South Tobacco Root Watershed Assessment Report Dillon Field Office December 19, 2016

Home , Ruby River, Tobacco Root Mountains

South Tobacco Root Watershed from Granite Creek Allotment June, 2016

Table of Contents Assessment Process ...... 1 Background ...... 3

Authorized Uses ...... 11

Format for Standards…………………………………………………………………………..16

Uplands ...... 16 Affected Environment ...... 16 Findings and Analysis ...... 24 Recommendations ...... 25

Riparian and Wetland Areas ...... 25 Affected Environment ...... 27 Findings and Analysis ...... 29 Recommendations ...... 34

Water Quality ...... 35 Affected Environment ...... 36 Findings and Analysis ...... 37 Recommendations ...... 37

Air Quality ...... 37 Affected Environment ...... 38 Findings and Analysis ...... 38 Recommendations ...... 39

Biodiversity ...... 39 Affected Environment and Findings and Analysis ...... 39 Recommendations ...... 68

Additional Programs, Issues and/or Concerns ...... 70

Interdisciplinary Team Composition ...... 71

Glossary of Terms ...... 72

References ...... 76

Tables Table 1. Grazing Allotments Summary ...... 12 Table 2. General Cover Types...... 18 Table 3. Upland Qualitative Assessment Summary of Grazing Allotments ...... 22 Table 4. STRW Channel Types ...... 28 Table 5. STRW Riparian Habitat Types ...... 28 Table 6. STRW Lotic Reach Condition Summary ...... 30 Table 7. Summary of Causal Factors Preventing PFC on Lotic Reaches ...... 31 Table 8. Developed Springs ...... 34 Table 9. Primary Game Species and Habitat Use in the STRW ...... 43 Table 10. South Tobacco Root Watershed Fish Streams and Species ...... 45 Table 11. Pool Frequency, Depth and Percent Fine Sediment...... 47 Table 12. Stream Temperature Data ...... 47 Table 13. Special Status Species ...... 51 Table 14. Recent Weed Inventories and Treatments ...... 57 Table 15. Aerial Herbicide Application ...... 58 Table 16. Dominant Existing Forest Types and Distribution within the STRW ...... 59 Table 17. Distribution of Dominant BpS in the STRW ...... 64 Table 18. Natural Fire Regimes and Descriptions ...... 65 Table 19. FRCC Summary for South Tobacco Root Watershed (all ownerships) ...... 68

Figures Figure 1. Geology of the South Tobacco Root Assessment Area ...... 9 Figure 2. Mill Gulch AMP Photo Point 05s03w2202 ...... 21 Figure 3. Percent of STRW Lotic Reaches in Miles Meeting/Not Meeting Standards in 2006 Compared to 2016 ...... 30

Maps Map 1. South Tobacco Root Assessment Area Boundary and Allotments Map 2. South Tobacco Root Riparian Reaches—North Half Map 3. South Tobacco Root Riparian Reaches—South Half Map 4. South Tobacco Root Sage Grouse General Habitat Management Area; Completed Timber Sales, Prescribed Fire, and Juniper Reduction Treatments

Appendices Appendix A. A List of Known Plants Found On or Near BLM Lands Within South Tobacco Root Watershed and Wildlife Species List

Appendix B. Livestock Grazing Tools Available to Improve Resource Conditions

Appendix C. Riparian Data and Inventory

Appendix D. STRW Water Quality Summary

Assessment Process

This document reports the land health assessment of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the South Tobacco Root Watershed (STRW).

This is the first in a series of documents: the Watershed Assessment Report, the Authorized Officer’s Determination of Standards, and the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and subsequent Decision(s).

The Watershed Assessment reports the condition and/or function of BLM administered land and resources within the STRW to the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer considers the report to determine if the five Standards for Rangeland Health (Standards) are currently being met, and then signs a Determination of Standards documenting where land health standards are, or are not, in compliance.

This assessment will report condition and/or function for the following five Standards:  Standard #1 Upland Health  Standard #2 Riparian /Wetland Health  Standard #3 Water Quality  Standard #4 Air Quality  Standard #5 Biodiversity

The Standards are assessed on an allotment scale, with the exception of Air Quality, which is made at the watershed level.

This assessment will also report condition and/or function of forest and woodland health. Forest and woodland health can affect each of the five standards, but in this assessment will be reflected under Standard #5 Biodiversity, along with other factors pertinent to biodiversity including Special Status Species and invasive species.

Condition/function declarations regarding the Standards are made as either:  Proper Functioning Condition (PFC),  Functioning At Risk (FAR); which is assigned a trend of up, down, static, or not apparent, or  Nonfunctioning (NF).

Land Health Standards are met when conditions across an allotment as a whole are at PFC or FAR with an upward trend. This is dependent on scope and scale and determined by the Authorized Officer.

Reporting the conditions of the Standards will follow the following format:  1) Affected Environment - This section briefly describes the area and resources that were assessed.  2) Analysis and Recommendations - This section outlines the procedures the interdisciplinary team (IDT) used to determine conformance with the various standards,

lists the findings, and includes recommendations suggested by the IDT during the field assessments.

The Standards are described in detail in the Record of Decision (ROD) Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (S&Gs) for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota-Western Montana Standards. The preamble of the Western Montana Standards states: “The purpose of the S&Gs are to facilitate the achievement and maintenance of healthy, properly functioning ecosystems within the historic and natural range of variability for long-term sustainable use.” Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable lands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of BLM administered lands as stated in 43 CFR 4180.1.

This assessment is being done in accordance with the BLM regulations regarding Rangeland Health Standards.  BLM Manual H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards Handbook and Guidance for Conducting Watershed-Based Land Health Assessments.  Code of Federal Regulation 43 CFR, Subpart 4180  Record of Decision - Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Available trend monitoring data, existing inventories, historical photographs and standardized methodology are used by the IDT to assess condition and function of BLM administered lands. This information, including technical references, BLM policy and procedure handbooks, and monitoring guidelines and methodologies are available for review at the Dillon Field Office. Technical references and BLM procedural handbooks are also available on the BLM library website at www.blm.gov/nstc/library/library.html.

