Revised Area Profile

~a SITUATION

Lewistown Resource Management Pl an Revision & Environmental Impact Statement

FINAL Bureau of Land Management November 2019 Lewistown Field Office 920 Northeast Main Lewistown, MT 59457 i Visit our website at: https://go.usa.gov/xUPsP

This page intentionally left blank.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Revised Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile Page

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...... 5 2.RESOURCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………5 2.1 Air Resources and Climate………………………………………………………………………………………....6 2.2 Geology ...... 26 2.3 Soil Resources ...... 30 2.4 Water Resources ...... 35 2.5 Vegetation Communities ...... 50 2.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ...... 83 2.8 Cultural and Heritage Resources ...... 88 2.9 Paleontological Resources ...... 91 2.10 Visual Resources ...... 94 2.11 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 99 2.12 Cave and Karst Resources ...... 103 3. RESOURCE USES ...... 105 3.1 Minerals and Energy Resources ...... 105 3.2 Livestock Grazing ...... 113 3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services ...... 117 3.4 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access ...... 128 3.5 Lands and Realty ...... 132 3.6 Renewable Energy ...... 137 3.7. Withdrawals ...... 141 3.8 Forest, Woodland, and Special Products ...... 142 4. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ...... 143 4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Outstanding Natural Areas ...... 143 4.2 Back Country Byways ...... 151 4.3 National Trails ...... 152 4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 155 4.5 Wilderness Study Areas ...... 158 5. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ...... 160 5.1 Social and Economic Conditions (including Environmental Justice) ...... 160 5.2 Tribal Interests ...... 176 5.3 Public Safety ...... 177

iii

ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION REVISED AREA PROFILE

1. Introduction The purpose of the area profile is to describe the existing biological, physical, and socioeconomic characteristics of the planning area. Discussions of topic areas are divided into resources, resource uses, special designations, and social and economic conditions. Where appropriate, topic areas include both a description of current conditions and a characterization of trends that express the direction of change between the present and the past.

Certain types of resources that may be present in other planning areas, such as wild horses and burros, do not exist in the LFO and BFO and are therefore not covered in this section. Information from broad- scale assessments was used to help set the context for the planning area. The information and direction for BLM resources and resource uses has been further broken down into fine-scale assessments and information.

Acreage figures and other numbers are approximated using GIS technology and do not reflect exact measurements.

The planning area includes all lands, regardless of jurisdiction, in the LFO and the northern portion of Lewis and Clark County that the BFO administers. However, the BLM makes decisions on only those lands and federal mineral estate that it administers (the decision area).

2. RESOURCES This section contains a description of the biological and physical resources of the planning area as follows:

• Air resources and climate change • Geology • Soil resources • Water resources • Vegetation communities • Fish and wildlife • Wildland fire ecology and management • Cultural and heritage resources • Paleontological resources • Visual resources • Lands with wilderness characteristics • Cave and karst resources

2.1 Air Resources and Climate Change

Air resources include air quality and AQRVs. As part of the planning and decision making process, the BLM considers and analyzes the potential effects of BLM and BLM-authorized activities on air resources. A Memorandam of Understanding between DOI, USDA and the EPA dated June 23, 200 “Regarding Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the National Environmental Policy Act Process” was rescinded on July 25, 2019.

The EPA has the primary responsibility for regulating air quality, including criteria air pollutants subject to NAAQS. Pollutants regulated under NAAQS include carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Two additional pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are regulated because they form ozone in the atmosphere.

Air quality is determined by pollutant emissions and emission characteristics, atmospheric chemistry, dispersion meteorology, and terrain. AQRVs include effects on soil and water, such as sulfur and nitrogen deposition and lake acidification, and aesthetic effects, such as visibility.

In addition to EPA federal regulations, air quality is regulated by the MDEQ. This agency develops state- specific regulations and issues air quality permits to emission sources.

Air Resources Current Conditions The EPA classifies areas of the United States according to whether they meet the NAAQS. Areas that violate air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas for the relevant criteria air pollutants. Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as attainment areas for the relevant criteria air pollutants. Areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment are considered maintenance areas.

Air quality is good throughout the planning area due primarily to the low population, few industrial sources, and favorable atmospheric conditions. The planning area is considered to be in attainment for all criteria air pollutants based on available monitoring data (MDEQ 2019a). Depending on the topography, some areas such as valleys or basins, may experience elevated levels of PM2.5 during wintertime inversions due primarily to residential wood stove smoke. One study conducted by the University of Montana found that residential wood smoke comprised over 80 percent of the wintertime particulate matter found in the atmosphere in and around Libby, Montana (Ward 2008). In 2012, there were two MDEQ ambient air quality monitoring stations in the planning area. A monitor in Great Falls monitored PM2.5 but did not provide data that could be compared to the NAAQS. The Lewistown monitoring station for NO2, ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 became operational in August 2012 and is a collaborative effort by the BLM and the MDEQ. For more information on the MDEQ air monitoring, please refer to Appendix H. Air Resource Management Plan. Air pollutant data collected by the MDEQ ambient air monitoring program and the MDEQ annual air monitoring plans for the years 2015-2019 demonstrate that the ambient air quality in the LFO planning area continues to comply with the NAAQS and MAAQS (MDEQ 2019a).

Other than the Lewistown monitor, the nearest monitoring station to the planning area is the Sieben’s Flat NCore Station. It is near Helena, in Lewis and Clark County, and west of the planning area. Data from 6

this site are also provided in Table 1, along with a summary of the MAAQS and NAAQS. State standards for federally regulated criteria pollutants must be at least as protective of human health as federal standards. Most pollutants and averaging times are not monitored in the area due to few sources and low emissions throughout the planning area. Montana has discontinued monitoring CO since no Montana Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAa) meet the CO monitoring requirement of CBSA population >1,000,000.. Historically, the DEQ and local county air programs have conducted CO monitoring in various larger communities in the state where motor vehicle emissions had caused ambient air concerns. However, because of the improvement of traffic patterns and the gradual renewal of the general vehicle fleet to newer, cleaner-burning engines, monitored CO concentrations in ambient air remain extremely low. As a result, DEQ discontinued its traffic-related CO monitoring with EPA approval, and no community CO monitoring is currently being conducted. Section 3 of Appendix D to 40 CFR 58 requires that each state operate at least one NCore multipollutant monitoring site. By definition, each NCore site must include monitoring equipment to measure PM2.5, PM10-2.5, speciated PM2.5, O3, SO2, CO, NO, NOY, and meteorology. The majority of NCore sites across the nation are established in urban areas. In Montana however, the NCore site was established as a long-term trend background site in an area believed to be relatively pristine and un-impacted by anthropogenic sources. The DEQ continues to operate one trace- level CO monitor at the NCore station north of Helena to track background concentrations of this pollutant over time. For a discussion on the ambient monitoring efforts.

Table 1 Montana and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Montana Monitoring Data Standard Lewistown Type Site Averaging NCore Pollutant MAAQS NAAQS (P = Primary, (data for Time Site1 S = 2013 and Secondary) 2016-2018) 1-hour2 23 ppm 35 ppm P 0.607 ppm – CO 8-hour2 9 ppm 9 ppm P – – 1-hour3 0.30 ppm 100 ppb P – 9 ppb NO2 Annual4 0.05 ppm 53 ppb P, S – – Quarterly15 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 – – – Lead 3-month15 – 0.15 µg/m3 P, S – – 1-hour5 0.10 ppm – P, S – 0.06 ppm Ozone 8-hour6 – 0.070 ppm P, S 0.059 0.059 ppm 24-hour7 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 P, S – 37 µg/m3 PM10 Annual8 50 µg/m3 – P, S – – 24-hour9 – 35 µg/m3 P, S 10 µg/m3 10 µg/m3 10 3 3 3 PM2.5 Annual – 12 µg/m P 2.6 µg/m 9 µg/m Annual10 – 15 µg/m3 S – – 1-hour11, 12 0.50 ppm 75 ppb P – – 3-hour13 – 0.5 ppm S – – SO2 24-hour14 0.10 ppm – P – – Annual4 0.02 ppm – P – – Monthly15 50 µg/g – – – – Fluoride in Forage Grazing 35 µg/g – – – – Season15 5 H2S Hourly 0.05 ppm – – – –

Table 1 Montana and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Montana Monitoring Data Standard Lewistown Type Site Averaging NCore Pollutant MAAQS NAAQS (P = Primary, (data for Time Site1 S = 2013 and Secondary) 2016-2018) Settleable 30-Day15 10 g/m2 – – – – Particulate Visibility Annual16 3×10-5/m – – – – Source: EPA 2014a; MDEQ 2019a ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter µg/g = micrograms per gram g/m2 = grams per square meter 1The Sieben’s Flat NCore monitor is near Helena, in Lewis and Clark County, west of the planning area. Design values are given for calendar year 2012 or for 2010-2012, depending on the format of the standard (MDEQ 2013). 2For NAAQS, no more than one exceedance per calendar year; for MAAQS, no more than one exceedance per consecutive 12 months. 3For NAAQS, 98th percentile, averaged over three years; for MAAQS, not to be exceeded more than once over any 12 consecutive months. 4For NAAQS, annual mean not to be exceeded; for MAAQS, arithmetic average over any four consecutive quarters not to be exceeded. 5Not to be exceeded more than once per 12 consecutive months. 6Fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations in a year, averaged over three years. 7Not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year on average over three years. 8Three-year average of the arithmetic means over a calendar year. 9Ninety-eighth percentile, averaged over three years. 10Annual mean, averaged over three years, NAAQS promulgated December 14, 2012. 11For NAAQS, 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations in a year, averaged over three years. 12For MAAQS, violation when exceeded more than 18 times in any 12 consecutive months. 13No more than one exceedance per calendar year (secondary NAAQS). 14For MAAQS, no more than one exceedance per 12 consecutive months; 24-hour defined as 24 consecutive hours (rolling average). 15Not to be exceeded. For NAAQS, this is a three-year average. 16Average over any four consecutive quarters.

The EPA prepares a national emissions inventory every three years to provide a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air emissions, by county, from all sources in the country. The inventories are based on emissions estimates and model inputs provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions. This is supplemented by data developed by the EPA.

Table 2, Summary of 2011 Annual Emissions for Planning Area (Tons), summarizes the mobile and stationary source emissions that occurred in the planning area counties in 2011. This baseline emissions summary is a conservative overestimate of planning area emissions. This is because it includes emissions from all of Cascade, Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Lewis and Clark, Meagher, Petroleum, Pondera, and Teton Counties and not just the portions of those counties that are in the planning area.

Table 2 Summary of 2011 Annual Emissions for Planning Area (Tons) Volatile Sulfur Source Category Carbon Nitrogen Organic Dioxid County Monoxide Oxides Compounds e

Chemical and allied – 1.7 – – product manufacturing* Fuel combustion 369.2 1,210.1 931.6 100.9 (electrical, industrial, other) Metals processing* – – – – Miscellaneous 11,437.8 52,576.6 752.8 382 (nonindustrial) Mobile sources (highway 3,494.2 30,145.8 7,690.2 38 vehicles and OHVs) Petroleum and related 1,605.6 670 519.6 5.5 industrial Other industrial 48.5 28.3 – 0.7 processes* Solvents 2,044.9 – – – Storage and 916.7 0.8 0.3 – transportation Waste disposal and 131.4 946.4 36.2 5.8 recycling TOTAL SOURCE 20,048.3 85,579.7 9,847.5 532.9 EMISSIONS Source: EPA 2013a *Emissions were provided only for the counties listed under each source. If a county is not listed under a sector, no data were provided. Where zero is listed in this table, it means that data were provided but the number was less than 0.095.

Table 3, 2011 Oil and Gas Emissions by County, supplements the data in Table 3 and provides criteria air pollutant emissions by county for oil and gas operations. These data were taken from the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 2011 Great Basin Oil and Gas Emissions Inventory, which was developed under the sponsorship of the BLM. One goal of this effort was to develop more accurate regional oil and gas emissions inventory data. The WRAP also created a 2015 projection (see Table 4, Projected 2015 Oil and Gas Emissions by County). The study covered only a portion of the planning area. Six of the nine counties in the planning area were included in the inventory and are listed in Table 3 and Table 4.

Air quality also may be assessed using the EPA’s air quality index (AQI). The AQI is used for reporting daily air quality to the public. It tells how clean or polluted an area’s air is and whether associated health effects might be a concern.

Table 3 2011 Oil and Gas Emissions by County in Tons per Year

County NOx VOC CO SOx PM Cascade 0 127 0 0 0 Chouteau 6 14 3 0 0 Fergus 0 1 0 0 0 Petroleum 8 103 6 0 0 Pondera 86 337 42 0 2 Teton 18 151 15 0 1 Total 118 733 66 0 3 Source: Western Regional Air Partnership 2014a

Table 4 Projected 2015 Oil and Gas Emissions by County in Tons per Year

County NOx VOC CO SOx PM Cascade 0 103 0 0 0 Chouteau 5 13 3 0 0 Fergus 0 1 0 0 0 Petroleum 8 126 6 0 0 Pondera 75 329 39 0 1 Teton 18 182 16 0 1 Total 106 754 64 0 2 Source: Western Regional Air Partnership 2014b

The EPA calculates the AQI for five criteria air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act (CAA): ground- level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the primary NAAQS for the pollutant. The following terms help interpret the AQI information:

Good—The AQI value is between 0 and 50. Air quality is considered satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk. Moderate—The AQI is between 51 and 100. Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants, there may be a moderate health concern for a very small number of people. For example, people who are unusually sensitive to ozone may experience respiratory symptoms. Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups (USG)—When AQI values are between 101 and 150, members of sensitive groups may experience health effects. These groups are likely to be affected at lower levels than the general public. For example, people with lung disease are at greater risk from exposure to ozone, while people with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from exposure to particle pollution. The general public is not likely to be affected when the AQI is in this range. Unhealthy—The AQI is between 151 and 200. Everyone may begin to experience some adverse health effects, and members of the sensitive groups may experience more serious effects.

Very Unhealthy—The AQI is between 201 and 300. This index level would trigger a health alert signifying that everyone may experience more serious health effects.

Monitors in Cascade County and Fergus County collect information on air quality in the planning area. The AQIs for those counties are displayed in Table 5, Air Quality Index Report, 2016-2018. In general, the air quality has consistently been good for the past three years (EPA 2019b).

Table 5 Air Quality Index Report, 2016-2018 Number of Number Number of Percent of Number Unhealthy of Days Days Days of Number of Year or Very with AQI Rated Rated Moderate USG Days1 Unhealthy Data Good Good Days Days Cascade County 2018 360 329 91 25 5 1 2017 345 295 86 49 1 - 2016 356 343 96 13 0 - Total: 1,044 897 87 6 1 Average 91 29 2 0 Fergus County 2013 365 325 89 34 5 1 2012 365 311 85 47 5 2 2011 366 356 97 10 0 - Total: 1096 992 91 10 3 Average 91 30 3 1 Source: EPA 2019b https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-quality-index-report 1USG: unhealthy for sensitive groups

An AQRV is a resource that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. AQRVs may include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource identified by the Federal Land Manager for a particular area. Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the CAA, The Clean Air Act gives special air quality and visibility protection to national parks larger than 6,000 acres and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres that were in existence when it was amended in 1977. These are “Class I” areas where air quality related values (including visibility) are given special protection. Class I areas are subject to maximum limits on air quality degradation. All other areas are designated as Class II and are subject to less stringent limits on air quality degradation.

AQRVs include visibility, which can be degraded by regional haze due primarily to sulfur, nitrogen, and particulate emissions. Visibility degradation is primarily due to anthropogenic sulfate, nitrate, and particulate emissions as well as caused by wildfires or volcanic activities. Air pollutants affecting visibility can be transported hundreds of miles. Since 1980, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network has measured visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The nearest IMPROVE sites are the Monture, Gates of the Mountains and the UL Bend monitors. The Monture 11

site is west of the planning area and represents visibility in the Bob Marshall, Mission Mountains, and Scapegoat Wildernesses, while the UL Bend monitor is northeast of the planning area. Visibility is improving slightly at the Monture site. Nestled half way between Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks sits the Gates of the Mountains, located 20 miles north of Helena.

Pollutants contribute to haze by scattering and absorbing light. A deciview is a unitless measure of visibility (haze) that quantifies visual perception. It is calculated from the natural logarithm of atmospheric light extinction. One (1) deciview is roughly the smallest change in visibility (haze) that is barely perceptible. Because visibility at any one location is highly variable seasonally throughout the year, it is characterized by three groupings: the clearest 20% days, average 20% days, and haziest 20% days.

Diagram 1, Class I Area Visibility Trends, shows the visibility trends between 2000 and 2016 for the Monture, Gates of the Mountains and UL Bend monitors. The visibility trends within the last 15 years appears to be fluctuating within a range for both the haziest days with no noticeable deterioration of visibility. The haze index on clear days is decreasing slightly in the last 15 years.

Diagram 1 Class I Area Visibility Trends Monture Visibility on Haziest and Clearest Days

18 > -c 15 ...,_ Haziest Days x- (1) "'C 12 ...,_ Cl eares t Day s C --• Natural Condition: Haziest Days ~ 9 ro I 6 ------• Natural Condition: Clear es t Days

3 •--. ~------~- • • • • • • • • •--. 0 .... r8 § t> § ~ ~ f ~ ~ :!! ~ ~ ~ "' ~ "' "' I? I? I? I? I? I? IMPROVE Monitor ID: MONT1, MT

UL Bend Visibility on Haziest and Clearest Days 18 16 14 > -o_ 12 -+- Haziest Days >< ~ 10 -+- Clearest Days C Q) 8 ------· Natural Condition: Haziest Days N <1l 6 I --. --• Natura l Condition: Clearest Days 4 • • • • • ---. • • • • 2 ~------·-· 0 ;g .... D§ ~ § e § t> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :! ~ ~ "' "' ~ "' "' ~ "' ~ "' "' f? f f? f? f? f? f? IMPROVE Monitor ID: ULBE1, MT

Gates of the Mountains Visibility on Haziest and Clearest Days 14

10 -6 -+- Haziest Days ><- ~ 8 -+- Clea rest Days C Q) 6 --• Natural Condition: Haziest Days N ------: <1l I 4 --• Natural Condition: Clearest Days

:~---~. • • C C I I 0

IMPROVE Monitor ID: GAM01 , MT

Atmospheric deposition refers to processes in which air pollutants are removed from the atmosphere and deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Air pollutants can be deposited by either wet precipitation (rain or snow) or by dry (gravitational) particles settling and gaseous pollutants adhering to soil, water, and vegetation. Much of the concern about deposition surrounds the secondary formation of acids and other compounds that can contribute to acidification of lakes, streams, and soils. They can also affect other ecosystem characteristics, including nutrient cycling and biological diversity. Deposition varies with precipitation and other meteorological variables, such as temperature, humidity, winds, and atmospheric stability.

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) is an interagency-sponsored network of monitoring stations that measure wet atmospheric deposition. The interagency Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) is a network of monitoring stations managed by EPA that measure dry deposition. There are no monitoring stations in the planning area. The closest NADP/NTN sites are in Havre, north of the planning area, and in Glacier National Park, northwest 13

of the planning area. The closest CASTNET station is at Glacier National Park, northwest of the planning area.

Table 6, Annual Average Deposition (2011-2013), shows the deposition levels of sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium, as well as pH and precipitation, from 2011 to 2013. The annual average precipitation pH between 2011 and 2013 was 5.70 at the Havre site and 5.38 at the Glacier National Park site; normal rain has a pH level of 5.6, while acid rain has a pH level around 4.3 (EPA 2012).

Table 6 Annual Average Deposition (2011-2013) Annual Average Wet Deposition Year pH Precipitation (cm) (kg/ha/year) SO4 NO3 NH4 Havre, Montana (MT98) 2011 5.58 27.8 0.45 0.70 0.43 2012 5.67 31.4 0.53 0.85 0.39 2013 5.85 50.7 0.42 0.61 0.57 Average 5.70 36.63 0.47 0.72 0.46 Glacier National Park, Montana (MT05) 2011 5.35 104.4 0.20 0.31 0.11 2012 5.44 116.6 0.15 0.26 0.08 2013 5.36 80.5 0.18 0.36 0.12 Average 5.38 100.5 0.18 0.31 0.10 Sources: NADP/NTN 2014a, 2014b

SO4 = sulfates NO3 = nitrates NH4 = ammonium cm = centimeter kg/ha/yr = kilogram per hectare per year

Diagram 2 Class I Areas

inet ountains Wilde1ness N . p k G 1ac1er a1 1ona 1 ar Two Class 1 areas are in the planning area: the Scapegoat I '- Wilderness and the Bob Marshall Wilderness. There are f~t\alLYVllder7esS } 1..._p UL Ben,tt .,J., :;--' several more Class 1 areas next to or within 100 miles of · · ttder~es~ ½~ the planning area (Diagram 2, Class I Areas). Visibility at

_J certain non-Class I areas, which are known as sensitive r Class II areas, is also important. As part of the planning process, the NPS, USFWS, and Forest Service will identify sensitive Class II areas for the air quality analysis to be performed for the RMP. 14

Air Resources Trends

Based on data from the Great Falls and the Lewistown Monitoring Stations, the ambient air quality is in attainment and there is no sharp increase in ambient concentration of monitored pollutants in the area. The hazardous air pollutants (HAP) concentrations are not routinely monitored, and no trends are available.

Good air quality is expected to continue in the planning area. Federal and state regulations continue to tighten emission limits, thereby reducing emissions from many existing sources. For some pollutants, particularly NO2, total emissions in the planning area could decrease from current levels. This would occur if current population and industrial activity remain stable or increase slightly. Compliance with the MAAQS and NAAQS is expected to continue.

The EPA continually reviews NAAQS and sets more stringent ambient standards over time for some pollutants. Based on EPA projections, the planning area is expected to meet ozone standards through 2020 (EPA 2014c). The MDEQ has observed little variability in the monitored ambient O3 concentrations across the state. The MDEQ operates seven monitoring stations located at or near Birney, Broadus, Lewistown, Malta, Missoula, NCore, and Sidney-201 to ambient O3.

Climate Change Climate is defined as the generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular region throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. Climate is both a driving force and a limiting factor for biological, ecological, and hydrologic processes, as well as for resource management of public lands.

Climate change is a statistically significant and long-term change in climate patterns. The terms climate change and global warming are often used interchangeably, although they are not the same thing.

Climate change is any deviation from the average climate, whether warming or cooling. It can result from both natural and man-made sources. Natural contributors include fluctuations in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, plate tectonic movements, and other changes.

Global warming refers to the apparent warming of climate observed since the early twentieth century. It is primarily attributed to human activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, industrial processes, and land use changes.

GHGs are chemical compounds in the earth’s atmosphere. These compounds allow incoming, short-wave, solar radiation to reach the earth’s surface but absorb long-wave infrared radiation re-emitted from the earth’s surface, trapping heat. The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report states that the atmospheric concentrations of well-mixed, long-lived GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years. Further, human influence has been detected in the following:

• Warming of the atmosphere and the oceans • Changes in the global water cycle 15

• Reductions in snow and ice • Global rising of mean sea levels • Changes in some climate extremes

It is extremely likely (95 to 100 percent probability) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century (IPCC 2013).

GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and several trace gases. Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through both natural processes and human activities; others are created and emitted solely through human activities.

Examples of GHGs that enter the atmosphere due to human activities include the following:

• Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, solid waste, and trees and wood products • Methane emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil and by livestock grazing, deforestation, soil emissions, and agricultural practices • Nitrous oxide from agricultural and industrial activities • Fluorinated gases, which result from a variety of industrial processes

Although GHG levels have varied for millennia (along with corresponding variations in climate), industrialization and burning fossil carbon sources have caused GHG concentrations to increase measurably at a global scale. Because climate change is a global phenomenon, the degree of change and specific effects from these changes cannot be quantified at the regional or local scale.

Renewable and nonrenewable resource management actions could impact climate change due to GHG emissions and other human-caused effects. However, the assessment of GHG emissions and climate change is extremely complex because of the inherent interrelationships among its sources, causation, mechanisms of action, and impacts. Given the global and complex nature of climate change, it is not possible to link projected GHG emissions associated with any particular activity to specific environmental impacts at a specific site or location. The uncertainty in applying results from global climate models to the regional or local scale (a process known as downscaling) limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts from GHG emissions at this scale. Estimated GHG emissions from BLM-authorized activities are used as a surrogate to assess the magnitude of potential impacts on climate change.

Climate change and climate science are discussed in detail in the Climate Change Supplementary Information Report for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2010a).

Climate Change Current Conditions

Climate The planning area has a semiarid continental climate marked by cold winters, warm to rarely hot summers, winds primarily from the west, and abundant sunshine.

The average temperature in central Montana over the last 30 years is between 40º and 50º F. The average January temperature is approximately 23º F. The average July temperature is about 66º F, though temperatures as high as 110º F have been recorded (Western Regional Climate Center 2013).

Average annual precipitation ranges from 11 to 22 inches, with an average of 15 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2012).

Snow in the mountain areas may be several feet deep. On the plains, snow more than 12 inches deep is uncommon but not rare. Snow generally falls between November and April, although traces have been reported at Lewistown in July and August.

Rainfall is concentrated between April and June. Precipitation from July through September is characterized by localized intense thunderstorms that can drop more than an inch of rain or hail on a small area in a few minutes. Low humidity, high temperatures, and moderate to strong winds cause rapid loss of soil moisture (Western Regional Climate Center 2013).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions are generally reported at national and statewide levels. These emissions are generally reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). This is a unit used to compare emissions from different GHGs based on their global warming potential. Montana last inventoried its GHG emissions in 2005 (Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee 2007). In 2005, activities in Montana accounted for approximately 37 million metric tons of CO2e gross emissions. This is approximately 0.6 percent of the total US GHG emissions in that same year. Montana’s gross emissions increased 11 percent from 1990 to 2004, while national emissions rose by 15 percent during this period.

Electricity generation, agriculture, and transportation are Montana’s principal GHG emission sources. Together, the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation used in-state and in the transportation sector accounted for about 46 percent of Montana’s gross emissions in 2005. That same year, the contribution of agriculture-related GHG emissions was much higher in Montana (26 percent) than in the nation as a whole (7 percent). The state also had higher levels of emissions from the fossil fuels industry— natural gas, oil products, and coal—than the national average (Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee 2007).

The EPA National Emissions Inventory also provides a comprehensive and detailed estimate of GHGs from emission sources in the country. Table 7, Summary of 2011 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Counties (in Tons), summarizes the mobile and stationary source GHG emissions that occurred in the planning area counties in 2011. This baseline GHG emissions summary is a conservative overestimate of planning area emissions because it includes emissions from all of Cascade, Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Lewis and Clark, Meagher, Petroleum, Pondera, and Teton Counties and not just the portions of those counties that are in the planning area.

Table 7 Summary of 2011 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Counties (in Tons) Source Category County Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Prescribed Fires1

Table 7 Summary of 2011 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Counties (in Tons) Source Category County Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Cascade County 25,105 120 – Chouteau County 38,153.8 161 –

Fergus County 17,889.5 77.9 – Judith Basin County 3,187.6 16.9 – Lewis and Clark County 67,636.9 299.9 – Meagher County 32,900 142.3 – Petroleum County 5,495.3 32.8 – Pondera County 20,182.8 91.9 – Teton County 36,719.7 146.8 – Subtotal 247,271 1,089.5 – Wildfires Cascade County 3,604 10.9 – Chouteau County 813 2.5 – Fergus County 31,008.6 159 – Judith Basin County – – – Lewis and Clark County 94,048.1 472.6 – Meagher County 43,371.4 178.5 – Petroleum County 37,487.3 253.8 – Pondera County 17,649.1 76.5 – Teton County 4,082.6 13.5 – Subtotal 232,064 1,167.3 – Mobile Non-Road Equipment (Diesel, Gasoline, and Other)1 Cascade County 70,782.8 – – Chouteau County 100,339.1 – – Fergus County 60,461.9 – – Judith Basin County 30,728.9 – – Lewis and Clark County 30,877.7 – – Meagher County 13,853.4 – – Petroleum County 11,720.1 – – Pondera County 51,360.9 – – Teton County 53,174.5 – – Subtotal 423,299.3 – – Mobile On-Road Diesel Vehicles (Heavy- and Light-Duty Vehicles) Cascade County 91,982.4 5.2 0.1 Chouteau County 15,315.2 .4 0 Fergus County 20,828.8 .5 0 Judith Basin County 17,338.9 .3 0 Lewis and Clark County 30,406.7 3.5 0 Meagher County 2,320.9 0 0 Petroleum County 2,263.3 0 0 Pondera County 23,304.8 2.1 0 Teton County 20,839.4 1.5 0 18

Table 7 Summary of 2011 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Counties (in Tons) Source Category County Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Subtotal 224,600.4 13.5 0.1 Mobile On-Road Gasoline Vehicles (Heavy- and Light-Duty Vehicles)1

Cascade County 336,638.7 40.7 18.5 Chouteau County 47,978.6 6.8 2.9 Fergus County 60,415.2 8.3 3.6 Judith Basin County 28,442.6 4.1 1.7 Lewis and Clark County 108,689.1 14.1 6.4 Meagher County 8,392.5 1.3 0.5 Petroleum County 6,027.9 0.8 0.4 Pondera County 33,043.6 4.6 1.9 Teton County 38,243.9 5.3 2.2 Subtotal 667,872.1 86 38.1 TOTAL SOURCE EMISSIONS 1,795,107 2,356.3 38.2 Source: EPA 2013b 1Where zero is listed in this table, it means that data were provided but the number was less than 0.095.

Recent national trends in GHG reporting to the EPA demonstrate reduction in GHG emissions. EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017 (EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2019) discusses total U.S. CO2eq emissions:

“In 2017, total gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,456.7 MMT, or million metric tons,

of carbon dioxide (CO2) Eq. Total U.S. emissions have increased by 1.3 percent from 1990 to

2017, and emissions decreased from 2016 to 2017 by 0.5 percent (35.5 MMT CO2 Eq.). The decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions between 2016 and 2017 was driven in part by a

decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion was a result of multiple factors, including a continued shift from coal to natural gas and increased use of renewable energy in the electric power sector, and milder weather that contributed to less overall electricity use”.

Relative to 1990, the baseline for the EPA GHG Inventory, gross emissions in 2017 are higher by 1.3 percent, down from a high of 15.7 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. Overall, net emissions in 2017 were 13.0 percent below 2005 levels.

The EPA 2017 GHG inventory report further describes the proportion GHGs in the U.S. total facility emissions:

“The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 81.6 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source

of CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions, was fossil fuel combustion. Methane emissions, which have decreased by 15.8 percent since 1990, resulted primarily from enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, natural gas systems, and decomposition of wastes in landfills. 19

Agricultural soil management, stationary fuel combustion, manure management, and mobile

source fuel combustion were the major sources of N2O emissions. Ozone depleting substance substitute emissions and emissions of HFC-23 during the production of HCFC-22 were the primary contributors to aggregate hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions. Perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions resulted from semiconductor manufacturing and as a byproduct of primary aluminum production, electrical transmission and distribution systems accounted for most sulfur

hexafluoride (SF6) emissions, and semiconductor manufacturing is the only source of nitrogen

trifluoride (NF3) emissions”.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has produced estimates of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the extraction and end-use combustion of fossil fuels produced on Federal lands in the United States, as well as estimates of ecosystem carbon emissions and sequestration on those lands (USGS 2018). The study reports emissions from both the combustion of fuel and fugitives from extraction and transport over a ten-year period (2005-2014). Uncertainties in emissions are determined to be 2-5% for combustion, 25-42% for fugitives, and 12-15% for degassed CH4 from coal mines. In 2014 Federal land fossil fuels produced emissions of 1,279.0 MMT CO2, 47.6 MMT CO2eq of CH4, and 5.5 MMT CO2eq

for N2O. Compared to nationwide fossil fuel emissions, CO2 from Federal lands account for 23.7%,

7.3% for CH4, and 1.5% for N2O over the ten-year period. In 2014, Federal fossil fuel GHG emissions

from extraction and combustion in Montana was 42.1 MMT CO2eq, or 3% of total Federal land emissions. Emissions of CO2eq in 2014 for North Dakota were 17.0 MMT. CH4 emissions in Montana

were 1.2 MMT CO2eq or 3% of total Federal land CH4 emissions. Emissions of CH4 in 2014 for North Dakota were 0.24 MMT. Trends and relative magnitude of emissions are roughly parallel to production volumes.

Carbon storage on Federal lands was 83,600 MMT CO2eq in 2014. Soils stored 63% of carbon with vegetation and dead organic matter storing 26% and 11% respectively. The national rate of net carbon

uptake (sequestration) varies from 475 MMT CO2eq/year to a source (emission) of 51 MMT CO2eq due to changes in climate/weather, land use, land cover change, wild fire frequency, and other factors.

Terrestrial ecosystems on Federal lands sequester an average of 195 MMT CO2eq/yea nationally between 2005 and 2014, offsetting about 15% of emissions resulting from fossil fuel extraction and combustion nationally. In Montana, the annual average sequestration over the10-year period was 18.9

MMT CO2eq/year, potentially offsetting about 45% of emissions resulting from Montana Federal lands fossil fuel extraction and combustion. The average annual carbon uptake in North Dakota is 1.8 MMT

CO2eq/year (USGS 2018). The Lewistown Air Resource Technical Support Document and Appendix H- Lewistown Air Resource Management Plan describe GHG emissions and potential mitigations

Table 7a shows a comparison of the magnitude of the LFO RMP’s contribution to GHGs relative to the U.S. and Montana emissions. The LFO RMP Alternative A would be 1.5% of the 2017 Montana reported GHG emissions and 0.005% of the total U.S. GHG emissions reported to the EPA. Alternative A is intended as a baseline comparison to the constrained management scenarios. Thus, the regulated and GHG emissions using Alternative A represents an overestimate of impact to ambient air quality.

Table 7a: LFO GHG Emissions Relative to Reported U.S. Emissions for 2017

GHG Emissions (Metric Description RMP Percent tons CO2eq)

Total US estimated GHG emissions 2017 6,457,000,000 0.0046% Montana Facilities GHG emissions reported 2017 20,089,713 1.4646% North Dakota GHG emissions reported 2017 30,000,000 0.9808% Total MT/ND GHG emissions reported in 2017 50,089,713 0.5874% Rosebud county GHG emissions reported 2017 14,914,724 1.9728% Lewistown direct and downstream GHG emissions 294,243 Note: Rosebud County was included in this table because of power plants in the county. Source: EPA FLIGHT Data, FLIGHT – Facility Level Information on Facility Level Greenhouse Gas Tool Retrieved from https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2019

Climate Change Trends Climate changes over the past 100 years are well documented, and climate change is expected to continue. Fossil fuel combustion and other human-caused GHG-producing activities are ongoing, although public awareness and future regulations may reduce annual GHG emissions. Due to the long atmospheric lifetimes of most GHGs, climate change impacts will continue to increase for many years after GHG emissions decrease (EPA 2013c).

Over the past 100 years, annual temperature and precipitation have increased, and climate models predict that they will continue to increase through the twenty-first century. Extreme weather events, such as severe drought and intense rainfall, are expected to increase in frequency as well (NCSL 2008).

Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are increasing. CO2 concentrations greater than 400 ppm were first monitored on May 9, 2013 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (NOAA 2014). GHG concentrations are not regularly monitored in the planning area.

Diagram 3, Carbon Dioxide Concentration Trends, illustrates increasing CO2 concentrations since 1958.

The earth’s increase in global average temperature (including both land and sea) is shown in Diagram 4, Global Temperature Increases. Although year-to-year variability exists, the earth’s temperature rose steadily from 1901 through 2000.

In the planning area, temperature changes are shown in Diagram 5, Trends in Average Annual Temperature, Diagram 6, Trends in Average Maximum Temperature, and Diagram 7, Trends in Average Minimum Temperature. In each case, annual temperatures are shown in purple, while 15-year smoothing curves are shown in red. Increasing annual average temperature and the annual average maximum temperature are evident for both Great Falls and Lewistown. However, while the annual

average minimum temperature is increasing in Great Falls, it is decreasing in Lewistown. The decadal (10- year) rate of change (ROC) is shown above each graph.

Diagram 8, Trends in Annual Precipitation, illustrates recent changes in annual precipitation from 1925 through 2010. While precipitation increased slightly in Great Falls by 0.07 inch per decade, precipitation recently declined in Lewistown by 0.27 inch per decade.

Diagram 3 Carbon Dioxide Concentration Trends

400 -

0. .B-., u C 7:J"' i:: :::, ~ <( IIJ 7:J ·;, 0 0 C .n0 V"'

310

300 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Yea r

Source: NOAA 2013a

Diagram 4 Global Temperature Increases

1 - 0.9-

a o.s - 0 D 0.7 - ":' 0.6 - 0 Cl\ o.s - B 0.4 - ] 0.3- "'ti. o.r E ,.,0 0.1 - o- ~ >, -0.1 - 'io E -0.2- 0 C <( -0.3 - e! -o.4 - a -o.s - ~ Q) ti. -o.6- E -0.1 - ~ -;;; -o.s - .n 0 -o.9 - ;:, -1 -, 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Source: NOAA 2013b

Diagram 5 Trends in Average Annual Temperature Great Falls Lewistown Decadal ROC: 0.21°F Decadal ROC: 0.33°F

49 49 48 48 47 47 A I 46 11 i,,. . 46 45 I I 45 I '\ ~- ill 44 Ill • 44 n1 I 'VA II . 'I . I U. - 43 ·"''" 43 • I , ' ' I~ M. u .. 42 42 , , ' I# 41 ' 41 "-L\ .. -. I ii ' - r"' 1'1 40 40 f ' Degrees Farenheit Farenheit Degrees 39 Farenheit Degrees 39 ' 38 38 37 37 36 36 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 Year Year

Source: Adapted from LCAT 2013

Diagram 6 Trends in Average Maximum Temperature Great Falls Lewistown Decadal ROC: 0.21°F Decadal ROC: 0.61°F

61 61 60 60 59 t 59 58 58 57 I 57 ,1 I ti ... I JI .I ~ ~=la !I al 56 ~ 56 55 ~ .. 111 11 55 - I ""' ,v 54 54 ' ' A... ' 53 53 • ' -tL\A ,..... 52 52 - , I I ~ f Degrees Farenheit Farenheit Degrees Degrees Farenheit Farenheit Degrees 51 51 50 50 49 49 48 48 47 47 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 Year Year

Source: Adapted from LCAT 2013 Diagram 7 Trends in Average Minimum Temperature Great Falls Lewistown Decadal ROC: 0.20°F Decadal ROC: 0.06°F

36 36 35 34 34 33 32 32 A l l l l I, I'\ j '~ ll I 31 .J I ..., fl HI.I j "i 30 30 r J .fl I 29 \ '" . ii 28 28 ' Degrees Farenheit Farenheit Degrees Degrees Farenheit Farenheit Degrees ' 27 26 26 25 24 24 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 Year Year

Source: Adapted from LCAT 2013

Diagram 8 Trends in Annual Precipitation Great Falls Lewistown Decadal ROC: 0.07 inches Decadal ROC: –0.27 inches

32 32 30 30 28 28 26 26 24 24 22 22 20 20 18 18 16 16 14 14 Precipitation (inches) Precipitation Precipitation (inches) (inches) Precipitation 12 12 10 10 8 8 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 Year Year

Source: Adapted from LCAT 2013

There are currently no established significance thresholds for GHG emissions that BLM can reference in NEPA analyses, but all GHGs contribute incrementally to the climate change phenomenon. When determining NEPA significance for an action, BLM is constrained to the extent that cumulative effects (such as climate change) are only considered in the determination of significance when such effects can be prevented or modified by decision-making (see BLM NEPA Handbook, pg.72). While GHG emissions resulting from individual decisions can certainly be modified or potentially prevented by analyzing and selecting reasonable alternatives that appropriately respond to the action’s purpose and need, BLM has limited decision authority to meaningfully or measurably prevent the cumulative climate change impacts that would result from global emissions. The data presented above show BLM’s limited potential contribution to global emissions and climate change. BLM includes direct and indirect GHG emissions from this project and a discussion of potential climate impacts.

BLM’s approach recognizes that there are adverse environmental impacts related to climate change associated with the development and use of fossil fuels, provides potential GHG emission estimates, and discusses potential climate change impacts qualitatively. This effectively informs the decision-maker and the public of the potential for GHG emissions and the potential implications of climate change. This approach presents the data and information in a manner that follows many of the guidelines for effective climate change communication developed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2010) by making the information more readily understood and relatable to the decision-maker and the public.

2.2 Geology There are no specific regulations and guidelines for geology or unique geological features for NEPA compliance or identified in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005a). Geologic information is used to evaluate the potential development of mineral resources and to regulate land uses based on slope stability and accessibility issues. Additionally, some geologic features can be recognized for their scenic contribution to visual resources and special designations.

Current Conditions The planning area is within two physiographic provinces: Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. The Northern Rocky Mountain Province consists of the Little Belt Mountains and the Rocky Mountain Front. These are along the southwest and western boundary of the planning area. The remainder of the planning area to the east lies within the Great Plains Province. This consists of the glaciated and unglaciated sections of the Missouri Plateau. It is primarily underlain nearest the surface by the sedimentary formations of the Cretaceous Period.

In the planning area there are three unique geological features. Square Butte is a porphyritic igneous rock butte. It rises 2,400 feet above the surrounding plains landscape, with massive cliff faces, buttresses, spires, and pinnacles. These features result in outstanding scenic values and diverse habitat for mountain goat, elk, mule deer, and other wildlife. It is managed under multiple designations, including as an ONA, a WSA, and an ACEC.

The mountain ranges in Montana are commonly referred to as island mountain ranges due to their appearance as islands in an extensive sea of upland prairies. Ranges that fit into the mountain island description are the Sweet Grass Hills and Highwood, Judith, North and South Moccasin, Little Belt, Snowy, Little Rocky, and Bears Paw Mountains.

The Rocky Mountain Front area is managed as four separate ONAs for scenic quality, wildland resources, and wildlife significance. Unique geological features are further discussed in Section 4.1.

The area’s geology includes extremes in age that range from as recently as 10,000 years to nearly 2.5 billion years ago (Figure 1, Geology of Central Montana [Appendix A]). The oldest surface exposures in the planning area are the late Precambrian Belt Series rocks that outcrop in the Little Belt Mountains and along the Rocky Mountains.

During the Paleozoic Era, 570 to 240 million years ago, 5,000 to 10,000 feet of Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian rock was deposited (Diagram 9, Stratigraphic Column of Central Montana). Much of Montana was intermittently covered by shallow seas during this era, resulting in intermittent episodes of deposition and episodes of erosion or nondeposition or both. This resulted in unconformities separating many of the rock units and the lack of Silurian and Permian Period formations within the stratigraphic columns (Woodward 2010).

The rocks are dominantly limestone and dolomite, with some sandstone and shale, which have eroded to form the caves and karsts of the planning area. The massive Madison limestone was deposited during this time and formed the spectacular cliffs in the mountain ranges of the planning area. This formation can be over a thousand feet thick and is resistant to erosion. Madison limestone outcrops are charged with surface water in the mountains, making them a major aquifer for groundwater in central Montana (the 26

source for Big Spring, Warm Spring, and Giant Spring). In addition, caves and karsts in Paleozoic limestone occur in most mountain ranges of the planning area as a result of eroded limestone deposits.

The Mesozoic Era, from 240 to 66 million years ago, is divided into three periods: Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous (see Diagram 9). Toward the middle of the Jurassic period, an inland sea spread over this portion of the state and deposited 200 to 600 feet of sandy, shaley, and limy sediments. These include the Ellis Group (Sawtooth, Rierdon, and Swift Formations) and the Morrison Formation. As a result, Jurassic gypsum and coal have been mined in the planning area.

The Cretaceous Period began with deposition of the Kootenai Formation. It includes sandstone and bright red shale which, upon weathering, color the soils that are conspicuous in central Montana. During late Cretaceous time, the eastern two-thirds of Montana were covered by an inland sea that extended from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. In three major fluctuations where the inland sea pushed westward, the Colorado, Claggett, and Bearpaw Formations were deposited. As the sea retreated to the east, it deposited the Eagle Sandstone and Judith River Formations (Perry 1962).

Cretaceous Age strata in central Montana have three major divisions (see Diagram 9); the Colorado Group, which developed during the first marine advance and is about 2,000 feet thick; the Montana Group, about 1,500 feet thick and deposited during the multiple marine advances and retreats containing several different formations; and the Hell Creek Formation, about 700 feet thick and deposited after the complete retreat of the sea as a series of sediments laid down on a broad coastal plain as outwash from the rising Rocky Mountains (Perry 1962). Several of these Cretaceous formations are well known for yielding fossils and for containing aquifers, coal, and bentonite.

The Cenozoic Era extended from 66 million years ago to the present (see Diagram 9). The early Paleogene Period was a time of intense igneous activity and mountain building in central Montana. The region is broken by centers of intrusive or extrusive igneous activity in such areas as the Highwood, Judith, and North and South Moccasin Mountains. The Little Belt and Snowy Mountains were uplifted by the tectonic folding of crustal rocks into broad flat-topped anticlines.

Deposits of precious metals are found in the various igneous units and as irregular replacement deposits in the sedimentary rocks. Along the margins of these uplifts, the upturned stratigraphic section may include units as old as Precambrian, up to those deposited just before uplift. Paleogene sedimentary rocks include the Fort Union Formation, which contains massive sandstone beds. Most of Montana’s coal is from this formation.

