites; American riparian foraging lower along Grant Cliff nesting (ledges); riparian Peregrine Falcon Sensitive N Creek several miles south of MSB foraging (small bird species prey). (Falco peregrines) expansion area. Therefore, removed from further analysis. Black-backed Burned forests or less typically, Y; no recently burned habitat Woodpecker Sensitive coniferous forests with high insect Unknown present; some beetle infested trees (Picoides arcticus) infestations (i.e., bark beetles) present N; no lake habitat within or near Common loon Lake habitat. Secure nesting and Sensitive N analysis area. Therefore, removed (Gavia immer) brood rearing areas. from further analysis. Mature (> 9 inches dbh) and old- growth ponderosa pine/Douglas- Flammulated Owl Sensitive fir with abundant moth species Y Y; nesting and summer foraging. (Otus flammeolus) prey. Secure nesting habitat (> 35% canopy cover). N; nearest suitable habitat (not Harlequin Duck During the breeding season, occupied for numerous years) in (Histrionicus Sensitive found near large, fast flowing N upper Rattlesnake Creek several histrionicus) mountain streams. miles from analysis area. Therefore, removed from further analysis. Delisted to FS Habitat generalists. Lack of Gray Wolf Sensitive from human disturbance, abundant Y, pack activity Y (Canis lupus) Endangered prey (primarily elk) required. Moist mixed coniferous forested types (including mature and old- Fisher Sensitive growth spruce/fir at low- to mid- Y Y (Martes pennant) elevations), riparian/forest ecotones, secure denning habitat.

Final EIS 3-47 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Species Present Habitat Present in Analysis Area Species Status on LNF Preferred Habitats in Analysis Area (Y/N) (Y/N) Northern Bog N, nearest bog lemming habitat Lemming Wet riparian sedge meadows, (occupied) is several miles west of Sensitive N (Synaptomys bog fens. MSB analysis area. Therefore, borealis) removed from further analysis. Roosts in caves, mines, rocks Townsend’s Big- and buildings. Snag roosting Y; no known cave roosts but Eared Bat Sensitive habitat also important. Forages N abundant snag roosting, and riparian (Plecotus over tree canopy, wet meadows, foraging available. townsendii) riparian areas and open water. Black-backed Burned forests or less typically, Y; no recently burned habitat present Woodpecker Sensitive coniferous forests with high insect Unknown but some beetle infested trees Picoides arcticus infestations (i.e. bark beetles) present. Coeur d'Alene N; nearest habitat on Superior Salamander Talus rock near seeps, streams Ranger District near the Montana (Plethodon Sensitive and waterfalls at elevations < N Idaho border. Therefore, removed vandykei. 5,000’. from further analysis. Idahoensis) Typically in or adjacent to Northern Leopard permanent slow moving or N; therefore, removed from further Frog Sensitive N standing water bodies with analysis. (Rana pipiens) considerable vegetation Variable including; wetlands, Boreal/Western forests, woodlands, sagebrush, Toad Sensitive meadows and floodplains. Over Y Y (Bufo boreas) winters in caverns or rodent burrows

Final EIS 3-48 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Species Present Habitat Present in Analysis Area Species Status on LNF Preferred Habitats in Analysis Area (Y/N) (Y/N) West of continental divide: Stands w/ mean diameter of > 10”, crown closures of at least Northern Goshawk 40% and elevations below 6,200’ MIS Y Y; nesting/foraging habitat (Accipiter gentlis) Foraging habitat is variable but typically in mature stands with dense canopies fairly open understories Moderately warm, dry Douglas- Pileated fir/Ponderosa; moderately cool, Woodpecker Old-growth/Snag dry Douglas-fir; moist mid- Y Y; year-round habitat (Dryocopus MIS elevation spruce/grand fir. Large, pileatus) soft snags (> 21“ dbh). Habitat generalists, secure habitat Elk Commonly during the hunting season, secure Y Y; year-round habitat (Cervus elaphus) hunted MIS winter range.

Final EIS 3-49 Montana Snowbowl Four Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of lynx occur in the contiguous United, including the Northeast Region (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York), the Great Lakes Region (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan), the Northern Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah), and the Southern Rocky Mountain Region (Colorado, southeastern Wyoming) (USFWS 2007). The MSB analysis area is located in the Northern Rocky Mountain/Cascades Region. The Forest Service manages the majority of lynx habitat across 18 National Forests in this region.

“Lack of historic data limits our understanding of lynx population dynamics in the contiguous United States and precludes drawing definitive conclusions about lynx population trends” (USFWS 2007). Prior to listing in 2000, known lynx distribution in Montana was based on historical data and trapping records. Following listing, a national lynx survey was conducted, and the results indicated that lynx were less common than historical records indicated.

Intensive track surveys conducted by the Rocky Mountain Research Station across western Montana, including portions of the LNF, indicate that lynx are uncommon to absent in many parts of this region with the Yaak and Clearwater Valley near Seeley Lake being primary strongholds for lynx in northwest Montana (Squires 2006).

In 2007, the USFWS classified the LNF (along with numerous other Forests) as occupied/core lynx habitat because of strong recent and long-term evidence of lynx reproduction (USDA 2007). In 2009, the USFWS designated lynx critical habitat (74 FR 8616-8702, hereafter referenced as USFWS (2009)). A portion of the LNF (including the Seeley Lake Ranger District and the northern end of the Missoula District) is located in designated Critical Habitat Unit 3. The existing MSB permitted area is located entirely in the Rattlesnake LAU, all of which is designated critical habitat.

Forest wide surveys for carnivores conducted on and by the LNF from 2007 to present have documented lynx on only one of five Ranger Districts—Seeley Lake. In relation to MSB, historic observation data showed lynx occurrences in the Rattlesnake LAU (northwest and southwest of MSB). More recently, data collected by the Forest Service on lynx fitted with GPS or VHF collars recorded lynx in the Rattlesnake Creek drainage east of MSB; in the Finley Creek/Evaro area north of MSB; and in the Gold Creek/Mount Jumbo area southeast of MSB (map of data in project file). Although there are no documented occurrences of lynx in the MSB permitted area, lynx habitat at MSB is contiguous with the Seeley-Swan Valley where a reproducing population is present.

The LNF has 54 LAUS and, as stated above, MSB is located in the southwest portion of the Rattlesnake LAU, all of which is designated Lynx Critical Habitat (Figure 3-4). The Rattlesnake LAU is 99 percent wilderness and provides a portion of a large linkage zone that connects westward via ridgelines, saddles and drainage systems to Evaro Hill, across Highway 93 to the Reservation Divide and beyond (USDA 2007 and shown in Figure 3-5). It also provides contiguous linkage northwest to the Seeley core population, and a portion of a linkage zone that connects south and west to the Sapphire and Garnet Mountains (Figure 3-5).

An assessment of forest conditions that are available to lynx, including the effects of past disturbance (natural and man caused), was completed to estimate acres of existing lynx foraging, denning, and travel (matrix) habitat and to provide a basis for determining project effects. The procedures for classifying and mapping lynx habitat in the Rattlesnake and adjacent LAUs are detailed in USDA (2010c), in accordance with USDA (2000, 2007b) and USFWS (2000, 2007, and 2009).

Final EIS 3-50 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lynx home-ranges are known to be comprised of a diversity of boreal and non-boreal vegetation types of varying age class structures (USDA 2007b, Squires et al. 2010). As such, lynx habitat (which includes critical habitat) was first classified based on whether a stand is dominated by boreal forest (i.e., spruce/fir) or non-boreal forest (i.e., grass/forb, drier Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine). Boreal forest was further assessed based on whether it currently provides foraging and/or denning habitat or could provide these habitats in the future. Non-boreal forest was assessed to determine if sufficient cover was present to allow lynx to travel through matrix habitats that are situated between patches of higher quality lynx habitat (USFWS 2009).

To assess the current condition of boreal forest, shaped by past activities/disturbance, and the relative value to lynx, boreal forest was further classified into the following vegetation structural stages: stand initiation (2 age classes); young regenerating forest, stem exclusion, young multistoried or understory re-initiation, mature multi-story, and matrix (travel habitat) (USDA 2007b; USFWS 2009; Table 3-13). Figure 3-4 provides a map display of lynx habitat in the Rattlesnake LAU in relation to habitats in adjacent LAUs and other features in the surrounding landscape.

Table 3-13 displays acres of mature multi-story and young regenerating forests with thousands of stems per acre that provide high quality snowshoe hare, and thus lynx winter foraging, habitat. In boreal forest stands, stand initiation (summer forage), stem exclusion, and young multistoried or understory re-initiation do not provide winter foraging habitat (USDA 2007b). Temporarily unsuitable (10 percent of available boreal forest in the Rattlesnake LAU) developed from a recent fire (accidental human ignition) that originated from Highway 200 and burned northwest through the Gold LAU into the Rattlesnake Wilderness (Figure 3-5). Temporarily unsuitable remains unsuitable until vegetation regrows for a period of approximately 15 years before it becomes summer foraging habitat and for approximately 30 years before it becomes winter foraging habitat.

Table 3-13 shows that the existing MSB SUP bisects 3 percent (1,228 acres) of the 38,033-acre LAU, with 451 of those acres in boreal forest. Scattered patches of winter foraging habitat occur on the periphery of the SUP, including 245 acres of mature multi-story and 37 acres in the stand initiation stage. Between these islands of suitable foraging habitat, permanently unsuitable lynx foraging habitat exists which consists of the current ski trails, roads, lift corridors, and buildings.

Final EIS 3-51 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-4. Rattlesnake Lynx Analysis Unit

Final EIS 3-52 Montana Snowbowl Figure 3-5. Lynx Habitat, Rattlesnake and Adjacent LAUs (1998–present)* *Photo inset depicts GPS/VHF point locations for lynx by Squires

Final EIS 3-53 Montana Snowbowl

Table 3-13. Lynx Habitat in Rattlesnake LAU by Vegetation Structural Stage Rattlesnake LAU: Boreal Lynx Lynx Denning Lynx Travel Boreal and non-Boreal Forest Vegetation Acres in Forest (can Forage (is (is downed Habitat (can Structural Stage Descriptions (NRLMD 2007) Total Acres Existing stands foraging woody debris lynx move (based on time in years that regrowth has LAU (% of 1 SUP grows habitat present) through the occurred after disturbance from fire or total) spruce-fir?) present?) (NRLMD 2007) area?) harvest) Stand initiation (0 to 15 years)— May provide 1,709 (10%) 0 Yes Non-forage Yes TEMPORARILY UNSUITABLE denning Stand initiation (16 to 30 years)—limbs do not Summer May provide 817 37 Yes Yes protrude above snow in winter forage denning Young regenerating forest (30 to 45 years)— Winter May provide 1000s of stems per acre—high horizontal 1,104 42 Yes Yes forage denning cover—deep snow Stem exclusion (i.e., single story lodgepole pine—high canopy cover with understory and dead and down material limited) Depends on tree species Generally non- NOTE: May grow into forage in 50 to 100+ 2,812 (2 pvt) 19 composition Non-forage Yes denning years unless disturbed by a stand replacing fire and site or harvest that sets succession back to stand conditions initiation. Pure lodgepole pine less likely; spruce/fir more likely Young forest multistoried or understory re- May provide 3,002 108 Yes Non-forage Yes initiation denning Winter High quality Mature and old multi-story 7,736 (4 pvt) 245 Yes Yes forage denning Total Acres Boreal Forest in LAU 17,180 (6 pvt) 451 (3%) Yes MATRIX—no potential to grow into lynx foraging habitat—may include grass/forb/shrub 20,790 (72 771 No Non-forage Non-denning Yes openings; ponderosa-pine, Douglas-fir, mixed pvt) conifer on south aspects 38,033 Total Acres Inside LAU Boundary 1,228 (3%) (78 pvt) 1Total acres include all landowners. Private (pvt) land acres are shown where they exist.

Final EIS 3-54 Montana Snowbowl

Grizzly Bear (Threatened)

The LNF encompasses portions of three grizzly bear recovery areas: the Northern Continental Divide, Cabinet-Yaak, and Bitterroot. The proposed expansion area is located outside, but adjacent to, the Rattlesnake Bear Management Subunit of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Recovery Zone (Figure 3-6). The proposed expansion area is located adjacent to the mapped Occupied Distribution Area of grizzly bears located outside the NCDE recovery zone (Figure 3-7, USFWS 2004).

The proposed and existing MSB SUPs are located within 10 miles of the NCDE Recovery Zone boundary; where mortality of grizzly bears is counted towards population recovery criteria outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993 and recently detailed for the LNF in USFWS 2010a).

The grizzly bear was listed as threatened throughout its range in the lower 48 states on July 28, 1975. Seven grizzly bear ecosystems were identified in which recovery is to be accomplished. Five areas in the lower 48 states currently support grizzly bear populations: the Yellowstone, NCDE, Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and Northern Cascades Ecosystems. These areas represent less than two percent of the grizzly’s former range in the United States which extended from the central Great Plains, west to California, and south to Texas and Mexico (USFWS 1993). Between 1800 and 1975, grizzly populations in the lower 48 states declined from an estimated 50,000 to less than 1,000.

In summer 2004, the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project identified 563 individual grizzly bears alive in the greater NCDE through genetic analysis of noninvasive hair sampling at baited and unbaited barbed wired hair collection sites (Kendall et al 2009). A final total grizzly bear population estimate of 765 grizzly bears was reported based on the 563 bears detected in 2004 (USFWS 2004). The growth of the NCDE population is estimated at 3 percent per year (USFWS 2010a), with its range expanding 2.6 million acres outside the NCDE Recovery Zone. More than 17 percent of the NCDE is private land, and the majority of bear-human conflicts and bear deaths occur on these private lands because of conflicts arising from attractants, such as garbage, fruit trees, bird feeders, grills, composting, livestock/poultry feed, etc.

Across most of the LNF, outside of the Recovery Zone, grizzly bears are transient due to fragmentation of suitable habitat by roads and human activity. Despite habitat fragmentation grizzly bears have continued to expand their range outside of the Recovery Zone onto the LNF and surrounding forests.

Historic and recent grizzly bear sightings have been documented in the analysis area. There is no known evidence of denning or reproduction in or near the existing or proposed MSB SUP area. Sightings have occurred in the Rattlesnake Wilderness which is contiguous to the Mission Mountains to the north and beyond (MFWP 2013 email correspondence, Mace and Roberts 2012). In addition, point observation data downloaded from a female grizzly bear fitted with a tracking device showed that in October 2011 a female grizzly bear travelled from tribal lands on the north through the analysis area. The bear walked through the Rattlesnake Wilderness west into lower Grant, Butler and La Valle Creeks near MSB before returning to the Jocko River area (Chaney 2013). Given the proximity of the proposed expansion area to the known grizzly bear distribution area outside of the NCDE Recovery Zone (Mace and Roberts 2012), and to the Rattlesnake Subunit, grizzly bears have the potential to occur within the proposed expansion area during the non-denning period (March–April through September–November).

Final EIS 3-55 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-6. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Final EIS 3-56 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-7. Occupied Grizzly Bear Habitat

Final EIS 3-57 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Features of the existing environment that are relevant to grizzly bear habitat include motorized access, cover, habitat suitability, and food and garbage attractants. The Forest Service recognizes that the species is expanding its range in northwestern Montana and is sensitive to issues that impact grizzly bear mortality. At the existing MSB, garbage and food wastes associated with banquets and other spring/summer/fall activities have the potential to attract grizzly bears. There has been a history of black bears being attracted to food wastes at MSB, and grizzlies are similarly attracted to garbage, charcoal grills, and other potential foods (Jonkel 2006 personal communication, Atkins).

In April 2011, the LNF implemented an expanded, forest-wide food/wildlife attractant storage order that requires all forest users, including permitees, to store attractants in a bear resistant manner.

Grizzly bear habitat in the analysis area, including the proposed expansion area, consists of mixed conifer stands of predominantly western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce, with small amounts of whitebark pine and mountain hemlock at the highest elevations. Numerous riparian habitats occur in creek bottoms along La Valle, Butler and Grant Creeks as well as around numerous high mountain lakes situated throughout the Rattlesnake Wilderness.

Northern American Wolverine (Proposed)

The MFWP has long managed the wolverine as a furbearer that could be legally trapped with a set limit on an annual basis. On December 14, 2010, the USFWS determined that wolverines in the United States are a DPS and a candidate for listing as a threatened or endangered species (75 FR 78030-78061). In January 2013, a District Judge for Montana suspended all wolverine trapping in the state of Montana. On February 4, 2013, the USFWS published a proposed rule to list the U.S. DPS of wolverine as a threatened species (78 FR 7863-7894). The USFWS also proposed a Section 4(d) rule (78 FR 7890) that would prohibit take of wolverine from trapping, hunting, shooting etc., while allowing incidental take associated with activities such as dispersed recreation, timber harvest, firefighting, mining etc., if those activities are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations (78 FR 7890). The comment period for the proposal ends on May 6, 2013. The final determination for listing will be issued in a 12-month finding.

On March 5, 2013, Forest Service Region 1 issued “Conference Guidance.” Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, 1976, as amended, requires Federal agencies to confer with the USFWS on any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed for listing (50 C.F.R. 402.10). A conference may involve informal discussions between the USFWS, the action agency, and the applicant. Conferencing is not required (no formal exchange of documentation with the USFWS) for anything less than a jeopardy call.

The Forest Service in Region 1 has managed the wolverine as a sensitive species for nearly 20 years, and in the last few years has been in the process of preparing a Conservation Strategy for the species in cooperation with neighboring Regions (S. Jackson, National Carnivore Program Leader, USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, Montana).

Wolverine populations were likely extirpated in most of their historic range in the United States from trapping pressure from 1900 to 1950 (78 FR 7870–7874). The Northern Rocky Mountain

Final EIS 3-58 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment population (north of Wyoming) was reduced to historical lows or possibly even extirpated during the early 1900s, and then increased dramatically in the second half of the 1900s (Ibid., Table 1) as predator control efforts subsided and trapping regulations became more restrictive (Aubry et al. 2007). This increase likely indicates a population rebound from historical lows in this period. Wolverine records from 1995 to 2005 indicate that wolverine populations currently exist in the northern Rocky Mountains.

Wolverines occur on the LNF and in the MSB analysis area in low densities, based on survey, observation and trapping records (project file). Wolverines have been documented in the analysis area in the Rattlesnake Wilderness, including the upper Grant Creek watershed, and likely are periodically present in the proposed expansion area (Jonkel 2006, pers. comm. Atkins). Wolverines are known to use the hydrologic divide between tribal lands and the Rattlesnake Wilderness and have been documented moving to Evaro Hill (R. Yates, pers. comm. 2013).

Deep, persistent, and reliable spring snow cover (April 15–May 14) is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence in the contiguous United States (i.e., Aubry et al. 2007; Copeland et al. 2010, all in 78 FR 7863–7894). Wolverine reproductive dens have been located in alpine, subalpine, taiga, or tundra habitat (Ibid, including internal citations). Mean seasonal elevations used by wolverines in the northern Rocky Mountains and North Cascades vary between around 4,600 and 8,500 feet depending on location, but are always relatively high on mountain slopes (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Copeland et al. 2007; and Aubry et al. 2007, all in 78 FR 7863– 7894). In the contiguous United States, valley bottom habitat appears to be used only for dispersal movements and not for foraging or reproduction (Inman et al. 2009).

In southwest Montana, Copeland (1996) found that female wolverines selected natal den sites in glacial cirque basins or at the vegetation/rock interface at higher elevations and commonly left dependent kits at rendezvous sites comprised of large boulder talus or riparian areas associated with mature overstory and dense deadfall. Banci (1994) suggested that availability of quality natal den sites may be a limiting factor for successful reproduction in wolverines. Wolverine litters are born in the den from mid-February through March, and the dens are used through late April or early May (Magoun and Copeland 1998).

Banci (1994) and others found that wolverine appear to avoid human settlements, subsisting in winter on ungulate carrion at lower elevations, and a variety of foods in summer (i.e., ground squirrels, ungulate and other carrion, marmots, etc.) at higher elevations. In both Montana and Idaho, big game carrion appears to be a major food source with snowshoe hares, squirrels, and small mammals making up most of the rest of the diet (Copeland 1996; Hornocker and Hash 1981). Research on marked wolverines in Idaho showed animals did not move to big game winter range as expected, but fed on carcasses of animals that probably died during the late summer and fall (Copeland and Harris 1994). The presence of large predators such as mountain lions and wolves, and wounding losses from hunting may provide important sources of carrion.

The size of adult wolverine home ranges vary widely by geographic area (summarized in 78 FR 7867). For example, Copeland (1996) found wolverine home range sizes in Idaho ranged from 38 to more than 350 square miles. The variation in home range sizes among studies is related to differences in sex, with males ranging further than females, and in the abundance and distribution of food. Home ranges of adult males and females overlap extensively, with the range of one male covering the ranges of 2 to 6 females (Copeland 1996). This is considered one reproductive unit. The number of reproductive units needed to ensure population

Final EIS 3-59 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment maintenance and dispersal is not known. Home ranges of sub-adults, especially males, are transitory areas used before dispersal, which often is over long distances for males. Young females typically establish residency next to or within the natal home range (Copeland 1996). The long movements of wolverines suggest that re-colonization of vacant habitats can occur.

Based on the Land Systems Inventory (LSI) database (USDA 2003) and local knowledge, the Rattlesnake Wilderness provides cirque basin or similar landforms with denning habitat potential on 5,915 acres in patches that range in size from 23 to 566 acres (Figure 3-8, with data in project file). The existing and proposed MSB SUP do not provide denning habitat, but would provide a portion of a wolverine home-range. The analysis area is also considered linkage habitat between tribal lands on the north, the Mission Mountain wilderness on the northeast, the Evaro Hill area on the west, and the Clark Fork River on the south. The analysis area supports a diverse array of prey.

Snowmobiling is not allowed in the wilderness, and use of the wilderness in winter by the public is limited because of deep snows, rugged terrain and lack of a distinct trail system. Big game hunting does occur in the wilderness in the fall and early winter, and furbearer and wolf trapping is an allowable use. Habitat security in the Rattlesnake Wilderness that encompasses upper Grant Creek is high, whereas, security in La Valle, Butler Creek, and lower Grant Creek is lower because of the existing MSB SUP and access roads, and private lands where residential development occurs.

Figure 3-8. Wolverine Denning Habitat

Final EIS 3-60 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Bighorn Sheep (Sensitive)

Bighorn sheep prefer cliffs and steep slopes, with open habitats that facilitate predator detection and provide ample grazing opportunities. Sheep feed on various bunchgrasses and shrubs during winter and sedges, forbs, and grasses in the summer. Based on a review of MFWP’s CAPS, there are no existing sheep herd units in the MSB analysis area (see big-horned sheep range map in the project file). The project will have no impact on bighorn sheep and, therefore, is not discussed further in this EIS.

Bald Eagle (Sensitive)

Bald eagles have reached biological recovery in the lower 48 United States and were proposed for delisting in 1999. On June 28, 2007, the Interior Department took the American bald eagle off the endangered species list. The bald eagle is still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Eagles on the Forest Service lands are managed as sensitive species for at least five years, post de-listing. The Forest Service continues to use management direction outlined in the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (1994).

Bald eagles are spring and fall migrants on the LNF, except in a few areas along river systems that span Forest Service lands where water-bird prey and animal carrion along adjacent road corridors is available. A pair of bald eagles is known to nest along lower Grant Creek in the analysis area adjacent to Grant Creek Road, as well as near the analysis area along the Clark Fork River.

Bald eagles prefer to nest and perch in large trees (usually conifers or cottonwoods), typically within one mile of a lake or reservoir greater than 80 acres in size, or a large river (MBEWG 1994). Typically, nests are re-used in subsequent years. Nest stands are usually greater than 20 acres in size and contain several large trees (MBEWG 1994). Roost sites are typically located in mature conifer or cottonwood stands less than 10 acres in size (MBEWG 1994). Bald eagles sometimes use traditional communal roosts in winter, especially during periods of severe weather. These roosts can be located in large trees at the head of sheltered draws and may be many miles from bodies of water. Winter roosting habitat is characterized by large stands of coniferous old growth, usually located on north-facing slopes away from prevailing winds. In Montana, wintering eagles are associated with unfrozen portions of large lakes and free-flowing rivers, but are also scattered through upland areas feeding on ungulate carrion, game birds, rabbits, and hares. Although large communal roosts are often associated with bald eagle wintering areas, none have been discovered in Montana (MBEWG 1994).

