Highwood Mountains Range Analysis Project Area on Those Resources Affected by Implementation

United States Department of Agriculture Environmental

Forest Service Assessment

2015 Highwood Mountains Range

Judith Ranger District, Lewis and Clark National Forest Cascade, Choteau and Judith Basin Counties, Montana

For More Information Contact:

Lewis and Clark National Forest Judith Ranger District Standford, Montana www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark/projects 406-566-2292.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 4 Location of the Proposed Project Area ...... 4 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ...... 5 Purpose for the Proposal ...... 5 Need for the Proposal ...... 6 Who Will Make the Decision and What Will Be Considered ...... 8 Public Involvement ...... 9 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 9 Alternative 1- No Action(No Grazing) ...... 10 Alternative 2-Current Grazing Management...... 10 Alternative 3 – Proposed Adaptive Grazing Management ...... 11 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 14 A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities ...... 14 B: Range ...... 14 Alternative 1 – No Grazing ...... 25 Alternative 2 – Current Management ...... 25 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action - Adaptive Management ...... 29 C: Watershed ...... 35 Alternative 1 – No-Action/No Grazing ...... 46 Alternative 2 –Current Management ...... 46 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action ...... 47 D: Fisheries ...... 49 Effects Common to All Alternatives ...... 51 Conclusions by Alternative ...... 53 E: Economics ...... 57 Alternative 1 – No Grazing ...... 67 Alternative 2 – No Action (Current Grazing Program) ...... 69 Alternative 3 – Proposed Action ...... 70 Cumulative Effects ...... 72 F: Wildlife ...... 73 Existing Condition ...... 73 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species ...... 81 Sensitive Species ...... 84 Sensitive Wildlife Species Analyzed ...... 85 Management Indicator Species Analyzed ...... 96 Migratory Birds ...... 116 G: Soils ...... 126 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 132 Alternative 2 – Current Management ...... 133 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management ...... 134 H: Recreation ...... 136 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 137 Alternative 2 – Current Management ...... 138 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management ...... 138 I: Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 139 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...... 140 J: Sensitive Plants ...... 141 Existing Condition ...... 141

i Name of Project

Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 145 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (2 and 3) ...... 146 K: Noxious Weeds ...... 148 Alternative 1 – No Grazing ...... 150 Alternative 2 – Current Management ...... 150 L: Heritage ...... 153 Alternative 1 - No Action ...... 156 Alternative 2 – Current Grazing Permits Renewed ...... 156 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management Strategies ...... 157 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 159 Appendix A – Map Products ...... 160 Appendix B – Forest Plan Compliance Table ...... 161 Appendix C – Highwood Range Adaptive Management Plan ...... 166 Appendix D – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 167 Appendix E ...... 169 References ...... 170

List of Tables

Table 1 - Forest Plan Desired Conditions, Existing Conditions, and Need for Action ...... 6 Table 2 - Current Grazing Management Systems ...... 10 Table 3 – Adaptive Management ActionToolbox ...... 11 Table 4 - Comparison of Alternatives ...... 12 Table 5 - Highwood Allotment Units and Resource Concerns ...... 17 Table 6 - Little Belt Creek Allotment Units and Resource Concerns ...... 19 Table 7 - Arrowhead Allotment Units and Resource Concerns ...... 22 Table 8 - Utilization Standards ...... 30 Table 9 - Anticipated Trend in Riparian Condition ...... 46 Table 10 - Individual Westslope Cutthroat Trout Populations ...... 50 Table 11 - Population, Economic and Geographic Overview ...... 58 Table 12 - Total Employment by Industrial Sector ...... 59 Table 13 - Wages by Industry, 2010 (2010$) ...... 60 Table 14 - Annual unemployment rate, 2001−2010 ...... 61 Table 15 - Components of Personal Income Change 1970-2009 (Thousands of 2010$) ...... 62 Table 16 - Number of Farms by Type, 2007 ...... 63 Table 17 - Head Months and Grazing Season ...... 64 Table 18 - Response Coefficients Per 1,000 AUMs for Montana ...... 65 Table 19 - Economic Impacts Associated with the Highwood Allotments, 2011$ ...... 66 Table 20 - Number and Percent of People and Families in Poverty, 2010 ...... 67 Table 21 - Head Months, Grazing Fee Revenues, and Forest Service Costs for Alternative 1 ...... 67 Table 22 - Head Months, Grazing Fee Revenues, and Forest Service Costs for Alternative 2 ...... 69 Table 23 - Head Months, Grazing Fee Revenues, and Forest Service Costs for Alternative 3 ...... 70 Table 24 - Economic Impacts of Possible Reductions Under Alternative 3 ...... 71 Table 25 - Summary of Effects to Wildlife Species ...... 80 Table 26 - Federally Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Wildlife Species...... 82 Table 27 - Arrowhead Creek Goshawk Monitoring ...... 99 Table 28 - Land Types of the Highwood Mountains ...... 127 Table 29 - Summary of 2000/2001 Vegetation Mapping of Suitable Range ...... 128 Table 30 - Acres of Detrimental Soil Disturbance by Allotment ...... 130 Table 31 - Forest Plan Standards Applicable to Soils ...... 132

ii Environmental Assessment

Table 32: Montana Natural Heritage Program Field Guide (MNHP 2011b) ...... 142 Table 33 – Noxious Weed Acres Treated by Year ...... 149 Table 34 – Mapped Management Area Acreage in the Project Area ...... 169

List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity map ...... 5 Figure 2 –Uplands Monitoring ...... 17 Figure 3 –Beaver Creek Monitoring ...... 26 Figure 4 –Beaver Creek Monitoring 41 Figure 5 –Functioning Stream Reach ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 6- Non Functioning Stream Reach ...... 40 Figure 7-Stream Reach Monitoring ...... 41 Figure 8- Stream Reach Monitoring 2009-2010 41 Figure 9-Existing Condition of Riparian Areas 41 Figure 10 - Farm and Non-Farm jobs, Chouteau County, Montana ...... 63

iii Name of Project

Introduction We are proposing to permit livestock grazing utilizing adaptive management on National Forest System lands within the grazing allotments of the Highwood Mountains on approximately 42,000 acres of the Judith Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. What This Document Contains: We prepared this environmental assessment to determine whether effects of the proposed 1. Introduction activities may be significant enough to prepare  The direction that guides how we an environmental impact statement. By manage grazing preparing this environmental assessment, we are  Current grazing management in the fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply area we are analyzing with the National Environmental Policy Act 2. Purpose and Need to Continue Grazing (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations.  What we are proposing and why  What we hope to achieve  Who will decide what course of action Location of the to take and what will be considered Proposed Project Area 3. Alternatives for Grazing Management  Description of all alternatives The Arrowhead, Beaver Creek, Highwood, Little considered under this proposal Belt, Martin Creek, Middle Peak, Shed Creek,  Specific measures built in to the South Peak, Thomas Corner, and Yenderick alternatives to ensure the environment Allotments make up the Highwood Mountain is protected project analysis area. The geographic  Specific monitoring to determine boundaries of the allotments delineate the area whether desired outcomes are being within which the proposed action would occur. met The analysis area is the total area that resource 4. Environmental Consequences of Grazing specialists evaluate to determine the effects of Management the proposal. The boundaries of the analysis and  project areas may or may not be the same Methods used for the analysis  depending on the resource and scope of effects. Effects of the proposal on the physical and biological environment For example, the range specialist may focus  Effects of the proposal on the local analysis specific within allotment boundaries community, particularly the economy while the forest hydrologist may analyze data beyond the project area boundary to understand 5. Consultation and Coordination the cumulative effects for the hydrologic  Members of the interdisciplinary team resource. who developed the assessment  Other individuals and organizations The grazing allotments within the Highwood consulted Mountains Range Project area cover approximately 42,000 acres within a larger project area of approximately just under 45,000 acres in Cascade, Chouteau and Judith Basin Counties of Montana. The Highwood Mountains consist of seven sixth code hydrologic unit watersheds in Township 20 North Ranges 8, 9, 10 East. See Figure 1.

You can find rangeland and livestock management direction specific to the Highwood Mountains Range Project area in the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan (1986).

Figure 1 Vicinity map

The Lewis and Clark Forest Plan (1986) guides the management of natural resources on the Forest and provides Forest Service staff with an overall strategy for its management. Direction in the Forest Plan is provided at different levels. For example, direction might apply at a forestwide level, by management area, or by geographic area. A major part of this direction includes describing the desired conditions for individual management areas and geographic areas.

Grazing is one of the many uses allowed on the National Forest. Forest Service policy is to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable and identified for grazing, provided it is consistent with land management plans and meets the terms of the administrative permit.

Purpose and Need for the Proposal Purpose for the Proposal The purpose of the Highwood Mountains Range Environmental Assessment is to authorize grazing on all or portions of the Highwood Mountains landscape in such a manner that will meet or move

5 Name of Project resource conditions toward desired conditions, and be consistent with the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan direction, standards and guidelines. The underlying needs for this The Rescission Act of 1995 proposal include: (Public Law 104-19) requires each National Forest System • Compliance with the Rescission Act of 1995; unit to establish and adhere • Some resources, especially riparian, within the to a schedule for completing Highwood Mountains are currently not at desired National Environmental condition as identified by the Lewis and Clark Policy Act environmental Forest Plan and it is important to begin moving analysis on all grazing these resources from their existing conditions allotments. toward their desired condition over time; • In order to meet desired conditions there is a need to develop a management strategy that will give a greater amount of flexibility while addressing monitoring requirements, resource triggers and adaptive options to be implemented when triggers are reached. Need for the Proposal The need for action is created by the disparity between what is present, the existing condition, and what is wanted, the desired condition, of a resource.

Table 1 - Forest Plan Desired Conditions, Existing Conditions, and Need for Action Desired Condition Existing Condition Need for Action

Water Quality and Riparian Function

To attain a desired, healthy, Within the project area There is a need to increase and properly functioning riparian area, approximately 24 miles of /or improve hydrologic function having young woody regeneration stream reaches were found to and riparian condition over time. that provides the physical, be functional, 28 miles of This includes native herbaceous chemical and biological attributes stream reaches were found to and wood riparian vegetation. to fully support all beneficial uses. be functional-at-risk, and five Improve stream conditions for The Lewis and Clark Forest Plan miles were found to be less those five miles of stream identifies an objective of meeting than functional-at-risk reaches identified as functional- or moving towards proper at-risk downward trend or functional condition1 on 57 miles nonfunctional and the 28 miles of stream reach in the Highwood identified as functional-at-risk, at Mountain range. It also directs least one upward level. that corrective action on functional-at-risk2 and nonfunctional3 streams be initiated. Streams in this case include intermittent streams.

Rangeland Health for Herbaceous Vegetation

Desired Condition Existing Condition Need for Action

In upland sites emphasis will be The ridge tops, south and west Maintain and/or move towards placed on soil function and facing side slopes generally improving soil and site stability, condition of herbaceous and support bluebunch hydrologic function and biotic woody native species such as wheatgrass/Idaho fescue integrity close to those that bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho communities with a small would be expected for a fescue, rough fescue, as well as component of Wyoming big particular site by using quacking aspen and chokecherry/ sage. The riparian areas are Interpreting Indicators of Upland serviceberry/snowberry fields. generally narrow and contain a Health, technical reference mix, primarily of Kentucky 1737-15 1998. bluegrass, timothy, and hawthorn with remnant willow and cottonwood stands also present to varying degrees. Timber types are comprised predominantly of lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir. These tree species are found primarily on the north and east aspects. In addition the Highwood Mountains contain numerous aspen clones found in riparian zones and sub-irrigated upland sites.

Sportsman Experiences and Permittee Conflicts

Recreational resource to be able A well-developed trail system Changing the use pattern of to continue to offer a variety of provides motorized and non- livestock and reducing the recreational settings and motorized trail riding amount of season long grazing. opportunities throughout the opportunities. The Highwood mountain range Mountain range has one developed fee campground and numerous dispersed camping opportunities. Livestock use along trails has caused trail degradation and widening, specifically on Forest Service trail 453. Additionally, in the past the water system which supplies Thain Creek campground has been damaged as a result of cattle grazing. 1 Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) is a assessment methodology to determine if a stream has adequate streambank vegetation, proper stream morphology (structure), or instream structures (i.e. woody debris, rock, etc.) present to dissipate stream energy during high flows. This results in benefits including, but not limited to, reduced erosion sediment and bedload capture, floodplain development, improved water quality, ground-water recharge, and development of streambank root masses. This properly functioning condition determination is the desired condition for stream reaches in the project area. 2 Functional-At-Risk (FAR) means the riparian area(s) are in a functional condition but one or more properties (such as soil, water, or vegetation) are impaired, which makes the riparian area susceptible to degradation. 3 Nonfunctional (NF) means the riparian area(s) is not functioning properly. Typically, nonfunctioning riparian areas do not provide adequate vegetation, channel properties, or woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and thus do not reduce erosion, improve water quality, capture sediment, etc.

7 Name of Project

You will find more information on the existing condition in the area we are analyzing in section B, Range.

What is Being Considered We propose to continue to authorize and permit livestock grazing in the Highwood Mountains under an adaptive management approach. The proposed action is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions by incorporating a monitoring schedule and setting trigger points based on the condition of the resources.

The proposed action would continue to permit grazing Adaptive Management on the same amount of the land, but would change the Adaptive management is “The process of management in all seven allotments to a more dynamic making use of monitoring information to monitoring based system. In addition the proposed determine if management changes are needed, and if so, what changes, and to action would include fence construction, changing what degree.” livestock trailing patterns, and formalizing the ~Quimby, 2006~ formation of the Arrowhead allotment.

Who Will Make the Decision and What Will This is how grazing is Be Considered authorized on lands we administer: The responsible official, the Judith District Ranger, will decide whether livestock grazing After NEPA analysis, a decision will continue to be authorized on each of the authorizes grazing for an area, allotments. If so, the responsible official will allotment, or groups of allotments outline management objectives and decide on the appropriate management tools, design criteria and mitigation measures for each grazing allotment to achieve desired conditions. This information will go into the allotment management plan, which Grazing permits authorize a would guide the development of annual operating specific holder (permittee) to graze instructions. livestock according to project decision The purpose and need oulined earlier sets the scope of the project and analysis to be completed to help the responsible official make a decision. In making the decision, the resoponsible official will consider: Allotment management plans contain • Whether to reissue livestock grazing percent livestock management permits in the Highwood Mountains; direction from project decision • If grazing is authorized, which management practices, design criteria and mitigation measures will be prescribed for each grazing allotment; Annual operating instructions • The structural and/or non-structural range prescribe annual actions for the improvements necessary for the permittee. prescribed management practices to be

implemented; • The monitoring needed in order to determine whether the prescribed management practices are achieving the desired outcomes;

If adaptive management is chosen, what adaptive options will be implemented? and How will monitoring be used?

The decision will be based on how well the selected alternative: • Achieves the purpose and need; • Achieves moving toward the desired condition; • Can adapt to changing conditions and protects the natural environment; • Addresses the identified issues and concerns; • Compares the relevant impacts to benefits of the action; • Complies with relevant policies, laws and regulations.

Project design criteria have been incorporated into both the Adaptive Management Plan (Appendix C) and Adaptive Management Action tools (Table 3).

Public Involvement The proposal was listed in the schedule of proposed actions October 1, 2010 and posted to Lewis and Clark National Forest website. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during the scoping period beginning on December 6, 2010, and again on January 23, 2014 when the preliminary environmental assessment was posted on the Lewis and Clark webpage and a notice of 30 Day comment was posted in the newspaper of record, the Great Falls Tribune. We sent letters that contained a map of the project area and described the proposed action and the purpose and need to the affected permittees, interested individuals, organizations, Highwood Mountain range user groups, government agencies and tribes. The range specialist has also met with and gave periodic updates to the affected permittees at annual meetings and through person to person communications. The comments were analyzed for relevant issues and concerns. The comments received did not generate any new alternatives. Groups contacted and issues/comments received can be found in the project file. Additionally, specific issues have been addressed in the resource analysis sections that follow.

Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes the alternatives developed to meet the purpose of and need for action and address the key issues identified above. Three alternatives were developed in detail for this environmental analysis process. Each action alternative was designed to be a viable alternative consistent with Forest Plan direction. Alternatives developed were based on the following themes: 1) No-Action - No Permitted Livestock Grazing, 2) Current Livestock Grazing Management (Current Management, as applied on-the-ground over the last three to five years), and 3) Adaptive Livestock Grazing Management (Forest Service Proposed Action).

The no-action, current management, and proposed action alternatives are described and compared by resource area in the following sections. Current management can include limited changes in management strategies, but construction of new range improvements (stock water developments) may

9 Name of Project require additional National Environmental Policy Act review. The proposed action (adaptive grazing management) includes adaptive management, but includes the option of range improvement development if necessary. The first alternative is the “no-action” alternative, while the other two represent “action alternatives”. These three alternatives then make up a reasonable range of alternatives from which the decision maker can choose. Alternative 1- No Action(No Grazing) Under the no-action alternative, no livestock grazing would be authorized on National Forest System lands in the Highwood Mountains. No-action in livestock management planning is defined as “no permitted livestock grazing”. All existing structural improvements would no longer be maintained and removed over time. This alternative provides a comparative baseline of the resource conditions that would occur if no livestock grazing was authorized.

This alternative proposes to discontinue permitted livestock grazing within the analysis area and in essence is a selectable “action” as grazing is currently authorized . Twenty-one term grazing permits currently exist within the project area. These grazing permits would be cancelled under the time period provisions of Forest Service Handbook 2209.13 and would not be renewed. The affected allotments would be permanently closed by a separate decision. Alternative 2-Current Grazing Management Under this alternative the current management for livestock grazing would continue as authorized. In essence this is a no action over current management. Permitted grazing in the Highwood Mountain’s would continue with current utilization standards and existing improvements with limited options for an implement-monitor-adapt strategy. Administration of authorized livestock grazing would continue with generally the same terms and conditions as the current permits.

Table 2 - Current Grazing Management Systems Management Number of Permitted Season Percent Utilization Allotment Systems Livestock of Use Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Arrowhead Deferred 7/1 - 201 45 Allotment Rotation 9/15 Season- 7/1 - 1,489 35 Highwood Long 10/15 Little Belt Season- 7/1 - 116 35 Creek Long 9/30 34 FS Season- (on) 7/1 - Long 35 38 10/15 Martin (On/Off) Private Creek (off) Shed Season- 7/1 - 57 35 Creek Long 10/15 Season- Long 8/1 - 50 35 Thomas (Early 9/30 Corner Season) Season- 18 FS 7/2 - Long 35 (on) 32 8/10 Yenderick (On/Off) Private

Management Number of Permitted Season Percent Utilization Allotment Systems Livestock of Use Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed (off)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Adaptive Grazing Management The intent of this alternative is to meet the purpose and need as described previously. Livestock grazing in this proposed action would be authorized with the maximum season of use being from May 31 through October 15 and incorporate adaptive management strategies across the project area to achieve the desired future conditions of rangeland health.

Adaptive management is defined as, “The process of making use of monitoring information to determine if management changes are needed, and if so, what changes, and to what degree” (Quimby 2006). Rangeland health can generally be defined to include the interrelated attributes of soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity. This adaptive management model will incorporate an implement-monitor-adapt strategy.

We propose to utilize a combination of adaptive options that would effectively control duration and timing of grazing. These options may include adjustments in numbers, season, class of livestock (yearlings or cow/calf), construction of new division and/or exclosure fences (including temporary electric fences), changing traditional trailing patterns, development of offsite water and implementing rotational grazing systems. The initial adaptive management options, monitoring parameters, and evaluation dates are outlined in appendix C.

The proposed actions in addition to the adaptive options are designed to address several specific management needs including:

• Reconstruction of the North Fork Highwood Creek riparian exclosure; • Changing livestock trailing patterns along Deer Creek; • Formalize the combination of Middle Peak, Arrow Creek, Beaver Creek and South Peak into the Arrowhead allotment and the institution of the rotational grazing system on this new allotment.

Utilization standards would be based on grazing system, see Table 8.

The toolbox is a collection of different management tools that can be used singularly or in combination to address resource issues. These If monitoring demonstrates desired conditions are not being achieved through the initial management action, modify the action to one or more of the identified adaptive management actions (tools) disclosed in this document. The grazing management tools are not listed in any order of preference or priority for implementation. The tools may be allotment or pasture specific based on the specialist recommendations and line officers determination.

Table 3 – Adaptive Management ActionToolbox Livestock Grazing Management Actions*

Non-Structural Actions: Reseed native grass, shrub and forb species back into areas with introduced species (plow and seed, or broadcast seed) Enhance riparian shrub regeneration by planting native shrubs

11 Name of Project

Livestock Grazing Management Actions* Enhance native grasses by inter-seeding or furrowing Conduct prescribed burning (authorized under a separate National Environmental Policy Act document) Fertilize existing meadows to stimulate herbaceous cover Use of integrated methods to control noxious and/or non-native plant species (including selective herbicides, biological control agents, and mechanical methods authorized under a separate National Environmental Policy Act document)

Structural Actions: Construct fence to create riparian unit – allow livestock grazing under riparian livestock grazing guidelines Construct fence to exclude livestock from areas of concern (riparian, streams, springs, wetlands, mesic meadows, etc.) Construct temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns Construct permanent fence to control livestock distribution patterns Control livestock distribution patterns using water (turn water on or off at developed water sites) Construct livestock water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, sediment traps, well, stock dam, submersible pumps, solar) Construct water gaps to control livestock access to riparian areas Construct armored stream crossings Remove existing water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, well, stock dam) Remove existing fenceline (electric, standard, permanent or temporary) Management Actions: Adjust livestock grazing system (i.e. – rest rotation, deferred rotation, rest, high-intensity/short-duration, etc.) Adjust use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas Incorporate a range rider to control livestock distribution (herding) Incorporate use of herding dogs to control livestock distribution Adjust season of use Adjust animal numbers Adjust number of days of livestock utilization Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons Do not allow livestock grazing Adjust and/or combine allotment boundaries Change pasture design Implement multiple unit rotation with permittees' private land

*Management actions are designed to be used either alone or in combination to best meet or at a minimum move toward the desired future condition.

Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 4 - Comparison of Alternatives Indicator for Alternative 1 – No Alternative 2 – Current Alternative 3 – Comparison Livestock Grazing Management Adaptive Management

Indicator for Alternative 1 – No Alternative 2 – Current Alternative 3 – Comparison Livestock Grazing Management Adaptive Management Arrowhead 07/01-09/15 Amount of allowable Beaver Creek 07/01-09/15 use is decreased. Middle Peak 07/1-09/15 Max season May 31 to South Peak 07/01-09/15 October 15 dependent on range readiness and Highwood 07/01-10/15 allowable use standards Season of Use None Little Belt Cr. 07/01-09/30 based on grazing system refer to Table 8 Martin Creek 07/01-10/15 - Utilization Shed Creek 07/01-10/15 Standards(e.g. Thomas decrease allowable sue 08/01-09/30 Corner to 35 percent for season long grazing Yenderick 07/02-08/10 Maintain existing None/no structural maintenance. All improvements. Structural Range structural Maintenance of structural Improvements improvements range improvements. Reconstruction of the would be removed North Fork Highwood over time. Creek riparian exclosure. Approximately 2,035 head of livestock 2,035 head of livestock (cow/calf pairs, yearlings, etc.) across Number Permitted (cow/calf pairs, yearlings, etc.) None the project area, but Livestock across the project area. dependent on meeting or progressing toward meeting desired future condition. Improved Conditions and Range and Riparian Areas at less-than-desired upward trend. Improve conditions. Conditions condition would remain static. No monitoring would be needed. Annual monitoring: range Monitoring for riparian readiness, annual operating health assessment and Low level of periodic instructions, allotment as per annual operating Monitoring monitoring would inspections, actual use instructions. Refer to continue. reporting, grazing response the Adaptive index, bank alteration, Management Plan. properly functioning condition. appendix C

In response to public comments on the proposal, we refined the management action tools and identified appropriate initial adaptive options as outlined in Appendix C. These measures although specific to the adaptive management strategy may be applied where applicable to any of the action alternatives.

13 Name of Project

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for the Highwood Mountains Range Analysis project area on those resources affected by implementation. The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives is presented, including regulatory framework of law, policy, and direction pertinent to the analysis. Analysis techniques may include use of various spatial data products, geographic information systems, computer modeling methods and various field survey methods. Refer to individual resource documentation in the project record for these specific methodologies, limitations and assumptions utilize for the analysis. A: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing National Environmental Policy Act, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment that results in the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7). As past actions are already included in the affected environment, the cumulative effects analysis builds upon this existing condition assessment by considering the incremental addition of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action as well as ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. Appendix D provides a list of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions considered for this analysis. B: Range

Introduction This section will focus on the range resources in relation to the Highwood Mountains Range Analysis.

Overview of Issues Addressed Two issues that will be analyzed are the vegetative health and function of both upland and riparian areas within the Highwood Mountains. Riparian health will be the main focus as issues with riparian species composition; woody species reproduction and hydrologic function have been brought forward as the largest need for change. This focus fits with the desired future condition of meeting or trending towards properly functioning condition within riparian areas and uplands.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The Highwood Mountains are relatively steep and divided with numerous small streams. Elevation ranges from approximately 4,500 feet at the Forest boundary on Highwood and Shonkin creeks to 7,670 feet on Highwood Baldy. The ridgetops and south and west facing side slopes generally support bluebunch wheatgrass (pseudoroegneria spicata)/Idaho fescue (festuca idahoensis) communities with some Wyoming big sage (artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis). The riparian areas are generally narrow and contain a mix primarily of Kentucky bluegrass (poa pratensis) and timothy (phleum pratense) with hawthorn (crataegus douglasii) being the predominant woody component, with some remnant willow (salix spp.) and cottonwood (populous deltoids) stands also present to varying degrees across the area. Timber types are predominantly lodgepole pine (pinus

contorta) and Douglas-fir (pseudotsuga menziesii) mainly on the north and east aspects. The Highwood’s also contain numerous aspen (populas tremuloidus) clones found in riparian zones and sub-irrigated upland sites.

From the days of the first white settlement, livestock grazing has been an important use of the Highwood Mountains. In the early days, public lands were considered available and free to use by any and all citizens. As a result, stocking rates were extremely high by today’s standards. The grazing record for 1904, for example, shows permitted use in the entire Highwood Preserve of 39,700 head of sheep and 5,769 head of cattle.

A range inspection report from 1904 describes the area as being “deeply terraced, often no more than two feet apart, the grass and herbage within being totally destroyed”.

Numbers of sheep in the Highwood Mountains decreased considerably in 1905, but the annual permitted number still remained high into the 1920's. Conversion of sheep to cattle was underway throughout this period, resulting in less than 3,000 head of sheep from 1929 to 1950. That year, the last conversion of sheep to cattle was made.

Currently the Highwood Mountains contain seven allotments most allotments are further divided into units. The term unit is used in place of pastures due to the boundaries between units are largely based on topographic features with drift fences and some boundary fence; because of this livestock control is not complete. All allotments are stocked with cattle with a period of use ranging from mid- June through mid-October. There are three allotments managed under a season long system, two on/off allotments, one grazed under an early season system and one managed with a deferred rotational system.

Highwood Allotment:

The majority of the permittees within the Highwood Mountains belong to the Highwood Mountain Livestock Association. The association was formed November 24, 1914. The association has worked with the Forest Service since its formation to manage livestock use within the Highwood allotment.

In the early 1960’s the Highwood Livestock Association agreed to a recommendation by the Forest Service to a 30 percent reduction in numbers phased in over three years. A 1966 grazing report indicates that portions of the allotment benefitted from the reduction; however, it states the drainage bottoms still received extremely heavy use and are entirely grazed early in the season. Period of use at that time was June 16 – October 15.

The allotment was later subdivided into 14 units with natural barriers and drift fences providing limited livestock control. Specific numbers of stock were assigned to each unit based on its estimated carrying capacity for season-long grazing. Under this system, frequent redistribution of stock was necessary to avoid over-use of key areas along the stream bottoms. As compared to other forest allotments, the availability of water on the allotment was good therefore livestock did not trail as much looking for water.

A new Allotment Management Plan (AMP) for the Highwood Allotment was written and approved in 1984. At that time 18 permittees were permitted to graze a total of 1,311 cattle on the Allotment. The period of use was adjusted to July 10 through October 15. The change in season was done to allow important native species such as Idaho fescue, Blue Bunch Wheatgrass and Rough Fescue to reach seed ripe before grazing.

15 Name of Project

The 1984 allotment management plan included an intensive burning program to treat sagebrush encroachment. The 1984 allotment management plan allows for forage utilization rates of 60 to70 percent within the creek bottoms.

Prescribed fire was completed from 1986 to1989 on the Highwood Allotment as follows:

• 1986 – 1,150 acres in Timber Creek, Jensen Spring, Postill Creek and Shonkin Creek; • 1987 – 1,008 acres in Kirby Creek and Lower Cottonwood Creek; • 1988 – 1,233 acres in Thain Creek, Windy Mountain, Big Coulee, and Cow Coulee; • 1989 – 1,350 acres in North Fork and South Fork Highwood Creek. While the burning program did slightly increase available forage for cattle along the side-slopes and upper ridges, it has not shown a measurable decrease in annual use of the riparian areas.

The Association has worked with the Forest Service in locating and installing 50 water developments on the allotment to help keep cattle from concentrating along stream bottoms. In addition there are 16.9 miles of fence existing on the allotment. The Association is proactive in maintaining range improvements, salting, riding (hiring two riders), and assisting with noxious weed inventory and control.

In 2007 many of the Highwood permittees developed grazing plans for their units that utilized rotating entrance and exit locations as well as rotating salt locations to achieve some deferment within the grazing units. These plans have been implemented since the 2007 grazing season. The Highwood Grazing Association worked with Montana State University to develop a permittee photo monitoring program that has been in place since 2007. This photo monitoring occurs mid-June before cattle enter the allotment and shows the plant vigor maintained by the late entry date.

Figure 1 Highwood Association Member Conducting Permitee Monitoring in the uplands of the Shonkin Unit Currently 17 permit holders graze approximately 1500 head of cattle on the allotment, since 1995 the permittee’s have had the option of turning on July 1st or July 10th. Livestock numbers were increased to compensate for the shorter period of use the association requested. The association begins removing livestock from the allotment around the 22 of September and removal is completed by October 1st. The number of days the allotment is grazed has decreased over time from 122 days from the 1960’s through 1984 to 83-92 days from 1995 to present

The following table is a list of units their resource focus points, permitted and actual use along with identified management changes.

Table 5 - Highwood Allotment Units and Resource Concerns Season Resource Focus Unit Number Class Management Changes of Use Point This plan allows for grass maturity in cool areas and early out to allow for fall regrowth. This Boyle Gulch 48 Cow/calf 8/1-9/15 n/a has been in place since 2007 and would be continued under alternative 2 and alternative 3.

Fisheries, Starting in 2007 permittees Shoulder 7/10- 388 Cow/calf hydrology and switched from entering and Creek 10/1 wildlife exiting in the same location to entering Deer Creek and exiting

17 Name of Project

Season Resource Focus Unit Number Class Management Changes of Use Point Shoulder one year and reversing the next. They also alternate salt placement within the units to try and achieve deferment. It is proposed to do some small amount of barrier fencing to try and eliminate trailing in the Deer Creek riparian area. Since 2007 entry and exit has Fisheries, 7/10- been alternated along with salt Pohlod 71 Cow/calf hydrology and 10/1 placement between Pohlod and wildlife Stoner Creeks. Since 2007 they have alternated turnout between Mowing Fisheries and Machine Ridge and east of Thain hydrology. Creek. Smith Creek is Thain Creek camp ground fence 7/01- important as it is a has been completed (fall 2011). Thain Creek 129 Cow/calf 10/1 new westslope This excludes cattle from the cutthroat trout facility. Cattle would be allowed stream and Thain to trail through in a limited and Creek is popular controlled fashion (on the road recreational fishery with riders) when leaving the allotment under alternative 2 and alternative 3. Priority number 1 for monitoring implementation. This is a westslope cutthroat stream with newly found pure in North Fork Fisheries, 7/01- the upper tributary. 157 Cow/calf hydrology and Lower and 10/1 Upper wildlife Proposed action would rebuild a portion of the North Fork exclosure putting the fence on the ridge line in order to better maintain. Big Coulee has essentially been Big Coulee, excluded from grazing by the Cow Creek 7/10- construction of a fence along the 118 Cow/calf n/a and Center 10/1 northern tributary this occurred in Ridge the mid 90’s. Big Coulee is a westslope cutthroat stream. Receives intermittent use but is not stocked. This was a decision South Fork N/A N/A N/A n/a implemented by the Association due to concerns with riparian conditions.

Windy Peak 7/10- North side 24 Cow/calf 10/1 n/a Receives some use but is not South side N/A N/A N/A directly stocked.

Season Resource Focus Unit Number Class Management Changes of Use Point Kirby and 7/10- Since 2007 entry rotated 112 Cow/calf n/a Packard 10/1 between Packard and Kirby. Pendorf and 7/10- 61 Cow/calf n/a - Grant Creek 10/1 Since 2007 turn out alternates Posthill 7/10- Range 132 Cow/calf between west of buildings and Creek 10/1 administration gate at south end. Proposed to graze this unit earlier and for a shorter season Jensen 7/01- 91 Cow/calf n/a (mid-June to mid-July) to utilize Springs* 10/1 timothy, favor native species and reduce browse levels. Timber 7/01- 40 Cow/calf n/a - Creek 10/1 Cottonwood 7/10- Creek Lower 36 Cow/calf n/a - 10/1 and Upper 7/10- Shonkin 69 Cow/calf n/a - 10/1 * In 2013 for Jensen Spring: 135 pairs were grazed from June 20 through July 31. Range inspections that fall showed much reduced browse and utilization levels. This is the type of site specific adaptive management that alternative three is all about.

Little Belt Creek Allotment:

The Little Belt Creek allotment is located in the southwest corner of the Highwood Mountains. The allotment consists of approximately 5,400 acres which encompasses the Little Belt Creek watershed. The watershed consists of a series of small drainages and three main forks (north, middle, and south) which all flow southwest to the main channel of Little Belt Creek. Drainage channels generally originate at seeps or springs that emerge near the base of ridge. The area is characterized by open grassy ridgetops and steep side-slopes.

The allotment is divided into five units that are grazed under a season-long system by six permittees. Little Belt Creek does contain important habitat for westslope cutthroat trout in the middle and north forks.

The following is a list of units within the allotment:

Table 6 - Little Belt Creek Allotment Units and Resource Concerns Resource Season Focus Unit Number Class of Use Point Management Changes This unit contains both the Middle and North Forks of Little Belt Creek Fisheries, 7/1 to which contain West Slope Cutthroat 53 Cow/calf noxious 9/30 Trout. This unit also has a significant weeds Middle Spotted Knapweed infestation Fork spreading from the power line running to the communication site on

19 Name of Project

Resource Season Focus Unit Number Class of Use Point Management Changes Highwood Baldy the District weed crew treats portions of this infestation annually but aerial treatment may be necessary to control it. At this time aerial application is not allowed under the current Lewis and Clark weed EIS.

North 7/1 to 43 - Fork Cow/calf 9/30

7/1 to 29 - West Cow/calf 9/30

7/1 to 44 - Heikkila Cow/calf 9/30

South 7/1 to 24 - Fork Cow/calf 9/30

Thomas Corner Allotment:

The Thomas Corner allotment is located on the west edge of the Highwood Mountains. It can be characterized as being extremely rugged with very steep slopes and narrow bottoms. Numerous small watercourses dissect the allotment, draining predominately to the north and northwest. The slopes are typically open on the south and west exposures, and timbered on the north and east exposures. The stream bottom vegetation is predominately Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, and clover.

Prior to 1986, the allotment had a season of use of June 16 to October 15. The 1986 range analysis indicated the capacity of the allotment was 42 percent lower than the previously permitted capacity. As a result, a season of use change was proposed, August 1 through September 30. After this proposal was made one permit within the allotment was a cancelled and the decision was made not to fill behind the cancelled permit. This left the allotment stocked at 42 percent under the previously permitted capacity and at the capacity deemed appropriate in the 1986 analysis.

Due to the large amounts of timothy (an early season non-native species) on the allotment and the fact it becomes unpalatable after curing; the permittees requested a change in season from late season to early season.

This change to early season use has allowed for better utilization of the timothy as well as regrowth of the natives thus improving plant vigor. This allotment does receive significant use from elk as evidenced by a 1994 range inspection and conversations with permittees. The allotment is currently stocked with 77 cow/calf pairs from 6/15 to 7/17.

Martin Creek Allotment:

The Martin Creek allotment is located on the southeast corner of the Highwood Mountains. The amount of primary range on the Forest portion or “on” lands of this allotment is small compared to

the amount available on the private or "off" lands. Most of the grazing on the Forest occurs in sections seven and eight, where open benches support a dominant community of timothy. Adjacent side-slopes support native bunchgrass communities. Conifer encroachment is beginning to crowd out many of the aspen communities, riparian communities, and open grassland communities.

The allotment receives extensive use by elk year-round, most of which occurs on the private land portion of the allotment. In 1995, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks observed 147 elk wintering on or near the allotment, again mostly on the private land.

The allotment is grazed under a term grazing permit with on/off provisions for 34 cow/calf pairs. The season of use is variable with a maximum season of use from July 1 to October 15 in even-numbered years and a maximum season of use from September 16 to December 30 during odd-numbered years.

Arrowhead Allotment:

The Arrowhead allotment is located in the south central portion of the Highwood Mountains. The Middle and South Peak units are fairly steep with grazing occurring on side-slopes and ridgetops containing bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho and rough fescue. These units also serve as elk winter range. The Beaver Creek unit is dissected by several small streams all flowing into the south fork of Highwood Creek primary range occurs on open slopes and ridgetops between drainages and in the riparian bottoms. As with most riparian systems in the Highwood Mountains Kentucky bluegrass and timothy are the predominant species. Most of the suitable range in the Arrow Creek unit occurs in section 15;, which consists of a mix of native bunchgrass communities interspersed with timothy. The headwaters of Arrow Creek are located within this unit.

This allotment was created in 2011 and is the combination of the Beaver Creek, Arrow Creek, Middle Peak and South Peak allotments. The allotment is managed under a four unit deferred rotation system alternating the first and last unit every other year. This plan was established after monitoring in 2009 revealed riparian standards were being exceeded in several stream systems, utilization standards were exceeded and improvement maintenance had not been completed within the Beaver Creek, Arrow Creek and Middle Peak allotments. In 2010 administrative action required the resting of the Beaver Creek allotment and did not allow use on Arrow Creek or Middle Peak until improvements were brought to standard. Under the prior management plan each allotment was grazed season-long; now no unit is grazed longer than 35 days during the season. This allows for plant recovery during the growing season each year and reduces the amount of time livestock have access to the streams. The permittee has worked cooperatively with us on developing this operating plan and bringing improvements up to standard.

In 2010 proper functioning condition monitoring was performed on Beaver Creek. This creek was still considered to be non-functioning but was in an upward trend do to vegetative growth, primarily timothy. Inspections completed in 2011 showed very light use within riparian areas in the Beaver Creek unit, the utilization observed was use by elk. The current plan calls for stocking 201 cow/calf pairs with a season of use from July 1 to September 15. The management changes made in this portion of the Highwood Mountains is a working example of how adaptive management works. A resource problem was found and the Forest Service worked with the Permittee to design management to address and begin restoration of the resource.

Several tools found within the adaptive management actions toolbox (table 3) were used in combination to address the resource concerns within this allotment.

1. The livestock grazing system was adjusted from season long to a rotational system.

21 Name of Project

2. Permittee use of salt and herding to achieve better distribution within the units.

3. Season of use and numbers were adjusted to drastically shorten the amount of time cattle are present on any one given portion of the allotment.

4. The allotment was rested for one year before grazing resumed and the South Fork pasture is not stocked and receives only intermittent use from livestock during the grazing season, most use is from cattle passing through while being moved on and off of other allotments.

5. Finally the allotment was once four separate allotments that were combined to create a landscape that would allow for the rotational grazing system and protect resources in all areas of the allotment.

The following is a list of units within the allotment.

Table 7 - Arrowhead Allotment Units and Resource Concerns Season of Resource Management Unit Number Class Use Focus Point Changes Arrow 201 Cow/Calf 16 days Hydrology Important to Creek monitor from hydrologic Beaver 201 Cow/Calf 30 days Hydrology standpoint to Creek ensure continued improvement.

Middle Peak 201 Cow/Calf 19 days Wildlife Elk winter range

South Peak 201 Cow/Calf 12 days Wildlife Elk winter range

Shed Creek Allotment:

This allotment is permitted 57 head from July 1 to October 15. Past period of use was June 16 through October 15. Allotment inspections have shown no problems. Boyd Creek does contain westslope cutthroat trout; however, it does not appear that a barrier opportunity exists which makes viability of westslope cutthroat trout questionable. Spotted knapweed is an issue on the allotment and has been a focus area for the District weed crew.

Yenderick Allotment:

This allotment is a small on/off allotment located in the very west end of the Highwood Mountains. Grazing occurs on a combination of private, Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands. The majority of the grazing occurs on private land and the predominant forage is timothy. Current management calls for a season of July 2 through August 10 with 18 head “on” Forest and 32 head on private “off” lands.

Desired Condition The desired future condition in the project area is to meet or move toward desired conditions in rangeland health, vegetation, and watershed conditions as related to Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan direction, standards, and guidelines. Additional specific information on desired vegetative condition (riparian and uplands) can be found in the watershed, fisheries and wildlife sections.

Desired Condition for Riparian areas Within riparian areas emphasis will be placed on hydrologic function and condition of herbaceous and woody vegetation relative to livestock grazing within the landscape. The desired effect is to increase native riparian herbaceous species as well as willow and cottonwood where suited. Changes in herbaceous species composition within riparian areas now dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and timothy are not likely as both species are very competitive and persistent. Proper functioning condition as described in technical reference 1737-15 1998 (Riparian Area Management) will be utilized to assess riparian condition as related to desired future condition. Reaching proper functioning condition or trending towards proper functioning condition is the management goal.

Desired Condition for Upland sites In upland sites emphasis will be placed on soil function and condition of herbaceous and woody native species such as bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue and rough fescue as well as quacking aspen and chokecherry/serviceberry/snowberry fields. Within the uplands indicators of upland health as described within technical reference 1734-6 (Interpreting Indicators of Upland Health) will be used to gauge conditions. Soil mapping and ecological site descriptions have not been completed for the Highwood Mountains at this time, which is needed to fully utilize this process. However, many of the indicators can still be used and will allow assessment of management direction. Maintaining soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity close to those that would be expected for a particular site will be the management goal.

The following management areas are contained within the project area. See appendix A maps for management area locations.

Management area E

Description: Nearly all of this management area occurs on big-game winter range and contains both grass and forested lands. The land is generally near the Forest boundaries.

Goal: Provide sustained high level of forage for livestock and big game animals.

Management area D

Description: Management area D is in the Highwood Mountains and includes grasslands, high areas, and mosaics (timber stands interspersed with grass) which are excellent for livestock use. All slopes are included. The area also provides summer and fall habitat for approximately 400 head of elk and numerous deer.

Goal: Provide a sustained high level of forage production for livestock, while protecting, maintaining, and improving water, wildlife, and other resource qualities.

Management area B

Description: Management area B contains most of the commercial forest land on the Jefferson Division. In the general forest, the species mix is approximately 75 percent

23 Name of Project

lodgepole pine and 25 percent Douglas-fir. In the dry forest, the species mix is approximately 84 percent Douglas-fir, 11 percent ponderosa pine, and 5 percent lodgepole pine. Much of the area provides summer and fall habitat for big game animals and forage for livestock.

Goal: Emphasize timber management and provide a moderate level of livestock forage production, while minimizing impacts to other resources.

Management area H

Description: Management area H includes developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, ski areas, recreation residences, and the land adjacent to all of these sites. Some livestock grazing occurs within and adjacent to this management area.

Goal: Provide recreation opportunities supported by public and private developments while maintaining other resource values.

Management area R

Description: Management area R consists of riparian areas throughout the Forest. They are made up of the lakes, streams, and land where vegetation is influenced by surface and subsurface water. Many important resources, such as fish, some wildlife, and certain vegetative communities, are totally dependent on this management area for their existence. Streams usually flow year round in riparian areas, although the main characteristic of these management areas is riparian vegetation, not necessarily stream flow. The boundaries and extent of this management area is determined by on-site soil and vegetation characteristics indicative of riparian zones.

NOTE: Riparian areas throughout the Forest have been given special consideration. These considerations include:

(1) minimizing activity in riparian areas where possible; (2) implementing standards for stream crossings; (3) implementing mitigation measures to avoid stream contamination.

Goal: Manage to protect or enhance unique ecosystem values associated with riparian zones. Give preferential consideration to riparian area dependent resources. Timber and range management activities are permitted.

Appendix B lists the Forest Plan standards applicable to livestock grazing. Environmental Consequences Methodology The analysis will consist of a qualitative discussion on upland and riparian range conditions relative to the alternatives.

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Direct Effects Removing livestock grazing from the Highwood Mountains would result in the fastest recovery time for upland and riparian sites not currently meeting desired future condition. This recovery would be most evident in riparian areas not at proper functioning condition; recovery of grasses and sedges would be seen first followed by increases in reproduction of woody species such as hawthorn and willow. Conversion of species composition from one dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and timothy to native riparian species would not be expected as the established introduced species are well established and tend to out compete the native species. Recovery in upland sites that receive heavier use such as areas around water developments and salt grounds would be expected as well, a reduction in bare ground would occur in these sites. Species composition would not be expected to change as the late entry date for the Highwood Mountains already allows for plants to set seed and begin building root reserves before grazing occurs. The reduction of bare ground in areas of heavy use may decrease the spread or growth of invasive species within both upland and riparian sites.

Indirect Effects Removing cattle from the Highwood Mountains would mean no riders covering the landscape conducting livestock management activities. This would lead to a reduction in reports of new noxious weed infestations, travel plan violations and illegal camps/cashes that permittees and riders provide. Forest Service personnel would also spend less time on the landscape further reducing the likelihood of finding new weed infestations or other resource problems.

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects of domestic livestock grazing under the no grazing alternative.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The no grazing alternative would be in compliance with the Forest Plan except as follows:

• Management area D which is in the Highwood Mountains calls for providing a sustained high level of forage production, while protecting, maintaining, and improving water, wildlife, and other resource qualities. Discontinuing grazing in the Highwood Mountains would result in an approximately a 10 percent reduction in animal unit months from the Forest Plans stated goal of providing forage for 73,600 animal unit months. A forestwide objective of providing a portion of the forage needs of the local livestock industry would also not be met under this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Current Management This alternative would be to continue permitting grazing in the Highwood Mountains with current utilization standards and with limited options for adaptive management. Direct Effects

Under this alternative, riparian areas not at proper functioning condition or trending towards proper functioning condition would likely remain static. This is assuming no changes to management are made administratively by the District. However, the Judith District has made recent changes under administrative authority of the Line Officer to allotments with identified degraded riparian conditions.

25 Name of Project

The most recent of which are the combination of the Beaver Creek, Arrow Creek, Middle Peak and South Peak allotments and the implementation of a rotational grazing system along with lower utilization standards. These administrative changes are showing positive results. If this type of management continues it is likely other areas will see improvement as well.

Figure 3 - Beaver Creek Photo Monitoring: Picture is representative of season-long grazing conditions along Beaver Creek during the 2009 season.

Figure 2 - Beaver Creek Photo Monitoring: Picture is representative of season-long grazing conditions along Beaver Creek during the 2009 season.

27 Name of Project

Figure 3 - Beaver Creek Photo Monitoring: Picture was taken along Beaver Creek after the grazing season in 2012. Beaver creek was rested in 2010 and grazed under a rotational grazing system starting in 2011.

Figure 4 - Beaver Creek Photo Monitoring: Picture was taken along Beaver Creek after the grazing season in 2012. Beaver creek was rested in 2010 and grazed under a rotational grazing system starting in 2011.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action - Adaptive Management Adaptive management is the application of a set of management tools to achieve a desired future condition. This allows for adjustment of management when monitoring shows the resource is not at or trending towards the desired future condition. For the Highwood Mountains emphasis will be placed on hydrologic function, along with maintaining and improving native herbaceous and woody riparian vegetation relative to livestock grazing and to meet Forest Plan direction, standards and guidelines.

Design Features and Mitigation Measures The proposed action centers on utilizing adaptive management to achieve the desired future condition for the project area. The focus of this planning process has been on improving riparian areas that are not properly functioning or in an upward trend. Riparian ecosystems make up a small percentage of the landscape in the Highwood Mountain’s but receive a high amount of use because of habitat selection by livestock. This makes it is necessary to manage livestock use based upon what the riparian sites can withstand without undue negative impact. The application of lower utilization standards and Forest Plan bank alteration standards will be used as in season monitoring tools to achieve desired future condition within the riparian areas. The specific allowable use standards are listed below.

Season of use under this alternative would be May 31 through October15. This window is simply the earliest and latest dates in which livestock use would be considered. This season of use window is to

29 Name of Project allow adaptive management to target specific vegetative and/or management issues that may be encountered. One such circumstance is pastures containing large amounts of Timothy. Timothy is a non-native early season grass that generally cures by the end of July in the Highwood Mountains, if it is not utilized before curing it is unpalatable and therefore not used by livestock. This in turn causes more use on the native vegetation and puts Timothy at a competitive advantage. Adaptive management would target early season use on these Timothy dominated pastures. Pastures targeted for early season use would likely have early off dates as well and would still be dependent upon range readiness indicators such as plant development and soil moisture.

Forage utilization standards less than the current 45 percent uplands and 60 percent riparian will be utilized. Streambank alteration will be used as an in-season monitoring tool for permittees, to aid in making decisions on when to move out of a pasture. Monitoring of the utilization levels will be conducted in key areas, in most cases this will be riparian corridors with resource concerns.

Table 8 - Utilization Standards System Allowable Use Rest Rotation (RR) 55 percent Deferred Rotation (DR) 45 percent Season Long (SL) 35 percent Early Season (ES) 35 percent Across all polygons (upland and riparian)

These utilization standards are the same as were implemented in the Lewis and Clark National Forest’s Sheep Creek analysis. Additionally when looking at riparian species such as Kentucky bluegrass, timothy, tufted hairgrass and sedges of these the least tolerant to grazing is tufted hairgrass (Mosley et al 1999). Reid and Pickford (1946) determined that tufted hairgrass can be maintained when grazed to a three-inch stubble height which corresponded to 55 percent utilization, which is the highest utilization level prescribed under this alternative and that is only with the implementation of a rest rotation grazing system.

It is not proposed to construct riparian exclosures on a large scale that would force heavier use onto the uplands. Therefore upland conditions are also expected to improve from the lower utilization standards. There are several tools contained within the adaptive management tool box (Table 3) they are all designed to achieve the same goal, less exposure of livestock to a specific stream segment which will result in less bank alteration, increased woody species reproduction and eventually improved stream structure.

Mosley et al (1999) in their Guidelines for Managing Cattle Grazing in Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality states that “each situation is unique and requires its own creative, locally tailored solutions”. They state the only way to know if a management strategy is working is to make an educated guess, implement the strategy, monitor its effectiveness and then adjust if necessary. This is the essence of adaptive management.

Direct Effects The application of lower utilization standards and application of Forest streambank alteration standards would result in improved riparian conditions. The combination of these two standards would result in more stubble height at the end of the season, which will aid in trapping sediment and building banks and point bars; the streambank alteration standard will ensure improvement continues. From a vegetation standpoint the lower utilization levels will benefit woody plants such as willow and cottonwood with increased recruitment resulting. Other herbaceous vegetation will also benefit from

the reduction in utilization levels increasing plant vigor and reproduction. These changes will move streams that are not at properly functioning condition to properly functioning condition or get them trending in that direction.

The uplands will benefit from the reduction in use of the riparian areas because tools to exclude livestock from riparian areas are not the primary focus. Reductions in use will be achieved primarily by the use of herding, salting, grazing system (i.e. rotations) or ultimately reductions in numbers or season. The lighter use within the uplands will benefit all aspects of soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity. Herding will be one of the most important and effective tools for managing riparian grazing. Ehrhart and Hansen (1997) found that after conducting surveys of 128 stream reaches in Montana the only commonalities among successful riparian grazing programs was the serious commitment and personal involvement of the grazing manager. Dallas (1997) also mentions that a common thread to successful riparian grazing management is the presence of a skillful herder who is committed to maintaining or improving the health of riparian areas.

