August 2, 2017

HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT

Moonlight Basin Overall Development Plan Wildlife Summary Report

HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ...... 4 2.1 HABITAT ...... 4 2.2 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ...... 6 2.2.1 Grizzly Bear ...... 6 2.2.2 Canada Lynx ...... 7 2.2.3 Wolverine ...... 10 2.3 OTHER SPECIES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ...... 10 2.3.1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need ...... 10 2.3.2 Migratory Birds ...... 13 2.3.3 Big Game Species ...... 13 3.0 EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 16 3.1 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ...... 18 3.2 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED AND OTHER MIGRATORY BIRDS...... 19 3.3 BIG GAME SPECIES...... 19 4.0 REFERENCES ...... 21

FIGURES:

FIGURE 1 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT...... 2 FIGURE 2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ODP DEVELOPMENT...... 3 FIGURE 3 LAND COVER ...... 5 FIGURE 4 GRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT ASSOCIATION ...... 8 FIGURE 5 CANADA LYNX HABITAT ASSOCIATION ...... 9 FIGURE 6 WOLVERINE HABITAT ASSOCIATION ...... 11 FIGURE 7 BIG GAME GENERAL AND WINTER RANGE ...... 15

TABLES:

TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA ...... 6 TABLE 2 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED DOCUMENTED TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 12

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ...... 23 APPENDIX B MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY REPORT FOR MOONLIGHT BASIN ODP ...... 26

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE i HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

MB MT Acquisition LLC/Lone Mountain Land Company is proposing to continue expanding residential, recreational, and commercial development at Moonlight Basin in eastern Madison County, located approximately 30 miles southwest of Bozeman, Montana and within/adjacent to Big Sky Resort. Development will proceed according to the Moonlight Basin Overall Development Plan (ODP; formerly the Moonlight Basin Ranch Overall Development Plan) which has been the guiding document for development within the 8,669-acre Moonlight Basin ODP area (Project Area). Development nodes included in the 2017 updated ODP have been established and refined throughout the duration of the ODP process using the constraints-based land use planning method. The objective has been to locate these nodes as sensitively as possible to protect the natural resource amenities of the area and to provide for public safety and convenience.

Current land uses within the boundaries of Project Area consist of various residential developments which are primarily tied to the recreational nature of the area. Also included are undeveloped and recreational lands which include those utilized for ski terrain and other recreational endeavors along with vast expanses of open spaces intended to protect the natural environment. The uses that are proposed as part of the 2017 ODP are similar in nature and consistent with those anticipated in each of the prior versions of the ODP.

Proposed development within the 8,669-acre Project Area will include a mix of redevelopment types. Of the 1,651 allocated housing units that were approved with the current 2007 ODP, 453 of them have already been subdivided and/or developed (Figure 1) and 1,198 remain to be developed (Figure 2). Figure 1 identifies housing densities within currently developed or platted subdivisions, along with other existing developments including the ski area and golf course. Figure 2 identifies housing densities associated with all current and proposed development under the ODP. Most of the current and planned development has been focused into small, relatively densely developed subdivisions. Approximately 97 percent of the housing units are contained on approximately 15 percent of the total Project Area, leaving large tracts of sparsely developed to undeveloped land (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Proposed development will include single family homes, town homes, condominiums, employee housing, restaurants and retail spaces, and ski resort facilities. The areas proposed for development within the Project Area are focused in areas within or adjacent to existing developments or in areas that have been determined to likely have less impacts on natural resources (e.g., wildlife, wetlands and waterways, native vegetation). The majority of development will occur within established spaces, infilling in areas with previous development. Open space and wildlife movement corridors will be maintained to the greatest extent practicable to create a development that does not restrict wildlife or associated natural resource features of the area.

The purpose of this document is to analyze the potential impacts from the proposed developments included in the 2017 ODP to wildlife species that are present within the Project Area.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 1 Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea

Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool

Golf Timber Course Ridge Sub.

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks Lodge

South Jack Pony Village Area

Legend Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Bow Gallatin Project Area Golf Course Figure 1 Development Areas Ski and Moutain Bike Recreation Area Project Existing Location Development Neighborhoods Subdivision Housing Density: Acres per Platted Unit Madison 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Roads Unit Higher Density: 0.0 - 10.0 Miles Rural Moderate Density: 10.1 - 25.0 Beaverhead Minor Rural or Local Lower Density 25.1 - 220.0 ´ Trail

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACK MOONLIGHTODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig1_Dev.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea

Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool

Golf Timber Course Ridge Sub.

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks Lodge

South Jack Pony Village Area

Legend Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Bow Gallatin Project Area Golf Course Figure 2

Development Areas Ski and Moutain Bike Recreation Area Project Existing and Proposed Location OPD Development Subdivisions Subdivision Housing Density: Acres per Allocated Unit Madison 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Roads Higher Density: 0.0 - 10.0 Miles Rural Moderate Density: 10.1 - 25.0 Beaverhead Minor Rural or Local Lower Density 25.1 - 220.0 ´ Trail

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACK MOONLIGHTODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig2_PropDev.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

2.0 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

2.1 Habitat

The Project Area is located in the upper Jack Creek drainage on the north side of Lone Peak. Elevations within the Project Area range from approximately 6,360 feet to 11,162 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with most of the housing development between 6,500 and 8,000 feet amsl. The Project Area is in the Madison Range within the Middle Rockies, Middle Elevation Sedimentary Mountains ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002). This ecoregion is dominated by conifer forest composed primarily of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (c), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). This region is part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), a vast area of national park and wilderness areas which provides habitat for many species that require large tracts of wilderness, such as grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), and North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus). The Project Area is located in a large swath of privately-owned lands that are surrounded on three sides by Gallatin National Forest land. Yellowstone National Park lies approximately 20 miles southeast of the Project Area, and the two largest parcels of the 259,000-acre Lee Metcalf Wilderness—the Spanish Peaks and Taylor-Hilgard are located adjacent to the Project Area to the northeast and southwest.

The Project Area contains a variety of forested and shrubland/meadow habitats (Figure 3). The following summary of landcover types at the Project Area is based on data in the Montana State Land Cover/Land Use database (Montana State Government 2016). The Project Area is predominantly conifer forest (41 percent) which is dominated by Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir on the higher elevation north-facing slopes of Lone Peak and by lodgepole pine or douglas fir elsewhere within the Project Area. Patches of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest are scattered throughout, primarily north of Jack Creek in the Moonlight Territory development area, making up another 5 percent of the Project Area. Areas classified as harvested forest make up another 14 percent of the Project Area—much of the regeneration in these areas is a patchy mixture of trees, shrubs, and grasses. The largest harvested areas occur within the portion of the South Jack development area where the Golf Course, Lower Hillside, Hidden Lake, and Three Peaks subdivisions are planned. Based on visual inspection of aerial imagery, additional areas appear to consist of relatively young regrowth from timber harvest. According to a previous analysis of Moonlight Basin (Holoscene 2015a), “much of the area is recovering from extensive clear-cut logging from the mid-1960s to the 1990s. These areas contain dense stands of young conifers with no shrubby understory and little herbaceous ground cover.” Most of the remainder of the Project Area is classified as subalpine-montane grassland (14 percent) and montane sagebrush steppe (13 percent), which occurs primarily north of Jack Creek in scattered patches intermixed with woodland and forest. Comparison of the vegetation layer with aerial imagery suggests that much of the area identified in the land cover layer as grassland and sagebrush steppe may actually be previously burned, harvested, or thinned forest with young and/or patchy regeneration. Alpine bedrock and scree habitat occurs on Lone Peak, within the developed ski area portion of the Project Area. Approximately 7 percent of the Project Area is classified as developed.

Small areas of lacustrine, riparian, wetland, and wet meadow habitats also occur within the Project Area. Several lakes and associated small marshes occur in the Project Area, including Ulery’s Lakes, Lee’s Pool, and two ponds in the Lower Hillside subdivision. The largest of these are the Ulery’s Lakes, which are approximately 7 and 5 acres. These lakes may provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and various other waterbirds like herons and grebes. Upper Jack Creek and several tributaries, including Wickiup Creek, Moonlight Creek, and Lone Creek drain most of the Project Area. The southeast corner of the Project has two intermittent tributaries that drain into the Middle Fork West Fork Gallatin River. The various streams within the Project Area support scattered patches of riparian

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 4 k e e r C p iu k ic

W

S

o

u

t h

F

o Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea r k k e Cre J ck a Ja c k C ght Creek r onli e Mo e k Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool South South Timber Golf Jack Course Jack Ridge Sub. Area

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks

k Lodge e

e

r

C

e

n

o L Pony Village

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Moonlight Basin Legend Land Cover Deciduous Shrubland Montane Grassland Alpine Grassland and Project Area Developed Open Water Shrubland Figure 3 Development Areas Floodplain and Riparian Sagebrush Steppe Alpine Sparse and Barren Land Cover Neighborhoods Harvested Forest Sagebrush-dominated Cliff, Canyon and Talus Perennial Stream Shrubland 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Conifer-dominated forest Herbaceous Marsh Intermittent Stream Wet meadow and woodland (mesic-wet) Insect-Killed Forest Miles Roads Conifer-dominated forest Mining and Resource Major Collector and woodland (xeric-mesic) Extraction Rural Deciduous dominated forest Mixed deciduous/ coniferous and woodland forest and woodland ´ Minor Rural or Local

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACKMOONLIGHT ODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig3_Vegetation.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report tree, shrub, herbaceous, and meadow communities. Approximately 2 percent of the Project Area is classified as riparian. Scattered patches of alpine-montane wet meadow make up 1 percent of the Project Area—the largest of these occur within the Ulery’s Lake, Ulery’s Lakes Subdivision, and Lee’s Pool subdivisions.

2.2 Federally Listed Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) report for the Project Area identifies three species that are federally listed or proposed for listing, that have potential to occur within the Project Area (IPAC 2017; Table 1). Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) data documents occurrence of two of these species within the Project Area—grizzly bear and North American wolverine.

TABLE 1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE PROJECT AREA

DOCUMENTED COMMON SCIENTIFIC WITHIN RANK1 USFWS2 STATE3 USFS HABITAT NAME NAME PROJECT AREA?4 Grizzly Ursus Conifer forest G4S2S3 Threatened SOC Threatened Yes Bear arctos and meadows Canada Lynx Subalpine conifer G5S3 Threatened SOC Threatened No Lynx canadensis forest Alpine tundra and North boreal mountain Gulo gulo Proposed American G4S3 SOC Sensitive Yes forests in the luscus Threatened Wolverine western mountains 1G=global rank, S=state rank (MNHP 2017): G2 or S2=At risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 or S3=Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 or S4=Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining. G5 or S5=Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service regulatory status (MNHP 2017): Threatened=listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act 3 SOC= Species of Concern in Montana’s Draft State Wildlife Action Plan, 2014. (MNHP 2017). 4 Documented occurrence within 1-mile pixels overlapping the Project Area, as provided by Montana Natural Heritage Program. Data acquired March 22, 2017 (MNHP 2017).

2.2.1 Grizzly Bear

In 1975, the grizzly bear was designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The species was delisted due to recovery in 2007, but relisted as threatened in 2009 due to concerns over inadequate conservation plans and declines in whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulus), an important source of food for grizzly bears. On March 11, 2016, USFWS issued a proposed rule to identify the GYE population as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and to delist it (USFWS 2016a). USFWS has determined that the GYE grizzly bear population has increased in size and range since being listed and that threats to the population are sufficiently minimized. On June 22, 2017, the USFWS announced that the GYE DPS has been recovered to the point where federal protections can be removed and overall management can be returned to the states and tribes and the GYE DPS will be delisted from the Endangered Species Act. In addition to this final rule delisting the GYE DPS, the USFWS will also release a final supplement to the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear population (USFWS 2017).

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 6 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

Grizzly bears utilize a variety of open and forested vegetation types. They range over large areas, with home ranges of hundreds of square kilometers, and often move seasonally in response to food availability. Important food resources include carrion, fish, berries, roots, and succulent green vegetation.

The Project Area is located within the distribution area of the GYE DPS of grizzly bears, and is located just outside of the northern edge of the Primary Conservation Area (USFWS 2016b) which corresponds to the 1993 recovery zone (USFWS 1993). The GYE grizzly bear population has increased and expanded its range, since it reached a low point in the 1970s. While the largest number of grizzly bears occurs south and east of the Project Area, they also occur in the Spanish Peaks mountain range, several miles north of the Project Area (USFWS 2013). A MNHP Environmental Summary Report acquired for the Project Area in March 2017 documents grizzly bear species occurrence within the Project Area based on proximity to USFWS recovery zone boundaries. MNHP produced a model of predicted suitable habitat for grizzly bears using land cover classifications (Montana State Government 2016) and associations with land cover types based on an assessment of existing literature (MNHP 2016a). The resulting grizzly bear habitat association map for the Project Area is shown on Figure 4. Grizzly bears are known to move between the Spanish Peaks and Taylor-Hilgard units of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness (Holoscene 2015b). Bears moving between the two wilderness areas—located adjacent to the northeast and southwest edges of the Project Area, respectively—may move through the Project Area and vicinity.