Many of the primary threats to bald eagles described at the time of their listing, including habitat loss and degradation (especially the loss of the shoreline nesting trees through human development in shoreline areas), human disturbance associated with recreational use of waterways and shores, and contamination, are no longer a great enough threat to affect the stability of the population (64 FR 36454–36464; July 6, 1999). Other risk factors associated with human activity include: disturbance at nest sites; collisions with vehicles, power lines, or other structures; electrocution; gunshot; and incidental poisoning from pesticides or other toxins.

Lower Grant Creek, south of MSB, provides the highest quality riparian nesting and foraging habitat in the analysis area where a pair of bald eagles is known to nest (See M. Long, MFWP,

Final EIS 3-61 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Draft EIS response in project file; dated April 2010). Other foraging opportunities, in the form of carrion, are likely opportunistically available throughout the analysis area, with the highest potential on big game winter range that spans private land in the Grant, La Valle, and Butler Creek drainages. The extent to which eagles use Forest Service lands in the analysis area is largely unstudied and unknown.

American Peregrine Falcon (Sensitive)

Until recently the species was federally-listed as endangered, but due to recovery efforts that increased numbers of breeding pairs in Region One from one in 1984 to several hundred by 1999, the species was delisted and its status on the National Forest System lands is now sensitive.

Peregrine falcons are considered locally rare in portions of its range; and in Montana due to its rarity and vulnerability to extinction, breeding habitat is considered imperiled or critically imperiled (MNHP 2006). Breeding and wintering habitat is scattered widely throughout western Montana and in a few locations in north and south-central Montana (Hart et al. 1998).

Peregrine falcons occur in low densities across the LNF as breeding individuals and seasonal migrants. Active nests were found on the LNF during surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 (Sumner 2004–2005), and results indicate the species is reproducing successfully on the LNF.

Nesting habitat is not present in the analysis area therefore the species was not surveyed for in association with the proposed project. The closest peregrine nests to the analysis area are located along the Clark Fork River outside the analysis area.

The peregrine is a summer resident in western Montana, and it nests high on cliff ledges located within one mile of water (Maj and Torquemada 1995). In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, river gorges near mountain cliffs are typically used by the species (Hart et al. 2001). Peregrines often return to the same cliff to nest but will use alternate nests from one year to the next. While peregrines normally forage within 7.5 miles of the nest site, they may hunt up to 12.4 miles away.

Peregrines prey almost entirely on small-to medium-sized bird species, often taken on the wing. Preferred foraging habitats include wetlands, riparian areas, meadows, parklands, orchards, hayfields, gorges, and mountain valleys. Lakes, which support good populations of small-to medium-sized terrestrial birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds are also selected (Hart et al. 2001).

The analysis area does not support high quality cliff nesting habitat, but does support higher quality foraging habitat in lower Grant Creek. The nearest known nests occur on the Clark Fork River that supports a higher density of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other bird prey. Foraging habitat in the existing and proposed expansion area is marginal because of the closed canopy along streams corridors.

Because of limited nesting habitat and no known nests occurring within the watershed, peregrine falcon management is not a noteworthy wildlife concern in this analysis.

Black-backed Woodpecker (Sensitive)

Black-backed woodpeckers are widespread and have a large breeding range from central Alaska and northern Canada to montane areas of California and New England. Region 1 of the

Final EIS 3-62 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Forest Service encompasses about 5 percent of the range of black-backed woodpeckers (Bonn et al. 2007). Within the Northern Region, black-backed woodpeckers are found in the 12 National Forests, including the LNF.

Black-backed woodpeckers occupy forested habitats that contain high densities of recently dead or dying trees, primarily post-fire areas where woodborer beetles (Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, and Siricidae), the primary food source, have colonized (Dixon and Saab 2000; Powell 2000).

Black-backed woodpeckers rely on post-fire habitat more than any other vegetation cover type (Hutto 1995; Caton 1996; Hitchcox 1996; Hejl and McFadzen 2000; and point count data collected by the Avian Science Center in partnership with Region 1 of the Forest Service, http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/research_landbird.htm). Post-fire habitat provides suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat for a limited time from two to three years after a fire, when woodpeckers move into a stand (Caton 1996), to four to six years when birds leave a stand (Harris 1982, Hutto 1995).

Samson (2006b) estimated that 29,405 acres of habitat are needed to maintain a viable population of black-backed woodpeckers across Region 1. Table 3-14 shows that over one million acres of forest burned in Region 1 between 2006 and 2010, 28 times more than Samson’s estimate for maintaining viable woodpecker populations.

Burned habitat on the LNF is not lacking, with nearly a quarter of a million acres that burned in a 5-year period (2007–2011; the most recent period assessed). This post-fire habitat on the LNF alone is more than eight times the amount 29,405 acres needed to maintain viable black-backed woodpecker populations across all of Region 1 (Ibid.).

Table 3-14. Acres of Post-fire Stands in Region 1 and the LNF1 Year Region 1 Fire (acres) LNF (acres) 2007 783,957 245,720 2008 18,269 0 2009 24,040 114 2010 12,185 1,084 2011 Data not assessed 3,800 Total 827,551 250,718 1Most recent 5-year period assessed

Within the analysis area, no fires have occurred in several decades; however, numerous large fires have occurred within a 60-mile radius, totaling over 90,000 acres (Table 3-15). The 3,800- acre West Riverside fire burned into the Rattlesnake Wilderness, a few miles west of the analysis area. These fires would all be reasonably accessible to black-backed woodpeckers in the analysis area, as females are known to regularly disperse 62 miles, and males regularly disperse much farther (Pierson 2009). Habitat availability is not a limiting factor for black- backed woodpeckers in the Region, on the LNF, or within a reasonable dispersal distance of the analysis area.

Table 3-15. Wildfire Habitat Available to Black-backed Woodpeckers (2007–2011)1

Fire Name Fire Year Burned Acres Jock Lakes 2007 36,337 Sawmill 2007 13,978

Final EIS 3-63 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-15. Wildfire Habitat Available to Black-backed Woodpeckers (2007–2011)1

Fire Name Fire Year Burned Acres Fisher Point 2007 17,697 Blackcat 2007 11,735 Mile Marker 124 2007 6,231 Mount Sentinel 2008 384 West Riverside 2011 3,800 Total — 90,500 1 Within a 30-mile radius of the analysis area

While many studies have shown black-backed woodpeckers primarily use post-fire habitat, some studies have found these woodpeckers in areas with recent outbreaks of bark-beetle (i.e., Bonnot 2006 and Goggans et al. 1987).

In 2006, the Avian Science Center and Region 1 focused survey efforts for black-backed woodpeckers in beetle outbreak areas (Cilimburg et al. 2006). During surveys in 2006 (Cilimburg et al. 2006) 428 point counts were conducted on the Lolo, Bitterroot, Helena, Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Nez Perce National Forests. No black-backed woodpeckers were detected in Montana, and only two were detected on the Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho for a detection rate of 0.46 percent of the points surveyed in beetle outbreak areas. A concurrent survey of post-fire areas had a detection rate of 7.1 percent of the points. Results of this research suggest that bark beetle-infested stands in Region 1, are not primary habitat for blacked-backs, but may provide some secondary habitat.

Although these dead trees do not provide the abundant food source that post-fire stands produce, bark beetle habitat on the LNF alone (about 250,000 acres in 2006 alone) is more than eight times the amount of habitat that Samson (2006b) estimated was needed to maintain black- backed woodpecker viability across the entire Region. In the MSB analysis area, the status of black-backed woodpeckers is unknown as there are no burned areas or high densities of dead trees that would be attractive foraging and nesting habitats for the species; therefore, the woodpecker has not been surveyed for and populations are expected to be low.

The black-backed woodpecker is a primary cavity nester in that they excavate their own cavities, usually in April and May. Most often they excavate their nests in dead or dying conifer trees (Raphael and White 1984; Martin and Eadie 1999); however, they are also known to nest in deciduous trees such as aspen, birch and maple (Dixon and Saab 2000). Initiation of egg- laying may range from late April to early June, with the peak in early May (Ibid). Young typically depart from the nest between early June and early July. Parents attend fledglings, often splitting the brood between the male and female adult. Young closely follow parents and mimic adult feeding behavior. Parental feeding continues for a period after chicks have fledged (Dixon and Saab 2000). Limited research in Idaho and Oregon show breeding home range sizes vary from 178 acres to 1000 acres (in Dixon and Saab 2000; Dudley 2005).

As previously stated, recently burned habitat does not occur within the analysis area, and as such, high quality black-backed woodpecker habitat is not present. Lower quality foraging habitat does exist in bark beetle-infested ponderosa pine within the analysis area. In some areas of Montana, second-growth ponderosa pine stands have experienced between 46 percent and 56 percent average stand basal area mortality during the current outbreak (Sturdevant and Egan 2011). In untreated ponderosa pine stands in the analysis area; similar results would be expected.

Final EIS 3-64 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Pre-fire canopy cover (greater than 40 percent) and tree diameter classes (greater than 5-inch foraging) can serve as an index to the availability of post-fire snag densities. The analysis area supports 11,735 acres of forest, over half of which provides suitable foraging habitat (Table 3- 16).

Table 3-16. Forested Habitat in the Analysis Area Sum Acres by Sub-watershed (6th Code HUC) Dominant Tree Size Class (inches dbh*) Butler Grant La Valle Total All Percent Creek Creek Creek HUCs DBH 0–4.9” 320 497 147 964 8 DBH 5–939” 366 2,040 629 3,034 26 DBH 10–14.9” 703 3,266 688 4,657 40 DBH > = 15” 704 1,931 444 3,079 26 Total Forested 2,093 7,734 1,908 11,735 — Forested > 5” DBH and > 40% Canopy 1,246 4,729 978 6,952 59 Cover *dbh = Diameter at breast height

Common Loon (Sensitive)

In Montana, the common loon is generally restricted to low-elevation glacial lakes in the northwestern part of the state, usually nesting on small islands or shoreline areas with emergent wetland vegetation. Young are usually reared in sheltered, shallow coves with abundant small fish and insects. The common loon’s primary food is fish, but they also eat amphibians and invertebrates. There is no loon habitat in the proposed expansion area and, therefore, no potential impacts to loons; consequently, loons are not addressed further.

Flammulated Owl (Sensitive)

Flammulated owls are small, migratory insectivores that inhabit mountainous forests throughout western North America. Flammulated owls are typically thought to be associated with open, mature montane pine forests (McCallum 1994; Wright 1996; Hillis et al. 2001; Seidensticker 2011). The species is ranked by NatureServe as globally secure (G4) with a widespread distribution (MNHP 2009). In Montana, the Natural Heritage Program ranks the species as S3B; abundant in some areas, but potentially at risk because of limited breeding habitat or populations (Ibid.).

In 2005 and again in 2008, a random sample of flammulated owl presence during the breeding season was conducted across a number of Forests in Region One (Cilimburg 2005). Owls were detected at around 14 percent of the random points surveyed in 2005, with similar results in 2008 (http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/projects/flammulated_owl.php). To gain knowledge on habitat availability and species viability, Samson (2006a, 2006b) estimated flammulated owl habitat in each National Forest in Region 1 using habitat variables reported in local scientific literature to build habitat relationships models. Coupled with the breeding distribution data collected in 2005 and 2008, the owl and its habitat appear relatively common and widespread throughout managed habitats Region-wide, including the LNF. Conservative estimates show flammulated owl habitat on the LNF is 3 times the amount needed to maintain a minimum viable

Final EIS 3-65 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment population Region-wide (Samson 2006a). Results also indicate that breeding habitat is well- distributed.

Since 2005, flammulated owl surveys have been conducted at 2,113 survey points covering 78,955 acres of mature and old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir on the LNF. Flammulated owls were documented in the analysis area in conjunction with these efforts during the 2006 breeding season (NRIS data, the national reporting information system for the Forest Service, in the project file). Nine total owls were observed on Forest Service land, two in the La Valle Creek sub-watershed (one of which was inside the proposed SUP boundary) and seven in the Butler Creek sub-watershed (one inside the proposed SUP boundary).

Flammulated owl habitat was classified and mapped on Forest Service land in the analysis area, based on forested stands dominated by warm/dry ponderosa pine/Douglas fir that either currently provides or has the potential to grow into nesting/foraging habitat in the future (6,810 of 13,757 total acres, Table 3-17, Figure 3-9). Habitat was further classified into three types: suitable nesting/foraging, marginal nesting/foraging, and potential. Suitable nesting/foraging includes stands that currently meet tree density and size class requirements (at least 40 percent canopy cover with overstory trees greater than 15 inches dbh). Owls on the LNF have been detected in stands with smaller overstory trees and less canopy cover compared with Regional research summarized in Samson (2006a) and above (LNF, unpublished data). As such, the Forest classified marginal nesting/foraging habitat as those stands with greater than 20 percent and less than 40 percent canopy cover that are dominated by overstory trees from 10 to 14.9 inches dbh (1,660 acres). Potential future included stands of ponderosa pine Douglas-fir that did no not meet tree density or size class requirements but may grow into suitable owl habitat in the future (2,207 acres).

Based on the reported range of average territory sizes (22 to 58 acres, Linkhart et al. 1998) and considering only suitable nesting/foraging habitat, the analysis area could support, conservatively, from 51 to 133 breeding pairs (2,942 acres/22 acres and 2,942/58 acres).

Table 3-17. Flammulated Owl Habitat Sum Acres Butler Grant La Valle Flammulated Owl Habitat Analysis Creek Creek Creek Area Nesting/Foraging Analysis Area 776 1,801 365 2,942 Existing SUP Boundary Only 257 0 149 407 Marginal Nesting/Foraging Analysis Area 323 967 371 1,660 Existing SUP Boundary Only 59 0 121 181 Potential Nesting Foraging 487 1,356 364 2,207 Existing SUP Boundary Only 64 0 55 119 Grand Total Analysis Area 1,586 4,124 1,099 6,810 Existing SUP Boundary Only 381 0 325 706

Final EIS 3-66 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-9. Flammulated Owl Habitat in MSB Analysis Area

Harlequin Duck (Sensitive)

Harlequin ducks are small sea ducks that winter in coastal waters before migrating inland to nest along mountain streams. They nest on the ground of islands, on cliffs, under creek bank overhangs, in cavities, logjams, and under bushes or trees. Harlequins prefer shallow, cold, fast-moving streams 3 to 150 feet wide, with interspersed meanders and backwaters containing cobble and boulder substrates with less than a 5 percent gradient. Boulders, logs, and debris jams serve as loafing sites within the channel. Harlequins forage along the bottoms of swift streams, feeding on mollusks, insects, aquatic invertebrates, and occasionally fish.

Harlequin duck have not been reported in or around the proposed expansion area, and suitable habitat is not present. The headwaters of La Valle and Butler creeks that are adjacent to the proposed expansion area are small streams without adequate flow and habitat to support harlequin ducks and, therefore, has no potential impacts to the species; consequently, this species is not analyzed further.

Final EIS 3-67 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Gray Wolf (Sensitive)

In February 2008, the gray wolf was delisted after reaching biological recovery under ESA and subsequent adoption of applicable State laws and management plans that met the requirements of the ESA (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008). On July 18, 2008, the U.S. Federal District Court in Missoula, Montana, issued a preliminary injunction that immediately reinstated ESA protections for gray wolves. In April 2009 a final rule that identified the Northern Rocky Mountain Population as a distinct population segment and delisted wolves in Montana, Washington and Oregon was published (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). In August 2010, the wolf was reinstated as an endangered species. In May 2011, as directed by legislative language in the enacted Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations bill—the terms of the 2009 rule were instated and wolves were once again delisted in Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS); including Montana. Under cooperative agreements with the USFWS that have been in place for the past several years, FWP will continue to lead all wolf management in Montana. Wolves can now be legally hunted or trapped, with mortality quotas set and managed by MFWP.

The wolf population within the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS has at least 1,651 wolves in 244 packs, and 111 breeding pairs (Sime et al. 2011). The Montana wolf population increased about 8 percent from 2009 to 2010. A total of 108 verified packs of 2 or more wolves yielded a minimum count of 566 wolves in Montana. Thirty-five packs qualified as a breeding pair according to the federal recovery definition (an adult male and female with two surviving pups on December 31).

On the LNF, at least 16 wolf packs were documented using the Forest for all or a portion of their home range, with wolves distributed across virtually every known mountain range on the Forest (Sime et al. 2011).

Wolves have not been documented in or near (within several miles of) the existing or proposed MSB SUP; however, wolves may be present as transient individuals dispersing from multiple packs in the surrounding area (MFWP 2009; Bradley 2010 personal communication, PBS&J). Because wolves continually expand and/or shift their ranges, they may form packs that utilize the proposed expansion area as part of their home range.

Wolves are considered habitat generalists that use a diversity of forested and grassland habitats, but tend to avoid areas with heavy human use (summarized in USDA 2010d). Vegetative cover affects wolf survival by providing shelter for prey species such as deer and elk. In general, healthy wolves need little cover.

Key components of gray wolf habitat are: sufficient year-round prey base of deer, elk, moose, and alternative prey; suitable and somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites; and sufficient space with minimum exposure to humans. Wolves are social animals that form packs organized around a breeding pair. Depending on the prey base, packs maintain exclusive territories from 40 to 1,000 square miles (USDA 2010d). Wolves usually den in underground burrows dug in steep slopes. The wolf pack moves from dens to rendezvous sites pups reach 6 to 10 weeks old. Rendezvous sites are gathering areas where pups stay while the pack hunts.

No known denning or rendezvous sites occur in or near MSB. Ungulate prey within the proposed expansion area includes elk, whitetail deer, mule deer, and moose. Wolf sightings are widely reported throughout the Ninemile, Mission, and Bitterroot valleys and surrounding area.

Final EIS 3-68 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fisher (Sensitive)

Fishers were petitioned for listing as a threatened or endangered species in February 2009. In March 2011, the USFWS determined that listing was not warranted (76 FR 38504, June 30, 2011). Fishers are considered a Montana state species of concern, yet they are also classified as a furbearer and as such population numbers are managed by MFWP. The species is legally trapped under a limited quota system, allowing for take of 7 individuals statewide, 5 of which are allowed in Trapping District 2 that encompasses the analysis area. Trapping records for District 2 show 80 individual fisher harvested from 1994 through 2009 (MFWP 2009). In 2008–2009, a sub-quota of 2 female fishers was instituted to aid in conserving breeding females. Numbers of juvenile fisher harvested, which are used to estimate population demographics, have remained stable (MFWP 2009).

Research to determine distribution and abundance using DNA analysis of hair has been ongoing in Region One of the Forest Service since 2006–2007 (Schwartz et al. 2007). In total, the LNF has surveyed 66 of 159 (42 percent), 5 mile by 5 mile survey grid cells at least once (24 cells were surveyed multiple times); representing about half of the LNF’s more than 2 million acres. Preliminary results have documented fisher presence scattered across 4 of 5 Ranger Districts on the Forest (2007–2012 monitoring report in project file).

The estimated critical habitat threshold for maintaining a minimum viable population of fisher across all of Region 1 is 100,078 acres (Samson 2006b.). Conservative estimates of fisher habitat on the LNF using Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data show that fisher habitat is relatively abundant comprising 530,782 acres in winter and 159,136 acres in summer (Samson 2006b). Thus, habitat on the LNF appears more than sufficient to maintain fisher viability Forest-wide.

Fisher have not been documented within the analysis area; however, given the patchy distribution of fisher habitat and the difficulty in surveying for the species one cannot assume that fisher are not present in the analysis area from time to time, given that habitat is present.

The home range of fishers varies in size from 7 to 32 square miles (average female range is 7 to 12 square miles) (Foresman 2001), wherein optimum habitat includes mature, moist coniferous forest with a woody debris component, particularly in riparian/forest ecotones in low- to mid-elevation areas that do not accumulate large amounts of snow (Jones and Garton 1994; Heinemeyer 1993; Ruggiero et al. 1994). A review of fisher research suggests that the species uses a diversity of tree age and size class distributions at the patch or stand level that provide sufficient (generally greater than 40 percent) overhead cover (either tree or shrub). Based on limited research, fishers in northwestern Montana were most often found in moist grand fir and cedar habitat types (Heinemeyer 1993). Bianci (1989) believes the best fisher habitat sare multi-aged stands interspersed with small openings and containing riparian habitats. Complex understory structure with abundant woody debris may also be an important habitat factor. The fisher feeds on a variety of prey including snowshoe hares, porcupines, carrion, squirrels, small mammals, and birds (Bianci 1989; Powell and Zielinski 1994).

The species is thought to be limited by high elevation and deep snows although thresholds beyond which the species does not occur have not been determined. In winter, Heinemeyer (1993) found reintroduced populations of fisher in northwest Montana remained on flat slopes near water at lower elevations. In summer, Jones and Garton (1994) found 90 percent of the observations recorded for 17 radio collared animals (9 male and 7 female) introduced into north

Final EIS 3-69 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment central Idaho in mature and old-growth forests, whereas in winter young and mature forests were used equally.

Documented den sites have occurred in cavities of live or dead trees in forested areas with some structural diversity (forb/shrub cover, downed wood, multiple forest canopy layers) that maintain a prey base of snowshoe hare, porcupine, and a variety of small mammals (Powell and Zielinkski 1994).

Large patches of optimum fisher habitat in the analysis area occur adjacent to riparian areas associated with the Butler, Grant, and La Valle Creek drainages. At lower elevations, adjacent to private lands, the remaining fisher habitat is distributed in smaller patches in narrow drainages surrounded by the drier habitat types that fisher tend to avoid (Jones and Garton 1994). Given the narrow distribution of moist habitats (influenced by elevation, aspect, and topography), the entire analysis area has the potential to support a portion of about one female home range (4,480 to 20,480 acres, Foresman 2012, compared to available forest shown in Table 3-18).

Table 3-18 shows acres of fisher habitat in the analysis area, and Figure 3-10 provides a map display. Criteria for estimating habitat were, based on science, adapted from FIA models developed by Samson (2006b, including scientific references) for fisher in the Northern Rockies using standard methods developed by the Region 1 Vegetation Analysis Team (methods in project file). In general, habitats include a variety of mature (overstory greater than 15-inch diameter at breast height, depending on the habitat type) and older, moist coniferous and deciduous forest habitat types at low-to mid-elevations with at least 40 percent canopy cover. Potential future habitat includes moist coniferous forest types at mid-to low-elevations, where stand structure does not meet the canopy cover or size class requirements; but may grow into fisher habitat in the future. Habitat use in summer appears more restricted to riparian corridors compared to a broader range of habitat use in winter. Suitable winter habitat comprises 37 percent of the total acres of potential fisher habitat in the analysis area; whereas summer habitat comprises 19 percent. The Butler Creek Sub-watershed has the highest amount (47 percent in winter); whereas La Valle Creek has the lowest (27 percent).

Table 3-18. Fisher Habitat in MSB Analysis Area1 Summer (% of Winter2 (% of Total Total Sub-watershed Potential Future total fisher) total fisher) Fisher Forested 300 + 240 = 540 Butler Creek 300 (26) 605 1,145 2,428 (47) 838 + 733 = 1,571 Grant Creek 838 (19) 2,789 4,360 9,295 (36) 161 + 146 = 307 La Valle Creek 146 (13) 811 1,118 2,034 (27) 1,134 + 1,284 = Total 1,284 (19) 4,204 6,623 13,757 2,418 (37) 1 Sum acres by sub-watershed on Forest Service land only 2 Winter = summer (also used by fisher in winter) + winter only habitats

Existing habitat security on Forest Service lands, measured by road densities that in turn influence access within the analysis area, is low in the upper Butler and La Valle Creek and lower Grant Creek because of the existing MSB operations and road access, as well as private

Final EIS 3-70 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment land development and use. Conversely, security is high in upper Grant Creek that includes a portion of the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area. Snowmobile use, which can facilitate access during the late big game rifle and furbearer trapping seasons, is limited to non-existent in the Grant Creek area, but does occur in upper La Valle and Butler Creeks in association with operation of the MSB ski area.