The initial recommendations developed by the IDT during field assessments contained in this report are designed to improve upland, improve riparian/wetland health, improve water quality, improve forest/woodland health, restore high priority species and/or enhance biodiversity within the STRW. The recommendations focus primarily on livestock management, forest and woodland treatments, sagebrush steppe treatments and wildlife and fisheries habitat. Other BLM administered public land resources, concerns, uses and designations addressed in the STRW include road and road maintenance, recreation and travel management, noxious weeds and invasive species, cultural resources, and special status species.

The assessed land health conditions and/or functionality are the basis for the IDT’s management recommendations in this report and the Determination of Standards. As required by NEPA regulations, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be completed to address resource concerns identified within the 33 allotments in the STRW.

Alternative management will be analyzed wherever it is determined that:  specific grazing allotments are not meeting the Standards  allotments are meeting the Standards but have site specific concerns  there are unhealthy forest or woodland conditions in the watershed

 vegetation composition and/or structure are outside the natural range of variability  there are other documented resources concerns

Also, if existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on BLM administered lands are determined to be significant factors in failing to achieve one or more of the five Standards, the BLM is required by regulation (43 CFR 4180.1) to make grazing management adjustments. Alternative management may also be analyzed where permittees or BLM staff has recommended changes to better facilitate current livestock management.

Implementation of new plans will begin in 2018, but it may take several years to fully implement revised grazing management plans, range improvement projects, and forest and woodland treatments. The new plans will be developed in consultation and coordination with the affected lessees, the agencies having lands or managing resources within the area, and other interested parties.

As with all similar BLM decisions, affected parties will have an opportunity to protest and/or appeal these decisions.

Background The South Tobacco Root Watershed is located in northcentral Madison County, Montana on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. The watershed lies in Townships 3-7 South, Ranges 1-6 West, Montana Principal Meridian (M.P.M). The assessment area covers public lands administered by the BLM from near Twin Bridges, Montana, on the west side of the watershed, to near Ennis, Montana, on the east side. The STRW roughly corresponds to the northern half of the 4th level Hydrologic Unit (HU) known as the Ruby (10020003) used by Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). While the majority of the assessment area includes public lands within the Ruby HU, small percentages of the assessment area contribute to the Madison (10020007) and Beaverhead (10020002) 4th level HUs. The assessment area boundary shown on Map 1 follows grazing allotment boundaries, not HU watershed boundaries.

Within the STRW assessment area boundary, there are approximately 231,213 acres of which the BLM administers 31,569 acres. This report addresses only public lands administered by the BLM within the watershed. However, approximately 54,044 acres administered by U.S. Forest Service, 8,309 acres administered by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and 137,291 acres of privately owned lands also occur within the assessment area.

Elevations within the assessment area range from approximately 5,300’ near Alder, Montana, to approximately 7,500’ near the top of Virginia City Hill. Topography varies from flat valley bottoms to steep mountainous ravines. Upland vegetation varies from low-sage (Artemisia arbuscula spp. arbuscula) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) or black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and bottlebrush squirrel-tail (Elymus elymoides) in the valley bottoms, to mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. vaseyana) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) at higher elevations. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Englemann spruce (Picea englemannii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta, subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and limber pine (Pinus flexilus) are the dominate tree species. Riparian stringer habitat is very important within

the watershed and includes a variety of deciduous tree and shrub species. Annual precipitation within the watershed varies from <10" in the lower elevations to >25" in the higher country. Because of the diverse landscape and vegetation within the watershed assessment area, it provides habitat for an abundance of wildlife.

The Dillon Field Office’s Amended Resource Management Plan (RMP) approved in 2006 and amended in 2015 provides guidance for all programs in the Dillon Field Office.

All BLM administered land within the Dillon Field Office has been assessed for land health during the past 15 years. The STRW was assessed in 2006 and was re-assessed during the 2016 field season. By working on a watershed basis, a broader landscape is considered and more consistent management can be applied. It is the BLM's intent to implement watershed management cooperatively. Any changes in livestock management will be implemented through grazing decisions that address allotments or groups of allotments with a common permittee. Forest management actions and any other management projects or changes will be implemented through Decisions appropriate for the respective programs.

All 16 watersheds within the Dillon Field Office covering over 900,000 acres of BLM administered land have been assessed at least once and several have been assessed a second time. These watershed assessments included evaluating all five standards for Rangeland Health, including both upland and riparian systems. Uplands are defined as any part of the landscape beyond the non-streamside boundary of the riparian area (USDI, 1998). Riparian areas are the “green zones” which lie between channels of flowing water and uplands. For each watershed assessment, an interdisciplinary team of trained BLM resource professionals observed these systems and made an on-the-ground rating whether they were meeting BLM Land Health Standards following approved BLM protocols.

Cultural History and Paleontology The Native American presence in the South Tobacco Roots Mountains spans the entire record of documented human occupation in North America. The abundant floral, faunal and lithic resources of the Ruby Valley and surrounding mountains, coupled with the presence of natural travel corridors, has attracted native peoples to the area for the past 10-12,000 years. The uninterrupted use of the area by Native Americans is well documented within the archaeological record and historically documented by early fur trappers who traversed the area where they encountered native peoples belonging to the Shoshone, Bannock, Flathead, and Blackfeet Tribes.

Historically, gold was originally discovered in Virginia City in 1863, along Alder Gulch, causing a mining boom in the area and leaving evidence of mining throughout the STRW. By the end of 1864 all of Alder Gulch was staked with placer mining claims and divided into placer mining districts. Within five years the placer boom was all but over. Estimates of the amount of the gold taken from Alder Gulch during the first five years were around $30,000,000 to $40,000,000. Although the boom was over, lesser amounts of placer gold would continue to be taken from Alder Gulch for the next two decades. Chinese miners leased many of the original claims and methodically worked over the mined areas, recovering considerable amounts of gold missed by the early placer miners.

Historic placer mining only works with relatively shallow ore deposits, leaving much of the deeper gold deposits untouched. Early miners determined that the only feasible way to extract the remaining gold would be with floating dredges. In 1896, the second period of placer mining began using electric-powered floating dredges to remove deeper gold deposits creating large tailing deposits along many of the stream banks in the STRW.