The locatable mineral deposits in the planning area that have been most actively mined are gold and silver. These are associated with the plutonic island mountain ranges of the Judith, North Moccasin, and South Moccasin Mountains. These are the areas with the highest levels of future mineral development potential due to the alkalic igneous intrusive centers. These alkalic to alkali-calcic laccoliths, stocks, and intrusions dome upward and cut into the overlying sedimentary strata.

Taking place during the late stages of igneous activity in the Late Cretaceous and early Paleogene periods, diverse hydrothermal mineralization types occurred, along the breccias, diatremes, faults, and fractures associated with the intrusion (Woodward 1995). Diagram 9 Stratigraphic Column of Central Montana

Period

.,C: -~ u ll."'

0 i p N ~ 0 z ~ 1:. w u

u .,C: 0 "' 'i: 0 N i'.i 0 C w _J

0 .,C: ·.:; ·,; 0 '!! 0

0 C N .,C: 0 ' C: .0 (f) E w ., 0 ::;; ...

----...... z <1'. ' ' a:: ' (D ' ::;; ,~ <1'. u ·=: I--'---<~ \ ll w '.. a:: r------1------___ _, / a. ,~ ,.._ ••ndtd.-OM~•"4..-«/,ocA,, =~·=.::::-_.._.~---~-~or,-.,....,or_.,._..,_

------SEDIMENT AND SEDIMENTARY ROCK------IGNEOUS ANO METAMORPHIC ROCK Nonmarine Marine Gravel, conglomerate, bnlcda ~ Sandstone, conglomerate Sand, sandstone, quartzite ~ Siltstone, mudstone, claystone, shale - VoVolcank::lastic ~ 8~~:= siltstone, mudstone, dayslone; Carbonate ~ Precambrian metamoJphic ~ carbonate

Source: Modified from Vuke et al, 2007

Gold mineralization ranges from igneous-hosted stock works and breccia pipes (Moccasin Mountains and Gold Hill areas) to replacement zones in the flanking and upturned limestone (Gilt Edge and Kendall areas). The latter are mostly localized by intra-formational solution breccias in the upper Madison Group. Gold mineralization occurs as auriferous pyrite and sylvanite or in native form. It is accompanied by varying amounts of silver, base metal, and telluride, with quartz, fluorite, carbonate, and barite (Giles 1982).

Gold placer deposits in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains are associated with the loose unconsolidated sediments and gravel that have been eroded and reshaped by flowing water from the lode sources described above (in situ mineralization). Through the process of gravity separation, the denser and weather-resistant gold particles concentrate in streambeds. Additionally, several areas in Petroleum County have ultramafic outcrops termed diatremes.

These are igneous intrusions that originated at extreme depth. Potassium-argon dating of similar outcrops in central Montana has been dated to between 46 and 52 million years ago (Hearn 1979).

These diatremes have chemical and mineralogical affinities that are similar, but not identical, to kimberlite deposits. The main importance in recognizing kimberlites is their association with diamond occurrences in other areas of the world. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a steady stream of small-scale prospecting for commercial diamonds and gems along these outcrops in the planning area.

During the Quaternary Period, from 2.6 million years ago to present, two major glacial advances and retreats occurred. The ice blocked many of the north-flowing rivers, creating large glacial lakes across central Montana. As the ice melted and the glacial lakes drained, most of the glacial sediments were deposited north of the planning area. Many pre-glacial streams and rivers either disappeared completely or had their courses radically altered. The Missouri River, which used to flow in the current Milk River Valley and drain into Hudson Bay, was diverted to its present course. From Loma eastward, the Missouri flows in a relatively new valley.

In more recent time, erosion has dissected the landscape to its present form. Alluvial materials derived from eroding mountains or from reworked glacial deposits occur at several levels above current drainages. Large areas of gravels with abundant pebbles and cobbles of limestone blanket the surface for many miles north of Harlowton and Roundup. These gravels are also found west of Lewistown, which is now a source of salable minerals (sand, gravel, and construction materials) in the planning area.

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

2.3 Soil Resources The NRCS defines soils as follows: the unconsolidated mineral or organic material on the immediate surface of the earth (as opposed to consolidated bedrock material) that serves as the natural medium for the growth of land plants (NRCS 2014).

Soils are composed of a mixture of mineral matter, organic matter, water, and air and are a living system linked to ecological processes. These include nutrient and hydrologic cycles and energy flows. The distribution and occurrence of soils depends on a number of factors, such as the interaction of relief (slope and slope length), soil parent material (geology), living organisms, climate, and time in place. These variables help create complex and diverse soils that influence the use and management of soils.

Stable and productive soils in the planning area provide the foundation for other resources, such as vegetation and wildlife, and for resource uses, such as livestock grazing and recreation. Soils are an engineering medium that infrastructure such as roads, trails, and recreation facilities are built on. A variety of surface uses may compact or displace topsoil and damage or remove vegetation or other ground cover, resulting in accelerated erosion or a loss of soil productivity.

There are no specific regulations and guidelines for soils essential for NEPA compliance. The measures for soil resources in BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) include identifying specific soils that may need special protection in regards to human health concerns, ecosystem health, or other public uses (BLM 2005a). Guidelines also address identifying site-specific or basin-specific soil BMPs and rehabilitation techniques.

FLPMA defines the BLM’s multiple-use management mission to include watershed protection. This includes minimizing soil erosion and rehabilitating eroded areas. These practices are to maintain and enhance watershed condition, and to reduce nonpoint source pollution from other activities, such as livestock grazing and recreation.

Activities proposed in areas prone to erosion are evaluated through the NEPA process to determine anticipated impacts and any mitigation measures needed for project approval. Additionally, soils are managed under the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997). The primary standard for upland soils is the Lewistown Standard #1, which states that soil conditions must be stable, must provide for capture, storage, and safe release of water appropriate for soil type and climate, and must have proper ground cover distribution for the ecological site.

Due to the low levels of moisture in much of the planning area, once topsoil is lost, it can be irretrievable or slow to rebuild. The BLM has developed and adopted practices for soil conservation to help combat the loss of topsoil. To reduce the impact of surface uses on soils, BMPs for erosion and runoff control are typically applied during and after soil is disturbed by surface uses. These BMPs are outlined in the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997) and BMPs in the ROD/Approved RMP, Appendix B (BLM 2009).

These preventative practices are designed to reduce the impacts of management activities on soils. They have been developed by agency, industry, scientific, and working groups as methods for reducing environmental impacts associated with certain activities. The BLM typically uses these measures as

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile guidelines, or project design features, during implementation planning at the activity- or project-specific levels.

Current Conditions Soils in the planning area are diverse, and great differences in soil properties can be observed within short distances. Detailed soils information is available from the Soil Survey Geographic database for the individual soil surveys in the planning area. The NRCS performed these soil surveys according to National Cooperative Soil Survey standards, policies, and procedures to the second and third order of detail. The standards have been developed for all nine counties in the planning area, excluding portions of Pondera and Teton Counties.

Sensitive soils have been identified in the planning area where soil survey data is available and are defined as those soils with any of the following features:

• Severe wind erosion susceptibility • Severe or very severe water erosion susceptibility • Low restoration potential • Biological soil crusts or soils in badlands or on rock outcrops • 30 percent slopes or greater Data for biological soil crusts was not available for the planning area, so they are discussed separately.

There are 302,700 acres of sensitive soils on BLM-administered land and 516,400 acres on federal mineral estate (Figure 2, Sensitive Soils [Appendix A]).

Wind and Water Eroded Soils Erosion hazard is the susceptibility of soil to erosion. Soil erosion, in general, is the detachment and movement of soil particles by the erosive forces of wind or water (NRCS 2006). Impacts on the soil resource from erosion include changing the capacity of the soil to function and restricting productivity and its ability to sustain future uses. Contributing to the susceptibility to wind and water erosion are soil landscape position, steepness of slope, physical properties (including texture and structure), and chemical properties.

Water erosion potential is a function of many factors, such as soil erodibility; slope gradient and length; rainfall amount, duration, and intensity; and vegetation cover. Water erosion potential is generally highest in steeper areas with high erodibility and exposed soil, such as the Missouri and Musselshell River Breaks. Other areas with high erosion potential are relatively steep areas, especially near or along drainages or slope breaks. On BLM-administered land in the planning area, approximately 132,400 acres are severely susceptible to water erosion and 4,800 acres are very severely susceptible (see Table 8, Soils with Wind or Water Erosion Susceptibility, Figure 3, Soils Susceptibility to Water Erosion, and Figure 4, Soils Susceptibility to Wind Erosion [Appendix A]). Figure 5, Steep Slopes (Appendix A), also shows steep slopes in the planning area.

Wind erosion occurs following the removal of protective vegetation. It may displace or cause the loss of topsoil in some areas, increase sediment deposition in other areas, and impact ambient air quality from elevated dust levels. A close correlation exists between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, and organic matter. Soil moisture and frozen soil

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile layers also influence wind erosion. On BLM-administered land in the planning area, approximately 50 acres of soils are severely susceptible to wind erosion (see Table 8). Soils with severe wind erosion susceptibility or severe or very severe water erosion susceptibility are identified as sensitive soils.

Table 8 Soils with Wind or Water Erosion Susceptibility BLM-Administered Surface Federal Mineral Estate Percent of Percent of BLM- Erosion Type BLM- Administered Acres Acres Administered Federal Mineral Surface Estate Very severe 4,800 1 18,300 2 Water Severe 132,200 20 229,500 19 Severe 50 0 400 0 Moderate 384,500 58 567,000 47 Wind Slight 251,300 38 600,800 50 Not rated 15,400 2 28,600 2 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

Biological Soil Crusts Biological soil crusts are found in arid and semiarid landscapes, characterized by sparse or absent vegetation, with cryptogamic, cryptobiotic, microbiotic, or microphytic soil crusts; taken together, these are called biological soil crusts (BLM 2001). Biological soil crusts are a complex mosaic of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and other bacteria found on and in the top few millimeters of soils. Biological soil crusts have the following characteristics (BLM 2001):

• Found in the nutrient-poor zones between vegetation clumps • Function as a living mulch by retaining soil moisture • Discourage annual weed growth • Reduce soil erosion from wind and water • Fix atmospheric nitrogen • Contribute to soil organic matter

Badlands Badlands are moderately steep to very steep, barren land dissected by many intermittent drainage channels. Badlands are most common in semiarid and arid regions where streams cut into soft geologic material. Local relief generally ranges between 33 and 660 feet (10 and 200 meters). Potential runoff is very high, and erosion is active (NRCS 2015).

Badlands are noted for their rugged, eroded, and often colorful land formations and a relative absence of vegetation cover, less than 10 percent (Montana Field Guide 2014). These areas are especially susceptible to damage from surface disturbance from such activities as livestock grazing and off-road vehicle use, although background erosion may occur in these areas without any specific disturbance. There are approximately 200 acres of badlands classified by the NRCS in the planning area, mainly near and in the Musselshell and Missouri River Breaks (BLM GIS 2015b; NRCS GIS 2014). Badlands are identified as sensitive soils and are shown in Figure 6, Rock Outcrops or Badlands (Appendix A). 32

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Outcroppings Soils around rock outcrops tend to be thin, to have high amounts of light intensity and extreme fluctuations in temperature, and to host unique plant communities. Rock outcroppings may channelize and concentrate runoff and may locally increase erosion risk. There are 10,200 acres of soils around rock outcrops in the planning area. They are mainly found around such features as Square Butte, Judith River formation, and other unique geological features (BLM GIS 2015b; NRCS GIS 2014). Rock outcrops are identified as sensitive soils and are shown in Figure 6, Appendix A.

Restoration The NRCS restoration potential classification rates each soil for its inherent ability to recover from degradation, which is often referred to as soil resilience (NRCS GIS 2014). The ability to recover from degradation means the ability to restore functional and structural integrity after a disturbance. Soil functions that are important are as follows:

• Sustaining biological activity, diversity, and productivity • Capturing, storing, and releasing water • Storing and cycling nutrients and other elements • Filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing, and detoxifying contaminants • Providing support for plant and animal life • Protecting archaeological sites

Areas of low restoration potential should be identified using the best available data and onsite evaluations. Authorized surface-disturbing activities should be evaluated to develop mitigation (if necessary); BMPs, stipulations, and a plan for restoration should be applied.

Authorization would be denied in areas where erosion cannot be effectively controlled and mitigated and where restoration to BLM standards is likely to be unsuccessful. Soils with low restoration potential are considered sensitive. Table 9, Restoration Potential, and Figure 7, Soil Restoration Potential (Appendix A), show the approximate surface and subsurface acreage amounts associated with each type of restoration potential.

Table 9 Restoration Potential BLM-Administered Surface Federal Mineral Estate Percent of Percent of BLM- Restoration BLM- Administered Potential Acres Acres Administered Federal Mineral Surface Estate High potential 242,100 37 611,400 51 Moderate potential 320,500 49 459,800 38 Low potential 70,900 11 93,500 8 Not rated or no data 17,600 3 31,800 3 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Prime or Unique Farmlands Urban sprawl and federal management have contributed to farmland acres being converted into non- farmland acres. Because of this, the Farmland Protection Policy (7 USC, Sections 4201-4209) and the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658) were passed. Under the act, federal programs that unnecessarily and irreversibly convert farmland to nonagricultural uses will be minimized. Moreover, they will be administered to be compatible with state and local government and private programs and policies to protect prime and unique farmlands.

Prime farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. Examples are cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forested land, and other land, but not urban or built-up land or water areas.

Approximately 600 acres of potential prime farmland soil mapping units are on BLM-administered lands, and approximately 1,700 acres are on federal mineral estate (BLM GIS 2015b). Most of the prime farmland is along stream and river valleys and terraces and on gently sloping upland areas.

To meet the criteria of prime farmland, most soils on BLM-administered lands would require additional moisture, such as dependable irrigation water, which is lacking on BLM-administered lands. There would be an additional 9,400 acres of prime farmland on BLM-administered land if the area were irrigated; there would be 39,600 acres on federal mineral estate (BLM GIS 2015b).

Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for producing specific high-value food and fiber crops. The land has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply. All of these qualities are needed to economically produce sustained high-quality crops or high yields of a specific crop when the lands are treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods.

There are no acres of unique farmland potential in the planning area. However, there are several other farmland designations that may result in additional management actions or disturbance avoidance. There are approximately 70 acres of farmland of local importance and 29,300 acres of farmland of statewide importance on BLM-administered lands. Approximately 600 acres of local importance and 72,700 acres of statewide importance are on federal mineral estate (BLM GIS 2015b).

Trends Future localized impacts on soil resources may occur from such short- and long-term surface-disturbing activities as the following:

• Livestock grazing • Mineral resources development • OHV use • Timber harvesting • ROW development • Wildfire suppression • Prescribed fire to reduce wildfire risk

Additionally, climate change, combined with current land uses and management, may play a role in future soil conditions. Impacts on soil resources could be amplified by many factors. An example is land uses,

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile particularly those with surface disturbance, when combined with warmer temperatures and alterations in the hydrologic cycle, and the resulting shifts in vegetation communities.

Current monitoring indicates that most livestock allotments and other impacts from other surface- disturbing activities are reducing soil loss and maintaining soil productivity; thus, soil resource trends are stable or improving.

In general, reclamation techniques have proven successful, allowing surface-disturbing activities to continue. However, there are areas where soil quality, productivity, and stability are locally diminishing due to concentrated commercial and recreational activities. Continuing to use BMPs and adhering to the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (BLM 1997) will increase vegetation ground cover. It also will reduce soil damage and loss from headcuts and gullies, sheet erosion, and mass wasting. As a result, sedimentation to streams and rivers will be reduced and soil conditions and fertility will be maintained or improved.

2.4 Water Resources The discussion of existing conditions includes a description of surface water, water quality, and groundwater. It is focused to BLM-administered lands in the planning area, but some general water resource information is included. Water on BLM-administered lands is regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act, and Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997), other laws, regulations, and policy guidance at the federal, state, and local levels.

Current Conditions The major sources of surface water in the planning area are the Marias River, Musselshell River, Fort Peck Lake, and Upper Missouri River, which are tributaries of the Missouri River. Smaller watercourses in the planning area involve streams that can be ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial. Permanent waters can be in the form of lakes, wells, springs, ponds, diversions, and reservoirs developed for human, wildlife, or livestock consumption. Groundwater and surface water are used for public and private water supplies and for agriculture, irrigation, and industry.

Groundwater Groundwater is an essential resource in Montana because it provides 94 percent of the state’s rural domestic water supply and 39 percent of the public water supply. While groundwater is readily available, it represents about 2 percent of the state’s total water withdrawal (MBMG, undated). Groundwater is generally used for irrigation, domestic use, and livestock, making its quantity and quality important in this region.

The quality of groundwater is a function of the chemical makeup of the underground formation containing the water. Water temperature, the duration of contact with the rocks, and the rate of movement of the water will impact the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of groundwater. Montana can be divided into three groundwater regions: the Western Mountain Ranges Region, the Glaciated Central Region, and the Non-glaciated Central Region (Heath 1984). Groundwater in each of these regions has unique characteristics specific to the sedimentary deposits and lithology of the surrounding area.

The Western Mountain Ranges Region covers the western third of Montana and is dominated by mountains. Generally, the valleys between the mountains are filled with thick deposits of alluvium 35

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

(unconsolidated sediments deposited by streams). This creates highly productive aquifers, which are widely used as a source of water in the region.

The Glaciated Central Region lies across an area of northern Montana, from roughly the Rocky Mountain Front to the North Dakota border. Most of the region is underlain by flat-lying sedimentary rocks, containing aquifers in some areas. This area has experienced several episodes of glaciation, leaving deposits of till and outwash sediments, which can be a source of groundwater (Heath 1984).

Most of the planning area is in the Non-glaciated Central Region. This region has a few isolated mountain ranges in its western portion, though most of the region is flat-lying sedimentary rock (Heath 1984). This region was not covered by glaciation; this made alluvial aquifers1, generally in alluvial deposits along major streams, the most productive sources of groundwater in this region.

From a regional context, it is important to realize the role that the mountains and isolated mountain ranges in central Montana play in groundwater recharge and the availability of groundwater in central and eastern Montana. Many of the flat-lying sedimentary rocks in central and eastern Montana are uplifted and exposed on the flanks of the Rocky Mountain Front and the isolated mountain ranges. A portion of the precipitation that the mountains receive seeps into the bedrock and flows away from the mountains. Generally, water quality is best near the recharge zones, and the concentration of total dissolved solids increases with distance from the recharge zone; groundwater that is near the recharge zone has not had time to dissolve soluble salts and minerals. Recharge zones are typically found in outcrop areas near the edge of mountains.

Springs and seeps occur in areas where water from aquifers reaches the surface. Many springs begin in stream channels; others flow into small ponds or marshy areas that drain into channels. Some springs and seep areas form their own channels that reach flowing streams, but other springs lose their surface expression and recharge alluvial fill material or permeable stratum.

Springs and seeps are important to aquatic habitats because of the perennial base flow they provide to a stream. The outflow from springs in summer usually helps to maintain lower water temperatures. In winter, especially in small streams, base flow helps to maintain an aquatic habitat in an otherwise frozen environment.

Springs have been disturbed either by management activities that have affected the volume of water available to the vegetation and soils where springs begin or by activities that have affected the vegetation and soils directly. Such activities as grazing, water developments, recreation use, mining, road construction, and vegetation management have affected spring systems in the past. Well drilling and blasting can affect springs by reducing the amount of water in their aquifers or by affecting subsurface flow patterns.

Giant Spring and Big Spring are important groundwater features in the planning area. Giant Spring in Cascade County near Great Falls is home to a Montana state park, a cold water fish hatchery, and the head of the Roe River. Big Spring in Fergus County, near Lewistown, supports the largest cold water fish

1Those found in a deposit of clay, silt, sand, and gravel left by flowing streams in a river valley or delta, typically producing fertile soil. 36

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

hatchery in the state, provides the drinking water for the community of Lewistown, and is the source of Big Spring Creek, a blue-ribbon trout fishery and irrigation water source.

These springs are fed by the Madison Aquifer. The role of Montana’s mountain ranges is important because the Madison Aquifer, as well as many other important aquifers, outcrop and are uplifted around the edges of the mountains. Seepage from precipitation and streams recharge the aquifers in these outcrop locations. While the springs are not under the jurisdiction of the BLM, there are public lands and minerals in the recharge areas for these springs. Figure 8, Recharge Areas of the Madison Aquifer (Appendix A), displays the BLM-administered lands and minerals in recharge areas of the Madison Aquifer.

Floodplains, alluvium, and riparian-wetland areas are important features because they are often where the interface between groundwater and surface water occurs. Often, these areas are locations of groundwater recharge or groundwater discharge to surface water. Groundwater is often near the land surface on these features, making it vulnerable to contamination. There are no mapped 100-year floodplains on BLM- administered surface or federal minerals in the planning area.

Surficial aquifers are at or near the land surface. They are mostly composed of unconsolidated sediments deposited by streams or glaciers or by meltwater from glaciers (see Figure 9, Surficial Aquifers [Appendix A]). Table 10, Surficial Aquifer Quantity and Quality, describes surficial aquifer characteristics.

Table 10 Surficial Aquifer Quantity and Quality Total Common Geologic Production or Aquifer Type Dissolved Drilling Depth Materials Yield Solids 20 to 40 feet Unconsolidated Commonly Typically 5 to 50 Range 300 to (ft.); may exceed clay, silt, sand, unconfined; can gallons per 2,200 250 ft. and gravel be partially minute (gpm); milligrams/liter confined to may exceed (mg/L) completely 1,500 gpm confined in some areas Source: MNRIS 1997

According to the Montana Groundwater Atlas, surficial aquifers are the most widely used aquifer systems in Montana (MNRIS 1997). Alluvial aquifers are used because they lie near the land surface and are accessible via shallow wells. Water yield and water quality is routinely quite good. Alluvial aquifers are vulnerable to human-caused contamination in a variety of settings.

Bedrock aquifers in consolidated geologic formations generally are siltstone, sandstone, and limestone formations. They can be found from hundreds to thousands of feet below the land surface (see Figure 10, Bedrock Aquifers [Appendix A]). Table 11, Bedrock Aquifer Quantity and Quality, describes bedrock aquifer characteristics.

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

There are no controlled groundwater areas in the planning area. This would indicate that there are no widespread groundwater areas of concern regarding contamination or water quantity availability. However, localized instances of groundwater contamination and groundwater availability issues do occur. Surficial aquifers are particularly vulnerable to contamination because they are close to the land surface and are generally composed of unconsolidated, permeable materials. Fertilized agriculture is a common source of nitrate-nitrogen pollution in shallow groundwater in the planning area.

The actual flow rate and volume of groundwater removed from an aquifer at any given well or spring is highly variable. However, the numbers of groundwater well/spring points of diversion and groundwater well densities are indicators of the level of groundwater use in a particular area. Figure 11, Groundwater Well Density (Appendix A), illustrates the well density in the planning area in the number of wells per square mile. The highest well densities are in shallow, alluvial aquifers close to population centers.

Table 11 Bedrock Aquifer Quantity and Quality Aquifer Type Total Common Geologic Aquifer Production or Dissolved Drilling Depth Materials Yield Solids Aquifers in Cenozoic Rocks Fort Union 50 to 300 ft; Interbedded Commonly Range 500 to Formation may exceed shale, siltstone, confined; 15 to 5,000 mg/L 1,000 ft sandstone, and 25 gpm; may coal exceed 100 gpm except near the surface Aquifers in Mesozoic Rocks Hell Creek – 150 to 500 ft; Mainly Confined; 5 to Range 500 to Fox Hills may exceed sandstone with 20 gpm; may 1,800 mg/L; Formations 1,000 ft some siltstone exceed 200 gpm commonly less and shale than 1,800 mg/L Judith River 200 to 600 ft; Sandstone, Confined; 5 to Range 160 to Formation may exceed siltstone, with 15 gpm; may 27,000 mg/L 1,000 ft some coal exceed 100 gpm Eagle-Virgelle 100 to 800 ft; Interbedded Confined; 10 to Range 800 to Formation may exceed sandstone and 20 gpm; may 1,500 mg/L 2,000 ft shale exceed 200 gpm Kootenai 100 to 1,000 ft; Interbedded Confined; 10 to Range 200 to Formation ay exceed 3,000 sandstone, 30 gpm; may 500 mg/L; may ft siltstone, and exceed 100 gpm exceed 14,000 shale mg/L Ellis Group 300 to 2,000 ft; Sandstone, shale, Confined; no Generally less may exceed limestone, and data than 600 mg/L 5,000 ft dolomite Aquifers in Paleozoic Rocks

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 11 Bedrock Aquifer Quantity and Quality Aquifer Type Total Common Geologic Aquifer Production or Dissolved Drilling Depth Materials Yield Solids Madison Group 500 to 3,000 ft; Limestone, Confined; 20 to Range 500 to may exceed dolomite, 6,000 gpm; 300,000 mg/L 7,000 ft anhydrite, and higher in karst halite areas Source: MNRIS 1997

On BLM-administered lands in the planning area, wells are primarily used for stock water. Artesian aquifers are ideal because they can supply water under pressure without a power source. Many springs have also been developed for stock water purposes. However, relative to all lands in the planning area, groundwater use on BLM-administered lands is small. Table 12, Points of Diversion for Wells and Springs by Landownership, shows the total number of points of diversion for wells and springs on various landownership in the planning area.MDEQ delineates source water protection areas for groundwater and surface water sources. These are based on the source of the drinking water supply, the hydrologic and setting, and potential contamination threats.

Table 12 Points of Diversion for Wells and Springs by Landownership Well/Spring by Surface Owner BLM Private State Other Federal Well 84 11,213 215 169 Spring box 345 5 433 Source: BLM 2014a

Public water supplies developed in alluvial aquifers are particularly vulnerable to contamination. There are currently two source water protection areas on BLM-administered lands (100 acres of BLM-administered surface acres and 6,512 acres of BLM-administered federal mineral estate, BLM 2014a). Designation of source water protection areas is an ongoing process, and there will likely be new designations over the life of the RMP.

Surface Water The planning area is in the Northwestern Great Plains and the Middle Rockies Ecological Regions. Nearly all surface water flows into the Missouri River and the main hydrologic basins are the Marias, Musselshell, Fort Peck Lake, and Upper Missouri Basins. A very small portion of the planning area flows into the Pend Oreille and Upper Yellowstone Basins.

Stream flow volumes differ greatly in the planning area. Flows in unregulated streams have large seasonal variations, with the largest flows generally occurring during late spring or early summer as a result of snowmelt.

Peak flows on prairie streams occur in February and March from snowmelt and may occur again in May and June from rainstorms. Larger peak flows on small drainages can occur from intense summer thunderstorms, but generally not on an annual basis. Peak flows on mountain streams occur from late May to early June and are less sharp than on prairie streams. Summer rainstorms can result in short intervals of increased stream 39

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile flow from June through September. During winter, stream flow in prairie streams is greatly reduced or absent as a result of little groundwater inflow and ice formation (BLM 1994).

Typically, the mean monthly stream flow exceeds the instream flow values from March 1 to June 30. This indicates that surface water quantity is generally adequate to meet the instream flow needs as well as water availability. Surface water quantity is highly variable and depends on climatic conditions, primarily precipitation. Historical meteorological data suggest that climatic conditions have been highly variable in the region and include prolonged cycles of drought.

Ephemeral streams do not flow during an average water year but do flow in response to large precipitation events. Intermittent streams flow during spring runoff for an average water year, but generally they dry up later in the summer.

The BLM manages approximately 3,408 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the planning area. Perennial streams contain some water all year for an average water year. Most of the streams on BLM- administered land in the planning area are intermittent and flow from March to July. However, streams can still contain water during other months due to stored water being fed into the streams from shallow groundwater sources or floodplains (see Figure 12, Perennial Streams and Impaired Waters [Appendix A]).

The planning area contains a number of instream flow water rights to support fisheries and riparian wetland values. Most of these water rights are held by MFWP, but some are held by the USFWS and the BLM. The ability of surface waters to meet the instream flow values is an indicator of surface water quality and the adequacy of the body of water to support watershed function.

Some watersheds have a significant amount of BLM-administered lands, with the potential to affect water quantity and yield. The BLM has identified streams of particular interest (see Figure 13, Streams of Particular Interest [Appendix A]). These include major prairie streams where the watersheds do not contain headwaters in the mountains or that a very small percentage of the watershed is in the mountains. These watersheds are Armells Creek, Blood Creek, Carroll Coulee, Cottonwood Creek, Crooked Creek, Dovetail Creek, Drag Creek, Sand Creek, and Two Calf Creek. Many of these are watersheds that flow onto the Charles M. Russell NWR or those that could affect flows on the NWR indirectly.

There are other streams on BLM-administered lands that could be characterized as prairie streams or that lack mountain headwater; however, BLM management could do very little to influence flows on those streams because of landownership.

The BLM administers pits and reservoirs, which are natural or artificial lakes that provide water for multiple beneficial uses; examples are stock water, habitat for wildlife, riparian communities, recreation, and water supply. Reservoirs are water impoundments typically created by earth-filled embankments. Pits are generally excavations for water storage; however, combinations of pits and reservoirs are common. Natural depressions are also common in the planning area.

The BLM administers approximately 5 percent of the landownership in the major hydrologic basins and associated sub-basins in the planning area. The primary basins where BLM-administered lands are concentrated are Fort Peck Lake and Musselshell. The BLM administers 4.9 percent and 17.5 percent of those basins. 40

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 13, Developed Pit /Reservoirs, Springs, and Wells in the Planning Area1, lists the number of developed pits/dams/reservoirs, springs, and wells in the planning area. There are 19 of these surface water impoundments in the planning area that are classified as hazard class dams or recreation sites or that contain sport fisheries. These impoundments were examined specifically, based on valid existing rights, hazard class status, public access, fisheries habitat, livestock/wildlife values, and functionality. A complete survey of these sites was completed November 2014. It included dam condition assessments, sediment deposition and volume loss, life expectancy of the structures, lentic PFC, riparian-wetland capability, and habitat measurements for amphibians and fisheries.

Table 13 Developed Pit /Reservoirs, Springs, and Wells in the Planning Area1 Other Type of Diversion BLM Private State Water Federal Pit/reservoir 963 7,201 771 139 81 Well 84 11,213 215 169 136 Spring box 0 345 5 433 0 Source: DNRC 2016 1Numeric values = Number of that type of diversion

Water Quality Water quality, as defined by the CWA, includes all the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics that affect existing and designated beneficial uses. It requires the State of Montana to identify which beneficial uses a water body currently supports or could support in the future. Water quality standards are established to protect the beneficial uses of the state’s waters. Beneficial uses are identified for specific waters.

Commonly, waters in the planning area are considered to be suitable for bathing, swimming, and recreation, propagation of non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers. These waters may be considered marginal for drinking, culinary uses, and food processing but could be suitable for such purposes after conventional treatment.

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires the State of Montana to identify waters whose quality is impaired because of failing to meet their designated beneficial uses. Section 303(d) requires that each state develop a list of water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards and delineate stream segments and listing criteria for all streams. The Section 303(d) list of impaired waters is updated every 2 years and states are required to develop a TMDL allocation for each pollutant of concern.

The most common sources of impairment in the planning area are as follows:

Agriculture, grazing in riparian areas and shorelines • Irrigated crop production • Natural sources 41

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

• Rangeland grazing • Channelization • Loss of riparian habitat • Flow alterations from water diversions, dams, or impoundments

Table 14, 303(d) Listed Streams on BLM-Administered Land, is the most recent list of impaired streams on BLM-administered lands. There are no 303(d) listed water bodies on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Table 14 303(d) Listed Streams on BLM-Administered Land Streams Miles Armells Creek 1.8 Arrow Creek 0.7 Battle Creek 0.4 Belt Creek 0.2 Big Otter Creek 0.0 Chicago Gulch 1.7 Coffee Creek 1.2 Collar Gulch 2.6 Dog Creek 11.9 Elk Creek 0.3 Last Chance Creek 0.2 Missouri River 0.2 North Fork Flatwillow Creek 0.5 North Willow Creek 2.0 Wolf Creek 0.2 Total Miles 23.9 Sources: BLM GIS 2015b; EPA GIS 2014

Table 3-15, Beneficial Uses Associated with Miles of 303(d) Listed Streams on BLM-Administered Land, is the most recent list of associated beneficial uses with miles of impaired streams in the planning area.

Table 15 Beneficial Uses Associated with Miles of 303(d) Listed Streams on BLM-Administered Land Use Class Miles B-1 0.8 B-2 0.7 C-3 16.2 Not Inventoried 6.1 Sources: MDEQ 2014b

All surface waters are designated with specific beneficial uses under the Federal Clean Water Act (i.e. drinking water, recreation, fish and aquatic life, etc.) and assigned to a “use class.” Each “use class” has 42

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

associated standards for how clean the water must be to support the associated use. Montana’s water quality use classes and associated beneficial uses include the following as stated in ARM 17.30.6.:

A-CLOSED – Waters are suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes after simple disinfection and are also suitable for swimming, recreation, and growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life (although access restrictions to protect public health may limit actual use). A-1 – Waters are suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment for removal of naturally present impurities. Water quality must be suitable for bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. B-1 – Waters are suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. B-2 – Waters are suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes, after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming and recreation; growth and marginal propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. B-3 – Waters are suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. C-1 – Waters are suitable for bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. C-2 – Waters are suitable for bathing, swimming and recreation; growth and marginal propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. C-3 – Waters are suitable for bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and furbearers. Naturally marginal for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes, agriculture and industrial water supply. I – The State of Montana has a goal to improve these waters to fully support the following uses: drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply.

Under Montana law, water quality must be maintained to sustain the class of the groundwater. There are four classes of groundwater based on the specific conductance of the water (an indicator of the level of dissolved solids, primarily salts, or metals in the water). The classes are I, II, III, and IV, with Class I being the highest quality water and Class IV being the lowest quality.

MDEQ has the responsibility for water quality management in the state, including developing a TMDL for pollutants. TMDL is the allowable pollutant loading from all sources (point and nonpoint) established at a level necessary to achieve compliance with applicable surface water quality standards. The BLM is responsible for managing sources of pollutants on the lands it administers.

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 16, Causes of Impairment for Miles of 303(d) Listed Streams on BLM-Administered Land, is the most recent list of associated causes of impairment for miles of impaired streams in the planning area.

Table 16 Causes of Impairment for Miles of 303(d) Listed Streams on BLM-Administered Land Cause Name Miles Chromium (total) 0.2 Copper 0.2 Cyanide 0.2 Iron 3.1 Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) 13.1 Nitrogen (Total) 2.3 Phosphorus (Total) 2.7 Sedimentation/Siltation 15.5 Selenium 1.6 Solids (Suspended/Bedload) 2.0 Specific Conductance 2.0 Sulfates 2.0 Temperature, water 0.7 Thallium 0.2 Total Dissolved Solids 1.4 Not Inventoried 6.1 Sources: MDEQ 2014b

Riparian-wetland areas are important water quality and quantity features (see current conditions discussion for Riparian/Wetland Communities in Section 2.5). They provide important water and sediment storage and can play a critical role in reducing nonpoint source pollution by intercepting surface runoff, subsurface flow, and certain groundwater flows. Their role in water quality improvement is to process, remove, transform, and store such pollutants as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorous, and certain heavy metals. Thus, wetlands and riparian areas buffer receiving water from the effects of pollutants and prevent the entry of pollutants into receiving water. Riparian conditions and water quality are directly related and improvements to riparian/wetland conditions will tend to improve water quality.

Upland and riparian health conditions influence water quality. The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation (Dickard et al. 2015). Lotic riparian areas surrounding rivers, streams, and springs are in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris is present for the following:

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality • Capture sediment and aid floodplain development • Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge • Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against erosion • Maintain channel characteristics

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

A riparian area in PFC will, in turn, provide associated values, such as wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities (Dickard et al. 2015).

Streams that are in PFC typically have channel dimensions that are appropriate for the landscape and setting and adequate riparian-wetland vegetation to stabilize banks from cutting action. Both of these features help to reduce erosion and mitigate nonpoint source pollutants, thereby improving water quality. However, PFC does not equal adequate or good water quality. The quality of water flowing into a section of stream with PFC would not be improved. See the Riparian/Wetland Communities discussion in Section 2.5 for more information on PFC.

Table 17, 303(d) Listed PFC Assessed Streams, lists information for 303(d) listed streams on BLM- administered lands in the planning area. A rating of functional-at risk (FAR) indicates that the stream is functioning but lacking enough vegetation, soils, or landform characteristics to withstand a various frequency event without sustaining significant damage to the riparian corridor. A nonfunctional (NF) rating indicates that the stream is not stable because it lacks most of the stabilizing physical characteristics and may continue to deteriorate (USDA 1999).

Table 17 303(d) Listed PFC Assessed Streams Miles Watershed PFC Rating Assessed Armells Creek 0.87 FAR Battle Creek 0.42 PFC Coffee Creek 0.64 FAR Collar Gulch Creek 2.16 PFC Collar Gulch Creek 0.34 NF Dog Creek 3.38 FAR Dog Creek 8.92 PFC Elk Creek 0.19 PFC Fargo Coulee 0.09 NF Fargo Coulee 0.03 PFC Fords Creek 1.33 PFC North Fork Flatwillow 0.26 FAR Creek North Willow Creek 1.8 FAR Sources: BLM GIS 2015b; EPA GIS 2014

According to MDEQ, the primary pollutants affecting impaired streams are sediment, nutrients, specific conductance, metals, riparian alterations, flow alterations, and temperature; the primary sources are natural events, grazing (rangeland and riparian), abandoned mine lands (AMLs), channelization, and riparian habitat loss.

While the specific impairment varies, depending on the stream segment, there are likely sources contributing to impairment. The actual pollution load from BLM-administered lands is undetermined, though it is possible that BLM management may be contributing to the impairment of these streams, especially those listed as NF or FAR. Loss of riparian habitat, sedimentation, and nutrients contribute to the impairment of these streams. The US Bureau of Mines conducted some research on Armells Creek,

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Chicago Gulch, and Collar Gulch, the results of which suggested that the elevated heavy metal concentrations and low pH were from natural sources.

Of the approximately 379 miles of total PFC assessed perennial and intermittent streams the BLM manages, including those that have not been 303(d) listed, approximately 9 percent have been rated as NF and approximately 4 percent have been rated as FAR with a downward trend in rating (BLM GIS 2015b).

Water Use Irrigated agriculture is the largest use of surface water in Montana (MDEQ 2007). Water withdrawn for irrigation accounts for more than 97 percent of water withdrawn each year, providing water to approximately 2.1 million acres of land (MDEQ 2007). On BLM-administered lands the primary use of water is for stock, wildlife, and fisheries. Most irrigation water rights have been adjudicated or are being adjudicated by the State of Montana.

The largest use of surface water by the BLM is in pits, dams, and reservoirs. The number of water developments on BLM-administered lands and ownerships in the planning area is an indicator of the current level of surface water use. The number of water developments on BLM-administered lands and other ownerships, as described in Table 13, is an indicator of the current level of surface water use. It also indicates the potential need for water development to support BLM programs.

Some wetlands have been artificially created by capturing event flow; other naturally occurring wetlands have been modified to divert water for off-site use or to combine multiple wetlands into a single, larger water body. Some of these systems may be altered so substantially that they no longer provide natural functions; others have altered the potential of the sites but still produce the attributes and processes needed to function properly but differently than before the alteration.

Groundwater is an important source of water in the planning area, where there are no controlled groundwater areas. The actual volume of groundwater removed from aquifers in the planning area is highly variable. The highest well densities are in shallow aquifers close to population centers.

Water Rights Water rights in Montana are subject to the state’s Water Use Act (85-2-101 et seq. Montana Code Annotated [MCA]) of 1973), which became effective July 1, 1973. The Water Use Act required owners of water rights that existed before July 1, 1973, to file a statement of claim for each water right. These pre-1973 water rights are finalized by the Montana Water Court. Post-1973 water rights are managed through the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) permit system.

Some water rights on BLM-administered lands are protected by federal reserved water rights of various types. These reserved water rights are based on federal legislation that withdraws federal lands for a specific purpose that requires water. Some such water rights are public springs and water holes (known as PWR-107s). These are described by Executive Order, dated April 17, 1926. Others are oil and gas wells that are converted to public use, as described by the Oil and Gas Well Conversion Act of June 16, 1934. 46

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The planning area includes several PWR-107-type water sources and at least one converted oil well. The Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River holds a reserved water right, as does the Missouri River Breaks National Monument. Quantification of the amount and administration of these water rights was negotiated with the Montana Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission and was codified by the Montana legislature.

The BLM filed claims for its pre-July 1, 1973, water rights to water sources on BLM-administered land under the same regulations as all other appropriators. The State of Montana began adjudicating these water rights in the early 1980s. The BLM filed claims on all existing water developments and natural sources, such as reservoirs, springs, and potholes, on BLM-administered land for which it had records.

The BLM manages the land for multiple uses and files water rights to protect these uses. Examples of such beneficial uses are watershed function, stock water, fisheries, riparian-wetland, and waterfowl and wildlife habitat. The BLM also manages surface water to support other BLM programs and activities, such as recreation and oil and gas development. Many BLM projects have more than one water right attached to them so that the varying uses listed above will be protected.

Table 13 is a summary of current water rights that exist for the primary water development types in the planning area by ownership.

The State of Montana has the authority to control or close river basins and groundwater aquifers to certain types of appropriations because of water availability problems, water contamination problems, and a concern for protecting existing water rights. The State of Montana may designate or modify controlled groundwater areas, which it often does when it identifies health risks.

There are five different types of closures: controlled groundwater areas, petitioned surface water basin closures, Montana DNRC-ordered Milk River closures, legislative closures, and compact closures. While each closure may have different restrictions on types of water appropriations and timing, basin closures are an indicator of not only the physical availability of surface water and groundwater, but also the legal availability of surface and groundwater. A basin closure indicates that water availability in those basins may be limited at times to support fisheries, watershed function, riparian-wetland values, or water quality. It also indicates that surface water quantity available for use may be physically or legally limited, especially at certain times of the year.

Table 18, Basin Closures within the Planning Area, identifies the various basin closures in the planning area and the amount of acreage for BLM-administered land and other federal, private, and state lands in each closure. There are no controlled groundwater areas in the planning area.

Table 18 Basin Closures within the Planning Area Other Federal BLM Acres Private Acres State Acres Acres Administrative Rule Closure Musselshell River 25,330 98,216 8,272 12,386 Legislative Closure Teton Basin 14,725 711,238 95,390 90,060 Upper Clark Fork Basin 19 23,776 223,669 2,309 47

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 18 Basin Closures within the Planning Area Other Federal BLM Acres Private Acres State Acres Acres Upper Missouri Basin 47,850 2,526,659 864,693 262,623 Source: BLM 2014a

Most of the BLM-administered lands in the planning area are not within a closed basin but in watersheds that drain into the Charles M. Russell NWR. This is administered by the USFWS, which holds a number of instream flow water rights to support the habitat needs of the refuge. The administration of these federal reserved water rights may affect the BLM’s ability to develop future water rights in these tributary watersheds.

There are a number of streams in the planning area for which the MFWP, USFWS, or BLM holds instream flow reservations or reserved water rights. These instream flows are intended to primarily support fisheries and riparian-wetland values. Most of them are held by the MFWP, but some are held by the USFWS and the BLM. The availability of surface waters to meet the instream flow requirements is an indicator of whether surface water quantity is adequate to support watershed function and associated values.

Irrigated agriculture is the largest use of surface water in Montana (MDEQ 2012); the largest use of surface water by the BLM is in pits, dams, and reservoirs. The number of water developments on BLM- administered lands and other ownerships within the planning area is an indicator of the current level of surface water use as well as an indicator of potential need for water development to support BLM programs.

Most irrigation water rights have been adjudicated or are in the process of being adjudicated by the State of Montana. Most of the easily developable water has been appropriated and many of the major streams and watersheds in the planning area are closed to new appropriations of surface water, at least at certain times of the year. This will result in a downward trend in new appropriations of surface water. Future appropriations are likely to depend on groundwater and water stored during periods of runoff.

Even though the number of new appropriations is dwindling, current water rights, combined with drought conditions, result in less water in streams. The impact of a depleted stream on fisheries can also be closely associated with trends in the health of riparian-wetland vegetation communities.

Trends Demands on water resources have increased over the past few decades. Although most early surface water rights were established for irrigation and livestock, today’s demand includes water for municipalities, for commercial and industrial uses, and for maintaining adequate stream flows for fish, recreation, and water quality.

Mean annual stream flow generally exceeds the instream flow water rights; typically the mean monthly stream flow exceeds the instream flow values between March and June.

Water quality in the planning area has been relatively static to a slightly upward trend (MDEQ 2012). Surface water quality varies greatly and depends largely on topographic influences and precipitation. In 48

3. Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile general, water quality decreases downstream in the watersheds, as irrigation withdrawals and returns, erosion, and development affect water quality. Specifically, increasing downstream are nutrient loading of nitrogen and phosphorus, total suspended sediment, and salinity concentrations (Heinze et al. 2009).

The most common sources of impairment in the planning area are as follows:

• Agriculture, grazing in riparian/shorelines • Irrigated crop production • Natural sources • Rangeland grazing • Channelization, loss of riparian habitat • Flow alterations from water diversions and dams or impoundments

Livestock water impoundments have altered surface and subsurface water flow. The number of new livestock water impoundments has leveled off due to a lack of appropriate locations for such developments. Consequently, future water developments are expected to rely more on wells and stock tanks.