Figure 3-10. Fisher Habitat

Northern Bog Lemming (Sensitive)

Northern bog lemmings are typically associated with wetland habitats, especially sphagnum or fen habitats with spruce/fir, birch/willow, and sedge/spike rush communities. They feed on grasses, mosses, sedges, and other herbaceous vegetation. There is no suitable habitat for bog lemmings in the proposed expansion area; consequently, this species is not analyzed further as the project would have no impact on bog lemming.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Sensitive)

Townsend’s big-eared bats range throughout the western half of North America and south into central Mexico. State records suggest that Townsend’s big-eared bat is distributed state-wide except for the northeastern prairie pothole region (Available at http://fieldguide.mt.gov). The

Final EIS 3-71 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment species is considered globally secure in population and numbers (G4), but locally imperiled in the state of Montana due to its rare and localized occurrence throughout its range as well as specialized habitat needs (MNHP 2009). Only two confirmed breeding colonies exist in Montana, as well as several confirmed hibernacula sites.

During a randomized, grid-based survey conducted at 50 locations (20 west of the Continental Divide and 30 east of the Divide) distributed across five National Forests in Region 1, two of 795 individual bats captured from late June to mid-August 2005 were Townsend’s big-eared bats (Hendrickson and Maxell 2005). Inventory efforts suggest the species occurs in low densities with confirmed reproductive activities on National Forest System lands.

Townsend’s big-eared bat is associated with cavernous habitat and rocky outcrops of sedimentary rock such as limestone as well as old-growth forests with large diameter hollow trees for roosting. Maternity colonies occur in warm areas of caves, mines, or occasional buildings, and hibernacula occur in caves or mines with winter temperatures at 35 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit and relative humidity greater than 50 percent (Hart et al. 1998). In general, the big- eared bat prefers to roost alone or in small clusters. Because these bats hang exposed from cave or mine ceilings, they are very sensitive to disturbance. Just entering a maternity area may cause the bats to abandon the site. Repeated disturbance during hibernation can cause the bats to wake up, use up limited fat reserves, and starve before spring. Identifying these sites and protecting them is the first step in bat conservation.

This species feeds on a variety of nocturnal flying insects, specializing primarily on moths, often near foliage, with a few reports of gleaning directly from foliage. Foraging habitats are poorly understood but are known to be variable. Riparian areas and wet meadow habitat appears important for foraging.

A review of geologic maps and a discussion with the LNF soil scientist revealed that limestone parent soils with cave-forming potential for bats are not present within the analysis area (Carlson, T., pers. com.). Further, there are no known mines or adits. The best known, high quality habitat for this species on the LNF occurs on the Superior and Plains/Thomson Falls Ranger Districts.

Riparian foraging habitat for bats is available in wet meadow and riparian areas distributed throughout the analysis area. Cave and abandoned mine roosting habitat has not been documented. The analysis area provides the bat with mature and older tree size classes with high canopy cover for snag roosting (See Brewer 2013, in project file, for snag habitat data). No surveys were conducted for this species in association with the proposed project.

Coeur d’Alene Salamander (Sensitive)

Coeur d’Alene salamanders occur only in northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. Habitat for this species is limited to moist habitats such as springs and waterfalls, with deep cracks in rocks. These salamanders appear to favor moss mats or rock fragments for daytime refuge and hibernate underground in rock fractures or under large boulders. There is no suitable habitat for Coeur d’Alene salamanders in the proposed expansion area; consequently, this species is not analyzed further as the project would have no impact to Coeur d’Alene salamander.

Final EIS 3-72 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Northern Leopard Frog (Sensitive)

Northern leopard frogs occur in or near water in non-forested habitats, preferring densely vegetated areas. Breeding occurs in lakes, ponds (temporary or permanent), springs, and backwaters of streams. Once widespread in Montana, northern leopard frogs appear to be extinct over much of western Montana, west of the Continental Divide (Maxell et al. 2003). According to Maxell et al. (2003), this species is currently known to inhabit only two sites west of the Continental Divide. There is no suitable breeding habitat for this species in the proposed expansion area; consequently, this species is not analyzed further as the project would have no impact to the Northern leopard frog.

Boreal/Western Toad (Sensitive)

In Montana, western toads have been reported in a broad range of forested and non-forested habitats and water bodies at nearly all elevations. Based on survey and observation data in Montana (MNHP 2013), the boreal toad has a wide distribution across the western third of the state, and observations are documented frequently, including on the LNF (Maxell 2003, 2004). Few breeding populations were documented during surveys conducted on six National Forests in Montana, suggesting a population decline (Werner et al. 2004). Declines have also been noted in adjacent states (Reichel and Flath 1995). There are no clear reasons for these declines, with possible causes ranging from acid rain, pesticides, and parasites to ozone depletion, and climate change (i.e., Blaustein et al. 2005; Hossack et al. 2006; and Reading 2006). Declines have even been noted in remote locations such as wilderness areas and national parks.

Limited surveys have not document western toads in the analysis area. Toads have been recorded in Rattlesnake Creek, about six miles southeast of the existing MSB SUP Boundary, by MFWP in September 2008 (MNHP Tracker database accessed January 2013).

Breeding habitats used by western toads in Montana are similar to those reported for other regions, and include low elevation beaver ponds, reservoirs, streams, marshes, lake shores, potholes, wet meadows, and marshes, to high elevation ponds, fens, and tarns at or near tree line (Werner et al. 1998). Eggs and larvae develop in still, shallow areas of ponds, lakes, or reservoirs or in pools of slow-moving streams, often where there is sparse emergent vegetation. Boreal Toads typically breed shortly after snowmelt in montane habitats in the Rocky Mountains (Carey et al. 2005), which can be from May to July in Montana (Werner et al. 2004).

Forest cover around occupied montane wetlands appears important for juvenile and adult toads where these animals seek shelter in burrows dug by other animals or under logs and rocks. They also occur in urban settings, sometimes congregating under streetlights at night to feed on insects (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AAABB01030.aspx, P. Hendricks personal observation). Normally they remain fairly close to ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and slow-moving rivers and streams during the day, but may range across the uplands widely at night.

Studies of overland movement have been done in other regions, but are limited in this part of the species range. Schmetterling and Young (2008) studied stream and overland movement patterns of boreal toad from early July through late August in the West Fork Bitterroot River Basin, about 55 miles south of MSB . They found that toads used stream channels as movement corridors more often than travelling overland, a factor unnoticed in previous studies. They also found that juvenile and adults exchanged basins, moving up to 2 miles away from

Final EIS 3-73 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment where the toads were originally captured. Schmetterling and Young (2008) suggest that toads travel to areas to over winter near sites that will provide breeding habitat in the spring. Western toads have been documented hibernating in terrestrial burrows or cavities, near breeding sites apparently where conditions prevent freezing (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AAABB01030.aspx). The diet of Montana adults includes five insect orders; spiders, daddy longlegs, and millipedes, with ants and ground beetles as common items.

The LNF provides abundant high and low elevation lake, pond, and stream habitat for boreal toads distributed across all five ranger districts. In the analysis area, year-round small lakes, ponds, or wetlands are absent within the existing or proposed MSB SUPs. A year-round, lake does occur in upper Grant Creek, northeast of MSB. In addition, habitat for toads occurs in slow moving portions of Butler, La Valle and Grant Creeks, from the headwaters on Forest Service lands to the stream confluences with the Clark Fork River on private lands. Given toad biology and documentation of toads in adjacent watersheds, the potential for boreal toad presence in the analysis does exist.

Northern Goshawk (MIS)

Analysis of data from 17 states comprising 222 million acres indicated “that the goshawk population is well-distributed and stable at the broadest scale” (63 FR 35183 (June 29, 1998)). Based on this information and Region-wide surveys, the goshawk was removed from the sensitive species list in Region 1 but the species is still considered a MIS for mature forests on the LNF.

The goshawk is found throughout North America with breeding documented from Alaska to Newfoundland and south through the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Mountains, and into Mexico. In Region 1, the species breeds in mountainous or coniferous regions throughout western and southern Montana as well as north and north central Idaho. Goshawks winter throughout their breeding range with a portion of the population wintering outside regularly used areas. For example, wintering occurs in north central and eastern Montana but that area is not depicted as part of the species breeding range (Skaar 1996; Squires and Reynolds 1997).

According to NatureServe, the northern goshawk has a conservation status rank of G5. This indicates the species is globally secure (i.e., common, widespread and abundant.). The species is not considered a “species of greatest conservation need” by either the states of Montana or Idaho (Brewer 2013), and is not contained in either of the States’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS).

Based on recent broad-scale habitat and inventory and monitoring assessments conducted in Region 1, breeding goshawks and associated habitats appear widely distributed and relatively abundant on National Forest System lands (Samson 2006a and 2006b; Canfield 2006; Kowalski 2006). Not a single known nest site in Region 1 is isolated from other known nests by more than the goshawks’ estimated dispersal distance (Samson 2006a). The habitat threshold for maintaining a minimum viable population of goshawks across the entire Region is 30,147 total acres of post-fledging area habitat. All 12 National Forests in Region 1 contain estimated habitat amounts that far exceed the Region-wide estimate (Samson 2006b). The LNF contains 53,079 acres of post-fledging area habitat, about one and one-half times the amount needed Region-wide.

Final EIS 3-74 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

In a random sample of goshawks nesting in a heavily managed landscape in Region 1, monitoring data showed that reproductive rates for goshawks averaged 2.6 fledglings per nest with nest success above or well within the ranges reported in studies done in less-managed landscapes throughout the western United States, indicating goshawks do well here (Clough 2000).

Since 2005, the Forest Service has surveyed for goshawks at 3,592 broadcast calling stations, using well established survey protocols, covering 148,640 acres of mature and old growth forest, including portions of the analysis area for this project (See Figure 3-11 for the analysis area). A total of 47 goshawks have been detected during the breeding season, with 8 nest sites monitored for multiple years (2012 monitoring report in project file).

Surveys conducted in the analysis area in 2005 and 2006 (USDA 2012b) detected one adult goshawk, with no nest located. Based on these surveys and associated habitat information, goshawks likely use portions of MSB for foraging and possibly nesting.

Biological information for goshawks in Region 1 has been detailed in Samson (2006a) and Brewer et al. (2009). The northern goshawk occurs in a variety of forested areas throughout North America (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Some remain in a breeding area year-round, while others begin migration from breeding grounds in late September and continue through November (Ibid.). In winter, limited information indicates goshawks use a greater variety of habitats than in summer (Squires and Kennedy 2006).

Pair formation and nest building begins in early April and egg-laying occurs in April and May. The adult female typically defends the nest while males hunt for food. The young fledge off the nest in mid-to late-July, remaining in the territory until September when they disperse from the area, often traveling long distances. Territories range in size from 1,409 to 8,649 acres (Kennedy 2003). From one to five alternate nests are constructed by the northern goshawk within the home range.

Goshawk home ranges are believed to consist of at least three levels of habitat during the breeding season: the nest area (stand) that varies in shape and size (1 to 148 acres); post- fledging area of about 420 acres; and some amount of general habitat used for foraging, with the diversity of forest vegetative composition, age and structure increasing beyond the nest area (Reynolds et al 1992; Kennedy et al. 1994; McGrath et al. 2003; Squires and Kennedy 2006).

Because of wide-scale differences among geographic regions and scientific methodology in studies conducted in the interior Pacific Northwest, consistent and precise management recommendations for goshawks are not available; therefore, managers draw on Reynolds et al. (1992) recommendations as well as on more recent research (Squires and Kennedy 2006; Samson 2006a; and Brewer et al. 2007). The LNF and other Forests in Region 1 currently use the R1 Goshawk Overview as the guiding document for goshawk management in the Region (Brewer et al. 2007).

In its comprehensive status review of the species, the USFWS found that while the goshawk typically uses mature forests or larger trees for nesting habitat (the nest area), it is considered a forest habitat generalist, using a variety of types and ages. They found no evidence that the goshawk is dependent on large, unbroken tracts of “old-growth” or mature forest (63 FR 35183, June 29, 1998).

Final EIS 3-75 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-11. Goshawk Analysis Area

Final EIS 3-76 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The goshawk’s use of and dependence on mature forests has been debated and rebutted in the literature (e.g., Greenwald et al. 2005; Reynolds et al. 2005). “Due to frequent bias in goshawk nest detection methods…goshawk selection of mature forests [for nesting] over other forest stages has been demonstrated in only a few studies” (Squires and Reynolds 1997 and Clough 2000, both in Squires and Kennedy 2006 at p. 25). Moser (2007) found that 39 percent of post- fledgling areas in northern Idaho consisted of forested stands dominated by greater than 12- inch dbh trees and greater than 70 percent canopy cover, whereas in west central Montana, Clough (2000) found post-fledgling areas consisted of 11.3 percent mature, although 66 percent of Clough’s post-fledgling areas were comprised of stands dominated by greater than 5-inch dbh trees and greater than 50 percent canopy cover.

Goshawk hunt a variety of prey on the ground, on vegetation, and in the air including: tree squirrels (all forest types and canopy covers); ground squirrels (open grass/shrub, clearcut areas); rabbits and hares (seedling/saplings, meadow/forest and riparian/forest ecotones, and old-growth); songbirds; woodpeckers; and grouse species that rely on a variety of forested and non-forested habitats (Squires and Reynolds 1997; Squires and Kennedy 2006). Goshawks have also been reported feeding on carrion, including gut piles left by hunters. In west central Montana, snowshoe hares and red squirrels are used extensively (Clough 2000), and in Idaho ground squirrels appear important (Patla 1997).

Nesting habitat for goshawks was estimated using vegetation attributes collected from nest sites observed in the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecoprovince that encompasses the analysis area (Samson 2006a) using R1 VMap methods described in Brewer et al. (2007). The analysis area provides over 608 acres of nesting habitat for an average of 3 breeding pairs, assuming no overlap between breeding pairs and an average home range size of 5,000 acres (Reynolds et al. 1992) (Table 3-19, Figure 3-12). Note nesting habitat exceeds the recommendations of Reynolds et al. (1992) who suggest maintaining 180 acres of nesting habitat per 5,000-acre home range.

Table 3-19. Estimated Goshawk Nesting Habitat in MSB Analysis Area, Forest Service Lands Total Acres Nesting Nesting Estimated Nesting Acres Nesting Habitat Habitat Habitat Number of Recommended Sub-watershed in Sub- Existing Proposed Goshawk (Reynolds et al. watershed SUP SUP Home-ranges1 1992)2 Butler 133 44 15 — — Grant 421 0 0 — — La Valle Creek 54 0 43 — — Total 608 44 58 3 540

1 Assumed no overlap between breeding pair; 1,400 to 8,650 acres per home range reported by Reynolds et al. 1992; Hargis et al. 1994; Kennedy et al. 1994; Wisdom et al. 1999; and Moser 2007. Reynolds 5,000-acre average home range size used in home range calculation. 2 30 acres, 3 suitable and 3 replacement totaling 180 acres per home range from Reynolds et al. 1992.

Final EIS 3-77 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-20 displays the existing composition of home range foraging habitat in the analysis area by the dominant tree size class, plus herb/shrub dominant areas, sparse vegetation, and water. Habitat was quantified using R1 VMap methods detailed in Brewer et al. (2009) to produce a consistently derived habitat layer with an accuracy assessment (around 70 percent). The table also shows Reynolds et al. (1992) general recommendations for maintaining a mix of vegetation structural stages (VSS), which are analogous to dominant tree size classes. Note the percentages of dominant tree size classes and forested areas with greater than 50 percent canopy cover are nearly consistent with Reynolds’ recommendations.

Table 3-20. Composition of Goshawk Home Range Foraging Habitat by Sub-watershed, Forest Service Lands Sum Acres by Sub-watershed (6th Code HUC) Dominant Tree Size Total Reynolds et al. 1992 Butler Grant La Valle Class (inches dbh) All Percent Recommendations Creek Creek Creek HUCs DBH 0-4.9" 320 497 147 964 8% 10% (VSS 2) DBH 5-9.9" 366 2,040 629 3,034 26% 20% (VSS 3) DBH 10-14.9" 703 3,266 688 4,657 40% 40% (VSS 4) DBH >= 15" 704 1,931 444 3,079 26% 20% (VSS 5, 6) Total Forested 2,093 7,734 1,908 11,735 — — Forested > 5” dbh and > 1,246 4,729 978 6,952 59% 50% 40% Canopy Cover Forested > 9.9” dbh and > 840 2,209 411 3,459 29% 40% canopy HERB/SHRUB 309 1,537 122 1,968 14% 10% (VSS1) SPVEG 26 23 5 54 — — WATER — 1 — 1 — — Grand Total 2,428 9,295 2,034 13,757

Final EIS 3-78 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-12. Goshawk Habitat

Pileated Woodpecker (MIS)

The pileated woodpecker, considered widespread and common in Montana (MNHP 2009) functions as an indicator of mature forest/snag habitats in the LNF Plan (USDA 1986). As such, the health of its population acts as an indicator of the condition of habitats for other wildlife species that use large snags and mature forests. Population monitoring data collected for breeding birds along random transects across Region 1 (including the LNF) from 1994 to 2000 show a clear upward trend in pileated woodpecker numbers, indicating viability is not a concern (http://www.birdsource.org/LBMP/). Monitoring data also indicate that pileated woodpeckers are relatively abundant and evenly distributed across the Forest and northwest Montana.

A pileated woodpecker was documented using the analysis area during 2006 summer field surveys (NRIS – WL data); and given the species’ even distribution across the LNF, the species is expected to occur throughout the analysis area year-round.

Samson (2006a and 2006b) documented biological information for the pileated woodpecker in Region 1. Although the pileated woodpecker is most often associated with mature forests (Conner et al. 1976; Conner 1980), it is able to do well in young and fragmented forests (Mellen

Final EIS 3-79 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment et al. 1992), including forested areas with just 10 percent forest cover (Bonar 2001). The nest tree is the most important variable for predicting nesting habitat (Giese and Cuthbert 2003). In Montana, the species selects western larch for nesting more frequently than other tree species, followed by ponderosa pine, black cottonwood, aspen, western white pine, and Douglas-fir (McClelland and McClelland 1999). Nest tree diameters are generally larger than 15 inches (McClelland and McClelland 1999), and winter roost trees are generally larger than 10 inches (Bonar 2001). These woodpeckers excavate a new nest cavity each year and reuse of old cavities is rare. As year-round residents, winter roosts are important and appear to be in habitats similar to those used during the breeding season. In winter, the pileated excavates relatively sound wood around the base of a tree in search of carpenter ants (Conner 1981). Feeding trees may be of any species but are generally considered to be greater than 10 inches dbh (Aney and McClelland 1990).

The pileated woodpecker’s range extends from central British Columbia south into northern California, east from Idaho across North Dakota and west from a general line descending south from Minnesota to eastern Texas. This species is not considered to be migratory and is most often associated with mature forests across its range. The presence of large trees for nesting is considered more important than forest age and the species appears to do well in young and fragmented forests with abundant remnant older structure (Mellen et al. 1992). Territory size varies considerably, ranging from 700 to 1,557 acres for breeding pairs (Bull and Holthausen 1993).

Nesting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpecker was estimated using vegetation attributes collected from nest sites observed in the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecoprovince that encompasses the analysis area (Samson 2006a) using R1 Vegetation Analysis Group methods described in (USDA 2011c). Given all past activities, the majority of Forest Service lands, 13,159 of 13,757 acres, in the analysis area provide the woodpecker with foraging habitat with 3,079 of those acres suitable for nesting (Table 3-21). Assuming a territory size that ranges from 600 to 1,557 acres (Ibid.), with no overlap between individual territories, the analysis area could support, conservatively, from 5 to 13 territories.

Table 3-21. Pileated Woodpecker Habitat in Analysis Area by Sub-watershed Acres Nesting Acres Total Acres FS Total Acres Sub-watershed and Foraging Foraging lands only Foraging Potential1 Habitat Only Butler Creek 2,428 703 704 1,408 539 Grant Creek 9,295 3,266 1,931 5,197 1,361 La Valle Creek 2,034 688 444 1,131 445 Total LNF 13,757 3,079 4,657 7,736 2,344 1 Does not meet nesting/foraging habitat criteria but may grow into nesting foraging in the future.

Elk (MIS)

The LNF works with MFWP to manage habitat in elk management units (or elk herd units) defined in the Montana Elk Management Plan (MFWP 2005b). The MSB analysis area is located in the Garnet Elk Management Unit (EMU; MFWP 2005b).

Final EIS 3-80 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The Forest Service Manual directs National Forests to manage for species that are in demand for hunting (FSM 2601.2, 2602, and 2603), and the Lolo Forest Plan contains standards for big game management. The analysis area also contains Forest Plan MAs 18 and 23, which are managed as critical elk winter range. Forest Plan standards for project level planning in critical elk winter range emphasize habitat improvement and tree retention to maintain a balance of forage and cover (Table 3-22). The existing and proposed MSB SUP are not inside MA 18 or 23.

Table 3-22. Forest Plan Management Area Standards for Big Game Winter and Summer Range Sum Acres by Sub-watershed (6th Code HUC) Management Forest Plan Standards for Wildlife La Area Butler Grant Grand Valle Creek Creek Total Creek Timber harvest will be employed to improve or maintain big game winter range (C.3. p. III-83). MA 18 – below Retain as a minimum 50:50 cover forage ratio. 5,000 feet, south The majority of cover should be thermal cover, slopes, winter that is, trees greater than or equal to 40 feet tall 0 352 23 375 range for big with a crown density greater than or equal to 50 game, suitable percent (C.7. III-84). for timber Dead and down trees may be salvaged as constrained by habitat needs of cavity nesting wildlife (C.21. p. III-85). Timber harvest will be employed to improve or maintain big-game winter range (C.3. p. 113). Retain as a minimum a 50:50 cover: forage MA 23 – winter ratio. The majority of cover should be thermal range, moderate cover, that is, trees greater than or equal to 40 visual sensitivity, 415 420 22 857 feet tall with a crown density greater than or suitable for equal to 50 percent (C.6. p. 113). timber Dead or down trees may be salvaged as constrained by habitat needs for cavity nesting wildlife species. (C.17. p. III-114). Livestock grazing will be regulated so as to not conflict with critical elk summer range values (C1 p. III-135). Road construction will be permitted to meet wildlife habitat objectives and to provide access MA 26 – Elk to adjacent management areas. Roads will be 12 12 Summer Range closed to the public during periods of high anticipated big-game use (usually August I through September 30). Local roads rather than collector roads will be preferred for accessing these sensitive areas (C5 p. III-136).

Final EIS 3-81 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The analysis area is part of Hunting District 283, which is part of the Garnet Elk Management Unit (EMU) (MFWP 2005b). Until 2007, the elk population in the Garnet EMU was at or near modern highs, particularly in the Grant Creek/North Hills area of the Missoula Valley. From 2007 to 2010 the elk population stabilized (V. Edwards 2011 personal communication, PBS&J). Currently, an estimated 3,000 elk reside in this unit. Population objectives for the EMU are to maintain 1,900 to 2,500 elk observed during post-season aerial surveys (MFWP 2005b).

Elk are common in the higher elevations in the analysis area in summer, including the existing and MSB SUPs. In winter, snow accumulations drive elk to lower elevations, with most of the resident elk herd moving to private lands in Missoula’s Grant Creek/North Hills area. The Grant Creek/North Hills elk grew at the rate of 15 to 18 percent per year from 1998 to 2010; and an average rate of 11 percent from 1980 to 2010. This rate of population growth is substantial and poses management conflicts with ranchers (Henderson 2006 personal communication, Edwards 2011 personal communication, PBS&J).

Elk winter range areas that are under MFWP jurisdiction encompass all non-Forest Service lands (21,556 of 35,332 acres) in the analysis area (Table 3-22). On Forest Service lands, 1,232 acres are managed as crucial big game winter range (Table 3-21). Actual winter range covers the entire North Hills of the Missoula Valley in the foothills of Grant Creek, La Valle Creek, and Butler Creek. Designated elk migration habitat is present to the north and west of MSB, connecting the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area with the Evaro area on the Flathead Indian Reservation.

3.5.4.3 Big Game Animals

Other big game animals that were identified as a concern during public scoping include mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, black bear, and mountain lions. The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) identified elk as the management indicator for commonly hunted species, because elk have a wide distribution and use seasonal habitat components that encompass all of the above species ranges.

Mule Deer

Mule deer are distributed throughout Montana and are found in open forested regions, plains, and prairies. They commonly inhabit foothill, coulee, or riparian areas within a grassland or shrubland habitat type. Mule deer can also be found in alpine, subalpine, montane, and foothill zones (Foresman 2001). In seasonally harsh environments, such as western and central Montana, mule deer migrate between seasonal ranges. Winter range is associated with areas accumulating minimal amounts of snow and tends to occur at low elevation, south and west facing slopes, and wind-blown ridges. Winter range is particularly important for maintaining healthy mule deer populations because of reductions in high-quality forage, cold temperatures, and increased energy demand associated with the winter season which stresses populations.

