North Hebgen Multi Restoration Project Aquatics Report

North Hebgen Multi Restoration Project

Aquatics Report (Including Fish, Amphibians and Mussels)

Prepared by: Bruce Roberts West Zone Fisheries Biologist

for: Hebgen Lake Ranger District Custer Gallatin National Forest

November 30, 2015 updated 3/2016

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Issues ...... 1 Resource Indicators and Measures ...... 3 Regulatory Framework ...... 3 Gallatin Forest Plan ...... 3 Forest Service Policy ...... 6 The Biological Evaluation within will address westslope cutthroat trout, western toad, plains spadefoot, and western pearlshell mussel...... 7 Federal Law ...... 7 Executive Orders ...... 7 Other Policies ...... 7 Methodology ...... 8 Affected Environment ...... 9 Existing Condition ...... 9 Environmental Consequences ...... 23 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 23 Project Design Features, Mitigation, Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives ...... 25 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 26 Alternative 3 ...... 30 Alternative 4 ...... 31 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans and Other Disclosures ...... 45 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 46 Biological Evaluation ...... 47 Literature Cited ...... 48 Witzel, L.D., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1981. Role of Gravel Substrate on Ova Survival and Alevin Emergence of Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59:629- ...... 51

Tables

Table 1. Aquatic resource indicators and measures for assessing effects ...... 3 Table 2. Substrate sediment and sediment delivery by Forest stream category...... 5 Table 3. Site macroinvertebrate information and data from along Little Tepee Creek and unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (Reference Site) including Taxa Richness, MDEQ’s MMI Index, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT) taxa richness, percentage EPT, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and Percent Fine Sediment Biotic Index (% FSBI). See Table 4 for relative level of impairment for each of the indices...... 18 Table 4. Summary of metric results between the unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (TC) and Little Tepee Creek (LTC). Red line is the level of impairment based on MDEQ’s MMI Index only...... 19 Table 5. Comparison of habitat attributes collected from along Little Tepee Creek within the proposed project area and an unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek within the Madison Inventoried Roadless Area (Reference) outside the proposed project area...... 19 Table 6. Summary of analysis areas dropped from further discussion...... 23 Table 7. Baseline conditions for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creek analysis areas...... 24

i Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Table 8. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and projected changes from Alternative 2 for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creek analysis areas...... 27 Table 9. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and projected changes from Alternative 3 for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creel analysis areas...... 30 Table 10. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and projected changes from Alternative 4 for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creel analysis areas...... 31 Table 11. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and a summary projected changes from all action alternatives for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creel analysis areas. * = doesn’t meet Travel Management Plan standard M-4...... 46

Figures

Figure 1. North Hebgen Multiple Resource project area and seven analysis areas for fisheries, amphibians and western pearlshell mussel...... 11 Figure 2. Sediment deposition along the unnamed ephemeral drainage from previous treatments located above an unharvested and undisturbed timber stand. Black dashed lines depict areas of deposits...... 12 Figure 3. 2007 photos of the 1959 earthquake fault along Red Canyon Creek with the very distinct red soils that Red Canyon Creek is named after...... 13 Figure 4. Map of Little Tepee Creek and Tepee Creek comparison reaches...... 16 Figure 5. Representative pictures of upper Little Tepee Creek ...... 17 Figure 6. Representative pictures of unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (unroaded reference reach)...... 17

ii Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Introduction This report addresses the potential effects of the proposed North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project on aquatic resources (fish, amphibian and mussels) within the project area. Affected environment descriptions and environmental analyses are based on general reviews of the project area, site-specific field reviews, fish and amphibian habitat surveys, fish and amphibian population surveys, and sediment delivery modeling. This analysis addresses standard aquatic resource issues identified for vegetation manipulation projects and those identified by public scoping that have the potential to affect populations and habitats these populations are dependent upon.

Issues Vegetation manipulation and associated treatment activities, including construction of temporary roads, hauling, skidding, landings, and prescribed fire, could:

Fisheries (including MIS and sensitive species)  disturb soils and overland flow regimes, which in turn increases the potential for erosion and sediment transport to streams and other water bodies. Increased fine sediment in streams and other water bodies can reduce habitat quality and cause adverse effects to fish and other aquatic biota. For example, elevated levels of fine sediment (material < 6.35 mm in diameter) have been shown to affect salmonid habitat used for spawning, rearing and overwintering (Chapman and McLeod 1987).

• Increasing proportions of fine sediment in substrates have been associated with reduced intra-gravel survival of embryos for brook trout (Hausle and Cobble 1976; Alexander and Hansen 1986), and rainbow trout (Witzel and MacCrimmon 1981; Irving and Bjornn 1984). The effects of fine sediment on survival of incubating cutthroat trout has been studied less than for other salmonid species. In laboratory studies, Irving and Bjornn (1984) found that elevated fine sediment (less than 6.35 mm) levels significantly reduced survival of cutthroat trout. • Pools are areas of higher velocity during peak flows, but at low flows their depth creates a depositional environment for fine sediment. Increased sediment from timber harvest and road construction could influence the amount and quality of juvenile and adult pool habitat if sediment increases are sufficient to alter channel morphology by filling in pools. For lower gradient sensitive stream channel types with high sensitivity to increased sediment, excessive sediment loading can reduce maximum pool depth and residual pool volume.

 affect fish habitat and biological productivity by reducing the number of larger trees that fall in to mountain streams. Large woody debris is the primary pool-forming feature in forested, moderate gradient stream channel types. Removal of riparian trees can reduce the potential to recruit trees into the stream channels and alter stream temperatures.

 increase water yield and the magnitude or duration of peak flow by altering a variety of hydrologic processes. This hydrologic imbalance may adversely affect aquatic habitat through increased scour potential, channel incision, bank erosion and increased sediment transport capacity.

1 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Because of treatment unit layout and design (See Recommended Aquatic Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures), it is expected that the proposed project would not have any negative effects to local fish populations from changes to water temperature, stream bank stability, riparian cover and large woody debris recruitment. As a result, the entire effects analysis for fisheries will be based on sediment delivery. All stream channels (both perennial and intermittent) would be buffered by at least 50 with the exception of those stream channels within the Little Tepee Creek analysis area which would buffer by at least 150 feet. As a result, these listed effects will not be discussed any further. A discussion on water yield augmentation is included in the water report. Aquatic Sensitive Species (western toad, plains spadefoot and western pearlshell mussel)

 change vegetative structure to the point that both thermal and moisture conditions are altered. Western toads use terrestrial habitat in ways that allow them to conserve body water (Bartelt et al. 2004). It has been shown that western toads tend to avoid clear cuts (Bartelt et al. 2004).  increase the risk of direct mortality to individuals from burning and heavy equipment. Western toads have been shown to use slash pile for their hibernacula (Bartelt et al. 2004) and road prisms of for basking and feeding (Bryce Maxwell, personal communications). A low level of vehicle related mortality is inevitable when western toad distribution overlaps with open roads.  increase the risk of indirect mortality from soil compaction. Plains spadefoots borrow down within the loose obsidian sands spending the majority of their life underground. Soil compaction could potentially cap their egress routes up to their terrestrial environment leaving them trapped. As their name implies, plains spadefoots normally live in the plains away from timber. This issue of entrapment is undocumented within available science only speculated. Because such a small portion of treatment units 20 and 32 fall within what is considered occupied habitat, coupled with soil compaction BMP’s, this issue of entrapment will not be brought forward and analyzed. This will be addressed within the Biological Evaluation.  change watershed conditions that could potentially increase the frequency of landslides and rate of erosion burying western pearlshell mussel beds or negatively affecting individual’s ability to filter food or a combination of events that could destabilize stream channels enough to cause bedload movement crushing these immobile organisms. Know western pearlshell mussel bed exist within the project area along Duck Creek and Madison River. It is being assumed there are also beds along lower Cougar Creek. Because of flat terrain and porous soils associated with the obsidian sands, increased erosion and frequency of landslides is not an issue. This issue will not be brought forward and analyzed. This will be addressed within the Biological Evaluation.

2 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Resource Indicators and Measures Table 1. Aquatic resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Used to Source Resource Resource Measure address: P/N, (LRMP S/G; law or Element Indicator (Quantify if possible) or key issue? policy, BMPs, etc.)? % instream fine sediment and qualitative discussion Sediment related to on-the-ground Travel Management Fisheries Address Issue Delivery knowledge, mitigation Plan (2006) measures and design features. Will the project alternative have an impact on the overall Address each Cumulative Hebgen Basin population? sub-issue Western Project Sensitive Species Qualitative discussion related individually Toads Related Policy to: 1) over story removal; 2) and Mortality vehicle traffic; and, 3) slash cumulatively burning.

Regulatory Framework

Gallatin Forest Plan The Gallatin National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides standards and guidelines for vegetation manipulation type project for fisheries.

Fish and Wildlife: A-12. (II-19) Habitat for Regionally designated sensitive species on the Gallatin NF will be maintained in a suitable condition to support these species.

A-14 (Forest Plan, page II-20): The Forest will be managed to maintain and, where feasible, improve fish habitat capacity to achieve cooperative goals with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and to comply with State water quality standards.

Direction contained in the Forest Plan, while being very positive to fishery resource management and protection, was very none descript as to how the “maintain and enhance” requirement would be applied to the fishery resources (e.g. stream and lake fisheries) found on the forest (May 1993). Within this white paper, four classes (or categories) were identified and they were based on resource values and Forest Service management requirements (i.e. sensitive species and viable populations) associated with the fisheries found on the forest. The intent was to provide specific interpretation of the Forest Plan direction in the form of fish populations and habitat management objectives. Class A fisheries are the highest value from a fishery standpoint. Habitats associated with this classification support populations of sensitive fish species. Class B fisheries are those fisheries that are regionally (southwest Montana) or locally significant. Class C fisheries ae those fisheries having limited significance and they provide a diversity of lower

3 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

quality dispersed opportunity. Class D fisheries include those aquatic environments that do not support a catchable fish population and would not be considered as having the potential to do so.

Management Indicator Species A species group including all redd (or intra-streambed nests) spawning wild trout was selected and referenced in the Gallatin National Forest Plan (GNF 1987 as amended 2015) as Management Indicator Species (MIS) on page II-20. This species group was selected as Management Indicator Species because it has shown that spawning habitat can be affected by forest management activities thereby serving as indicators of habitat quality. Overall, wild redd spawning trout are widespread and common or abundant on the Gallatin National Forest within the Yellowstone and upper Missouri River drainages (GNF 2010). These factors combine to indicate that, in general, aquatic habitats are being maintained sufficient to support coldwater fisheries as required by the Clean Water Act. Impacts on this species group are discussed under each alternative. These species will be monitored to determine populatin change at the programmatic scale.

Settlement Agreement In a settlement agreement (Gallatin National Forest 1990) with the Gallatin National Forest, the Madison/Gallatin Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. settled their appeal of the Gallatin National Forest Plan. The Gallatin National Forest agreed to the following language: vegetative manipulation within riparian areas will occur only for the purpose of meeting riparian dependent resource objective such as watershed, wildlife, or fisheries. For the purpose of this agreement, a riparian area was defined as the land and vegetation for approximately 100 feet from the edges of perennial streams, and intermittent stream of sufficient size, to include a distinct riparian vegetation community and rock substrate stream channel. This settlement agreement formalized the four class stream classification and guidelines outlined in May (1993).

MGTU and GNF have had an open and continuing dialog about this agreement and how to design new projects. This coordination and dialog meets the intent of the agreement that is binding only with the MGTU organization. Recommended aquatic mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2 are partially a result of this dialog.

Travel Management Plan The four class stream classification and sediment guidelines formalized in the settlement agreement were modified slightly made to be binding standards as part of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan signed December 18, 2006 (GNF 2006). In the past, the sediment guidelines consisted of four classes of streams (A, B, C, and D). See above for definitions of A, B, C and D. This new Travel Management Plan standard provided a single standard for all Class B streams and below. Class B, C and D were lumped together into Class B Fishless headwater streams (i.e., Class C and D streams) under the old settlement agreement could be managed at a level below what Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) considers as maintaining beneficial uses.

Standard E-4 (Travel Management Plan; Chapter 3; pages 207-208): Water, Fisheries, and Aquatic Life. In watersheds with streams currently at or above fish habitat management objectives, proposals for road and trail construction, reconstruction and maintenance will be

4 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project designed to not exceed annual sediment delivery levels in excess of those in Table 2. Sixth-code Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) are the analysis unit for sediment delivery (and other habitat parameters), except where a sixth code HUC artificially bisects a watershed and is therefore inadequate for analysis of impacts to aquatic habitat and aquatic organism meta-populations. In such cases, appropriate larger units will be analyzed (e.g. 5th code HUCs). Within the analysis unit, sediment delivery values in Table 2 will serve as guidelines; however, sediment delivery values denoted in individual 7th code HUCs may temporarily exceed sediment delivery rates denoted in Table 2, in the following circumstances:

1. The HUC does not contain a fragmented sensitive or MIS fish population; 2. The majority of HUC’s in the analysis unit remain within sediment delivery values listed in Table 2; 3. Other core stream habitat (e.g. pool frequency, pool quality) or biotic (e.g. macroinvertebrates, fish populations) parameters within the HUC do not indicate impairment as defined by Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); and 4. Sediment delivery levels will return to values listed in Table 2 within five years of project completion.