2.2.2 Canada Lynx

In 2000, Canada lynx became a federally listed threatened species. They primarily occur in subalpine forest with deep snow. Their main prey species is snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus); therefore, disturbances that create early successional forest are often used for hunting as is the dense cover near the edges of openings. These habitats often support higher populations of snowshoe hares, though mature forest also provides habitat for snowshoe hares and lynx. Lynx require cover for hunting and for security, and rarely cross openings wider than 100 meters. Typical home range sizes are 16 to 20 square kilometers. Canada lynx are non-migratory, but dispersal movements of over 100 miles have been recorded (MNHP and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks [MFWP] 2017).

The GYE is occupied by a small but persistent Canada lynx population. The GYE area is naturally marginal lynx habitat with highly fragmented foraging habitat, thus home ranges are likely to be especially large in this area and incorporate non-foraging matrix habitat (USFWS 2014). Canada lynx critical habitat was designated for the GYE area, but the nearest critical habitat occurs approximately 11 kilometers east of the Project Area (USFWS 2017b). MNHP produced a model of predicted suitable habitat for Canada lynx using land cover classifications (Montana State Government 2016) and associations with land cover types based on an assessment of existing literature (MNHP 2016b). The resulting lynx habitat association map for the Project Area is shown on Figure 5. MNHP data (2017) does not document any lynx occurrences within the Project Area, though the species has potential to occur in and near the Project Area.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 7 k e e r C p iu k ic

W

S

o

u

t h

F

o Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea r k k e Cre J ck a Ja c k C ght Creek r onli e Mo e k Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool South South Timber Golf Jack Course Jack Ridge Sub. Area

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks

k Lodge e

e

r

C

e

n

o L Pony Village

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Legend Gallatin Bow Figure 4 Project Area Grizzly Bear Land Cover Grizzly Bear Association Project Development Areas Location Habitat Association Commonly 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Neighborhoods Madison Occasionally Associated Miles Perennial Stream Not Beaverhead Intermittent Stream ´

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACKMOONLIGHT ODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig4_GrizzlyAssc.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 k e e r C p iu k ic

W

S

o

u

t h

F

o Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea r k k e Cre J ck a Ja c k C ght Creek r onli e Mo e k Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool South South Timber Golf Jack Course Jack Ridge Sub. Area

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks

k Lodge e

e

r

C

e

n

o L Pony Village

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Legend Gallatin Bow Figure 5 Project Area Canada Lynx Land Cover Canda Lynx Association Project Development Areas Location Habitat Association Commonly 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Neighborhoods Madison Occasionally Associated Miles Perennial Stream Not Beaverhead Intermittent Stream ´

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACKMOONLIGHT ODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig5_LynxVegAssc.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

2.2.3 Wolverine

The North American DPS of the wolverine, occurring in the contiguous 48 states, is currently proposed for listing as a threatened species (USFWS 2017c). The species was nearly extirpated from the contiguous U.S. by 1930, but has recovered to approximately 300 individuals (Inman et al. 2013). Wolverines are associated with alpine tundra and subalpine forest in steep terrain with talus and deep snow, and they require large tracts of wilderness with a diverse prey base (USFWS 2017c, Inman et al. 2013). Home ranges of wolverines are typically large—ranging from 104 to 906 square kilometers and population densities are low (USFWS 2017c), with an estimated 63 wolverines occurring in the entire GYE (Inman et al. 2013).

Moonlight Basin and the vicinity contains suitable habitat and the species has been confirmed to occupy the area (MNHP 2017). MNHP produced a model of predicted suitable habitat for wolverine using land cover classifications (Montana State Government 2016) and associations with land cover types based on an assessment of existing literature (MNHP 2016c). The resulting wolverine habitat association map for the Project Area is shown on Figure 6. A study of radio-collared wolverines in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness area documented one individual crossing the Project Area or vicinity greater than 50 times to move between the Spanish Peaks and Taylor-Hilgard units of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. It is suspected that most or all of the crossings took place west of Lone Peak due to the amount of human disturbance on the east side (Holoscene 2015b).

2.3 Other Species of Regional Significance

Other species of regional significance discussed in this document include species designated by MFWP as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and big game species. Occurrence data were acquired from MNHP (2017), for the approximate Project Area. In order to facilitate rapid delivery of species summaries/occurrence data, MNHP stores summary information for hexagonal pixels which are each one square mile in area. The data summary provided by MNHP does not correspond to the exact boundaries of the Project Area, but instead is a summary across all hexagonal pixels intersected by the Project Area (Appendix B). Section 2.3.1 discusses SGCN with documented occurrence within the MNHP project-specific environmental summary area—which includes all one-mile hexagonal pixels overlapping the Project Area (environmental summary area; MNHP 2017). Appendix A lists Montana state species of concern designated by MNHP that do not have documented known occurrences within the Project Area. The project-specific MNHP Environmental Summary is provided in Appendix B.

2.3.1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need

MNHP data (2017) documents occurrence of five SGCN species within the environmental summary area (Table 2). All five species are MBTA-protected birds that are year-round residents of the area. All five species have been documented to breed within the Project Area (MNHP 2017).

Brown creeper (Certhia americana) is a small cryptic brown songbird that habitually creeps up tree trunks in search of bark-dwelling invertebrates. They inhabit mature coniferous and mixed coniferous- deciduous forests. Breeding bird survey (BBS) data indicate a slight range-wide decline for the species since 1980, with no decline detected in Montana. Christmas Bird Count data suggests dramatic interannual fluctuations of winter populations with no overall trend (MNHP and MFWP 2017).

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 10 k e e r C p iu k ic

W

S

o

u

t h

F

o Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea r k k e Cre J ck a Ja c k C ght Creek r onli e Mo e k Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool South South Timber Golf Jack Course Jack Ridge Sub. Area

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks

k Lodge e

e

r

C

e

n

o L Pony Village

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Legend Gallatin Bow Figure 6 Project Area Wolverine Land Cover Wolverine Association Project Development Areas Location Habitat Association Commonly 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Neighborhoods Madison Occasionally Miles Perennial Stream Not Beaverhead Intermittent Stream ´

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACKMOONLIGHT ODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig6_WolverineVegAssc.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

TABLE 2 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED DOCUMENTED TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA

SCIENTIFIC COMMON NAME RANK1 USFWS2 STATE3 HABITAT NAME Certhia Brown Creeper G5S3 MBTA SGCN Conifer forest americana Evening Coccothraustes G5S3 MBTA SGCN Conifer forest Grosbeak vespertinus Haemorhous Cassin's Finch G5S3 MBTA; BCC SGCN Conifer forest cassinii Clark's Nucifraga G5S3 MBTA SGCN Conifer forest with pines Nutcracker columbiana Pileated Dryocopus G5S3 MBTA SGCN Moist conifer forests Woodpecker pileatus 1G=global rank, S=state rank (MNHP 2017): G3 or S3=Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G5 or S5=Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. 2 USFWS regulatory status (MNHP 2017): BCC=Birds of Conservation Concern; MBTA=protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 3 SGCN= Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Montana’s Draft State Wildlife Action Plan, 2014. (MNHP 2017).

Evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) is a distinctive large yellow, black, and white finch, with a massive greenish-yellow bill. The species breeds in mixed-coniferous and spruce-fir forests and winter in a variety of habitats, including coniferous forests and urban/suburban areas where they often congregate in large flocks at bird feeders. Several studies suggest this species is most abundant in mature, structurally diverse forest. They are often killed colliding with residential windows, likely due to their presence at feeders during winter. The species has declined in Montana and across North America (MNHP and MFWP 2017).

Cassin’s finch (Haemorhous cassinii) is a small, rose-colored finch with a conical bill. The species is widespread and abundant in coniferous forests throughout the Intermountain West, and regularly visits bird feeders. BBS data indicate substantial declines since 1980 within Montana and range-wide, though reasons for the decline have not been identified (MNHP and MFWP 2017).

Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) is a large raucous, gray, black, and white corvid (related to jays and crows). This species is highly dependent on large pine seeds and typically occupies conifer forests dominated by whitebark pine at high elevations or ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) or limber pine (Pinus flexilis) with Douglas fir at lower elevations. This species regularly caches seeds, and has a mutually beneficial relationship with whitebark pine for which it is the primary agent of dispersal. Loss of whitebark, ponderosa, and limber pines due to fire, disease, and bark beetle outbreaks may lead to local and widespread declines of Clark’s nutcracker. BBS data indicate a non-significant decline in Montana and a significant range-wide increase (MNHP and MFWP 2017).

Pileated woodpecker (Drycopus pileatus), with a wingspan of approximately two feet, is the largest woodpecker in temperate North America now that the ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) is likely extinct. This species relies on large-diameter trees for nesting and is most commonly associated with mature and old-growth forest, but will also occur in younger forest with scattered large trees. BBS data document non-significant population increases in Montana and range-wide since 1980. Timber harvest has the most significant impact on the species, especially removal of large-diameter live or dead trees (MNHP and MFWP 2017).

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 12 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

Montana state species of concern designated by MNHP that do not have documented known occurrences within the Project Area or environmental summary area are not described in detail in this analysis, but are listed in Appendix A. This includes species listed as potentially occurring but not observed and species observed within the environmental summary area, but not confirmed (MNHP 2017). Observed but unconfirmed SGCN include, but are not limited to: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), gray-crowned rosy finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), and westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) (MNHP 2017).

2.3.2 Migratory Birds

The MBTA provides that it is unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, “to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest or egg of any such bird…” (16 United States Code 703). This prohibition includes both direct and indirect acts, although harassment and habitat modification are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The list of migratory birds protected under the law includes essentially all native birds, with the exception of upland game birds (order Galliformes: e.g., grouse and quail); most bird species with non-migratory life-histories are protected under the Act as well. In addition to the five special status bird species documented by MNHP to occur within the Project Area, the variety of forested, grassland, shrub, and wetland habitat types provide habitat for numerous bird species. Appendix A lists additional special status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Project Area, as identified by MNHP (2017); this list includes 41 migratory bird species.

2.3.3 Big Game Species

Several big game species occur or potentially occur within the Project Area: elk (Cervus canadensis), mountain goat (Oreamnus americanus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), moose (Alces alces), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Each of these species has MFWP-designated general range that overlaps either all of the Project Area (elk, mule deer, and moose) or part of the Project Area (mountain goats and bighorn sheep). Additionally, parts of the Project Area overlap general/winter ranges for elk and mountain goats (Figure 7). Mountain goats are not native to the GYE, but have adapted well and proliferated since their introduction to the region in the mid-20th century (MNHP and MFWP 2017). General range refers to areas predictably occupied by the species for part or all of the year. General/winter range specifies portions of the general range where populations of these species tend to concentrate during the winter season. Elk, mule deer, and moose use a broad variety of forested and open cover types for foraging and rely on denser vegetation, such as forest for thermal and visual cover. Mountain goats and bighorn sheep rely heavily on cliffs and steep rocky areas to escape predators, and rarely stray far from precipitous terrain.

Winter is a crucial time of year for big game populations, when cold temperatures and deep snow can increase metabolic demands and limit access to food. During the cold, snowy months, many big game populations concentrate on winter range, where elevation, slope, aspect, and vegetation combine to produce an area that provides animals with food, protection from harsh weather, and security. Because animals are more energetically limited during winter and winter range is more limited in size than general range, protection of winter range is important for these species. Because of Moonlight Basin’s high elevation, it is generally not winter range for big game species, but two species have MFWP-delineated winter range occurring just within the edge of the Project Area. Elk winter range occurs west of the Project Area, extending from the Madison Valley up to and just within the western boundary at the north end of the Project Area. Mountain goat general/winter range centered on the Spanish Peaks, north of the

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 13 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

Project Area, extends down the south slopes of the Spanish Peaks into the northern portion of the Project Area, overlapping several proposed subdivisions: Lee’s Pool, Strawberry Ridge, Timber Ridge, and Ulery’s Lakes Subdivision. Additionally, habituation of ungulates to human activity in developed areas may alter seasonal migratory patterns and result in increases of overwintering ungulates in the developed areas.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 14 MFWP-designated General

k e Ranges for Elk, Moose, and e r C Mule Deer cover extent of map p iu k ic

W

S

o

u

t h

F

o Moonlliightt Terrrriittorry Arrea r k k e Cre J ck a Ja c k C ght Creek r onli e Mo e k Strawberry Ridge Sub Lee's Pool South South Timber Golf Jack Course Jack Ridge Sub. Area

Overlook

Lower Madison Ulery's Hillside Village Lakes Sub. Hidden Ulery's Lake Moonlliightt Lake Eastt Arrea Three Peaks

k Lodge e

e

r

C

e

n

o L Pony Village

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

MFWP-designated Winter/General Range Silver Jefferson Moonlight Basin Legend Gallatin Bow Figure 7 Project Area Elk Project Big Game General Development Areas Mountain Goat Location and Winter Range Neighborhoods MFWP-designated General Range Madison 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Elk, Moose & Mule Deer cover extent of map Miles Bighorn Sheep Beaverhead Mountain Goat ´

Path: W:\145724_HAYSTACKMOONLIGHT ODP\PER\Environmental\GIS\Apps\Report_20170707\Fig7_BigGameRange.mxd Date: 7/11/2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

3.0 EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the 1970s, the Big Sky Resort and residential area has grown immensely. This has led to habitat loss and displacement of wildlife, particularly species that depend on landscapes, like the GYE, that provide wild areas away from human disturbance (e.g., Canada lynx, grizzly bears, wolverines, and wolves). Existing development in the greater Big Sky area includes a roughly 78-square kilometer area of housing and resort developments that extends from the northeast, east, and southeast flanks of Lone Peak to the Meadow Village of Big Sky, located five miles east of the Project Area. Continued development under the Moonlight Basin ODP will generally extend this zone of residential impact north of Lone Peak for roughly two additional miles to the west. However, most of the planned expansion area, particularly those areas where dense development is planned (i.e., with housing densities of less than 10 acres per unit), will occur within areas where timber harvest has taken place, and/or adjacent to existing residential, golf course, or ski area development. While the ski area has resulted in only a modest amount of alteration to the vegetative habitat characteristics, the large amount of human presence during winter/summer recreation and visitation likely substantially reduces the occurrence and habitat use by species such as grizzly bear, lynx, and wolverine that are intolerant of human presence. Concentrating most of the development into small portions of the Project Area, within or adjacent to areas where habitat alteration and/or human presence already exists, will avoid and minimize much of the potential impact of the future development. Standard best management practices should be followed during construction, and wildlife protection measures should be implemented via covenants for residents of the subdivisions.