Mule deer browse species such as bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, and deciduous shrubs. Forbs and herbaceous plants become an important part of their diet in late spring and summer, while shrubs are critical in the fall and winter. Mule deer are common in the proposed expansion area, using all habitats in summer and moving to lower elevations in winter (Figure 3-13). The lower south and southwest slopes of the proposed expansion area provide winter range for mule deer during years of low snow accumulation. During years of high snowfall, mule deer move out of the proposed expansion area to lower areas.

Final EIS 3-82 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-13. Mule Deer Ranges

Final EIS 3-83 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

White-tailed Deer

White-tailed deer occur throughout Montana and are adapted to a variety of habitats (Foresman 2001). They are common along river bottoms and adjacent uplands. White-tailed deer prefer grasses and forbs during spring and early summer, and then switch to new-growth leaves and twigs of small trees and shrubs. Browse is very important for white-tailed deer year-round. White-tailed deer are present in the proposed expansion area and existing SUP area in summer, and like mule deer, move to lower elevations in winter.

Moose

Moose are closely associated with densely forested and riparian habitats and depend upon woody vegetation, preferably in early successional stages that occur following disturbances (Foresman 2001). They tend to use mountain meadows, river valleys, wetlands, and clear cut areas in the summer and utilize willow flats and mature coniferous forests in the winter. They prefer feeding on forbs and aquatic or woody vegetation depending on the season. Low numbers of moose may periodically be present in the proposed expansion area and existing SUP area (Figure 3-14).

Black Bear

Black bears use a variety of habitats depending on seasonal variation in diet and availability of food. Black bears are omnivorous; however, a significant portion of their diet consists of berries, fruits, grasses, sedges and inner bark. They prefer dense forested areas, riparian areas, open slopes and mountain meadows (Foresman 2001). Black bears are periodically present in the proposed expansion area and existing SUP area. There have been incidents of black bears being attracted to garbage at MSB (Jonkel 2006 personal communication). In 2011, the LNF instituted a mandatory wildlife attractant storage order, which applies to Forest Service lands in the analysis area (as previously discussed under Grizzly Bear).

Mountain Lion

Mountain lions are distributed throughout western Montana where suitable habitat is present. They use a variety of vegetation types, depending on prey availability, cover and preference for areas with minimal human disturbance. Mountain lions typically prefer mountainous and foothill areas. Mountain lions are carnivorous and feed on a variety of animals; however, they prefer deer and elk. Mountain lions are periodically present in the proposed expansion area and existing SUP area when their favored prey, deer and elk, are present.

Final EIS 3-84 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-14. Moose Distribution

Final EIS 3-85 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.5.4.4 Neotropical Migratory Birds

Neotropical migratory birds migrate each year between temperate breeding areas and tropical winter habitats. Nearly half of the birds that breed in North America migrate to the neotropics. Most of these migrants depend on forests and woodlands for breeding habitat, wintering habitat, or both. Species groups composing neotropical migrants include warblers, flycatchers, hummingbirds, vireos, thrushes, swallows, sparrows, and finches. The loss of nesting habitat and associated fragmentation effects are thought to be a major cause of population declines among migratory birds.

Population trends for many neotropical migrants have declined in recent decades in the U.S. and Canada. Losses of nesting habitat in northern latitudes and wintering habitat in the tropics and forest fragmentation have been the major causes of these declines.

Neotropical migrants that may breed in the analysis area include olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, calliope hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, red-naped sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, ruby-crowned kinglet, Swainson’s thrush, American robin, Townsend’s warbler, western tanager, and chipping sparrow. These species nest in trees and shrubs in conifer forests. Some construct nests in branches of trees and shrubs while others (e.g., sapsuckers) occupy cavities in snags and larger trees.

3.5.4.5 Biodiversity

Biodiversity is a measure of the variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (Langner and Flather 1994). Biodiversity is often interpreted as a measure of biological complexity and variation within habitats and ecosystems. The FSM mainly addresses biodiversity through existing guidelines for TES, maintaining wildlife populations, and MIS. Those issues are discussed in other sections of this EIS.

3.5.4.6 Wildlife Movement Corridors and Linkage Zones

Areas of wildlife movement have been collectively referred to as “linkage zones” and movement corridors. Servheen et al. (2003) have defined linkage zones as broad areas of seasonal habitat where animals find food, shelter, and security; whereas, corridors are areas through which animals move, but do not necessarily meet the seasonal habitat needs of particular species (Servheen et al. 2003). The Forest Service (no date) has identified the following five types of wildlife corridors: biogeographic, seasonal, dispersal and emigration, travel, and invasive (Table 3-23). Others, including American Wildlands (Walker and Craighead 1997) have used the terms “corridor” and “linkage zone” interchangeably.

Table 3-23. Types of Wildlife Corridors Type of Corridor Number of Species Spatial Scale Function Many and often unrelated Continental and Evolution and Biogeographic taxa transcontinental distribution Continental, Behavioral and Groups of related species Seasonal transcontinental, local, physiological for and single species and elevational ecological survival

Final EIS 3-86 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-23. Types of Wildlife Corridors Type of Corridor Number of Species Spatial Scale Function Use unoccupied Dispersal and habitats, maintain Populations Varies by species emigration current habitat, optimal fitness Daily life history Travel Individual Within a home range requirements Extend ranges of Invasive Exotic and alien species All scales non-native species

Wildlife travel corridors are a component of habitat for a variety of species. Corridors are travel routes used by wildlife to allow them to disperse to new core areas. Corridors allow seasonal movements between summer and winter ranges for species such as elk and deer and are also important for movement of young animals dispersing to new territories.

Habitat fragmentation and isolation of populations as a result of degradation or elimination of corridors can result in small, vulnerable populations. Isolated populations are more vulnerable to stochastic events and can be negatively impacted by inbreeding depression. Habitat fragmentation is a common concern for natural resource planners because the fragmentation of habitat results in the loss of habitat and ultimately may impact the viability of populations. The primary causes for habitat fragmentation are activities such as road building, recreation, and residential and commercial developments.

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) identified approaches to managing wildlife linkage areas on public lands (IGBC 2004). Some of their recommendations for management include:

 Maintain appropriate amounts and distribution of natural foods and hiding cover in linkage zones to meet the subsistence and movement needs of target wildlife species.  Avoid constructing new recreation facilities or expanding existing facilities within linkage zones.  Avoid other (non-recreational) new site development or expansions that are not compatible with subsistence and movement need of target species in linkage zones.  Pursue mitigating, moving, and/or reclaiming developments and disturbed sites that conflict with the objective of providing wildlife linkage.  Manage dispersed recreation use to maintain suitability of approach areas for identified target species. Avoid issuing new permits or additional use days for recreational activities that may conflict with wildlife linkage objectives.  Manage roads and trails in linkage zones to facilitate target species movement and limit mortality risk, displacement, and disturbance.  Manage livestock grazing to maintain wildlife forage and hiding cover and to minimize disturbance, displacement, and mortality of target wildlife species.  Work with adjacent landowners, planners, and other interested parties to improve linkage opportunities across multiple jurisdictions.  Manage human, pet and livestock foods, garbage, and other potential wildlife attractants to minimize the risk of conflicts between people and wildlife.

Final EIS 3-87 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Limited research has been conducted on wildlife use of corridors within the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. Walker and Craighead (1997) identified potential corridors in Montana using geographic, topographic, and vegetation for “umbrella” species. The umbrella species they selected included grizzly bears, elk, and mountain lions. They identified corridors that had the highest likelihood of successful transfer between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. Portions of MSB are mapped by American Wildlands (Walker and Craighead 1997) as hypothetical movement corridors for grizzly bears and other wildlife (Figure 3-15). Movement corridors identified by American Wildlands were delineated on structural features of habitat and do not consider documented use by grizzly bears or other wildlife.

Although empirical data concerning wildlife use of the MSB area for movement is nearly non- existent, regional observations made by biologists from MFWP (Jonkel 2006 personal communication) indicate that the area shown by American Wildlands as lower-quality movement in the North Hills area of Missoula are important east-west movement areas for wolves and other wildlife. Also, the area between Evaro and the Rattlesnake Wilderness is a movement corridor identified by MFWP and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes as an important movement area for variety of wildlife including elk, black bear, and grizzly bear.

Grizzly bears have not been documented to use habitat at MSB or the proposed expansion area or to move through the area; however, they are present in the nearby Rattlesnake Wilderness, part of the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. Grizzly bear movement in the wilderness area likely includes the ridges and drainages, that trend westward from Point Six and Murphy Peak toward the Evaro area (Jonkel 2006 personal communication). Extensive movements of bears and other wildlife across Highway 93 in the Evaro area have been documented by biologists from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The area shown on Figure 3-6 as elk migration habitat also facilitates movement of grizzly bears.

The MSB and the proposed expansion area may be part of a linkage area through which elk and mule deer move seasonally between summer and winter ranges. Typically, elk and mule deer that spend the summer at higher elevations move down slope to winter in the North Hills of the Missoula Valley. Some animals probably move through the proposed expansion area in spring and late fall.

Final EIS 3-88 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-15. Wildlife Connectivity

Final EIS 3-89 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.6 FISHERIES

3.6.1 Standards Applicable to Fisheries

The Clean Water Act and Water Quality Limited (303d) Listings, National Nonpoint Source Policy, USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy, and NPDES standards are summarized in Section 3.3.

Endangered Species Act

The ESA provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The ESA is implemented by two federal agencies, the USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which have the ability to officially list plant and animal species as threatened or endangered. Section 7 of the ESA imposes an affirmative duty on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (including permitting) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or modification of their habitat. The only listed species occurring in the analysis area for fish and wildlife are bull trout, Canada lynx, and grizzly bear. Canada lynx and grizzly bear are discussed in Section 3.5.

National Forest Management Act

The NFMA requires the Forest Service to maintain the viability and habitat for native and desirable non-native species.

Lolo National Forest Plan

The Forest-wide management direction provides three goals pertinent to fisheries resources:

 Goal 2. Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species.  Goal 7. For threatened and endangered species occurring on the Forest…manage to contribute to the recovery of each species to non-threatened status.  Goal 8. Meet or exceed State water quality standards.

The objective of these goals is to provide habitat for viable populations of the diverse wildlife and fish species in the Forest through strong standards, quality research, and an extensive Monitoring Program that emphasizes protection of water quality and fishery habitat (USDA 1986; USDA 2002).

Research needs applicable to fisheries and water quality that are outlined in the Forest Plan state that the relationship of types and levels of instream sediment to fish habitat productivity potential, and the importance of fish habitat on the Forest to downstream waters, will be determined.

Forest-wide standards that apply to fisheries management are as follows:

 Standard 15. The application of BMPs will assure that water quality is maintained at a level that is adequate for the protection and use of the National Forest and that meets or exceeds federal and state standards (USDA 2002).

Final EIS 3-90 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

 Standard 17. A watershed cumulative effects analysis will be made of all projects involving significant vegetation removal prior to these projects being scheduled for implementation.  Standard 19. Human-caused increases in water (and sediment) yields will be limited so that channel damage will not occur as a result of land management activities.  Standard 27. If and when additional threatened and endangered species are identified, appropriate measures, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, will be taken to protect the species and its habitat consistent with national goals for species recovery to non-threatened status (USFWS 1998a, 1998b, 2002, and 2005). For plant and animal species that are not threatened or endangered, but where viability is a concern (i.e., sensitive species), manage to maintain population viability.  Standard 28. Land management practices will be designed to have a minimum impact on the aquatic ecosystem, free from permanent or long-term unnatural imposed stress. A long- term stress is defined as a downward trend of indicators such as aquatic insect density or diversity, fish populations, intragravel sediment accumulations, or channel structure changes that continue for more than one hydrologic year as determined by procedures outlined in the Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements.

In addition to these Forest-wide requirements, the Forest Plan emphasizes site-specific protection of fisheries and water quality through MA standards and guidelines (Section III.). The Proposed Action would change the designation to MA 8, which has a goal of providing opportunities for developed facilities to accommodate downhill skiing. No specific standards are identified for fish in MA 8.

MA 16 includes guidance for fish in Standard 7, which states, “Riparian vegetation, including overstory tree cover, will be managed along all perennial and intermittent streams with defined channels to maintain cover and temperatures for trout habitat, maintain streambank stability, and promote filtering of overland flows.” Standard 23 states, “Where needed, fish passage will be provided for in stream crossings by maintaining natural flow velocities and channel gradients existing at the crossing site.” Other standards are listed for MA 16 related to timber and road practices that would benefit fish but do not directly mention fisheries resources.

MA 25 includes guidance for fish in Standard 5, which states, “Riparian vegetation, including overstory tree cover, will be managed along all perennial and intermittent streams with defined channels to maintain cover and temperatures for trout habitat, maintain streambank stability, and promote filtering of overland flows.” Other standards are listed for MA 25 related to timber and road practices that would benefit fish but do not directly address fisheries resources.

Inland Native Fish Strategy

The INFISH amended the Forest Plan on August 30, 1995 (USDA 1995b). This interim strategy was designed to provide additional protection for existing populations of native trout, outside the range of anadromous fish, on 22 National Forests in the Pacific Northwest, Northern, and Intermountain Regions. Implementing this strategy was deemed necessary because these species were at risk due to habitat degradation, introduction of exotic species, loss of migratory forms, and over-fishing.

As part of this strategy, the Regional Foresters designated a network of priority watersheds. Priority watersheds are drainages that still contain excellent habitat or assemblages of native fish, provide for metapopulation objectives, or are watersheds that have excellent potential for

Final EIS 3-91 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment restoration. No priority watersheds are associated with the MSB fisheries analysis area (Section 3.6.3).

The INFISH also established RMO and RHCA. RMOs are habitat parameters that describe good fish habitat. Where site-specific data are available, these RMOs can be adjusted to better describe local stream conditions. RMOs for stream channel conditions provide the criteria against which attainment or progress toward attainment of riparian goals is measured. The LNF has developed site-specific RMOs for most of the habitat variables based on information collected in roadless watersheds (Riggers et al. 1998).

RHCAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. The RHCAs are defined for categories based on stream or waterbody, dependent on flow conditions and presence of fish. RHCAs are areas where specific management activities are subject to standards and guidelines in INFISH.

 300-Foot RHCA Buffer. For perennial, fish bearing streams, buffer shall extend on both sides of the stream and shall be at least 300 feet, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest.  150-Foot RHCA Buffer. (1) For perennial, non-fish bearing streams, buffer shall extend on both sides of the stream and shall be at least 150 feet, or to the outer edges of the 100-year flood plain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. (2) For wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs greater than 1 acre, buffer shall extend to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or 150-foot slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation on constructed ponds, lakes, or reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, whichever is greatest.  100-Foot RHCA Buffer. (1) For intermittent streams, buffer shall extend on both sides of the stream and shall be at least 100 feet, the distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or shall extend to the end of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. (2) For wetlands less than 1 acre, buffer shall extend to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or shall be at least 100 feet, or shall be the distance of one half of one site-potential tree, whichever is greatest.

The INFISH also states that the Forest Service shall, “Construct new, and improve existing, culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood...” (Standards and Guidelines, item RF-4).

Memorandum of Understanding for Westslope Cutthroat Trout

The MOU and Conservation Agreement for Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Montana was developed to expedite implementation of conservation measures for westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouveri) throughout their respective historical ranges in Montana. This MOU was a collaborative and cooperative effort among resource agencies, conservation and industry organizations, tribes, resource users, and private landowners. The MOU provides goals and objectives for conserving cutthroat trout in Montana.

The MOU’s management goals for cutthroat trout in Montana are to: (1) ensure the long-term, self-sustaining persistence of each subspecies distributed across their historical ranges as identified in status reviews; (2) maintain the genetic integrity and diversity of populations, as well

Final EIS 3-92 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment as the diversity of life histories, represented by remaining cutthroat trout populations; and (3) protect the ecological, recreational, and economic values associated with each subspecies.

Implementation of the MOU will be accomplished through regional and/or watershed scale conservation documents that will be developed locally for each subspecies. These documents will identify all known conservation populations (including their genetic status and rationale for their conservation designation), define potential short-term and long-term conservation strategies for maintaining and securing existing conservation populations, and collaboratively identify suitable areas for expansion, replication, and establishment of populations. Actual conservation project planning and implementation will be done at a local level, and these conservation plans will be collaborative efforts with public participation. For most conservation projects, a formal EIS will be prepared that details each project and encourages additional public participation to decide what actions are most appropriate.

3.6.2 Fisheries Methods

Information was gathered through field visits, literature searches, and discussions with personnel from the LNF, USFWS, and MFWP. Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan (especially MA descriptions), from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF fisheries specialists.

Field visits to assess channel conditions were conducted as shown in Table 3-24. Field visits provided an understanding of habitat conditions on both public and private property, enabled examination of changes in discharge, and provided knowledge for making determinations concerning alternatives and mitigation factors. During field visits, habitat conditions were documented for Butler Creek and La Valle Creek on public and private property. On LNF land, the channels were walked and photographed, but no habitat data were measured or recorded. On private property, channel conditions were evaluated where access was gained through permission or public road crossings. Only generalized notes were taken on channel condition because snow cover made assessments difficult.

Bank pins were installed on Butler Creek and La Valle Creek during one of the habitat field visits (Table 3-24). The pins were installed at the water surface and were used to check the wetted width of the channel. By recording changes in water surface elevations, potential changes in water use or management could be assessed. Bank pins were installed on Butler Creek just below the MSB parking lot. Pins were installed at the La Valle Creek Road bridge crossing due to a lack of access on private land. Access to LNF land on La Valle Creek during the winter was limited due to snow cover and road closures.

A wetted perimeter study was conducted for Butler Creek (Reiland 2008) below the MSB parking lot to assess changes in flows and habitat conditions. The wetted perimeter data were collected from summer/winter of 2008 (Table 3-24). Cross-section locations were established prior to Butler Creek reaching bankfull discharge (Figure 3-16). All instream flow measurements were recorded on the descending limb of the hydrograph to avoid changes in the channel’s cross-sectional profiles.

Final EIS 3-93 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-16. Wetted Perimeter Analysis Site Plan

Final EIS 3-94 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-24. Field Visit Summary

Season Date Location Action Summary Initial site visit; three Good habitat; good pools; badly 12/11/05 Butler Creek sites from parking lot constructed private road. to LNF boundary. Snow depth unchanged; 01/08/06 Butler Creek Install pins. excessive dirt from parking lot. No change in pins; private habitat Habitat on private and poor; eroding banks; overgrazed; 01/21/06 Butler Creek LNF land. development; Forest Service good habitat. Winter No change in pins; private habitat Habitat on private and poor; eroding banks; overgrazed; 01/21/06 La Valle Creek LNF land. fish passage questionable; Forest Service no access. 01/25/06 Butler Creek Check pins. No change in pins; raining. 01/25/06 La Valle Creek Check pins. No change in pins; raining. 02/11/06 Butler Creek Check pins. No change in pins. 02/11/06 La Valle Creek Check pins. No change in pins. 02/27/06 Butler Creek Check pins. No change in pins. Walk channel; assess LNF habitat good condition; 07/09/06 Butler Creek habitat. private degraded. Walk channel; assess LNF habitat good condition; Summer 08/05/06 Butler Creek habitat and road private degraded. crossings. Walk channel; assess LNF habitat good condition; 08/19/06 La Valle Creek habitat and roads. private degraded. Locate wetted perimeter sites 06/10/08 Butler Creek Site evaluation. with LNF Fish Biologist. Survey detailed cross-sectional 06/12/08 Butler Creek Survey cross-sections. profiles for each site. Summer/ Survey detailed cross-sectional 06/13/08 Butler Creek Survey cross-sections. Winter profiles for each site. Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure cross- 06/16/08 Butler Creek study. sections. Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure cross- 06/16/08 Butler Creek study. sections.

Final EIS 3-95 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-24. Field Visit Summary

Season Date Location Action Summary Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure cross- 08/18/08 Butler Creek study. sections. Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure cross- 09/17/08 Butler Creek study. sections. Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure cross- 10/30/08 Butler Creek study. sections. Summer/ Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure cross- 11/06/08 Butler Creek Winter study. sections. Wetted perimeter 11/14/08 Butler Creek Check flow levels; no change. study. Wetted perimeter 11/2908 Butler Creek Check flow levels; increasing. study. Wetted perimeter 12/12/08 Butler Creek Check flow levels; increasing. study.

The most difficult flow to capture was the low flow, or base flow, period during summer. Base flow was needed to set the lower limits of the wetted perimeter instream flow discharge and to develop the rating curve for the inflection point (McMahon et al. 1996; Reinfelds et al. 2004).

Butler Creek was divided into three sections based on channel characteristics (Figure 3-16). Cross-sections were located in each section. Section 1 was located by the MSB main parking lot. Section 2 was on LNF land immediately downstream of the private property in-holding below MSB. The lower location (Section 3) was established just upstream of the LNF boundary. In each section, five cross-sections were established. The cross-sections were located on low- gradient riffles with minimal instream disturbances to provide repeatable discharge measurements.

Detailed channel dimensions were recorded to develop cross-sectional profiles that extended above the bankfull discharge markers and onto the floodplain. On one transect in each section, six instream flow measurements were recorded using a Pigmy current meter on a top-setting wading rod. The flow measuring procedures outlined in the American Fisheries Society’s Techniques Manual were followed to maintain accuracy (McMahon et al. 1996).

3.6.3 Fisheries Analysis Area

The area of analysis for direct and indirect effects on fisheries resources is the proposed expanded SUP area on TV Mountain and the current water system that diverts from Butler Creek at the existing base area (Figure 1-1). The area of analysis for cumulative effects on fisheries resources also includes the La Valle Creek and Butler Creek watersheds.

3.6.4 Fisheries Affected Environment

Watershed Characteristics

The MSB and the proposed expansion area are located in two 6th HUCs: the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds (Figure 1-1). The Butler Creek and La Valle Creek basins are similar

Final EIS 3-96 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment in size and aspect (12.8 square miles and 13.5 square miles, respectively). Both creeks originate on LNF land, progress to private ownership, and are fragmented from the Clark Fork River due to development. These creeks are part of the 4th HUC watershed of the Middle Clark Fork River (NRCS 1995).

Butler Creek

Butler Creek is a third-order tributary to the Middle Clark Fork River, with a predominant southwest aspect. Its headwaters drain the existing SUP area. The base flow wetted width on LNF land is 8 feet with an average depth of 6 inches in riffles. The pool depths averaged 1 foot, which is typical for a small high gradient stream (5 percent gradient) (Gillin 2001). Butler Creek is formed by three, unnamed tributaries that join within the existing SUP area. These tributaries are high gradient (more than 5 percent), extremely small (less than 1 foot wide), and most likely do not contain fish (Gillin 2001). Photograph 3-8. Butler Creek C3/C4 Channel Type near the LNF Boundary Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1996), Butler Creek is a B3 channel at the MSB boundary and progresses to a C3/C4 channel near the Forest Service boundary (Photograph 3-8). The C3/C4 channel and the lower portion of B3 channel have a road paralleling the stream channel. This is an older road and is currently used by local residents as a trail. This road has two “ford” stream crossings and terminates near the state-owned section. This road is an indicator of past activities of anthropogenic use in proximity to Butler Creek. Past timber harvest along the riparian corridor is evident by the presence of older and decadent stumps. The C3/C4 channel appears to lack habitat complexity. The B3 channel, by nature, has a higher pool frequency. Pools are not only important for summer habitat but also for over-wintering habitat.

La Valle Creek

La Valle Creek is a third-order tributary to the Middle Clark Fork River. Its headwaters lie entirely on LNF land, and the east side of the watershed drains the existing SUP area. La Valle Creek has a predominant southwest aspect. The base flow wetted width 1 mile below the LNF boundary at the La Valle Creek Road bridge is 9 feet with an average depth of 6 inches in riffles. The pool depths at this location were 1 to 2 feet. The headwaters of La Valle Creek are classified as a B3 stream type, typical for a small high gradient stream (5 percent gradient) (Gillin 2001). La Valle Creek progresses to a C4 channel at the La Valle Creek Road bridge.

The headwaters of La Valle Creek follow the Point Six Road, which also separates the existing SUP area lands from LNF property. No perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral tributaries to La Valle Creek were found in the proposed expansion area.