Indirect Effects Complying with the suggested use levels within riparian and upland sites as well as streambank alteration standards may lead to reductions in livestock grazing from current levels, if tools such as a reduction in seasons or numbers are required to achieve the desired future condition.

Cumulative Effects This section will focus on noxious weeds and natural disturbances that could impact livestock grazing in the Highwood Mountains. There would be a reduction of cumulative impacts from weeds and livestock grazing on upland and riparian habitats with the implementation of the adaptive management alternative. Weed treatment would continue and the implementation of management practices designed to improve conditions of uplands and riparian areas not at desired condition would show results such as less bare soil, increased stubble height after grazing, less bank trampling and increased recruitment of woody plants within riparian sites.

Natural disturbances analyzed include flood and fire events. The Highwood Mountains receive relatively frequent high rainfall events. These events combined with bank damage from livestock grazing have the potential to cumulatively impact riparian systems. Adaptive management reduces the additional impacts caused by livestock grazing to these natural events by reducing bare ground, bank damage, and increasing stubble heights and woody plants to protect banks. These high flow events will still cause significant scouring of banks as can be seen within areas of the Highwood Mountains that are not grazed. Fire is another disturbance that can influence the Highwood Mountains. The main impact of fire on grazing in the short term would be the reduction of available forage which could result in shorter grazing seasons or required rest for affected portions of the Highwood Mountains. In the long term, areas affected by fire could result in increased available forage in the uplands. These increases in available forage would decline over time as conifer reproduction would advance.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This alternative would be in compliance with the Forest Plan because it permits grazing while emphasizing and protecting riparian resources.

Summary of Effects The adaptive management alternative would result in improved vegetative conditions within riparian and upland sites not meeting desired future conditions. The proposed utilization and bank alteration

31 Name of Project standards will provide conditions allowing hydrologic function to improve within degraded stream reaches.

These changes in standards and guidelines alone represent a big change in management. In pastures that are not meeting desired future conditions permittees will be forced to think of other tools to achieve these standards and guidelines or else ultimately face reductions in season and/or numbers until compliance is achieved. Monitoring for Alternative 3

Monitoring and evaluation will be elements of an adaptive management strategy. Monitoring helps determine how well the Forest Plan and National Environmental Policy Act decisions are being implemented, whether allotment management plan implementation is achieving the desired outcomes, or whether assumptions made in the planning process are valid. Through monitoring, we can measure whether or not management actions are meeting or moving towards desired conditions in an appropriate timeframe. Through adaptive management, allotment management plans can remain dynamic, relevant, and useful documents over many years.

Two types of monitoring are associated with initiating management actions for a grazing allotment, implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring measures and documents whether or not Forest Plan standards, guidelines and project level design criteria are being met. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates how effective management actions are at moving toward, achieving, or maintaining desired conditions.

Monitoring on the allotments can be implemented and accomplished by the Forest Service, permittees, or others implementing approved methods and providing appropriate documentation that meets specified standards.

Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring is short-term monitoring that allows us to evaluate whether livestock management is being applied as prescribed in the allotment management plan and implemented through the annual operating instructions. The Forest Service in conjunction with the permittee(s) conducts this type of monitoring.The short-term conditions will be monitored annually using a variety of methods such as, but not limited to:

Range Readiness: Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soil and vegetation conditions. Rangeland is generally ready for livestock grazing when soil has become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and when plants have reached the defined stage of growth at which livestock grazing may begin under the specific management plan without long lasting damage. Range readiness will be evaluated on a landscape, rather than a site specific basis. It will be checked annually beginning a few weeks prior to the scheduled on date and continually evaluated until as needed until range readiness is achieved. The actual on date is then determined for that year.

Allotment Inspections: Forest Service personnel make on-the-ground inspections of utilization, livestock numbers, correct pasture use, and improvement maintenance. Results are documented in allotment files, and corrective actions are taken as necessary.

Allowable Use Guides: These guidelines are designed to ensure that short-term effects of livestock grazing activities are able to provide for the long-term health and sustainability of rangeland resources. There are a variety of allowable use guides that may be used including trigger stubble height, residual stubble height (occurring at the end of the livestock grazing season or the end of the

growing season, whichever occurs later), the grazed plant or loop method, riparian shrub utilization, streambank impacts, etc.

Actual Use Reports: Permittees are responsible for reporting actual use of the allotment at the end of each livestock grazing season. When combined with analysis of other factors such as allotment inspections, the need for annual adjustments to livestock grazing strategy can be determined.

Effectiveness Assessment and Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring and assessments are utilized as longer term indicators to focuses on determining whether management is successful in meeting our outlined desired conditions or is moving rangeland resources towards desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe. Determining trend toward or away from the desired conditions of the allotment allows rangeland managers to accurately determine the relative success of the management system and to adjust management to achieve the allotment objectives or desired resource conditions.

Trends for a variety of rangeland resource parameters may need to be monitored. These trends tend to be long-term, and relatively slow in responding to Compliance with Allotment changing conditions. Management Plan and Annual Operating Instructions The long-term health of upland resources will be monitored on each allotment at three to five year The allotment management plan is intervals using a variety of methods such as, but not the individual plan developed for a limited to: specific allotment. It identifies desired conditions, goals, and objectives applicable to the allotment Cover Frequency Transects: This commonly used to move it towards, achieving or inventory method provides quantitative measurements maintaining desired objectives. of canopy cover and frequency by plant species, ground cover, and production by life form. It is useful when a The annual operating instructions replicated sampling design and statistical analysis is implement the allotment management plan and clearly explain how each required. It is also used to calibrate ocular estimates of allotment is to be managed on a year- canopy cover. to-year basis. These instructions become part of the Term Livestock Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are Grazing Permit for each permittee and extremely useful in documenting change on the responsibility for carrying out the instructions falls to the permit holder. landscape. Photos need to capture the essence of the The annual operating instructions plot, point or transect, including important include instructions for pasture characteristics and features of the site. Photos need to rotations, numbers to be grazed, pasture on and off dates, standards for include enough of the horizon-line to allow the and determination of allowable use, photographer to easily repeat the photograph from the improvement maintenance and same angle at a different time. construction, and general allotment operating procedures. The short-term health of riparian areas will be monitored using the following method, but not limited This allows annual livestock grazing management to adapt to fluctuations to: in short-term factors such as range readiness, precipitation, and other Bank Alteration: This parameter may be monitored to local events such as fire. By allowing determine correlations with utilization levels of these short-term adjustments to adjacent key riparian vegetation areas, and correlations livestock grazing, Forest Plan direction is likely to be met. with other long-term indicators of riparian/stream health. The 2005 Region One Bank Alteration Protocol

33 Name of Project

(United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2005) is a suggested methodology. The basic procedure involves estimating alteration along both banks of a 100 to 200 foot stream segment using a point intercept method. This method requires the observer to draw an imaginary line from the tip of their boot perpendicular to water’s edge at sample points defined by a full pace. If the line intercepts any alteration, then one count is tallied. Alteration is defined as vertical bank shear, hoof depressions of one half inch or greater that expose soil or roots, or heavily compacted trails. Both sides of the bank are measured independently and then averaged to determine percent of total bank altered along a transect. Monitoring should occur as close to turn out as possible.

Appendix C includes a summary of the above and other potential parameters for assessment and qualifying desired future conditions of streams, riparian areas and aquatics.

The long-term health of riparian areas will utilize assessment tools and monitored methodologies methodologies, such as, but not limited to:

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): This assessment process classifies riparian as being in “properly functioning condition”; “functional-at-risk”, with either an upward or downward trend: “non-functional”, or “unknown”. These ratings evaluate riparian condition based impart on presence and/or absence and abundance of specific vegetation and the interactions of that vegetation with geology, hydrology, and soils.

Indicators of Rangeland Health TR 1734-6 Version 4-USDA 2005: This assessment methodology provides for a rapid, qualitative moment in time status of upland rangelands using a set of 17 indicators. The protocol integrates ecological processes, vegetation and soils for sites to which it is applied.

Riparian Vegetation: The composition and condition of vegetation along streambanks and adjacent riparian areas provides critical information on the stability and resiliency of the riparian system and the condition of associated aquatic and riparian habitat. Improving riparian vegetation is, more often than not, the key or first step towards improving channel and habitat conditions. Methodology that quantifies vegetation composition in a linear and repeatable fashion along the streamcourse may be used. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the Upper Columbia River Basin, sampling protocol, and vegetation parameters (Coles-Ritchie 2005) is an example of this type of methodology.

Channel Geometry: Bankfull width, bankfull depth, top of bank width and flood prone width (if entrenchment is an issue) may be monitored by measuring approximately 50 semi-permanent cross- section locations. However, channel geometry measurements may not be useful or feasible on reaches that have low discharge, spring flow regimes, or which lack distinct bankfull features. Where appropriate, bankfull depth is measured at either one-foot intervals or at 10 points; whichever is the lesser amount (includes depths at both end points). Flood prone width is a horizontal distance measured at the elevation equal to two times maximum bankfull depth. Top of bank width is measured from the break in bank angle of the lowest bank along a level line to the opposite bank. This width measurement is used on reaches where high levels of bank alteration make identification of bankfull stage difficult or impossible.

These distance measurements can be plotted to display a cumulative distribution curve by year monitored. The curves can then be compared visually and statistically between years monitored.

Bank Stability: This parameter is a good comprehensive indicator of physical stream health. It may be monitored through a classification system developed by Burton et al. (Burton et al. 2007). Their

system qualifies bank cover and bank stability independently and provides four possible combinations of cover and stability, plus false bank and unclassified categories.

Instream Surface Fines (Grid Method): This parameter may be monitored to determine instream surface fine composition. Semi-permanent transects may be established in relatively stable riffles not directly influenced by temporary features such as log debris jams. The transects are moved only if necessary to keep them centered in the riffle. Surface fines are measured by placing a 49-intersection steel grid on the stream bottom and determining particle size category under each intersection. The number of intersections that lie over substrate less than a quarter of an inch in diameter are tallied. However, rather than randomly tossing the grid, it is placed side by side across each transect from stream margin to margin, with readings taken at each placement of the gird. This technique is efficient, repeatable, more comprehensive, and less subject to observer bias than random grid tosses.

Percent surface fines can then be computed by averaging the percentage of intersections lying over fine substrate (less than a quarter of an inch) for all read grids on both transects at each monitoring site. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney test can be used to determine a significant difference (p=0.05) between years. However, long-term trends will be more meaningful than year to year variations.

Photographs and Photo-points: Two or more photo-points may be established along each key reach. Photos would be taken of riparian vegetation, stream channel, streambanks and other features that have the potential to document changing riparian conditions. Additional photo-points can be added in future years to capture additional characteristics or conditions that arise which should be documented. Hall (Hall 2002) is a suggested methodology.

Trigger Points The value of monitoring under an adaptive management approach is that it shows how well management is performing relative to desired conditions. It asks the question “at what point do we consider the need to change management if monitoring indicates a lack of acceptable progress towards desired conditions?” The point at which monitoring indicates a possible need for change is called a trigger point.

Once a trigger point is reached, such as the 35 percent utilization, the monitoring data and other pertinent information would be evaluated to determine if a management adjustment is needed and when. The appropriate adaptive management options outlined in the grazing management toolbox to address the issue would be reviewed and an alternate course of action would be made by the district ranger. C: Watershed

Introduction This section focuses on the characteristics, condition of and effects on riparian areas. Associated issues include channel morphology, streamflow and water quality. The analysis area includes all surface waters within the Forest boundary located in the Highwood Mountains.

Overview of Issues Addressed

ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS, METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS The methodologies used to assess existing riparian condition are described under the Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. These procedures were developed to systemize

35 Name of Project measurements and evaluations of the resistive capacity of mountain stream channels to detachment of bed and bank materials. Additionally, the procedure provides information about the capacity of the stream to adjust and recover from potential change in flow and/or increases in sediment production (United States Department of Agriculture 1978). Riparian Condition-Properly Functioning Condition Assessment is a subjective evaluation by an interdisciplinary team, but the assessment protocol has scientific basis as described in United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (1998, 2003).

It is important to understand that predicting the effects of livestock grazing management on future riparian conditions is a highly uncertain task. This is due to the variability of natural processes and characteristics, the uncertainty of implementation and administration of proposed management, and the variability of the effectiveness of proposed management assuming adequate implementation. Relevant research supporting the effects discussion is provided under sections General Grazing Influences and Background- Research Recommendations for Livestock Grazing in Riparian Areas.

Water Quality Sedimentation and increase nutrients are the water-quality impairment most likely to result from the proposed activities. The dominant vectors for sediment delivery to stream channels in the project area are grazing activities and forest travel routes. Increases in nutrient loads would be directly attributed to cattle. Sources of sediment by grazing cattle would occur along streambanks where cattle have altered or damaged the bank. Road sediment contribution are only located where the road crosses stream channels or within the contribution zone of the stream. The data available for the analysis of road sediment delivery along project roads and nutrients is limited; thus, this report will not present quantified estimates of sediment delivery from roads or nutrient loading from cattle grazing.

Stream temperatures also have the potential to be affected by the proposed activities. Over widening and removal of vegetative cover along streams can result in increased water temperatures. This can result in the reduction and impairment of fish habitat. Other water quality impairments (e.g. increased levels of metals or nutrients change in pH) are not likely to be affected by the proposed activities.

The proposed project will meet state stream water quality standards for sediment if all reasonable land, soil and water conservation practices (see project file) are implemented and those practices “protect present and reasonably anticipated beneficial uses”. This report will assume that beneficial uses are being fully met, and will continue to be met if the proposed project results in no net increase in sediment delivery.

Other operations-related assumptions used in this report are listed in the soil specialist report.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Main Steam Reach Description Highwood Creek: Streams in the Highwood Creek watershed originate in rhyolitic rock of the Highwood batholith. The North and South Forks flow together approximately one quarter mile before the Forest boundary to form Highwood Creek. Highwood Creek then flows northwest, through private lands, to the Missouri River. Within the Forest boundary, Highwood Creek and lower reaches are described as riffle pool morphology. The headwaters within the Forest boundary consist

of approximately 30 square miles. County road 200 (Forest Road 121) parallels the south fork for roughly seven miles. There are nine unimproved fords in the upper reaches. The road is heavily used by recreation and general access when winter snows allow.

Little Belt Creek: The headwaters of Little Belt Creek originate above the Forest boundary. The tributaries making up the headwaters of Little Belt Creek begin at the confluences of the South, Middle and North Forks originating in rhyolitic rock of the Highwood batholith. The South Fork confluence is approximately one mile downstream from the Forest boundary. The confluence of the Middle and North Fork are roughly one half mile downstream from the Forest boundary. These reaches are described as riffle pool in the lower reaches and steep, mainly bedrock controlled, step pool higher in the drainages. There are approximately three and one half square miles of watershed above the Forest boundary. Forest Road 8830 crosses the Middle Fork approximately one mile from the confluence of the North Fork. This crossing is a newer aquatic organism passage culvert installed in 2003. Recreational access to the upper tributaries is limited and use is minor.

Shonkin Creek: Originating approximately two and one half miles above the Forest boundary on the north side of the Highwood Mountains, Shonkin Creek flows through rhyolitic rocks north to the Missouri River. The only north public access to the Highwoods, recreation opportunities along this creek are minor and include hunting, hiking, camping and fishing. The confluence of Kirby Creek, a tributary to Shonkin, is located at the Forest boundary. It flows through a private inholding with the exception of roughly one mile of the upper watershed. Shonkin is described as a riffle pool lower and bedrock controlled step pool high in the drainage. Kirby is beaver pond dominated within the inholding trending step pool high in the drainage. Forest Road 8842 parallels Shonkin Creek for two and one half miles and fords the creek at the Forest Boundary.

Cottonwood Creek: Originating on the east side of the Highwood Mountains, Cottonwood Creek is not accessible from the east by the public. Recreation is limited to hiking and fishing. No Forest Roads are located in the watershed. It is described as a step pool, bedrock controlled stream.

Arrowhead Creek: The headwater of Arrowhead is located on the south side of the Highwood Mountains and flows southeast to the Judith River. Only about one and one half miles of the creek is located above the Forest boundary. Access to the creek is limited to foot traffic. Due to heavy grazing, there is a lack of pools in the reach and is described as mainly riffle.

Stream Reach Inventory Fifty-seven miles of perennial stream were surveyed during the 2009 and 2010 field seasons using the Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation methodology. Five miles were determined to be in poor or less than properly functioning due to grazing (see Figure 7). The locations of individual riparian sites are provided in appendix A, management area map, riparian functioning condition plot inventory. Allotments that contain non-functioning condition streams include Arrow Creek (Beaver, Rat, Arrow and Skunk Creeks), Highwood (Thain and Smith Creeks). Changes in grazing management have the potential to improve the condition of these streams because grazing impacts are the most direct and significant of all the activities that influence them. Compared to the 2005 stream survey results, this is a decrease in riparian function and stream function. Impact from other activities including existing roads, wildlife and recreation may be addressed through other management planning.

In 2011 and 2012 stream reach monitoring (properly functioning condition) was conducted on Thain, Smith and South Fork Highwood Creek. All streams reaches surveyed in 2011 and 2012 rated non- functioning due to upland contributions. Also the lack of age class and diversity of vegetation were

37 Name of Project noted as not adequate for maintenance and recovery of streambanks. Species present did not indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture and the vegetation masses capable of withstanding high-flow events. See Table 9.

A functioning riparian wetland system has adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris present to dissipate energy and trap sediment during high flows. These attributes will allow for reduced erosion, sediment filtering, and improved flood-water retention. A functioning riparian system will provide habitat for fish, waterfowl, and other uses (United States Department Of Interior 1998).

Figure 5 – Functioning Stream Reach Photo shows an example of a stream reach within the project area that was rated as functioning.

39 Name of Project

Figure 6 – Non-functioning Stream Reach Photo shows an example of a stream reach within the project area that was rated as nonfunctioning.

Reaches found to be functioning-at-risk have vegetative, hydrologic or soil attributes that are not adequately supported. In general, the concerns in these systems include 1) impairment of water storage and release processes, 2) reduced channel, bank and vertical stability, and 3) degraded habitat for riparian dependent wildlife and aquatic/semi-aquatic species. Refer to the aquatics and wildlife sections for discussion of riparian dependent species concerns.

2005 Riparian Condition Miles 21

At Risk Functioning 44

Figure 7 - Stream Reach Monitoring 2009/2010 Riparian 5 Condition Miles

28 At Risk Functioning 24 Non Functioning

Figure 8. Stream Reach Monitoring 2009 - 2010 Existing Riparian Condition Miles

31 At Risk Functioning Non Functioning 25

Figure 9. Existing Condition of Riparian Areas (all monitoring combined)

Non-functioning reaches may lack adequate vegetation that has resulted in hydrologic changes to the stream system. Lack of vegetation may result in increased flow energies that result in unstable stream banks, over-widened stream channels resulting in increases in sediment transport through the system.

41 Name of Project

Water Storage and Release Long-term over utilization of riparian vegetation and streamside trampling and trailing has affected water storage and release processes along several riparian reaches (Beaver, Rat, Skunk, tributary below Rat Creek, Upper Thain, Smith, Deer, Shoulder and Arrow Creeks). A reduction in vigor and density of deep-rooted riparian vegetation (i.e., root biomass) has decreased infiltration rates and increased surface runoff rates. Toledo and Kauffman (2001) documented these relationships in a study in northeast Oregon. Additionally, long-term trampling and trailing has compacted streamside soils. Overly compacted streamside soils can affect water movement into these soils in two ways:

1) Similar to the effects of reduced root biomass, compacted soils also generally have reduced infiltration rates. This again, increases the potential for overland flow and routing of precipitation (rain and snowmelt) directly to streams, thereby bypassing hill-slope recharge processes in localized areas (Ponce 1989). 2) Compacted soils reduce capillary action and movement of streamflow into adjacent soils along portions of the stream course, thereby bypassing recharge of adjacent soils by streamflow. Decreased infiltration, increased surface runoff, and reduced storage capacity of adjacent streamside soils means less water is held on the land for less time. Livestock trampling and trailing has also widened segments of stream channels and reduced vegetative cover. This resulted in over widened stream course exposing more surface water to evaporation processes, which further reduces water available to recharge adjacent streamside soils and augment base flow in reaches further down the valley.

As discussed below, entrenched channels occur along portions of these streams. Entrenched channels generally coincide with lower water tables, and narrow or absent adjacent riparian areas. These conditions further compound the effects to storage and release processes discussed above. The combination of reduced riparian vegetation and increased soil compaction, evaporation, and channel entrenchment have affected water storage and release processes within these narrow, short riparian systems.

Channel, Bank and Vertical Stability Entrenched channels occur along portions of some streams within the analysis area, i.e. Beaver and Highwood Creeks. These conditions are partially due to natural characteristics, i.e.: old fine sediment beaver habitat complexes, but the magnitude of the condition has likely been intensified by past grazing management. Refer to the wildlife species section of this document for effects to beaver and beaver habitat.

Long-term over utilization of riparian vegetation as found in the aforementioned stream systems and continuous streamside trampling and trailing has increased the rate of channel entrenchment. A reduction in vigor and density of deep-rooted riparian vegetation has decreased bank stability and resistance to peak runoff events. This is compounded by annual livestock trampling and trailing that has exposed and destabilized streamside in conjunction with the adjacent side-slope soils along portions of the stream course. As discussed above, reduced vegetative cover and increased compaction can increase surface runoff and magnitude of peak flows.

Entrenched channels confine a higher proportion of peak flow water to the main channel thereby reducing floodwater access to, and floodwater energy dissipation in, the floodplain. More energy confined to the main channel provides more energy available for lateral (bank cutting) and vertical adjustments (down-cutting) throughout the system. Toledo and Kauffman (2001) also suggest that

increased peak flows can increase the rate of channel entrenchment. The process can be cyclic and compound itself over time.

Braiding is a natural process of channel migration. Stream braiding can also be unnatural as a result of cattle trailing up stream channels and over use of vegetation along streambanks. Trailing along segments of stream reaches can result in the channel migrating into the cattle trails. During high flows the unstable stream segments braid resulting in increased width and sediment load. Braiding, stemming as a result of grazing, is evident in Deer, Shoulder, Beaver, Rat, Arrow Creeks and the upper reaches of Thain Creek.

Stream Classification Stream classification is difficult to apply at the reach scale for most streams within the project area because bankfull indicators are not apparent or are highly variable. This is due to either significant alteration by livestock grazing, or low discharge spring-fed flow regimes, or both. Therefore, visual estimates were made to determine the range of stream types according to the Rosgen Channel Classification System (Rosgen 1996).

Streams were categorized into three classes based on their sensitivity to grazing impacts and their ability to recover once these impacts are reduced or eliminated. Highly sensitive streams have the potential to contribute and route significant levels of fine sediment to stream systems or have the potential to change channel form and function relatively easily. These include Rosgen stream types A4-5, C4-5, D3-5, E4-5, F4-5, and G3-6 (Rosgen 1996). Although more easily impacted, they are often more resilient, requiring a shorter time to return to normal function once impacts are reduced or eliminated. Rosgen stream types F5 and G4 or G5 are the exception here. Due to their entrenched nature, floodwaters are unable to access floodplains. The energy associated with floodwaters is thereby confined to the existing channel, which causes more bank erosion than for less entrenched channels. Entrenched stream types can also be susceptible to down-cutting if the stream bottom is composed of fine textured material. Down-cutting can lead to a lowering of the water table which can cause the vegetation type within the original riparian zone to change. When deep-rooted shrubs and grasses are replaced by shallow rooted species, the sensitivity of the stream system increases further.

Highly sensitive channels often have overhanging banks composed of fine textured soils, which are easily degraded through bank trampling. Bank trampling and over utilization of shrubs often results in loss of root structure, vegetative vigor, and ultimately loss of bank structure. These conditions lead to exposed raw banks, increased instream erosion during runoff events, increased sediment loads, braiding and ultimately result in an excessively wide stream channel. Excessively wide channels along a significant portion of stream length can lead to reduced stream velocities and reduced sediment transport capacity. This generally results in aggradation, i.e., the long-term accumulation of sediment in a stream system. The condition is compounded when banks are not allowed to stabilize and rebuild because of continual bank alteration by livestock. Hence, more bank erosion leads to wider channels, higher sediment loads, and increased aggradation. Loss of bank structure (undercut banks) can also result in increased stream temperature and lower quality fish habitat.

Moderately sensitive stream types are more armored and have less risk of impact associated with grazing, although channel impacts can occur at high use levels beyond the ability of the channel to absorb the impact (Rosgen types A3, A6, B4-5, C3, C6, D6, E3, E6, F3, F6, and G2). These streams take longer to become impaired, but also are less resilient than highly sensitive stream types and generally require longer recovery periods.

43 Name of Project

Low sensitive stream types do not have the potential to change channel form and function easily and therefore, have a low potential to contribute and route significant levels of fine sediment to stream systems (Rosgen types A1-2, B1-B3, B6, C1-2, F1-2, G1). However, if these stream types are disturbed, either through management actions or catastrophic natural events, they generally will not recover rapidly. They are not resilient.

Of the 65 miles of streams surveyed in the Highwood Mountains, four miles have a high sensitivity, 26 miles have a moderate sensitivity, and 19 miles have a low sensitivity to grazing, while seven miles have variable characteristics that produce segments of different sensitivities within the same reach.

Wetlands Existing Condition Riparian-wetland areas are grouped into two major categories: 1) lentic, which is standing water habitat such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows, and 2) lotic, which is running water habitat such as rivers, streams, and springs. Wetlands in the Highwood are separated into two different groups under the description of the existing condition, riparian wetlands associated with stream reaches and upland wetlands associated with seeps, bogs or meadows. Both types of wetlands have been documented by the Lewis and Clark Forest Soil Scientist, Forest Hydrologist and Forest Fish Biologist, details of those are included in the project record.

In general the condition of the lotic or riparian area wetlands associated with stream reaches is the same as the description of the stream reaches. The streams monitored using the Proper Function Condition protocol documents and assess the function of the riparian soils and vegetation during the stream reach assessment, the same assessment considers the vegetation, erosion/deposition (soils) attributes and processes to assess the conditions in the riparian wetlands adjacent to stream reaches. Additionally, photo documentation of wetlands adjacent to stream reaches that are listed as Functioning-At-Risk or Non Functioning (project record) denotes trampling, vegetation that has been removed through grazing or trampling, and poor water quality at the surface due to sedimentation or the addition of fecal material from livestock or wildlife. Similarly, the riparian wetlands associated with Functioning reaches would be considered to have a proper functioning condition (USDI-BLM, 1998).

Upland (lentic) wetlands associated with seeps, bogs and meadows have been documented in the Highwood Mountains that include areas above Skunk Creek, Pohlod Creek, Deer Creek, and McMurry Creek, as well as isolated wetlands associated with aspen stands in the area of the tributaries of the North Fork of Highwood Creek. Generally field notes indicate detrimental impacts to wetlands soils from livestock trampling or wallowing. These wetlands show denuded vegetation due to grazing or trampling and sediment is being introduced into surface waters from erosion processes. That is not the case for all of the upland wetlands documented in the Highwood Mountains, however, there are wetland springs or fens that are not showing signs of livestock or wildlife impacts, generally those wetlands are heavily timbered or in steep country unsuitable for grazing.

Desired Condition The desired future condition for all riparian systems within the analysis area is to attain a properly functioning condition which provides the physical, chemical and biological attributes to fully support all beneficial uses. Fully supporting riparian systems are expected to exhibit a generally stable channel form (width, depth, sinuosity and gradient), which at the same time adjust in localized areas in response to natural disturbances. Bank erosion, channel scour, and deposition are minimal, but relative to the systems inherent stability. Levels of fine sediment are in balance with the transport

capability of the streamflow. Vigor, density and diversity of riparian vegetation are highly similar to potential natural conditions and generally include deep rooted grass, sedge, rush and willow species. Streams are able to route most flood flows (less than 25 year recurrence interval) without significant adjustment to channel dimensions. Extreme floods may occur every 50 to 100 years and cause major channel adjustments, but these events are rare and separated by long periods of recovery and relative stability. Streamflow and water table levels are representative of undisturbed conditions, as are water quality parameters such as temperature, sediment, nutrients, and bacterial concentrations. Properly functioning riparian systems are resilient and better able to buffer the effects of disturbance events and climate extremes.

In a properly functioning condition, with less influence from livestock grazing, the width of perceptible streamflow along spring-fed streams within the project area is expected to be single thread (not braided) and very narrow, perhaps only inches wide. The riparian zone is expected to be wider and much more densely vegetated. Riparian soils are expected to vigorously absorb and slowly release water. Water movement downslope through the dense organic/root matrix of a wider riparian zone would be slow and mostly imperceptible. Riparian zones are expected to maintain higher soil moisture and water levels during low flow periods.

Wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to: dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment and aid floodplain development; improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting action; restrict water percolation; develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterbird breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity (USDI-BLM, 2003). For the purposes of analysis, lentic and lotic wetlands will be included with riparian analysis below as they are treated the same as far as monitoring and assessment as well as treatment under the different alternatives.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the proposed activity. Installation, reconstruction or removal of water developments are the only activities considered to cause direct effects to riparian areas and water quality, and none of those activities are proposed under any alternative.

Short-term vs. Long-term Productivity There are no short-term versus long-term productivity issues for water resources under any alternative.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments on water resources under any alternative.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects There are no unavoidable adverse effects on water resources under any alternative.

Indirect effects occur at a later time or distance from the proposed activity. Free-ranging livestock are considered indirect effects to riparian systems and water quality as the activity is dispersed spatially and temporally.

45 Name of Project

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Table 9 - Anticipated Trend in Riparian Condition Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Direct No activity No activity No activity Indirect Improve to properly Static or decline Improve¹ functioning condition ² ׳Cumulative Improve to properly Static or decline Improve but relative¹ functioning condition but relative² ¹ Full improvement to properly functioning condition may not occur without long-term monitoring and adaptive management. ² Natural disturbance events and other human activities could influence the recovery and future condition of riparian areas.

Alternative 1 – No-Action/No Grazing Fifty seven reaches are evaluated under the various alternatives displayed below. Those riparian areas currently non-functioning and functioning-at-risk were evaluated for their potential to improve, while those areas currently functioning properly were evaluated for their potential to decline.

Direct and Indirect Effects New livestock grazing impacts to riparian systems and riparian dependent species will no longer occur under this alternative. Streambanks that are currently trampled from past grazing will gradually stabilize and over-utilized riparian vegetation will increase in vigor and density. Infiltration and absorption capacity of overly compacted soils at spring sites and along low discharge, spring fed systems will increase, thereby improving water storage and release processes.

Cumulative Effects Existing cumulative effects models for water and sediment yield are not adequate to quantify to a single cumulative value, the effects of all the diverse activities in individual drainages including wildfire/prescribed fire, camping, off-highway vehicle use, grazing, and road networks. The only way to address these cumulatively is to address each activity individually and then qualify, in general terms, the cumulative effects between specific activities where appropriate.

Prescribed fire and existing roads will continue to be an insignificant influence on riparian systems as described under the affected environment. However, natural flood and wildfire events may impact these riparian systems and riparian dependent species in the future, and reduce the anticipated rate of recovery from past grazing influence.

Summary of Effects The no grazing alternative would provide the fastest rate of recovery of all grazing impacted riparian areas. This alternative would provide for the quickest recovery of all non-functioning and at-risk systems.

Alternative 2 –Current Management This alternative proposes no change from current permitted management. Assuming future management under this alternative reflects past actual use, riparian systems currently non-functioning, in part due to recent grazing management, will continue to be non-functioning. Twelve of the reaches

have indicated decline in function, due in part to historical grazing management, will continue to decline in function. Twenty five riparian systems (displayed by functioning stream reaches in appendix A, Maps - Stream Reach Condition Map) are expected to continue to function properly. It is expected that five riparian systems rated as non-functioning are expected to increase in functionality due to management changes made in response to undesirable riparian conditions in 2009. These systems were rested in 2010 in response to 2009 monitoring results. These include systems within the Arrowhead allotment (Rat, Skunk, Beaver, Arrow and South Fork Highwood Creeks). Properly functioning condition surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 list Beaver Creek as non-functioning, but note that positive changes have occurred to riparian vegetation, this recovery trend is expected for stream reaches in the Arrowhead allotment under alternative 2.

Direct Effects In the event that future management under this alternative reflects permitted use, grazing pressure on riparian systems is expected to remain steady from what has occurred over the last two decades. At- risk riparian systems and some of the more accessible and sensitive systems currently functioning properly may revert to a declining trend. This scenario is possible in, but not limited to, Shonkin, South Fork Highwood and Kirby Creek for sensitive systems within the allotments.

Cumulative Effects Past and present timber harvest activities and prescribed fire will continue to be an insignificant influence on riparian systems as described under the affected environment. Road systems will continue to be an impact to Highwood Creek at road crossings. However, natural flood and wildfire events may impact these riparian systems and riparian dependent species in the future. The degree of impact may be compounded by continued livestock grazing under the current management, but mainly for those riparian areas currently non-functioning and functioning-at-risk.

Summary of Effects This alternative maintains some riparian areas in less than properly functioning condition. Depending on whether future management reflects past actual use or permitted use, there is a risk of reaches currently functioning properly to reverse trends due to livestock grazing. This alternative does not comply with all pertinent laws, regulations and policy.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action The proposed action would institute an adaptive management plan for all allotments in the Highwood Mountains. This alternative also proposes to lower the grazing utilization standard from current levels by 5 to 25 percent within riparian areas. The changes in grazing management proposed under this alternative are designed to reduce the grazing duration on riparian areas and improve livestock distribution. Better livestock distribution will increase use of under-utilized secondary range and reduce over-utilization on primary range and grazing pressure on riparian areas. The riparian objective is to change the existing at-risk and a non-functioning condition associated with grazing to an upward or improving trend, and ultimately achieves properly functioning condition for all riparian areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects All management tools are proposed to reduce the time livestock loiter in the riparian zone in all allotments. See Table 3 for a list of proposed management action tools. An important tool will be consistent and diligent herding practices by the permittee to ensure utilization standards are not exceeded.

47 Name of Project

Because livestock management over the last two decades has been highly variable in the allotments, either through intermittent years of rest or variability in numbers, duration and animal unit months, and because proposed management allows for flexibility in numbers and duration, it is not possible to compare current and proposed management in order to estimate effects. Finally, management changes that result in substantial increases in grazing intensity (flash grazing as proposed in Beaver Creek and Arrow Creek allotments) can change distribution patterns enough to cause an increase in grazing pressure on some reaches currently functioning properly.

Even under the best of circumstances when current and proposed livestock management can be compared, predicting the effects of management on future riparian conditions is a highly uncertain task. This is due to the variability of natural processes and characteristics, the uncertainty of the effectiveness of proposed management, and the uncertainty in implementation. Due to these factors, emphasis on the “adaptive” will be a key component of the proposed management. Monitoring will be a critical component of adaptive management to help identify downward trends before conditions become difficult to reverse.

Consistent with the soils and fisheries report for this document, controlling the number and timing of days that livestock have access to riparian areas and streambanks is more important than numbers of livestock alone. Little management during the grazing season has been shown by a number of researchers, as discussed previously, to cause substantial impacts to vegetation and streambanks along riparian corridors. Generally, building and maintaining effective fences that either exclude livestock or limit their impact to riparian areas is the most effective tool for minimizing impacts to soils in these areas. Livestock water developments, salting and supplements located in a manner to pull livestock away from perennial springs and streams seem to spread the soil impacts to these areas with season long grazing rather than improving conditions along livestock accessible reaches of riparian areas. Range riders and herding can be effective in improving livestock distribution to the level that vegetation and soils along riparian areas benefit compared to off-site water developments, salting and supplements alone. Range riders and herding can also be effective in dispersing cattle from off-site water, salting and supplement stations and areas that livestock will congregate and stay such as bowls near tops of drainages, passes and swales.

Cumulative Effects Prescribed fire and existing roads will continue to be an insignificant influence on riparian systems as described under the affected environment. However, natural flood and wildfire events may impact these riparian systems and associated fish and wildlife species in the future, and the degree of impact may be compounded by continued livestock grazing under the proposed management, but mainly for those riparian areas currently functioning-at-risk.

Summary of Effects This alternative should improve and maintain all riparian areas, but will likely require long-term trend monitoring and adaptive management to fully achieve desired riparian conditions.

Monitoring Recommendations As part of alternative three, a long-term trend monitoring plan is recommended to determine if the proposed management is improving riparian conditions at a satisfactory rate and maintaining areas currently functioning properly. Long-term monitoring will also be included and help with determining correlations between forage utilization standards, streambank and riparian conditions. Upon full implementation of the proposed action, at least two full rotation cycles may be necessary to provide sufficient time to establish trends.

Long-term trend monitoring is proposed in all allotments. If trend monitoring indicates that the rate of riparian improvement is slow or becomes static and attainment of desired conditions is not probable, adjustments to the proposed management will be necessary. Adjustments will be made to planned grazing systems (i.e. reduction in animal unit months, reduced season of use and/or duration). Other livestock distribution tools will include, but not limited to mid-season triggers, infrastructure additions (fences and water developments) or complete rest.

Long-term monitoring indicators are outlined in the range section and in Appendix C.

Short-term indicators and methods may also be used and might include bank alteration.

For a brief description of each of these monitoring methods see the Range section, page 32. Additionally the project file includes a summary of the above and other potential parameters for quantifying desired future conditions of streams, riparian areas and aquatics. D: Fisheries

Introduction This section analyzes fisheries and aquatic wildlife issues related to a proposed project to allow grazing to continue in existing allotments on Forest Service lands in the Highwood Mountain range.

The Highwood Mountains, an island mountain range, which drains into three fourth-order hydrologic unit codes. These are commonly called sub-basins. These three sub-basins are Belt Creek, Arrow Creek and Upper Missouri-Dearborn River. Within these three sub-basins there are seven sixth-order hydrologic unit codes. These drainage units are commonly referred to as sub-watersheds. Some analyses in the forest hydrologist’s report and in this report are done at the scale of this geographical unit. Individual fish and other aquatic wildlife populations often occur at the scale of individual streams, stream segments or aquatic habitat units such as wetlands. Analysis in this report will be done at this scale, when applicable.

The westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) is the only native trout in the project area. This cutthroat trout subspecies is recognized as a sensitive species by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The State of Montana recognizes this fish as a species of concern. There are six conservation populations of this subspecies within the project area. Two of these are within fenced units which prevent cattle access to the stream. This is the only sensitive fish species or subspecies found in the project area. The other sensitive aquatic wildlife species found in the project area is the northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). The western toad (Bufo boreas) is listed as sensitive species on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, but has never been documented in the Highwood Mountain range. The western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata) was recently added to the Forest Service, Region 1 sensitive species list. This species has not been found in the project area or in adjacent downstream areas. The Highwood Mountains are not currently considered a potential population area in mapping efforts by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (Stagliano 2011). There are no threatened or endangered aquatic species or habitat areas identified for these in the project area.

The Lewis and Clark Forest Plan lists three fish species as management indicator species with instructions to monitor population levels of all management indicator species on the Forest and determine the relationship to habitat trends. The westslope cutthroat trout is the only native trout that appears on this management indicator species list. The other two fish management indicator species,

49 Name of Project eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), are introduced species on the Lewis and Clark National Forest and in the State of Montana.

The Lewis and Clark National Forest lands in the Highwood Mountains are popular with recreationists. The project area doesn’t contain a state designated blue ribbon trout stream, but there are numerous smaller streams which are locally popular fishing destinations. Recreational fishing is mostly centered on introduced species of trout. These are brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout, and eastern brook trout. These species are now far more widespread than the native westslope cutthroat trout in the project area. Fishing use on streams which originate in the Highwood Mountains appears to have increased in the last decade. Public access occurs on Lewis and Clark National Forest lands and downstream of Lewis and Clark National Forest lands for these streams. Fish reared within the project area migrate downstream. This shows an importance in managing Lewis and Clark National Forest habitat to provide for an abundance of sport fish in and downstream of the project area.

Field surveys, area visits, and ongoing allotment management efforts in the project area consistently reveal that there are many stream segments that have been altered by livestock grazing. Most impacts from livestock grazing to fish, amphibian and mussel species are related to damage to streambanks and to changes in the vegetation component of riparian areas. Mechanical damage to streambanks from hoofs can lead to increased sediment yields, increased stream width/depth ratios, warmer water temperatures, and loss of habitat quantity and quality. Livestock foraging on riparian areas can lead to changes in the species and age composition of the vegetation. Soil compaction in riparian areas could impair the productivity of these sites for sustaining native plants. These plants perform important ecological functions such as shading streams, stabilizing banks and providing cover to aquatic wildlife species and associated prey species. Erosion from cattle disturbance in upland areas can increase sediment yields in project area streams. This has been observed in sites such as trailing areas near valley bottoms and on some side-slopes near streams.

Affected Environment

Sensitive Species

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Westslope cutthroat trout, populations, with a genetic purity of 90 percent or greater, are found in six streams in the project area. Table 10 contains a summary of the habitat conditions for these populations. The properly functioning condition class column in this table refers to the channel conditions for the stream segment in which the population exists.

Table 10 - Individual Westslope Cutthroat Trout Populations Westslope Cutthroat Trout Redd Westslope Properly Population Trampling Eastern Cutthroat Functioning in Genetic Viability Brook Trout Condition Livestock Barrier Purity Issue Trout Population Class Exclosure Status Percentage Identified Present North Fork No Under Highwood At-Risk 100 No Yes Exclosure Construction Creek No Constructed Middle Fork At-Risk 100 Yes No Little Belt Exclosure Barrier

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Redd Westslope Properly Population Trampling Eastern Cutthroat Functioning in Genetic Viability Brook Trout Condition Livestock Barrier Purity Issue Trout Population Class Exclosure Status Percentage Identified Present Creek Boundary North Fork Fence – Natural Little Belt Functioning 100 No No Limited Cascade Creek Access Big Coulee Partial Drift Constructed Functioning 100 No No Creek Fence Barrier No Permanent No Boyd Creek No Data Barrier – 100 Yes No Exclosure Beaver Ponds Cottonwood At-Risk No Constructed 100 No No Creek Improving Exclosure Barrier Not Smith Creek Surveyed, No Under (reintroduction 100 No No Likely Non- Exclosure Construction in 2012) Functioning

Chronic habitat degradations from grazing related activities could potentially impact viability in the non-exclosure populations. Threats to viability from livestock trampling have been identified in previous United States Forest Service Northern Region analysis efforts for two of these populations. These potential impacts to viability will be further evaluated, by alternative, under the environmental consequences section of this report.

Leopard Frog Leopard frogs have been located at one site in the project area. This population has been monitored for several years. There is a potential for other populations in the project area. Others have not been found in the many suitable habitat areas which have been visited repeatedly. There are likely some suitable habitat areas which have not been surveyed. This analysis will assume this species could occur within any suitable habitat in the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives There are no effects, over the long-term, which appear to be the same in all three alternatives. This assumes that implementation of the adaptive management alternative (alternative three or proposed action) would result in reversing the trend towards degrading conditions, which is present under alternative two. If this assumption is incorrect, then there would be some long-term effects common to alternatives two and three, but not to alternative one.

Noxious Weeds

The treatment of noxious weeds can be a necessary tool in preserving and/or restoring functionality in riparian areas, but there are also potential effects to aquatic wildlife species and organisms from

51 Name of Project chemical application. The need for herbicide application as part of an integrated approach is uniform, in both spatial extent and application rates, across all three alternatives for at least the next several years, or longer. Eventually, less application would be performed under alternative one. This activity will be analyzed as a common effect because this activity would likely be similar across all alternatives for multiple years. All noxious weed treatments will be guided by the 1994 Noxious Weed final record of decision; using certified herbicides in accordance with all label instructions should mitigate nearly all direct or indirect effects to aquatic wildlife species (Tatum 2004).

Biological

Impacts from past and present land use activities and current infrastructure features such as the road and trail system are present in the proposed project area. Fishing pressure is present and has been increasing within the project area. Westslope cutthroat trout are vulnerable to fishing pressure. Montana state fishing regulations preclude harvesting westslope cutthroat trout in the project area.

The introduction of exotic fish has changed the assemblage of species present. In most waters of the Highwood Mountain Range, westslope cutthroat trout are either extirpated hybridized with rainbow trout, or at a competitive disadvantage to differing assemblages of eastern brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout. The remnant population in North Fork Highwood Creek has some rainbow trout passage over a series of natural cascades. This is where a constructed barrier is planned for 2014. The remnant population in Boyd Creek is estimated by the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks at approximately 50 fish. Hybridization or introgression with rainbow trout has yet to occur with this population. There is a high likelihood of this eventually occurring, however.

The introduction of non-native fish species is the most serious and prevalent impact to the viability of westslope cutthroat trout in the project area. Impaired stream conditions favor exotic species by increasing their competitive advantage. The grazing impacts to channel features and riparian areas, as recorded in hydrology surveys and observed by the forest fisheries biologist, certainly create conditions in many project area streams which degrade the habitat for native fish.

Impacts from non-native aquatic invasive species, other than introduced fish, are relatively minimal within the project area. Whirling disease is present downstream of project area waters, but tests on and near the Forest have been negative for presence. There are no known records or observations of non-native aquatic plant invasions on the Lewis and Clark National Forest that impact the abundance of any native aquatic organisms.

There are several naturally occurring fish diseases that are or could be present with low levels of infection. Fish within the Lewis and Clark National Forest vicinity are routinely tested for six diseases by the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks; tests, thus far, have been negative.

Physical Habitat

The physical stream habitat has changed because there has been a steady decline in large woody debris levels for more than a century. This reduction in woody debris has decreased habitat complexity, sediment storage capacity, biomass size and composition in the aquatic food web and stream stability in high flow events.

The county road on Highwood Creek contains several ford crossings, one road section was lost in the 2011 spring floods. This resulted in several hundred cubic yards of sediment entering the stream (this estimate is derived by extrapolating the size of the newly formed gully which replaced an existing

road segment). None of the project area stream segments affected by road sediment issues contain a conservation population of westslope cutthroat trout.

Sediment and water yield will also increase because of high levels of tree mortality occurring on the landscape. Increased flows can scour streambanks which increases the fine sediment in suspension and in the bed load. Increased water yields from forest mortality episodes are assumed to be part of a natural cycle in the project area.

Conclusions by Alternative

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Full attainment of the beneficial use of managing for fisheries and aquatic wildlife would be met in the streams in all of the sixth order sub-watersheds in the project area. The stream surveys conducted in preparation for this project consistently display high width-to-depth ratios. The cross section geometry of streams is often very dish-shaped, and the angles of streambanks are consistently low. The riparian vegetation community is modified with the frequent loss of shrubs which are susceptible to grazing disturbance. Not permitting grazing would remove most of the impacts causing these degradations and allow for passive restoration to occur. This alternative would meet the desired future conditions for riparian areas and wetlands the fastest and the most completely.

Fish and aquatic wildlife populations would respond positively to this alternative. The magnitude of this response for fish is difficult to predict and would likely vary across the project area. Cumulative effects would still occur, especially along non-Forest Service stream segments. Exotic species would not be eliminated in most stream segments, with the exceptions being the intentional restoration projects above natural or human constructed barriers. Predicting and measuring the success of passive and active aquatic restoration projects is difficult due to scale issues, time-lags for response and persistent cumulative effects including the presence of non-native species (Rinne 2006). One suggested approach has been to express goals and outcomes by changes to aquatic habitat carrying capacities (Ebersole et al 1997). This appears to be a rational approach, but the aforementioned cumulative effects and scale challenges make this very difficult to perform at a detail greater than a relative ranking of the alternatives. The project desired future conditions are also not at a quantitative level of detail such as individual parameters by stream segment. Thus, relative to the other two alternatives, selecting this alternative would increase the aquatic habitat carrying capacity and species diversity the most. The rationale to support this is that impairments are present under alternative two, and trending towards and overall greater level of impairment. The rate of restoration under alternative three has not fully been determined; they will certainly be slower and produce smaller magnitudes of improvements to carrying capacities than under this alternative from a fisheries resource perspective.

Alternative 2 – Current Management

Full attainment of the beneficial use of managing for fisheries and aquatic wildlife would be at risk under the continued implementation of this alternative in each of the sixth order sub-watersheds in the project area. The occurrence of eight non-functioning stream reaches over the last twelve years supports this conclusion. Under this alternative the viability of the isolated populations of westslope cutthroat trout would be protectable. However, cattle have access to four of the six populated streams. These would require management attention throughout the grazing season, while the two protected by fencing would only require fence maintenance. Managing the remainder of the streams, which do not have westslope cutthroat trout conservation populations, a growing recreational fishing

53 Name of Project demand would be the most difficult under this alternative. This would also be the most difficult of the three alternatives for achieving the desired future conditions of the project for fish, aquatic and riparian habitat quality. In addition to the evidence found in the current data, an additional rationale for these conclusions is that utilization rates are the highest under this alternative. Under alternative three, the cattle would most likely be present along a stream reach for considerably less time because of the reduction in the maximum allowable forage utilization.

Under this alternative, season long grazing, with a deferred starting date, is the basic management regime for most of the riparian zones. As analyzed earlier, this management regime has an overall negative record for protecting aquatic habitat quality. The season long grazing system as implemented on the Lewis and Clark National Forest has been consistently found to fail at meeting Forest Plan standards for bank stability. In the project area, it is often apparent that Forest Plan objectives for management area “R” are not consistently being achieved. This alternative would require much better implementation success in the future than in past years in order to achieve the desired future conditions. Given current and projected agency budgets it will be somewhat difficult to greatly improve implementation efficacy

These statements pulled from the 2006 interagency report titled “Grazing Management Process and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland Areas” seem very pertinent in assessing the potential for this alternative to lead towards restoration of already impaired riparian areas, thus, meeting the desired future conditions (Wyman 2006).

1) “Passive, continuous grazing rarely improves a deteriorated riparian area or maintains a riparian area in good condition without reducing stocking levels to extremely low and uneconomic levels” 2) “Effective Riparian Grazing management begins at the skyline and not the greenline. Simply reducing numbers of livestock without developing improved grazing strategies will not solve a riparian problem” - Floyd Reed, Retired United States Forest Service Rangeland Management Specialist 3) “Parsons et al. (2003) found that season of use (early versus late summer) affected cattle distribution relative to the riparian area, with late summer pastures having more concentrated use of riparian vegetation” 4) “Provide for plant development prior to or plant recovery following the grazing period” 5) “Ensure sufficient vegetation during periods of high-flow to protect streambanks, dissipate energy, and trap sediments” 6) “Avoid grazing the same place at the same time year after year”.

The first three statements above seem to fit as general descriptors of the grazing system currently in place under this alternative. They are also predictive of the problems which are currently occurring and would escalate under the implementation of this alternative. Deteriorated riparian conditions are generally not improving, but are rather degrading, under relatively passive, continuous, season long scenarios. This would likely continue under the selection and implementation of this alternative. Without improved grazing strategies the existing riparian problems would only improve if drastic reductions in stocking levels were to occur. Statements four through six describe specific actions which would not likely be consistently performed or realized under this alternative.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action

Using adaptive management, along with proper functioning condition methodology has been successfully demonstrated by the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management in Nevada (Newman and Swanson 2008). This indicates that attaining the beneficial use of managing for fisheries and aquatic wildlife would be more likely under this alternative than under alternative two. It appears that proper functioning condition methodology was used in the aforementioned example to qualitatively filter out areas for more quantitative monitoring. This would seem to be a good strategy for monitoring, if selected.

The proposed action items in this alternative are fairly limited in spatial scope when considering the widespread aquatic habitat issues. The exception is the reduction in riparian forage utilization rates. These would apply across the entire project area. This has consistently occurred in season long grazing pastures. Interdisciplinary monitoring trips to the season long, Moose Mountain allotment in 2011 also revealed utilization rates that, by ocular estimate, were considerably higher than 35 percent. Similar results were found in the Studhorse allotment in 2010. Bank alteration monitoring efforts supported that aquatic habitat conditions did not consistently improve under this utilization standard, alone, in the Sheep Creek analysis area. Therefore, effective monitoring and compliance efforts, augmented with the situational use of other grazing management tools, would likely be required within the Highwood Mountains landscape.