Table 2. Substrate sediment and sediment delivery by Forest stream category.

% Fine Annual Management Substrate % > Reference** Class Objective Sediment Sediment (% of reference*) (<6.3mm) Delivery A Sensitive Species and/or 90% 0 – 26 % 30% Blue Ribbon fisheries B All other streams (formerly 75% 0 – 30 % 50% Classes B, C, D) *% of reference = % similarity to mean reference condition; reference conditions range. **Reference = observed relationship between substrate % fines and modeled sediment delivery in reference (fully functioning) GNF watersheds. Class A streams are those streams supporting a sensitive fish species or blue ribbon fisheries (Class A), maintain or progress toward providing habitat that is 90% or greater of its inherent habitat capability or reference condition. Blue ribbon fisheries are considered the Gallatin, Madison, or Yellowstone Rivers, or Hebgen Lake. Class B streams (Class B, C and D), maintain or progress toward providing habitat that is 75% or greater of its inherent habitat capability or reference condition.

Management Area

Management Area 7 (Forest Plan (1987); Riparian Areas – pages III-19 to 23): • Wildlife and Fish 2: Provide for optimum water temperatures for cold-water fish species.

5 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

• Wildlife and Fish 3: Maintain minimum instream flows. • Wildlife and Fish 4: Maintain suitable habitats for those species of birds, mammals, and fish that are totally or partially dependent upon riparian areas for their existence. • Timber 3: Design timber harvest to meet needs of riparian zone-dependent species. • Timber 4: Maintain sufficient trees within 30 feet of the stream to provide snag recruitment to create pools and enhance spawning gravels for fish habitat. • Timber 5: Emphasize special logging practices which minimize soil disturbance. • Timber 6: Perform directional felling of timber where needed to protect the stream or associated riparian vegetation. • Timber 7: Yarding across perennial streams will require special mitigation measures. Trees or products shall not be hauled or yarded across stream courses unless fully suspended or when designated crossings are used. • Timber 8: Machine piling will not be allowed. • Timber 9: Commercial thinning may be used to meet management area goals. • Timber 10: A natural mix of species is desirable. • Timber 13: Shade tolerant tree species which occur as an understory in sapling stands will be left during pre-commercial thinning to promote multi-storied stands.

Forest Service Policy The objective of the Sensitive Species Policy is to maintain viable populations of all native and desired non-native vertebrate species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands. The sensitive species program is intended to be pro-active by identifying potentially vulnerable species and taking positive action to prevent declines that will result in listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, and significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM 2670.5).

As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making process, proposed Forest Service programs or activities are to be reviewed to determine how an action will affect any sensitive species (FSM 2670.32). The goal should be to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive species. If impacts cannot be avoided, the degree of potential adverse effects on the species (and habitat) within the project area and for the species throughout its range must be disclosed. A given project can be approved even if it may adversely affect a sensitive species, but it must not result in the loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, westslope cutthroat trout, western toad, northern leopard frog, and

6 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

pearlshell mussel are all classified as a sensitive species within the Northern Region of the U.S. Forest Service. The project area falls outside the native range of Yellowstone cutthroat trout and northern leopard frogs.

Plains spadefoots were recently discovered on the Gallatin National Forest within the project area. Plains spadefoot are classified as sensitive species by the Northern Region of the U.S Forest Service. Within the most recent Regional sensitive species list, plains spadefoots were shown as occurring on the Custer National Forest, but inadvertently not listed as occurring on the Gallatin National Forest. We will treat plains spadefoot as if it is a sensitive species.

The Biological Evaluation within will address westslope cutthroat trout, western toad, plains spadefoot, and western pearlshell mussel.

Federal Law The Clean Water Act provides the overall direction for the protection of waters of the United States, from both point and non-point source of water pollution. The Montana Water Quality Act establishes general guidelines for water quality protection in Montana. It requires the protection of Montana’s water, as well as the full protection of existing and future beneficial uses. All of the streams within the analysis area are classified as B1 streams under the Montana Water Classification system. The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM 17.30.623) require that waters classified as B1 are suitable among other things for the “growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life.”

Executive Orders Presidential Executive Order 12962, signed June 7, 1995, furthered the purpose of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, seeking to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. This order directs Federal agencies to “improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunity by evaluating the effects of Federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order.”

Other Policies The Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement (MOUCA) for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana includes as objectives: 1) protecting all pure and slightly introgressed (90% or greater purity) westslope cutthroat trout populations; and, 2) ensuring the long-term persistence of westslope cutthroat within their native range. In a letter from Bradley Powell (Regional Forester) to Upper Missouri River Basin Forest Supervisors (January 16, 2002), he articulates how forests are to implement the MOUCA. In Section II: Implementation Strategy (Part A) states “When the above conditions (1-3) are met, FS Biological Evaluations (BE) FSM 2670 and BLM Sensitive Species Assessments (6840) Manual prepared for new activities in a WCT watershed should, in most cases, conclude that there will be a beneficial effect or no effect to the WCT population or its habitat” (Powell 2002). These three conditions include: 1) Provide watersheds supporting conservation populations of WCT with the level of protection necessary to ensure their long-term persistence; 2) Defer any new federal land

7 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project management action if it cannot be modified to prevent un-acceptable aquatic/riparian habitat degradation; and, 3) Where appropriate data are available, “high quality” habitat will be defined as habitat which is at 90% or greater of its inherent capability or potential. Later, the Implementation Strategy states “Actions that result in short-term impacts but are designed to obtain beneficial long-term effects to WCT should be judged against the criteria and optimum condition values characteristic of high quality habitat (Attachment One).” Methodology

Fisheries - Sediment Delivery – Resource Indicator 1 Potential effects of the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project on fish and fish habitats were analyzed by a quantitative assessment. This assessment includes evaluating the combined effects of all treatments and associated activities including hauling by alternative on sediment delivery rates on salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. Incremental changes in fine sediment deposition in spawning gravels will be used as an indicator to compare alternatives.

Natural, existing and post-project sediment delivery (or yield) rates were calculated by the Gallatin National Forest Hydrologist (White 2015) for all alternatives using a modification of the R1/R4 sediment model (Cline et al. 1981). The actual effects of additional delivery of fine sediment on salmonid spawning and rearing habitat will be dependent on precipitation, stream flow, how quickly exposed soil is stabilized, and how the sediment is delivered to, and routed within the stream during project activities. The effects of this additional sediment delivery on salmonid spawning and rearing habitat was estimated for all alternatives using a modification of the Fish/Sed model (Stowell et al. 1983) which estimates the change in substrate composition resulting from changes in sediment delivery rates. This modification more accurately reflects sediment routing relationships of geologies found on the Gallatin National Forest.

This model assumes a linear relationship between estimated percent sediment yield over natural (from the R1/R4 sediment model) and fine sediment accumulation in spawning gravels, the latter value calibrated from actual data from Gallatin National Forest streams. The predictive regression equation is {y= s + 0.24(x)}, where x is the predicted incremental increase in percent of sediment yield over natural on an annual basis, y is the predicted percent of fine sediment less than 6.35mm deposited in the spawning gravels, s is the existing percent of fine sediment in the substrate and 0.24 is the slope of the relationship. The coefficient of 0.24 best reflects this relationship from an annual perspective. This equation was developed by regressing measured instream sediment concentrations with predicted increases in sediment yield from the R1/R4 sediment model. Application of this model provides an estimate of incremental change in fine sediment deposition in spawning gravels associated with predicted sediment yield changes. The estimated sediment concentrations are then compared to sediment/survival curves developed for cutthroat trout embryos (Irving and Bjornn 1984).

Both the R1/R4 sediment delivery and sediment/routing models are very simplified approximations of complex natural processes that affect sediment production and fish embryo survival, due to the models inability to predict all aspects of natural variation associated with sediment delivery and routing. Because of this, resulting values are not considered definitive or absolute; rather they are used only to evaluate the relative magnitude and direction of

8 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

incremental change in spawning habitat and as a means to make relative comparisons between alternatives and indicate consistency with standards. Western Toads (Multiple Sub-indicators) – Resource Indicator 2 The last three sub-indicators regarding western toads will be analyzed with a discussion related to reproductive strategies. In ecologic terms, western toads are considered r-strategists which have a high birth rate and provide little investment to anyone progeny. The “strategic intent” is to flood the habitat with progeny so that, regardless of predation or mortality, at least some of their young survive to reproduce. This qualitative analysis will also include a discussion of why the Hebgen Basin western toad population remains locally strong. The species is widely distributed throughout the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains, but southern populations are declining (Werner et al 2004). Western toad breeding sites are suspected within all seven analysis areas described later, but are more prevalent within The Flats analysis area because of high quality breeding and wetland habitat surrounding Hebgen Lake. Over-story removal Potential changes to overstory vegetation condition will be qualitatively described and analyzed within suspected migratory areas leading to and from known western toad breeding sites along Hebgen Lake. Vehicle Traffic Potential changes to traffic related mortality will be qualitatively described and analyzed reflecting relative increases in vehicle and heavy equipment traffic. No formal vehicle use survey has been conducted within the project area. The primary mechanism to reduce or eliminate such project related mortality is to incorporate implementation design criteria to reduce traffic along of opened temporary roads during dusk and dawn periods. Slash Treatment Potential increases in mortality from burning project created slash and slash piles will be qualitatively described and analyzed. The primary mechanisms to reduce or eliminate such project related mortality is to implementation specific design features to such as moving slash away from high density breeding sites and travel corridors or protect landing piles to prevent hibernating. It has been shown that western toads use larger slash piles for their winter hibernacula. Dirt and needles associated of the larger landing piles are thought to increase the insulation value as compared to smaller hand or mechanical piled slash. Affected Environment

Existing Condition The following existing condition descriptions are broken into seven smaller areas the same as the analysis areas described later (Figure 1): Red Canyon, Johnson Canyon, Lower Grayling, Tepee Creek, Little Tepee, Closed Basin, and The Flats.

9 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

10 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Figure 1. North Hebgen Multiple Resource project area and seven analysis areas for fisheries, amphibians and western pearlshell mussel.

11 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Typically within mountainous landscapes, drainage networks are dendritic in nature, meaning that smaller tributaries flow together to form larger tributaries which flow together of tributaries of similar size. Dendritic drainage networks are often well connected with surface flow. Because of volcanic activities within the larger Yellowstone area, drainage networks within the five of the seven analysis areas do not exhibit this typical dendritic pattern. Adding in the naturally porous soils (or high infiltration), many of the smaller drainages or swales do not have defined stream channels or surface flow connection to larger tributaries. Several of the smaller drainages have surface flow but they are often truncated at terminal ponds with only ground water connection to the larger tributaries. The majority of the larger project area, with the exception of the Red Canyon and Johnson Canyon analysis areas, is characterized by poorly connected drainage networks making the remaining analysis area difficult to model using traditional sediment delivery models. On-the- ground knowledge of the project area is the best tool for predicting environmental consequences particularly related to the negative effects of sediment delivery. For an example, there is a 400-500 acre ephemeral drainage in an area locally known as the Led Zepplin Road which was treated during the most recent timber harvest entries in the 1970s and 80s. Downstream of the treated area lays a dry swale with a stand of unharvested timber and undisturbed soils extending approximately 1/8 mile. Sediment was definitely moved within the headwaters of this ephemeral drainage following these past activities (Figure 2), but within 50-70 feet of entering the unharvested timber stand, all activity generated sediment deposited with no sign of a downstream stream channel that could possibility transport sediment. It is believed that no sediment from these past activities, at least within this small drainage, ever reached Little Tepee Creek. There are many of these ephemeral draws that if left unharvested and undisturbed will buffer and protect the existing downstream aquatic resources.

Looking Up Drainage Looking Down Drainage

Figure 2. Sediment deposition along the unnamed ephemeral drainage from previous treatments located above an unharvested and undisturbed timber stand. Black dashed lines depict areas of deposits.

12 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

The environmental consequence section of this aquatics report will use WATSED Model outputs similarly to other projects with dendritic drainage network patterns to predict potential sediment related impacts to aquatic resources only for the purpose of comparing the relative range of action alternatives. Local on-the-ground knowledge and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures and design features will be used to moderate the modelling results. Red Canyon Old fisheries file reports (McClure 1997) make reference to stream channel instability issues along lower Red Canyon Creek most likely related to undersized culverts, road location and private land grazing. Upstream, within the 1959 earthquake fault, both hill slopes immediately adjacent to the stream channel continue to actively erode (Figure 3). Historic photos showing Red Canyon Creek transporting a high load of suspended sediments during spring run off most likely originate from within this fault reach. The culverts and road issues have been subsequently improved.

Figure 3. 2007 photos of the 1959 earthquake fault along Red Canyon Creek with the very distinct red soils that Red Canyon Creek is named after.