Water Quality and Water Rights

The existing condition of water quality and water rights are described in Section 3.3.

Final EIS 3-97 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Quantity and Streamflows

Instream flow data were recorded over a 6-month period between June and November 2008 (Table 3-25). Butler Creek flows dropped quickly after the mid-June storms. By early July, Butler Creek had receded to its typical flows. Because Butler Creek had not reached its base flow by mid-September, flows were also recorded in October and November. The electronic counter for the Pigmy meter was not working properly after Section 1, Transect B; therefore, Sections 2 and 3 of the October flows were not used in the wetted perimeter analyses.

Base flow was reached in November 2008 and none of the channel’s inflection points were identified. The November Section 1 discharge was 0.04 cfs, or approximately 18 gpm. While this flow is extremely small, the channel’s wetted perimeter inflection point was not reached. Most of November’s flow in Butler Creek was coming from the small, unnamed tributary that enters Butler Creek via a culvert underneath the MSB parking lot. It was estimated that about 80 percent of Butler Creek’s flow was from this tributary. Butler Creek, below the parking lot’s culvert, would need to drop by another 50 percent, to 9 gpm, to reach an inflection point in this section of channel.

Table 3-25. Butler Creek Flows and Changes in Flows Discharge (CFS=Q) % Change In Flow (Section/Transect) Section to Section Date (2008) Q (1B) Q (2A) Q (3B) 1 to 2 2 to 3 1 to 3 June 16 19.00 24.85 27.71 131 112 146 July 16 0.88 1.941 2.47 217 129 281 August 18 0.27 0.86 1.14 319 133 422 September 17 0.18 0.55 0.76 306 138 422 October 30 0.07 — — — — — November 6 0.04 0.35 0.48 875 137 1200

The flows in Sections 2 and 3 were also at their lowest level in November, and no inflection points were reached. In Section 2, a 0.3-foot drop in water surface elevation would be needed to trigger the increased loss of habitat that is needed to develop an inflection point on a wetted perimeter graph (Nelson 1980; Stalnaker et al. 1995). In Section 3, the lower reach, the flow would need to be reduced by over half of the volume observed in November to reach its inflection point. After the November 6 instream flow measurements, flows steadily increased in Section 1 of Butler Creek.

Butler Creek is a gaining stream throughout the studied length (Table 3-25). Stream flow was the lowest immediately below the culvert that emerges from beneath the MSB parking lot (Section 1). Stream flows on the lower Butler Creek sections (Section 2 and Section 3) showed that the channel gained flow. No runoff entered Butler Creek from the parking lot to the LNF boundary during the summer. While Butler Creek’s stream flow dropped throughout the summer, groundwater input continued to supply additional water to the creek. As Butler Creek’s Section 1 discharge declined, the effects of this groundwater input also increased. Summertime flow in lower Butler Creek is predominately comprised of groundwater input; therefore, dewatering the headwaters of Butler Creek will not dewater its lower reaches where bull trout were found in 1997 (Section 3.6.4.3).

Final EIS 3-98 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The withdrawal of the existing water right for snowmaking, however, is likely negatively affecting over-wintering habitat conditions in Section 1 and the upper portion of Section 2. Table 3-25 shows that October and November flows in Sections 1 and 2 are negatively impacted by the withdrawal rate of 115 gpm (0.26 cfs). This existing condition is linked to the 1996 decision to allow snowmaking on Forest Service land (USDA 1996).

3.6.4.1 Species Descriptions and Habitat Requirements

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

 USFWS Status: Listed as a Threatened Species within the Columbia River Basin on July 10, 1998.  Forest Service Region 1 Status: Sensitive.  MFWP Status: Native Species of Special Concern.

Bull trout may be present in portions of the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds. Sections 3.6.4.3 and 3.6.4.4 provide more information about the potential presence of bull trout in Butler Creek and La Valle Creek.

Bull trout have two distinctive life forms: migratory and resident. Migratory bull trout are either fish that spend most of their adult lives in lakes (adfluvial) or rivers (fluvial) and migrate into tributaries to spawn. Resident bull trout generally spend their entire lives in the tributaries where they hatched. Resident bull trout are usually much smaller in size than their migratory counterparts (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group [MBTSG] 1998).

In Montana, most migratory bull trout spawn in a small percentage of the total stream habitat available. Spawning takes place between late August and early November, principally in third and fourth order streams. Spawning adults use low gradient areas (less than 2 percent) of gravel/cobble substrate with water depths between 4 and 24 inches and velocities from 0.3 to 2 feet per second. Proximity of cover for the adult fish before and during spawning is an important habitat component. Spawning tends to be concentrated in reaches influenced by groundwater where temperature and flow conditions may be more stable. Spawning habitat requirements of resident bull trout (non-migratory) are poorly documented (MBTSG 1998).

Successful incubation of bull trout embryos requires water temperatures below 46° F, less than 35 to 40 percent of sediments smaller than one quarter of an inch in diameter, and high gravel permeability. Eggs are deposited as deep as 9.8 inches below the streambed surface, and the incubation period varies depending on water temperature. Spawning adults alter streambed characteristics during redd construction to improve survival of embryos, but conditions in redds often degrade during the incubation period. Egg or fry mortality can be caused by scouring during high flows, freezing during low flows, superimposition of redds, or deposition of fine sediments or organic materials. A significant inverse relationship exists between the percentage of fine sediment in the incubation environment and bull trout survival to emergence. Entombment is a mortality factor in the incubation of bull trout eggs. Groundwater input influences embryo development and survival by mitigating mortality factors (MBTSG 1998).

Rearing habitat requirements for juvenile bull trout include cold summer water temperatures (less than 59° F) provided by sufficient surface and groundwater flows. Warmer temperatures are associated with lower bull trout densities and can increase the risk of invasion by other species that could displace, compete with, or prey on juvenile bull trout. Juvenile bull trout are generally benthic foragers and rarely stray from cover. Juvenile bull trout prefer complex forms

Final EIS 3-99 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment of cover to avoid predation. High sediment levels and embeddedness can result in decreased rearing densities. Unembedded cobble/rubble substrate is preferred for cover and feeding and also provides invertebrate production. Highly variable streamflow, reduction in large woody debris, bedload movement, and other forms of channel instability can limit the distribution and abundance of juvenile bull trout. The habitat characteristics that are important for juvenile bull trout of migratory populations are also important for the resident populations of bull trout in streams. However, resident adult bull trout are more strongly associated with deep pool habitats than are migratory juveniles (MBTSG 1998).

Seasonal and developmental habitat requirements influence the movements of both migratory and resident bull trout populations in streams. Migratory individuals can move great distances (up to 155 miles) among lakes, rivers, and tributary streams in response to spawning, rearing, and adult habitat needs. Stream-resident bull trout migrate within tributary stream networks for spawning purposes, as well as in response to changes in seasonal habitat requirements and conditions. Open migratory corridors, both within and among tributary streams, larger rivers, and lake systems are critical for maintaining bull trout populations (MBTSG 1998).

Most bull trout in the mainstem of the Clark Fork River are fluvial. Adult fish inhabit the mainstem of the Clark Fork River but migrate into tributary streams for spawning. Migration barriers (such as interstate bridges and irrigation withdrawals) fragment the mainstem bull trout populations from their spawning habitats. The juvenile fish of these fluvial adults usually remain in tributaries from 1 to 4 years before migrating back to the main river. Once in the Clark Fork River, these fish remain there until they are sexually mature and ready to spawn (MBTSG 1998).

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi)

 USFWS Status: Petitioned for listing under the ESA  Forest Service Region 1 Status: Sensitive  MFWP Status: Native Species of Special Concern

Westslope cutthroat trout may be present in portions of the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek drainages. Sections 3.6.4.3 and 3.6.4.4 discuss the potential presence of westslope cutthroat trout in Butler Creek and La Valle Creek.

Westslope cutthroat trout also have two distinctive life forms: migratory and resident. Migratory westslope cutthroat trout are either fish that spend most of their adult lives in lakes (adfluvial) or rivers (fluvial) and migrate into tributaries to spawn. Resident westslope cutthroat trout generally spend their entire lives in the tributaries where they were reared. Resident cutthroats are usually much smaller in size than their migratory counterparts (MFWP 2007).

Spawning occurs from March to early July with water temperatures near 50°F (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Westslope cutthroat trout begin to sexually mature at age three and usually are spawning by ages four and five (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Spawning adults can be as small as 15 centimeters, with females containing as few as 100 eggs (Meehan and Bjornn 1991). Fry will emerge from spawning gravels from June to mid-July and will usually stay in their natal streams from 1 to 4 years, if they are the migratory form.

Final EIS 3-100 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Other Aquatic Species

Western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata)

 USFWS Status: No status  Forest Service Region 1 Status: Sensitive  MFWP Status: Native Species of Special Concern

M. falcata have similar habitat requirements of westslope cutthroat, thus, both have similar home ranges across western Montana (Stagliano 2010). Westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout may act as the host fish during late spring and early summer. Since both fish species may be present in portions of the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek drainages there is a potential for M. falcata to exist as well. Habitat preferences are towards streams with clean and cold water with relatively stable substrates (Nedeau et al. 2009). Substrate composition is usually composed of sand, gravel, and cobbles that are “open” graded enough to allow for physical movement and water percolation. In steeper streams larger boulders may provide small suitable sites immediately downstream. In larger streams the streambank provides for flow disruption and energy dissipation which can result in the formation and maintenance of desired substrates. M. falcata seem to be intolerant of excess sedimentation.

Individuals can be long-lived (100 years), but likely average 50 to 70 years. The life history of M. falcata is complex, and dependent on host species, such as western cutthroat trout. Breeding is thought to occur during the early spring and the release of embryos (glochidia) occurs during late spring and early summer. Glochidia attach to the gills of host fish where they transform to a cyst and reside (and are transported) for several weeks to months. The cysts eventually release from the gill structure and fall to substrate where they burrow in and eventually mature to an adult. This dependency to fish has resulted in the same connected perils of habitat modifications, water temperature changes, and instream barriers that impair many of our inland native fish species.

No aquatic MIS are known to occur in the vicinity (USDA 2007a). Boreal/western toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and Coeur d’Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) are LNF sensitive species and are discussed in Section 3.5.4.2, Special Status Species.

3.6.4.2 Extinction Risks for Sensitive Fish Species

Using the methodology outlined by Rieman et al. (1993), risks of extinctions for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout were estimated at the regional level and local level. The regional level was considered as the entire Middle Clark Fork River drainage. Here the risk of extinction for bull trout was rated as high and westslope cutthroat trout was rated as low; this is due to increased fish barriers, suppressed native fish populations, introduced fish species, increased fishing pressure, and degraded habitats (MBTSG 1998). At the local level (Butler Creek, La Valle Creek, and Grant Creek), extinction risks are extreme for bull trout and high for westslope cutthroat trout; this is based on the isolation of the populations by local fish barriers, lower population numbers in La Valle Creek, water withdrawal in Butler Creek and lower La Valle Creek, and local stream habitat conditions.

These risks are analyzed with respect to the three general mechanisms of extinction: deterministic, stochastic, and genetic (USFWS 1998a, 1998b, 2002, and 2005). Deterministic extinctions occur when there is a cumulative loss of critical component in a species environment

Final EIS 3-101 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

(e.g., loss of pool habitat). Stochastic processes are those risks that are a result of chance events (such as forest fires, mud slides, and road failures). The genetic extinction mechanism is the loss of genetic diversity within a population.

Depending on the nature of individual effects, the result is usually an increase in the risk of extinction; for example, a culvert that is a fish passage barrier has separated a population in half. Therefore, the population above the culvert is isolated and has a higher risk of extinction based on the inability of re-colonizing from below. In addition to being isolated, the continuation of the deterministic effects continues to deplete the population unless stabilized. Any given individual effect has the ability to become synergistic in relation to the three mechanisms identified above and therefore increasing the overall risk of extinction (Table 3-26). Population/habitat conditions for bull trout are functioning at unacceptable risk (FUR) for all indicators on Butler Creek and La Valle Creek (Table 3-26).

The USFWS checklist for documenting environmental conditions and effects in “Appendix G-A framework to assist in making ESA determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale” was used to make a determination of effects (USFWS 1998a). Species determination was made for the entire 6th HUC, and if reduced to the portions of Butler Creek and La Valle Creek above the LNF boundary, then habitat conditions may be different.

3.6.4.3 Butler Creek

Below MSB property, Butler Creek is a mixed ownership of private, state, and federally owned land, and consequently has some degraded reaches. Sediment input from surface runoff and snowplowing of the MSB parking lot has impacted Butler Creek below the MSB parking lot. The upper portions of the creek and riparian corridor on public lands are in good condition. The channel’s habitat conditions degrade as Butler Creek progresses downstream. Land management practices, especially on the private in-holdings, have affected channel stability. The potential exists for a catastrophic sediment input from a poorly constructed road on one of the private in-holdings located downstream of the existing MSB. This road has previously failed, but the sediment pulse did not enter the creek (Hendrickson 2006; Knotek 2006 personal communications). If this road fails again, the downstream pool habitats will be partially filled with sediment, reducing fisheries potential.

Final EIS 3-102 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-26. Population/Habitat Conditions in Relation to Bull Trout Diagnostic/Pathways: Butler Creek La Valle Creek Indicator Parameter Indicators* FA/FR/FUR FA/FR/FUR Subpopulation size FUR FUR Subpopulation Growth and survival FUR FUR characteristics Life history diversity and isolation FUR FUR Persistence and genetic integrity FUR FUR Temperature FUR FUR Water quality Sediment FUR FUR Chemical contamination/nutrients FUR FUR Habitat access Physical barriers FUR FUR Substrate embeddedness FUR FUR Large woody debris FUR FUR Pool frequency and quality FUR FUR Habitat elements Large pools FUR FUR Off-channel habitat FUR FUR Refugia FUR FUR Wetted width/max depth ratio FUR FUR Channel condition and Streambank condition FUR FUR dynamics Floodplain connectivity FUR FUR Change in peak/base flows FUR FUR Flow and hydrology Drainage network increase FUR FUR Road density and location FUR FUR Disturbance history FUR FUR Riparian conservation area FUR FUR Watershed conditions Disturbance regime FUR FUR Integration of species and habitat FUR FUR condition

* The indicators for bull trout populations were assessed for the entire 6th HUC, not just the portion of the basin on Forest Service lands. FA = Functioning Appropriately FR = Functioning at Risk FUR = Functioning at Unacceptable Risk

Below the LNF boundary, Butler Creek habitat conditions deteriorate from private land management practices. Bank erosion and sediment inputs increase from overgrazing, and development has encroached on the floodplain and channel. The channel’s pool habitat also decreases in quality and quantity on the private lands. Butler Creek is intermittent at its confluence with the Clark Fork River, reducing its connectivity with the Clark Fork River (Knotek 2006 personal communication).

The culvert beneath the existing MSB parking lot is a migratory barrier to fish, reducing the potential of fish to pioneer these tributaries. The tributaries above the MSB parking lot are intermittent, high gradient, and extremely small, and therefore may never have contained fish. On the easternmost unnamed tributary to Butler Creek, a small diversion dam stores and provides water for MSB (Gillin 2001). The middle tributary (Butler Creek) is channelized below the Gelandesprung Lodge and Last Run Inn. The westernmost tributary enters a culvert at the base of the existing T-bar. These three unnamed tributaries come together beneath the parking lot where they form Butler Creek and discharge out of the culvert.

Final EIS 3-103 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The LNF and MFWP have sampled the Butler Creek fishery. The MFWP sampled Butler Creek below the parking lot and captured only westslope cutthroat trout (Hendrickson 2006 and Knotek 2006 personal communications). The trout population in this reach contained multiple age classes, indicating reproduction and suitable habitat for all life stages (MFWP 2005a). Butler Creek has not been sampled above the fish passage barrier formed by the culvert beneath the parking lot. It is unlikely that trout exist, or could survive, in these small tributaries given their size, high gradient, and position above the fish barrier. A survey of Butler Creek in 2006 also identified no western pearlshell mussels (Stagliano 2010).

In 1997, the LNF sampled Butler Creek for the presence/absence of bull trout where the stream crosses the LNF boundary. They found both westslope cutthroat trout and low densities of bull trout, but no other fish species (Hendrickson 2006 and 2009 personal communications). Subsequent sampling efforts since 1997 have found no bull trout in Butler Creek; consequently, bull trout may no longer exist in Butler Creek because they may have been extirpated from the drainage. The habitat in this reach is still in good condition, and land management practices have not rendered the stream uninhabitable by trout. Given the degraded habitat conditions further downstream on private lands, bull trout most likely do not exist on private lands.

Butler Creek is fragmented from the Clark Fork River; therefore, fluvial populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout most likely do not exist (Knotek 2006 personal communication). Consequently, Butler Creek contains small resident populations of trout that are easily affected by environmental perturbations. Given these conditions, changes in habitat could extirpate a species from the watershed, and natural re-colonization would not be possible. The low densities of bull trout in this basin are symptomatic of fragmented populations; therefore, environmental changes could expedite the loss of this subpopulation. These changes, in turn, would also affect the western pearlshell mussel due to loss or minimal availability of fish hosts.

3.6.4.4 La Valle Creek

Sediment input is a problem on lower La Valle Creek. Although the channel is in good condition, the potential exists for catastrophic sediment inputs from the Point Six Road and its spur roads (Hendrickson 2006 personal communication). These sediment inputs are located south of the proposed expansion area and not along the Point Six Road where it forms the western boundary of the proposed expansion area. The Point Six Road does not meet Forest Service BMP standards for road design, and upgrading the road would help protect La Valle Creek. This road has produced sediment pulses that have entered the creek from rain and rain-on-snow events (not along the western boundary of proposed expansion area). If this road continues to contribute sediment to La Valle Creek, pool habitats will be degraded, reducing their fisheries value.

Below the LNF boundary, La Valle Creek habitat conditions deteriorate from private land management practices. Bank erosion and sediment inputs increase from overgrazing, and development has encroached on the La Valle Creek floodplain and channel. The channel’s pool habitat also decreases in quality and quantity on the private lands. La Valle Creek is intermittent at its I-90 crossing and is therefore not connected to the Clark Fork River.

Only one potential fish passage barrier has been identified on La Valle Creek upstream of the LNF boundary. The culvert underneath the existing La Valle chairlift may be a barrier. La Valle Creek above this site is very high gradient and extremely small and therefore may not contain fish.

Final EIS 3-104 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The La Valle Creek fishery has been sampled by MFWP and is known to contain only westslope cutthroat trout (Knotek 2006 personal communication). La Valle Creek was stocked with westslope cutthroat trout in 1987 after the Yellowstone Pipeline ruptured in 1982 (Gillin 2001). While bull trout have not been found in La Valle Creek, they may still exist in very low densities. The habitat is suitable for bull trout, but it is unknown if they have been extirpated from this basin. It is unlikely that trout are in the headwater reaches of La Valle Creek due to its size and gradient. No known western pearlshell surveys have been conducted on the La Valle Creek drainage; however, presence of westslope cutthroat trout could indicate the presence of mussels.

La Valle Creek is not connected to the Clark Fork River; therefore, fluvial populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout most likely do not exist. Consequently, La Valle Creek contains small resident populations of trout that are easily affected by environmental perturbations. Given these conditions, changes in habitat could extirpate a species from the watershed, and natural re-colonization would not be possible. If bull trout exist in low densities in La Valle Creek, any negative change in environmental or habitat conditions could cause a loss of this population. The westslope cutthroat population has the cohorts that would enable it some resiliency to small environmental changes. The LNF sampled La Valle Creek in the summer of 2009. Sampling was completed in Section 5 (T14N, R19W), upstream of a decommissioned road crossing. Results demonstrated a low density of westslope cutthroat trout, no bull trout, and no non-native species. The LNF also completed presence/absence sampling in this watershed. The results indicated that the upper end of fish distribution is near the section line of Section 32 and Section 5 (T15N, R19W and T14N, R19W, respectively). These sampling efforts demonstrate that westslope cutthroat trout are present at low densities and are limited to a small length of stream. The limited fish distribution, coupled with low densities, results in the population being at high/extreme risk of extinction.

3.7 AIR QUALITY

3.7.1 Standards Applicable to Air Quality

Clean Air Act

Congress passed the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1963 with amendments in 1970, 1977, and 1990. The Clean Air Act is implemented through the EPA and is designed to protect and enhance air quality while ensuring the protection of public health and welfare. The CAA established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that must be met by state and federal agencies as well as private entities. The NAAQS are defined for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. Burning processes are the most common sources of particulate matter: fly ash (from power plants), carbon black (from automobiles and diesel engines), and soot (from slash burning, forest fires, fireplaces, and wood stoves). States are given primary responsibility for air quality management through the CAA.

Montana Clean Air Act

The CAA requires that each state develop a State Implementation Plan that identifies how the state will attain and maintain NAAQS. Montana has developed a State Implementation Plan through the Montana CAA and implementing regulations. The Montana CAA established the Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards, the counterpart to the NAAQS. The Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards meet or exceed the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. The Montana CAA grants regulatory authority for implementation and enforcement to the MDEQ. Montana CAA

Final EIS 3-105 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment regulations provide specific guidance for maintenance of air quality, including restrictions on open burning (ARM 16.8.1300).

Lolo National Forest Plan

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) does not provide specific standards for air quality but says that the LNF will, “Provide a pleasing and healthy environment, including clear air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems.” All slash burning would be executed in compliance with federal, state, and local air quality laws and would therefore be in compliance with the Forest Plan.

Montana / Idaho Airshed Group

All open burning in Montana is regulated by the restrictions and standards of the MDEQ. Major prescribed burners, including the Forest Service and other organizations, formed the Montana Airshed Group in 1977. Northern Idaho was added to the group in 1990 to form the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The Regional Haze Rule, promulgated by EPA in 1999, addresses regional haze in Class I airsheds. Visibility must be improved to reflect natural conditions (conditions without manmade emissions) by 2064 (USDA 2007a).

3.7.2 Air Quality Methods

Air quality information was gathered through literature research and consultation with the air quality specialists from the MDEQ, LNF, and Missoula County Air Quality Program at the Missoula City-County Environmental Health Department (MCCHD). Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan, from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF specialists.

3.7.3 Air Quality Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to air resources includes Impact Zone M of Airshed 3A, the Flathead Indian Reservation, and the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area. Impact Zone M of Airshed 3A is centered on the city of Missoula and extends approximately to Clinton in the east, the Missoula-Ravalli county line to the south, Huson to the west, and Arlee to the north (Montana/Idaho Smoke Monitoring Unit [MISMU] 2006).

Impact Zone M represents an area that may impact the Missoula urban airshed and primarily is used to regulate burning activities. Burning by the major burners, including the LNF, is allowed only when wind dispersion will be satisfactory during the entire period of smoke generation (Schmidt 2006). The MSB is located in Impact Zone M of Airshed 3A.

3.7.4 Air Quality Existing Environment

The 1977 CAA amendments designated areas of the nation into Prevention of Significant Deterioration classes. Class I airsheds are given the most protection from human-caused air pollution to protect their pristine character; all other areas are Class II. One Class I airshed is associated with MSB: the Flathead Indian Reservation, which borders the existing SUP area to the north. The Rattlesnake Wilderness Area, bordering the existing SUP to the east, is a Class II airshed that falls under the Wilderness Act of 1980. Areas that violate federal air quality standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The nearest nonattainment area is the city of

Final EIS 3-106 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Missoula, located 12 miles south of MSB. Missoula is classified as a nonattainment area for particulate matter.

Particulate matter is the primary pollutant of concern at MSB. Existing sources of emissions at MSB include three existing wood-burning fireplaces used part-time during winter operating hours, one wood-fired cooking fireplace used part-time during winter and summer operating hours, road construction equipment, vehicles, and road dust. Emissions are very limited, with no local visible sources of impairment. Visibility at MSB is generally good year-round with the exception of occasional smoke haze due to seasonal wildfires or open burning.

No specific information was available for existing air quality at MSB. One stationary source of air pollution on the Montana Air Quality Division inventory with particulate emissions greater than 100 tons per year occurs in the analysis area. Roseburg Forest Products is located 8 miles to the south of MSB. The facility emitted 148 tons of PM10 (particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 microns) in 2009 (MDEQ 2009).

The emissions from this source are visible year-round from higher elevations at MSB. Jenson Paving and Allied Waste are also located in the analysis area and listed by the Montana Air Quality Division inventory; however, these two sources generate less than 30 tons per year each of total particulate matter.