Impacts of the Moonlight Basin ODP include both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts from the development include loss of wildlife habitat and potentially wildlife collisions with vehicles or windows (migratory birds). Densely developed subdivisions will cover approximately 1,341 acres. Native vegetation will remain in much of this area, so habitat loss for species that are relatively tolerant of human presence (e.g., many migratory bird species, deer, moose, and mountain goats) will actually experience lower amounts of habitat loss, while more sensitive species that typically give developed areas a wide berth (e.g., grizzly bear, lynx, wolverine, and elk) will experience higher amounts of functional habitat loss. To minimize collision with wildlife, construction vehicles should maintain appropriately slow travel speeds.

Indirect impacts will result from decreased habitat quality and human disturbance leading to altered behavior or displacement of wildlife species in surrounding habitat beyond the boundaries of the physical housing and infrastructure footprints. This will include short-term impacts during construction and long- term impacts from occupancy during the life of the subdivisions. The clustering of subdivisions, leaving relatively large undeveloped areas within the Project Area (Figure 2), will minimize the amount of surrounding habitat indirectly impacted by disturbance. Another possible indirect impact of the developments would be increased stream sedimentation from runoff into the Gallatin and Madison River watersheds. To minimize erosion and sedimentation, the Project should reclaim disturbed areas where practicable and follow stormwater pollution prevention best practices.

MFWP has compiled a set of fish and wildlife recommendations for subdivision development to avoid and minimize impacts to fish and wildlife (MFWP 2012). The recommendations are intended primarily to guide MFWP biologists when they provide input to subdivision applicants and local governments. While not binding, the recommendations provide useful guidelines for developers aiming to put forth a good faith effort to avoid and minimize impacts to fish and wildlife. Some of the key MFWP recommendations and their applicability to Moonlight Basin ODP are briefly summarized in the following bullets along with additional recommendations for migratory birds, general wildlife, and stream setbacks. Existing Moonlight ODP subdivision covenants that will be implemented to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat are also listed below.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 16 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

• Big Game Winter Range: Elk winter range abuts and slightly overlaps the west edge of the Project Area, and mountain goat winter range overlaps the Moonlight Territory Area, Lee’s Pool, Strawberry Ridge, Timber Ridge, and Ulery’s Lakes subdivisions. MFWP recommends consultation with MFWP biologists for site-specific information and recommendations if a subdivision is located wholly or partially within big game winter range. The following standards pertain to any subdivision development proposed on property that contains or lies adjacent to big game winter range:

o Cluster the subdivision design features on as small a footprint as possible, as far from winter range as possible, and as close to existing development as possible. o Locate areas of proposed open space immediately adjacent to existing winter range or open space on adjacent lands, in order to maintain the functional connection with other open space and winter range on public and private lands. o Provide or maintain linkages within a winter range patch, between isolated patches of winter range, or between summer range (or other seasonal habitat) and winter range. Recommended linkage widths are a minimum of one mile for elk and one-half mile for other species.

• Human/Bear Conflicts: Provide adequate bear-resistant facilities for garbage collection. MFWP has recommended specifications for such facilities (see MFWP 2012), and the local MFWP bear management specialist is encouraged to work with the developer to install an effective facility.

• Native Grassland and Shrub Habitats: Consult with a local MFWP wildlife biologist or other biologist to confirm the approximate boundaries of any native grassland or native shrub habitat patches on or adjacent to the proposed development. For the Project Area, this may require a site visit as the existing land cover data does not appear to accurately identify native shrub and grassland patches and may overestimate the actual amount of habitat.

o For native grass/shrub patches greater than 25 acres in size, it is recommended that not more than 5 percent of the patch be developed. o For native grass/shrub patches greater than 100 acres in size, the developer is advised to consult with MFWP for site-specific recommendations. o If subdivision design features (e.g., buildings, roads, utilities) are located inside native grass/shrub habitat patches, place them adjacent to, or as close as possible to, existing development located outside of the habitat patches. Cluster the subdivision design features on as small a footprint as possible. o Locate areas of proposed open space immediately adjacent to existing native vegetation or open space on adjacent lands in order to maintain the functional connection with other open space and native grassland and native shrub habitat patches on public and private lands. o Minimize the extent of subdivision roads needed to provide access to all areas proposed for development. o Install new utility lines underground. o Revegetate with native seed after road construction and utility installation. o Develop a weed control plan, approved by the local weed district, for the entire property proposed for subdivision.

• Species of Concern: MFWP provides recommended buffers for nests of common loon (Gavia immer), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinators), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), and

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 17 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); and for leks of sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). None of these species have been documented to breed within or adjacent to the Project Area, and due to limited or nonexistent breeding habitat for these species, nests/leks of these species are unlikely to occur. If a nest/lek of any of these species is discovered near the proposed development, the recommended buffers would be adhered to.

• Migratory Birds—Raptors: Install power lines in a manner that protects raptors from electrocutions if the lines are located within vegetated buffers for bald eagle, golden eagle, and ferruginous hawk. Raptor power line design standards can be found in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 2006).

• General Wildlife: Existing covenants for the Moonlight ODP that will be implemented with any additional development include:

o Hunting, capturing, trapping or killing of wildlife within the Project is prohibited with the exception of game management purposes. o No feeding or domestication of any wildlife shall be permitted. No salt licks, bird feeders, or other foods shall be placed upon any site within the Project Area and items such as bird feed, horse feed, grains, garbage, and dog food shall be stored in bear-proof containers. o No trash, waste, garbage, litter, junk, refuse, or unused items of any kinds shall be kept, stored, thrown, dumped, allowed to accumulate, left or burned on any portion of the Project Area. o No household pets shall be permitted to harass any wildlife. o The grazing of cattle or sheep anywhere within the Project Area is not permitted. o No fencing shall unreasonable interrupt or interfere with wildlife migration or movement.

• Perennial Streams and Wetlands: Building setbacks will be implemented according to applicable regulations at the time that development occurs and in coordination with the applicable agencies. Applicable permits will be acquired for impacts to streams and wetlands.

3.1 Federally Listed Species

Grizzly bear and wolverine are documented to occur in the Project Area, and lynx have potential to occur, as well. While specific habitat requirements vary by species, all three species are large carnivores that require large expanses of relatively undisturbed wilderness. As such, habitat quality and usage by these three species is likely already substantially reduced within much of the area proposed for development because of its proximity to previously developed housing and ski recreation areas to the south and east. It is anticipated that habitat suitability will decrease significantly for these species within the approximately 1,341 acres of densely developed subdivisions. Within adjacent undeveloped areas and more sparsely developed subdivisions, habitat will remain functional, but the potential for disturbance from human presence and/or conflict with humans will be increased, effectively reducing overall habitat quality for these species. Of particular importance is the Project Area’s location in a north-south movement corridor between the Spanish Peaks and Taylor-Hilgard units of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. The most undisturbed, and thus most likely to be regularly used, portion of the corridor occurs in the western and northern part of the Project Area, extending for several miles to the west of the Project Area. The undisturbed gap between a residential area to the northwest in lower Jack Creek and the Big Sky ski area is approximately five miles wide. At the completion of the currently planned Moonlight Basin ODP development, the golf course and densely developed subdivisions will have narrowed the gap to

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 18 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

approximately 3.5 miles wide, and the sparsely developed Moonlight Territory Area will have narrowed the gap to approximately 2.5 miles wide. Habitat use and movement in this area will likely continue to occur (though likely at a reduced level) through the low density development of the Moonlight Territory Area, as well as through the open space portions of the South Jack and Moonlight East development areas. Applying standard best management practices during construction and implementing wildlife protection measures via covenants for residents of the subdivision will avoid and minimize much of the impact and increase the habitat functionality adjacent to the high density subdivisions and/or within the lower density developments. Protection measures that would be particularly valuable include leaving as much native vegetation in place as possible; implementing Bear Smart Big Sky guidelines; minimizing the use of fencing to that which is required to contain pet/livestock or exclude wildlife from attractants; and requiring dogs to be fenced, on-leash, or otherwise supervised/restrained.

3.2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need and Other Migratory Birds

All five SGCN that have documented occurrences within the Project Area (MNHP 2017; brown creeper, evening grosbeak, Cassin’s finch, Clark’s nutcracker, and pileated woodpecker) are migratory birds, and all are associated with conifer forest. Direct impacts to these species will be more or less proportional to the amount of tree clearing that takes place. As much of the proposed development will occur in relatively young second growth forest, there is expected to be relatively little habitat loss for species that predominately inhabit mature forest (pileated woodpecker and brown creeper). Evening grosbeak and Cassin’s finch regularly inhabit suburban areas and frequent bird feeders; thus while tree clearing will likely decrease breeding habitat quality for these species, the feeders that will likely be provided by some of the residents will augment natural food resources, particularly during winter. Negative impacts potentially resulting from attraction of these species to feeders are mortality from collision with windows or predation by outdoor pets (cats). Feeders and livestock may attract brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), which commit brood parasitism that reduces breeding productivity of many songbird species, particularly deep forest species that have not evolved alongside the cowbird, which is associated with more open or patchy landscapes.

Generally, similar impacts are anticipated for other migratory bird species, though impacts will vary depending on habitat preferences. Impacts to migratory bird species that inhabit aquatic, riparian, or wetland habitats will be minimized by adhering to the setbacks recommended by MFWP. Impacts to meadow and shrubland species will be minimized by adhering to the recommended limits on grassland/shrubland development.

In residential areas, the density of free-ranging pets (cats) often far exceeds the density of meso- carnivores in natural ecosystems, and predation by free-ranging domestic cats is estimated to be the greatest source of human-caused mortality to birds (Loss et al. 2013). Subdivisions could implement covenants to prohibit outdoor cats to minimize potential impacts of cat predation to all songbird species.

3.3 Big Game Species

Big game species that will potentially be impacted by the Project include elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer, moose, and mountain goats. Impacts of residential areas on big game species are not clear. Polfus and Krausman (2012) provided a review and synopsis of literature regarding the impacts of residential development on big game species of the Rocky Mountains and concluded that most species exhibit short- term behavioral reactions to development. As reviewed by Polfus and Krausman (2012), documented behavioral responses include avoidance or, conversely, habituation. Avoidance or habituation varies by species, with deer exhibiting the greatest amount of habituation and elk exhibiting the greatest amount of avoidance, preferring habitat greater than one mile from human development. Avoidance can be spatial or

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 19 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report temporal—big game often increase nocturnal behavior near subdivisions. While habituation may not seem like a problem, it may pose a threat to human safety, cause property damage, negatively influence popular opinion on conservation as big game animals become viewed as common pests, increase disease transmission, alter traditional migration routes, and limit management options (Polfus and Krausman 2012, Vore 2012).

Though behavioral responses to development are well documented, population-level consequences are not clear. There is evidence that in some cases survival and recruitment may decrease, but in many areas survival may actually increase, especially in areas where most mortality comes from hunting (Polfus and Krausman 2012).

In most areas of the Rocky Mountain region, big game species migrate to winter ranges during the snowy months and these areas are especially important habitats, especially since the same areas that traditionally provided the best winter habitat are typically the ones now inhabited by people (Vore 2012). Due to the Project Area’s high elevation, it is outside of the winter range of most big game species. However, elk winter range as delineated by MFWP does overlap the westernmost edge of the Moonlight Territory Area, and winter range of the non-native mountain goat overlaps several proposed subdivisions in the northern part of the Project Area: Lee’s Pool, Strawberry Ridge, Timber Ridge, and Ulery’s Lakes Subdivision.

