Environmental Assessment Checklist

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Project Name: Six Shooter Timber Permit Proposed Implementation Date: 2020-2025 Proponent: Missoula Unit, Southwestern Land Office, Montana DNRC County: Missoula

Type and Purpose of Action

Description of Proposed Action: The Missoula Unit of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is proposing the Six Shooter Timber Permit. The project is located 5 air miles northwest of Frenchtown, Montana in the Six Mile drainage. (refer to vicinity & project maps in Attachment A) and includes the following sections:

Legal Total Treated Beneficiary Description Acres Acres

Common Schools Public Buildings MSU 2nd Grant Section 12 T15N R22W 640 269 MSU Morrill Eastern College-MSU/Western College-U of M Montana Tech University of Montana School for the Deaf and Blind Pine Hills School Veterans Home Public Land Trust Acquired Land

Objectives of the projects include: • Remove Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and western larch that contain insects, disease, faded crowns and/or poor form and vigor. • Maintain forest productivity. • Promote seral species. • Generate revenue for the Montana State University Trust.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Proposed activities include:

Action Quantity Proposed Harvest Activities Clearcut Seed Tree Shelterwood Selection Commercial Thinning Salvage Sanitation 269 Total Treatment Acres 269 Proposed Forest Improvement Treatment Pre-commercial Thinning 269 Planting

Proposed Road Activities New permanent road construction New temporary road construction Road maintenance 4 miles Road reconstruction Road abandoned Road reclaimed

Other Activities Weed spraying

Duration of Activities: 5 years- Not continuous activity Implementation Period: 2020-2025

The lands involved in this proposed project are held in trust by the State of Montana. (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana Constitution, Article X, Section 11). The Board of Land Commissioners and the DNRC are required by law to administer these trust lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate return over the long run for the beneficiary institutions (Section 77-1-202, MCA).

The DNRC would manage lands involved in this project in accordance with: ➢ The State Forest Land Management Plan (DNRC 1996), ➢ Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.11.401 through 471), ➢ The Montana DNRC Forested State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (DNRC 2010) ➢ all other applicable state and federal laws.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Project Development

SCOPING: DNRC specialists were consulted, including Andrea Stanley-Hydrologist, Soil Scientist & Garrett Schairer-Wildlife Biologist, Patrick Rennie-Archeologist.

Scoping Notices were sent to 17 adjacent landowners and posted on the DNRC website. Two responses were received. One telephone call and one letter.

The telephone call was to request a site visit with an adjacent landowner so they could get a better idea of what the prescription would be.

DNRC met with the landowner and he is comfortable with the prescription and the trees that will be left.

The letter identified five concerns: 1. Please use the least toxic herbicide possible and no insecticides: DNRC uses licensed herbicide applicators. The herbicide used for this location would be applied using directions on the labels. Only herbicide approved to be used near water would be applied. Herbicide won’t be applied in streams. DNRC has no plans to apply insecticide in this location.

2. After the timber sale the roads will need to be completely blocked to keep the off-road drivers out. Post-harvest, road status would not change. Roads currently designated as open would remain open and roads closed to motorized public use would continue to be closed to motorized public use. Barriers would be removed during harvest operations and would be installed post- harvest. If illegal off-road use is observed, please contact the Missoula Unit at (406) 542-5813.

3. Please suggest that loggers not work during rifle season. I almost shot directly towards a logging crew which I did know was in the area last time they had a timber sale. This section has a high usage during rifle season. Harvest operations may occur during general rifle season. The wildlife analysis did not reveal any concerns that would warrant restricting harvest during general big game season. Hunting would still be allowed concurrently with harvest operations. It is the firearm owner’s responsibility to shoot in a safe direction.

4. I strongly suggest you leave mixed species. The sanitation harvest prescription would leave a mix of tree species on site. Douglas-fir would be the most heavily targeted species but would still be present on-site post- harvest. Western larch and ponderosa pine would be the primary leave species. Cedar is present, but predominately found in riparian areas. DNRC follows Streamside Management Zone laws as well as other internal regulations. Riparian harvest would be limited.

5. Many draws especially those with cedars, may appear dry much of the year, however, they frequently have running or standing watercourses. A watershed analysis was conducted on the site. Streams were classed based on characteristics outlined in the Streamside Management Zone Law. If draws that did not

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

meet stream classifications are found to have water during harvest operations, the contractor would leave the wet area and notify DNRC so we could reassess the draw.

Issues and concerns were incorporated into project planning and design and would be implemented in associated contracts.

OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION, LIST OF PERMITS NEEDED: (Conservation Easements, Army Corps of Engineers, road use permits, etc.)

• Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)- DNRC is classified as a major open burner by DEQ and is issued a permit from DEQ to conduct burning activities on state lands managed by DNRC. As a major open-burning permit holder, DNRC agrees to comply with the limitations and conditions of the permit.

• Montana/Idaho Airshed Group- The DNRC is a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group which was formed to minimize or prevent smoke impacts while using fire to accomplish land management objectives and/or fuel hazard reduction (Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 2006). The Group determines the delineation of airsheds and impact zones throughout Idaho and Montana. Airsheds describe those geographical areas that have similar atmospheric conditions, while impact zones describe any area in Montana or Idaho that the Group deems smoke sensitive and/or having an existing air quality problem (Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 2006). As a member of the Airshed Group, DNRC agrees to burn only on days approved for good smoke dispersion as determined by the Smoke Management Unit.