The major source of emissions in the analysis area is the city of Missoula, which is a source of vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust from construction activities. PM10 impacts at MSB from Missoula are minor because MSB has a higher elevation than Missoula and the winds generally do not move from Missoula to MSB. PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns) impacts from the city of Missoula may occur at MSB because PM2.5 particles can remain suspended in the air for a longer time and may be dispersed for hundreds of miles (Schmidt 2006).

Missoula emissions generally disperse to the east during daylight hours and to the west during nighttime hours. During nighttime inversion conditions, colder air often flows down into the Missoula Valley from several directions. Activities performed at higher elevations may impact air quality in the valley when denser cold air flows into the valley during nighttime inversion conditions (Schmidt 2006). The main concentration of Missoula emissions observable during winter inversions is in the city limits of Missoula, which is surrounded by mountains reaching elevations of 8,500 feet.

Particulate monitoring equipment operated by the MCCHD has indicated compliance of Missoula air quality with NAAQS since 1989 for the 24-hour standard and since 1986 for the average annual standard (Schmidt 2006). Other types of emissions in the analysis area include vehicle and agriculture equipment exhaust, road dust, wood smoke from residential areas, smoke from pile burning, and broadcast burning. Smoke from wildfires does not count toward violations of the NAAQS (Schmidt 2006); however, wildfire smoke accumulated in the area during periods of extensive regional wildfire activity in 2000, 2003, and 2005. Smoke can also impact the analysis area from Idaho, southern and northern Montana, and as far away as Washington and British Columbia, Canada.

The lower elevations of MSB, primarily the land in the base analysis area, have limited potential for cumulative concentrations of smoke and urban, industrial, and transportation emissions. Up valley winds during daytime and down valley wind (cold air drainage) at night can dominate valley winds more than overall prevailing wind direction on ridge tops.

Final EIS 3-107 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.8 FACILITIES AND SAFETY

3.8.1 Standards Applicable to Facilities and Safety

There are no Forest Plan standards related to facilities and safety. This analysis describes the existing conditions at MSB with respect to transportation, buildings, infrastructure, and safety.

3.8.2 Facilities and Safety Methods

Transportation and parking information was gathered through literature research and consultation with the Missoula City Engineering Department, Missoula City Traffic Services, Missoula County Road Department, and the Missoula County Office of Planning and Grants. Health and safety information was gathered from interviews with the MSB general manager and owner and the LNF. Other information was taken from the MDP (MSB 2004).

3.8.3 Facilities and Safety Analysis Area

The analysis area includes the existing SUP area and proposed expansion area on TV Mountain and the parking, roads, and trails in and leading to these areas.

3.8.4 Facilities and Safety Affected Environment

3.8.4.1 Transportation and Traffic

Access

The MSB is 12 miles from Missoula with access via Grant Creek Road and Snowbowl Road. From the I-90 interchange (exit 101), the route follows Grant Creek Road for 4 paved miles, then follows Snowbowl Road for 6 miles. The first one-half mile of Snowbowl Road is paved, and the last 5.5 miles is surfaced with gravel and native material. Grant Creek Road and the first mile of Snowbowl Road are maintained under the jurisdiction of Missoula County. The last 5 miles to MSB is under the jurisdiction of the LNF and is jointly maintained by MSB and the LNF. Winter maintenance is performed by MSB; summer maintenance is performed by the LNF. The MSB has completed the process of widening Snowbowl Road but still need to add surface gravel which is estimated to be complete by summer of 2013. This road project included adding new parking areas along Snowbowl Road within one mile of the base area. The new parking areas were completed in 2009.

Point Six Road provides year-round access to the TV Mountain communications site. Summer access is by vehicle, and winter access is by snowmobile or snowcoach. The road is gated on private land in the lower Butler Creek drainage and is authorized for motorized travel behind the gate for communications site users and local landowners.

Parking

Parking facilities are located on the terminal part of Snowbowl Road and the parking lot at the MSB base area. Historically, parking at MSB has been congested on peak ski days. Onsite parking at MSB includes the main parking lot, two parking lots along Snowbowl Road, and road- side parking for 1 mile down Snowbowl Road, with shuttle support to the base area. The total skier capacity of the onsite parking areas described above is 2,525 SAOT. Additional

Final EIS 3-108 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment unsupervised parking for 250 SAOT (carpooling) is available at an MSB-owned parking lot at the bottom of Grant Creek Road near the I-90 interchange (Table 3-27) providing a total of 2,775 SAOT with onsite or offsite parking.

Table 3-27 summarizes the existing parking capacity at MSB onsite and offsite lots. A conservative average vehicle occupancy of 2.5 persons was used in this analysis, compared to the average vehicle occupancy of 2.7 persons for other western ski areas (USDA 2005).

Table 3-27. Montana Snowbowl Existing Parking Capacity

SAOT Parking Location Accommodated Main parking lot 1,400 Parking lots (two) on Snowbowl Road 450 Roadside parking for 1 mile down road (with shuttle service to base area) 675 Total onsite parking 2,525 Offsite parking area at bottom Grant Creek Road (unsupervised) 250 Total existing parking (onsite and offsite) 2,775

Source: MSB (2004) and information provided by the MSB general manager and owner.

Shuttle Bus Transportation

The MSB operates a shuttle bus service on weekends and holidays from the parking lot at the bottom of Grant Creek Road. One bus can accommodate 40 SAOT. Currently, up to two buses make one trip per day (morning pickup and afternoon return) with three pickup/return locations in Missoula. Actual passenger counts confirm 40 passengers per bus on peak days, for a total of 80 SAOT per day. The average passenger count over the entire ski season is 31 passengers per bus. Individuals taking the shuttle bus may or may not park cars in this location; therefore, these counts are not included in parking estimates in this analysis.

Road Traffic

The LNF collected traffic data on Snowbowl Road from January 28, 2009, to April 13, 2009, a period that coincides with the majority of the MSB winter ski season. The results showed an average of 578 vehicles per day using Snowbowl Road over this period. The maximum number of vehicles was 1,288 in one day, and the minimum was 11 in one day (USDA 2009). Because Snowbowl Road can be accessed only via Grant Creek Road (except for skiers living north of Snowbowl Road or on/off Snowbowl Road), this traffic count can reasonably be applied to Grant Creek Road for the same period. Approximately 38 percent of the traffic on a busy winter ski day on Grant Creek Road is due to MSB.

Peak winter weekday traffic from MSB visitors occurs at two peak periods: once between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and once between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Weekend traffic peaks in the periods shown above, but is spread across the entire day between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Summer operating hours are much lighter and do not represent MSB use during a significant portion of Grant Creek Road traffic.

Missoula County collects point traffic data on Grant Creek Road at a location just north of the city-county line approximately 0.25 mile south of Colorado Gulch Road. According to data

Final EIS 3-109 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment collected at this location during the week of May 21, 2009, the weekday average was 1,509 vehicles per day (Dickson 2010 personal communication). This one-day count occurred off- season and did not include any vehicular traffic associated with MSB. No Missoula County average daily traffic data were available for Grant Creek Road in the winter months.

3.8.4.2 Infrastructure and Improvements

Buildings

Three main buildings are used for skier services at the base area of MSB (Figure 1-2). Table 3-28 summarizes the buildings and their facilities.

Table 3-28. Existing Montana Snowbowl Base Area Skier Service Buildings Construction Size Skier Service Building Date Facilities (sq. ft.) Cafeteria/grill, ski school, ticket office, Snowbowl Lodge 1961 lockers/changing area, men’s toilets (7), 5,800 women’s toilets (6), ski patrol storage Hotel/hostel, ski rental shop, Gelandesprung Lodge 1996–1997 2,000 restrooms for hotel guests Bar and restaurant, men’s toilets (4), Last Run Inn 1999 3,370 women’s toilets (4)

As part of the design and subsequent permitting of these projects by the Montana Building Standards Program, these buildings are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. Additional office space and employee housing are in the employee housing building (Nila Lodge) located on the southeast corner of the base area (Figure 1-2). One building is near the top of the Grizzly chairlift in the existing SUP area; the A-frame Grizzly Chalet was built in 1962 with electricity but no running water. A modern outhouse is nearby. A ski patrol building is located at the top of the La Valle chairlift on Big Sky Mountain. Electronic equipment is housed in the basement of this building, which was reconstructed in 2004. There is a maintenance shop located at the base area as well that is not available for skier use.

The MSB does not own or operate any buildings in the proposed expansion area. Several small buildings used to house equipment owned by communications site permittees are present at the TV Mountain communications site. No residential development is in the proposed expansion area.

Communications Site

A communications site consisting of towers and associated infrastructure (such as guy-wires and electrical sheds) is located on the top of TV Mountain. Access to the communications site is by Point Six Road. The site is not fenced, and access is uncontrolled. A NRCS snow course site is located just north of the communications site.

Water Supply and Snowmaking

“Water for domestic use is supplied from a spring/surface water source. It is approved by the State of Montana “Public Water System #844” and has adequate capacity for existing and projected needs.” (MSB 2004)

Final EIS 3-110 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The MSB has snowmaking capabilities on all existing beginner and intermediate terrain below 6,500 feet except for Huckleberry #66; this includes Lower Paradise #36, Longhorn #39, Bowl Out Run #46, Rope Tow #29, Sunrise Bowl #23 and #24, Spartan #16 and #17, and the base area. Water is supplied from two sources at the base: a surface source (Draft Certificate of Water Right 76M-89451) and a well (Certificate of Water Right 84571-G76M). These water rights currently allow for a total of 115 gpm from both these sources up to 28 acre-feet in total current usage per ski season (October 1 to April 1), of which 43 acre-feet is used for snowmaking.

Up to 5 acre-feet per season is used to maintain full pool in two reservoirs. One reservoir has a capacity of approximately 2 million gallons and is located at the Spartan Saddle (elevation 6,500 feet). The second reservoir is located at the base area and has a capacity of approximately 400,000 gallons. Pumps fill these reservoirs. The snowmaking system itself is operated by gravity flow from the Spartan Saddle reservoir.

The reservoirs are filled at approximately 100 gpm, but water can be released at more than 1,000 gpm when snowmaking conditions are suitable. Energy-efficient, fan-type snow guns are in use. The guns do not use piped compressed air but use only water and electricity. During the 2000–2001 season, a new type of gun (water sticks) was added; this gun takes advantage of the high-pressure water available to make snow without fans or electricity.

Domestic Wastewater Disposal

Wastewater from the existing MSB is treated in two septic systems consisting of septic tanks and drain fields. Both systems are located in the base area on private land. One drainfield is located just west of the Gelandesprung Lodge, and the other is under the main parking lot. The MCCHD evaluated and re-approved these systems in 1996.

Fuel Storage

The MSB stores diesel fuel for grooming equipment and generators in two double-walled aboveground storage tanks located in the existing SUP area. One 1,500-gallon tank is located adjacent to the Grizzly Chalet at the top of Grizzly chairlift. One 3,000-gallon tank is located south of the main parking lot. Both tanks are double-wall construction. Both tanks are located on LNF land. A SPCCP is currently in development for this fuel storage.

Electrical Power

Northwestern Energy supplies electrical power for the base area, TV Mountain, and Big Sky Mountain. Available power is more than adequate for existing and proposed expansion needs.

3.8.4.3 Health and Safety

Avalanche Risk

Avalanche risk is highest at and below the cliff area in the east portion of the existing ski area (Figure 2-1). The upper cliff area is managed as a permanent closure that excludes all skiers. The area below the cliffs is managed for skiing with an avalanche-control program using explosives and ski cutting by patrol members. Avalanche risk is also present in the East Bowl, West Bowl, and West Ridge areas. These sites are also managed using explosives when

Final EIS 3-111 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment necessary. The majority of MSB has no significant avalanche risk due to abundant anchors and regular skiing use. No avalanche deaths have occurred in the existing ski area. One patrolman was injured by an avalanche while conducting control activities approximately 20 years ago in the cliffs area (Thompson 2010 personal communication). No avalanche-prone areas are in the proposed expansion area.

Backcountry Access

MSB skiers have historically used the lift system to gain access to terrain beyond the ski area boundaries. Backcountry users may increase their risk of becoming lost or injured from avalanches, falls, cliffs, and other hazards. Section 3.10.4.3 discusses backcountry access.

Snowmobile Conflicts

In the existing SUP area, snowmobiles are used to transport equipment, employees, and injured skiers. Snowmobiles and snowcoaches are used to access communications sites on Big Sky Mountain and TV Mountain via existing roads. Communications site users are not required to notify MSB if they will be entering the existing SUP area to access communications sites. Snowmobile or snowcoach users, such as the National Weather Service, are required to notify MSB if they will be crossing ski trails to access their sites during the winter season. These users attempt to access the site outside of MSB operating hours. The MSB Ski Patrol is notified when users will be accessing the site during operating hours. To date, no skiers have been injured as the result of a skier-snowmobile conflict in the existing SUP area (Thompson 2010 personal communication).

Communications Site Hazards

Communications site towers are located in the existing SUP area at the top of the La Valle chairlift on top on Big Sky Mountain. Ice sometimes collects on these towers and poses a hazard when falling. No injuries related to falling ice have occurred at this site (Thompson 2010 personal communication). Radiation emissions from electronic towers, such as those on Big Sky Mountain, are a potential concern for human health. Federal Communications Commission rules require emitters, such as those on Big Sky Mountain, to monitor their electronic emissions and ensure they do not exceed health standards (FCC 2000).

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.9.1 Standards Applicable to Cultural Resources

Federal statutory, regulatory, and guidance and policy applicable to Cultural Resource Management on public lands under the administration of LNF include the following:

 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA as amended 1992)  The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978  The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979  The American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990  Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment  Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites  Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments  Executive Order 13287, Preserve America

Final EIS 3-112 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites.

Lolo National Forest Plan

For this analysis, the inclusion of cultural resources is consistent with the prescriptions of regulations from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, set out in 36 CFR 800.8, which provides for incorporation of cultural resources considerations within the NEPA process and documentation, in order to complete compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and regulations from the Advisory Council to implement that section of the NHPA.

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) states:

Cultural resources will be considered during the planning process for all proposed Forest undertakings. Inventories will be conducted prior to ground- disturbing activities as an integral part of project planning. All sites located will be evaluated for possible nomination to the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. Those properties determined eligible for National Register listing will be managed in a manner consistent with the standards specified by the State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as well as applicable USDA regulations.

These standards also address LNF consultations with Indian tribes on a regular basis.

The Forest will coordinate, on a yearly schedule, with representatives from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes to discuss the types and locations of proposed Forest undertakings. This is a requirement specified within the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to ensure that areas on NFS lands which are important to contemporary Native Americans for religious reasons are not inadvertently impacted.

Coordination with other Native American groups could occur if there was reason to believe traditional or contemporary religious areas, important to these groups, were present on the Forest.

There are no MA standards related to cultural resources that would apply to the proposed expansion.

3.9.2 Cultural Resource Methods

Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the ski area owner and general manager. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan, from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with a former LNF archaeologist and the current archaeologist.

The LNF Heritage Program conducted an inventory of approximately 937 acres of the proposed expansion area in 2011 (USDA 2011a). A literature review was assembled which was used by the LNF in Section 106 consultation. The LNF consulted with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Nez Perce Tribe and Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated October 27, 2011.

Final EIS 3-113 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.9.3 Cultural Resources Analysis Area

The analysis area, or Area of Potential Effects (APE), is the proposed expansion area. This area would be directly affected by construction, maintenance, and recreational use of the project elements.

3.9.4 Cultural Resources Affected Environment

Cultural resources consist of any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP. These resources include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. They also include any properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe that meet the NRHP criteria.

The current cultural context adopted by the LNF and this study of prehistoric cultural properties is based in previous investigations and that knowledge shared by tribes with cultural interests in the area. The prehistory of the area is characterized by roughly 10,000 years of hunter-gatherer occupations, which are evidenced by various types of archaeological properties, including habitation sites, lithic processing sites, rock cairns, vision questing locations, burials, game drives or traps, and culturally modified trees. These sites are the result of seasonal subsistence patterns and other land uses such as procurement of lithic tool-making materials and spiritual activities. Major occupational properties are generally limited to the major river drainages such as the Clark Fork and St. Regis rivers. In addition to the major river drainages, prehistoric peoples frequented higher elevation areas, usually in the summer months. These high-elevation areas provided them with a variety of both plant and animal subsistence resources (USDA 2010a).

The historic context of the overall area is characterized by extensive mining, logging activities, homesteading properties, and early Forest Service administration sites. Mining in western Montana grew steadily from about the middle of the 19th century and came to dominate larger areas of the region by the late 19th century and early 20th century. Logging to support both local and distant timber demands grew as an industry during this same period. Homesteading also added to historic populations in the area, and large ranching and farming operations grew. The LNF reported that four cultural resource inventories to support LNF projects have been undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed expansion area: the O’Keefe Timber Sale, Point Six Snow Cat Road, Northside Timber Sale, and the La Valle Timber Sale. Five cultural properties and one isolated artifact find within (24MO703) or in the vicinity of (24MO473, 24MO474, 24MO128, 24MO115 and isolated find) the proposed expansion APE were identified in these inventories. They are described below and summarized in Table 3-29.

Table 3-29. Cultural Properties in the Area of Potential Effect and Vicinity

NRHP Status Property Number Description Inside APE LNF 24MO115 Stone Cairns No Ineligible 24MO128 Historic Cabin No No determination 24MO473 Historic Lookout No Eligible 24MO474 Historic Road Segments No Ineligible

Final EIS 3-114 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-29. Cultural Properties in the Area of Potential Effect and Vicinity

NRHP Status Property Number Description Inside APE LNF 24MO703 Historic Mine Yes Not significant (see below) Isolated Find Single chert flake No Ineligible

The O’Keefe Timber Sale included an area of approximately 1,763 acres, 600 acres of which were in designated cutting units. The cultural resource inventory for this sale included portions of lands in T15N, R20W, Sections 16, 31, 32, and 33. The LNF report does not identify the total area inventoried. Properties 24MO473, 24MO474, and 24MO128 were identified in this inventory (USDA 1992). None of these properties were located within the APE for the proposed expansion.

The Point Six Snow Cat Road cultural resource inventory, completed in 1988, was performed to support improvements to a primitive road. Improvements included the flattening of 550 feet of an existing ridge with an overall width of 30 to 50 feet. The road was proposed to service a then- new weather radar site on top of Point Six Mountain. One cultural property (24MO115) was identified in that inventory. This property was not located within the APE for the proposed expansion. This property was classified by LNF and ineligible for the NRHP. LNF did consult with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on this property in 1988, and it was not identified at the time as a traditional cultural property.

The Northside Timber Sale inventory was conducted in 1993 to support a proposed sale encompassing 23 timber harvest units, totaling 1,900 acres. Four separate inventories were conducted in June 1993 for this sale. The topography of the area determined inventory coverage and the report notes that ridge tops and drainage bottoms were the focus of the pedestrian inventory. The inventory recorded one new cultural property, a relatively small mining adit (24MO703), and a single, isolated artifact find. Property 24MO703 was located within the APE for the proposed expansion but outside the footprint of any proposed improvements. The isolated artifact find was not located within the APE.

Property 24MO703 was recorded in 1993 as consisting of a single hard rock mine test adit, measured as approximately 5 feet wide by 6 feet high by 40 feet deep and cut into solid bedrock. A single spoil rock pile, approximately 20 feet by 20 feet, was present. No cultural materials of any kind were identified at the property, and there are no buildings, structures, or their remains on the property. The LNF recorded it as having no significance (USDA 1993). The LNF did not provide any record, however, of consultations with the Montana SHPO for any consensus determination of NRHP eligibility or ineligibility for this property. Inventory of the area around this find in 1993 identified no additional cultural resources (USDA 1993).

The La Valle Timber Sale cultural resource inventory was conducted in 1991 to support a proposed timber harvest area encompassing 213 acres, located in T14N, R19W, Sections 4 and 5, and T15N, R19W, Sections 28, 32, and 33. A single cultural property (24MO115) was recorded (USDA 1991). This property was not located within the APE for the proposed expansion.

The 2011 inventory conducted by the LNF concluded that the APE is unlikely to contain significant prehistoric cultural resources. The only historic features noted were associated with communication site features.

Final EIS 3-115 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.10 RECREATION

3.10.1 Standards Applicable to Recreation

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) provides Forest-wide and MA direction for recreation.

 Forest-wide Standard 7. “The USFS will not significantly expand the capacity of developed recreation sites on the LNF during the next ten-year period. Emphasis will be placed on increasing the use of existing sites by making them usable by a wide segment of society. The private sector and other agencies will be encouraged to provide for increased public needs on Forest Service land and on lands adjacent to the Forest. If and when development proposals are received for expansion of existing or construction of new ski areas, they will be evaluated according to the normal procedures for determining ski area feasibility.”  Forest-wide Standard 6. “The LNF will provide for a wide range of Forest-related dispersed recreation activities and range of skill level. The program will provide for use of the Forest on a year-round basis in areas that will minimize conflicts between user groups and other Forest resources.”  MA 8. This MA consists of portions of three local ski areas: MSB, Marshall Mountain, and Lookout Pass. The goal for MA 8 is to provide opportunities for developed facilities to accommodate downhill skiing. Areas will be managed using stipulations contained in the SUP.  MA 16. The goal for MA 16 is to provide for healthy stands of timber and optimize timber growing potential. The Proposed Action would change the designation to MA 8, which has a goal of providing opportunities for developed facilities to accommodate downhill skiing.  MA 25. The goal for MA 25 is to provide for healthy stands of timber and optimize timber growing potential within the constraint of achieving a visual quality standard of Partial Retention. The Proposed Action would change the designation to MA 8, which has a goal of providing opportunities for developed facilities to accommodate downhill skiing.

The National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 USC 497b) authorizes the Forest Service to issue term ski area permits “for the use and occupancy of suitable [n]ordic and alpine skiing operations and purposes” (Section 3(b)). The Act also states that a permit shall encompass such acreage as the Forest Service “determines sufficient and appropriate to accommodate the permittee’s need for ski operations and appropriate ancillary facilities” (Section 3(b)). The MSB operates under a 40-year permit that will expire in 2044.

3.10.2 Recreation Methods

This section was compiled using published information, site visits to the project area, and contacts with LNF and MSB personnel. Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan (USDA 1986), from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF personnel. The National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 and the FSM provided specific guidance for ski area management (FSM 2300) (USDA 2006a).

Final EIS 3-116 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.10.3 Recreation Analysis Area

The area of analysis for direct and indirect effects on recreation resources is the proposed expansion area and the existing MSB (Figure 1-1). The area of analysis for cumulative effects includes other ski areas in the Missoula ski market: Discovery Basin, Lookout Pass, Lost Trail, and Blacktail Mountain. Each of these four ski areas is approximately 100 miles from Missoula. Marshall Mountain Ski Area is considered in this evaluation, although it has been out of operation since the 2002–2003 ski season. The MSB is considered a local market ski area; therefore, more distant ski areas near Whitefish, Helena, Bozeman, and Spokane are not included in this evaluation.

3.10.4 Recreation Affected Environment

3.10.4.1 Montana Snowbowl Ski Area History

Skiing began near MSB in 1954 when a Poma surface lift was installed on the west side of TV Mountain. This ski area was called Snow Park. The lift was installed on TV Mountain because of easy access via a new road built to erect the KGVO television tower. The ski area was relocated to the existing site of MSB in 1961. A lodge was completed the same year.

The Grizzly chairlift was installed in 1962. The MSB achieved nationwide recognition by hosting the 1967 Senior National Alpine Championship ski meet. This event required more vertical drop and more lift capacity. In conjunction with this event, the MSB owners and investors purchased a T-bar from Winter Park Ski Area in Colorado and installed it from La Valle Creek to the top of Big Sky Mountain.

The MSB has historically had a reputation as being a ski area for more advanced skiers. The existing ski terrain consists of fewer beginner/intermediate acreage (105 acres) and more advanced/expert acreage (150 acres) (Table 3-30). Proposed improvements in the MDP (2004) and other recent improvements were targeted for beginners and intermediates. Snowbowl Road, which previously discouraged many people from visiting MSB (MSB 2004), has been undergoing upgrades for the past 3 years as required by the LNF. The MSB has completed the process of widening Snowbowl Road but still need to add surface gravel, which is estimated to be completed by the summer of 2013.

