DRAFT Montana Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment Project Lands Recreation Development Painted Rocks Reservoir, Ravalli County MT
Prepared By:
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Water Resources Division State Water Projects Bureau Helena, MT
May 2021
MEPA Environmental Assessment Project Lands Recreation Development Painted Rocks Reservoir, Ravalli County MT
PART I. TYPE AND PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Purpose and Need for Proposed State Action: The State Water Projects Bureau (SWPB) of Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) Water Resources Division administers public lands adjacent to Painted Rocks Reservoir in Ravalli County, MT. These public lands are part of the Painted Rocks Water Project which includes a storage reservoir and dam.
Painted Rocks Dam and Reservoir is owned by Montana DNRC and is administered by the SWPB. Operation and maintenance of the Water Project is delegated to the Painted Rocks Water Users Association through a Water Marketing Contract. The dam was constructed in 1939 by the State Water Conservation Board with funds from the Public Works Administration to provide additional storage for agricultural irrigation water for use in the Bitterroot Valley. Currently, the reservoir is used for irrigation, recreation, and downstream fisheries releases.
Page 2 of 31
Painted Rocks Reservoir is located in Ravalli County as shown in Figure 1.
Management of these public lands include a recreational Lease with Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (DFWP) for the operation of Painted Rocks State Park, as well as sixteen cabin site Leases to private individuals. All Project lands, with the exception of the cabin site leased areas and secured dam facilities are accessible to the public with no restrictions. The remainder of these public lands adjacent to Painted Rocks Reservoir are non-developed by DNRC or are managed by the Bitterroot National Forest Service under federal land ownership.
Painted Rocks Reservoir
Figure 1. General Location of Painted Rocks Reservoir
A non-developed area under SWPB ownership has been identified to remedy property management issues including conflict of use and uncontrolled infrastructure development. This parcel is situated on the east side of Painted Rocks Reservoir, more specifically located in the SE of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 22 West. A vehicle approach from MT Highway 473 provides access to the site, as well as 4 cabin leased sites managed by the SWPB. A site map of this area is shown in Figure 2.
The proposed project will remedy several issues related to property management issues including:
Overuse of Site – Currently, the site is unmanaged and includes pioneered access roads that have damaged existing vegetation. The site includes exposed soils from vehicle ruts and turning movements that contribute to uncontrolled erosion. It appears that numerous vehicles utilize this area by pioneered loop road and parking spaces between existing trees. There is no signage for traffic circulation which may be causing parking and access conflicts during high-use timeframes.
Unapproved Development of Infrastructure – A walk through of the site was conducted by SWPB personnel. Several fire pits were identified by remnants of burned charcoal within circular rock perimeters. In addition, there is an unauthorized
Page 3 of 31
wooden outhouse structure. A boat dock and wooden covered shelter exist near the shoreline of Painted Rocks Reservoir. The boat dock and shelter are claimed by a cabin site Lessee, which are allowed under Lease conditions with the SWPB. This infrastructure is open to public use at all times of the year.
Sanitation Issues – There is no authorized sanitation facility open to the general public. Visual observation by SWPB personnel noted several areas of human waste remnants left on the ground surface.
Illegal Debris/Garbage Dumping – SWPB personnel documented several areas of debris and garbage left on the site. There are no waste receptacles or informational signage within the site to address this illegal activity.
Conflict of Use – Recreational opportunities at the site are currently not managed and this has resulted in conflict of use by the general public and adjacent cabin site Lessees. On-site camping is occurring and unregulated for length of stay, blockage of site access, and appearance of private ownership.
Public Not Aware – The site is open to the general public; however, there are no informational signage from MT Hwy 473 or found within the site boundary stating this. The general public, if not familiar with the area, may not know that access to Painted Rocks Reservoir exists.
Project Site
Figure 2. Project Lands Recreation Development Site – Site Map
Page 4 of 31
A. Name of Project: Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir
B. Project Owner: Montana DNRC - Water Resources Division State Water Projects Bureau 1424 9th Ave. Helena, MT 59620 406 444-6646 C. Anticipated Schedule: Estimated Comment Period: May-June 2021 Estimated Decision Notice: June-July 2021 Estimated Construction: Summer-Fall, 2021 Estimated Completion Date: Fall, 2021
D. Location: The Project Lands Recreation Development Site is located on Painted Rocks Reservoir approximately 30 miles southwest of Darby, Montana in Ravalli County, Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 22 West (see Figures 1 and 2).
E. Project Size: Estimate the number of acres that would be directly affected that are currently:
Land Use Acres a. Developed: Residential 0 Industrial 0 b. Open Space/Woodlands/Recreation ~1 c. Wetland/Riparian 0 d. Floodplain 0 e. Productive Irrigate Cropland 0 Dry Cropland 0 Forestry 0 Rangeland 0 Other 0
F. Local, State or Federal Agencies with Overlapping or Additional Jurisdiction: (a) Permits: Agency Name Permits Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity SWPPP/NOI
(b) Other Overlapping or Additional Jurisdictional Responsibilities: Agency Name Type of Responsibility Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern State Historic Preservation Office Cultural Clearance (Appendix A) Montana Dept. of Transportation Right-of-Way Vehicle Approach Standards
Page 5 of 31
G. Description and Analysis of Reasonable Alternatives: Several alternatives were considered in evaluating the physical and human environmental impacts associated with the Projects Lands Recreation Development at Painted Rocks Reservoir. Along with the No Action alternative, others considered include the Vehicle Site Closure Alternative, Day-Use Recreation Development Alternative, and the Leased Site Recreation Development Alternative.
The proposed project will resolve property management issues by preparing and evaluating alternatives to remedy conflicts of use. A proposed action, or preferred alternative, will be selected in the best interest of the State to address these conflicts for better management of the site for the general public. The following sections describe each alternative in how they would address property management issues associated with the site.
No Action Alternative: If no action is taken, the site would continue to operate unmanaged and undeveloped. Property management issues would not be addressed and conflicts of use would continue. Overuse of the site would continue accelerating environmental damage of soil erosion, vegetation removal, and uncontrolled containment of human waste. Illegal debris/garbage dumping may continue to occur as well as unapproved infrastructure development.
Adjacent cabin site Lessees would continue to access a dock and wooden covered shelter with vehicles, park recreational units for unregulated length of stay, and may restrict public access by blocking the entrance. The general public would continue to access the site, although no informational signage of public access would be included in this alternative.
Vehicle Site Closure Alternative: In this alternative, the site would be closed to all vehicular traffic including recreational units that are towed. The site would be blocked from vehicle access near the entrance by the installation of permanent non-removable barriers, such as barrier rocks, bollards, or lockable gate. Recreational vehicle day use and camping would be discontinued. Adjacent cabin site Lessee vehicle access would continue and not be interrupted.
Prior to any vehicle barrier installation, the site would be reclaimed to promote natural revegetation growth by recontouring and filling in pioneered roads/parking areas, importing and spreading topsoil, and native seed application. The site would also be evaluated for erosion susceptibility and best management practices may be implemented for the appropriate erosion control method.
This alternative may include signage indicating the site is available for public use. The site would continue to remain available for pedestrian access by the general public and cabin site lessees at all times of the year. Adjacent cabin site Lessees would be restricted from accessing the dock and wooden covered shelter with a vehicle.
This alternative will mitigate property management issues by limiting vehicle use to the site, discouraging unapproved infrastructure development, preventing on-going environmental damage from pioneered roads and parking areas, and prevention of illegal debris/garbage dumping.
Day-Use Recreation Development Alternative: For this alternative, the site would be developed for day-use recreation only. Recreational
Page 6 of 31
camping units including towed units would not be allowed. Day-use vehicle footprint would include a short section of one-lane roadway, parking area for 3-5 single vehicle stalls and a backout/turnaround stall. Beyond the parking area, the site would be blocked from full-size vehicle access by the installation of permanent non-removable barriers such as barrier rocks or bollards. The remainder of the site would be reclaimed to promote natural revegetation growth by recontouring and filling in pioneered roads/parking areas, importing and spreading topsoil, and native seed application. The site would also be evaluated for erosion susceptibility and best management practices may be implemented for the appropriate erosion control method.
An engineered design would be initiated including field data collection, highway right-of-way boundary identification, parking area and site drainage design, highway approach improvement, and material selection. The Day Use Recreation Development Alternative is shown in Figure 3.
Painted Rocks Reservoir
Proposed Parking Area
DNRC Leased Cabin Sites (4 units)
Figure 3. Day-Use Recreation Development Alternative
No sanitation infrastructure or services would be included under this alternative. Informational signage would direct the public to Painted Rocks State Park, located ¼ mile to the south west.
This alternative would include public access informational/directional signage from MT Hwy 473 to the day-use parking area. The parking area may also warrant regulatory signage. The remainder of the site would continue to be available for pedestrian access by the general public and cabin site lessees at all times of the year. Adjacent cabin site Lessees would be restricted from accessing the dock and wooden covered shelter with a full-size vehicle beyond the parking
Page 7 of 31
area. The proposed parking area for 3-5 single vehicle stalls is shown in Photo 1.
This alternative will mitigate property management issues by controlling vehicle use of the site, limiting unapproved infrastructure development, preventing on-going environmental damage from pioneered roads and parking areas, and informational signage to the general public.
Proposed Area for 3-5 Single Vehicle Parking Stalls
Photo 1. Day-Use Recreation Development Alternative – Proposed Parking Stalls
Leased Site Recreation Development Alternative: This alternative includes developing the site for leased camping recreation sites, administered by Montana DNRC, SWPB. Day-use parking area would not be included in this alternative. The leased site recreation development footprint would include a one-lane roadway loop and a minimum of 3, but no more than 5, back-in or drive-thru single stall camping units. This requires an engineered design including field data collection, highway right-of-way boundary identification, roadway and site drainage design, highway approach improvement, and material selection. In addition, the remainder of the site would be reclaimed to promote natural revegetation growth by recontouring and filling in pioneered roads/parking areas, importing and spreading topsoil, and native seed application. The site would also be evaluated for erosion susceptibility and best management practices may be implemented for the appropriate erosion control method. The Leased Site Recreation Development Alternative is shown in Figure 4.
No potable water or sanitation infrastructure or services would be included under this alternative. Potable water and sanitation would be the responsibility of the Lessee contained within their camping unit.
Page 8 of 31
Proposed Leased Painted Rocks Reservoir Camp Site (typ.) (not to scale)
Proposed One-Way Loop Road (not to scale)
DNRC Leased Cabin Sites (4 units)
Figure 4. Leased Site Recreation Development Alternative
Due to the proposed site development under this alternative, no public access informational/directional signage is proposed. The site would continue to be available for pedestrian access by the general public and cabin site lessees at all times of the year. Adjacent cabin site Lessees would be restricted from vehicle parking at the dock and wooden covered shelter; however, vehicle access would be allowed through the loop road. Photo 2 shows the approximate location of the proposed one-lane roadway within the Leased Recreation Development Alternative.
This alternative will mitigate property management issues by controlling vehicle use of the site, limiting unapproved infrastructure development, and preventing on-going environmental damage from pioneered roads and parking area. This alternative would require SWPB to formulate recreational Leases, advertise, and award based on competitive public bid process. Recreational Leases, other than with DFWP, are limited to a maximum term of 10 years by Montana State Law, however, DNRC would evaluate the term length based on nearby cabin site Lease renewal dates, or other considerations.
Page 9 of 31
Proposed Leased Site One-Lane Roadway
Photo 2. Leased Site Recreation Development Alternative – Proposed Roadway
Other Alternatives Considered: No other alternatives were considered to remedy property management issues at the site, other than identified above.
H. Narrative Summary of the Proposed Action: The proposed project will resolve property management issues described above by preparing and evaluating alternatives to remedy conflicts of use. The State Water Project Bureau supports the Day-Use Recreation Development Alternative to address these conflicts for better management of the site for the general public.
This proposed action (preferred alternative) will resolve conflicts of use and prevent overuse of the site by limiting vehicle access to a small parking area. Public access will be maintained through informational signage from MT Hwy 473. The preferred alternative will limit unapproved infrastructure development and prevent further environmental damage from unrestricted use.
Management of the preferred alternative will be conducted by DNRC personnel, or through Agreement with Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks recreational Lease at Painted Rocks State Park. Informational signage for sanitation facilities would direct the public to Painted Rocks State Park, located ¼ mile to the south west.
Beyond the day-use parking area, the preferred alternative maintains pedestrian access by the general public and cabin site Lessees at all times of the year. Adjacent cabin site Lessees would be restricted from accessing the dock and wooden covered shelter with a full-size vehicle beyond the parking area. Pedestrian access to cabin site Lessee docks and general public use
Page 10 of 31
of these docks would remain consistent and unchanged in the Department’s management.
I. Evaluation and Listing of Mitigation, Stipulation, or Other Control Measures Enforceable by the Agency or Another Government Agency: The project will employ Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are designed to reduce sediment delivery to waterways during construction. DNRC would develop the final design and specifications for the Proposed Action to include these requirements. All county, state and federal permits listed in Part I I(a) above would be obtained by DNRC as required. A private contractor selected through the State’s Public contracting processes would complete the construction.
Page 11 of 31
PART II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST Evaluation of the impacts of the Proposed Action including secondary and cumulative impacts on the Physical and Human Environment.
1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. LAND RESOURCES IMPACT 1. LAND RESOURCES Can Impact Potentially Be Comment Will the proposed action result Unknown None Minor Significant Index in: Mitigated a) Soil instability or changes X 1a. in geologic substructure? b) Disruption, displacement, erosion, compaction, moisture loss, or over- X Yes 1b. covering of soil, which would reduce productivity or fertility? c) Destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? d) Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion patterns that may modify X Yes 1d. the channel of a river or Positive stream or the bed or shore of a lake? e) Exposure of people or property to earthquakes, X . landslides, ground failure, or other natural hazard?
1a. According to a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) custom soil report prepared for the project limits (NRCS 2020), there are two soil map units found in the project area. The predominant soil type identified in the project area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed action is classified as #61B25 Klootch-Shermount families, complex, breaklands, dry. A NRCS soils report of the project area is provided in Appendix B.
Since the proposed work is occurring above the high-water elevation of Painted Rocks Reservoir, the Proposed Action would not affect existing soil patterns, structures, productivity, or fertility. Soil and geologic substructure would remain stable during and after the proposed work.
1b. During construction, some minor modifications to the existing soil features would be required for the proposed action including importing topsoil. Disturbed areas would be then re-seeded with a native seed mix to minimize erosion, sediment delivery to Painted Rocks Reservoir, and the
Page 12 of 31
spread of noxious weeds. BMPs would be followed during all phases of construction to minimize erosion.