The availability of water in much of the planning area is limited and may restrict additional developments that depend on water. Future developments for wildlife, recreation, and livestock would require a water right before a project could be implemented. Any additional water developments would require adhering to Montana state laws for surface and groundwater to the extent that it is compatible with federal law.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

2.5 Vegetation Communities

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments The planning area lies within two REA boundaries, the Northwestern Plains and the Middle Rockies. Locations of REAs are defined by one or more ecoregions (see Diagram 10, Ecoregions).

Diagram 10 Ecoregions ~l? lai s R

L.. __ I

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Northwestern Plains The 236,249-square-mile Northwestern Plains REA is primarily in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota, with small extensions into Nebraska. Most of the planning area is in the Northwestern Plains REA boundary. These lands are dominated by a mixed-grass prairie ecosystem, and much of the ecoregion receives less than 16 inches of precipitation per year.

Approximately 63 percent of the Northwestern Plains are terrestrial systems, approximately 6 percent are aquatic systems (riparian, wetlands, or open water), approximately 26 percent are under human land use, and approximately 5 percent are recently disturbed areas (BLM 2012a). The Northwestern Plains includes the Northwestern Great Plains and Northwestern Glaciated Plains Ecoregions.

Middle Rockies The Middle Rockies REA includes portions of western Montana and Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and several small noncontiguous areas in central Montana, northeastern Wyoming, and western South Dakota. The extent of the Middle Rockies REA is approximately 105,000 square miles. Portions of the Middle Rockies boundary overlap the Northwest Plains REA boundary in the planning area.

This REA is characterized by mountainous terrain, which supports forested alpine tundra and shrub/grassland ecosystems. Approximately 77 percent of the ecoregion is terrestrial systems, approximately 5 percent is aquatic systems (riparian, wetlands, or open water), approximately 8 percent is under human land use, and approximately 4 percent is recently disturbed areas. The remaining area is not defined in the landcover model (BLM 2012b). The Middle Rockies includes the ecoregions of the Middle Rockies and the Canadian Rockies.

National Vegetation Classification System Macro Groups Vegetation communities vary across the planning area depending on such factors as soils, aspect, precipitation, elevation, slope, and ecological condition. Vegetation is grouped into 29 National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) macro groups on BLM-administered lands in the planning area as shown in Table 19, NVCS Standard Macro Group Classes on BLM-Administered Lands.

Table 19 NVCS Standard Macro Group Classes on BLM-Administered Lands NVCS Standard Macro Groups Acres Percent Great Basin and Intermountain Tall Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe 274,500 41.9 Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane and Foothill Forest 163,200 24.9 Great Plains Badlands Vegetation 64,600 9.9 Great Plains Mixed-Grass Prairie and Shrubland 54,800 8.4 Rocky Mountain Subalpine and High Montane Conifer Forest 20,000 3.3 Northern Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Montane and Foothill 18,900 3.1 Grassland and Shrubland Great Plains Floodplain Forest 10,400 1.6 Introduced and Semi-Natural Vegetation 8,100 1.2 Great Plains Sand Grassland and Shrubland 7,000 1.1 Cool Semi-Desert Alkali-Saline Wetland 6,800 1.0

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 19 NVCS Standard Macro Group Classes on BLM-Administered Lands NVCS Standard Macro Groups Acres Percent Other (groups that individually constitute less than 1 percent of BLM- 22,800 3.7 administered lands) Sources: BLM GIS 2015b; NVCS GIS 2014; GAP GIS 1998

Current Conditions

Rangelands/Uplands Rangelands in the planning area are assessed according to the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997). Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant and measurable progress toward these functions and conditions is required of all uses of public rangelands. Uplands are assessed in accordance with Standard 1: uplands are in PFC, which means the following:

• Soils are stable and provide for the capture, storage, and safe release of water appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform. • The amount and distribution of ground cover (e.g., litter, live and standing dead vegetation, microbiotic crusts, and rocks/gravel) for identified ecological sites or soil plant associations are appropriate for soil stability. • Evidence is minimal for accelerated erosion in the form of rills or gullies, erosional pedestals, flow patterns, physical soil crusts/surface sealing, and compaction layers below the soil surface. • Ecological processes, including hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are maintained and support healthy biotic populations. • Plants are vigorous, biomass production is near potential, and species are diverse and characteristic of and appropriate to the site (BLM 1997).

Currently, 434,217 acres (72 percent) of upland vegetation communities are meeting Standard 1, and 155,214 acres (26 percent) are not meeting Standard 1. Most rangeland allotments have been evaluated; 15,394 acres (2 percent) have not been evaluated (BLM 2014c).

Rangeland vegetation on BLM-administered lands includes eight of the NVCS standard macro groups:

• Great Basin and Intermountain Dwarf Sage Shrubland and Steppe • Great Basin and Intermountain Tall Sage Shrubland and Steppe • Great Plains Badlands Vegetation • Great Plains Mixed-Grass Prairie and Shrubland • Great Plains Sand Grassland and Shrubland • Northern Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Montane and Foothill Grasslands and Shrubland • Rocky Mountain Alpine Scrub, Forb Meadow, and Grassland • Rocky Mountain-Vancouverian Subalpine and High Montane Mesic Grass and Forb Meadow

Acres of each macro group in the planning area are presented in Table 19. Great Basin and Intermountain Tall Sage Shrubland and Steppe and Great Plains Badlands Vegetation cover large portions of Chouteau,

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Fergus, and Judith Basin, and Petroleum Counties; these are part of the BLM-administered land in the planning area. Great Plains Mixed-Grass Prairie and Shrubland and Northern Rocky Mountain- Vancouverian Montane and Foothill Grassland and Shrubland groups largely occur in Cascade, Meagher, Pondera, and Teton Counties. The other macro group classes comprise a relatively small percentage of BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Forest/Woodlands Forest and woodland macro groups in the planning area are Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane and Foothill Forest and Rocky Mountain Subalpine and High Montane Conifer Forest (see Table 19).

Forest and woodland vegetation is primarily composed of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), and aspen (Populus tremuloides). Specific descriptions of tree species and forest and woodland communities are provided below.

Aspen Aspen is typically found in small stands in the mountain coniferous forested areas. It is often associated with a dense understory of mixed grasses and forbs, with an occasional shrub component. Suitable sites typically have well-drained soils with high levels or organic matter and nutrients (Howard 1996). The most abundant populations are in the Judith and Little Belt Mountains. Aspen is short lived, typically maturing in 60 to 80 years. Without disturbance, aspens do not effectively reproduce, and conifers begin to dominate the sites.

Douglas-fir Douglas-fir is common throughout the planning area on all aspects and slopes, although this forest type favors north or northeast-facing drainages at middle elevations. Spruce budworm infestation is widespread throughout these Douglas-fir communities, particularly in older or decadent stands. Severe defoliation and seed supply reduction has been observed in infested areas (Steinberg 2002).

Engelmann Spruce In the planning area, Engelmann spruce appears in riparian draws at middle to high elevations. It is commonly found in areas with long cold winters with heavy snowpack and short cool summers (Uchytil 1991a, p. 9).

Rocky Mountain juniper Rocky Mountain juniper is the predominant woodland species found throughout the planning area. It is common at lower elevations. The species is usually found in long-term seral or near-climax vegetation and is often associated with ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir (Howard 2002).

Limber pine Limber pine occurs on warm dry areas at low and middle elevations. Established communities are primarily found on the Rocky Mountain Front and the Little Belt Mountains; smaller pockets are intermingled with shrublands throughout the entire southern portion of the planning area. Limber pine is often found intermingled with other pine or shrubs. This is most common with Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine at the higher elevations and with juniper and sagebrush at the lower elevations (Johnson 2001). High levels of

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

mortality can be found throughout the planning area due to mountain pine beetle, white pine blister rust, climate change, and altered fire regimes.

Lodgepole pine Lodgepole pine occurs in the planning area in three different ecological roles: as a seral species to more shade-tolerant tree species; as a relatively stable codominant species with one or more other species (persistent); and as the only dominant tree layer (persistent or climax; Anderson 2003, p. 4). Lodgepole pine is found primarily in the Judith, Moccasin, and Little Belt Mountains in the planning area. It is associated with other mountain conifers, such as Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, and limber pine. However, the species often forms dense homogeneous stands, particularly in areas with repeated fires where there is no seed source for other species. In these pure stands, understory vegetation is uncommon (Anderson 2003).

In fire-generated stands of similar age (seral stands), trees become susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack at approximately the same time, resulting in large-scale infestations and mortality. The openings created by dead trees are seeded by lodgepole pine.

Subalpine fir Subalpine fir is a middle- to upper-elevation mountain conifer found in the Judith and Little Belt Mountains. It forms extensive forests between the warm and dry low elevation areas and the high alpine tundra. Established stands are associated with cold and wet climates, which include frequent summer frosts and heavy winter snowpack (Uchytil 1991b). In the Judith Mountains, subalpine fir is in patches intermingled with Engelmann spruce on wet north-facing aspects. At lower elevations, it is mostly restricted to stream bottoms, ravines, frosty basins, and northern slopes. It increasingly occupies westerly and easterly aspects with increasing elevation and may occupy all aspects at upper timberlines (Uchytil 1991b).

Ponderosa pine The interior ponderosa pine and bunchgrass vegetation type is the most common association throughout the planning area. These communities are characterized by open grasslands interspersed with widely spaced trees (Howard 2003, p. 5). At lower elevations, stand structure becomes increasingly dominated by grasslands and forests at higher elevations. In the central portions of the planning area, the interior ponderosa pine type merges into plains and grasslands at lower elevations and into Douglas-fir at higher elevations. Common overstory associates include limber pine, Douglas-fir, and Rocky Mountain juniper. In the planning area, ponderosa pine is shade intolerant and regenerates only in gaps in the canopy created by disturbance.

Late-successional ponderosa pine trees (greater than 120 years old) are found throughout the planning area. They are characterized by broken or deformed tops, bole defects, and large-diameter upper branches. These trees or groups of trees tend to be found on northern aspects and draw bottoms with a dense understory of regeneration; codominant trees are also present. There are no known late- successional stands in the planning area; however, individual trees or small groups can be found in the uneven-aged stands.

Riparian/Wetland Communities Riparian areas and wetlands are not synonymous, but the vegetation communities are often described together. This is true for riparian-wetland areas.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Federal policy (40 CFR 230.3[t]) defines wetlands as follows:

“those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.”

BLM Technical Reference 1737-15 (Dickard et al. 2015) defines riparian areas as follows:

“the transition between the aquatic area and adjacent upland areas (see example in figure 1). These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface- or subsurface-water influence.”

Riparian and wetland areas comprise less than five percent of the BLM-administered land in the planning area. Nevertheless, they provide a wide variety of important services and functions. Examples are biological diversity, bank and shoreline stabilization, floodplain maintenance, clean and stable water supplies, aquifer recharge, flood energy dissipation and moderation, fish and wildlife habitat, livestock forage, opportunities for recreation, carbon sequestration, and scenery (BLM 1997; Dickard et al. 2015). Drought is a common occurrence in the planning area, which further increases the importance of these spatially limited areas.

The integrity of riparian/wetland areas have been compromised by humans constructing dikes, impoundments, and excavations and removing beavers, which have altered the physical and ecological functions of the systems. According to Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP GIS 2014) data, 12 percent (19,870 of 161,400 acres) of the wetlands in the planning area have been modified by human disturbance (16,470 acres impounded, 1,290 acres diked and ditched, 1,460 acres excavated, and 650 acres farmed). Within the decision area, 26 percent (1,750 of 6,690 acres) of the wetlands on BLM-administered land have been modified by human activities (1,700 acres impounded and 50 acres excavated). This has altered the physical and ecological functions of the wetland systems in the planning area. Some wetlands have been artificially created by capturing flows; other naturally occurring wetlands have been modified to divert water for off-site use or to combine multiple wetlands into a single, larger water body. Some of these systems have been altered so substantially that they are no longer expected to provide natural functions; others have altered the potential of the sites but still produce the attributes and processes needed to function properly, just differently, than before the alteration.

Riparian and wetlands vegetation on BLM-administered lands are contained in the following NVCS Standard macro groups:

• Cool Semi-Desert Alkali-Saline Wetland • Great Plains Brackish Marsh and Saline Wet Meadow2 • Great Plains Floodplain Forest • Great Plains Freshwater Wet Meadow, Riparian, and Marsh1 • Rocky Mountain and Great Basin Flooded and Swamp Forest1 • Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane Fen1 • Warm Desert Freshwater Shrubland, Meadow, and Marsh1

2Included in the Other (groups that individually constitute less than 1 percent of BLM-administered land) Macro Group Class on Table 19. 55

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

• Western North American Montane Wet Meadow and Low Shrubland1

Acres of each macro group on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are presented in Table 19. More precise mapping of riparian and wetland habitat is contained in the databases of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and the MNHP. According to the NWI and MNHP spatial data, 12 riparian or wetland types occur in the planning area. Table 20, NWI Riparian-Wetland Types, shows the acreages of these wetland classes on BLM-administered lands. These wetland classes were described by Cowardin and others (Cowardin et al. 1979). Figure 14, Riparian Vegetation Communities (Appendix A), shows the spatial distribution of these mapped wetlands.

Indicators used to evaluate the condition of riparian and wetland areas are plant composition, age class and diversity, streambank stability, channel morphology and floodplain function, and erosion and deposition rates.

Table 20 NWI Riparian-Wetland Types National Wetland Inventory Classification Acres Freshwater Emergent Wetland 2,518 Freshwater Forested Wetland 9 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 24 Freshwater Pond 1,280 Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland 94 Lake 2,252 Other 80 Riparian Emergent 862 Riparian Forested 206 Riparian Scrub-Shrub 115 River 908 Riverine 140 Total 8,488 Sources: BLM GIS 2015b; NWI and MNHP GIS 2013

In the planning area, wetlands and riparian zones are subject to Land Health Standard #2: Riparian and wetland areas in PFC (BLM 1997). PFC is the tool that the BLM uses to assess the function and condition of any particular riparian-wetland area. The term is used to define current conditions. PFC ratings fall into three categories: PFC, FAR, and NF. A trend is also identified for the FAR ratings, which may be upward, not apparent, or downward.

Since the approach of the PFC assessment is to evaluate most of the indicators for Land Health Standard #2, the resultant functional rating (PFC, FAR, or NF) for each riparian area determines whether the standard is being achieved. A PFC rating means most or all of the indicators in the system’s potential have been met, thereby indicating that Standard #2 has been achieved.

A FAR rating with an upward trend generally means that several indicators have not been met but that significant progress is being made toward achieving Standard #2. A FAR rating with a downward or no apparent trend means several indicators have not been met and generally Standard #2 will not have been

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile achieved. Likewise, an NF rating means that critical indicators have not been met and Standard #2 has not been achieved.

For lotic systems (riparian-wetland areas adjacent to flowing water, such as rivers, streams, and springs), a riparian-wetland area is considered to be in PFC when adequate vegetation, landform, or woody material is present to accomplish the following:

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality • Filter sediment and aid floodplain development • Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge • Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against erosion • Maintain channel characteristics

A riparian area in PFC will, in turn, provide associated values, such as wildlife habitat or recreation opportunities (Dickard et al. 2015).

For lentic systems (riparian-wetlands areas with standing water, such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows), riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to accomplish the following:

• Dissipate energies associated with wind, waves, and overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality • Filter sediment and aid floodplain development • Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge • Develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting • Restrict water percolation • Develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, water bird breeding, and other uses • Support greater biodiversity (BLM 1998)

Information on the condition of riparian areas and wetlands is available from PFC assessments conducted between 2002 and 2014. Most of the lentic habitat in the planning area is associated with man-made reservoirs, ponds, and dams. The dominant classification in these areas is palustrine emergent, which is characterized by rooted herbaceous vegetation that extends above the water surface, such as sedges and rushes. These areas are typically found in the seepage areas below reservoirs and in the depositional areas where water comes into the reservoir.

A lentic riparian-wetland and reservoir conditions assessment inventory was recently completed for the planning area. The assessment inventory involved 628 wetland acres at 22 sites.

The following selection criteria were used to determine inventory sites:

• Known natural wetlands • Sites that met hazard-class size requirements or were previously identified as sport fishery reservoirs in the JVP RMP • Wetland size 57

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Twenty-one of the 22 sites assessed were associated with constructed embankments, and one was a natural wetland. The dominant lentic wetland type identified as part of this inventory was freshwater pond and open-water habitat. Small amounts of emergent wetland may be present at the inlet of reservoirs or in the seepage areas below the embankment, depending on water level fluctuation. The condition of all sites is summarized as follows (BLM GIS 2015b):

NF—271 acres (3 sites) FAR—236 acres (15 sites) Downward trend—232 acres No apparent trend—4 acres PFC—103 acres (4 sites) The primary altered attributes for those sites rated as NF or FAR were embankment deficiencies which do not allow for the safe passage of flows through the wetland, the lack of vegetation resulting in wave erosion, and the fluctuating water levels due to human action (e.g., water depletions for irrigation).

Lotic riparian and wetland condition data are also available; approximately 379 miles of streams have been assessed (BLM GIS 2015b). On BLM-administered lands lotic riparian and wetland conditions data is as follows:

PFC—223 miles FAR—93 miles NF—35 miles

Special Status Plant Species Special status plant species are those that require particular management attention due to population or habitat concerns. These include species listed as federally threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate and BLM-listed sensitive species. Currently, whitebark pine is a Candidate species for ESA listing. No other special status plant species are known to occur on BLM lands in the planning area.

Invasive Plant Species The term invasive plants include noxious weeds as well as other nonnative plants. An invasive species is defined as “a species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental health or harm to human health” (US National Invasive Species Council 2008). Noxious weeds are defined by the State of Montana as “any exotic plant species established or that may be introduced in the state that may render land unfit for agriculture, forestry, livestock, wildlife, or other beneficial uses or that may harm native plant communities” (Montana Code Annotated 2013).

Noxious plant lists are established on the federal, state, and county levels. BLM’s National Weed Team has developed a BLM National List of Non Native Invasive Species that are managed on public lands in the western US (Table 21, BLM National List of Non Native Invasive Species). The State of Montana currently designates 36 noxious plants and 5 regulated plants, which are divided into five categories based on the management priorities described in Table 22, Montana Noxious Weed List and Priority Categories.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

These numbers include noxious weed complexes, and multiple species may be listed under these complexes.

Additionally, under the County Noxious Weed Control Act (Montana Code Annotated 2013) and Administrative Rule of Montana, each county may designate plant species as noxious within that county. Table 23, Montana Noxious Weeds by County, shows county-designated weeds in the planning area.

Table 21 BLM National List of Non Native Invasive Species Scientific Name Common Name Grasses Aegilops cylindrica jointed goatgrass Ammophila arenaria European beachgrass Arundo donax giant reed Bromus diandrus ripgut brome B. japonicus Japanese brome B. rubens red brome B. tectorum downy brome Cenchrus longispinus longspine sandbur Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass C. selloana pampas grass Cynodon dactylon bermudagrass Ehrharta calycina veldt grass Elytrigia repens quackgrass Eragrostis lehmanniana Lehmann lovegrass Nardus stricta matgrass Panicum miliaceum wild proso millet Pennisetum setaceum crimson fountain grass Schismus arabicus schismus S. barbatus mediterranean grass Sorghum halepense johnsongrass Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusa-head Forbs Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Anthemis arvensis scentless chamomile Anthemis cotula mayweed chamomile Arctium minus common burdock Bassia hyssopifolia bassia Brassica nigra black mustard B. tournefortii wild turnip Caesalpinia gilliesii Mexican bird-of-paradise Cardaria chalepensis lens-podded whitetop C. draba hoary cress C. pubescens hairy whitetop C. acanthoides plumeless thistle C. nutans musk thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 21 BLM National List of Non Native Invasive Species Scientific Name Common Name C. teniflorus slender-flowered thistle Carpobrotus edulis hottentot fig C. chilensis sea iceplant Carthamus lantus distaff thistle Carum carvi common caraway Centaurea calcitrapa purple starthistle C. cyanus cornflower C. diffusa diffuse knapweed C. iberica Iberian starthistle C. jacea brown knapweed C. macrocephala bighead knapweed C. maculosa spotted knapweed C. melitenisis malta starthistle C. montana mountain cornflower C. nigra black knapweed C. nigrescens Vochin knapweed C. pratensis meadow knapweed C. squarrosa squarrose knapweed C. solstitialis yellow starthistle C. trichocephala feather-headed knapweed Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed Chrysanthemum leucanthemum ox-eye daisy Cichorium intybus chicory Cirsium arvense Canada thistle C. vulgare bull thistle Clematis orientalis Chinese clematis Conium maculatum poison hemlock Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Crepis setosa bristly hawkweed Crupina vulgaris common crupina Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle Cynoglossum officinale houndstongue Digitalis purpurea foxglove Dipsacus fullonum common teasel Echium vulgare blueweed Egeria densa Brazillian waterweed Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth Erechtites glomerata Australian fireweed Euphorbia cyparissias cypress spurge E. esula leafy spurge E. myrsinites myrtle spurge Foeniculum vulgare fennel Galega officinalis goats rue Gypsophila paniculata baby’s breath Halogeton glomeratus halogeton 60

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 21 BLM National List of Non Native Invasive Species Scientific Name Common Name Hesperis matronalis dames's rocket Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed H. pilosella mouse-ear hawkweed H. pratense yellow hawkweed Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla Hyoscyamus niger black henbane Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort Hyposhaeris radicata common cats-ear Isatis tinctoria dyer's woad Knautia arvensis blue buttons Lathyrus latifolius everlasting peavine Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica dalmation toadflax L. vulgaris yellow toadflax Lysimachia vulgaris garden loosestrife Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife L. virgatum wand loosestrife Madia sativa Chilean tarweed Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfloil Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle O. taricum Scotch thistle Peganum harmala African rue Potentilla recta sulphur cinquefoil Salvia aethiopsis Mediterranean sage Saponaria officinalis bouncing bet Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort S. mikanoides German ivy Solanum dulcamara bitter nightshade Sonchus arvensis perennial sowthistle Sphaerophysa salsula swainsonpea Tanacetum vulgare common tansy Zygophyllum fabago Syrian bean caper Shrubs and Trees Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven Alhagi pseudalhagi camelthorn Cytisus junceum Spanish broom C. monspessulanas French broom C. scoparius Scotch broom C. striatus Portugese broom Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive Ficus carica edible fig Lespedeza cuneata Himalayan bush clover Retama monosperma bridal veil broom Rubus discolor Himalaya blackberry Schinus terebrinthifolius Brazillian pepper 61

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 21 BLM National List of Non Native Invasive Species Scientific Name Common Name Tamarix aphylla athel T. chinensis tamarisk T. gallica French tamarisk T. parviflora small flower tamarisk T. pentanda tamarisk T. ramosissima salt cedar Ulex europaeus gorse Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Source: BLM 2016

Table 22 Montana Noxious Weed List and Priority Categories Priority Category Species PRIORITY 1A: These weeds are not present (a) Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) or have a very limited presence in Montana. (b) Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) Management criteria will require eradication (c) Common reed (Phragmites australis ssp. (if detected), education, and prevention. australis) (d) Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) PRIORITY 1B: These weeds have limited (a) Knotweed complex presence in Montana. Management criteria (Polygonum cuspidatum will require eradication or containment and P. sachalinense education. P. bohemicum Fallopia japonica F. sachalinensis

F. bohemica Reynoutria japonica R. sachalinensis R. bohemica) (b) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) (c) Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) (d) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) (e) Blueweed (Echium vulgare)

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 22 Montana Noxious Weed List and Priority Categories Priority Category Species PRIORITY 2A: These weeds are common in (a) Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea, Jacobaea isolated areas of Montana. Management vulgaris) criteria will require eradication or (b) Meadow hawkweed complex containment where less abundant. (Hieracium caespitosum Management shall be prioritized by local H. praealturm weed districts. H. floridundum Pilosella caespitosa) (c) Orange hawkweed (H. aurantiacum, Pilosella aurantiaca) (d) Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris) (e) Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) (f) Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus) (g) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) (h) Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) (i) Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica L.) (j) Ventenata (Ventenata dubia) PRIORITY 2B: These weeds are abundant in (a) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Montana and widespread in many counties. (b) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Management criteria will require eradication (c) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) or containment where less abundant. (d) Whitetop (Cardaria draba, Lepidium draba) Management shall be prioritized by local (e) Russian knapweed ( Acroptilon repens, weed districts. Rhaponticum repens) (f) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe, C. maculosa) (g) Diffuse knapweed (C. diffusa) (h) Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) (i) St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) (j) Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) (k) Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) (l) Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) (m) Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) (n) Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) (o) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) (p) Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) (q) Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana) PRIORITY 3: Regulated Plants (Not (a) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Montana-Listed Noxious Weeds). These (b) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) regulated plants have the potential to have (c) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) significant negative impacts. The plant may (d) Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) not be intentionally spread or sold other (e) Parrot feather watermilfol (Myriophyllum than as a contaminant in agricultural aquaticum or M. brasiliense) products. The state recommends research, education, and prevention to minimize the spread of the regulated plant. Source: Montana Department of Agriculture 2019a

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 23 Montana Noxious Weeds by County County Designated Noxious Weed Pondera Common burdock (Artium minus), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) Teton Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Lewis and Clark Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), common burdock (Artium minus), musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Cascade None Chouteau Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), baby’s breath (Gypsophila paniculata) Judith Basin Yellow mignonette (Reseda lutea) Meagher Absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), bladder campion (Silene vulgaris), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), yellow mignonette (Reseda lutea) Fergus None Petroleum None Source: Montana Department of Agriculture 2015b

Distribution of Invasive Plants Noxious and invasive plant species in the planning area are generally associated with areas where natural or human disturbances have occurred: waterways, roads, recreational destinations, over-utilized rangeland, pipelines, drilling pads, ROWs, and livestock/wildlife paths and congregation areas. In some locations, noxious and invasive species have spread beyond historically disturbed areas to form a major portion of the vegetation community.

Nonnative species occurring in the planning area are primarily grasses. Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) was planted to protect farmed areas from erosion on lands that had been in private ownership and were reacquired by the federal government in the 1930s. Today, crested wheatgrass has spread throughout the planning area and can replace native vegetation with monotypic stands (Fansler and Mangold 2010). Other nonnative species that are well established in the planning area are smooth brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum pretense), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis).

Invasive Plant Species Control The Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States ROD (BLM 2007) discusses how herbicides will be applied to BLM-administered lands, including mitigation measures, standard operating procedures, and analysis of active and inactive ingredients by herbicide. Management of invasive species in the planning area, which involves the use of herbicides, adheres to the mitigation measures and standard operating procedures of the programmatic EIS.

The BLM (LFO) currently cooperates with the county weed districts in Fergus, Petroleum, Pondera, and Teton Counties. The BLM BFO cooperates with Lewis and Clark County concerning BLM-administered lands that are included in this plan. The BLM cooperates through assistance agreements for the management and control of noxious weeds on unallocated parcels of BLM-administered land and by assisting permittees and lessees in weed control. Most weed control efforts are through weed control 64

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

cooperative range improvement project agreement with affected permittees and lessees, whereas the permittees and lessees enter into an approved weed management plan. Most grazing permits and leases are issued with the term and condition “Cooperative agreements between the BLM and permittee(s)/lessee(s) will be established for control of existing or new infestations of noxious weeds found in the allotment(s) during the term of the permit/lease.” Quantitative data on invasive species control is unavailable or incomplete.

Priority Vegetation Types The BLM has identified priority vegetation types and associated priority biological species and communities. This was done to prioritize and focus future management strategies based on a comprehensive understanding of species and habitat and vegetation community relationships. Priority habitats occur in priority vegetation types and provide habitat for assemblages of native wildlife, including priority wildlife species (see Section 2.6, Fish and Wildlife, and Figure 15, Priority Species and Vegetation [Appendix A]).

Five priority vegetation types were identified in the planning area, as follows:

• Ponderosa pine breaks/badlands • Montane forest and meadows • Sagebrush/grasslands • Grasslands • Riparian/wetland communities

Ponderosa Pine Breaks/Badlands The ponderosa pine breaks/badlands priority vegetation type is characterized by steep, highly erosive topography, generally within 15 miles of the Missouri or Musselshell Rivers. Ponderosa pine is the dominant overstory, with bunch grasses, shrubs, and forbs common in the understory. Rock outcroppings and bare soils are also common. This vegetation type is restricted to the northeastern portion of the planning area. The VCC (as described in detail under Section 2.7, Wildland Fire Ecology and Management) is primarily 2 and 3, primarily resulting from a long history of fire suppression. Fire suppression has increased the number and area of small diameter trees, while reducing the amount of grasses, forbs, and deciduous shrubs. This vegetation type occupies approximately 502,000 acres, or 4 percent of the planning area and 172,900 acres or 27 percent of BLM-administered lands. Elk (Cervus canadensis) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are common, while greater short-horned lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi) and other special status species are also associated with this vegetation type.

Montane Forest and Meadows Montane forest and meadows are generally located at the higher elevations and are characterized by coniferous forest complexes of Rocky Mountain juniper, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and aspen. Meadows are the earliest successional stage in this vegetation type, and they require disturbance. Without disturbance, meadows would eventually become a coniferous forest. This vegetation type provides important summer cover for big game species and special status species, such as western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), and gray wolf (Canis lupus). This vegetation type occupies approximately 2,672,900 acres, or 21 percent of the planning area, and 79,500 acres, or 12 percent of BLM-administered lands.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Sagebrush/Grasslands The sagebrush/grassland priority vegetation type is characterized by sagebrush, shrubs, bunch grasses, rhizomatous grasses, and forbs. Such disturbances as fire generally increase the amount of grasses and forbs, while decreasing the amount of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis).

Much of this vegetation type coincides with habitat for the greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. Additionally, the sagebrush/grasslands vegetation type provides winter range for big game species. Sagebrush and grassland habitats are distributed throughout the planning area and are found at the lower elevation prairie areas. Sagebrush/grassland occupies approximately 3,875,400 acres, or 30 percent of the planning area, and 341,800 acres, or 52 percent of BLM-administered lands.

Grasslands The grassland communities lie between the higher elevation montane forests and meadows and the lower elevation sagebrush/grassland vegetation type. These lands are characterized by grasses, forbs, and some shrubs. Species associated with this priority vegetation type are chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii). Grassland occupies approximately 1,311,000 acres, or 10 percent of the planning area, and 19,100 acres, or 3 percent of BLM-administered lands.

Riparian/Wetland Communities Riparian areas are the transition zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. These areas are often found along perennial or intermittent streams, seeps, and springs. Wetlands are areas of hydrophytic vegetation (species that grow in or on water exclusively), with unique soil characteristics that have developed under the influence of persistent water. These two areas comprise the riparian/wetlands priority vegetation type.

This vegetation type provides important nesting and migration habitat for waterfowl. Many amphibian species, as well as muskrats, beavers, and mink, occur in riparian and wetland areas only. Additionally, cold water and warm water aquatic habitats are associated with this vegetation type. This vegetation type occupies approximately 651,500 acres, or 5 percent of the planning area, and 23,400 acres, or 4 percent of BLM-administered lands.

Other Other vegetation types are water, agricultural pasture, and developed areas. This vegetation type occupies approximately 3,893,800 acres, or 30 percent of the planning area, and 14,500 acres, or 2 percent of BLM- administered lands.

Trends

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments Change agents were identified for each REA, which include natural or human disturbances that influence the current and future status of ecological resources. Change agents for the Northwestern Plains and Middle Rockies REAs are fire, development, invasive species, climate change, and insect outbreaks and diseases (BLM 2012a, 2012b). Trends related to REAs are discussed below in the context of these change agents. Because REAs cover a wider region than the planning area, trends are discussed in general terms.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Northwestern Plains Variable precipitation, combined with prolonged drought and periodic wildfire, has created an environment where native prairie species have adapted. Moreover, variable precipitation prevents major forest establishment, with the exception of moister upland areas. In general, many areas of the Northwestern Plains REA have experienced a decline in fire. This REA is North America’s largest grassland ecoregion, and it still contains large unplowed areas. Tilling land for agriculture remains a threat to remaining native grasslands (BLM 2012a).

Middle Rockies Insects and disease have spread through many forested portions of the ecoregion, causing large-scale tree mortality to woodland and forest ecosystems. This trend will continue, based on the proximity of insect outbreaks, the availability of large mature host species, the predicted increase in temperatures, existing forest densities, and lack of age class diversity.

The ongoing trend of wildfire suppression throughout the Middle Rockies leads to woody invasion of grassland areas. This reduces habitat for grassland species and increases fuel buildup (BLM 2012b). This increase in fuel buildup is likely to lead to large-scale stand-replacing wildfires.

Invasive Species Established invasive plant species continue to expand in the planning area, particularly in areas of disturbance (e.g., ROWs, OHV use areas, and energy exploration and development sites). To limit the spread of invasive species, mitigation measures are incorporated into grazing permits, NEPA documents, oil and gas stipulations, and other instruments for BLM-permitted activities. While there has been some success in containing the spread of large infestations and eradicating small infestations, continued expansion is expected.

Invasion by nonnative grasses can increase fire frequency, which typically results in sagebrush canopy being removed from affected areas and replaced by annual species that provide little to no habitat value (Baker 2011). Temperature increases may increase crop yields, which may encourage agriculture in parts of the state not previously used for that purpose (NRC 2010). The risk of wildfire is expected to increase throughout the state (NRC 2010).

Priority Vegetation The ponderosa pine breaks/badlands priority vegetation type has experienced extensive fire suppression, which has increased the number and extent of small diameter trees. VCC (as described in detail under Section 3.2.7) is primarily 2 and 3, and fire suppression has resulted in a departure from historical fire regimes.

Montane Forests and Meadows Overall health is in decline for many conifer stands in the planning area. Prolonged drought and overstocking (too many trees per acre) has promoted increased mortality from insect and disease epidemics and stand-replacing wildfires. Mountain pine beetle activity in lodgepole, limber, and whitebark pine stands has increased. There is spruce budworm damage in Douglas-fir stands in the Judith, Moccasin, Little Belt, Big Snowy, and Little Snowy Mountains.

Many ponderosa pine stands in the lower elevations are overstocked and have an increasing understory of juniper. An increase in mountain pine beetle activity has been noted in ponderosa pine throughout the 67

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

planning area. In addition, ponderosa pine regeneration is encroaching into historic meadows and into aspen stands throughout the planning area.

Aspen stands are in decline, due to drought, conifer encroachment, lack of disturbance, and ungulate browsing. Aspen regeneration is good where fuel loading was low to moderate, and it is poor in areas where heavy fuel loading has led to increased fire intensities.

In general, composition and structure are changing throughout the forested areas in the planning area. Tree density has increased due to growth in the understory, favoring stand-replacing wildfires. Competition for nutrients, sunlight, and water is weakening trees of all age classes and causing an overall decline in forest health.

Sagebrush/Grasslands Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997) may be used as an indicator for sagebrush/grasslands habitat. Trends for rangelands and uplands are generally upward; however, some rangeland allotments continue to not meet Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997). Currently, 434,217 acres (72 percent) of upland vegetation communities are meeting Standard 1, and 155,214 acres (26 percent) are not meeting Standard 1. Most rangeland allotments have been evaluated; 15,394 acres (2 percent) have not been evaluated (BLM 2014c). Factors that have influenced this trend are as follows:

• Historic overgrazing • Lack of fire • OHV and other human recreation use • Oil, gas, and ROW development • Livestock grazing in combination with heavy big game winter use • Private land development

In general, sagebrush/grasslands are slower to recover from fires, compared to other priority vegetation types.

Grasslands Trends for grassland habitats are similar to those discussed under sagebrush/grasslands.

Riparian/Wetland Communities Of the lentic riparian and wetland areas that have been assessed, approximately 103 acres (16 percent) are PFC, 255 acres (41 percent) are FAR, and 271 acres (43 percent) are NF. Most lentic riparian and wetland areas assessed were associated with constructed embankments, not natural wetlands. Only one natural wetland (55 acres) was evaluated, and this site was PFC.

For lotic riparian and wetland areas, approximately 379 miles of streams have been assessed. Of these, 223 miles are PFC, 93 miles are FAR, 35 miles are NF, and 28 miles are considered non-riparian.

Those riparian and wetland areas that have upward trend are in an improving trend. Twenty-four percent of lotic riparian-wetlands are in an upward trend, and 76 percent are in a static, downward, or unknown trend ((BLM GIS 2015b).

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

2.6 Fish and Wildlife

This section describes the existing conditions of fish and wildlife resources in the decision area, including special status species. Although the MFWP and USFWS are directly responsible for the management of fish and wildlife species, the BLM is responsible for land management. Therefore, on the public land that it administers in the decision area, the BLM is directly responsible for the management of habitat for fish and wildlife species. It also is indirectly responsible for the health of fish and wildlife populations that are supported by these habitats. In addition, the BLM is mandated through policy in BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2008) to ensure that special status species are protected. This mandate is reinforced through a memorandum of agreement with the USFWS, Forest Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service (BLM et al. 2000).

Current Conditions

Fish and Aquatic Communities The condition of aquatic habitats is fundamentally linked to the condition of the adjacent riparian zones, including vegetation, water quality, and stream channel characteristics. Riparian vegetation moderates water temperatures, increases bank stability, supports invertebrates, filters and entrains sediment, provides in-stream habitat for fish, and provides organic material for aquatic insects. Thus, indicators for fish health and their habitat are tied to riparian conditions.

The wide dispersal and scattered parcel distribution of BLM-administered lands in the planning area results in lotic aquatic habitat (e.g., streams and rivers), crossing multiple land jurisdictions. Aquatic habitats are diverse and consist of prairie rivers and streams, rocky mountain streams, island mountain streams, springs, seeps, and lakes or reservoirs. These water bodies provide perennial and seasonal habitat for fish, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. As shown in Table 24, Nongame and Game Fish Species in the Planning Area, 57 fish species are known to occur or potentially occur in the planning area, 41 of which are native and 16 are nonnative.

Table 24 Nongame and Game Fish Species in the Planning Area Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Habitat Nongame Fish Lakes, ponds, reservoirs, Black bullhead2 Ameiurus melas stream backwaters Large prairie rivers, lakes, Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens streams Reservoirs, river backwaters, River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio prairie streams Longnose sucker Catostomus Larger streams, rivers, lakes Slow moving streams, rivers, White sucker Catostomus commersoni lakes Largescale sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Mountain rivers, lakes Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus Clear cold streams

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 24 Nongame and Game Fish Species in the Planning Area Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Habitat Northern redbelly Chrosomus eos SOC Small prairie rivers dace Northern redbelly x Phoxinus eos x phoxinus BLM S, Small prairie streams finescale dace neogaeus SOC Rocky mountain Cottus bondi Mountain streams, rivers, lakes sculpin Columbia slimy Cottus cognatus Mountain streams, rivers, lakes sculpin Lake chub Couesius plumbeus Prairie streams Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans PSOC Small prairie rivers Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus SOC Large prairie rivers Reservoirs, lakes, river Common carp2 Cyprinus carpio backwaters Goldeye Hiodon alosoides Large prairie rivers, reservoirs Western silvery Hybognathus argyritis Prairie rivers, streams minnow Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni PSOC Small prairie streams, rivers Small and large prairie streams, Plains minnow Hybognathus. placitus PSOC rivers Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Reservoirs, prairie rivers Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus Large prairie rivers, reservoirs Warmer lakes, ponds, Green sunfish2 Lepomis cyanellus reservoirs, streams Warmer lakes, ponds, Bluegill2 Lepomis macrochirus reservoirs, stream backwaters BLM S, Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida Large prairie rivers SOC Sicklefin chub Macrhybopsis meeki SOC Large prairie rivers Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum Large prairie rivers Large prairie rivers, lakes, Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides reservoirs Large prairie rivers, lakes, Spottail shiner2 Notropis hudsonius reservoirs Prairie streams, lakes, Sand shiner Notropis stramineus reservoirs Stonecat Noturus flavus Prairie rivers, streams Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Prairie lakes, ponds, streams Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis Prairie rivers, streams Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae Streams, rivers, lakes Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus PSOC Small prairie rivers

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 24 Nongame and Game Fish Species in the Planning Area Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Habitat Game Fish Species Cisco2 Coregonus artedi Large reservoirs Reservoirs, lakes, stream pools, Northern pike Esox lucius prairie streams Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Large prairie rivers, lakes Burbot Lota lota Large rivers, lakes Cool lakes, ponds, reservoirs, Smallmouth bass2 Micropterus dolomieu streams Warmer lakes, ponds, Largemouth bass2 Micropterus salmoides reservoirs, stream backwaters Westslope cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi BLM S Mountain streams, rivers, lakes trout Rainbow trout2 Oncorhynchus mykiss Mountain streams, rivers, lakes Kokanee salmon2 Oncorhynchus nerka Cold lakes, reservoirs Lakes, reservoirs, stream Yellow perch2 Perca flavescens backwaters Paddlefish Polyodon spathula BLM S Large prairie rivers White crappie2 Pomoxis annularis Large prairie rivers, lakes Lakes, reservoirs, stream Black crappie2 Pomoxis nigromaculatus backwaters Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Mountain rivers Brown trout2 Salmo trutta Streams, rivers, lakes Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus FT Mountain streams, rivers, lakes Brook trout2 Salvelinus fontinalis Mountain streams, rivers, lakes Sauger Sander canadensis BLM S Large prairie rivers Walleye2 Sander vitreus Lakes, reservoirs, prairie rivers Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus FE Large prairie rivers Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus FT Large prairie rivers Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus FC Mountain rivers, lakes Source: MNHP 2014 1Species status is as follows: • BLM or State of Montana—BLM S = BLM Sensitive Species; SOC = Montana Species of Concern; PSOC = Montana Potential Species of Concern • Federal Status—FE = Endangered; FT = Threatened; FC = Candidate Species 2Species is nonnative to planning area

The planning area contains 5,088 miles of fish-bearing streams, 122 miles of which are on BLM- administered lands ((BLM GIS 2015b). Approximately 35 percent of the BLM-managed fish-bearing streams have been evaluated for PFC. Of these, approximately 80 percent were ranked as PFC, 12 percent as FAR, and 8 percent as NF.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Cold Water Aquatic Priority Habitats Cold water priority habitats are those found at higher elevations or higher latitudes where temperatures remain low. In the planning area, cold water fisheries are comprised of perennial mountain streams, including those in the Rocky Mountains and the island mountain ranges. Cold water fisheries also include mountain lakes and ponds. Although cold water lentic systems exist in the planning area, the BLM does not manage any of them.

Cold water fish species are sculpins and various species of salmonids, such as trout and Arctic grayling. Some of these species are native to the habitat, while others are stocked for recreational fishing. Of the 122 miles of fish-bearing streams on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, approximately 31 miles are mountain streams that are considered cold water aquatic priority habitat.

Warm Water Aquatic Priority Habitats Warm water aquatic priority habitats make up most of the BLM-managed fisheries in the planning area. These habitats have warmer water temperatures that cold water fish species cannot tolerate. Warm water fisheries consist of large, perennial prairie streams and rivers, intermittent prairie streams with perennial pools, and stocked fishing reservoirs, lakes, and ponds.

Prairie lotic systems are slow moving through most of the year and often contain more sediment than their mountain counterparts. Large perennial rivers support many warm water fish species, such as sturgeon, catfish, sauger, walleye, and paddlefish. Smaller perennial streams support populations of minnows, sunfish, and suckers, many of which are also found in the larger perennial rivers.

Prairie streams are an important ecological niche. Prairie fish and other aquatic organisms move throughout these systems, exploiting the perennial pool refuges in an intermittent stream system. Of the 122 miles of fish-bearing streams on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, approximately 89 miles are prairie streams considered warm water aquatic priority habitat.

Prairie lentic fisheries in the planning area are most often found in the form of reservoirs. In addition to the prairie stream and river species, prairie reservoirs may be stocked with other game species, such as largemouth bass, yellow perch, bluegill, black crappie, and possibly rainbow trout, depending on water temperatures. Many of the warm water lentic fish have been introduced for recreational fishing; however, some native species, such as sauger and channel catfish, also occur in these habitats.

There are approximately 140 sport fishery reservoirs in the planning area, and the BLM helps manage or provides access to 13 of them (see Table 25, Sport Fish Reservoirs Managed by or Accessed through the BLM). MFWP stocks all of the reservoirs listed with one or two species apiece (with the exception of Bynum Reservoir). Most of the smaller reservoirs were stocked with and are managed for largemouth bass or rainbow trout, with the exception of the Jakes, Wolf Coulee #1, and Whisker Reservoirs and Tunnel Lake.

Table 25 Sport Fish Reservoirs Managed by or Accessed through the BLM Reservoir/Lake Game Species Found Box Elder/Vogel Rainbow trout; yellow perch Bubs Largemouth bass Drag Creek Largemouth bass 72

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 25 Sport Fish Reservoirs Managed by or Accessed through the BLM Reservoir/Lake Game Species Found Dry Blood Largemouth bass Holland Largemouth bass Jakes Sauger; yellow perch Payola Largemouth bass; yellow perch South Fork Dry Blood Largemouth bass Whisker Largemouth bass; black crappie Wolf Coulee #1 Channel catfish Yellow Water Rainbow trout Tunnel Lake Arctic grayling; westslope cutthroat trout Bynum Reservoir Rainbow trout; Kokanee salmon; mountain whitefish; yellow perch; walleye Total 8,488 Sources: M-Fish 2015

The Jakes, Bubs, Wolf Coulee #1, and Holland Reservoirs listed in Table 25 were constructed 40 to 70 years ago, and their dams are deteriorating.

Aquatic Special Status Species Special status aquatic species are those that the USFWS lists as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate and that the BLM lists as sensitive. This includes six fish species and one invertebrate listed as BLM sensitive and, three fish species listed as federally threatened or endangered (USFWS 2014a). The three fish species listed as federally threatened or endangered are pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynhus).