Fisheries Lower Red Canyon Creek is lightly used by lacustrine Hebgen Lake rainbow trout for both spawning and rearing. During trout redd surveys in 2002 and 2003, 0 redds and 4 redds, respectively, were observed within a 0.5 km index reach along Red Canyon Creek as compared 4,349 redds and 1,293 redds, respectively, identified Hebgen Basin-wide (Watschke, 2006). Even though lightly used, Red Canyon Creek is still considered as a Class A stream as a result of being a spawning tributary to a Blue Ribbon fishery, Hebgen Lake. Below the fault, there is resident population of rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybridizes. Old fisheries file reports (McClure 1997) make reference to the stocking of Yellowstone cutthroat trout to bolster the trout population in Hebgen Lake. As a result of past stocking efforts, these hybrids are most likely Yellowstone cutthroat crosses not westslope cutthroat crosses. The cutthroat trout genetics within the Red Canyon Creek drainage remain untested. Population surveys upstream indicate that the fault acts as a barrier for upstream migrating trout. Fish

13 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

numbers immediately downstream of the fault are relatively low compared to adjacent streams while the average body condition factor is extremely high. The survey crew made reference to size and abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates primarily caddis flies below the fault. Fishery biologists in 1991 collected 10 sediment core samples near the Forest boundary determining that the mean percent substrate particle less than 6.3 mm was 28.5 percent (n = 10; st. dev. = 5.6%, range 19.9-37.6 percent) (Fish Files Report, 1991). No sediment core samples have been collected since this early effort. The Travel Management Plan Standard (E-4) for Class A streams is 0-26 percent (Table 2). Red Canyon slightly exceeds the Forest Management Plan standard E-4 for instream fine sediment but is well within the 30% standard for percent over reference sediment delivery Amphibian and Mussels No amphibian surveys have been completed within this analysis area. Because of the close proximity to Hebgen Lake, adult western toads migrating to and from lake breeding sites most likely inhabit the analysis area for part of the year. Johnson Canyon Johnson Creek is a second order stream. Lower Johnson Creek is dry for most of the year near the Forest boundary. Middle reaches of Johnson Creek are perennial with suitable fish habitat. Fisheries Recent surveys have not documented any fish species within the Johnson Canyon drainage. Random reports make reference to rainbow trout being present in Johnson Lake but Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has not been able to document their presence and/or locate past fish stocking records (Weiss 2015). Amphibian and Mussels No amphibian surveys have been completed within this analysis area. Western toads, Columbia spotted frogs, and tiger salamanders are suspected because of the presence of numerous pothole ponds and nearby Hebgen Lake. Because of the close proximity to Hebgen Lake, adult western toads migrating to and from lakeside breeding sites most likely inhabit the analysis area for part of the year. Little Tepee Little Tepee Creek at the confluence with Tepee Creek is a second order stream. Little Tepee Creek at FS Road # 986 is completely spring fed during periods of summer low flow. During spring runoff, the springs are augmented by snow-melt runoff from throughout the upper drainage. The overlying geology consists of very porous and erosive volcanic tuff materials (Keck 2015). Because of these spring sources, water temperatures are colder than adjacent streams. Stream channel gradient and habitat varies greatly from high gradient riffle to cascades to lower gradient meandering. Substrate varies correspondingly from bedrock and boulders to small gravel and sand.

14 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Fisheries There are two higher gradient cascade reaches both of which are inhibiting upstream trout movement. Hybridized westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) inhabit lower Little Tepee Creek immediately downstream of the lower of these two barriers. The genetic purity makeup of these hybridized westslope cutthroat trout are: 92.3% WCT x 5.8% rainbow trout x 1.9% Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Leary 2010). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, with the support of the Hebgen Lake Ranger District, wrote an Environmental Analysis to introduce genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout in to upper Little Tepee Creek above the previously mentioned natural fish barriers (MFWP 2010). Introduced eggs and live fish were subsequently transferred from the last two remaining genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout populations within Hebgen Basin: Last Chance Creek (locally known as) within Yellowstone National Park and Wally McClure Creek within Hebgen Basin. These introductions were initially thought to be less than successful possibly as a result of the cold water temperatures. Continued monitoring in 2014 showed that adult fish were present as a result of the initial 2010 egg introductions and two younger year classes were present as a result of natural spawning of adult fish that were transferred in 2011 and 2012 from Wally McClure Creek. This newly introduced population appears to be low in numbers but slowly increasing in size. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks plans to continue monitoring the success of this introduction. At the time of this introduction, habitat quality along upper Little Tepee Creek in current condition was thought to be adequate by project fish biologists to support a small but sustainable population of genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout. To document existing sediment levels (substrate particle < 6.3 mm) within identified spawning habitat from along the upper Little Tepee Creek, five four inch sediment core samples were collected in 2014 from within identified areas of potential spawning habitat. It was later determined after sampled materials were dried and run through a series sieves that 35.4 percent (n = 5; St. Dev. = 4.1 percent; Range = 30.6-41.8 percent) of spawning substrate consisted of material particles less 6.3 mm, whereas the Gallatin National Forest Plan standard for cutthroat trout streams is 0-26 percent (Table 2). At the time, it was not known if these high sediment levels were a result of the naturally erosive volcanic tuff that exists throughout the project area (Keck 2015) or as a result of past land management activities or a combination of both. A study was designed to measure existing sediment conditions in a similar sized reference stream within the adjacent Tepee Creek analysis area. Samples were to be collected from within the Madison Inventoried Roadless Area above any past land management activities to make a comparison. The study design included increasing the existing sample size from five to 10 from along Little Tepee Creek (Figure 4 and Figure 5) and collecting 10 additional samples from a similar sized reference stream within the upper Tepee Creek drainage (Figure 6).

15 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Figure 4. Map of Little Tepee Creek and Tepee Creek comparison reaches.

16 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Figure 5. Representative pictures of upper Little Tepee Creek

Figure 6. Representative pictures of unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (unroaded reference reach). Sediment Core – Five additional sediment core samples were collected from along the same Little Tepee Creek reach as were the 2014 samples and summarized together. The overall mean percent sediment less than 6.3 mm decreased slightly between 2014 (n = 5) and the combined 2014/2015 samples (n = 10) from 35.4 percent to 34.1 percent (St. Dev. = 12.0 percent; Range = 18.9-62.8 percent). In comparison, the overall mean percent sediment less than 6.3 mm collected from along the reference stream was 40.7 percent (n = 10; St. Dev. = 6.6 percent; Range = 27.5- 48.3 percent). This comparison study design was expanded to include other habitat quality attributes to help substantiate or collaborate sediment core results. It was agreed that a suite of associated habitat

17 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

quality attributes and macroinvertebrate samples would be collected from along both reaches. The results of these additional data collections are as follows: i. Macroinvertebrates – Five macroinvertebrate samples were collected in 2015 using 500 micron Surber sampler (12” x 12” = 144 in2 x 2) from both Little Tepee Creek and unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek. Samples were processed at the Montana Natural Heritage Program lab in Helena, MT following Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) protocols (Stagliano 2015). Data were analyzed and reported using Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT) taxa richness, percentage EPT, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and Fine Sediment Biotic Index (% FSBI). These matrices are used to detect nutrient enrichment, but have also been used as a surrogate for sediment. Metric results were then scored using MDEQ’s bioassessment criteria (MMI) and each sampled categorized as non-impaired or impaired according to the following threshold values (> 63 Unimpaired, < 63 Impaired). Both numbers and total number of taxa were greater within samples collected from along Tepee Creek as compared to Little Tepee Creek (Table 3). Although the results from four of the five metrics indicated that Little Tepee Creek was less impaired from sediment as compared to Tepee Creek (Table 4). Little Tepee Creek samples indicate that this stream reach has significantly higher biological integrity than the unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek based on the macroinvertebrate community MMI, HBI, % FSBI and other metric scores (Stagliano 2015). Macroinvertebrate data corresponds with the sediment core data displayed earlier. These data do not fully collaborate the initial hypothesis that high sediment levels along Little Tepee Creek were a result of past upstream logging and associated activities. Table 3. Site macroinvertebrate information and data from along Little Tepee Creek and unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (Reference Site) including Taxa Richness, MDEQ’s MMI Index, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT) taxa richness, percentage EPT, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and Percent Fine Sediment Biotic Index (% FSBI). See Table 4 for relative level of impairment for each of the indices.

Waterbody / Collection Total Total EPT % % MMI HBI Sample # Date Individuals Taxa Taxa EPT FSBI Little Tepee 1 7/21/2015 458 22 709 14 82.5 1.88 63.3 Little Tepee 2 7/21/2015 260 23 78.4 17 86.9 1.55 70.0 Little Tepee 3 7/21/2015 256 21 75.1 17 98.3 1.66 71.7 Little Tepee 4 7/21/2015 256 19 75.1 15 90.8 1.61 65.7 Little Tepee 5 7/21/2015 294 17 68.2 11 83.7 1.55 66.7 Average 304.8 20 73.5 15 88.5 1.64 67.5 Tepee Creek 1 7/22/2015 332 32 73.8 20 56.6 2.10 33.1 Tepee Creek 2 7/22/2015 318 31 63.3 20 53.5 3.22 32.7 Tepee Creek 3 7/22/2015 356 30 72.8 18 56.7 2.25 41.6 Tepee Creek 4 7/22/2015 332 26 67.7 14 38.6 2.72 26.5 Tepee Creek 5 7/22/2015 734 23 54.8 12 21.4 2.88 10.4 Average 414.4 28 66.5 17 45.4 2.63 28.9

18 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Table 4. Summary of metric results between the unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (TC) and Little Tepee Creek (LTC). Red line is the level of impairment based on MDEQ’s MMI Index only.

Less Impaired MMI Score EPT Taxa # % EPT HBI % FSBI 100 50 100 0 100 90 45 90 1 LTC 1.64* 90 80 40 80 LTC 88.5* 2 80 LTC 73.5* TC 2.63 70 35 70 3 70 LTC 67.5* 60 TC 66.5 30 60 4 60 50 25 50 5 50 40 20 TC 17 40 TC 45.4 6 40 30 15 LTC 15 30 7 30 20 10 20 8 20 TC 28.9 10 5 10 9 10 0 0 0 10 0 More Impaired * = Significant at p < 0.05. ii. Habitat Quality – Habitat data were also measured along these two corresponding reaches of Little Tepee Creek and unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (unroaded reference reach). If sediment effects related to past timber harvest and associated activities were to show up downstream, these effects would most likely show up within measurements related to pool frequency and depth. All three pool habitat attributes (# pools per 100 m, Pool / Riffle Ratio, Residual Pool Depth) were higher for pools measured along Little Tepee Creek as compared to the unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek (unroaded reference reach) (Table 5). All habitat attributes measured from along both stream reaches appear to be of high quality for an E4 stream channel type. Table 5. Comparison of habitat attributes collected from along Little Tepee Creek within the proposed project area and an unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek within the Madison Inventoried Roadless Area (Reference) outside the proposed project area.

Stream Habitat Attribute Unnamed Tributary to Little Tepee Creek Tepee Creek (Reference) Reach Length (m) 141.5 120.55 Entrenchment 1.54 2.33 Bankfull Width / Depth Ratio 13.69:1 11.73:1 Sinuosity 1.89 1.98 Stream Slope (percent) 0.7% 1.3% Dominate Channel Materials Gravel Gravel

Stream Channel Type (Rosgen 1996) E4 E4

19 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Wetted Width (m) 2.13 1.98 Bankfull Width (m) 2.63 2.49 Number pools per 100 m 9.89 7.47 Pool / Riffle Ratio 2.46:1 1.2:1 Residual Pool Depth (m) 0.30 0.25 Stable Banks (percent) 97.2% 84.4% Overhanging Vegetation (percent) 44.6% 18.1% Overhanging Banks (percent) 9.5% 23.1% LWD # / 100 m 19.8 3.3

Amphibian and Mussels Columbia spotted frog is the only amphibian species documented within the Little Tepee Creek analysis area. Western toads are suspected within this analysis area. No western pearlshell mussels or their shells have been identified along upper Little Tepee Creek. Western pearlshell mussels require an intermediate fish host to fulfil their life history. Since no fish historically inhabited upper Little Tepee Creek, it is presumed that western pearlshell mussels were never present. Modelling conducted by Montana Natural Heritage Program showed potential western pearlshell mussel habitat along lower Tepee Creek up to the confluence with Little Tepee Creek (Stagliano and Tobalske, 2011). Although identified as potential, no live mussels or shells have been every documented in lower Tepee Creek or lower Grayling Creek. Closed Basin In the center of the Tepee Creek sub-watershed between Little Tepee Creek and Tepee Creek, lays a small drainage that terminates in a small pond with no surface outlet to Tepee Creek. This unnamed 1st order stream drains a small portion of the project area. Fisheries This small stream was surveyed in 2006 but no fish were collected or observed in the stream or the terminus pond. Amphibian and Mussels The terminus pond is occupied a population of Columbia spotted frogs, and it is suspected but not documented that tiger salamanders also inhabit this pond. No formal population surveys have been conducted looking for either species. Tepee Creek The majority of the Tepee Creek analysis area falls within the Madison Inventoried Roadless Area with the exception of two small fishless streams in the vicinity of Rathbone Lake. Main Tepee Creek above the East Fork Tepee Creek is a second order stream above and third order stream below to its confluence with Grayling Creek within Yellowstone National Park. Like Little Tepee Creek, Tepee Creek varies considerably by stream gradient ranging from low gradient to high gradient cascades within localized canyon reaches mid-drainage. There is a natural waterfalls partially impeding fish upstream passage within this canyon reach. There is a