• United States Fish & Wildlife Service- DNRC is managing the habitats of threatened and endangered species on this project by implementing the Montana DNRC Forested Trust Lands HCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit that was issued by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in February of 2012 under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The HCP identifies specific conservation strategies for managing the habitats of grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and three fish species: bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and Columbia redband trout. This project complies with the HCP. The HCP can be found at www.dnrc.mt.gov/HCP.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No-Action: The proposed pre-commercial thinning and commercial timber harvest would not occur. The stands would remain at overstocked levels with low production rates.

Action Alternative (Provide a brief description of all proposed activities):

Six Shooter Timber Permit (128 acres) A commercial harvest using a sanitation prescription would remove overstory trees that have been impacted by insects and disease, forked tops, multiple tops, sweep, crook, excessive bole damage and fading crowns (both in color and percent live crown ratio). In most instances (unless there is a safety concern) large snags would be left on site.

If markets are available, pulp material would also be removed. Trees would be either whole tree skidded and slash would be concentrated in landing piles and burned or in some cases, cut in to log lengths and slash would be left on the hillside. Longbutting would be encouraged to retain large woody debris onsite.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Pre-commercial Thin treatment DNRC would pre-commercially thin to an approximate 14’ spacing (or outside the overstory dripline, whichever is greater). Preferred leave trees would be WL, PP and DF. Residual stand densities would be 200-225 trees per acre (TPA). Approximately 700-1500 (depending on current stocking) TPA would be removed. Slash would be lopped and scattered with a lop height of 18 inches, masticated or piled in hand piles and burned.

Impacts on the Physical Environment

Evaluation of the impacts of the No-Action and Action Alternatives including direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the Physical Environment.

VEGETATION:

Vegetation Existing Conditions:

Six Shooter Timber Permit (128 acres) The treatment area is a mix of previously harvested stands and unharvested strips. The areas that were previously harvested are dominated by ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir. The resulting stand is more open (20-40 feet spacing). Some forked tops and other defects can be found in the overstory. Previously unharvested areas are heavily stocked (10’ average spacing) with Douglas-fir 8”-24” dbh being the dominant species, followed by western larch and ponderosa pine.

Sub-merchantable trees currently exist in thick clumps across the entire treatment area (approximately 800-1000 stems/acre). A mix of Douglas-fir, western larch and ponderosa pine can be found throughout these clumps. In stands near water, cedar, spruce and grand fir can also be observed.

There is no Old Growth in the project area.

Knapweed, Common Mullein, Houndstongue and Thistle can be found in old landings in the project area.

No rare plants were identified during field reconnaissance or within the Montana Natural Heritage Program. If rare plants are discovered during implementation of the proposed projects, they will be protected.

Impact Can Comment Vegetation Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No-Action Noxious Weeds X X X Rare Plants X X X Vegetative community X X X

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Impact Can Comment Vegetation Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Old Growth X X X Action Noxious Weeds X X X y 1 Rare Plants x x X Vegetative community X X X 2 Old Growth x x X

Comments: 1. Existing weeds are common in 6 Mile, especially along roads and disturbed areas. Increased activity in the project areas, as well as a more open canopy, can lead to an increased risk of noxious weeds.

2. The residual stand would be spaced 30-60 feet with some scattered clumps of 2-4 trees. Seral species would be favored to leave. This harvest prescription would emulate natural disturbance historically created by wildfire in the area.

There would be a 50 foot no harvest buffer along class 1 streams and an additional 50 foot feather zone with 50% retention adjacent to the buffer zone.

Post-harvest, a pre-commercial thinning would be implemented to increase the spacing of the existing advanced regeneration. DNRC would thin to an approximate 14’ spacing (or outside the overstory dripline, whichever is greater). Preferred leave trees would be WL, PP and DF. Residual stand densities would be 200-225 trees per acre (TPA). Approximately 600-800 (depending on current stocking) TPA would be removed. Slash would be lopped and scattered with a lop height of 18 inches, masticated or piled in hand piles and burned.

For commercial and precommercial activities, competition among conifers would be reduced, allowing the remaining stands to capture more water, sunlight and nutrients, thereby having a positive direct, secondary and cumulative impact on tree growth.

Vegetation Mitigations: • DNRC systematically completes roadside spraying of the proposed project area, yet noxious weeds continue to occur, spread by disturbance, equipment operations, animals and wind. Project areas would be monitored for noxious weeds after implementation and herbicide may be applied when and if needed.

• If rare plants are discovered during project implementation they would be protected.

• Large relic ponderosa pine and western larch would be left to encourage regeneration of seral species.

• Tree retention requirements would be met in riparian areas.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

SOIL DISTURBANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY:

Issues:

Existing soil conditions within the project area and the risk of the proposed activity on soil resources are described and assessed in this section. Risks include physical disturbance (compaction and displacement), erosion, reduced nutrient cycling, slope instability, and loss of soil productivity.

Comments related to soil risks received during scoping include risk of increased unauthorized off-road travel access after the timber sale.

Soil Disturbance and Productivity Existing Conditions:

The project is located north of Huson and Frenchtown in the southern foothills of the Reservation Divide mountain range.

The project area is immediately south of the Ninemile Fault. The underlying geology within harvest areas are mainly Tertiary sediment and sedimentary rocks and older Quaternary alluvium.