Aquatic Nuisance Species Numerous ANS have a high potential to invade the planning area and present a serious threat to native species. Aquatic invasive species of highest concern in Montana are zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), quagga mussels (D. rostriformis bugenis), Asian carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, Mylopharyngodon piceus, Ctenoparyngodon idella, Hypophthalmicthys molitrix), hemorrhagic septicemia virus, and aquatic noxious weeds, such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). New Zealand mudsnails, whirling disease, American bull frog, and Eurasian watermilfoil have been detected or established in Montana. There is increasing concern for further spread of these exotics to new infestations.

Wildlife and Habitat Wildlife resources include game species (big game, upland game birds, waterfowl, webless migratory birds, and furbearers) and nongame species (raptors, reptiles, amphibians, nongame mammals, and migratory birds), as well as their habitat. The wildlife habitats that occur in the planning area are primarily characterized by the priority vegetation existing conditions discussions in Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.

The presence and interspersion of many habitat types support a large number of wildlife species in the planning area. The discussion of fish and wildlife populations and habitat addresses the entire planning area, not just lands managed by the BLM. This is because wildlife are mobile and may readily cross these boundaries. Wildlife species indicators reflect population levels, distribution, and quantity and quality of preferred and suitable habitat and the prey needed to support them. This includes critical breeding,

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

wintering grounds, and corridors needed to support migrations and a healthy genetic pool needed for adaptability to future circumstances and conditions. Indicators are detected through allotment evaluations, stream and vegetation monitoring, population surveys, and field observations.

Special Status Wildlife, Including Priority Species Special status wildlife species are those that the USFWS lists as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate and that the BLM lists as sensitive. This includes 44 species listed as BLM sensitive and five species listed as federally threatened or endangered (USFWS 2014a).

Federally listed and candidate wildlife species known to occur in the planning area are as follows:

• Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis; [FT]) • Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribillis [FT]) • Least tern (Sternula antillarum; [FE]) • Piping plover (Charadrius melodus [FT]) • Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii; [FC])

In the planning area, special status species are associated with one or more priority vegetation types, as follows:

• Ponderosa pine breaks/badlands • Montane forests and meadows • Sagebrush/grasslands • Grasslands • Riparian/wetland communities (see Section 2.5)

Priority Species Grizzly bear, greater sage-grouse, bighorn sheep, and prairie dog communities were identified as priority management species. These all require special management consideration and attention beyond management of their broader habitat types.

Grizzly Bears Grizzly bears occur along the Rocky Mountain Front. They were formerly abundant throughout the planning area but were exterminated from the eastern plains by 1900. Current populations appear healthy and are expanding east into prairie habitats. Grizzly bears in the planning area are part of the NCDE region. Kendall et al. (2009) estimated 765 grizzly bears in the NCDE in 2004. Mace et al. (2012) attached radio collars on and monitored 83 female grizzly bears in the NCDE; they estimated a 3.03 percent average annual population growth between 2004 and 2011, resulting in an estimated 942 grizzly bears in 2011.

In 2013, a draft NCDE Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy was developed. It describes the coordinated management and monitoring necessary to maintain a recovered grizzly bear population in the NCDE. This strategy identified a primary conservation area and the additional Management Zones 1 to 3. Each zone

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile has varying levels of proposed habitat protections, depending on their relative importance to the NCDE grizzly bear population.

In the planning area, 25,800 acres of BLM-administered lands are designated as a primary conservation area (BLM GIS 2015b). The primary conservation area would have the most conservative habitat protections so it can be managed as a source area where the goal is continual occupancy by grizzly bears.

Sixty-five hundred acres of BLM-administered lands in the planning area are designated as Management Zone 1 (BLM GIS 2015b). Management Zone I includes two demographic connectivity areas, with specific habitat measures to support female grizzly bears occupancy and their eventual dispersal to other ecosystems.

Management Zone 2 has 18,700 acres of BLM-administered lands in the planning area (BLM GIS 2015b). These lands would be managed to provide the opportunity for grizzly bears, particularly males, to move between the NCDE and adjacent ecosystems, with an emphasis on conflict prevention and response.

In the planning area, 38,800 acres are considered Management Zone 3 (BLM GIS 2015b). This zone’s lands do not have enough suitable habitat to contribute meaningfully to the long-term survival of the NCDE population, although grizzly bears may occasionally be found in these areas.

Canada lynx Potential Canada lynx habitat occurs, but the species has not been identified on BLM-administered surface lands in the planning area. Most potential habitat occurs along the Rocky Mountain Front, and no critical habitat occurs on BLM-administered lands; however, critical habitat does occur on adjacent National Forest System lands. In 2007, the Forest Service prepared a final EIS to incorporate Canada lynx management direction into its land management plans in the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. This area, the Northern Rockies Lynx Planning Area, includes the occupied and critical habitat on National Forest System lands in and next to the planning area.

The recovery outline for the Canada lynx stratified its habitat into three categories: core, secondary, and peripheral. Core areas are places of long-term persistence of lynx, and evidence of reproduction has been recently documented. Secondary and peripheral areas support dispersal or exploratory movements; these are inherently patchier and less productive than in core areas (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013).

Black-footed ferret The USFWS lists black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) as endangered in Fergus and Petroleum Counties. No black-footed ferrets occur in the planning area; the nearest are an experimental population approximately 3 miles northeast of the LFO in Phillips County. Although prairie dog towns occur in the planning area, there are currently none of sufficient size to support black-footed ferret expansion onto BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Approximately 34,100 acres of prairie dog towns are in the planning area, 4,100 of which are on BLM-administered lands (MNHP GIS 2014).

Greater sage-grouse Most of the greater sage-grouse population in the planning area is part of the Yellowstone Watershed population. Widespread threats are agriculture conversion, weeds/annual grasses, energy development, infrastructure, and improper grazing. Localized threats are sagebrush elimination, fire, conifers, and

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

recreation (USFWS 2013a). Primary threats in the planning area are agriculture conversion and improper grazing.

Acres of habitat for greater sage-grouse are presented in Table 26, Acres of PHMA and GHMA for the Greater Sage-Grouse in the Planning Area; the locations of priority and general habitats in the planning area are shown in Figure 16, Greater Sage-grouse Priority and General Habitat Management Areas (Appendix A).

Table 26 Acres of PHMA and GHMA for the Greater Sage-Grouse in the Planning Area Land Status PHMA GHMA BLM-administered surface lands 233,200 112,300 Federal mineral lands 283,900 191,700 Planning area 1,208,000 1,015,00 Sources: BLM GIS 2015b

Bighorn sheep MFWP considers bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis) a game species. They are predominantly located north of Winifred, next to the UMRBNM and along the Rocky Mountain Front (see Figure 17, Big Game Habitat [Appendix A]). Bighorn sheep occupy a variety of habitats in the planning area, including mountain foothills and meadows, steep and rocky ridges, avalanche chutes, and cliff faces. Approximately 45,300 acres of bighorn sheep habitat (general and winter) occur on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (BLM GIS 2015b).

Migratory Birds The US Geological Survey (USGS) Wildlife Research Center in Patuxent, Maryland, collects migratory bird survey data. There are over 60 breeding bird survey routes in Montana, and over 200 species have been encountered on more than 14 routes (Sauer et al. 2014). Migratory bird habitats of importance have been designated as important bird areas (IBAs). The IBA Program is an Audubon Society initiative to identify, monitor, and protect a network of sites critical for the conservation of birds. The IBAs in the planning area are as follows:

• Musselshell Sage-Steppe Site (Global IBA designation; contains BLM-administered lands) • Freezeout Lake Site (state IBA entirely owned by the State of Montana) • Arod Lakes Site (USFWS, state, and private lands; no BLM-administered lands) • Benton Lake National Wildlife Site (USFWS lands; no BLM-administered lands) • Charles M. Russell and UL Bend NWRs Site (USFWS lands; no BLM-administered lands)

Montana Partners in Flight has categorized riparian habitats as a top priority for conserving neotropical migrant birds (birds that breed in the United States and Canada and winter in Latin America; Montana Partners in Flight 2000). The various lakes, reservoirs, streams, and associated riparian vegetation in the planning area provide food, water, cover, and travel corridors for a variety of migratory birds.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Game Species Big game wildlife species that use habitat in the planning area are elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), antelope (pronghorn; Antilocapra americana), mountain lion (Puma concolor), black bear (Ursus americanus), bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), moose (Alces americanus), and mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus; Figure 17 [Appendix A]).

Upland game birds are pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), dusky (blue) grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), spruce (Franklin’s) grouse (Falcipennis canadensis), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and gray (Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix).

Numerous waterfowl species are also found in the planning area. See Table 27, Game Species in the Planning Area and Habitat Acres, for a list of game species and associated habitat acres; general and winter habitats for game species are shown on Figure 18, Important Wildlife Areas (Appendix A).

Table 27 Game Species in the Planning Area and Habitat Acres General/Winter General Habitat Acres Total Habitat Acres Habitat Acres Game Species All All BLM All Ownership BLM BLM Ownership Ownership Antelope 365,057 8,463,001 1,440 284,718 366,497 8,747,719 Bighorn sheep 16,302 616,146 29,045 265,079 45,347 881,225 Black bear 133,061 8,632,467 0 0 133,061 8,632,467 Dusky (blue) grouse 56,685 3,524,617 0 0 56,685 3,524,617 Elk 96,904 2,886,094 36,3243 3,288,157 460,147 6,174,251 Gray (Hungarian) 612,376 9,715,988 0 0 612,376 9,715,988 partridge Gray wolf 69,258 4,643,173 0 0 69,258 4,643,173 Moose 71,889 3,327,240 0 6,283 71,889 3,333,523 Mountain goat 10,856 540,931 5,073 347,873 15,929 888,804 Mountain lion 313,403 7,633,536 0 0 313,403 7,633,536 Mule deer 46,663 4,529,312 60,7751 8,213,739 654,414 12,743,051 Pheasant 55,034 4,626,101 0 0 55,034 4,626,101 Ruffed grouse 65,273 3,359,030 0 0 65,273 3,359,030 Sharp-tailed grouse 586,566 8,978,418 0 0 586,566 8,978,418 Spruce (Franklin’s) 20,078 1,399,971 0 0 20,078 1,399,971 grouse White-tailed deer 306,975 11,110,612 22,627 209,275 329,602 11,319,887 Wild turkey 196,807 1,018,071 0 379,993 271,339 1,398,064 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn are common year-round throughout the planning area, whereas moose and bighorn sheep are found in limited areas. Moose are found primarily in the riparian habitats along the Rocky Mountain Front. Bighorn sheep are predominantly found north of Winifred, next to the UMRBNM, and along the Rocky Mountain Front. Mountain goats are found along the Rocky Mountain Front and Square Butte. White-tailed deer populations are expanding but are still fairly limited to habitats along water courses near agricultural fields.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The MFWP manages game populations, based on habitat condition and animal quantity or quality being produced. Population levels are linked to a variety of factors: access, vegetation quality and quantity, habitat fragmentation, migration corridor quality, type and degree of disturbance, and weather patterns, such as prolonged drought. Big game populations are managed largely by hunting.

The MFWP maintains game population estimates for each region. The planning area is almost entirely within MFWP Region 4. Population estimates are presented in Table 28, Region 4 and Statewide Elk Population Estimates from 2008-2014; Table 29, Region 4 and Statewide Deer Population Estimates from 2011-2014, and Table 30, Region 4 and Statewide Antelope Population Estimates from 2011-2013.

Table 28 Region 4 and Statewide Elk Population Estimates from 2008-2014 MFWP Estimate R4 Hunting District Objectives Year Region 4 Statewide Over At Under 2014 37,146 158,584 8 4 1 2013 35,869 148,648 20 7 2 2012 31,706 141,078 20 8 1 2011 30,713 140,613 16 5 3 2010 27,189 117,880 15 19 2 2008 25,895 136,032 NA NA NA Source: MFWP 2014a

Table 29 Region 4 and Statewide Deer Population Estimates from 2011-2014 Region 4 Statewide Game Year 10-Year Year 10-Year Species Year Estimate Average Estimate Average 2014 63,604 63,357 273,756 265,399 2013 51,394 69,090 218,883 273,718 Mule deer 2012 45,250 71,805 229,782 278,014 2011 38,560 73,946 203,905 286,433 2008 47,170 72,688 204,924 287,920 2014 20,683 30,662 181,086 213,377 White-tailed 2013 29,050 31,468 193,049 213,175 deer 2012 29,680 32,547 177,354 216,321 2011 32,300 32,828 202,122 220,121 Source: MFWP 2014b

Table 30 Region 4 and Statewide Antelope Population Estimates from 2011-2013 Region 4 Statewide Year Estimate Estimate 2013 13,212 110,225 2012 14,146 100,631 78

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 30 Region 4 and Statewide Antelope Population Estimates from 2011-2013 Region 4 Statewide Year Estimate Estimate 2011 22,279 90,389 Source: MFWP 2014c

Areas containing general or winter habitat for multiple big game species were compiled and digitized to highlight those areas of particular importance (see Figure 18 [Appendix A]).

Animal Pathogens Animal pathogens occur throughout the planning area and affect both aquatic and terrestrial species. Those pathogens that occur or threaten to occur in the planning area—white-nose syndrome (WNS), West Nile virus, sheep diseases, and Chytrid fungus—are described below.

WNS is an emergent disease of hibernating bats, which has rapidly spread across the eastern and mid- western United States. Since the winter of 2007-2008, millions of insect-eating bats in 25 states and five Canadian provinces have died from the disease. Bat population declines in the northeastern United States since the emergence of the disease are approximately 80 percent (USGS 2015). Despite efforts to contain it, WNS continues to spread.

As of January 2016, WNS has been confirmed in 27 states, the closest to the planning area being Nebraska and Minnesota (White-nose Syndrome.org 2016). High mortality of bats has not yet been reported at these locations, and it remains to be seen if WNS will develop and manifest in warmer parts of the United States or other temperate regions of the world with severity similar to that in the northeastern United States (USGS 2015).

Current JVP and Headwaters RMPs do not have special management for bats or WNS, and no incidents of WNS are known in Montana. However, the BLM is partnering with MFWP, the Forest Service, MNHP, and caving clubs (grottos) to establish baseline bat information before the potential introduction of the disease in the planning area.

The Montana Bat Working Group is developing an adaptive management plan for monitoring and response, should WNS be detected in neighboring areas or Montana. Additionally, emergency response kits have been established across the state, containing decontaminated equipment and sampling materials. The Rocky Mountain Grotto has decontaminated equipment available for spelunkers coming from WNS- contaminated areas, and the National WNS Decontamination Protocol is being used for site-specific actions involving caves.

West Nile virus has been documented in bird populations in the planning area, and mortalities have been observed in greater sage-grouse populations (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005). Other bird species are also susceptible to West Nile virus, particularly American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and common raven (C. corax). Numerous biological factors associated with vectors, hosts, and virus conditions influence the occurrence and frequency of transmission, as well as abiotic factors, such as temperature, moisture, and landscape characteristics (McLean 2006).

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Sheep diseases have occurred in bighorn populations along the Rocky Mountain Front. Considered to be at a high risk of experiencing a major disease are those populations living close to, or with a high likelihood of having contact with, domestic sheep or goats (MFWP 2010, p. 49). The exact mechanisms of disease transmission from domestic animals to bighorn sheep are not fully understood; however, there is considerable evidence that the risk of disease transmission exists and that major die-offs have occurred. During the winter of 2009-2010, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) reported nine bighorn sheep pneumonia die-offs in five western states, including four die-offs in Montana. In Montana herds, mortality rates ranged from 43 to 68 percent (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2010).

Chytrid fungus is an aquatic pathogen that affects amphibians. It is widespread in Montana, across a variety of elevations and habitats. At least four Montana amphibians (western toad, boreal chorus frog, Columbia spotted frog, and northern leopard frog) have tested positive for chytridiomycosis. Confirmed cases have been reported in Lewis and Clark and Meagher Counties in the planning area (MNHP 2011).

Important Areas Recognized by other Wildlife Agencies and Organizations The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area is located along the eastern edge of the Continental Divide in northwestern Montana. It is part of a landscape conservation strategy to protect a unique, highly diverse, and mostly unfragmented ecosystem. The USFWS uses conservation easements to help maintain large unfragmented blocks of existing protected areas, such as state wildlife areas, BLM-administered surface lands, and The Nature Conservancy’s Pine Butte Swamp Preserve.

Easement contracts specify perpetual protection of habitat for trust species and limits on residential, industrial, and commercial development. Contracts prohibit altering the natural topography, converting native grassland to cropland, draining wetlands, and establishing game farms. Easement lands remain in private ownership; therefore, property taxes and invasive plant control remain the responsibility of the landowner, who also retains control of public access to the land.

Trends

Fish and Aquatic Communities Demand for agricultural and irrigation water has led to increased dewatering of fish-bearing streams in the planning area. Water depletions and drought conditions have led to the decline of many native fish populations, particularly special status fish species. Additional threats to native fish species are water diversions, stream impoundments, and nonnative fish introductions. Nonnative fish stocking is much more limited today, as emphasis has shifted to native species management; however, illegal fish introductions still occur. As of 2012, the MFWP has documented more than 600 illegal fish introductions throughout Montana (MFWP 2013a, p. 28).

While many native fish populations are declining, special status species are declining more than others. Many of these have similar issues contributing to their decline, including damming of rivers and competition with nonnatives.

The direst of these species in the planning area is the pallid sturgeon, which the USFWS lists as endangered. It is now one of the rarest fishes in North America. Approximately 50 wild adult pallid sturgeons are estimated to exist in the Missouri River, upstream of Fort Peck Reservoir. The most significant driver for pallid sturgeon decline is habitat alteration from dams. Also contributing is their complex life history; it 80

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

takes over 15 years for female pallid sturgeons to reach mature reproductive age. They spawn only every few years, and the larvae drift long distances downstream before they can swim with the current. Without a free-flowing river to migrate far enough upstream for proper spawning, it is thought that the larvae end up being deposited in reservoirs where they do not survive (USFWS 2014b).

There are several native salmonid species in the planning area that are declining. These are the federally listed as threatened bull trout and the sensitive westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling. These species are native to cold mountain streams and lakes and are associated with the cold water aquatic priority habitat. As in pallid sturgeons, dams and water diversions are one driver of this decline. Impoundments on streams affect these salmonids’ migration patterns, threaten recruitment, create genetic isolation, and increase water temperatures in cold mountain streams.

The most significant driver for the decline of these salmonids is the introduction and spread of nonnative fishes, in particular nonnative salmonids that compete directly for food and habitat. The nonnative brook trout and rainbow trout will also hybridize with several of these species. Also contributing to the decline of bull trout, in particular, is illegal harvesting and accidental harvesting due to misidentification (USFWS 2014c).

Wildlife and Habitat

Special Status Wildlife, Including Priority Species Trends for special status wildlife in the planning area are variable. The Yellowstone Watershed population of greater sage-grouse (which encompass the planning area) is considered potentially at risk. Risk factors are potential conversion of sagebrush habitats to farming on extensive private lands and the loss of habitat to energy and infrastructure and other development (USFWS 2013a, p. 65). In general, special status species associated with sagebrush/grassland priority vegetation types (such as the greater sage-grouse) have exhibited downward trends in the United States and Canada.

Bighorn sheep populations associated with the southern Rocky Mountain Front in MFWP Region 4 have, for the most part, been healthy and numerous. The most recent large-scale disease die-off (due to a pneumonia/lungworm complex) occurred during 1982 to 1984 (MFWP 2010, p. 223). Sheep have been transplanted in MFWP Region 4 and relocated to other parts of Montana and other states (MFWP 2010, p 233).

Black-tailed prairie dogs continue to be impacted by sylvatic plague, and the populations of this species fluctuate wildly.

However, not all special status species in the planning area are in decline. The NCDE population of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is considered strong, healthy, and recovered (USFWS 2013b, p. 7). The gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in the Northern Rocky Mountains was federally delisted in 2012 due to its recovery (USFWS 2014d), though it remains a BLM sensitive species. Delisted species stay on the sensitive list for five years after being delisted, in accordance with BLM Manual 6840 (BLM 2008).

Migratory Birds Trends beyond the planning area have been noted for many of the sensitive bird species through the region-wide breeding bird surveys. The planning area is in two breeding bird survey conservation regions: the Northern Rockies (10) and the Badlands and Prairies (17). A summary of bird trend estimates for 81

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1966 to 2012 and 2002 to 2012 are presented in Table 31, Summary of Breeding Bird Survey Trends in Breeding Bird Survey Conservation Regions 10 and 17.

Table 31 Summary of Breeding Bird Survey Trends in Breeding Bird Survey Conservation Regions 10 and 17 Badlands and Prairies Northern Rockies (10) (17) Summary Data for All Species 2002- 1966-2012 2002-2012 1966-2012 2012 Number of species encountered on 159 159 215 215 more than 14 routes Number of species with positive trends 89 (56) 114 (72) 101 (47) 123 (57) (percent) Number of species with significant 45 (28) 21 (13) 31 (14) 16 (7) positive trends (percent) Number of species with negative trends 70 (44) 45 (28) 114 (53) 92 (43) (percent) Number of species with significant 18 (12) 1 (1) 52 (24) 13 (6) negative trends (percent) Source: Sauer et al. 2014

In general, species associated with grassland and sagebrush habitats have exhibited downward trends in the United States and Canada. In North America, 48 percent of grassland-breeding birds are species of conservation concern, and 55 percent are showing significant declines (North American Bird Conservation Initiative, US Committee 2009). The bald eagle and peregrine falcon have been removed from the endangered species list since the last RMPs were approved because of increasing trends in populations.

Game Species For most wildlife species, habitat loss and fragmentation has been, and remains, the primary cause for declines. Management by the BLM, USFWS, MFWP, and others has helped to reverse the downward trend for a number of these populations, but many are well below historical averages. Trend data from the MFWP indicate that some big game species, such as elk, have increased in the planning area and that other species, such as white-tailed deer and mule deer, remain well below historical averages. Bighorn sheep along the Rocky Mountain Front in MFWP Region 4 have, for the most part, been healthy and numerous (MFWP 2010).

Animal Pathogens WNS continues to spread from the first detected occurrence in Schoharie County, New York, in 2006. No confirmed or suspected detections have occurred in Montana or adjacent states or provinces as of January 2016 (White-nose Syndrome.org 2016). West Nile virus continues to threaten greater sage- grouse. On average, late summer/fall survival is reduced by 25 percent during outbreaks, and population growth rates are reduced by 6 to 9 percent (Walker and Naugle 2011).

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

2.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management Wildland fire is a general term describing any nonstructure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels. Wildland fires are categorized by two types; wildfires, which are unplanned or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires, and prescribed fires, which are planned ignitions (USDA and DOI 2009). Wildfire occurs in the planning area, particularly during times of drought.

National BLM fire policy requires that current and desired resource conditions related to fire management be described in terms of historic fire regimes, ecological condition, and fuel loading. These descriptions will specifically address vegetation departure, fire regime departure, desired structural stages, resilience, hazard/risk, and invasive species. As such, VCC is used to categorize the current vegetation departure from historical vegetation reference conditions, which aids in describing ecological condition. There are six VCC categorizations that associate vegetation- departure and indicate the general level to which current vegetation differ from the simulated historical vegetation reference conditions (LANDFIRE 2016)

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed by the secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture in 1995. The policy was developed in response to dramatic increases in the frequency, size, and severity of wildfires in the United States.

The 2001 review and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (DOI et al. 2001) consists of findings, guiding principles, policy statements, and implementation actions. It replaces the 1995 policy as the primary interagency wildland fire policy document. This document directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between fire suppression to protect life, property, and resources, and fire for resource benefit to regulate fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. Multiple updates have been provided in memoranda, and current implementation direction has been provided in the February 2009 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDA and DOI 2009). The BLM’s policies follow this plan and implementation guidelines.

Current Conditions Wildfire is naturally occurring in the planning area ecosystem. Fires are frequent in the planning area, particularly near the Missouri and Musselshell River Breaks areas. Intense lightning storms occur in the planning region between July and September, often resulting in wildfires (BLM 1992).

Fire and fuels management strategies, including wildfire suppression, vegetation and fuel treatments, and prescribed fires, are used in the planning area to reduce the fire hazard and risk in the wildland and wildland urban interface (WUI) areas. Fire and fuels management strategies are designed to limit wildfire fire extent, modify fire behavior, protect values at risk, and improve terrestrial ecosystem conditions. Fire management and fuel treatment strategies allow land and resource managers to control fires and set priorities that protect firefighters, life and property, and natural resources.

Vegetation Condition Class Fire regimes are classified based on the average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. The five fire regimes are defined by the Interagency FRCC Guidebook as follows:

I 0-35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced 83

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

II 0-35-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced) III 35-100+-year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced) IV 35-100+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced) V 200+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity

A vegetation community's current condition, classified by VCC, is a function of the degree of departure from historical vegetation reference conditions that alter key ecosystem components. Examples of these components are species composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy closure. Vegetation departure may have resulted from a number of factors, including an altered fire regime due to fire exclusion or suppression, vegetation resources, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or native), or other past management activities (Hann and Bunnell 2001)

There are three VCCs, all based on low, moderate, and high departure from the natural (historical) fire regime. VCC 1 describes lands that are in or near historical ranges (less than 33 percent departure); VCC 2 describes lands where fire regimes have changed moderately from historical ranges (33 to 66 percent departure); and VCC 3 are fire regimes significantly altered from historical ranges (more than 66 percent departure) (Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook 2008).

Figure 19, Vegetation Condition Class (Appendix A), displays the VCC distribution in the planning area. This data comes from the LANDFIRE project, which includes both a fire regime data layer and a vegetation departure data layer. These data are used to estimate the degree of ecological departure for the planning area. Areas shown on the map as “other” are urban areas, areas with water, areas without vegetation, agricultural lands, and sparsely vegetated lands.

Most of the planning area is classified as VCC 2 and VCC 3. In the planning area 68,900 acres are classified as VCC 1, 227,800 acres are classified as VCC 2, 348,600 acres are classified as VCC 3, and 5,900 acres are classified as other (BLM GIS 2015b). The BLM Central Montana Fire Zone (CMFZ) uses the VCC data as a tool to assess the fuels management situation in the planning area. The VCC can be used in the following manners:

• To specify program approaches to the fuels reduction problem • To define strategies for managing fire • To identify treatment areas • To define measures of accomplishments over time • To assess the effectiveness of prescribed fires and mechanical fuel treatments Diagram 11, Comparison of Fire Descriptions, shows fuel behavior model, fire regime, and VCC, respectively. The fuel behavior model shows the type of vegetation in the planning area. The fire fuel behavior models 1 through 10 are short grass; timber, grass, and understory; tall grass; chaparral; brush; dormant brush; southern rough; compact timber litter; hardwood litter; and timber (understory). The type of vegetation in an area impacts available fuels and fire potential. Vegetation type is one component 84

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile that determines VCC. Section 2.5 further discusses vegetation types in the planning area.

Diagram 11 Comparison of Fire Descriptions

ire Behavior Model Fire behavior fuel model 1

Fire behavior fuel model 10 Agriculture -Urban or other

Fire Regime

Fire regime 1 Fire regime 2 Fire regime 3 Fire regime 4 Fire regime 5 Other

• vcc 1 • vcc 3 Vegetation Condition Class VCC 2 Other

Fire History Wildfire history is closely related to vegetation and climatic patterns in terrestrial ecosystems. Patterns of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity are functions of existing vegetation conditions, weather, elevation, physiographic features, ignition sources, and fire-suppression activities.

Between 2004 and 2014, there have been 264 BLM-reported fires covering 126,688 acres (NIFC 2015). Reported fires include those where the BLM assists other agencies or rural fire departments, as well as fires on BLM-administered lands where the BLM receives assistance from other agencies or rural fire departments. This fire history data generally does not include tribal, state, private, or other federal agency fires, unless the BLM assisted with those fires. 85

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Rural volunteer fire departments successfully and independently suppress a very large but unknown number of fires every year. Fire history records for the planning area are limited due to mixed ownership and inconsistent reporting across land managed by different agencies.

Of the 264 fires reported between 2004 and 2014, 209 (79 percent) were attributed to natural causes, 53 (20 percent) were human caused, and 2 (<1 percent) were started by unknown causes (NIFC 2015). Human-caused fires often occur as a result of debris burning or agricultural operations (BLM 2004). Natural fires have often been ignited during intense lightning storms that are common in the area.

Table 32, BLM-Reported Fires (2004-2014), displays information on BLM-reported fires between 2004 and 2014. This information is further broken down by year and cause in Table 33, Fire History by Year (2004-2014).

Though mixed ownership presents fire management challenges in the planning area, the BLM is taking steps to work around these challenges. The BLM CMFZ and the Montana DNRC encourage cooperators to report fires that involve BLM-administered lands to an interagency fire data hotline hosted by the BLM and DNRC. The BLM also works with cooperators at the state, local, tribal, and federal levels to manage fire in an effort to increase consistency. A number of interagency fire suppression agreements and county- wide protection plans also assist the BLM in managing fire across expanses of land that are under the management of other agencies.

Table 32 BLM-Reported Fires (2004-2014) Total reporting years 11 Reported fires 264 Total action fires 171 (minus false alarms) Maximum fires in a year 43 in 2012 Average fires/year 24 Total acres 126,688 Average acres/year 11,517 Maximum fire size 32,237 acres in July 2006 Average fire size 480 acres Maximum yearly acres 40,308 in 2006 Natural fires 209 total Human-caused fires 53 total Fires of unknown cause 2 total Source: NIFC 2015

Table 33 Fire History by Year (2004-2014) Number of Total Acres Human- Year Natural Unknown Fires Burned Caused 2004 25 1,497.7 2 23 0 2005 29 5,242.2 3 26 0 2006 34 40,308.3 8 25 1 2007 28 6,521.5 6 22 0 2008 27 5,609.2 9 17 1 2009 23 15,082.7 4 19 0 86

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 33 Fire History by Year (2004-2014) Number of Total Acres Human- Year Natural Unknown Fires Burned Caused 2010 8 14,413.6 4 4 0 2011 16 495.4 1 15 0 2012 43 33,422.4 10 33 0 2013 9 400.0 2 7 0 2014 22 3,694.7 4 18 0 Total 264 126,687.7 53 209 2 Source: NIFC 2015

Fire Management Units FMUs are specific land management areas. They are defined by fire management objectives, management constraints, topographic features, access, values to protect, political boundaries, and fuel types. The planning area is subdivided into five FMUs: the Big Open FMU, Front FMU, Island Ranges FMU, Breaks FMU, and Prairie Forests FMU. Figure 20, Fire Management Units (Appendix A) maps the locations of the FMUs in the planning area.

The Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2003a) amended the approved JVP RMP (BLM 1994) and the Headwaters RMP (BLM 1984a). Under the amendment, standard fire management categories were adopted and range from Category A where fire, including prescribed fire, is not desired at all to Category D where fire is desired and there are no constraints on its use (BLM 2003a).

Each of the five FMUs are categorized as either A, B, C, or D. The Big Open, Island Ranges, and Prairie Forests FMUs in the planning area are classified as Category B where unplanned fire (natural or human caused) is likely to cause negative effects, including risks to private lands, urban interfaces, cultural resources, visitor use areas, and federal facilities. These effects can be minimized or avoided through such strategies as fuels management and human-caused fire prevention.

The Breaks and Front FMUs have been identified as Category C. These are areas where fire is desired to manage ecosystems but where vegetation conditions and social and political concerns constrain the use of fire. Vegetation and fuel buildup and intermixed private lands create such constraints in these FMUs. Reducing unwanted ignitions, threats to resources, and fuels accumulations are fire suppression and use considerations.

Planned Ignitions and Mechanical Fuels Treatments Fuels treatments are developed to reduce fuels and meet resource objectives in WUI areas and non-WUI areas. A combination of mechanical, hand, and fire treatments are used to accomplish project objectives. Hazardous fuels reduction treatments have been implemented and are ongoing in the planning area. Table 34, Fuels Treatment Data from 2004-2014, summarizes fuels reduction treatments in the planning area over 10 years.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 34 Fuels Treatment Data from 2004-2014 Mechanical Mechanical Prescribed Prescribed Yearly Year Treatment Treatment (Non- Fire (WUI) Fire (Non- Treatment (WUI) Acres WUI) Acres Acres WUI) Acres Totals (Acres) 2004 0 100 156 1,735 1,991 2005 639 21 1,000 0 1,660 2006 893 0 0 851 1,744 2007 765 0 415 107 1,287 2008 583 27 433 21 1,064 2009 137 161 53 1,800 2,151 2010 200 100 131 1,650 2,081 2011 278 200 0 641 1,119 2012 118 200 0 3,465 3,783 2013 28 96 0 1,766 1,890 2014 207 1,100 725 3,000 5,032 Total 3,848 2,005 2,913 15,036 23,802 Source: NFPORS 2014, 2015

Trends A contributing factor to intense and environmentally destructive fires in the planning area is the increased forest and woodland densities. These are due to years of buildup from fire exclusion and reduced thinning, coupled with drought conditions and increased insect and disease activities. The continuing trend toward severe wildfires in the planning area will have increased environmental consequences.

Such development as that for recreational facilities and residences in areas bordering BLM-administered lands has increased human ignitions. More homes are threatened, and there are greater demands for fire suppression resources.

High severity wildfires could become more common due to such conditions as increasing densities in forests, conifer and shrub expansion into grass/shrubland areas, invasive plant species, and prolonged drought. Fires will likely increase as climate change causes irregular weather patterns, increases the likelihood of storms, and contributes to droughts that can increase the frequency of natural unplanned ignitions. Such management actions as implementing green strips and reducing hazardous fuels can reduce the occurrences of such fires.

2.8 Cultural and Heritage Resources Cultural resources are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other purposes. Cultural resources are archaeological resources, historic architectural and engineering resources, and traditional resources.

Archaeological resources are areas where prehistoric or historic activity measurably altered the earth or where deposits of physical remains (e.g., arrowheads, pottery, and bottles) are discovered.

Prehistoric cultural resources are materials deposited or left behind before the entry of European explorers and settlers into an area.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Historic cultural resources are materials deposited or left behind after the European presence was permanently established. Architectural and engineering resources include standing buildings, districts, bridges, dams, and other structures of historic or aesthetic value.

Traditional resources can include archaeological resources, structures, topographic features, habitats, plants, wildlife, and minerals that Native Americans or other groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional culture.

The BLM is obligated by various laws to maintain, inventory, and manage against the destruction of cultural resources. Legislation that protects cultural resources includes NEPA, which requires agencies to consider project impacts on cultural and natural resources. The NHPA, as amended, requires agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, including archaeological resources.

Cultural resources are assessed for integrity or for having unique qualities that make them eligible for NRHP listing. An NRHP listing provides for management and protection. Sites are evaluated using four criteria:

Criterion A: Sites associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: Sites associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Sites that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: Sites that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history

Current Conditions The planning area has been partially surveyed, resulting in recordation of numerous sites. The surveys and recordation have been conducted primarily in advance of surface-disturbing activities, pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. Approximately 2,500 inventories have been conducted in the planning area, covering approximately 261,000 acres, and documenting 11,830 sites (Walker-Kunz et al. 2010).

More proactive inventory, or inventory conducted in compliance with Section 110 of NHPA, has occurred since 2009; however, some work also occurred in the 1970s. Since 2008, the BLM has surveyed 17,900 acres as proactive Section 110 inventory. The BLM surveyed an additional 19,700 acres as part of large- scale Section 106 compliance inventory associated with federal undertakings. In all, 37,600 acres were surveyed. Additional inventory has been, and continues to be, completed as part of the compliance process for smaller federal undertakings. However, the number of smaller Section 106 inventories has declined. This is due, in part, to a backlog of administrative range work that has limited the ability of the BLM to implement range improvements. Historically, this has been the primary resource needing a cultural resource inventory.

Examples of prehistoric cultural resources are archaeological sites containing evidence of camping or domestic activities, stone tool manufacture, or vegetable and animal food processing; ceremonial sites; animal traps and game drives; and stone alignments, petroglyphs, and pictographs.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Historic cultural resources are historic artifacts, buildings, mines, trails, railroads, roads, ditches, ranching debris, trash dumps, and scatters over 50 years old. These types of sites are almost exclusively associated with Anglo-European settlement.

The distribution of the prehistoric sites recorded in the study area is one site per 134 acres or 4.8 sites per square mile of inventoried acreage. The historic sites recorded in the study area are distributed at one site per 106 acres inventoried, or six sites per square mile inventoried.

Lithic scatters are the most numerous prehistoric site type in the study area, making up 43.8 percent of all recorded sites. Tipi rings (circular patterns of stones left from an encampment of Post-Archaic, proto- historic, and historic Native Americans) are the next most commonly recorded, at 21.7 percent of all sites.

The most common historic site types are homesteads/farmsteads and residences. Some include standing architecture, but many homestead/farmstead sites in rural settings include foundations and depressions, or they are entirely in ruins.

Trends The condition of cultural resources varies considerably as a result of the diversity of terrain, geomorphology, access, visibility, and past and current land use patterns. Adherence to Section 106 of the NHPA, the Montana State Protocol, and the BLM policy of avoiding cultural resources provides for the continued identification and preservation of cultural resource sites. Most of the sites in the planning area were recorded in association with project-related activities, rather than being in areas that were inventoried because cultural resources were likely to be found there.

Data gathering for cultural resource sites has been ongoing. There have been various shifts in the data- gathering strategies as theories develop and techniques advance. Due to the changes in data gathering, there are practices common to the process and limitations to the data. One method is to classify and inventory sites with certain characteristics. The SHPO database has 71 site type classifications for historic sites, which include descriptive categories, such as historic domestic and historic agricultural. Prehistoric sites, such as lithic scatters, rock alignments, bison jumps, and tipi rings, have 32 categories.

Most prehistoric sites are categorized as fulfilling Criterion D (having scientific data potential), while historic sites are more likely to retain integrity under Criterion A (distinctive events) or Criterion C (significant characteristics).

Of 2,676 prehistoric sites listed for recommendations, 1,960 sites (73.2 percent) have not been elevated, 93 sites (3.6 percent) are unresolved, 266 sites (9.9 percent) are identified as eligible for listing on the National Register, 285 sites (10.7 percent) are ineligible for listing, one site (0.04 percent) is listed as a National Historic Landmark, and 69 sites (2.6 percent) are listed on the NRHP.

Square Butte is a unique and distinctive landform that has ACEC/ONA/WSR designation. In addition to its singular natural environmental values, the 2,700-acre parcel under federal ownership retains a largely intact archaeological record of human occupation dating back at least 9,000 years. Archaeologically, the area is a microcosm of the Central Montana District as a whole. Nearly all prehistoric site types common to the district, including habitations, industrial sites, and ritual properties, are represented at Square Butte. The lone possible exception is procurement sites. 90

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

To date, researchers have not documented kill sites in the study area, such as bison jumps, pounds, pens, or hunting blinds. According to local informants, however, several such sites may exist in the rolling grasslands immediately south of the study area. It is exceptionally rare for an area as small as Square Butte to retain such a large number, density, and diversity of cultural properties (Dickerson 2010).

Another area of significance is the Sun River. For the Blackfeet Tribe, the sites along the Sun River in the Alkali Flat/Tunnel Lake area represent a larger bison hunting complex associated with an overall subsistence pattern in the Sun River watershed; it lasted for several thousand years and persisted into the Euro-American period.

Due to limited site monitoring and protection, site conditions are considered to be declining. Because cultural resources are manifested by discovery of exposed artifacts, features, or structures, they are easily disturbed by natural elements such as wind and water erosion, natural deterioration and decay, animal and human intrusion, and development and maintenance activities. Indications of vandalism or unauthorized collecting have been observed in limited instances in the past.

Public outreach and involvement will continue to be a critical component of cultural resource management. Involving the public to monitor sites as site stewards, converting historic buildings into cabin rentals, developing history-themed tours, partnering with history and archaeology associations, and involving students at primary, secondary, and collegiate levels will continue to be priorities for the BLM.

Pressures on cultural resources will likely increase from the continued emphasis on oil and gas development, and direct and cumulative impacts will continue to degrade a percentage of the cultural landscape. A case-by-case inventory will prevent harm to individual sites. However, the lack of comprehensive inventory coverage will continue to hamper broad-scale interpretation and assessment of cumulative effects. Inventories would probably continue at roughly 100 or more projects per year, with inventories covering approximately 2,000 acres per year. Impacts on resources that cannot be mitigated could be expected to occur once every five to ten years; however, as oil and gas exploration and development increase, the potential for difficult cultural resource issues to arise also increases.

The demand for consumptive use of cultural resources through tourism and archaeological research projects is low but is anticipated to increase through time. This reflects an increasing interest in history and recognition of the fragile nature of the resource. Historic trails, particularly those falling under the NHT system, could see increased visitation. Maintaining the historic setting is critical to providing a quality experience for visitors. The setting is an essential component in determining whether a particular segment contributes to the trail’s overall significance.

With increased tribal involvement and awareness of cultural resource programs in the federal government and involving federally-managed lands, the potential for excavating prehistoric or archaeological sites continues to diminish. More effort is being made to capture the significance of these sites through ethnographic studies involving tribal preservation offices, culture committees, elders, and spiritual leaders.

2.9 Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources (fossils) are any evidence of past life. They include body fossils, such as shells and bones, as well as trace fossils, such as footprints, burrows, trails, or other evidence of an organism’s presence. Fossils are preserved in rocks and are usually discovered when they are eroding out of the rock at the surface or during ground-disturbing activity, such as road grading or trenching. Most organisms that 91

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

lived in the past did not die in such a way as to have their remains fossilized, and fewer still will be collected and studied before they erode away. Therefore, fossils are considered rare and nonrenewable.

All fossils contain information about past life, but not all fossils have significant paleontological interest. Fossils with significant paleontological interest are those that are unique, unusual, or rare; those that are diagnostic; those that are stratigraphically important; and those that add to the existing body of knowledge. Conversely, fossils that lack sufficient paleontological interest are those that are redundant, that lack provenience, that are fragmentary, or that otherwise are not useful for scientific investigation and, therefore, do not need to be preserved. In order to determine a fossil’s paleontological interest, it must be assessed by a qualified paleontologist with sufficient mastery of the existing body of knowledge. This is necessary to understand how a given fossil contributes to our overall understanding.

The BLM has managed fossils as a valued public land resource for many years. Legal authority to manage fossils comes from a variety of laws, EOs, and policies, including NEPA and FLPMA. More recently, the Paleontological Resources Preservation subtitle of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, also known by its popular name, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA), directs land managers in DOI agencies and the USDA to manage and protect fossils using scientific principles and expertise. (Not included are Indian or Department of Defense lands.) The PRPA does not make a distinction between the types of organism preserved; therefore, all paleontological resources, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates are to be actively managed.

The BLM’s policy is to manage paleontological resources for scientific, educational, and recreational values and to protect or mitigate these resources from adverse impacts. To accomplish this goal, paleontological resources must be professionally identified and evaluated, and paleontological data must be considered as early as possible in the decision making process.

Characterization The character of a geologic formation will strongly influence its likelihood of preserving fossils, and not all formations are equally likely to have fossils. For these reasons, the BLM uses a coding system to rank a formation’s probability of containing significant fossils. This system is the PFYC, a numerical ranking from 1 (low potential) to 5 (very high potential), as follows;

PFYC Class I—Very Low potential for paleontological resources PFYC Class 2—Low potential for paleontological resources PFYC Class 3—Moderate or unknown potential for paleontological resources PFYC Class 4—High potential for paleontological resources PFYC Class 5—Very High potential for paleontological resources

This system allows land managers to predict where significant fossils are likely to occur in order to make informed planning decisions.

In its practical application, the PFYC is intended to help land managers plan where to focus resources during the planning or execution of ground-disturbing activities or when considering land tenure adjustments. The system can also be used by researchers in helping them to focus attention on fossil- bearing rock units. Perhaps more important is the system’s utility to highlight formations where the fossil 92

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

potential is little known, pointing toward gaps in our paleontological knowledge. The system can also be used to inform the project proponents of areas of high likelihood for fossil resources so adequate planning can be done to mitigate the irreversible destruction of valued heritage resources.

However, fossils are not evenly distributed throughout a formation, so even highly ranked formations may produce only occasional fossils in a given locality. Similarly, fossils can be found in unlikely places. For example, granite bedrock might be given the lowest potential rating but have a crevice or cave structure that is rich in fossils. While the system is designed to help in planning, it cannot replace detailed analysis on a case-by-case basis by a trained paleontologist.

Current Conditions The planning area covers a wide range of geology and includes rock units of all PFYC ranks. Presently, 51 geologic formations or units are recognized as having a PFYC rank of 3 to 5 (moderate or unknown to high fossil potential). Of those, 8 are ranked 5, 10 are ranked 4, and the remainder are ranked 3. See Table 2-49 in the Analysis of the Management Situation (BLM 2014a) for a complete listing of the formations and fossil resources with ranks of 3 to 5.

Hanna (2009) summarized known paleontological localities in the planning area and the UMRBNM. Hanna identified 554 fossil localities by gathering museum data, localities cited in publications, records searches with Montana SHPO and DNRC, and BLM records. Specific locality data are confidential and are not released; however, the percentage of known localities per county is given in Table 35, Locality Percentage by County in the Planning Area.

Table 35 Locality Percentage by County in the Planning Area County Percent Cascade 6.1 Chouteau 2.5 Fergus 43.3 Judith Basin 3.4 Lewis and Clark 3.6 Meagher 9.7 Pondera 1.1 Petroleum 3.8 Teton 26.3 Source: BLM 2014a

Fergus and Teton Counties combined make up 70 percent of all the paleontology localities identified, by far more than any of the rest of the counties in the planning area.