1d. Sediment transport to Painted Rocks Reservoir from the proposed action would be temporary during construction while BMP’s are initially installed. Erosion patterns directed toward Painted Rocks Reservoir would be reduced by the installation of BMPs, re-contouring eroded existing vehicle rutted areas, and importing topsoil incorporating native seed mix for long- term vegetation stabilization.
Page 13 of 31
2. AIR IMPACT 2. AIR Can Impact Potentially Be Comment Will the proposed action result Unknown None Minor Significant Index in: Mitigated a) Emission of air pollutants or deterioration of ambient X Yes 2a air quality? . b) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature patterns or any change in X climate, either locally or regionally? c) Adverse effects on vegetation, including X crops, due to increased emissions of pollutants?
2a. Dust may be temporarily generated during construction of the Proposed Action. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be followed during all phases of construction to minimize emission risks and reduce dust. There would be a temporary increase in diesel exhaust from equipment used during construction. These impacts would be short term and minor since they would occur only during the construction period. The proposed project would have no long-term impact on air quality in the project area and would not result in any emissions that could conflict with the Clean Air Act or state air quality regulations.
Page 14 of 31
3. WATER IMPACT 3. WATER Can
Potentially Impact Be Comment Will the proposed action result Unknown None Minor Significant Mitigated Index in: a) Discharge into surface water or any alteration of surface water quality X including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? b) Changes in drainage patterns or the rate and X Yes 3b. amount of surface runoff? c) Alteration of the course or magnitude of floodwater or X other flows? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any X . water body or creation of a new water body? e) Exposure of people or property to water X related hazards such as flooding? f) Changes in the X quality of groundwater? g) Changes in the quantity of X groundwater? h) Increase in risk of contamination of surface X Yes 3h. or groundwater? i) Effects on any existing X water right or reservation? j) Effects on other water users as a result of any X alteration in surface or groundwater quality? k) Effects on other users as a result of any alteration X in surface or groundwater quantity? l) Will the project affect a designated floodplain? X m) Will the project result in any discharge that will affect X
federal or state water quality regulations?
Page 15 of 31
3b. The Proposed Action will reduce surface water flow, surface runoff, and improve drainage patterns that direct erosion toward Painted Rocks Reservoir. Permit requirements and BMPs would be followed during construction. Installation of these BMPs, re-contouring eroded existing vehicle rutted areas, and importing topsoil incorporating native seed mix for long-term vegetation stabilization will help control surface runoff and uncontrolled drainage patterns.
3h. The use of heavy equipment during construction may result in a slight risk of contamination from petroleum products and a temporary increase in sediment delivery to Painted Rocks Reservoir. Permit requirements and BMPs would be followed during all phases of construction to minimize these risks.
Page 16 of 31
4. VEGETATION IMPACT 4. VEGETATION
Potentially Can Impact Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor Significant Be Mitigated Index result in: a) Changes in the diversity, productivity or abundance of plant X 4a. species (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b) Alteration of a plant community? X c) Adverse effects on any unique, rare, X 4c. threatened, or endangered species? d) Reduction in acreage or productivity of any X agricultural land? e) Establishment or spread X Yes 4e. of noxious weeds? f) An effect on wetlands, or prime X and unique farmland?
4a. The Proposed Action would have no impact on the plant diversity, productivity, or abundance. The project area will only affect minor amounts of undisturbed ground and impacts from construction would be minor. Any area disturbed during construction would be reseeded with a native seed mix.
4c. A search of the Natural Heritage Program Montana Species of Concern database (MNHP, 2020) found ten Montana plant species of concern observed within the vicinity of the proposed project area. One species (Whitebark Pine) is proposed threatened in Ravalli County by the USFS. Due to the limited construction disturbance of the proposed action and observed site vegetation damage, it is unlikely that any plant species of concern will be impacted. A MNHP Species of Concern Field Guide for Township 2S, Range 22W is provided in Appendix C.
4e. Soils disturbed during construction could colonize with noxious weeds. Disturbed areas would be reseeded with a native reclamation seed mix where necessary to reduce the establishment of weeds as part of the Proposed Action. In conjunction with the Ravalli County Weed District, DNRC and their agents would continue implementing an integrated approach to control noxious weeds. The use of herbicides would be in compliance with application guidelines to minimize the risk of chemical spills
Page 17 of 31
or water contamination and would be applied by people trained in safe handling techniques.
Page 18 of 31
5. FISH/WILDLIFE IMPACT 5. FISH/WILDLIFE Potentially Can Impact Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor result in: Significant Be Mitigated Index a) Deterioration of X critical fish or wildlife habitat? b) Changes in the diversity or X abundance of game animals or bird species? c) Changes in the diversity or X abundance of nongame species? d) Introduction of new species into an area? X e) Creation of a barrier
to the migration or X movement of animals? f) Adverse effects on any unique, rare, X 5f. threatened, or endangered species? g) Increase in conditions that stress wildlife populations or X limit abundance (including harassment, legal or illegal harvest or other human activity)? h) Will the project be performed in any area in which T&E species are present, X 5h. and will the project affect any T&E species or their habitat? (Also see 5f.) i) Will the project introduce or export any species not X presently or historically occurring in the receiving location?
Page 19 of 31
5f/5h. There are five species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate (T&E) species for Ravalli County based on the National Heritage Program website. These species include the Least Tern (endangered), Canada lynx (threatened and critical habitat), the grizzly bear (threatened), yellow-billed cuckoo (threatened), bull trout (threatened and critical habitat), and wolverine (proposed). The other T&E species neither have known habitat nor are known to frequent the project area. A MNHP review of T&E Species Field Guide for Ravalli County is provided in Appendix D.
Based on the scale of the project, subsequent review of T&E critical habitat in Township 2S, Range 22W, and implementation of appropriate conservation/ coordination measures and permit requirements, the proposed construction activities are anticipated not to adversely affect any of the species identified above.
Page 20 of 31
2. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 6. NOISE/ELECTRICAL EFFECTS IMPACT 6. NOISE/ELECTRICAL EFFECTS Potentially Can Impact Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor Significant Be Mitigated Index result in: a) Increases in existing X 6a. noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe or nuisance X noise levels? c) Creation of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects that could be X detrimental to human health or property? d) Interference with radio or television reception X and operation?
6a. Construction equipment would cause a temporary, minor increase in noise levels at the project site. Any increase in noise level at the construction site would be short term and minor.
Page 21 of 31
7. LAND USE IMPACT 7. LAND USE
Potentially Can Impact Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor Significant Be Mitigated Index result in: a) Alteration of or interference with the X productivity or profitability of the existing land use of an area? b) Conflicted with a designated natural X area or area of unusual scientific or educational importance? c) Conflict with any existing land use whose presence X would constrain or potentially prohibit the proposed action? d) Adverse effects on or relocation of X 7d. residences?
7d. The proposed action may have a minor impact during construction but would have no permanent effect on the land use of nearby residences because public use of the property has not changed.
Page 22 of 31
8. RISK/HEALTH HAZARDS IMPACT 8. RISK/HEALTH HAZARDS Can Impact Potentially Comment Will the proposed action Be Unknown None Minor Significant Index result in: Mitigated a) Risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, X Yes 8a. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or other forms of disruption? b) An effect on an existing emergency response or emergency evacuation X plan, or create a need for a new plan? c) Creation of any human health hazard or X potential hazard? d) Use of any chemical X Yes 8d. toxicants? (Also see 8a.)
8a/8d. Physical disturbance of the soil during construction would encourage the introduction or further establishment or spread noxious weeds within the project area. In conjunction with the Ravalli County Weed District, DNRC would implement an integrated approach to control noxious weeds. The use of herbicides to control noxious weeds could result in temporary water contamination from an inadvertent spill; however, the use of herbicides would be in compliance with application guidelines to minimize the risk of chemical spills or water contamination and application of the herbicides by people trained in safe handling techniques should reduce the likelihood of inadvertent contamination occurring.
There is a minor and temporary risk of fuel or oil from heavy equipment accidently releasing on the project site construction. Contractors should have absorbent materials on site to minimize any hydrocarbon releases, as well as conduct startup inspection of all hydraulic lines and cylinder seals daily to reduce the potential for a release.
Page 23 of 31
9. COMMUNITY IMPACT IMPACT 9. COMMUNITY IMPACT
Potentially Can Impact Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor Significant Be Mitigated Index result in: a) Alteration of the location, distribution, X density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b) Alteration of the social structure of a X community? c) Alteration of the level or distribution of X 9c. employment or community or personal income? d) Changes in industrial or commercial activity? X e) Increased traffic hazards or effects on existing X 9e. transportation facilities or patterns of movement of people and goods?
9c. The Proposed Action is anticipated to provide a short-term employment opportunity for local contractor(s), subcontractor(s) and material suppliers while construction activities occur.
9e. There is the potential for a minor increase in traffic for the proposed action. However, the proposed action includes an engineering layout to limit the amount of parking and access conflicts and will control traffic movements coupled with regulatory and informational signage.
Page 24 of 31
10. PUBLIC SERVICES/TAXES/UTILITIES IMPACT 10. PUBLIC SERVICES/TAXES/UTILITIES Can Impact
Potentially Be Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor Significant Mitigated Index result in: a) An effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: fire or police protection, schools, X parks/recreational facilities, roads or other public maintenance, water supply, sewer or septic systems, solid waste disposal, health, or other governmental services? If any, specify: b) An effect upon the local or state tax base and X revenues? c) A need for new facilities or substantial alterations of any of the following utilities: X electric power, natural gas, other fuel supply or distribution systems, or communications? d) An increased use of any
energy source? X e) Any change or increase in projected X 10e. maintenance costs.
10e. Montana DNRC recognizes that the proposed action may require additional operations and maintenance by both frequency and length of visit by State employee personnel or contracted services.
Page 25 of 31
11. AESTHETICS/RECREATION IMPACT 11. AESTHETICS/RECREATION Can Impact Will the proposed action result Potentially Be Comment Unknown None Minor Significant Mitigated Index in: a) Alteration of any scenic vista or creation of an aesthetically offensive X site or effect that is open to public view? b) Alteration of the aesthetic character of a community X or neighborhood? c) Alteration of the quality or quantity of
recreational/tourism X opportunities and settings? d) Impacts to wild or scenic rivers, trails or wilderness X areas?
11c. The proposed action will improve quality of the current use of the site by providing an engineered solution to vehicle and access conflicts. The recreating public will be aware of the proposed action by the installation of informational signage on Hwy 473.
Page 26 of 31
12. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES IMPACT 12. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES Can Impact Potentially Be Comment Will the proposed action Unknown None Minor Significant Mitigated Index result in: a) Destruction or alteration of any site, structure or object of prehistoric X 12a. historic, or paleontological importance? b) Physical change that would affect unique X cultural values? c) Effects on existing religious or sacred X uses of a site or area? d) An effect on historic or cultural resources? X 12d. Attach SHPO correspondence. (Also see 12.a.)
12a/d. A cultural resources inventory report was finalized for the project area by AECOM in 2019. On behalf of the DNRC, cultural resources staff with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. completed intensive and reconnaissance surveys of the APE (area of potential effects) on August 13-17, 2018. The APE included a proposed 10-foot dam crest raise, plus a buffer extending 50 feet out from the level of the raise. The proposed action’s impacts fall within the documented APE. The proposed action to the Project Lands Recreation Development will not adversely affect any historic properties. Therefore, a finding of no historic properties affected was recommended for this project and further cultural resources work was considered unnecessary. SHPO concurrence correspondence is included in Appendix A.
Page 27 of 31
3. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 13. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE IMPACT 13. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Can Impact
Potentially Be Comment Will the proposed action, Unknown None Minor Significant Mitigated Index considered as a whole: a) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project or program may X result in impacts on two or more separate resources that create a significant effect when considered together or in total.) b) Involve potential risks or adverse effects, which are uncertain but X extremely hazardous if they were to occur? c) Potentially conflict with the substantive requirements of any X local, state, or federal law, regulation, standard or formal plan? d) Establish a precedent or likelihood that future actions with significant X environmental impacts will be proposed? e) Generate substantial debate or controversy about the nature of X the impacts that would be created?
During construction of the proposed project, there may be minor and temporary impacts to the physical environment, but the impacts would be short-term and the improvements would benefit the resource and general public over the long-term. The Proposed Action Alternative would have no negative cumulative effects on the biological, physical, and human environments. The Proposed Action Alternative will not result in significant environmental impacts and should result in several important benefits to the environment.
Page 28 of 31
PART III. NARRATIVE EVALUATION AND COMMENT
During construction of the proposed project, there may be minor and temporary impacts to the physical environment, but the impacts would be short-term and the improvements would benefit the resource and general public over the long-term. The Proposed Action would have no negative cumulative effects on the biological, physical, and human environments. The Proposed Action Alternative will not result in significant environmental impacts and should result in several important benefits to the environment.
The minor impacts that were identified in the previous section are small in scale and would not influence the overall environment of the immediate area. The natural environment would continue to exist in its current form and provide habitat to transient and permanent terrestrial species in the surrounding area. The project would be designed and constructed to avoid conditions that could stress these wildlife populations to the extent possible.
Canada Lynx and Bull Trout are the only federally threatened species with critical habitat in the vicinity of the project area. Based on the scale of the project, subsequent review of T&E species critical habitat in Township 2S Range 22W, and implementation of appropriate conservation/coordination measures and permit requirements, the proposed construction activities are anticipated not to adversely affect Canada Lynx. The proposed action will not affect bull trout or bull trout critical habitat as construction disturbance is above the Painted Rocks Reservoir high water mark.
Soils disturbed during construction could colonize with weeds. Disturbed areas would be reseeded with a native seed mix where necessary to reduce the establishment of weeds. In conjunction with county weed control district, DNRC would use methods to control weeds in the project area as part of their operations and maintenance work at the project site.
The proposed project would improve human environment by resolving conflicts of use including unregulated camping and vehicle/access conflicts. Property management issues will be resolved by limiting unapproved development of infrastructure, controlling human sanitation and prevention of illegal debris/garbage dumping. Lastly, the general public will be aware of the recreational opportunity by the installation of informational signage to the project site from Hwy 473.
Page 29 of 31
PART IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. Public Involvement: The appropriate level of public involvement for this proposal has followed Montana DNRC’s Environmental Document Reporting policy and publication on the DNRC website: (https://dnrc.mt.gov/
Copies of this environmental assessment will be mailed (or notification of its availability emailed) to neighboring landowners and other interested parties (individuals, groups, agencies) to assure their knowledge of the Proposed Action.
This level of public notice and participation is appropriate for a project of this scope having limited impacts which can be mitigated.