20 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

second natural barrier upstream within Tepee Basin. Like Little Tepee Creek, the upper Tepee Creek sub-watershed lies within a natural volcanic tuff that is highly erosive (Keck 2015). Fisheries The fishery varies from a predominantly rainbow trout below the natural falls to hybrid westslope cutthroat trout above the falls. Mottled sculpin also inhabit Tepee Creek both above and below the falls. Brown trout are suspected but have not been documented in lower Tepee Creek near the Yellowstone National Park boundary. The genetic purity above the falls is 51.5 percent WCT x 26.6 percent Yellowstone cutthroat trout x 21.9 percent rainbow trout (Leary 2010). Although no old fish stocking records can be found, it is suspected that Yellowstone cutthroat trout were stocked via of horseback in the 1950’s and 60’s within the headwaters. It is also suspected that the rainbow trout are negotiating the lower natural falls and slowly invading the headwaters from downstream. Fish above the lower falls are limited to approximately seven miles of main stream habitat between the lower falls upstream to an identified high gradient bedrock chute. Smaller tributaries are fishless with exception of short reaches immediately adjacent to mainstem of Tepee Creek. No recent sediment core data has been collected along lower Tepee Creek just above the Yellowstone National Park boundary. Sediment levels along lower Tepee Creek look visually similar to sediment levels reported by Watschke (2006) for lower Grayling Creek. Amphibian and Mussels Columbia spotted frogs are found throughout the lower gradient stream reaches of Tepee Creek and adjacent pothole ponds. Western toads and tiger salamanders are suspected but have not documented. Modelling conducted by Montana Natural Heritage Program showed potential western pearlshell mussel habitat along lower Tepee Creek up to the confluence with Little Tepee Creek (Stagliano and Tobalske, 2011). Although identified as potential, no live mussels or shells have been documented in lower Tepee Creek or lower Grayling Creek during various habitat or population surveys. Lower Grayling Grayling Creek within the analysis area is a fourth order stream draining mostly Yellowstone National Park and the Madison Inventoried Roadless Area with exception of the project area within Little Tepee and Tepee creek drainages previously described. There are numerous draws and vegetated swales within the analysis area that lead downslope toward the Grayling Creek proper but are lacking of defined stream channels and connected surface flow. Fisheries The dominate fishery within this analysis area is main Grayling Creek. Grayling Creek is used by lacustrine Hebgen Lake rainbow trout, brown trout and whitefish for both spawning and rearing. Most likely there is also a resident component to each of these populations but it is difficult to differentiate between the lacustrine and resident life strategies. Mottled sculpin also inhabit lower Grayling Creek. Lower Grayling Creek is used by lacustrine Hebgen Lake rainbow trout for both spawning and rearing. During trout redd surveys in 2002 and 2003, 258 redds and 59 redds, respectively, were observed within a 19.9 km index reach along lower Grayling Creek as compared 4,349 redds and 1,293 redds, respectively, identified Hebgen Basin-wide (Watschke, 2006).

21 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Ten sediment core samples were collect in 2003 from randomly selected observed redds from along lower Grayling Creek. The percent of sampled spawning gravels averaged 21.3% less than 6.35 mm (Watschke 2006). The Gallatin National Forest Plan standard for Class A streams is 0- 26 percent (Table 2) Whits Lake is inhabited by a naturally reproducing rainbow trout population. There is no surface outlet or connection between Whits Lake and lower Grayling Creek. There are no treatment units located upstream from Whits Lake. Amphibian and Mussels No amphibian surveys have been completed within this analysis area. Western toads, Columbia spotted frogs, and tiger salamanders are suspected because of the presence of numerous pothole ponds and nearby Hebgen Lake. Because of close proximity to Hebgen Lake, adult western toads migrating to and from lakeside breeding sites most likely inhabit the analysis area for part of the year. Modelling conducted by Montana Natural Heritage Program showed potential western pearlshell mussel habitat along lower Grayling Creek (Stagliano and Tobalske 2011). The Flats As the name implies, this analysis area is extremely flat with the exception of Horse Butte. The majority of the analysis area is covered with a layer of very porous obsidian sands resulting in little standing water along the higher benches. There are three larger streams and rivers flowing through the analysis area draining the higher Yellowstone caldera (Madison River, Cougar Creek, and Duck Creek). The associated floodplains and riparian areas are broad bordered by adjacent obsidian sand bluffs. These bluffs are characterized as steep, typically lacking of dense of vegetation, unstable and erosive. Along these tributary and associated floodplains, numerous river oxbow ponds exist. Fisheries Hebgen Lake has a very diverse fishery consisting of all the previously mentioned species including non-native Utah chubs. The Duck Creek is the primary spawning tributary to Hebgen Lake for natural run rainbow trout, brown trout and mountain whitefish (Watschke 2006), Cougar Creek and Madison River to a lesser degree. Amphibian and Mussels Hebgen Lake is a mecca for amphibians and reptiles. Loose soils, healthy riparian zone, protected bays, isolated oxbow ponds and slow and controlled reservoir drawdowns make for stable habitat conditions for five species of amphibians: western toad, Columbia spotted frog, boreal chorus frog, plains spadefoot and tiger salamander. The entire lake is ringed with breeding sites for western toads and boreal chorus frogs. Columbia spotted frogs are not as wide spread around the lake primarily being found primarily along the western shore wetlands associated with the confluences of a couple tributaries. Plains spadefoots inhabit the ponds and terrestrial habitat immediately adjacent to the Madison River Arm exclusively within the loose obsidian sands. Their breeding sites are located within disconnected fishless river oxbow ponds immediately adjacent to the reservoir. Adults have been observed up to 1/3 mile inland along the obsidian sand bluffs. Western pearlshell mussels currently inhabit both Duck Creek and Madison River outside of Yellowstone National Park. Population viability has been classified as “Good” for Duck Creek

22 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project and “Fair” and Madison River (Stagliano 2010). Western pearlshell mussels have not been documented in Cougar Creek, although Cougar Creek is considered potential habitat (Stagliano and Tobalske 2011). Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct, indirect and cumulative effects will not be analyzed in four of the seven analysis areas for fisheries and six of the seven analysis areas for amphibians (Table 6). Table 6. Summary of analysis areas dropped from further discussion. Resource Area Analysis Area Fisheries Amphibians and Mussels Red Canyon See report for analysis There are no fish occupying any Johnson Canyon streams within the analysis area until you reach Hebgen Lake. Because of the more varied and Little Tepee Creek See report for analysis steeper terrain, generally less There is no surface outlet vehicle traffic, protected, connecting the Closed Basin Closed Basin wetlands, and no known breeding analysis area to other sites, no specific mitigation downstream analysis areas. measures were proposed to Tepee Creek See report for analysis protect western toads within any The impacts from proposed of these six analysis areas. It is upstream activities are already believe that direct, indirect and captured at the mouth of Little cumulative effects to western Tepee Creek and Tepee Creek. toads would be minimal and Impacts would not be similar between alternatives and Lower Grayling measureable along Grayling analysis areas. Creek. All treatment units within the Lower Grayling analysis area are along dry draws and swales with no surface water connection to fish bearing streams. There are no flowing streams within the analysis area with the exception of lower Duck Cr and The Flats lower Cougar Cr. The soils are See report for analysis very porous, terrain is flat and creeks are well buffered through design features.

Generally speaking, climate change presents a threat to aquatic habitat with projected effects on water temperature and quantity. Recent warming has already driven significant changes in the hydroclimate, with a shift towards more rainfall and less snow in the western U.S. (Knowles et al. 2006). Likewise, the peak of spring snowmelt is two weeks earlier in recent years, and this trend is anticipated to continue (Stewart et al. 2004). Probable effects of climate change in the western U.S. will be increased water shortages and warmer water temperatures. These

23 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

conditions may further restrict distribution of cold water dependent species such cutthroat trout (Williams et al. 2009) while increasing distribution of species more tolerant of warmer temperatures such as brook trout and brown trout (Rahel et al. 2008). In addition, changes in timing of spring runoff and temperature may alter spawning cues that have maintained temporal segregation of native and nonnative species. However, in areas of topographic variability such as those within the project area, local responses are highly variable (based on flow regimes, topography, and geology), and current climate models cannot reasonably predict responses at a practical scale. The past and present effects of climate change on project area fish habitat and populations are reflected in the existing condition. Within the 6-year temporal bounds of this analysis, ongoing effects of climate change are not expected to significantly alter baseline habitat conditions.

Fisheries

Sediment delivery and instream spawning sediment are expected to remain constant. The following baseline condition is what the three action alternatives will be compared against (Table 7). Table 7. Baseline conditions for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creek analysis areas. Little Tepee Parameter Red Canyon Tepee Creek Creek Reference Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 309.9 93.4 322.3 (White 2015) Existing Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 313.5 98.7 328.1 (White 2015)

Percent above Reference under 1.2% 5.7% 1.8% Existing Condition (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 28.5% 34.1% 21.3% /a (% > 6.3mm)

Percent Embryo Survival for b c b Alternative 1 Alternative 58.8% / 24.7% / 75.8% / cutthroat or rainbow trout. /a = assumed to be similar to lower Grayling Creek that was measured in 2005 (Watschke 2006). /b = for rainbow trout. /c = for cutthroat trout.

Amphibians and Mussels Hebgen Lake should continue to be a mecca for all amphibian species. Loose soils, healthy riparian zone, protected bays, isolated oxbow ponds and slow and controlled reservoir drawdowns make for stable habitat conditions for all amphibians. The operation and maintenance of Hebgen Dam and other Madison Rivers hydro-electric facilities have been managed under FERC License 2188 since 2000 (FERC 2000). There are no proposed amendments to this license that would alter habitat quality for amphibians using the shores of Hebgen Lake for breeding purposes. It is being assumed that the current management of Hebgen Lake will continuously provide for a stable environment for western toads, plains spadefoots and other amphibians. There are no known reasons to believe that amphibian populations around Hebgen Lake and adjacent lentic habitats will change within the immediate future. Over story vegetation removal, vehicle traffic and slash burning are expected to remain constant.

24 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

It is believe that pearlshell mussels will remain constant regardless of the action or non-action alternatives being considered under the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project. Nothing is planned that might cause stream channel instability or excessive sediment delivery covering beds of mussels. For this reason, pearlshell mussels will not be discussed under direct, indirect or cumulative effects for each of the four alternatives. Pearlshell mussels will be discussed within the following Biological Evaluation.

Project Design Features, Mitigation, Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives Fisheries

Objective: Eliminate impacts to coldwater fisheries (all streams except Little Tepee Creek) by providing stable streambanks, adequate overhead vegetation for both cover and thermal regulation and continuous long-term source of large woody debris recruitment. a. No trees would be cut within 15 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark along any fish bearing Class 1 or Class 2 stream segment within commercial and non-commercial treatment units. Removal of lower branches (or ladder fuels) of larger trees within this 15 foot no cut zone would be allowed if removal would not result in mortality to that tree. b. The fisheries biologist would be allowed the discretion to widen the 15 foot no cut zone to insure stream bank stability in rare situations where 15 feet were deemed inadequate. c. Retain all bank-edge trees maintaining stable stream banks and trees leaning toward streams that can provide large woody debris within commercial and non-commercial treatment units. d. A fisheries biologist or hydrologist would be represented during marking of all commercial and non-commercial treatment unit boundaries adjacent to streams and marking of leaning leave trees outside the 15 foot no cut zone. e. Locate all burn piles at a minimum 50 feet away from any streambanks ephemeral, intermittent or perennial.

Objective: Eliminate potential for new sediment delivery to Little Tepee Creek from Pika Overlook (locally known as) to Little Tepee Creek Trailhead Switchback (approximately 400 yards past gate). a. Minimize disturbance of cut and fill slopes along FS Road # 986. 1. Mechanical treatments below FS Road # 986 and all associated landings and temporary roads would be dropped. If fuels objectives can be achieved or partially achieved, hand treatments of smaller regeneration within 50 feet of the road and away from Tributaries A and B and springs would be allowed.

2. For all treatment units above FS Road # 986 (180, 181, 187, and 198), disturbance to road cut slopes would be minimized by avoiding skidding on and/or down to the main road over cut or fill slopes. Jump up roads planned to avoid skidding on cut slopes would be minimized. 3. Together with the pre-sale forester, District fisheries biologist and/or Forest Hydrologist, would locate jump-up roads into Treatment Units # 180 away from the Road Cut Springs, Tributary A, and Tributary B to prevent sediment delivery.

25 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

4. The northern portion of Treatment Unit # 187 north of FS Road # 2527 (Led Zepplin Road) would be dropped to avoid skidding across this well vegetated unnamed draw. b. Buffer all intermittent or perennial tributaries 1. Tributaries A and B and road cut springs up to adequate slope break would be buffered to prevent sediment delivery as determined by either the District fisheries biologist or Forest Hydrologist, but no less than 150 feet. 2. Objective: Reduce sediment delivery from existing sources as best as possible. a. Existing sediment delivery reaches of FS Road # 986 would be spot graveled at four locations: 1) Road Cut Springs, 2) Tributary A, 3) Tributary B, and 4) Little Tepee Creek crossings.