Trends Currently, the extent of casual collection of fossils on BLM-administered lands by the public is unknown. Future developments in the paleontology program might include exploring plans for quantifying and promoting the casual collection of fossils by the public, as allowed by policy and regulation.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Permitted collection of fossils for scientific research and salvage is likely going to remain consistent with past uses. However, plans will be developed in the future to encourage and increase this use of the resource for inventory, monitoring, and scientific study, as mandated by the PRPA.

2.10 Visual Resources Visual resources refer to the visible features on a landscape, such as land, water, vegetation, animals, and structures. These features contribute to the scenic or visual quality and appeal of the landscape (BLM 1984b).

Visual Resource Management System The BLM VRM system is a way to identify and evaluate visual resources in order to determine appropriate levels of management. The objective of VRM is to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic (visual) values of those lands. VRM is a tool to identify and map essential landscape settings to meet public preferences and recreational experiences today and into the future. The VRM system helps to ensure that actions taken on BLM-administered lands today will benefit the visual qualities associated with the landscapes, while protecting these visual resources for years to come.

Visual Resource Inventory The Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) involves identifying the visual resources of an area and assigning them to inventory classes using the BLM’s resource inventory process. The process involves rating the visual appeal of a tract of land, measuring public concern for scenic quality, and determining whether the tract of land is visible from travel routes or observation points. This process is described in detail in BLM Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986a).

The results of the VRI become an important component of the RMP for the area. The RMP establishes how BLM-administered lands will be used and allocated for different purposes. It is developed through public participation and collaboration. Visual values are considered throughout the RMP process, and the visual resources of an area are then assigned to the management classes with established objectives.

A VRI (Logan Simpson Design Inc. 2014) of the planning area was completed according to guidelines in BLM Manual H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986a). The inventory consisted of three components: scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and delineation of distance zones (Figures 21, Visual Resource Inventory Scenic Quality, 22, Visual Resource Inventory Sensitivity Levels, and 23, Visual Resource Inventory Distance Zones [Appendix A]). These three inventory components and resulting VRI class distribution for the planning area are presented in Table 36, Visual Resource Inventory Component Distribution.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 36 Visual Resource Inventory Component Distribution Acres of BLM- Percent of BLM- Visual Resource Inventory Administered Administered Component Surface Lands in Surface Lands in Decision Area Decision Area Total 651,200 100 Sensitivity High 302,900 47 Medium 78,100 12 Low 270,200 41 Total 651,200 100 Distance Zone Foreground-middle ground 246,900 38 Background 28,200 4 Seldom seen 376,100 58 Total 651,200 100 VRI Class I1 2,700 <1 II 172,100 26 III 159,200 24 IV 317,200 49 Total 651,200 100 Sources: BLM GIS 2015b; LSD GIS 2013 12,700 acres were designated as VRI Class 1 outside of the land use planning process and cannot be addressed administratively. Updates to the Final Visual Resource Inventory will be provided.

Based on the three inventory components, lands in the planning area were placed into one of four VRI classes (Figure 24, Visual Resource Inventory [Appendix A]). VRI Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV is of least value. These class assignments are informational and provide the basis for considering visual values during the RMP process. They do not establish management direction and are not used as a basis for constraining or limiting surface-disturbing activities; instead they are considered a baseline for existing conditions.

Management of Visual Resources VRM classes are spatially delineated management units designated for all BLM-administered lands during the land use planning process. Each VRM class has a definitive and authoritative objective that establishes the threshold of allowable visual change to the landscape character and sets forth the criteria to which land use authorizations must conform. These area-specific objectives provide the standards for planning, designing, and evaluating future management actions when implementing the land use plan.

VRM class objectives differ from VRI classes. VRI classes assign value, while VRM class objectives direct management. VRM class objectives may or may not direct management levels that are commensurate with the VRI value. For example, it may be decided that an area inventoried as VRI Class II be managed as VRM Class III due to other land use priorities, or it may be decided that an area inventoried as VRI Class IV be managed as VRM Class III due to public preferences and other resource concerns.

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The designation of VRM classes is ultimately based on management decisions made during the RMP process, which must take into consideration the value of visual resources. During the process, inventory class boundaries can be adjusted as necessary to reflect these resource allocation decisions. The goal of VRM is to minimize the visual impacts of all surface-disturbing activities, regardless of the class to which an area is assigned. Current VRM classes are summarized in Table 37, Visual Resource Management Classes, and are displayed in Figure 5 (Appendix A).

Table 37 Visual Resource Management Classes Acres of BLM- Percent of BLM- Administered Administered VRM Class Surface Lands in Surface Lands in Decision Area Decision Area I1 15,700 2 II 105,000 16 III 193,300 30 IV 280,500 43 Unassigned 56,700 9 Total 651,200 100 Source: BLM GIS 2015b 12,700 acres were designated as VRI Class 1 outside of the land use planning process and cannot be addressed administratively. Updates to the Final Visual Resource Inventory will be provided and corrections made to this section between draft and final.

The objectives for each of the four VRM classes are as follows:

Class I—To preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. Class II—To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. Class III—To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. Class IV—To provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and basic element repetition.

The VRI is the principal consideration when making VRM decisions in the land use plan that may protect or affect the landscape character and its scenic integrity. The inventory values are considered in

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

combination, as a unit (VRI classes), and independently (individual factors of scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zones) when evaluating land use plan alternatives and making land use plan decisions.

Visual values coexist with other resource values on BLM-administered lands. Other resource values have management objectives that may or may not coincide with the protection of visual resources. Decisions on VRM class objectives result from a coordinated and detailed examination of a range of alternatives that maximize the protection of visual values while contemplating 1) legislation that mandates, or other program directives that require protective visual management of sensitive resource values; 2) compatibility between VRM class objectives and allocations of use and development (e.g., oil and gas, minerals, coal, renewable energy, and rights-of-way); or 3) prioritizing visual values over other resource values and land use allocations by designating ACECs based on scenic value and/or VRM Class I. The VRM objectives are area specific and provide visual standards for planning, designing, and evaluating proposed development projects. Proper implementation of VRM helps prevent environmental degradation and maintain important resource values.

The visual resource contrast rating process is used to resolve visual impacts. The process of a visual contrast rating, which involves comparing the project features with the existing landscape features using basic elements of form, line, color, and texture, is described in detail in BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating (BLM 1986b).

Current Conditions VRIs had initially been completed for portions of the planning area but not the entirety; the updated VRI has been conducted for the entire planning area (Logan Simpson Design Inc. 2014). Inventory classes are determined by combining the results of a scenic quality evaluation, analyzing visual sensitivity levels, and determining distance zones. Visual inventory information will be carried forward to the RMP process (BLM 2014a, p. 156).

The VRI area encompasses the LFO and the northern portion of Lewis and Clark County in the BFO. The inventory area covers approximately 12,900,150 acres in the two field office areas, with approximately 5 percent of those acres being managed by the BLM. The inventory area is primarily bound by the Marias and Missouri Rivers and Fort Peck Lake to the north; the Musselshell River to the east; the Little Snowy Mountains, Little Belt Mountains, and Crazy Mountains to the south; and the Big Belt Mountains and the eastern portion of the Rocky Mountain Front to the west (BLM 2014a, p. 156).

The public lands in the planning area contain a wide variety of scenic landscapes. This geologically and topographically diverse area has mountain slopes, rolling hills, coulees, rugged hills, and river valleys. Particularly notable scenic areas are the Rocky Mountain Front; Square Butte; Judith Mountains; BLM- administered land adjacent to the Big and Little Snowy Mountains and the Little Belt Mountains; portions of the Chain Buttes and East Indian Butte BMAs; and portions of the Missouri, Sun, Smith, and Judith Rivers (BLM 2014a, p. 156).

The inventory area can be divided into two general geographic areas, as delineated by the Great Plains and Northern Rocky Mountains physiographic provinces (BLM 2014a, p. 156).

The Great Plains province and the associated Missouri Plateau section in the central and eastern region of the inventory area extend from central Texas north. They include portions of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 2014a, p. 156). 97

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Elevations in this province are roughly 2,000 to 5,000 feet and are characterized primarily by rolling to rough grassy plains. The east-tilted surface has been formed by the deposition of sediment eroded from the uplifting Rocky Mountains, beginning approximately 65 million years ago. Over time, this region has been eroded by many east-flowing rivers that have exposed older rocks beneath, often exposing some of the nation’s most spectacular dinosaur fossils (BLM 2014a, p. 156).

The Northern Rocky Mountains province in the western region of the inventory area covers the western third of Montana and extends into central and northern Idaho, with a small portion in northeastern Washington (BLM 2014a, p. 156).

The mountains of the Northern Rockies are generally not as high as those of the Middle and Southern Rockies, with summit elevations that are typically 6,800 to 7,800 feet and are more uniform in height than peaks in other parts of the Rocky Mountains. Approximately 80 percent of the drainage of the Northern Rockies is westward, contrasting with the Southern Rockies, in which only about one-third is westward; drainage in the Middle Rocky Mountains province is about equally divided between the east and west (BLM 2014a, p. 156-157).

In accordance with BLM policy, all special areas, including WSAs and ONAs, are classified as VRI Class I. This class includes the Square Butte, Beaver Meadows, and North Fork Sun River WSAs in the LFO. Blind Horse ONA, Ear Mountain ONA, Chute Mountain ONA, and Deep Creek/Battle Creek ONA are also classified as VRI Class I. Between the WSA and the ONAs, there are 2,700 acres of VRI Class I. VRI Class II areas total 172,100 acres and are made up of the following:

• Judith Mountains (Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC and Collar Gulch ACEC) • Portions of BLM-administered land along the Judith River and south of the UMRBNM along the Missouri Breaks, where the land is viewable from the river • BLM-administered land surrounding the Big and Little Snowy Mountains • Portions of BLM-administered land bordering the Charles M. Russell NWR (BLM 2014a, p. 157)

VRI Class IV totals 317,200 acres and comprises most of the public lands in the planning area. In general, areas on or near transportation routes, areas undergoing oil and gas or other development, and areas with less visual variety and scenic quality are in this category (BLM 2014a, p. 157). Based on scenic quality rating layers for cultural modifications (with ratings of -1 and -0.5), there are 34,200 acres (5 percent of the decision area) that have been most affected by cultural modifications such as residential or urban development, agricultural, logging, and mining development, and wind turbines.

Key features in the planning area are areas with unique landforms, a high degree of naturalness, or a lack of motorized accessibility. These areas are the Square Butte WSA, Lewis and Clark NHT, Nez Perce NHT, Continental Divide NST, Judith Mountain Scenic Area ACEC, and BLM-administered land bordering the Rocky Mountain Front National Forest System land. These key features have a VRM Class I classification (BLM 2014a, p. 158).

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Current management practices have reduced some impacts on the visual resources in the planning area. Contrast ratings are completed for major projects proposed on public lands that fall in VRM Classes I, II, and III with high sensitivity levels (Handbook H-8431-1) (BLM 1986b). Any surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands have been mitigated to maintain the objectives of the VRM class that the parcel is managed under. The result is land uses that blend with the surrounding natural elements (BLM 2014a, p. 158).

Trends The BLM authorizes a wide variety of activities that have the potential to impact scenic quality. Activities include decades of grazing, vegetation, and habitat improvement projects; ROW projects; logging; infrastructure creation (e.g., roads); and mineral extraction. These activities have left an imprint on the land and on the overall scenic quality.

Under the current plan, 52 percent of the decision area is either being managed as VRM Class IV or is not designated and would likely default to a VRM Class IV level management. Also, 30 percent is managed as VRM Class III. Within this combined 82 percent, 511,800 acres (86 percent of the decision area) contain natural landscape character that remains visually intact from cultural modifications (i.e., a cultural modification score of zero). These allowances could lead to 511,800 more acres of scenic quality to trend toward a decline in value.

The BLM analyzes proposed projects in the decision area on a project-by-project basis for their impact on VRM classifications. Where possible, the analysis includes mitigation and minimization measures to design structures that blend with the natural background to minimize disturbances to the visual landscape (BLM 2014a, p. 158).

Portions of the decision area not easily accessible by the public, due to either the lack of legal public access or terrain characteristics, have generally retained a higher level of natural appearance (BLM 2014a, p. 158).

Recreational opportunities, experiences, and benefits are heavily influenced by the scenic quality of the landscapes (BLM 2014a, p. 158).

2.11 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to continue to maintain an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values. This requirement directs the BLM to maintain and update, as necessary, its inventory of wilderness characteristics.

BLM Manual 6310, Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (BLM 2012c), provides the latest policy and guidance for maintaining and conducting wilderness characteristic inventories under Section 201 of FLPMA and applies to lands outside of WSAs. BLM Manual 6320, Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process (BLM 2012d), provides guidance for documenting lands with wilderness characteristics in the NEPA document for an RMP, considering a range of reasonable alternatives for managing these areas, and evaluating the impacts of such alternatives. The BLM will use guidance from Manual 6320 and the land use planning process to determine how to manage lands to protect wilderness characteristics as part of its multiple-use mandate (BLM 2012d).

The inventory process entails identifying wilderness characteristics inventory units using boundary features such as roads, and determining whether the area meets the criteria for wilderness characteristics. An area 99

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

has wilderness characteristics if it meets the criteria for size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. An area with wilderness characteristics may also contain other values not necessary for the determination of wilderness characteristics; these are known as supplemental values. These wilderness characteristics are further described below:

Size—An area must be roadless, with 5,000 acres of contiguous BLM-administered lands or, if less than 5,000 acres, must be contiguous with BLM-administered lands that have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values (e.g., designated wilderness and WSAs) or any federal lands managed for the protection of wilderness characteristics (e.g., designated wilderness; USFWS areas proposed for wilderness designation; Forest Service WSAs or areas of recommended wilderness; and NPS areas recommended or proposed for designation). Naturalness—Lands and resources that exhibit a high degree of naturalness when affected primarily by the forces of nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. An area’s naturalness may be influenced by the presence or absence of roads or other developments, the nature and extent of landscape modifications, and the connectivity of habitats. Wildlife populations and habitat can be considered aspects of naturalness. Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Types of Recreation— Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent; where visitors can be isolated, alone, or secluded from others; where an area is accessed via nonmotorized nonmechanical means; and where no or minimal recreation facilities are encountered. Supplemental Values—The area may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

As part of this RMP, the BLM will examine options for managing these lands and will determine the most appropriate land use allocations for them. Considering wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process may result in several outcomes including: (1) emphasizing other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics; (2) emphasizing other multiple uses while applying management restrictions (conditions of use, mitigation measures) to reduce impacts on wilderness characteristics; and (3) the protection of wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses.

Current Conditions Previous planning documents did not identify or provide special management for areas with wilderness characteristics outside of WSAs. An updated wilderness characteristics inventory of BLM-administered lands in the planning area was completed as part of this RMP. The inventory considers 47 units, totaling 335,358 acres, identified from the initial and final wilderness inventories for the Lewistown and Butte Districts, including additional areas that were not considered in the 1980 wilderness inventory.

BLM has received additional inventory data from non-governmental organizations. Supplemental information is currently being evaluated as to the validity of boundaries, the existence of inventory roads and other features, size of the area, and the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics. Forthcoming data will be evaluated for inventory maintenance.

100

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 38, Inventoried Units Found to Possess Wilderness Characteristics, displays the 31 units that were found to have the most potential for meeting the criteria to be managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Table 38 Inventoried Units Found to Possess Wilderness Characteristics Acres with Wilderness Unit Name Unit Identifier Characteristics Armells Creek* MT-068-227 1,100 Big Snowies Tack-On B-1 MT-068-217 150 Big Snowies Tack-On B-2 MT-068-217 310 Big Snowies Tack-On B-3 MT-068-217 110 Big Snowies Tack-On B-4 MT-068-217 40 Biggett MT-060-008 5,000 Blind Horse Creek MT-075-102 4,900 Blood Creek MT-068-223 20,800 Carroll Coulee MT-068-230 6,900 Carter Coulee MT-068-229 12,400 Cemetery Road MT-060-003 10,900 Chain Buttes MT-068-238 7,700 Chimney Bend* MT-068-245 2,600 Chute Mountain MT-075-105 3,200 Cottonwood MT-068-221 13,100 Deep Creek/Battle Creek MT-075-106 3,100 Dog Creek South* MT-068-244 3,000 Dovetail Creek MT-068-224 15,900 Drag Creek MT-068-233 22,000 Dunn Ridge MT-060-007 10,100 Ear Mountain A MT-075-104 1,000 Ear Mountain B MT-075-104 760 Fargo Coulee* MT-068-228 640 Fort Musselshell Tack-On A MT-068-240 1,400 Fort Musselshell Tack-On B MT-068-241 610 Horse Camp Trail MT-068-237 11,900 Little Crooked Creek MT-068-235 12,200 Missouri River Island MT-075-126 20

Spear Coulee MT-060-004 5,000 Thompson Coulee MT-060-005 5,400 West Crooked Creek MT-068-236 20,300 Total 202,400 Source: BLM GIS 2015b *Armells Creek, Chimney Bend, Dog Creek South, and Fargo Coulee are partially in the UMRBNM. The acreages shown for these units reflect only those portions in the LFO. This is because management decisions for the UMRBNM are not part of the Lewistown RMP.

Trends and Forecast The planning area has seen an increasing trend of multiple uses, with an emphasis on recreational developments, agricultural infrastructure, routes and ROWs, and increased visitation. The eastern portion 101

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

of the planning area has experienced increased elk hunting and, overall, public recreation has increased in importance due to restricted access to private lands. There have been some localized improving trends due to decreased intensity of livestock management, land health improvements, and energy production decline. Regionally, the interest in areas with wilderness characteristics is increasing with recreationists. They will continue to seek out areas with wilderness characteristics because of such values as primitive and unconfined recreation and outstanding opportunities for solitude.

Future commercial and residential development and recreation use could reduce or eliminate naturalness, solitude, and primitive recreation values in areas with wilderness characteristics outside WSAs, if they are not managed specifically to preserve such values.

With increased demand for consumptive and non-consumptive resources and an increase in development in natural and primitive areas, the demand for ROWs on BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics will likely increase. Currently there are 15 to 18 ROW applications per year in the LFO.

There is an increased demand for ROWs across public land to provide legal access to private land. Most of these ROWs are being requested to support the sale of a parcel or residence. While subdivision development is limited in the planning area, any large blocks of scenic undeveloped lands are vulnerable to that activity.

While there has been some speculation about increased oil and gas activity in the planning area, most lands with wilderness characteristics are in areas with no to negligible development potential. The remaining areas occur in very low (one well per township) to low (one to five wells per township) areas of potential oil and gas development.

It is not likely that renewable wind energy would be developed on the lands with wilderness characteristics. There are no wind authorizations or pending applications in the planning area. The lack of applications and proximity to private lands suggest that little to no wind energy development will occur in the planning area that would diminish wilderness characteristics.

The major use on lands with wilderness characteristics is livestock grazing. Grazing practices have improved in the planning area, as evidenced by an increasing number of grazing allotments that conform to Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997). Improved vegetation conditions correlate with improved qualities of naturalness; nevertheless, the development of additional range improvement projects and increased intensity of livestock management could degrade naturalness and opportunities for solitude. Maintenance and construction of range improvement projects and current levels of livestock management are expected to continue.

102

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

2.12 Cave and Karst Resources According to the FCRPA, a cave is defined as follows: any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages occurring beneath the surface of the earth or in a cliff or ledge large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or man-made. Cave resources are fragile due to their association with other resources such as groundwater systems, biological communities, fossils, archaeological sites, cultural values, and mineral formations. Under FCRPA, a cave is considered significant if it meets one or more of the following six criteria:

Biota—The cave serves as seasonal or yearlong habitat for organisms or animals, or contains species or subspecies of flora or fauna native to caves, or is sensitive to disruption, or contains species found on state or federal sensitive, threatened, and endangered species lists. Cultural—The cave contains historic or archaeological resources included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the NRHP because of its research importance for history or prehistory, its historical association, or other historical or traditional significance. Geological/Mineralogical/Paleontological—The cave possesses geological or mineralogical features that are fragile or exhibit interesting formations. Hydrologic—The cave is part of a hydrologic system or contains water important to humans, animals or plants, or cave resource development. Recreational—The cave provides, or could provide, recreational opportunities or scenic values. Educational or Scientific—The resource offers opportunities for educational or scientific use or is in a virtually pristine state, lacking evidence of contemporary human disturbance or impact, or its length, height, volume, total depth, or similar measurements are notable (43 CFR 37).

The FCRPA declares significant caves on federal lands as an invaluable and irreplaceable part of the nation’s heritage. Improper use, increased recreational demand, urban spread, and a lack of specific statutory protection threaten caves. One purpose of FCRPA is to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people. Another FCRPA purpose is to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities and those using caves on federal lands for scientific, educational, or recreation purposes. The DOI regulations for FCRPA require that federal lands be managed in a manner that, to the extent practical, protects and maintains significant caves and cave resources (43 CFR 37.2).

Current Conditions During the Paleozoic Era (570 to 240 million years ago) 5,000 to 10,000 feet of predominately limestone and dolomite rock were deposited, with some sandstone and shale occurrences as a result of intermittent shallow seas during the era (Woodward 2010). Erosive forces after deposition have resulted in cave and karst features throughout the planning area. A preliminary cave inventory was conducted in 2012 that helped identify potential cave and karst resources in the planning area. This inventory used publications, records, and caver knowledge.

In the planning area, there are two caves that meet the criteria to be considered significant: Tate-Poetter Cave and Crystal Cave. The Tate-Poetter Cave is significant because it provides bat habitat and the Crystal Cave is significant because of recreational activities, such as spelunking. The BLM will continue to manage

103

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

significant cave resources for their protection and use on a case-by-case basis. This is because the LFO does not currently have a cave management program.

Trends The change in cave and karst resources is the increase in knowledge and understanding of caves with significant resources. Caves will continue to be surveyed for significance, and if they meet the criteria, they will be designated as part of the significant cave features. Additional caves and karsts are expected to be discovered.

Recreational use and interest in exploring caves is expected to continue to increase. Recreational cavers, or spelunkers, constitute the majority of users of cave resources in the planning area.

Many of the caves serve as habitats for bats. In an effort to prevent the continued spread of the fungus associated with WNS, the BLM has implemented decontamination procedures and has closed many caves nationally.

104

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

3. RESOURCE USES This section contains a description of the human uses of resources in the planning area as follows:

• Minerals and energy resources • Livestock grazing • Recreation and visitor services • Travel, transportation management, and access • Lands and realty • Renewable energy • Withdrawals • Forest, woodland, and special products

3.1 Minerals and Energy Resources Minerals and energy resources are energy solid leasable minerals, fluid minerals, nonenergy solid leasable minerals, locatable minerals, and salable minerals. All of these resources are discussed in the sections below.

Energy solid leasable minerals are those leased under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 that are related to energy production. These energy leasable minerals include coal and oil shale. Development of these resources on minerals owned by the United States is done through licenses to explore and to mine.

Fluid minerals include oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources. Fluid mineral resources are also subject to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. It provides that all public lands are open to oil and gas leasing unless a specific order has been issued to close an area.

In addition to federal regulations, the Montana DNRC, Oil and Gas Division, Board of Oil and Gas Conservation regulations govern hydraulic fracturing in Montana. These regulations are designed to ensure that all resources, including groundwater, are protected from impacts of hydraulic fracturing. The regulations also require operators to demonstrate that new and existing wells stimulated3 by hydraulic fracturing have suitable and safe mechanical configurations for the stimulation treatment proposed. Oil and gas drilling techniques in the planning area could potentially include vertical and horizontal drilling and the use of hydraulic fracturing; however, it is estimated that of the 658 wells projected to be drilled, that only 20-25 percent of these would be drilled using horizontal drilling technology (see Current Conditions below for a detailed discussion of hydraulic fracturing).Geothermal energy is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the planning area.

The BLM uses the planning process to evaluate and determine where and how federal oil and gas resources will be made available for leasing. Where oil and gas development may conflict with other resources, the areas may be closed to leasing. Areas where oil and gas development could coexist with other land uses or resources will be open to leasing. Leases in these areas will be issued with standard lease terms or with added stipulations, based on decisions in the land use document. Following issuance of a lease, surface

3Intervention to improve well performance 105

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

activity on a lease may include drilling, covered by an APD. This requires additional analysis for NEPA compliance, and additional conditions of approval may be applied.

Nonenergy solid leasable minerals are those, other than coal and oil shale, which are leased under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. These minerals are not related to energy production. Nonenergy leasable minerals include phosphate and chlorides, sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates, or nitrates of potassium and sodium. In the case of acquired lands where public land under federal ownership was obtained through purchase, condemnation, gift, or exchange, solid minerals that would usually be locatable under public domain are subject to leasing.

Locatable minerals are those that are open to mining claim location under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC, 22-54 and 611-615). Locatable minerals include precious and base metals, precious gems, uranium, chemical grade limestone, chemical grade silica sand, and gypsum. Because of the wide variety of potentially locatable minerals, there is no definitive list. Rather, minerals are considered locatable only if they are minerals that have a unique property that gives the deposit a distinct and special value (43 CFR 3809.2[e]).

Uncommon varieties of minerals, such as pumice, cinders, and bentonite, are also regulated as locatable minerals. A determination that a variety is uncommon and subject to the General Mining Law is made by the BLM on a case-by-case basis.

Salable minerals, also referred to as mineral materials, include common variety minerals such as sand, gravel, clays, and borrow material. Mineral materials are sold or permitted under the Mineral Materials Sale Act of 1947. The BLM is authorized to sell mineral materials to the public at fair market value, using both competitive and noncompetitive sales. The BLM’s policy is to make these materials available for the public and local government agencies whenever possible and wherever environmentally acceptable. The BLM offers mineral materials free of charge in the form of free use permits to state, county, or other government entities for use in public projects.

Current Conditions

Energy Solid Leasable Minerals There are no federal mineral leases or licenses for coal or oil shale in the planning area. Because of the lack of federal coal and oil shale activity, the BLM does not have management directed at coal and oil shale exploration and development. If a company expresses interest in developing these resources, the BLM would complete a NEPA analysis in an RMP amendment.

Oil and Gas Leasables This discussion focuses solely on oil and gas because those are the only fluid minerals that exist in the planning area.

Recent oil activity in the planning area has been concentrated in Petroleum, Pondera, and Teton Counties. According to the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Activities in the Lewistown Planning Area, gas activity is confined to Chouteau, Fergus, and Pondera Counties, with minor gas production in northern Teton County (BLM 2014b, p. 6). Top-producing oil fields in the planning area are the Cut Bank and Pondera fields, which in 2013 produced 271,600 barrels and 154,600 barrels of oil, respectively. Top-producing gas fields in the planning area are the Leroy, Ledger, and Lake Francis fields, 106

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

which in 2013 produced 142,500 thousand cubic feet (MCF), 80,900 MCF, and 62,200 MCF (BLM 2014b, p. 18-19; DNRC 2013, p. 9-1).

In addition to activity in these fields, some exploration has occurred in the Heath oil shale play (a group of oil fields or prospects in the same region that are controlled by the same set of geological circumstances) in the southern portion of Petroleum County. The Montana Board of Oil and Gas has issued 17 drilling permits for Heath oil shale in Petroleum County. Five of these permits have been issued since March 2011 (Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 2012). No permits have been issued for drilling on federal minerals in the Heath play, and the economics of producing oil from this play are still uncertain.

Based on the BLM’s Automated Fluid Minerals Support System well database, IHS Energy’s well database, and the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation’s well database, there had been approximately 3,966 wells drilled in the study area as of March 2014. Approximately 9 percent of these wells were drilled on federal mineral estate. Out of all wells drilled in the planning area, approximately 869 (22 percent) are active (BLM 2014b, p. 181). Approximately 73 percent of active wells are for oil, 21 percent are for gas, and 6 percent are injection wells (BLM 2014b, p. 6).

As of March 2015, there were 199 authorized federal oil and gas leases in the decision area, encompassing approximately 64,800 acres, or 5 percent of the decision area (BLM 2015a). During the past 20 years, the planning area has received relatively little interest from the oil and gas industry compared to prior decades, when more than 50 wells were drilled annually during some years (BLM 2014a, p. 179).

Oil and gas drilling techniques in the planning area could potentially include vertical and horizontal drilling. Directional drilling is a common practice that BLM uses to decrease disturbance acreage and reduce surface impacts. The use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking could potentially occur. Hydraulic fracturing is a technique that has been utilized by the oil and gas industry since the late 1940s to create additional space and connecting existing fractures and existing rock pores with newly created fractures that are in deep underground geologic formations. The induced space allows the rock to more readily release oil and natural gas so it can flow to the surface via the well bore that would otherwise be uneconomical to develop. Wells that undergo hydraulic fracturing may be drilled vertically, horizontally, or directionally and the resultant fractures induced by the hydraulic fracturing can be vertical, horizontal, or both. The typical steps of hydraulic fracturing can be described as follows:

1. Water, sand and additives are pumped at high pressures down the wellbore.

2. The liquid goes through perforated sections of the wellbore and into the surrounding formation, fracturing the rock and injecting sand or other proppants into the cracks to hold them open.

3. Experts continuously monitor and gauge pressures along with the volume of fluids and proppants, while studying how the sand reacts when it hits the bottom of the wellbore; slowly increasing the density of sand to water as the fracking progresses.

4. This process may be repeated multiple times, in “stages” to reach maximum areas of the wellbore. When this is done, the wellbore is 107

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

temporarily plugged between each stage to maintain the highest water pressure possible and get maximum fracturing results in the rock.

5. Fracking plugs are drilled or removed from the wellbore and the well is tested for results.

6. The water pressure is reduced and fluids are returned up the wellbore for disposal or treatment and re-use, leaving the sand in place to prop open the cracks and allow the oil/gas to flow to the well bore.

Fracturing fluid is typically more than 98 percent water and sand, with small amounts of readily available chemical additives used to carry the proppant and control the chemical and mechanical properties of the water and sand mixture. Proppant, consisting of synthetic or natural silica sand, may be used in quantities of few hundred tons for a vertical well to a few thousand tons for a horizontal well. The amount of water needed to fracture a well in the planning area depends on the geologic basin, the formation, and depth and type of well (vertical, horizontal, directional), and the proposed completion process. The possible sources of water are varied and include water marketed by municipalities; permits for new appropriations of surface water and changes to existing water rights; groundwater appropriations; and recycled water.

Water produced from hydraulic fracturing operations is contained in a lined pit or in steel tanks on location. The water can be disposed of by trucking it to an authorized disposal pit, allowing the water in the lined pit to evaporate within required timeframes, through subsurface injection, or treated and reused to drill or complete another well. The disposal of water generated during drilling and completion operations in an injection or disposal well requires permit(s) from the primacy state or EPA. A NEPA analysis is prepared for all requests concerning disposal of water generated from federal wells and in accordance to federal and state regulations.

Horizontal technology and hydraulic fracturing in the planning area has resulted with limited to no success. As of October 3, 2016, 16 wells had been drilled using horizontal and hydraulic fracturing technology. The earliest of the horizontal well drilling began in July 2008. Using this same time from of July 2008 through current, 87 wells total have been drilled within the planning area or approximately 19 percent of the wells drilled used horizontal technology and hydraulic fracturing. Seven of the horizontal wells have experienced some oil production; however, none of the production is considered commercial production which would allow for the pay back of the drilling and completion costs with a reasonable return on the investment. Of the 7 wells, only 1 well continues to produce, where the other 6 are currently shut-in. The remaining 9 wells have been since plugged and abandoned as dry holes or wells with shows of oil. As a result, of the 658 wells projected to be drilled in the planning area, only 20-25 percent of these would be drilled using horizontal drilling technology and hydraulic fracturing.

A protest resolution decision applicable to the LFO defers leasing of all nominated oil and gas lease parcels that would require a special stipulation to protect important wildlife values. This deferral is in place until the completion of an oil and gas RMP amendment or an RMP revision that includes an oil and gas leasing decision in the ROD. While nominated parcels not requiring special wildlife stipulations have continued to be leased in the LFO, total oil and gas leasing and development in the decision area is low; it is limited to leases not requiring special wildlife stipulations.

108

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

As part of the federal Tax Relief and Healthcare Act of 2006, 108,500 acres of federal mineral estate along the Rocky Mountain Front were withdrawn from mineral leasing and locatable mineral entry, subject to valid existing rights. The purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the unique natural values along the Rocky Mountain Front. Another 1,900 acres of federal fluid mineral estate in the decision area are closed to leasing, independent of the withdrawal.

The remaining 379,000 acres of federal mineral estate in the planning area are open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions. See Table 39, Oil and Gas Leasing Categories, for a breakdown showing acres of federal mineral estate beneath BLM-administered surface and split-estate in each leasing category. If a lease is issued under the current deferral (i.e., the lease did not require special wildlife stipulations), it would be subject to the allocations shown in this table.

Table 39 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories Category Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Withdrawn 108,500 Closed 1,900 Open, subject to NSO stipulations 58,300 Open, subject to CSU stipulations 281,700 Open, subject to standard terms and conditions 379,000 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals While prospecting for hard rock minerals beneath acquired lands has occurred at a steady pace over the past 20 years, no federal nonenergy solid mineral leases have been issued in the planning area. The BLM has issued 24 prospecting permits for nonenergy leasable minerals on acquired lands over the past 20 years. Generally, two to three small-scale prospecting permits are active at any given time but, as of August 2015, one prospecting permit was pending and none were authorized.

The primary minerals of interest for prospecting permits are sapphires, diamonds, and garnets. The portions of the planning area with the highest potential for hard rock minerals are the Judith, North Moccasin, and South Moccasin Mountains (BLM 1992, p. 107-109). Acquired lands exist in the Judith Mountains but not in the North Moccasin or South Moccasin Mountains. All of the acquired lands in the decision area are in Fergus and Petroleum Counties. Fergus County has potential occurrences of diamonds, garnets, and bentonite. Bentonite also occurs in Petroleum County (BLM 2014b, p. 195-196). Several areas in Petroleum County have ultramafic outcrops termed diatremes. These diatremes have chemical and mineralogical affinities similar to kimberlite deposits. In other areas of the world, the main importance in recognizing kimberlites is their association with diamond occurrences (BLM 2014a, p. 193). The single pending prospecting permit in the decision area is to resume diamond exploration in Petroleum County.

Locatable Minerals Any area of public lands with minerals reserved by the federal government that is not withdrawn is open to locatable minerals exploration and mining. In the planning area, there is one active exploration project, but no active mining of locatable minerals on public lands administered by the BLM. However, favorable

109

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

geologic occurrence, past mining, and adjacent private operations can be used as indicators for potential development.

As described under Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals, the portions of the planning area with the highest potential for hard rock minerals are the Judith, North Moccasin, and South Moccasin Mountains. All of these areas contain public domain lands and federal mineral estate. In addition to the other hardrock minerals described under Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals, Gypsum occurs in Judith Basin County, and gold, silver, and precious metals been mined historically in Meagher County. One company is planning to develop a copper deposit on nonfederal minerals in Meagher County.

Although the entire planning area has the potential for locatable mineral occurrence, mining claim activity can also be considered an indicator for potential development of locatable minerals. Table 3-40, Locatable Mineral Activity, presents an inventory of active mining claims, by county, in the planning area.

Table 40 Locatable Mineral Activity Number of Claims County Claim Type All Federal BLM Cascade Lode 25 1 Lode 93 93 Fergus Placer 5 5 Lode 38 1 Judith Basin Placer 16 10 Mill site 1 0 Lode 345 0 Meagher Placer 37 0 Mill site 1 0 Petroleum Lode 1 1 Source: LR 2000 data from July 2013

As shown in Table 40, most of the activity for federal locatable minerals in the planning area has been on National Forest System lands in Meagher County. Of federal minerals in the decision area, most of the development has occurred in the mountainous areas of Fergus County.

Though the BLM manages unpatented mining claims on all federal lands, it does not manage the surface activity related to exploration and development of locatable minerals for other agencies. In the case of split estate, where the surface is privately owned and the minerals have been reserved by the federal government, surface management defaults to the BLM. However, the BLM typically defers to negotiations between the private surface owner and the mining claimant with regard to surface management in these situations.

Salable Minerals The BLM has issued 21 mineral material permits or sales in the planning area over the past 20 years. Most mineral material activity involves free use permits issued to county or state governments for road construction or maintenance. Mineral material development is primarily for sand and gravel needed for road surfacing. Pits are usually within 20 miles of the particular project and generally require limited access development. Other mineral material activity is related to specific construction jobs, such as reservoirs, 110

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

canals, or other types of development; riprap for irrigation or retention structures; aggregate for concrete mix; and building stone for general use. Virtually all of this material is found in the planning area, and some building stone may be economic to transport for greater distances if it is of high enough value (BLM 2014a, p. 198).

Trends

Energy Solid Leasable Minerals No federal oil shale resources have been developed in the planning area, and no coal leasing has occurred in the last 20 years. Much of the coal that was mined historically was to supply local power plants in central Montana or for smelting in Great Falls. With other sources of energy more readily available, these local demands have since been reduced.

Coal beds are present in the Cretaceous Kootenai Formation, Eagle Sandstone, and Judith River Formation. Though unlikely, the location with the most potential for development in the planning area is in the Kootenai Formation in the Lewistown and Great Falls coal fields.

There is an oil shale-bearing unit in the Mississippian-aged Heath Formation of central Montana (BLM 2014b). However, the thinness and low oil yield of this bed have discouraged development. Due to low demand and limited resource potential, no development of federal coal or oil shale resources is anticipated in the planning area for the life of this RMP.

Oil and Gas Leasables Because the primary oil and gas fields in the planning area are largely played out, the level of activity on existing leases in the planning area is likely to remain relatively stable for the life of the RMP. The one possible exception is the Heath shale play, where activity on leases is still in early stages. If this play proved to be economic, drilling and production in southern Petroleum County could greatly increase. Table 41, Oil and Gas Development Potential, provides acres of moderate, low, very low, and negligible/unavailable oil and gas development in the decision area. Closed acres are factored into areas with negligible potential. Wells in negligible/unavailable areas are projected to be drilled in places generally not proven as productive by historical drilling, but which lie in the Montana Thrust Belt and North-Central Montana Provinces as defined by the USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment and consequently have some potential for future exploration and development activity.

Table 41 Oil and Gas Development Potential Development Acres of Potential Decision Area Moderate 16,000 Low 182,000 Very low 465,000 Negligible/unavailable 533,100 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

In areas with moderate or low potential, most of the development is expected to be the expansion or further infield development of existing oil and gas fields in the northwestern and eastern portions of the planning area. This could include secondary or tertiary recovery programs or further infill drilling with 111

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

vertical or horizontal well technology, but vertical drilling is far more likely due to geologic constraints.. Any wells in areas with very low or negligible potential will likely be wildcat wells drilled to discover new fields. If a new field is discovered in these areas of very low or negligible development potential, subsequent drilling could increase moderately around the discovery. Based on previous exploration efforts in the planning area, the probability of successful discovery of one or more new fields in areas of very low or negligible development potential is unlikely during the life of this RMP (BLM 2014b, p. 25).

The RFD scenario estimates that up to 658 wells will be drilled in the planning area during the life of this RMP in an unconstrained scenario (BLM 2014b, p. 23). An estimated 75 of these wells would be drilled on federal mineral estate (BLM 2015a). However, when the deferral is taken into account, the number of wells projected to be developed in the decision area is likely lower.

Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals Future demand for nonenergy leasable minerals will likely increase over time in parts of Montana and the West, but this is not anticipated to increase activity in the planning area. The focus of the prospecting permits in the planning area has been sapphires, garnets, and diamonds, commodities of constant demand in industry and gem markets. Therefore, the current low level of prospecting is anticipated to stay the same for the life of this RMP.

Locatable Minerals The economics of mining in the planning area will be driven by the relationship between commodity production costs and market price. Though more silver is often produced than gold, it is the relatively high unit value of gold that will be critical in establishing the economic viability of mining. The price of gold in the past 20 years peaked in 2012 at over $1,800 per ounce. In January 2014, the price was just over $1,200 per ounce (Macrotrends 2014).

Since 2006, there has been increased national and international interest in gold development, including development in Montana. The general trend for Montana in this time has been reopening past developments related to old mines; however, unlike the western portion of the state, central Montana does not benefit from being near previously in-place and permitted processing facilities. The lack of accessible processing facilities, in combination with a Montana law banning open pit mining that uses cyanide leaching, mean that gold and silver development in the planning area will likely remain uneconomical for the life of this RMP (BLM 2014a, p.196).

As discussed under Nonenergy Leasable Minerals, above, demand and development for other hard rock minerals in the planning area are expected to remain steady for the life of this RMP. New development is expected to occur in the same areas where previous development has occurred, which is in the mountainous areas of Fergus County.

Salable Minerals Future demand for salable minerals will vary, depending on market conditions, which differ according to economic conditions and construction activity. Salable mineral activity is expected to continue at roughly the same level for the life of the RMP.

112

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

3.2 Livestock Grazing The primary laws that govern livestock grazing on public lands are the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. In addition, the BLM manages grazing lands under 43 CFR 4100, and applicable policy.

A grazing permit authorizes livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands in an established grazing district; a grazing lease authorizes livestock grazing on public lands outside an established grazing district, as defined by the Taylor Grazing Act (43 CFR 4100.0-5). The kind and number of livestock, the season of use, the allotment to be used, and the amount of use in AUMs are mandatory terms and conditions of every grazing permit or lease (43 CFR 4130.3).

An AUM is the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent for one month, and an allotment is an area of land designated and managed for grazing livestock (43 CFR 4100.0-5). Section 3 allotments are within grazing districts, as provided in the Taylor Grazing Act. Section 15 allotments are outside of grazing districts.

In accordance with 43 CFR 4180, the BLM is required to meet, or make progress toward meeting, Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (BLM 1997). Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. Guidelines are preferred or advisable grazing management approaches to maintaining or ensuring progress toward achieving land health standards. These standards and guidelines were developed with public input through the NEPA process.

The standards and guidelines are implemented through land health assessments, standards conformance review determination documents, EAs, permit renewals, and other permit changes. These standards pertain not only to impacts associated with livestock grazing but also to other rangeland impacts from such activities as recreation and wildlife grazing. Sustainable livestock grazing and desired rangeland condition require the collective management of forage, water, soil, and livestock by the BLM and the livestock owners and operators. An interdisciplinary approach ensures effective management of the multiple resource values and uses in the planning area.

Current Conditions Approximately 14,600 acres (2 percent) of BLM-administered lands in the planning area are unavailable to grazing in order to protect other resources. The remainder of the decision area is open to grazing (approximately 636,600 acres, or 98 percent of BLM-administered lands in the planning area). See Table 42, Lewistown Field Office Planning Area—Grazing Allocation.

Table 42 Lewistown Field Office Planning Area— Grazing Allocation Allocation Acres Available to grazing 636,600 Unavailable to grazing 14,600 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

113

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

There are 590 allotments in the planning area. In addition to public land, these allotments may contain other lands (e.g., National Forest System, state, or private land). There are 590 permits or leases authorizing grazing on these allotments. Total permitted use is 125,411 AUMs, with 631 AUMs in suspension and 2,971 AUMs available but unused. Total permitted numbers change frequently due to conversions of the class of livestock and changes in allotment or livestock management. Allotments may also contain more than one permit or lease at one time.

There are 350 Section 3 permits and 176 Section 15 leases. Section 15 leases account for 12,594 AUMs of the total 126,042 AUMs. Table 43, Summary of AUMs1 by County and Preference Code in the Planning Area (Calendar Year 2013), is a summary of permits and leases by county.

Table 43 Summary of AUMs1 by County and Preference Code in the Planning Area (Calendar Year 2013) County Summary Section 3 Section 15 County Total Permitted AUMs 0 1,816 1,816 Cascade Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 0 5,155 5,155 Chouteau Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 50,661 1,618 52,279 Fergus Suspended AUMs 141 0 141 Permitted AUMs 395.5 0 395.5 Garfield Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 0 981 981 Judith Basin Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 0 47 47 Lewis and Clark Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 0 1,222 1,222 Meagher Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 61,916.5 0 61,916.5 Petroleum Suspended AUMs 334 0 334 Permitted AUMs 0 156 156 Pondera Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 0 51 51 Powell Suspended AUMs 0 0 0 Permitted AUMs 0 1,392 1,392 Teton Suspended AUMs 0 156 156 Total sum of county 112,973 12,438 125,411 permitted Total sum of county 475 156 631 suspended Grand total 113,448 12,594 126,042 Source: BLM 2014a 1Numbers may vary due to fluctuations in permitted AUMs in a calendar year and query parameters.

114

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The livestock that graze on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are primarily cattle, but several permits and leases include sheep and horses. The relative numbers of these kinds of livestock have not varied much over the last 10 years.

Current Grazing Management A wide range of management approaches are practiced among the permittees and lessees that graze livestock. Some grazing permits and leases are held by producers who are primarily involved in farming. In these cases, livestock are often grazed on BLM-administered land during the summer and on private stubble fields in the fall and winter.

In most cases, isolated tracts of BLM-administered land are grazed in conjunction with private land because the intermingled landownership pattern and terrain make it difficult to manage the BLM-administered land separately from private land. In other cases, large blocks of BLM-administered land are authorized to producers who are primarily involved in ranching.

The allotments with significant acreages of isolated tracts and larger contiguous blocks of BLM- administered lands are usually managed under grazing prescriptions or rotations that are outlined in a watershed plan or an AMP that includes private, state, and BLM-administered lands.