2. Duration of comment period. The public comment period will extend for (30) thirty days. Written comments will be accepted until 11:59 p.m., June 18, 2021 and can be e-mailed to [email protected] or mailed to the address below:
Project Lands Recreation Development – Painted Rocks Reservoir DNRC Water Resources Division State Water Projects Bureau (SWPB) C/o Mark McNearney, P.E 1424 9th Ave. Helena, MT 59620 PART V. EA PREPARATION
1. Based on the significance criteria evaluated in this EA, is an EIS required? NO If an EIS is not required, explain why the EA is the appropriate level of analysis for this proposed action.
Based on an evaluation of impacts to the physical and human environment under MEPA, this environmental review revealed no significant negative impacts from the proposed action: therefore, an EIS is not necessary and an environmental assessment is the appropriate level of analysis. In determining the significance of the impacts, the DNRC assessed the severity, duration, geographic extent, and frequency of the impact, the probability that the impact would occur or reasonable assurance that the impact would not occur. DNRC also assessed the growth-inducing or growth-inhibiting aspects of the impact, the importance to the state and to society of the environmental resource or value affected, any precedent that would be set as a result of an impact of the Proposed Action that would commit DNRC to future actions; and potential conflicts with local, federal, or state laws. As this EA revealed no significant impacts from the proposed actions, an EA is the appropriate level of review and an EIS is not required.
2. Person Responsible for Preparing the EA: Mark McNearney, PE Project Management Section Supervisor
Page 30 of 31
Montana DNRC – State Water Projects Bureau 1424 9th Avenue Helena, MT 59620
3. List of Agencies Consulted During Preparation of the EA: Montana Natural Heritage Program – Natural Resources Information System (NRIS) Montana State Historic Preservation Office
PART VI. REFERENCES AECOM. 2019. Painted Rocks Dam and Reservoir Project, Ravalli County, Montana: Results of Intensive and Reconnaissance Cultural Resource Surveys.
NRCS. 2020. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Custom Soil Report for Ravalli County Area, Montana. MNHP. 2020. Montana Species of Concern, Township 2S, Range 22W, Montana Field Guide printed on December 7, 2020. MNHP. 2020. USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species of Ravalli County Montana, Montana Field Guide printed on December 7, 2020.
APPENDICES A. State Historic Preservation Office –Correspondence B. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Custom Soil Report for Ravalli County Area, Montana C. MNHP Montana Species of Concern, Township 2S, Range 22W, Montana Field Guide D. MNHP USFWS Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species of Ravalli County Montana, Montana Field Guide
Page 31 of 31 APPENDIX A. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE – CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B. USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CUSTOM SOIL REPORT FOR RAVALLI COUNTY AREA, MONTANA
United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State Bitterroot National Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Forest Area, Conservation Stations, and local Service participants Montana DNRC Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir
December 4, 2020 Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface...... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made...... 5 Soil Map...... 8 Soil Map (Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir)...... 9 Legend...... 10 Map Unit Legend (Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir)...... 11 Map Unit Descriptions (Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir)...... 11 Bitterroot National Forest Area, Montana...... 13 30B35—Wilde-Trapps families, complex, steep mountain slopes...... 13 61B25—Klootch-Shermount families, complex, breaklands, dry...... 15 W—Water...... 17 References...... 18
4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map (Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir) 114° 17' 56'' W 114° 17' 48'' W
710330 710340 710350 710360 710370 710380 710390 710400 710410 710420 710430 710440 710450 710460 710470 710480 710490 45° 41' 12'' N 45° 41' 12'' N 5062800 5062790 5062790 5062780 5062780 5062770 5062770 5062760 5062760 5062750 5062750 5062740 5062740 5062730 5062730 5062720 5062720 5062710 5062710 5062700 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 5062700
45° 41' 8'' N 45° 41' 8'' N 5062690 710340 710350 710360 710370 710380 710390 710400 710410 710420 710430 710440 710450 710460 710470 710480 710490
Map Scale: 1:769 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters N 0 10 20 40 60 114° 17' 56'' W 114° 17' 48'' W Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 9 Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) 1:24,000. Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot Soil Map Unit Polygons Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Other Soil Map Unit Points misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Special Line Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Blowout Water Features scale. Streams and Canals Borrow Pit Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Clay Spot Rails measurements. Closed Depression Interstate Highways Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Gravel Pit US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Gravelly Spot Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Major Roads Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Lava Flow projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts Background distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as Perennial Water of the version date(s) listed below.
Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Bitterroot National Forest Area, Montana Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 13, Jun 4, 2020
Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger.
Sinkhole Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 24, 2013—Nov Slide or Slip 10, 2016
Sodic Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
10 Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend (Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
30B35 Wilde-Trapps families, complex, 0.0 2.9% steep mountain slopes 61B25 Klootch-Shermount families, 1.0 88.3% complex, breaklands, dry W Water 0.1 8.7% Totals for Area of Interest 1.1 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions (Project Lands Recreation Development - Painted Rocks Reservoir)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
11 Custom Soil Resource Report
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12 Custom Soil Resource Report
Bitterroot National Forest Area, Montana
30B35—Wilde-Trapps families, complex, steep mountain slopes
Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 51b4 Elevation: 4,480 to 7,450 feet Mean annual precipitation: 22 to 37 inches Mean annual air temperature: 36 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 40 to 95 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition Wilde and similar soils: 50 percent Trapps and similar soils: 35 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Wilde Setting Landform: Mountain slopes Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Colluvium derived from quartzite Typical profile Oe - 0 to 1 inches: moderately decomposed plant material E - 1 to 4 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Bw - 4 to 14 inches: very gravelly sandy loam BC - 14 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 40 to 60 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F043BP910MT - Upland Cool Woodland Other vegetative classification: Douglas-fir/blue huckleberry-beargrass phase (PK283), Douglas-fir/snowberry-pinegrass phase (PK312) Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Trapps Setting Landform: Mountain slopes
13 Custom Soil Resource Report
Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Colluvium derived from quartzite Typical profile Oe - 0 to 3 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 3 to 6 inches: very gravelly loam EB - 6 to 12 inches: very gravelly loam Bt1 - 12 to 18 inches: very gravelly loam Bt2 - 18 to 34 inches: very gravelly clay loam BC - 34 to 60 inches: very gravelly loam Properties and qualities Slope: 40 to 60 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 6.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F043BP910MT - Upland Cool Woodland Other vegetative classification: Douglas-fir/blue huckleberry-beargrass phase (PK283), Douglas-fir/snowberry-pinegrass phase (PK312) Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components Sharrott, extremely stony Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Mountain slopes Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Other vegetative classification: Douglas-fir/snowberry-pinegrass phase (PK312), Douglas-fir/snowberry-bluebunch wheatgrass phase (PK311) Hydric soil rating: No Klootch Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Mountain slopes Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: subalpine fir/beargrass-blue huckleberry phase (PK691) Hydric soil rating: No Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: Unranked
14 Custom Soil Resource Report
61B25—Klootch-Shermount families, complex, breaklands, dry
Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 51fz Elevation: 3,820 to 7,680 feet Mean annual precipitation: 20 to 46 inches Mean annual air temperature: 36 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 50 to 75 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition Klootch and similar soils: 75 percent Shermount, extremely stony, and similar soils: 15 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Klootch Setting Landform: Mountain slopes Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Colluvium derived from quartzite Typical profile Oe - 0 to 1 inches: moderately decomposed plant material E - 1 to 4 inches: very gravelly loam Bw - 4 to 14 inches: very gravelly sandy loam BC - 14 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 60 to 75 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 3.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F043BP910MT - Upland Cool Woodland Other vegetative classification: Douglas-fir/snowberry-pinegrass phase (PK312), Douglas-fir/ninebark-pinegrass phase (PK262), Douglas-fir/snowberry- bluebunch wheatgrass phase (PK311)
15 Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Shermount, Extremely Stony Setting Landform: Mountain slopes Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Colluvium over residuum weathered from quartzite Typical profile Oe - 0 to 1 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 1 to 4 inches: very stony sandy loam Bw - 4 to 14 inches: very stony sandy loam C - 14 to 18 inches: very cobbly loamy sand R - 18 to 60 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 60 to 75 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 10.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to moderately high (0.01 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Very low (about 1.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: F043BP903MT - Shallow Cool Woodland Other vegetative classification: Douglas-fir/snowberry-bluebunch wheatgrass phase (PK311), Douglas-fir/snowberry-pinegrass phase (PK312), Douglas-fir/ ninebark-pinegrass phase (PK262) Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components Rubble land Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: Unranked Rock outcrop Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: Unranked Klootch, moist Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Mountain slopes Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: subalpine fir/beargrass-blue huckleberry phase (PK691), subalpine fir/twinflower-beargrass phase (PK662), Douglas-fir/blue huckleberry-beargrass phase (PK283) Hydric soil rating: No
16 Custom Soil Resource Report
W—Water
Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
17 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
18 Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
19 APPENDIX C. MNHP MONTANA SPECIES OF CONCERN, TOWNSHIP 2S, RANGE 22W, MONTANA FIELD GUIDE
Montana Field Guide d work. work. d updated updated mtnhp.org tana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. and Wildlife Fish, tana rmation System. It is operated operated is It System. rmation states, provinces and nations nations and provinces states, s of species and habitats. and species of s (406) 444-5363 (406) he University of Montana, Missoula. Montana, of University he Helena, MT 59620 Helena, 1515 East 6th Avenue East 6th 1515 FieldGuide.mt.gov tended to assist in offline identification and fiel and identification offline in assist to tended ana species, please visit visit please species, ana , as that version contains more information and is is and information more contains version that as , f the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Info Resource Natural Library's State Montana the f ana the "big picture" information on the true statu true the on information picture" "big the ana ureServe – a network of over 80 similar programs in programs similar 80 over of network a – ureServe resident for Research and Creative Scholarship at t at Scholarship Creative and Research for resident etween the Montana Natural Heritage Program and Mon and Program Heritage Natural Montana the etween Species of Concern Township: 002S022W This PDF version of the Montana Field Guide is in is Guide Field Montana the of version PDF This Suggested Citation Format: Custom Field Guide from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesSnapshot for (insert the title text Suggested Citation Format: Custom Field Retrieved on 12/7/2020. above to indicate the filters you selected). that are MT Status All Montana Species All Montana found in Note: It is not intended to replace the online Field Guide Field online the replace to intended not is It Mont on information up-to-date most the For daily. Offline Field Guide Field Offline throughout the Western Hemisphere, bringing to Mont to bringing Hemisphere, Western the throughout The Montana Natural Heritage Program is part of Nat of part is Program Heritage Natural Montana The The Montana Field Guide is a collaborative effort b effort collaborative a is Guide Field Montana The The Montana Natural Heritage Program is a program o program a is Program Heritage Natural Montana The P Vice the of Office the under program special a as Fisher Pekania pennanti View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 369 The Fisher is a medium-sized mammal with a long, low stocky body. The tail is relatively long and heavily furred. They have a pronounced muzzle and large rounded ears. In winter, Fishers are dark brown to black with light colored hairs around the face and shoulders (Powell 1993). The undersides are uniformly brown, however, individually unique patterns of white or cream can occur on the chest, underarms or genital region (Powell 1993). The summer pelage is more variable and lighter in color. Molt occurs once per year in late summer and early autumn (Powell 1993). The feet are large and have 5 retractable, but not sheathed, claws (Powell 1993). Fishers are highly sexually dimorphic with males averaging nearly twice the size of females. Male fishers generally weigh between 3.5 and 5.5 kilograms with females weighing between 2.0 and 2.5 kilograms (Powell 1993).
Diagnostic Characteristics Fishers are not easily confused with other mustelids in Montana. They are much larger than the American Mink and are much darker than the slightly smaller Marten. Fisher are smaller than W olverine and have a longer tail and a lower, longer appearance overall.
Habitat Although they are primarily terrestrial, Fishers are well adapted for climbing. W hen inactive, they occupy dens in tree hollows, under logs, or in ground or rocky crevices, or they rest in branches of conifers (in the warmer months). Fishers occur primarily in dense coniferous or mixed forests, including early successional forests with dense overhead cover (Thomas 1993). They commonly use hardwood stands in summer but prefer coniferous or mixed forests in winter and avoid open areas. Optimal conditions for Fishers are forest tracts of 245 acres or more, interconnected with other large areas of suitable habitat. A dense understory of young conifers, shrubs, and herbaceous cover is important in summer. Forest structure, which affects prey abundance and vulnerability and provides denning and resting sites for Fishers, is probably more important than tree species composition (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Forest structure can be characterized by a diversity of tree shapes and sizes, understory vegetation, snags and fallen limbs and trees, and tree limbs close to the ground (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Young are born in a den in a tree hollow (usually), or under a log or in a rocky crevice. Large snags (greater than 20 inches diameter at breast height) are important as maternal den sites (Thomas 1993). Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G3G4 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3
Range Summer Migratory
General Description The Hoary Bat is a large lasurine (20 to 35 g) with long pointed wings and heavily-furred interfemoral membrane. Pelage overall is frosted or hoary (mixed brownish and grayish with white-tipped hairs, wrist and shoulder patches whitish), yellowish on the throat, forearm length # Observations: 1526 about 46 to 55 mm. Ears are short and rounded, rimmed in dark brown or black, tragus short and broad. It has large teeth; dental formula I 1/3, C 1/1, P 2/2, M 3/3 (Shump and Shump 1982, Adams 2003).
Diagnostic Characteristics Hoary Bat is the largest bat species found in Montana, and only one of two with an interfemoral membrane completely furred on the dorsal surface, the other being the Eastern Red Bat. The Hoary Bat has a distinctive appearance along with its large size (35 g in weight, to about 140 mm in total length): dorsal pelage in is a mixture of browns and grays, tinges with white, giving the bat a frosted or hoary appearance (Shump and Shump 1982), unlike the reddish dorsal pelage of the smaller Eastern Red Bat. Definitive Hoary Bat calls are also of lower characteristic frequency and appearance: < 23 kHz lasting up to 20 milliseconds for Hoary versus 38-50 kHz lasting > 10 milliseconds for Eastern Red.
Habitat During the summer, Hoary Bats occupy forested areas. A female with two naked pups was found in mid-July using a wooden bridge in Stillwater County as a temporary day roost (Hendricks et al. 2005) but no other Montana roosts have been reported. Often captured foraging over water sources embedded within forested terrain, both conifer and hardwood, as well as along riparian corridors. Reported in Montana over a broad elevation range (579 to 2774 m; 1900 to 9100 ft) during August, the highest record from treeline along the Gravelly Range road (Madison County), the lowest from the Yellowstone River near Sidney (Richland County); probably most common throughout summer in Montana at lower elevations. Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G3 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3
Range Year-round
General Description The most common bat species in Montana (Foresman 2012). Cinnamon-buff to dark brown above, buffy to pale gray below; hairs on back have long glossy tips; ears, when laid forward, reach approximately to the nostril; tragus about half as high as ear; calcar without keel; length of head and body 41 to 54 mm, ear 11.0 to 15.5 mm, forearm 33 to 41 mm; braincase rises gradually from rostrum; # Observations: 1796 greatest length of skull 14 to 16 mm; length of upper toothrow 5.0 to 6.6 mm (Hall 1981).