As recommended by MFWP (Vore 2012, MFWP 2012), most of the development will be clustered near existing development, leaving as much land as possible undisturbed, and no densely developed subdivisions are planned in designated elk winter range—with the nearest occurring approximately 0.75 mile away and across Jack Creek on generally north facing terrain. Low density development is planned to occur adjacent to and possibly just within the delineated winter range for elk. Following standard best management practices during construction and implementing covenants for residents of the subdivision will further reduce potential impacts to big game species. Protection measures that would be particularly valuable include leaving as much native vegetation in place as possible; minimizing the use of fencing to that which is required to contain pet/livestock or exclude wildlife from attractants; requiring dogs to be fenced, on-leash, or otherwise supervised/restrained; and prohibiting domestic sheep and goats to eliminate spread of diseases to wild bighorn sheep.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 20 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

4.0 REFERENCES

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines: the state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

Holoscene Wildlife Services. 2015a. Reserve Ranches at Moonlight Basin 100 Lot Development Alternative: current conditions and impact analysis on wildlife.

Holoscene Wildlife Services. 2015b. Draft Big Sky Resort ODP wildlife assessment: current conditions and impact analysis on wildlife.

Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC). 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Website available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Project-specific report generated on 3/23/2017.

Inman, R. M., B. L. Brock, K. H. Inman, S. S. Sartorius, B. C. Aber, B. Giddings, S. L. Cain, M. L. Orme, J. A. Fredrick, B. J. Oakleaf, K. L. Alt, E. Odell, and G. Chapron. 2013. Developing priorities for metapopulation conservation at the landscape scale: wolverines in the western United States. Biological Conservation 166:276-286.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396.

Madison County. 2013. Madison County Growth Policy 2012. Available at: http://www.madisoncountymt.gov/documentcenter/view/778. Accessed April 2017.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 2012. Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development in Montana: A Working Document. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana. 174 pp. Available at http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/livingWithWildlife/buildingWithWildlife/subdivisionRecommend ations/. Accessed May 2017.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2016a. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) predicted suitable habitat models created on September 14, 2016. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 16 pp. Available at: http://mtnhp.org/models/files/Grizzly_Bear_AMAJB01020_20160914.pdf. Accessed April 2017.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2016b. Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) predicted suitable habitat models created on September 13, 2016. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 15 pp. Available at: http://mtnhp.org/models/files/Canada_Lynx_AMAJH03010_20160913.pdf. Accessed April 2017.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2016c. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) predicted suitable habitat models created on September 14, 2016. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 15 pp. Available at: http://mtnhp.org/models/files/Wolverine_AMAJF03010_20160914.pdf Accessed April 2017

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2017. Environmental Summary Report. For Latitude 45.26390 to 45.37625 and Longitude -111.37624 to -111.50217. Retrieved on 3/22/2017.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 21 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MNHP and MFWP). 2017. Montana field guides. Available at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx. Accessed April, 2017.

Montana State Government. 2016. Geographic information clearinghouse: Land Use/Land Cover. Available at: http://geoinfo.msl.mt.gov/msdi/land_use_land_cover. Accessed April 2017.

Polfus, J. L. and P. R. Krausman. 2012. Impacts of residential development on ungulates in the Rocky Mountain West. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:647-657.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Revised grizzly bear recovery plan. Available at Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A001. Accessed March 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx and revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17 54782-54846. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-09-12/pdf/2014-21013.pdf. Accessed March 2017

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the federal list of Endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, 81 FR 13173-13227 . Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/03/11/2016-05167/endangered-and- threatened-wildlife-and-plants-removing-the-greater-yellowstone-ecosystem-population. Accessed April 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. Grizzly bear recovery plan draft revised demographic recovery criteria for the Yellowstone Ecosystem. March 11, 2016. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A001. Accessed March 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. News Release: Secretary Zinke Announces Recovery and Delisting of Yellowstone Grizzly Bear. June 22, 2017. Available at https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/pressrel/2017/06222017_Secretary_Zinke_Announces_Recovery_and_Delisting_of_Yellowst one_Grizzly_Bear.php. Accessed July 2017,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017b. Critical habitat portal. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ . Accessed March 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017c. ECOS: Species Profile for North American Wolverine. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=5123. Accessed March 2017.

Vore, J. 2012. Big game winter range recommendations for subdivision development in Montana: justification and rationale. Available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/livingWithWildlife/buildingWithWildlife/subdivisionRecommend ations/. Accessed May 2017.

Woods, A. J. , J. M. Omernik, J. A. Nesser, J. Shelden, J. A. Comstock, and S. H. Azevedo. 2002. Ecoregions of Montana, 2nd edition (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Available at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/mt_eco.htm. Accessed May 2017.

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 22 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

APPENDIX A SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE

The following table lists special status species with occurrence potential, as identified by MNHP (2017), that have not been formally documented to occur within the Project Area.

COMMON SCIENTIFIC RANK1 USFWS2 STATE3 USFS HABITAT NAME NAME Mammals Bison Bos bison G4S2 SGCN Grasslands Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus G4S2S3 SGCN Rocky habitat Fringed Myotis Myotis G4S3 SGCN Riparian and dry mixed conifer thysanodes forests Hoary Bat Lasiurus G3G4S3 SGCN Riparian and forest cinereus Little Brown Myotis lucifugus G3S3 SGCN Generalist Myotis Merriam's Shrew Sorex merriami G5S3 SGCN Sagebrush grassland Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei G4S3 SGCN Sagebrush grassland Spotted Bat Euderma G4S3 SGCN Sensitive Cliffs with rock crevices maculatum Townsend's Big- Corynorhinus G4S3 SGCN Sensitive Caves in forested habitats eared Bat townsendii Birds American Bittern Botaurus G4S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Wetlands lentiginosus American White Pelecanus G4S3B MBTA SGCN Lakes, ponds, reservoirs Pelican erythrorhynchos Black Rosy-Finch Leucosticte G4S2 MBTA; BCC SGCN Alpine atrata Black Tern Chlidonias niger G4S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Wetlands Black-backed Picoides arcticus G5S3 MBTA SGCN Sensitive Conifer forest burns Woodpecker Black-crowned Nycticorax G5S3B MBTA SGCN Wetlands Night-Heron nycticorax Black-necked Himantopus G5S3B MBTA SGCN Wetlands Stilt mexicanus Burrowing Owl Athene G4S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Sensitive Grasslands cunicularia Caspian Tern Hydroprogne G5S2B MBTA SGCN Large rivers, lakes caspia Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus G5S3B MBTA SGCN Lakes, ponds, reservoirs clarkii Common Loon Gavia immer G5S3B MBTA SGCN Sensitive Mountain lakes w/ emergent veg Common Tern Sterna hirundo G5S3B MBTA SGCN Large rivers, lakes Ferruginous Buteo regalis G4S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Sagebrush grassland Hawk Flammulated Owl Psiloscops G4S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Sensitive Dry conifer forest flammeolus Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri G5S3B MBTA SGCN Wetlands

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 23 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

COMMON SCIENTIFIC RANK1 USFWS2 STATE3 USFS HABITAT NAME NAME Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus G4G5S3 MBTA SGCN Wetlands pipixcan B Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa G5S3 MBTA SGCN Conifer forest near open meadows Harlequin Duck Histrionicus G4S2B MBTA SGCN Sensitive Mountain streams histrionicus Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus G5S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Wetlands Lewis's Melanerpes lewis G4S2B MBTA; BCC SGCN Riparian forest Woodpecker Loggerhead Lanius G4S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Shrubland Shrike ludovicianus Northern Hawk Surnia ulula G5S3 MBTA SGCN Conifer forest Owl Pacific Wren Troglodytes G5S3 MBTA SGCN Moist conifer forests pacificus Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus G5S3 MBTA; BCC SGCN Open conifer forest cyanocephalus Rufous Selasphorus G5S4B MBTA; BCC Riparian shrub Hummingbird rufus Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes G5S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Sagebrush montanus Sagebrush Artemisiospiza G5S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Sagebrush Sparrow nevadensis Sharp-tailed Tympanuchus G5S1,S4 SGCN Shrub grassland Grouse phasianellus Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus G5S4 MBTA; BCC Grasslands Trumpeter Swan Cygnus G4S3 MBTA SGCN Sensitive Lakes, ponds, reservoirs buccinator Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius G5S3B MBTA SGCN Moist conifer forests Veery Catharus G5S3B MBTA SGCN Riparian forest fuscescens White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi G5S3B MBTA SGCN Wetlands Bald Eagle Haliaeetus G5S4 BGEPA; Sensitive Riparian forest leucocephalus MBTA; BCC Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri G5S3B MBTA; BCC SGCN Sagebrush Golden Eagle Aquila G5S3 BGEPA; SGCN Grasslands chrysaetos MBTA; BCC Gray-crowned Leucosticte G5S2B, MBTA SGCN Alpine Rosy-Finch tephrocotis S5N Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias G5S3 MBTA SGCN Riparian forest Green-tailed Pipilo chlorurus G5S3B MBTA SGCN Shrub woodland Towhee Northern Accipiter gentilis G5S3 MBTA SGCN Mixed conifer forests Goshawk Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus G4S3 MBTA; BCC SGCN Sensitive Cliffs / canyons Amphibians Northern Leopard Lithobates G5S1,S4 SGCN Sensitive Wetlands, floodplain pools Frog pipiens Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas G4S2 SGCN Sensitive Wetlands, floodplain pools

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 24 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

COMMON SCIENTIFIC RANK1 USFWS2 STATE3 USFS HABITAT NAME NAME Fish Arctic Grayling Thymallus G5S1 SGCN Sensitive Mountain rivers, lakes arcticus Yellowstone Oncorhynchus G4T2S2 SGCN Sensitive Mountain streams, rivers, lakes Cutthroat Trout clarkii bouvieri Westslope Oncorhynchus G4T3S2 SGCN Sensitive Mountain streams, rivers, lakes Cutthroat Trout clarkii lewisi Invertebrates Western Margaritifera G4G5S2 SGCN Sensitive Mountain streams, rivers Pearlshell falcata 1G=global rank, S=state rank (MNHP 2017): G1 or S1=At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G2 or S2=At risk because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 or S3=Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 or S4=Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining. G5 or S5=Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range. 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service regulatory status (MNHP 2017): BCC=Birds of Conservation Concern; MBTA=protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 3 SGCN= Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Montana’s Draft State Wildlife Action Plan, 2014. (MNHP 2017).

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 25 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report

APPENDIX B MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY REPORT FOR MOONLIGHT BASIN ODP

HLY 199-069 (BOI PER 02 02 01) HAYSTACK (5/9/2017) 145724 PAGE 26 Environmental Summary Environmental

1515 East 6th Avenue Helena, MT 59620 (406) 444-0241 mtnhp.org

Suggested Citation Montana Natural Heritage Program Environmental Summary Report. For Latitude 45.26390 to 45.37625 and Longitude -111.37624 to -111.50217. Retrieved on 3/22/2017.

The Montana Natural Heritage Program is a program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System. It is operated as a special program under the Office of the Vice President for Research and Creative Scholarship at the University of Montana, Missoula. The Montana Natural Heritage Program is part of NatureServe – a network of over 80 similar programs in states, provinces and nations throughout the Western Hemisphere, working to provide comprehensive status and distribution information for species and ecosystems.

Page 1 of 29 Table of Contents • Introduction to Environmental Summary Report • Species Summary • Structured Surveys • Land Cover Summary • Wetland and Riparian Summary • Land Management Summary • Biological Reports • Appendix • Introduction to Montana Natural Heritage Program • Data Use Terms and Conditions • Suggested Contacts for State and Federal Natural Resource Agencies • Introduction to Species Summary • Introduction to Land Cover Summary • Introduction to Wetland and Riparian Summary • Introduction to Land Management Summary • Additional Information Resources

Introduction to Environmental Summary Report

The Environmental Summary report for your area of interest consists of introductory and related materials in this PDF and an Excel workbook with worksheets summarizing information managed in the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s (MTNHP) databases for: (1) species occurrences; (2) other observed species without Species Occurrences; (3) other species potentially present based on their range, presence of associated habitats, or predictive distribution model output if available; (4) structured surveys (organized efforts following a protocol capable of detecting one or more species); (5) land cover mapped as ecological systems; (6) wetland and riparian mapping; (7) land management categories; and (8) biological reports associated with plant and animal observations. In order to do this in a consistent manner across Montana and allow for rapid delivery of summaries, we have intersected this information with a uniform grid of hexagons that have been used for planning efforts across the western United States (e.g. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies - Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool). Each hexagon is one square mile in area and approximately one kilometer in length on each side. Summary information for each data layer is then stored with each hexagon and those summaries are added up to an overall summary for the report area you have requested. Users should be aware that summaries do not correspond to the exact boundaries of the polygon they have specified, but instead are a summary across all hexagons intersected by the polygon they specified.

In presenting this information, MTNHP is working towards assisting the user with rapidly assessing the known or potential species and biological communities, land management categories, and biological reports associated with the report area. We remind users that this information is likely incomplete and may be inaccurate as surveys to document species are lacking in many areas of the state, species’ range polygons often include regions of unsuitable habitat, methods of predicting the presence of species or communities are constantly improving, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species and biological communities in a report area will always be an important obligation of users of our data. Users are encouraged to only use this environmental summary report as a starting point for more in depth analyses and are encouraged to contact state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies for additional data or management guidelines relevant to your efforts. Please see the Appendix for introductory materials to each section of the report, additional information resources, and a list of relevant agency contacts.