Slopes within the proposed harvest areas average less than 30% with no observed signs of instability. Soils within the harvest units are mapped as Vision-Lick families, described as complex, colluvial aprons and alluvial fans, very stony (Missoula County NRCS Soils data). These soils have a severe soil rutting hazard and are moderately suited for harvest equipment operation (Missoula County NRCS Soils data).

Known past and current disturbances in the project area:

• The SW1/4 currently has an active grazing lease. Most of this area is outside the proposed harvest units. • Based on observations from past aerial images of the area, the majority of the proposed harvest area was harvested between 1990 and 1995. This is when the roads (see limited access roads in Figure S1) where constructed. Harvest appears to have been excluded from the three ephemeral draws located within this proposed harvest area (see Figure S1). • Small areas adjacent to this proposed harvest area were commercially thinned in 2006 and 2007 (see Figure S1). • The area is used recreationally, with observed social trails and some unauthorized motorized use behind road closures. • Skid trail and soil impacts from past harvest were not observed on the landscape. • Coarse woody debris concentrations within the harvest units averaged 3.5 tons/acre (see measurement locations in Figure S1).

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Figure S1. Aerial photo of project section (Sec 12 T15N R22W) with existing roads, harvest history, and coarse woody debris concentration measurements.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Impact Can Soil Disturbance Comment Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number and Productivity Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No-Action Physical Disturbance (Compaction and X X X NA 1 Displacement) Erosion X X X NA 1 Nutrient Cycling X X X NA 1 Slope Stability X X X NA 1 Soil Productivity X X X NA 1 Action Physical Disturbance (Compaction and X X X Y 2, 3, 4, 5 Displacement) Erosion X X X Y 2, 3, 5 Nutrient Cycling X X X Y 4, 5, 6 Slope Stability X X X 7 Soil Productivity X X X Y 4, 5, 6

Comments: 1. Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would result in no new soil resource impacts in the project area. Soil resource conditions would remain similar to those currently at the site.

2. Soil and vegetation disturbance from harvest activities may result in temporary increased risk of erosion.

3. Soil disturbance and erosion risk increases with slope and slopes in the project area exceed 45% in some places.

4. Direct impacts by physical disturbance would likely occur by using ground-based yarding. All impacts are expected to be less than 12.2% and would be minimized using existing roads and skid trails. This disturbance rate estimate is based on previous soil disturbance monitoring of timber sales completed by the DNRC (DNRC, 2011).

5. Applicable state plans, rules, and practices have guided project planning and would be implemented during project activities, including the Montana Code Annotated (specifically Title 77, Chapter 5), the Administrative Rules of Montana (specifically Rule Chapter 36.11), the Montana Forest Best Management Practices, and the State Forest Land Management Plan.

6. According to Graham et al. (1994), a minimum of 4.5 tons/acre of CWD would be a desired post-harvest condition to maintain forest productivity for this forest habitat type. CWD concentrations observed within proposed harvest areas are less than this

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

minimum currently. The Action Alternative would include increasing CWD concentrations per mitigation described below.

7. Unstable slopes were not observed on site. The project is anticipated to have no risk to slope stability.

8. Off road travel by motorized vehicles after the timber sale would be discouraged through the use of physical closures (trenching/Kelley humps) on restricted access roads, slash, and vegetation filters.

Soil Mitigations:

• Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented on all roads and within the units. Slash from the lop-and-scatter thinning process would be left in the units to mitigate erosion risks.

• Ground-based logging equipment (tractors, skidders, and mechanical harvesters) would be limited to slopes less than 45% unless it would not cause excessive disturbance.

• The Contractor and Sale Administrator should agree to a general skidding plan prior to equipment operations. Skid trails would be mitigated following harvesting and yarding operations with water bars and/or slash.

• The properties of the soils in the proposed harvest units make limiting harvest operations to dry or frozen conditions critical for preserving soil productivity. To prevent soil compaction, ground-based mechanical felling and yarding would be restricted to one or more of the following conditions:

o Soil moisture content at 4-inch depth less than 20% oven-dry weight. o Minimum frost depth of 4 inches. o Minimum snow depth of 18 inches of loose snow or 12 inches packed snow.

• A minimum of 4.5 tons/acre and up to 9 tons/acre, of coarse and fine woody debris would be left on site to meet the concentration for the DF/PHMA habitat type recommended by Graham et al (1994).

Soil References: DNRC, 2011. DNRC compiled soils monitoring report on timber harvest projects, 2006-2010, 1st Edition. Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, MT.

Graham, R.T., Harvey, A.E., Jorgensen, M.F., Jain, T.B., and Page-Dumrose, D.S., 1994, Managing Course Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. U.S., Forest Service Research Paper INT-RP-477. Intermountain Research Station. 16p.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY:

Issues:

Existing water resource conditions at the project area and the risk of the proposed activity on these resources are described and assessed in this section. Risks include degradation of water quality and changes to water quantity (streamflow).

Issues raised during scoping relevant to water resources are listed below:

• Concern over the use of herbicides and insecticide and associated threats to the local trout fishery and downstream water users (irritation and domestic supply). • Protection of water courses, including those that are seasonally dry.

Water Quality and Quantity Existing Conditions:

The project harvest area is located in the Sixmile Creek watershed (see Fig W1 below). Sixmile Creek is a perennial fish-bearing Class 1 stream that is classified as a B-1 stream, listed as impaired for not fully supporting aquatic life due to rangeland grazing and silvicultural activities.