Diagnostic Characteristics Can be distinguished from all but one of the seven Myotis species in Montana by the absence of a fringe of hair around the uropatagium and the absence of a keeled calcar. Can be distinguished from Yuma myotis by the glossy appearance of the dorsal hair and dark brown ear color. (Foresman 2012)
Habitat Found in a variety of habitats across a large elevation gradient. Commonly forages over water. Summer day roosts include attics, barns, bridges, snags, loose bark, and bat houses. Known maternity roosts in Montana are primarily buildings. Hibernacula include caves and mines. Wolverine Gulo gulo View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: P USFS: PROPOSED BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3
Range Year-round
General Description The W olverine is a bear-like mustelid with massive limbs and long, dense, dark brown pelage, paler on the head, with two broad yellowish stripes extending from the shoulders and joining on the rump. Variable white or yellowish markings are often present on the throat and chest. # Observations: 1777 The tail is bushy. The feet are relatively large (6.5 to 11.3 centimeters total length) with robust claws. W olverines weigh between 7 and 32 kilograms and range from 0.9 to 1.1 meters in length. Females average about 10% less than males in linear measurements and 30% less in mass (Ingles 1965, Hall 1981, Nowak 1991).
Diagnostic Characteristics W olverines are most similar to Fishers (Martes pennanti) but are nearly twice as large. Fishers also lack the light colored lateral markings of the W olverine and the tail is less bushy. Badgers have shorter legs and are much lighter colored with a distinctive black and white pattern on the face.
Habitat W olverines are limited to alpine tundra, and boreal and mountain forests (primarily coniferous) in the western mountains, especially large wilderness areas. However, dispersing individuals have been found far outside of usual habitats. They are usually in areas with snow on the ground in winter. Riparian areas may be important winter habitat. W hen inactive, W olverines occupy dens in caves, rock crevices, under fallen trees, in thickets, or similar sites. W olverines are primarily terrestrial but may climb trees. In Montana, Hornocker and Hash (1981) found most W olverine use in medium to scattered timber, while areas of dense, young timber were used least. W olverines avoided clearcuts and burns, crossing them rapidly and directly when they were entered at all. Hash (1987) reported W olverines in the Northern Rocky Mountain region were associated with fir, pine, and larch. Aspen stands were also used, as were cottonwoods in riparian areas. Ecotonal areas appeared to be important habitat components (Hash 1987). Hatler (1989) believed W olverines are not dependant on any particular vegetative habitat type. Banci (1986) reported "habitat requirements appear to be large, isolated tracts of wilderness supporting a diverse prey base, rather than specific plant associations or topography." South of the boreal forest, most habitat descriptions in the literature agree with Grove's (1988) characterization of "large, mountainous, and essentially roadless areas." Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1
Range Year-round
General Description Black-backed W oodpeckers are at the large end of the medium-sized woodpeckers. At 9.5 inches in length, only the flickers and Pileated W oodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) are larger. Adults are similar in size and in appearance except for the yellow crown present only on the males. The back of the head, neck, back, and wings (upperparts) are all black and the chin, throat, breast and belly (underparts) are white. # Observations: 687 The sides and flanks are also white with heavy black barring. A strong white line runs below the eye from the bill to the nape (Dixon and Saab 2000). The wing primaries are barred black and white and only the outer tail feathers (rectrices) are white; otherwise the tail is black. Juvenile birds are similar in appearance but much duller overall. They have a plain black crown, with no, or nearly no, crown patch, and a washed out or buffy look to the underparts. Black-backed W oodpeckers, like Three-toed W oodpeckers (Picoides tridactylus), have only 3 toes on each foot rather than the normal 4 toes (Dixon and Saab 2000). The call note, a single metallic "kyik" or "chet" (similar to Hairy W oodpecker, Picoides villosus) helps to detect the Black-backed W oodpecker. They also use a unique agonistic "wet-et-ddd-eee-yaaa," or "scream-rattle- snarl" call in association with a hunched wing-spreading display (Short 1974). Drumming is variable (fast or slow) in long, even rolls (Farrand 1983, Goggans 1989). Drumming is described as coming in 2-second bursts tapering off at the end, at intervals of 30 to 40 seconds, suggestive of Pileated W oodpeckers. They also give single raps when nervous or about to roost (Kilham 1966). For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Having only three toes on each foot and, in males, having a yellow crown patch instead of red, distinguishes Black-backed W oodpeckers from all other woodpeckers except Three-toed W oodpeckers (Dixon and Saab 2000). The all-black head and back are diagnostic of Black-backed W oodpeckers. Three-toed W oodpeckers have at least some white on the back. Also, the white line under the eye is broader in Black-backed W oodpeckers; Three-toed W oodpeckers have a slimmer white line below the eye as well as another white line behind the eye. The yellow crown patch is smaller and solidly yellow in Black-backed W oodpeckers rather than larger and rather streaked in Three-toed W oodpeckers. Female Black-backed W oodpeckers have a solid black forehead and crown, which is unlike the streaked and white speckled forehead and crown of Three-toed W oodpeckers (Dixon and Saab 2000).
Habitat The habitat of Black-backed W oodpeckers in Montana is early successional, burned forest of mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce-fir (Hutto 1995a, 1995b), although they are more numerous in lower elevation Douglas-fir and pine forest habitats than in higher elevation subalpine spruce forest habitats (Bock and Bock 1974). This is supported by Harris (1982) who found Black-backed W oodpeckers in two recently burned forests comprised of 73% and 77% Douglas-fir, respectively. They appear to concentrate in recently burned forests and remain for several years (3 to 5) before leaving due to prey source decline (Harris 1982). In northwestern Montana, Black-backed W oodpeckers nested in areas of western larch (Larix occidentalis)/Douglas-fir forest with a major component of old-growth (McClelland et al. 1979). Harris (1982) found Black-backed W oodpeckers nesting within western larch even though the stand was predominately Douglas-fir. McClelland et al. (1979) determined the decay of heartwood while maintaining a hard outer shell of western larch creates an ideal nesting site for Black-backed W oodpeckers to excavate. Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3B
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3
Range Summer Migratory
General Description The Black-necked Stilt is a tall, slender wader with a long, straight, and slender bill, the upperparts glossy black (male) or duller black tinged with brown (female) with a white spot above the eye, # Observations: 496 underparts white, the legs and feet very long and red or pink. The iris is red. Immatures have buffy edges on the dark brown feathers of the upperparts. For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics The black and white plumage and very long red legs of this species are unique and diagnostic.
Habitat Black-necked Stilts breed on the edges of shallow marshes, often on islands, building a scrape that is lined with vegetation, pebbles, and feathers. Nests may be out in the open or among low vegetation and are usually within 50 m of water (Robinson et al. 1999). Taking full advantage of their long legs, almost all feeding occurs in the water. In Montana, Black-necked Stilts nest in medium to large wetland complexes of open marshes and meadows, often in alkali wetlands. Habitats used during migration similar to those used in other seasons, but they also occur on coastal mud flats. Brown Creeper Certhia americana View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 2462 The Brown Creeper is the only tree creeper in North America. It is very small: males 12.0 to 13.5 cm (4.7 to 5.3 inches) total length; females 11.7 to 13.2 cm (4.6 to 5.2 inches) total length. Average body mass for both is 7.2 to 9.9 g. Adult plumage is dark-brown on the upperparts, extensively streaked with dull whitish on head, back, scapulars, and wings; it has a distinctive brownish-white supercilium. Underparts whitish washed with cinnamon distally. The bill is slightly decurved, the tail long and stiff (Hejl et al. 2002). For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics The combination of brown and white coloration, very small size, and tree-creeping behavior distinguish this species from all other North American birds.
Habitat Creepers breed in coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests, preferring mature and old-growth stands with high canopy cover in the western U.S. (Hejl et al. 2002). Hutto and Young (1999) found that they were more common in mature western redcedar-western hemlock, spruce-fir, and mixed-conifer forests than in pine or younger forests in western Montana and Idaho. They winter in the same habitats used for breeding but also use a wider diversity of forest types, including uplands dominated by deciduous trees, urban and suburban parks and residential areas that contain large trees, and riparian cottonwoods. The consistent factor appears to be the need for large trees and snags (dead trees) for foraging and nesting microsites. Brown Creepers are the only North American birds that build their nests behind loose pieces of bark on tree trunks. They prefer to nest in large dead or dying trees within dense forest stands, placing their nests from <1 m to >20 m above the ground (Hejl et al. 2002). For 19 nests in mixed conifer forests of western Montana and east-central Idaho, 5 were in subalpine fir, 5 in Douglas-fir, 4 in Engelmann spruce, 3 in lodgepole pine, and 2 in western larch; all nest trees were dead and all but one in unlogged forest stands (Hejl et al. 2002). Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3
Range Year-round
General Description Cassin's Finch is the largest of the North American Carpodacus finches (includes Purple Finch and House Finch); length is 14.5-15.5 cm (5.7- 6.1 inches). Adults are sexually dimorphic in plumate traits. Adult males have rose-red coloration on the head throat and upper breast, the crown is bright pinkish-red contrasting with the paler nape and back; rump and upper tail coverts are dull rose-pink and streaked with # Observations: 2916 brown. The lower breast and belly appear generally whitish, the undertail coverts with fine brown streaks. Females have an overall brownsih plumage; the head has supercillium and submoustacial regions with fine brown streaks, back and rump dusky and streaked with brown, the throat, breast and flanks whitish with crisp brown streaks. Juneniles and immatures resemble females.
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Male Cassin's Finch has fine streaking on the undertail coverts and flanks, in contrast to pure white of the Purple Finch. In females and immature males, breast and flanks more cleanly white and more finely streaked in Cassin’s Finch than in Purple Finch. Larger and more chunky than the House Finch. Red on male House Finch is usually brighter and oranger, not rose-red. Male Cassin's Finch is much less streaked on the lower breast and belly than male House Finch; female Cassin's Finch with a noticable supercilliary stripe lacking in female House Finches, and the breast streaking more distinct and less diffuse. Cassin's Finch the only of the three Carpodacus finches routinely encountered higher in the mountains.
Habitat Cassin’s Finches occur in every major forest type and timber-harvest regime in Montana, including riparian cottonwood, but are especially common in ponderosa pine and postfire forests; they occur less often in lodgepole pine, sagebrush, and grassland (Manuwal 1983, Hutto and Young 1999). They often visit bird feeders and occasionally venture into alpine terrain (Johnson 1966, Pattie and Verbeek 1966). Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3B
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3
Range Summer Migratory
General Description Sexes similar in size and plumage. Clark's Grebe possesses a black crown, yellow bill, a narrow body with a long and thin white neck; back of neck gray. Top of body is mostly gray with speckled white spots. Coverts white with speckled gray.
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, # Observations: 207 and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Clarks Grebe best distinguished from the W estern Grebe by having white up the side of the head to include the eye (the black crown of W estern Grebe extends down the side of the head to include the eye) and a yellow bill (not yellowish-green).
Habitat Clark's Grebes are reported breeding only at very large lakes and reservoirs in Montana. Nesting on Lake Helena was near mid-lake on mats of aquatic plants that had reached the surface. Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3
Range Year-round
General Description Clark's Nutcracker is a jay-sized corvid that is crowlike in build and flight, with moderate sexual size dimorphism. Total length of adults 27.0 to 30.1 cm. Mass 106 to 161 g. Males slightly larger than # Observations: 7556 females. Sexes similar in appearance. Light to medium gray, with varying amounts of white around eyes, on forehead, and on chin; white around vent and at base of tail; wings and tail glossy black; secondaries broadly tipped with white forming a white patch; outer rectrices white. Folded wings nearly reach tip of tail. Long, pointed, black bill with short nasal bristles. Distinctive grating call audible at great distance (Tomback 1998). For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Clark's Nutcracker is distinctive in appearance and behavior, and unlike any other corvid in Montana. Plumage is similar to that of the Northern Shrike and Northern Mockingbird, but the longer, straighter bill and larger body distinguish nutcrackers from these species. W hite and black markings in the wings and tail, in combination with the other body characters and the sharp grating "craaaww" call, help distinguish a nutcracker. Other similar-appearing species don't travel in conspecific flocks, as nutcrackers often do.
Habitat Nutcrackers in Montana typically occupy conifer forests dominated by whitebark pine at higher elevations and ponderosa pine and limber pine along with Douglas firs at lower elevations, relying largely on seeds of these species for food (Saunders 1921, Mewaldt 1956, Giuntoli and Mewaldt 1978). They often are seen above treeline in alpine meadows or flying among drainages (Johnson 1966, Pattie and Verbeek 1966). Common Loon Gavia immer View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3B
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1
Range Summer Migratory
General Description The Common Loon is a large and mainly aquatic bird. Males are generally larger than females. Adult body length ranges from 71 to 92 cm (28 to 36 inches) with wingspans to 147 cm (58 inches). W eight varies ranging from 1.6 to 8 kg (3.5 to 17.6 lb.) with an average of about 3 to 4 kg (6.6 to 8.8 lb.) (McIntyre 1988, McIntyre and Barr 1997). The feet are located far back on the body and are large, # Observations: 3995 webbed, and sweep to the side rather than forward under the belly. This trait makes it difficult for Common Loons to walk on land but allows more efficient swimming underwater.
Sexes are indistinguishable based on plumage. The head and neck of breeding adults are black with a green gloss. The back, wings and sides are also black. Scapulars and wing-coverts have large white markings, which is a distinctive field mark. The eye is red. Common Loons have a broad patch of vertical white stripes on the side of the neck and a smaller patch on the upper foreneck. The breast and belly are white and the bill is straight, heavy and black (McIntyre and Barr 1997). In the non-breeding plumage, the head, neck and upper parts are dark gray to dark brown. The cheeks, throat, and underparts are white. The bill is brownish-gray to pale bluish-gray or horn colored. The iris is brown. The tail is dark brown, tipped with white (Bent 1919, Johnsgard 1987, McIntyre 1986, 1988). Juvenile plumage is similar to the adult non-breeding plumage, although the upperparts have the most pale and more conspicuous feather margins than those of adults, and the throat and sides of the neck are more finely streaked with brown. This plumage is worn until the following summer when the birds molt into more adult-like basic plumage (Palmer 1962, McIntyre 1988).
Common Loons are known for their distinctive calls, three of which are heard on summer breeding lakes. The wail, a long almost mournful cry, the tremolo, a high pitched, rapid, five-beat call, and probably the best known is the yodel which is given only by males during territorial confrontations. Common Loons generally lay 2 subelliptical to ovoid shaped eggs which vary from deep olive to light brown in color, with irregular dark brown or black spots.