Page 2 of 29 Legend

Range Icons Model Icons Num Obs Introduced Range Optimal Suitability Count of obs with Year-round Range Moderate Suitability 'good precision' A program of the Montana State Library's (<=1000m) Summer Range Low Suitability Natural Resource Information System Winter Range Suitable (nativ e range) operated by the University of Montana. + indicates Migratory Range Suitable (introduced range) additional 'poor Historic Range Generally Unsuitable precision' obs Species Summary (1001m-10,000m) Filtered by: MT_Status='Species of Concern','Special Status','Important Animal Habitat','Potential SOC'

Species Occurrences Common Occasional # SO # Obs Range Model Habitat Habitat M - Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) SOC 1 1 + 6% 11% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2S3 USFWS: LT,XN USFS: THREATENED BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3 Delineation Criteria U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery zone boundaries for the Northern Continental Divide, Cabinet-Yaak, Yellowstone, and Bitterroot recovery areas. (Last Updated: Aug 28, 2014)

M - Wolverine (Gulo gulo) SOC 1 6% 4% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: P USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy supported by recent (post-1980), nearby (within 10 kilometers) observations of adults or juveniles. Tracking regions were defined by areas of primary habitat and adjacent female dispersal habitat as modeled by Inman et al. (2013). These regions were buffered by 1 kilometer in order to link smaller areas and account for potential inaccuracies in independent variables used in the model. (Last Updated: Sep 03, 2014)

B - Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) SOC 1 1 + 12% 4% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home ranges and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters. (Last Updated: Dec 23, 2016)

B - Cassin's Finch (Haemorhous cassinii) SOC 3 4 + 4% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing the courtship and foraging distance from nesting areas and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters. (Last Updated: Dec 23, 2016)

B - Clark's Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) SOC 4 27 + 1%

Page 3 of 29 Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 1,000 mca maximum distance of 10,000 meters. (Last Updated: Dec 23, 2016)

B - Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) SOC 1 1 2% <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 1,000 meters in order to encompass the maximum foraging distance from nests reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters. (Last Updated: Dec 23, 2016)

B - Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) SOC 1 Not Available 12% 4% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 1,500 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home ranges and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters. (Last Updated: Dec 02, 2016)

V - Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) SOC 3 1% Species of Concern Global: G3G4 State: S3 USFWS: C USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE Delineation Criteria Point and/or polygonal observations are buffered by a minimum distance of 400 meters in order to account for stands instead of individual trees and to a maximum distance of 2,000 meters in order to encompass locational uncertainty associated with some common data sources for this species. Other Observed Species Common Occasional # Obs Range Model Habitat Habitat B - Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) SSS + <1% 4% Special Status Species Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: DM; BGEPA; MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE PIF: 2

B - Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri) SOC 1 <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) SOC 1 + <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: BGEPA; MBTA; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3

B - Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis) SOC 1 Not Available <1% 1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2B,S5N USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN2, SGIN

B - Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) SOC 1 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3

B - Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) SOC 1 <1% 12% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) SOC 1 12% 4% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) SOC + <1% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: DM; MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) PSOC 1 + Not Available 2% 11% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA PIF: 3

A - Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) SOC + <1% 2% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2

F - Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) SOC + Not Available Species of Concern Global: G4T3 State: S2 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2

V - Equisetum palustre (Marsh Horsetail) SOC 1 Not Available Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 Other Potential Species Common Occasional Range Model Habitat Habitat M - Bison (Bos bison) SOC Not Available 11% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2 FWP SWAP: SGCN2

M - Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) SOC 2% 4% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: LT USFS: THREATENED BLM: SPECIAL STATUS FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Dwarf Shrew (Sorex nanus) SOC 11% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3

M - Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) SOC 2% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) SOC <1% 4% Species of Concern Global: G3G4 State: S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) SOC <1% <1% Species of Concern Global: G3 State: S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Merriam's Shrew (Sorex merriami) SOC 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) PSOC Not Available 4%

Page 4 of 29 Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4 FWP SWAP: SGIN

M - Preble's Shrew (Sorex preblei) SOC 15% 2% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) PSOC 2% 1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G3G4 State: S4

M - Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) SOC <1% 12% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN

M - Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) SOC <1% 1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3

M - Uinta Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus armatus) PSOC Not Available 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S4 FWP SWAP: SGIN

M - Water Vole (Microtus richardsoni) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4

M - Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: SU FWP SWAP: SGIN

M - Wyoming Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus elegans) PSOC Not Available 2% 1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S4

B - American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) SOC 2% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) PSOC Not Available <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 2

B - Black Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte atrata) SOC 6% 1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN2, SGIN PIF: 2

B - Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) SOC <1% 1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) SOC 1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1

B - Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) SOC <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2

B - Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) SOC Not Available 1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) SOC Not Available <1% 1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) SOC 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) PSOC 12% 4% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 3

B - Broad-tailed Hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus) PSOC Not Available 2% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN

B - Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) SOC 11% 2% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC17 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1

B - Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 2

B - Clark's Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Common Loon (Gavia immer) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA USFS: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1

B - Common Poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 3

B - Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) SOC <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus) SOC 12% 2% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1

B - Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Franklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan) SOC Not Available <1%

Page 5 of 29 Species of Concern Global: G4G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) SOC 4% <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 3

B - Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) SOC 11% Species of Concern Global: G3G4 State: S2 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 1

B - Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) SOC Not Available 2% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA USFS: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 1

B - Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) PSOC Not Available <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 2

B - Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) SOC 2% 12% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 2

B - Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) SOC <1% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) SOC 11% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - McCown's Longspur (Rhynchophanes mccownii) SOC <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G3 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 1

B - Northern Hawk Owl (Surnia ulula) SOC Not Available 4% 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN

B - Pacific Wren (Troglodytes pacificus) SOC <1% 14% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) SOC 2% 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3

B - Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) SOC 11% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Sagebrush Sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) SOC 11% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3

B - Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) SOC Not Available 11% 4% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1,S4 FWP SWAP: SGCN1 PIF: 2

B - Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) PSOC Not Available 11% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 PIF: 3

B - Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1

B - Tennessee Warbler (Oreothlypis peregrina) PSOC Not Available 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S4B USFWS: MBTA

B - Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) SOC <1% Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1

B - Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius) SOC 1% 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3

B - Veery (Catharus fuscescens) SOC 4% 15% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Western Screech-Owl (Megascops kennicottii) PSOC Not Available 9% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 3

B - White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2

B - Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) SOC 2% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: PS: LT; MBTA; BCC10 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2

A - Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) SOC Not Available <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1,S4 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN1

F - Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN1

F - Burbot (Lota lota) PSOC Not Available Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S4

F - Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G4T2 State: S2 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2

I - Aeshna constricta (Lance-tipped Darner) PSOC Not Available <1%

Page 6 of 29 Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1S3

I - Aeshna eremita (Lake Darner) PSOC Not Available <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S4

I - Aeshna juncea (Sedge Darner) PSOC Not Available <1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Aeshna sitchensis (Zigzag Darner) PSOC Not Available <1% 7% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S3

I - Agapetus montanus (An Agapetus Caddisfly) PSOC Not Available Potential Species of Concern Global: G3 State: S3

I - Apodemia mormo (Mormon Metalmark) PSOC Not Available Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Argia alberta (Paiute Dancer) PSOC Not Available 2% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2S3

I - Argia emma (Emma's Dancer) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Argia vivida (Vivid Dancer) PSOC Not Available 1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Boloria freija (Freija Fritillary) PSOC Not Available 15% 7% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Boloria frigga (Frigga Fritillary) SOC Not Available <1% <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1S2

I - Chlosyne whitneyi (Rockslide Checkerspot) PSOC Not Available Potential Species of Concern Global: G4G5 State: S3S5

I - Colias gigantea (Giant Sulphur) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3

I - Discus shimekii (Striate Disc) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1

I - Enallagma civile (Familiar Bluet) PSOC Not Available <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S4

I - Enallagma clausum (Alkali Bluet) PSOC Not Available <1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S4

I - Erebia callias (Colorado Alpine) PSOC Not Available 1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2S3

I - Erythemis collocata (Western Pondhawk) SOC Not Available <1% <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1S2

I - Euphydryas gillettii (Gillette's Checkerspot) SOC Not Available 2% 3% Species of Concern Global: G3 State: S2

I - Grylloblatta campodeiformis (Northern Rock Crawler) PSOC Not Available Potential Species of Concern Global: GNR State: S3S4

I - Isocapnia crinita (Hooked Snowfly) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2

I - Isoperla petersoni (Springs Stripetail) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2

I - Leucorrhinia borealis (Boreal Whiteface) SOC Not Available <1% <1% Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S1

I - Libellula saturata (Flame Skimmer) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S4

I - Margaritifera falcata (Western Pearlshell) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G4G5 State: S2 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2

I - Oeneis bore (White-veined Arctic) PSOC Not Available <1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S3

I - Oeneis melissa (Melissa Arctic) PSOC Not Available 6% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S3

I - Oreohelix strigosa berryi (Berry's Mountainsnail) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G5T2 State: S1S2

I - Papilio indra (Indra Swallowtail) PSOC Not Available Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S3

I - Polygonia progne (Gray Comma) SOC Not Available 15% <1% Species of Concern Global: G4G5 State: S2

I - Rhionaeschna californica (California Darner) PSOC Not Available <1% <1%

Page 7 of 29 Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Rhionaeschna multicolor (Blue-eyed Darner) PSOC Not Available <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S4

I - Rhyacophila alexanderi (Alexander's Rhyacophilan Caddisfly) SOC Not Available Species of Concern Global: G2 State: S2

I - Somatochlora hudsonica (Hudsonian Emerald) PSOC Not Available <1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S4

I - Somatochlora minor (Ocellated Emerald) PSOC Not Available <1% 2% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S2S4

I - Somatochlora semicircularis (Mountain Emerald) PSOC Not Available <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G5 State: S3S5

I - Sympetrum madidum (Red-veined Meadowhawk) PSOC Not Available <1% <1% Potential Species of Concern Global: G4 State: S2S3

Page 8 of 29 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana.

Structured Surveys

The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) records information on the locations where more than 80 different types of well-defined repeatable survey protocols capable of detecting an animal species or suite of animal species have been conducted by state, federal, tribal, university, or private consulting biologists. Examples of structured survey protocols tracked by MTNHP include: visual encounter and dip net surveys for pond breeding amphibians, point counts for birds, call playback surveys for selected bird species, visual surveys of migrating raptors, kick net stream reach surveys for macroinvertebrates, visual encounter cover object surveys for terrestrial mollusks, bat acoustic or mist net surveys, pitfall and/or snap trap surveys for small terrestrial mammals, track or camera trap surveys for large mammals, and trap surveys for turtles. Whenever possible, photographs of survey locations are stored in MTNHP databases.

MTNHP does not typically manage information on structured surveys for plants; surveys for invasive species may be a future exception.

Within the report area you have requested, structured surveys are summarized by the number of each type of structured survey protocol that has been conducted, the number of species detections/observations resulting from these surveys, and the most recent year a survey has been conducted.

B-Grid-based Point Count (RMBO Generalized Random-tesselation Stratification) Survey Count: 51 Obs Count: 290 Recent Survey: 2014 I-Aquatic Invert Lotic Dipnet (Invertebrate Lotic Site Dipnet and Visual Encounter Survey) Survey Count: 2 Obs Count: 23 Recent Survey: 1999 I-Bumble Bee (Bumble Bee Collection Surveys) Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: 3 Recent Survey: 2013 I-Mussel (Stream Mussel Survey) Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: Recent Survey: 1999

Page 9 of 29 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana.