Lode mining in the area got under way shortly after the first discovery of gold. The first lode claims were made in 1864 and five mills were in operation the following year. These early hard- rock mines were usually fairly shallow and mined oxidized ore that could be easily milled for the free gold. Although the 1880s and 1890s saw little production of the bonanza mines, the hills and gulches around Virginia City were not abandoned. The development of dynamite brought hard-rock mining into the realm of the small investor and many small production mines sprang up. The second period of hard-rock mining had to wait for two developments: perfection of cyanide milling and completion of the Northern Pacific rail spur in 1901 from Whitehall to Alder. The cyanide method allowed the processing of lower grade ores and the reprocessing of poorly milled tailings. The railroad spur made it possible to ship lower-grade, complex ores to smelter for processing. The third period of lode mining spanned the Great Depression and lasted until the advent of World War II when gold mining was prohibited as a non-essential war effort. Estimates of the total amount of gold produced in the Virginia City region range from a low of $30,000,000 to a high of $150,000,000.

The BLM designated approximately 513 acres of public land south of Virginia City as the Virginia City Historic District Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). These public lands and the landscape they contain, along with recorded historic properties relating to the mining history and settlement of Virginia City, add value to the Virginia City experience. Activities on public lands surrounding Virginia City especially make the area vulnerable to adverse change should the character of the viewshed be impacted.

No known paleontological sites are identified within the STRW allotment boundaries.

Agricultural History and Socioeconomics Although mining was an impetus in the region’s development, cattle ranching was already established when the first miners found their way into Montana. The Grants and Orrs in the Beaverhead region and the Kohrs in Deer Lodge were grazing cattle and providing beef to local miners as well as to consumers in other parts of the west and east. These early ranchers faced difficult circumstances fighting with Blackfeet and other tribes over territory and initially competing with bison for range. Yet, through the 1870s the cattle and sheep business as well as farming continued to expand. By the end of the 1870s, bison were on the brink of extinction. Public lands became more accessible, facilitated by an “open range” policy that made available public lands for grazing. Cattle ranching in Montana became another means to “strike it rich” and spurred another rush of settlers and speculators.

Before the boom of the 1880s, most Montana cattle operations were partnerships or family affairs, but many of the new outfits were full-fledged corporations with access to plenty of capital and livestock. Dozens of corporate ranches held Montana charters by 1886; and many others, such as the Texas-based XIT, and Continental Land and Cattle spreads, were incorporated

in other states or territories. By 1886, at the peak of the open range boom, roughly 664,000 cattle and 986,000 sheep grazed Montana rangelands. A large percentage of the animals belonged to the new corporate ranchers, whose managers packed them onto limited ranges with no provisions of winter hay, in hope of quick profits from minimal investments (Malone, Roeder, and Lang, 1991: 157).

A severe drought and hard winter in 1886-87 combined with overgrazing on public lands resulted in severe impacts to Montana’s cattle business, with some estimates that half or more of the cattle died (Fletcher, 1960:89-94). Small operators who put up hay adapted better than the “get rich quick” operators did, and after 1887, the cattle industry settled into a period of recuperation and ultimately further expansion as the value of hay for winter feed became apparent (Fletcher 1960).

The agricultural boom began to go bust in the post-war depression of the 1920s, and large numbers of Montana farmers moved out of state, leaving a demographic profile that is similar to that of present day Montana: larger numbers of older persons and younger persons with the middle-age demographic group showing sharp declines. Prior to World War II, ranching and farming continued under pressure, but various New Deal programs supported these industries into World War II, when once again there was a small boom. A combination of weather, world economics, and cultural changes in the United States have continued to influence boom and bust cycles in ranching and farming in southwest Montana. Today these activities remain important to the overall economy and culture of the region, but the face of agriculture and ranching are changing. Ranchers or their family members may also work as fishing guides or outfitters or in town to supplement their income. Fluctuations in cattle prices, other market forces, and increasing equipment and operating costs require some diversification in order to ensure the fiscal viability of present-day ranching operations. Some choose to lease their lands, or access through them for hunting or fishing and thereby supplement ranch income. It is common for wives and children to work for the cash needed to keep family and ranching life viable. Unfortunately, for many ranchers, children are not staying on the ranch, either because the isolation and lifestyle demands are not appealing or because financial realities do not allow it.

The STRW is sparsely populated with Ennis being the largest town near the watershed. Recreation and tourism are important components of the economy of the STRW. Most of this recreation occurs during the summer fishing season and the big game hunting season in the fall, which provides substantial contributions to the local economy.

Of Montana’s 56 counties, Madison County is the 12th largest livestock producer. The USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture Inventory (http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/publications) indicated that there were 119,984 head of cattle and calves and beef cattle in the county. In Madison County there were also 3,557 sheep and lambs inventoried. Very few grain-fed cattle were produced. The focus was on calves and feeder steers along with beef cows or breeding stock. This type of ranching requires large expanses of grazing land.

According to the National Agricultural Statistical Service (http://www.nass.usda.gov/mt/), overall cattle production in Montana has been relatively stable since 1986. The January inventories in 1986 and 2002 reported 2.45 million head with a peak of 2.75 million during 1996.

Sheep production, on the other hand, showed a general decline across the state, reflecting a broader national pattern. The data from 2012 reports that, of Montana’s 56 counties, Madison County ranked 6th in total hay production, 12th in total cattle numbers, and 19th in sheep and lamb numbers.

Several economic factors have changed since the early 1980s which might have affected ranching operations in southwest Montana, including rising real estate values, volatile commodity price fluctuations and rising overhead costs for agriculture. These factors along with state and national politics and changing livestock market conditions have affected the livestock industry over the last twenty years. Social factors include the rising popularity of southwest Montana as a place to live, work and play accompanied by related population growth and change.

BLM grazing fees are calculated using the formula required by 43 CFR 4130.8 and are considerably less than those charged by private landowners. In 2004, the average fee in Montana for grazing on private land was $16 per AUM based on Montana Agricultural Statistics Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service figures, and the minimum fee charged on Montana State Lands was $5.48 per AUM. In 2016, these same fees rose as the average fee in Montana for grazing on private land was $23.00 per AUM, and the minimum fee charge on Montana State Lands is $19.57per AUM. The BLM and Forest Service used the same formula to derive a $2.11per AUM fee in 2016, which makes federal land the least expensive grazing available to area ranchers. Federal grazing permits are desirable for area cattle producers as a source of inexpensive forage, even though additional management costs are usually incurred.