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics The Common Loon is a large loon with a heavy, black bill and an easily recognizable breeding plumage. The large size of the Common Loon distinguishes it from the Pacific Loon (G. pacifica) and the Red-throated Loon (G. stellata), as well as the Arctic Loon (G. arctica), which has never occurred in Montana. Only the Yellow- billed Loon (G. adamsii) is comparable in size. It, however, has a distinctive yellow bill as well as subtle differences in plumage (McIntyre and Barr 1997).
Habitat In Montana, Common Loons will not generally nest on lakes less than about 13 acres in size or over 5000 feet in elevation (Skaar 1990). Successful nesting requires both nesting sites and nursery areas. Small islands are preferred for nesting, but herbaceous shoreline areas, especially promontories, are also selected. Nursery areas are very often sheltered, shallow coves with abundant small fish and insects (Skaar 1990). Most Montana lakes inhabited by Common Loons are relatively oligotrophic and have not experienced significant siltation or other hydrological changes. The quantity and quality of nesting habitat limits the Common Loon population of northwest Montana. Skaar (1990) estimated the state's "carrying capacity" at 185 potential nesting territories, based on the size and number of lakes within the species' breeding distribution. He assumed 100 ha of surface area per pair. Kelly (1992) documented a density of 72.2 surface ha of water per adult Common Loon for the Tobacco, Stillwater, Clearwater, and Swan River drainages. Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF:
Range Year-round Winter Migratory
General Description The Evening Grosbeak is a large, robust finch with a massive, conical bill. This species forms large, irruptive feeding flocks in winter, announcing its arrival with a loud "clee-ip" or "peeer" call. Although gregarious in winter, this species is secretive during the breeding season and little is known about its breeding biology (Gillihan and Byers 2001). # Observations: 3362 For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Phenology Adults observed feeding young from late-May through August. Feeding flocks are irruptive and have been observed September-early May, with the largest flock size occurring during the winter months of December-February (Montana Natural Heritage Program Point Observation Database 2014).
Diagnostic Characteristics A large, stocky finch with a heavy, greenish-yellow bill. Adult male has a brownish-black head with a black crown, and a yellow forehead and eyebrow. The neck and back are brown contrasting with yellow shoulders and rump. Tail and wings are black with large white patches. Throat is brown and underparts are brownish-yellow. Adult female is mostly grayish brown with a thin moustache and yellowish wash on the sides of the neck. W ings and tail are black with white spotting. Throat and underparts are pale grayish-brown. Juvenile resembles adult female (Gillihan and Byers 2001).
Habitat In Montana, the Evening Grosbeak breeds in mixed coniferous and spruce-fir forests of western Montana. W inter habitat is much more varied, including coniferous forest as well as urban and suburban areas statewide (Gillihan and Byers 2001, Montana Natural Heritage Program Point Observation Database 2014). Flammulated Owl Psiloscops flammeolus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S3B
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1
Range Summer Migratory
General Description At 6.75 inches and only 60 grams, Flammulated Owls are one of the smallest owls in North America. Only Elf Owls (Micrathene whitneyi) are smaller. Other than females being somewhat larger than males, the sexes are extremely similar in appearance. The species has short ear tufts and an incomplete facial disk beginning at the ears and ending at the moustache. The eyes are dark. The wings are longer and # Observations: 940 more pointed in comparison to other species in the genus. The plumage of Flammulated Owls is gray with dark streaks and crossbars (McCallum 1994a). Also, some rufous coloration is visible, especially near the face and on the shoulders. It is unsure whether a distinct red phase exists.
Flammulated Owls are usually heard more often than seen. The song of the male is described as a low-pitched, short, soft hoot like "poop" or "pooip" which is repeated every two to three seconds (Sibley 2000). Females are usually higher-pitched, longer in duration, and more quavering (McCallum 1994a). For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics The dark eyes of Flammulated Owls distinguish them from any other North American owl of similar size. Also, their size and short ear tufts distinguish them from all North American Megascops species. Lastly, the low- pitched, soft, monosyllabic hoots will rule out any other forest owl in North America, except for Long-eared Owls (Asio otus). Flammulated Owls' small size, vocalization, eye color, and head/ear shape in combination are diagnostic.
Habitat Information on breeding habitat in Montana is limited to one study in the Bitterroot Valley (W right 2000). In Montana, Flammulated Owls are associated with mature and old-growth xeric Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir stands (Holt and Hillis 1987, W right et al. 1997) and in landscapes with higher proportions of suitable forest and forest with low to moderate canopy closure (W right et al. 1997). They are absent from warm and humid pine forests and mesic Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir (McCallum 1994a, W right et al. 1997). Information gathered from other studies throughout their range suggest the breeding habitat of Flammulated Owls is montane forest; usually open conifer forests containing pine, with some brush or saplings (typical of the physiognomy of pre-European settlement Ponderosa Pine forests). The species shows a strong preference for Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Jeffrey Pine (P. jeffreyi) throughout its range (McCallum 1994b). They prefer mature growth with open canopy avoiding dense young stands. Flammulated Owls are found in a cooler, semi-arid climate, with a high abundance of nocturnal arthropod prey and some dense foliage for roosting (McCallum 1994a). Most often they are found on ridges and upper slopes (Bull et al. 1990, Groves et al. 1997). In British Columbia, Flammulated Owls use dry interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) where Ponderosa Pine may be a codominant, but pure Ponderosa Pine is avoided. Also sometimes they are in pure aspen and, locally, in spruce (Picea sp.)/Douglas-fir and Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta)/Douglas-fir. They prefer forests dominated by trees more than 100 years old. The highest densities are found in 140 year-old to more than 200 year-old forests; owls were restricted to forests with multi-layered canopies with an abundance of large, well- spaced trees interspersed with grassy openings up to 2 hectares in size, and where cavity-bearing snags were "moderately common" (Howie and Ritcey 1987, van W oudenberg 1999). A study in the Kamloops area testing a habitat model in Douglas-fir/Ponderosa Pine found three variables to be significant predictors for occupied habitat: elevation (between 850 and 1,150 meters), age class (older stands), and canopy closure (40 to 50 percent) (Christie and van W oudenberg 1997). In Idaho, they are found mostly in mature stands of Ponderosa Pine, Douglas-fir, or mixtures of the two with relatively open canopies (Atkinson and Atkinson 1990), occasionally in stands of pure Douglas-fir or aspen where Ponderosa Pine is absent. Sixty-five percent of detections were on upper slopes or ridges. Tree densities were approximately 500 per hectare and the mean DBH (diameter at breast height) for all trees was 32 centimeters (Groves et al. 1997). One nest cavity, excavated by a Northern Flicker, was in a 6.5 meter tall, 34 cm dbh, Douglas-fir snag (Atkinson and Atkinson 1990). In northeast Oregon, nest trees were located in stands of old-growth Ponderosa Pine or mixed conifers near small clearings (Bull and Anderson 1978). In Colorado, they show strong preference for old-growth Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir, using older trees for foraging and singing (Reynolds and Linkhart 1992, Linkhart and Reynolds 1997). Territories consistently occupied by breeding pairs were those containing the largest portion (more than 75 percent) of old-growth (200 to 400 years), whereas territories occupied by unpaired males and rarely by breeding pairs contained 27 to 68 percent old-growth (Linkhart and Reynolds 1997). Aspen (Populus tremuloides) is often a component of nesting habitat in Colorado and Nevada (Reynolds and Linkhart 1987b, McCallum 1994b). In northern Utah, the species has successfully nested in nest boxes in montane deciduous forests dominated by aspen with some scattered firs (Marti 1997).
Flammulated Owls prefer to forage in yellow pine and/or Douglas-fir, and these forest types apparently support a particular abundance of favored lepidopteron prey (McCallum 1994b). In Oregon, they forage in Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir types with low to medium stem density, but show particular preference for forest/grassland ecotones (Goggans 1986, cited in McCallum 1994b). In Colorado, they preferred to forage in old-growth (more than 200 years), which was related both to an abundance of lepidopteron prey and to the open crowns and park-like spacing of trees which allowed greater room to maneuver for the owls (Reynolds et al. 1989). The species may focus foraging in a few "intensive foraging areas" within the home range, averaging 1 hectare per range (Linkhart 1984, cited in McCallum 1994b).
Flammulated Owls roost in dense vegetation and thickets that provide shade and protection from predators. They often roost close to trunks in fir or pine trees, or in cavities (McCallum 1994b, USDA Forest Service 1994). In Oregon, they use mixed coniferous forest rather than pure Ponderosa Pine (Goggans 1986, cited in McCallum 1994a). In Colorado, large Douglas-firs or pines with a spreading form are used (Linkhart 1984, cited in McCallum 1994a). They roost close to nests (20 to 25 meters) during the nestling stage and just before fledging, and farther away before and after (McCallum 1994a). In British Columbia, Flammulated Owls roosted in regenerating thickets of Douglas-fir (Howie and Ritcey 1987). Migration habitat is in wooded and open areas in lowlands and mountains, including riparian areas and breeding habitat (McCallum 1994a). Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF:
Range Year-round Summer Migratory
General Description # Observations: 5226 Largest heron in North America, 60 cm tall, 97 to 135 cm long, 2.1 to 2.5 kg mass. W ings long and rounded, bill long and tapered, tail short. Upper parts are gray, fore-neck is streaked with white, black, and rust- brown. Bill yellowish. Legs brownish or greenish. In flight, folds neck in an "S" shape and extends legs along the body axis; wing beats are deep slow wing. Adults have long occipital plumes (Butler 1992).
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics No other heron in Montana is the size or color of the Great Blue Heron, nor are other herons likely to be encountered in Montana during winter.
Habitat Great Blue Herons are equally at home in urban wetlands and wilderness settings. Most Montana nesting colonies are in cottonwoods along major rivers and lakes; a smaller number occur in riparian ponderosa pines and on islands in prairie wetlands. Nesting trees are the largest available. Active colonies are farther from rivers than inactive colonies. The number of nests in the colony corresponds to the distance from roads (Parker 1980). Great Blue Herons build bulky stick nests high in the trees when nesting near the shores of rivers and lakes and on the ground or in low shrubs when nesting on treeless islands. Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2
Range Year-round Winter Migratory
General Description # Observations: 2983 The Northern Goshawk is a fairly large hawk with a long tail having a broad, dark sub-terminal band and three to four narrower dark bands, rounded wing tips, and a conspicuous pale eyebrow. The sexes are similar with adults having a dark crown, blue-gray back, white underparts with fine, dense gray barring and conspicuous white undertail coverts. The eyes of adults are deep ruby-red and the feet are yellow. Immature Northern Goshawks are brown above, buffy below, with dense, blurry streaking. The undertail coverts are dark- streaked and the tail has wavy dark bands bordered with white and a thin white tip. The eyes of immature Northern Goshawks are yellowish, deepening in color to red as they mature. The total length is 53 to 66 cm, with females averaging larger than males (Squires and Reynolds 1997). For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics The Northern Goshawk is the largest and heaviest bodied of the three North American accipiters. Goshawks are clearly larger than Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus). Male Northern Goshawks can be of similar size to female Cooper's Hawks (Accipiter cooperi), but Northern Goshawks have broader wings and a relatively short tail compared to Cooper's Hawks (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Their ventral surface is pale rather than rust- colored as well. They can be distinguished from both Sharp-shinned and Cooper's Hawks by their whiteish underside as well as a boldly patterned head with a strong, white superciliary line above the eye (Sibley 2000). Juvenile Northern Goshawks can be distinguished from juvenile Cooper's Hawks by their conspicuous pale superciliary line (Squires and Reynolds 1997), overall buffy wash appearance on the breast and belly (Sibley 2000), uneven tail-bands creating a zig-zag pattern when the tail is spread (Squires and Reynolds 1997) and overall paler and more patterned upperside (Sibley 2000). Northern Goshawks can be discerned from falcons by their shorter, more rounded wings, and alternating flap-and-glide flight pattern.
Habitat Goshawks nest in a variety of forest types in Montana, including Douglas-fir and W estern Larch west of the Continental Divide, Lodgepole Pine in Beaverhead County, and Ponderosa Pine in Powder River and Carter counties. They prefer mature and old-growth forests with a preponderance of large trees, a dense canopy, and a relatively open understory (Hayward and Escano 1989, Squires and Reynolds 1997, Clough 2000). An exception to this generality is in Beaverhead County, where nests commonly occur in Lodgepole Pine stands with an average tree diameter of only 13 cm, although the birds usually place their nests in larger trees within these stands (Kirkley 1996). The nest is a bulky platform of sticks placed near the main trunk of a large tree from 6-20 m off the ground, usually in the lower part of the canopy. Forest stands where Northern Goshawks nest in Montana tend to be mature large-tract conifer forests with a high canopy cover (69%), relatively steep slope (21%), and little to sparse undergrowth (Kirkley 1996). Hayward and Escano (1989) examined nest-site characteristics at 17 territories in western Montana and northern Idaho in 1983. The birds nested preferentially in mature and old-growth stands of conifers that had a closed canopy (75-85% canopy cover) and a large forest opening within 1 km of the nest. Nest heights ranged from 7-17 m, and most nests were placed next to the main trunk in the lower one-third of the canopy. All Northern Goshawk nest trees reported by Kirkley (1996) were either Lodgepole Pine or Douglas-fir with an average DBH (diameter at breast height) of 33.6 cm and average height of 21.9 meters. In another study conducted in Montana, Douglas-fir, Ponderosa Pine and Grand Fir were the trees selected most often for nest building (State of Idaho HCA/CS Dev. Team 1995). Nests were constructed an average 10.9 meters above the ground and were usually located near water (232 m) or a clearing (85 m) (Kirkley 1996). Range-wide nest site characteristics are similar. Almost no information is available regarding Northern Goshawk foraging strategies in Montana. It is known they hunt in closed canopy habitats as well as more open landscapes and over 50 species of identified prey indicate they are generalists in terms of prey selection. Little information exists concerning Northern Goshawk non-breeding or wintering habitat in the state. However, in the Bozeman area, birds coming into the valley are found in forested or thickety areas. Multiple observations of wintering Northern Goshawks are documented in the north-central and northeastern areas of Montana (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 2012), possibly indicating movement toward areas of higher prey availability. Pacific Wren Troglodytes pacificus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2
Range Year-round
General Description The Pacific W ren is a small dark wren (8-12 cm long, 8-12 g) with a short stubby tail typically held in an upright and cocked position, and with a short slender bill. The color is fairly uniform dark to medium brown, becoming paler on the supercilium, chin, and throat, and with dark barring on the wings, tail and underparts (belly, flanks, crissum); sexes are alike in appearance. # Observations: 3194 For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Pacific W ren was formerly considered a subspecies of W inter W ren (T. troglodytes), then split in 2010 based on voice, DNA, and subtle differences in plumage (more deeply rufescent). Pacific W rens are distinguished from other sympatric wrens by usually smaller size, much shorter tail, and fairly uniform brown coloration. Their voice is more complex and modulated, and delivered more rapidly than by the W inter W ren, such that individual notes are difficult to follow and appreciate (Hejl et al. 2002). W inter W ren reported infrequently during migration in far eastern Montana.