Land Cover Summary

17,265 Acres (0.02% of Montana) Notes on and Appropriate Uses of Land Cover The Land Cover data used in Map Viewer are based on classifications of 30-meter Landsat satellite imagery. The base data were classified as part of the national ReGAP project, using imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Classification accuracy varies from system to system, but statewide and local assessments have not been completed to-date. Generally, systems occurring as small patches (e.g., fens, mountain mahogany shrublands) or those making up smaller percentages of various administrative boundaries (e.g. all of those listed under the Additional Limited Land Cover folder below) will be less accurately classified than systems occurring as matrices or large patches (e.g., mixed grass prairie, lodgepole pine forests). Similarly, areas where land use and land cover has changed significantly over the past decade may not be correctly classified. Users are cautioned that the appropriate scale for use of the data is 1:100,000. Accuracy improvements are ongoing. To submit updated information, please email [email protected]. Forest and Woodland Systems Conifer-dominated forest and woodland (xeric-mesic) Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 15% (2,659 Acres) Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) make up a substantial part of the montane and lower subalpine forests of the Montana Rocky Mountains and mountain island ranges of north-central and west- central Montana. Spruceis usually associated with fir and occurs as either a climax co-dominant or as a persistent, long- lived seral species in most upper elevation firhabitat types. Dry to mesic spruce-dominated forests range from 884-1,585 meters (2,900-5,200 feet) west of the Continental Divide, and 1585-2,073 meters (5,200-6,800 feet) east of the Continental Divide in the northern and central portions of the state. This system can be found at elevations up to 2,896 meters (9,500 feet) in southwestern Montana. Forests are found on gentle to very steep mountain slopes, high- elevation ridge tops and upper slopes, plateau-like surfaces, basins, alluvial terraces, well-drained benches, and inactive stream terraces. Tree canopy characteristics are relatively uniform. In northern Montana, Engelmann spruce hybridizes with its boreal counterpart, white spruce (Picea glauca). Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and western larch (Larix occidentalis) (west of the Continental Divide) are seral but often present in these forests. The understory is comprised of a mixture of shrubs, forbs and graminoids tolerant of warmer and drier soil conditions than those found on the more mesic to wet spruce-fir system. The drier occurrences of this system are

Page 10 of 29 especially common on steep slopes at upper elevations throughout the easten Rocky Mountains, whereas the more mesic occurrences form substantial cover west of the Continental Divide in the Flathead, Lolo, Bitteroot and Kootenai river drainages. Forest and Woodland Systems Conifer-dominated forest and woodland (xeric-mesic) Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland 14% (2,398 Acres) In Montana, this ecological system occurs on the east side of the Continental Divide, north to about the McDonald Pass area, and along the Rocky Mountain Front. This system is associated with a dry to submesic continental climate regime with annual precipitation ranging from 51 to 102 centimeters (20-40 inches), with a maximum in winter or late spring. Winter snowpacks typically melt off in early spring at lower elevations. Elevations range from valley bottoms to 1,980 meters (6500 feet) in northern Montana and up to 2,286 meters (7500 feet) on warm aspects in southern Montana. It occurs on north-facing aspects in most areas, and south-facing aspects at higher elevations. This is a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) dominated system without any maritime floristic composition. Fire disturbance intervals are as infrequent as 500 years, and as a result, individual trees and forests can attain great age on some sites (500 to 1,500 years). In Montana, this system occurs from lower montane to lower subalpine environments and is prevalent on calcareous substrates. Common understory shrubs include common ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), common juniper (Juniperus communis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), birch-leaf spiraea (Spiraea betulifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos species), creeping Oregon grape (Mahonia repens) and Canadian buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis). The Douglas-fir/pinegrass (Calamogrostis rubescens) type is the most ubiquitous association found within this system in Montana. Forest and Woodland Systems Conifer-dominated forest and woodland (xeric-mesic) Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 12% (2,048 Acres) This forested system is widespread in upper montane to subalpine zones of the Montana Rocky Mountains, and east into island ranges of north-central Montana and the Bighorn and Beartooth ranges of south-central Montana. These are montane to subalpine forests where the dominance of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) is related to fire history and topoedaphic conditions. In Montana, elevation ranges from 975 to 2,743 meters (3,200-9000 feet). These forests occur on flats to slopes of all degrees and aspect, as well as valley bottoms. Fire is frequent, and stand-replacing fires are common. Following stand-replacing fires, lodgepole pinewill rapidly colonize and develop into dense, even-aged stands. Most forests in this ecological system occur as early- to mid-successional forests persisting for 50-200 years on warmer, lower elevation forests, and 150-400 years in subalpine forests. They generally occur on dry to intermediate sites with a wide seasonal range of temperatures and long precipitation-free periods in summer. Snowfall is heavy and supplies the major source of soil water used for growth in early summer. Vigorous stands occur where the precipitation exceeds 533 millimeters (21 inches). These lodgepole forests are typically associated with rock types weathering to acidic substrates, such as granite and rhyolite. In west-central Montana ranges such the Big Belts and the Rocky Mountain Front, these forests are found on limestone substrates. These systems are especially well developed on the broad ridges and high valleys near and east of the Continental Divide. Succession proceeds at different rates, moving relatively quickly on low-elevation, mesic sites and particularly slowly in high-elevation forests such as those along the Continental Divide in Montana. Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems Sagebrush Steppe Montane Sagebrush Steppe 11% (1,936 Acres) This system dominates the montane and subalpine landscape of southwestern Montana from valley bottoms to subalpine ridges and is found as far north as Glacier National Park. It can also be seen in the island mountain ranges of the north- central and south-central portions of the state. It primarily occurs on deep-soiled to stony flats, ridges, nearly flat ridgetops, and mountain slopes. In general, this system occurs in areas of gentle topography, fine soils, subsurface moisture or mesic conditions, within zones of higher precipitation and areas of snow accumulation. It occurs on all slopes and aspects, variable substrates and all soil types. The shrub component of this system is generally dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana). Other co-dominant shrubs include silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana ssp. viscidula), subalpine big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis), three tip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita) and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). Little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula ssp. arbuscula) shrublands are only found in southwestern Montana on sites with a perched water table. Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) sites may be included within this system if occurrences are at montane elevations, and are associated with montane graminoids such as Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), spike fescue (Leucopoa kingii), or poverty oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia). In ares where sage has been eliminated by human activities like burning, disking or poisoning, other shrubs may be dominant, especially rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus). Because of the mesic site conditions, most occurrences support a diverse herbaceous undergrowth of grasses and forbs. Shrub canopy cover is extremely variable, ranging from 10 percent to as high as 40 or 50 percent. Recently Disturbed or Modified Harvested Forest Harvested forest-grass regeneration 9% (1,525 Acres) Land cover has been modified by logging. New growth is primarily herbaceous species. Grassland Systems Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow 7% (1,277 Acres) This system is restricted to sites from lower montane to subalpine elevations where finely textured soils, snow deposition, or windswept conditions limit tree establishment. Many occurrences are small patches, and are often found in mosaics within woodlands, dense shrublands, or just below alpine communities. Elevations range from 600 to2,011

Page 11 of 29 meters (2,000-6,600 feet) in the northern Rocky Mountains and up to 2,286- 2,682 meters (7,500-8,800 feet) in the mountains of southwestern Montana. This system occurs on gentle to moderate-gradient slopes and in relatively moist habitats. Soils are typically seasonally moist to saturated in the spring, but dry out later in the growing season. At montane elevations, soils are usually clays or silt loams, and some occurrences may have inclusions of hydric soils in low, depressional areas. At subalpine elevations, soils are derived a variety of parent materials, and are usually rocky or gravelly with good aeration and drainage, but with a well developed organic layer. Some occurrences are more heavily dominated by grasses, while others are more dominated by forbs. Common grasses include tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), showy oniongrass (Melica spectabilis), mountain brome (Bromus carinatus), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), awned sedge (Carex atherodes), and small wing sedge (Carex microptera). Forb dominated meadows usually comprise a wide species diversity which differs from montane to subalpine elevations. Shrubs such as shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos species) are occasional but not abundant. This system differs from the Rocky Mountain Alpine Montane Wet Meadow system in that it soils dry out by mid-summer. Alpine Systems Alpine Sparse and Barren Alpine Bedrock and Scree 6% (954 Acres) This ecological system is restricted to the highest elevations of the Rocky Mountains, from Alberta and British Columbia south into New Mexico, and west into the highest mountain ranges of the Great Basin. It is composed of barren and sparsely vegetated alpine substrates, typically including both bedrock outcrop and scree slopes, with lichen- dominated communities. In Montana, alpine bedrock and scree are well represented throughout the northern Rocky Mountains and island mountain ranges. Elevations range from as low as 2,285 meters (7,500 feet) in northwestern Montana to 3,500 meters (11,500 feet) in southern Montana. Exposure to desiccating winds, rocky and sometimes unstable substrates, and a short growing season limit plant growth. Typically, there is sparse (less than 10%) cover of forbs, grasses, and low shrubs, with exposed, unstable scree, talus and bedrock constituting the remainder of cover. Diverse crustose and foliose lichen cover is high (often greater than 50%) on exposed talus and bedrock Soils on these windy, unproductive sites are very poorly developed, often only occurring in fractures of bedrock. This system is characterized by a very cold climate during winter, high winds, high UV radiation and high surface daytime temperatures during summer months on south and west facing aspects, and a very short growing season. Most scree- and bedrock-inhabiting plants are highly adapted to this xeric environment and occur as singular plants among the exposed rocks or in bedrock fractures. These species are typically cushioned, matted or succulent, or grow as flat rosettes, often with thick leaf cuticles or a dense cover of hairs. This system often occurs adjacent to or immediately below North American Alpine Ice Fields and intermingles with Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell Fields. Forest and Woodland Systems Deciduous dominated forest and woodland Aspen Forest and Woodland 4% (707 Acres) This widespread ecological system is more common in the southern and central Rocky Mountains, but occurs in the montane and subalpine zones throughout much of Montana north into Canada. It is similar to the Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen Mixed Conifer Forest-Woodland found in the Big Snowy Mountains, but lacks the conifer component. Distribution of this system is primarily limited by adequate soil moisture required to meet its high evapotranspirative demand, length of growing season, and temperatures. Mean annual precipitation where these systems occur is generally greater than 38 centimeters (15 inches) and typically greater than 51 centimeters (20 inches), except in semi-arid environments where occurrences are restricted to mesic microsites such as seeps or areas below large snow drifts. Stands can occur on gentle to moderate slopes, in swales, or on level sites. At lower elevations, occurrences are found on cooler, north aspects and mesic sites. Soils are usually deep and well developed with rock often absent from the soil. Soil texture ranges from sandy loam to clay loams. This system describes mesic forests and woodlands dominated by quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) without a significant conifer component (<25% relative tree cover). This aspen system can be stable and long-lived with little encroachment of coniferous species. The understory structure may be complex with multiple shrub and herbaceous layers, or simple, with just an herbaceous layer. The herbaceous layer may be dense or sparse, dominated by mesic grasses or forbs. Occurrences of this system often originate, and are likely maintained, by stand-replacing disturbances such as crown fire, disease, windthrow, elk and beaver activity. 4% Human Land Use (633 Acres) Developed Other Roads County, city and or rural roads generally open to motor vehicles. Grassland Systems Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland 3% (512 Acres) These lush grassland systems are found in upper montane to subalpine, high-elevation,zones, and are shaped by short summers, cold winters, and young soils derived from recent glacial and alluvial material. In subalpine settings, dry grasslands may occur as small meadows or large open parks surrounded by higher elevational forests, but typicall will have no tree cover within them. In general, soil textures are much finer, and soils are often deeper than in the neighboring forests. Most precipitation occurs as heavy snowpack in the mountains with spring and early summer rains. This system is composed of bunch grass species, with a diversity of cool season forbs. It is similar to the Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and Valley Grassland ecological system, but is found at higher elevations and has additional floristic components with more subalpine taxa. In Montana, this system generally occurs as two plant communities: a rough fescue-Idaho fescue (Festuca campestris-Festuca idahoensis) association occurring on moister sites, such as the north and east-facing slopes and benches in the mountains; and the Idaho Fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass (Festuca idahoensis-Pseudoroegneria spicata) association occurring on drier sites, such as ridges, hilltops, and south and west facing slopes and benches. At elevations greater than 2286 meters (7,500 feet), Idaho fescue becomes dominant, sometimes associated with slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), or in certain areas, tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Noxious species invasion, fire suppression, heavy grazing, and oil and gas

Page 12 of 29 development are major threats to this system. Forest and Woodland Systems Conifer-dominated forest and woodland (mesic-wet) Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 2% (360 Acres) These forests are similar to Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (4242), but occur in locations with cold-air drainage or ponding, or where snowpacks linger late into the summer, such as north-facing slopes and high-elevation ravines. They are distinguished by their occurrence on mesic to wet microsites within the matrix of the drier (and warmer) subalpine spruce-fir or lodgepole pine forests. The microsites include north-facing slopes, swales or ravines, toeslopes, cold pockets, and other locations where available soil moisture is higher or lasts longer into the growing season. This system can extend down in elevation below the subalpine zone in places where cold-air ponding occurs, especially on north and east aspects. Elevations range from 884 to 1,981 meters (2,900-6,500 feet) west of the Continental Divide, and 1,585 to 2,682 meters (5,200-8,800 feet) east of the Continental Divide. Spruceis usually associated with subalpine fir and occurs either as a climax co-dominant or as a persistent, long-lived seral species in most upper elevation subalpine fir stands. Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) occurs as small patches within the matrix of this mesic spruce-fir system, but only in the most maritime of environments of northwestern Montana, in the coldest and wettest sites. The shrub understory contains many ericaceous species such as rusty leaf menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), mountain huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus), grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), pink mountain heath (Phyllodoce empetriformis), black twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera involucrata), gooseberry (Ribesspecies) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus). The herbaceous understory contains mesic forbs, graminoids, and ferns and fern allies on the wettest sites. Moss cover is often high. Stand-replacing fires are less common in mesic spruce-fir forests than in dry-mesic forests.

2% Recently Disturbed or Modified (343 Acres) Insect-Killed Forest Insect-Killed Forest

Wetland and Riparian Systems Floodplain and Riparian Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 2% (300 Acres) This ecological system is found throughout the Rocky Mountain and Colorado Plateau regions. In Montana, it ranges from approximately 945 to 2,042 meters (3,100 to 6,700 feet), characterristically occuring as a mosaic of multiple communities that are tree-dominated with a diverse shrub component. It is dependent on a natural hydrologic regime, especially annual to episodic flooding. Occurrences are found within the flood zone of rivers, on islands, sand or cobble bars, and on immediate streambanks. It can form large, wide occurrences on mid-channel islands in larger rivers or narrow bands on small, rocky canyon tributaries and well-drained benches. It is also typically found in backwater channels and other perennially wet but less scoured sites, such as floodplains swales and irrigation ditches. In some locations, occurrences extend into moderately high intermountain basins where the adjacent vegetation is sage steppe. Dominant trees may include boxelder maple (Acer negundo), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), Plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), or Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum). Dominant shrubs include Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), thinleaf alder (Alnus incana), river birch (Betula occidentalis), redoiser dogwood (Cornus sericea), hawthorne (Crataegus spp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), Drummond’s willow (Salix drummondiana), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), Pacific willow (Salix lucida), rose (Rosa species), silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), or snowberry (Symphoricarpos species). Exotic trees of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and saltcedar (Tamarix species) may invade some stands in southeastern and south-central Montana. Recently Disturbed or Modified Harvested Forest Harvested forest-tree regeneration 2% (292 Acres) Land cover has been modified by logging. New growth is primarily trees. Human Land Use Developed Developed, Open Space 2% (288 Acres) Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. This category often includes highway and railway rights of way and graveled rural roads.