Table 3-30. Summary of Existing Ski Trail Classifications by Ability Level

% Developed Guideline for Skier Calculated Total Ability Level Trails (acres) Density Skiers/Acre SAOT SAOT Beginner/intermediate 105 10 1,050 70 Advanced/expert 150 3 450 30 Total 255 1,500 100

Source: MSB (2004) and information provided by MSB general manager and owner.

Final EIS 3-117 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.10.4.2 Ski Area Features

Existing Ski Area Terrain

The existing MSB ski area capacity is 1,408 SAOT (MSB 2004). The existing ski area terrain at MSB includes the 1,138 acre SUP area, most of which is skiable either on named trails, unnamed trails, open bowls, and tree (glade) skiing. A permanent closure area exists around the upper cliff area located in the eastern portion of the permit area (Figure 2-1). Most of the remaining terrain off of designated ski trails is used by skiers at least occasionally. The amount of use is mainly determined by snowpack, density of trees, and distance from existing ski trails. Most use is concentrated on ski trails.

Existing Ski Trails

The existing ski terrain at MSB includes 52 named trails that cover 255 acres, plus unnamed trails, open bowls, and tree skiing. Table 3-30 shows that these 255 acres of ski trails will accommodate a total of 1,500 SAOT. The SAOT evaluation considers acreage and steepness to determine the capacity of ski trails; beginner/intermediate trails can accommodate more SAOT than advanced/expert trails. Ski trails generally are classified into six skill levels: beginner, novice, low intermediate, intermediate, high intermediate, advanced, and expert. For this analysis, these classes are combined into two groups: beginner/intermediate and advanced/expert.

Skier density refers to the number of skiers a ski trail can safely accommodate based on the terrain and the speed of the skiers using that terrain. Guidelines for skier density are in MSB (2004). The analysis in this EIS assumes a conservative skier density of 10 skiers per acre for beginner/intermediate trails, which most accurately reflects the existing, planned (Connected Actions), and proposed mix of beginner/intermediate terrain (MSB 2004). A lower skier density is accommodated on advanced/expert trails (three skiers per acre). The lower skier density on advanced/expert trails reflects higher speeds and steeper slopes common to the higher skill trails.

Based on the skier densities used in this analysis, MSB can accommodate 70 percent of its SAOT on beginner/intermediate trails and 30 percent on advanced/expert trails (Table 3-30).

The MSB currently has a mix of terrain sufficient for advanced and expert skiers, but it lacks sufficient beginner and intermediate terrain to meet local demand, especially after the closure of the Marshall Mountain Ski Area in 2003. Access to most of this lower skill terrain is complicated because it is located mainly on the upper mountain and served by the La Valle chairlift. Skiers must first ride the Grizzly chairlift and then ski to the La Valle chairlift. To return to the base area for restrooms, lunch, or other needs requires a 2,600-foot vertical descent to the base area and is challenging for lower-skill-level skiers. The descent choices are a long, narrow road-like trail (Second Thought) or a walk across a nearly level trail (North Dakota Downhill) followed by a high-intermediate trail (Paradise). Both choices are more than 2 miles long. Skiers may also ski from the top of the La Valle chairlift to the top of the Grizzly chairlift. They can then ride the Grizzly chairlift down; however, this is a slow process because the chairlift is not designed for downhill use in the winter season. Beginner and intermediate skiers require sufficient ski trails so they can learn to ski and advance their skills.

Final EIS 3-118 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Existing Lifts

The MSB has two double chairlifts. The Grizzly chairlift is the primary conveyance to move skiers and snowboarders out of the base area. It was installed in 1962 and was substantially upgraded in 1994. This chairlift is 5,350 feet long, with a vertical rise of 1,970 feet and an hourly capacity of 1,150 persons. The La Valle chairlift was installed in 1984 to replace a T-bar. This chairlift is 3,250 feet long, with a vertical rise of 972 feet and an hourly capacity of 1,200 skiers. This chairlift serves both existing advanced/expert and intermediate terrain and it is where beginner and intermediate MSB skiers spend most of their time. On busy days, it is typical to have a long line at the La Valle chairlift. A rope tow surface lift at the base area serves beginner skiers. A T-bar surface lift at the base area is 1,476 feet long and serves Sunrise Bowl. This lift is primarily used for ski racing and aerialists. The existing total lift capacity is 1,408 SAOT. Total lift capacity is 4,061 skiers per hour (MSB 2004).

Ski area capacities, including parking, lifts, ski trails, and other facilities, must be in balance. Generally, the overall ski area capacity is limited by the number of SAOT that the lifts can accommodate. Existing capacities are shown in Table 3-31.

Table 3-31. Existing Montana Snowbowl Facility Capacities

Facility Existing Capacity (SAOT)* Lifts 1,408 Trails 1,500 Base area services 1,629 Parking lots 2,775 Public toilet units 11 (men); 10 (women)

* Source: MSB (2004) and information provided by MSB general manager and owner.

The figures shown on Table 3-31 suggest that existing MSB capacities are relatively well- balanced. The operation seems to provide the best experience with 1,200 skiers or less at one time (MSB 2004).

3.10.4.3 Recreational Uses

Local Ski Area Use

Figure 3-17 shows the continued increase in skier visits at both MSB and Marshall Mountain ski areas (during Marshall Mountain’s operation). This trend generally reflects the increasing local population and the increase in real per capita income (Section 3.12).

Final EIS 3-119 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Three-year Rolling Average Visitation 70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

Snowbowl SkierVisitation 20,000 Marshall

10,000

-

'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09

'10 '11

------

- -

08 09

'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 Three-Year Period

Figure 3-17. Skier Visits 1991–2011 at Montana Snowbowl and Marshall Mountain Ski Areas (Rolling Three-year Average Skier Visits)

Existing Winter Backcountry Use Accessed from Montana Snowbowl

MSB skiers have historically used the lift system to gain access to terrain beyond the ski area boundaries. MSB’s official responsibility ends at the SUP area boundary, and the ski patrol does not participate in search and rescue efforts outside the ski area except on a volunteer basis when resources are available. The Missoula County Search and Rescue Team has primary responsibility for search and rescue efforts beyond the ski area SUP boundary.

Continuing improvements in ski equipment, safety equipment, avalanche training, and avalanche forecasts have resulted in greater backcountry use over the past decade. Crowding within ski area boundaries has also increased backcountry use, especially on peak use days.

Ski area boundary management is determined by MSB as a special use permittee on the LNF. Ski area boundaries can be managed as either open or with exits. If a boundary is managed with exits, exit point(s) are identified in the ski area boundary so the ski area can let customers know they are leaving the ski area and the Forest Service can let the backcountry users know they are no longer inside the ski area boundary and that there are a host of new and ever- present dangers or hazards for which the backcountry user is now responsible. If a boundary is managed as closed, there are no exit points and skiers are required to stay within the ski area boundary.

The MSB currently has a boundary with two exit points: at the top of Far Nüt and at the base of Point Six Road off the cat track to Nutcracker. Both of these exit points are located in such a way that skiers must either stop or slow down enough to ensure they can see the exit signs and

Final EIS 3-120 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment know that they are leaving the ski area and that they now have a higher level of responsibility for their safety.

The Far Nüt gate is used to access the “Cornice Area” directly north of the lower La Valle chairlift terminal. Skiers then return to the La Valle chairlift. The number of ski trips to the Cornice Area averages 10 to 20 per day, with as many as 200 on a busy day (Wear 2007 personal communication). Few skiers use this area when snow conditions are poor. Avalanche risk is generally low in this area except at the cornice itself. Regular skiing of this feature reduces avalanche risk, but the risk can still be significant after snowfall or with increasing temperatures.

The exit gate located at the base of Point Six Road off the cat track to Nutcracker is used to access the Point Six, Murphy Peak, and upper Grant Creek areas in the Rattlesnake Wilderness. These skiers generally spend the day in the backcountry without returning to the ski area. The number of skiers using this area averages 2 to 5 per day, with as many as 20 on a busy day (Wear 2007 personal communication). Few skiers use this area when snow conditions are poor. Avalanche risk in this area is significant, especially after snowfall or with increasing temperatures. Very steep slopes, snow collection zones, cornices, and chutes are present and increase avalanche risk. Most skiers in this area carry appropriate equipment and practice avalanche awareness.

Skiers commonly hike from Spartan Saddle to the top of TV Mountain and then ski the east side of TV Mountain in the proposed expansion area back to the base area. No gates are present to regulate this use. In recent years, this use has increased dramatically, averaging 5 to 10 trips per day and as many as 50 to 100 trips on peak days (Wear 2007 personal communication).

According to the MSB Operating Plan on file with the LNF, the LNF is responsible for locating the gates and maintaining one sign at each gate describing the area beyond the ski area boundary. MSB is responsible for maintaining the LNF gates and putting posts at the gate locations. MSB must also provide and maintain one sign stating that the area beyond the sign is off-area and not patrolled.

In the past, skiers also commonly exited the MSB boundary and entered the Rattlesnake Wilderness from the upper portion of the Paradise trail. This is an unauthorized exit point. The Rattlesnake Wilderness was designated by Congress in 1980. A designated wilderness is by definition an area “untrammeled by man…that is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions”; that “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature,” where “the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable”; and that has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”

MSB skier use from upper Paradise to access the Rattlesnake Wilderness is referred to as “yo-yo” skiing (Korb 1991), which means that skiers use the lifts to go into the Rattlesnake Wilderness, ski down slopes in the wilderness, and then traverse back into the ski area all by lift-assisted gravity skiing. Skiers were using the lifts to yo-yo ski in the wilderness without the climb required to enter the wilderness through the Point Six exit. This exclusively lift-assisted wilderness access was developing distinctive runs in the wilderness, which constituted developed recreation and ski area “creep” into the Rattlesnake Wilderness. The MSB yo-yo use was increasing off upper Paradise and the North Dakota Downhill to the point that the slopes above Rankin Lake were getting significant use and the Rattlesnake Wilderness was being used as an extension of the ski area. Developed recreation is not allowed in Congressionally designated wilderness areas. In response to this issue, ski area boundary signs and boundary

Final EIS 3-121 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment ropes have been installed along North Dakota Downhill ski trail, and MSB patrols the area to prevent yo-yo skiing and the creep of developed recreation into the Rattlesnake Wilderness.

Existing Snowmobile Use

Public use of snowmobiles is prohibited in the MSB permit area. There is virtually no public snowmobile use in the vicinity of MSB and TV Mountain due to the prohibition in the SUP area, controlled access on the Point Six Road, and unsuitable terrain elsewhere. The roads that access TV Mountain have controlled access (gate) for the protection of the communication towers, so public snowmobile use has always been restricted. Off of roads, the terrain surrounding MSB is too forested and steep to be attractive to snowmobiles.

Existing Summer Recreation

The MSB has had an active summer operation since 1987. The resort is open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from late June until mid-September and offers Grizzly chairlift rides, mountain biking, folf, hiking, and sightseeing. Food and beverages are served at the Last Run Inn. In 2001, a 5-mile-long, single-track mountain bike trail was constructed from the top of the Grizzly chairlift, through open bowls, to Longhorn and Paradise trails, then to the base area.

The Grant Creek Basin in the Rattlesnake Wilderness is directly adjacent to MSB and is designated as Opportunity Class 1, Pristine, in Appendix 0-4 of the Forest Plan (USDA 1986). Pristine areas have no trails and are managed to avoid any sign of human activity. The MSB does not operate the La Valle chairlift in the summer to ensure that the ski area does not develop into a de facto wilderness trailhead and that resultant use does not exceed the Pristine standard. The MSB is also required to report to the Forest Service each year the number of chairlift riders that ride up the Grizzly chairlift with overnight backpacks. Trend and volume of backpackers using the Grizzly chairlift is monitored annually. The LNF also does backcountry patrols in the summer to monitor and maintain the wilderness resource.

Existing Hunting Use

The discharge of firearms is prohibited year-round within 150 yards of residences, buildings, campsites, developed recreation sites, or occupied areas on Forest Service lands in the existing SUP area and the proposed expansion area (36 CFR 261.10(d)(1)).

Walk-in rifle hunting (discharge of firearms) in the existing SUP area is allowed during applicable hunting seasons with the above restrictions when MSB is not in operation. When MSB is in operation, the SUP area is closed to the discharge of firearms. MSB employees are not allowed to hunt or carry hunting firearms when traveling behind public road closures in motor vehicles or when on foot or bicycle within 150 yards of residences, buildings, campsites, developed recreation sites, or occupied areas on the LNF land in the existing SUP area and the proposed expansion area.

The discharge of firearms is prohibited year-round on the 80 acres of privately owned land at the base area. Hunting in the existing SUP area and proposed expansion area is limited by access, but hunters occasionally do use the areas, mainly accessing them by FR 19080 (the boundary of the proposed expansion area).

Final EIS 3-122 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Existing Developed Recreation Not Associated With Montana Snowbowl

The nearest developed recreation improvement is the Ravine Creek Trail 34 trailhead, located 6.4 miles north of I-90 on Grant Creek Road. This trail accesses the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area from lower Grant Creek. This trailhead is more than 2 miles southeast of the current MSB SUP boundary.

In the Grant Creek Basin area of the Rattlesnake Wilderness, there is light summer use from hikers accessing the area on Forest Service trails to the east. Winter use in Grant Creek Basin is discussed above. No Forest Service system trails are in the Grant Creek Basin. Former Forest Service Trail 515, Grant Creek Trail, was dropped from the system about 10 years ago and is not maintained.

Existing Roads and Road Use

Roads within LNF land in the existing SUP area are open to public non-motorized use. These roads are generally steep, primitive, and un-surfaced. Motorized use on these roads is limited to MSB maintenance personnel and communications site permittees accessing Big Sky Mountain and Point Six. Portions of existing roads are used for mountain biking and hiking in summer. Portions of existing roads serve as ski trails in the winter. The MSB coordinates with communications site users to provide year-round access to facilities on Big Sky Mountain and Point Six.

Public motorized access to roads on TV Mountain from the La Valle drainage is restricted by two gates on Point Six Road. Most use on these roads is by communications site personnel and by MSB employees. A third locked gate at the south end of the main MSB parking lot on TV Mountain Road/FR 4297 prevents public access to TV Mountain and Point Six roads from the Butler Creek drainage. Public non-motorized access is allowed on these roads.

3.11 VISUAL RESOURCES

3.11.1 Standards Applicable to Visual Resources

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) provides overall direction for visual quality on the LNF. Goal 4 states that the Forest will “provide a pleasing and healthy environment.”

The Forest Plan also specifies Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) in the standards section of each Forest Plan MA description. VQOs are defined as desired levels of scenic quality and diversity of natural features based on physical and sociological characteristics of an area; they also refer to the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristics of the landscape. Activities in the proposed expansion area fall within MA 8, MA 16, and MA 25. The VQOs assigned to these MAs are Partial Retention (MA 25), Modification (MA 8 and MA 16), and Maximum Modification (MA 16). Guidelines for meeting VQOs are described in Forest Service Handbook 462, National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2. The following definitions are in the Forest Plan:

 Partial Retention. (MA 25) Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture which are found infrequently or not at all in the characteristic landscape, but remain visually subordinate to the visual strength of the characteristic landscape.  Modification. (MA 8 and MA 16) Activities of vegetative and landform alteration must borrow from naturally established line, form, color, and texture so that their visual

Final EIS 3-123 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

characteristics are those of natural occurrences within the surrounding area when viewed as middle ground or background. Activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape.  Maximum Modification. (MA 16) Activities are dominant but appear natural when seen as background.

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) includes an inventory and analysis of visual resources using the original Visual Management System (VMS) as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 462, National Forest Landscape Management System, Volume 2, Chapter 1. This system, which was released in 1974, established standards of measurement (VQOs) for assessing proposed and existing impacts to the scenic quality.

In 1994, the Forest Service revised the VMS and replaced it with the Scenery Management System (SMS). This revised system is described in Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. The LNF has been incorporating the inventory portion of SMS in NEPA analysis since 1994; however, SMS will not be fully implemented until the Forest Plan is revised. Both the SMS and the VMS provide guidance for this visual resource effects analysis related to the proposed expansion. The SMS includes new guidance called Scenery Integrity Levels (SIL) that are similar to the VQOs discussed above. The SIL definitions are provided to complement the VQO definitions; however, VQOs will be used to determine the proposed activities’ compliance with the Forest Plan. The Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification VQOs are similar to the Moderate, Low, and Very Low SILs, which are defined as:

 Moderate SIL. Slightly Altered (Partial Retention VQO). Moderate scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such a scale that they are not evident.  Low SIL. Moderately Altered (Modification VQO). Low scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears moderately altered.” Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed but also be compatible or complementary to the character within.  Very Low SIL. Heavily Altered (Maximum Modification VQO). Very low scenic integrity refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effects and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain (landforms) so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not dominate the composition.

Visual resources on NFS lands are regulated under 47 CFR 43037 Sec. 219.21 (f), which states, “The visual resource shall be inventoried, and evaluated as an integrated part of evaluating alternatives... [for] both the landscape’s visual attractiveness and the public’s visual expectation. Management prescriptions …shall include visual quality objectives.”

Final EIS 3-124 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

The existing SUP area is within MA 8 (ski areas). The proposed expansion area currently lies within MA 16 and MA 25. Implementation of the Proposed Action would transfer the proposed expansion area into MA 8. The effects to visual resources have been evaluated using the goals and standards of MA 8, which is assigned a Modification VQO.

3.11.2 Visual Resources Methods

This EIS section was compiled from published information, site visits to the project area, site visits to key observation points (KOP), and from contacts with LNF personnel. Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance (especially MA descriptions) was obtained from the Forest Plan, from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF personnel.

Additional information was obtained from the LNF Landscape Sensitivity Map, Agriculture Handbook Number 701, Landscape Aesthetics a Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA 1995d), and Agriculture Handbook Number 617, National Forest Landscape Management Ski Areas, Volume 2, Chapter 7 (USDA 1984).

Key observation points were evaluated across the potential viewshed in the Missoula Valley. Photographs were taken of existing conditions from each KOP. For the closest and potentially most-affected viewpoint, photographs were digitally altered using Adobe Photoshop software to display the appearance of the area if the project was implemented.

3.11.3 Visual Resources Analysis Area

The area of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on visual resources includes the existing MSB, the proposed expansion area, the surrounding landscape, the Missoula Valley, and the Frenchtown area. Specific KOPs were analyzed where visual resources would be most affected by the proposed expansion:

KOP 1 The Wye Area (intersection of I-90 and Highway 93) KOP 2 The Mullan Road Area west of Reserve Street KOP 3 The Reserve Street Area KOP 4 Mount Jumbo Area

3.11.4 Visual Resources Affected Environment

The landscape surrounding and including MSB and the proposed expansion area on TV Mountain forms the northern viewshed for the Missoula Valley. Vegetation across this landscape is a mosaic of topography and vegetation types with a long history of human uses and effects on visual resources. Natural variations in forest types and grassland vegetation at the lower elevations results in a mixture of forms, lines, colors, textures, and patterns. These lower elevations are dominated by rounded foothills and steeper slopes. Forest types at these lower elevations are dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir.

The mid- and upper-elevation landscapes are dominated by steep mountain slopes formed from Precambrian bedrock. At mid-elevations, the forest types include a mixture of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch and grand fir. At the upper elevations, forest types include subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and scattered whitebark pine. Variations in

Final EIS 3-125 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment slope, aspect, soil depth, timber type, past management practices, and past fires have produced a variety of form, line, color, texture, and pattern resulting in a mosaic of continuous canopy forest and natural as well as created openings.

Human alterations have been a part of the visible landscape since the 1800s. Changes that affect visual quality on the upper mountain slopes include timber harvests, roads, electronic facilities, utility transmission corridors, fires, grazing, weed infestation, and ski area development. Private land developments are a common visual feature on the lower mountain slopes, increasing near the valley floor.

Timber harvests and road projects have occurred across the landscape surrounding MSB on Forest Service, State of Montana, and private lands. Most timber harvest appears as less-dense forest, with a combination of abrupt edge changes to dense forest and more gradual transitions of color and texture. These timber harvests are more noticeable when viewed from roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed expansion area and much less noticeable when viewed from the Missoula Valley.

LNF timber harvests have occurred in the proposed expansion area (MA 16 and MA 25) for approximately 30 years, the most recent in the 1990s. They are visible on the west side of TV Mountain from the western portion of the Missoula Valley and form a patchwork mosaic of openings within the surrounding forest (Photograph 3-9). They were harvested in a manner that left many large trees as individuals and in patches scattered across each unit, which significantly reduces the visual impact. When viewed from the Missoula Valley as background, they are obvious but blend somewhat with the surrounding forest. These past timber harvests have been evaluated and found to comply with the existing VQOs of Partial Retention, Modification, and Maximum Modification (USDA 2007a).

Existing roads are present throughout the proposed expansion area but are not visible from the Missoula Valley. These roads are screened by tree cover where the canopy is dense and blend with the texture and colors of timber harvest units where the canopy has been reduced by timber removal. The road that forms the southern boundary of the proposed expansion area is partially visible from Snowbowl Road for the last 1 to 2 minutes of travel as the base area is approached. This road is screened by moderate tree cover and blends well into the form, color, and texture of the surrounding hillside.

Communications sites are present on TV Mountain, Big Sky Mountain (top of MSB), and Point Six and have been visible from the Missoula Valley for decades. The first communication uses on TV Mountain were in 1954. Current communications uses include television, microwave, cell phone, and radio towers. The larger towers have aircraft warning lights and support wires. The Point Six electronic site includes a large radar dome that is painted dark green. Each site has equipment buildings as well as towers.

Final EIS 3-126 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Photograph 3-9. January 2006 View of the TV Mountain Expansion Area from KOP 1. Note the existing timber harvests and narrow original lift line on the left side of the expansion area.

On Big Sky Mountain, the communications equipment is located in the basement of the ski patrol hut. At night, lights at each of these communications sites are a dominant visual feature viewed from most of the Missoula Valley and northern Bitterroot Valley. In daylight and good weather, the towers and radar dome appear as distinctly unnatural features that extend above the skyline and have linear/angular shapes; however, these features are generally subordinate to the surrounding natural landscape.

Utility corridors are also present in the landscape around MSB but are visible only from viewpoints within the foreground viewing distance of the corridors. These utility corridors have very limited visibility from the Missoula Valley and only as subordinate features. Utilities within the existing SUP area are buried along roadways and ski trails.

Evidence of past wildfire is visible in the existing SUP area and the surrounding landscape. Most of the forest has retained partial canopy cover after these fires and blends well with the form, texture, and color of the surroundings.

Ski trails and lift lines have been present in the existing SUP area and proposed expansion area for decades. The ski area was originally called Snow Park and was located on the west side of TV Mountain. The clearing of the first lift line, installed in 1954, can still be seen from portions of the west Missoula Valley (Photograph 3-9). In 1961, this lift was moved to the current MSB

Final EIS 3-127 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment location, and ski trail construction began in the new area. MSB trails and lift lines have been a part of the Missoula Valley view ever since.

On a clear day, ski trails can be seen from as far away as the northern Bitterroot Valley; however, most viewers do not recognize the presence of MSB from the south because ski trails blend well into the natural mountain-top textures. Existing ski trails are more easily identified as manmade features from a portion of the west Missoula Valley near the Wye (KOP 1, Photograph 3-9). From this area, ski trails on Big Sky Mountain are visible above and beyond the western slope of TV Mountain. These ski trails are background as viewed from the Missoula Valley and are easily distinguished only during favorable weather. The existing MSB has been found to meet the VQO standard in MA 8, Modification (USDA 1995a).

Landscape visibility addresses the relative importance and sensitivity of what is seen and perceived in the landscape. The proposed expansion area can be viewed from a variety of locations in the Missoula Valley, mainly west from Russell Street to the Pulp Mill and Frenchtown areas.

3.12 ECONOMICS

3.12.1 Standards Applicable to Economics

The Forest Plan (USDA 1986) does not include Forest-wide or MA-specific economic standards that would apply to the Proposed Action or No Action alternative.

3.12.2 Economics Methods

This section was compiled using published economic and demographic information and from contacts with LNF and MSB personnel. Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery Basin ski areas were reviewed.

3.12.3 Economics Analysis Area

The area of analysis for direct and indirect effects on economic resources is the local market area within approximately 100 miles of MSB. This area includes all or portions of Missoula, Mineral, Lake, Ravalli, Granite, Powell, and Sanders counties. The area of analysis for cumulative effects includes other ski areas that compete with MSB for day skiers including Discovery Basin, Lookout Pass, Lost Trail, and Blacktail Mountain.