Habitat Pacific W rens prefer large uncut stands of old-growth and mature coniferous forests and also occur in riparian cottonwoods and aspens. In Montana they are especially common in cedar-hemlock, cedar-grand fir, and spruce-fir forests and are strongly associated with riparian areas within these forest types (Manuwal 1986, Hutto and Young 1999, Casey 2000). Snags, large trees, and downed woody debris are important components of breeding habitat. The nest substrate is highly variable and includes woodpecker cavities in trees, holes in dirt banks, niches in rotting trees, root tangles of fallen trees, clumps of hanging moss, and folds in tree bark (Hejl et al. 2002). Nesting and foraging typically occur within 2 m (6.5 feet) of the ground. In winter, Pacific W rens use thickets in open forests and lower-elevation riparian areas in addition to large tracts of mature forests. Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 3872 A crested, black woodpecker with wing span of about 70 cm. More or less uniformly black body with a white line extending down the neck from the bill to underwing area; white throat and line above the eye; black through the eye. Male with a vivid red crest extending from the bill to the nape and a red moustache mark extending from the bill. Female slightly smaller than male and with gray to brown forehead, red crest, and no red moustache mark. In all sex and age groups, a few gray-white bars can be found on the flanks. In flight, wings show black leading and trailing edges and white near the center of the wing close to the body. Juveniles have duller, more loosely textured feathers; primary 10 is longer, broader, and less pointed. Voice a loud, characteristic "kuk-kuk-kuk-kuk" drumming a deep resonant roll that carries a kilometer or more (Bull and Jackson 1995). For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Except for the probably extinct Ivory-billed W oodpecker (Campephilus principalis) of the southeastern United States and Imperial W oodpecker (C. imperialis) of montane western Mexico, the Pileated W oodpecker is the largest woodpecker in North America. Large size and prominent red crest distinguish this woodpecker from all other woodpecker species in Montana.
Habitat Late successional stages of coniferous or deciduous forest preferred, but also younger forests that have scattered, large dead trees (Bull and Jackson 1995). In forests of northwestern Montana dominated by western larch and Douglas-fir, Pileated W oodpecker nests (113 in 97 trees) were in western larch (52), ponderosa pine (18) black cottonwood (15), trembling aspen (7), western white pine (3), grand fir (1), and Douglas-fir (1). Nest-tree diameter at breast height (DBH) averaged 73 cm (29 in) and height averaged 29 m (95 ft). Roost trees were similar to nest trees; both typically were snags (81% and 78%, respectively) with broken tops (77% in both categories). Old-growth stands containing western larch were common nesting sites; old-growth ponderosa pine, black cottonwood and trembling aspen were locally important but more restricted in distribution (McClelland and McClelland 1999). Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3B
Agency Status USFWS: MBTA USFS: BLM: FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3
Range Summer Migratory
General Description The Varied Thrush is unmistakable with its black and orange plumage and ethereal song. Yet, its shy behavior and tendency to nest in dense mature and old-growth forests have made study of this the breeding # Observations: 3784 biology of this species difficult.
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Phenology In Montana, active Varied Thrush nests have been observed beginning mid- to late-April. Nestlings and fledglings have been observed as early as mid-May. Fledglings from likely second broods observed mid- to late-August (Montana Natural Heritage Program Point Observation Database 2014).
Diagnostic Characteristics The Varied Thrush is a large, brightly colored thrush. Adult male has a burnt-orange breast and throat, gray to gray-blue rump, back, neck, and crown, a black to slate-gray V-shaped breast band, orange-buffy eyebrow and wing bars, and black to slate-gray wing and tail feathers. Female is similar to male but duller overall with brown-olive to brown-gray upperparts, brown wing and tail feathers, and brown to slate-gray breast band. Plumages are similar throughout the year. Immature birds are similar to adults except the head and neck are brown tinged with buff with an indistinct orange eyebrow. Throat and breast feathers are buff instead of orange. The song of this species is distinctive: a long, whistled tone about two seconds in length with a pause of three to 20 seconds between each tone. The song is somewhat ventriloquial. (George 2000).
Habitat In Montana, the Varied Thrush breeds in mixed-coniferous forests with most observations occurring in western and northwestern Montana (Montana Natural Heritage Program Point Observation Database 2014). Dominant tree species include Douglas-fir and western larch. This species is more abundant in mature and old-growth forest stands than in younger forests (Tobalske et al. 1991). In winter, the Varied Thrush uses a wider variety of habitats, including suburban areas such as bird feeders and areas where fruits and berries are present (George 2000). Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S2
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2
Range Year-round
General Description EGGS Laid in long strings that are one to three (usually two) eggs wide in a zigzag pattern and contain 1,000 to more than 18,000 eggs (usually 6,000 to 12,000) (Livezey and W right 1947, Samallow 1980, Olson # Observations: 2659 1988, Carey et al. 2000). Each ovum is black above, white below, and is surrounded by two jelly layers. Ovum diameters are 1.5 to 1.8 mm, but total egg diameters, including both jelly layers, are approximately 5 to 6.8 mm (Livezey and W right 1947, Karlstrom 1962a, Maxell et al. 2002). In Montana, clutch size has been documented at 20,469 eggs in a 30 cm strand of two jelly layers. Egg were reported hatching in less than 7 days (Maxell et al. 2002).
LARVAE Body and tail musculature are black or dark brown with either a black or gray belly (Maxell et al. 2009). The tail fins are both clear with dendritic pigmentation, with the dorsal tail fin having more pigmentation (Maxell et al. 2009). The anus is on the midline at the front end of the ventral tail fin. The eyes about midway between the dorsal midline and edge of the head. Labial tooth rows are 2/3, oral papillae are restricted to the sides of the mouth. Total length (TL) of 10-38 mm (Carpenter 1953, Corkran and Thoms 2006).
JUVENILES AND ADULTS The skin is dry with a dorsal base color of olive green or light or dark brown with reddish or light brown color on the warts and small black spots over everything (Maxell et al. 2009). The warts may be reddish-brown and encircled by dark pigment. Ventral color is cream to tan mottled with numerous dark blotches. A white stripe extends down the center of the back in older individuals but may be absent or inconspicuous in juveniles (Maxell et al. 2009). Parotid glands are oval and larger than the eyes, located behind the eye and tympanum. Cranial crests are absent or indistinct. The eyes have horizontal pupils. The hind feet each have two light brown digging “spades” on their soles, but the spades lack a sharp cutting edge (Black 1970b, Maxell et al. 2009). Mature males have a dark patch on the inner surface of the innermost digit ("thumb") during breeding. Males lack a vocal sac; however, they may produce a repeated chirping sound. Snout-vent length (SVL) of 11- 118 mm; with males rarely exceeding 95 mm SVL and females rarely 110 mm (Black 1970b, Maxell et al. 2009). Recently metamorphosed toadlets measure about 10 to 16 mm SVL but can be 16 to 20 mm (Maxell et al. 2002). Juveniles 20 to 35 mm SVL often are present in wetlands adjacent to breeding sites (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Hammerson 1999).
Diagnostic Characteristics Adult W estern Toad lack the prominent cranial crests found on the other species of Montana toads. The W oodhouse’s Toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii) have parallel cranial crests on the snout and behind the eyes in the shape of an “L”. W estern Toad have horizontal rather than vertical pupils. Eggs and larvae of W estern Toad tadpoles lack visible white or gold flecks on the back that are present in W oodhouse's and Great Plains Toad (Anaxyrus cognatus) tadpoles (W erner et al. 2004). W oodhouse's Toad ova are enclosed in a single jelly layer, not two, and Great Plains Toad eggs are in strings that are noticeably pinched between each egg (Bragg 1937a). However, eggs and tadpoles of W estern and W oodhouse's Toads are very similar and may be indistinguishable in some cases. Distribution is a useful character for all life stages. The geographic range of Great Plains Toad does not overlap with the geographic range of W estern Toad. See the geographic range of W oodhouse’s Toad for limited areas of possible overlap in a narrow area north of the Beartooth and Absaroka mountains (Maxell et al. 2003).
Habitat The W estern Toad is known to utilize a wide variety of habitats, including desert springs and streams, meadows and woodlands, mountain wetlands, beaver ponds, marshes, ditches, and backwater channels of rivers where they prefer shallow areas with mud bottoms (Brunson 1952, Carpenter 1953, Black 1970b, Campbell 1970c, Nussbaum et al. 1983, Baxter and Stone 1985, Russell and Bauer 1993, Koch and Peterson 1995, Cavallo 1997, Hart et al. 1998, Hammerson 1999). Forest cover around occupied montane wetlands may include Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta), Engelmann Spruce (Picea engelmannii), and Subalpine Fir (Abies lasiocarpa); in local situations it may also be found in Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest. They also occur in urban settings, sometimes congregating under streetlights at night to feed on insects (Hammerson 1999). Normally they remain close to ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and slow-moving rivers and streams during the day, but may range widely at night. Habitats used by W estern Toads in Montana are similar to those reported for other regions, and include low elevation beaver ponds, reservoirs, streams, marshes, lake shores, potholes, wet meadows, and marshes, to high elevation ponds, fens, and tarns at or near the treeline (Rodgers and Jellison 1942, Brunson and Demaree 1951, Miller 1978, Marnell 1997, W erner et al. 1998a, Boundy 2001). Forest cover in or near encounter sites is often unreported, but W estern Toads have been noted in open-canopy Ponderosa Pine woodlands and closed- canopy dry conifer forest in Sanders County (Boundy 2001), W illow (Salix spp.) wetland thickets and Aspen stands bordering Engelmann Spruce stands in Beaverhead County (Jean et al. 2002), and mixed Ponderosa Pine/Cottonwood/W illow sites or Douglas-fir/Ponderosa Pine forest in Ravalli and Missoula counties (Paul Hendricks, personal observation). Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S2
Agency Status USFWS: LT; CH USFS: THREATENED BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN2 General Description The native Bull Trout has been determined to be a separate species Range Year-round from the coastal Dolly Varden. Bull Trout are found in the Clark Fork and Flathead drainages of western Montana, and their slowly declining trend has led to their designation as a threatened species. Bull Trout are a sensitive species that do not tolerate high sediment levels in their spawning streams. Sediment can suffocate the developing embryos before they hatch. In Flathead Lake, where they achieve trophy sizes of up to 25 pounds, the Bull Trout life cycle has been studied extensively. Adult Bull Trout ascend the North and Middle forks of the Flathead River to spawn in small tributary streams; in some cases traveling well over 100 miles in a few months. They spawn in the fall and the adults return to the lake. Young fish may spend up to three years in the tributaries before returning to mature in Flathead Lake. In other river systems, Bull Trout may be a resident stream fish. # Observations: 6818 Often, native Bull Trout have been displaced through competitive interaction with introduced Brook Trout. Bull Trout and Brook Trout will interbreed, resulting in sterile hybrids, which leads to a further decrease in Bull Trout populations. The Bull Trout may be considered the Grizzly Bear of the fish world in relationship to its need for unaltered habitat. Young Bull Trout feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates but adults eat mostly other fish (Montana Fish, W ildlife, and Parks). Resident adults are 15 to 30 centimeters in length whereas migratory adults commonly exceed 60 centimeters (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
For a comprehensive review of the ecology, conservation status, threats, and management of this and other Montana fish species of concern, please see Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Species of Concern Status Reviews.
Habitat Sub-adult and adult fluvial Bull Trout reside in larger streams and rivers and spawn in smaller tributary streams, whereas adfluvial Bull Trout reside in lakes and spawn in tributaries (Montana AFS Species Status Account). They spawn in headwater streams with clear gravel or rubble bottom (Brown 1971, Holton 1981). Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5T4 State Rank: S2
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 General Description Range Non-native Native Historic The W estslope Cutthroat Trout is one of two subspecies of native cutthroat found in the state. Together they have been designated Montana's state fish, the Blackspotted Cutthroat Trout. Cutthroat trout are so named for the red slashes near the lower jaws. The W estslope Cutthroat Trout's historical range was all of Montana west of the Continental Divide as well as the upper Missouri River drainage. This fish has been seriously reduced in its range by two primary factors: hybridization with Rainbow and/or Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, and habitat loss and degradation. Since the W estslope is recognized as a very important part of our native fish fauna it has been designated a Montana Fish of Special Concern in Montana. Pure W estslope Cutthroat Trout have been identified by genetic analysis and form the broodstock maintained by the Montana Department of Fish, W ildlife, and Parks at its Anaconda hatchery. The average size of these fish is 6 to 16 # Observations: 19773 inches, depending on habitat, but they rarely exceed 18 inches in length.
W estslope Cutthroat Trout are common in both headwaters lake and stream environments. They feed primarily on aquatic insect life and zooplankton. Cutthroat spawn in the spring in running water, burying their eggs in a nest called a redd. The eggs hatch in a few weeks to a couple of months. The newborn fry frequently migrate back to lakes to rear after 1 to 2 years in their native stream. W estslope Cutthroat Trout is a trout with small, non-rounded spots, with few spots on the anterior body below the lateral line. Coloration varies, but generally is silver with yellowish hints, though bright yellow, orange, and especially red colors can be expressed to a much greater extent than on coastal or Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (Behnke 1992). Hybridization between W estslope and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout can produce a spectrum of spotting and coloration ranging between the typical patterns of each subspecies. Some populations that have been affected by hybridization show little or no phenotypic signs of hybridization (Behnke 1992). Hybridization with Rainbow Trout can be detected by the appearance of spots on the top of the head and on the anterior body below the lateral line, as well as by reduced scale counts, increased caecal counts, and loss of basibranchial teeth (Behnke 1992).
For a comprehensive review of the ecology, conservation status, threats, and management of this and other Montana fish species of concern, please see Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Species of Concern Status Reviews.
Diagnostic Characteristics Tiny teeth are usually present on the floor of the mouth behind the tongue. The lower sides are red during spawning season (Montana Fish, W ildlife, and Parks). In Montana both pure and moderately hybridized populations of W estslope Cutthroat Trout have a high incidence of basibranchial teeth, whereas pure Rainbow Trout lack these teeth. The presence of basibranchial teeth in some individuals of a Rainbow Trout population indicates hybridization with W estslope Cutthroat Trout (Leary et al. 1996). It can be difficult to visually distinguish W estslope from other cutthroat trout subspecies, but the W estslope Cutthroat Trout tends to have more small spots by the tail and none by the pectoral fin and the fish is more of a silvery or greenish color. The only way to be certain about identification of this subspecies is by genetic testing (Montana AFS Species Status Account).