Amphibians and Mussels

Objective: Reduce mortality of western toads and toadlets from fire that choose to use slash piles as their winter hibernacula adjacent to the Rainbow Point, Savage Bay, and Horse Butte Peninsula breeding sites (Sestrich 2007). a. Large landing slash piles within 1/3 mile of the listed breeding sites would be fenced off prior to October 15 to prevent toads and toadlets from hibernating within said piles.

b. Project generated slash would be piled as far as reasonable possibly (minimum 200 feet) away from riparian areas associated with old river oxbows near treatment units 77, 84, 87, 96 and 226.

Objective: Reduce the amount of involuntary vehicular Bufocide. Western toads use road prisms during dusk and awn hours for basking and foraging. a. Public use of temporary roads constructed or opened for this project during dusk and dawn hours would be restricted. In accordance with the Travel Plan direction, “project roads” are to remain closed to public use.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

26 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

to assess the relative magnitude and direction of incremental change between alternatives. It is assumed that a lack of a dendritic drainage network and surface water connectivity that the model results are elevated within a portion of the analysis areas. White (2015) estimated that 30% of the drainage paths in the vicinity of Little Tepee Creek consist of vegetative swales with debris and lacking the structure or materials that characterize stream channels likely providing an extremely effective filter for water entrained sediment. Both the magnitude and direction of the model results will be displayed, but the results will be qualified based on local knowledge of specific drainages to better predict environment consequences related to sediment delivery. Fisheries Four of the seven fisheries analysis areas were not analyzed for direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the various reasons displayed in Table 6. Red Canyon As mentioned earlier, Red Canyon Creek is a more typical mountainous drainage network with a dendritic pattern of connected streams. As a result, the WATSED model (Cline et al. 1981) most likely more accurately projects changes to sediment yield as compared the less connected drainage networks described for Little Tepee Creek and Tepee Creek analysis areas. Projected changes in sediment yield as a result of Alternative 2 equate to a 3.5% increase (from 28.5% to 32.0%) in instream spawning sediment and 9.2% decrease in embryo survival for rainbow trout (Table 8). This would slightly exceed the Travel Management Plan Standard (E- 4). Table 8. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and projected changes from Alternative 2 for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creek analysis areas. Little Tepee Parameter Red Canyon Tepee Creek Creek Reference Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 309.9 93.4 322.3 (White 2015) Existing Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 313.5 98.7 328.1 (White 2015)

Percent above Reference 1.2% 5.7% 1.8% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 28.5% 34.1% 21.3% /a (% > 6.3mm)

Percent Embryo Survival for b c b Alternative 1 Alternative 58.8% / 24.7% / 75.8% / cutthroat or rainbow trout.

Percent above Reference 3.3% 25.0% 7.4% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 29.0% 38.7% 22.6% (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for Alternative 2 Alternative 57.5% 17.0% 73.0% cutthroat or rainbow trout. /a = assumed to be similar to lower Grayling Creek that was measured in 2005 (Watschke 2006). /b = for rainbow trout. /c = for cutthroat trout.

27 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Little Tepee Creek The WATSED model projects a 19.3% increase in sediment yield from 5.7% to 24.7% within the Little Tepee Creek analysis area. The model doesn’t allow turning off disconnected sub- drainages or swales with high infiltrating or porous soils. It is believed that a large portion of projected sediment yield increase would be trapped and stored before sediment reaches Little Tepee Creek. The small draws draining treatment units 200, 201, 202, western edge of 203 and northern edge of 198 are of such shape that sediment would not be transported downslope to perennial waters. The same is true for a large portion of the treatment units located adjacent to the FS Road # 2527. These drainages are characterized as dry swales, very porous soils, no identifiable stream channel, and abundance of under story vegetation and large woody debris. The lower treatment units including 180, 181, 177, 176, 174, 172, and 173 have wide untreated green buffers by design between the lower edge of each of the treatment units and Little Tepee Creek. Treatment unit 185 by design was converted from a ground base treatment unit to a hand treatment unit to avoid disturbance to the road cut and fill slopes along FS Road # 986. This leaves treatment units 199, northern portion of 196, and 197. To mitigate project generated sediment from these three treatment units and associated hauling along FS Road # 986, all alternatives would include spot graveling four sediment contributing reaches of road. Based on very specific on-the-ground knowledge, design features, and mitigation measures, it is believed that the sediment delivery would be negligible to Little Tepee Creek and protect the downstream westslope cutthroat trout fisheries. Tepee Creek The northeastern portions of treatment units 203 and 198 and southwestern portion of 204 drain into a terminal pond located within the Closed Basin analysis area (Figure 1). There is no surface flow connecting the unnamed tributary within the Closed Basin analysis area and the mainstem of Tepee Creek. The remaining portion of 204, all of 205, 207, 206 and 208 drain directly into Tepee Creek via a couple small fishless streams. Instream sediment levels within the Tepee Creek near the confluence of these two fishless streams appear to be very similar to Grayling Creek as reported by Watschke (2006). The unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek used as an unroaded reference reach is located further upstream in the headwaters above all proposed treatments. Travel Management Plan Standard (E-4) would be met within the Tepee Creek analysis area. The WATSED model projects a 5.6% increase in sediment yield from 1.8% to 7.4% which equates to a 1.8% increase in instream spawning sediment and 3.7% decrease in embryo survival (Table 8). Percent above reference, instream spawning sediment and embryo survival are the same for all three action alternatives. Amphibians The direct and indirect effects for amphibians, primarily western toads, would vary considerably depending on which of the seven analysis areas. The six northern analysis areas including Red Canyon, Johnson Canyon, Little Tepee Creek, Closed Basin, Tepee Creek and Lower Grayling (Figure 2) are characterized by the presence of numerous scattered ponds, lakes and wetlands. Western toads are presumed present within these analysis areas but at a much lower density as compared to The Flats analysis area located immediately adjacent to Hebgen Lake.

28 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Because of the more varied and steeper terrain, generally less vehicle traffic, riparian protection, and no known breeding sites, no specific mitigation measures were proposed to protect western toads within any of these six analysis areas. It is believe that direct, indirect and cumulative effects to western toads would be minimal and the same between alternatives.

As stated throughout, The Flats analysis area is rich with western toads and other amphibians. There are numerous breeding sites around the entire Hebgen Lake from the dam all the way up to the confluences with the South Fork Madison River, Madison River, Duck creek and Grayling Creek. As described earlier, it is thought that loose soils, healthy riparian areas, protected bays, isolated oxbow ponds and wetlands, and slow and controlled reservoir drawdowns make for stable habitat conditions for all five amphibians. . There are three known western toad breeding sites adjacent to several of the proposed treatment units (Rainbow Point, Savage Bay, and Horse Butte Peninsula).

Design features were included in all action alternatives to protect as many western toads as possible without being too restrictive on the purpose and need of the project. With or without the inclusion of these mitigation measures, it is believed that western toads would thrive throughout Hebgen Basin (Hebgen Lake and adjacent drainages) not changing their population trend or trajectory.

In the spectrum of animals, there are many species including the western toads that rely on producing as many offspring with each having a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood. These animals are classified as r-strategists as compared to the grizzly bear which is considered a k-strategist. K-strategist species display traits associated with living at densities close to carrying capacity, and typically are strong competitors in such crowded niches that invest more heavily in fewer offspring with each of which has a relatively high probability of surviving to adulthood.

When dealing with r-strategist species, it is difficult to know how many of their off spring need protecting without causing harm to the population. For trout, which is also considered an r- strategist, it has been reported that 90% of the young-of-the-year fry die naturally each year.

The effectiveness of many of the design features remain untested. The inclusions of these protective measures, although untested, have been agreed by the various Forest Service and Montana Natural Heritage Program resource specialists. The overall objective of these mitigation measures is to keep a strong thriving population strong while minimizing mortality to individual toads and toadlets.

These measures are common to all action alternatives. As a result, there would be little difference between the action alternatives.

There is one regeneration treatment units (# 226) adjacent to the three larger breeding sites (Rainbow Point, Salvage Bay, and Horse Butte Peninsula) and that might cause western toads to change their migration patterns to and from their breeding areas as a result of changes to thermal and moisture conditions. Western toads have been shown to migrate around treatments that have resulted in lower humidity. Treatment unit # 77 would include several small group select sub-

29 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

units basically equating to one to two-acre mini-clearcuts which might result in minor deviation to migration patterns. A large portion of the treatment units closer to Hebgen Lake are pre- commercial thin units by hand or machine that would include smaller and cleaner slash piles.

Blocking access with movable barricades to temporary project roads at the end of daily work shifts would be effective in keeping non-project vehicles off the temporary roads during dusk and dawn hours.

Fencing off larger landing piles would avoid the loss of individuals in the near vicinity of the three breeding sites. It is believed that toadlets stay within ¼ mile of their natal breeding sites their first winter. It is believed that fencing greater than 1/3 mile would be less and less effective.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fisheries

Red Canyon

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 (Table 9). The change in percent above reference is minor from 3.3% to 2.9% which equates to 0.4% improvement in instream spawning sediment and 1.0% increase in embryo survival.

Little Tepee Creek

Alternative 3 is also similar to Alternative 2 with the exclusion of treatment units 201 and 189 and associated temporary road (Table 9). The change in percent above reference decreased from 25.0% to 24.3% which equates to 0.2% improvement in instream spawning sediment and 0.3% increase in embryo survival.

Tepee Creek

See Alternative 2; no changes.

Table 9. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and projected changes from Alternative 3 for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creel analysis areas. Little Tepee Parameter Red Canyon Tepee Creek Creek Reference Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 309.9 93.4 322.3 (White 2015) Existing Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 313.5 98.7 328.1 (White 2015)

Percent above Reference Al ter 1.2% 5.7% 1.8% (White 2015)

30 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Instream Spawning Sediment 28.5% 34.1% 21.3% /a (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for 58.8% /b 24.7% /c 75.8% /b cutthroat or rainbow trout.

Percent above Reference 2.9% 24.3% 7.3% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 29.0% 38.6% 22.6% (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for Alternative 3 Alternative 57.5% 17.3% 73.0% cutthroat or rainbow trout. /a = assumed to be similar to lower Grayling Creek that was measured in 2005 (Watschke 2006). /b = for rainbow trout. /c = for cutthroat trout.

Amphibians

Effects are the same for all action alternatives.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fisheries

Red Canyon

Effects are the same for Alternative 2; no changes (Table 10).

Little Tepee Creek

Effects are the same for Alternative 3.

Tepee Creek

Effects are the same for Alternative 2; no changes.

Table 10. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and projected changes from Alternative 4 for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creel analysis areas. Little Tepee Parameter Red Canyon Tepee Creek Creek Reference Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 309.9 93.4 322.3 (White 2015) Existing Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 313.5 98.7 328.1 (White 2015) Percent above Reference 1.2% 5.7% 1.8% (White 2015) Alter native Instream Spawning Sediment 28.5% 34.1% 21.3% /a

31 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

(% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for 58.8% /b 24.7% /c 75.8% /b cutthroat or rainbow trout.

Percent above Reference 3.3% 24.3% 7.3% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 29.0% 38.6% 22.6% (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for Alternative 4 Alternative 57.5% 17.3% 73.0% cutthroat or rainbow trout. /a = assumed to be similar to lower Grayling Creek that was measured in 2005 (Watschke 2006). /b = for rainbow trout. /c = for cutthroat trout.

Amphibians

Effects are the same for all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Aquatic environments in forested ecosystems are known to be heavily influenced by the physical and biological processes within the watershed as a whole (Vannote et al. 1980). For this reason the spatial area for fish, amphibians, and pearlshell mussels will encompass seven smaller drainages (Red Canyon, Johnson Lake, Little Tepee Creek, Lower Grayling, Tepee Creek, Closed Basin, and The Flats (Figure 1).

The fisheries analysis is based on the sediment modeling provided by the Forest hydrologist (White 2015). For the fisheries analysis, the temporal bounds were set from 1980 to 2022. The earliest date was approximate year when the last of the large road systems were constructed within the analysis area drainages. The later date was extended one year beyond when the sediment modeling showed any increase in sediment delivery for any of the action alternatives. Sediment transport in streams is highly variable and is influenced by several factors including channel type, amount of sediment, length of time sediment input occurs, flow regime, substrate composition and geology.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

No Action Alternative

By definition cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action alternatives and thus are not germane to the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1 (not analyzed)

Alternatives 2-4

The cumulative effects analysis presented below applies to Alternatives 2-4.

32 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities and Associated Potential Cumulative Effects

Past timber harvest

Various types of past timber harvest have occurred within all of the analysis areas.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

All known past, current, or planned future harvest activities within the analysis areas including privately owned lands were incorporated into the existing condition and proposed action effects analyses. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses.

Timber harvest on private land

Private land in the project area is residential area. There is no private forest lands used for timber production in the project area. There has been no commercial timber harvest on private land in this area. Most of the private land is grass land (non-forested) or with small clumps of lodgepole pines. Small clumps of trees have been removed to clear the area for building new houses, and to remove dead and dying trees.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

No reasonably foreseeable timber harvest on private land has been identified at this time.

Post and pole and firewood gathering

Tepee pole and post and pole gathering have occurred along Tepee Road. Whits Lake Road #971 and Tepee Creek Road #986 have been a popular firewood gathering area over the last 5 years. These areas have had many dead trees resulting from the resent insect outbreak. especially.