According to fish distribution data maintained by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFISH), Sixmile Creek as shown in Figure W-2 supports Westslope Cutthroat Trout populations. Two tributaries located north of Sixmile Creek and within the project section are also identified by MFISH as supporting Westslope Cutthroat Trout, however, the Class 2 stream reach located within the project section was observed to not have surface water above Six Mile Road during field observations completed in August 2020. The fish sampling completed by FWP on this stream was conducted in 2005 approximately two miles upstream of the project area.

Roads and stream crossings proposed for use in the project section (Section 12 T15N 22W) were reviewed for BMPs in 2020 and met Montana BMP drainage and sediment control standards except for the County maintained crossing on the perennial section of the Sixmile Creek tributary in the SW corner of the project section. This crossing did not meet BMPs because road drainage (ditch) is not directed away from the stream. See the mitigation section for discussion of how this site would be addressed under the Action Alternative.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Figure W1. Location of project area within Sixmile Creek watershed.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Figure W2. Detail map of project area within Section 12 of T15N R22W, including recent aerial imagery, streams, and existing roads.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Sixmile Creek within the project section is a perennial stream with a combination of step-pool and pool-riffle morphology. The banks and the adjacent floodplain of the creek are densely vegetated and shaded by trees including cedar and larch. Channel substrate sizes varied from gravel and cobble to occasional boulders. Banks are moss-covered and appear stable. Some trampling was observed along banks and is attributable to wildlife and some human traffic. No anthropogenic fish barriers were identified on the Creek or its perennial tributaries. Observations of pools and substrate did not indicate delivery of excessive fine sediment from adjacent road infrastructure. Considering these field observations, the streams within the project section are assumed to be in a stable condition (e.g., in dynamic equilibrium).

Relevant design features of the proposed project near Sixmile Creek:

These design features are required by the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Law and Rules and the DNRC Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The riparian management zone (RMZ) for Sixmile Creek and its Class 1 tributary begin 100 feet1 from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). This  RMZ is 100 feet from OHWM distance (and other buffer distances mentioned here) regardless of slope. are measured along the slope distance perpendicular to  50-foot no harvest zone is the creek from the OHWM. Note that slopes adjacent to measured from OHWM these streams vary, with much of these slopes <35%. regardless of slope. The box to the right summarizes how some buffer widths change, or do not change with slope.  SMZ requirements including retention extend 50 to 100 feet • The DNRC would maintain a 50-foot no-harvest from OHWM based on slope and ground-based equipment exclusion zone. and location of topographic The only exception being for the removal of benches. individual hazard trees. • Commercial sanitation and salvage harvest within the RMZ and outside the exclusion zone would retain shrubs and sub- merchantable trees to the fullest extent possible, and a minimum of 50 percent of the trees greater than or equal to 8 inches dbh or 10 trees per 100-foot segment, whichever is greater. • Following commercial harvest, pre-commercial thinning may occur in the RMZ, but outside the SMZ. Thinning work would not reduce stand density below 14x14 foot spacing. • No excavation would occur in the RMZ.

Compliance with HCP thresholds for timber harvest in RMZ:

DNRC HCP commitments limit the proportion of DNRC-owned Class 1 RMZ that can be managed or harvested to a non-stocked seedling-sapling stand condition to 20% within a given aquatic analysis unit (typically HUC 4 watershed). The proposed project is located in the Middle Clark Fork aquatic analysis unit, of which 92.3 acres or 5.5% have been managed (as of 2019).

1 100 feet is the 100-year site index tree height for the project area near Sixmile Creek.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Approximately 5 acres of RMZ is located outside the first 50-foot buffer of Class 1 streams within the proposed harvest area and could be selectively harvested and pre-commercially thinned per HCP commitments. If all 5 acres were managed with some harvest, the managed RMZ area within the Middle Clark Fork aquatic analysis unit would increase to 97.3 acres or 5.8%, which is still well-under the 20% threshold.

Impact Can Water Quality & Comment Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number Quantity Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No-Action Water Quality X X X 1 Water Quantity X X X 1 Action Water Quality X X X Y 2, 3, 5, 6 Water Quantity X X X Y 3, 4

Comments: 1. With no action, no timber harvesting or related activities would occur. Water quality conditions would likely continue under the current condition. Similarly, no risk of change of current fluctuations in annual water yield or stream flow would result.

2. Water quality issues due to existing conditions within the project section were not identified in the field except for a roadside ditch delivering to a stream in the southwest corner of the project section along a maintained county road. At this site, the issue would be addressed with a ditch plug. The ditch would drain to a relief pipe located several hundred feet from the stream crossing. Otherwise, existing roads located within the SMZ and RMZ of streams in the project area meet BMP requirements. Considering the Relevant Design Features of Proposed Project listed above, the risk to water quality is low – mainly due to the distance equipment and vegetation management activities would be from perennial streams and no proposed new road construction.

3. Applicable state plans, rules, practices, and commitments have guided project planning and would be implemented during project activities, including the Montana Code Annotated (specifically Title 77, Chapter 5), the Administrative Rules of Montana (specifically Rule Chapter 36.11), the Montana Forest Best Management Practices, the DNRC Habitat Conservation Plan (2010), and the State Forest Land Management Plan.