On page 252 of the Proposed Dillon RMP/Final EIS, Table 48, Employment and Labor Earnings by Major Type and Sector in 2000, reports that private on-farm employment accounted for 17 % of total employment in Madison County. Refer to Table 56 on page 286 of the Proposed Dillon RMP and Final EIS, which shows employment and labor income response coefficients related to livestock grazing, timber management and recreation use for the area influenced by the Dillon Field Office. In addition, page 251 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS presents personal income statistics from 2000 that indicate that labor earnings are the largest source of income in Madison County. The Proposed Dillon RMP/Final EIS is available at http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/dillon_field_office/rmp/Final.html.

Special Management Designations There are not any designated Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, or Special Recreation Management Areas within the watershed boundary.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics The planning area was inventoried for lands with wilderness characteristics in accordance with BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands, published in March, 2012. The purpose of an inventory is to determine the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics. The BLM must document existing conditions as opposed to potential future conditions. The inventory will evaluate wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act and incorporated in FLPMA. In order for an area to qualify as lands with wilderness characteristics, it must possess sufficient size, naturalness, and

outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also possess supplemental values. No lands within the watershed qualified as lands with wilderness characteristics due to lack of sufficient size.

Visual Resource Management A small portion of the watershed (513 acres), located within the Virginia City Historic Landmark boundary is classified as VRM Class II. The objective of this class is to retain existing character of the landscape. Activities or modifications of the environment should not be evident or attract the attention of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

The remainder of the watershed is classified as VRM Class III. VRM Class III objectives require partial retention of the existing character of the landscape and allow for moderate changes to the existing landscape. Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes may be evident but may not detract from the existing landscape.

The visual resource contrast rating system will be used during project level planning to determine whether or not proposed activities will meet VRM objectives. Projects will identify mitigation measures to reduce visual contrasts and prepare rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications on a case-by-case basis.

Geology The STRW is dominated by Archean metamorphic rocks common throughout the Tobacco Root Mountains. To the southwest of the Tobacco Root Range, the assessment area is dominated by Quaternary fan, gravel and alluvial deposits.

The oldest rocks in the STRW, and some of the oldest rocks in Montana, are the Precambrian Archean schists and gneisses that are extensive around the Cretaceous granitic rocks which form the core of the Tobacco Root Range. These metamorphic rocks also form the core of the Blacktail Mountains and the Ruby Range to the south. The Archean rocks date to over 2 billion years ago and include a complex mix of schists, gneisses, amphibolites, and rare marbles. The STRW includes only limited areas where Paleozoic rocks crop out. Lower Paleozoic rocks (540-350 MY) occur east of Twin Bridges. Upper Paleozoic units (350-250 MY) also occur south of Sheridan at the north end of the Ruby Range. There are outcrops of upper Paleogene (34-23 MY) sedimentary rocks along the west and southern portions of the assessment area. Middle Paleogene (66-34 MY) sedimentary rocks occur south of the Ruby River southwest of Sheridan, MT.

The northernmost portion of the STRW in the center of the Tobacco Root Mountains may include portions of the Cretaceous granitic core of the range. Other igneous units in the STRW include Paleogene andesitic and basaltic lava flows in the Virginia City area.

Quaternary deposits are highlighted by alluvial fan deposits off the Ruby and Tobacco Root Mountains, earlier gravel deposits, and alluvial deposits along major drainageways.

The relative absence of extensive Paleogene sedimentary rocks in the STRW is a positive feature for all land use decisions. These units often have a strong tendency for mass wasting/landslide features which can be a critical factor for stability in land use decisions.

The Archean units in the Tobacco Root Mountains do not have any of the extensive marble units found farther south in the Ruby Range, limiting the likelihood of economic talc deposits. Throughout the Tobacco Root Mountains there are numerous vein deposits of metallic and precious metals and associated placer deposits in alluvial material.

Figure 1. Geology of the STRW Sedimentary Rocks Mississippian and Devonian

Cambrian

Precambrian (> 540 MY) Archean

Paleogene (68 MY-23 MY)

Paleozoic (540-250 MY) Permian through Mississippian

Igneous Rocks

Fire History The presence or absence of fire plays an integral role in the composition and structure of the vegetation that occurs in the STRW. Fire has shaped western landscapes for the past 10,000 years, but more than a century of settlement activities have seriously disrupted that crucial role in most areas. Since the mid-1800s, the frequency of wildland fires occurring in southwestern Montana and the western United States in general have been reduced by domestic livestock grazing, land use practices, and aggressive fire suppression. Fire scarred trees and charred wood are commonly found in the mountainous terrain and foothills of the STRW. The sagebrush/grassland communities that dominate the majority of the STRW BLM administered land typically retain evidence of past wildfires for a relatively short amount of time. However, photographic evidence and local knowledge shows conifers have greatly increased in density and extent throughout the watershed, due in part to fire exclusion.

Authorized Uses

Forest Products Forest resources in the watershed have been extensively utilized since the mining boom in the 1860’s. Evidence, in the form of old stumps from the 1800’s through the 1920’s, can be found across all ownerships throughout the entire assessment area. Prior to the 1960’s, records of commercial harvest are unavailable but timber was certainly harvested to supply local building materials, mining operations, and for fuel wood. Old stumps, many with the marks of axe- felling, and the remnants of access roads and skid trails used long ago are common.

Past forest management activities (timber harvests) on BLM administered lands occurred in the 1980s in the Granite and Meadow Creek areas in the southeastern Tobacco Root Mountains. These activities covered about 530 acres of forest lands. During that same time period there was also about 300 acres of timber harvested in the Alder Gulch area.

More recently, the BLM completed the South Tobacco Root Phase I timber sale. Between 2013 and 2014, the BLM harvested approximately 890 acres of timber, much of which was affected or killed by recent epidemic forest insect outbreaks. This comprehensive timber harvest occurred within several drainages on the south face of the Tobacco Root Mountains, yielding approximately 2.5 million board feet of timber products. Harvest units were primarily located in the low to mid-elevation Douglas-fir forest, but also included salvage of dead/dying lodgepole pine. In 2015 the BLM commercially harvested approximately 50 acres of timber in the South Meadow Creek drainage, yielding about 0.5 million board feet of timber products.

A very limited amount of post and pole cutting activity in small diameter lodgepole pine has occurred.