Management practices for livestock grazing have been focused on achieving Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997) and meeting objectives for other resources (for example, vegetation and soils) in the allotments. This has been accomplished by adjusting management, including the duration of grazing use, season-of-use, animal unit reduction, and grazing distribution. Reducing the duration of grazing use and improving livestock distribution are generally the keys to meeting rangeland objectives, particularly those associated with riparian areas.

In addition, adjusting range improvements can improve livestock dispersal and may be used as a management tool. For example, constructing water developments and pasture fencing and ensuring maintenance of range improvements can improve dispersal. These range improvements often enable more intensive grazing systems but they also require more management on the part of the grazing permittee. Finally, ensuring compliance of grazing permits can improve the ability to achieve Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997) and to meet objectives for other resources.

Grazing management changes are implemented through adjustments in grazing permits and leases, including changes to terms and conditions. Terms and conditions of permits and leases are specific requirements determined to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives or to ensure conformance with the Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997). They are determined by an interdisciplinary team, in consultation with permittees or lessees and interested members of the public, for each individual allotment.

Terms and conditions are a tool to achieve resource conditions or to conform to standards on the public lands. They may be modified if monitoring data show those terms and conditions currently being applied are not achieving desired results. Types of adjustments include utilization and trampling limits, herding and riding requirements, and requirements to place salt and supplemental feed away from riparian zones.

115

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Land Health Assessment Most of the BLM-administered lands in the planning area are within grazing allotment boundaries, which are managed in accordance with AMPs or watershed plans. The BLM renews term grazing permits and leases approximately every 10 years by completing EAs for the individual AMPs or watershed plans. When the grazing allotment assessment process has been completed, the interdisciplinary team completes an allotment evaluation. If the evaluation indicates that an allotment is not achieving the Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997), the team determines what is causing the allotment to not achieve the standards. When it is determined that current livestock grazing management is a factor in achieving the standards, a change in the grazing management must begin within one year. This is to allow the grazing allotment to achieve, or make significant progress toward achieving, the standards.

Most allotments in the planning area have been assessed for adherence to the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997). Details are summarized in Table 44, RMP Planning Area Land Health Assessment.

Table 44 RMP Planning Area Land Health Assessment Number of Total Acres Type Allotments (Allotments) Total assessed for land health standards 548 601,606 Meeting land health standards 327 402,622 Not meeting land health standards 221 198,984 Not meeting land health standards due to 85 98,052 livestock grazing Not assessed 42 15,394 Source: BLM 2014c

Current livestock grazing was a significant factor for not achieving land health standards in 85 of the 590 allotments in the planning area. Grazing allotments in the planning area that were determined to not be meeting land health standards due to livestock grazing have had management changes implemented to address these factors. The effectiveness of the management changes implemented will be evaluated on a 10-year cycle of permit renewal, based on the dates of the allotment or watershed plans.

Trends Trends in livestock grazing reflect changes in livestock species, in permittees/lessees and their perspectives, in permitted use or season-of-use, in number and types of range improvements, and in grazing systems. The absentee ownership of the base property associated with many of the allotments has increased, as has the number of permittees/lessees that do not rely on livestock grazing for their primary source of income (BLM 2014a). Changes in the types of permittees that run livestock in the planning area have resulted in diversification of perspectives. Some permittees have shifted the focus of their management to wildlife habitat improvement and recreation as an alternative source of income.

Changes in permitted use or season-of-use are in response to changes in such factors as rangeland condition and socioeconomics. The condition of the land is due to a variety of factors, such as climate, wildlife, livestock, oil and gas development, recreational use, and increased population. Increased development and recreational activities are competing for resources that could limit livestock grazing. 116

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

If the rangeland condition deteriorates, the BLM has the ability to reduce the number of permitted AUMs, to manage plant communities that provide forage and browse through vegetation treatments, to change the season-of-use, to require deferment and pasture rotations, and to install range improvements, such as fences, water pipelines, spring developments, and reservoirs.

Range improvement and permittee/lessee involvement may become more crucial to sustain future resource demands. The BLM’s traditional goal in managing livestock grazing has been to provide sustainable habitat for livestock and other animals. This is likely to remain the primary focus of the BLM’s management of livestock grazing.

Urbanization of rural areas in the planning area has also caused conflicts with livestock grazing. New landowners are often unfamiliar with state livestock laws and associated fencing requirements. Conflicts develop when livestock authorized on public land drift onto private land. This is largely the result of public/private land boundaries that are not fenced or are poorly fenced or where fences have been poorly maintained.

It is BLM policy not to fence or to be responsible for fence maintenance, on boundaries between private and public land. In most instances, the BLM has determined that it is not in the public interest to construct these fences largely because it would not be practical or economical. Rural-urban interface conflicts have often forced ranchers to seek other areas for grazing. Livestock operations near more urban areas in the planning area, such as Lewistown, White Sulphur Springs, and Great Falls, have consequently diminished, as has livestock use on public land surrounding these areas (BLM 2014a).

1 3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services 2 BLM-administered lands in the planning area provide visitors with a wide variety of year-round outdoor 3 recreation activities and related benefits, including land-based, water-based, and snow sport opportunities. 4 As required under FLPMA, the BLM manages outdoor recreation opportunities with other resources and 5 uses under the concept of multiple-use management.

6 Under its 2014 Recreation Strategy, the BLM manages recreation resources and visitor services to offer 7 the greatest benefits possible to individuals and communities. This is to better enable communities to 8 achieve their own desired social, economic, and environmental outcomes.

9 BLM recreation management assumes that the public values natural landscapes and enjoys participating in 10 activities in those landscapes. Recreation opportunities are offered to the public on all BLM-administered 11 lands in the planning area; however, the isolated nature of BLM-administered lands in the planning area 12 limits legal access to recreation opportunities in some areas.

13 While most recreational users in the planning area participate in dispersed recreation activities, individually 14 or in small groups, others enjoy more developed opportunities or participate in organized events or 15 commercial recreation as participants or spectators. The popularity of big game hunting makes fall the 16 most popular season for recreation-based visits to the planning area. Spring and summer recreation, such 17 as fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing, are largely concentrated around mountains and 18 bodies of water. Winter recreation activities include ice fishing, hiking, trapping, and snowmobiling. 19 Opportunities to participate in these activities in landscapes unique to the planning area attract visitors 20 from local and regional areas, as well as from across the country and internationally.

117

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1 Current Conditions 2 The LFO manages 651,200 acres, largely within Fergus and Petroleum Counties in the eastern portion of 3 the planning area. In general, BLM-administered lands in the planning area are widely distributed and are 4 largely noncontiguous, resulting in dispersed and localized recreation opportunities. Annually, 5 approximately 166,000 visitors recreate on BLM-administered lands in the LFO, with the most popular 6 activity being big game hunting, which takes place predominately during autumn (BLM 2012e).

7 Hunting and most other recreation activities on BLM-administered lands take place largely in the 8 northeastern portion of the planning area. Based on the JVP RMP, all SRMAs and ERMAs are in Fergus and 9 Petroleum Counties.

10 BLM-administered lands west of the Judith River are smaller and more isolated than east of the river. 11 Recreation opportunities west of the Judith River take place mostly in a few small, but contiguous, land 12 holdings in Chouteau and Teton Counties.

13 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 14 The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) identifies recreation opportunities based on the area’s 15 experience, setting, and activity opportunities. BLM-administered lands in the planning area contain four of 16 the six total ROS classes: semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded-natural, and rural 17 (see Table 45, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes in the Planning Area).

Table 45 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes in the Planning Area Opportunity Experience Setting Activity Location in Class Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity Planning Area Semiprimitive . Some opportunity . Predominantly . Camping, hiking, . Square Butte WSA Nonmotorized for isolation unmodified natural climbing, enjoying . North Fork of Sun . Moderate challenge environment scenery and natural River area and risk when using . Low user features, nature . Rocky Mountain outdoor concentration, but study, photography, Front ONAs nonmotorized skills with evidence of spelunking, hunting other users (big game, small . Facilities provided game, upland birds, for the protection waterfowl), ski of resource values touring and and user safety only snowshoeing, . Possible fee charges swimming, diving for providing (skin and scuba), camping or fishing fishing, canoeing, access services sailing, and . Motorized use not nonmotorized river permitted running Semiprimitive . Some opportunity . Predominantly All activities listed Most of the planning Motorized for isolation unmodified natural for semiprimitive area is characterized . Opportunity to use environment nonmotorized but by this opportunity motorized . Low user with the addition of setting type equipment concentration, but the following: with evidence of . Motorized uses, other users such as four- . Facilities provided wheel drive for the protection vehicles, dune 118

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 45 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes in the Planning Area Opportunity Experience Setting Activity Location in Class Opportunity Opportunity Opportunity Planning Area of resource values buggies, dirt bikes, and user safety only snowmobiles, and . Motorized use power boats permitted Roaded- . Equal opportunities . Resource All activities listed In or next to Natural for isolation and modification is for semiprimitive developed affiliation with evident but motorized but with recreation sites or other user groups harmonious with the addition of the along roads and . Challenge and risk the natural following: trails opportunities are environment . Picnicking, rock less important . User concentration collecting, wood except in specific is low to moderate, gathering, auto activities with facilities touring, downhill . Practice of outdoor sometimes provided skiing, snow play, skills may be for group activity ice skating, water important . Onsite controls and skiing, hang . Opportunities for restrictions offer a gliding, both motorized and sense of security; interpretive use, nonmotorized rustic facilities are rustic resorts, and recreation provided organized camps . Conventional motorized use is allowed Rural . Opportunities to . Resource All activities listed In or next to experience modification and previously, plus the developed affiliation with utilization practices following: recreation sites or individuals and are obvious . Competitive along roads and groups are . Concentration of games, spectator trails convenience of users is often sports, bicycling, sites and moderate to high jogging, outdoor opportunities. . Facilities are concerts, and These factors are provided for specific modern resorts generally more activities and important than the designed for use by natural setting. a large number of . Opportunities for people wildland challenges, . Developed sites, risk taking, and roads, and trails are testing of outdoor designed for skills are much less moderate to high important use . Intensive motorized use occurs Source: BLM 2014a 1 2 Recreation Sites 3 Recreation users in the planning area have access to a variety of developed and undeveloped recreation 4 sites, which provide for numerous recreation opportunities (see Table 46, Recreation Sites in the 5 Planning Area). Developed recreation sites typically include such facilities as picnic areas, trailheads and 6 toilets. Undeveloped sites do not typically include any BLM-administered recreation facilities. 119

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1 Hunting and Recreational Target Shooting 2 The MFWP issues hunting licenses for deer, pronghorn antelope, and Rocky Mountain elk. The MFWP 3 places restrictions on the time of year, location, method of take, and daily bag and possession limits. 4 Statewide, the average annual harvest of elk between 2004 and 2011 was 15,700. During the same period, 5 the annual harvest of deer averaged 47,000, while antelope harvest averaged 14,700 (MFWP 2013b).

6 The MFWP also permits the hunting of mountain lions, black bears, furbearers, wolves, moose, sheep, 7 goats, upland birds, and waterfowl in certain parts of the planning area. Take limits, method of take, range 8 restrictions, and seasons vary by species.

Table 46 Recreation Sites in the Planning Area Recreation Facilities* Opportunities Campin

Site County

Boat Launch Access Handicap Boating Fishing Hiking Horseback Riding Hunting Mountain Biking OHV Stay Limit Stay (Days) Units Toilets Area Picnic Developed Recreation Sites Dearborn Lewis and 0 √ √ Trailhead Clark Ear Mountain Teton 0 1 √ √ √ √ Trailhead Judith Peak Scenic Fergus 16 √ √ Outlook Limekiln Fergus 0 1 √ √ √ √ √ Trailhead Lowry Bridge Teton 3 4 1 √ √ √ √ √ √ Payola Reservoir Petroleu 16 √ √ √ √ m Tunnel Lake Teton 16 √ √ √ √ Uhlhorn Fergus 16 1 √ √ √ √ √ Trailhead Wartzenluft Fergus __ Homestead Undeveloped Recreation Sites Acid Shale Pine Petroleum 16 √ √ Forest ACEC Alex Camp Petroleum 16 √ Big Grassy Peak Fergus 16 Bub’s Reservoir Petroleum 16 √ Carl’s Camp Petroleum 16 √ Chain Buttes Petroleum 16 √ √ BMA Collar Peak Fergus 16 √ √ Trailhead

120

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 46 Recreation Sites in the Planning Area Recreation Facilities* Opportunities Campin

Site County

Boat Launch Access Handicap Boating Fishing Hiking Horseback Riding Hunting Mountain Biking OHV Stay Limit Stay (Days) Units Toilets Area Picnic Drag Reservoir Petroleum 16 √ √ Dry Blood Petroleum 16 √ √ Reservoir East Indian Fergus 16 √ √ Butte BMA Fritzner Fergus 16 √ Reservoir Holland Fergus 16 √ Reservoir Jakes Reservoir Fergus 16 √ √ Lower Limekiln Fergus 16 North Fork Sun Lewis and 16 √ √ River Clark Red Mountain Fergus 16 √ √ √ South Fork Dry Petroleum 16 √ √ Blood Reservoir Square Butte Chouteau 16 √ √ WSA Vogel/Box Elder Petroleum 16 √ √ √ Reservoir Whisker Fergus 16 √ Reservoir Wolf Coulee Fergus 16 √ Reservoir #1 Source: BLM 2014a *No fees are charged at any of the facilities. 1 2 Access to hunting areas can be an issue in the planning area and throughout the state area because of the 3 intermixed nature of public and private landownership. The MFWP and BLM maintain up-to-date 4 landownership maps to assist hunters in accessing desired hunting areas.

5 Recreational target shooting is growing in popularity among public land users. Current BLM policy allows 6 the safe use of firearms on public lands, except in high use areas, such as developed recreation sites, where 7 it would present an immediate danger to the public. While the BLM does not manage any recreational 8 shooting ranges in the planning area, target shooting is permitted outside of closed areas. Target shooters 9 must clean up targets, shell casings, and other refuse. The shooting of trees, signs, outbuildings, or other 10 objects is prohibited.

121

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1 Off-Highway Vehicles 2 OHVs are used mainly as a means to access areas for other recreational pursuits, such as hunting, camping, 3 or fishing. The limited number of paved roads in the planning area also makes OHV use popular as a means 4 for daily transportation. In accordance with the Off-Highway Vehicle ROD and Proposed Plan Amendment 5 for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, motorized cross-country travel is prohibited 6 on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (BLM 2003b). OHV operators must, therefore, remain on 7 existing travel routes at all times when traveling on BLM-administered lands. Area-specific travel 8 management plans for the planning area have not been developed.

9 Recreation Management Areas 10 Through the land-use planning process, the BLM has the authority to designate RMAs. In these areas, 11 more specific management would produce quality recreation opportunities and would result in beneficial 12 outcomes for recreationists. The BLM may designate an area as an RMA to meet recreation demands, to 13 resolve conflicts with other uses, or to achieve desired recreation setting characteristics. Table 3-47, 14 Recreation Management Area Comparison, summarizes the definition, BLM management focus, and 15 specific planning requirements for SRMAs and ERMAs.

Table 47 Recreation Management Area Comparison Lands not SRMA ERMA Designated as an RMA Definition Administrative units where Administrative units that All lands not established the existing or proposed require specific as SRMAs or ERMAs. recreation opportunities management and recreation setting consideration in order to characteristics are address recreation use, recognized for their unique demand, or recreation value, importance, or and visitor services distinctiveness, especially program investments. compared to other areas used for recreation.

122

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 47 Recreation Management Area Comparison Lands not SRMA ERMA Designated as an RMA Management SRMAs are managed to ERMAs are managed to Recreation is not Focus protect and enhance a support and sustain the emphasized but may targeted set of activities, principal recreation occur. Recreation and experiences and benefits, activities and the visitor services are and desired recreation associated qualities and managed to allow setting characteristics. conditions of the ERMA. recreation uses that are Within SRMAs, recreation Management is not in conflict with the and visitor services commensurate and primary uses for these management is recognized considered in context lands. as the predominant land with the management of use plan focus, where other resources and specific recreation resource uses. opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are managed and protected on a long- term basis. Specific SRMAs and RMZs must ERMAs must have Management actions Requirement have measurable outcome- measurable objectives. and allowable use focused objectives. Supporting management decisions may still be Supporting management actions and allowable use necessary to address actions and allowable use decisions must facilitate basic recreation and decisions are required to the visitor’s ability to visitor services and (1) sustain or enhance participate in outdoor resource stewardship recreation objectives, (2) recreation activities and needs. protect the desired protect the associated recreation setting qualities and conditions. characteristics, and (3) Incompatible uses, constrain uses, including including some recreation, incompatible recreation may be restricted or activities that are constrained to achieve detrimental to meeting interdisciplinary recreation or other critical objectives. resource objectives. Common All areas are managed to meet statutory requirements to ensure resource Requirements protection and human health and safety and to reduce conflict and achieve other program planning objectives. Source: BLM 2012f 1 2 Special Recreation Management Areas 3 Current BLM guidance identifies SRMAs as administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation 4 opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance and 5 distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. SRMAs are managed to protect 6 and enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting 123

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1 characteristics. SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs to further delineate specific recreation 2 opportunities. Within SRMAs, recreation and visitor service management is recognized as the 3 predominant land use planning focus, where specific recreation opportunities and recreation setting 4 characteristics are managed and protected on a long-term basis. SRMAs/RMZs must have measurable 5 outcome-focused objectives. Supporting management actions and allowable use decisions are required to 6 1) sustain or enhance recreation objectives, 2) protect the desired recreation setting characteristics, and 7 3) constrain uses. This includes incompatible recreation activities that are detrimental to meeting 8 recreation or other critical resource objectives (e.g., cultural or threatened and endangered species).

9 The 1994 Judith Resource Area RMP identifies three SRMAs in the planning area: Judith Mountains, Judith 10 River, and Snowy Mountains. (Table 48, Special Recreation Management Areas).

Table 48 Special Recreation Management Areas SRMA Acres Judith Mountains 19,200 Judith River 10,100 Snowy Mountains 470 Total 29,770 Source: BLM GIS 2015b 11 12 Judith Mountains SRMA 13 At 19,200 acres, the Judith Mountains SRMA is the largest RMA in the LFO and offers visitors easy access 14 to the forested and rugged Judith Mountains. Located less than 10 miles northeast of Lewistown, visitors 15 to the Judith Mountains SRMA can participate in an array of dispersed recreation opportunities, such as 16 hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, and spelunking. Less primitive recreation opportunities, such as 17 scenic driving and picnicking, are also available.

18 Undeveloped recreation sites in the SRMA include Collar Gulch, Red Mountain, Big Grassy Peak, Limekiln 19 Canyon, and Judith Peak Scenic Overlook. Judith Peak Road, which terminates at the top of Judith Peak 20 (at 6,400 feet, the highest peak in the Judith Mountains), is a popular paved route for scenic driving, with 21 opportunities for rock collecting and photography. Popular and easily accessible hiking opportunities in 22 the Judith Mountain SRMA include the Collar Peak Trail, a 5-mile loop with varied terrain and scenery, 23 and several trails accessible from the Limekiln Trailhead. The BLM maintains the Collar Peak Trailhead, 24 located off Judith Peak Road, and the trail. At the Limekiln Trailhead, the BLM maintains a small parking 25 area, restrooms, trails, and signs. In addition to hiking, trails diverging from the Limekiln Trailhead are 26 popular for mountain biking and equestrian use.

27 Spelunking is also popular in the many limestone caves found throughout the SRMA, including Tate-Poetter 28 Cave. However, cave exploration remains a dispersed activity as there are no BLM-managed facilities at 29 cave sites.

30 Judith River SRMA 31 The Judith River SRMA is 10,100 acres of scattered BLM-administered lands, straddling a 27-mile stretch 32 of the Judith River. Due to its pristine qualities, this river segment was found to be eligible as part of the 33 NWSRS. However, a determination of non-suitability was made in the 1994 Judith Resource Area RMP 34 (Appendix I, page 377; BLM 1994). 124

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1 The mixed landownership pattern prevents any significant recreation opportunities on BLM-administered 2 land and presents recreation management challenges. Most recreation activities in the SRMA are dispersed 3 and occur either on the river (e.g., boating and fishing) or directly adjacent to the river (e.g., hunting, 4 camping, and sightseeing). There are no BLM-administered travel routes in the SRMA, and the scattered, 5 land-locked nature of BLM-administered parcels limits legal public access to the river. Within the SRMA, 6 the only opportunity for public access to the river is at Anderson Bridge via Judith River Road. While the 7 bridge and roadway are within a public ROW, the properties surrounding the bridge are private with no 8 public easement opportunities.

9 Snowy Mountains SRMA 10 The BLM manages a small amount of land in the Snowy Mountains, which are southeast of Lewistown. At 11 less than 500 acres, the Snowy Mountains SRMA provides visitors with localized recreation opportunities 12 and access to adjacent National Forest System lands associated with the Lewis and Clark National Forest. 13 Recreation opportunities include hiking, fishing, hunting, picnicking, and sightseeing. The Uhlhorn 14 Trailhead, developed in cooperation with the Forest Service and Judith Basin Backcountry Horsemen 15 Group, offers hikers and equestrians access to several National Forest System trails and popular 16 recreation locations, including Crystal Lake. The trailhead includes a large parking area, toilets, hitching 17 posts, and signs.

18 Extensive Recreation Management Areas 19 Current BLM guidance defines ERMAs as administrative units that require specific management 20 consideration to address recreation use, demand, or recreation and visitor service program investments. 21 ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities 22 and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMAs is commensurate with the management of other 23 resources and resource uses. Supporting management actions and allowable use decisions must facilitate 24 visitors’ abilities to participate in outdoor recreation activities and to protect the associated qualities and 25 conditions. Incompatible uses, including some recreation activities, may be restricted or constrained to 26 achieve interdisciplinary objectives.

27 There are 15 ERMAs designated in RMPs for the planning area. Two of these, due to previous land tenure 28 actions, are no longer on BLM-administered lands. Yellow Water Reservoir, previously the largest of the 29 RMP-designated ERMAs, is now owned by the State of Montana and is managed by the DNRC for irrigation 30 supply to nearby ranches.

31 All ERMAs are associated with small reservoirs and provide mainly water-based recreation, such as fishing, 32 nonmotorized boating, and swimming. Each ERMA boundary matches the high-water line of the applicable 33 reservoir. The MFWP stocks many of these reservoirs with largemouth bass, yellow perch, and other 34 sport fish. The Payola Reservoir ERMA, which is the only ERMA with developed recreation facilities, offers 35 users access to picnic tables and two fire pits (see Table 49, Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area).

Table 349 Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area BLM Managed ERMA Acres Recreation Facilities (Yes/No) Buffalo Wallow Reservoir 15 No

125

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 349 Designated ERMAs in the Planning Area BLM Managed ERMA Acres Recreation Facilities (Yes/No) Drag Creek Reservoir 44 No Fritzner Reservoir 4 No Payola Reservoir 21 Yes Dry Blood Reservoir 12 No South Fork Dry Blood Reservoir 10 No Crooked Creek Reservoir 7 No Holland Reservoir 12 No Jakes Reservoir 17 No Mauland Reservoir 1 No Box Elder/Vogel Reservoir 17 No *Hopalong Reservoir N/A No *Yellow Water Reservoir N/A No Total 171 Source: BLM GIS 2015b *Identified as an ERMA in the Judith Resource Area RMP but currently is not under BLM administration. 1 2 Public Lands not Designated 3 Lands not designated as RMAs are managed to meet the basic recreation and visitor services needs that 4 consist mainly of recreation activities of an undeveloped and dispersed nature. These lands are available 5 to the public for dispersed camping and general recreation, with the following provisions:

6 • Camping is limited to 16 days within a half-mile radius in a 30-day period 7 • Users pack out what they pack in 8 • Camping should be avoided within 200 feet of any water source 9 • Campfires are not left unattended 10 11 Special Recreation Permits 12 The BLM uses SRPs to authorize certain commercial, competitive, and group recreation events and 13 activities on BLM-administered lands. BLM field offices issue SRPs on a discretionary basis. They are one 14 of many tools the BLM uses to implement land use plans, to achieve the goals and objectives of the field 15 office’s recreation program, to manage visitor use, to protect resources, and to help ensure the health 16 and safety of the visiting public (BLM 2010b).

17 The LFO has an active SRP program, issuing approximately 15 SRPs per year for outfitters, activities, and 18 events. Typical activities include outfitting and guiding for hunting, fishing, horseback riding, helicopter 19 shuttle, and hike/run/mountain biking. Outfitted guided hunting trips are the most popular SRP activity in 20 the LFO. The outfitters are widely dispersed over several hunting areas, and authorized activities take 21 place during different times and places throughout the planning area.

22 The BLM recreation program benefits from SRPs in the form of revenue, where, under the FLPMA, this 23 revenue is put back into the area under permitted use to enhance recreation experiences. In addition, 24 SRP holders provide for a wide variety of recreation opportunities in areas that may be difficult to access 126

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1 due to private lands blocking public access. SRP holders also meet recreational users’ transportation needs, 2 while providing local knowledge of the area. SRPs can provide unique services that are beneficial to local 3 communities and the region. Annually, the BLM collects approximately $10,000 from SRP fees, which it 4 uses to improve recreational user experiences throughout the LFO.

5 Trends 6 Recreation use in the planning area is expected to continue to increase over the life of the plan. In 7 particular, more dispersed recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, and hiking) is likely to increase because of the 8 region’s diverse hunting opportunities, rural landscape, and clean air and water. National population 9 growth and an abundance of regional employment opportunities in the energy sector are expected to 10 further increase recreation use in the LFO. The number of SRPs issued annually is expected to remain 11 steady or to increase slightly.

12 At the same time, the growing popularity of the region is expected to impact the BLM’s recreational goals 13 and objectives. Urban sprawl, subdivision development, and residential construction on private lands, 14 intermingled with BLM-administrated lands, are creating a variety of issues that affect recreation 15 management. Such issues include additional restrictions on access to public lands, increased trespass, 16 impaired natural settings and scenic quality, and a decreased ability of the BLM to provide desired 17 recreation opportunities, experiences, and benefits.

127

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

3.4 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access Travel, transportation management, and access involve a comprehensive approach to on-the-ground management and administration of travel and transportation networks for all means of motorized and nonmotorized travel. These networks include roads, primitive roads, and trails (see Table 50, Travel and Transportation Management Route Types). Travel, transportation management, and access consist of implementing planning decisions, inventorying and mapping routes, installing signs to designate areas and routes, educating and interpreting, enforcing the law, acquiring easements, and monitoring activities.

Table 350 Travel and Transportation Management Route Types Route Type Definition Road A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use. Primitive road A linear route managed for four-wheel drive or high- clearance vehicles. Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standard. Primitive route Any transportation linear feature located in a WSA or lands with wilderness characteristics designated for protection by a land use plan and not meeting the wilderness inventory road definition. Trail A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or OHVs or for historical values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. Temporary Temporary routes are defined as short-term overland roads, route primitive roads or trails; authorized or acquired for the development, construction or staging of a project or event that has a finite lifespan.

Through this comprehensive program area, the BLM is able to provide the necessary access to and across BLM-administered lands for a wide variety of uses, including recreational and nonrecreational transportation purposes. The BLM’s travel management program addresses motorized and nonmotorized forms of transportation.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management is the proactive management of public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs to ensure that all aspects of road and trail system planning and management are considered. BLM Manual 1626, Travel and Transportation Management (BLM 2011) requires the establishment of a long-term, sustainable, multimodal transportation system of open areas, roads, primitive roads, and trails. The purpose is to address public and administrative access needs to and across BLM-administered lands and related waters. BLM comprehensive trails and travel management includes resource management, road and trail design, maintenance, and recreation and nonrecreation uses of the roads and trails.

There is a noticeable overlap between travel management and all other uses on BLM-administered lands. For example, many people visit BLM-administered lands for recreation and rely on a route system as either a means to reach a destination (e.g., a road to a trailhead or parking area) or as the focus of the recreation 128

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

activity itself (e.g., four-wheel driving, hiking, or horseback riding). This section addresses travel and access: route network, management area designations, types of travel, and access to BLM-administered lands.

Existing Route Network In the planning area, the transportation system consists of 12 major highways, numerous paved and unpaved local roads, and unpaved routes and primitive routes (including OHV (two-track). Where roads cross BLM-administered land, ROW authorizations are required to construct and maintain the road on federal land.

The broad distribution and limited number of paved routes in the planning area reflect the region’s remoteness and varied topography. US Interstate 15, US Highways 12, 87, 89, 191, and 287, and State Routes 19, 21, 44, 80, 81, and 200 provide arterial connections to population centers in and beyond the planning area. Of these roads, only US Interstate 15, US Highways 87 and 191, and State Routes 19, 80, and 200 cross BLM-administered lands.

A network of local paved and unpaved routes account for the remainder of the transportation network in the planning area. Some of these roads and routes were constructed and are maintained to provide access to public land improvements and projects for timber/vegetation management, gas and mineral development, range management, and various ROWs. Others are used by permittees to maintain range improvements, such as livestock or wildlife ponds or fences. Most, however, were created or pioneered by public land users. LFO is currently inventorying route networks within the planning area to determine the impacts that OHV and motorized use is having on resources. Ongoing inventory efforts will provide baseline information to assess the degree to which route proliferation is occurring.

The BLM maintains roads under standards set forth in BLM 9100 series manuals. Road maintenance provides for resource protection, accommodation of users, and protection of the public’s investment. Road system maintenance has focused on maintaining major access roads, which generally receive most of the traffic volume. The BLM engineering office annually maintains about 100 to 150 miles of road within the planning area, depending on road conditions and funding availability. Road maintenance generally consists of blading or grading, and is usually performed in the summer or fall. Additional corrective maintenance or water drainage work (such as installation of culverts, drains, or other water management devices) is performed as needed, such as after periods of heavy rainfall. Snow is typically not removed.

The primary travel management settings within the planning area occur in areas where the use of roads or routes is the general concern. Use levels are generally low and established routes typically access key destinations or provide desired recreation opportunities as well as administrative access with relatively few resource or social conflicts. Some existing routes may be redundant, sited poorly, or cause resource impacts. Use levels and the dispersed nature of public use may allow for cross-country travel for one or more types of non-motorized users without causing adverse effects.

Some small pockets of urban interface may be in rural areas near smaller communities primarily in the western half of the planning area where route density, high level of access and the potential for user conflicts are a concern. In these isolated areas, user expectations for transportation system use may vary widely, including desires for separation of uses by trail or area, demand for multiple access points to routes from private properties, and desire for limitations on the use of ROW roads or administrative roads. No destination areas have been identified within the planning area.

129

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Until 2003, BLM-administered lands were open to cross-country mechanized and motorized use, which allowed public land users to continually create new routes. Many of these routes, mainly two-track OHV routes, persist through the repeated passage of vehicles. These user-created routes are often rutted and eroded, causing adverse impacts on other resources, such as soils and water.

In an effort separate from this RMP revision, the BLM is inventorying the existing transportation network. The purpose is to develop a detailed geodatabase of existing route types and locations. The BLM will use this inventory to inform a subsequent travel management planning process, in which the BLM can designate the types and timing of travel allowed on individual routes (see Diagram 12, Travel Management Areas). For example, to avoid further soil erosion, travel management planning could result in the seasonal or year-round closure of certain routes to motorized and mechanized travel. Route designations can also be used to improve recreation opportunities by emphasizing loop trails and access to important and scenic destinations.

Motorized Travel and Off-Highway Vehicles OHV is the term commonly used by industry and government agencies to describe a motorized vehicle designed for use on unpaved surfaces. The term is synonymous with off-road vehicle, which 42 CFR 8340.0-5, defines as “any motorized vehicle capable of or designated of, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other terrain.” Types of OHVs include off-road motorcycles, ATVs and utility-terrain vehicles, jeeps, snowmobiles, fixed-winged aircraft, and specialized four-wheel drives.

Diagram 312 The types of authorized vehicles excluded from the Travel Management Areas CFR definition and associated regulations are non- amphibious registered motor boats; any military, fire, RMP emergency, or law enforcement vehicles responding Planning Area to an emergency; vehicles whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM authorized officer or otherwise officially approved; and any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense. The national objectives for OHV management are to provide for OHV use while protecting natural resources, promoting public safety, and minimizing conflicts among the various users of BLM-administered lands.

Regulations in 43 CFR 8342.1 require the BLM to establish motorized travel designations for all BLM- administered lands to promote public safety, protect resources, and minimize conflicts between multiple- use groups. In accordance with BLM regulations, areas must be designated as open, limited, or closed to OHV travel during the RMP planning process (see Table 51, Motorized and OHV Travel Designations in the Planning Area).

130

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 51 Motorized and OHV Travel Designations in the Planning Area Travel Classification Acres Open 0 Closed to motorized use year-round* 1,900 Closed to OHV travel year-round** 13,000 Closed to OHV travel seasonally*** 147,800 OHV use limited year-round to existing routes 488,500 Total 651,200 Source: BLM GIS 2015b *Closure includes administrative and permitted use. **These areas correspond with ONAs. ***Areas are closed to motorized travel during big game hunting seasons. During other seasons, motorized travel is limited to existing routes.

An open OHV area designation allows for areas of unfettered (i.e., cross-country) OHV travel, regardless of existing roads or trails. A closed designation prohibits OHV travel, except for administrative use to protect public health and safety and to protect significant resource values. A limited designation can mean limiting OHV travel to existing or designated roads and trails, or restricting use of the road or trail at a certain time of day or season or other limitation on use. In accordance with the 2003 Off-Highway Vehicle ROD and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota, motorized cross-country travel (open) is prohibited in the planning area. Motorized vehicles must, therefore, remain on existing travel routes at all times, unless travel is for an administrative use or an exception as described in the ROD (BLM 2003b). Aircraft that land are considered motorized travel, whether on roads, trails, or cross-country, as they travel over the land.

In the planning area, OHVs are used nearly year-round, primarily for ranching, but also as a mode of transportation for hunting. For some users, the act of driving or riding on OHVs for pleasure or to practice technical skills is the primary reason for using them. For other recreation uses, OHVs are frequently a mode of transportation for accessing areas to hunt, camp, fish, or participate in other outdoor recreation. OHVs are also indispensable tools for nonrecreational activities, including resource-related industries (e.g., ranching) and as a means to meet everyday transportation needs, especially in rural areas.

Nonmotorized Travel Hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing are popular in the Judith Mountains northeast of Lewistown. The type and extent of travel depends on the location and accessibility of existing routes.

Access Access to BLM-administered lands in the planning area and the availability of transportation routes on those lands is limited due to the dispersed nature of BLM parcels and surrounding private lands. Most of the larger tracts of BLM-administered land have legal public access via federal, state, and county road systems; many smaller tracts of BLM-administered land do not have legal access. In most cases, these small and isolated parcels do not have resource values to justify public interest in acquiring access.

On a case-by-case basis, as needs or opportunities arise, the BLM acquires access from willing landowners to increase or improve access to BLM-administered lands. The BLM acquires road and trail easements 131

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

primarily to obtain legal access to BLM-administered land. To date, the LFO has acquired 14 exclusive easements, which provide licensees, permittees/lessees, and the general public with legal access to BLM- administered land.

In addition, the LFO has acquired 17 nonexclusive easements, which provide administrative access across nonfederal land for specific tasks such as timber sale management, permit and contract administration, and other administrative purposes. Ongoing road inventorying and future travel management planning will help identify additional roads or trails available for easement acquisition.

Although used much less frequently than easement acquisition, the BLM uses land exchanges (see Land Tenure, under Section 3.5, Lands and Realty) to acquire needed access to BLM-administered land. Access is typically just one of many benefits of these exchanges. When disposing of BLM parcels containing roads or trails necessary for access to other federal land, the BLM protects access routes by stipulating easements in conveyance documents.

Trends Use of the existing transportation network in the planning area is expected to steadily increase as adjacent areas become more urbanized and national demand for outdoor recreation, such as hunting and fishing, increase. The increased development of private lands next to BLM-administered lands will necessitate proactive management of trail and road systems. Private land development also will influence travel management decisions and direction. For these reasons, a separate effort is underway to establish route designations in different travel management areas throughout the decision area. This effort is outside the scope of the RMP revision and will be completed through site-specific travel management planning.

OHV use is expected to continue as a means to support hunting, to maintain grazing rights, and to provide everyday transportation needs in rural areas.

Technological advancements in motorized vehicles will continue to change the type of use and demands on travel management. For example, more advanced OHVs allow users to practice their skills on previously inaccessible terrain. Popular areas for recreational OHV use, such as the Chain Buttes BMA, East Indian Butte BMA, Judith Mountains, and the Durfee Hills, will require an elevated OHV and travel management focus to maintain or protect the areas’ resources; therefore, they are a high priority for BLM travel management planning.

Access to BLM-administered land is an issue of concern to both agency personnel and the public. The planning area’s fragmented landownership pattern complicates access. While the BLM has made progress in improving access to BLM-administered land, there are still areas that lack legal access. The BLM has developed a Montana Dakotas Access Board to address access needs based on individual office requests and state priorities. The mission of the board is to increase the amount of public access to public lands.

3.5 Lands and Realty Lands and realty actions described in this section are land tenure (ownership) adjustments and land use authorizations. Land tenure adjustments focus primarily on land exchange, acquisition (including purchase and easement acquisition), and disposal, while land use authorizations consist of ROWs, communication site leases, and other leases or permits.

132

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Current Conditions The planning area contains lands owned or administered by the BLM, other federal agencies, such as the Forest Service and the BOR, various state agencies, and private landowners.

Land Tenure Landownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result in the disposal of federal land or the BLM acquisition of nonfederal lands or interests in land. FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public ownership unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is in the public interest. Tracts of land that are designated in BLM land use plans as potentially available for disposal can be conveyed out of federal ownership. This can be done through an exchange or a sale, but exchange is the preferred method of disposal.

There are 40,900 acres available for disposal in the planning area (BLM GIS 2015b); however, there are no pending land sales, acquisitions, land exchanges, or purchase actions there. All future land tenure adjustments by the BLM would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, using the BLM’s decision process and the NEPA process to determine impacts.

Acquisition of road and trail easements is the primary means of obtaining legal access to BLM-administered land. The LFO has acquired 14 exclusive easements, which provide legal access to BLM-administered land for licensees, permittees, and the public. In addition, the LFO has acquired 17 nonexclusive easements, which provide administrative access across nonfederal land for timber sale management and permit and contract administration.

Land Use Authorizations

Rights-of-Way A ROW is the most common form of authorization to permit uses of BLM-administered lands by commercial, private, or government entities for specific purposes and projects. Some examples are roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. The ROW grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific period. The BLM's objective is to grant ROWs to any qualified individual, business, or government entity and to direct and control the use of ROWs on BLM-administered lands in a manner that accomplishes the following:

• Protects the natural resources associated with BLM-administered lands and adjacent lands, whether private or administered by a government entity • Prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to BLM-administered lands • Promotes the use of ROWs in common, considering engineering and technological compatibility, national security, and land use plans • Coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions with state and local governments, interested individuals, and appropriate quasi-public entities (43 CFR 2801.2) Generally, ROW applications are subject to site-specific environmental analysis of potential resource impacts. To the extent possible, linear ROWs (such as roads and pipelines) are routed where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources. Considerations include point of origin and destination and purpose and need of the project. The ROWs issued include surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigation measures, which are developed and modified on a case-by-case basis, depending on resource impacts.

133

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

As of July 2013, according to its LR2000 database, the BLM administers 315 ROW grants on approximately 32,683 acres in the planning area (Table 52, Right-of-Way Authorizations in the Planning Area). These ROWs are for various different facilities and are held by private individuals, industry, and government entities. Between 15 and 18 ROW actions are processed annually in the planning area. These include applications for new ROWs, as well as amendments, assignments, renewals, relinquishments, or terminations of existing ROWs.

BLM-administered lands in the planning area are generally made available for land use authorizations, which are analyzed and issued on a case-by-case basis. Certain lands in the planning area are designated as areas to be avoided or excluded. Examples of designated areas are ACECs, SRMAs, and WSAs. Land use authorizations in designated areas generally are not allowed (ROW exclusion), or if allowed (ROW avoidance), they are subject to stringent stipulations.

Table 52 Right-of-Way Authorizations in the Planning Area Number of Type of Authorization Acres Authorizations Roads 89 698 Federal Aid Highway, Sections 107 and 307 40 1,086

Railroads 20 984 Power line facilities 4 21 Power lines 38 1,291 Material sites 4 29 Reclamation projects 10 155 Telephone 35 629 Water facility and irrigation 37 26,433 Oil and gas pipelines and facilities 8 420 Other FLPMA, Bundy Fishing Access, and MDEQ air 18 804 monitoring site Roads (other federal – Forest Service) 12 133 Total 315 32,683 Source: LR2000

Restrictions and mitigation measures could be modified on a case-by-case basis for avoidance areas, depending on impacts on resources, while exclusion areas are strictly prohibited from ROW development. In the planning area, there are 15,700 acres identified as ROW exclusion, including the Square Butte, Beaver Meadows, and North Fork Sun River WSAs and the Blind Horse, Chute Mountain, Deep Creek/Battle Creek, and Ear Mountain, and Square Butte ACECs/ONAs (BLM GIS 2015b). The four ACECs/ONAs are managed as exclusion areas for communication site authorizations. Another 378,700 acres are identified as ROW avoidance.

Utility and Transportation Corridors There are two transportation and utility corridors in the planning area; they were not designated but rather were noted as existing corridors by BLM personnel. One of these corridors extends outside of the planning area and into the UMRBNM, extending from Geraldine in Chouteau County to Glengarry in 134

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Fergus County. This corridor contains a Montana Power transmission line and US Highway 80. The other corridor passes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of Judith Basin County. Contained in this corridor is a Montana Power transmission line and US Highway 87. The corridor also contains two Conoco oil pipelines that transport oil from the Sweet Grass Hills oil fields to Conoco’s oil refinery in Billings.

Recreation and Public Purposes Act Actions Under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1954 (68 Statute 173; 43 USC, Section 869 et seq.), as amended, the BLM, at its discretion, can sell or lease BLM-administered lands for recreation or public purposes to state and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations. Some typical uses are historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, city and county parks, firehouses, and hospitals. The BLM will not approve an R&PP lease or conveyance unless the lands involved are used for an established or defined specific project. The lessee or patentee must commit to a plan of physical development, management, and use, as well as certain other requirements before a lease or patent is issued.

Table 53 ROW Avoidance Areas in the Planning Area Avoidance Area Total Acres Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC 2,700 Blind Horse ACEC/ONA1, 2 4,900 Chute Mountain ACEC/ONA1, 2 3,200 Deep Creek/Battle Creek ACEC/ONA1, 2 3,100 Ear Mountain ACEC/ONA1, 2 1,800 Judith Mountains Scenic Area 3,800 Judith River Canyon 10,100 Rocky Mountain Front1 27,900 South Moccasin Mountains 1,200 PHMA3 233,200 GHMA3 112,300 Total 378,700 Source: BLM GIS 2015b 1These areas overlap, so acres are not double-counted in the total. 2These areas are managed as ROW avoidance for utility and transportation corridors only and exclusion for communication sites. 3These areas overlap, so acres are not double-counted in the total.

The objective of the R&PP program is to meet the needs of certain state and local governmental agencies and other qualified organizations for BLM-administered lands required for recreation and public purposes. The BLM periodically reviews areas leased or sold under the act to ensure continued compliance with the terms. A lease may be terminated or patented land may revert to the United States if the entity involved is not complying with the terms, depending on when it was leased or patented and the R&PP law in effect at the time.

135

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

As of July 2013, the LFO does not administer any R&PP leases. As of this same date, the BLM has patented approximately 258 acres in the planning area under the R&PP via four separate case actions.

Leases, Permits, and Easements Section 302 of FLPMA provides the BLM’s authority to issue, at its discretion, leases, permits, and easements for the use, occupancy, and development of BLM-administered lands. Some uses of these lands are authorized through long-term land uses, while permits are used to authorize short-term uses. Individuals, groups, businesses, and non-federal government entities can hold these authorizations.

As of July 2013, the LFO area administers five leases/permits on 133 acres of BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Most permits issued in the LFO are short term and are used for commercial filming.

Public lands can also be leased for public airports under the Federal Public Airport Act of 1928. No such leases are administered in the planning area now, but one was issued in 1951.

Communication Sites Communication sites contain equipment for various public and private tenants, including phone companies, local utilities, and local, state, and other federal agencies. Communication site use requests are processed through a realty lease authorization and are restricted to the two existing communication sites.

In the planning area, there are two locations being used as communication sites (Table 54, Communication Sites in the Planning Area). As of July 2013, the planning area also includes 11 communication site leases, occupying 12 facilities at two different locations. These locations are used for such applications as cellular telephone, paging, TV translators, and mobile radio.

Table 54 Communication Sites in the Planning Area Site Location (Montana Meridian) Judith Mountain NE¼ SW¼ Section 19 Township 17 North Range 20 East South Moccasin Mountains NE¼ SW¼ Section 2 Township 16 North Range 17 East

Trends The BLM will process land exchanges, acquisitions, easements, and potential sales in the planning area on a case-by-case basis as staff and priority workload allow. As opportunities present themselves, each proposal will be reviewed and given careful consideration as to management goals and public benefit. Currently, the LFO receives very few land tenure adjustment requests per year. This program is expected to continue to experience low levels of activity (BLM 2015b).

On average, there have been five land use authorizations per year between 2000 and 2013 (BLM 2015b). Demand for land use authorizations in the planning area may increase due to possible oil and gas development in the area, with a possible three to five more applications per year. Overall, the demand for new ROWs is likely to increase from the current 15 to 18 applications per year. Authorizations for communication sites and utilities are anticipated to remain at current levels (BLM 2015b).