Improvements have occurred on other areas of the Lewis and Clark National Forest including along several streams in the Sheep Creek analysis area during the last three grazing seasons as a result of using adaptive management tools and proper functioning condition monitoring. This process would parallel the management system available in alternative three of the Highwood Mountains project. The Miller Gulch Creek, Sawmill Creek, and Abbott Gulch Creeks improved in functional condition after temporary electric fencing was implemented. Calf Creek and Indian Creek also improved in functional condition due to the installation and better maintenance of riparian exclosure fencing. Newlan Creek is improving as a result of communication with permittees about riparian grazing concerns. Cooperative efforts to improve offsite water and install drift fencing to change trailing patterns are also in-process. Newlan Creek provides a contrast to the aforementioned five streams where the reversal in habitat degradation was the result of using two different types of fencing to exclude stream segments from livestock grazing. Hence, these examples provide some precedent for success on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in using reduced utilization rates as part of a comprehensive, adaptive management approach.

Under the assumption of compliance to forage standards, there remains the question of whether the 35 percent limit on utilization will adequately achieve the desired future conditions. It seems reasonable that when cattle have physically been in riparian areas, long enough for trampling and forage damage to exceed the resiliency of channels and existing riparian vegetation, that this forage threshold would most frequently have been met. The rationale for this is based on a combination of existing studies and professional judgment. There is a scarcity of parallel studies and too much variability in existing data and study methodologies to allow for a definitive, analysis based conclusion. As previously discussed in this report, some data from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Helena, and Sawtooth National Forests support that 35 percent is near or within the range of where a shift from degradation to improving habitat trends can be expected. The proposed action does allow for the use of other tools to make necessary management adjustments. Timing of use is a factor which could affect whether the 35 percent utilization rate would be effective in allowing for the regeneration of desirable riparian vegetation. This could be either a potential solution or a conflict which would move adaptive management towards tools such as riparian pastures or rest rotation.

55 Name of Project

Clear relationships have yet to be established in this and other project areas between Forest Plan bank alteration standards, the 35 percent utilization rate, and successfully achieving desired future conditions. Thus, it seems it would be necessary to take a major adaptive management action if priority stream reaches do not start to display improving conditions in several years. Vegetation response is usually noticeable the first to second season after reductions in grazing impacts (Case 1995). Improvements in channel morphology lag behind vegetation response (Magillian and McDowell 1997). Studies on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge have determined that improvements to residual pool depths became measurable four to six years after compliance to bank alteration thresholds started to be achieved annually (Bengeyfield 2006). This is consistent with studies from several other localities with some variation noted due to differing channel types, levels of impairment and local climatic events (Magilligan and McDowell 1997; McDowell and Magilligan 1997; Myers and Swanson 1995; Rinne 2006).

If adherence to the 35 percent riparian utilization occurs, and this threshold is effective, then proper functioning condition assessments should start to show improving trends before year three due to vegetation response. In addition to vegetation response, some channel morphological characteristics, such as residual pool depth, should likely start to show measurable improvements by year six if the proposed forage standard is being effective. Fencing off riparian pastures or ending deferred season long grazing along high priority stream reaches would seem to be appropriate measures if improving near-bank vegetation conditions are not found in year three. Creating riparian pastures or further reducing season length would seem to be appropriate adaptive management tools along these reaches if residual pool depths do not show an improving response by year six. If preference for riparian dependent resources is the management goal in riparian areas, per Forest Plan direction (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1986) then using tools that have a high likelihood of success instead of choosing tools which are less intrusive to permittees would seem to be necessary.

Alternative one would achieve desired future conditions more quickly and with more certainty in the stream segments where higher levels of deviation are present. Alternative three does have the option of closing grazing. This would be on a site specific scale and delayed in comparison to alternative one. This would be a result of progressing through several adaptive management tools without success in meeting desired future conditions.

The Forest Plan standard of 30 percent allowable annual bank alteration would remain in effect under this alternative. This measure would also be useful as a permittee employed tool for moving cattle. The Sheep Creek Range Environmental Assessment decision accepted further bank alteration standards in westslope cutthroat trout occupied steams per advice from a forest task force. The Sheep Creek accepted bank standards were 20 percent for occupied stream segments with an absence of competition from eastern brook trout and 10 percent for those with brook trout present. The North Fork of Little Belt Creek is the only project area stream where a westslope cutthroat trout population coexists with Eastern brook trout. This stream is within an active allotment, but the boundary fence and valley terrain appears to greatly limit cattle access. The most meaningful decision regarding bank alteration standards is, thus, whether inhabited westslope cutthroat trout streams should be afforded the 20 percent allowable alteration protection as recommended by the task force and currently used in allotment management planning.

The numerical bank alteration standard in the Forest Plan and those recommended by the task force team are based on the measurement methodology currently used on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Region 1 of the United States Forest Service is evaluating different measurement protocols. Some indication is present that these might consistently correlate with current methodologies, but at

lower magnitudes. Thus, there would potentially be a future need to make revisions to the Forest Plan standard and any other thresholds which might appear in the decision for this project.

The biological and physical components would vary as stream reaches have varying natural or baseline resiliency as well as varying levels of impairments to this resiliency. The effectiveness of implementing this alternative would also influence the rate of recovery from these impairments. The sociological component of what pace of recovery is acceptable is beyond the scope of this analysis. Biologically, there doesn’t appear to be a fish or aquatic wildlife viability concern which can currently be linked to the time required for achieving the desired future conditions of this project. Habitat conditions, especially stream temperatures, and the population dynamics of westslope cutthroat trout in the North Fork Highwood Creek should be continually monitored and evaluated. There are positive and negative processes impacting this population. Positive actions, such as barrier construction, artificial rearing, and the removal of non-native fish, are either finished or will soon be implemented in this drainage. These will lead to an expansion of this population. With the above proactive fisheries management activities, the impairments linked to grazing would not constitute a viability threat for this population. E: Economics

Introduction

The economic implications of grassland resource management are of interest to local residents in Chouteau County, Montana and other areas surrounding the Lewis and Clark National Forest, as well as to people from other parts of Montana and throughout the United States. Residents in Chouteau County, Montana will be most likely to experience the direct economic impacts of the Highwood Mountain Range Analysis. Ranchers who graze livestock in Forest Service allotments in the project area may potentially be affected negatively depending on the selected alternative. Grazing management of the project area may also affect visitors to the forest and local wildlife populations.

Overview of Issues Addressed

Ranching operations and livestock grazing have historically played an important role in the communities throughout the area and may impact local and regional economies, government receipts and expenses, and permittee income. Economic issues brought up by the public during the scoping process for this project and addressed in this report include:

• Agency costs and revenues associated with the Highwood Mountain allotments. • The potential effect of the proposed action and adaptive management measures on: o Permittee costs o The local economy in terms of jobs and labor income The indicators used to analyze these issues include: 1) annual agency costs and revenues associated with the Highwood Mountain allotments, 2) discussions of potential effects of planned improvements and potential adaptive management tools on permittees’ costs, and 3) the economic impacts of the alternatives in terms of jobs and labor income.

Affected Environment

The majority of socioeconomic measures used to describe the affected environment were obtained from the Headwater Economics’ Economic Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT

57 Name of Project

2011), which compiles and summarizes primary population and economic data from a variety of government sources into a report. Other data was obtained from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS 2012). Key measures used in this section include population and demographics, employment and income, and livestock inventory.

Population and Demographics

Integral components of the socioeconomic environment are population and demographic makeup. Understanding the conditions and trends of such variables allows for a more complete assessment of the social and economic dynamic as it pertains to National Forest use. Population, age and racial distributions of Chouteau County are important socioeconomic indicators for determining possible uses of forest resources by local residents.

This section highlights demographic trends in the study area. Current population levels influence the use of natural resources and age distributions provide insights into the socioeconomic dynamic of the study area in terms of assessing the proportion of individuals in the working age group versus retirees and minors who may have different use patterns of the Forest and utilize local services in different ways. Similarly, the racial composition of the study area may affect the cultural and heritage uses of public lands, as well as have implications for the environmental justice section below.

Table 11 depicts general census demographic information for Chouteau County as compared to all of Montana. Chouteau County is very rural, with 1.5 persons per square mile. As is the case in much of the rural west, the Chouteau County population has declined in recent years. While the overall Montana population grew by nearly 10 percent from 2000 to 2010, the population in Chouteau County declined by 2.6 percent from 5,970 persons in 2000 to 5,813 persons in 2010. Though the age distribution is fairly similar for Chouteau County and the state of Montana, the racial/ethnic distribution differs in that Chouteau County has a much higher percentage of American Indians (21.8 percent) as compared to the state (6.3 percent). Per capita and median income levels are also lower for Chouteau County, and a higher percentage of households have incomes below the poverty level, as compared to the state as a whole. (United States Census Bureau 2010)

Table 11 - Population, Economic and Geographic Overview Chouteau County, Montana Montana 2000 Population Total 902,195 5,970 2010 Population Total 989,415 5,813 Population, % change, 2000 to 2010 9.7% -2.6% Persons under 5 years old, %, 2010 6.3% 7.1% Persons under 18 years old, %, 2010 22.6% 26.7% Persons 65 years old and over, %, 2010 14.8% 17.3% Female persons, %, 2010 49.8% 50.8%

Black persons, number and %, 2010 0.4% 0.1% American Indian, number and %, 2010 6.3% 21.8% Asian, number and %, 2010 0.6% 0.4% Hispanic or Latino, number and %, 2010 2.9% 1.6%

Chouteau County, Montana Montana White, number and %, 2010 89.4% 75.8% Households, 2005-2009 372,947 2,098 Median household income, 2009 $42,222 $37,945 Per capita money income, 2009 $22,881 $20,518 Persons below poverty, %, 2009 15.0% 18.1%

Land area, 2000 (square miles) 145,546 3,973 Persons per square mile, 2000 6.8 1.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 (Quick Facts)

Employment and Income

Employment and income statistics describe the economic conditions of the study area, as well as aid in the identification of important sectors of the economy. To assess the relative size of sectors in the local economy, data reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Economic Information System (BEA 2011) is used.

Total employment in Chouteau County fell by 160 jobs from 2001 to 2009, from 3,033 to 2,873 jobs (Table 12). The majority of employment in 2009, 44 percent, was in services related jobs, up from 41.1 percent in 2001. Services related jobs include industries such as retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate, and other services. Non services related jobs, in industries such as mining, farming, forestry, and construction, fell nearly 11 percent over the 10-year period, accounting for 37.2 percent of employment in 2009. Government employment also decreased during this time.

Table 12 - Total Employment by Industrial Sector

Change 2001 2009 2001-2009

Total Employment (number of jobs) 3,033 2,873 -160 Percent of Total Employment Non-services related 39.4% 37.2% -10.7% Farm 30.9% 27.3% -16.4% Forestry, fishing, & related activities 3.9% 3.8% -7.7% Mining (including fossil fuels) 0.3% 0.7% 110.0% Construction 2.6% 3.9% 40.0% Manufacturing 1.7% 1.5% -15.4% Services related 41.1% 44.0% 1.4% Utilities 0.3% 0.4% 10.0% Wholesale trade 2.1% 2.4% 7.7% Retail trade 8.7% 8.8% -3.4% Transportation and warehousing 1.3% 1.4% 2.6% Information na na na Finance and insurance 4.6% 4.5% -8.8% Real estate and rental and leasing 2.9% 4.2% 36.8%

59 Name of Project

Change 2001 2009 2001-2009

Professional and technical services 2.5% 2.6% -0.4% Management of companies and enterprises 0.0% 0.0% na Administrative and waste services na na na Educational services 0.6% 0.6% -10.5% Health care and social assistance 6.7% 6.6% -5.4% Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1.4% 1.9% 28.6% Accommodation and food services 4.7% 5.0% 0.0% Other services, except public administration 5.3% 5.6% 0.2% Government 18.2% 17.8% -7.2%

All employment data are reported by place of work. Estimates for data that were not disclosed are shown in italics. Data Source: BEA 2011, REIS, Table CA25N.

Agriculture supports the largest percentage of jobs in Chouteau County, followed by government, and retail trade. Government jobs tend to be higher paying than jobs in other sectors of rural economies and are an important source of household income. Table 13shows average annual wages by industry for Chouteau County and how each industry’s wages compare to the average annual wage for the county. The average wage (2010 dollars) in Chouteau County in 2010 was $26,140, which is much lower than the statewide average of $35,681. The highest wages in Chouteau County are associated with government jobs, followed by professional and business services and education and health services. The lowest wages occur in the leisure and hospitality sector. (BLS 2011b)

Table 13 - Wages by Industry, 2010 (2010$) Percent Average Above or

Annual Wages Below Average Total $26,140 Private $26,301 0.6% Non-Services Related $28,211 7.9% Natural Resources and Mining $28,432 8.8% Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting $28,432 8.8% Mining (incl. fossil fuels) $0 -100.0% Construction $28,849 10.4% Manufacturing (Incl. forest products) $25,788 -1.3% Services Related $25,827 -1.2% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities $28,606 9.4% Information na na Financial Activities $32,107 22.8% Professional and Business Services $33,983 30.0% Education and Health Services $33,622 28.6% Leisure and Hospitality $9,151 -65.0% Other Services na na Unclassified $0 -100.0% Government $25,885 -1.0%

Percent Average Above or

Annual Wages Below Average Federal Government $39,489 51.1% State Government $67,977 160.0% Local Government $24,144 -7.6% Source: BLS 2011b.

Another indicator of economic health is the level of unemployment. Chouteau County has consistently maintained an unemployment rate less than Montana and the United States. In recent years Chouteau County and Montana have not experienced as dramatic an increase in unemployment rates as the national average (Table 14). In 2010, the unemployment rate in Chouteau County was 4.4 percent. However, during economic downturns, the unemployment rate by itself may not give a good picture of economic health. If workers have given up looking for jobs (discouraged workers), they are no longer included in the labor force, so it is also important to pay attention to declines in the labor force that are not connected to population declines. However, for Chouteau County, the number of persons in the labor force did not show a marked decline in recent years, ranging from 2,463 persons in 2002 up to 2,732 in 2001. From 2007 through 2010, the labor force averaged 2,575 persons, slightly higher than the average for the preceding four years. (BLS 2011a)

Table 14 - Annual unemployment rate, 2001−2010 (percent unemployed; not seasonally adjusted) Area 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Chouteau 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.7 4.4 County Montana 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 United States 4.7 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.8 9.3 9.6 Source: BLS 2011a Income available to local residents directly impacts their ability to purchase goods and services. A total of approximately $175 million of personal income (2010 dollars) was received by residents of Chouteau County in 2009 (Table 15). Personal income is divided into two major categories: labor income and non-labor income. Labor income is the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ (the self-employed) income less contributions for government social insurance, and adjusted to convert earnings by place of work to a place of residence basis. Non-labor income includes money earned from investments (dividends, interest, and rent) and transfer payments (government retirement and disability insurance benefits, medical payments such as mainly Medicare and Medicaid, income maintenance benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, etc.).

In Chouteau County, like most other areas of the country, the proportion of income coming from labor income has decreased since the 1970s and the proportion of non-labor income has increased. In 2009, 51.8 percent of personal income in Chouteau County came from non-labor sources, with 27.8 percent coming from investment income and 20.5 percent from transfer payments. The majority of transfer payments were age-related (Social Security and Medicare). Very little (1.3 percent) was associated with income support payments such a welfare. (Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Economic Information System 2011)

61 Name of Project

Table 15 - Components of Personal Income Change 1970-2009 (Thousands of 2010$)

Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2000- 2009 Total Personal Income 183,279 124,398 188,454 154,306 174,879 20,572 Labor Earnings 136,914 51,701 111,759 75,944 90,502 14,558 Non-Labor Income 46,365 72,697 76,695 78,362 84,376 6,015 Dividends, Interest and Rent 34,007 54,223 52,664 50,144 48,472 -1,672 Transfer Payments 12,358 18,474 24,031 28,218 35,904 7,686 % Change Percent of Total 2000- 2009 Total Personal Income 13.3% Labor Earnings 74.7% 41.6% 59.3% 49.2% 51.8% 19.2% Non-Labor Income 25.3% 58.4% 40.7% 50.8% 48.2% 7.7% Dividends, Interest and Rent 18.6% 43.6% 27.9% 32.5% 27.7% -3.3% Transfer Payments 6.7% 14.9% 12.8% 18.3% 20.5% 27.2% All income data in the table above are reported by place of residence. Labor earnings and non-labor income may not add to total personal income due to adjustments made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Source: REIS 2011. Tables CA05 & CA05N.

The Agricultural Sector in Chouteau County

Public lands can play a key role in stimulating local employment by providing opportunities for commodity extraction. Timber, mining, and agriculture are together referred to in this report as commodity sectors because they have the potential for using public lands for the extraction of commodities. While it is not possible to measure the exact number of jobs that rely on the commodity use of public lands, it is important to understand the relative size of these sectors to put the economy related to commodity extraction in perspective. For example, a county with 90 percent of its employment in the commodity sectors has a higher chance of being impacted by decisions that permit (or restrict) timber, mining, and grazing activities on public lands than a county where only 10 percent of the workforce is in these sectors. For Chouteau County, 27.6 percent of total employment is associated with the commodity sectors and almost all (27.3 percent) being in the agriculture sector. (Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Economic Information System 2011, United States Census Bureau 2011a)

Farming and ranching can be a significant portion of the landscape and the local economy. Some forms of agriculture, such as ranching, may depend on public lands for grazing forage. Others, such as crop production, may rely on upstream public lands that provide water for irrigation. Chouteau County has a larger agricultural sector than either the state of Montana or the nation, with more than 27 percent of total employment associated with agricultural compared to less than 4.6 percent for the state and 1.5 percent for the nation. During the past four decades, the number of non-farm jobs in Chouteau County has increased from 1,445 to 2,090 jobs, a 44.6 percent increase, while farm jobs have decreased 50 percent from 1,573 to 783 jobs (Figure ). (Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Economic Information System 2011)

Figure 10 - Farm and Non-Farm jobs, Chouteau County, Montana (Source: BEA 2010, REIS, tables CA25 and CA25N)

In areas where livestock production is significant, public land grazing resources may be especially important to the agricultural economics of an operation or class of operations. Table 16 shows the number of farms by type in Chouteau County in 2007, the latest data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service. More than 50 percent of the farms are associated with oilseed and grain farming, followed by other crop production (30 percent) and beef cattle ranches and farms (14.5 percent). (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009)

Table 16 - Number of Farms by Type, 2007 Chouteau County, MT All Farms 849 Oilseed & Grain Farming 428 Vegetable & Melon Farming 1 Fruit & Nut Tree Farming 0 Greenhouse, Nursery, etc. 2 Other Crop Farming 255 Beef Cattle Ranch. & Farm. 123 Cattle Feedlots 1 Dairy Cattle & Milk Prod. 0 Hog & Pig Farming 3 Poultry & Egg Production 1 Sheep & Goat Farming 4 Animal Aquaculture & Other Animal Prod. 31 Percent of Total Oilseed & Grain Farming 50.4% Vegetable & Melon Farming 0.1%

63 Name of Project

Chouteau County, MT Fruit & Nut Tree Farming 0.0% Greenhouse, Nursery, etc. 0.2% Other Crop Farming 30.0% Beef Cattle Ranch. & Farm. 14.5% Cattle Feedlots 0.1% Dairy Cattle & Milk Prod. 0.0% Hog & Pig Farming 0.4% Poultry & Egg Production 0.1% Sheep & Goat Farming 0.5% Aquaculture & Other Prod. 3.7% Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009. Table 45.

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (2012), Chouteau County ranked 23rd among Montana’s counties in 2011 in terms of beef cow and calf inventory, averaging 28,300 cows and calves annually over the 2009 to 2011 period. In terms of total inventory, Chouteau County ranked 26th averaging 47,000 cows and calves from 2009 to 2011. The number of cattle currently grazing on the Highwood Mountain allotments is approximately 1,965, which amounts to approximately 6.8 percent of the beef cattle inventory in Chouteau County.

Grazing in the Highwood Mountains

Numbers of sheep in the Highwood Mountains decreased considerably in 1905, but the annual permitted number still remained high up to the 1920's. Conversion of sheep to cattle was underway throughout this period, resulting in less than 3,000 head of sheep from 1929 to 1950. That year, the last conversion of sheep to cattle was made.

Table 17 below shows the current head months associated with the Highwood project area. These 5,487 head months account for approximately 1.6 percent of the total head months for Chouteau County if counting only beef cattle (total head months = 339,600 assuming a cow-calf pair requires 12 head months of feed or forage each year). However, the number of cattle currently grazing in the Highwood Mountains accounts for 6.8 percent of the beef cattle inventory in Chouteau County, as mentioned earlier.

Table 17 - Head Months and Grazing Season

Allotment Status Number of Season Head Months Livestock Arrowhead Allotment Active 201 7/1-9/15 511 made up of Arrow Creek, Beaver Creek, Middle Peak and South Peak

Allotment Status Number of Season Head Months Livestock Highwood Active 1489 7/10-10/15 4074 Little Belt Creek Active 116 7/1-9/30 457 Martin Creek On/Off Active 34 FS (on) 7/1-10/15 119 38 Private (off)

Shed Creek Active 57 7/1-10/15 201 Thomas Corner Active 50 8/1-9/30 101 Yenderick On/Off Active 18 FS (on) 7/2-8/10 24 32 Private (off)

Table 18 shows the economic impacts connected with these 5,487 head months, in terms of employment (full and part-time), labor income, and total industry output. This table provides a range of possible impacts based upon three different methodologies for computing grazing impacts. All three methods use IMPLAN (MIG 2003) in the calculations of job and income impacts, but the way the impacts are calculated and the data used in the impact analysis differs by method. The lower end of the range is based upon the current Forest Service methodology for computing grazing impacts. This methodology uses state inventory, marketing, and price information to calculate a percentage of total cattle inventory marketed and average sale price per head. These state averages are then applied to county inventory numbers. The proportion of Forest Service head months out of total county head months is then used to calculate the portion of the total industry output for the county that can be attributed to grazing on Forest Service lands in the project area. The second method is very similar to the first except that the analysis is based upon the total number of cattle that graze at any time during the year on these allotments to arrive at the portion of total industry output attributable to grazing on Forest Service lands. The second method assumes that the cattle that graze on the allotment depend upon the allotments for their existence and, therefore, would not exist (the rancher’s herd would decrease) if the permits were not renewed, thereby resulting in a larger impact. For both the first two methods, the resulting calculated output value is then converted to final demand and fed into the IMPLAN modeling system to calculate the associated jobs and labor income.

The third method was developed by the Bureau of Land Management for use in their annual contribution report for fiscal year 2011 (Department Of Interior 2012). This new approach uses information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009) and the American Community Survey (United States Census 2011b) (along with IMPLAN) to calculate: 1) direct employment and labor income associated with grazing, 2) unpaid labor associated with grazing, and 3) jobs and labor income associated with purchase of supplies and services and employee spending. Table 18 shows the response coefficients (jobs, labor income, and output per 1000 Animal Unit Months) for the state of Montana, developed by the Bureau of Land Management. This is the method used to assess the effects of the alternatives on the local economy as the Forest Service is in the process of changing over to this method for assessing grazing impacts. A more complete description of the method is provided in the methods section of the environmental consequences section of this report.

Table 18 - Response Coefficients Per 1,000 AUMs for Montana (dollar amounts have been inflated to reflect 2011$)

Indirect & Direct Induced Total

65 Name of Project

Indirect & Direct Induced Total Jobs 1.23 0.70 1.93 Labor Income $5,274 $21,368 $26,642 Total Output $87,383 $75,654 $163,038 Source: Bureau of Land Management

Because of the minimal amount of grazing that occurs on these lands, compared to the total in the county or the state, the economic impacts of the grazing occurring on these allotments are very small, regardless of method used. Employment impacts (jobs) range from one to 10 jobs. Labor income ranges from $29 thousand to $145 thousand, and output ranges from $261 thousand to $1,163 thousand (Table 19).

Table 19 - Economic Impacts Associated with the Highwood Allotments, 2011$ Labor Income Total Output Impact Associated with Employment (# (Thousands (Thousands Jobs) of 2011$) of 2011$) FS Head Months (Method 1) 1 $29 $261 Number of cattle spending time on FS allotments (Method 2) 6 $127 $1,163 FS HMs (Method 3 – Preferred Method) 10 $145 $886 Definitions: 1. Employment: The total full- and part-time wage, salaried, and self-employed jobs in the region. 2. Labor income: Includes the wages, salaries, and benefits of workers who are paid by employers and income paid to proprietors.

Environmental Justice

As stated in Executive Order 12898, it is required that all Federal actions consider the potential of disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations in the local region. The principals of environmental justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness implications associated with Federal land management actions. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1997) provides the following definitions in order to provide guidance with the compliance of Environmental Justice requirements:

Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or

Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

The general population that county data is compared to is that of the State. Table 11 reports the ethnic distributions of Chouteau County, Montana, and Montana. The racial/ethnic distribution in Chouteau County differs in that it has a much higher percentage of American Indians (21.8 percent) as compared to the state (6.3 percent). This large difference indicates that the American Indian population may meet the environmental justice requirements as a population of concern.

Table 20 reports the number of individuals and families below the poverty level and poverty rates in 2010. Chouteau County has a higher rate of poverty than both the state and the nation. A poverty rate of 21 percent indicates that a substantial proportion of the existing population should be considered as a low income group.

Table 20 - Number and Percent of People and Families in Poverty, 2010

Chouteau County, MT Montana U.S.

People 5,724 949,414 296,141,149 Families 1,573 256,130 76,254,318 People Below Poverty 1,202 138,109 40,917,513 Families below poverty 233 24,874 7,685,345 Percent of Total People Below Poverty 21.0% 14.5% 13.8% Families below poverty 14.8% 9.7% 10.1% Source: Census Bureau 2011.

Future management decisions that may negatively impact local employment and income conditions should carefully assess the distribution of effects across population demographics, paying careful attention to low income populations.

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Forest Service Costs and Revenues

Alternative 1 is the no grazing alternative for the Highwood Mountains analysis. Pursuant to Forest Service Handbook 2209.13, Section 16.24, this alternative could not be implemented until two years after the notification of each affected permittee (36 Code of Federal Regulation 222.4(4)(1)). Regular grazing would persist for two seasons following selection of this alternative. After that, all grazing on the allotments would cease. The head months, Federal grazing revenue, and Federal costs for this alternative for the next 10 years are displayed in Table 21.

Table 21 - Head Months, Grazing Fee Revenues, and Forest Service Costs for Alternative 1 Alternative 1 2012 2013 2014 2015-2017 2018-2020 Federal HMs 5,487 5,487 0 0 0 (or AUMs)* Revenue $7,407 $7,407 $0 $0 $0 collected from AUMs (FS) Annual $5,250 $5,250 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750

67 Name of Project

Alternative 1 2012 2013 2014 2015-2017 2018-2020 Administrative Costs (FS) Annual $1,000 $1,000 $64,000 $0 $0 Reconstruction (removal of /Improvement improvements) Cost (FS) *For purposes of grazing revenues, head months are equivalent to animal unit months.

Under alterative 1, the $7,407 in revenue from Forest Service grazing fees ($1.35 per animal unit months) would continue for two years and then fall to zero. This revenue is split between the range betterment fund (50 percent), the states (25 percent) and the United States Treasury (25 percent), which would all be affected by the decrease in revenue.

Annual administrative costs would continue at current levels for two years and then fall to approximately $1,750, as some amount of monitoring would still be required on these allotments. It is also assumed that reconstruction of improvements costs borne by the Forest Service would continue at current levels for two years, increase substantially in the third year if the improvements are removed, and then fall to zero.

Potential Effect on Permittee Costs

Loss of their grazing permits could have two possible impacts on current permittees. The first possibility is that the permittees would have to locate and lease private pasture from other local landowners or obtain privately leased pasture in a more distant location. Privately leased pasture is moderately available in the area, according to the grazing association president (Dave Ripley, personal communication). The average cost of private pasture in the State of Montana was just over $19 per head month in 2011 (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2012), though local sources (the range specialist on the district and the grazing association president) state that the fees in Chouteau County more likely range from $20 to $27 per head month. How this compares to the current cost of grazing for permittees is difficult to ascertain. Currently, permittees in the Highwood pay $1.35 per animal unit month for the Forest Service grazing fee and $7.50/animal unit month to the grazing association. Grazing association fees pay for many of the costs associated with grazing, such as salt, riders, improvement maintenance, roundup, etc. However, permittees on National Forest lands are required to share in the costs of improvements, such as fencing, often paying for the installation while the Forest Service pays for the materials. A March 2011 report by the University of Idaho (Rimbey and Torell 2011) indicates that by the time the additional costs associated with federal grazing are included, that permittees often end up with higher costs when grazing on public lands than on private lands. This assumes, however, that there is private grazing land available within a comparable distance as public grazing lands. If it is necessary to lease pasture in a more distant location, the permittee would also incur increased transportation costs in order to move the herd to and from the leased pasture. Sufficient information is not available to determine if this is a reasonable option for the permittees.

The second possible result from the no grazing alternative is that the permittees would be forced to reduce the size of their herds and graze the remaining animals on their currently available private property. The permittees on the Highwood Mountain allotments might need to reduce their operation by approximately 1,965 head. There is insufficient information available to determine the net effect of such an action on the permittees' operations.

Economic impact analysis

Table 18 in the affected environment section of this report lists the jobs and labor income currently associated with the Highwood Mountain allotments. If the permittees were able to lease private grazing lands, the job and labor income associated with the allotments would likely see little change. There is a potential for some reduction in impacts due to potentially decreased costs of using private grazing land (for instance fewer man hours needed to move cattle). The possible increase in revenues to landowners with available pasture for lease is not explicitly included in this analysis. This change from the current situation would represent a financial transfer from permittees to other land owners, and therefore would be a wash on balance for economic impact area residents. However, if no private grazing land were available and permittees had to decrease their herd size, there is the potential for a loss of approximately 10 jobs and $145 thousand in labor income if alternative 1 were implemented.

Alternative 2 – No Action (Current Grazing Program)

Forest Service Costs and Revenues

Alternative 2 represents the current grazing occurring on the Highwood Mountain allotments. No changes are anticipated in federally authorized head months. Current contribution levels would persist for 10 years. All information in the affected environment discussion applies to this alternative. Table 22 displays the head months, Federal grazing revenue, and Federal costs for the current grazing program on the Highwood Mountain allotments.

Table 22 - Head Months, Grazing Fee Revenues, and Forest Service Costs for Alternative 2 Alternative 1 2012 2013 2014 2015-2017 2018-2020 Federal HMs 5,487 5,487 5,487 5,487 5,487 (or AUMs)* Revenue $7,407 $7,407 $7,407 $7,407 $7,407 collected from AUMs (FS)

Annual $5,250 $5,250 $5,250 $5,250 $5,250 Administrative Costs Annual $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Reconstruction /Improvement Cost (FS) *For purposes of grazing revenues, head months are equivalent to animal unit months.

Under alternative 2, the $7,407 in revenue from Forest Service grazing fees ($1.35 per animal unit month) would continue unless grazing fees were changed. Annual administrative costs (if not adjusted for inflation) would continue at the current level of $5,250 and improvement costs borne by the Forest Service would be approximately $1,000 annually.

Potential Effect on Permittee Costs

There would be no change in the cost to permittees other than those that occur as result of the changes in the overall economic environment.

69 Name of Project

Economic Impact Analysis

Table 18 in the affected environment section of this report lists the jobs and labor income currently associated with the Highwood Mountain allotments. Currently, approximately 10 jobs and $145 thousand in labor income are supported annually by the grazing on these allotments.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action

Forest Service Costs and Revenues

Alternative 3 is the proposed action for the Highwood Mountains analysis. Additional Forest Service costs (Table 22) would occur under this alternative due to: 1) planned improvements and 2) additional administrative costs. Planned improvements include the North Fork exclosure fence realignment (one mile at $9000 dollars per mile) and some additional fencing on Deer Creek (one quarter of a mile for a cost of $2250 dollars). Administrative costs would increase under the proposed action due to additional monitoring requirements.

Table 23 shows head months, Federal grazing revenue, and Federal costs for this alternative for the next 10 years. After year three, grazing revenues could potentially decrease due a shortening of the grazing season on some units to a maximum of 45 days. After year six, if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met, the grazing season could be further reduced to 30 days.

Table 23 - Head Months, Grazing Fee Revenues, and Forest Service Costs for Alternative 3

Alternative 1 2012 2013 2014 2015-2017 2018-202* Federal HMs 5,487 5,487 5,487 3,947** 3,379** (or AUMs)*

Revenue $7,407 $7,407 $7,407 $5,329 $4,561 collected from AUMs (FS)

Annual $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 Administrative Costs

Annual $12,500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Reconstruction /Improvement Cost (FS)

*For purposes of grazing revenues, head months are equivalent to animal unit months. ** Potential reductions in head months if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met.

Under the proposed action with adaptive management, the $7,407 dollars in revenue from Forest Service grazing fees ($1.35 per animal unit month) would likely continue for three years after implementation. After three years, it is possible that the grazing season could be shortened to 45 days on several of the Highwood pastures. This would reduce the number of head months and, therefore, the amount of revenue associated with these allotments from $7,407 dollars annually to $5,329 dollars annually. If further reductions are needed after year six, head months could be further reduced, potentially decreasing revenues to $4,561 dollars annually. This revenue is split between the

range betterment fund (50 percent), the states (25 percent) and the United States Treasury (25 percent), which would all be affected by the decrease in revenue. However, as mentioned above, it is highly unlikely that these restrictions would occur on all of the affected pastures at the same time, so the actual effects would be lower than those shown. Any increase in intensity of management will have a corresponding increase in administration and improvement cost. Improvement costs may be offset by a portion of revenue derived from grazing fees and cost of administration is funded through appropriated agency budgets.

Potential Effect on Permittee Costs

Alternative 3 has a high potential to affect permittee costs in the future. If monitoring shows that progress is not being made towards desired conditions, adaptive measures will need to be implemented. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, more rotation of livestock, additional fencing, and shorter grazing seasons. More rotation of livestock would mean more riders out on the range for more days, at a cost of approximately $150-$200/rider per day. If additional fencing were necessary, this would cost permittees approximately $10,000 per mile. Some of the potential impacts associated with a shorter growing season include: 1) the need to obtain alternative grazing land for the rest of the grazing season, 2) the potential for increased transportation of cattle to alternative grazing lands, 3) more men and time needed to get the cattle out of the higher elevations when the cattle are reluctant to move, 4) the potential for more lost cattle, and lower conception rates because of having to adjust breeding seasons (personal communication, Dave Ripley, Grazing Association president and Range Specialist, Jason Oltrogge).

Economic Impact Analysis

The economic impacts of alternative 3, in terms of jobs and income associated with grazing, were calculated using reductions in head months associated with possible shortening of the grazing season to 45 or 30 days. Table 24 shows the reductions in head months associated with the shortened season and the potential employment and labor income impacts associated with these changes. Changes from the current contributions are indicated in parentheses.

Table 24 - Economic Impacts of Possible Reductions Under Alternative 3 (values in parentheses reflect changes from current) Labor Income (Thousan ds of Impact Associated with HMs Employment 2011$) 45-day grazing season limit $105 (- on some units 3,947 (-1,540) 8 (-2) $40) 30-day grazing season limit $90 (- on some units 3,379 (-2,108) 7 (-3) $55)

If the grazing season were shortened to 45 days, head months could potentially be reduced to 3,947 amounting to a reduction of two jobs and $40 thousand in labor income. The reduction would be greater if the season were further limited to 30 days. A 30-day season would result in a potential decrease of three jobs and $55 thousand in labor income.

While the economic effects of these alternatives on the agriculture industry and regional economy appear to be small, they could affect individual operators. The impact would vary from one producer to the next depending upon their relative dependence on the Forest Service allotments for meeting and

71 Name of Project effectively managing their grazing needs. Permittees required to adjust timing and location and numbers would likely respond by restructuring their existing operations. For example, they might lease other private pasture, feed the livestock, change their herd size, or lease their base property to other livestock operators. Riparian standards in key watersheds may reduce grazing in key watersheds and permittees may have to restructure their existing operations. Permittees, who operate on the margin of profitability, could potentially find their operations economically unfeasible. The impact analysis does not project the economic effects on individuals or the community if one or more ranchers go out of business.

Other Potential Benefits and Costs Associated with the Alternatives

Non-market benefits or costs are those that are not quantifiable in terms of dollars. For example, the proposed action is “designed to meet or move toward desired conditions in rangeland health, vegetation, and watershed conditions with emphasis placed on hydrologic function and condition of herbaceous and woody riparian vegetation relative to livestock grazing within the landscape, and is designed to meet Forest Plan direction, standards, and guidelines. Maintaining and improving elk habitat and hunter opportunity will also be a consideration which guides management actions”.

Non-market outputs such as water quality, wildlife species, plant and animal species diversity, and ecological health are discussed throughout the environmental analysis but are not described in dollar terms. Many things cannot be quantified, such as effects on wildlife and the restoration of riparian areas. The decision maker takes many factors into account in making the decision. It is also possible that for some member of the public, who view grazing as detrimental to the environment or to their recreational or hunting opportunities, the no grazing alternative could have positive economic and social benefits.

Cumulative Effects

The activities proposed under each of the alternatives would impact the economic impact area in concert with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities.

Alternative 1 would result in a shift of current livestock grazing occurring on national grasslands to private pasture and/or feeding operations and a reduction in the number of cattle grazing in the economic impact area starting two years after notification of permit cancellation. Under this alternative some people may retire or change to other professions. This may result in a new configuration of cattle ranching operations in the economic impact area. Some land owners with pasture available for lease may benefit from new demand.

Alternative 2 represents the current grazing occurring on the Highwood allotments. No changes are anticipated in federally authorized animal unit months. This means the current economic contributions from would continue; there would be no changes to economic impacts and no change to collected receipts expected from federal actions unless grazing fees change. However, ranchers with small herds may need to seek additional income or new job opportunities as market factors and other factors may cause some ranchers with smaller operations to leave the ranching industry.

Under alternative 3 (the proposed action) if monitoring indicates that impacted resources are not making sufficient progress towards desired conditions, adaptive management actions would need to be implemented. Such measures could include, but are not limited to, more rotation of livestock, additional fencing, and shorter grazing seasons. However, the effects would vary depending on the

size of the reductions, the size of the ranching operation, other available forage opportunities, reasonably foreseeable events, etc., so it is not possible at this point to predict the cumulative effects. F: Wildlife The complete wildlife report and biological evaluation is contained in the final project file. This report considers effects to terrestrial and avian wildlife species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Candidate (C), Proposed (P), Sensitive (S), and Forest Management Indicator Wildlife Species (MIS) and addresses Forest Service responsibilities and obligations to protect migratory birds, wildlife. findings are summarized below:

Existing Condition Today, about 2/3rds (~ 63%) of the Highwoods is covered with coniferous timber, or is too steep or rocky or sparsely vegetated to be considered suitable for livestock grazing, which is just the inverse of 100 years ago (Forest Service VMap data). Because of the reduced frequency of wild, or man- caused, fires since the early 1900s, coniferous timber has expanded in the Highwoods. Coniferous timber in the project area is dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) on the cooler aspects, which also contains commonly associated shrubs of Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum) and russet buffalo-berry (Shepherdia Canadensis). Limber pine (Pinus flexilis) and the shrub common juniper (Juniperus communis) can be found on rocky, drier sites. Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) is present at the higher elevations, and Englemann spruce (Picea Engelmannii) is present along some creek bottoms.

Forest Service VMap data (project record) indicates that the remaining 1/3rd (~37%) of the Highwood project area is considered more suitable for livestock grazing, consisting primarily of open grasslands. These open grasslands are primarily located on southern exposures on the better soils. Dominant native grasses are bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). A non-native grass species, timothy (Phleum pretense), is also common. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.) also occurs on the drier grassland slopes that have not been burned by wild or prescribed fires in the past 25+ years.

Aspen (Populous tremuloides) stands, and shrubs such as black hawthorn (Cretaegus douglasii), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), western service-berry (Amelanchier alnifolia), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), are well distributed and the dominant deciduous vegetation in the uplands, generally occurring on the wetter sites, such as adjacent to springs and melted snowdrift areas. Other deciduous vegetation also occurs in more linear, narrow shaped stands along the many miles of creek channels, most of which flow year round. These riparian plant communities are generally comprised of shrub species such as hawthorn (Cretaegus spp.) and willow (Salix spp.), with some stands of cottonwood trees (Populus spp.). Forbs that are sought by many wild and domestic herbivores, such as cow-parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), sharptooth angelica (Angelica arguta), and sweet anise (Osmorhiza occidentalis), are commonly found in the understories of most aspen, willow and cottonwood stands, mainly because the July 1, or later, entry of livestock allows these forbs to mature and produce seeds each year before being consumed. Redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea) is present on the stretches of creek that are protected from heavy animal browsing. Along the stretches of creek that receive heavier livestock grazing, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and clover species (Trifolium spp.) are common in the understory, and hawthorn often dominates the woody shrub component.

It should be noted that the Highwood Mountains is the main feature of the larger 748-square-mile Highwood Elk Management Unit (EMU). The Highwood EMU is 1 of 44 EMUs across the state of

73 Name of Project

Montana, which is a part of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park’s (MFWP) Elk Management Plan (2005). Within the Highwood EMU are approximately 317 square miles of elk habitat, of which 79% are in private ownership. The remaining 21% is primarily USDA-Forest Service (USFS) lands, which is the Highwood Mountains project area (already described above). Part of the public popularity with this EMU is its closeness to Great Falls, and because the Highwood Mountains project area (~ 21% of the EMU) is public land open to free public hunting and it’s easily accessible by roads. One public road bisects the project area from the north, along Highwood Creek, through to the south on Arrow Creek. Another road enters the project area on Little Belt Creek on the west side, and another enters on Shonkin Creek on the northeast side, and both roads receive rather liberal amounts of public use. Adding to the popularity of the project area is the Forest Service’s developed campground on Thain Creek, and the 29 miles of hiking and motorcycle trails within the project area. And because bull elk are managed for trophy quality by MFWP, this EMU provides one of the more highly coveted either-sex elk permits in MFWP’s administrative Region 4.

Numerous physical and biotic characteristics influence the quantity and quality of the wildlife habitat in the Highwood Mountains project area, but some stand out. The underlying geology of the mountain range caused its steep slopes and narrow creek channels, which influences absorption of solar energy and potential plant communities. The size and location of the Highwood Mountains also influences how it catches winter snow storms (moisture off the Pacific Ocean meets with cold arctic air coming down the eastern edge of the Rockies / western edge of the Great Plains and precipitates onto the Highwood Mountains). Large stand replacement fires of the late 1800s, and none since, have also influenced today’s plant communities, particularly the large aspen and grass-land plant communities that are now succeeding into coniferous timber stands. And in the past 130 years cattle have supplanted bison as the largest herbivore in the project area. Compared to the other, smaller ungulates, cattle’s use of the project area is more consistent and more constant. Consequently, how cattle grazing influences wildlife habitat components in the project area is addressed in this section, below.

Upland Grasslands – As stated earlier, during the early part of the 1900s approximately 2/3rds of the Highwood Mountains was without coniferous timber, predominantly made up of open grassland areas. Today, however, primarily because there have been no large stand replacement fires since the late 1800s, lodgepole pine and other coniferous trees have expanded and there is considerably less grassland area. According to VMap data 30.4% of the project area is now comprised of open grasslands, or 32.7% of the project area if xeric shrubs are also included as part of open grasslands.

The Highwood Mountain’s upland grasslands are more accurately characterized as mountain, or mountain foothill, grasslands. These grasslands occur on narrow ridges and relatively steep south facing slopes, though there are some open grassy areas occurring on all aspects. In other words, these open grassland areas are not flat, not like prairie grasslands. As stated elsewhere in this report, and in the Range Report, the dominant upland grasses are bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue, and Timothy is a dominant introduced grass. The mixture of grasses, forbs and shrubs within the upland grasslands provide a diversity of habitats that are used by many wildlife species. Big game species such as elk and mule deer use these grassland habitats seasonally, sometimes extensively. Less obvious wildlife species that make use of these grassland habitats are: meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), dusky shrew (Sorex monticolus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), to name some.

The largest animal and user of these upland grasslands are cattle. Cattle evolved to eat grass. Their large rumens allow them to consume and digest large volumes of cellulose rich grasses, year round.

Grasses high in cellulose are generally too difficult to digest for the smaller-sized rumens, like mule deer have. Mule deer typically select more nutritious and digestible plants and plant parts, such as forbs, and leaves and apical stems from preferred shrubs. An elk’s rumen is an in-between size. Elk will also consume forbs and browse when available, but can also shift to grasses when more palatable plants become scarce. This can occur when palatable plants have been consumed and are no longer readily available, or in the fall when succulent food items typically, naturally aren’t as available because of desiccation, heavy frosts, and or snow cover. When cattle are in the process of grazing and filling up on large volumes of grass (their typical modus operandi) (Hanley 1982) they will also consume forbs when they are readily available. Cattle will also consume browse (and forbs), typically in the late summer and early fall, when the availability of customary, preferred forage (primarily grasses) has waned (Hosten et al., 2007).

Depending on the year, but typically sometime between mid and late July, many of the upland grass sites dry out, grass plants mature and grow culms that produce and set seed (if they have not already been eaten), and grass plants begin to lose their succulence, nutritive value and palatability (Ganskopp and Bohnert, 2001). Cattle will then re-graze grass plants that had been previously grazed and are still growing and succulent, or will shift their use to, or include, other areas that contain succulent and nutritious forage, such as areas rich in forbs and browse (Loft et al., 1991). As a consequence of the July 1 or July 10 beginning to the grazing season (in Range Report), many of the grass sites, particularly those situated on dry southern exposures and farthest from stock watering sites receive very little utilization. Then, the wetter microsites – found within grassland, xeric shrub, mesic shrub, aspen and coniferous timber plant communities – receive more of the grazing pressure.

During the 1990s LCNF range personnel measured and mapped cattle utilization of the range within the project area. At that time, like today, the vast majority of allotments had similar cattle numbers and a cattle grazing season that also began on July 1 or July 10 (in Range Report).

According to the range utilization data, 40% of the project area suitable for livestock grazing received 0 to 20% (“very little”) utilization, and 55%, or the majority of the project area suitable for livestock grazing, received 0 to 30% (or “light”) utilization. And only 5% of the project area suitable for livestock grazing received greater than 60% utilization, but 25% received greater than 50% utilization (project record).

These data corroborated the general observations made during field investigations (that were begun in 2011), that a considerable amount of the upland grasslands receive very little use by cattle, while a relatively small amount receives the brunt of cattle use, such as some grass dominated riparian areas and some of the lower grassland slopes adjacent to these riparian areas. Consequently, there are a lot of grass plants that mature, produced seed, and are left blowing in the wind at the end of each grazing season. Such grass plants are also more likely to stand erect and protrude above the snow, and thus be potentially more accessible to wintering elk, for instance. During the growing season many other wildlife species also benefit from un-grazed or lightly grazed grassland vegetation, such as grasshopper sparrows, and other ground-nesting birds, as well as the occurrence and densities of the invertebrates that these avian species consume.

Is the distribution of cattle in the upland grasslands affecting it as wildlife habitat? For instance, are the areas that receive light cattle grazing and thus have ample amounts of matured grasses at the end of the grazing season (0-30% utilization on 55% of land suitable for grazing), and other grassland areas with heavier repeated grazing throughout the growing season (>60% utilization on 5% of land suitable for grazing), are they affecting the presence and duration of forbs throughout the grazing season? And does this affect wildlife species that rely on forbs? As mentioned elsewhere in this report, areas that cattle grazed heavily and repeatedly typically had a lot of non-native forbs, such as

75 Name of Project species of dandelions, clover, and thistle (Cirsium spp) in wetter areas. Most of these forbs, whether native or non-native forbs, were only marginally available to wildlife during the grazing season, which was because of being partially consumed by livestock and because some larger wildlife species, such as elk and mule deer, often avoid areas with high concentrations of cattle (Stewart et al., 2002). These same forbs, however, were abundant and are thus readily available and eaten by wildlife (such as elk, mule deer and black bears) before the cattle grazing season begins each year. The drier grassland areas that were only lightly to moderately grazed and thus had greater amounts of matured grasses, appeared to be more grass-dominated, and also appeared to contain a relatively pristine assortment of native forbs. Whether these native forbs were available to wildlife, or remained available through the cattle grazing season, seemed to be more influenced by soil type, climate and weather than by cattle grazing in these lightly to moderately grazed upland grassland areas.

Aspen – Since a sizeable proportion of the project area that is grazed by livestock is also comprised of aspen, which is potentially very good productive wildlife habitat, more details are provided. Region 1VMap (version 12.1) and Range Vegetation GIS data were combined and analyzed, which showed that at least 6.7% of the project area is comprised of aspen (project record), which is a sizable proportion if compared to other mountain ranges in Montana. This means that approximately 18.1% of the (suitable) grazing land within the project area is comprised of aspen. Field observations conducted for this analysis are similar to conclusions in 2006 that “the majority of aspen stands encountered in the field appeared to be reasonably healthy. Many clones are surrounded by regeneration and most clones seem to have more than one age class present. Many shoots have been browsed this year, but it appears that many shoots are surviving and extending above the browse level.” however, it was noted that a small percentage of the aspen stands (probably less than 5%), and a small portion of some particular aspen stands, were not in good condition relative to densities of aspen suckers and forbs preferred by wildlife. Such stands were typically located where cattle use was the greatest, such as where (1) cattle routinely bedded, loafed and went to water, or (2) fences directed and intensified cattle trailing and use in certain areas (usually boundary fences), or (3) the amount of aspen was small relative to the density of cattle per the area of land available to cattle grazing.

Upland Shrubs – Field investigations also revealed an abundance of upland shrubs associated with the portion of the project area considered suitable for livestock grazing. Big sagebrush, snowberry, chokecherry, western serviceberry, and hawthorn were the major species found. These are important wildlife shrubs, readily used by a lot of wildlife species, particularly big game species from late summer into the winter. Intergrading from drier grassland slopes to wetter microsites was: big sagebrush to snowberry to chokecherry to serviceberry to hawthorn. It appeared that VMap data under-represents big sagebrush however records indicate roughly 4,700 acres of grassland had been treated with prescribed fire during the 1980s for the purpose of reducing sagebrush densities in order to increase production of cattle forage. VMap data do not effectively, specifically account for snowberry, chokecherry or service-berry. These species were abundant, and occurred within aspen stands, on the edges of aspen stands, adjacent to riparian plant communities along the creeks, in moist openings in the coniferousous timber stands, as well as on cool moist slopes in the grassland areas. Hawthorn occurs in the same general locales, but on wetter microsites. Wood’s rose (Rose woodsii) occurs to a lesser degree within the project area, typically on disturbed sites.

Big sagebrush, hawthorn and Wood’s rose are seldom browsed by cattle. Their occurrence tends to increase with increasing levels of cattle grazing on the surrounding herbaceous plants. Big sagebrush is intolerant of fire and can be virtually eliminated if re-burned every 15 to 30 years. Hawthorn and Wood’s rose are more tolerant of fire, and also adapted to ground disturbances, such as concentrated hoof action on cattle trails and at loafing areas. Cattle will browse on snowberry more than

sagebrush, hawthorn or Wood’s rose, particularly during the latter part of the growing season. Snowberry does withstand light cattle grazing, and increases in occurrence with some levels of fire.

Conversely, chokecherry is readily browsed by cattle and wildlife, particularly during late summers when herbaceous vegetation, such as grasses and forbs, desiccates or has been consumed and thus no longer readily available. Chokecherry is widely regarded as an important wildlife food. Moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, prong-horn antelope, elk, mule and white-tailed deer and small mammals, browse chokecherry. Many birds and mammals (such as bears and coyotes) eat the fruit. Heavy use by cattle and wildlife can reduce the vigor and occurrence of chokecherry.

Serviceberry is also a valuable wildlife plant used by virtually the same mammalian and avian species that use chokecherry. Serviceberry has fair to good palatability for cattle and most big game species. Utilization of serviceberry by cattle and big game usually occurs later than chokecherry, primarily through the winter into early spring.

Both chokecherry and serviceberry are considered fire dependent; both are well adapted to fire. Both are rhizomatous and usually sprout rapidly and prolifically from roots if top-killed by fire. Both are strongly associated with aspen stands and riparian areas within the project area, with serviceberry usually more suited for wetter riparian sites and more direct sunlight. Consequently, both shrubs are more abundant in the pastures where aspen and riparian vegetation is most abundant.