The BLM sells permits authorizing firewood removal and Christmas tree cutting on public lands.

Livestock Grazing The assessment area includes 33 grazing allotments covering 31,569 acres of BLM administered public land and 395 acres of unallotted, as well as 33 acres of unleased BLM administered public land (Map 1). Thirty-six different business entities or individuals hold grazing authorizations on

these allotments. Grazing allotments in the STRW provide operators important late spring, summer and fall forage for their livestock. There are 4,278 animal-unit months (AUMs) of allocated livestock forage on BLM administered lands within the allotments. The stocking rate on BLM administered lands within the watershed ranges from 3.0 acre/AUM to 20.5 acres/AUM. This variance is influenced by soils, vegetative type, topography (aspect, elevation, and slope), distance from water and local weather. Cattle (mature individuals or cow/calf pairs) are the primary type of livestock authorized on the 33 allotments; however, several allotments allow the flexibility to graze yearling cattle.

Livestock grazing allotments were assigned to a management category during development of the resource management plan. All grazing allotments in the Dillon Field Office have been categorized as either Improve (I), Maintain (M) or Custodial (C) based on resource values, opportunities for improvement and the BLM’s level of management. Allotment categorization is also used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. Improve (I) category allotments are managed more intensively and are monitored more frequently. Maintain (M) category allotments are usually at a desired ecological condition and are managed to maintain or improve that condition. Custodial (C) category allotments are generally isolated parcels where BLM administered land is a small part of the total grazing unit, there is limited or no public access, and/or have few resource concerns. These small allotments are managed in conjunction with the lessee’s normal livestock operation and generally monitored less frequently. Eight allotments in the STRW are categorized as I allotments, eleven are M, and the remaining fourteen are C allotments. Table 1 summarizes grazing allotment information.

Table 1: Grazing Allotments Summary Grazing Livestock Stocking BLM Allotment number Season Grazing BLM Acres in Other Total Authorization Number and Rate on Active category of Use System Acres Ownerships1 Acres Number Kind BLM AUMs Alder Gulch 435 6/15- 2500087 Rest Rotation 5.4 275 1482 7781 9263 03172 Cattle 10/12 M 5/15- Baker Summit 2500172 2 Cattle 10/20 10487 Custodial Use 9.3 76 710 -- 710 5/15- 2500087 12 Cattle C 10/28 Ballard 6/15- 2505663 36 Cattle Seasonal 8.0 127 1016 905 1921 10456 9/29 I Brandon Seasonal (no more Isolated than 14 days within 2503269 1 Cattle 6/2-6/15 listed season of 3.0 2 6 117 123 10448 use) C Brandon Pasture 2503269 171 Cattle 6/2-6/15 Rest Rotation 10.1 64 647 198 845 20481 M Butcher 24 Cattle 7/1-9/28 Custodial Use Gulch 2500172 4.3 275 1179 2401 3580 03323 138 Cattle 7/2-9/29 Rest Rotation M

Grazing Livestock Stocking BLM Allotment number Season Grazing BLM Acres in Other Total Authorization Number and Rate on Active category of Use System Acres Ownerships1 Acres Number Kind BLM AUMs Cal Creek AMP 6/15- 2501941 164 Cattle Rest Rotation 9.1 285 2584 2775 5359 10507 10/15 M Copper Mtn. 6/15- 2505535 83 Cattle Season Long 5.3 104 550 1227 1777 10531 10/15 I Cow Creek 5/16- Seasonal (no more 2505732 10 Cattle 9.8 5 49 -- 49 20446 5/31 than 16 days) C Downey Creek 6/1- 2505663 5 Cattle Custodial Use 17.8 22 392 1363 1755 20581 10/14 C Dry Lakes 6/1- 2504430 32 Cattle Custodial Use 7.5 152 1141 5130 6271 20526 10/25 C Elser 7/1- 2505728 7 Cattle Custodial Use 13.2 23 304 410 714 20477 10/10 C Fletcher- Moore 5/15- 2504690 33 Cattle Rest Rotation 8.0 213 1722 6835 8557 30428 12/1 I Funk 6/1- 2502474 5 Cattle Custodial Use 11.7 23 270 836 1106 10478 10/31 C Georgia Gulch 2502879 78 Cattle 5/1-9/1 Deferred Rotation 9.0 232 2078 1636 3714 20348 I Granite Creek 5/16- 2505720 72 Cattle Deferred Rotation 6.1 221 1349 601 1950 10468 9/29 M Granite- 6/1-6/30 Moore 2505694 245 Cattle Rest Rotation 7.9 198 1571 -- 1571 10427 10/15- 11/14 I Hillside 10514 2501245 3 Cattle 5/1-2/28 Custodial Use 7.8 36 281 535 816 C Hungry Hollow 5/15- 2500154 23 Cattle Custodial Use 16.4 127 2084 4908 7712 10491 10/28 C Lott 8/16- 2505705 20 Cattle Custodial Use 9.5 39 370 864 1234 10331 10/14 C Madison Overlook 5/1- 2500145 101 Cattle Seasonal 3.5 284 1004 2394 3398 03157 11/24 M

Grazing Livestock Stocking BLM Allotment number Season Grazing BLM Acres in Other Total Authorization Number and Rate on Active category of Use System Acres Ownerships1 Acres Number Kind BLM AUMs

McGovern 2504863 121 Cattle 6/1-10/1 00957 Seasonal 5.5 249 1358 4336 5694 6/1- M 2500087 84 Cattle 10/15 Mill Gulch AMP 6/15- 2504131 53 Cattle Deferred Rotation 6.9 80 550 255 805 10475 9/24 M Mill Gulch Isolated 6/1- 2504131 5 Cattle Custodial Use 5.1 20 102 1581 1683 20450 10/15 C Miller 20418 2500103 2 Horses 3/1-2/28 Custodial Use 9.3 4 37 109 146 C Ramshorn Creek 2505784 180 Cattle 5/20-7/2 Rest Rotation 15.1 135 2042 1632 3674 10552 I Ruby Seasonal Use (Not 9/15- more than 45 days 2500154 160 cattle 6.0 99 592 911 1503 03322 10/29 within listed season M of use) Sand Coulee 6/1- 2500087 26 Cattle Rest Rotation 15.4 39 602 42 644 20679 10/15 I South Daisy 6/21- 2500215 23 Cattle Season Long 15.7 89 1396 235 1631 20399 10/15 M Valley Garden 2502439 6 Cattle 6/1-7/21 Custodial Use 9.0 9 81 -- 81 10547 C Virginia City Hill 6/1- 2505664 340 Cattle Deferred Rotation 3.8 567 2163 3264 5427 10521 10/15 M Wisconsin Creek 6/15- 2505753 55 Cattle Season Long 6.9 202 1388 333 1721 10501 10/25 I Wisconsin Creek 5/15- 2505753 5 Cattle Custodial Use 20.5 2 41 -- 41 Isolated 10/12 10523 C Unleased ------33 -- 33