Habitat Spawning and rearing streams tend to be cold and nutrient poor. W estslope Cutthroat Trout seek out gravel substrate in riffles and pool crests for spawning habitat. Cutthroat trout have long been regarded as sensitive to fine sediment (generally defined as 6.3 millimeters or less). Although studies have documented negative survival as fine sediment increases (W eaver and Fraley 1991), it is difficult to predict their response in the wild (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). This is due to the complexity of stream environments and the ability of fish to adapt somewhat to changes in micro-habitat (Everest et al. 1987, Montana AFS Species Status Account). W estslope Cutthroat Trout also require cold water, although it has proven elusive to define exact temperature requirements or tolerances. Likewise, cutthroat trout tend to thrive in streams with more pool habitat and cover than uniform, simple habitat (Shepard et al. 1984). Juvenile cutthroat trout overwinter in the interstitial spaces of large stream substrate. Adult cutthroat trout need deep, slow moving pools that do not fill with anchor ice in order to survive the winter (Brown and Mackay 1995, Montana AFS Species Status Account). Tapertip Onion Allium acuminatum View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S2S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 47 Bulbs sometimes clustered, globose; outer coat dingy white, membranous, honeycombed. Scapes terete, 20–35 cm. Leaves 2 to 3, subterete to channeled, 0.5–2 mm wide, withering. Umbel hemispheric with 10 to 30 flowers; pedicels 5–25 mm long; bracts 2, lanceolate to ovate, acuminate. Flowers pink to magenta; outer tepals 7–14 mm long; inner tepals smaller; ovary obscurely crested; stamens included. Seed surface minutely roughened (Lesica 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. BRIT Press. Fort W orth, TX).
Phenology Flowering May-June.
Diagnostic Characteristics Allium acuminatum can be distinguished from most other species by having the combination of rose-colored outer tepals that are longer than the inner tepals, and more than 2 concave leaves. The more common A. brevistylum also has rose-colored tepals, but its leaves are usually more than 4 mm wide.
Habitat Dry, open forests and grasslands in the montane zone. Small Onion Allium parvum View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description Bulbs usually ovoid; outer coat membranous mostly without reticulations. Scapes flattened, 3–6 cm. Leaves 2, flat, falcate, 1–4 mm wide, persistent. Umbel congested-hemispheric with 5 to 30 flowers; pedicels 5–10 mm long; bracts 2, ovate, acute to acuminate. Flowers: tepals white with a purple midvein; 8–12 mm long; ovary with 3 crests adjacent to the style; stamens included. Seed surface smooth # Observations: 177 (Lesica 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. BRIT Press. Fort W orth, TX).
Phenology Flowering in late May-June.
Diagnostic Characteristics The flattened stem and fine-textured bulb coats separate this species from the similar A. simillimum, A. textile and A. brandegeei.
Habitat Dry, open forests, woodlands, or grasslands on warm slopes in the montane zone. Dwarf Onion Allium simillimum View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S2?
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description Bulbs ovoid, usually solitary; outer coat membranous with hexagonal reticulations. Scapes slightly flattened, partly subterranean, 2–6 cm. Leaves 2, channeled, ca. 1 mm wide, persistent. Umbel compact, campanulate to hemispheric with 5 to 15 flowers; pedicels 2–5 mm long; bracts 2, ovate, apiculate. Flowers: tepals white with green to purple midveins, 6–8 mm long; ovary with 3 crests adjacent to the style; stamens included. Seed surface smooth (Lesica 2012. Manual of # Observations: 18 Montana Vascular Plants. BRIT Press. Fort W orth, TX).
Phenology Flowering in June-July.
Diagnostic Characteristics Allium parvum is similar but has a strongly flattened stem. Allium brandegeei is also similar but has leaves that are less than twice the length of the stem.
Habitat Moist, often gravelly soil of meadows and grasslands in the montane or lower subalpine zone. Coville Indian Paintbrush Castilleja covilleana View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G3G4 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: 2 C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description Coville Indian Paintbrush is a perennial with clusters of several unbranched, erect or ascending stems, which can be up to 30 cm tall. All leaves but the lowermost are deeply divided into 3-7 spreading, linear lobes, and are alternate on the stem. The herbage is covered with long, soft hairs. The inflorescence is usually bright red or scarlet, but may be orangish-yellow; it is short and compact at first, but # Observations: 161 elongates greatly at maturity. The colored flower bracts are deeply 5-7 parted and at least as long as the flowers. The corolla is 20-35 mm long, and the hooded upper lip is 1/2-2/3 the length of the tubular portion. The calyx is 15-25 mm long and more deeply divided above than below.
Phenology Flowering late June-early August.
Diagnostic Characteristics This species can be distinguished from other red paintbrushes in its range by the covering of long, soft hairs (rather than stiff and straight), and by the middle leaf segments that are almost as narrow as the lateral segments.
Habitat Stony soil of slopes and summits in the montane and subalpine zones. Scalepod Idahoa scapigera View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S1S2
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: 1 C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description Scalepod is a small, glabrous annual with many leafless stems that are up to 10 cm high. The numerous basal leaves have a long, slender petiole and narrowly elliptic blades that are 5-15 mm long with entire margins or two shallow lobes near the base. Each stem bears a single white flower at the tip. Each flower has 4 red to purple, separate # Observations: 27 sepals that are ca. 2 mm long, 4 separate petals of the same length, and 4 long and 2 short stamens. The flowers quickly form flattened, nearly circular fruits that are 6-12 mm in diameter with 6-12 wing- margined seeds inside.
Phenology Flowering in March-April.
Diagnostic Characteristics Species of Draba and Subularia have more than one flower (or fruit) per stem.
Habitat Vernally moist, open soil on rock ledges in the lower montane zone. Lemhi Beardtongue Penstemon lemhiensis View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G3 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: SENSITIVE MNPS Threat Rank: 2 C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 490 Lemhi beardtongue is a large perennial, with 1 to several stems reaching 70 cm in height and arising from a branched rootstock and short taproot. The leaves are narrowly lance-shaped and untoothed. Stalks of the basal leaves are up to 16 cm long, while the opposite stem leaves lack stalks and become smaller up the stem. Herbage is lightly covered with small hairs and occasionally a thin, bluish wax. Clusters of several short-stalked flowers are borne in the axils of upper leaves. The bright blue, tubular corolla is flared and two-lipped at the mouth and 25-35 mm long. The lance-shaped calyx segments taper to a long tip, are 7-11 mm long, and have a narrow white margin. Anthers are hairy with short pubescence, and the staminode is glabrous.
Phenology Flowering takes place from early June to late July, depending on climatic conditions and elevation. Fruits mature and dehisce during August and early September.
Diagnostic Characteristics Lemhi penstemon is a tall, conspicuous plant, and easy to spot when in full bloom. Distinguishing features include the large, bright blue corollas, the sharp, narrow, elongated tips on the calyx lobes, and the lack of hairs on the staminode. Penstemon cyaneus is very similar but has sepals that are rounded at the tip and nearly as broad as long. Penstemon cyananthus also has smaller flowers that are only 15-25 mm long.
Habitat In Montana, Lemhi beardtongue occurs on moderate to steep, east- to southwest-facing slopes, often on open soils. In Beaverhead County, it generally grows below or near the lower extent of Douglas-fir and/or lodgepole pine forest, in habitat dominated by big sagebrush and bunchgrasses, including western wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. W ithin these habitats, Lemhi beardtongue prefers areas that are more sparsely vegetated (Shelly 1990). In the northeastern Pioneer Mountains, it inhabits forb-dominated openings in lodgepole pine and to a lesser extent Douglas-fir forest; big sage is typically not present, and prominent forbs include Astragalus miser, Pedicularis contorta and Townsendia parryi. The species is not restricted to any particular geological substrate, and has been found on granitic soils as well as limestone and other sedimentary substrates. Soils are often very gravelly, however soil texture is highly variable and ranges from sand to fine clay. Field surveys from 1986-1989 indicate that it is most commonly found on gravelly loams. Some populations grow partially or entirely on roadbanks. Payette Beardtongue Penstemon payettensis View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S1
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: 1 C-value:
# Observations: 11
General Description Payette Beardtongue is a stout, herbaceous perennial with 1 to several stems that are 2-7 dm tall and arising from a compact, branched rootcrown. The clustered basal leaves each have a long petiole and an elliptic, entire-margined blade that is up to 15 cm long. The opposite stem leaves mostly lack petioles and are shorter than but nearly as wide as the basal leaves. Foliage is glabrous and thick. The inflorescence consists of several clusters of short-stalked flowers in the axils of reduced upper leaves. The tubular corolla is flared and 2-lipped at the mouth, 18-28 mm long, and bright blue. The 5 lance-shaped calyx segments are 5-8 mm long and have a long tip and a whitish margin below. The 4 anthers are glabrous with small teeth along the line of opening.
Phenology Flowering in July.
Diagnostic Characteristics There are many species of Penstemonin our area; a technical manual should be consulted for identification. Penstemon procerus has smaller flowers, and other similar species lack the teeth along the anther sac sutures. A hand lens will be required for identification.
Habitat Open slopes in the montane zone. Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G3G4 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: P USFS: CANDIDATE BLM: SENSITIVE MNPS Threat Rank: C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 6059 Small tree to 25 m tall with ascending branches and a rounded or flat- topped crown. Bark smooth, light gray. Leaves yellow-green, 2–6 cm long, 5 per fascicle. Seed cones ovoid, 4–8 cm long, remaining on the tree and closed until opened and/or dislodged by squirrels or birds. Scales thin at the base but thickened toward the tip. Seeds wingless, 7–11 mm long (Lesica 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. BRIT Press. Fort W orth, TX).
Habitat Subalpine and krummholtz habitats in most mountain ranges. Woolly-head Clover Trifolium eriocephalum View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S2
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: 2 C-value: 4
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 30 W oolly-head Clover is a perennial with erect stems that are 20-60 cm tall and arising from a thick taproot and a branched rootcrown. The leaves have three leaflets that are 2-7 cm long and elliptic to oblong with sharply toothed margins. The base of each leaf petiole is enlarged to form two lance-shaped wings, or stipules, that are 2-5 cm long. The foliage is sparsely to densely long-hairy. 25-80 flowers are borne in globose clusters at the ends of the main stem or on side branches. The pinkish to red flowers are nodding and 12-17 mm long with a hood-shaped upper petal, or banner, as well as two narrow, separate petals on the side (wings); the two lower petals are united into a boat-shaped petal, or keel. The calyx has five long teeth at the mouth and is covered with long, feather-like hairs. The fruit is a small pod with 4 ovules.
Diagnostic Characteristics Ours is subspecies arcuatum McDermott. There are many species of clover in Montana, and a technical key should be consulted for positive identification. This species can be distinguished from other perennial species of Trifolium occurring at lower elevations by the combination of having an erect, leafy habit, lacking a leafy involucre below the inflorescence, and by its long feathery hairs on the calyx teeth.
Habitat Dry meadows, woods and margins in the foothill and lower montane zones. Hollyleaf Clover Trifolium gymnocarpon View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S2
Agency Status USFWS: USFS: SENSITIVE BLM: MNPS Threat Rank: 2 C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description Hollyleaf Clover forms clumps with many stems that are ca. 15 cm high and arising from a branched rootcrown and a stout taproot. The leaves arise from the base of the stems and have membranous appendages that are 5-15 mm long at the base and which remain as shreds on the rootcrown. Each leaf has three ovate leaflets that are 5-20 mm long with sharply toothed margins. The herbage is sparsely covered with # Observations: 91 straight, appressed hairs. Three to 15 spreading to nodding flowers are borne in loose clusters at the ends of peduncles, which are usually shorter than the leaves. The light yellow to flesh-colored flowers are 8- 14 mm long and have a hood-shaped upper petal, or banner, and two narrow, separate petals on the side (wings); the two lower petals are united into a boat-shaped petal, or keel. The densely long-hairy calyx is 1/3 to 1/2 as long as the corolla and is tubular at the base but forms 5 long, triangular teeth at the mouth. The small fruit pod usually has a single seed.
Phenology Flowering in May-July.
Diagnostic Characteristics This is our only tufted clover without leafy stems that occurs below the subalpine zone.
Habitat Open woods and slopes, usually in dry soil of sagebrush steppe to ponderosa pine forest in the foothills to lower montane zone. APPENDIX D. MNHP USFWS ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES OF RAVALLI COUNTY MONTANA, MONTANA FIELD GUIDE
Montana Field Guide d work. work. d updated updated mtnhp.org tana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. and Wildlife Fish, tana rmation System. It is operated operated is It System. rmation states, provinces and nations nations and provinces states, s of species and habitats. and species of s (406) 444-5363 (406) he University of Montana, Missoula. Montana, of University he Helena, MT 59620 Helena, 1515 East 6th Avenue East 6th 1515 FieldGuide.mt.gov tended to assist in offline identification and fiel and identification offline in assist to tended ana species, please visit visit please species, ana , as that version contains more information and is is and information more contains version that as , f the Montana State Library's Natural Resource Info Resource Natural Library's State Montana the f ana the "big picture" information on the true statu true the on information picture" "big the ana ureServe – a network of over 80 similar programs in programs similar 80 over of network a – ureServe resident for Research and Creative Scholarship at t at Scholarship Creative and Research for resident etween the Montana Natural Heritage Program and Mon and Program Heritage Natural Montana the etween LT (Listed threatened), C (Candidate) or P (Proposed threatened) LE (Listed endangered), Ravalli County This PDF version of the Montana Field Guide is in is Guide Field Montana the of version PDF This Suggested Citation Format: Custom Field Guide from http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesSnapshot for (insert the title text Suggested Citation Format: Custom Field Retrieved on 12/7/2020. above to indicate the filters you selected).
that are USFWS All Montana Species All Montana found in Note: It is not intended to replace the online Field Guide Field online the replace to intended not is It Mont on information up-to-date most the For daily. Offline Field Guide Field Offline throughout the Western Hemisphere, bringing to Mont to bringing Hemisphere, Western the throughout The Montana Natural Heritage Program is part of Nat of part is Program Heritage Natural Montana The The Montana Field Guide is a collaborative effort b effort collaborative a is Guide Field Montana The The Montana Natural Heritage Program is a program o program a is Program Heritage Natural Montana The P Vice the of Office the under program special a as Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: LT; CH USFS: THREATENED BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3
Range Year-round
General Description The Canada Lynx is a medium-sized cat (about 10 kilograms for males and 8 kilograms for females) with silver-gray to grayish-brown upperparts and a white belly and throat. Lynx have long legs and a relatively short, compact body. The total length averages approximately 92.5 centimeters for males and 89.5 centimeters for females (Foresman 2012). A facial ruff surrounds the face except # Observations: 890 directly beneath the snout. The facial ruff is longest on either side of the snout and has black markings on these longest hairs. The ears are 70 to 80 millimeters long and have a long, 30 millimeters black tuft at the end. The backs of the ears are darker than the rest of the body and have a central white spot. The feet are large and round (10 x 10 centimeters) and heavily furred (Foresman 2012). The tail is short and the tip is entirely black.