Page 13 of 29 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana.

Wetland Summary

17,265 Acres (0.02% of Montana) Notes on Appropriate Uses of Wetland and Riparian Mapping Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands differently than the NWI. MTNHP Wetland and Riparian Mapping data are intended for use in publications at a scale of 1:12,000 or smaller. Historic wetland mapping is intended for use in publications at a scale of 1:24,000 or smaller. Mapped wetlands do not represent precise wetland boundaries, and digital wetland data cannot substitute for an on-site determination of jurisdictional wetlands.

Wetland and Riparian Mapping Explain

Palustrine Acres

PUB Unconsolidated Bottom <1 Wetlands where mud, silt or similar fine particles cover at least 25% of the bottom, and where vegetation cover is less than 30%.

PAB Aquatic Bed 42 Wetlands with vegetation growing on or below the water surface for most of the growing season.

PUS Unconsolidated Shore <1 Wetlands with less than 75% areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock. AND with less than 30% vegetative cover AND the wetland is irregularly exposed due to seasonal or irregular flooding and subsequent drying.

PEM Emergent 88 Wetlands with erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation present during most of the growing season.

PSS Scrub-Shrub 1 Wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. Woody vegetation includes tree saplings and trees that are stunted due to environmental conditions.

Riverine (Rivers)

Upper Perennial

R3UB Unconsolidated Bottom 12 Stream channels where the substrate is at least 25% mud, silt or other fine particles.

Page 14 of 29 Riparian

Lotic

Rp1SS Scrub-Shrub 2 This type of riparian area is dominated by woody vegetation that is less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. Woody vegetation includes tree saplings and trees that are stunted due to environmental conditions.

Rp1EM Emergent 12 Riparian areas that have erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation during most of the growing season.

Page 15 of 29 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana.

Land Management Summary

17,265 Acres (0.02% of Montana)

Land Management Summary Explain

Other Boundaries Ownership Tribal Easements (possible overlap) Public Lands 2,915 Acres (17%) Federal 2,915 Acres (17%) US Forest Service 2,915 Acres (17%) USFS Owned 2,915 Acres (17%) USFS Ranger Districts 17,278 Acres Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Madison Ranger 14,733 Acres District Custer Gallatin National Forest, Bozem an Ranger District 2,545 Acres USFS National Forest Boundaries 17,278 Acres Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 14,733 Acres Custer Gallatin National Forest 2,545 Acres USFS Wilderness Areas 1,484 Acres Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Spanish Peaks Unit 1,191 Acres Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Taylor-Hilgard Unit 293 Acres

Conservation Easements 1,799 Acres (10%) Private 1,799 Acres (10%) Montana Land Reliance 1,748 Acres (10%) Gallatin Valley Land Trust 46 Acres (<1%) The Bighorn Institude 5 Acres (<1%)

Page 16 of 29

Private Lands or Unknown Ownership 12,551 Acres (73%)

Page 17 of 29 A program of the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Information System operated by the University of Montana.

Biological Reports

Within the report area you have requested, citations for all reports and publications associated with plant or animal observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) databases are listed and, where possible, links to the documents are included.

The MTNHP plans to include reports associated with terrestrial and aquatic communities in the future as allowed for by staff resources. If you know of reports or publications associated with species or biological communities within the report area that are not shown in this report, please let us know: [email protected]

Page 18 of 29 Introduction to Montana Natural Heritage Program

P.O. Box 201800  1515 East Sixth Avenue  Helena, MT 59620-1800  fax 406.444.0266  tel 406.444.0241  mtnhp.org

INTRODUCTION The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is Montana’s source for reliable and objective information on Montana’s native species and habitats, emphasizing those of conservation concern. MTNHP was created by the Montana legislature in 1983 as part of the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) at the Montana State Library (MSL). MTNHP is “a program of information acquisition, storage, and retrieval for data relating to the flora, fauna, and biological community types of Montana” (MCA 90-15-102). MTNHP’s activities are guided by statute (MCA 90-15) as well as through ongoing interaction with, and feedback from, principal data source agencies such as Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Montana University System, the US Forest Service, and the US Bureau of Land Management. The enabling legislation for MTNHP provides the State Library with the option to contract the operation of the Program. Since 2006, MTNHP has been operated as a program under the Office of the Vice President for Research and Creative Scholarship at the University of Montana (UM) through a renewable 2-year contract with the MSL. Since the first staff was hired in 1985, the Program has logged a long record of success, and developed into a highly respected, service- oriented program. MTNHP is widely recognized as one of the most advanced and effective of over 80 natural heritage programs throughout the Western Hemisphere.

VISION Our vision is that public agencies, the private sector, the education sector, and the general public will trust and rely upon MTNHP as the source for information and expertise on Montana’s species and habitats, especially those of conservation concern. We strive to provide easy access to our information in order for users to save time and money, speed environmental reviews, and inform decision making.

CORE VALUES  We endeavor to be a single statewide source of accurate and up-to-date information on Montana’s plants, animals, and aquatic and terrestrial biological communities.  We actively listen to our data users and work responsively to meet their information and training needs.  We strive to provide neutral, trusted, timely, and equitable service to all of our information users.  We make every effort to be transparent to our data users in setting work priorities and providing data products.

CONFIDENTIALITY All information requests made to the Montana Natural Heritage Program are considered library records and are protected from disclosure by the Montana Library Records Confidentiality Act (MCA 22-1-11).

INFORMATION MANAGED Information managed at the Montana Natural Heritage Program includes: (1) lists of, and basic information on, plant and animal species and biological communities; (2) plant and animal surveys, observations, species occurrences, predictive distribution models, range polygons, and conservation status ranks; and (3) land cover and wetland and riparian mapping and the conservation status of these and other biological communities.

Page 19 of 29 Data Use Terms and Conditions

 Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) products and services are based on biological data and the objective interpretation of those data by professional scientists. MTNHP does not advocate any particular philosophy of natural resource protection, management, development, or public policy.  MTNHP has no natural resource management or regulatory authority. Products, statements, and services from MTNHP are intended to inform parties as to the state of scientific knowledge about certain natural resources, and to further develop that knowledge. The information is not intended as natural resource management guidelines or prescriptions or a determination of environmental impacts. MTNHP recommends consultation with appropriate state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies and authorities in the area where your project is located.  Information on the status and spatial distribution of biological resources produced by MTNHP are intended to inform parties of the state-wide status, known occurrence, or the likelihood of the presence of those resources. These products are not intended to substitute for field-collected data, nor are they intended to be the sole basis for natural resource management decisions.  MTNHP does not portray its data as exhaustive or comprehensive inventories of rare species or biological communities. Field verification of the absence or presence of sensitive species and biological communities will always be an important obligation of users of our data.  MTNHP responds equally to all requests for products and services, regardless of the purpose or identity of the requester.  Because MTNHP constantly updates and revises its databases with new data and information, products will become outdated over time. Interested parties are encouraged to obtain the most current information possible from MTNHP, rather than using older products. We add, review, update, and delete records on a daily basis. Consequently, we strongly advise that you update your MTNHP data sets at a minimum of every three months for most applications of our information.  MTNHP data require a certain degree of biological expertise for proper analysis, interpretation, and application. Our staff is available to advise you on questions regarding the interpretation or appropriate use of the data that we provide. Contact information for MTNHP staff is posted at: http://mtnhp.org/contact.asp  The information provided to you by MTNHP may include sensitive data that if publicly released might jeopardize the welfare of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or biological communities. This information is intended for distribution or use only within your department, agency, or business. Subcontractors may have access to the data during the course of any given project, but should not be given a copy for their use on subsequent, unrelated work.  MTNHP data are made freely available. Duplication of hard-copy or digital MTNHP products with the intent to sell is prohibited without written consent by MTNHP. Should you be asked by individuals outside your organization for the type of data that we provide, please refer them to MTNHP.  MTNHP and appropriate staff members should be appropriately acknowledged as an information source in any third- party product involving MTNHP data, reports, papers, publications, or in maps that incorporate MTNHP graphic elements.  Sources of our data include museum specimens, published and unpublished scientific literature, field surveys by state and federal agencies and private contractors, and reports from knowledgeable individuals. MTNHP actively solicits and encourages additions, corrections and updates, new observations or collections, and comments on any of the data we provide.  MTNHP staff and contractors do not cross or survey privately-owned lands without express permission from the landowner. However, the program cannot guarantee that information provided to us by others was obtained under adherence to this policy.

Page 20 of 29 Suggested Contacts for State & Federal Natural Resource Agencies

As required by Montana statute (MCA 90-15), the Montana Natural Heritage Program works with state, federal, tribal, nongovernmental organizations, and private partners to ensure that the latest animal and plant distribution and status information is incorporated into our databases so that it can be used to inform a variety of planning processes and management decisions. In addition to the information you receive from us, we encourage you to contact state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies in the area where your project is located. They may have additional data or management guidelines relevant to your efforts. In particular, we encourage you to contact the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks for the latest data and management information regarding hunted and high profile management species and to use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information Planning and Conservation (IPAC) website http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ regarding U.S. Endangered Species Act listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species.

For your convenience, we have compiled a list of relevant agency contacts and links below:

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Fish Species Zachary Shattuck [email protected] (406) 444-1231 or Lee Nelson [email protected] (406) 444-2447 American Bison Black-footed Ferret Black-tailed Prairie Dog Bald Eagle Golden Eagle Lauri Hanauska-Brown [email protected] (406) 444-5209 Common Loon Least Tern Piping Plover Whooping Crane Grizzly Bear Greater Sage Grouse Trumpeter Swan John Vore [email protected] (406) 444-5209 Big Game Upland Game Birds Furbearers Managed Terrestrial Game Adam Messer – MFWP Data Analyst [email protected] (406) 444-0095 and Nongame Animal Data Fisheries Data Bill Daigle – MFWP Fish Data Manager [email protected] (406) 444-3737 Wildlife and Fisheries http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/licenses/scientificWildlife/ Scientific Collector’s Merissa Hayes for Wildlife [email protected] (406) 444-7321 Permits Beth Giddings for Fisheries [email protected] (406) 444-7319 Fish and Wildlife Renee Lemon [email protected] (406) 444-3738 Recommendations for and see Subdivision Development http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/livingWithWildlife/buildingWithWildlife/subdivisionRecommendations/ Regional Contacts  Region 1 (Kalispell) (406) 752-5501  Region 2 (Missoula) (406) 542-5500  Region 3 (Bozeman) (406) 994-4042  Region 4 (Great Falls) (406) 454-5840  Region 5 (Billings) (406) 247-2940  Region 6 (Glasgow) (406) 228-3700  Region 7 (Miles City) (406) 234-0900

Page 21 of 29

United States Fish and Wildlife Service: Information Planning and Conservation (IPAC) website: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Montana Ecological Services Field Office: http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/ (406) 449-5225

Bureau of Land Management Montana Field Office Contacts: Billings (406) 896-5013 Butte (406) 533-7600 Dillon (406) 683-8000 Glasgow (406) 228-3750 Havre (406) 262-2820 Lewistown (406) 538-1900 Malta (406) 654-5100 Miles City (406) 233-2800 Missoula (406) 329-3914

United States Forest Service

Regional Office – Missoula, Montana Contacts Wildlife Program Leader Tammy Fletcher [email protected] (406) 329-3588 Wildlife Ecologist Cara Staab [email protected] (406) 329-3677 Fish Program Leader Scott Spaulding [email protected] (406) 329-3287 Fish Ecologist Cameron Thomas [email protected] (406) 329-3087 TES Program Lydia Allen [email protected] (406) 329-3558 Interagency Grizzly Bear Coordinator Scott Jackson [email protected] (406) 329-3664 Regional Botanist Steve Shelly [email protected] (406) 329-3041

Page 22 of 29 Introduction to Species Summary Within the report area you have requested, separate summaries are provided for documented, potential, and invasive species. Each of these summaries provides the following information when present for a species: (1) the number of observations and species occurrences documented; (2) the geographic range polygons that the project overlaps; (3) predicted relative habitat suitability classes that are present if a predicted distribution model has been created; (4) ecological systems present with which the species is commonly or occasionally associated. Lists identify whether species are classified as: Species of Concern, Special Status Species, Important Animal Habitats, Potential Species of Concern, Under Review plants, other native species, Noxious Weeds, Aquatic Invasive Species, or other introduced species. Details on each of these information categories are included under relevant section headers below or are defined on our Species Status Codes web page. In presenting this information, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is working towards assisting the user with rapidly determining what native and introduced species have been documented and what species are potentially present in a report area. We remind users that this information is likely incomplete as surveys to document native and introduced species are lacking in many areas of the state, information on introduced species has only been tracked relatively recently, the MTNHP’s staff and resources are restricted by declining budgets, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Thus, field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species and biological communities will always be an important obligation of users of our data.