4. Changes to steam flow hydrology (water quantity or water flow) are not expected to be detectible or significant with the Action Alternative. This conclusion is based on the following project and watershed characteristics: a. The sanitation/salvage harvest combined with the proposed pre-commercial thinning would remove vegetation from the watershed and would, in the short- term (i.e., 0-5 years), locally reduce precipitation interception and evapotranspiration. These activities are considered medium-intensity, meaning a proportion of the existing vegetation would remain with the intention of the remaining stand having enhanced growth and vigor with the removal of diseased trees. The affected area is 269 acres located adjacent to Sixmile Creek near the middle of its watershed (see Figure W1). The watershed area upstream of the

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

project is approximately 5,250 acres. The hydrologic effect of a medium-intensity harvest on 5% of the watershed would likely have no detectible effect on streamflow observed in Sixmile Creek. Studies correlating vegetation harvest and treatment with streamflow yield have suggested approximately 15-20% of the watershed vegetation must be harvested to have a measurable increase in water yield in similar mountain environments (Stednick, 1996; and Bosch and Hewlett, 1982).

5. If noxious weed management includes spraying herbicide, it would be done by a commercial applicator licensed by the State of Montana or by personnel under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. All herbicide applications shall follow EPA label requirements. Label requirements include minimum distances from surface waters that prevent risk of contamination.

6. Insecticide use is not included in the scope of this project and therefore does not present a risk to water resources for this project.

Water Quality & Quantity Mitigations: No additional project-specific mitigations necessary beyond the project design and commitments listed earlier in this analysis.

Water Resources References: Bosch, J.M. and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. Hydrology, 55: 3-23.

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J. Hydrology 176:79-95.

FISHERIES:

As is mentioned in the preceding water resources analysis, Sixmile Creek and its perennial tributaries are fish bearing with assumed presence of Westslope Cutthroat Trout (per MFISH maintained by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks).

No foreseeable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to fisheries resources are anticipated with an Action or No Action Alternative due to the limited scale of the proposed project activities relative to the watershed. Fishbearing waterbodies within the project area would be buffered by SMZ and RMZ commitments and mitigations listed earlier in the water resource analysis.

Impact Can Comment Fisheries Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Action Sediment X X X y 1 Flow Regimes X X X Woody Debris X X X Stream Shading X X X

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Impact Can Comment Fisheries Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Stream Temperature X X X Connectivity X X X Populations X X X

Comments: 1. Sixmile Creek and its perennial tributaries are fish bearing with the presence of Westslope Cutthroat Trout (per MFISH data maintained by Montana FWP). Risk of effects to fish populations and habitat would be low due to no proposed work within streams or SMZs. See water resources analysis for further specific mitigations protecting water quality and aquatic habitat in the project area.

Fisheries Mitigations: No additional project-specific mitigations necessary beyond the project design and commitments listed earlier in this analysis and the water resources analysis.

WILDLIFE:

Existing Conditions: The project area contains a variety of ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands. The project area is outside of the grizzly bear recovery zone and the ‘non-recovery occupied habitat’ as mapped by grizzly bear researchers and managers to address increased sightings and encounters of grizzly bears in habitats outside of recovery zones (Wittinger et al. 2002). Roughly 35 acres of potential Canada lynx habitats exist along Six Mile Creek , which are surrounded by generally unsuitable lynx habitats. Potential habitat exists for fisher, flammulated owls, and pileated woodpeckers in the project area. White-tailed deer (167 acres; 26%), mule deer (419 acres; 65%), and elk (640 acres; 100%) winter range exists in the project area; some summer use by deer and elk likely occurs. No big game security habitat exists in the project area.

No-Action: Existing stands would continue to mature in a moderately dense condition; stand growth and maturation would continue at relatively slow speeds. No further potential for disturbance to any wildlife species would be anticipated. Continued wildlife use at levels similar to present conditions would be anticipated.

Action Alternative (see Wildlife table below):

Can Impact Comment Impact be Number Wildlife Mitigated? Direct and Indirect Cumulative No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Threatened and Endangered Species Grizzly bear X X Y 1 (Ursus arctos)

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Can Impact Comment Impact be Number Wildlife Mitigated? Direct and Indirect Cumulative No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Habitat: Recovery areas, security from human activity Canada lynx (Felix lynx) Habitat: Subalpine fir habitat types, X X 2 dense sapling, old forest, deep snow zone Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Habitat: Deciduous forest stands of 25 X X 3 acres or more with dense understories and in Montana these areas are generally found in large river bottoms Sensitive Species

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Habitat: Late- X X 3 successional forest less than 1 mile from open water Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) Habitat: Mature to X X 3 old burned or beetle-infested forest Coeur d'Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) X X 3 Habitat: Waterfall spray zones, talus near cascading streams Columbian sharp- tailed grouse (Tympanuchus X X 3 Phasianellus columbianus)

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Can Impact Comment Impact be Number Wildlife Mitigated? Direct and Indirect Cumulative No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Habitat: Grassland, shrubland, riparian, agriculture Common loon (Gavia immer) Habitat: Cold X X 3 mountain lakes, nest in emergent vegetation Fisher (Martes pennanti) Habitat: Dense mature to old forest X X 4 less than 6,000 feet in elevation and riparian Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Habitat: Late- successional X X Y 5 ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Habitat: Ample big X X 3 game populations, security from human activities Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Habitat: White- X X 3 water streams, boulder and cobble substrates Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis) Habitat: X X 3 Sphagnum meadows, bogs, fens with thick moss mats