Diagnostic Characteristics Canada Lynx are most similar to Bobcats, but differ in many respects. At a distance, Canada Lynx appear leggier and are grayer in color, with less distinctive spotting (Foresman 2012). Canada Lynx have much larger feet and longer ear tufts. In addition, the entire tail tip is black in Canada Lynx whereas in Bobcats the underside of the tail tip is white (Foresman 2012) and the back of the hind legs is black on Bobcats and a light beige color on Canada Lynx. Immature Mountain Lions may be superficially similar to Canada Lynx but have a much longer tail and body.
Habitat Canada Lynx west of the Continental Divide generally occur in subalpine forests between 1,220 and 2,150 meters in stands composed of pure lodgepole pine but also mixed stands of subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western larch and hardwoods (Ruediger et al. 2000). In extreme northwestern Montana, primary vegetation may include cedar-hemlock habitat types (Ruediger et al. 2000). East of the Continental Divide the subalpine forests inhabited by Canada Lynx occur at higher elevations (1,650 to 2,400 meters) and are composed mostly of subalpine fir. Secondary habitat is intermixed Englemann spruce and Douglas-fir habitat types where lodgepole pine is a major seral species (Ruediger et al. 2000). Throughout their range, shrub-steppe habitats may provide important linkage habitat between the primary habitat types described above (Reudiger et al. 2000). Typical snow conditions are important factors for Canada Lynx, with occurrence primarily in habitats that also receive relatively uniform and moderately deep snowfall amounts (total annual snowfall of 100 to 127 centimeters) (Kelsall et al. 1977). W ithin these habitat types, disturbances that create early successional stages such as fire, insect infestations, and timber harvest, provide foraging habitat for lynx by creating forage and cover for Snowshoe Hares, although older forests also provide habitats for Snowshoe Hares and Canada Lynx for longer periods of time than disturbance-created habitats (Ruediger et al. 2000). Canada Lynx avoid large openings but often hunt along edges in areas of dense cover (Ruediger et al. 2000). W hen inactive or birthing, they occupy dens typically in hollow trees, under stumps, or in thick brush. Den sites tend to be in mature or old-growth stands with a high density of logs (Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell 1990). These habitats must be near or adjacent to foraging habitat because the hunting range of the female is reduced during this time (Ruediger et al. 2000). In the South Fork Flathead, Canada Lynx were mostly located in fire-created, densely stocked young stands of lodgepole pine where Snowshoe Hares were most abundant. No locations in open or semi-open areas were observed (Koehler at al. 1979). In the Garnet Range, most were found in subalpine fir forest (Smith 1984). Denning sites are found in mature and old-growth lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir forests with a high density of logs (Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell 1990). Denning stands need not be large (1 to 3 hectares) but several stands should be interconnected (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Canada Lynx require cover for stalking and security, and usually do not cross openings wider than 100 meters (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S2S3
Agency Status USFWS: PS: LT; XN USFS: THREATENED BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3
Range Year-round Historic
General Description Grizzly Bears have a massive head with a prominent nose, rounded inconspicuous ears, small eyes, short tail and a large, powerful body (Pasitschnaik-Arts 1993). The facial profile is concave and there is a noticeable hump above the shoulders. The claws on the front feet of adults are about 4 inches long and slightly curved. Grizzly Bears range widely in color and size. The most prevalent coloration of Grizzly Bears # Observations: 2396 in Montana is medium to dark brown underfur, brown legs, hump and underparts, with light to medium grizzling on the head and back and a light patch behind the front legs. Other forms, lighter or darker with varying levels of grizzled hair patches, occur in lesser numbers. Although extremely variable depending on the season, adults are around 185 centimeters long (Foresman 2012) and weigh around 200 kilograms in males and 130 kilograms in females (Kasworm and Manley 1988).
Diagnostic Characteristics Adult Grizzly Bears differ from American Black Bears (Ursus americanus) in being larger and by having a hump above the shoulders, a concave (rather than straight or convex) facial profile, shorter and more rounded ears, a rump lower than the shoulder hump, and longer, less curved claws usually evident in the tracks. Identification can be difficult at times and Montana Fish, W ildlife and Parks has developed an Online Bear ID Test to help people better distinguish between American Black Bears and Grizzly Bears.
Habitat In Montana, Grizzly Bears primarily use meadows, seeps, riparian zones, mixed shrub fields, closed timber, open timber, sidehill parks, snow chutes, and alpine slabrock habitats. Habitat use is highly variable between areas, seasons, local populations, and individuals (Servheen 1983, Craighead and Mitchell 1982, Aune et al. 1984). Historically, the Grizzly Bear was primarily a plains species occurring in higher densities throughout most of eastern Montana. Wolverine Gulo gulo View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: P USFS: PROPOSED BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3
Range Year-round
General Description The W olverine is a bear-like mustelid with massive limbs and long, dense, dark brown pelage, paler on the head, with two broad yellowish stripes extending from the shoulders and joining on the rump. Variable white or yellowish markings are often present on the throat and chest. # Observations: 1777 The tail is bushy. The feet are relatively large (6.5 to 11.3 centimeters total length) with robust claws. W olverines weigh between 7 and 32 kilograms and range from 0.9 to 1.1 meters in length. Females average about 10% less than males in linear measurements and 30% less in mass (Ingles 1965, Hall 1981, Nowak 1991).
Diagnostic Characteristics W olverines are most similar to Fishers (Martes pennanti) but are nearly twice as large. Fishers also lack the light colored lateral markings of the W olverine and the tail is less bushy. Badgers have shorter legs and are much lighter colored with a distinctive black and white pattern on the face.
Habitat W olverines are limited to alpine tundra, and boreal and mountain forests (primarily coniferous) in the western mountains, especially large wilderness areas. However, dispersing individuals have been found far outside of usual habitats. They are usually in areas with snow on the ground in winter. Riparian areas may be important winter habitat. W hen inactive, W olverines occupy dens in caves, rock crevices, under fallen trees, in thickets, or similar sites. W olverines are primarily terrestrial but may climb trees. In Montana, Hornocker and Hash (1981) found most W olverine use in medium to scattered timber, while areas of dense, young timber were used least. W olverines avoided clearcuts and burns, crossing them rapidly and directly when they were entered at all. Hash (1987) reported W olverines in the Northern Rocky Mountain region were associated with fir, pine, and larch. Aspen stands were also used, as were cottonwoods in riparian areas. Ecotonal areas appeared to be important habitat components (Hash 1987). Hatler (1989) believed W olverines are not dependant on any particular vegetative habitat type. Banci (1986) reported "habitat requirements appear to be large, isolated tracts of wilderness supporting a diverse prey base, rather than specific plant associations or topography." South of the boreal forest, most habitat descriptions in the literature agree with Grove's (1988) characterization of "large, mountainous, and essentially roadless areas." Least Tern Sternula antillarum View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G4 State Rank: S1B
Agency Status USFWS: LE; MBTA USFS: BLM: ENDANGERED FWP SWAP: SGCN1, SGIN PIF: 1
Range Summer Migratory
General Description The smallest tern in North America, the Least Tern averages 21 to 24 cm long and has a wingspan of 51 cm (Thompson et al. 1997). In breeding plumage the species is characterized by a black cap and stripe through the eye that contrast sharply with a white forehead (Thompson et al. 1997). The underparts of the bird are white, while the upperparts are gray. The outer primaries of their long, narrow wings are black. They have a short, slightly notched tail, and a slightly # Observations: 473 decurved and tapered yellow bill (unique from other tern species) with a small black tip. The sexes are virtually identical, although W hitman (1988) notes some subtle differences; the male bill is described as orange to bright yellow, while the female's is light, dull yellow, or straw-colored. The iris is dark brown (Thompson et al. 1997); the feet and legs of the male are bright orange and generally bright to pale yellow on the female (W hitman 1988). Vocalization of the Least Tern is described as a shrill, rapid, sharp "piDEEK-adik" or "keDEEK" as well as a weak, nasal sounding "whididi" and high, sharp "kweek" or "kwik" squeaks. The alarm call is a sharp, rising "zreek" (Sibley 2000).
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics It is unlikely for the Least Tern to be confused with any other tern species in Montana. Its diminutive size, yellow bill, and white forehead are distinctive. Another tern species found in the state, the Forster's Tern, also has a black cap, but it lacks the white forehead. Also, the Forster's Tern is larger than the Least Tern, has a large orange, not yellow, bill and lacks black primaries in breeding plumage (Sibley 2000).
Habitat Least Terns nest on unvegetated sand-pebble beaches and islands of large reservoirs and rivers in northeastern and southeastern Montana, specifically the Yellowstone and Missouri river systems (Christopherson 1991). These wide, open river channels, and lake and pothole shorelines provide the preferred characteristics for nesting Least Terns. Sites with gravel substrate provide the most suitable sites for nesting (Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee 1994). One of the most limiting factors to nesting site selection is vegetational encroachment; Least Terns avoid areas where relatively thick vegetation provides cover for potential predators. Fine-textured soils are easier to treat mechanically than rocky or gravelly soils when vegetation is determined as a limiting factor in an area's ability to provide suitable nesting habitat, but fine soils are not typically a preferred nesting substrate (Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee 1994). In Montana, as in other areas, another and more important limiting factor in nest site selection is the location of nesting sites in relation to surrounding water levels. Nests are often inundated because water levels are kept unnaturally high throughout the breeding season (and high winds can cause nests to be flooded) or nesting sites are not available (either because of encroaching vegetation or because water levels are so high that beaches are under water during the early part of, and possibly throughout, the nesting season) (Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee 1994). Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S3B
Agency Status USFWS: PS: LT; MBTA; BCC10 USFS: BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2 Range Summer Migratory
General Description A slender bird with a long, distinctly patterned tail and white throat and breast. The back and head of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo are a plain grayish-brown. Consistent with its common name, the stout, somewhat curved bill is primarily yellow (the upper mandible is mostly black, with some yellow, while the lower mandible is yellow in its entirety). The boldly white and black patterned outer tail feathers, or # Observations: 39 rectrices, which from underneath give the appearance of 6 large white spots, can generally be observed during perching and in flight. The rufous primary feathers of this cuckoo are largely only visible in flight. The bird is generally 26 to 30 cm in length and weighs an average 55 to 65 grams (Hughes 1999). Females are slightly larger than males. The feet of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo are similar to that of the woodpeckers; they are zygodactylous; the two outer toes point backward while the two inner toes point forward (Hughes 1999).
For a comprehensive review of the conservation status, habitat use, and ecology of this and other Montana bird species, please see Marks et al. 2016, Birds of Montana.
Diagnostic Characteristics Characteristics of the Black-billed Cuckoo (C. erythropthalmus), may cause some uncertainty in identification. In addition to a completely black bill, however, the Black-billed Cuckoo has a buffy throat, small distinct white tips on the rectrices (not large and obvious as on the Yellow-billed Cuckoo), little to no rufous on the wings, and a red orbital ring around the eyes. The juveniles are more easily confused (see Hughes 1999, for a comparative description of juvenile birds).
Habitat Throughout their range, preferred breeding habitat includes open woodland (especially where undergrowth is thick), parks, and deciduous riparian woodland. In the W est, they nest in tall cottonwood and willow riparian woodlands. Nests are found in trees, shrubs or vines, an average of 1 to 3 meters above ground (Harrison 1979). W estern subspecies require patches of at least 10 hectares (25 acres) of dense, riparian forest with a canopy cover of at least 50 percent in both the understory and overstory. Nests are typically found in mature willows (Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989). This bird is rarely found at higher elevations (Johnsgard 1986). Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G5 State Rank: S2
Agency Status USFWS: LT; CH USFS: THREATENED BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN2 General Description The native Bull Trout has been determined to be a separate species Range Year-round from the coastal Dolly Varden. Bull Trout are found in the Clark Fork and Flathead drainages of western Montana, and their slowly declining trend has led to their designation as a threatened species. Bull Trout are a sensitive species that do not tolerate high sediment levels in their spawning streams. Sediment can suffocate the developing embryos before they hatch. In Flathead Lake, where they achieve trophy sizes of up to 25 pounds, the Bull Trout life cycle has been studied extensively. Adult Bull Trout ascend the North and Middle forks of the Flathead River to spawn in small tributary streams; in some cases traveling well over 100 miles in a few months. They spawn in the fall and the adults return to the lake. Young fish may spend up to three years in the tributaries before returning to mature in Flathead Lake. In other river systems, Bull Trout may be a resident stream fish. # Observations: 6818 Often, native Bull Trout have been displaced through competitive interaction with introduced Brook Trout. Bull Trout and Brook Trout will interbreed, resulting in sterile hybrids, which leads to a further decrease in Bull Trout populations. The Bull Trout may be considered the Grizzly Bear of the fish world in relationship to its need for unaltered habitat. Young Bull Trout feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates but adults eat mostly other fish (Montana Fish, W ildlife, and Parks). Resident adults are 15 to 30 centimeters in length whereas migratory adults commonly exceed 60 centimeters (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
For a comprehensive review of the ecology, conservation status, threats, and management of this and other Montana fish species of concern, please see Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Species of Concern Status Reviews.
Habitat Sub-adult and adult fluvial Bull Trout reside in larger streams and rivers and spawn in smaller tributary streams, whereas adfluvial Bull Trout reside in lakes and spawn in tributaries (Montana AFS Species Status Account). They spawn in headwater streams with clear gravel or rubble bottom (Brown 1971, Holton 1981). Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis View in Field Guide
Species of Concern Native Species Global Rank: G3G4 State Rank: S3
Agency Status USFWS: P USFS: CANDIDATE BLM: SENSITIVE MNPS Threat Rank: C-value:
Range Year-round
General Description # Observations: 6059 Small tree to 25 m tall with ascending branches and a rounded or flat- topped crown. Bark smooth, light gray. Leaves yellow-green, 2–6 cm long, 5 per fascicle. Seed cones ovoid, 4–8 cm long, remaining on the tree and closed until opened and/or dislodged by squirrels or birds. Scales thin at the base but thickened toward the tip. Seeds wingless, 7–11 mm long (Lesica 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. BRIT Press. Fort W orth, TX).
Habitat Subalpine and krummholtz habitats in most mountain ranges.