Within the project area cattle, elk, and mule deer collectively prefer, browse upon, and impact chokecherry more than they do aspen or serviceberry. Cattle, elk, mule deer, and mountain goat browse chokecherry during late summer/early fall. Impacts to choke-cherry were pronounced in Deer, Shoulder, Stoner, Pohlod, Postill and Shonkin Creeks – and by the end of the grazing season most of the current year’s growth had been browsed and removed, and most chokecherry plants had a clubbed, arrested architecture (Keigley and Frisina 1998) and were less than 2 feet tall in these drainages.

Cattle, elk and deer have usually left the project area by the time winter sets in, and by the time serviceberry would normally be palatable and highly sought by them. Cattle, most elk and most deer have not returned to the project area by late winter/early spring when serviceberry is still palatable and typically sought. And the occurrence of serviceberry is not that common where mountain goats typically spend their winters. Consequently, browsing on serviceberry was widespread throughout the project area, but not as heavy as was observed on chokecherry

Mesic Shrubs – Approximately 718 acres, or 1.6% of the project area, or 2.5% of the project area deemed suitable for livestock grazing, is made up of mesic shrubs (Figure 2, below), which is presumed to be inclusive of all riparian vegetation along the 82 miles of perennial streams in the project area. During field investigations, small portions to sizeable stretches of Cottonwood Creek, Shed Creek, Timber Creek, Alder Creek, Postill Creek, Shonkin Creek, Packard Creek, Kirby Creek, Grant Creek, North Fork Highwood Creek, Briggs Creek, Thain Creek, South Fork Highwood Creek, Shoulder Creek, Stoner Creek, Pohlod Creek, Beaver Creek, Rat Creek, Middle and North Forks of Belt Creek, and Big Coulee within the project area were inspected from a terrestrial and avian wildlife species perspective. It was found that the aggregation of deciduous woody and herbaceous plant species along these creeks were typical: aspen and cottonwood trees, shrubs such as willow, hawthorn, snowberry, chokecherry, dog-wood, service-berry, and Wood’s rose, and cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and horsetail (Equisetum spp.) as well as a rather complete assortment of forbs and grasses (some of which have already been listed).

77 Name of Project

New, regenerative plants of cottonwood and willow were generally scarce to absent from flat stretches of creeks that were easily accessed by cattle and that also contained worth-while amounts of herbaceous forage. Along these stretches shrubs armed with thorns – such as hawthorn, Wood’s rose and prickly currant (Ribes spp.) – were more common. And the older, larger, but persistent, woody shrubs usually displayed architectures that indicated that their earlier growth had been arrested before becoming released (Keigley and Frisina 1998). And the herbaceous vegetation in the understory also showed signs of heavy use over time, with Kentucky bluegrass, clover and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), often being the dominant grass and forbs.

The composition of woody and herbaceous vegetation was noticeably better along creek bottom stretches that were either: narrow with steep side hills, contained obstructions such as downed timber, physically removed or distant from larger grazing areas (e.g., mesic shrub patches in the middle of large coniferous timber stands), or in pastures in which cattle grazing was excluded or where only occasionally or lightly stocked with cattle (such as campgrounds and riparian exclosures). These better stretches of mesic shrubs were common on Briggs Creek, North Fork of Highwood Creek, South Fork of Highwood Creek, Big Coulee, and Middle and North Fork of Belt Creeks. Such better stretches, though not as common, were present on virtually all other creeks too.

It should also be pointed out that private land inholdings, as well as private lands just outside the project area, also had some riparian areas virtually untouched by cattle. Riparian areas near homes and cabins or in hay meadow pastures where cattle grazing was/is deferred until fall or winter often contained an ideal assortment of mesic shrubs and forbs. For example, riparian plant species such as red-osier dogwood and cow parsnip, which are highly preferred as forage and cover by many mammals and birds (such as cattle, moose, elk, deer, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, beavers, rabbits, bears, and mountain grouse to song birds), are “ice cream” species that are sensitive to grazing and soil compaction and aren’t usually present where grazed season long, but were common in these protected sites. So, from a wildlife perspective these protected riparian areas on private land augmented the better stretches of mesic shrubs also found within the project area.

Therefore, from a terrestrial and avian wildlife perspective the overall composition and structural integrity of mesic shrubs in the project area did not appear deficient enough to be an issue. Noteworthy, and also corroborative, is that many mesic shrubs also occurred along creek channels at elevations higher, or locations more distant or difficult to access, than where cattle typically venture.

Coniferous Timber – As previously mentioned in this report approximately 2/3rds of the project area is now comprised of coniferous timber, which is a major habitat component for many wildlife species that use the project area seasonally or year round. For instance, some neotropical migrant birds, such as the ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) and the red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), use coniferous timber habitats almost exclusively when on their summer/breeding range in the project area. Coniferous timber habitats are also seasonally important for many of the big game species that are avidly sought by hunters and other recreationists, such as elk, mule deer, mountain lion and black bear. Small mammals such as red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) also use coniferous timber almost exclusively year round.

The amount of coniferous timber in the project area has increased significantly since the late 1800s, primarily because of the reduced occurrence of wildfires, and because there has been very little timber harvest. Consequently, lodgepole pine, an early successional tree species, is the most abundant conifer within the project area. Most of the lodgepole pine sites are relatively dry and the understory vegetation is compositionally simple, generally dominated by grouse whortleberry (Vaccinium scoparium), or dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium caespitosum), or pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens).

The next most abundant coniferous tree species in the project area are Douglas fir and subalpine fir, which occur in pockets on warm to cool, dry to wet sites, and from lower to higher elevations, respectively. Bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and pinegrass are grasses commonly found in lodgepole pine understories. Snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), grouse whortleberry and dwarf huckleberry are common understory shrubs, the berries and leaves from which are eaten by numerous wildlife species. Rocky Mountain maple is another important wildlife shrub associated with the cooler and wetter sites within coniferous timber stands. A similarly important shrub, russet buffaloberry, is found on warmer, drier sites. Heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), and white spiraea (Spiraea betulifolia) are common forbs also found in Douglas and subalpine fir stands in the project area.

Spruce is found in between the Douglas fir and subalpine fir zone, usually in cool wet ravines and creek bottoms within the project area. And limber pine can be found on steep, dry, rocky slopes at low to high elevations.

The coniferous timber plant communities found within the project area serve numerous functions for wildlife. These plant communities provide vertical structure and niches for many arboreal and terrestrial wildlife species. The vertical and horizontal structure also provides important cover. Mule deer and elk use coniferous timber in the project area as thermal and hiding cover, to reduce energy expenditures and mortality from predation, respectively. It also allows them to exploit larger areas. For instance, it provides security in between nocturnal forays into more open country, on and off the project area, to feed. Evergreen needles and cones of conifers and the diverse understory of grasses, forbs and shrubs also provide important forage for many wildlife species, and is a very important source of food for mule deer and elk during the summer months. And probably one of the greatest values to wildlife of the coniferous timber stands in the project area is that cattle do not use them as much as the other wildlife habitat components. Many of the plants utilized by wildlife are either not that palatable to cattle, or are so widely spaced that cattle cannot fill up on them in a timely, efficient manner. However, if cattle find microsites within the coniferous timber stands that contain sufficient quantities of forage, and those sites are not located in difficult, steep or distant terrain, cattle will make use of them, heavily in some places and times. Cattle will also use coniferous timber for shade, to escape the hot sun while ruminating. Coniferous timber stands used heavily by cattle are localized: usually located on the edges of coniferous timber stands, usually where the topography isn’t too steep, and usually in close proximity to other, open, grassland feeding areas. Such coniferous timber stands were most often found in the Highwood and Highwood South allotments. One prominent coniferous timber stand that if used less by cattle would result in great benefits to terrestrial wildlife species, particularly big game wildlife species, is located in the Upper North Fork (of Highwood Creek) pasture, on the south side of said creek and uphill to an elevation of approximately 5,600 feet.

Big Game Winter Range – Numerous versions of big game winter range have been delineated for the Highwood Mountains over the years. These efforts were collaborative exercises between MFWP and Forest Service biologists – often drawn to emphasize places where big game animals have been seen during winter surveys, or places on the Forest that should, or could, function as winter range. More information is known about where elk winter than is known about where mule deer and the other big game species winter in or around the Highwood Mountains. This is because aerial elk surveys of the Highwood Mountains are flown by MFWP biologists during the winter, typically once, sometimes twice, per winter, which isn’t the routine for mule deer. In other words, mule deer are not aerially surveyed in the Highwood Mountains, so winter locations are not a focus, but are incidental to the elk surveys and locations, or sometimes obtained from vehicles viewed from ranch or county roads. And mountain goats are routinely surveyed aerially, once per year during the summer, but sometimes in the fall. Elk, mule deer and mountain goats typically select open areas with ample amounts of forage

79 Name of Project as winter range. Within the project area such places typically occur as wind swept ridges or south facing slopes. Steep south facing slopes characteristically absorb more solar radiation and thus have less snow. Refer to Appendix A for winter range map.

Mountain goat winter range is characterized by windblown ridge-tops and steep slopes adjacent to precipitous cliffs and chutes, usually with southern exposures. Some mountain goat populations are also known to move to lower elevations for the winter, usually down ridgelines in order to find similar areas where there is less snow cover. As a general rule mountain goat winter ranges are relatively small in size, and restrictive, forcing mountain goats to eke out an existence on virtually whatever they can find to eat during the winter. And as a general rule mountain goat winter ranges are smaller portions of their summer range.

Because mountain goats typically winter at high elevations, where cattle seldom venture, and combined with the mountain goat’s innate propensity to eat a large diversity of food items, substantially more so than cattle, it’s very unlikely that cattle in the Highwood Mountains are having much effect on the availability of plants that mountain goats use during the winter. It’s also unlikely that wild ungulates, such as elk and mule deer, are reducing the availability of forage on mountain goat winter ranges in the project area to an extent that it’s detrimental to the mountain goats. Instead, as has been shown on many other goat winter ranges, the availability of plants used by mountain goats during the winter is often limited by the density of the mountain goat population and/or the severity of the winter, primarily the latter. In other words, as winter progresses the severity of the winter can take a cumulative toll; the snowpack may keep increasing, the already limited size of the mountain goat winter range keeps shrinking, and the forage on these restricted wintering areas may become more used up and even more limited. It should be noted that the expansion and maturation of coniferous timber stands up to and into the mountain goat wintering areas may have reduced the size of, and possibly the amount of forage within, these mountain goat wintering areas (if the availability of winter forage is at all limiting mountain goats in the Highwood Mountains).

Table 25 - Summary of Effects to Wildlife Species Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Determination Summary for Federally Threatened, Endangered, Candidate (C) and Proposed (P) Species Grizzly Bear No Effect No Effect No Effect Canada Lynx No Effect No Effect No Effect Sprague’s Pipit (C) No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Determination Summary for Regionally Sensitive Species Gray Wolf No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Bald Eagle No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 American Peregrine Falcon No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Flammulated Owl No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Burrowing owl No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Greater Sage-Grouse No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Black-backed Woodpecker No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Harlequin Duck No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Fisher No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Northern Bog Lemming No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Greater short-horned Lizard No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Wolverine No Impact1 No Impact1 No Impact1 Management Indicator Species not Federally Listed, Candidate, Proposed, or Regionally Sensitive Golden Eagle No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 Prairie Falcon No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 Northern Goshawk No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 American Three-toed Woodpecker No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact (IHPV)2 No Impact No Impact No Impact Dusky (blue) Grouse 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO) No Impact No Impact No Impact White-tailed Deer 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO) No Impact No Impact No Impact Black Bear 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO) No Impact No Impact No Impact Mountain Lion 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO) No Impact No Impact No Impact Bobcat 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO) No Impact No Impact No Impact Beaver 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO) No Impact No Impact No Impact Mountain Goat 3 3 3 (INBHPO) (INBHPO) (INBHPO)

No Impact No Impact 4 Elk 3 3 May Impact (INBHPO) (INBHPO) Mule Deer May Impact4 May Impact4 May Impact4 1 – No Impact = No impact to individuals or habitat. 2 – No Impact (IHPV) = No impact to individuals or habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability. 3 – No Impact (INBHPO) = No impact to individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting or trapping opportunities. 4 – May Impact = May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a loss of species or population viability or to a loss of hunting opportunities.

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Species Federally listed threatened and endangered species are species that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges (endangered), or are likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future (threatened). The Forest Service must conduct a Biological Assessment for the purpose of identifying any endangered or threatened species likely to be affected by an action, and may need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding any actions that could potentially affect those species.

Table26(below) is a list of threatened or endangered and candidate species on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and whether they occur within or near the project area. This list of species for the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and for the Jefferson Division, was confirmed by the USFWS, updated January 8, 2015 (USDIFWS 2015 in project file) and at USFWS website at: http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_ Species/ Listed_Species/Forests/L&C_sp_list.

A more detailed analysis and discussion of the potential impacts of the Highwood Project to threatened or endangered and candidate species is below. Because of that analysis and findings of NO EFFECT, formal consultation with the USFWS was not necessary.

81 Name of Project

Sprague’s pipit is listed as a Candidate species, meaning that the USFWS has sufficient information to propose it for listing as threatened or endangered. Although analysis of the species is encouraged by the USFWS, “none of the substantive or procedural provisions of the [Endangered Species] Act apply to candidate species,” (USFWS website, November 8, 2013, Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for the Lewis and Clark National Forest). Even so, the habitat needs of the Sprague’s pipit are considered in this analysis.

Wolverine was also a Candidate species until February 4, 2013, when the USFWS issued a proposed rule to list it as a threatened species. Subsequently, on August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew that proposal (published in Federal Register: 79 FR 47521-47545) and the wolverine was returned to an earlier designation of a Region 1 Sensitive Species. As a consequence, the treatise on wolverine follows in the Sensitive Species section.

Table 26 - Federally Threatened, Endangered, Candidate and Proposed Wildlife Species.

1 Habitat Preference and Occurrence Species Name and Status Determination and Rationale in Analysis Area Grizzly Bear (T) Habitat generalist, with little to no Highwood Mountains is not proposed as Also Management Indicator human disturbance (e.g., a low a recovery area for the species. Not Species – Threatened and density of roads). Historically listed as threatened or endangered in Endangered occurred in the Highwood Mountains, the Highwood Mountains, nor does it but does not currently, nor does it occur on the Jefferson Division, of Lewis occur on the Jefferson Division of and Clark National Forest. Lewis and Clark National Forest. No Effect. Canada Lynx (T) Wet subalpine fir/lodgepole Lynx and lynx habitat not present in Also Management Indicator pine/Douglas-fir at mid-elevations. Highwood Mountains. Not listed as Species – Special Interest Vertical understory structure needed threatened or endangered in the for denning. Abundant number of Highwood Mountains. snowshoe hare important as prey. Species does not occur in Highwood No Effect. Mountains. Sprague’s Pipit (C) Large blocks of intact prairie No Sprague’s pipit habitat, with only grassland habitat with little or no shrub one, old and very questionable, sighting. cover is required. Habitat does not The proposed project would not alter exist in project area. There is only grassland habitat relative to one, old and very questionable, requirements of Sprague’s pipit (e.g., no sighting from within Highwood habitat conversion or fragmentation). Mountains project area. Not listed as threatened or endangered in the Highwood Mountains. No Impact. Status1 T = Threatened, E = Endangered, P= Proposed, C = Candidate, and MIS = Management Indicator Species.

Effects

Grizzly Bear The Highwood project is within the historical range of the grizzly bear, but the project area is not currently occupied. And the November 8, 2013 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Species list for the Lewis and Clark National Forest officially documents that the grizzly bear does not occur on the Jefferson Division, where the project is located. Because the project area is outside the occupied range of the species, and the Highwood project is not within a Recovery Zone as identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993), the Highwood Mountain Range proposed project will have No Effect on grizzly bears.

Canada Lynx The Canada Lynx is listed as threatened by USFWS on the LCNF, and its status is listed as transient on the Jefferson Division (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015), which includes the Highwood Mountains. The Highwood Project area is not within critical lynx habitat, but is considered as peripheral unoccupied habitat instead (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013b, map of unoccupied habitat in Project File). There are no recorded historic sightings, nor recorded current sightings of lynx within the Highwood Project area.

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database and website (http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx), the closest lynx record (Canada Lynx Records Map, in Project File) is a “pending record” (reported observation, but no specimen or DNA) from the 1977/78 winter, approximately 6.25 straight-line miles east of the project area on the edge of the Arrow Creek breaks. A similar “pending record” of a lynx from breaks habitat came from the 1981/82 winter, approximately 29 straight-line miles north of the project area in the Missouri River Breaks. There are 4 other records somewhat close to the project area. They are from the Little Belt Mountains, 23 to 30 miles to the south, 2 of which are also “pending records”, 3 of which came from the 1980/81 winter and the other from the 1995/96 winter.

The Montana Field Guide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAEB03010.aspx) shows that the Highwood project area lies within the general distribution of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), which is the primary prey species of lynx (Ruediger, B., et al. 2000). However, snowshoe hare are not known to occur within the Highwood Mountains. Records from the Natural Heritage Tracker show the closest snowshoe hare record (Snowshoe Hare Records Map in Project File) came from near Fort Benton, Montana, in 1890, which is 23 miles north of the project area. Other, relatively close, snowshoe hare records were from the foothills of the Little Belt Mountains in 1918 and 1956, both 47 miles to the southeast and south, respectively.

Ground reconnaissance trips that I made during the summer and fall of 2011 and again in 2012 (Allotment Inspections in Project File) indicated that the apparent lack of snowshoe hares, and thus lynx, isn’t because of a scarcity, or poor condition, of the herbaceous or woody vegetation found within the Highwood Project area. Since the focus of the Highwood Project’s proposed action is to maintain desired conditions, or move toward desired conditions in rangeland health with emphasis placed on herbaceous and woody vegetation in riparian and upland areas, potential snowshoe hare and potential lynx habitat should be increased and enhanced if the proposal is implemented. And since red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), an important alternate prey species of lynx (Ruediger, B., et al. 2000) also appears not to be lacking in the coniferousous forests within the project area (coniferousous forest currently comprise a larger portion of the Highwood’s landscape than historically), and because Standards and Guidelines pertaining to livestock grazing found in the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007) are being considered and complied with (Canada Lynx Appendix 1, in Project File), and since no literature has been found indicating that livestock grazing poses a threat to lynx, it’s concluded that this project will have No Effect on lynx, or lynx Critical Habitat, under the Endangered Species Act.

Sprague’s Pipit The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has determined (September 15, 2010) that Sprague’s pipit warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that listing the species is precluded by the need to address other listing actions of higher priority (Federal Register: 74 FR 56028-56050). Thus, the Sprague’s pipit is currently classified as a Candidate species, and as such an analysis is not required, though the habitat needs are considered and discussed below.

83 Name of Project

Sprague’s pipit is a small-sized grassland bird endemic to the Northern Great Plains. It’s also one of the few bird species that’s endemic to the North American prairie and strongly associated, throughout its life cycle, with native prairie that has never been plowed. It breeds in parts of Montana, North and South Dakota, and Minnesota in the United States, and in parts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada. It winters in parts of Arizona, Texas, southern Oklahoma, southern Arkansas, northwest Mississippi, southern Louisiana, and northern Mexico. During the breeding season it requires relatively large patches of prairie for nesting (170 - 776 acres) (Davis, 2004), and avoids prairie areas that have been fragmented, such as by farming, oil and gas development, or that contains too much shrub or woody vegetation (Grant et al., 2004).

General distribution maps for Sprague’s pipit (Montana Field Guide, http://fieldguide.mt. gov/detail_ABPBM02060.aspx) show that most of Montana east of the Rocky Mountains is summer range. However, virtually all Sprague’s pipit records in the Natural Heritage Tracker database are from flat prairie areas, not from within the isolated mountain ranges in Central and Eastern Montana (Spargue’s Pipit Records Map in Project File). And yet there is one Sprague’s pipit record in the Natural Heritage Tracker database centered on the northeast corner of the Highwood Mountains (see Sprague’s Pipit Record in Project File). This record is attributed to P. D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution: Third Edition (Skaar et al. 1985). This record has a date range of January 1, 1885 to January 1, 1985, and the sighting/record is attached to latilong 18. Latilong 18 is a 3,200 square mile area, the center of which occurs on the northeastern corner of the Highwood Mountains project area. So, the record occurred somewhere within Latilong 18, but probably to the north and east, or south, outside, of the project area, where the habitat is true prairie grasslands, versus the higher elevation mountain habitat types that are found within the project area. This is corroborated by communications with the USFWS (5/9/2014 email from Laura Conway: SPPI_Habitat_LCNF, and an attached map: SPPI_Map_LCNF, in Project File).

Since there are no known or verified Sprague’s pipit records from within the Highwood Mountains project area, and the habitat in the project area isn’t prairie characteristic of what Sprague’s pipit’s use, and given that the proposed action will not fragment or convert any grassland areas within the project area, it is concluded that this project will not impact Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Sensitive Species Sensitive wildlife species are those animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. Amendment 12 (USDA Forest Service 1993a) to the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan added goals, objectives, standards, and monitoring items to the Forest’s sensitive species program. Those species whose viability is a concern were identified and adverse impacts were, and are, to be avoided or minimized. Analysis of impacts to sensitive species in Region 1 has typically relied on review of the available literature, known population and habitat information, and evaluations of known or modeled habitats.

Sensitive Species identified by the Regional Forester that may occur on the LCNF and on the Jefferson Division, along with their habitat preference and known or potential occurrence within the project area are discussed below. For species with little or no habitat in the project area, or that are not known or expected to occur in the project area, a determination of potential effect from the proposed Highwood Project, with a rationale for that determination, is provided below. More detailed information regarding habitat preference, population status, and management and monitoring status are summarized in the LCNF Viability Document (USDA 2011) or other cited information. Said Viability Document can be found in the project file and is incorporated here by reference.

Sensitive Wildlife Species Analyzed

Gray Wolf Wolves in the Northern Rockies, outside of Wyoming, were removed from the Endangered Species list in April 2009, reinstated in August 2010, and removed again from the list by an Act of Congress in May 2011. Upon removal from the list, the wolf became a Sensitive Species in the Northern Region of the Forest Service, and in Montana a “species in need of management” under Montana Law (Hanuska-Brown et al. 2012).

Following removal from the Endangered Species list the State of Montana established a wolf hunting season, with a combined maximum hunting and trapping bag limit of three wolves per person for the 2012-2013 season (MFWP 2012 Wolf Hunting Regulations in Project File). The state is divided into Wolf Management Units (WMUs). Some WMUs have specific quotas, others are regulated by dates and individual bag limits. The Highwood Project area is within WMU 400, which includes all of north-central and northeastern Montana, which is regulated by season dates and bag limits (the number that can be legally harvested by a license holder per season year).

The LCNF Forest Plan still has the wolf listed as a Management Indicator Species because of its federal status as a threatened species at the time the Forest Plan was signed in 1986. And the Forest Plan standard C-2 (9) states that the gray wolf will be managed “primarily by maintaining a suitable prey base and important habitat components such as rendezvous sites”, and that management for big game species will follow the management guidelines established by the interagency Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program. Forest Plan standard C-2 (10) further states that wolf sightings, sign, or other activities are to be documented to maintain knowledge of present distribution and population levels.

Population Status – Viability of wolf populations is not a concern in Montana or across the LCNF; they have a high fecundity rate and are highly mobile. Montana’s wolf population has increased in size and distribution since the early 1980’s due to natural emigration from Canada and a successful, federal effort that reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park and wilderness areas of central Idaho. Montana’s most recent available data reports a minimum count of 653 wolves in 2011, a 15% increase from 2010. The minimum number of breeding pairs has increased from 35 in 2010 to 39 at end of 2011. And the minimum number of packs increased from 108 to 130 during the same period (Hanuska-Brown et al. 2012). Therefore, as of May 2009 Montana’s wolf population had met all requirements of the Endangered Species Act. In 2010 District Court again listed the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains because wolves in Wyoming were not in compliance with the USDI FWS gray wolf recovery plan. But in 2011 U.S. Congress passed a bill that again validated the May 2009 delisting in Montana – the gray wolf in Montana is no longer endangered or threatened, and the laws, management plan, and regulations adopted by the State of Montana “will conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future” (Federal Register 2009, USDI FWS 50 CFR Part 17).

Habitat – Wolves in Montana generally select relatively low elevation flat terrain landscapes, close to water, with an abundance of prey species (predominantly white-tailed deer, but also moose, elk, mule deer, smaller animals, as well as domestic livestock). Naturally, ungulate winter ranges are important to wolves. Wolf survival is usually better in large, remote, forested, refuge-type areas where domestic livestock are not abundant (USDI FWS Federal Register 2006). Wolf packs, focused on raising and providing for pups, are generally territorial. Den sites are typically selected in April. Rendezvous sites are typically located near the den and are used by the pups until about September, when they are then large enough to travel with the adults. Both the den and rendezvous sites are typically located

85 Name of Project near water, with good access and visibility to prey animals, and away from potential human disturbances.

Occurrence in Project Area – Individual wolves are only occasionally encountered in, or near, the Highwood Mountains project area. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has no records of packs in this area (Map of Montana Wolf Packs, 2011, in Project File, from Hanuska-Brown et al. 2012). On March 28, 2013, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wolf Management Specialist Ty Smucker, whose area of responsibility also includes the Highwood Mountains, stated that “Wolves are occasionally reported in the Highwood Mountains, however no packs are known to have established territories in the area to date. Dispersing or transient wolves may use the Highwoods periodically, but it is unlikely that a wolf pack could persist for any length of time given the high potential for conflict with livestock in the area. The fact that there are no recent confirmed livestock depredations by wolves in the Highwoods, also suggests limited use of the area by wolves in recent years.” Ty Smucker further elaborated on the potential of wolves using the Highwoods: “Numbers of wolves in the Little Belts, to the South, are suspected to be increasing and may be a source of increased use of the Highwoods by dispersing and transient wolves. Individual wolves from the Mount Vesuvius pack in the western portion of the Little Belt Mountains may roam into the Highwoods on occasion, and several reports of 3 wolves around the Belt area may have been wolves from this pack. FWP confirmed tracks of a lone wolf in the Little Willow Creek area east of Belt in December, 2012, and several sightings of a single wolf or wolf tracks have been reported in the foothills between Belt, Highwood, and Geraldine” (T. Smucker personal communication 3/28/2013).

Determination and Rationale – Currently the Highwood project area has some very positive attributes relative to wolves: approximately 2/3rds of area is covered with conifers that provide potential hiding cover, and there is a relatively high density of elk, with moderate numbers of mule deer, white-tailed deer and mountain goats. And the habitat that supports these prey species should experience a net improvement with the implementation of the proposed action (particularly the occurrence of woody and herbaceous plant species in riparian areas). However, within and around the Highwood project area are some attributes that are less than desirable relative to wolf survival: the small size of the mountain range that is bisected by a public, county road, with an overall relatively high density road system that is open to passenger cars and trucks, plus a relatively high density of trails open to motorcycles and foot and horse travel. There is also the very popular Thain Creek (Forest Service) Campground, which is located a mere 43 road-miles from the town of Great Falls. The project area, in addition to being a very popular destination for camping, is also popular for hiking, fishing and hunting. The project area is also surrounded by large-sized actively operated cattle ranches, and there is a 100+year history of grazing livestock during summer and fall within the project area. So, even though habitat supporting wild ungulate populations on the project area appears to be sufficient in that regard, and expected to become more productive with the implementation of the proposed action, other attributes outside the purview of this EA, and that are historic and longstanding and primarily occurring on private land, it is thus unlikely that a pack of wolves will establish and then persist within the project area in the foreseeable future. Therefore, since the USFWS has declared the wolf is not threatened in Montana, and wolf numbers continue to increase in Montana, the implementation of the proposed action is expected to result in: No impact to individuals or habitat.

Wolverine The Wolverine was a Candidate species until February 4, 2013, when the USFWS issued a proposed rule to list it as a threatened species. On August 13, 2014, the USFWS withdrew that proposal (published in Federal Register: 79 FR 47521-47545) and the wolverine was returned to an earlier designation as a Region 1 Sensitive Species.

Population Status – Wolverines are generally solitary and wide-ranging and require a lot of space. They occur at low densities of about 1 wolverine per 58 square miles, with a reported range from 1 per 25 to 130 square miles. Home ranges of males are larger than those of females. In Montana the mean annual home range of males was 163 square miles and 150 square miles for females (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Copeland 1996, Copeland and Yates 2006, Squires et al. 2007, and Inman et al. 2008). In February, 2013, the USFWS estimates that in the contiguous United States the wolverine population numbers 250 to 300 individuals, and that the majority occur in the northern Rocky Mountains where it’s possible that the population may not be substantially lower than population densities were prior to European settlement (USDIFWS_78_7863-7890).

Habitat – The wolverine is a large terrestrial mustelid that lives in the alpine tundra, and boreal and mountain forests (primarily coniferous forests). They are usually found in areas where snow covers the ground throughout the winter, such as large mountainous wilderness areas, or areas without, or few, roads. In such areas, riparian areas may also contribute as important winter habitat. For parturition, wolverine will den in caves, rock crevices, under fallen trees, in thickets, or similar sites, underneath deep snow.

In Montana, Hornocker and Hash (1981) found most wolverine locations were in medium to scattered timber, while areas of dense, young timber were used the least. They were also seldom found in open areas, such as clearcuts and burns, which they crossed rapidly and directly when they did.

Another descriptor of wolverine habitat is large isolated tracts of land that support a diverse prey base. Wolverines are opportunistic feeders. They feed on a wide variety of food items: roots; berries; small mammals; birds' eggs, young and fledglings; and fish. They have also been known to attack larger ungulates that are hampered by deep snow. Small to medium size rodents, and carrion, especially ungulate carcasses, make up a large percentage of their diet.

Occurrence in Project Area – The current range for wolverine does not overlay the Highwood Mountains project area, nor are there any historical records within the project area. Over the years there have been a scant number of records of wolverines in the Little Belt Mountains, located at least 25 (Euclidean) miles south of the project area, which is across 25 miles of foothills and prairie, which is also bisected by US Highway 87. There are also 5 records of wolverine (majority were just observations) north of the Missouri River going back to 1953. These records, scattered across the northern tier of Montana, were probably dispersing individuals that came out of Canada (Wolverine Records Map in Project File).

In 2005 the Lewis and Clark National Forest modeled denning habitat for wolverines derived from a model then used by the Kootenai National Forest (LCNF GIS Metadata). That model indicated that there are only 15.6 total acres of potential, denning habitat in the project area.

Determination and Rationale – The Highwood project area is virtually too small for wolverine habitation. The project area is approximately 66 square miles in size, of which about 2/3rds is covered with coniferous timber and or steep terrain that approximates what a wolverine might use – if a wolverine was to traverse the 25 miles, or more, of the lower elevation open country in order to find the Highwood Mountains, which they possibly do on occasion. And the project area does contain food items that could be used by a wolverine should one arrive. However, the isolation and small size of the Highwood Mountains project area, and its low quantity and disjoined habitat, renders the potential future habitation of the project area as unlikely, which corroborates why the current range of wolverines doesn’t include the Highwood Mountains, and why there are no historical records.

87 Name of Project

Also important is that the wolverine has been managed as a furbearer in Montana by MFWP, and trapping of wolverines was prohibited by MFWP in the Highwood and Little Belt Mountains starting in the 2008-2009 trapping season. Also worth noting is that more recent modeling of wolverine habitat, based on Inman et al. (2012) and Copeland et al. (2010), further indicates that the Highwood Mountains does not contain persistent snow (map of persistent snow, based on Copeland, in Project File), thus there is not sufficient suitable habitat for wolverine in the project area.

Since wolverines do not occur in the Highwood Mountains, nor are there any historical records of them in the Highwood Mountains, which possibly is also because of naturally low occurring and disjoined characteristics of potential denning and foraging habitats in this isolated and outlying mountain range, and since wolverine appear little affected by changes to vegetative characteristics such as is caused by cattle grazing (USDIFWS_78_ 7863-7890), yet the focus of the proposed action is to maintain or move toward desired conditions in rangeland health with emphasis on herbaceous and woody vegetation in riparian and upland areas which should increase the amounts of wolverine food items (such as berries, small mammals, birds’ eggs and young and fledglings, and fish, as well as carrion) and the quality of foraging habitat – therefore the continuation of cattle grazing in the project area, and in particular the implementation of the proposed action, would result in: No impact to individuals or habitat for wolverine.

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep In 2011 the Northern Region of the Forest Service added the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep to its Sensitive Species list. The LCNF Forest Plan also lists bighorn sheep as a Management Indicator Species because it’s considered a “commonly hunted species”, even though public hunting of this species is very restricted and tightly regulated by Montana FWP. Forest Plan standards that apply to bighorn sheep are detailed in the Forest Plan Compliance table in the project record.

Population Status – It’s not uncommon that bighorn sheep populations fluctuate statewide, often in relation to local outbreaks of disease. Sheep numbers declined dramatically statewide beginning in late 2009, by as much as 10%, due to pneumonia-associated die-offs and subsequent poor to nonexistent lamb recruitment in herds that had experienced disease.

Habitat –The Highwood project area does contain a small amount of habitat that appears to have the possibility of supporting a small number of bighorn sheep, should a transplant ever be considered. Montana (FWP’s) Bighorn Sheep Conservation Plan contains a habitat evaluation procedure (HEP) which is used in determining potential transplant sites. This HEP utilizes a geographical information system (GIS) to develop a habitat model that is then used to determine if the area could support a minimum viable population (MVP) of 125 bighorn sheep (MFWP 2010). This HEP has not been applied to the Highwood project area as it’s felt that it would not comply with the MVP criterion, plus a transplanted mountain goat population already exists in the Highwood project area and having these 2 species overlap on limited and similar (mountain goat and bighorn sheep) habitat could potentially jeopardize viability of one or both species.

Occurrence in Project Area – On the Lewis and Clark National Forest bighorn sheep are indigenous to, and still viable, in the Rocky Mountain portion of the Forest. Bighorn sheep are also indigenous to the Little Belt and Big Snowy Mountains, but disappeared from these mountain ranges by the early 1900‘s. Bighorn sheep are not indigenous to the Highwood Mountains, were never transplanted there, and do not occur in the project area now (Picton and Lonner 2008).

Determination and Rationale – Bighorn sheep are not known to have occurred in the project area, and do not now. Montana FWP has not proposed introducing bighorn sheep into the Highwood Mountains. Potential habitat suitable for bighorn sheep appears to be too limited to meet the minimum viable population criteria established by MFWP. The proposed action is not expected to negatively alter habitat potentially capable of holding bighorn sheep should MFWP’s habitat evaluation and translocation procedures be changed in the future. Therefore, the proposed action is expected to result in: No impact to individuals or habitat.

Bald Eagle Because the bald eagle was federally listed as a Threatened Species at the time the LCNF Forest Plan was signed it was also identified and listed as a MIS by the LCNF in their Forest Plan. In Montana today the bald eagle is a Special Status Species, which means they are no longer protected under the ESA and are also no longer a Montana Species of Concern, but that they are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).

Population Status – Is increasing in the Lower 48 states and in the seven western states, within which the LCNF lies (USDI 2006). In Montana bald eagle numbers have steadily increased since the 1980s and breeding pairs now occupy a high percentage of suitable habitats (MNHP 2012).

Habitat – Bald eagles do reside in Montana year round. Some of the residents migrate out of Montana during winter while others remain. There are bald eagles that nest farther north that will winter in Montana, and others migrate on through going farther south for the winter.

Bald eagles are also known to have stopover or staging areas during spring and fall migrations. Migratory corridors and stopover habitat are similar to winter habitat; they are places where there is an abundant and readily available food source, such as fish and carrion, close to suitable night roosts, and such places can also occur in upland sites (Travsky and Beauvais, 2004).

Bald Eagle nesting sites are generally located within forested areas near large lakes and rivers where nests are usually built in the tallest, oldest, large diameter trees. Nest site selection is also determined by the availability of nearby, abundant food with minimum disturbance from human activity. (Montana Field Guide 2013, http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNKC10010.aspx).

Occurrence in Project Area - Nesting habitat is not present in the project area. Wintering habitat and migratory staging habitat is available in the project area. Bald eagles are commonly seen during winter and transient periods on adjacent private lands, at lower elevations and along the major streams. It is very possible that bald eagles occasionally forage in portions of the project area, but such foraging opportunities are very limited since there are no large, open water bodies for fishing, and most ungulates (big game animals) winter at lower elevations on private lands. Thus, compared to adjacent private lands, there is a minimum amount of winter-killed carrion within the project area.

The Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database does have 2 records/sightings of bald eagles in the Highwood Mountains: 1 record is classified as winter, the other as transient (Bald Eagle Records, and Records Map, in Project File). These 2 records are at the exact same location (on Mount Kennon) as are found in the Natural Heritage Tracker for Sprague’s pipit, burrowing owl, greater sage-grouse, golden eagle, and prairie falcon. These records (sightings) are attributed to P. D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution: Third Edition (Skaar et al. 1985), with a date range of January 1, 1885 to January 1, 1985. All of these sightings/records are attached to latilong 18, which is a 3,200 square mile area, the center of which occurs on Mount Kennon in the northeastern corner of the Highwood Mountains project area. So, these records occurred somewhere within Latilong 18, but

89 Name of Project probably outside of the project area where the habitat is more characteristic of what these species utilize.

Determination and Rationale – The project area does not contain any known nests or nesting habitat. Bald eagles are seen during winter, and as transients, on private lands outside the project area. Winter (foraging) habitat has not been documented in the project area, put its occurrence is plausible, and could be enhanced if the implementation of the Proposed Action resulted in an increase in the number of ungulates wintering on the project area (if the increased forage made available for wintering ungulates wasn’t nullified by snow accumulations that might limit ungulate use during winter periods). Should more ungulates (big game animals) winter on the project area, it most likely would represent a redistribution of wintering big game, not an increase, thus possibly no net benefit to bald eagles. All in all, the proposed action is expected to result in: No impact to individuals or habitat

American Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon was a federally-listed Threatened species at the time the LCNF Forest Plan was signed, and was thus identified and listed as a MIS.

Population Status – Increasing in the Lower 48 states and in Montana.

Habitat - Nests on cliffs adjacent to grassland, riparian openings, or bodies of water.

Occurrence in Project Area – There is neither known records nor known sightings of peregrine falcons in the Highwood Mountains (Peregrine Falcon Records Map, in Project File). There is only a very limited amount of potential suitable nesting habitat adjacent to foraging habitat within project area.

Determination and Rationale - Although only a very limited amount of potential habitat is possibly found within the project area, occupancy by peregrine falcons has never been documented. Implementation of Proposed Action should increase herbaceous and woody vegetation in the uplands and riparian areas, which would likely increase some passerine species, which is prey for peregrine falcons. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Flammulated Owl Population and Habitat Status – Numbers of flammulated owls (Psiloscops flammeolus) in the US aren’t known, but have been inferred by habitat estimates. Flammulated owl habitat is well- distributed and abundant in the US, and in the Northern Region. In Montana, flammulated owls are associated with mixed forests of mature and old-growth xeric ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands (Wright et al., 1997).

Habitat – Semi-arid, mid-elevation mature or old-growth pine forest with grassy openings, preferring upper slopes and ridges. The flammulated owl is strongly associated with ponderosa pine, with lesser use of mature Douglas-fir, usually where ponderosa pine also exists. Generally occurs below 4,000- feet elevation. Nests in existing tree cavities (Montana Field Guide 2013, http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNSB01020.aspx).

Occurrence in Project Area – There is only a limited amount of ponderosa pine in project area, and elevations are generally higher (4,370’ is lowest elevation in project area) than what’s preferred by flammulated owls. There are neither known sightings nor records of flammulated owls in Highwood Mountains (Flammulated Owl Records Map in Project File).

Determination and Rationale – There is no known occurrence of flammulated owls in project area, and only a limited amount of ponderosa pine, which are at elevations higher than optimum for flammulated owls, so there is virtually no suitable habitat. Habitat within project area that most closely approximates what flammulated owls use elsewhere is not expected to be altered by implementation of the Proposed Action; ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir and large snags will not be removed. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Burrowing Owl Population and Habitat Status – The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is thought to be in decline throughout its range primarily because of native habitat converted to agriculture crops, and because of loss of prairie dog colonies. It’s a summer resident in Montana.

Habitat – Found in open grassland areas, where abandoned burrows dug by mammals such as ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), prairie dogs (Cynomies spp.) and badgers (Taxidea taxus) are available as nesting sites. Burrowing owls spend much of their time on the ground, where invertebrates comprise the majority of their diet, but small vertebrates may also be consumed (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Occurrence in Project Area – Even though there are open grassland areas, primarily on the drier ridges and south facing hillsides in the project area, the topography is generally too steep – steeper than the open prairie grasslands that burrowing owls prefer, and the soils don’t support sufficient colonies of burrowing mammals for nesting. Therefore, typical burrowing owl habitat is not present within the project area.

The Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database does contain 1 record (sighting) of a burrowing owl in the Highwood Mountains (Burrowing Owl Record, and Records Map, in Project File). This 1 record occurs at the same location (on Mount Kennon) as are found in the Natural Heritage Tracker for Sprague’s pipit, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, golden eagle, and prairie falcon. These records (sightings) are attributed to P. D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution: Third Edition (Skaar et al. 1985), with a date range of January 1, 1885 to January 1, 1985. All of these sightings/records are attached to latilong 18, which is a 3,200 square mile area, the center of which occurs on Mount Kennon in the northeastern corner of the Highwood Mountains project area. So, these records occurred somewhere within Latilong 18, but probably outside of the project area where the habitat is more characteristic of what these species utilize.

Determination and Rationale - There are no current records of burrowing owls occurring within the project area, and only one questionable historic record, and virtually no potential habitat. And the proposed action will not appreciably alter the mountain grassland areas relative to its potential as nesting or foraging habitat for burrowing owls. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Greater Sage-grouse Population and Habitat Status – Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), the largest grouse in North America, were once found in 13 western states and 3 Canadian provinces. Sage grouse distribution closely follows that of sagebrush, primarily big sagebrush. Today sage grouse are found in 11 states and 2 Canadian provinces, with Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon being the stronghold states. Concerns about the status of sagebrush and sage grouse have led to 6 different petitions for listing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. Loss of sagebrush grasslands in some western states has reached or exceeded 50 percent. Such losses are not thought to be that high in Montana where roughly 27 million acres of sagebrush grasslands remain (MFWP Sage Grouse Management Plan, 2005, in Project File).

91 Name of Project

Habitat – Large expanses of open sagebrush grasslands is preferred habitat. Breeding, nesting, brood-rearing and wintering habitats are all important for sage grouse survival. Sage grouse breed on strutting grounds, or leks, that are typically located on clearings within the sagebrush, usually out in the middle of large sagebrush grassland basins, that are easily accessible by the females, and where approaching predators are readily seen. The majority of nesting and brood rearing occurs within 2 miles of the strutting grounds. Nests are typically located under the canopy of sagebrush. Brood rearing habitat almost always contains an abundance and diversity of succulent forbs. Young sage grouse consume the nutritious forbs, as well as the insects that inhabit these forb-rich areas. As forbs desiccate, usually during the summer months, sage grouse will move to areas that still support succulent vegetation, such as agricultural fields and moist areas associated with creek bottoms, stock ponds, road side ditches, etc. Eventually, sometime during the fall, sage grouse will shift their diet to sagebrush leaves, which becomes their staple food through the winter. During tough winter periods dense stands of sagebrush that protrude above the snow can be critically important.

Occurrence in Project Area – There is no typical sage grouse habitat, nor known occurrences of sage grouse, in the project area. The Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database, however, does contain 1 old record for the Highwood Mountains (Sage Grouse Record, and Records Map, in Project File), which is attributed to P. D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution: Third Edition (Skaar et al. 1985), with a date range of January 1, 1885 to January 1, 1985. This sage grouse record is located on top of Mount Kennon, similar to records found for Sprague’s pipit, bald eagle, burrowing owl, golden eagle and prairie falcon. All of these sightings/records for these species are attached to latilong 18, which is a 3,200 square mile area, the center of which occurs on Mount Kennon in the northeastern corner of the Highwood Mountains project area. So, these records occurred somewhere within Latilong 18, but probably outside of the project area where the habitat is more characteristic of what these species utilize.

The current distribution of sage grouse lies east of the project area, and according to the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database the closest sage grouse record (excluding the one mentioned above) is located approximately 14.5 miles due east of the project area (record and distribution maps in Project File), which coincides with a historic lek (annually checked by MFWP) that’s located on a sagebrush flat adjacent to Cowboy Creek near it’s confluence with Arrow Creek, just east of state highway 80. Elevation of said lek is approximately 3,050’. The eastern edge of the project area is almost 2,000’ higher, with sagebrush habitat occurring in the foothills of Square Butte and Round Butte that lie in between. Furthermore, MFWP’s map of the current sage grouse distribution indicates that sage grouse in central Montana occur at lower elevations in more typical sagebrush grassland habitat. The closest sage grouse record, on the edge of the Arrow Creek breaks, is basically the western ragged edge of current sagebrush and sage grouse habitat. It is therefore highly improbable that a sage grouse would use any portion of the project area in lieu of, or in addition to, the more typical sagebrush habitat that is associated with Arrow Creek, or the prairie father east in central Montana.

Determination and Rationale - There are no current, or recent, records of sage grouse occurring within the project area, and the 1 historic record from the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database is highly suspect, and contrary to MFWP’s historic sage grouse distribution (map in project file). There is no plausible sage grouse habitat within the project area. And the proposed action would not be expected to appreciably alter the occurrence of sagebrush, or to reduce the quantity or quality of grassland cover in the sagebrush that is within the project area. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed action would have: No impact to individuals or habitat.

Greater Sage-grouse Population and Habitat Status – Sage grouse, the largest grouse in North America, was once found in 13 western states and three Canadian provinces. Sage grouse distribution closely follows that of sagebrush, primarily big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). Today sage grouse are found in 11 states and two Canadian provinces, with Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon being the stronghold states. Concerns about the status of sagebrush and sage grouse have led to 6 different petitions for listing sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. Loss of sagebrush grasslands in some western states has reached or exceeded 50 percent. Such losses are not thought to be that high in Montana where roughly 27 million acres of sagebrush grasslands remain (MFWP Sage Grouse Management Plan, 2005).

Habitat – Large expanses of open sagebrush grasslands is preferred habitat. Breeding, nesting, brood-rearing and wintering habitats are all important for sage grouse survival. Sage grouse breed on strutting grounds, or leks, that are typically located on clearings within the sagebrush, usually out in the middle of large sagebrush grassland basins which are easily accessible by the females, and where approaching predators are readily seen. The majority of nesting and brood rearing occurs within two miles of the strutting grounds. Nests are typically located under the canopy of sagebrush. Brood rearing habitat almost always contains an abundance and diversity of succulent forbs. Young sage grouse consume the nutritious forbs, as well as the insects that inhabit these forb-rich areas. As forbs desiccate, usually during the summer months, sage grouse will move to areas that still support succulent vegetation, such as agricultural fields and moist areas associated with creek bottoms, stock ponds, road side ditches, etc. Eventually, sometime during the fall, sage grouse will shift their diet to sagebrush leaves, which becomes their staple food through the winter. During tough winter periods dense stands of sagebrush that protrude above the snow can be critically important.

Occurrence in Project Area – There is no typical sage grouse habitat, nor occurrence of sage grouse, in the project area. The Montana natural heritage tracker database, however, does contain one old record for the Highwood Mountains, from on top of Mount Kennon, which appears to be a questionable or errant record; it’s the exact same record location as bald eagle, Sprague’s pipit and burrowing owl, that has been carried forward from the Third Edition of the Montana Bird Distribution publication of Skaar et al. (1985), with a footnote indicating that the record may go back 100 years before the 1985 published date (Sage Grouse Record, and Records Map, in Project File). Furthermore, in Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana – Final, 2005, a map of the current and historic distribution of sage grouse shows the historic distribution did not include the area that is the Lewis and Clark National Forest Highwood Mountains project area. Apparently, the historic distribution stopped at lower elevations in the foothills, shy of the Forest boundary (see project file).

The current distribution of sage grouse lies east of the project area, and according to the natural heritage tracker database the closest sage grouse record is located approximately 14.5 miles due east of the project area (record and distribution maps in the project file). This record coincides with a historic lek (annually checked by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) that’s located on a sagebrush flat adjacent to Cowboy Creek near it’s confluence with Arrow Creek, just east of state highway 80. The elevation of this lek is approximately 3,050 feet. The eastern edge of the project area is almost 2,000 feet higher, with sagebrush habitat occurring in the foothills of Square Butte and Round Butte that lie in between. Furthermore, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ map of the current sage grouse distribution indicates that sage grouse in central Montana occur at lower elevations in more typical sagebrush grassland habitat. The closest sage grouse record, on the edge of the Arrow Creek breaks, is basically the western ragged edge of current sagebrush and sage grouse habitat. It is therefore highly improbable that a sage grouse would use any portion of the project area in lieu of, or in

93 Name of Project addition to, the more typical sagebrush habitat that is associated with Arrow Creek, or father east in central Montana.

Black-Backed Woodpecker Population and Habitat Status – Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) habitat is abundant and increasing throughout US, and in the Northern Region of the Forest Service primarily because of pine beetle outbreaks and increasing occurrence of wildfire. Habitat is also increasing on the LCNF, also likely due to insect infestations and fire. There is some evidence showing an increase in the numbers black-backed woodpeckers nationally.

Habitat – Nests in cavities in recent (1 to 6-year old) burns. Black-backed woodpeckers appear to specialize in, and prefer severely burned forests. Species may range widely throughout a region in response to changes in habitat availability over time.

Occurrence in Project Area – Based on the field work conducted during 2011 and 2012, it’s apparent that the Highwood Mountain project area currently contains only a sparse amount of black-backed woodpecker habitat. Based on the natural heritage tracker database, there are no recorded observations of black-backed woodpeckers within the project area (map in the project file).

Determination and Rationale -- Limited individual use is possible in the less than optimal amount of habitat (in pockets of mature forest or insect-infested forest) that is within the Highwood Mountains project area. Implementation of the proposed action would not alter black-backed woodpecker habitat in the Highwood Mountain project area. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Population and Habitat Status –. The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) is uncommon or rare, but does have widespread distribution throughout western North America. Numbers may be declining due to destruction of roosting habitat. Disease is also a concern.

Habitat – Arid western pine forests; uses caves, tree cavities, rocky outcrops, buildings or mines for roosting. Townsend’s big-eared bats forage in Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine forests as well as some juniper-sage shrub and cottonwood bottomlands.

Occurrence in Project Area - General range of Townsend’s big-eared bat does overlay the project area however there are no verified records or occurrences within the project area (map in the project file).

Determination and Rationale - Although the general range of Townsend’s big-eared bat overlays the project area, no caves or abandoned mines or buildings would be affected by the proposed action. Likewise, existing large snags would not be altered or removed. Potential foraging habitat does exist, but would not be altered by the proposed action. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Harlequin Duck Population and Habitat Status – The harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is an uncommon but localized breeder along mountain streams throughout the Rocky Mountains of the Northern Region. Its range appears to have decreased region-wide from historic levels, but there is no current information regarding region-wide population status due to difficulty of surveying and enumerating the species.

Habitat – For the breeding season harlequin ducks use low-gradient, fast flowing mountain streams with cobble to boulder-sized substrates, often with woody debris or overhanging vegetation. The species winters along the west coast of United States in areas with tide pools and other rocky shoreline structure.

Occurrence in Project Area -- The Highwood Mountains project is outside the known breeding range of this species (USDA Forest Service 2011), and there are no records of harlequin ducks from any of the drainages within the Highwood Mountains (map in the project file).

Determination and Rationale – There is no occurrence of harlequin ducks in project area, which is outside known breeding range. Proposed action designed, and expected, to improve streambank integrity as well as adjacent riparian vegetation, which should improve potential habitat for harlequin ducks. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Fisher Population and Habitat Status –. The fisher (Martes pennanti) was likely extirpated from Montana by early 20th century. Populations were re-established through reintroductions during latter half of 20th century; the species appears to be increasing in western Montana. Fisher occurs at extremely low- density even in high-quality habitat. Fisher habitat appears to be near normal (historical) levels in the Northern Region of the Forest Service.

Habitat – Low to mid-elevation dense coniferous or mixed forests, usually mature and older aged forests in close proximity to streams. Known to use hardwood stands in summer, but prefer coniferous or mixed forests in winter, and avoids open areas.