Unallotted ------395 -- 395

BLM Totals ------AVG=9.1 4278 31,569 53,614 85,903

Grazing Livestock Stocking BLM Allotment number Season Grazing BLM Acres in Other Total Authorization Number and Rate on Active category of Use System Acres Ownerships1 Acres Number Kind BLM AUMs

1PVT=Private, FS=US Forest Service, ST=Montana Department of Natural Resources

The BLM has worked cooperatively with individual livestock permittees/lessees in the watershed for many years to develop Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) that prescribe grazing management to maintain or improve natural resource conditions. Of the BLM administered lands in the watershed that are available for livestock grazing (25,701 ), about 81% of the acres are managed under formal AMPs, or have agreed upon grazing systems that prescribe a grazing system, such as rest rotation or deferred rotation (Table 1). About 19% of the BLM administered acres that are available for livestock grazing are in custodial allotments, where BLM management inputs are minimal because of the small proportion of public land in the allotments (see Map 1).

Recreation No big game outfitters are currently permitted to operate on BLM lands within the watershed which is primarily inside the Tobacco Root Mountains Outfitter Permit Area (OPA), but also includes small portions inside the Ruby Mountains/Sweetwater OPA and the Madison River OPA. No active Special Recreation Permits exist within the watershed boundary. The last time this assessment was completed, in 2006, there was one big game outfitter permitted and one permit for horseback trips, but neither still operates. Special Recreation Permits are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Dispersed recreational use is dominated by big game hunting. In 2015, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Hunting District 320 received over 6,000 elk “hunter days” and over 200 elk were harvested. All other recreational uses in the area are light, but may include snowmobiling, wildlife viewing and pleasure driving, hiking, horseback riding, and OHV use, among other uses. There are no developed recreation sites within the watershed.

Mining, Minerals and Abandoned Mine Lands The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Natural Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 direct that the Public lands be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation's needs for domestic sources of mineral production. Under the 1872 Mining Law, claimants have a statutory right to develop their mineral deposits consistent with applicable environmental laws.

Mineral activity in the STRW on BLM administered land is currently very limited. Much of the area has high potential for locatable mineral development, but due to numerous factors, active exploration and development is minimal. There are several 43 CFR 3809 Notices (of exploration) on file but little activity is currently taking place. Over the past several years there have been several Plans of Operation submitted to remove waste material for reprocessing but these projects are nearing completion. These reprocessing project sites include Alder Gulch, Mapleton and upper Wet Georgia Gulch.

There is some mineral activity on patented land within the STRW. These activities include, but are not limited to, garnet mining south of Alder; placer mining in Alder Gulch; waste material removal in Alder Gulch and upper Brown’s Gulch; and hard-rock mining and development east of Sheridan and Twin Bridges. Since BLM has no direct authority on patented land, the BLM generally does track mineral activity on private property.

The BLM had one mineral material community pit (salable minerals) located northeast of Laurin. Several years ago, management of the site was transferred to Madison County under a Recreation and Public Purposes action. There is also the Virginia City scoria site located east of Virginia City, but there have been no sales from that location in years. There are no current exclusive mineral material sales in the watershed.

The STRW is considered to have low to moderate potential for oil and gas. No exploration is known to have taken place in the watershed for many years.

With the high mineral potential in this area, an extensive amount of historic mining has taken place since the 1860’s. There are numerous old shafts, adits, mills and other related features within the assessment area. Although there are no sites identified as major environmental concerns on BLM administered lands, there is always the potential abandon mines or related features could pose a public safety or natural resource concerns. The BLM continues to mitigate concerns associated with abandoned mines as they are discovered and as funding and resources are available.

Format for Standards

The Upland, Riparian, Air Quality, and Water Quality Standards will follow the following format:

 Affected Environment - This section briefly describes the area and resources that were assessed.  Findings and Analysis - This section describes the findings of the IDT during the field assessment.  Recommendations - This section presents initial recommendations developed by the IDT during the field assessment.

Because of the complexities involved with addressing the Biodiversity Standard, the Affected Environment and Findings and Analysis are presented together and Recommendations are presented at the end of the section.

Uplands

Western Montana Standard #1: “Uplands are in Proper Functioning Condition.”

Affected Environment

Shrublands (sagebrush and Rocky Mountain juniper) and grasslands are considered uplands for purposes of this report. The LANDFIRE satellite imagery used to deliniate existing vegetation types is unable to accurately distinguish sagebrush from Rocky Mountain juniper so they are combined for this report and referred to as shrubland. The IDT found very few areas on BLM administered land where sagebrush and Rocky Mountain juniper were not intermixed. According to LANDFIRE satellite imagery of vegetation across all ownerships, approximately 45 percent of the STRW is shrubland (sagebrush and juniper) and 7 percent is grassland. The variety and distribution of plant communities and seral stages in the watershed area is a function of climate, geology, and soil combined with:  historic uses (grazing and timber harvest)  short term weather patterns  disturbance regimes (drought, fire, floods and herbivory)

Soils The STRW is situated within the Lower Beaverhead River, Lower Ruby River, Alder Gulch, Madison River-Ennis Lake, and Meadow Creek watersheds. There are 53 soil map units that occur on BLM administered public lands within this area. These map units represent a wide variety of inherent characteristics that influence vegetative growth, erosion potential, site productivity, drainage class, and available water supply. Soils within the analysis area have been mapped and described in the Madison County Area Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, 2015). The soil survey delineates soil map units, landforms, and vegetation components and provides interpretive information on soil use and management.