There is an increased demand for road ROWs across public land to provide legal access to private land; most of these road ROWs are being requested to provide a legal access document for sale of a parcel or residence. 136

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Although there is no formal land use plan designation of utility and transportation corridors anticipated in the near future, there is some trend toward development in existing designated corridors. The BLM encourages ROW applicants to locate their use/authorization next to similar existing infrastructure, for example, overhead power lines next to roads or highways.

State Indemnity Selections Generally, grants made by statehood acts to school sections 16 and 36 came into effect on the date of acceptance or approval of the survey. However, the state was entitled to select other unappropriated public lands under one of the following circumstances:

• On the date the grant would have gone into effect, the land was appropriated under some applicable land law • There were natural deficiencies caused by fractional townships or sections and the grant could not be made

As of June 2013, there are 1,184 acres of state indemnity selection obligations remaining for the State of Montana. Montana State representatives have submitted an indemnity selection application to fulfill the remaining indemnity obligation; however, the State has not selected any lands in the Lewistown RMP area.

3.6 Renewable Energy Renewable energy projects on BLM-administered lands include wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass projects.

Geothermal resources are not discussed in this section. This is because geothermal heat is considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 and because there are little to no geothermal resources in the planning area.

Solar and wind projects are authorized via the ROW authorization process. ROW applications for development on BLM-administered lands must be accompanied by a processing fee, as set forth in 43 CFR 2804.14. ROW applications are generally processed on a first-come, first-served basis. FLPMA, Title V and the ROW regulations (43 CFR 2801-2809) provide authority for offering BLM-administered lands under competitive bidding procedures for ROW authorizations.

The BLM may initiate a competitive process if a land use planning decision has specifically identified an area for competition, or when two or more applications are submitted for the same facility or system. The BLM may also consider other public interest and technical factors in determining whether to offer lands for competitive leasing. Revised regulations are under consideration that would provide additional flexibility and direction in offering lands competitively for wind or solar facilities.

The Montana Renewable Power Production and Rural Economic Development Act requires utility companies providing commercially available power in Montana to purchase 15 percent renewable power by 2015. Utilities met the renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) in 2012. The RPS also requires utilities to purchase 75 megawatts (MW) of electricity from community-owned power plants with generating capacities of 25 MW or less (NREL 2013).

137

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Current Conditions

ROW Exclusion/Avoidance Areas There are 15,700 acres in the planning area managed as ROW exclusion areas and 378,700 acres managed as ROW avoidance areas. In addition to these general ROW allocations, there are 236,300 acres that have been excluded from wind energy development specifically, and 117,500 acres that are specifically wind energy avoidance areas. Wind and solar energy development projects, which are authorized through the BLM lands and realty ROW program, would not be allowed in exclusion areas. In avoidance areas, future wind and solar development would be required to meet certain avoidance criteria (e.g., design techniques, BMPs, and siting requirements) as part of any authorization.

Solar Based on current technologies, there are no locations in the planning area that receive the solar insolation levels necessary to develop a viable commercial facility. There have not been any expressions of interest from industry, and the potential for developing utility-scale solar facilities in the planning area is not likely. For these reasons, allocations and management of solar development are being addressed in this analysis.

Small-scale (less than 10 kilowatt [kW]) solar developments to power stock tanks, recreation facilities, or other off-grid devices are likely to be the only use of solar energy in the planning area.

In the unlikely event that the BLM receives applications for commercial solar energy projects, it would process the application in accordance with the current ROW regulations and directives (43 CFR 2801- 2809 and FLPMA, Title V). This includes the application of BMPs and mitigation strategies.

Wind The BLM’s 2005 terms of high, moderate, and low potential are consistent with terminology in the its 2005 Final Programmatic Wind Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM- Administered Lands in the Western United States (BLM 2005b).

The BLM considers wind resources to be high when they occur at intensities of 7 meters/second or higher, moderate at 5 and 6 meters/second, and low at speeds below 5 meters/second. Approximately 93 percent, or 605,800 acres, of the BLM-administered land in the planning area have wind potential greater than 7 meters/second (see Table 3-55, Wind Potential on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area).

Table 55 Wind Potential on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area Percentage of Total Wind Potential Total Acres1 Decision Area Low (< 5 meters/second) 1,000 < 1 Moderate (5 to 6 meters/second) 44,400 7 High (> 7 meters/second) 605,800 93 Total 651,200 100 Sources: BLM GIS 2015b; NREL GIS 2008 1Note that acreages in wind power classes may include acreage in wind exclusion or avoidance areas or specially designated areas, which may preclude any wind development.

138

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Montana has wind resources consistent with utility-scale production; the state is rated third nationally for wind energy potential. An assessment conducted by the BLM, in cooperation with NREL, rated the planning unit as favorable for wind energy power production (BLM and DOE 2003). The Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States was released in June 2005 (BLM 2005b). It evaluated the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with wind energy development on BLM-administered lands in 11 western states from 2005 to 2025. The December 2005 ROD based on the Programmatic EIS analysis amended 52 land use plans. These included the JVP RMP and the Headwaters RMP. The amendments established BMPs to be used when evaluating and authorizing wind energy applications.

The ROD also excluded ROW authorizations for wind facilities on BLM-administered lands in ACECs and in areas that are part of the National Landscape Conservation System. Excluded were designated wilderness, WSAs, national monuments, national conservation areas, WSRs, and NHTs and NSTs. Subsequently, the policy contained in the 2005 ROD on ACECs has been revised to defer to the decisions contained in local land use planning documents containing management prescriptions for ACECs.

The BLM and DOE (2003), determined that the most important factors for future wind energy development on public lands are (in order of importance):

• Wind resource • Federal, state, and local policies • Access to transmission infrastructure (i.e., 69 kilovolt [kV] or greater transmissions line within 25 miles of the generation site) and transmission capacity • Compatibility of wind energy with existing site characteristics, particularly visual qualities • Access to existing roads

Currently, the only wind facility authorized on BLM-administered lands in the Montana/Dakotas is in South Dakota. There are not currently any authorized ROWs or pending applications for wind site testing and monitoring (meteorological towers) or development (wind farms) on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

The planning area has three sites on private lands, with a total of 42 wind turbines (Diffendorfer et al. 2014). Spion Kop in Chouteau County is near the south end of the Highwood Mountains and has 25 turbines. In the Belt Mountains, 17 turbines (11 in the north area and 6 in the south) are in two areas near Martinsdale in Meagher County. The wind facility near Judith Gap is in Wheatland County, outside of the planning area.

The distances from current transmission infrastructure and grid capacity continue to be the most significant challenges for wind developers in Montana. The mixed landownership pattern in the planning area, combined with potentially lengthy NEPA permitting requirements, are also considered potential factors dissuading wind energy development on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

Other factors affecting operation and siting of wind energy generation facilities are the potential for adverse impacts on other resources and resource programs. Large wind turbines affect the visual landscape and can be considered a visual intrusion. Another key consideration is the presence of special status species and potential impacts on both the species and habitat from wind development. In the

139

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

planning area, certain resources pose challenges to wind development. These are greater sage-grouse, golden eagles and other raptors, migratory birds, and bats, as well as cultural, paleontological, wilderness, and visual resources.

Biomass Biomass power is generated from the energy in plants and plant-derived materials. Examples of these materials are food crops, grassy and woody plants, residues from agriculture or forestry, and the organic component of municipal and industrial waste. Biomass can be used for direct heating (e.g., burning wood in a fireplace or wood stove) and for generating electricity. It also can be converted directly into liquid fuels to meet transportation energy needs.

Generally, production of biomass resources in the planning area would result from management of forests and woodlands, as guided by the BLM’s forestry program. Use of small diameter wood products or residue is encouraged, when possible. (See Section 3.8, Forest, Woodland, and Special Products, for additional discussion.) Any forest products removed from BLM-administered lands, including biomass, would be authorized via a forest product sale permit, as a stewardship contract, or as a free use permit. There are no authorizations or pending applications for biomass production in the planning area.

The State of Montana’s RPS requirements for community-based energy create an incentive for biomass development in the planning area. However, the growth of this energy development is expected to be hampered by a lack of easy access to large consumer markets and competition with more economically viable energy options, such as oil, gas, and wind. The mixed-ownership pattern in the planning area would result in high transportation costs to deliver feedstock and other biomass materials to biomass facilities. This would further limit biomass energy generation opportunities in the planning area.

Hydroelectric Power Hydroelectric power is generated by the gravitational force of falling or flowing water. There is no specific policy guidance or direction for developing hydroelectric facilities on BLM-administered land. Proposals for hydroelectric power development on any federal lands would generally be authorized under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority. Development would be authorized in consultation with the BLM on mandatory license provisions for BLM-administered lands, based on provisions of the Federal Power Act.

Given the lack of major flowing water resources under BLM jurisdiction, the potential for major hydroelectric facilities in the planning area is limited. Any hydroelectric power generation in the planning area is likely to be associated with smaller hydro-pumping projects to supply power for small localized needs, such as livestock grazing. The BLM has not received applications for any type of hydroelectric power authorizations on administered land in the planning area.

Trends In the planning area, there could be greater pressure to develop renewable energy resources on BLM- administered lands. This would happen as demand for energy products increases and would be the result of state-level energy policy (e.g., RPSs) or federal government requirements. The development of more efficient technologies is likely to make renewable energy development viable in more areas.

There is some potential for land use authorizations for renewable energy projects, such as wind and solar, although no requests have been submitted recently (BLM 2015b). In the planning area, the source of 140

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

renewable energy will most likely be wind energy, as this has the greatest potential for commercial-scale, renewable energy generation (NREL 2014).

3.7. Withdrawals

Current Conditions A withdrawal is a formal action that sets aside, withholds, or reserves federal lands by statute or administrative order for public purposes. Unlike a land tenure adjustment, where there is a change in landownership and associated transfer of title, a withdrawal places a title encumbrance on the land for a specific purpose.

Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, to protect major federal investments in facilities, to support national security, and to provide for public health and safety. A withdrawal is a formal action that accomplishes one or more of the following actions:

• Transfers total or partial jurisdiction of federal land between federal agencies • Closes federal land to operation of all or some of the public land laws and mineral laws (discussed in Section 3.3.1) • Dedicates federal land for a specific public purpose • Withdrawals are established for a wide range of public purposes. These include military reservations, administrative sites, national parks, reclamation projects, recreation sites, and power site reserves. Following are the three major categories of formal withdrawals: • Administrative withdrawals, which are made by the President, the Secretary of the Interior, or other Authorized Officer of the Executive Branch of the federal government • Legislative withdrawals made by Congress • Federal Power Act or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission power project withdrawals, which are established under the authority of the Federal Power Act of 1920

Withdrawal segregates a portion of public lands and suspends certain operations of the public land laws, such as mining claims. Certain stock driveways are also withdrawn. Federal policy now restricts all withdrawals to the minimum time and acreage required to serve the public interest, maximizes the use of withdrawn lands consistent with their primary purpose, and eliminates all withdrawals that are no longer needed.

The BLM reviews all proposed administrative withdrawals and revocations, recommends them to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Water Resources, develops and conducts a withdrawal review program, and assists other agencies with their withdrawal and revocation programs. Management and adjustment of withdrawals focuses on the establishment, management, extension, modification, and revocation of withdrawals.

Withdrawals are listed in Table 56, Withdrawals in the Planning Area.

141

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 56 Withdrawals in the Planning Area Withdrawal Acres1 Surface estate is closed to disposition under the public land laws. All 70 surface and subsurface estates are closed to disposition under the mining laws and all subsurface estate is closed to mineral leasing applications. Surface and subsurface estates are closed to disposition under the mining 92,800 laws and all subsurface estate is closed to mineral leasing applications. Surface estate is closed to disposition under the public land laws. All 17,500 surface and subsurface estates are closed to disposition under the mining laws. Withdrawn for administration by another federal agency (e.g., USFWS, 20,400 Forest Service, BOR, and BIA). Power Site Classifications: Surface estate is closed to disposition under the 3,900 public land laws and open to mineral leasing, with special stipulations from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Open only to homestead, mining, and special reclamation entry. 3,900 Total 147,100 Source: BLM GIS 2015b 1Total withdrawal acres are less than the sum of each of the withdrawals because some withdrawals overlap more than one resource.

3.8 Forest, Woodland, and Special Products

Current Conditions

Woodland and Forest Plant Communities Woodlands and forest plant communities in the planning area provide a variety of forest products, including saw logs, posts and poles, fuel wood, and specialty products. Forest and woodland communities are primarily composed of Rocky Mountain juniper, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and aspen, as described under Section 2.5.

Commercial timber is harvested in the planning area. Under current management, the annual allowable harvest level for the Judith Resource Area (including the southern portion of the UMRBNM) is 650 thousand board feet (MBF) per year and 26.45 million board feet (MMBF) per decade for the Headwaters Resource Area (including Broadwater, Gallatin, and Park Counties and the southern portion of Lewis and Clark County) (BLM 1992, BLM 1984a). Historic harvest levels over the past five years have increased, as a result of salvage operations in response to insect and disease outbreaks and other natural disturbances. Harvest volume for salvage operations has averaged 1.5 MMBF over the past five years, and fuel wood sales have average 400 cords per year. See Table 57, Forest and Woodland Products Sales Volume (2010- 2014)1.

142

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 57 Forest and Woodland Products Sales Volume (2010-2014)1 Fiscal Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MBF 880 893 1,002 2,286 475 Firewood (cords) 189 161 197 263 274 Christmas trees (numbers) 66 33 47 49 45 Post poles (numbers) 280 90 50 40 578 Biomass (tons) 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 I1ncludes timber sales, stewardship contracts, and special forest product sales.

Most forested BLM-administered lands in the planning area are in isolated parcels with limited access. As such, forest products have been harvested and sold primarily through negotiated sales with contractors working on adjacent private lands. Most sales are identified through public demand and forest resource needs.

Biomass Biomass resources are a byproduct of BLM actions on public lands and are not specifically cultivated for feedstock production. Woody biomass refers to woody plants and portions of trees; these include limbs, tips, needles, leaves, and other woody parts. These are the byproducts of management, restoration, and hazardous fuel reduction treatment. Existing markets for biomass production are small and unstable in the planning area, due to low market prices and high transportation costs. Over the past three years, approximately 3,000 tons of biomass products have been produced.

Trends In general, the demand for woodland and forest products in the planning area has increased since 2010. The available volume of salvage harvest timber has increased as a result of fire and insect or disease outbreaks, particularly mountain pine beetle. Recently, market demand for wood products has been moderate to high, but fluctuations in the housing market and advances in biomass use will affect demand over time.

4. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS This section is a description of the special designation areas in the planning area as follows:

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Outstanding Natural Areas • Back Country Byways • National Trails • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Wilderness Study Areas SRMAs and ERMAs are discussed in Section 3.3.

4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Outstanding Natural Areas ACECs are defined in FLPMA as “areas within the public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historical, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life and safety from natural hazards” (43 USC, §1702[a]). Section 202(c)(3) of FLPMA mandates that priority shall be given to the designation and protection of ACECs in the development and revision of land use plans (43 USC, §1712

143

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

[c][1]). BLM regulations for implementing the ACEC provisions of FLPMA regulations are found at 43 CFR 1610.7-2. Designation of an ACEC applies only to public lands administered by the BLM.

To be designated an ACEC, the area must meet both the criteria of relevance and importance found in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a) and as defined in BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM 1988). An area meets the relevance criteria if it possesses significant historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish or wildlife resources, including habitat, communities, or species; natural processes or systems; or natural hazards. In addition, the significance of these values and resources must be substantial in order to satisfy one or more of the following importance criteria:

• Has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource • Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change • Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out mandates of FLPMA • Has qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare • Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property

An ACEC must also require special management attention. Special management attention refers to management prescriptions developed during preparation of an RMP expressly to protect the important and relevant values of an area from the potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP. This includes proposed actions deemed to be in conformance with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the RMP. Such management measures would not be necessary or prescribed if the critical and important features were not present (BLM 1988).

ACECs differ from other special designations in that the designation by itself does not automatically prohibit or restrict other uses in the area. The special management attention is designed specifically for the relevant and important values and, therefore, varies from area to area. Restrictions that arise from an ACEC designation are determined at the time the designation is made and are designed to protect the values or serve the purposes for which the designation was made.

An ONA is an area with high scenic values that has not been substantially altered by human impact. Under current BLM policy, ONAs must meet the relevance and importance criteria of ACECs and are designated as ACECs. Criteria for ONAs can be found at BLM Manual 1613 (BLM 1988) and 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b).

Research natural areas are protected and maintained in natural condition for the purposes of conserving biological diversity, conducting non-manipulative research and monitoring, and fostering education. Included in this network are high-quality examples of widespread ecosystems, unique ecosystems or ecological features, and rare or sensitive species of plants and animals and their habitat. These research natural areas help protect biological diversity at the genetic, species, ecosystem, and landscape scales.

Research natural areas that are representative of common ecosystems in natural condition serve as baselines or reference areas. To help answer resource management questions, the baseline areas of research natural areas can be compared with similar ecosystems undergoing silvicultural or other land

144

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

management prescriptions. In this way, research natural areas make an important contribution to ecosystem management.

Research natural areas are managed to maintain the natural features for which they were established and to maintain natural processes. Because of the emphasis on natural conditions, they are excellent areas for studying ecosystems or their component parts and for monitoring succession and other long-term ecological changes. Non-manipulative research and monitoring are encouraged in research natural areas and can be compared with manipulative studies conducted in other areas.

Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern The LFO currently manages four ACECs in the planning area: Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC, Collar Gulch ACEC, Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC, and Square Butte ONA/ACEC. Table 58, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Outstanding Natural Areas, lists their acreages.

Table 58 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Outstanding Natural Areas ACEC/ONA Acres Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC (Research Natural 2,700 Area) Collar Gulch ACEC 1,500 Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC 3,800 Square Butte ONA/ACEC 1,900 Blind Horse ONA 4,900 Ear Mountain ONA 1,800 Chute Mountain ONA 3,200 Deep Creek/Battle Creek ONA 3,100 Source: BLM GIS 2015b

Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC The Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC is approximately 3,800 acres on BLM-administered lands. This site was designated as an ACEC in the Judith Resource Area RMP to protect the scenic, wildlife, and recreation values in the Judith Mountains. These mountain ranges form the backdrop for the city of Lewistown (BLM 1992). This area can be seen from US Highway 87 and US Highway 191 and is the dominant visual feature on the landscape.

Recreation in this area includes sightseeing, hiking, mountain biking, hunting, horseback riding, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. This area is managed to mitigate impacts on resources from surface-disturbing activities. Off-road travel is restricted year-round to designated roads and trails. The ACEC is managed as an avoidance area for ROWs but is available for restricted management of forest products. The area remains open to mineral entry and, given its moderate development potential, it will continue to attract exploration projects (BLM 1992).

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC The Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC is composed of soft, gray-black marine shales containing bentonite beds. These shales cover most Montana lowlands, in a rough triangle from Wolf Point to Cut Bank south to 145

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Bridger and Hardin. They form the parent materials for many of the soils in this area. Acid shales are due to sulphur in iron pyrites; they have a pH of 3.3 to 5.5. One of these soils is the Volberg (Dilts) series, which is predominantly clay and occurs throughout eastern Fergus and western Petroleum Counties. They are found in an almost straight but discontinuous line north of Highway 200, from a point approximately 13 miles west of Grass Range to Winnett. Volberg soils often give rise to a unique flora characterized by ponderosa pine, horizontal juniper, sun sedge, and prairie sandreed.

The Judith Resource Area RMP designated two BLM tracts, War Horse and Briggs Coulee in an acid shale- pine forest ecosystem, as a research natural area ACEC. The intent is to protect an endemic plant community unique to the area and a fragile watershed. The ACEC is a natural area where research is allowed in order to determine the effects of grazing and fire on this type of plant community. The BLM allows research at War Horse and maintains Briggs Coulee as a control site. These areas contain the largest, best developed, and most diverse example of acid shale pines on BLM-administered lands.

Disposing of forest products from the area is prohibited, unless it is necessary for stand preservation. The current management direction is for intensive wildfire suppression. OHV use is restricted year-round to designated roads and trails. The two ACEC tracts remain open to mineral entry.

Square Butte ONA/ACEC The compelling and imposing butte rises 2,400 feet above the surrounding plains. Square Butte has exceptional diverse habitats for mountain goats, elk, mule deer, prairie falcons, and a variety of other wildlife species.

The area contains a porphyritic igneous rock, known as shonkinite, unique to Montana. It creates massive cliff faces, soaring buttresses, spires and pinnacles, and outstanding scenic values. Numerous springs occur on the flanks of the butte. They support riparian shrub and tree communities nestled in drainages among dense conifer forests surrounding the butte. The butte contains abundant cultural and historical values.

Square Butte was designated an ONA in the Little Belt Management Framework Plan of 1972 by Secretarial Order and then as a National Natural Landmark in 1980. The Judith Resource Area RMP designated approximately 1,900 BLM-administered acres an ACEC. The purpose was to protect natural endemic systems, cultural sites, scenic qualities, and rare geologic features unique to Montana. Another purpose of the designation was to identify key wildlife viewing sites under the Watchable Wildlife Program.

The Square Butte area is managed primarily for wildlife, cultural resources, and recreation.

Square Butte is segregated from the mining and leasing laws by a classification under the authority of the Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964. The BLM will pursue a protective withdrawal for Square Butte to segregate it from mining claims. This will protect natural endemic systems, cultural sites, scenic qualities, and rare geologic features unique to Montana. The classification will be terminated when the area is withdrawn.

Surface-disturbing activities are prohibited, including development of transmission lines, roads, communication sites, and pipelines. The sale of forest products is prohibited, unless it is necessary for stand preservation.

146

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The area is closed to OHV travel, though there is no existing legal access to Square Butte. Acquiring access remains an LFO priority.

Collar Gulch ACEC The Judith Resource Area RMP designated approximately 1,500 BLM-administered acres as an ACEC to protect a pure strain of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi). This is a MFWP state species of special concern and a BLM-designated sensitive species. Designation of an ACEC applies only to public lands administered by the BLM. The primary emphasis is to protect and improve fisheries habitat for the westslope cutthroat trout population, while encouraging nonmotorized recreational use.

The area is closed to motorized vehicles, except for the main Judith Peak Road and connected Big Grassy Peak and Crystal Peak/Collar Ridge access roads. There are no attempts to acquire additional public access to the area.

Developments in the area will be designed to protect trout habitat. Stream protection has begun and enhancement structures are being constructed to improve trout habitat. The BLM will initiate a study to identify the source of water quality degradation in the drainage and will develop appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate the degrading source.

The BLM has implemented a non-degradation policy for the waters in Collar Gulch Creek to protect the resident population of westslope cutthroat trout. The point at which non-degradation compliance would be determined is the upstream limit of the known cutthroat trout occurrence. Variances will be provided for individual operations only after best reasonably available control technology is applied. A variance would be granted only to the extent that it would not impact the trout population. The westslope cutthroat trout is a state species of special concern and a BLM sensitive species. It has been petitioned for listing under the ESA.

The BLM has implemented a routine water quality monitoring program in the drainage to establish baseline conditions. Withdrawal of surface or groundwater is restricted when the flow in Collar Gulch Creek drops below 3 cubic feet per second, measured at the point where the creek enters private land. No applications for withdrawal of groundwater or surface water have been received.

In this area, concurrent reclamation is emphasized, thereby reducing erosion and sedimentation potential. Any surface-disturbing activities are designed to minimize impacts on the Collar Peak Trail and to avoid impacts on the Tate-Poetter Cave resources, which also occur in the ACEC.

Existing Outstanding Natural Areas The Headwaters RMP/EIS ROD (BLM 1984a) designated four ONAs on the Rocky Mountain Front, Teton County, Montana (see Table 58). Their scenic quality, wildland resources, and wildlife significance were the primary values that resulted in designating these areas as ONAs.

The Headwaters RMP/EIS was amended in December 1986 to include a special designation of recently acquired land along the Rocky Mountain Front. The BLM acquired approximately 1,000 acres of lands near the existing Ear Mountain ONA, which it combined with the ONA. Management actions on the newly acquired northern unit were consistent with other ONA designations along the Rocky Mountain Front.

147

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The Headwaters RMP/EIS and Special Designations RMP Amendment established broad management direction for these ONAs to “protect the wildlife habitat, scenery and other surface resources from disturbance” and “to ensure they are managed essentially as wilderness.”

The Final Rocky Mountain Front Outstanding Natural Area Activity Plan/Environmental Assessment (BLM 1989) provided specific objectives, constraints, and management policy for all proposed actions on the ONAs. The activity plan did not amend the Headwaters RMP, but it provided site-specific policy management direction for the ONAs.

The interagency Rocky Mountain Front Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program was initiated in 1980. A principal goal of this program was to sponsor study efforts. Under the program, wildlife management guidelines could be developed, based on sound scientific findings, to aid land managers in planning human activities along the Rocky Mountain Front. The Rocky Mountain Front Management Guidelines were incorporated into the preferred ONA management plan.

The four ONAs adjoin the eastern edge of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The Bob Marshall Wilderness, administered by the Forest Service, lies about 6 miles west of the ONAs. The ONAs are approximately 19 miles west of Choteau, Montana, along the Rocky Mountain Front Range. The ONAs comprise approximately 75 percent of BLM’s public land surface along the Rocky Mountain Front.

The Rocky Mountain Front rises dramatically from the plains. Elevation changes are precipitous and range from 5,100 to 7,700 feet on the ONAs. The ONAs are characterized by steep rocky cliffs, narrow deep canyons, talus slopes, open meadows, shrub-grasslands, and numerous perennial and ephemeral streams. Massive limestone formations, including pinnacles, dominate many vistas. Most of the ONAs are forested with limber pine, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and aspen. Alpine meadows, foothills prairie, and barren areas support mountain shrubs, sedges, grasses, numerous flowering perennials, and forbs.

Some prominent geographic features of the ONAs are Blind Horse, Chute Mountain, the North and South Forks of Deep Creek, Deep Creek Canyon, Willow Creek, Edwards Creek, Battle Creek, Timber Gulch, and Ear Mountain.

The Rocky Mountain Front Range is a nationally significant wildlife area recognized for the large numbers of important wildlife species it supports, as well as for the critical habitats it provides.

The ONAs have outstanding opportunities for both solitude and primitive recreation. There are few human intrusions evident today, although heavy equipment used for seismic work in the early 1950s left visible scars. A limited number of internal access trails and primitive vehicle ways exist on all the ONAs. Various livestock fences and range improvement projects also exist on active grazing allotments in all four ONAs.

During the development of the ONA Activity Plan/EA, the BLM’s interdisciplinary team, cooperating agencies, and the public identified six major problems or issues: legal access, seismic activities, resource developments, overnight camping, noxious plants, and fire management and use.

The following is a description of the status and current condition of those issues.

148

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

1. Legal Access—Land acquisition will normally be on a “willing seller basis.” Since adoption of the ONA Activity Plan/EA Policy Statement and Management Direction, no new land has been acquired on the Rocky Mountain Front to enhance access. Also, no land disposal has occurred, decreasing access. No additional public access to Blind Horse ONA, Deep Creek/Battle Creek ONA, or Chute Mountain ONA has been provided. Currently, the only legal access to these ONAs is through adjacent National Forest System lands to the west. Legal access issues have not been resolved. 2. Seismic Activities—Congress has withdrawn ONAs from future natural gas and oil leasing and mineral exploration. 3. Resource Developments—The following policy and management direction is currently in place for ONAs: • ONAs have been precluded from oil and gas development. • No removal of common variety minerals (for example, sand and gravel) is allowed. • Developments for livestock grazing are designed to meet resource objectives and are mitigated to reduce conflicts with wildlife and the visual character of the area. • Communication site rights-of-way are not allowed in ONAs. 4. Overnight Camping—Overnight camping is permitted year-round on BLM-administered land in the ONAs, except in the Ear Mountain Trailhead. Recreational camping is restricted within 200 feet of all springs to protect the water source and to permit wildlife use. Camping policy changes are made in response to monitoring results to protect wildlife resources. 5. Noxious Plants—The biological agents approach is the preferred method of control in ONAs; however, chemicals or mechanical control efforts are applied when biological agents are unavailable or impractical. Control with sheep and goats is not allowed. Current land health evaluations for grazing allotments in designated ONAs do not indicate that noxious plants are impacting land health. Cooperative agreements are implemented with livestock grazing lessees as a condition of holding a grazing lease where noxious plants have been identified. 6. Fire Management and Use—Suppression action, including heavy equipment and aircraft, is allowed only when necessary to prevent spread to adjacent private land. Fire camps are outside ONAs. Wildfire, prescribed burning, and fuel management is directed to maintain or improve the current visual resources, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and public uses of ONAs.

149

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Trends Current uses in the ACECs are recreation activities, such as hiking, hunting, target shooting, ﬁshing, wildlife viewing, photography, and dispersed camping. All of the ACECs offer outstanding opportunities for recreation. The Judith Mountains Scenic Area, Acid Shale-Pine Forest, and Collar Gulch ACECs are likely to receive increases in visitation. Such activities as motorized recreation, mountain biking, photography, interpretive/guided tours, rock climbing, and geo-caching will become more popular in the region.

Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC Recreation use data indicates the Judith Mountains are important to visitors and provide opportunities for recreational services from nearby communities. The scenic quality of the area is vulnerable to adverse change. Recent emphasis on forest health issues is in response to the lack of forest management, which has resulted in overstocking trees. This leads to increased susceptibility of the breakdown of the forest. Recent examples are increased blow downs, mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and increased fuel loading.

Managing for salvage does not allow for well-planned, long-term, forest management. Addressing salvage instead of managing long term requires infrastructure (e.g., roads). However, unplanned short-term roads have altered scenic values. Interest in forest management activities in the area is expected to continue.

Acid Shale-Pine Forest ACEC Volberg soils are considered fragile and susceptible to damage. Expected trends include increased recreation and visitor use, potential for wildfire, unauthorized off-road use, and road proliferation.

Livestock are grazed on both units. Those allotments that contain War Horse and Briggs Coulee were determined to be in conformance with Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997).

The distribution of livestock is limited within the ACECs due to the lack of proximity to water sources and forage. Most livestock use is on the forest perimeter in order to provide shading. Maintenance of land health standards, which include soil stability and integrity of native plant communities, is expected to continue under the current livestock management.

However, current conditions also indicate that there is an abundance of young age conifers. This will likely result in future conifer encroachment into open areas, increased ponderosa pine stand density, and an accumulation of litter. These conditions will likely, over time, present a risk to the integrity of native understory plant communities.

Square Butte ONA/ACEC Meadows and open areas, particularly on top of the butte, have experienced conifer encroachment for decades. This has resulted in overall declines in the quality of grass/forb communities. Some small-scale wildfires have occurred in recent years, but fuel buildup is expected to continue, increasing the likelihood of larger fires. These trends are expected to continue until fuel loads are reduced.

Lack of public access limits recreation in Square Butte; however, there are modest levels of use through access granted by adjacent private landowners. No major shifts in the level of public use are expected until access can be acquired.

150

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Collar Gulch ACEC Collar Gulch Creek has become the focal point of cooperation between the BLM and MFWP to restore, improve, and maintain habitat associated with a genetically-pure population of westslope cutthroat trout. Pure westslope cutthroat trout are extirpated throughout most of their historic range. These trout were once common; however, due to habitat degradation, hybridization, and competition from nonnative species, the remaining pure strains are now largely relegated to a few isolated reaches of headwaters. Reasons for the critical condition of the subspecies are habitat destruction from logging, road building, grazing, mining, residential development, and agriculture; impoundments; introduction of nonnative hatchery strains; and competition and hybridization from introduced nonnative fish species. Small, isolated populations face ongoing threats from land use activities, hybridization, and wildfire.

Since 1994, the BLM has managed this 2-mile segment of Collar Gulch Creek and approximately 1,500 acres of public land surrounding it as an ACEC. However, the Collar Gulch cutthroats are not secure. Their future is complicated by the vulnerability of habitat loss due to the isolation of the population and small stream segment.

4.2 Back Country Byways

Background BLM’s Byways Program, established in 1989, is a component of the National Scenic Byways Program. BLM State Directors designate BLM Back Country Byways on BLM-administered lands. Other byway designations, such as National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, State Scenic Byways, and National Forest Scenic Byways, may also occur on portions of BLM-administered lands. However, these byways must be designated through a state Department of Transportation or another federal agency. Since many BLM-designated byways cross other federal, state, county, and private lands, their designation and management can vary based on the agency responsible for their management.

The Back Country Byways Program objectives are as follows:

• Enhance opportunities for the American public to see and enjoy the unique scenic and historical opportunities on public lands • Foster partnerships at local, state, and national levels • Contribute to local economies • Enhance the visitor’s recreation experience and communicate the multiuse management message through effective interpretative programs • Manage visitor use along the byway to minimize impacts on the environment and to provide protection for the visitor • Contribute to the national scenic byway system in a way that is uniquely suited to national public lands managed by the BLM

Current Conditions

Missouri Breaks National Back Country Byway The Missouri Breaks National Back Country Byway is the only back country byway in the planning area. It runs through central Montana, encompassing an area of varied geography and historical significance. The byway takes visitors past grassy expanses, rugged cliffs, and historical sites that are adjacent to the Charles

151

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

M. Russell NWR, the wild and scenic portion of the Missouri River, the Nez Perce NHT, and the Lewis and Clark NHT.

The byway exploration begins by heading east out of Winifred, Montana. The byway traverses 2.5 miles of BLM-administered land along DY Trail and half a mile of BLM-administered land along Knox Ridge Road. This southern stretch of the byway follows the Nez Perce NHT. At the byway’s western curve, is the Charles M. Russell NWR. Continuing along to the northern section, the byway runs along the wild and scenic Missouri River and traverses the rough terrain that fur traders dubbed the “badlands.” Former campsites of the Lewis and Clark Expedition also lie along the way.

The portion of the Missouri Breaks National Back Country Byway corridor (0.5-mile wide) located on BLM-administered lands consists of approximately 900 acres of VRI Class III and 300 acres of VRI Class IV.

Trends Multiple-use resource activities have remained limited within the byway corridor. Visual intrusions do not disrupt the overall character of the landscape; however, impacts of dispersed recreation, including OHV use, are becoming apparent. OHV use is especially popular during fall hunting seasons.

4.3 National Trails NSTs and NHTs are designated by Congress under the authority of the National Trails System Act of 1968. NSTs are extended trails that provide maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the various qualities—scenic, historical, natural, and cultural—of the areas through which they pass. The BLM manages land along the Continental Divide NST.

NHTs are extended trails that closely follow a historic trail or route of travel of national significance. Congress identifies and protects historic routes, historic remnants, and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. They must meet the following three criteria listed in Section 5(b)(11) of the National Trails System Act:

• They must follow actual documented route of historic use • They must be of national significance • They must possess significant potential for public recreation and interpretation

There are two NHTs in the planning area: the Nez Perce NHT and the Lewis and Clark. The Nez Perce NHT is administered by the Forest Service; a comprehensive plan revision is underway. The Lewis and Clark NHT is administered by the NPS; a comprehensive plan revision for this NHT is also underway.

BLM Manual 6280 (BLM 2012g) contains policy for the management of Congressionally designated NSTs or NHTs. The BLM is not the trail administrator for any of the three national trails in the planning area, but BLM Manual 6280 directs the BLM, in its role as a national trail manager, to incorporate trail-wide comprehensive plan provisions into land use plans, to the extent possible.

152

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Current Conditions

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail The Lewis and Clark NHT is approximately 3,700 miles long, extending from Wood River, Illinois, to the mouth of the Columbia River, near present day Astoria, Oregon, following the historic outbound and inbound routes of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The purpose of the Lewis and Clark NHT l is to commemorate the 1804 to 1806 Lewis and Clark Expedition through the identification; protection; interpretation; public use and enjoyment; and preservation of historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with the expedition and its place in US and tribal history. Approximately 300 miles of the Lewis and Clark NHT are in the planning area, including approximately 1 mile on BLM-administered lands. There are no high potential route segments or historic sites on BLM-administered land within the planning area.

The NPS is the National Trail Administrator for the Lewis and Clark NHT and the BLM is one of the land managers. BLM coordinates and manages it's respective sections in cooperation with other interagency federal partners with shared responsibilities in implementing the Lewis and Clark NHT Comprehensive Plan for Management and Use (NPS 1982). Motorized and nonmotorized travel is permitted on this NHT. The Missouri River corridor, where the NHT is in the planning area, experiences high recreation use, especially for fishing. With the presence of Interstate 15 and the railroad paralleling the trail, high volume transportation activity is also present. Within a half-mile-wide corridor, the portion of the trail on BLM- administered lands contains approximately 7,100 acres of VRI Class II, 200 acres of VRI Class III, and 200 acres of VRI Class IV.

The Missouri River above Great Falls, Montana, flows freely through a scenic area, despite being paralleled and crossed by state and interstate highways. The river retains much of its historic character, resembling a large mountain stream. Public access provided by the state and small towns make a water trail development feasible. The Lewis and Clark Expedition ascended the river through this reach in 1805, and Sergeant Ordway, detached from Clark’s contingent with nine men, descended the river here in 1806 to recover the Great Falls caches and to meet Lewis.

The upstream portion of this segment flows through Wolf Creek Canyon and is provided with ample public river access and facilities. The lower portion needs expanded access and facilities at Cascade Access and Ulm City Park to establish a water trail through the entire segment.

The historic site of the camp of July 10-14, 1805, where members of the expedition built dugout canoes after completing the Great Falls portage, could also be developed for public access, camping, and historic interpretation. This canoe camp is on the west or north bank of the Missouri River between Ulm and Great Falls, directly south of Antelope Butte (T. 19 N., R. 2 E., Section 1).

Interpretation of expedition daily events could take place through trail guides and brochures or through signs posted at river access areas near where the events occurred. For instance, interpretation could be provided at Wolf Creek Canyon Access No. 2 regarding the naming of Dearborn River. Also at this location, Clark began several days of overland exploration to the west of the Missouri River, traveling ahead of the expedition.

Nez Perce National Historic Trail Congress designated the 1,170-mile Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) NHT in 1986. The Nez Perce NHT stretches from Wallowa Lake, Oregon, to the Bear Paw Battlefield near Chinook, Montana. The trail 153

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

follows the 1877 flight of the Nez Perce from their homelands while pursued by the US Army. Led by Chief Joseph, Chief Looking Glass, Chief White Bird, Chief Ollokot, Chief Lean Elk, and others, nearly 750 Nez Perce men, women, and children and twice that many horses endured over 1,170 miles through the rugged mountains and canyons in Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. Their journey lasted from June to October of 1877.

Approximately 85 miles of the Nez Perce NHT is in the planning area, most of which is on private, primarily agricultural, land. A portion of the trail corridor in the planning area includes state highways, allowing visitors traveling by automobile to stop at select points along the trail. Approximately 1 mile of the Nez Perce NHT is on BLM-administered lands. There are no high potential route segments or historic sites on BLM-administered land within the planning area. Within a half-mile-wide corridor, the portion of the trail on BLM-administered lands contains approximately 700 acres of VRI Class III and 4,100 acres of VRI Class IV. The Forest Service is the National Trail Administrator for the Nez Perce NHT. Where the trail occurs on BLM-administered lands, BLM coordinates and manages its respective sections in cooperation with other interagency federal partners that share responsibilities in implementing the Nez Perce (Ne-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan (Forest Service 1990). The Forest Service is in the process of updating the plan.

Most visitation along the Nez Perce NHT occurs at high potential sites accessed via automobile. Occasional trail rides associated with clubs and the Nez Perce Tribe occur, but through-travel is not possible because of the mixed landownership pattern.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail The Continental Divide NST, designated in 1968, is a 3,100-mile trail extending from Canada to Mexico and passing through the Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. The trail traverses landscapes primarily on public lands within 50 miles of the geographic feature. Approximately 157 miles of the Continental Divide NST are in the planning area, including approximately 1 mile on BLM-administered lands north of Rogers Pass in northern Lewis and Clark County. The Continental Divide NST provides for high quality, scenic, primitive hiking and horseback-riding recreational experiences, while conserving natural, historic, and cultural resources along the Continental Divide.

The Forest Service is the National Trail Administrator for the Continental Divide NST. Where the trail occurs on BLM-administered lands, BLM coordinates and manages its respective sections in cooperation with other interagency federal partners that share responsibilities in implementing the Continental Divide Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan (Forest Service 2009). This comprehensive plan emphasizes the importance of visual management as a key factor to ensure the user enjoyment..

A portion of the trail landscape in the planning area encompasses areas of “high absorption capacity,” meaning activities along these areas could be easily located out of view. Conversely, another portion of the trail crosses a landscape that does not readily absorb contrasting activities; that is, observers traveling along this section of trail would be particularly sensitive to activities that altered the characteristic landscape.

Within a half-mile-wide corridor, the portion of the trail on BLM-administered lands contains approximately 150 acres of VRI Class II and 100 acres of VRI Class III.

154

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Through-hiking is on a slight upward trend, but day hiking and multiple-day hiking on the portion of the Continental Divide NST in the planning area is generally low.

A trailhead was developed in the parking area at Rogers Pass in 2002. The trail uses the main site roadway before entering public land. Further analysis of the recreation and visual conditions for the trail are contained in the Visual Resources and Recreation sections (see Sections 2.10 and 3.3).

Trends Use of the Nez Perce NHT in the planning area is static. Activity on the Lewis and Clark NHT is primarily associated with other uses, such as fishing, rather than on experiencing the trail. At present, most of the trails are still in good to excellent condition; this is due in part to the remote locations of many of the segments, but continued development on private land will place pressures on the surrounding historic and natural landscapes. Collecting, looting, and vandalism of NHT historic sites, although difficult to quantify, have not been identified as problems on public land in the planning area.

New types of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles have increased use of more remote parts of the national trails. This has increased the vulnerability of remote national trail segments and sites. Likewise, increased urbanization and potential future wind energy development could alter the characteristics of the trail corridors.

Revised comprehensive plans for the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce NHTs will examine resources along the entire route of the national trails. Current BFO management along the Continental Divide NST is outdated and creates conflicting mandates for managers and the public.

4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers WSRs are streams or segments of streams designated by Congress under the authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542, as amended; 16 USC, Sections 1271-1287). Their purpose is to preserve the stream or stream section in its free-flowing condition, preserve water quality, and protect its outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). ORVs are identified on a segment-specific basis and may include scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values.

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal agencies to consider potential WSRs in their land and water planning process. To fulfill this requirement, the BLM evaluates streams when developing or revising its RMPs. In order to fulfill its obligations under Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the LFO is considering the eligibility and suitability of streams in the planning area for inclusion in the NWSRS.

Determination of Wild and Scenic River Eligibility The initial step in the eligibility phase of the WSR analysis is to generate an inventory of all streams in the evaluation area. Every known stream with a perennial or intermittent flow regime in the planning area was identified using a variety of BLM and other data sources.

The stream segments were then evaluated to determine whether they meet the dual criteria of being free flowing and possessing one or more ORVs, as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Eligible segments were preliminarily classified as wild, scenic, or recreational, based on water quality and level of human development along the river corridor.

155

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

In 2010, the BLM performed an eligibility analysis on streams in the western portion of the field office (Cascade, Lewis and Clark, Meagher, Pondera, and Teton Counties). The Final Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report for the LFO, Montana (BLM 2010c) details stream segments determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS, as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The report, including detailed maps of eligible stream segments, is available on the project website.

In 2014, the BLM performed an eligibility analysis on streams in the eastern portion of the LFO (Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, and Petroleum Counties). The eligibility determinations for these streams are included in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Report for the LFO.

Determination of Wild and Scenic River Suitability Stream segments found to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS are carried forward to the suitability phase of the WSR analysis. The suitability phase considers tradeoffs between corridor development and stream protection by applying thirteen factors to each eligible segment. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Report for the LFO details the suitability study process and the draft suitability determinations for each eligible segment in the field office. A final determination of suitability will be issued in the RMP ROD.

Current Conditions A portion of the Missouri River, from Fort Benton to the James Kipp Recreation Area, was designated as a WSR in 1976 (Public Law 94-486). In 2001, President Clinton designated the UMRBNM. It includes the designated portion of the Missouri River. While this area is in the LFO, it is not in the planning area for this RMP.

After evaluating all streams identified during the inventory phase, 29 separate stream segments were determined to be free flowing and possessing one or more ORVs necessary for WSRs eligibility.

Table 59, Eligible Stream Segments, shows those eligible segments in the planning area being studied for suitability analysis, the identified ORVs associated with each segment, and the preliminary classification assigned to each segment.