Extensive firewood gathering has occurred on The Flats after the mountain pine beetle outbreak of the 1980s. Most of the dead and down has been removed if adjacent to roads. The small two track routes created for firewood gather were decommissioned in the 1990s. The 2006 Travel Plan limited the amount of off road travel with vehicles so firewood gathering is limited to proximity to open roads. Some of these areas are included with the past timber harvest areas.

Pre-commercial thinning – in the project area for Tepee, Red Canyon, Little tepee, and the Closed Basin totaled 29 acres in 1979, 155 acres in 1992, 38 acres in 1998 and 30 acres in 2009.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

All known past, current, or planned future harvest activities within the assessment areas were incorporated into the existing and proposed conditions effects analyses. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses.

33 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Effects of post and pole and firewood gathering are minor, localized, and negligible levels of ground disturbance and/or forest cover removal. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Other vegetation management on public land

In the Flats, 58 acres of willow treatments took place in 2013 and 100 acres is planned for the summer of 2015. Work involves the use of a small crew to remove small conifers from willow stands along Duck Creek, Cougar Creek, and the Madison River. The crew uses chainsaws and hand tools to remove the conifer, and work lasts for about one week.

The Forest Service planted cottonwood seedlings near Grayling Creek in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Most of the seedlings did not survive, but a few are now more than 20 feet tall. The Forest Service planted willow cuttings adjacent to ponds in the old gravel pit (near the Y-junction in 2000). Many of these cutting have established and are now small bushes.

There is a programmatic aspen management document but no site specific projects have been identified (2/18/2015) so there is no reasonably foreseeable aspen treatment.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Effects of willow treatments and cottonwood plantings are minor, localized, and involve negligible levels of ground disturbance and/or forest cover removal. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible for both fisheries and amphibians.

Aquatic species enhancement – spadefoot toad ponds

A 2012 decision authorized construction of up to 15 plains spadefoot breeding ponds within the obsidian sand flats surrounding Madison Arm. Each pond will be 1,000-2,000 ft2 located immediately adjacent to Hebgen Lake. Two ponds were constructed in 2012; one near the bluffs along the north shore and one along the south shore. Over the next ten years, we are authorized to construct 13 additional ponds. It takes less than one day to excavate each pond and transport spoils during times when the reservoir is drawn down (early-spring or late-fall). The ponds would be located within 100 feet of the north or south shore of the Madison Arm.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Effects upon sediment yield in The Flats Assessment Area, which includes the area where spadefoot toad ponds are to be constructed, was not analyzed because surface drainage in those areas occurs only under extreme and very rare circumstances or not at all, making analysis of annual sediment yield impossible. Annual sediment yield in this area is negligible. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible. The project were designed to improve amphibian habitat.

34 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Ongoing implementation of the Gallatin Forest Travel Plan

There are two roads in upper Tepee that have not been decommissioned yet as identified in the travel plan due to lack of funding. These roads will be decommissioned upon completion of this project if not sooner.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Decommissioning of the two roads in Upper Tepee watershed will involve minor, temporary, and localized ground surface disturbance having negligible effects at the watershed scale. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible. However, road decommissioning would result in an overall reduction of road-related sediment in the watershed.

Ongoing road and trail use and maintenance

Dispersed trail and road use is expected to continue at current levels. Forest Service road and trail crews will continue to perform standard log out maintenance, and maintenance of existing drainage structures such as water bars and culverts. Road grading occurs infrequently on Tepee Creek and Led Zeppelin Roads; approximately once every five years depending on funding.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Past and current road construction/use/maintenance was incorporated into the existing and proposed conditions effects analyses. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses. Trail maintenance involves minor, temporary, and localized ground surface disturbance having negligible effects at the watershed scale. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Past wildfires

1974 Big Tepee Fire burned approximately 150 acres within the Tepee Creek Assessment Area (Tepee Creek watershed). In 2003 the Rathbone Fire burned approximately 40 acres in the Tepee Creek Assessment Area. Both the Big Tepee and Rathbone fires were stand replacing and have had over 10 years to recover. No mechanical suppression fire line was used on either fire.

1987 Turkey Track Fire burned 200 acres around the junction of Rainbow Point Rd #6954 and Horse Butte Peninsula Rd # 610. 2003 the Duck Creek fire burned 50 acres between Cougar Creek road and Duck Creek. 2003 Bakers Hole Fire burned 506 acres on both NF and YNP. Fire location is just south of the Transfer Station off Hwy 191. The 2007 Madison Arm Fire burned 3660 acres just south of the Madison Arm of Hebgen Lake. The bulk of the acreage was outside the North Hebgen project area but did have a 2 acre spot fire that is in the project area near Rainbow Point Rd #6954.

The 2000, Beaver Creek Fire burned 10800 acres in the Cub and Cabin Creek area. Fire area just north of Axolotl and Juncus Lake and south of Cabin/Carrot Basin divide.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

35 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Effects of past wildfires within the assessment areas were incorporated into the existing and proposed conditions effects analyses presented previously. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses.

Past prescribed burns

Listed burns: Hand and dozer pile burning has occurred in this area and was confined along the Tepee Creek Rd # 986 and Led Zeplin Rd. These are very old and probably occurred prior to 1970.

Red Canyon. The Rx burn consisted of 650 acres in a DF/grass-sage/WBP/SAF cover type. Objectives included the reduction of natural fuels and lessening conifer encroachment on meadows. Encroachment of SAF on DF and WBP was also targeted and treated mechanically. The burn was implemented in September of 2004.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

In general the effects of past prescribed burns on sediment yield would be expected to have become negligible within 5-6 years after the burning (by approximately 2010). In this case, effects of past prescribed burning to lessen conifer encroachment on meadows would likely have been negligible, even immediately post-burn, due to the very minor, localized, and temporary impacts of the low intensity burn and the relatively low number/volume of trees killed by the treatment. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Pre-designated fire camp across from Rainbow Point Road on the east side of the highway

The HLRD has utilized an area of ~10 acres immediately east of the junction of Hwy 191 and Rainbow Point Rd #6954 to establish a fire camp on large fire incidents on the unit. The Beaver Creek Fire in 2000, Rathbone Fire in 2003 and the Mount Two Top Fire in 2013 were fires that a fire camp was established on this site. The area will be used again in the future if a large incident occurs near West Yellowstone but that is not reasonably foreseeable. Mitigation is incorporated during the establishment of fire camp and resource advisors perform evaluations and make recommendations to reduce impacts to the area pre, during and post fire camp use.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

In this area the drainage paths are poorly defined or non-existent, indicating that surface drainage occurs only under extreme and very rare circumstances or not at all. Corresponding annual water and sediment yields in these areas are negligible, so transport of any sediment off-site by surface water flow is highly unlikely. Mitigations incorporated during the establishment, operation, and rehabilitation of the site would minimize disturbance to the ground surface and vegetation. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible. For amphibians, there could be a cumulative increase in individual western toad mortality primarily related increased nocturnal traffic patterns.

36 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Pre-designated Helicopter Base on Horse Butte Peninsula

The HLRD has utilized a ~20 acre area on Edwards Peninsula just south of the Horse Butte Peninsula Rd # 610 to establish a Helicopter Base to support large fire incidents. The Beaver Creek Fire in 2000, Rathbone Fire in 2003 and the Mount Two Top Fire in 2013 were fires that used a Helicopter Base was established on this site. The landing and takeoff of as many as 4 helicopters and supporting vehicles e.g., crew rigs, fuel trucks and support vehicles drive the two track road and off road to reach the helicopter around 150 feet on both sides of the two track road. The base was used in the past and if there is a fire again in the area, it is likely to be used but that is not reasonably foreseeable. Resource Advisors provide mitigations and recommendations to minimize imp acts on this site pre, during and post fire.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

In this area the drainage paths are poorly defined or non-existent, indicating that surface drainage occurs only under extreme and very rare circumstances or not at all. Corresponding annual water and sediment yields in these areas are negligible, so transport of any sediment off-site by surface water flow is highly unlikely. Standard mitigations incorporated during the establishment, operation, and rehabilitation of the site would minimize disturbance to the ground surface and vegetation. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Noxious weed control

Approximately 300 to 500 acres of weeds are treated annually in the project area with herbicides. Montana Department of Transportation annually treats weeds adjacent to the highwya right of way. This work is expected to continue.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Potential effects of weed spraying activities (specifically chemical contamination of surface or groundwater) have no direct or indirect effect relative to water yield, sediment yield, or stream stability. Weed control activities are carried out in accordance with BMP’s in the Forest Weed EIS designed to prevent water contamination and therefore are not anticipated to affect water quality issues or have combined effects with any of the proposed alternatives.

Tepee Trailhead reconstruction

Tepee Creek Trail head (Skyline Trail #151) is a major trailhead access into the Cabin Creek Wildlife Management Area backcountry and to Forest Service rental cabin (Cabin Creek Cabin). Old Tepee Trail #236 also leaves Tepee Creek Road about 5 miles up the road. Tepee Trailhead currently provides marginal parking for ATV truck/trailer combinations, and consequently there is a plan to move the trailhead west of its current location to the other side of Little Tepee Creek. The new trail head will better accommodate truck/trailer combinations to make for easier parking and un-loading of ATV’s at the end of this project.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

37 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

The trailhead project would include replacement of an old, undersized culvert with a new bridge. Flood conveyance capacity would be greatly increased at the site and the potential for culvert blockage eliminated, which would greatly reduce the chances of road crossing failure (which is typically accompanied by the release of large quantities of sediment into the stream system). Thus, the project would provide long-term protection to Little Tepee Creek against a large sediment influx associated with a potential road crossing failure at this site. The construction would involve minor, temporary, and localized ground surface disturbance and work within the stream channel and would require 404 and 124 permits. Construction BMP’s imposed by the permitting agencies and internally by the CGNF would ensure that sediment is contained, stabilized, and is not released into the stream. BMP implementation will ensure this project would have negligible effects on water quality. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

State, County and private roads

No major improvements are planned for the roads in the project area. The Grayling Creek bridge was completed in 2013 and the adjacent snowmobile bridge will be completed in 2015.

State and County road use and maintenance is expected to continue at current levels. Private access to and from subdivisions is expected to continue. They are likely to be maintained at about the current level. Major access roads including NFS roads accessing homes: US Highway 191, 287, Whits Lake, Fir Ridge, and Red Canyon Roads, Pine Needle, Duck Creek, and Cougar Creek Roads. Fir Ridge Road was graded and surfaced in 2010, and the parking area at the end of this short road was improved to accommodate better turn around radius and parking for snowmobile set ups (typically large trucks and trailers).

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Past and current road construction/use/maintenance, including private roads where applicable, was incorporated into the existing conditions and effect analyses presented previously. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses.

Subdivision and commercial activity

Yellowstone Holiday Subdivision and Campground, Red Canyon private property, Lower and Upper Beartrap Subdivisions, Parade Rest Ranch, Grayling Ridge HOA, Yellowstone Village, Rancho Vista, Hebgen Estates, Yellowstone Ranch Preserve, the unincorporated portion of Horse Butte homes, unincorporated Rainbow Point homes, and Duck Creek Homeowners. No major improvements are planned for the subdivisions in the Flats. Ongoing use and maintenance is expected to continue. The three homes off Rainbow Point Road are accessed by residential plowing of FSR 695 through road use permit.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Past and current road construction/use/maintenance, including private roads where applicable, was incorporated into the existing and proposed conditions effects analyses presented previously. Other potential activity associated with use and maintenance is not expected to have an impact either. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses.

38 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Trailheads

Fir Ridge, Whits Lake, Johnson Lake, Red Canyon, Mt. Hebgen are in the project area, and Kirkwood, Cabin Creek, Red Cub, and Minnie Trail heads access Cabin Creek Management Area which is included in the spatial bounds of the project area. Use of these trail heads is expected to continue, a similar level of trail head maintenance is expected to continue.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Trailheads were treated as part of the road system in the existing and proposed conditions analyses. Past and current road construction/use/maintenance, including private roads where applicable, was incorporated into the existing and proposed conditions effects analyses presented previously. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses.

Winter trail use

Dispersed winter recreation activities including, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing occur in the Tepee area. Snowmobiling is by far the most popular winter activity, with the other uses being generally a very minimal component . One groomed snowmobile trail (Big Sky Trail) leaves the Fir Ridge Trailhead and heads north toward Tepee Creek Road. The Big Sky Trail will be re-routed in 2015 and a bridge will be constructed over Grayling Creek adjacent to and just downstream of the existing Highway 191 bridge. Upon completion of the project, the Big Sky Trail will parallel Highway 191 from Fir Ridge Trail Head directly to Tepee Creek Road 986 at its beginning off U.S. Highway 191, and then utilize the entire Tepee Creek Road up to its junction with Led Zeppelin Road 2527. The groomed route continues up Led Zeppelin to its terminus. The route then continues on as a marked backcountry trail into Cabin Creek and beyond to the Taylor Fork drainage. When the new snowmobile bridge and re-route is completed in 2015, the current Big Sky Trail that crosses Grayling Creek on an ice bridge and ties into Tepee Creek Road further up the road from the highway will be decommissioned. The Big Sky Trail is very popular; on average the Forest Service trail counter (located on Tepee Creek Road) counts 7,500 snowmobilers a winter. Snowmobile use in Cabin Creek Wildlife Management Area is also very popular, with a high percentage of the 7,500 snowmobilers counted on the Big Sky trail counter actually snowmobiling into the backcountry of the management area as their destination.