Occurrence in Project Area - The Highwood Mountains project is outside the known range of this species, and there are no records of fisher in the Highwood Mountains (map in the project file).

Determination and Rationale – There is no occurrence of fisher in project area, which is outside known range. Proposed action should not alter potential habitat. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Northern Bog Lemming Population and Habitat Status – The northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis) has a widespread distribution in Alaska and Canada and into northern US. A few populations occur in the lower 48 states due in part to specialized habitat needs. Absent from some areas where habitat appears suitable; the isolated nature of habitat patches and low dispersal ability may naturally inhibit colonization and range expansion, and limit re-colonization if sub-populations were ever extirpated.

Habitat – Species has very specific habitat needs; it’s limited to low-gradient bogs with relatively fine substrate. Sphagnum moss may be key indicator for habitat.

Occurrence in Project Area - The Highwood Mountains project is outside the known range of this species (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011). There are no records of

95 Name of Project northern bog lemmings in the Highwood Mountains. Potential habitat in project area is very limited in size and not interconnected, and mountain range is isolated from populations and habitat that’s located farther west and northwest in Montana (map in the project file).

Determination and Rationale – There is no known occurrence of northern bog lemmings in project area, which is outside known range. Proposed action should enhance potential habitat. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Greater Short-Horned Lizard Population and Habitat Status – The greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii) has a widespread distribution from southern Canada south through western US. There is a lack of information on population status, but potentially in decline in all, or portions, of its range. Conversion of prairie to cropland has likely contributed to apparent decline, but livestock grazing is not deemed a serious threat. It is also possible that widespread use of insecticides has contributed to any declines.

Habitat – Uses open, shrubby, or sparsely wooded areas with rocky to sandy soils. Most commonly reported in semi-arid short grass prairie or badlands, desert type habitats.

Occurrence in Project Area – Greater short-horned lizard habitat does not occur in project area. No known occurrence on Lewis and Clark National Forest (map in the project file).

Determination and Rationale – There is no known occurrence of greater short-horned lizards in project area, and no habitat. No impact to individuals or habitat.

Management Indicator Species Analyzed

Golden Eagle (Special Interest) Population and Habitat Status – The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) population is likely increasing nationwide after declines in 1900s. Species is year-round resident throughout much of the western United States, and throughout Montana.

Habitat – Nests on cliffs or open, high-relief areas, sometimes in large trees. Hunts and forages in prairie grasslands and open woodlands; jackrabbits appear to be a primary food source over much of its range.

Occurrence in Project/Analysis Area – There is some foraging habitat available within project area, but the amount is minuscule compared to what’s available on the prairie grasslands outside of project area boundary. Potential nest sites are also available, but scarce, within the project area, but no nests have been found or documented.

The Montana Natural Heritage Program’s Tracker database has 1 observation record for golden eagle in the project area (Golden Eagle Record, and Records Map, in Project File). That record was on top of Mount Kennon, which appears to be another record similar to the records mentioned above and below in this report for Spargue’s pipit, bald eagle, burrowing owl, greater sage-grouse, and prairie falcon. These records are attributed to P. D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution: Third Edition (Skaar et al. 1985), with a footnote saying the record may go back 100 years before the third edition was published (data range of January 1, 1885 to January 1, 1985). All of these records are attached to latilong 18, which is a 3,200 square mile area, the center of which occurs on Mount Kennon in the northeastern corner of the Highwood Mountains project area. So, these records occurred somewhere

within Latilong 18, but probably outside of the project area where the habitat is more characteristic of what these species utilize.

More recently, in 2009 and 2010 the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory conducted stratified bird surveys across the Badlands and Prairies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 17) (White et al. 2010, White et al. 2011). Two of the 226 transects surveyed in 2009, and 1 of the 946 transects surveyed in 2010, fell within the Highwood project area. From these 3 transects a total of 37 bird species were found (2009 and 2010 IMBCR data in Project File), but none were species prioritized for conservation by State, National Forest, or Partners in Flight plans (Migratory Bird Report (BCR17) in Project File). The golden eagle was not found in the Highwood project area during these 2 surveys.

Determination and Rationale – There is only marginal nesting and foraging habitat within the project area, and no known nests. No impact to individuals or habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability.

Prairie Falcon (Special Interest) Population and Habitat Status – Prairie falcon numbers have increased nationwide from 1970s through 1990s. Found throughout the western United States, including Montana, where they appear to be well-distributed. Nesting densities may be limited by availability of suitable nest sites.

Habitat – Nests on cliffs or sometimes in trees, power-line structures, on buildings, etc. Generally nest on upper half of cliff faces, overlooking prairie. Hunts and forages in open habitats, including shrub-steppe desert, grasslands, and mixed shrub plant communities.

Occurrence in Project/Analysis Area -- Some foraging habitat is available within the project area, but primarily available on prairie grasslands just outside the project area boundary. Potential nest sites are also available within the project area, but such sites are scarce and no nests have been documented.

There is one record of a prairie falcon in project area that was found in Montana natural heritage tracker. That record was on top of Mount Kennon, which appears to be another questionable record (it’s the same record location as with golden eagle, bald eagle, greater sage-grouse, burrowing owl, and Sprague’s pipit) that has been carried forward from the Third Edition of the Montana Bird Distribution publication of Skaar et al. (1985), with a foot-note stating the record may go back 100 years before its published date (prairie falcon record, and map in the project file).

More recently, in 2009 and 2010, the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory conducted stratified bird surveys across the Badlands and Prairies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 17) (White et al. 2010, White et al. 2011). Two of the 226 transects surveyed in 2009, and 1 of the 946 transects surveyed in 2010, fell within the Highwood project area. From these 3 transects a total of 37 bird species were found (2009 and 2010 IMBCR data in Project File), but none were species prioritized for conservation by State, National Forest, or Partners in Flight plans (Migratory Bird Report (BCR17) in Project File). The prairie falcon was not found during these surveys.

Northern Goshawk (Special Interest) Population and Habitat Status – The northern goshawk is the most widely distributed accipiter (hawk) worldwide. In North America it resides from Alaska east to Labrador and Newfoundland and

97 Name of Project south into New England, New Jersey and into the Appalachian Mountains of Maryland and West Virginia. Northern goshawks are also along the northern tier states of the U.S., from New York to Minnesota, and in the western U.S. states, and down into Mexico.

A status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1998 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) concluded “that the [northern] goshawk population is well distributed and stable at the broadest scale.” More recently, Samson (2006) examined and summarized information on existing goshawk habitat in the Forest Service’s Northern Region where he concluded that goshawk habitat is abundant, well distributed and that there is more forest, and therefore more nesting habitat, on today’s landscape than what occurred historically, and that each National Forest in the Northern Region appears to have more than enough habitat to maintain viable populations of goshawks. Relative to goshawk populations in the Northern Region, Samson also concluded that no scientific evidence exists that the northern goshawk is decreasing in numbers, and that short-term viability is not an issue.

In Montana the goshawk is ranked as a S3 “species of concern” statewide, which means it is considered potentially at risk, either due to declining population trends, threats to habitats, restrictions in distribution, and/or other factors (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2009). Samson (2006) also addressed long-term viability in the Northern Region, which could help clarify the S3 ranking in Montana. He cautioned that since European settlement there have been decreased acreages of grasslands and increased acreages of mid-aged forests, resulting in increased connectivity of landscapes that “threatens key remaining elements of biodiversity such as areas of old-growth that no longer persist on fire-protected refugia but are embedded in a well- connected matrix of intermediate-aged forest that permits rapid spread of fire and insect outbreaks with a spatial-temporal pattern unlike historic landscape.”

Habitat – Goshawk home ranges can be large, ranging from 1,400 to 8,600 acres (Hargis et al. 1994). Within the home range are 3 spatial areas that are generally recognized by researchers as important: the nest area, the post-fledging area (PFA), and the foraging area.

Goshawk pair formation and nest building usually begins in early April (Squire and Reynolds 1997). Nests are built in a variety of forest types, which in Montana are primarily Douglas fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine. Mature to old-growth stands of these species are preferred, thus a preponderance of large trees, dense canopy, and relatively open understories (Hayward and Escano 1989, Squires and Reynolds 1997, Clough 2000). Nesting areas range in size from 1 to 148 acres (USDA Forest Service 2007a and 2009). In Montana a 40-acre nest area size is considered an appropriate norm for management purposes and planning, based on Clough (2000). The actual goshawk nest is a relatively large platform of sticks usually positioned near the main trunk, in the lower portion of the crown, on a stable platform of limbs or fork in trunk, where it’s protected from the prevailing winds and precipitation, usually with a substantial, protective canopy above the nest.

Radiating out from the nest is the larger, and typically defended, post-fledging area (PFA), which has been described as the area used by the family group after the young are fledged until they are no longer dependent on the parents for food (Reynolds et al. 1992, Squires and Kennedy 2006). The PFA can range in size from about 200 acres to about 500 acres (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Though few authors have described the habitat characteristics of the PFA, in general the PFA is an area containing sufficient amounts of prey species (Reynolds et al. 1992) with an appropriate timber stand structure, density, and canopy closure to facilitate hunting success while protecting the fledged goshawks from predators, such as great horned owl and red-tailed hawks (Clough 2000, Daw and Destefano 2001, and Joy 2002).

Foraging areas are more heterogeneous and larger, anywhere from 1,400 to 8,600 acres in size (Samson 2006, Squires and Kennedy 2006). Hargis et al. (1994) emphasized vegetation diversity in foraging areas, while Joy (2002) suggests that the arrangement of vegetation types within foraging areas does little to further differentiate higher from lower quality habitat. On the other hand, McGrath (2003) suggested that the composition of foraging areas may be indistinguishable from the composition of the overall landscape. Numerous authors mention the importance of larger trees with well-developed canopies, with adequate flight space beneath the canopy, important for searching for and capturing prey within foraging areas (Good 1998, Hargis et al. 1994, Bier and Drennan 1997, and Bloxton 2002).

Occurrence in Project/Analysis Area – The LCNF has 2 Divisions. The Rocky Mountain Division lies on the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains in north central Montana, where the Rockies meet the prairie, while the Jefferson Division is comprised of isolated mountain ranges, or sizable portions of them, that lie farther east on the prairie. Since LCNF wildlife biologists have been keeping records 73 goshawk territories have been identified. Sixty-five of these 73 territories (20 on the Rocky Mountain Division, 45 on the Jefferson Division) are considered viable and are therefore monitored each year (or efforts are made to monitor them each year). Monitoring is conducted to determine whether territories are occupied, and if occupied whether there is an active nest, and if so what the annual production is (number of birds fledged per active nest per year).

Within the Highwood Mountains project area there is only 1 known goshawk territory, the Arrow Creek territory. It is centered just within a corner of the forest boundary on the south side of the Highwood Mountains in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 22, Township 19 North, Range 9 East, near a county road and adjacent to Arrow Creek (Arrow Creek territory maps in Project File). It was first monitored in 1990, and subsequently monitored in all but 3 of the years since (Table 27). In those 22 years of monitoring the Arrow Creek territory was inactive 36% of the years (8 years) and occupied or active in 64% of the years (14 years). And during the 11 years when nests were known to be active, birds were fledged during 7 years, averaging 2.1 fledglings per successful nesting year. (An important notation is that 2.1 fledglings per successful nesting year is a conservative, minimum number when compared to most published research findings cited in this report. This difference in number of fledglings reported is somewhat unavoidable because of varying survey effort expenditures between and within survey years, which is usually a result of varying budgets, personnel and skill levels, and weather and access conditions between and within years.)

Table 27 - Arrowhead Creek Goshawk Monitoring Year Goshawk Activity 1990 Occupied (birds found, but no nesting observed) 1991 Active Fledged 2 birds 1992 Active nest (bird or young in nest) 1993 Occupied (birds found, but no nesting observed) 1994 Inactive (no birds found) 1995 Inactive (no birds found) 1996 Inactive (no birds found) 1997 1998 Active nest (bird or young in nest) 1999 Active Fledged 2 birds 2000 Active Fledged 1 birds

99 Name of Project

Year Goshawk Activity 2001 Active nest (bird or young in nest) 2002 Active nest (bird or young in nest) 2003 Active Fledged 3 birds 2004 Inactive (no birds found) 2005 2006 2007 Occupied (birds found, but no nesting observed) 2008 Inactive (no birds found) 2009 Inactive (no birds found) 2010 Active Fledged 3 birds 2011 Inactive (no birds found) 2012 Inactive (no birds found) 2013 Active Fledged 1 bird The Arrow Creek territory is also one of the more consistently occupied or active territories when compared to other territories on the LCNF. Survey data through 2012, the most recent year through which all territory data have been compiled and summarized (in Project File), shows that the 65 territories on the LCNF were occupied or active, on average, 48% of the years. The Arrow Creek territory, by comparison, was occupied or active 60% of the years through 2012. And of these 65 monitored territories on the LCNF, 29 have been monitored 10 or more years, and on average only 4 of these 29 territories were occupied or active more than the Arrow Creek territory (64%, 69%, 70%, and 86%).

Compared to many goshawk territories on the LCNF, the composition of the vegetation in the Arrow Creek territory appears more diverse, a probable reason for its occupancy and production. Douglas fir and lodgepole pine are the dominant coniferous tree species. Below the forest boundary, on private land, numerous large cottonwood galleries occur adjacent to hay meadows and willow bottoms. Aspen stands are abundantly distributed through-out the uplands, as are small grassy openings in between the aspen, and among the coniferous, stands. According to V. Murphy, who oversees the monitoring of goshawk territories across the LCNF each year, the Arrow Creek territory is a very productive goshawk territory, probably because of the abundant prey base that’s associated with the diversity of its plant communities, particularly the juxtaposition of the aspen and cottonwood stands (V. Murphy personal communication in project file).

Determination and Rationale – Researchers have widely written that weather, more than any other factor, is thought to affect territory occupancy by goshawks, as well as goshawk production (egg and nestling survival) (Bechard et al. 2006, Keane et al. 2006, Squires and Kennedy 2006, Moser and Garton 2009, Wiens et al. 2006). Some of these researchers, and others, also argue that abundance and distribution of prey, and forest structure, are important determinants of occupancy and production (Beier et al. 2008, Salafsky et al. 2006). Regardless of these varying hypotheses, and the varying empirical support, the Arrow Creek goshawk territory appears to be one of the more occupied and productive territories on the LCNF (see the above analyses of LCNF goshawk territories, and the mean of 2.1 fledglings per successful nesting, which is a conservative number that coincides with typical goshawk production of 2.0 to 2.8 fledglings per successful nest as reported by Squires and Reynolds (1997)).

And since the Arrow Creek territory is within the Arrow Creek pasture, which is one of 4 pastures in the Arrowhead allotment, which is also part of a deferred rotation grazing system that was designed

100

and implemented in 2011 to improve the condition and abundance of riparian vegetation in the riparian areas within this 4-pasture allotment, and since the continuation of this deferred grazing system is the proposed action for this allotment, and no other alterations to goshawk habitat are expected as a consequence of implementing the proposed action, nor are there any changes expected to the human use of this area as a consequence of its implementation, then the proposed action should not negatively impact goshawks, their habitat, their occurrence, or the occurrence or abundance of their prey within this area.

And given that Samson (2006) examined, summarized and concluded that each National Forest in the Northern Region currently has more than enough habitat to maintain viable populations of goshawks, and since no other goshawk territories have been found within the Highwood Project Area, and since implementation of the proposed action (containing numerous adaptive management techniques) is designed to improve riparian and upland vegetation by reducing livestock grazing impacts, and there are no other alterations to goshawk habitat expected as a consequence of implementing the proposed action, then implementing the proposed action should not negatively impact goshawks, their habitat, their occurrence, or the occurrence or abundance of their prey in the Highwood Project Area. No impact to individuals or habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability.

American (Northern) Three-toed Woodpecker Population and Habitat Status – The Northern three-toed woodpecker (also called the American three-toed woodpecker, and throughout the remainder of this report) was identified in the LCNF Forest Plan as a MIS for coniferous tree cavity (cavity nesting) habitat (LCNF Forest Plan p. 614, table 6.6).

The American three-toed woodpecker is distributed across North America in northern boreal forest and taiga. Range-wide it is classified as a G5 species: common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Because densities do vary a lot because of changes to its habitat, it’s a species that is very difficult to monitor and to be able to accurately determine its population status, at any scale. In Montana the three-toed woodpecker is classified as S4: apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining (MT Natural Heritage Program data, http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNYF07110.aspx.).

Habitat – American three-toed woodpeckers are generally associated with mature forests that have an abundance of insect-infested snags or dying trees. Within the Northern Region, woodpeckers have been found in areas experiencing pine beetle outbreaks, and three-toed woodpeckers appear to be particularly influenced by, and highly associated with, such outbreak areas (Cilimburg et al. 2006, http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/projects /documents/beetle_report_final.pdf). Pine beetle outbreaks have been increasing across Region 1, and throughout Montana, making it possible that American three-toed wood-peckers are experiencing an upturn in numbers.

Occurrence in Project Area – The LCNF Forest Plan does not require monitoring of American three- toed woodpeckers, but states that adherence to the snag density recommendations in project areas is sufficient to meet monitoring requirements (LCNF Forest Plan p. 5-11). While doing field work for this report in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, snags were commonly found across the project area in the maturing coniferous stands. And snag densities appear to be increasing, with the increased mortality observed in (typically mature) lodgepole pine and Douglas fir stands that have been experiencing increased pine beetle and bud worm infestations, respectively.

The American three-toed woodpecker has been observed in the Highwood Project Area. Forest Service wildlife biologist Eric Tomasik observed one in Big Coulee in 2006, and another one was observed and reported in Thain Creek in 2012 (MT Natural Heritage Tracker Program data; see

101 Name of Project

Records Map in Project File). It should be mentioned that the periodic surveys conducted by the Landbird Monitoring Program (started in 1994) have not yet documented three-toed woodpeckers within the project area. However, based on the relatively recent (2) observations, and the wide distribution of mountain pine beetle and spruce bud worm infestations, and snags suitable for cavity nesting woodpeckers that I encountered while doing field work in 2011 through 2014, it appears that key habitat components of the American three-toed wood-pecker are increasing, possibly indicating that the species is also increasing within the project area.

Determination and Rationale – The American three-toed woodpecker was selected as an MIS for coniferous tree cavity habitat on the LCNF because of its strong dependence on such habitat. And since such habitat (mature and maturing coniferous stands containing suitable cavity nesting snags as well as insect-infested trees) is increasing even in the absence of recent, sizeable wildfires, the viability of the three-toed woodpecker within the project area is not a concern. Because implementation of the proposed action is not expected to affect snag densities within the project area, and because the project will not likely affect current or future pine beetle outbreaks, it therefore should not affect American three-toed woodpecker distribution or abundance or the effectiveness of these birds as an indicator for coniferous snags and cavity habitat. No impact to individuals or habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability.

Dusky (Blue) Grouse (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – The dusky grouse is widespread in mountainous regions of western North America and remain distributed throughout most of its historic range. Populations, and harvest levels, tend to fluctuate widely from year to year, generally in response to differing spring weather conditions that affect chick survival. Hunting regulations for blue grouse in Montana (season dates and bag limits set by MFWP) have remained constant over the past decade despite wide variability in harvest success.

Habitat – Dusky grouse spend winters at high elevations where they feed on coniferous tree needles. They descend to lower elevations during spring to feed along forest edges and openings. Broods typically use foothills, and commonly feed in grass-forb and deciduous areas during summer, and start moving to higher elevations during the fall.

Occurrence in Project Area – Dusky grouse, and their habitat, occur within the project area, and both are relatively common.

Determination and Rationale – Proposed action expected to improve quantity and quality of woody and herbaceous plants in riparian areas that grouse use as summer forage and foraging areas. Proposed action also expected to increase woody and herbaceous plants in areas used by grouse during fall, such as upland riparian areas and shrub fields. The proposed action is not expected to change spring or winter grouse habitat. Project would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to dusky grouse habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting opportunities.

Refer to the Migratory Bird Section for additional Avian Species

White-tailed Deer (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – White-tailed deer are widespread with relatively high population numbers throughout western US and Montana. Population and distribution has increased substantially in Montana since the 1930s. The Forest Service does not survey white-tailed deer

102

numbers on the LCNF, or within the project area, but defers population management to Montana FWP.

The Highwood project area lies within Montana FWP hunting district (HD) 447 (map of Region 4 hunting districts in Project File). Montana FWP does not routinely survey this white-tailed deer population, but apparently feels numbers in HD 447 are sufficient to accommodate a relatively liberal hunting season. For the past 20+ years either sex white-tail deer hunting has been allowed using a general over-the-counter resident deer license valid for the 6-week archery and 5-week rifle seasons, with deer hunters also allowed 1 additional region-wide antlerless white-tail license that is also valid in HD 447 during the same period. The number of white-tailed deer harvested each year fluctuates due to a host of reasons: seasonal changes in weather conditions that affect fawn production, survival, recruitment and hunter success, as well as periodic outbreaks of epizootic hemorrhagic disease that causes additional and increased white-tailed deer mortality, etc. Most recent harvest data for white- tailed deer in HD 447 (for years 2003 through 2012) range between 275 and 569, averaging 405 (white-tailed deer harvest in HD 447 in Project File).

Habitat – White-tailed deer are closely associated with dense hardwood plant communities: riparian vegetation along river and creek bottoms and moist sites, and agricultural crops adjacent to cover. The majority of white-tailed deer in HD 447 occur on lower-elevation lands outside of the Forest boundary, generally associated with, or adjacent to, agricultural lands that provide supplemental forage in the form of alfalfa hay and grain crops. The majority of such habitat is located along the numerous creeks and hardwood draws that drain from the Highwood Mountains to the Missouri River. Occurrence in Project Area – White-tailed deer habitat is available in the project area, but it’s more seasonally limited by the higher elevations on the Forest compared to the lower elevations on private lands. Within the project area white-tailed deer habitat is generally associated with the linear riparian areas along the creek bottoms, particularly those riparian areas that are more distant from the open (vehicular) roads and the heavier used hiking and motorcycle trails. White-tailed deer abundance within project area, compared to the adjacent private lands, is lower. There is no known or designated white-tailed deer winter range within the project area. Determination and Rationale – Proposed action is expected to increase quantity and quality of riparian areas (along the creeks and in the uplands) within the project area, which would benefit white-tailed deer. Project would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to white-tailed deer habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting opportunities.

Black Bear (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – Black bears inhabit the major forest types across the United States. Today their distribution and abundance is less than during the 1800s, but considered greater than during the first half of the 1900s. In Montana black bear populations are monitored by MFWP using mandatory reporting requirements for all hunter harvested black bears. Total number of bears, and their sex and ages are recorded each year for each Bear Management Unit (BMU) population. Bear harvest data are then compared to population size and density estimates for each BMU, which was determined by bear recapture frequencies from 11 DNA hair-trap study areas geographically distributed across Montana, comprising 33% of all black bear habitat. Montana FWP’s mean population estimate for the state is 13,307 black bears (Mace and Chilton-Radandt, 2011).

Three different BMUs overlay the LCNF. The Highwood Mountains lie within BMU 420, which also contains the Little Belt and Castle Mountains, including public and private lands. Based on Mace and Chilton-Radandt (2011), the MFWP population estimate for BMU 420 is 526 black bears (-

103 Name of Project

90% Confidence Interval (CI) is 318, mean is 526, and +90% CI is 762). The mean proportion of female black bears detected in all DNA hair-traps across Montana was 58%, and the lowest proportion of females from any particular DNA-studied population came from adjacent BMU 411, which had 51% females. Mace and Chilton-Radandt (2011) also recommended -- based on their modeling, mean age of primiparity and average litter size in Montana -- that total female mortality should be kept below 16%, or a downward trend in the population would ensue.

Using the conservative -90% CI for BMU 420 (318 black bears), and the low proportion of females (51%) found in adjacent BMU 411, a 16% mortality of females in BMU 420 would be 26 females. Since 1985 (1985 through 2012), FWP’s harvest data for BMU 420 shows an averaged hunter harvest of 42 black bears per year (27 males and 15 females) (BlackBearHarvest_BMU_420.xlsx in Project File). Based on the lower (-90% CI) population estimate for BMU 420 (318), and the lowest proportion of females that were found in BMU 411 (51%), a female black bear harvest of 26 would be the value expected to cause a down trend in the population if exceeded over time. This value has only been reached or exceed in 2 years out of the 28, and the average female harvest in BMU 420 over those 28 years is 42% below the 26-female value that could cause a downward trend in the population.

Habitat – Black bears are generally associated with forested habitats, where they use extremely diverse habitat types and food sources throughout the year. Winter, denning habitat is also diverse, ranging from excavated dens at varying elevations, to denning under root wads and deadfall, to denning in holes in tree trunks, in caves, etc. Black bears often feed on succulent green vegetation, or carrion, at lower elevations in spring, following the green-up into higher elevations as spring progresses. Their diet shifts to berries and pine nuts as they become available during summer and fall. Black bears also consume carrion, small mammals and invertebrates where and when available.

Occurrence in Project Area – Black bear habitat is distributed across the Highwood Mountain project area, with greater utilization appearing to occur in closed timber and wetter sites. The total area of black bear habitat in the Highwood Project area, compared to other mountain range populations, is not large. From a black bear’s perspective, however, the quality of the riparian habitat is good, particularly in the majority of the aspen and shrub stands located in the uplands (see allotment inspections in the Project File). Field reconnaissance in 2011 and 2012 found these sites contained an abundance of forbs and berry producing shrubs that are preferred forage for bears. According to FWP biologist, Cory Loecker, the black bear population in the Highwood Mountains [though not large] is viable, and large enough, with sufficient ingress from the Little Belt Mountains, to accommodate the average hunter harvest of 2.8 bears per year, for the years 2005 through 2012 (C. Loecker personal communication, 11/12/13, in Project File).

Determination and Rationale – Implementation of the proposed action is designed, and expected, to reduce cattle impacts to riparian plant communities occurring along creek bottoms as well as the riparian areas in the uplands. This should increase the occurrence and abundance of black bear foods found in these areas, thus improving the quality of spring, summer and fall black bear habitat. And since the black bear population in BMU 420, and also within the Project Area, is deemed viable based on FWP monitoring, implementation of the proposed action should not negatively impact black bears or their habitat. Project would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to black bear habitats. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting opportunities.

104

Mountain Lion (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – Mountain lion is the most widespread large predator in the Western Hemisphere and it’s widespread throughout the US and in Montana.

Distribution and abundance have vastly increased in the past 60 years, particularly in Montana where roughly one-half of the state is mountain lion habitat. This expanded distribution of mountain lions is largely attributed to the, then, newly applied science of wildlife biology/management following World War II. After near extirpation of many wildlife species during the early 1900s, wildlife populations were surveyed and more closely monitored, hunting seasons were tightly regulated and managed, some big game species subsequently expanded their distribution into new, or previously occupied, areas (such as white-tailed deer and mule deer), or other species were purposely transplanted back into their native habitats (e.g., antelope, big horn sheep, elk), and mountain lions went from being an unmanaged predator to a managed big game animal. Consequently, mountains lions in Montana reclaimed much of their historical habitats and can be found in at least 46 of 56 counties, from the western mountains to the isolated mountain ranges and badlands and river breaks in the central and eastern portions of the state (MFWP Mountain Lion Management EIS, 1996, in project file). Montana FWP administers mountain lion hunting seasons, valid across the state with the exception of State Game Preserves, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Tribal Lands. Lion harvest is closely regulated within lion hunting districts or within groups of hunting districts, utilizing season dates, harvest quotas and mandatory reporting of harvest. In 27 lion hunting districts hunter participation and harvest are limited through a special drawing with sub-quotas on females, or females and males. Hunter participation is not limited in the remainder of the state’s lion hunting districts, but is regulated utilizing quotas for the total number of lions allowed to be harvested, and some hunting districts have additional sub-quotas for females, or females and males (MFWP Mountain Lion Hunting Regulations, 2013, in Project File).

Habitat – Mountain lions use a wide variety of habitats where there’s sufficient prey and cover suitable for them to successfully hunt and harvest prey. Such habitats are typically closed coniferous or hardwood timber types, shrub-lands, or broken terrain. In Montana these kinds of habitats are associated with mountains, mountain foothills, riparian areas, and the breaks/badlands that drain into riparian areas. Mountain lion typically prey on deer and elk in Montana, but will also utilize other big game (such as bighorn sheep, mountain goats, etc. when available), as well as smaller mammals and birds (e.g. porcupines, rabbits, grouse, etc.).

Occurrence in Project Area – Mountain lion habitat is available throughout the project area. The presence of mountain lions can be readily detected (e.g., tracks, scats, kill sites) throughout the project area and surrounding private lands. Observations of lions have also been made in the project area and on surrounding private lands. As already mentioned Montana FWP administers mountain lion hunting seasons across the state. Lions are legally hunted in the project area and surrounding private lands of HD 447. Two adjacent hunting districts (HD 405 and HD 471) and HD 447 have a combined harvest quota of 2 females and 3 males (MFWP Mountain Lion Hunting Regulations, 2013, in Project File). Over the past 5 years (2008 through 2012) 1 to 3 lions per year have been harvested in this group of hunting districts (0.6 females, 1.2 males, and 1.8 total lions per year, on average) (http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports. html#lion, summarized in MtnLionHarvest_HD447.xlsx, in Project File).

Determination and Rationale – Implementation of the proposed action is expected to improve foraging habitat for many mountain lion prey species (such as ruffed grouse, cotton-tail rabbits, beaver, porcupines, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk) or have virtually no impacts to the foraging

105 Name of Project habitats of other prey species (such as red squirrels and mountain goats). Change in the structure of prey species habitats – for instance the distribution, condition, abundance and architecture of woody plant species and com-munities in creek bottom and upland areas – should be improved, or remain neutral, depending on the particular prey species and site. The above described changes to prey species’ habitats should also result in improved predation opportunities, and long-term viability for mountain lions within the project area. Project would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to mountain lion habitats. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting opportunities.

Bobcat (Commonly Trapped) Population and Habitat Status – Bobcats are widespread throughout US and Mexico, and widespread in Montana. Bobcats may occur at relatively low densities, depending on prey distribution and abundance, and then increase as the prey base increases. Trapper harvest has increased in the past decade, somewhat attributed to increased pelt prices. In 2009 Montana FWP estimated that the statewide bobcat population was stable or possibly declining slightly. Montana FWP manages the state’s bobcat population through regulated trapping/hunting seasons and harvest.

Habitat – Bobcats use a wide variety of habitats where stalking cover and small mammalian prey, particularly jackrabbits and cottontails, are abundant. Bobcats may also use dense forest cover, open shrub-lands, and broken rimrock country. Natural rocky areas are preferred den sites, but they may also den in caves, hollow logs or other structures.

Occurrence in Project Area – Habitat, and bobcats, occur throughout the Highwood Project Area.

Determination and Rationale – Implementation of the proposed action is expected to improve foraging habitat for many bobcat prey species (such as dusky and ruffed grouse, cotton-tail and jack rabbits, beaver) or have virtually no impacts to the foraging habitats of other prey species (such as red squirrels and other coniferous obligate avian species). Change in the structure of prey species’ habitats – for instance the distribution, condition, abundance and architecture of woody plant species and communities in creek bottom and upland areas – should be improved, or possibly remain as is, depending on the particular prey species and sites. The above described changes to prey species’ habitats should improve predation opportunities, and long-term viability for bobcats across the project area. Project would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to bobcat habitats. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting or trapping opportunities.

Beaver Habitat (Commonly Trapped) Population and Habitat Status – When Europeans arrived in North America beaver were found in nearly all aquatic habitats from the arctic tundra south to New Mexico. Demand for beaver fur resulted in their extensive removal from northeastern America during the 1600s. With reduced beaver numbers there trapping efforts shifted west; beaver were virtually trapped-out of streams in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest in the 1820s through 1840s (Marston, 1994). Continued trapping of beaver left them nearly extinct by 1900. Concomitantly, and subsequently, beaver habitats were altered for domestic purposes and beaver numbers remained low into the mid-1900s. Today, with regulated trapping and harvest, and improved habitat conditions, beaver populations have increased and are now common in much of their former range in the western US. In Montana, population enumerations are not attempted or available. Montana FWP does track beaver damage complaints and regulates trapper harvest, though the total harvest of beaver per year is largely influenced by pelt prices.

106

Habitat – Beaver use a variety of habitats located near water, primarily woody vegetation such as willow, cottonwood and aspen stands. Ideal sites include ponds, small lakes, and meandering streams and rivers. Woody plant species are used for constructing dams and for use as winter food. Dam-site selection and preference is based on availability of construction materials and topographic characteristics such as watershed area, and stream gradient and cross-sectional area. Herbaceous vegetation is also eaten during the growing season.

Occurrence in Project Area – Beaver and beaver habitat are present within the project area. Recent beaver activity has been observed on the Forest, along Highwood Creek and near the confluence of Thain and Briggs Creeks, and on private land inside the Forest administrative boundary along Kirby Creek. Some riparian areas in the project area display the attributes typically selected for by beavers, but are not currently being used. Other non-inhabited riparian areas don’t appear to be topographically suitable, while still others appear to be topographically suitable but do not currently possess suitable hardwood vegetation. Occupancy, or non-occupancy, of suitable habitat can also be a consequence of happenstance, or of distances and/or of topographic obstacles lying in between the beaver (population) source and the suitable, but unoccupied, habitats. For example, it’s more likely that beaver would pioneer into the North Fork of Little Belt Creek, on the west side of the project area, by coming up the main stem of said creek from private lands below and to the west, than pioneering into the North Fork of Little Belt Creek by ascending and going up over the top of Highwood Baldy or North Peak from Forest land located to the east on Highwood Creek.

Determination and Rationale – The proposed action is expected to increase quantity and quality of riparian vegetation, and beaver habitat, within the project area, which should benefit beaver populations. Project would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to beaver habitat. Project would not impact population numbers or viability or trapping opportunities.

Mountain Goat (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – Mountain goats are distributed throughout rocky, steep alpine habitats in mountainous regions of northwestern US and Canada. Population levels are likely lower than they were historically, but have increased in the US from their lowest levels due to transplants into isolated mountain ranges, some of which were into places where they did not occur naturally.

Habitat – Mountain goats use alpine habitats, particularly steep slopes and areas associated with cliffs that can aid them in escaping from predators. Mountain goats have a widely varied diet: grasses, sedges, forbs, shrubs, coniferous tree needles, mosses and lichens. During the growing season they prefer green succulent vegetation. During the winter, the depth of snow can strongly influence the availability of food and they become less selective, consuming coniferous tree needles, lichens, or about anything they uncover when pawing in deep snow. Winter range, therefore, is typically characterized by steep windy slopes adjacent to precipitously steep cliffs and chutes with south to southwestern exposures. Such topographic features typically occur at high elevations, but some mountain goat herds migrate to lower elevations, down ridges, or farther, to find suitable topography with less snow for use as winter range (also see the winter range discussion on page 29).

Within the project area mountain goats appear to spend the entire year along the main spine of the Highwood Mountains: from the ridge/peak above Jensen Spring on the far northeastern corner, to the ridge west of Pinewood Peak on the far northwestern corner of the project area, and the interconnecting ridge system in between (see the winter range discussion on page 29). In other words, this main spine meets the mountain goat’s year round habitat needs within the project area. It should also be reiterated that this high elevation mountain goat habitat is seldom visited by cattle, but that there are some areas where cattle and mountain goats do overlap.

107 Name of Project

The primary areas where cattle and mountain goats overlap are at some of the high elevation springs, but these spring areas are small in size and the effects are deemed negligible. For instance, Jensen Spring is a place where mountain goats come down from higher elevations to drink from a spring that cattle walk up (from lower elevations) to drink from. Such scenarios – where mountain goats come down to drink from a spring that cattle walk up to drink from – also occur elsewhere in the project area. Such springs are located at, or near, timberline on the east and west sides of Highwood Baldy and on the northeast side of Arrow Peak. These springs are the origins of creeks that provide well distributed livestock water to the more “suitable” livestock grazing areas below. Above these springs are steep slopes, cliffs, or coniferous timber that holds forage that is available to, and consumed by, mountain goats, and that is virtually unused by cattle.

There are other high elevation springs that are different, in how they flow down steep slopes through large stands of coniferous timber that are seldom used by cattle before entering the less steep open grassland areas in the lower elevations where the topography and amounts of forage are considered more “suitable” for livestock grazing. The vast majority of high elevation springs in the project area fall into this latter category. They are located on, or in association with, the following peaks and interconnecting ridges: East Peak, Arrow Peak, Lava Peak, Middle Peak, North Peak, Highwood Baldy, and Pinewood Peak. They are seldom visited by livestock, some, virtually, never are.

Occurrence in Project Area – In 1943, four adult mountain goats (3 females and 1 male) were transplanted onto Square Butte, a relatively small monolithic rock butte located 7 miles east of the Highwood Mountains (Square Butte is the centerpiece of MFWP’s mountain goat hunting district 447). The observed population increased to 16 by 1957, resulting in MFWP issuing 5 either sex mountain goat hunting licenses annually until 1966, when the season was closed because no goats were observed in the previous year’s aerial survey. Seven adult mountain goats (5 females and 2 males) were again released on Square Butte in 1971. The population increased to 73 observed goats by 1987, and numbers continued to increase with some individuals moving west to the smaller Round Butte, which is located 2.5 miles closer to the Highwood Mountains.

By 1994 some mountain goats had pioneered farther west (from Square and Round Buttes) across the open grass-covered foothills to the larger Highwood Mountains where they now occupy all plausible goat habitat in the project area; the Highwood Mountains (and project area) subsequently became part of mountain goat hunting district (HD) 460. Since the mid-1990s the mountain goat population in HD 460 has sufficed to allow MFWP to issue a limited number of either sex goat hunting licenses each year, with a maximum of 7 licenses issued per year in 2008 and 2009 (MtnGoatHarvest_HD460, in Project File).

The observed number of mountain goats counted during aerial surveys of HD 460 since 2001 has averaged 55, with a high count of 79 in 2010. It should be noted that since 2010 there have been several observations of 1 to 2 mountain goats in the Little Belt Mountains, on Big Baldy Mtn. and Tepee Butte, which signifies a possible expansion of mountain goats from the Highwood Mountains to the Little Belt Mountains. It should also be disclosed that the number of goats counted in HD 460 was below the long term average (55) in 2013 and 2014, when 43 and 26 goats were counted, respectively (Mtn GoatSurvey_HD460&447 _2013, MtnGoatSurvey_HD460&447_2014, in Project File). The MFWP biologist hypothesized that the lower counts in HD 460 may have been due to the goats already being “haired up” for winter coinciding with warm weather during the late (October) surveys in 2013 and 2014 that caused a more than usual number of goats to have been bedded down in the timber and out of view.

Determination and Rationale

108

• Mountain goat habitat within the project area occurs along the top of the main spine of the Highwood Mountains, at elevations higher, and topographically steeper, than most cattle use (also see winter range discussion, pages 29 and 30).Any overlap in areas used by cattle and mountain goats is geographically and temporally small. Such overlap occurs at a limited number of mountain goat winter range locales, and at a limited number of high elevation springs. And the overlap is by a very limited number of cattle that venture into the high elevation mountain goat habitat, periodically, during the months of July through September. • Since livestock numbers, and for the most part livestock management, have remained unchanged in the project area since the 1970s, it’s a logical inference that livestock grazing in the project area did not deter the colonization of mountain goats into the project area from Square and Round Buttes during the 1990s, nor the expansion of the mountain goat population once established within the project area. • MFWP manages mountain goat numbers in the project area primarily with hunter harvest by issuing a limited number of mountain goat hunting licenses annually. Even though the number of mountain goats counted by MFWP in the past 2 aerial surveys is less than the average, the most recent harvest data (2005 through 2013) indicate that hunter success has remained high (100% for 6 hunter licenses in 2013). However, if MFWP determines that mountain goat numbers are truly down and below their population objective, their responsibility and recourse would be to adjust the number of mountain goats harvested by adjusting the number of mountain goat licenses issued. • If the number of mountain goats counted in HD 460 (the project area) is truly down, the more immediate proximate causes, or possible combinations, would appear to be: winter severity; increased predation rates; increased hunter harvest rates relative to the mountain goat population size and recruitment; and reduced amounts of available forage on mountain goat winter range attributed to conifer encroachment and increased (relative) densities of mountain goats and elk over the past 20 years. • Therefore, since the implementation of the proposed action, which entails a more restrictive standard on the amount of forage cattle will be allowed to utilize in the uplands, as well as in riparian areas, will not reduce year round forage available in mountain goat habitat but, instead, should increase the amount of forage available to mountain goats, the proposed action would not impact individuals, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to mountain goat habitat. Proposed action would not impact population numbers or viability or hunting opportunities.

Elk (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – Elk were widely distributed across North America at the time of European settlement. When the Lewis and Clark expedition crossed what is now Montana, in 1805 and 1806, elk were common, even in the Missouri and Yellowstone valleys. During the next 75 years subsistence and market hunting significantly reduced elk numbers. By the mid-1880s elk were virtually gone from eastern Montana, and greatly reduced in western Montana. In the first half of the 20th Century the wildlife conservation and management era was born. Conservation of elk, combined with numerous transplants from Yellowstone National Park (YNP), reestablished elk into much of their former range across Montana. Montana’s elk numbers are now estimated to between 130,000 and 160,000 (MFWP Elk Management Plan, 2005).

Twenty-three elk from YNP were released in the Highwood Mountains in 1917. In 1929 this population had increased to around 200, and 250 to 300 by 1970. Since then, MFWP and private

109 Name of Project landowners surrounding the project area have allowed numbers to increase up to the most recent count of 1,562 elk found in the Highwood Mountains by MFWP on February 1, 2014 (ElkSurvey_HD447_2014).

Habitat – Elk feed predominantly on forbs and grasses. They are generally thought of as an animal of the Rocky Mountains that use coniferous forests with interspersed openings, preferring gentler slopes and avoiding very steep slopes (Edge et al., 1987). Whether elk are inhabiting mountains, or prairie, or badlands (breaks), they require sufficient cover for hiding and thermal regulation. Winter range and summer ranges are generally distinct and separated. Elk prefer to winter where they have easy access to forage, such as grasses that grow on low elevation foothills where snow depths are not too deep. In the spring elk start leaving winter range, following vegetation green up, by moving to cooler forested areas (summer range) where the vegetation, primarily forbs, remains green and succulent into the fall.

Occurrence in Project Area – The Highwood Mountains is the main feature of the Highwood Elk Management Unit (EMU), which is 1 of 44 EMUs across the state of Montana (MFWP Elk Management Plan, 2005). Within the Highwood EMU (which is comprised of deer and elk hunting district 447) are approximately 317 square miles of elk habitat, of which 79% is privately owned. The remaining 21% is primarily USDA-Forest Service (USFS) land, which contains the Highwood Mountains project area (already described above).

When Montana’s 2005 Elk Management Plan was published the elk population objective for the Highwood EMU was to observe 550 elk (+/- 20%, 440-660) during post-season aerial surveys. Holding elk numbers at that population objective proved difficult and the objective was subsequently increased, once or twice, to today’s objective of 700 elk with a +/- 20% range of 560 to 840 elk. As mentioned above, the most recent post-season aerial survey by MFWP (February 1, 2014) found 1,562 elk in the Highwood EMU, which is 123% over the current population objective (ElkSurvey_HD447_2014), which also results in an elk density of about 5 elk per square mile of elk habitat in the Highwood EMU, which comparatively is a very high density of elk.

Montana FWP continues their attempts to reduce elk numbers in the Highwood EMU. In recent years Montana FWP has issued an ample, but limited, number of Region 4 (multi-district) antlerless (cow/calf) Elk B Licenses (2,800 were issued for the 2013 elk season, 4,500 were issued for the 2014 elk season). These licenses are issued through a drawing, valid in most Region 4 hunting districts, but only valid on private and DNRC (Montana Department Natural Resources) lands within those hunting districts, which also includes HD 447 and the private and DNRC lands within. In addition to the Region 4 multi-district antlerless Elk B License, in 2013 and 2014 another 1000 multi-district antlerless Elk B Licenses were issued that were valid in numerous hunting districts in Regions 4, 5 and 7, including HD 447. These multi-district antlerless elk B licenses are a second elk license that allows recipients the opportunity to hunt and harvest 2 elk during a single hunting season.

An additional strategy/tool to reduce elk numbers was recently adopted and implemented by MFWP. In addition to the multi-district antlerless elk B Licenses, in 2014 MFWP adopted a more liberal elk hunting season structure for many Region 4 hunting districts. The more liberal elk season allows hunters who possess a valid, general elk license to be able to legally harvest an antlerless elk anywhere within HD 447, instead of attempting to only regulate antlerless elk harvest through a special drawing with a limited number of either sex and antlerless elk licenses, which had been the standard method in HD 447 for many years.

Determination and Rationale –

110

• Under the current grazing system the elk population in the Highwood Mountains, and in the project area, has flourished. The most recent count (February 1, 2014) shows the total number of elk in the Highwood EMU (1,562 elk) is 123% above MFWP’s population objective of 700.

• Implementation of the proposed action – such as appropriate and varied changes in cattle distribution, and or densities, and or periods of use – would increase forage in the uplands, as well as herbaceous and woody vegetation in riparian areas, particularly within the allotment pastures where cattle utilization will be exceeding the current or proposed (lowered) utilization standards. This will result in a net increase in the amount of forage available to elk in portions of pastures and allotments, particularly during the late-summer, fall and winter periods. This would increase the capacity of the winter range to hold elk. In addition to increasing the amount of forage available at the end of the livestock grazing season, implementation of the proposed action could also allow upland and riparian vegetation an opportunity to green up and regrow, and possibly increase the amount, vigor, succulence and nutritional value of the forage, which could encourage elk to remain or return to certain upland and riparian areas following a movement or earlier departure of cattle (compared to the current grazing system). It could also increase the amount and vigor of forage available to elk at the beginning of the livestock grazing season, depending on the specific changes implemented and when and where cattle are turned out onto the project area.

• Where implementation of the proposed action results is a net increase in the amount of forage in the uplands and riparian areas, the benefits of increased forage in those areas would outweigh the possible impacts caused by localized changes in cattle distribution, densities, and periods of use. In other words, implemented changes in cattle distribution, densities, and periods of use could displace some individual elk. However, as has been noticed in the Arrowhead (deferred rotation) allotment, and elsewhere in central Montana, elk are adaptable to such changes, readily moving away from livestock to areas unaffected or improved by the changes in livestock use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a loss of species or population viability or to a loss of hunting opportunities

Mule Deer (Commonly Hunted) Population and Habitat Status – Mule deer are widespread throughout western North America, from the western Canadian provinces south down into northern Mexico. Generally preferring early successional plant communities dominated by forbs and browse, the mule deer is an adaptable species that possesses a high degree of habitat amplitude. In Montana, the mule deer generalist is found in virtually every biome, from prairie, to badlands (breaks), to the mountains. Within the Highwood Mountains project area mule deer are found in most habitats: upland coniferous forests; the interspersed openings in, and edges of, coniferous forests; and in the upland grasslands, shrub-fields, aspen stands and riparian areas that are relatively close to coniferous forest cover. Mule deer use of the project area mainly occurs during spring, summer and fall. Weather conditions during winter usually push mule deer to lower elevation winter ranges located in the foothills and prairie, off the Forest, primarily on private lands.

Historically, and probably since the Highwood Mountains became part of the US Forest Service in 1907, mule deer populations have undergone gradual buildups and relatively abrupt declines. These buildups and declines have been well documented in central Montana since the 1960s (Hamlin and Mackie 1989) – and have occurred with varying magnitude in each decade since, even in the Highwood Mountains after cattle numbers were significantly reduced during the 1960s and subsequently kept at those lowered numbers.

111 Name of Project

Many wildlife scientists have investigated the causes of population declines. In Montana, Mackie et al. (1998) attribute mule deer population declines primarily to fawn mortality, or lack of fawn recruitment, determined by: the production and quality of forage during summer (i.e., how long forage remains green and succulent through the summer due to timing and amounts of precipitation); the severity of winters that follow summers with poor forage production and condition; and predation on fawns (and adults), particularly when alternate (easier/smaller) prey are not available to predators.

The most recent deer hunter harvest data from HD 447, which the project area is within, indicate that the harvest of mule deer bucks (an indicator of mule deer population status, from MFWP Adaptive Harvest Management, 2001), and thus the number of mule deer in the population, have experienced a decline and are currently below long-term averages (DeerHarvest_HD447_2004-2013, in Project File). These data also indicate, as do local observations and harvest data from all of (MFWP) Region 4’s deer hunting districts, that this current mule deer decline appears to have bottomed out in 2011 or 2012 (Figure 6, below, and DeerHarvest_Reg4_ 2004-2013, in Project File).

Habitat – Mule deer are adapted to rugged steep terrain, which allows them to use their stiff-legged, bounding gait (stotting) to escape predators. Consequently, topographic diversity, and the resultant vegetative diversity, is an important determinant of mule deer habitat. Basic, year-round, vegetative preferences are: green forbs during the summers, switching to browse (leaves and apical stems of preferred shrubs) for falls and winters as forb abundances wane. (Mule deer also eat grass when it’s the only green vegetation available, typically during the early part of spring.) Having the appropriate mix of early successional plant communities, containing an abundance of forbs and browse (a typical byproduct of fires), can help landscapes fulfill mule deer habitat diversity and vegetative requirements/preferences, particularly in mountain foothill environments that are dominated by mature coniferous forest/timber.

For mule deer, ideal winter habitat would contain steep rugged terrain with southern exposures, which is particularly important during cold winter periods, where increased solar radiation yields reduced snow amounts/depths, which translates into reduced energy expenditures and increased conservation of body heat and energy. A minimal amount of snow is a key characteristic because most winter forage is nutritionally insufficient relative to meeting the maintenance needs of mule deer. So, survival over winter is often determined by the mule deer’s ability to conserve energy reserves they accumulated prior to winter (Mackie et al. 1998).

During the summer months, mule deer are found in either reproductive, or maintenance, habitats. Reproductive habitat meets adult female needs of parturition and lactation. For fawning and raising fawns, adult females select vegetation that provides dependable sources of green, succulent and nutritious forage; and terrain that provides adult females with young, isolation from other deer, security from predation, and minimal competition from other wild ungulates and domestic livestock. In mountain foothill environments such reproductive habitat is most extensive “in diverse, mesic montane forests at intermediate elevations” (Mackie et al. 1998).

Summer maintenance habitat, as the name implies, meets the maintenance and survival needs of adult mule deer, but not necessarily the needs of fawn recruitment. Summer maintenance habitat is sufficient for males, and nonproductive females, to grow and recover physical condition lost over the winter, but it’s generally inadequate to sustain the demands of reproduction and lactation. In mountain foothill environments, summer maintenance habitat typically includes “subalpine-alpine and shrub-grass steppe habitats above and below the montane forest zone, as well as some dry interspersed ridges and slopes” (Mackie et al. 1998).

112

Occurrence in Project Area – By all accounts mule deer have inhabited the Highwood Mountains for millennia, and apparently persisted there, uninterrupted, even after European settlement had directly, or indirectly, exterminated bison and elk from the area by the early 1900s. As corroboration: between 1911 and 1936 the Montana legislature established 46 Game Preserves across the state to preserve and protect relic populations of antelope, deer or game birds, so numbers could increase and expand into adjacent areas. The Highwood [Mountains] Game Preserve (equivalent to today’s project area) was 1 of these 46 state Game Preserves (map of Highwood Game Preserve, in Project File). Since antelope and game bird preserves were typically established in prairie or river bottom areas, respectively, the mountainous Highwood Game Preserve was almost certainly established for mule deer, to insure they persisted in the area.

But the early 1900s were particularly difficult times for wildlife in Montana, including mule deer. Conservation efforts during the teens and twenties (such as establishment and enforcement of early hunting seasons/regulations and various efforts to propagate wildlife populations) were largely nullified in the 1930s when severe drought and a collapsed economy forced many Montana residents back to indiscriminate hunting of wildlife for subsistence. But the 1940s brought many changes. Weather improved, as did farming and ranching practices as well as Montana’s agricultural economy, and War World II ended. Returning soldiers, the GI bill, an improved economy, and improved technologies from the war, fostered in the modern era of wildlife science and management. Mule deer numbers steadily increased from the 1940s into the 1960s. By the end of the 1950s Montana’s deer hunting seasons had been liberalized in an attempt to stabilize mule deer numbers and to reduce agricultural crop damages (Montana adopted the first either-sex deer season in 1958, MFWP 2010- 12).