Within the Tobacco Root Mountains, soils are generally derived from Quartzofeldspathic gneiss on the mountain slope, till and/or alluvium within the drainages, and alluvial fan deposits on the toe slopes of the mountains (Ruppel et. al, 1993). There are also areas of ultramafic rocks, amphibolite, aluminous schist, and marble. In the area near Virginia City, soils are generally derived from andesite and basalt flows (Kellogg & Williams, 2006).

Soils within the assessment area are generally well drained (87.4%), however approximately 12.5% of the soils are excessively or somewhat excessively drained (USDA NRCS, 2015). Water is generally removed rapidly from excessively or somewhat excessively drained soils and internal free water is very rare or very deep (USDA NRCS, 2003). Less than 1% of the assessment area is poorly drained; these areas are along Wet Georgia Gulch and Alder Gulch. Soil surface textural classes for a majority (85.4%) of the assessment area include gravelly loam, very flaggy loam, channery sandy loam, very channery sandy loam, very flaggy coarse sandy loam, and sandy loam (USDA NRCS, 2015). Clay content averages throughout the soil profile are low (10-20% clay) to moderate (20-30% clay); USDA NRCS, 2015). Within the assessment area clay content ranges from 26.9-3.1%, but averages 15.3% throughout the assessment area. Unweathered bedrock is limited to side slopes of main drainages, outcrops and around abrupt elevational changes that expose mostly gneiss and schist parent material. Soils are generally deep to very deep throughout the assessment area.

Based on inherent soil characteristics, the potential water erosion hazard from off-road/off-trail disturbances, such as logging, grazing, or mining, is generally slight to moderates throughout the assessment area (USDA NRCS, 2015). Soils that are rated as severe for erosion hazard generally

occur on steeper slopes within the assessment area. Soils that rate as very severe for erosion hazard generally occur within the steep forested mountains in the southeast portion of the assessment area. The more severe the water erosion hazard is, especially in areas where disturbance may occur, the greater potential for the movement of sediments and depletion of soil productivity due to the removal or degradation of the surface horizon.

The wind erosion hazard within the assessment area, based upon the Wind Erosion Group (WEG), is generally low (NRCS USDA, 2015). Within the Elser and Brandon Pasture allotments there are soils with a WEG rating of 2, which indicates that these soils may be vulnerable to wind erosion. Wind erosion is not an issue in these allotments based on visual observations.

Vegetation Current vegetative cover was calculated using remotely sensed LANDFIRE (2013) existing vegetation type data. Some acreage will be under or over estimated, but generally follow the amounts shown in Table 2.

Table 2. General Cover Types All Land BLM Land Description % of Total % BLM % BLM of Total Acres Acres Shrubland (sagebrush and juniper) 103,792 45% 19,884 63% 9% Forested 61,631 27% 7,961 25% 3% Grassland 16,969 7% 2,111 7% 1% Aspen-mix 6,506 3% 1,245 4% <1.0% Riparian 4,851 2% 224 <0.1% <0.1% Water 351 <0.2% 0.1 <0.1% <0.1% Other 37,113 16% 144 <0.1% <0.1% Totals 231,213 100% 31,569 100% 14% % of Total = Percent of acreage for each land type for all land. % BLM = Percent of acreage for each land type that BLM manages % BLM of Total = percentage of acreage for each land type occurring on BLM land as compared to all lands in the watershed.

The upland plant composition in the STRW is changing as the result of ecological succession. The natural progression from early seral (successional) stage plant communities towards a climax plant community (the final vegetation community and highest ecological development) is inevitable. Aerial photographs clearly show the spread of coniferous trees down-slope onto benches previously dominated by sagebrush and cool season grasses. The spread of primarily Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain juniper can be attributed, in part, to the reduced frequency of wildfire fire which has changed the dominant plant species and habitat types on much of the uplands in the watershed. This shift affects the overall biodiversity of the watershed and is addressed in greater detail in the Biodiversity Standard # 5 section of this report.

Most of the watershed’s public land uplands are dominated by shrublands which include Rocky Mountain Juniper and several species of sagebrush, including mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. vasayana), Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis), basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata), three-tip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita) and black sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula var. nova. Cool season range grasses grow in the under story of sagebrush/grassland habitats. Some of the prominent herbaceous species include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicatum), western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa sandbergii), needle-and-thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis).

Vegetative Treatments Prior to the 2006 STRW field assessment, the BLM implemented several prescribed burns within the watershed. In April, 1987, the Granite Creek prescribed burn covered approximately 200 acres of sagebrush and grass east of Granite Creek (T6S R3W sections 2 & 10). The primary objective of the burn was to reduce soil erosion under the sagebrush canopy. Competition for limited water and soil nutrients had reduced grasses in the understory resulting in increased bare ground and erosion. Reducing the sagebrush provided the grasses a competitive advantage which increased individual plant vigor and herbaceous ground cover while effectively reducing the erosive effects of wind and water. In 1986, 95 acres of BLM administered land was burned to reduce sagebrush between Indian Creek and Nonpariel Creek in the Brandon Pasture allotment. A prescribed burn was also implemented in the Slade Creek drainage in the Virginia City Hill allotment to reduce sagebrush canopy.

More recently, between 2009 and 2012, the BLM implemented approximately 500 acres of prescribed fire in the Wisconsin Creek drainage to reduce conifer expansion into sagebrush habitat. Of note, in August of 2013, the lighting-caused Indian Creek wildfire intersected a portion of the previously completed prescribed burn east of the Noble Fork. The lighter, grass- dominated fuels in the prescribed burn area aided in the suppression efforts of the wildfire.

Between 2008 and 2011, The BLM treated approximately 485 acres on the southern edge of Virginia City to reduce confer expansion into sagebrush habitat and to reduce fuels directly adjacent the community. The treatments included a combination of mechanical treatment followed by burning the piles of slash, as well as broadcast prescribed fire. During the 2016 field assessment, the IDT noted conifer seedlings have reestablished in most areas that was not treated Young conifers reestablishing following mechanical treatment. with follow-up broadcast prescribed Butcher Gulch allotment, south of Virginia City. July, 2016 fire.