On the Flats, Approximately 23 miles of groomed snowmobile trail exists in the project area, consisting of the Horse Butte Trail, Horse Butte Loop, Cougar Creek Trail, and a portion of Big Sky Trail. All these trails are busy and easily accessible from West Yellowstone. Other multiple uses occur on these trails including skiing, snowshoeing, and dog sledding, but to a lesser degree than snowmobiling. A minimum of 17,000 snowmobilers are counted annually on the Horse Butte Trail counter during the main grooming season of December 1- April 1.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Dispersed winter recreation activities are not expected to impact water quality or fish habitat issues within the assessment areas because ground surface disturbance, and potential associated sedimentation, is negligible. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

39 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Dispersed recreation

In the Tepee area, Dispersed recreation uses include trail uses such as mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, motorbiking, and ATV riding, as well as hunting, wildlife viewing, and dispersed camping. Tepee Creek Road is a dual designated route meaning it is open to both street legal and non-street legal vehicles. This translates to a lot of ATV use on the road. Dispersed camping with vehicles occurs generally in four to five spots along Tepee Creek Road and at the Tepee (Skyline Trail #151 Trail head) though it is allowed anywhere within 300’ of a designated road or trail. All dispersed camps along Tepee and the one at the end of Led Zeppelin are “dry” camps with no access to water and are typically used during hunting season. Dispersed camping not associated with motor vehicles may occur anywhere in the spatial analysis area. All these uses are expected to continue at similar use levels.

On the Flats, with the exception of Rainbow Point Campground, the spatial analysis area does not allow for camping opportunities as it is part of the Hebgen Lake Day Use Area designation. But many accesses via short “Go Down” roads exist off FSR 6697, 610, and 6953. These go downs access fishing sites, primitive boat launches, and beach going activity sites popular with locals and visitors. Other dispersed recreation opportunities include wildlife watching, sea kayaking/canoeing, hunting, and driving off highway vehicles on the dual designated routes in the area. Dual designated routes (6697, 6697G, 1781, 1780, 6778, 6777, and 6697D) form a variety of loop opportunities and tie directly to West Yellowstone. Dual Designated routes allow both street legal and non-street legal vehicles, and they do not require the operator of the vehicle to have a driver’s license. These routes are very popular with ATV and UTV side by side vehicle riders including families with kids because of this.

Dispersed recreation uses include trail uses such as mountain biking, horseback riding, hiking, motorbiking, and ATV riding, as well as hunting, wildlife viewing, and dispersed camping. Trail uses also occur in the general forest area off of designated Forest Service System Trails in the area, in particular there is a relatively expansive network of trails between Parade Rest Ranch and Whits Lake Road and parallel to the lower mile of Johnson Lake Trail 90. These trails are used extensively by Parade Rest Ranch (1,500 service days annually) and moderately by other hikers and mountain bike users. Travel on these non-system trails is permissible by all uses listed above with the exception of motorized users that must stay on designated Forest Service system trails identified for their legal use in the Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan. Dispersed camping with vehicles occurs generally in two spots along Whits Lake Road, and about five spots along Red Canyon Road though it is allowed anywhere within 300’ of a designated road; it is prohibited at Fir Ridge Trail Head. Dispersed camping not associated with motor vehicles may occur anywhere in the spatial analysis area except Fir Ridge. All these uses are expected to continue at similar use levels.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Continued dispersed recreation use at levels similar to existing levels is expected to have negligible impact water quality and fish habitat issues within the assessment areas because the Hebgen Lake Ranger District would continue to identify and remedy/mitigate threats to impact water quality in the future (e.g., user expansion of dispersed campsites near streams or wetlands). Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Outfitting

In the Tepee area, commercial Outfitters offer a variety of services in the area. There are 13 snowmobile outfitters, and 5 day use horseback outfitters that utilize this area. There are summer horseback overnight

40 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project and overnight hunting camps in Cabin Creek Wildlife Management Area, no overnight camps occur near units associated with this project proposal.

On the Flats, commercial Outfitters offer a variety of services in the area. There are 13 snowmobile outfitters, 1 day use horseback outfitter, 3 day use bison hunting/game retrieval outfitters, 15 fishing outfitters, and 2 sea kayak and boat delivery outfitters that utilize this area. No overnight outfitting is authorized in the area. It is expected that these outfitted services will continue.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Continued outfitting activities at levels similar to existing levels is expected to have negligible impact water quality and fish habitat issues within the assessment areas because the Hebgen Lake Ranger District would continue to identify and remedy/mitigate impacts to water quality in the future. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Tepee Falls Fish Barrier Construction

Tepee Falls fish barrier construction is proposed for 2017 Modify an unnamed falls along lower Tepee Creek to create an upstream fish migration barrier preventing the future expansion of non-native trout in to the headwaters. This falls is located approximately ½ mile above the confluence of Little Tepee Creek. The decision to modify Tepee Creek Falls is contingent upon multiple agency agreement on an overall westslope cutthroat restoration proposal which would include modifying the falls, chemically treating streams above to remove non-native trout, and restocking of genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout. The falls modification would take approximately one week to complete including helicopter flights to and from a camping/staging area transporting hand equipment, explosives and crew gear. Two required stream treatments would take approximately one week during back-to-back years involving approximately 20 people to conduct the treatments and support staff. Access to the project area would be via foot, atv’s and/or horses and supported by a horse camp in the lower reaches of Tepee Basin. A helicopter might be required to temporarily install a radio repeater to improve communications at a presently unknown location.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

The Tepee Falls fish barrier construction would involve minor, temporary, and localized ground surface disturbance and work within the stream channel and would require 404 and 124 permits. Construction BMP’s imposed by the permitting agencies and internally by the CGNF will ensure that sediment is contained, stabilized, and is not released into the stream. BMP implementation will ensure this project would have negligible effects on water quality. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Cabin Creek Fish Barrier construction (Cabin Creek)

A 2014 decision authorized construction of an upstream fish migration barrier along lower Cabin Creek to protect the existing slightly hybridized population of native westslope cutthroat trout that exist in the headwaters. Construction will begin August 15, 2015. The project will most likely take three to four weeks to complete. The staging area will be the Cabin Creek Scarp Interpretative Area. All materials

41 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project will be hauled up the stream using rubber tracked and low pressure tired heavy equipment. There will be some required blasting initially.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

This project lies outside the seven smaller analysis area for fisheries and watershed. The Cabin Creek Fish Barrier site does not lie within one of the seven the project analysis areas. Nonetheless, the barrier project will require 404 and 124 permits. Construction BMP’s imposed by the permitting agencies and internally by the CGNF will ensure that sediment is contained, stabilized, and is not released into the stream. BMP implementation will ensure this project would have negligible effects on water quality. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Special use permit activity

The Forest routinely responds to proposals for road and utility access and other varied uses on NFS lands. It is reasonable to anticipate the current uses will continue. In the project area this includes permits for access roads to private property, a Montana Department of Livestock bison trap, a weather station, solid waste transfer station, DOT easements, and telephone lines. Other types of permits include a rural fire station, water transmission lines/ water developments for residential drinking water and stock water, seismic monitoring stations, MDT gravel storage yard, and telephone lines. Hebgen Basin Rural Fire District has submitted a written proposal to build another rural fire station on NFS lands near Kirkwood. If that proposal passes through the NEPA process, it may be built within the next five years. There are also two Recreation Residence “summer homes” known as the Horse Butte Tract on NFS lands that are under special use permit east of Rainbow Point Boat Launch.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Continued existing special use permitted activities would likely have insignificant cumulative effects. Potential impacts of future activities such as the potential construction of a rural fire station near Kirkwood would have to be evaluated through the planning and environmental assessment process.

Powerline use and maintenance

There are power lines on private lands and National forest system lands which serve the residents of Hebgen Basin and North side of Hebgen Lake. No major upgrades are planned but use and maintenance activity associated with the current transmission and distribution lines is expected to continue. No major upgrades are planned but use and maintenance activity associated with the current transmission and distribution lines is expected to continue. Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative plans to bury a section of overhead line near Duck Creek to avoid disruption to service from outages due to the difficulty of maintaining the line in a riparian area (Unit 52).

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

Past and current road construction/use/maintenance, including private roads where applicable, was incorporated into the existing and proposed conditions effects analyses presented previously. All cumulative effects with the action alternatives have been accounted for within these analyses. Continued

42 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project use and maintenance of existing power lines is expected to have negligible impact water quality issues within the assessment areas. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Communication Site at Horse Butte

The Horse Butte Communication Site serves multiple entities including several wireless service providers, a local TV translator district, and other leases under the facility manager lease holder including public radio stations among others. There are two steel lattice towers with a variety of antennas, microwave dishes, etc. Two buildings house the electronics associated with the communication site. There will likely be continued requests by lease holders and their tenants to upgrade their antennas and associated hardware to stay competitive in the ever growing wireless industry. In addition to the private entities on site, the Forest Service maintains a historic, but un- staffed 40’ lookout tower for occasional fire season monitoring. The fire tower serves as a radio repeater site for the Gallatin National Forest radio communication system, and sits about 200’ west of the privately managed communication site facilities. Adjacent to the fire tower is a picnic site consisting of a small parking area, two picnic tables with fire pits/cooking grates, and a small capacity wood style vault toilet. The picnic site is moderately used, but serves mostly as just a destination to stop at for scenic viewing/photographing of Hebgen Lake, the lookout, and the surrounding mountains and landscape.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

This site is on the top of a large hill, far from any waterbodies, with no drainage channels to convey sediment off-site to any water body. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Rainbow Point Campground/Boat Launch and Picnic Site

Rainbow Point Campground is an 85 site campground managed under concession special use permit by Hebgen Basin Campgrounds, Inc. The campground is open from approximately Memorial Day Weekend through late September each year. The campground is often at capacity for a large portion of the summer. One loop has electric hook ups, and there are plans in the future to electrify additional sites. Immediately adjacent to the campground is Rainbow Point Boat Launch and Picnic Area. This free day use site allows boaters and beach goers access to the Grayling Arm of Hebgen Lake, and was upgraded in 2014 as the dock was replaced.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

In this area the drainage paths are poorly defined or non-existent, indicating that surface drainage occurs only under extreme and very rare circumstances or not at all. It is assumed that annual water and sediment yields in these areas are negligible, so transport of any sediment off-site by surface water flow is highly unlikely. Mitigations incorporated during the establishment, operation, and rehabilitation of the site will minimize disturbance to the ground surface and vegetation. The Hebgen Lake Ranger District would continue to identify and remedy/mitigate any new developments (e.g., lake shore erosion due to recreational use) that threaten to impact water quality in the future. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

43 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Grazing Activity: Horse grazing allotment south of Whits Lake Road

The Grayling allotment is between Highway 287 and Whits Lake Road #971. The allotment consists of 4 pastures on 112 acres. The grazing management system involves seasonally deferred rotation, 24 horses from July to October. Forage utilization levels range from 25 to 45 percent by weight. The allotment has been grazed annually since 1985 to the present. Aspen pasture is adjacent to the Whits Lake road. The pasture consists of aspen /tall forbs and a few lodgepole pines. Most of the mature aspen in this pasture die back about 10 years ago and new shoots are now 3 to 5 feet tall. The dead aspen have started to rot and fall over. Current fuel loading is estimated at 8 tons/acre.

The Moose Allotment is south of Highway 287 and north of the Lower Beartrap subdivision. The allotment consists of 4 horses from July 1 to October 15.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

In this area the drainage paths are poorly defined or non-existent, indicating that surface drainage occurs only under extreme and very rare circumstances or not at all. It is assumed that annual water and sediment yields in these areas are negligible, so transport of any sediment off-site by surface water flow is highly unlikely. Mitigations incorporated into the allotment management plan will monitor and provide limits for disturbance to the ground surface and vegetation. The Hebgen Lake Ranger District would continue to identify and remedy/mitigate any new developments (e.g., overgrazing) that threaten to impact water quality in the future. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Bison Management Activity

Bison hazing operations in this portion of the project area take place on Horse Butte, in the Flats, along Duck Creek Fir Ridge, in the Red Canyon area, and along the base of Mount Hebgen. Hazing operations generally begin each year after May 15. Operations typically occur several times per week through the month of May and into the early part of June. Frequency of hazing operations decreases after mid-June and, in general, occurs sporadically into July. Hazing may be accomplished by personnel using ATVs, snowmobiles, on foot, horseback, and/or helicopters, and may include the use of cracker shells or rubber bullets. The use of a helicopter occurs at the discretion of the state veterinarian. The spatial distribution of hazing operations depends on the distribution of bison, but tends to be a localized activity that moves on a daily basis from the original location of the bison to the location where they are herded into Yellowstone National Park. Hazing operations usually take about half of a day.

State-licensed bison hunting is permitted between November 15 and February 15 of each year, with some additional late-season harvests of bull bison. Tribal hunting seasons vary, starting with the earliest date of September 15 and extending as late as March 18. The highest levels of hunting activity usually occur during between December and February, depending on bison activity that year. Most hunting activities are concentrated around the area of Horse Butte. Hunters often use snowmobiles to retrieve the carcass.