3.12.4 Economics Affected Environment

Market Area

The MSB is 12 miles from Missoula, Montana. As stated in the MDP (MSB 2004): “Although Snowbowl is seeing more skiers from the regional and even national markets it is still primarily a day ski area serving Western Montana, particularly Missoula County.”

In an earlier study, Bob Brandenberger (consultant for MSB) indicated that “Snowbowl’s primary base market would be comprised of the population of skiers living closer to Snowbowl (and Marshall) than the out of town areas, or less than a one-hour driving time” (MSB 2004).

Final EIS 3-128 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Reflecting this, the current MDP estimates that the “Missoula Day Use Skier Base” for MSB totaled about 125,000 persons in 2000, with those persons primarily residing in Missoula, Ravalli, Lake, Sanders, and Mineral counties. Because the primary market is local, additional skier activity and related expenditures would be generated locally, with income to support this coming from sources internal to the market area and local economy.

Area Population Levels and Trends

Population data were compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and Census Quick Facts for 2006 (USCB 2008). Figure 3-18 shows the locations of MSB and other local/regional ski areas. The general location of NFS lands in western Montana is also shown. The area’s population at the time of the 2000 Census is mapped at the Census block level. Approximately 146,000 people resided within 50 miles of the city of Missoula at the time of the 2000 Census.

Most skiers using MSB reside at driving distances of 1 hour or less. At greater distances, other ski areas are more likely to be used; these areas include Lost Trail Powder Mountain at the south end of Ravalli County, Lookout Pass just off I-90 across the Montana state line in Idaho, Blacktail Mountain south of Kalispell and west of Flathead Lake, Great Divide northwest of Helena, and Discovery Ski Area near Philipsburg.

Population data for individual counties in the seven-county area have been compiled for the period 1980 through 2010 and are shown on Figure 3-18. The seven-county area included in the MSB impact area had a total population of 139,870 in 1980, with approximately 54 percent of the total, or 76,115, living in Missoula County. The area’s population grew to 146,373 by 1990, an increase of 6,500, or just under 5 percent, for the ten-year period.

Growth in the area increased considerably in the 1990s, with the total population expanding to over 183,000 by 2000, an increase of 36,842, or more than 25 percent over the ten-year period. By July 1, 2006, the area-wide population had grown to 196,867. The most recent Census Bureau estimate for 2008 placed the seven-county area population at 201,305. These trends indicate area population growth is continuing.

Final EIS 3-129 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Figure 3-18. Population Distribution around Montana Snowbowl

In 2006, Missoula County had the area’s largest population at 104,095, which accounted for more than half of the total population of the seven-county area. A more recent estimate for 2010 placed Missoula County’s population at 109,299 (USCB 2011). Population growth in Missoula County has been particularly strong since the early 1990s, although in recent years the rate of growth has slowed (Figure 3-19).

The second most populous county was Ravalli, with a 2006 population of 39,795 and a 2010 population of 40,212. Lake County was the third most populous county with a population of 28,173 in 2006 and 28,746 in 2010 (USCB 2011). As with Missoula County, the population of other surrounding area counties is continuing to grow (Figure 3-19).

Final EIS 3-130 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

120000

100000

80000 Missoula Ravalli 60000 Lake Sanders Powell

County County Population 40000 Mineral Granite 20000

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year

Figure 3-19. Population Levels for Analysis Area Counties, 1980–2010 Source: USCB (2011)

Figure 3-19 shows growth in each area county for the period of 1980 through 2010. The figure clearly shows the marked increase in area population growth in the 1990s versus what occurred in the 1980s. The pace of this growth has slowed recently, but is continuing. Growth in Missoula County was only 0.5 percent per year between 2002 and 2004. From 2004 to 2006, Missoula County grew 1.7 percent per year. From 2006 to 2010 Missoula County grew 1.3 percent per year.

Area Population Age Demographics

The Purpose and Need for the proposed expansion at MSB includes a “greater variety of ski terrain, better matching the skier market, especially increasing lower ability level terrain as well as satisfying the demand for advanced, intermediate, and expert terrain” (MSB 2004). The population of the area is not only growing, but it is also aging. Figure 3-20 shows population counts by the U.S. Census Bureau for five-year age groupings in Missoula County in 1990, 2000, and 2009 (USCB 2007a, USCB 2007b, USCB 2007c, USCB 2011).

Final EIS 3-131 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

Population 6000 1990 2009 4000

2000

0

5-9

85+

30-34 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 Under5 Age group

Figure 3-20. Missoula County Population by Age Group in 1990, 2000 and 2009 Source: USCB 2011

Between 1990 and 2009 there has been significant growth in the 20 to 29 age demographic and the 45 to 69 demographic. This increase in the 20 to 29 age group likely reflects increases in enrollment at the University of Montana in Missoula, but in the 45 to 69 age demographic it represents the increase in “baby boomers” within Missoula County.

These shifts in growth to an older population are expected to continue as baby boomers (those born between 1947 and 1963) continue to age, as do children of baby boomers. These shifts in the population’s age distribution underlie MSB’s desire to provide a greater mix of ski terrain and add runs requiring lesser abilities. Figure 3-21 shows the age distribution of the combined populations of Ravalli, Lake, and Mineral counties.

Final EIS 3-132 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

Population 1990 2000 2009

1000

0

Age group

Figure 3-21. Ravalli, Lake, and Mineral Counties Population by Five-year Age Group Source: USCB 2011

The distribution of population growth by age in these three surrounding counties is even more pronounced than in Missoula County, with recent growth concentrated in adults aged 50 and older and in young adults in their late teens and twenties. It can be expected that population growth over the next 10 years will continue to shift, and proximate ski areas will need to tailor their services to these changes. This trend suggests the need for diverse skiing terrain, accommodating individuals from diverse age groups with widely varying skiing skills and abilities.

Area Total Personal Income Levels and Trends

Total personal income includes all income actually received by private individuals and households in all forms–labor earnings, earnings from investments and savings, and income received in the form of government transfer payments such as Social Security and Medicaid. Adjusted for inflation using gross domestic product deflators published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and converted into 2000 dollars, the total personal income base of the entire seven-county area had reached nearly $4.4 billion in 2003, according to data compiled by the BEA, U.S. Department of Commerce (Regional Economic Information System [REIS] local area income data).

Figure 3-22 shows annual total personal income levels for the area counties each year between 1980 and 2003. About 60 percent of the area-wide total of $4.4 billion in 2003 was income received by residents of Missoula County. This $2.6 billion in income for Missoula County compares with $809 million for Ravalli County and $503 million for Lake County.

Final EIS 3-133 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

$3,000

Missoula Ravalli $2,500 Lake

Sanders

adjusted) Dollars adjusted) - Powell $2,000 Mineral Granite

$1,500

$1,000

$500

Total Personal Income in Millions of 2000 (inflation 2000 of Millions in Income Personal Total $0 '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 Source: BEA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (REIS data series) Note: The most recent estimates are available on the BEA's website. Figure 3-22. Total Personal Income Levels for Montana Snowbowl Area Counties, 1980–2003

Just as with population, the income base of the analysis area saw considerably more expansion in the 1990s than in the 1980s, and this income growth is largely continuing. Annual total personal income in Missoula County grew by more than $643.3 million in the 1990s in inflation- adjusted 2000 dollars, after only modest growth of $172.5 million in the 1980s. Growth between 2000 and 2003 exceeded $270 million (Figure 3-23). At this pace, personal income growth over the current period should roughly match that of the previous period.

Final EIS 3-134 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3

Affected Environment

$900

$793.9 $800

$700

$600

$500

$400

$312.8

$300 $271.1

$220.2

$200

$139.7

$98.1

$95.1

$100 $75.6

$42.9

$19.7

$18.1 $10.9

Total Personal Income Change in Millions of 2000 Dollars 2000 of Millions in Change Income Personal Total $0 Missoula Ravalli Lake Sanders Powell Mineral Granite -$100 Source: BEA income data (U.S. Dept. of Commerce)

Figure 3-23. Total Personal Income Growth for Recent Periods

Area per Capita Personal Income Levels and Trends

Total personal income in inflation-adjusted dollars has been growing at a significantly higher rate than population, and this is translating into rising per capita personal income levels throughout area. Per capita personal income in Missoula County rose from less than $20,000 in 1990 to more than $26,500 in 2003, an increase of nearly $6,500, or nearly 33 percent in 2000 inflation-adjusted dollars. Per capita income in Ravalli County rose from $16,788 to $20,888 during this same period, an increase of $4,100, or 24 percent (Figure 3-24). Most of the counties surrounding Missoula have relatively low per capita personal incomes when compared to Missoula County.

Final EIS 3-135 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3

Affected Environment

$30,000

'80 '90 $26,532

'00 '03

$24,383

$25,000

$21,033

$20,888

$20,188

$19,586

$19,511 $19,317

$20,000

adjusted Dollars adjusted

$18,384

$18,291

-

$17,900

$17,765

$17,613

$17,455

$17,408

$17,036

$16,941

$16,788

$16,507

$16,092

$15,446

$15,061

$14,485 $14,426

$15,000 $14,240

$13,655

$13,623 $13,211

$10,000

$5,000 Per Capita Income in 2000 Inflation 2000 in IncomeCapita Per

$0 Missoula Ravalli Lake Sanders Powell Mineral Granite Source: BEA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce Figure 3-24. Area per Capita Personal Income Levels

Area population, total personal income, and per capita personal income throughout the area are growing, although population growth may be slowing relative to the previous 10 or more years. Expansions in population and in per capita income will generally lead to increasing demand for area goods and services, including entertainment services such as skiing. However, how this increased demand is expressed in services such as skiing is strongly influenced by the age composition of the area population; individuals may be less apt to ski as they age if appropriate terrain is not available. The area’s population is aging, and this trend is projected to continue.

Area Employment and Labor Earnings

Table 3-32 shows detailed accounting of the composition of area personal income. The data used in the table are for 2003 and are shown in nominal dollars. These are county-level personal income data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, BEA, REIS. Data for Ravalli, Lake, and Mineral counties are grouped, as are data for Sanders, Powell, and Granite counties. Data for the largest county (Missoula) are shown separately.

Final EIS 3-136 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Table 3-32. Area County Population, Personal Income and Employment (2003 Dollars) Entire Ravalli, Sanders, Seven- Lake, Powell, County Income/Employment Parameter Missoula Mineral Granite Area Population (July 1 estimates) 98,516 69,992 20,342 188,850 Per capita personal income $27,997 $20,927 $19,308 $24,441 County Personal Income by Major Source (in millions) Total Personal Income $2,758.1 $1,464.7 $392.8 $4,615.6 Dividends, interest, and rent $443.4 $310.4 $79.6 $833.4 Personal current transfer receipts $356.2 $313.9 $97.7 $767.8 Net earnings by place of residence $1,958.5 $840.4 $215.5 $3,014.3 plus: Contributions to government $280.3 $98.0 $30.0 $408.3 social insurance Employee and self-employed $143.9 $54.5 $16.3 $214.7 contributions Employer contributions $136.4 $43.5 $13.7 $193.6 less: Adjustment for residence -$127.3 $135.4 $6.3 $14.4 equals: Earnings by place of work $2,366.1 $802.9 $239.2 $3,408.2 County Workplace Labor Earnings (in millions) and Employment by Major Category Total employment 71,572 34,283 11,075 116,930 Wage and salary disbursements $1,584.1 $505.9 $155.1 $2,245.1 Wage and salary employment 57,214 21,408 6,617 85,239 Proprietors’ income $401.5 $165.5 $42.5 $609.5 Proprietors 14,358 12,875 4,458 31,691 Farm earnings -$3.9 -$0.1 $3.6 -$0.3 Farm employment 682 2,730 1,076 4,488 Nonfarm earnings $2,370.0 $803.0 $235.6 $3,408.6 Nonfarm employment 70,890 31,553 9,999 112,442 All government labor earnings $438.9 $213.6 $82.2 $734.7 All government employment 10,064 5,298 2,191 17,553 All private labor earnings $1,931.1 $589.4 $153.4 $2,673.9 All private employment 60,826 26,255 7,808 94,889

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, BEA, REIS local area income and employment data series Note: Dollar figures in the table are current (2003) dollars (not inflation-adjusted).

Final EIS 3-137 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Investment income or income received by individuals as rent, dividends, interest, or capital gains totaled $833 million across the entire area and $443 million in Missoula County. Transfer payments (primarily income in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government unemployment, and disability payments, and similar income received through government programs) totaled $768 million area-wide and $356 million in Missoula County. Employment income or labor earnings reported by the county where workers reside totaled more than $3 billion area-wide and almost $2 billion in Missoula County (nearly two thirds of area-wide total labor income).

To convert county employment earnings by residence into employment earnings by place of work, it is necessary to add the contributions to Social Security by employers and from the payroll checks of employees. It is also necessary to subtract “adjustment for residence,” which accounts for differences when some workers live in a county different from their place of employment. Earnings by place of work then show employment earnings according to where an employee’s workplace is located. Workplace labor earnings area-wide totaled approximately $3 billion, of which approximately $2 billion was from Missoula County workplaces.

The lower section of Table 3-32 shows area workplace earnings by major category, along with area employment figures by the same categories. Total full- and part-time employment area- wide in 2003 was just under 117,000 workers, with 71,572 of these employed in Missoula County. More than 85,000 of the total jobs in the area were wage and salary jobs, jobs held by persons working for others for a wage or salary. Wage and salary jobs accounted for about 73 percent of all jobs. In Missoula County, wage and salary jobs accounted for almost 80 percent of all jobs. These 57,214 wage and salary workers earned wage disbursements totaling almost $1.6 billion. Proprietors or self-employed persons in Missoula County, who totaled 14,358, earned about $402 million.

Table 3-33 shows a detailed breakdown of area employment by major sector for all non-farm sectors of the economy (the farm sector is shown in Table 3-32). Some data at this level of disaggregation are unavailable due to suppression (not disclosed for proprietary reasons). This non-disclosure issue is most pronounced in counties with relatively small employment bases, such as Granite and Powell; this is why many table cells for Sanders, Powell, and Granite counties show “NA,” indicating the data are not available. These then extend into the area-wide totals. However, data are complete for Missoula County and for the three-county totals for Ravalli, Lake, and Mineral, and these are the four counties that represent MSB’s base market population.

The lower section of Table 3-33 shows public or government employment by major type: federal civilian, military, state government (which includes University of Montana employees), and local government (which includes employees and staff of the local public school system as well as city and county governments). For Missoula County, the largest category of public employment was state government at 4,639 jobs, followed by local government at 3,376 full- and part-time jobs. Forest Service employment falls within federal civilian employment, which totaled 1,523 jobs in Missoula County and 2,513 jobs area-wide in 2003. These seven counties had a total of 17,553 government jobs.

There are 19 separate private, non-farm sectors shown in Table 3-33. Of the nearly 61,000 full- and part-time jobs in Missoula County’s private non-farm sectors in 2003, 9,745 were in retail trade (16 percent of the total), and 8,995 were in health care and social assistance (15 percent of the total). Next largest in job totals was accommodation and food services (such as hotels, motels, and restaurants) at 5,919 (10 percent of the total). Construction firms were also major

Final EIS 3-138 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment employers in Missoula County, with 4,658 total full- and part-time jobs (8 percent of the total). Professional and technical services, representing some of the workforce needed for this expansion, was another major source of employment, with 4,638 full- and part-time jobs (8 percent of the total).

Of the 26,255 full- and part-time jobs in the private, non-farm sectors of Ravalli, Lake, and Mineral counties, 4,101 were in retail trade (just under 16 percent of the total). Next largest was construction with 3,133 jobs (12 percent of the total), and health care and social assistance with 3,061 jobs (12 percent of the total).

Table 3-33. Area Employment by Major Sector (2003) Ravalli, Sanders, Entire Lake, Powell, Seven- Sector Missoula Mineral Granite County Area All Private Sector Employment 60,826 26,255 7,808 94,889 Forestry, fishing, and related 911 812 NA NA Mining 61 113 NA NA Utilities 161 57 NA NA Construction 4,658 3,133 NA NA Manufacturing 3,061 2,447 NA NA Wholesale trade 2,379 556 NA NA Retail trade 9,745 4,101 976 14,822 Transportation and warehousing 2,688 595 372 3,655 Information 1,503 340 NA NA Finance and insurance 2,630 1,087 NA NA Real estate and rental/leasing 2,585 1,382 NA NA Professional and technical services 4,638 1,530 NA NA Management of enterprises 285 133 NA NA Administrative and waste services 3,155 1,069 NA NA Educational services 881 301 NA NA Health care and social assistance 8,995 3,061 NA NA Arts, entertainment, and recreation 2,227 910 230 3,367 Accommodation and food services 5,919 2,198 NA NA Other services (except public administration) 4,344 2,152 636 7,132 All Public Sector Employment 10,064 5,298 2,191 17,553 Federal civilian 1,523 735 255 2,513 Military 526 366 107 999 State government 4,639 327 811 5,777 Local government including public education 3,376 3,870 1,018 8,264

Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS local area income and employment data series. The most recent employment data are available on the Bureau of Economic Analysis website.

Final EIS 3-139 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Every business establishment is classified according to the primary activity from which revenues are derived in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS 2007, 713920 Skiing Facilities). The MSB falls within “Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation” because most of its revenue comes from ski-related recreation. According to the MSB general manager and owner, nearly all MSB employees reside in or near the city of Missoula and are therefore shown in the figures for Missoula County.

The Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector of Missoula County employed 2,227 persons in 2003. These workers received a total of $25.6 million in compensation, including both wage and salary payments (including benefits) and self-employment income. Wages and salaries accounted for $20.9 million of this $25.6 million. The remainder is proprietor or self-employment income. Within the Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector is the Recreation, Gambling, and Amusement sub-sector, which includes all businesses whose primary revenue activity is recreation services, including ski recreation services. Labor earnings for those employed in this more detailed sub-sector totaled $17.5 million in 2003, with most of this in wage and salary income.

Employment at MSB is seasonal. During a year, employment ranges from more than 100 full- and part-time workers in the winter ski season (approximately 4 months in duration) to as few as 20 employees during the summer season (approximately 2.5 months). Between the winter and summer seasons, employment can drop to as low as 8 employees.

3.12.5 Economics of Local Ski Areas

A chief attraction of area skiing facilities, such as MSB and most of its competitors in the region, is affordability. Ski areas primarily serving local residents are considerably more affordable than larger, destination-resort-type facilities such as the Whitefish Mountain Resort north of Kalispell. During the 2010–2011 ski season, a single day adult lift ticket at MSB cost $40 compared to $64 at the Whitefish Mountain Resort. Rates of other ski areas primarily serving local populations were $35 at Lookout Pass, $35 at Lost Trail Powder Mountain, $38 at Discovery Ski Area, and $36 at Blacktail Mountain.

Trend in Ski Area Visitation

Missoula County, where most MSB skiing clientele reside, grew from 79,080 people in 1990 to 109,299 in 20010 (USCB 2011) and is projected to reach 125,000 by 2020 (NPA 2003). The combined population of Ravalli, Lake, and Mineral counties grew from 49,400 in 1990 to 73,181 in 2010 (USCB 2011), and is projected to reach 96,000 by 2020 (NPA 2003). Per capita personal income, in inflation-adjusted terms, has increased considerably for counties in the area. This population growth closest to MSB, from which it receives most of its ski clientele, combined with area income growth, appears to be translating into a greater area ski need at MSB.

Figure 3-25 shows the trend in MSB skier visits since the late 1980s. Three-year rolling averages of total skier visits to MSB between 1989 and 2011 are shown. By calculating three- year rolling averages, some of the year-to-year variability in skier visits is removed, offering a clearer picture of the overall trend in skier use of the facility. Similar figures are also shown for the nearby Marshall Mountain Ski Area, which closed during the 2002–2003 winter season.

Final EIS 3-140 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Three-year Rolling Average Visitation 70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000 Snowbowl SkierVisitation 20,000 Marshall

10,000

-

09-'11 08-'10

'99-'01 '91-'93 '92-'94 '93-'95 '94-'96 '95-'97 '96-'98 '97-'99 '98-'00 '00-'02 '01-'03 '02-'04 '03-'05 '04-'06 '05-'07 '06-'08 '07-'09 Three-Year Period

Figure 3-25. Rolling Three-year Annual Average Skier Visits for Montana Snowbowl and Marshall Mountain Ski Areas

The three-year average of skier visits to MSB for 1989 through 1991 was 43,667 total visits. The same average for the three-year period from 2009 through 2011 was 61,548, an increase of more than 40 percent.

Growth in skier visits to MSB should continue with continued population and income growth, especially given the closure of the nearby Marshall Mountain Ski Area. The Marshall Mountain Ski Area provided ski terrain particularly suited for beginning and intermediate skiers. Many of the new ski runs proposed for development in the MSB expansion would be suited for less advanced skiers. However, the anticipated growth in skier visits to MSB as a result of population and income growth, as well as closure of the Marshall Mountain Ski Area, has slowed due to the undersized facilities available at MSB.

Area population and income growth should also result in increased skier usage of other ski areas.

3.12.6 Economics of Montana Snowbowl

Lolo National Forest Ski Area Administration Costs

The LNF administrative costs for MSB were $10,608 in 2007.

Special User Fee Paid to the Forest Service

MSB pays a SUP fee to the LNF. This fee is assessed at 1.5 percent of gross sales by MSB. In recent years, MSB has paid the LNF about $18,000 annually. Before 2000, 25 percent of this amount was returned by the LNF to the counties in which LNF has land holdings. The amount

Final EIS 3-141 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment that was returned to each county reflected the percentage of LNF land that was within that county multiplied by the annual SUP fee in addition to other LNF revenue sources each year.

In 2000, the federal government enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act to mitigate the variability in these returns. A county could either stay with the 25 percent payment or could choose to accept a stable yearly payment that amounted to the average of the county’s three highest payments in the previous 14 years (1986 to 1999). All of the counties in Montana, with the exception of Broadwater, Powder River, and Rosebud, chose the stable payment system. Therefore, the return to the counties in the LNF has not been affected by the MSB SUP fees since 2000 (Gebert 2008 personal communication). The Act ran through fiscal year 2006; however, in May 2007, Congress extended the Act for 1 year, and more legislation extended it through 2011 (Gebert 2008 personal communication).

Employment and Labor Earnings at Montana Snowbowl

This discussion is based on information provided by the MSB general manager and owner, information in the MDP (MSB 2004), and information provided by MSB to the Forest Service used in assessing MSB’s financial capacity to carry out the proposed expansion.

Although it continues some operations and maintenance year-round, the MSB has two major seasons. The main four-month winter season ordinarily begins in early December and extends into early April (MSB 2004). During this period, MSB employs a little more than 100 workers and staff, and generally operates seven days a week. Nearly all MSB employees live in or near Missoula. About 40 of these employees work at least 40 hours a week during this period; the other 60 or more work less than 40-hour weeks. For the typical MSB winter ski season, the payroll is about $280,000 (Table 3-34).

Table 3-34. Montana Snowbowl Employment and Wages by Season Number of Number of 2-Week Pay Wages per Total Wages Months of Periods per 2-Week Pay per Season Season/Description Operation Season Period ($) ($) Winter (December, January, 4.0 8 35,000 280,000 February, March) Spring 3.0 6 7,000 42,000 (April, May, June) Summer (July, August, 2.5 5 10,000 50,000 mid September) Fall (mid September, October, 2.5 5 9,000 45,000 November) Total for Year 417,000

During the three-month spring season, the only activities are a few special events such as weddings or private parties. The facility retains about eight employees during this period, and the payroll during this time totals about $42,000.

The MSB summer season begins in mid-June and extends through the second week in September, a period of 3 months. During this season, the facility offers lift rides for hiking,

Final EIS 3-142 Montana Snowbowl Chapter 3 Affected Environment biking, and folf; it also hosts weddings and other special events (usually held on private land), at times operating seven days per week depending on the activities scheduled. During this period, MSB employs about 19 to 20 persons; 6 to 7 of them work at least 40-hour weeks, and the remainder work part-time. The payroll for the period is about $50,000 (Table 3-34).

The 2.5-month fall season is predominantly when the MSB facility performs ongoing maintenance and preparation for the winter season. About 12 employees are retained during this period, with the payroll totaling about $45,000. The total wages paid by MSB in a year are about $417,000 (Table 3-34).

Final EIS 3-143 Montana Snowbowl