Table 59 Eligible Stream Segments Length on BLM- Preliminary Outstandingly River or Creek Administered Classification Remarkable Values Land (Miles) Armells Creek 1.3 Scenic Scenic Blind Horse Creek 0.4 Wild Scenic Collar Gulch 2.5 Scenic Scenic, recreation, fish Cutrock Creek 1.2 Wild Scenic Edwards Creek 1.8 Wild Scenic Fords Creek 1.3 Scenic Scenic Frenchy Gulch 0.9 Wild Scenic Judith River 6.9 Scenic Recreation, geological, wildlife Middle Fork Dearborn River 1.8 Recreational Scenic

156

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 59 Eligible Stream Segments Length on BLM- Preliminary Outstandingly River or Creek Administered Classification Remarkable Values Land (Miles) Missouri River 4.8 Recreational Scenic, recreation North Fork Blindhorse Creek 2.3 Wild Scenic North Fork Deep Creek 1.6 Wild Scenic North Fork Flatwillow Creek 0.3 Scenic Scenic North Fork Sheep Creek 1.6 Scenic Scenic North Fork Stickney Creek 2.0 Scenic Scenic North Fork Teton River 0.3 Recreational Scenic, recreation, fish Pamburn Creek 0.5 Wild Scenic Pike Creek 11.1 Scenic Fish Rinker Creek 0.4 Wild Scenic Sacagawea (also known as 33.5 Scenic Fish Crooked) Creek South Fork Blindhorse Creek 1.7 Wild Scenic South Fork Deep Creek 1.8 Scenic Scenic, fish South Fork Flatwillow Creek 1.1 Scenic Scenic South Fork Sheep Creek 4.1 Scenic Scenic South Fork Stickney Creek 1 1.2 Scenic Scenic Sun River Segment 1 1.6 Recreational Scenic, recreation, fish, cultural Sun River Segment 2 1.1 Recreational Recreation, fish, cultural Source: BLM 2010c, 2015c

Interim Protection The BLM’s policy goal for eligible and suitable rivers is to manage their free-flowing condition, water quality, tentative classification, and any ORVs to ensure a decision on suitability can be made for eligible rivers; or in the case of suitable rivers, until Congress designates the river or releases it for other uses. To that end, the BLM has broad discretionary authority, on a case-by-case basis through project-level decision making and the NEPA processes, not to impact river values or make decisions that might lead to a determination of ineligibility or non-suitability (BLM 2012h).

157

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

4.5 Wilderness Study Areas In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, thereby establishing a national system of lands to preserve a representative sample of ecosystems in a natural condition for the benefit of future generations. With the passage of FLPMA in 1976, Congress directed the BLM to inventory, study, and recommend which public lands under its administration should be designated wilderness. Section 603 of FLPMA specifically required the BLM to provide Congress with recommendations on the suitability or unsuitability of roadless areas of public lands of 5,000 acres or more and on roadless islands; moreover, it included areas of less than 5,000 acres if certain criteria were met. Congress gave the BLM 15 years to complete the wilderness inventory. Only Congress can decide which areas, if any, will be designated as wilderness and added to the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The wilderness inventory was conducted on a state-by-state basis from 1978 to 1980. The wilderness inventory in Montana was divided into two portions, the initial and intensive inventories. Lands in the eastern portions of the planning area were addressed in the Lewistown District sections of the Montana Wilderness Inventory (Miles City and Lewistown BLM Districts) (BLM 1980a). Lands in the Overthrust Belt, a geologically-disturbed area of the Rocky Mountains in the western portion of the planning area, were inventoried in the Montana Overthrust Belt Wilderness Inventory (BLM 1980b).

When wilderness characteristics, as defined by Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC, Section 1131), were found within a defined boundary, the presence of the wilderness resource was documented and the area was classified as a WSA. All values, resources, and uses occurring in each WSA were analyzed through legislative EISs. When completed, recommendations as to the suitability or unsuitability of each WSA for designation as wilderness were submitted to the President through the Secretary of the Interior and then to Congress. FLPMA required that the reports be submitted to the President by October 21, 1991, and to Congress by October 21, 1993 (43 USC Section 1702).

In addition to the WSAs studied under Section 603 of FLPMA, the BLM designated additional WSAs through the land use planning process under the authorities of Sections 201, and 202 of FLPMA (referred to as Section 202 WSAs). These were typically areas that had wilderness characteristics only when combined with the contiguous lands of another agency. Any such WSAs designated before the 1993 report to Congress were forwarded to Congress.

During the intensive inventory completed between 1978 and 1980, the BLM identified two areas in the planning area that met the criteria for having wilderness characteristics under Section 202 of FLPMA, Beaver Meadows (595 acres) and North Fork Sun River (196 acres).

These areas border National Forest System lands along the eastern portions of the Rocky Mountain Front. They were not carried forward through the legislative EIS process due to clarifications in the wilderness inventory process contained in subsequent IMs (BLM 1983). Instead, studies of the areas were to occur during the land use planning process. However, such studies are still pending. These WSAs have been managed under the direction of BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas (BLM 2012i).

Only Congress can decide which areas, if any, will be designated as wilderness and added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Until Congress acts on the recommendations and either designates them as wilderness or releases them for other uses, WSAs are managed according to BLM Manual 6330 (BLM 2012i). This is so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.

158

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

The BLM has the responsibility to review all proposals for uses and facilities in WSAs to ascertain whether the proposal would impair its suitability for preservation as wilderness. The nonimpairment standard is based on whether the use/facility is temporary or whether the use/facility will not create new surface disturbances.

There are seven classes of allowable exceptions to the nonimpairment standard: emergencies, public safety, restoration of impacts from violations and emergencies, valid existing rights, grandfathered uses, protection or enhancement of wilderness characteristics or values, and other legal requirements.

Current Conditions Beaver Meadows Beaver Meadows is a 595-acre parcel located fifteen miles southwest of Augusta, Montana. The area lies along the Rocky Mountain Front, a physiographic region extending from the Canadian Rockies to Rogers Pass, Montana. Private lands border the unit to the north, south and east with National Forest System lands to the west.

The area is composed of the eastern cliff face of Steamboat Mountain and includes the headwaters of a minor drainage that empties eastward into the Dearborn River. Cliffs cover approximately 20 percent of the parcel. Thick stands of Douglas-fir cover most of the remainder of the parcel. There are small meadows and portions of a glacial pond. Elevations range from 5,440 feet on the eastern border to 7,680 feet near the top of Steamboat Mountain to the west.

North Fork Sun River The North Fork of the Sun River is 196 acres located approximately twenty-four miles southwest of Choteau and eighteen miles northwest of Augusta, Montana. The parcel is bounded on the west by National Forest System lands. The north, east, and south boundaries are adjacent to private lands.

The parcel lies within the transitional zone between the prairies to the east and the Rocky Mountains to the west at an elevation of approximately 5,200 feet. It is an area of gentle foothills slopes of grass and scattered limber pines. It contains two converging drainages with four associated ponds, riparian plant communities and aspen stands.

Square Butte Square Butte is approximately 50 miles northwest of Lewistown and 50 miles east of Great Falls. The Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report (BLM 1991) identified Square Butte as 1,947 acres and recommended the area as non-wilderness. (For consistency purposes in this document, the acres are rounded to 1,900; the use of GIS-generated acres does not change the 1,947 acres identified in the Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report.).

Currently, there is no legal public access to Square Butte WSA. It measures 2 miles north to the south and 2.5 miles along its widest east-west dimension. None of the tract is contiguous with a designated wilderness or WSA managed by another federal agency. Private land surrounds the unit for several miles in all directions.

The WSA is geologically known as a laccolith, an intrusive bubble of magma that has penetrated layers of the earth’s crust. Erosion of the upper portions has created a flat-topped mound of igneous rock surrounded by eroded spires and ribs of the same rock at the base. Scenically, with its soaring buttresses, 159

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

interesting pinnacles and spires, and varied textures, the butte is an imposing sight. The level top and vertical sides make the mound appear square from a distance.

The formation rises 2,400 feet above the surrounding plains, with an elevation of 5,684 feet. Two massive fins stretch toward the plain to the southwest, and jutting towers and a spire fill the butte’s south flanks. Square Butte and another laccolith (Round Butte, three miles to the west) are outlying formations of the Highwood Mountains.

Two-thirds of Square Butte’s flat top burned in 1956, but this portion has reforested itself with thick lodgepole pine. Dense stands of lodgepole, limber pine, and Douglas-fir cover the side slopes.

5. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

This section is a description of the social and economic conditions in the planning area as follows:

• Social and Economic Conditions (including Environmental Justice) • Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests • Public Safety

5.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE) Certain defining features of every area influence and shape the nature of local economic and social activity. Among these are the local population, the presence of or proximity to large cities or regional population centers, types of longstanding industries, such as agriculture, oil and gas, the predominant land and water features, and the area’s unique amenities. The BLM operates as a steward of many of these area resources and opportunities and thus plays a role in the community. This discussion gives further insight on the character and extent of these community connections.

In order to accurately portray the relationship of current BLM management and the community, the social and economic geographic scope of analysis must be defined. The social and economic effects from changes on BLM-administered lands extend beyond the immediate vicinity of their location in the LFO. In addition, the role of these lands within the larger region must be addressed, while not masking change within smaller counties and communities in the analysis area.

A multidimensional approach is thus appropriate, examining both the role of the LFO lands at a regional scale and at a smaller county-level scale. Consequently, social and economic conditions and trends are presented for the eight-county area that the LFO encompasses (Cascade, Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Meagher, Petroleum, Pondera, and Teton).

While the LFO RMP planning area additionally includes the northern portion of Lewis and Clark County, most lands are administered by the BFO. Thus, this area was not included in the social and economic analysis area due to the difficulty of extracting data at a sub-county level. For example, the four zip codes in Lewis and Clark County that fall within the planning area contain 3 percent of the total civilian employed population in the entire county and about 4 percent of the total population in the county (US Department of Commerce 2014a).

160

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

While the area is excluded from analysis, uses in Lewis and Clark County are considered qualitatively in the social analysis and quantitatively in adjacent economies where transactions likely occur. For example, Augusta is the largest of the few small towns in the northern portion of Lewis and Clark County, but most business is often transacted in nearby Chouteau County.

Another example is that of the total 125,595 AUMs in the planning area, only 47 are from the planning area in Lewis and Clark County. It is also important to note that the planning area covers only the southern portion of Chouteau County, but the economic analysis area includes all of Chouteau County.

The economic analysis focuses on goods and services from BLM-administered lands in the LFO. These lands contribute a wide range of economic values to people. Market goods, such as livestock and recreation, generate employment and income, as well as payments to local communities and some revenue for the federal treasury. Non-market goods, such as unique ecosystems and habitats, generate value that everyone reaps but that they do not necessarily pay for. Other goods, such as outdoor recreation and scenery, are valued by the people who use them, but only a portion of this value is represented in market purchases.

Demographic Characteristics and Trends

This section highlights population and demographic trends in the analysis area. Population is an important consideration in managing natural resources. In particular, population structure (such as size, composition, and density) and population dynamics (how the structure changes over time) are essential to describing the consequences of land management and planning on a social environment (Seesholtz et al. 2004).

Population increases may lead to conflicts over land use, travel management, recreation, and values. These are conflicts that BLM managers attempt to balance when making decisions. Average population, from 2013 to 2017, in the eight-county region was 115,494. This is similar to the 2006-2010 population average of 114,679, indicating a small amount of growth for the eight-county analysis area. This masks change at the individual county level depicted in Table 60, Analysis Area Population Change and Age1.

The table illustrates the diversity of population among the counties in the analysis area. Population ranges from 453 in Petroleum County to 81,816 in Cascade County. Growth rates have also varied over the period. Petroleum County experienced a 24 percent population decrease, while Cascade County experienced a 2 percent growth and Chouteau County had a one percent growth in population. The remaining counties lost population during the period. While population growth was low in Cascade County (less than both the state and the nation over the period), it masks decreases for most of the analysis area.

Table 60 Analysis Area Population Change and Age1 Median Percent Location 2006-2010 2013-2017 Age 2013- Change 2017 Cascade County 80,562 81,816 2 38.4 Chouteau County 5,765 5,812 1 40.9

161

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 60 Analysis Area Population Change and Age1 Median Percent Location 2006-2010 2013-2017 Age 2013- Change 2017 Fergus County 11,513 11,327 -2 45.7 Judith Basin 1,967 1,965 -0.1 51.7 County Meagher County 2,024 2,000 -1 43.9 Petroleum 598 453 -24 51.7 County Pondera County 6,145 6,081 -1 40.5 Teton County 6,105 6,040 -1 44.5 County Region 114,679 115,494 1 N/A2 Montana 973,739 1,029,862 6 39.8 United States 303,965,272 321,004,407 6 37.8 Source: US Department of Commerce 2018b 1The data in this table are calculated by using annual surveys conducted during 2006-2010 and 20013- 2017 and are representative of average characteristics during this period. 2N/A: Median age is not available for regional aggregations.

Population growth may signal expanding economic opportunities or desirable amenities, while population decease may signal loss of opportunity. The population and growth rate data reflect the divergent conditions in the analysis area and illustrate the difficulty of generalizing across counties.

Areas characterized as having high levels of natural amenities (unique land and water features, mild temperatures, scenic quality, and recreation opportunities) have been shown to experience greater population growth than areas with fewer natural amenities (Johnson and Beale 1994; McGranahan 1999; Frentz et al. 2004), and this growth occurs increasingly at the boundaries of public lands (Hansen et al. 1998; Radeloff et al. 2001).

Much of the analysis area and its counties contain federal lands. DOI and National Forest System lands provide natural amenities for area residents. Information from socioeconomic workshops held in October 2014 indicates these amenities draw people to the area and are an important part of lifestyles keeping residents in the area. For example, unique habitats and opportunities provided by sagebrush steppe (such as elk hunting) were noted as important. These habitats and opportunities are influenced by BLM management.

Median age can reveal information relevant to land management decisions. Areas with a large proportion of retirees may have very different needs and preferences than communities populated primarily with working age families. The median age of analysis area counties is greater than the state and nation in all except Cascade County, which was less than the state but not the nation. This suggests the opportunity created by a larger population in Cascade County has helped retain younger residents and working-age families.

162

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Economic Specialization and Employment

Potential economic effects associated with this proposed RMP include changes in employment, income, economic dependency, economic stability, and quality of life. The information contained in this section is presented to help clarify economic issues, describe relevant economic trends, and provide context for potential changes to economic indicators.

Total employment within the eight-county analysis area is distributed among a range of industry sectors and is displayed below in Diagram 13, Analysis Area Employment by Industry (IMPLAN 2016). Of particular interest is employment in sectors related to LFO management, as highlighted in bold.

Diagram 13 Analysis Area Employment by Industry (IMPLAN 2016)

fessional- scientifi c ~ & tech SVCS, 4.5%

r Real estate & rental, 3.5%

dministrative & waste services, 3.3%

_ Transportation & Warehousing, 3.2%

While mining makes up very little of the analysis area employment, agriculture-related jobs comprise about 8 percent of jobs in the eight counties. Grazing (beef cattle ranching and farming) falls within the agriculture sector and makes up about 3 percent of analysis area jobs. Industries that could be impacted by recreation make up about 21 percent of jobs (retail trade, accommodation and food services, arts, entertainment, and recreation sectors).

The government sector makes up the largest proportion of jobs in the RMP analysis area (17 percent; IMPLAN 2016). LFO management is not attributable to all employment in these sectors but rather smaller

163

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

portions. It is important to note that any changes in LFO management could impact the employment in these relevant sectors.

Information on employment is used to examine specialization in particular sectors of the eight-county region. Identification of employment specialization in the project area counties provides a frame of reference for contributions and effects under the alternatives from BLM management.

Specialization is examined using the ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the eight-county area to the percent of employment in that industry for a larger reference region (the State of Montana). For a given industry, when the percent employment in the analysis region is greater than in the reference region, local employment specialization exists in that industry (Forest Service and BLM 1998). Using this criterion applied with 2016 data, relative to the State of Montana, the eight-county analysis area is specialized in the agriculture, health care and social assistance, and government sectors; shares of total employment in these sectors are respectively, 2.4, 1.7, and 3.1 percent greater than shares in the state (Diagram 14; IMPLAN 2016). Note that the contributions from the LFO represent only a portion of the economic activity reflected in industry sectors seen in Diagram 13.

Of particular interest are counties where specialization occurs within industries related to LFO management. A portion of employment in the sectors shown in Diagram 14, Analysis Area Employment Specialization (IMPLAN 2016), can be attributed to forest management, timber production,4 grazing,5 mining,6 and recreation in the LFO. The government sector includes all federal, state, and local employment, while a portion of employment in the accommodations and food services, arts, entertainment and recreation, retail trade, and passenger transportation sectors is specifically attributed to tourism and recreation (Marcouiller and Xia 2008).

Between 2001 and 2017, total employment in the eight-county area increased from 67,141 to 69,873 jobs (US Department of Commerce 2018a). In 2017, employment in services-related sectors as a share of total employment was 70.6 percent, while employment in the non-services-related sectors as a share of total employment was 11.2 percent. The services-related sectors have historically been an important part of the area economy, so changes in LFO management that affect the recreation and services-related sectors could have significant effects on the local area economy (US Department of Commerce 2018a).

4Sectors related to timber are commercial logging (IMPLAN sector 16) 5Sectors related to grazing are beef cattle ranching and farming (IMPLAN sectors 11) and animal production, except cattle and poultry and eggs (IMPLAN sector 14). 6Locatable, salable, leasable, and mining-related support sectors (IMPLAN sectors 20 through 40) 164

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Diagram 14 Analysis Area Employment Specialization (IMPLAN 2016)

16.8% 13.7%

Health & social services

10.8% Retail Trade 10.8%

Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting ~ 8.2% ---- 5.8%

Accommodation & food services .9% - 8.7%

- 3.2% Grazing - 2.3%

Arts- entertainment & recreation - 2.7% - 3.1%

Mining ■ 0.7% - 1.7%

I 0.1% Commercial Logging I 0.2%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

■ LFO ■ MT

Economic Well-Being and Poverty As noted above, the services-related sectors have increased their share of total employment, while the non-services-related sectors experienced decreases or little change in their share of total employment. In general, the services-related sectors do not pay as much as the non-services sectors, so increases in the percent of total employment attributable to these sectors could decrease area economic well-being.

In the eight-county area, the services- and non-services-related sectors paid average annual wages of $37,244 and $49,566, respectively, in 2017 (US Department of Labor 2018). Thus, increases in employment in sectors associated with lower wages alongside decreases in sectors associated with higher wages could indicate a decrease in area economic well-being. However, it cannot be said that decreases in economic well-being have resulted from increases in services-related sector employment, since higher labor force participation in the services-related sectors, by groups such as women and minorities, could increase the overall importance of certain sectors over others.In addition, people might move to the area to take a services-related sector job but exchange the lower wage they may receive for the unique natural and cultural amenities. In this manner some may benefit from a secondary income not provided by their place of employment but by the benefits they gain from living in the area.

165

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Population and employment changes are related to natural amenities often provided by public lands (Knapp and Graves 1989; Clark and Hunter 1992; Treyz et al. 1993; Mueser and Graves 1995; McGranahan 1999; Lewis et al. 2002). The LFO operates as a steward of many of these natural amenities and consequently supports a portion of area population retention.

Total personal income (TPI) and per capita personal income (PCPI) are useful measures of economic well- being. From 2000 to 2017, TPI in the economic analysis area increased from $4 billion to $5.2 billion. Annual PCPI increased from $34,110 to $45,589 from 2000 to 2017 (all measures adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars). This translates to a TPI increase of 32.8 percent and a PCPI increase of 33.7 percent over this period (US Department of Commerce 2018).

While PCPI is a useful measure of economic well-being, it should be examined alongside changes in real earnings per job. Since PCPI includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income sources like transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita income to rise, even if the average wage per job declines over time. While PCPI rose between 1970 and 2017 by 63 percent, average earnings per job declined by 8 percent (from $48,564 in 1970 to $44,828 in 2017 [values adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars]; US Department of Commerce 2018). While PCPI has steadily increased, real earnings per job have historically been declining since the 1970s, until increasing again in the past decade.

From 2000 to 2018, average annual unemployment rates in the analysis area decreased from 5.1 to 3.6 percent (US Department of Labor 2019). New jobs created in an area are filled from two principal sources: local unemployment and in-migration. If unemployment remains high, new jobs are likely to be filled by area residents; however, if unemployment falls, new jobs could be filled more often by new residents.

Estimates of the share of people living under the poverty level in the eight counties in the LFO are shown in Table 61, Individuals and Families below Poverty, 2013-2017. The state share of people below the poverty level was 14.4 percent, and 9.1 percent of families were below the poverty level (US Department of Commerce 2018b).

Table 61 Individuals and Families below Poverty, 2013-2017 People below Families below Location Poverty 20013-2017 Poverty 2013-2017 Cascade County 13.1% 9.4% Chouteau County 20.3% 15.2% Fergus County 14.7% 10.0% Judith Basin County 13.9% 7.0% Meagher County 15.8% 7.2% Petroleum County 10.1% 8.7% Pondera County 19.0% 16.7% Teton County 9.8% 3.5% County Region 13.8% 9.7% Montana 14.4% 9.1% United States 14.6% 10.5%

166

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 61 Individuals and Families below Poverty, 2013-2017 People below Families below Location Poverty 20013-2017 Poverty 2013-2017 Source: US Department of Commerce 2018b Note: The data in this table are calculated by using annual surveys conducted during 2013-2017 and are representative of average characteristics during this period.

Components of Personal Income Further examining trends within personal income provides insight to the area economy and its connection to the LFO lands. There are three major sources of personal income: (1) labor earnings or income from the workplace, (2) investment income, or income received by individuals in the form of rent, dividends, or interest earnings, and (3) transfer payment income or income received as Social Security, retirement and disability income, or Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Labor earnings were the largest source of income in the eight-county area, accounting for 53.5 percent of all income in 2017 (US Department of Commerce 2018). The government, health care and social assistance, and retail trade sectors were the largest components of labor income in 2016 in the eight- county area (Diagram 15, Analysis Area Labor Income Distribution by Industry (IMPLAN 2016)). It should be noted that the contributions from the LFO represent only a portion of the economic activity reflected in industry sectors seen in Diagram 15).

Labor earning’s share of TPI in the LFO has decreased from 1970 to 2017 (from 73.7 to 53.5 percent) while the share of non-labor income has risen (from 26.3 to 46.5 percent). As a share of TPI, investment income and transfer payments rose from 18.5 to 24.5 and 4.3 to 12.5 percent over this 47-year period (US Department of Commerce 2018).

These patterns reflect the importance of the aging population noted above, who are more likely to have investment earnings than younger adults. As the population of the area continues to age, the share of income from these non- labor sources should continue to rise, as long as residents continue to stay in the area after retirement or new retirees move in.

167

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Diagram 15 Analysis Area Labor Income Distribution by Industry (IMPLAN 2016)

Finance & insurance, 5.1% Professional- scientific & tech SVCS, 5.0% Transportation & ---- Warehousing, 4.3%

~ Wholesale Trade, 4.2%

Manufacturing, 3.5%

Accommodation & food services, 3.4%

Utilities, 1.1% 1.3% _ Arts-entertainment & recreation, 0.9% 24.6" _ Educational svcs, Management of companies, 0.5% _ Mining, 0.6% 0.6%

The development of rural recreation and retirement-destination areas are related to natural amenities (Knapp and Graves 1989; Clark and Hunter 1992; Treyz et al. 1993; Mueser and Graves 1995; McGranahan 1999; Lewis et al. 2002) often provided by public lands. The LFO operates as a steward of many of these natural amenities and consequently supports a portion of non-labor income.

Non-market Economic Value The value of resource goods traded in a market can be obtained from information on the quantity sold and market price; however, markets do not exist for some resources, such as recreation opportunities and environmental services. Measuring their value is important, since without estimates, these resources may be implicitly undervalued and decisions regarding their use may not accurately reflect their true value to society. Because these recreational and environmental values are not traded in markets, they can be characterized as non-market values.

Non-market values can be broken down into two categories, use and non-use. The use value of a non- market good is the value to society from the direct use of the asset; in the LFO this occurs through recreation, such as hiking, bird watching, and OHV riding. The use of non-market goods often requires consumption of associated market goods, such as lodging and gas.

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an asset beyond its current use. These can be described as existence, option, and bequest values.

168

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Existence values are the amount society is willing to pay to guarantee that an asset simply exists. An existence value for the LFO might be the value of knowing that undisturbed native plant habitat exists or the value associated with undeveloped scenic landscapes. In addition to implicit existence values, society’s willingness to pay to preserve resources for future use attaches additional passive use values.

The potential benefits people would receive from future use are referred to as option values, when future use is expected to occur within the same generation, and are referred to as bequest values, when preservation allows future generations to benefit from resource use. In the LFO, bequest and option values might exist for numerous plant species, undeveloped scenic landscapes, WSRs, heritage sites, and recreational trails.

While use and non-use values exist in the LFO, valuation is not always feasible during the BLM planning process; however, this does not preclude their consideration. Information from socioeconomic workshops held in October 2014 and other public involvement for projects in the LFO indicate that non- market values exist for recreation opportunities, land uses of traditional and cultural importance, and natural amenities managed by the LFO.

Contributions from BLM Management BLM-administered lands in the analysis area contribute to the livelihoods of area residents through subsistence uses, as well as through market-based transactions. Public lands provide products of value to households at no or low cost, such as fuel wood, wood posts, and livestock grazing. Additional products with subsistence value may include fish, game, plants, berries, and seeds. Use of these products is often part of traditions that sustain local culture.

The analysis below considers only the market transactions that result from activities in the LFO. Numerous non-market social and economic values are associated with the LFO. The value of ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, are not captured in the economic contribution analysis. Therefore, this analysis should be considered alongside these other social, cultural, and non-market values for the LFO.

Contributions from the LFO to the eight-county analysis area economy through market-based production can be measured using the IMPLAN input-output model. The IMPLAN database describes the economy in 536 sectors using federal data from 2016.7 These sectors were further aggregated, in this analysis, to better identify areas relevant to LFO management activities (Diagram 15).

Input-output models describe the flow of goods and services from producers to intermediate and final consumers. Thus, IMPLAN not only examines the direct contributions from the analysis area but also indirect and induced contributions. Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector purchases supplies and services from other industries in order to produce or manufacture their product. Induced contributions are the employment and labor income generated as a result of spending new household income generated by direct and indirect employment.

Response coefficients estimated by IMPLAN report the impacts on jobs and income per a specified unit of an LFO program activity (e.g., range, timber, recreation, and oil and gas production). After measuring

7IMPLAN data is derived from a variety of sources, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and US Census. 169

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

multiplier effects in IMPLAN, local response coefficients are imported into a Microsoft Excel workbook known as Aphelia (Forest Service 2015).

Developed by the Forest Service for impact analysis, Aphelia serves as the interface between user data and IMPLAN. When BLM activity information, collected from resource specialists, is entered into Aphelia, it uses the IMPLAN response coefficients to measure how BLM activities cause ripple effects through the economy, impacting employment and income levels in the analysis area. For this analysis, LFO staff provided data (BLM 2015d) that were incorporated into Aphelia to show employment and labor income contributions to the analysis area economy.

Quantitative inputs (e.g., AUMs, recreation visits, mineral production, and BLM payments to counties) were for single years, or were averaged in some cases, consistent with data provided by the LFO staff in support of this analysis.

Market transactions attributable to activities on the LFO support an estimated 562 jobs and about $22.2 million in labor income in the analysis area economy. Activities on the LFO are responsible for approximately 0.8 percent of total employment and 0.7 percent of labor income in the eight-county area. The LFO contributes the most jobs to the agriculture, government, and accommodation and food services sectors.

The LFO contributes the most labor income to the government, agriculture, and retail trade sectors. The mining, agriculture, and government sectors are the most reliant on BLM activities as a percent of total jobs in the analysis area (approximately 7, 3 and 1 percent, respectively, of jobs in the analysis area are attributable to the LFO activities; about 5, 1, and 1 percent of labor income in the mining, agriculture, and real estate, rental, and leasing sectors are attributable to activities on the LFO).

The mining sector includes oil and gas drilling, production and support industries, and the agriculture sector includes both grazing and forestry, so the relative importance of BLM activities in these sectors is expected. While these contributions by industry may appear small, the labor income and employment generated from activities on BLM-administered land in the analysis area may be more important to smaller communities in the analysis area. Thus individual counties and communities may be more susceptible to changes in the analysis area, given their specialization in sectors connected to BLM.

Table 62, BLM Resource-Related Employment and Income by Major Program Area, displays the economic contribution of LFO activities by program area. It is important to note that while the grazing program contributes about 215 jobs to the local area economy, these jobs could be in the retail trade, real estate, and finance sectors since grazing employs a diversity of expertise and requires inputs that are purchased from a variety of sectors. Grazing contributes the most to employment in the analysis area economy, while recreation contributes the second most, supporting 72 jobs on an average annual basis.8

8BLM expenditures are the second greatest category and are attributable to BLM-related expenses for all resource management (grazing, recreation, minerals, and timber, in addition to BLM salaries). 170

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Table 62 BLM Resource-Related Employment and Income by Major Program Area Resource-Related Resource-Related Income Resource/Program Area Jobs (Thousands of 2016 Dollars) Grazing 215 $7,123 Recreation 72 $2,350 Minerals 49 $1,646 Timber 10 $612 Externally funded management 7 $234 Payments to states/counties 22 $961 BLM expenditures 188 $9,268 Total BLM management1 562 $22,194 1Totals in the table have been rounded up.

This analysis demonstrates the relative importance of LFO resource uses and management to analysis area employment and income. Minerals, forest products, range, recreation, and federal payments resulting from

the LFO generate jobs and labor income. Grazing, BLM budget and salary expenditures, and recreation contribute the most jobs and labor income to the economy; therefore, management decisions should consider how future actions will affect these uses.

Livestock Grazing and Production Ranching is an important part of the history, culture, and economy of the planning area. Grazing is authorized on BLM-administered lands for the purpose of fostering economic development for private ranchers and ranching communities by providing them with access to forage. Livestock grazing on BLM- administered lands is authorized annually. Actual use of forage varies from year to year due to such factors as drought, wildfire, transfer of grazing permits, financial limitations on operators, and implementation of grazing management to improve range conditions.

In the LFO, 125,548 AUMs were permitted in 2013 and this was close to actual use in the area, according to LFO staff. This use supports approximately 215230 jobs and $7.13.3 million in labor income annually. Of these jobs, 69153 are directly supported in the ranching sectors (cattle, sheep, bison, and goats), which include unpaid family labor that is often unreported. The total size of the ranching sectors were 2,200933 jobs in 20162; thus, the LFO contribution supports a maximum of about 316 percent of direct employment in the ranching sectors. As noted in the specialization discussion above and in Diagram 15, the analysis area is specialized in the agricultural sector; thus, the LFO plays an important role in the agricultural sector and the analysis area’s cultural identity, given its importance to the ranching industry.

A thin profit margin often separates these livestock producers from negative net earnings. Often, employment outside the ranch augments livestock producer income. Federal grazing land is particularly valuable because of the low grazing fees charged for use of this land. Fees that the BLM charges for grazing are calculated using the formula required under BLM grazing regulations, found at 43 CFR 4130.81(a)(1). These fees are considerably less than those charged for private and state grazing land. The BLM formula yielded a fee of $1.69 per AUM in 2015, which is up from $1.35 in 2014. This federal land is the least expensive grazing land available, hence use and access is valued by area ranchers even though additional costs are usually incurred to use these lands. 171

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Tourism and Recreation The economic influence of recreation use is related to the level of recreation use on BLM-administered lands and related expenditures for goods and services, such as gasoline, lodging, meals, and supplies.

BLM-administered land in the LFO analysis area provides a variety of recreational opportunities. Based on 2012 data from the Recreation Management Information System (RMIS), there are approximately 166,000 visits annually.

Analyses of expenditures reported by Forest Service visitors show the primary factor determining the amount spent by visitors was the type of trip taken, rather than the specific activity they intended to participate in while visiting (White et al. 2013). Since expenditure information for the type of trip taken on BLM-administered land is not yet available, national visitor use monitoring data from the Lewis and Clark National Forest serves as a proxy. On their way to the LFO analysis area and once they arrive, these visitors spend money on goods and services they would spend elsewhere if these opportunities did not exist. In this manner, the opportunities on BLM-administered lands contribute to the local economy by attracting these visitors.

While providing recreation opportunities to local residents is an important contribution, the recreation expenditures of locals do not represent new money introduced into the economy. If opportunities on BLM-administered lands were not present, residents would likely participate in other local activities, and their money would still be spent in the local economy. After separating the contributions made by local residents, recreation contributes 72 jobs and $2.4 million in labor income (direct, indirect, and induced) to the RMP analysis area.

As noted in the specialization discussion above, the analysis area is specialized in the retail trade sector, and the second largest LFO employment contributions are made to the accommodation and food services sector. Thus, recreation opportunities and visitation play an important role in the analysis area’s recreation-related economy.

Mining Mining made up 0.1 percent of analysis area employment and 0.1 percent of labor income in 2016 (IMPLAN 2016). Minimal amounts of salable mineral materials are removed from lands in the RMP analysis area. Ten short tons of sand and gravel and 5 short tons of clay are the only minerals, except oil and gas, reported to the LFO.

The oil and gas activity has a greater contribution on the local economy. From the RFD scenario (BLM 2014b), the planning area (which includes only portions of Chouteau and Fergus Counties) total production averaged 10,111 MCF of gas and 20,437 barrels of oil in 2013. BLM production in the planning area is estimated to be 9 percent of oil production and 4 percent of gas production.

Extraction of oil and natural gas (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] sector 20), drilling oil and gas wells (NAICS sector 37), and support activities for oil and gas operations (NAICS sector 38) supported an estimated 370 total jobs in the local economy annually (IMPLAN 2016).

The BLM contributions are only a portion of the total employment. The BLM is estimated to contribute 49 jobs and $1.6 million in labor income to the analysis area annually. A portion of the revenues received

172

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

by BLM from the sale of materials and the lease of land is distributed back to counties in the RMP analysis area (see below, under Revenue Sharing).

Forest Products Sectors such as forestry, logging, and wood products manufacturing made up approximately 127 jobs in the eight-county analysis area in 2016, which is less than 1 percent of total analysis area employment. The BLM contributes only a portion of employment to these sectors from LFO material used in the eight- county analysis area. Between 2009 and 2014, the BLM contributed an average of 2,218 hundred cubic feet (ccf) of saw timber, 358 ccf of fuel wood, 150 tons of biomass, and 4.5 ccf of posts and poles annually.

The direct employment and labor income response coefficients (e.g., jobs and labor income per million cubic feet) were derived by the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research, and are contained in Aphelia. The indirect and induced multiplier effects were estimated using the IMPLAN model for the eight-county impact area.

LFO forest products contribute approximately 10 jobs and $612,000 in labor income annually to the LFO analysis area. Five of these jobs are direct contributions to the forestry and manufacturing sectors above. While the BLM is a small contributor of forest products and employment to the analysis area, these contributions may be more important for individual counties and communities. In addition, the BLM provides other forest products important for personal and subsistence uses.

Externally Funded Management A portion of the management activities occurring on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are conducted with funds appropriated to the LFO for salary and program expenditures. These funds often come from external sources, such as stewardship grants or donations from partners. Externally funded projects on the LFO include restoration work, such as thinning (pre-commercial and non-commercial, for example mastication), weed removal, other vegetation management activities, and road work, such as culvert replacement. These activities average about $437,000 annually (BLM 2015d). As a result of these externally funded projects, seven total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) and $234,000 in total labor income (direct, indirect, and induced) are supported in the eight-county analysis area economy annually (Table 62).

Revenue Sharing In 1976, Congress passed legislation to provide funding to counties through payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) in order to compensate for tax revenues not received from federal lands. These taxes would typically fund various services that are provided by counties (road maintenance, emergency services, and law enforcement).

PILT payments are determined using a formula that accounts for the county acreage of federal land, county population, and the previous year’s revenue sharing from resource uses on federal land (timber, range, and mining, for example).

Although rural communities in these counties rely on these funds to balance tight budgets, the PILT program has reverted to a discretionary program, which is highly susceptible to federal funding shortages. It was fully funded through fiscal year 2015, but there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether and to what degree the program will be funded in the future.

173

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

In fiscal year 2015, the estimated share of PILT payments attributable to BLM-administered land in the analysis area (total payment normalized by share of BLM PILT entitlement acreage) was $1.3 million (BLM 2015d). These payments contribute 21 jobs and $927,000 in labor income of all the contributions associated with PILT to states and counties in Table 62 (approximately 95 percent of all employment and labor income contributions associated with payments to counties).

In addition to PILT, counties receive a share of range revenues under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. Receipts from mineral material removal and revenues from leased land are also shared with counties under the 1920 Mineral Lands Leasing Act and the 1902 Reclamation Act.

Federal oil and gas production in Montana is subject to production taxes or royalties. For public domain minerals, federal oil and gas royalties equal 12.5 percent of the value of production (43 CFR 3103.3.1). Forty-nine percent of these royalties are also distributed to the state, and half of these revenues go to counties of origin. The estimated average annual federal royalty revenues are about $128,000, about $48,000 of which was distributed to counties. These payments (along with $1.3 million in PILT) support approximately 22 jobs and $961,000 in labor income annually (IMPLAN 2016).

BLM Expenditures and Employment BLM management in the RMP analysis area provides a direct contribution to the area economy by employing people who reside in the area and by spending dollars on project-related goods and services throughout the RMP analysis area. On average, from 2009 to 2013, the LFO had positions for 55 permanent and 60 other than permanent employees. On average, from 2009 to 2013, the BLM spent $5.9 million for labor and $2 million on non-salary expenditures. Annually, BLM expenditures and employment support 188 jobs and $9.3 million in labor income.

Environmental Justice EO 12898 requires federal agencies to address, “…disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations….” (59 FR 32, 1994).

The CEQ developed environmental justice guidance in 1997 that highlights federal agencies’ responsibilities. The guidance establishes the following criteria to determine low-income and minority populations:

Low-income populations are considered in areas that exceed the annual statistical poverty thresholds, as established by the Census Bureau. Minority populations must be considered in areas where the population of established minority groups (American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic) is (a) at least 50 percent of the affected area’s population, or (b) the minority population in the affected area is “meaningfully greater” than the minority population in the wider area (59 FR 32, 1994, Section1-101).

The poverty rate (families or persons below federal poverty thresholds) varies widely across counties in the analysis area (Table 61). Chouteau County had the highest level of people living below poverty, at 20.3percent, followed by Pondera County with 19 percent of people below poverty. Cascade, Chouteau, Fergus, Meagher, and Pondera Counties contained at least one poverty rate above the state level (U.S. Department of Commerce 2018b).

174

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

In general, the populations of the eight-county analysis area and state are more racially and ethnically homogeneous than the nation; however, there are several notable exceptions for individual counties (Table 63, Population by Race and Ethnicity 2013-2017). Cascade, Chouteau, and Pondera counties have higher concentrations of non-Hispanic racial minorities than the state, and Cascade and Meagher counties have higher percentages of Hispanic residents than the state.

Table 63 Population by Race and Ethnicity 2013-2017 Share Hispanic Share Other than Share of White Alone or Latino (of Location White Alone, Non- (percent) Any Race) Hispanic (percent) (percent) Cascade County 85.8 10.0 4.2 Chouteau County 76.5 21.2 2.3 Fergus County 94.4 3.4 2.2 Judith Basin 95.6 2.1 2.3 County Meagher County 93.5 2.5 4.1 Petroleum County 98.5 1.5 0 Pondera County 81.5 16.6 1.9 Teton County 94.2 4.3 1.5 County Region 86.7 9.6 3.6 Montana 86.6 9.8 3.6 United States 61.5 20.9 17.6 Source: US Department of Commerce 2018b Note: The data in this table are calculated by using annual surveys conducted during 2013- 2017 and are representative of average characteristics during this period.

Given the high rates of poverty and presence of minority populations that are “meaningfully greater” than populations in the wider area, the environmental consequences analysis addresses the potential for management actions to disproportionately and adversely affect minority and low-income individuals.

Environmental justice populations and individuals may be less able to adapt to changes in employment and income and changes in access to personal use forest products and recreation opportunities on BLM- administered lands.

Sense of Place Sense of place (SoP) describes the relationship between people and spatial settings. According to Jorgensen and Stedman (2001), “In general, SoP is the meaning attached to a spatial setting by a person or group.”

The social affected environment and environmental consequences analysis will utilize a SoP framework in order to consider the historic and cultural values associated with BLM-administered lands in the LFO. For the purpose of this analysis, SoP describes the core values associated with BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

175

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

SoP values were identified based on the results of public scoping and information from the LFO. The following six SoP core values were identified:

Access—The opportunity or ability for the public to connect to, visit, and use public lands. It is broadly characterized with two components: the ability to reach public land resources and the ability to use and enjoy the unique resources provided by the LFO. In addition to physical access to BLM-administered lands, this value encompasses the emotional connection that individuals have to these lands. Even individuals who do not frequently, or ever, visit these lands may value knowing that the lands exist and offer opportunities for unique natural experiences. This value also supports the option of present and future generations to enjoy undeveloped public lands. Customs and cultural interests—A connection to the land, based on historical uses and values of traditional importance. The primary customs and cultural interests associated with BLM-administered lands in the LFO were identified as grazing uses and public land access for recreation and other commercial and non-commercial uses. Economic development and sustainability—This refers to the opportunity for communities to diversify socially and financially, while maintaining or improving their quality of life. Economic development was identified as being either agrarian or tourism/recreation based. Healthy sustainable resources—This is a landscape that protects air quality and provides clean water and fish and wildlife habitat and is a source for agricultural commodity and recreation uses for present and future generations. Open space—This refers to areas that are available to people to practice or find emotional, spiritual, or beneficial uses. Tribal values and interests—This pertains to the exercising of traditional practices, such as gathering, hunting, and fishing, and experiencing cultural values, such as sacred sites and spiritual viewsheds/settings, over the unoccupied federal lands as granted by the US government to Native American tribes.

5.2 Tribal Interests The following is a list of American Indian tribes who have an interest in the planning area:

Crow Nation Fort Belknap Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Northern Cheyenne Rocky Boy Chippewa Cree Blackfeet Nation Salish-Kootenai Shoshone-Bannock Nez Perce

The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa, based in Montana, is not federally recognized but is within the boundaries of the LFO. 176

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Historically, these tribes used numerous places in the planning area for natural resources, foraging, hunting subsistence, habitation, and spiritual and religious ceremonies. Practices that continue today, particularly along the Rocky Mountain Front, include visiting these areas for plant and mineral gathering, as traditional camps and ceremonies, and as burial areas.

Treaties are negotiated contracts made in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and are considered the supreme law of the land. They take precedence over any conflicting state laws because of the supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article 6, Clause 2). Treaty rights are not gifts or grants from the United States but are bargained-for concessions. They are grants-of-rights from the tribes, rather than to the tribes. The reciprocal obligations assumed by the federal government and Indian tribes constitute the chief source of present-day federal Indian law.

All of the tribes listed above have at least one treaty with the United States, and several tribes have multiple treaties that describe continuing obligations and rights the tribes retain on the landscape. A complete list of treaties the United States made with the tribes is found at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/ kappler/vol2/toc.htm.

The United States and represented agencies, including the BLM, have a special trust relationship with Indian tribes because of these treaties. The BLM also has the responsibility to ensure that meaningful consultation and coordination concerning tribal treaty rights and trust resources are conducted on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized tribes.

Issues and concerns identified by tribes during scoping include:

Setting goals and objectives for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes Ensuring management actions are consistent with treaty rights retained by the tribes Maintaining or increasing open space and actions that promote high quality habitat for native fish, wildlife and plant communities

5.3 Public Safety Public health and safety topics are law enforcement, hazardous materials and sites, illegal dump sites, target shooting, abandoned mines, energy development, motor vehicle operations, and remoteness and natural hazards.

Public health and safety management is intended to protect public health and safety on BLM-administered lands, to comply with applicable federal and state laws, to prevent waste contamination, and to minimize physical hazards due to any BLM-authorized actions or illegal activities on public lands.

When health and safety hazards from past grazing, mining, or milling activities, illegal dumping, and natural hazards are identified, they are reported, secured, or cleaned up in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. These regulations include the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (or the Superfund Act). Parties responsible for contamination are liable for cleanup and resource damage costs, as prescribed by law.

177

Analysis of Management Situation: Area Profile

Current Conditions Visitor safety is a high priority for the BLM. The BLM is required to address abandoned mines, target shooting, unexploded ordnance, mass movement, hazardous waste, and other public hazards. Typical hazardous materials issues in the planning area are associated with past mining activities, illegal dumping, and accidental material releases from transport vehicles. The primary concern for public safety in the planning area is identification of AMLs.

Not all AML sites have conditions that are hazardous to humans or the environment. However, the physical hazards that may be encountered at AML sites are basic trip and fall hazards from debris, obscure mine shafts, dilapidated mine buildings and equipment, harmful chemicals or contaminated soils, unused explosives, and open mine adits with oxygen-depleted or toxic environments. The potential for injuries and deaths from these hazards increases with the growth of the western population and recreational use of public lands. Therefore, sites easily accessed by the public are given first priority for implementation of mitigation or closure measures (BLM 2014a, p. 275).

There are few instances of illicit dumping on BLM-administered lands. Much of it is the intentional dumping of small quantities of waste. Illicitly dumped materials may include hazardous substances, household wastes, petroleum products, solid waste, and agricultural materials. It may occur anywhere on BLM- administered lands, but is generally concentrated around recreation areas and alongside roadways. These dumping incidents normally do not fit the specific category of hazardous waste dumping, but the dumped materials are normally screened for hazardous components before they are removed and disposed of. Overall, instances of significant or hazardous dumping on BLM-administered lands are fairly limited, which is attributed to the relatively low population density around the public lands (BLM 2014a, p. 275).

The BLM has responded to a number of vehicular accidents that involve the accidental release of hazardous materials or petroleum products from transport vehicles. The hazardous materials management program can become involved with a particular response action or cleanup when the release affects BLM- administered lands (BLM 2014a, p. 275).

Trends The primary concern for the BLM’s public safety efforts will continue to be identification of hazardous AML sites in the planning area, as well as response to dumping and spills of hazardous materials. The North Moccasin and South Moccasin Mountains have the highest potential for AML sites in the planning area.

178

This page intentionally left blank.