 MAY HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL X MAY HAVE INSIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL  WILL NOT HAVE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WITH THE PROPOSAL

44 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Bison management activity involves dispersed, minor, temporary, and localized ground surface disturbance likely having negligible effects on water quality issues. Therefore, a combined effect with the proposed actions would be negligible.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans and Other Disclosures

The projected effects associated with sediment delivery from action alternatives 2-4 are very similar and would be difficult to measure the differences. Regardless, all action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standard A-14 stating that “the Forest will be managed to maintain and, where feasible, improve fish habitat capacity to achieve cooperative goals with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and to comply with State water quality standards.” The effects associated with each of the three action alternatives would: 1) have minimal impacts to westslope sensitive species, but would not cause a downward population trend staying consistent with the Forest Service’s Sensitive Species Policy; 2) continue to allow for growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life as required by the Clean Water Act; 3) maintain the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunity by evaluating the effects of Federally funded as required by Executive Order 12962; 4) protect all pure and slightly introgressed (90% or greater purity) westslope cutthroat trout populations as required by Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement (MOUCA) for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana (Powell 2002); and 5) have no measureable negative effects on populations of Management Indicator Species. Monitoring of MIS and sensitive species will both across the Forest and the project area especially in Little Tepee Creek where a intorduced westslope cutthroat trout was recently introduced.

Instream spawning sediment levels in Red Canyon and Little Tepee creeks have been projected to exceed Travel Management Plan Standard (E-4) for Class A streams.

Instream fine sediment levels are elevated above the Travel Management Plan standard for sensitive species along Little Tepee Creek. A comparision study between Little Tepee Creek and an unnamed tributary to Tepee Creek indicated that there is a higher level of sediment related impairment along the unnamed tributary within the Madision Inventoried Roadless Area. Additional habitat survey data indicate that habitat parameters along Little Tepee Creek, especially those parameters closely related to sediment deposition, are similar or better than the unroaded reference reach. It is believed that the exisiting habitat conditions along Little Tepee Creek are not a result of past timber harvest and associated activities. Because of site specific knowledge, it is believed that the majority of the model predicted sediment would not reach Little Tepee Creek as a result of various routing obstacles previously discussed. With or without the implementation of the action alternatives, the recently introduced population of westslope cuutthroat trout would continue to increase in population size and continue to occupy the once barren habitat upon which they were placed. The design features and mitigation meausres are such that any of the action alternatives will have minimal impacts on the exisitng westslope cutthroat trout population. It is recommended that as part of this decision that a non-sigificant site specific Travel Management Plan admendment be implemented for the action alternatives to exempt the project from strandard M-4.

45 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Although slightly elevated above Travel Management Travel standard for protecting spawning tributaries to Blue Ribbon Fisheries, changes to instream sediment level are expected to increase slightly along Red Canyon Creek. Based on the facts that: 1) projected instream sediment increases are slight between three action alternatives; 2) few lacruatrine trout use Red Canyon Creek for spawning; and, 3) the high level of natural sediment delivery from the upstream fault that totally masks projected project generated sediment delivery, it is recommended that as part of this decision that a non-sigificant site specific Travel Management Plan admendment be implemented for action alternatives to exempt the project from strandard M-4.

Comparison of Alternatives

Fisheries

For the issue of sediment delivery and associated effects on fisheries, there is little difference between the action alternatives that were analyzed for fisheries (Table 11). Within the Red Canyon analysis area, Alternative 3 is slightly better that Alternatives 2 and 4. Within the Little Tepee analysis area, Alternatives 3 and 4 are slightly better than Alternative 2. Within the Tepee Creek analysis area, all three action alternatives had the same projected effects.

As described earlier, it is believed for various reasons that the WATSED model accurately predicted the direction of incremental change but not the magnitude of effects of the three action alternatives. Because of site specific knowledge, it is believed that the majority of the predicted sediment would not reach Little Tepee Creek as a result of various routing obstacles. Table 11. Baseline conditions for Alternative 1 and a summary projected changes from all action alternatives for instream spawning sediment and embryo survival for Red Canyon, Little Tepee and Tepee Creel analysis areas. * = doesn’t meet Travel Management Plan standard M-4. Little Tepee Parameter Red Canyon Tepee Creek Creek Reference Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 309.9 93.4 322.3 (White 2015) Existing Sediment Yield (tons/yr.) 313.5 98.7 328.1 (White 2015)

Percent above Reference 1.2% 5.7% 1.8% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 28.5%* 34.1%* 21.3% /a (% > 6.3mm)

Percent Embryo Survival for b c b Alternative 1 Alternative 58.8% / 24.7% / 75.8% / cutthroat or rainbow trout.

Percent above Reference 3.3% 25.0% 7.4% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 29.0%* 38.7%* 22.6% (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for Alternative 2 Alternative 57.5% 17.0% 73.0% cutthroat or rainbow trout.

A l Percent above Reference 2.9% 24.3% 7.3%

46 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

(White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 28.9%* 38.6%* 22.6% (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for 57.8% 17.3% 73.0% cutthroat or rainbow trout.

Percent above Reference 3.3% 24.3% 7.3% (White 2015) Instream Spawning Sediment 29.0%* 38.6%* 22.6%% (% > 6.3mm) Percent Embryo Survival for Alternative 4 Alternative 57.5% 17.3% 73.0% cutthroat or rainbow trout. /a = assumed to be similar to lower Grayling Creek that was measured in 2005 (Watschke 2006). /b = for rainbow trout. /c = for cutthroat trout.

Amphibians Regardless of the action alternatives, individual western toads would be impacted by the various proposed activities. Mitigation measures were developed to reduce the number of impacted individuals. It is believed that the larger Hebgen Basin population would not be impacted as a result of some individuals being impacted. Mitigation measures were applied to all three action alternatives. As a result, there would be little difference in effects between the action alternatives in regards to western toads.

Biological Evaluation

Fisheries

Because the project area lays geographically outside the native range of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Action Alternatives 2-4 would have “No Impact” on the species.

Primarily related to sediment delivery, the implementation of all the Action Alternatives 2-4 would have a slight impact on the recently introduced westslope cutthroat trout population located downstream of the project area. Because of design features and mitigation measures built into all action alternatives to reduce sediment delivery from area roads, and knowledge of the local drainage network and routing, it is believed that the amount of project-generated sediment delivered, if any, would be much lower in quantity than what was predicted by WATSED model for Little Tepee Creek analysis area. Living in isolation without other non-native trout, abundant food, and quality habitat will help assure the long-term persistence of this population. These are the exact reasons why westslope cutthroat trout were introduced into Little Tepee Creek in the first place. Potential impacts to water temperature, stream bank stability, riparian cover and habitat and large woody debris recruitment would be avoided as a result of design features. The implementation of either of the three action alternatives “May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” for westslope cutthroat trout.

Amphibians

47 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Because the project area lays geographically outside the native range of northern leopard frog, Action Alternatives 2-4 would have “No Impact” on this species.

Alternative 2 would result in the over story removal (regeneration harvest or group selection) on 338 acres within the larger 12,556 acre Flats analysis area of which 8,138 acres is currently forested toad habitat, which represents 2.7% and 4.2% respectively. The other two action alternatives are very similar to Alternative 2. These opened treatment units for the most part are scattered and not immediately adjacent to any of the three known larger breeding sites. Western toads most likely would avoid migrating through these areas during dry periods until ground temperature and moisture returns to pre-project conditions.

Undoubtedly, individual western toads would be impacted by both vehicle/equipment traffic and burning of large landing piles. It is believed that the high quality amphibian habitat surrounding Hebgen Lake including loose soils, healthy riparian areas, protected bays, isolated oxbow ponds and slow and controlled reservoir drawdowns would compensate for the loss of individual toads and toadlets. It is also believed that the level of impacted individuals would not be such that the entire Hebgen Basin population would decline. The implementation of either of the three action alternatives “May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” for western toads.

Plains spadefoot, a recently listed sensitive species on the Gallatin National Forest, inhabits a strip approximately 0.5 mile wide along southern and northern shores of the Madison Arm. There are only three proposed treatment units (17, 20 and 32) within this strip of occupied habitat. Because of their life history requirement, few if any individuals would be directly impacted since they predominately come above ground on rainy periods. There is a slight chance that a few individuals might be entombed in the ground as a result of soil compaction related to heavy equipment. It is believed that the project impacts to plains spadefoot would be very minimally, if any at all. The implementation of either of the three action alternatives “May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” for plains spadefoot.

Peralshell Mussel

Nothing is being proposed that would cause occupied stream reaches to become less stable causing harm to western pearlshell mussels. The projected increases in sediment delivery are not substantial that mussel beds would be entirely covered causing harm. It is believed that that the North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project would have “No Impact” on area western pearlshell mussels or their beds.

Literature Cited

Alexander, G.R., and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand Bed Load in a Brook Trout Stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 6:0-23.

Bartelt, P. E., C. R. Peterson, and R. W. Klaver. 2004. Sexual Differences in the Post-breeding

48 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Movements and Habitats Selected by Western Toads (Bufo Boreas) in Southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica, 60(4), 455-467.

Chapman, D. W. and K. P. McCleod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the northern Rockies ecoregion. Forest Service Files, Bozeman Ranger District, Bozeman, MT.

Cline R., G. Cole, W. Megahan, R. Patten, J. Potyondy. 1981. Guide for Predicting Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, and Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. pp 7-20.

FERC. 2000. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License 2188 to PP&L Montana, LLC. United States of America. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 87 pp.

Fish Files Report. 1991. Sediment core sediment data and analysis collected from along Red Canyon Creek. USDA Forest, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana.

Gallatin National Forest. 1990. Settlement Agreement to the Appeal of the Gallatin National Forest Plan by the Madison/Gallatin Chapter of trout Unlimited, Inc. U.S Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana.

Gallatin National Forest. 2006. Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Final Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana.

Gallatin National Forest. 2010. Distribution and Status of Gallatin National Forest Aquatic Management Indicator Species. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana.

Hausle, D.A., and D.W. Coble. 1976. Influence of Sand in Redds on Survival and Emergence of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 1:57-63.

Irving, J.S., and T.C. Bjornn. 1984. Effects of Substrate Size Composition on Survival of Kokanee Salmon and Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout Embryos. Completion Report. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, Boise, Idaho. 21 p.

Leary. R. 2010. Westslope Cutthroat Trout Genetics Reports for Tepee Creek and Little Tepee Creek (#4010), University of Montana Conservation Laboratory, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula Montana.

Keck. T. 2015. North Hebgen Multi-Restoration Project for Soil Resources. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana.

Knowles, N., M. D. Dettinger, and D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in Snowfall versus Rainfall in the Western United States. Journal of Climate. Volume 19: 4545-4559.

May, B. E. 1993. Interpreting Forest Plan Fishery Resource Management Direction: A White

49 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Paper. USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, Montana.

McClure, W. 1997. Lower Red Canyon Creek Review, File Report. USDA, Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest. Bozeman, MT.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2010. Environmental Assessment, Introduction of Westslope Cutthroat Trout to Little Tepee Creek, Madison River Drainage. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, MT.

Powell, B. E. 2002. Implementation of the 1999 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement/MOU Within the Upper Missouri River Basin. USDA, Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, MT.

Rahel, F. J., B Bierwagen, and Y. Tangiguchi. 2008. Managing Aquatic Species of Conservation Concern in the Face of Climate Change and Invasive Species. Conservation Biology. Society for Conservation Biology. Volume 22, No. 3, 551-561.

Sestrich. C. 2007. Hebgen Reservoir Amphibian Survey. USDA Forest Service Annual Progress Report to PPL Montana. West Yellowstone, Montana.

Stagliano, D. M. 2010. Freshwater Mussels in Montana: Comprehensive Results from 3 Years of SWG Funded Surveys. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT

Stagliano, D. M and C. Tobalske. 2011. Predictive Distribution Maps for the Western Pearlshell Mussel: a Sensitive Species on USFS northern region lands. GIS Map Layers produced for the USFS Region 1: Montana and Idaho. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT and the Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, Missoula, Montana.

Stagliano, D. M. 2015. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Survey and Assessment of Tepee and Little Tepee Creek, Gallatin Co., MT. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT

Stewart, I. T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in Snowmelt Runoff Timing in Western North America under a “Business as Usual’ Climate Change Scenario. Climate Change Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. 62:217-232.

Stowell, R., et al. 1983. Guide for predicting salmonid response to sediment yields in Idaho Batholith watersheds. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, and Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Pg. 17.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 37:130-137.

Watschke, D. A. 2006. Assessment of Tributary Potential for Wild Rainbow Trout Recruitment in Hebgen Reservoir, Montana. Master’s Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, MT.

50 Aquatics Report North Hebgen Multiple Resource Project

Weiss, T. 2015. Personal communications regarding stocking of rainbow trout in Johnson Lake. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Bozeman, Montana.

White. D. 2015. North Hebgen Multi-Restoration Project for Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agricultural, Forest Service, Northern Region, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana.

Williams, J. E., A. L. Haak, H. M. Neville, and W. T. Colyer. 2009. Potential Consequences of Climate Change to Persistence of Cutthroat Trout Populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society. Volume 29:533-548.

Witzel, L.D., and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1981. Role of Gravel Substrate on Ova Survival and Alevin Emergence of Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59:629-

/s/Bruce Roberts, Aquatic Species Biologist 11/30/2015 updated 3/2016 ……………………………………. …………………………… Your name and title Date