More specific to the Highwood Mountains, and coinciding with the above scenarios, were some other changes that significantly benefitted mule deer. One of these changes was the reduction of domestic sheep numbers, from almost 40,000 in 1907 to 3,000 or less in the 1940s, to zero sheep by 1950. Domestic sheep are open country, concentrate feeders; their food habits and use of the habitat overlaps closely that of mule deer. And cattle numbers were reduced from their peak of almost 6,000 in 1907 down to less than 3,000 by the late 1960s. And elk numbers had not yet burgeoned. And the early successional plant communities, caused by wildfires in the late 1800s, that then occupied nearly 2/3rds of the Highwood Mountains, were released from the heavy herbivory. And predator numbers, which had been kept at low levels during the peak sheep and cattle years, were still at low levels. The mule deer population responded positively and probably reached a peak in the late 1950s through the early 1960s, like elsewhere in Montana.

MFWP monitors, and manages, mule deer populations using aerial surveys and harvest data. Aerial surveys, consisting of 13 census and 67 trend areas, are scattered across the major environments of Montana. The total number of deer are counted and classified and these data are compared to long- term averages and objectives and are used for modeling populations and showing and predicting trends. The status of mule deer populations is also determined from mule deer harvest data obtained from telephone questionnaire surveys conducted annually, post hunting season. Total number of mule deer harvested, as well as the total number of mule deer bucks harvested, are used to verify aerial survey data, or used in lieu of aerial survey data when the latter are too distant from the hunting district or population of interest, or the aerial survey data are incomplete or less than precise for various reasons, such as poor observability due to poor survey conditions (MFWP 2001).

Specific to the Highwood Mountains project area, that mule deer numbers have declined rather precipitously since 1986 (and most likely since 1963 too), while cattle numbers have been kept constant, while current elk numbers (1,562) have increased 288% above where they were 25 years ago (403 elk), and 123% above the (revised upward) Highwood EMU population objective of 700

113 Name of Project

total elk (Elk Survey_HD447_ 2014), and all the while the expansion and maturation of coniferous forest timber (and plant succession) in the project area has continued, virtually unabated.

Determination and Rationale • By all accounts mule deer numbers in Montana are currently below long term averages (as determined by MFWP aerial surveys and hunter harvest statistics). It also appears that the current low in Montana’s mule deer population, as determined by the number of mule deer bucks harvested annually, occurred in 2011, but has increased, slightly, each year since (DeerHarvest_State_2004-2013, in Project File). • There are no aerial surveys conducted on mule deer in or immediately adjacent to the Highwood Mountains or project area, but hunter harvest data indicate that mule deer buck harvest, thus mule deer numbers (MFWP 2001), are also low in the Highwood Mountains and project area (DeerHarvest_HD447_2004-2013, in project File). • The magnitude of the current low in the central Montana mule deer population appears to be similar to what occurred during the mid-1970s (Figure 6). According to best science, and historical records, such periodic lows in mule deer numbers is not a new phenomenon, but is a characteristic of mule deer populations documented to have occurred approximately once every decade since the 1960s, primarily due to changes in environmental conditions (Hamlin and Mackie, 1989, Mackie et al. 1998). • It should be disclosed that the mule deer population in the project area, therefore, appears to be below the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan’s Monitoring Requirement C-5, Other Gig Game Species: Mule Deer, which states that a decrease of 10% or more in a 3-year running mean would initiate further evaluation (USDA Forest Service 1986, page 5-11). Further evaluation and collaboration resulted in the following actions that were taken (below). • MFWP is legally responsible for managing mule deer in Montana. To address the current low in the mule deer population, MFWP implemented a more conservative hunting season structure across central Montana (Region 4 and 5) in 2010. The more conservative season structure entailed a change from either-sex mule deer hunting on a general deer license, to only allowing the harvest of buck mule deer on the general license, plus a significant reduction in the number of antlerless (doe/fawn) mule deer B Licenses issued for individual hunting districts, including HD 447 (which contains the project area). Furthermore, to hasten a rebound in the current low in mule deer numbers, MFWP implemented even more restrictions in 2014, by eliminating all harvest of antlerless mule deer on the general deer licenses, as well as eliminating the issuance of antlerless mule deer B Licenses in almost all hunting districts, statewide. • Mule deer eat primarily forbs when they are available, and the leaves and apical stems of preferred shrubs when forbs become less available, such as during late summer or early fall. In a mountainous environment like the Highwood Mountains project area these forbs and preferred shrubs are most abundant in early to mid-seral plant communities, or in wet microsites, both of which are found within or adjacent to coniferous forests, and also are main constituents of mule deer summer reproduction and maintenance habitats (Mackie et al. 1998). • Best available science indicates that mule deer population fluctuations in Montana are primarily driven by fawn survival to recruitment, which is largely determined by forage quantity and quality, or the length of time green succulent forage (such as forbs, then

114

leaves and apical stems of preferred shrubs) is available through the summer into fall. This affects lactation and condition, and ultimately survival, of fawns on their summer reproduction habitat, as well as the recouping of condition (lost during the preceding winter) by other (non-lactating) adult mule deer on their summer maintenance habitat. • Severe winters that follow summers in which vegetation does not remain green can amplify fawn mortality (including effects of predation). Mackie et al. (1998) concluded, “…most native forages available in winter are too low in nutritional value to meet the maintenance needs of deer. Deer survive primarily by supplementing energy reserves accumulated prior to winter with energy intake from submaintenance winter diets.” • Cattle and elk evolved with larger mouths and larger rumens which allow them to consume and digest cellulose rich grasses, which are physiologically difficult for mule deer to digest. But cattle and elk will also consume and digest forbs, when in the process of consuming grasses, or when the palatability of grasses wanes (see food habit discussion in the Upland Grasslands wildlife habitat component section of this report). The fact that elk can utilize grasses when forbs are no longer available is the primary reason elk populations don’t experience the population fluctuations that are so prominent in mule deer. • As mentioned above, the availability of green succulent forage during summers can be negatively influenced by changes in environmental conditions, such as drier than normal weather conditions. The availability of green succulent forage can also be influenced, and or reduced, by intra and interspecific competition, particularly when green succulent vegetation begins to desicate due to drier than normal weather conditions. The availability of green succulent forage used my mule deer can also be influenced by topography and the successional stage of plant communities. • As mentioned previously (largely due to the absence of fire), the vegetation in the Highwood Mountains project area has advanced beyond early, and in some cases, mid- successional stages, and is no longer as productive relative to mule deer summer reproduction and maintenance habitat as it was in the mid 1900s (such as when mule deer numbers peaked in the late 1950s early 1960s). For instance, coniferous forests in the project area have expanded, matured, and canopies have closed; and the coniferous forest habitat component has approximately doubled in size since the early 1900s, now occupying approximately 2/3rds of the project area. Some chokecherry stands are now decadent, due to lack of fire and heavy herbivory. And a considerable proportion of the upland grassland habitat component now appears more strongly dominated by grasses than forbs, partly due to the late entry and commensurate distribution of cattle during the grazing season. Observations such as these are reasons why many wildlife scientists and managers feel that mule deer populations all across the West, are not as productive today as they used to be. • The Highwood Mountains project area represents 21% of the elk habitat within the Highwood EMU (HD 447) (MFWP 2005). The vast majority of elk cover (thermal and hiding) in the Highwood EMU is inside the project area. Consequently, elk use of the project area is significantly greater than its proportional availability, particulary during late spring, summer, and fall, when elk use is generally proximal to coniferous forest cover. Field investigations and information obtained from conservations with hunters and MFWP area biologist corroborate that elk use of the project area is significant, even during late summer early fall periods when vegetation in the project area has largely,

115 Name of Project

comparitively, desicated and elk make daily forays from the project area to green succulent vegetation (such as hay fields) located on adjacent private lands. • Current elk numbers (1,562) represent a 288% increase in the Highwood Mountains, and project area, over the last 25 years. During the same period, cattle numbers, and grazing period, have largely remained unchanged (cattle numbers have been kept just below 3,000 since adjusted down to that level in the 1960s). • Based on current elk numbers, the elk density within the Highwood EMU is almost 5 elk per square mile. However, elk densities within the project area during late spring, summer, and fall may reach levels as high as 23 elk per square mile, and significantly higher if elk are restricted to coniferous forest habitats (~2/3rds of project area) for green succulent vegetaton, where mule deer summer parturition habitat is primarily located. • The above information indicates that mule deer habitat in the Highwood Mountains project area is less productive today than in many past years. And because cattle numbers in the project area have remainded unchanged while elk numbers have increased, significantly, and diets of cattle and elk overlap that of mule deer, and that diet (and spatial) overlap may be significant within some of the mule deer summer habitats, and since mule deer tend to avoid elk and cattle, and elk tend to avoid cattle and can be displaced into mule deer summer habitats (Stewart et al., 2002), it is very likely that there is competition for green succulent vegetation and space within mule deer summer habitats, particularly reproduction habitat, which is resulting in a net reduction in mule deer fawn survival and recruitment. • Implementation of the proposed action should result in a net increase in the amount of forage in the uplands, and in particular herbaceous and woody (including preferred shrubs) vegetation in some upland aspen, mesic shrub, riparian and coniferous forest areas, which should benefit mule deer. However, implementation of the proposed action may cause localized changes in cattle distribution, densities, and periods of use that may displace some mule deer. In addition, implemented changes in cattle distribution, densities, and periods of use could also displace elk into mule deer summer habitats, which could nullify some of the net increases in forage that would have otherwise been available to mule deer if elk densities had not been allowed to become so high. Yet mule deer numbers currently appear to be rebounding (upward) across most of Montana, and most noticeably on private lands where hunter harvest is typically more conservative. And within a decade, locally, regionally, and statewide, mule deer numbers are expected to regain some past (long term) average density, once again. Therefore, the project may impact individuals or habitat, and may have neutral to beneficial impacts to habitat, but would not likely contribute to a loss of viability to the species or population or to loss of hunting opportunities

Migratory Birds This section summarizes the means by which the project meets USDA Forest Service obligations under the Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 10, 2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, and the Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds.

Background

116

Executive Order 13186 “directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the (Migratory Bird Treaty) Act.” Pursuant to its MOU, each agency shall “(e)nsure that environmental analyses of Federal actions required by NEPA evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern.” Species of concern refers to those species listed in the periodic report Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), published by the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management; priority migratory bird species as documented by established plans (such as Bird Conservation Regions in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative or Partners in Flight physiographic areas); and those species listed in 50 C.F.R. 17.11 (Threatened and Endangered species).

In 2008, the USDA Forest Service and the USFWS entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds, as directed by Executive Order 13186. Under the MOU, the Forest Service shall: • Consult the current USFWS BCC, state lists, and comprehensive planning efforts for migratory birds when developing the list of species to be considered in the planning process. • Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.

Methodology

The Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) was last updated in December of 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are the smallest geographic scale. The BCR lists are most useful to Federal land-managing agencies, and their partners, in their efforts to abide by the bird conservation principles embodied in the MBTA and Executive Order 13186. The Lewis and Clark National Forest occurs in two BCRs. The BCR 10 (Northern Rockies) includes the Rocky Mountain Front, Little Belt Mountains, Castle Mountains, and the Crazy Mountains portions of the Forest. The BCR 17 (Badlands and Prairies) includes the Highwood Mountains, and the Big and Little Snowy Mountains portions of the Forest.

Of the 28 species listed for BCR 17, twelve species required, or received, additional discussion. Six were addressed earlier in this report; Sprague’s pipit was addressed in the Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Proposed Species section; 3 were addressed in the Sensitive Species section: bald eagle, peregrine falcon and burrowing owl; and 2 were addressed in the Management Indicator Species section: golden eagle and prairie falcon. Six of the 12 needing additional discussion are addressed in this Migratory Bird section, below. The remaining 16 (BCR 17) species do not occur, nor have habitat, within the project area.

Discussion

A description of the habitat within the Highwood Mountains is found in other sections of this EA. To summarize, approximately two-thirds of the Highwood Mountains is not suitable for

117 Name of Project

livestock grazing due to steepness, sparse vegetation, or coniferous timber cover (such as lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, limber pine, subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce). Suitable livestock grazing is found in the remaining one-third of the area, predominantly open mountain grasslands with some dry-site shrubs. Dominant native grasses are blue bunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. Non-native grasses timothy and Kentucky bluegrass are also present. Big sagebrush also occurs on some drier grassland slopes. Aspen stands and shrubs, such as hawthorn, chokecherry, snowberry, and western service-berry, are well distributed in the uplands, generally occurring on the wetter sites. The other riparian vegetation is in more linear and narrow shaped stands along creek bottoms, and is generally comprised of hawthorn and willow species, with some cottonwood species.

A search of the Montana Natural Heritage Tracker database (accessed January 29, 2014 at http://mtnhp.org/tracker/NHTMap.aspx) found a single record for each of the 6 species discussed below. The sightings are attributed to P.D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution: Third Edition (Skaar et al. 1985). These records have a date range of January 1, 1885 to January 1, 1985 and the sightings are attached to latilong 18. Latilong 18 is a 3,200 square mile area, the center of which occurs on the northern edge of the Highwood Mountains. The 6 reported sightings occurred somewhere within Latilong 18 (see map in project record) – and probably occurred outside of the project area where the habitat is predominantly prairie grasslands or prairie grasslands that intergrade into mountain foothills, versus the higher elevation mountain habitat types that are found within the project area.

From 1994-2006, the University of Montana Avian Science Center coordinated efforts to survey birds every-other-year at permanently marked points for the Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program. Hutto and Kowalski (2006) described this program, which also includes points in the Highwood Mountains. Results of this monitoring are included in the Montana Natural Heritage Tracker database. A search of that database for the species considered below did not find any sightings.

In 2009 and 2010 three sites in the Highwood Mountains were monitored under the new Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR) (description online at http: //rmbo.org/v3/avian/Projects/IntegratedMonitoringinBirdConservationRegions.aspx). These surveys were conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. None of the species discussed below were observed during these surveys.

Based on available observation data, and information pertaining to habitat requirements, occurrence within the Highwood Mountains project area of the 6 species addressed below is questionable. However, because their habitat requirements are somewhat similar to habitat that’s available within the project area, a more in depth discussion pertaining to direct, indirect and cumulative effects, per species, follows.

Black-billed cuckoo According to Montana Field Guide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNRB02010.aspx), the black-billed cuckoos are birds of wooded draws, thickets, forest edges, and shelter-belts. They are more common in eastern Montana, and most often found in riparian areas with cottonwoods, green ashes, and elms, with a shrubby understory of willows, box elders, and

118

alders. They generally arrive in Montana from early to mid-June, with nesting beginning soon thereafter. Their diet consists of insects such as caterpillars, crickets, grasshoppers, and butterflies. Tent caterpillars and cicadas are favored foods. In many parts of their range population fluctuations are related to outbreaks of caterpillars and cicadas.

Black-billed cuckoo is a Montana Species of Concern with a state rank of S3B (potentially at risk on its breeding range because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas). Both the no action, and the proposed action, alternatives will increase shrub cover in riparian areas, which would benefit the black-billed cuckoo. Implementation of the no action or proposed action alternatives would result in no effect to black-billed cuckoos.

Lewis’s Woodpecker Habitat is open forests and forest edges, often logged or burned, preferring open ponderosa pine forests or open cottonwood dominated woodlands. Distribution is closely associated with the open ponderosa pine forest and strongly associated with old growth ponderosa pine that’s maintained by fire. Little is known about breeding and nesting phenology in Montana, but some courtship has been observed in May and early June, with some incubation in June. The species feeds on emergent insects in summer (for example insects associated with burned forests, aquatic and riparian areas).

In Montana the species is ranked S2B (at risk in its breeding habitat because of very limited and/or potentially declining population numbers, range and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state). This project will not directly alter ponderosa pine habitat. However, the no action and proposed action alternatives will increase the occurrence of cottonwood trees, and shrubs in the riparian understories, as well as the occurrence of grasses and forbs in the uplands. Increasing cottonwoods could benefit Lewis’s woodpeckers. An increase in grasses and forbs could also increase the transmission of wildfire into coniferous stands, making them more open, which would probably benefit Lewis’s woodpecker. Therefore, implementing the no action or proposed action alternatives would result in no effect to Lewis’ woodpecker.

Loggerhead Shrike In the Birds of North America (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/231/articles/ introduction), and the Montana Field Guide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABPBR0 1030.aspx), loggerhead shrikes typically inhabit open grassland country, usually where there are scattered trees and shrubs, such as sagebrush. The loggerhead shrike is unique in being both a passerine as well as a top-level predator. They usually hunt from perches and feed on a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate prey. Not having strong, raptor-like, feet with talons, loggerhead shrikes impale their prey on sharp objects, such as the thorns of the hawthorn bush or on the barbs in barbed wire fences. Nesting occurs from mid-June to mid-July.

In Montana this species is ranked S3B (potentially at risk on its breeding range because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas). Changes in human land-use practices, such as plowing of sagebrush grasslands, as well as the application of pesticides, are probable factors contributing to local declines.

119 Name of Project

None of the alternatives of this project would directly reduce sagebrush (no plowing or burning or spraying of herbicides). And none of the alternatives would apply pesticides to reduce insects.

Both the no action, and proposed action, alternatives will increase the occurrence of grass, forb, and shrub cover in places, which may enhance grassland/shrub breeding habitat in the near and long term. However, the increase in grasses and forbs could also increase the likelihood of fires, which would set the landscape back to a historic range of variability, which could reduce the occurrence of young fire susceptible shrubs and trees within grasslands that would eventually become perches. More grasses and forbs may also increase fire transmission from grasslands into riparian areas and coniferous timber stands, which may not be as beneficial to loggerhead shrike habitat in the near term period following the fire event, but most likely would be beneficial to the species in the long term. In all, implementation of the no action or proposed action alternatives would result in no effect to loggerhead shrike.

Pinyon Jay Pinyon jay distribution extends from southwestern U.S. as far north as central Montana. In the southwestern U.S. this species is found in pinyon-juniper habitat. In Montana, pinyon jay habitat occurs in low-elevation ponderosa pine and limber pine-juniper woodlands. This species is omnivorous, with pine seeds making up a large portion of their diet, which they cache and then later retrieve and consume. Juniper berries, wild fruits, agricultural grains, and some small sized animals are also eaten. Breeding occurs from March until July, with peak hatching occurring from late April to mid-June.

In Montana the pinyon jay is a Species of Concern, ranked S3B (potentially at risk on its breeding range because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas). Loss of ponderosa pine is probably the greatest threat to pinyon jays in Montana, according to the Montana Field Guide (http: //fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABPAV07010.aspx). This is probably because of current pine bark beetle infestations, and possibly because of fire suppression. Both can increase the occurrence of ladder fuels which provides a mechanism for the transmission of ground fires into the crowns of ponderosa pine, which can ultimately result in the loss of said timber stands. Conversely, more fire could also recreate and then maintain ponderosa and limber pine savanna habitat. However, ground reconnaissance and a review of literature and Forest Service Vmap data found very little occurrence of ponderosa pine or limber pine within the project area. Furthermore, within the Highwood Mountains there is virtually no occurrence of the open structured, low-elevation ponderosa pine or limber pine/juniper woodland and savanna that pinyon jays would be expected to use, or that cool fires would maintain. It’s doubtful that pinyon jays occur within the project area.

Therefore, none of the project alternatives would directly impact ponderosa pine or limber pine or pinyon jays within the project area. And even though the no action and proposed action alternatives would increase the occurrence of grass, forb, and shrub cover in places, as well as the likelihood of fires being transmitted from grasslands into riparian areas and coniferous timber stands, the scarcity of ponderosa pine and limber pine/juniper woodland

120

and savanna habitat indicates that indirect and cumulative impacts to pinyon jays and their habitat would be small in the near term, but likely beneficial in the long term. In all, implementation of the no action or proposed action alternatives would result in no effect to pinyon jay.

Brewer’s Sparrow According to Natureserve (2014), the Brewer’s sparrow is strongly associated with sagebrush. In central Montana the Brewer’s sparrow nested in sagebrush that averaged 16- inches in height, and sagebrush cover was important in concealing nests (Montana Field Guide, http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABPBX94040.aspx). The Brewer’s sparrow typically nests from mid-June to mid-July. During winter eats primarily small seeds, such as weed seeds. In spring and summer, also consumes insects and spiders.

The Brewer’s sparrow is a Montana Species of Concern with a state ranking of S3B (potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas) because the species faces threats from loss of sagebrush habitats. Of the 3 project alternatives, current livestock grazing should maintain grass, forb and sagebrush cover at, or near, current levels. The no action and proposed action alternatives would increase the occurrence of grass, forbs and some shrub species in some upland locales, which should increase availability of food items used by Brewer’s sparrow. The no action and proposed action alternatives would also cause an increase in probability of fire transmission through the grasslands, which could reduce the occurrence of sagebrush cover. However, it’s doubtful that more fire in the project area grasslands would reduce sagebrush below historic levels. And none of the alternatives would reduce sagebrush through any physical or chemical means, such as plowing, chopping or spraying. Therefore, in all, implementation of the no action or proposed action alternatives would result in no effect to Brewer’s sparrow.

Grasshopper Sparrow The grasshopper sparrow is a secretive and stealthy bird of open grasslands and prairies, even grassland areas that contain some intermittent brush and patches of bare ground. This species spends most of its time on the ground, nesting and foraging, and eats mostly insects, especially grasshoppers, but also spiders, snails, and small seeds. Breeding season begins in mid-May, running through June.

In Montana this species is ranked as S4B (apparently secure on its breeding range, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, and/or suspected to be declining). The state rank was updated in 2011 because, although “populations face some habitat loss, the estimated statewide population is large and population trends are stable to increasing” (Montana Field Guide, http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABPBXA 0020.aspx).

Since this species prefers the continuous grass cover found on the prairies, the Highwood Mountains project area does not contain an abundance of habitat that this species would use, although some of the open mountain grassland areas may suffice. Implementing this project will not fragment or degrade the grassland habitat. The no action and proposed action alternatives would increase shrub cover in the uplands to some degree, but an increase in the

121 Name of Project vigor of existing upland shrubs instead of a significant increase in the density and occurrence of upland shrub plants would be more likely. Grasses and forbs would also be expected to increase in the uplands, with a commensurate increase in insect numbers available for grasshopper sparrows. Increase in grass and forb cover could also increase fire occurrence in the grasslands, which could be negative for the short term, but positive for the long term. Any changes to grasshopper sparrow habitat as a result of implementing either the no action or proposed action alternative would not reduce habitat availability or quality to the detriment of population levels, therefore there will be no effect to the grasshopper sparrow.

Brown-headed Cowbird – Parasitism A public scoping comment was received that said cattle grazing in riparian areas would result in a loss of songbird productivity [within the project area] because of [brown-headed] cowbird parasitism. Such a statement is most often made in reference to songbird species classified as threatened or endangered or as species of conservation concern. Relative to this project, what isn’t substantiated is whether the proposed action (grazing) alternative would affect cowbird occurrence to the extent that parasitism would cause a loss in viability in songbird populations, or result in the LCNF not meeting its legal obligations according to the MBTA and Executive Order 13186.

The brown-headed cowbird is a brood parasite that lays its eggs in other species nests. Cowbirds originated in the open grasslands of the Great Plains of middle North America. Before European settlement cowbirds followed herds of grazing animals, particularly bison, feeding on insects and seeds that were kicked up in their wake, and during the spring breeding season they parasitized other songbird’s nests as they went. Today, the range of the cowbird is expanded. Instead of bison, cowbirds key in on cattle and other large (predominantly domesticated) grazers. This range expansion is also largely attributed to habitats that have been modified and expanded by man (various agricultural activities, development, forest fragmentation, particularly to the east of their historic range) (Shaffer et al. 2003, Bird Web at http://birdweb.org/birdweb/bird/brown-headed_ cowbird, and The Birds of North America at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ species/047 /articles/breeding).

In a review of literature found in Shaffer et al. (2003), cowbirds, or host nests containing cowbird eggs, have been found in virtually every conceivable habitat within, or on the edge of (shortgrass, mixed-grass, and tallgrass) prairies. Cowbirds are also known to commute considerable distances from breeding areas to feeding sites. But in Montana the relative abundance of cowbirds also decreased with increasing distance from agriculture (e.g. pastures and rowcrops). Perch sites – trees, shrubs, and other structures that exceed the average height of the surrounding vegetation – are important habitat components, particularly for breeding. Perches are used by female cowbirds to watch the activity of hosts, so they can effectively parasitize hosts’ nests. Other vegetation characteristics also seem to influence cowbird abundance, though somewhat ambiguously. Across a wide spectrum of habitats, cowbirds were negatively associated with the coverage of grasses and legumes in some CRP fields and with shrub density and spikemoss cover in native grass areas. But cowbirds were positively associated with vegetation height in tallgrass prairie, and with forb cover, live vegetation, and western snowberry that was associated with tame grasses in burned mixed-

122

grass prairie. However, “the strongest predictor of the presence of cowbirds was low visual obstruction (vegetation height and density),” which facilitates the cowbirds ability to observe the locations of host nests. Topography was also a strong predictor of cowbird occurrence. In Montana, in areas with relatively level topography, cowbirds were more likely to occur within 2 km of agricultural land (e.g. cattle pastures) than in areas farther from agricultural land, but in steeper topography, such as in canyons and ravines, cowbirds were more likely to occur within 1 km of agriculture land.