Mountain plover (Charadrius X X 3 montanus)

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Can Impact Comment Impact be Number Wildlife Mitigated? Direct and Indirect Cumulative No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Habitat: short-grass prairie & prairie dog towns Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Habitat: Cliff X X 3 features near open foraging areas and/or wetlands Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) X X 6 Habitat: Late- successional ponderosa pine and larch-fir forest Townsend's big- eared bat (Plecotus X X 3 townsendii) Habitat: Caves, caverns, old mines Wolverine (Gulo gulo) X X 3 Big Game Species

Elk X X Y 7 Whitetail X X Y 7 Mule Deer X X Y 7 Bighorn Sheep X X 3 Other

Comments: 1. The project area is outside of the grizzly bear recovery zone and the ‘non-recovery occupied habitat’ as mapped by grizzly bear researchers and managers to address increased sightings and encounters of grizzly bears in habitats outside of recovery zones. Occasional use by grizzly bears could occur as bears continue moving out of the recovery zone to the northeast of the project area and grizzly bears have been documented in the vicinity in the past. Activities would occur during the non-denning period, thus disturbance to grizzly bears could occur. Negligible changes to grizzly bear habitats would occur. No changes to open road densities, security habitats, or human–related food, garbage, or other unnatural grizzly bear attractants would occur.

2. There are roughly 35 acres of suitable Canada lynx habitats in the project area, all of which are winter foraging habitats. Lynx habitats in the project area are concentrated along Six

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Mile Creek and the uplands are generally unsuitable since many of the stands are transitional in nature with elements of warmer and drier habitats. Similarly, habitats across the cumulative effects analysis area are somewhat limited and interspersed with unsuitable habitats. In general, extensive use of the project area and larger cumulative effects analysis area by Canada lynx would not be anticipated. Proposed harvesting would alter 1.5 acres of winter foraging lynx habitats in a series of slivers adjacent to Six Mile Creek. Following proposed treatments, these trace amounts would likely be considered temporary non- suitable habitats; however, given their proximity to an open road the nature of adjacent unsuitable habitats, and their small sizes, negligible effects would be anticipated. Overall, a slight decrease in overall percentage of suitable habitats available for lynx at the project level and cumulative effects analysis area would be anticipated. Roughly 79% of habitats on DNRC-managed lands administered by the Southwestern Land Office under the HCP and outside of the Lynx Management Areas would be in suitable lynx habitat categories following proposed treatments. The retention of patches of advanced regeneration of shade- tolerant trees, such as sub-alpine fir and Engelmann spruce in foraging habitats, would break-up sight distances, provide horizontal cover, and provide forest structural attributes preferred by snowshoe hares and lynx. Coarse woody debris would be retained (emphasizing retention of some logs 15 inches dbh and larger) to provide some horizontal cover and security structure for lynx. Within stands proposed for pre-commercial thinning in lynx habitats, small shade tolerant trees (such as sub-alpine fir and spruce) would be retained where possible to provide potential habitat structure for snowshoe hares by increasing the levels of horizontal cover and accelerating the development of multi-storied stands. In the short-term, lynx use of the project area could slightly decline due to the increasing openness of the stands. Minor further reductions in forested connectivity would be anticipated, but some connectivity would exist.

3. The project area is either out of the range of the normal distribution for this species or suitable habitat is not present. Thus, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be anticipated.

4. Roughly 24 acres of potential riparian fisher habitats and 55 acres of potential upland fisher habitats exist in the project area. Generally, habitats in the project area and larger cumulative effects analysis area are somewhat disconnected and interspersed with some drier and/or more open habitats than generally used by fisher, thus extensive use would not be anticipated, however some use by fisher could occur. Approximately 33 acres of potential upland habitats would receive treatments; most of these habitats proposed for treatment are connected to riparian habitats associated with Six Mile Creek and the tributary that flows into Six Mile Creek from adjacent USFS lands. Proposed treatments in upland habitats would reduce canopy closure and resultant stands would likely be too open to be used by fisher. Up to 3 acres of riparian habitats could receive RMZ treatments, largely connected with the Class 1 tributary to Six Mile Creek. All proposed treatments in these riparian areas would occur in the outer portions (50 – 100 feet from stream) of the riparian buffer area and would meet HCP commitments and would retain sufficient canopy closure to be considered suitable for fisher following proposed treatment. Thus, no changes to available riparian

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

habitats would be anticipated. No changes in open roads would be anticipated; trapping pressure and the potential for fisher mortality would not change. The amount of the preferred riparian fisher cover types meeting structural requirements for fishers at the cumulative-effects analysis area would not change. Reductions in upland habitats on DNRC-managed lands would further reduce the amount of suitable upland fisher habitats in the cumulative effects analysis area. These reductions would be additive to the losses associated with past timber harvesting in the cumulative-effects analysis area as well as any ongoing harvesting.

5. There are roughly 598 acres of potential flammulated owl habitats in dry Douglas- fir/ponderosa pine types in the project area. Roughly 321 acres (54%) of flammulated owl habitats would be treated, which would further open the canopy while favoring ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. The more open stand conditions, the retention of fire adapted tree species, and the maintenance of snags would move the proposed project area toward historical conditions, which is preferred flammulated owl habitat. Proposed activities could occur during the flammulated owl nesting season, which could introduce some disturbance of nesting owls, but proposed activities would not affect nesting structures.