If you are aware of observation datasets that the MTNHP is missing, please report them to the Program Botanist [email protected] or Senior Zoologist [email protected]. If you have observations that you would like to contribute, you can submit animal observations using our online data entry system at http://mtnhp.org/AddObs/, plant and animal observations via Excel spreadsheets posted at http://mtnhp.org/observations.asp , or to the Program Botanist or Senior Zoologist.

Observations The MTNHP manages information on more than 1.8 million animal and plant observations that have been reported by professional biologists and private citizens from across Montana. The majority of these observations are submitted in digital format from standardized databases associated with research or monitoring efforts and spreadsheets of incidental observations submitted by professional biologists and amateur naturalists. At a minimum, accepted observation records must contain a credible species identification (i.e. appropriate geographic range, date, and habitat and, if species are difficult to identify, a photograph and notes on key identifying features), a date or date range, observer name, locational information (ideally with latitude and longitude information in decimal degrees), notes on numbers observed, and species behavior or habitat use (e.g., is the observation likely associated with reproduction). Bird records are also required to have information associated with the breeding or overwintering status of the species observed. MTNHP reviews observation records to ensure that they are mapped correctly, occur within date ranges when the species is known to be present or detectable, occur within the known seasonal geographic range of the species, and occur in appropriate habitats. MTNHP also assigns each record a locational uncertainty value in meters to indicate the spatial precision associated with the record’s mapped coordinates. Only records with locational uncertainty values of 10,000 meters or less are included in environmental summary reports and number summaries are only provided for records with locational uncertainty values of 1,000 meters or less.

Species Occurrences The MTNHP evaluates plant and animal observation records for species of higher conservation concern to determine whether they are worthy of inclusion in the Species Occurrence (SO) layer for use in environmental reviews; observations not worthy of inclusion in this layer include long distance dispersal events, migrants observed away from key migratory stopover habitats, and winter observations. An SO is a polygon depicting

Page 23 of 29 what is known about a species occupancy from direct observation with a defined level of locational uncertainty and any inference that can be made about adjacent habitat use from the latest peer-reviewed science. If an observation can be associated with a map feature that can be tracked (e.g., a wetland boundary for a wetland associated plant) then this polygon feature is used to represent the SO. Areas that can be inferred as probable occupied habitat based on direct observation of a species location and what is known about the foraging area or home range size of the species may be incorporated into the SO. Species Occurrences generally belong to one of the following categories:

Plant Species Occurrences A documented location of a specimen collection or observed plant population. In some instances, adjacent, spatially separated clusters are considered subpopulations and are grouped as one occurrence (e.g., the subpopulations occur in ecologically similar habitats, and their spatial proximity likely allows them to interbreed). Tabular information for multiple observations at the same SO location is generally linked to a single polygon. Plant SO's are only created for Species of Concern and Potential Species of Concern.

Animal Species Occurrences The location of a verified observation or specimen record typically known or assumed to represent a breeding population or a portion of a breeding population. Animal SO’s are generally: (1) buffers of terrestrial point observations based on documented species’ home range sizes; (2) buffers of stream segments to encompass occupied streams and immediate adjacent riparian habitats; (3) polygonal features encompassing known or likely breeding populations (e.g., a wetland for some amphibians or a forested portion of a mountain range for some wide ranging carnivores); or (4) combinations of the above. Tabular information for multiple observations at the same SO location is generally linked to a single polygon. Species Occurrence polygons may encompass some unsuitable habitat in some instances in order to avoid heavy data processing associated with clipping out habitats that are readily assessed as unsuitable by the data user (e.g., a point buffer of a terrestrial species may overlap into a portion of a lake that is obviously inappropriate habitat for the species). Animal SO's are only created for Species of Concern and Special Status Species (e.g., Bald Eagle).

Other Occurrence Polygons These include significant biological features not included in the above categories, such as Important Animal Habitats like bird rookeries and bat roosts, and peatlands or other wetland and riparian communities that support diverse plant and animal communities.

Geographic Range Polygons Geographic range polygons have not yet been defined for most plant species. Introduced, year-round, summer, winter, migratory, and historic geographic range polygons have been defined for most animal species for which there are enough observations, surveys, and knowledge of appropriate seasonal habitat use to define them (see examples to left). These native or introduced range polygons bound the extent of known or likely occupied habitats for non-migratory and relative sedentary species and the regular extent of known or likely occupied habitats for migratory and long-distance dispersing species; polygons may include unsuitable intervening habitats. For most species, a single polygon can represent the year-round or seasonal range, but breeding ranges of some colonial nesting water birds and some introduced species are represented more patchily when supported by data. Some ranges are mapped more broadly than actual distributions in order to be visible on statewide maps (e.g., fish).

Page 24 of 29 Predictive Distribution Models Recent predictive distribution models have not yet been created for most plant species. For animal species for which models have been completed, the environmental summary report includes simple, rule-based, associations with streams for fish and other aquatic species and mathematically complex Maximum Entropy models (Phillips et al. 2006, Ecological Modeling 190:231-259) constructed from a variety of statewide biotic and abiotic layers and presence only data for individual species contributed to Montana Natural Heritage Program databases for most terrestrial species. For the Maximum Entropy models, we reclassified 90 x 90- meter continuous model output into suitability classes (unsuitable, low, moderate, and high) then aggregated that into the one square mile hexagons used in the environmental summary report; this is the finest spatial scale we suggest using this information for management decisions and survey planning. Full model write ups for individual species that discuss model goals, inputs, outputs, and evaluation in much greater detail are posted on the MTNHP’s Predicted Suitable Habitat Models page. Evaluations of predictive accuracy and specific limitations are included with the metadata for models of individual species. Model outputs should not be used in place of on-the-ground surveys for species. Instead model outputs should be used in conjunction with habitat evaluations to determine the need for on-the-ground surveys for species.

Associated Habitats We associated the use (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by: (1) using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species; (2) evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species’ range and habitat requirements; (3) examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system; and (4) calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of “observations versus availability of habitat”. Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system. However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system. Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature. The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.

We suggest that species associations with ecological systems be used in conjunction with geographic range polygons and predictive distribution models to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Users of this information should be aware that land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).

Page 25 of 29 Introduction to Land Cover Summary Land Use/Land Cover is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The layer records all Montana natural vegetation, land cover and land use, classified from satellite and aerial imagery, mapped at a scale of 1:100000, and interpreted with supporting ground-level data. The baseline map is adapted from the Northwest ReGAP (NWGAP) project land cover classification, which used 30m resolution multi-spectral Landsat imagery acquired between 1999 and 2001. Vegetation classes were drawn from the Ecological System Classification developed by NatureServe (Comer et al. 2003). The land cover classes were developed by Anderson et al. (1976). The NWGAP effort encompasses 12 map zones. Montana overlaps seven of these zones. The two NWGAP teams responsible for the initial land cover mapping effort in Montana were Sanborn and NWGAP at the University of Idaho. Both Sanborn and NWGAP employed a similar modeling approach in which Classification and Regression Tree (CART) models were applied to Landsat ETM+ scenes. The Spatial Analysis Lab within the Montana Natural Heritage Program was responsible for developing a seamless Montana land cover map with a consistent statewide legend from these two separate products. Additionally, the Montana land cover layer incorporates several other land cover and land use products (e.g., MSDI Structures and Transportation themes and the Montana Department of Revenue Final Land Unit classification) and reclassifications based on plot-level data and the latest NAIP imagery to improve accuracy and enhance the usability of the theme. Updates are done as partner support and funding allow, or when other MSDI datasets can be incorporated. Recent updates include fire perimeters and agricultural land use (annually), energy developments such as wind, oil and gas installations (2014), roads, structures and other impervious surfaces (various years): and local updates/improvements to specific ecological systems (e.g., central Montana grassland and sagebrush ecosystems). Current and previous versions of the Land Use/Land Cover layer with full metadata are available for download at the Montana State Library’s Geographic Information Clearinghouse.

Within the report area you have requested, land cover is summarized by acres of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Ecological Systems.

Literature Cited Anderson, J.R. E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological systems of the United States: A working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Page 26 of 29 Introduction to Wetland and Riparian Summary

Within the report area you have requested, wetland and riparian mapping is summarized by acres of each classification present. Summaries are only provided for modern MTNHP wetland and riparian mapping and not for outdated (NWI Legacy) or incomplete (NWI Scalable) mapping efforts; described here. MTNHP has made all three of these datasets and associated metadata available for separate download on the Montana Wetland and Riparian Framework MSDI download page.

Wetland and Riparian mapping is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The wetland and riparian framework layer consists of spatial data representing the extent, type, and approximate location of wetlands, riparian areas, and deepwater habitats in Montana.

Wetland and riparian mapping is completed through photointerpretation of 1-m resolution color infrared aerial imagery acquired from 2005 or later. A coding convention using letters and numbers is assigned to each mapped wetland. These letters and numbers describe the broad landscape context of the wetland, its vegetation type, its water regime, and the kind of alterations that may have occurred. Ancillary data layers such as topographic maps, digital elevation models, soils data, and other aerial imagery sources are also used to improve mapping accuracy. Wetland mapping follows the federal Wetland Mapping Standard and classifies wetlands according to the Cowardin classification system of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Cowardin et al. 1979, FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee 2013). Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands differently than the NWI. Similar coding, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conventions, is applied to riparian areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). These are mapped areas where vegetation composition and growth is influenced by nearby water bodies, but where soils, plant communities, and hydrology do not display true wetland characteristics. These data are intended for use in publications at a scale of 1:12,000 or smaller. Mapped wetland and riparian areas do not represent precise boundaries and digital wetland data cannot substitute for an on-site determination of jurisdictional wetlands.

A detailed overview, with examples, of both wetland and riparian classification systems and associated codes can be found at: http://mtnhp.org/help/MapViewer/WetRip_Classification.asp

Literature Cited Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. 103pp. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 2009. A system for mapping riparian areas in the western United States. Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Branch of Resource and Mapping Support, Arlington, Virginia.

Page 27 of 29 Introduction to Land Management Summary

Within the report area you have requested, land management information is summarized by acres of federal, state, and local government lands, tribal reservation boundaries, private conservation lands, and federal, state, local, and private conservation easements. Acreage for “Owned”, “Tribal”, or “Easement” categories represents non-overlapping areas that may be totaled. However, “Other Boundaries” represents managed areas such as National Forest boundaries containing private inholdings and other mixed ownership which may cause boundaries to overlap (e.g. a wilderness area within a forest). Therefore, acreages may not total in a straight-forward manner.

Because information on land stewardship is critical to effective land management, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) began compiling ownership and management data in 1997. The goal of the Montana Land Management Database is to manage a single, statewide digital data set that incorporates information from both public and private entities. The database assembles information on public lands, private conservation lands, and conservation easements held by state and federal agencies and land trusts and is updated on a regular basis. Since 2011, the Information Management group in the Montana State Library’s Digital Library Division has taken an increasingly active role in managing layers of the Montana Land Management Database in partnership with the MTNHP.

Public and private conservation land polygons are attributed with the name of the entity that owns it. The data are derived from the statewide Montana Cadastral Parcel layer. Conservation easement data shows land parcels on which a public agency or qualified land trust has placed a conservation easement in cooperation with the land owner. The dataset contains no information about ownership or status of the mineral estate. For questions about the dataset or to report errors, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program at (406) 444-5354 or [email protected]. You can download various components of the Land Management Database and view associated metadata at the Montana State Library’s GIS Data List at the following links:

Public Lands Conservation Easements Private Conservation Lands Managed Areas

Map features in the Montana Land Management Database or summaries provided in this report are not intended as a legal depiction of public or private surface land ownership boundaries and should not be used in place of a survey conducted by a licensed land surveyor. Similarly, map features do not imply public access to any lands. The Montana Natural Heritage Program makes no representations or warranties whatsoever with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this data and assumes no responsibility for the suitability of the data for a particular purpose. The Montana Natural Heritage Program will not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of errors displayed here. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes.

Page 28 of 29 Additional Information Resources Home Page for Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP)

MTNHP Staff Contact Information

Montana Field Guide

MTNHP Species of Concern Report - Animals and Plants

MTNHP Species Status Codes - Explanation

MTNHP Predicted Suitable Habitat Models (for select Animals and Plants)

MTNHP Request Information page

Montana Cadastral

Montana Code Annotated

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Montana Fisheries Information System

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Subdivision Recommendations

Montana GIS Data Layers

Montana GIS Data Bundler

Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Project Submittal Site

Montana Ground Water Information Center

Montana Legislative Environmental Policy Office Publications (Including Index of Environmental Permits required in Montana and Guide to the Montana Environmental Policy Act)

Laws, Treaties, Regulations, and Permits on Animals and Plants

Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure Layers

Montana State Historic Preservation Office Review and Compliance

Montana Water Information System

Montana Web Map Services

National Environmental Policy Act

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation (Section 7 Consultation)

Web Soil Survey Tool

Page 29 of 29