Within the project area cowbirds are known to occur along Highwood Creek. Records from the Natural Heritage Tracker database (http://mtnhp.org/tracker/NHTMap.aspx) indicated that the Landbird Monitoring Program found cowbirds in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 (N = 4, 10, 4, 8, 3, 3, and 3, respectively from 4 10-point transects). More recent surveys conducted by the IMBCR in 2009 and 2010 found no cowbirds within the project area, but the IMBCR monitoring sites were not located along Highwood Creek, or in similar habitat.

~~~~~~~~~~~ Conclusion ~~~~~~~~~~~

Across the U.S. cowbird parasitism has been implicated in the declines of several species of songbirds that are classified as threatened or endangered, or as species of conservation concern. Virtually all of these implications have been made where the cowbird’s range had recently expanded into areas where other indigenous songbird species have not adapted to the presence of cowbirds, such as on the eastern and western edges of the Great Plains. The Highwood Mountains project area, however, lies within the Great Plains, where cowbirds are abundant and existed prior to European settlement (Koford et al. 2000, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cowbrd/index.htm). Consequently, songbird species within the study area have coexisted with, and adapted to, cowbirds over a long period of time.

A review of the scientific literature has found very little evidence to implicate cowbird parasitism as negatively impacting the viability of songbird species of concern that occur, or potentially could occur, within the Highwood Mountains project area. Instead, the primary concerns for these species have been changes to their breeding or wintering habitat (Montana Field Guide, at http://fieldguide.mt.gov/). And for the most part Montana’s species of concern do not winter in Montana, but farther south. And any breeding habitat found within the project area has largely remained intact; grasslands within the project area, or on private lands in the foothills of the Highwood Mountains, have experienced very little fragmentation; probably because the topography isn’t very suitable for farming the area continues to be used primarily for ranching (see aerial images of the area found on the Google Earth website (earth.google.com)).

In a study farther east in the northern Great Plains (in central North Dakota) Koford et al. (2000) were concerned about fragmentation and loss of songbird breeding habitat, about the recent population declines of certain songbird species (such as, clay-colored sparrow, lark bunting, grasshopper sparrow, and bobolink), and if cowbird parasitism contributed to these declines. The authors speculated that the proportions of parasitized nests in seeded

123 Name of Project grasslands (CRP), natural grasslands, and croplands was related to the local abundance of cowbirds (cowbird/host ratio), the visibility of host nests, and the availability of perch sites for female cowbirds. Their data generally supported those speculations. Cowbirds were more abundant in or near areas that cattle foraged; they typically fed where cattle grazed and more often laid their eggs near where they fed. Cowbirds also laid their eggs close to perches, where host nests were more visible, such as in short grass vegetation containing shrubs or equivalent perches.

In addition to cowbird abundances declining on a gradient with increased distances from active cattle grazing (Goguen and Mathews, 2000), the phenology of songbird nesting can also be an important factor influencing levels of cowbird parasitism. The cowbird breeding season generally extends from May through June to late July, peaking from late May to mid- July in the northern portion of its range (Stewart, 1975, http:// www.npwrc. usgs.gov /resource/birds/bbofnd/species/4950.htm). Songbird species that nest before or after the peak of cowbird breeding often experience lower levels of cowbird parasitism (Middleton 1977, Koford et al. 2000, Shaffer et al. 2003).

As has already been pointed out in this report the month of June is the main breeding period for most of the songbird species of concern that could be potentially found within the project area. Black-backed cuckoo, loggerhead shrike, pinyon jay, and Brewer’s and grasshopper sparrow all nest during June, with some nesting from late May into early to mid-July. Cattle usually aren’t turned out to graze the project area (Forest) until July 1, or after. Prior to turnout, during June, cattle are still on private lands 4 to 12 km, or farther, away. Consequently, the ratio of cowbirds to other (host) songbird species is predictably greater on private lands, than within the project area, during the peak of the breeding season, or at the beginning or toward the end of the breeding season, which would result in lower levels of cowbird parasitism within the project area.

Coincidental are some other habitat attributes that increase cowbird use of (private) lands during the breeding season: the topography isn’t as steep and riparian plant communities and adjacent grasslands are naturally larger on private lands than within the project area. And another important factor to consider is the phenology of the vegetation during the peak of cowbird breeding. Within the project area residual grasses in the uplands, and the year’s current growth of grasses and forbs in the uplands and within riparian areas, should be at peak heights by the middle of June, which would also make host’s nests less visible during this period, as well as in early July when cattle first arrive. Again, lower levels of cowbird parasitism would be expected within the project area.

During the 1990s the Northern Region of the USDA Forest Service initiated a large scale study to better understand bird-habitat relationships across National Forests in Montana and Idaho (Hutto and Young 1999). Based on those bird-habitat relationship findings, and the cowbirds recent range expansion into areas west of the Great Plains (where songbirds had not adapted to cowbirds), in conjunction with the cowbird’s strong association with cattle grazing and agriculture, Young and Hutto (1999) recommended that “it would certainly be wise to restrict agriculture to areas already dominated by this land use.” The Highwood Mountains project area, as a part of the Great Plains, has experienced large-sized herbivores and

124

cowbirds for millennia. Implementing the proposed action, here, would be in compliance with this recommendation.

Shaffer et al. (2003), from their work on cowbirds in grasslands, recommended that the “keys to discouraging cowbird parasitism or controlling populations of brown-headed cowbirds in the Great Plains are maintaining large expanses of grassland, eliminating foraging areas (e.g., feedlots) and perch sites, and reducing the extent of overgrazed pastures.” • Implenting the proposed action will increase grass and forb cover, which should increase competition and use of soil moisture and thus reduce the occurrence of small sized conifers that are encroaching into the (large expanse) grasslands currently present within the project area. Mountain pine beetle, spruce budworm, and white pine blister rust infestations are already reducing the occurrence of small and large sized ponderosa pine, Douglas fir and whitebark pine trees across much of Montana, respectively, which should increase the expanse of grasslands within the project area even more. And both scenarios should increase the occurrence and effects of wildfires in the future, which should also increase the expanse of grasslands within the project area. And both scenarios should concurrently reduce the occurrence of small sized coniferous trees that now serve as perches. • Within the Highwood Mountains project area there are some dispersed sites (less than 20) where horses are contained for short periods (1 to 16 days) for recreational purposes. Most of these are camp sites that are used during the fall hunting seasons, or during the summer for trail riding. There are also 2 sites where a small number of horses are held when used in managing livestock. On these sites the Forest Service requires that horses be fed “weed seed free” feeds. The vast majority of horse-feed is in the form of pellets or hay (virtually no grains are fed), and the vast majority of horse-days occur during the fall, with very few horse-days prior to July 1 or during the songbird breeding season. And there are no feedlots, and no livestock corrals where cattle are held or fed. • Implementing the proposed action will also reduce cattle forage utilization levels which will increase grass and forb cover, thus reducing the extent of those sites that are “overgrazed.” So, implementing the proposed action would render the Highwood Mountains project area in near perfect compliance with the above recommendation of Shaffer et al. (2003).

In conclusion, there is no substantive information indicating that implementing the proposed action grazing alternative within the project area would increase cowbird parasitism to an extent that it would cause a loss of viability for any of the avian species of conservation concern that are addressed in this report, or that the LCNF would not be in compliance with the requirements of the MBTA and Executive Order 13186. Further-more, the issue probably shouldn’t be about subtle changes in productivity of any of these species, but in the makeup of the natural assemblage of bird species within the project area, because any change in habitat, even subtle changes, would be good for some species and not as good for others. It’s probably more important to have a complete range of habitat and cover types in the project area in order to maintain healthy populations of all the bird species that are indigenous to this area.

Recommendations Upland Grasslands – There are upland grassland areas in the project area that are only lightly grazed by cattle. If some of these areas were grazed more intensely, periodically, while reducing cattle

125 Name of Project impacts to forbs and shrubs that are preferred wildlife forage in the upland grasslands as well as adjacent wildlife habitat components, would be beneficial to many wildlife species.

Aspen – It is important to implement livestock management actions that increase the biomass of the herbaceous vegetation left in the understory of aspen stands at the end of the grazing period, particularly in those aspen stands that currently receive the heaviest cattle use, such as in Deer, Shoulder, Stoner, Pohlod, Postill and Shonkin Creeks. More residual herbaceous vegetation in these aspen stands would benefit many wildlife species. Use of these stands by maternal mule deer would increase, improving conditions for increasing fawn survival and recruitment.

Upland Shrubs – It is important to implement livestock management actions that will increase the height, vigor and size of chokecherry plants and patches, particularly those located in the uplands in Deer, Shoulder, Stoner, Pohlod, Kirby, Postill and Shonkin Creeks, drainages where impacts to chokecherry are most pronounced. This would increase seasonally important foods and cover for a number of wildlife species, including upland birds and big game wildlife species G: Soils

Overview of Issues Addressed Soils issues are primarily related to vegetation removal and modification and the effects on soil organic matter, soil compaction, puddling, displacement and erosion. Concerns are found within or adjacent to riparian areas but also on ridges, swales, bowls near the tops of drainages and passes. Noxious weeds are widespread with areas of concentration where communities are dominated by these plants. There has been minimal past timber harvest on the Lewis and Clark National Forest portion of the Highwood Mountains. Unauthorized off-road motorized travel is limited by the steep topography and forested vegetation.

Issue Indicators Detrimental soil disturbance indicators found in Region 1 soil quality standards would be measured and summarized as a percentage of an activity area. These terms are defined below under the heading of Desired Condition. The presence of noxious weeds is not a detrimental soil disturbance indicator, but concentrations of noxious weeds can impact soil nutrient cycling and ground cover which can increase erosion and reduce soil organic matter. Soil productivity would be discussed as a combination of livestock grazing impacts in the framework of soil quality standards and the impacts of noxious weed on soils.

Affected Environment Existing Condition The National Forest portion of the Highwood Mountains contains approximately 42,000 acres. Soils of the Highwood have been mapped to land types by Holdorf (1981). The table below summarizes the land types and primary differentiating characteristics.

Vegetation consists of mixed conifer forest on north aspects, in drainages and at higher elevations. Riparian vegetation is primarily found at lower elevations along drainages, upland shrublands and grasslands, stands of aspen and open conifer forest make up the remainder.

126

Table 28 - Land Types of the Highwood Mountains Acres* Dominant Soil Land Slope Parent Surface Sensitive (% of Land-form (dominant type percent Material Texture Soils total) vegetation) Typic Argiborolls, Severe Lower Typic erosion 110 614 (1) valley Cryoboralfs 10-25 Shale Loam potential for bottom (forest/ compacted grassland soils mix) Lithic Cryoborolls, Steep 13,255 Typic Sandstone 150 valley 40-60 Loam (20) Cryochrepts and basalt slopes (grassland/ forest mix) Typic Cryochrepts Steep 6,628 and Sandstone Sandy 173 valley 40-60 (15) Cryoborolls and basalt loam slopes (grassland/ forest mix) Rockland- Very steep Typic Non-carb 183 763 (2) peaks/upp Cryochrepts 60+ Loam rocks er slopes (scree/ forested) Fluvents and Well Borolls Flooding 200 317 (1) drained 0-10 Mixed Variable (shrubland/ hazard floodplain forest mix) Moderate Colluvial Typic Loam, 1,011 mass 20A basins or Cryochrepts 25-40 Mixed sandy (2) failure toeslopes (forest) loam hazard Steep Typic Sandstone Sandy 20B 378 (1) valley Cryochrepts 25-40 or granite loam sideslopes (forest) Steep Typic 6,592 Sandstone, 20E valley Cryochrepts 25-60 Loam (15) basalt sideslopes (forest) Severe Steep Typic erosion 1,426 Sandstone 20F valley Cryochrepts 25-60 Loam potential for (3) or granite sideslopes (forest) compacted soils Typic Very steep Sandstone, 6,607 Cryochrepts, 20G valley 60+ basalt, Loam (15) rockland sideslopes granite (forest/scree) Moderate Typic 2,283 Slump mass 41 Cryoboralfs 10-25 Shale Loam (5) deposits failure (forest) hazard

127 Name of Project

Acres* Dominant Soil Land Slope Parent Surface Sensitive (% of Land-form (dominant type percent Material Texture Soils total) vegetation) Typic and Ridgetops 2,590 Argic Sandstone 63B and 10-40 Loam (6) Cryoborolls and granite benches (grassland) Typic and Steep Argic 1,549 Sandstone 63C valley Cryoborolls 40-60 Loam (3) and basalt sideslopes (shrubland/ grassland) Typic Severe Steep Cryoboralfs, erosion 66 464 (1) valley Typic 25-40 Shale Loam potential for sideslopes Cryochrepts compacted (forest) soils *acreage discrepancy between landtype total and allotment totals is the result of each respective feature having been clipped to different boundaries

Sensitive soils found in land types 20A, 20F, 41 and 66 total approximately 5,184 forested acres or 11 percent of the Highwood Mountains. Livestock grazing has little or no impact on these lands because of the relatively closed forest cover. Approximately 614 acres of land type 110 have been mapped in the Highwood Mountains adjacent to Highwood Creek, primarily on slopes less than 25 percent. Soils making up this land type are found on a mix of fescue grassland and open Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forest. The principle use of this land type is livestock grazing with a severe erosion hazard for stock trails or primitive roads. The biggest concern with the soils of land type 110 is Forest Road 121 which is the primary motorized route through the project area, is not regularly maintained and follows along Highwood Creek making numerous fords.

Journey level range conservationists mapped the suitable range in the Highwood Mountains based on similarity to potential natural vegetation in 2000/2001. Table 29 below summarizes their findings.

Table 29 - Summary of 2000/2001 Vegetation Mapping of Suitable Range Suitable Allotment Total Suitable Suitable Suitable Similarity Unsuitable at Allotment Total Suitable High Mid Low not Acres Potentia Acres Acres Similarity Similarity Similarity Assigned l

Arrowhead* 4,078.8 2,961.3 1,117.4 278.6 391.1 379.6 68.1 0.0 #403

Highwood 24,925.8 15,698.4 9,227.4 367.0 4,892.3 3,254.6 713.6 0.0 #415

Little Belt 5,346.7 3,837.8 1,508.8 236.6 969.4 294.2 8.6 0.0 Creek #417

Martin 3,861.4 3,193.2 668.3 0.0 292.9 375.4 0.0 0.0 Creek #422

Shed 1,273.3 651.8 621.4 12.9 108.3 291.1 209.2 0.0 Creek #430 Thomas Corner 1,975.2 1,619.1 356.1 10.4 207.8 82.9 4.5 50.5 #434

128

Yendrick 460.2 287.1 173.1 0.0 13.2 20.3 139.6 0.0 #453 Totals for Highwood 41,921.3 28,248.7 13,672.6 905.5 6,875.0 4,698.1 1,143.5 50.5 Mountains *Arrowhead Allotment was formed by combining Beaver Creek, Arrow Creek, Middle Peak and South Peak allotments in 2011

The 2000/2001 vegetation mapping in the Highwood Mountains attempted to indicate the acres of suitable range in three categories based on similarity to potential natural vegetation - high, mid and low. The mapping also attempted to determine the major factor that influenced or is influencing the existing vegetation, such as livestock grazing. Suitable rangeland with a low similarity to potential would have low representation of the plant species found at potential. Low similarity to potential would not always but often includes evidence of soil compaction, reduced rooting depths and some erosion losses.

During the late summer and early fall of 2010, a journey level soil scientist completed approximately 60 miles of traverses on foot in the Highwood Mountains. The focus was on suitable grazing lands, attempting to document existing soil and vegetation conditions. The condition of improvements designed for livestock grazing, stock tanks and fences were also documented. Notes were made of noxious weed locations, salting locations and minimal impacts to streams and wetlands. Soils map 1 in the project file shows the traverse routes and suitable range. The primary focus of this report is on the uplands. Riparian area condition is heavily documented in the Watershed and Fisheries report.

Table 30 attempts to summarize impacts to soils that would be considered detrimental according to the definitions of soil quality standards discussed below. Watering tank locations consistently show soil compaction, rutting, puddling, erosion, vegetation removal and increased bare soil. The extent of the detrimental soil disturbance varies according to the situation and normally ranges from one half to two acres. Salting locations can show similar soil impacts as watering tanks including vegetation removal or replacement with unpalatable species, bare soil, compaction, rutting, erosion and small areas of soil contamination. The extent of detrimental soil disturbance around salting stations is similar to water tanks but typically on the low end of the disturbance spectrum. Some areas along ridgetops, low passes over ridges and areas of gentle slopes between salting or water tanks showed concentrated soil disturbance from high levels of cattle loafing and bedding. Detrimental soil disturbance in these locations include compaction, displacement, and erosion. The list of streams functioning-at-risk or not-functioning can be found in the Watershed and Fisheries portions of this document. These streams typically have adjacent soils on floodplains and terraces accessible to livestock that are compacted, have modified vegetation which is not as deeply rooted or as effective in preventing erosion compared to similar areas that are not accessible to livestock, evidence of erosion and loss of organic matter. History of flooding, wildfire and livestock grazing in the Highwood Mountains relevant to current soil conditions can also be found in the Fisheries and Watershed reports. Even though not included in the list of detrimental soil disturbance, infestations of spotted knapweed and leafy spurge are documented to cause vegetation composition changes, increased bare soil and nutrient cycling concerns. These impacts are discussed in greater detail below under past, present and foreseeable activities in addition to the section titled direct and indirect impacts by alternative.

129 Name of Project

Table 30 - Acres of Detrimental Soil Disturbance by Allotment

Low Acres of Total Bedding, Similarity to Livestock Percent Spotted Allotment Suitable Salting, and Total Potential Watering by Knapweed Name Allotment Other Acres Natural Tanks allotment and Leafy Acreage Impacts Vegetation* Spurge

Arrowhead 1,117.4 68.1 3 2 73.1 7% 14.2 Highwood 9,227.4 713.6 40 18 771.6 8% 56.4 Little Belt 1,508.8 8.6 3 3 14.6 1% 260.8 Martin 668.3 0.0 0 0 0.0 0% 0 Creek Shed 621.4 209.2 1 0 210.2 34%** 77 Creek Thomas 356.1 4.5 2 0 6.5 2% 0 Corner

Yendrick 173.1 139.6 1 0 140.6 81%** 0 *This percentage is based on the assumption that all acres mapped as low similarity to potential vegetation have detrimental soil impacts of soil compaction, reduced rooting depths which can lead to organic matter losses in surface horizons and some erosion losses. The assumption has some data gaps as not all polygons of low similarity were evaluated in the field by a journey level soil scientist. Please refer to soils map 1 in the project file above for traverse locations. **Field work has not been completed to confirm or deny these determinations.

Past, Present and Foreseeable Activities Livestock grazing is the primary activity within the Highwood Mountains, past, present and in the reasonably foreseeable future. The current condition within the project area is the result of steep broken topography and allotment or pasture boundary locations that focus cattle, all which make livestock distribution difficult. Additionally, Highwood, Little Belt, Martin Creek, Shed Creek, Thomas Corner and Yendrick allotments are currently season long grazing with only the Highwood allotment having a full-time rider. The Arrowhead allotment is on a deferred rotation schedule. Season long grazing with little effort to move cattle from streams can often lead to soil concerns along the drainages.

Weed treatment has occurred and is on-going across the accessible portions of the Highwood allotments. No ground disturbing activities are associated with weed treatment. The 2010 soils fieldwork documented acres of leafy spurge, houndstongue and Canada thistle to the extent that Forest geographic information system records are considered conservative. Noxious weed effects on soils are discussed below under direct and indirect effects as well as additional weed information is contained in the Noxious weed and Range sections of this EA. .

In addition to various species of noxious weeds, cheatgrass is widespread and associated with disturbed areas including salting locations, areas of heavy trailing, heavy grazing and bedding. Total acres of cheatgrass dominated stands are not documented but the plant was common in 2010 fieldwork (see soils map 1 in the project file).

Timothy (Phleum pretense) dominated stands (20 percent or greater composition) total nearly 1,200 acres of suitable range in the Highwood allotments based on 2000/2001 mapping. By the normal turn

130

out date of July 1 or later the timothy has matured to the point it is avoided by livestock. The origin of timothy stands in the Highwood Mountains is not clear, the stands may be long lived and are capable of expanding into native vegetation. The effects of timothy on soils are discussed more under the heading of direct and indirect effects below.

Desired Condition The desired condition for soils is based on the National Forest Management Act, Region 1 soil quality standards and Forest Plan requirements.

National Forest Management Act The Forest Service is legally mandated to complete and “evaluation of each management system to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land” (16 United States Code. 1600, 1976; Section 6 (g) (3) (C) and (E) (i), the National Forest Management Act).

Soil Quality Standards Region 1soil quality standards specify indicators to evaluate when determining compliance of management activities with legal mandates under National Forest Management Act to sustain soil productivity. Soil quality standards for Forest Service lands require that 85 percent of an activity area remain in an acceptable soil quality condition (Forest Service Manual 2550, Region 1 Supplement 2500-99-1). An activity area is defined as a land area affected by a management activity to which soil quality standards are applied. Activity areas must be feasible to monitor and include grazing areas or pastures within range allotments and riparian areas. In areas where more than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality. Specified transportation facilities and dedicated trails are excluded. Soil quality standards do not apply to intensively developed sites such as mines, developed recreation sites, administrative sites or rock quarries.

Soil quality is maintained when erosion, compaction, displacement, rutting, burning and loss of organic matter are maintained within defined soil quality standards. Detrimental soil conditions occur when soil hydrologic function and site productivity are adversely affected. Detrimental soil displacement is the removal of one or more inches (depth) of any surface soil horizon, usually the A horizon, from a continuous area greater than 100 square feet. Detrimental soil compaction is a 15 percent increase in natural bulk density. Detrimental soil rutting occurs when wheel ruts are at least two inches deep in wet soils. Rills, gullies, pedestals and soil deposition are all indicators of detrimental surface erosion. Soil loss of one to two tons per acre per year is a general limit of soil erosion. Detrimental soil mass movement is any soil mass movement caused by management activities. Detrimental loss of soil organic matter is site specific and guidelines for rangeland are not well defined.

Forest Plan Requirements On page 2-23 of the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan (1986) the following direction in found:

“Management of programs administered by the Forest Service requires the establishment of standards for land and resource management. Forestwide management standards clarify existing policy and direction for Forest operations, maintenance, and protection. A summary of each management standard follows…The following standards apply to the National Forest land that is administered by the Lewis and Clark National Forest. They are intended to supplement, not replace,

131 Name of Project the National and Regional policies, standards and guidelines found in Forest Service Manuals and Handbook and the Northern Regional Guide.

1) If it is determined during project design that the best way to meet the management goals of the Forest Plan conflicts with a Forest Plan standard, the Forest Supervisor may approve an exception to that standard for that project; such exceptions and the rationale therefore must be described in the projects’ documentation.”

Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan standards that are relevant to this project are found in Table 31 below.

Table 31 - Forest Plan Standards Applicable to Soils Forest Plan Standard D-3 Riparian Area, Soil, and Water Protection in Range Management – (1) Where analysis shows range resource damage the cause identified and corrective action initiated through an allotment management plan… (2) Best management practices will be used to minimize livestock damage to soils, streamsides and other fragile areas … (5)Adjust allotment management plan(s) to consider landtype limitations as given in the Lewis and Clark National Soil Resource Inventory (Holdorf 1981) pages 2-39 through 40. F-1 Erosion Control - (1) Utilize adequate soil and water conservation practices to protect soil productivity and to control nonpoint water pollution from project activities, using as a minimum, practices specified in any State developed “best management practices” page 2-50. F-3 Soil, Water, Air - (5) Conduct an environmental analysis for all management actions planned for flood plains, wetlands, riparian areas, or bodies of water prior to implementation. Adopt the necessary mitigation measure to minimize risk of flood loss, to restore and preserve flood plain values and protect wetlands. (10) In accordance with National Forest Management Act, Resources Protection Act and Multiple Use- Sustained Yield Act, all management activities will be planned to sustain site productivity…pages 2-51 through 52

Alternative 1 – No Action Termination of grazing provides the greatest potential to restore soils, at the most rapid rate, in areas that have previously been impacted by grazing (Belsky et al 1999). With recovery, increased plant vigor and root biomass will reduce bare ground, increase soil organic matter and nutrient cycling, break up soil compaction, and improve soil infiltration and water holding capacity.

Rangelands where soils are currently in moderate or better condition will recover most rapidly, compared to other areas with impaired soil conditions. This recovery may occur within five years after livestock removal (Fleischner 1994). Rangelands where soil conditions are currently depleted or impaired will require more time for restoration. This recovery requires several decades (McClean 1972; Dormaar and Willms 1990).

The current impacts to soils from noxious weeds would change little with the removal of livestock grazing alone as the result of the Lewis and Clark National Forest having not completed an updated National Environmental Policy Act analysis for the aerial treatment of noxious weeds. Without aggressive control measures the existing populations of noxious weeds are unlikely to become smaller and may increase in size and extent as they colonize natural disturbance such as wildfire, wind throw, flooding and rodent digging. Untreated noxious weeds adjacent to motorized roads and trails would also likely increase.

132

The existing grassland stands dominated by timothy would likely persist or increase with the removal of livestock grazing. Approximately 40 years after the removal of livestock grazing, timothy dominated stands persisted in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. The replacement of timothy by native species is thought to be unlikely without expensive, focused measures such as tillage and planting. Tyser et al (1992) and Weaver et al (2001) found timothy to be capable of invading and displacing native vegetation in Montana. It is worth noting the displacement of native vegetation by timothy and loss of plant diversity were the only impacts noted in stands dominated by this plant. No physical soil differences between stands dominated by timothy and similar adjacent stands of native grasslands or shrublands were noted.

For a comprehensive description of anticipated noxious weed response to no grazing, refer to the Noxious Weed specialist report.

Very few elk and deer were seen or sign noted in the 60 miles of traverses completed in 2010. The traverses included areas where livestock were not present due to steep and broken topography or timing (cattle may displace elk). Wildlife impacts to soils in the future along streams, near water tanks, salting locations and areas where livestock currently congregate is not clear.

Direct and Indirect Effects Because no livestock use would occur under alternative one, there would be no direct or indirect effects on soil resources from grazing.

Cumulative Effects Because no livestock use would occur under alternative one, there would be no cumulative effects on soil resources from grazing.

Summary of Effects A summary of effect to the soil resource is as follows for alternative one:

• Since grazing would not continue, no cumulative effects are possible.

Alternative 2 – Current Management Soil concerns with current management in areas adjacent to water tanks and salt stations, at areas where livestock bed or loaf for extended periods, along a number of streams and in areas where topography, boundary fences and season long grazing result in poor livestock distribution are described above. Soils concerns also include the extent of noxious weeds and cheatgrass.

If grazing continues in a manner consistent with the existing allotment management strategy, then it is likely that soil resource conditions would remain the same as the existing condition with potential to degrade or improve depending on seasonal weather fluctuations, again at unknown rates.

If adaptive management strategies would be implemented in areas where monitoring indicates a need to improve rangeland resource conditions, then it is anticipated that soil conditions may improve more rapidly compared to continued grazing under existing conditions, but less rapidly than no grazing and/or a change in grazing strategy (i.e. alternative 3).

133 Name of Project

Direct and Indirect Effects Table 30 Summary of Acres of Detrimental Soil Disturbance by Allotment, and the associated discussion under the heading of existing condition, lists the soil properties impacted by livestock grazing, describe the extent and identifies where the impacts are occurring.

Under current management, soil conditions would change little. The soil compaction, puddling, vegetation removal, loss of organic material in the soil and increased bare soil adjacent to streams, water tanks, salting areas and areas where livestock congregate and bed would change little. Minor variations between years could be expected with yearly differences in climate. In cool, wet growing seasons more green forage would be available longer. Livestock distribution might improve as water and green forage would be more widespread for a relatively longer time. Dry, hot, shorter growing seasons would increase cattle presence along streams, adjacent to water tanks and in areas with gentle topography, shade and more limited green forage. These relationships would be especially apparent in allotments with season long grazing and little regular effort to maintain livestock distribution.

If the current efforts to control noxious weeds continue, the extent of noxious weeds and soils concerns would remain and could expand in Highwood Baldy and surrounding area primarily as a result of the Lewis and Clark National Forest not having completed an updated National Environmental Policy Act analysis for treating noxious weeds via aerial application.

Summary of Effects A summary of effects to the Soil Resource is as follows for alternative two:

• No additional cumulative effects are anticipated from those outlined earlier in this report. • With no change in the current grazing management, soil conditions are expected to continue on their current trend with seasonal fluctuations based on weather and fire.

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management This alternative is the proposed action for the project. Livestock grazing would continue while incorporating the adaptive management actions tools listed in Table 3.

Direct Effects Soils issues are primarily related to vegetation removal and modification and the effects on soil organic matter, soil compaction, puddling, displacement and erosion. Concerns are found within or adjacent to riparian areas, on ridges, swales, bowls near the tops of drainages and passes. Noxious weeds are widespread.

Long periods of complete rest are not usually an economically acceptable form of range rehabilitation. One alternative is to graze only during the season that is least damaging to the herbage (McLean 1972).

Controlling the number and timing of days that livestock have access to riparian areas and streambanks is more important than numbers of livestock alone. Season long grazing with little management during the grazing season is known to cause substantial impacts to soils and vegetation of riparian areas and uplands based on professional observations and logical processes. Based on professional experience, there is a high likelihood that grazing will need to be terminated prior to the revised off date of Oct. 15th to comply with the 35 percent utilization standards for riparian and upland areas. This statement will certainly be true for allotments where initial utilization occurs in areas containing a high percentage of riparian areas.

134

Management actions and structural actions are the most effective tool for minimizing impacts to soils. The effectiveness of each action varies based on the degree of departure from the existing permit. In general, actions which implement fewer days grazed in a particular area (i.e. adjusted grazing system, adjust season of use, rest and rotation, fencing) are drastically more effective than less departure from current use (range rider, salting, water developments, armored stream crossings). Lastly, while potentially highly effective, non-structural actions are rarely implemented as a result of the cost associated with each action and additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis.

Effective control of noxious weeds would likely take decades, while grazing management will do little to expedite this process. While it is suspected that the spread of cheatgrass is linked to disturbance associated with livestock grazing, reducing the grazing season will likely result in a decrease of cheatgrass abundance, but will also likely take several decades (McLean 1972). Improved soil conditions in both riparian and upland systems will be more resilient to invasive infestations with decreased grazing and implementation of improvements, but the rate of recovery will depend upon the current soil conditions.

Monitoring of range conditions is required to determine the appropriate adaptive management action to be applied. The monitoring parameters and triggers matrix details the monitoring plan for the Highwood Mountains. Specific monitoring plans and objectives are addressed below in the Monitoring Recommendations section of this document.

Cumulative Effects Depending on the management action determined necessary, any ground disturbing activity will require future National Environmental Policy Act analysis. During that process, cumulative effects will need to be addressed.

Summary of Effects A summary of effect to the soil resource is as follows for alternative 3:

• Cumulative effects resulting from management actions with ground disturbing activities will be evaluated prior to implementation; • The maximum season of use under this alternative would be May 31 through October15. This window is simply the earliest and latest dates in which livestock use would be considered. If an on date of May 31st is authorized the likelihood of reaching 35 percent utilization standard within the uplands and/or riparian areas before October 15th, within season long allotments, is high, and an earlier removal date would most likely be necessary; • Monitoring is required to determine which adaptive management action will be implemented based upon the severity of the corrective actions needed; • Soil conditions will likely take decades to recover once set on a trajectory to recover.

Monitoring Recommendations Effective monitoring is an essential component in order to properly apply the appropriate adaptive management action. Monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the monitoring parameters and triggers matrix as outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan (Appendix C).

135 Name of Project

H: Recreation

Overview of Issues Addressed Several issues were identified during the internal and external scoping process that are of importance to the recreational resource in the Highwood Mountains related to cattle grazing. Some trailing patterns associated with turn out and fall roundups have impacted existing trail systems and riparian areas. The recreational use of the trail system specifically in the Deer Creek drainage appears to be minimal, only being utilized occasionally during the summer months by hikers, mountain bikers but more extensively during the upland bird season and permitted archery/rifle seasons. Occasionally trailing patterns, specifically cattle being driven through and occasional grazing by livestock have impacted the Thain Creek campground in the past during the summer/fall public use period.

Public scoping indicated the major social impact to the recreation experience occurs during the fall archery season with the potential for user conflict between cattle, the timing of the fall cattle round up, and disturbance of elk.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The recreational resource within the Highwood Mountain range provides a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities. A well-developed trail system provides a range of motorized and non- motorized trail riding opportunities. The Highwood Mountain range has one developed fee campground and numerous dispersed camping opportunities. A travel management plan was developed and record of decision signed September 7, 1993 for the mountain range. Conflicts between livestock and recreation, such as trail degradation and widening, have occurred on Deer Creek Forest Service trail 453. Additionally, in the past the water system which supplies Thain Creek campground has been damaged as a result of cattle grazing from the Highwood allotment. In addition trailing cattle through the Thain Creek campground has caused minor disturbance and user complaints in the past. Monitoring in the fall of 2013 did not show evidence of any trailing or cattle use in or through the campground and all perimeter fencing was being maintained to exclude livestock from the campground.

Desired Condition The desired condition for the recreational resource will be to continue to offer a variety of recreational settings and opportunities throughout the mountain range, including a well maintained motorized and non-motorized trail system, opportunities for dispersed recreational activities and two developed facilities the North Fork trailhead and Thain Creek campground. The mountain range contains four major management areas one of which, management area H has an emphasis on developed recreation and contains approximately 1,000 acres. Although cattle grazing and historic trailing patterns have had some impact to the trail systems the overall impact is generally minor.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology Cattle grazing in the Highwood Mountains may have some impacts to the recreational experience in the area by temporarily changing human use patterns and timing of visitation. The potential, although slight, to impact specific trails or developed recreational facilities is low. However, it could change

136

public use patterns and additionally have budgetary impacts to the Forest if facilities or trails were damaged due to cattle use. The measurement indicator for these effects would be:

• the number of sites (dispersed or developed) or activities disturbed; • the location of those disturbed sites; • activities being disturbed; • the duration of impact to the sites and users, and; • the cost to repair damaged facilities.

The analysis, which includes both direct and indirect effects, will determine whether the effects meet Forest Plan direction for recreation.

Results from a national visitor use monitoring study on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in 2007 provided interesting use statistics. From October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007 there were an estimated 407,000 visits to the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Although these visits were not all associated with recreation activities, the use also reflects traffic on Forest roads. Of the 754 individuals who agreed to be interviewed, 2.7 percent indicated their primary purpose for visiting the National Forest was driving for pleasure, 15.8 percent, viewing natural features (scenery), 5.4 percent recreated primarily in developed campgrounds, 3.3 percent of use occurred in developed picnic areas. The most common and primary activities on the Lewis and Clark National Forest are hunting at 23.7 percent of use and downhill skiing at 12 percent of use. These figures although not specific to the Highwood Mountain range do indicate hunting is a major use activity on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. It should be mentioned that the Highwood Mountains are a special drawing permit area thus only a specific number of permits are issued during the archery and rifle seasons.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Removing cattle from the landscape would overtime move the riparian and upland vegetation to a more desirable condition and would eliminate potential livestock recreation and/or hunter conflicts. Camping, hiking and hunting would be improved with this alternative and the changes in vegetation would be beneficial to wildlife and fisheries. This alternative would benefit those who prefer to recreate in areas free of livestock and would result in fewer conflicts between hunters and cattle during the archery season. Additionally, it would be expected no cattle intrusions would occur in the Thain Creek campground and North Fork trailhead, thus eliminating any potential damage to recreational infrastructure. In the absence of cattle grazing, trail impacts would be reduced on Deer Creek trail #453 and may be minimized on all other established trails but would continue to see non- motorized and motorized recreation use within the authorized operating season as shown on the Highwood Mountains Recreation Opportunity Map (ROS).

Fishing throughout the range is an important recreational activity. In the absence of cattle grazing and as referenced in the fisheries report there could be benefits from no cattle grazing to native westslope cutthroat trout and non-native species such as brown, rainbow, and brook trout thus potentially increasing the recreational fishing experience.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area considered for recreation purposes is identical for all three alternatives in the project area. Cumulative effects assessed by the Forest Service relevant to recreation include past present and foreseeable actions as listed in the project file. These include prescribed burning, grazing

137 Name of Project management, past vegetation treatments, new trail construction and recreation facility maintenance and expansion. In general road and trail maintenance, firewood gathering, Christmas tree cutting, recreation and travel management are anticipated to continue across various portions of the Highwood Mountain range. Grazing would no longer be a foreseeable action with this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Current Management

Direct and Indirect Effects Current activities will remain as described in the affected environment. Conflicts between hunters and cattle, specifically during the fall cattle round up would continue to occur. Additionally occasional trail widening and degradation would be expected when cattle are trailed along established motorized and non-motorized trail systems.

Cumulative Effects Past conditions and continued uses have been outlined under alternative one. This alternative would see no cumulative changes as current grazing management and administration would keep conditions similar to the existing condition across the landscape.

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management This is the proposed alternative for the project. This action includes options for controlling time and timing of grazing, adjustments to numbers and/or season of use, construction of range improvements, changing trailing patterns, development of offsite water and relocating a segment of Deer Creek Forest Service trail 453 in addition to other adaptive management strategies if desired conditions are not being met.

Direct and Indirect Effects Undertaking adaptive management strategies for the grazing allotments as referenced above would result in improved cattle distribution, improved riparian, upland and hydrological conditions over time which would in turn have positive effects on the recreational experience throughout the Highwood Mountains. Vegetative conditions would improve but at a slower rate than alternative one. The potential for conflicts between livestock and recreationalists would be reduced but not eliminated. The combining of allotments and instituting rotational grazing for Middle Peak, Arrow Creek, Beaver Creek and South Peak have been beneficial to recreationists who use the area for hunting, hiking and other dispersed recreation activities. The adaptive approach would allow for a continuation or expansion of rotational grazing as needed and changing livestock trailing patterns in Deer Creek would have a positive benefit as well as other trail systems, especially those currently used for occasional trailing of livestock in or out of allotment pastures. This alternative would have positive benefits to the Thain Creek campground by eliminating the potential for damage to facilities and infrastructure from trailing livestock. This alternative with the proposed utilization changes would reduce the time cattle are along streamside trail systems and uplands thus minimizing conflicts and benefiting recreationalists especially during the late summer and fall seasons.

Cumulative Effects Past conditions and continued uses are the same as outlined under alternative one with the addition of grazing management being re-authorized utilizing the proposed adaptive management approach to move toward riparian and upland desired future conditions. This alternative will provide adaptive tools to better address resource conditions and triggers within set timeframes. Cumulatively this

138

alternative will better address the purpose and need, resource issues and grazing administration issues over alternative two.

Mitigation and Monitoring • Notify recreation users on timing of livestock turn out dates and expected fall roundup dates at Forest Offices, trailheads and campground notice boards (coordination with range staff and public information should occur to advertise and notify hunter/and other user groups). • Monitor post grazing condition of trails, sites and facilities for unacceptable livestock disturbance.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans All alternatives meet Forest Plan standards for the recreation resource. Refer to the Forest Plan compliance table in the project file. I: Inventoried Roadless Areas

Roadless and Forest Plan Direction The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan (1986) established forestwide multiple use goals, objectives, and management area requirements as well as management area prescriptions. The analysis of roadless lands was documented in appendix C of the final environmental impact statement (volume II) for the Forest Plan. The plan did not make an “irreversible and irretrievable” commitment of resources to develop. These areas have not been recommended for wilderness and current assessment and assumption given for these areas remain valid. Assignment of management areas for the inventoried roadless areas are as follows:

• Highwood Baldy inventoried roadless area - management area - E, D and R. • Highwoods inventoried roadless area - management area -E, D, B, H and R. The management area map is contained in the project file. The proposed action would authorize grazing management across portions of all management areas.

The direction for criteria on potential wilderness inclusion is outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (71.11) and does include various permissible features such as minor structural range improvements like fences and water troughs. In addition the Wilderness Act of 1964 states “the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the effective date of this Act shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture.”

Analysis Methodology The purpose of a review on the roadless resource is to determine the level of analysis, disclose potential effects of the proposed project to roadless and wilderness type attributes and to what extent it might affect future consideration for wilderness recommendations. The inventoried roadless area review takes into account the existing condition, past activity and type and level of activity being proposed and is focused on the potential effects of project activities on wilderness characteristics as defined in the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 (72.1) using the following parameters:

• Natural – the extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating.

139 Name of Project

• Undeveloped – the degree to which the impacts documented in natural integrity are apparent to most visitors • Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation – solitude is a personal, subjective value defined as the isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of others and from developments and evidence of humans. Primitive recreation is characterized by meeting nature on its own terms, without comfort and convenience of facilities. • Special features and values – unique ecological, geographical, scenic, and historical features of an area. • Manageability – the ability to manage an area for wilderness consideration and maintain wilderness attributes.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary is in general the analysis area boundary as identified. A list of past management actions across the Highwood Mountains landscape has been reviewed from a roadless perspective. The activities list is contained in the project file and included:

• Livestock grazing first with sheep beginning at the time of settlement pre-dating the National Forest Reservation and continues to present with cattle. • Some silvicultural and commercial thinning, primarily forest products have been for personal use (firewood, poles, Christmas trees, etc.). • Prescribed Fire –effects on the landscape. • Recreational activities including but not limited to motorized and non-motorized trail use, camping, hunting, fishing and forest driving. Refer to the recreation section above and in the project file. • Integrated weed management. • Fisheries enhancement projects. • Permitted special uses such, electronic sites and United States military training use.

These past present ongoing and foreseeable activities provide the basis for the existing conditions and potential effects for the action alternatives in relation to inventoried roadless areas and the potential for wilderness. The indirect and direct effects of alternative one (no authorized livestock grazing) would create the perception of a more natural landscape by removing domestic animals during a portion of the year and desired vegetative and riparian conditions have the potential to be met in a shorter time period. The prosed action and alternative two (existing management) in contrast would continue the perception of a more pastoral or western heritage landscape feel during certain times of the year with vegetation and riparian condition remaining about the same. Alternative three, will maintain the landscape feel of alternative two but will overtime move the vegetative composition and riparian conditions toward the desired condition. The effects for other natural resources in relation to or warranted for roadless can be found in those resource specialist reports contained in the project file.

It has been determined after initial review that a further detailed roadless analysis is not warranted at this time based on:

1) The proposal would not trigger any notable change related to the parameters of character, solitude, special features and manageability;

140

2) The project objectives as outlined in the proposed action are designed to meet desired resource conditions and would be permissible if designated as wilderness; 3) The extent of direct, indirect and cumulative effects outlined above; 4) The proposal for reissuance of grazing permits under an adaptive management strategy would not change current structural range improvements; 5) New physical ground disturbing adaptive activities required in the future would have additional environmental review completed prior to physical implementation; 6) The proposal is not subject to further review under the United States Department of Agriculture Secretary’s Memorandum 1042-156 (2011) as no road construction or timber harvesting is proposed; 7) The proposal is consistent with the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan (1986). J: Sensitive Plants

Overview of Issues Addressed The issue addressed in this section is the impact of proposed activities to known sensitive plant species or suitable habitat. Sensitive plants are included in the analysis if there is a known population or potentially suitable habitat. Although some species are not included in the analysis, all sensitive species would be searched for during field surveys.

Indicators

• Presence of sensitive plant populations • Presence of suitable habitat

Existing Condition Forest Service sensitive species are defined as “[t]hose 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 trends in population numbers or density or b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution” (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2005). Regional Foresters are delegated the authority to designate sensitive plant species based on the definition above (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2005). The current United States Forest Service Northern Region (R-1) sensitive plant species list was updated August 26, 2011 (Weldon 2011a). On August 26, 2011 (Weldon 2011b), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) was designated as a Northern Region sensitive species following the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s July 19, 2011, finding that the species was warranted for listing, but precluded due to higher priority actions (Federal Register 2011). No threatened or endangered plants from the Endangered Species list occur on the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

The Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan provides forestwide management direction in regards to sensitive plants stating: “Conduct biological evaluations of each program or activity which is Forest Service funded, authorized, or carried out on occupied threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat, to determine whether the activity may affect threatened and endangered or sensitive species” (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1986). The three plants listed on the endangered species list as “threatened” and occurring in Montana are water howellia (Howellia aquatilis), Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii), and Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Species occurrences and suitable habitat are only known on forests west of

141 Name of Project the continental divide for water howellia and Spalding’s catchfly and in the Missouri, Jefferson, Beaverhead, Ruby, and Madison River drainages for Ute ladies’-tresses. No further analysis will be conducted for these threatened species. There are currently 25 designated sensitive plant species that either occur or are suspected to occur on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Table 32 provides habitat information for each species and indicates whether or not the species will be included in the analysis.

Table 32: Montana Natural Heritage Program Field Guide (MNHP 2011b) Inclusion or Exclusion Species Name Phenology Habitat from Analysis Amerorchis rotundifolia Flower late Mossy seeps, sphagnum Excluded from Analysis Round-leaved orchis June-early bogs, ponds, or along This species is restricted to July streams in wet to moist the Rocky Mountain Front, spruce forests with Bob Marshall Wilderness limestone-derived soils. Complex, Swan Valley, and the northwest corner of the state. Aquilegia brevistyla Flower Semi-open, moist drainage Included in Analysis Short-styled columbine June-early bottoms or toe slopes with Although this plant is known July at least partial overstory only in the Little Belt conifer shade on alluvial or Mountains, the sensitive colluvial limestone plant model predicts substrates. potential habitat in the Highwood Mountains. Habitat is not predicted in proposed activity areas. Astragalus lackschewitzii Flower & Open, gravelly, calcareous Excluded from Analysis Lackschewitz’s milkvetch fruit in July- soil and talus on ridgetops Known from high elevation August and slopes in alpine or sites on the Rocky Mountain subalpine zones (7250- Front. 8120 feet elevation’). Botrychium ascendens Frond Stream floodplain habitats Excluded from Analysis Upward-lobed moonwort matures of glaciated bottoms Restricted in Montana to the June-July dominated by deciduous northwest corner of the shrubs with lush cover by state. Known on the Lewis forbs, grasses, and mosses and Clark from one historic in northwest Montana. specimen collected from the Bob Marshall Wilderness in 1948. Botrychium paradoxum Frond Mesic meadows associated Excluded from Analysis Peculiar moonwort matures in with spruce and lodgepole The appropriate July pine forests in the montane combination of vegetation and subalpine zones. In and land-type do not occur Montana it grows on in the project area. glaciated slopes and ridgetops and in glaciated lake basins, stream bottoms, and draws. Cypripedium parviflorum Flower Ecotonal margins of spruce Exclude from Analysis Small yellow lady’s-slipper May-June; habitat types (damp mossy No known populations or Fruit in July woods) with wetland habitat. Riparian areas with features (fens, seeps, a spruce/horsetail habitat springs, streamsides, and are required to support the moist forest-meadow plant. ecotones in the valley to lower montane zone. Generally associated with

142

Inclusion or Exclusion Species Name Phenology Habitat from Analysis high water table features that provide stable, cool, groundwater discharge. Cypripedium passerinum Flower late Moist, mossy, seepy areas; Exclude from Analysis Sparrow’s-egg lady’s- June-early riparian zones; ecotonal No known populations or slipper July margins of sphagnum appropriate habitat to bogs. Prefers spruce support the plant. habitat, but will grow with lodgepole pine. An important feature is semi- permanent water seepage near the surface. Elymus innovatus Fruit June- Sandy meadows, along Include in Analysis Northern wildrye July streambanks, on rock No known populations, but hillsides with partial shade, potential habitat may occur. well-drained alluvial bench in flood plain, and in open stands of lodgepole or spruce. Primarily in the upper montane on slopes adjoining the major valley bottoms. Epipactis gigantea Flower late Wide variety of habitats. Exclude from Analysis Giant helleborine June-early One consistent No known populations or August requirement is permanent appropriate habitat to source of thermally- support the plant. influences water at the root level. Stream banks, lake margins, fens with seeps and springs, often with thermal waters. Erigeron lackschewitzii Flower Grows exclusively in Excluded from Analysis Lackschewitz’ fleabane July-early exposed alpine settings No known populations or August; (gravelly, talus) with water- appropriate habitat to fruit late retaining calcareous soil support the plant. July derived from a dolomite substrate in the alpine and subalpine zones. Exposed, windy sites with first snowmelt and late soil recharge. Gentianopsis macounii Flower Wet, organic soil of Exclude from Analysis Macoun’s gentian August; calcareous fens or wet No known populations or fruit early meadows with standing appropriate habitat to September water in the valley and support the plant. foothill zones. Goodyera repens Flower Cool, moist, north-facing, Included in Analysis Northern rattlesnake- August forested (PIEN/LIBO or Found in Montana in the plantain ABLA/LIBO – generally late Little Belt and Big Snowy successional) slopes with a Mountains. Potential habitat well-developed organic duff occurs in project area, but and moss layer in the not in potential activity montane zone. areas. Juncus hallii Flower Moist grasslands and Include in Analysis Hall’s rush July- sedge meadows from Unknown if species occurs August montane to alpine zone. in the Highwood Mountains,

143 Name of Project

Inclusion or Exclusion Species Name Phenology Habitat from Analysis Flats or benches on gentle but potential habitat may mid to upper slopes. Does occur. not tolerate shade of other vegetation. Sites located in the Little Belt Mountains, Crazy Mountains, and the Rocky Mountain Front Range. Oxytropis podocarpa Flower Gravelly ridges and slopes, Excluded from Analysis Stalked-pod locoweed June; fruit often on limestone, in the Restricted to a small area of late June- alpine zone. the Rocky Mountain Front in August a remote habitat. Phlox kelseyi var. Flower Open, exposed, limestone- Excluded from Analysis missoulensis May-June derived slopes in the The Little Belt Mountains Missoula phlox foothills to exposed ridges support the only known in the subalpine zone. populations. Pinus albicaulis Flowers High-elevation forests and Excluded from Analysis Whitebark pine June-July at timberline with harsh, Whitebark pine is not noted cold sites characterized by to occur in the Highwood rocky, poorly developed Mountains. soils and snowy, wind- swept exposures Polygonum douglasii ssp. Flower Often associated with Excluded from Analysis Austinae July; fruit ponderosa pine/bluebunch No known populations or Austin’s knotweed August wheatgrass habitat types appropriate habitat to with little vegetative cover. support the plant. Mountainous areas with shale-derived soils or in the shale itself. Shale substrate mostly barren. Potamogeton obtusifolius Fruit late Shallow water of lakes, Excluded from Analysis Blunt-leaved pondweed July- ponds, and sloughs in the Activities would not occur in August valley, foothill, and shallow water. montane zones. Potentilla quinquefolia Flower Dry, shallow, gravelly soil Excluded from Analysis Five-leaved cinquefoil July; fruit or talus and scree of Activities would not occur in August exposed ridges, slopes, this habitat. and summits in the montane to alpine zone. Trichophorum cespitosum Fruit in Sphagnum-dominated fens Excluded from Analysis Tufted club-rush July- and wet meadows in Known from population on August montane to alpine zones. non-federal, Pine Butte Rare in Montana – known Swamp Nature from populations in the Conservancy Preserve mountainous portion of south of Teton River. western Montana. Activities would not occur within fen habitat. Suspected to Occur Drosera anglica Flower late With sphagnum moss in Excluded from Analysis English sundew June-July; wet, organic soils of fens in Known population occur fruit July- the montane zone. west of the Continental August Divide. Drosera linearis Flower late Wet, organic soil of Excluded from Analysis Linear-leaved sundew June- nutrient-poor fens in the Only known from four

144

Inclusion or Exclusion Species Name Phenology Habitat from Analysis August; montane zone. populations located in the fruit late Bob Marshall Wilderness Sept. (west side of Continental Divide) and Indian Meadows Research Natural Area. Salix barrattiana Fruit July- Cold, moist soil in the Excluded from Analysis Barratt’s willow August alpine zone. Only populations known in Glacier National Park and Beartooth Mountains. Schoenoplectus Flower late Open water and boggy Excluded from Analysis subterminalis June-July; margins of ponds, lakes, Activities would not occur in Water bulrush fruit August and sloughs at 0.1-3 meter open water. depth in the valley, foothill, and montane zone. Thalictrum alpinum Flower late Typically moist montane Excluded from Analysis Alpine meadowrue May-June; and lower subalpine areas. Known populations occur in fruit July In southwest Montana, it southwest Montana occurs in moist alkaline (Beaverhead County) in meadows dominated by moist meadows. shrubby cinquefoil and Baltic rush, sometimes along stream channels.

Desired Condition One of the long-range goals of the Lewis and Clark National Forest is to promote high quality, wildlife, and fish habitat to insure a desired mixture of well-distributed species and numbers for public benefit with special emphasis given to sensitive plant, animal, and fish species management. A forestwide management objective is to insure maintenance of sensitive species populations through inventory data collection and program area coordination. Special consideration may be given in land management to maintain genetic diversity (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1986). Based on the Forest Plan goals, objectives, and management standards, viable populations of sensitive plant species would be maintained across the Forest, and forest populations would contribute to a viable Regional population (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1993).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects There are no sensitive plant populations documented in the Highwood Mountains. The plant probability model indicates that potential short-styled columbine habitat (moderate) occurs in areas between Prospect Peak and East Peak along tributaries to Cottonwood Creek and Chimney (Upper North Fork, Upper Cottonwood, and Lower Cottonwood pastures), Boyd Creek (Shed Creek allotment), Martin Creek (Martin Creek allotment), and at the far eastern end of the Highwood Mountains (Jensen and Timber Creek pastures). Site characteristics noted during the pre-field assessment indicate that potential Hall’s rush, Northern wildrye, and Northern rattlesnake-plantain habitat may also occur within the Highwood Mountains. However, discontinuation of livestock grazing and associated allotment management activities would have beneficial effects to potential habitat or undiscovered sensitive plant populations that may occur in an allotment.

145 Name of Project

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the no action alternative would not produce impacts to sensitive plant populations or habitat if it is present in the Highwood Mountains. As a result, this alternative would have no spatial or temporal cumulative effects to sensitive plants or habitat when considered with past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (2 and 3)

Direct and Indirect Effects No sensitive plant populations have been documented in the Highwood Mountains. The Highwood, Shed Creek, and Martin Creek allotments, however, contains potential habitat, based on a pre-field assessment of site characteristics, for four sensitive plant species. The plant probability model indicates that potential short-styled columbine habitat (moderate) occurs in areas between Prospect Peak and East Peak along tributaries to Cottonwood Creek and Chimney (Upper North Fork, Upper Cottonwood, and Lower Cottonwood pastures), Boyd Creek (Shed Creek allotment), Martin Creek (Martin Creek allotment), and at the far eastern end of the Highwood Mountains (Jensen and Timber Creek pastures). No site-specific management actions proposed in alternative 3 (riparian exclosure or trailing pattern change) are planned in these locations. According to Wayne Phillips, former Botanist for the Lewis and Clark National Forest, short-styled columbine is classified as moderately palatable to cattle, moderately sensitive to livestock disturbance, and susceptible to low and high grazing intensity. Although livestock would browse on columbine if and when it is present, it is unlikely that existing livestock utilization would or is currently adversely affecting this species or its habitat if it occurs in an allotment. Continued livestock grazing would produce the same browsing and trampling effects, if and wherever populations exist, as under the current allotment management plan. Individual plants may be removed or damaged through direct grazing or trampling; however, only a small portion of the occurrence (population) may be impacted.

Hall’s rush typically grows in moist grasslands and sedge meadows generally classified as a rough fescue/Idaho fescue (Festuca scabrella/Festuca idahoensis) habitat type. Hall’s rush is able to grow and compete well in habitats with dense, relatively short herbaceous cover. Threats and potential impacts to this species appear to be minimal (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2011b; United State Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011). Observations at occupied sites indicate that alteration or destruction of site hydrology may impact Hall’s rush. Other observations on the Lewis and Clark indicate that Hall’s rush can tolerate some level of disturbance, such as timber harvest and wildfire. According to the Montana Native Plant Society (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2011b), Hall’s rush has insignificant or no known threats. Potential habitat may occur in the Deer Creek, North Fork Highwood Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Mount Kennon, and Headwaters of Shonkin Creek areas. There is a low potential for livestock grazing and associated activities to detrimentally impact populations of Hall’s rush if it were located within the analysis area. Continued livestock grazing would produce the same browsing and trampling effects as under the current allotment management plan. Individual plants may be removed or damaged through direct grazing or trampling; however, only a small portion of the occurrence (population) may be impacted.

Northern wildrye is known from sites near Swift River on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District and the Logging Creek drainage in the Little Belt Mountains. It is typically found in areas containing Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), water birch (Betula occidentalis), and shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa) on floodplains and stream terraces. This species has no known threats (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2011b; United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

146

2011). Wildlife or livestock may graze Northern wildrye, but it is not very palatable and has a moderate to low nutritional value (Williams 1990; United State Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2011). If a population were located within the Highwood Mountains, there is a low potential for livestock grazing and associated activities to impact Northern wildrye. The effects would not change from the current situation. Individual plants may be removed or damaged through direct grazing or trampling; however, only a small portion of the occurrence (population) may be impacted.

Northern rattlesnake-plantain generally grows in cool, north facing sites consisting of Engelmann spruce/twinflower (Linnaea borealis) or subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa)/twinflower habitat types with a well-developed organic duff and moss layer at mid-elevations. This species is detrimentally affected by activities that open the stand structure, remove overstory shade, or physically disturb or remove the forest floor organic matter. Potential habitat may occur within the Highwood Mountains. However, the potential for livestock to physically disturb or remove the forest floor organic matter is negligible. Livestock grazing activities would have no impact to Northern rattlesnake-plantain if it is present in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects Sensitive plant biological evaluations would have been completed for past activities (timber management, firewood, special forest products, special use authorizations, recreation, prescribed fire, and fisheries) within the Highwood Mountains. No sensitive plant populations, however, were documented for the projects.

Past and future noxious weed treatment (biological, chemical, and mechanical) would have a beneficial impact to any sensitive plant population or suitable habitat since invasive species out- compete and displace native and sensitive plants. Noxious weed treatment around sensitive plant populations would follow direction in the forestwide Noxious Weed Control Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1994) to minimize negative effects of herbicide use. Because no sensitive plants have been located, there have been no cumulative effects from this activity.

The 1889 wildfire which occurred across a majority of the analysis area burned across potentially suitable short-styled columbine habitat. If short-styled columbine were present, it would have been removed in areas where fire consumed the duff layer. Columbine would have survived where fire severity was low enough to maintain an intact duff layer (Roe 1992).

Dispersed camping in the Highwood Mountains could potentially trample sensitive plant populations if they were present along the road corridor. However, the impact would be limited in extent and would not detrimentally impact the population.

All future projects, such as roadside hazard tree, firewood, and special forest product removal, recreation facility construction and maintenance, or other management actions, would be analyzed to determine their impacts upon sensitive plant species. Appropriate sensitive plant surveys would be completed where necessary as part of any future analysis. Because there are no known sensitive plant populations within the Highwood Mountains, there are no anticipated cumulative effects from implementation of alternative 2 or 3. Past and current activities would not have degraded potential habitat, and site-specific surveys would be needed to determine if potential habitat, based on the pre- field assessment, is actually suitable to support sensitive plants.

147 Name of Project

Monitoring Recommendations / Mitigation Measures Appropriate sensitive plant surveys would be conducted prior to implementation of ground disturbing activities resulting from adaptive management strategies. Any sensitive plant population that is located would be recorded, delineated, and avoided to the extent possible. A supplemental biological evaluation would be completed for proposed adaptive management activities.

K: Noxious Weeds

Introduction This section will focus on the weeds and weed infestations in relation to the Highwood Mountains project.

Overview of Issues Addressed Upland and riparian health will be the main focus in relation to livestock grazing and noxious weeds. This focus fits with the desired goal of being at or moving towards properly functioning condition in riparian areas and upland health.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Currently there are approximately 896 total acres of weed infestations inventoried in the Highwood Mountains landscape this is a tally of all acres contained within polygons. There are currently 494 actual infested acres based on the percentage of polygons. These polygons range in percent infested from 5% to 100%. Specialist reports were completed using the total gross area of polygons, therefore using the worst case scenario for current inventory. Reports were completed between October of 2010 and the date of this last data February 5, 2015, because of this some differences in acres infested will be seen in various reports. Invasive species known to occur within the Highwood Mountains include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos), Sulphur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), nodding plumeless thistle or musk thistle (Carduus nutans), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum). Houndstongue also known as gypsy flower (Cynoglossum officinale) is also prevalent throughout the Highwood Mountains. Because of the widespread extent of Houndstounge throughout the project area, mapping of this species is far from complete. The spread of this weed is predominately due to wildlife, livestock and recreational activities.

Permitted livestock grazing presently occurs in the project area. Livestock can and do spread weed seeds and there is the risk that areas disturbed by livestock grazing and associated hoof action could become infested by seeds transported by livestock..

Treatment of noxious weeds on lands managed by the Lewis and Clark National Forest is accomplished through the use of integrated weed management. Herbicides, biological and mechanical control methodologies are applied where appropriate. Noxious weed treatment over the previous nine years has averaged just less than 74 acres annually. In 2014 acres treated were based on wetted acres and prior to that they were based on polygons treated. These acres vary on yearly bases and are dependent on budget and district priorities as well as plant phenology and weather.

148

Table 33 – Noxious Weed Acres Treated by Year

Year Acres Treated

2014 16.5

2013 32.6

2012 17

2011 132

2010 125

2009 115

2008 669

2007 57

2006 103

On National Forest System lands, special management guidelines for the prevention and control of noxious weeds will be applied during development and maintenance activities in accordance with Forest Plan Standard D-2, Noxious Weeds and Other Pests (USDA Forest Service 1986a, p. 2-38 to 2- 39). Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2900 requires that all forest management activities are designed to minimize or eliminate the possibility of establishment or spread of invasive species on NFS lands, or to adjacent areas.

The following protection measures are included in the Annual Operating Instructions for the Highwood Allotments and are intended to satisfy that requirement and were designed to minimize the spread of existing invasive plants and prevent the colonization of new invasive plants within the project area.

• It is recommended that you feed certified weed-free feed to livestock several days prior to moving them onto the allotment or consider using weed free transitional pastures when moving animals onto or off of the allotment. • Any equipment used in the transport of livestock, including horse trailers and stock trucks, should be washed before coming onto the allotment, if they have been used in areas where noxious weeds are present. • All hay, grain, straw, cubes or pelletized feed must be certified as being noxious weed free by an authorized Montana Department of Agriculture official or designated County Official; each bale or container must be tagged or marked as weed free and reference the written certification. • Your assistance in locating noxious weed sites and reporting them to your Forest Officer is greatly appreciated. If you are able and willing to assist in treating noxious weeds, please work with your Forest Officer to determine how best to help.

149 Name of Project

Alternative 1 – No Grazing

Direct Effects Removing livestock grazing from the Highwood Mountains would likely slow the spread of the weed infestations due to reduction in opportunities for seed transport on animal hair as well as the spread of weed seeds in excrement, but they would maintain their current spatial distribution and continue to spread if treatment ceased. Areas not meeting desired future condition would recover the fastest under this alternative which would make these areas less susceptible to new infestations or growth of current infestations due to competition from desirable vegetation. Weed treatment by permittees would cease under this alternative.

Indirect Effects Removing cattle from the Highwood’s would mean no riders would cover the landscape conducting livestock management activities. This would lead to a reduction in reports of new noxious weed infestations and weed treatment that permittees and riders accomplish. Forest Service personnel would likely spend less time on the landscape due to a decreased need for administration across the area. Forest Service presence would likely be focused on the road system, special use sites and campgrounds. This would further reduce the likelihood of finding new weed infestations or other resource problems.

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative impacts on the noxious weed program due to the removal of livestock grazing. All inventory reports and weed treatment conducted by permittees would cease.

Alternative 2 – Current Management This alternative would be to continue permitting grazing in the Highwood’s with current utilization standards and with limited options for adaptive management. From a noxious weed standpoint effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) would be similar to those under alternative three.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action Adaptive Management Adaptive management is the application of a set of management tools to achieve a desired future condition. This allows for adjustment of management when monitoring shows that the resource is not at or trending towards desired future condition. For the Highwood’s emphasis will be placed on hydrologic function, along with maintaining and improving native herbaceous and woody riparian vegetation relative to livestock grazing and to meet Forest Plan direction, standards and guidelines

Direct Effects Alternative 2 and 3 The effects under alternatives two and three would be very similar. Because of the current distribution of noxious weeds within the Highwoods it would be expected that some growth in infestations in that are difficult to reach for weed discovery and treatment would continue and some new infestations may occur because of seed transport within the hair and feces of livestock. One difference for alternative three would be that riparian and upland sites that are currently not meeting desired condition would become more resistant to invasion by noxious weeds due to competition from desirable species within these sites.

Cumulative Effects alternatives 2 and 3 Livestock are only one of the vectors for weed spread and introduction in the Highwood Mountains. Motorized use on roads and trails, recreational livestock (horses and mules ect.), hikers, dogs and

150

wildlife all have the potential to contribute to weed spread and introduction. In short, any activity that moves people animals or equipment across the landscape are vectors for the spread of noxious weeds in the project area. The list of past present and foreseeable activities all present the potential for introduction of new and the spread of existing weed populations either through ground disturbance or acting as vectors for seed transport.

RATING RISK ASSESSMENT FACTORS AND RISK RATING