6. Roughly 551 acres of pileated woodpecker nesting habitat exists in the project area; another 69 acres of potential foraging habitats exist in the project area. Disturbance to pileated woodpeckers could occur if proposed activities occur during the nesting period. Proposed activities would reduce forested habitats for pileated woodpeckers in the project area. Roughly 307 acres of potential nesting habitats and 23 acres of foraging habitats would be opened up with proposed treatments. Some potential continued use as foraging habitats would be possible depending on density of trees retained. Elements of the forest structure important for nesting pileated woodpeckers, including snags, coarse woody debris, numerous leave trees, and snag recruits would be retained in the proposed harvest areas. Since pileated woodpecker density is positively correlated with the amount of dead and/or dying wood in a stand (McClelland 1979), pileated woodpecker densities in the project area would be expected to be reduced on 330 acres.

7. Elk and deer likely use the project area much of the non-winter period. Approximately 120 acres (72%) of white-tailed deer winter range, 269 acres (64%) of mule deer winter range, and 330 acres (52%) of elk winter range exists in the proposed units. Proposed activities could occur in the winter or non-winter. Disturbance during the winter created by mechanized logging equipment and trucks could temporarily displace big game animals during periods of operation for 2 to 4 years; however, winter logging activities provide felled tree tops, limbs, and slash piles that could concentrate feeding big game. No disturbance to wintering big game would occur with any activities occurring during the non-winter period; activities during the non-winter periods could disturb big game from seasonal ranges, but other suitable habitats are more widely available during those non-winter time periods. No long-term effect to winter range carrying capacity or factors that would create long-term displacement or reduced numbers of big game would be anticipated. Following proposed activities, the capacity of these stands to intercept snow and provide thermal cover for big

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

game would be reduced, thus reducing habitat quality for wintering big game. Proposed activities would not prevent big game movement through the project area appreciably in winter and could stimulate browse production in the units. Further reductions in hiding cover in the project area and reductions in visual screening along open roads could elevate big game hunting risk; given the density of human access in the project area and elevated levels of human disturbance on adjacent parcels, big game species likely experience relatively high hunting mortality in the project area. No big game security habitat exists in the project area and no changes to the status of existing roads or open road densities would occur.

Wildlife Mitigations: • A DNRC biologist will be consulted if a threatened or endangered species is encountered to determine if additional mitigations that are consistent with the administrative rules for managing threatened and endangered species (ARM 36.11.428 through 36.11.435) are needed. • Motorized public access will be restricted at all times on restricted roads that are opened for proposed activities. • Snags, snag recruits, and coarse woody debris will be managed according to ARM 36.11.411 through 36.11.414, particularly favoring western larch and ponderosa pine. Clumps of existing snags could be maintained where they exist to offset areas without sufficient snags. Coarse woody debris retention would emphasize retention of downed logs of 15-inch diameter or larger. • Contractors and purchasers conducting contract operations would be prohibited from carrying firearms while on duty. • Food, garbage, and other attractants would be stored in a bear-resistant manner. • Should any other raptor nests be identified in or near project activities, activities will cease and a DNRC biologist will be contacted. Site-specific measures will be developed and implemented to protect the nest and birds prior to re-starting activities. • Retention of patches of advanced regeneration of shade-tolerant trees, such as sub- alpine-fir and spruce, in units containing lynx habitats would break-up sight distances, provide horizontal cover, and provide forest structural attributes preferred by snowshoe hares and lynx. • In pre-commercial thinning units, retain small shade tolerant trees (such as sub-alpine fire and spruce to provide potential habitat structure for snowshoe hares by increasing the levels of horizontal cover and accelerating the development of multi-storied stands. Wildlife References

McClelland, B.R. 1979. The pileated woodpecker in forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Pages 283-299 in Role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems. Academic Press.

Wittinger, W.T. 2002. Grizzly bear distribution outside of recovery zones. Unpublished memorandum on file at USDA Forest Service, Region 1. Missoula, Montana. 2pp.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

AIR QUALITY:

Impact Can Comment Air Quality Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No-Action Smoke X x X Dust x X X Action Smoke x X x y 1 Dust X x X y 2

Comments: 1. Under the Action Alternative, slash piles consisting of tree limbs and tops and other vegetative debris would be created throughout the project area during harvesting. These slash piles would ultimately be burned after harvesting operations have been completed.

2. Dust may be produced along the haul route if wood is hauled during summer months.

Air Quality Mitigations:

• Burning within the project area would be short in duration and would be conducted when conditions favored good to excellent ventilation and smoke dispersion as determined by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group.

• The DNRC, as a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, would burn only on approved days.

• Because of the small project area, hauling would be short in duration.

• Sixmile road is a County maintained road and receives annual dust abatement along the proposed haul route.

Will the No-Action or Impact Can Action Alternatives Comment Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number result in potential Mitigated? impacts to: No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No-Action Historical or X X x Archaeological Sites Aesthetics X X X Demands on Environmental X x X Resources of Land, Water, or Energy

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Will the No-Action or Impact Can Action Alternatives Comment Impact Be Direct Secondary Cumulative Number result in potential Mitigated? impacts to: No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High Action Historical or X X X 1 Archaeological Sites Aesthetics X X X 2 Demands on Environmental X X X Resources of Land, Water, or Energy

Comments: 1. A Class I (literature review) level review was conducted by the DNRC staff archaeologist for the area of potential effect (APE). This entailed inspection of project maps, DNRC's sites/site leads database, land use records, General Land Office Survey Plats, and control cards. The Class I search results revealed that no cultural or paleontological resources have been identified in the APE, but it should be noted that Class III level inventory work has not been conducted there to date.

Because the topographic setting and geology suggest a low to moderate likelihood of the presence of cultural or paleontologic resources, proposed timber harvest activities are expected to have No Effect to Antiquities. No additional archaeological investigative work will be conducted in response to this proposed development.

2. The stand would appear more open post-harvest. Following pre-commercial thinning activities the understory would also be spaced out. Slash would be noticeable, but temporary as snow and time cause needles to fall off limbs and tops and the boles and limbs of the trees begin to decompose.

Mitigations: • If previously unknown cultural or paleontological materials are identified during project related activities, all work will cease until a professional assessment of such resources can be made.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO THE AREA: List other studies, plans or projects on this tract. Determine cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of current private, state or federal actions in the analysis area, and from future proposed state actions in the analysis area that are under MEPA review (scoped) or permitting review by any state agency. • None

Impacts on the Human Population

Evaluation of the impacts on the proposed action including direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts on the Human Population.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Will the No-Action Impact or Action Can Comment Alternatives result Direct Secondary Cumulative Impact Be Number in potential impacts Mitigated? No Low Mod High No Low Mod High No Low Mod High to: No-Action Health and Human x X X Safety Industrial, Commercial and x X X Agricultural Activities and Production Quantity and Distribution of x X X Employment Local Tax Base and X X X Tax Revenues Demand for X X X Government Services Access To and Quality of X X X Recreational and Wilderness Activities Density and Distribution of X X X population and housing Social Structures and X X X Mores Cultural Uniqueness X X X and Diversity Action Health and Human X X X Y 1 Safety Industrial, Commercial and x X X Agricultural Activities and Production Quantity and Distribution of X X X 2 Employment Local Tax Base and X X X Tax Revenues Demand for X X X Government Services Access To and Quality of X X X Recreational and Wilderness Activities Density and Distribution of X X X population and housing

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Comments: 1. Getting too close to an active timber sale can be dangerous. Signs would be posted during harvest and hauling operations to alert the public that harvesting and log hauling are occurring.

2. The proposed projects size is of a scale that would not have a large effect on local employment; however, each unit may provide a private contractor(s) with 1 month-1 year of employment for his/herself and his/her employees.

Mitigations: • Traffic associated with the proposed projects would be expected to follow all traffic laws and speed limits.

• Signs would be posted indicating harvest activities are taking place to warn people of log hauling and harvest.

Locally Adopted Environmental Plans and Goals: List State, County, City, USFS, BLM, Tribal, and other zoning or management plans, and identify how they would affect this project. None

Other Appropriate Social and Economic Circumstances:

No Action: The No Action Alternative would generate no cost to the Trust at this time, existing forest conditions would persist.

Action: The proposed pre-commercial thinning would initially generate cost to the Trust; however, this would be an investment in increased productivity for the stand. This increased productivity should result in increased volume, available at an earlier date than would be available without treatment.

Direct Costs associated with this project are estimated to be $53,800. This figure is achieved by multiplying the estimated number of acres 269 by estimated cost per acre $200. This cost estimate is assumed from previous projects.

Commercial harvest would generate approximately $52,000 for the MSU 2nd Grant (based on an estimate of $16.00/ton). An additional Forest Improvement Fee would be charged on a per ton basis for all sawlog loads, resulting in an additional $12,000.

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

References

DNRC 1996. State forest land management plan: final environmental impact statement (and appendixes). Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

DNRC. 2010. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forested State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan: Final EIS, Volume II, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana. Does the proposed action involve potential risks or adverse effects that are uncertain but extremely harmful if they were to occur? NO

Does the proposed action have impacts that are individually minor, but cumulatively significant or potentially significant? NO

Environmental Assessment Checklist Prepared By:

Name: Amy Helena Title: Forest Management Supervisor Date: 10/19/2020

Finding

Alternative Selected The Action Alternative

Significance of Potential Impacts A. The Action Alternative meets the specific Objectives of the Proposed Action as described on page 1 of the EA. The Action Alternative is likely to produce an economic return to the MSU 2nd Grant Trust in the long run, while providing a mechanism whereby the existing timber stands would be moved towards conditions more like those which existed historically.

B. The analysis of identified issues did not disclose any reason compelling the DNRC to not implement this pre-commercial thinning project.

C. The Action Alternative includes mitigation activities to address environmental concerns identified during the project analysis.

Need for Further Environmental Analysis EIS More Detailed EA X No Further Analysis

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Environmental Assessment Checklist Approved By: Name: Jonathan Hansen Title: Missoula Unit Manager Date: November 13, 2020 Signature: /s/ Jonathan Hansen

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

Attachment A- Maps

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation A-1: Timber Sale Vicinity Map

Six Shooter PROJECTS VICINITY MAP

Six Shooter Projects Legal: Sec. 12 T15N R22W

Six Shooter EA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

A-2: Harvest and Pre-commercial thinning project area