Using the Northern Region Risk Assessment Rating Procedure, this proposal will have a moderate likelihood of noxious weeds spreading into the project area because of the high use of the area and infestations currently within the project area. The project would also receive a rating of moderate for the consequences of noxious weed establishment. When combined, these two risk assessment factors result in the project having an overall rating of moderate risk. Please see the risk assessment tool below for an explanation of ratings.

Risk Assessment Factors

Factor 1

Likelihood of Undesirable Plant Species, Including Noxious Weed Species, Spreading into the Project Area:

NONE Undesirable plants, including noxious weed species not located (0) within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Project activity is not likely to result in the establishment of undesirable weed species in the project area.

Undesirable plant species present in areas adjacent to but no LOW within the project area. Project activities can be implemented (1) and prevent the spread of undesirable plants into the project area.

MODERATE Undesirable plant species located immediately adjacent to or (5) within the project area. Project activities are likely to result in some areas becoming infested with undesirable plant species even when preventative management action is followed. Control measures are essential to prevent the spread of HIGH undesirable plants or noxious weeds within the project area. (10) Heavy infestations of undesirable plants are located within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Projects activities, even with preventative management actions, are likely to result in the establishment and spread of undesirable plant on disturbed site throughout much of the project area.

Factor 2

Consequences of Undesirable Plant Establishment in Project Area.

151 Name of Project

LOW to NON- None. No cumulative effects expected. EXISTENT (1)

MODERATE Possible adverse effects on site and possible expansion of (5) infestation(s) within the project area. Cumulative effects on native plant communities are likely, but limited.

HIGH Obvious adverse effects within the project area and probable (10) expansion of undesirable plants, including noxious weed infestations to area(s) outside the project area. Adverse cumulative effects on the native plant community are probable.

Risk Rating

Step 1 Identify level of likelihood and consequences of adverse effects and assign values according to the following:

None – 0

Low – 1

Moderate – 5

High – 10

Step 2 Multiply level of likelihood times the consequences.

Step 3 Use the results in Step 2 to determine Risk Rating and Action as follows:

Value Risk Rating Action

0 NONE Proceed as planned.

1-10 LOW Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area.

25 MODERATE Develop preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction and/or spread of undesirable plants in the area. Preventative management measures should include

152

modifying the project to include seeding the area to occupy disturbed sites with desirable species. Monitoring area for at least three consecutive years and provide for control of newly established populations of undesirable plants and follow-up treatment for previously treated infestations.

Project must be modified to reduce risk level through preventative management measures, including seeding with desirable species to occupy disturbed sites and 50- HIGH controlling existing infestations of 100 undesirable plants prior to project activity. Projects must provide at least five consecutive years of monitoring. Projects must also provide for control of newly established populations of undesirable plants and follow-up treatment for previously treated infestations.

Cumulative Effects Livestock are only one of the vectors for weed spread and introduction in the Highwood Mountains motorized use on roads and trails, recreational livestock (horses and mules etc.), hikers, dogs and wildlife all are major vectors for the spread of noxious weeds in the project area.

Summary All three alternatives would result in a moderate rating because of the current level noxious weed infestations throughout the Highwood Mountains and because livestock are only one of many vectors for introduction and spread of noxious weeds. On the Lewis and Clark National Forest, the largest noxious weed infestations have generally resulted from large ground disturbing activities such as pipelines, power lines, loglandings and roads created for logging. Contintued monitoring and treatment under the current Noxious Weed Control ROD (1994) for all alternatives will be required to suppress and control current infestations and provide for early detection and rapid response to new infestations.

Monitoring All monitoring will comply with the Forest Plan and with the protocols of the Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision (1994). L: Heritage The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations require that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic resources. The term ‘historic’ in this context refers to cultural resources or properties that have been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Properties that have not yet been evaluated must be treated as potentially significant until the Agency reaches a determination of ineligibility with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or the Keeper of the National Register.

153 Name of Project

Federal Agencies carry out their compliance responsibilities with heritage laws and regulations by conducting documentary research, consulting with Indian Tribes, the SHPO, possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and others, and often by field-surveying to identify cultural properties. Site-specific effects analysis and the resolution of effects are ensured by following the NHPA regulatory review process at 36CFR800. For the Lewis and Clark National Forest, this process is guided by the Region One Policy for integrating NEPA and NHPA (1991), the Region One Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources (USDA Forest Service et. al. 1995), and the Lewis and Clark National Forest Site Identification Strategy (SIS, 1995). Through the Section 106 process, all undertakings are identified and addressed, and any necessary mitigation measures are incorporated into project design, the NEPA document, or other appropriate cultural resource agreement. The goal is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to significant cultural properties.

To address allotment management planning and grazing issues relative to cultural resource protection, Region One of the Forest Service adopted the “Heritage/Range Region 1 Strategy” in 1995. It applies to the Lewis and Clark National Forest and dovetails with the general heritage PA described above. It recognizes that effects of grazing tend to be gradual and cumulative. Key points of the strategy include maintaining an updated heritage resource database, conducting appropriate surveys, identifying and monitoring at-risk sites, implementing mitigation measures where appropriate, and communicating regularly with range managers so surveys, site evaluations, and site protection measures precede allotment developments.

Analysis Area As defined by the Region 1 Heritage and Range Strategy described above, the analysis area includes all the allotments in the Highwood Mountains. This area is researched for contextual information and for the existence of, or potential for the occurrence of cultural resources. Within this broad analysis area, a site-specific “area of potential effect”, is intensively analyzed under National Historic Preservation Act section 106 review. The area of potential effect varies by alternative, dependent on the location and nature of proposed treatments and of cultural resources. For alternative 1 proposing no grazing, the area of potential effect includes areas where grazing features would be removed or changed, such as existing water developments, corrals, and Grazing Association buildings. For alternative 2 proposing a status quo continuation of grazing, the area of potential effect includes areas where grazing features would be proposed or upgraded in the future as part of program operation and maintenance. Water developments, cattle guards, and riparian exclosures are examples of possible alternative 2 proposals. None are specifically identified in this analysis. For alternative 3 proposing adaptive management, the area of potential effect includes locations of proposed stock trailing pattern changes, a riparian exclosure reconstruction, possible spring developments and water tank installations, and other range and riparian related actions that may be proposed in the future as a result of allotment management plan related monitoring. Also, a 35 to 50-foot buffer zone beyond project areas is part of all area of potential effects. When a cultural resource site falls within or overlaps the area of potential effect, regulations require that the effects analysis be expanded to include consideration of that entire site (often including a site-specific buffer zone).

HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE ANALYSIS AREA No traditional cultural properties representing customary use or sacred sites have been documented in the analysis area. A review of the Forest’s Ethnographic Overview (Deaver 1995) identified no sites or resources in the project area that might be sensitive or sacred to tribes. Tribes that consider the Highwood Mountains to be within their traditional sphere of influence include the Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Atsina, White Clay People, Kootenai, Salish, Arapahoe, protohistoric Shoshone and historic Chippewa-Cree peoples. Though not included in the Ethnographic review, the Crow have asserted an

154

interest in lands between their Reservation and the Missouri River; the Highwood Mountains would be included. There are no treaty-reserved tribal rights in the Highwood Mountains.

Analysis started by considering all known Highwood Mountain sites for an indication of site types, densities, and potential settings applicable to the range of activities that might occur following selection of an allotment management plan alternative. Recorded prehistoric sites include a camp and or stone tool workshop about 4,000 years old, another about 1,000 years old, and a third that is currently undated. Recorded historic sites include Highwood Guard Station, the Shonkin Creek Grazing Association cabin and corrals, the main road along Highwood Creek, Shonkin Road, three trails in the north central part of the range, a small caved mine adit and an associated cabin, a hunting camp, a stone monument that appears to be historic, and old initialed aspens. Information has also been gathered on a prehistoric rock cairn, three dismantled guard stations, four homesteads circa 1906 (that became private inholdings), three special use recreation cabins, two cow camp complexes (one dismantled), a fence post cache, and dispersed prehistoric artifacts and historic cans. Highwood Guard Station and Shonkin Cabin have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Highwood Creek and Shonkin Roads are ineligible. All other sites are considered potentially eligible at this stage of analysis.

Heritage Resource Desired Conditions Because cultural resources are non-renewable, the concept of ‘integrity’ is more appropriate than the concept of resource ‘health’. Cultural resource integrity, relative to grazing, is present when sites retain physical characteristics such as undisturbed arrangements of features and materials, intact clues that yield historic information. Heritage resource desired conditions focus on preserving the physical integrity of sites, especially those evaluated as potentially or formally eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Also, as opportunities arise, sites are to be evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, nominated to the National Register if appropriate, and managed to prevent adverse effects. Providing for public enjoyment of historic resources is also a desired condition articulated in the Forest Plan and other policies.

Monitoring Site monitoring is prescribed by the Forest Plan (page 2-27 and Amendment 10), the programmatic agreement, and Forest Service Heritage Program Standards. These standards outline a monitoring schedule for sites evaluated as important. The Forest Plan and heritage program standards also specify monitoring when sites are in or near areas of potential effect related to undertakings, when sites are thought to be at risk, and as opportunities arise. Monitoring will be required to identify and avoid or mitigate direct or indirect effects of each alternative. To the degree that it can be predicted at this stage of analysis, it is estimated that the number of areas would be similar for each alternative.

Effects Analysis Methods Information from historic maps, the heritage resource database, and from numerous surveys done in the project area identifies specific locations of prehistoric and historic sites relative to proposed impact areas. This information provides historic context and helps identify both specific sites present and the kind of sites which may exist across the project area. To date, 27 heritage survey projects have been done inside the general project area, intensively covering 718 acres, primarily along creeks and ridges. Survey sampling strategies favor high site probability areas and comply with the site identification strategy that is part of the programmatic agreement. Due to the nature of the proposed adaptive management approach, it is most appropriate to address potential heritage survey needs as site-specific range management undertakings are identified. This approach is recognized under 36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(2).

155 Name of Project

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Under this alternative, direct effects would be limited to removal of some or many grazing-related features like fences, stock water developments, and possibly Highwood Grazing Association buildings. Fences cut through several recorded sites but removal would not affect them. No sites are recorded at water developments but some were installed before the Forest Service surveyed for sites, so it is possible they overlap in places. It is also possible developments could be removed in ways that confined disturbances to the existing footprints. Removal or changes of use affecting Grazing Association buildings would be more complex. The historically significant Shonkin Cow Camp would be adversely affected by removal, abandonment, or a change of use such as conversion to a recreation rental cabin. If the Highwood Cow Camp was determined to be historically significant, its removal or change of use would be adverse also. These effects could be mitigated by following provisions of 36 Code of Federal Regulation 800 and the programmatic agreement. Such mitigation might involve detailed site recordation and interpretation including informative signs or brochures.

Indirect effects of abolishing grazing would be numerous. Vegetative cover would stabilize in some areas. If cover stabilized across a cultural resource site, this would slow erosion and enhance site preservation. If livestock grazing was discontinued, the historic Highwood Grazing Association, based in the project area, would probably disband. Grazing Association history is described briefly in the existing condition portion of the range section under the Highwood Allotment. Grazing Association members’ ranches dependent on Highwood Mountains pastures would seek other pastures, diversify, downsize, or be sold. It is conceivable some could be bought by land developers, for subdivisions.. This would result in a population increase in the foothills which would probably result in increased traffic on (unsurfaced) mountain routes. This, in turn, would accelerate erosion, exposure, and possibly collecting at prehistoric camps beside routes. Three are recorded beside routes and more are likely to be present. These effects to sites could be mitigated by increased site monitoring, route alterations, and/or site preservation education.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area considered for cultural resources is the same for all three alternatives. It includes all grazing allotments managed by the Forest Service in the Highwood Mountains. A diverse panel of Forest resource specialists compiled a table of connected past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions or events that have altered or could alter the project area’s natural and cultural landscapes. Cumulative actions initiated by the Forest relevant to cultural resources include prescribed burning and wildfire suppression, recreation activities and developments, and future timber harvests and tree thinning. Events and actions not initiated by the Forest include climate conditions, insect infestations, wildfires, recreation, firewood cutting, and possibly mining. Combined, these actions cause increased exposure of sites due to loss of vegetative cover, soil compaction or erosion, looting, and changes to routes and use patterns of historic linear features.

Alternative 2 – Current Grazing Permits Renewed

Direct and Indirect Effects Known sites in the Highwood Mountains are described in the “comparison of alternatives” section above. Under this status quo alternative, grazing related effects would include ongoing trends of erosion, soil compaction, altered vegetation and succession stages, and site exposure related to those

156

situations. At prehistoric camps this means features and artifacts could become exposed and collected, or they could erode away. Temporal site layers could become compressed and possibly misinterpreted. At the recreation cabins and Guard Station, cattle are fenced out. No significant impacts would be expected to the rock cairns, mine, cemetery, historic routes, or initialed aspen. Grazing Association features would be used and maintained consistent with their historic functions. No additional impacts are expected at the abandoned mine cabin. The abandoned homesteads are part of ranch inholdings where fencing is an option. Where impacts could occur, they could be mitigated by monitoring the sites and making appropriate changes such as altering fences or seeding, to ensure that impacts are not significant.

Cumulative Effects The analysis area is described in the cumulative effects section of alternative 1 above. For this alternative, cumulative effects that impact sites include those described in the cumulative effects section of the no renewed grazing section above, compounded by continued erosion, soil compaction, and site exposure related to grazing where it is not mitigated.

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management Strategies

Direct Effects Adaptive management undertakings involve a range of actions. Some would be implemented initially and others would be done in response to situations observed as part of future monitoring. One initial action would involve placement of jackleg fence segments and/or hand-felled slash where cattle trailing patterns need to be altered along Deer Creek. Similar trailing detours may be identified for other locations in the future. The riparian exclosure on North Fork Highwood Creek would be partially relocated and others may be proposed in the future. Spring developments and associated waterlines to stock tanks may be planned. Allotment boundaries, rotations, and grazing date changes are incorporated into the list of management action tools.

None of these undertakings would directly affect known sites. Deer Creek Trail 453, in the area of planned stock trailing detours, first appears on the 1967 Judith District map. Because it’s approaching the ‘historic’ age of 50 years, it will be recorded as a linear site. Jacklegs and slash placement would have no impacts on the hiking trail. A rock cairn on the North Fork near the exclosure would be avoided. Archeological field surveys would be done prior to all ground disturbing undertakings, to identify sites in project areas. The types of actions being considered would disturb ground only in relatively small, well-identified areas. Implementation schedules would allow adequate time for surveys to precede ground disturbance. Proposed actions would have design or location options to allow for site avoidance.

Administrative changes such as allotment boundaries, rotations, and grazing date changes would have no direct effects to sites.

Indirect Effects Where sites are present, erosion reduction measures such as stock trailing detours, riparian exclosures, and off-site water tanks have indirect beneficial effects of reducing erosion, soil and site layer compaction, and site exposure. Specifically, Deer Creek Trail 453 would more closely reflect its original function, a hiking trail, if stock trailing is diverted from segments vulnerable to erosion. Preservation of the North Fork Highwood Creek rock cairn would be indirectly enhanced if native vegetation thrives due to effectiveness of the riparian exclosure.

157 Name of Project

Cumulative Effects The analysis area is described in the cumulative effects section of alternative 1 above. A diverse panel of Forest resource specialists compiled a table of connected past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions or events that have altered or could alter the project area’s natural and cultural landscapes. Cumulative actions initiated by the Forest relevant to cultural resources include prescribed burning and wildfire suppression; recreation activities and developments; future timber harvests and tree thinning; along with the proposed grazing related developments and responses. Actions and events not initiated by the Forest include climate conditions, insect infestations, wildfires, and aspects of grazing, recreation, firewood cutting, and possibly mining. These actions cause increased exposure of sites due to loss of vegetative cover, soil compaction or erosion, looting, and changes to routes and use patterns of historic linear features.

Summary For all three alternatives, it appears significant impacts to cultural resources can be avoided by following provisions of the programmatic agreement. Project proposals including the adaptive management approach are in compliance with National Historic Preservation Act section 106 regulations and Forest Plan direction relative to cultural resources. If the adaptive management alternative is chosen, new proposals can be expected to arise in response to needs identified by range condition monitoring, such as installation of water tanks or trailing pattern changes. As mitigation, provisions of implementation will direct project managers to work with the forest heritage staff to comply with heritage preservation requirements as proposals arise and prior to ground disturbance.

158

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team

Jason Oltrogge Range Rowdy Wood Range Wayne Green Watershed Autum Colman Watershed Kendall Cikanek Fisheries Krista Gebert Economics Tom Stivers Wildlife David Marr Soils Beth Anderson Soils John Metrione Recreation Tanya Murphy Botany Kelly Keim Heritage Jonathan Foster Noxious Weeds Casey Johnson Noxious Weeds John Casselli Interdisciplinary Team Leader Erin Fryer Writer/Editor Ron Wiseman District Ranger

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks Montana Department of Environmental Quality U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Tribes Contacted: Chippewa Cree Blackfeet Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribe Gros Ventre Assiniboine Eastern Shoshone Northern Arapahoe Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Others: Highwood Grazing Association Highwood Range Permitees Great Falls Archery Club

159 Name of Project

Appendix A – Map Products

• Vicinity Map

• Management Areas

• Alternative Two

• Alternative Three

• Stream Reach Condition and Fish

• Elk Distribution

• Inventoried Roadless Areas

• Range Suitability and Capability

• Invasive Species

The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data and map product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification.

160

Appendix B – Forest Plan Compliance Table Forest Plan Standard Meets? Because … (Y,N,Unk,N/A) A-7 Cultural Resource Management -

(1)… Identification of Cultural Resources… (1) Yes (1) Cultural Resources have been identified within the project area (2) Protection of Cultural Resources (b) (2) Yes (2) Consultation with Montana State Consult with the State Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Office will take Office and together determine the project’s place before any ground disturbing effect on significant cultural properties. If activities, such as off-site water no effect is identified, the Forest proceeds development, would be implemented with the project.

(3) Forest will make every effort to design (3) Yes (3) Significant impacts to cultural projects without adversely affecting cultural resources can be avoided by following resources… provisions of the programmatic agreement. Project proposals including Pages 2-26 through 28 the adaptive management approach are in compliance with National Historic Preservation Act section 106 regulations and Forest Plan direction relative to cultural resources. Project managers will be directed to work with the forest heritage staff to comply with heritage preservation requirements as proposals arise and prior to ground disturbance. A-8 Visual Resource Management - (1) Landscape management principles will (1) Yes (1) No changes are being proposed be applied to all activities … under any of the three alternatives to the landscape management principles of the Highwood Mountains (2) A visual quality objective is stated for (2) Yes (2) A visual quality objective is stated for each management area… each management area, however, no Pages 2-28 through 29 changes to the visual quality are being proposed under this range analysis project. C-1 Wildlife Coordination and Habitat - (1) Wildlife Habitat coordination with all (1) Yes (1) Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks was forest uses by improving cooperation with consulted on all potentially affected Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks… species (7)Forage competition/social interaction (7) Yes (7) By reducing the overall utilization on between wildlife and livestock are the allotments, more forage should be important on winter ranges. Wildlife needs left behind for wildlife’s winter range will be met… foraging needs (8) Implement improved grazing (8) Yes (8) By changing the season of use, and management systems at the earliest overall utilization on the allotments opportunity within big game winter ranges, wildlife habitat components should see livestock numbers, grazing seasons and improvement from current conditions practices may be adjusted from present to maintain or enhance wildlife habitat components. (9) Cooperate with private and other (9) Yes (9) Consultation with other agencies and agencies to implement improved grazing cooperative efforts with permittees has systems on big game winter ranges... occurred and proposed changes are

161 Name of Project

Forest Plan Standard Meets? Because … (Y,N,Unk,N/A) Page 2-30 through 31 expected to improve big game winter range. C-2 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species - (2) Conduct a biological evaluation of each (2) Yes (2) Biological evaluations have been or program or activity … carried out on will be conducted for each threatened occupied threatened or endangered and and endangered species as well as sensitive species habitat… some species that have the potential of being affected. (13) There are sensitive plants listed by the (13) Yes (13) Appropriate sensitive plant surveys Regional Forester … Assessments of would be conducted prior to suitable habitats for sensitive plants will be implementation of ground disturbing conducted before surface disturbing activities resulting from adaptive activities are permitted. management strategies. Any sensitive plant population that is located would be Pages 2-32 through 34 recorded, delineated, and avoided to the extent possible. A supplemental biological evaluation would be completed for proposed adaptive management activities. C-3 Fish Habitat – (1) Increase the coordination of the (1) Yes (1) This project aims to better fisheries resource with other forest coordinate the needs of the fisheries activities and programs…timber resource with that of the range management, range management and oil management resource. and gas development. (5) The management of soil and vegetation (5) Yes (5) The management goal of this range in riparian areas is essential to fisheries analysis project is to bring the riparian habitat management (see management areas up to or trending toward proper standards D3, F3, E-4, G-1, L-4, and P-2). functioning condition. The management goal for the uplands is to maintain soil Pages 2-34 and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity close to those that would be expected for a particular site. C-4 Wildlife Trees – (1) Following are the recommended sizes (1) Yes (1) The proposed action does not and numbers of hard snags by timber include any snag removal. Therefore no type… changes are proposed for the timbered component of the Highwood Mountains.

(2) Keep all soft snags, which are not a (2) Yes (2) Again no changes are being safety or fire hazard. proposed under this range analysis to the timber component with the Pages 2-35 through 36 Highwood Mountains. This includes leaving all snags in place that area not a safety concern. D-1 Range Improvements – (1) Cooperate with permittees in (1) Yes (1) 50/50 cost share on constructing range improvements … new/reconstructed improvements. Page 2-38

162

Forest Plan Standard Meets? Because … (Y,N,Unk,N/A) D-2 Noxious Weeds and other Pests – (2) Emphasize preventing noxious weeds (2) Yes (2) See noxious weed report. by reseeding, with desirable plant species, mineral soil exposed by Forest activities…

(3) Evaluate alternatives… to determine (3) Yes (3) Integrated weed management is effective environmentally acceptable practiced utilizing the best combination practices to control noxious weeds and of chemical, biological and mechanical other pests. control methods. Page 2-38 through 39 D-3 Riparian Area, Soil, and Water Protection in Range Management – (1) Where analysis shows range resource (1) Yes (1) Where monitoring has shown damage the cause identified and corrective resource issues. Management changes action initiated through an allotment have been proposed to address them. management plan(s)… (2) Best management practices will be (2) Yes (2) Techniques such as fencing, used to minimize livestock damage to soils, reduced utilization and many others are streamsides and other fragile areas … proposed. See grazing management tool box, table 4 of the environmental assessment. (3)Incorporate research/management (3) Yes (3) This is the primary focus of the techniques in allotment management allotment management plan. plan(s) to protect riparian values… (4) Protect fish and wildlife habitat in (4) Yes (4) If detrimental soil conditions cannot riparian areas when developing allotment be mitigated management would be management plans… adjusted. • Factors ( for streams less than 5 percent): physical bank damage (less than 30 percent) • Streamside shrub reproduction grass/forb use (less than 40 percent*) • Construct and/or maintain fencing if indirect management techniques are not effective to meet riparian management objectives. (5)Adjust allotment management plan(s) to (5) Yes (5) Proposed management and range consider land-type limitations… improvements under the allotment management plan incorporate land type *50 to 60 percent were high levels of bank limitations and how those limitations shrub or rock exist affect livestock use Pages 2-39 through 40 D-4 Livestock Grazing Restrictions – (4) Adhere to the Iivestock grazing (4) Yes (4) Livestock are fenced out of the Thain restrictions for developed recreation areas Creek campground. (management area H) and wilderness management area P), as outlined in the management area prescriptions. (5) Administer provisions of Endangered (5) Yes (5) See wildlife report for Endangered

163 Name of Project

Forest Plan Standard Meets? Because … (Y,N,Unk,N/A) Species Act in occupied threatened and Species Act information. endangered species habitat use interagency wildlife guidelines to avoid or mitigate conflicts… (6)Grazing which affects grizzly bears (6) Yes (6) No known Grizzlies in the Highwood and/or their habitat will be made Mountains at this time. compatible with grizzly needs…

(7) Place high priority on implementing (7) Yes (7) See wildlife report for Endangered improved grazing mgmt. systems on range Species Act information. allotments within big-game winter range Page 2-40 through 41 F-1 Erosion Control - (1) Utilize adequate soil and water (1) Yes (1) Implementing the structural and non- conservation practices to protect soil structural adaptive management actions productivity and to control nonpoint water outlined in Table 3 of the environmental pollution from project activities, using as a assessment, a decrease in grazing minimum, practices specified in any State season as described in the project initial developed “best management practices” letter, more stringent utilization standards and the Forest’s commitment Page 2-50 to monitoring provides a better opportunity for areas of soil degradation to begin recovery process thus beginning the path to compliance with National Forest Management Act and Region 1 soil quality standards and the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan for the Shed Creek and Yendrick allotments. Again, field conditions have not been verified for the two allotments, so noncompliance with National Forest Management Act and Region 1 soil quality standards and the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan is speculative. F-2 Data Collection - (3) Determine data needed to predict and (3) Yes (3) Monitoring and data collection needs monitor impacts from grazing activities have been spelled out for each resource area within the specialists reports. In Page 2-50 addition a comprehensive table of needed monitoring is included in appendix B of the environmental assessment. F-3 Soil, Water, Air - (1)Require application of best management (1) Under the proposed action, all (1) Yes practices to meet State water quality reasonable grazing best management standards practices will be applied. Some riparian areas will continue to function at-risk. Habitats conditions for riparian dependent species will increase and therefore beneficial uses will be fully supported. Observance with Forest Plan standards and State and Federal water quality regulations will be possible under this alternative. (2) Yes

164

Forest Plan Standard Meets? Because … (Y,N,Unk,N/A) (2) Develop additional best management (2) Additional best management practices during the environmental analysis practices needed to bring the resources process within the project area up to or trending toward desired conditions is discussed for within the environmental assessment as well as within each resources’ specialist report.

(3) Meet State water quality standards as (3) Yes (3) Under the proposed action, all required by the Clean Water reasonable grazing best management Act…Coordinate with the state of Montana practices will be applied. Some riparian areas will continue to function at-risk. Habitats conditions for riparian dependent species will increase and therefore beneficial uses will be fully supported. Observance with Forest Plan standards and State and Federal water quality regulations will be possible under this alternative.

(5)Conduct an environmental analysis for (5) Yes (5) The Highwood Mountains Range all management. actions planned for Analysis would constituent the floodplains/wetlands/riparian areas…adopt environmental analysis for actions necessary mitigation to protect floodplain planned for the riparian areas within the values and wetlands Highwood Mountains and mitigation measures are included within watershed section and watershed specialist report. (10) All management activities will be (10) Yes (10) The management goal of this range planned to sustain site productivity… analysis project is to bring the riparian areas up to or trending toward proper Pages 2-51 through 52 functioning condition. The management goal for the uplands is to maintain soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity close to those that would be expected for a particular site.

165 Name of Project

Appendix C- Highwood Range Adaptive Management Plan

166

Appendix D – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Past, Present and Foreseeable Activities List

Timber/Silvicultural Management • 1974- two acres, commercial thin, two acres rearrangement of fuels • 2009-2011- 58 acres insect prevention (mountain pine beetle-carbaryl/verbenone) • 2001- two acres rearrangement of fuels • Foreseeable- recreation/administration hazard tree and roadside hazard tree removal decision memos 2012

Personal Use Firewood/Christmas Trees/Miscellaneous Forest Products- Along Existing Road Corridors under Personal Use Permit • Past - yes • Present - yes • Foreseeable - yes

Wildfire • 1889 - 30,141 acres (across a majority of the Highwood Mountains project area) • 1969 - 10 acres, South Peak fire • Past Prescribe Fire • 1985 -1,989- 4,459 acres (low-intensity) on the Highwood allotment • 1986 - 240 acres (broadcast burning)

Special Use Authorizations • Communication site on Highwood Baldy - two permits (20 year terms) • Road use permits - three permits (two with 20 year term; one with 10 year term)

Recreation • One developed campground (Thain Creek) • Campground reconstructed in 2011 and it is foreseeable that it will be open into the future. • 1993 access management- travel plan provides opportunities for motorized and non- motorized travel. • Periodic trailhead and trail maintenance has occurred and is a foreseeable action. • Dispersed camping, hunting and fishing are other popular uses in the Highwood Mountains. • Two authorized recreation residences located near Thain Creek campground.

Fisheries Projects (barriers,reintroductions,brook trout removal etc.) • Ongoing work with Fish, Wildlife and Parks for westslope cutthroat trout habitat enhancement and restoration

Weed Treatment • 2006 to 2010 - 14 acres pesticide application (herbicide for weed treatment)

167 Name of Project

• Biological, chemical and mechanical weed treatment has and will continue to occur in the Highwood Mountains. • 2009 - 115 acres treated (from Forest ACtivities Tracker Service database) • 2010 - 125 acres treated (from Forest ACtivities Tracker Service database) • 2011 - 147 acres treated (from Forest ACtivities Tracker Service database)

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing has occurred since settlement and it is foreseeable it will continue. • 1904 Highwood mountains stocked with 39,700 sheep and 5,769 cattle. • 1950 final conversions of sheep to cattle. • 1961-1963 Highwood Association reduced animal unit months 10 percent each year. • 1984 on date changed from mid-June to July 10. • 1993 to present the permittees on the Highwood allotment have had choice of July 1 or 10 on- date. • 2007 - Livestock management changes • 2011 - Arrowhead allotment change

Main access road through the Highwood Mountains is a county road that is closed from Jan 1 – April 1. • County road maintenance occurs as needed and will continue under county jurisdiction.

168

Appendix E Management Direction

Table 34 – Mapped Management Area Acreage in the Project Area MA Management Area Description/Goal Acres Description: Nearly all of management area-E occurs on big- game winter range and contains both grass and forested lands. E The land is generally near the Forest boundaries. 7,733 Acres Goal: Provide sustained high level of forage for livestock and big game animals. Description: Management area - D is in the Highwood Mountains and includes grasslands, high areas, and mosaics (timber stands interspersed with grass) which are excellent for livestock use. All slopes are included. The area also provides summer and fall D habitat for approximately 400 head of elk and numerous deer. 26,987 Acres Goal: Provide a sustained high level of forage production for livestock, while protecting, maintaining, and improving water, wildlife, and other resource qualities. Description: Management area - B contains most of the commercial forest land on the Jefferson Division. In the general forest, the species mix is approximately 75 percent lodgepole pine and 25 percent Douglas-fir. In the dry forest, the species mix is approximately 84 percent Douglas-fir, 11 percent ponderosa pine, B and 5 percent lodgepole pine. Much of the area provides summer 8,861 Acres and fall habitat for big-game animals and forage for livestock. Goal: Emphasize timber management and provide a moderate level of livestock forage production, while minimizing impacts to other resources. Description: Management area -H includes developed recreation sites such as campgrounds, ski areas, recreation residences, and the land adjacent to all of these sites. Some livestock grazing H occurs within and adjacent to the area. 915 Acres Goal: Provide recreation opportunities supported by public and private developments while maintaining other resource values. Description: Management area -R consists of riparian areas through the forest. They are made up of the lakes, streams, and land where vegetation is influenced by surface and subsurface water. Many important resources, such as fish, some wildlife, and certain vegetation communities, are totally dependent on this area for their existence. Streams usually flow year round in riparian areas, although the main characteristic of these management areas is riparian vegetation, not necessarily streamflow. Management area boundaries for riparian areas are determined by R on-site characteristics of soil and vegetation. Goal: Manage to protect or enhance unique ecosystem values associated with riparian zones. Give preferential consideration to riparian area dependent resources. Timber and range management activities are permitted. NOTE: Riparian areas throughout the forest have been given special consideration. These considerations include: (1) minimizing activity in riparian areas where possible; (2) standards for stream crossings; and (3) measures to avoid stream contamination. Total Acres 44,496 Acres (approximate)

169 Name of Project

References Adams M.J. and R.B. Bury. 2002. The endemic headwater stream amphibians of the American Northwest: associations with environmental gradients in a large forested preserve. Global Ecology & Biogeography. 11: 169–178

Al-Chockhachy R.L., B.B. Roper and E.K. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the status and trends of physical stream habitat in headwater streams within the Interior Columbia River and Upper Missouri River Basins using an index approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 139:1041–1059.

Allan, J.D., M.S. Wipfli, J.P. Caouette, A. Prussian, and J. Rodgers. 2003. Influence of streamside vegetation on inputs of terrestrial invertebrates to salmonid food webs. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 60:309-320.

Amaranthus, M., H. Jubas, and D. Arthur. 1989. Stream shading, summer streamflow and maximum water temperature following intense wildfire in headwater streams. In: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109, 75-78.

Armour, C., D. Duff and W. Elmore. 1994. The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian and Stream Ecosystems. Fisheries. Vol. 19, No. 9. September, 1994. pp 9-12.

Baker, W. L., J.A. Munroe, and A.E. Hessl. 1997. The effects of elk on aspen in the winter range in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ecography. 20:155-165.

Baker B.W. 2003. Beaver (Castor canadensis) in heavily browsed environments. Lutra. 46:173-181.

Barsugli, J. 2009. Climate models and scenarios of climate change in the Western United States. Western Watersheds and Climate Change Workshop. November 17, 2009. Boulder, CO. 50 slide presentation.

Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, and W. C. Saunders. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology. 50:201-220.

Bear, E.A., T.E. McMahon, and A.V. Zale, 2007. Comparative thermal requirements of westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout: Implications for species interactions and development of thermal protection standards. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 136:1113-1121.

Bechard, M. J., G. D. Fairhurst, and G. S. Kaltenecker. 2009. Occupancy, productivity, turnover, and dispersal of northern goshawks in portions of the northeastern Great Basin. Studies in Avian Biology 31:100-108.

Beier, P. and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54:419- 431.

Bengeyfield, P. 2006. Managing cows with streams in mind. Rangelands. 28(1):3-6.

170

Bengeyfield, P. and D. Svoboda. 1998. Determining allowable use levels for livestock movement in riparian areas. Specialty Conference on Rangeland Management and Water Resources. Proceeding. American Water Resources Association. Reno, NV.

Beschta, R.L.1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands. 19(2):25-28.

Binns, N.A. and Eiserman, F.M. 1979. Quantification of fluvial trout habitat in Wyoming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 108(3): 215-228.

Binns, N.A. and Remmick, R. 1994. Response of Bonneville cutthroat trout and their habitat to drainage-wide habitat management at Huff Creek, Wyoming. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 14(4): 669-680.

Blackburn, W.H. 1983. Livestock Grazing Impacts on Watersheds. Rangelands. Vol. 5, No. 3. June, 1983. pp 123-125.

Bloxton, T. D., Jr. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of Northern goshawks in western Washington. MS thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.

Burchsted D., M. Daniels, R. Thorson and J. Vokoun. 2010. The river discontinuum: applying beaver modifications to baseline conditions for restoration of forested headwaters. BioScience, 60(11):908-922.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2011. Regional Economic Information System (REIS). U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2011 a. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor, Washington D.C.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2011 b. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.

Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley and S.J. Smith. 2007. Monitoring Stream Channels and Riparian Vegetation- Multiple Indicators. Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-01.

Bryce, S.A., G.A. Lomnicky, P.R. Kaufmann, L.S. McAllister, and T.L. Ernst. 2008. Development of biologically based sediment criteria in mountain streams of the Western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28: 1714–1724.

Case, R.L.. 1995. The ecology of riparian ecosystems of northeast Oregon: shrub recovery at Meadow Creek and the structure and biomass of headwater upper Grande Ronde ecosystems. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 137pp.

Cegelski, C. C., L. P. Waits, and N. J. Anderson. 2003. Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines (Gulo gulo) using assignment-based approaches. Molecular Ecology 12:2907-2918.

Chaney E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 8. page 38

171 Name of Project

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. Report INT-263. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11 & 12p.

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian Grazing Guidelines for the Intermountain Region. Rangelands 12(4), pgs 209-212, August 1990.

Clary, W.P. and J.W. Kinney. 2002. Streambank and vegetation response to simulated cattle grazing. Wetlands. 22(1):139-148.

Clough, L. T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT USA.

Coles-Ritchie, M. 2005. Effectiveness Monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the Upper Columbia River Basin, Sampling Protocol, Vegetation Parameters. 28 pgs.

Collen, P. and R.J.Gibson. 2001. The general ecology of beavers (Castor spp.), as related to their influence on stream ecosystems and riparian habitats, and the subsequent effects on fish – a review. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 10: 439-461.

Copeland, J. P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.

Copeland, J. P. and R. E. Yates. 2006. Wolverine population assessment in Glacier National Park. Progress Report 2004-2005. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT 59807. 42pp.

Copeland, J. P., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R. M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J. R. Squires, A. Magoun, M. K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. L. Copeland, R. E. Yates, I. Kojola, and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal Zoology, Vol.88:233-246.

Cummins, K.W., M.A. Wilzbach, D.M. Gates, J.B. Perry, and W.B. Taliaferro. 1989. Shredders and riparian vegetation. BioScience. 39(1):24-30.

Daw, S. K. and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and post- fledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1):59-65.

Davis, S. K. 2004. Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan. Auk 121:1130-1145

DeCesare, N. J. and D. H. Pletscher. 2006. Movements, connectivity, and resource selection of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Journal of Mammalogy, 87(3):531-538.

Deguise, I. and J.S. Richardson. 2009. Movement behavior of adult western toads in a fragmented, forest landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:1184–1194.

Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Best Management Practices for Grazing, Montana. Montana State Library.

172

DeWalle, D.R.. 2008. Guidelines for riparian vegetative shade restoration based upon a theoretical shaded-stream model. Journal of the American Water Resources Council. 44(6):1373-1387.

Dormaar, Johan F. and Walter D. Willms. 1990. Effect of grazing and cultivation of some chemical properties of soils in the mixed prairie. Journal of Range Management 43(5), pages 456-460.

Durkin, P.R. and M. Follansbee. 2003. Picloram-revised human health and ecological risk assessment-final report. SERA TR-03-43-16-01b. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Fayetteville, NY

Ebersole, J.L., Liss, W.J. and C.A. Frissell. Restoration of stream habitats in the Western United States: Restoration as reexpression of habitat capacity. Environmental Management. 21(1):1- 14.

Economic Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT). (2011). Headwaters Economics. [www.headwaterseconomics.org/eps-hdt].

Ecke, R.. 2008. The Great Flood of 1908. Great Falls Tribune, newspaper website arcticle. Great Falls, MT, Gannett Publishing Company. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/multimedia/flood1908/index.html. 4 web pages.

Edge, W. D., C. L. Marcum, and S. L. Olson-Edge. 1987. Summer habitat selection by elk in western Montana: A multivariate approach. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(4):844-51.

Ehrhart, R.C. and P.L. Hansen. 1997 Effective cattle management in riparian zones: a field survey and literature review. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin Number 3. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT. 19-22.

Eggers, M.J. 2005. Riparian vegetation of the Montana Yellowstone and cattle grazing Impacts thereon. MS Thesis Biological Sciences. Montana State University, Bozeman MT.

Ehrhart, R.C. and P.L. Hansen. 1997. Effective Cattle Management in Riparian Zones: A Field Survey and Literature Review. Montana BLM Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 3. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office. Billings, Montana. pages 19-22.

Ellis, J.H. 2008. Scientific Recommendations on the Size of Stream Vegetated Buffers Needed to Protect Water Quality, Part One, The Need for Stream Vegetated Buffers: What Does the Science Say? Report to Montana Department of Environmental Quality, EPA/DEQ Wetland Development Grant. Montana Audubon, Helena, MT. 24 pp.

Elmore, W. 1989. Rangeland riparian systems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep PSW-110: 93- 95.

Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management. Rangelands. Vol. 9, No. 6, December, 1987. pp 260-265.

Fausch, K.D. and C. Gowan. 1996. Long-term demographic responses of trout populations to habitat manipulation in six Colorado streams. Ecological Applications. 6(3): 931-946.

Federal Register. 1982. National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 36 CFR Part 219. Vol. 47, No. 190, September 30, 1982. 4 pages.

173 Name of Project

Federal Register. 2011. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list Pinus albicaulis as endangered or threatened with critical habitat. Federal Register Vol 76, No. 138, pp 42631-42636.

Fitch, L. and B.W. Adams. 1998. Can cows and fish co-exist? Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 78: 191-198.

Fleischner, T.L.. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology. 8(3): 629-644.

Ganskopp, D. and D. Bohnert. 2001. Nutritional dynamics of 7 northern Great Basin grasses. Journal of Range Management 54(6):640-647.

Good, R. 1998. Factors affecting the relative use of northern goshawk (Accipiter Gentilis) kill areas in south central Wyoming. MS thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. 153pp.

Goguen, C. B. and N. E. Mathews. 2000. Local gradients of cowbird abundance and parasitism relative to livestock grazing in a western landscape. Conservation Biology 14(6):1862-1869.

Good, R. 1998. Factors affecting the relative use of northern goshawk (Accipiter Gentilis) kill areas in south central Wyoming. MS thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. 153pp.

Grant, T. S., E. Madden, and G. B. Berkey. 2004. Tree and shrub invasion in northern mixed- grassprairie: implications for breeding grassland birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:807-818

Green, W.E. 2011. Forest Hydrologist, Lewis and Clark National Forest. Flow calculations performed using field measured cross sections and gradients. Personal conversation. July 21, 2011.

Green, W.E. 2012. Forest Hydrologist, Lewis and Clark National Forest. Personal conversation. March 27, 2012.

Grimm, R.L. 1939. Northern Yellowstone winter range studies. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 3(4):295-306.

Grisak, G.G. 2011. Management Biologist, Region Four, Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. Personal conversation. May 17, 2004. Great Falls, MT.

Gunderson, D.R. 1968. Floodplain use related to stream morphology and fish populations. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(3):507-514.

Gurnell, A.M.. 1998. The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam-building activity. Progress in Physical Geography. 22:167-189.

Hall, F.C. 2002. Photo point monitoring handbook. Part A- field procedures and part B – concepts and analysis. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-526. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48p./134p. 2 parts.

Hamlin, K. L., R. J. Mackie. 1989. Mule deer in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana: A study of population dynamics in a fluctuating environment. Final Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project, W-120-R. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana, USA. 401pp.

174

Hanley, T. A. 1982. The Nutritional Basis for Food Selection by Ungulates. Journal of Range Management 35(2):146-151.

Hargis, C. D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:66-74.

Hayward, G. D. and R. E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479.

Helena National Forest. 1984. Monitoring data from 1982 to 1984 in Jenkins Gulch, Elkhorn Mountain Range. Agency Monitoring Data. Helena NF Supervisor’s Office, Helena, MT.

Hetrick N.J., Brusven M.A., Meehan W.R. and Bjornn T.C. 1998. Changes in solar input, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous input and storage after canopy removal along two small salmon streams in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 127: 859–875.

Holdorf, H. 1981. Soil Resource Inventory, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Interim in Service Report, Non-Wilderness Portions. Unpublished document. On File with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, P.O. Box 869, Great Falls, MT 59403. p. 1-62.

Hormay, A.L. and A.B. Evanko. 1958. Rest-rotation grazing: a management system for bunchgrass ranges. Miscellaneous Paper No. 27. USDA Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11pp.

Hormay, A.L. 1970. Principles of rest-rotation grazing and multiple-use land management. Joint agency white paper, TT-4-2200. USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service. 26pp.

Hosten, P. E., H. Whitridge, and M. Broyles. 2007. Diet overlap and social interactions among cattle, horses, deer and elk in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, southwestern Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford, District. 36pp.

House, R. 1995. Temporal variation in abundance of an isolated population of cutthroat trout in Western Oregon, 1981-1991. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15:33-41.

Issak, D.J., C.H. Luce, B.E. Rieman, D.E. Nagel, E.E. Peterson, D.L. Horan, S. Parkes and G.L. Chandler. 2010. Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications. 20(5):1350–1371.

Integrated Monitoring of Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2010 Annual Report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Brighton, Colorado, USA. 387 pp.

Johnson, R.R., P.S. Bennett and L.T. Haight. 1989. Southwestern woody riparian vegetation and succession: an evolutionary approach. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110:135- 139.

Johnson, S.L. 2004. Factors influencing stream temperatures in small streams: substrate effects and a shading experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 61:913-923.

175 Name of Project

Johnson, P.T., A.R. Townsend, C.C. Cleveland, P.M. Glibert, R.W. Howarth, V.J. McKenzie, E. Rejmankova, and M.H. Ward-Johnson. 2010. Linking environmental nutrient enrichment and disease emergence in humans and wildlife. Ecological Applications. 20(1):16-29.

Joy, S. M. 2002. Northern goshawk habitat on the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona: factors affecting nest locations and territory quality. PhD dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.

Kauffman, J.B., Beschta, R.L., Otting, N. and Lytjen, D. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries. 22:12-24.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of Cattle on Streambanks in North- eastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 36, No. 6. November, 1983. pp 683-685.

Kay, C.E. 2001. Long-term aspen exclosures in Yellowstone ecosystem. Symposium proceedings: Sustaining aspen in western landscapes. Grand Junction, Colorado. USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-18:225-240.

Keane, J. J., M. L. Morrison, and D. M. Fry. 2006. Prey and weather factors associated with temporal variation in northern goshawk reproduction in the Sierra Nevada, California. Studies in Avian Biology 31:85-99.

Kegley, S., B. Hill, and S. Orme, S. (2007). "PAN Pesticide Database - Chemicals Pyridinecarboxylic acid." Retrieved on 04.02.2011 and saved as .html and .txt files, from http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_AquireAcuteSum.jsp?Rec_Id=PC34032&Taxa_Group=A mphibians.

Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1991. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated plant associations in central Oregon. Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. Sun Valley, ID. p111-119.

Krueger, R.C., B.L. Kerans, R.E. Vincent, and C. Rasmussen. 2006. Risk of Myxobolus cerebralis infection to rainbow trout in the Madison River, Montana, USA. Ecological Applications. 16(2):770-783.

Leary, R.F. 2011. Genetic testing laboratory results. University of Montana Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Division of Biological Sciences per contract with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 23pp.

Lennox, M.S., D.J. Lewis, R.D. Jackson, J. Harper, S. Larson, and K.W. Tate. 2011. Development of vegetation and aquatic habitat in restored riparian sites of California’s North Coast rangelands. Restoration Ecology. 19(2):225-233.

Leonard, S., G. Kinch, V. Elsbernd, M. Borman, S. Swanson. 1997. Riparian Area Management – Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetland Areas. Technical Report 1737-14 1997. USDI – Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO. pages 46-49, 51.

Lewis and Clark National Forest. 2005. White paper on Highwood Mountain Management History. 1pp.

176

Lewis and Clark National Forest. 1968. Report on Highwood Mountains Forest Reserve. Historical document written by Department of the Interior, Government Land Office in 1904. 16 hand- written pages.

Loft, E. R., J. W. Menke, J. G. Kie, and R. C. Bertram. 1987. Influence of cattle stocking rate on the structural profile of deer hiding cover. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(3):655-664.

Loft, E. R., J. W. Menke, J. G. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: The influence of cattle grazing. Journal of Wildlife Mangement 55(1):16-26.

Lovaas, A. L. 1958. Mule deer food habits and range use, Little Belt Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 22(3):275-283.

Luce C.H., and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road sediment production. Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-agency Sedimentation Conference, p1-14.

Mace, R. D. and T. Chilton-Radandt. 2011. Black bear harvest research and management in Montana: Final Report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wildlife Division, Helena, Montana, USA.

Mackie, R. J., D. F. Pac, K. L. Hamlin, and G. L. Dusek. 1998. Ecology and management of mule deer and white-tailed deer in Montana. Technical bulletin, Federal Aid Project, W-120-R, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana, USA. 180 pp.

Magee, J.P., T.E. McMahon, and R.F. Thurow. 1996. Spatial variation in spawning habitat of cutthroat trout in a sediment-rich stream basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 125: 768-779.

Magilligan, F.J. and P.F. McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 33(4):867-878.

Marston, R. A. 1994. River enterenchment in of small mountain valleys of the western USA; influence of beaver, grazing, and clearcutt logging. Rev. Geogr. Lyon 69: 11-15.

Maxell B.A. 2009. State-wide assessment of status, predicted distribution, and landscape-level habitat suitability of amphibians and reptiles in Montana. PhD dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula.

McDowell, P.F. and F.J. Magilligan. 1997. Response of stream channels to removal of cattle grazing disturbance: overview of Western U.S. exclosure studies. Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS. p469- 475.

McGrath, M. T., S. DeStefano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Monograph 154:1-63.

McLean, A. and W.E. Tisdale. 1972. Recovery rate of depleted range sites under protection from grazing. Journal of Range Management 25 (3): 178-184.

Meehan, W.R. and W.S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 33(6):274-278.

177 Name of Project

Megahan, W.F. and J.G. King. 2004. Erosion, sedimentation, and cumulative effects in the northern Rocky Mountains. In: A century of forest and wildland watershed lessons. Society of American Foresters: 201-222.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) . 2003. IMPLAN Pro Version 2.0 User’s Guide, Analysis Guide, Data Guide. 418 p.

Mohseni, O. and H.G. Stefan. 1999. Stream temperature/air temperature relationship: a physical interpretation. Journal of Hydrology. 218:128-141.

Mohseni, O., H.G. Stefan and J.G. Eaton. 2003. Global warming and potential changes in fish habitat in U.S. streams. Climatic Change 59: 389-409.

MT-DEQ, 2006. 2006 Montana 3305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Report. [Online]. Available: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/CWAIC/default.aspx. Dept. of Environmental Quality. Helena, MT.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2001. Adaptive Harvest Management. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Wildlife Division. Helena, MT, USA. 67 pp.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2005. Montana Final Elk Management Plan. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Wildlife Division. Helena, MT, USA. 404 pp.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2011. MFISH data records of stocking and fish surveys. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Natural Heritage Program. 2011. TRACKER database and Map Viewer. http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Natural Heritage Program. 2012. Pearlshell Mussel Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_IMBIV27020.aspx

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Natural Heritage Program. 2011. Western Toad Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AAABB01030.aspx

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1999. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for grazing. Book published in cooperation with Montana Watershed Coordination Council’s Grazing Practices Work Group. Helena, MT. 29pp.

MT-DNRC, 1999. Monitoring for Success- Ranch Planning, Upland Monitoring, Stream Channel and Riparian Area Monitoring. Montana Monitoring Work Group. Montana Department of Natural Resource and Conservation. Helena, MT. 41p.

MT-NRIS, 2005. Montana State Library - Natural Resource Information System. Average Annual Precipitation Map – Stillwater County. [Online]. Available: http://nris.state.mt.us/gis/gisdatalib/downloads/precip_Stillwater.pdf

Montana Disaster and Emergency Services. 2001. State of Montana natural hazards mitigation plan, section iii, flood and dam failure. Montana Department of Military Affairs, Helena, MT. 29 pp.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2011a. Data records in GIS format.

178

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2011b. Montana field guides – plants. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. Available on-line from http://fieldguide.mt.gov. (Hardcopy version of electronic field guide dated 4/26/2011 available in Project Record.).

Montana State University Extension Service. Bozeman, MT. 78 pages plus videos and attachments.

Moser, B. W. 2007. Space use and ecology of goshawks in northern Idaho. PhD dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA. 113pp.

Moser, B. W. and E. O. Garton. 2009. Short-term effects of timber harvest and weather on northern goshawk reproduction in northern Idaho. Journal of Raptor Research 43(1)1-10.

Moser, D. 2011. North-central Montana cooperative westslope cutthroat trout restoration project, annual report for 2010. Agency report, Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. Great Falls, MT.

Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis and J. O’Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for Managing Cattle Grazing in Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research and Best Management Practices Policy. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. Report No. 15. 67 pages.

Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in southwestern Montana. In: Gresswell, R.E., B.A. Barton and J.L. Kershner (eds.). Practical approaches to riparian resource management: an educational workshop. USDI, BLM, Billings, Montana. pages 117-120.

Myers, T.J. and S. Swanson. 1995. Impact of deferred rotation grazing on stream characteristics in Central Nevada: A case study. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15:428- 439.

Naiman, R.J., E.V. Balian, K.K. Bartz, R.E. Bilby, and J.J. Latterell. 2002. Dead Wood Dynamics in Stream Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Dead Wood in Western Forests. General Technical Report USDA Forest Service. GTR-PSW- 181: 23-48.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2009. Census of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2012. United Stated Department of Agriculture. [http://www.nass.usda.gov]

National Research Council 1994. Rangeland health, new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. Pages 97-98 and 120. Published by National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Olson R. and W.A. Hubert. 1994. Beaver: Water resources and riparian habitat manager. University of Wyoming, Laramie. 28pp.

Peterson, D.P. B.E. Rieman, M.K. Young and J.A. Brammer. 2010. Modeling predicts that redd trampling by cattle may contribute to population declines of native trout. Ecological Applications. 20(4): 954-966.

179 Name of Project

Pickering, A.D. and T.G. Pottinger. 1989. Stress responses and disease resistance in salmonid fish: Effects of chronic elevation of plasma cortisol. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry. 7(1):253- 258.

Picton, H. D. and T. N. Lonner. 2008. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. Chapter 12 in Montana’s wildlife legacy, decimation to restoration. Media Works Publishing, Bozeman, Montana. 153-170.

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock Grazing. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:389-423.

Platts, W.S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems - an overview. Proceedings of Forum on Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited. p39-45.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Impacts of rest-rotation grazing on stream banks in forested watersheds in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 5:547-556.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1988. Fluctuations in trout populations and their implications for land use evaluation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 8:333-345.

Plum Creek Timber Company. 1999. Grazing best management practices, Plum Creek Timber Company. Corporate technical guide. 29pp.

Ponce, Victor M. 1989. Baseflow Augmentation by streambank storage. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Dept of Research and Development. San Ramon, CA. 91 pgs.

Poole, G.C. and C.H. Berman. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environmental Management. 27(6):787-802.

Poole, G.C., J.A. Stanford, S.W. Running, C.A. Frissell, W.W. Woessner and B.K. Ellis. 2004. A patch hierarchy approach to modeling surface and subsurface hydrology in complex flood-plain environments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 29:1259-1274.

Pringle, C.M., R.J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J.R. Karr, M.W. Oswood, J. R. Webster, R.L. Welcomme and M.J. Winterbourn. 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: The stream as a mosaic. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7(4):503-524.

Relyea, R.A. 2005. The toxicity of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications. 15(4): 1118–1124.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RM-217, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Richardson, J. S. 1992. Coarse particulate detritus dynamics in small, montane streams of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 49:337-346.

Richardson, J.S., T.M. Hoover and A. Lecerf. 2009. Coarse particulate organic matter dynamics in small streams: towards linking function to physical structure. Freshwater Biology. 54:2116- 2126.

180

Rimbey, Neil; Torell, L. Allen. 2011. Grazing costs: What’s the current situation. Agricultural Economics Extension Series No. 2011-02. University of Idaho, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Moscow, Idaho. 7 p.

Rinne, J.N. 2006. Riparian Restoration with livestock grazing removal-benefits for Southwestern native fishes. Proceedings of the Symposia: Prescribed Livestock Grazing to Enhance Wildlife Habitat. Ecologic Montana, Society of Range Management. 74-101.

Ripple, W.J. and R.L. Beschta. 2011. Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation. 145(1):205-213.

Ripple, W.J. and E.J. Larsen. 2000. Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biological Conservation. 95:361-370.

Roe, L. 1992. Status review of Aquilegia brevistyla. USDA Forest Service – Region 1, Lewis & Clark National Forest, Montana. Unpublished report to the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. Challenge Cost-Share Project. 47 pp.

Rosenfeld J.S., L. Huato. 2003. Relationship between Large Woody Debris Characteristics and Pool Formation in Small Coastal British Columbia Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23:928–938.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Chpt 5, page 6.

Rosgen, D. and L. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Book published by Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Roth, T.R., M.C. Westhoff, H. Huwald, J.A. Huff, J.F. Rubin, G. Barrenetxea, M. Vetterli, A. Parriaux, J.S. Selker and M.B. Parlange. 2010. Stream temperature response to three riparian vegetation scenarios by use of a distributed temperature validated model. Environmental Science Technology. 44 (6):2072-2078.

Rutherford, J.C., N.A. Marsh, P.M. Davies, and S.E. Bunn. 2004. Effects of patchy shade on stream water temperature: how quickly do small streams heat and cool?. Marine and Freshwater Research. 55:737–748.

Salafsky, S. R., R. T. Reynolds, B. R. Noon, and J. A. Wiens. 2006. Reproductive responses of northern goshawks to variable prey populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2274-2283.

Samson, F. B. 2005. A Conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, blacked-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Saunders, W.C. and K.D. Fausch. 2010. Effects of riparian grazing on terrestrial invertebrate inputs that feed trout in Central Rocky Mountain Streams. Research findings report. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. 209 pp.

181 Name of Project

Schmetterling, D. A. 2000. Redd characteristics of fluvialwestslope cutthroat trout in four tributaries to the Blackfoot River, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:776– 783.

Schulz, T.T., and W.C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management. 43:295-299.

Sestrich, C.M, T.E. McMahon, and M.K. Young. 2011. Influence of fire on native and nonnative salmonid populations and habitat in a Western Montana basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 140:136-146.

Shaffer, Jill A., Christopher M. Goldade, Meghan F. Dinkins, Douglas H. Johnson, Lawrence D. Igl, and Betty R. Euliss. 2003. Brown-headed Cowbirds in grasslands: their habitats, hosts, and response to management. Prairie Naturalist 35(3):145-186. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/bhco/bhco.htm (Version 28MAY2004).

Shamhart, J., F. King, and K. Proffitt. 2012. Effects of a Rest-Rotation Grazing System on Wintering Elk Distributions at Wall Creek, Montana. Rangeland Ecology & Management 65(2): 129- 136.

Shepherd, B.B., M. Taper, R.G. White and S.C. Ireland. 1998. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on abundance of stream-resident westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi in Montana streams. Final report to USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho for contract INT-92682-RJVA. 44pp.

Shepherd, B.B. 2004. Factors That May Be Influencing nonnative brook trout invasion and their displacement of native westslope cutthroat trout in three adjacent southwestern Montana streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:1088-1100.

Squires. J. R., and P. L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology 31:8-62.

Stagliano D.M. 2011. Freshwater Mussels in Montana: Comprehensive Results from 3 years of SWG Funded Surveys. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 74pp.

Stewart, K. M., R. T. Bowyer, J. G. Kie, N. J. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2002. Temporospatial distributions of elk, mule deer, and cattle: resource partitioning and competitive displacement. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1):229-244.

Stivers. T. S., and L. R. Irby. 1997. Impacts of cattle grazing on mesic grizzly bear habitat along the east front of the Rocky Mountains, Montana. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 3(1): 17-37.

Surber, G. and B. Ehrhart. 1998. Stream and Riparian Area Management – A Home Study Course.

Sweka, J.A., K.J. Hartman, and J. M. Niles. 2010. Long-term effects of large woody debris addition on stream habitat and brook trout populations. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 1(2): 146-151

182

Tatum, V.L. 2004. Toxicity, transport, and fate of forest herbicides. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(4): 1042-1048.

Thompson W.H., R.C Erhrart, P.L. Hansen, T.G. Parker and W.C. Haglan. 1998. Assessing health of a Riparian Site. Rangeland Management and Water Resources Proceedings. American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference. 13 pp.

Toledo, Z.O. and J.B. Kauffman. 2001. Root biomass in relation to channel morphology of headwater streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(6). December, 2001. pgs 1653-1663.

Travsky, A. and G. P. Beauvais. 2004. Species Assessment for Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Wyoming. US Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne. 90 pp.

Tyser, R.W. and C. A. Worley. 1992. Alien Flora in Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana. Conservation Biology 6 (2):253-262.

US Census Bureau. 2010. Quick Facts. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C.

US. Census Bureau. 2011a. County Business Patterns. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C.

US Census Bureau. 2011 b. American Community Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Code. Title 16-Conservation, Chapter 2-National Forests, Subchapter I-Establishment and Administration, Sec. 528- Development and administration of renewable surface resources for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services; Congressional declaration of policy and purpose. [Online]. Available: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Search 16USC528.

U.S. Code. Title 16-Conservation, Chapter 2-National Forests, Subchapter I-Establishment and Administration, Sec. 531- Definitions. [Online]. Available: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Search 16USC531.

USDA-FS. 2002. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2000- 2001, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, MT.

USDA-Forest Service. 1986. Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Great Falls, MT.

USDA Forest Service, 1988. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, R-1/R-4 FSH 5/88. Page 66.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Decision notice and forest plan amendment number 12. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Lewis and Clark national forest noxious weed control final supplemental environmental impact statement record of decision. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 10 p.

183 Name of Project

USDA-Forest Service, 1995. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation Practices. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. Chapters 17 and 18.

USDA-Forest Service, 1996a. Letter from FS Chief Jack Ward Thomas and BLM Director Mike Dombeck to Regional Forestors and State Directors initiating a effort on Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Restoration and Management. March 20, 1996. Washington D.C. 6p.

USDA-Forest Service, 1996b. Letter from Chief Jack Ward Thomas directing Regional Foresters, R-1 thru 6 to adopt Proper Functioning Condition as a minimum standard for riparian assessments. November 27, 1996. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.

USDA-Forest Service 2012 National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest Lands, Vol. 1, National Core BMP Tech Guide. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service FS 990a. April 2012.

USDA, Forest Service. 1999. Forest Service Manual 2500-Watershed and Air Management, R-1 Supplement 2500-99-1, Chapter 2550-Soil Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, R- 1, Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 2004. Sheep Creek range analysis final environmental impact statement (Table III-7). Lewis and Clark National Forest, White Sulphur Springs Ranger District. 7pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service manual 2600 - wildlife, fish, sensitive plant habitat management, amendment 2600-2005-1, chapter 2670 – threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office.

USDA-Forest Service, 2005. Proposed standardized protocol for measuring bank alteration on grazing allotments for Region One National Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Missoula, Montana. 4p.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region . 2006. A Practical Approach to Adaptive Management with a Specific Focus on Livestock Management NEPA Based Decisions. . (cited elsewhere as Quimby 2006).

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Draft sensitive plant species viability report. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest. 40 p.

USDA-NRCS, 1999, MT-DNRC, Best Management Practices for Grazing - Montana. Montana, Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation. Helena, MT. 29 p.

USDA-NRCS, 2005. Montana Conservation Practice Specification for Prescribed Grazing Code 528. U.S.D.A. – Natural Resources Conservation Service. . [Online]. Available: http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx

USDI-BLM, 2003. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. Technical Report 1737-16 1999, revised 2003. USDI – Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO.109 p.

184

USDI-BLM, 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical Report 1737-15 1998. USDI – Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO.126 p.

US Department of the Interior (DOI). 2012 (in press). The Department of the Interior’s Economic Contributions.

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Properly Functioning Condition Workgroup. 1995. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR-1739. 51pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. 181 pp.

USGS. 2011. Montana flood-frequency and basin characteristics data, for gauge site 06090800. http://mt.water.usgs.gov/freq?page_type=site&site_no=06090800.

USGS. 2011. Montana flood-frequency and basin characteristics data, for gauge site 06090700. http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/new/index.php?id=stategage.

Wallace, J.B., S.L. Eggert, J.L. Meyer and J.R. Webster . 1999. Effects of resource limitation on a detrital-based ecosystem. Ecological Monographs. 69(4):409-442.

Weaver, T., D. Gustafson and J. Lichtardt. 2001. Exotic Plants in Early and Late Seral Vegetation of Fifteen Northern Rocky Mountain Environments. Western North American naturalist 61(4):417-427.

Webb, B.W., D.M. Hannah, D. Moore, L.E. Brown, and F. Nobilis. 2008. Recent advances in stream and river temperature research. Hydrological Processes. 22: 902-918.

Weldon, L.A.C. 2011a. Letter of February 25, 2011. Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, 2011 update. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 1 p.

Weldon, L.A.C. 2011b. Letter of August 26, 2011. Sensitive species designation for whitebark pine. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 2 p.

Weldon, L.A.C. 2011c. Letter of October 20, 2011. Follow-up letter to sensitive species designation for whitebark pine. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 2 p.

Westbrook, C.J., Cooper D.J. and Baker, B.W.. 2006. Beaver dams and overbank floods influence groundwater-surface water interactions of a Rocky Mountain riparian area. Water Resources Research. 42(W06404):1-12.

Westbrook, C.J., Cooper D.J. and Baker, B.W.. 2011. Beaver assisted river valley formation. River Resource Applications. 27: 247-256.

White, C. M., N. J. Van Lanen, D.C. Pavlacky Jr., J. A. Blakesley, R. A. Sparks. J. M. Stenger, J. A. Rehm-Lorber, M. F. McLaren F. Cardone, J. J. Birek and D. J. Hanni. 2011. Integrated Monitoring of Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR): 2010 Annual Report. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Brighton, Colorado, USA. 387 pp.

White, C. M., J. A. Blakesley, J. A. Rehm-Lorber, D. C. Pavlacky, Jr., R. A. Sparks and D. J. Hanni. 2010. Monitoring the Birds of the Badlands and Prairies Bird Conservation Region (BCR

185 Name of Project

17): 2009 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. SC-BCR1709-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. 93 pp.

Wiens, J. D., B. R. Noon, and R. T. Reynolds. 2006. Post-fledgling survival of northern goshawks: the importance of prey abundance, weather, and dispersal. Ecological Applications 16:406- 418.

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. 29:533-548.

Williams, T.Y. 1990. Leymus innovates. In: Fire Effects Information System, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available on-line from: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.

Wipfli, M.S.. 1997. Terrestrial invertebrates as salmonid prey and nitrogen sources in streams: contrasting old-growth and young-growth riparian forests in southeastern Alaska, U.S.A.. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 54(6):1259-1269.

Wissmar, R.C. 2004. Riparian corridors of Eastern Oregon and Washington: functions and sustainability along lowland-arid to mountain gradients. Aquatic Sciences. 66:373-387.

Wolf, E.C., D.J. Cooper and N.T. Hobbs. 2007. Hydrologic regime and herbivory stabilize an alternative state in Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Applications. 17(6):1572-1.

[Online]. Available: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/info/publications/technical_bulletins/tb_07-01.html

Wright, V., S. Hejl, and R. L. Hutto. 1997. Conservation implications of a multi-scale study of flammulated owl (OTUS FLAMMEOLUS) habitat use in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Pages 506-516 in J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls, editors. Biology and conservation of owls in the Northern Hemisphere. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, GTR NC-190, St. Paul, MN.

186