Findings, Analysis and Recommendations

Procedure to determine conformance with Standard The uplands were assessed on an allotment basis according to Interagency Technical Reference 1734-6 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. This technical reference is available to the public to read at the Dillon Field Office or download on the BLM Library webpage, http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm. This qualitative process evaluates 17 “indicators” (e.g., soil compaction, water flow patterns, plant community composition) to assess three interrelated components or “attributes” of rangeland health: soil/site stability, hydrological function, and biotic integrity. The IDT visits specific ecological sites and rates each indicator on the degree of departure, if any, from what is expected for the site. The rating for each indicator is then weighed to determine the degree of departure of the three attributes of rangeland health. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed Ecological Site Descriptions based on specific soil types, precipitation zones and location. They describe various characteristics and attributes including what vegetative species, and relative percentage of each, are expected to be present on the site. The IDT refers to these site descriptions while completing the upland evaluation matrix.

As part of the procedure to determine conformance with the Upland standard, the 2016 South Tobacco Root Watershed IDT reviewed the long term trend study data, including photographic records, conducted extensive field surveys, and used the Indicators of Rangeland Health assessment process while visiting each allotment to assess the functionality of the uplands in the STRW. The STRW was also evaluated for weed infestations using treatment records and inventories from the Dillon Field Office, the Madison County Weed Coordinator, and the IDT’s collective observations during the field assessments.

Members of the IDT visited 32 of the 33 grazing allotments in the STRW during the 2016 field assessment, and completed 29 Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrices on various ecological sites and plant associations. In addition, numerous Daubenmire trend studies and permanent photo plots, which were established in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, were duplicated in 2015 to help determine vegetative trends. The data collected were summarized and compared with baseline and interim data providing supporting information, along with the photographic record, for interpreting the upland indicators (see Table 3, Upland Qualitative Assessment Summary). Descriptions of these upland monitoring methodologies are found in Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4, Sampling Vegetation Attributes, which is available at the Dillon Field Office or online at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techref.htm.

Conifer expansion into sagebrush/grasslands is affecting Upland Health within the majority of the allotments on the south side of the watershed, and is discussed under the Standard #5 – Biodiversity. Figure 2 below shows the establishment and expansion of conifers in the uplands at a permanent photo point between 1979 and 2015. Table 3 outlines the findings at sites throughout the watershed where the IDT completed the Indicators of Rangeland Health evaluation matrix. A moderate departure from expected conditions is analogous to a FAR rating (USDI 2005). Upland sites that were found to be in the none-to-slight or slight-to-moderate departure from expected conditions category are generally considered to be in PFC.

Figure 3. Mill Gulch AMP Photo Point 05s03w2202—1979 and 2015

7/26/1979

8/4/2015

Table 3. Upland Qualitative Assessment Summary of Grazing Allotments within the STRW ALLOTMENT NAME, DEGREE OF DEPARTURE FROM EXPECTED NUMBER & ECOLOGICAL DOMINANT SOIL SITE HYDROLOGIC BIOTIC CATEGORY SITE PLANT SPECIES STABILITY FUNCTION INTEGRITY Droughty Bluebunch Ballard, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 10456, (I) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Copper Sandy loam Bluebunch Mountain, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho None-Slight None-Slight Slight 10531, (I) Precipitation fescue/Mountain Zone big sagebrush Coarse Sandy Bluebunch Georgia Gulch, Loam wheatgrass/Idaho 20348, (I) 15-19” None-Slight None-Slight Slight fescue/Mountain Precipitation big sagebrush Zone Sandy Loam Ramshorn Creek, Bluebunch 10-14” 10552, (I) wheatgrass/Basin None-Slight Slight Slight Precipitation big sagebrush Zone Loamy Bluebunch Sand Coulee, 10-14” wheatgrass/ Slight- Slight- 20679, (I) Slight-Moderate Precipitation Mountain big Moderate Moderate

Zone sagebrush Stony loam Bluebunch Wisconsin Creek, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 10501, (I) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Loamy Fletcher-Moore, 10-14” 30428, (I) Needle and Thread None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation

Zone SandyClayLoam Butcher Gulch, 15-19” Bluebunch 3323, (M) None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation wheatgrass

Zone Loamy (Limey) Bluebunch Alder Gulch, 12-17” wheatgrass/Idaho 3172, (M) None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Clay Loam Ruby, Limey Bluebunch Slight- Slight- 3322, (M) 10-14” wheatgrass/Needle Slight Moderate Moderate Precipitation and Thread Zone Loamy Bluebunch Brandon Pasture, 15” wheatgrass/Idaho 20481, (M) None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush

ALLOTMENT NAME, DEGREE OF DEPARTURE FROM EXPECTED NUMBER & ECOLOGICAL DOMINANT SOIL SITE HYDROLOGIC BIOTIC CATEGORY SITE PLANT SPECIES STABILITY FUNCTION INTEGRITY Loamy Bluebunch Cal-Creek AMP, 10-14” wheatgrass/Idaho Slight- Slight- 10507, (M) Moderate Precipitation fescue/Mountain Moderate Moderate

Zone big sagebrush Loamy- Bluebunch Granite Creek, Droughty wheatgrass/Idaho 10468, (M) 15-19” Slight Slight Slight fescue/Mountain Precipitation big sagebrush Zone Madison Loamy Bluebunch Overlook, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight 3157, (M) Precipitation fescue/Mountain Zone big sagebrush Loamy Bluebunch McGovern, 10-14” wheatgrass/Idaho 957, (M) Slight Slight Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Stony Loam Bluebunch Mill Gulch AMP, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 10475, (M) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Virginia City Loamy Bluebunch Hill, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho None-Slight None-Slight Slight 10521, (M) Precipitation fescue/Mountain Zone big sagebrush South Daisy, Sandy Loam Bluebunch 20399, (M) 20” Precipitation wheatgrass/Idaho None-Slight None-Slight Slight Zone fescue Sandy Loam Baker Summit, Bluebunch 10-14” 10487, (C) wheatgrass/Rocky None-Slight Slight-Moderate Moderate Precipitation Mountain Juniper Zone Loamy Bluebunch Brandon Isolated, 10-14” wheatgrass/Idaho 10448, (C) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Loamy Cow Creek, Needle and 10-14” 20446, (C) Thread/Wyoming None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation sagebrush Zone Loamy Bluebunch Downey Creek, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 20581, (C) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Loamy Bluebunch Dry Lakes, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 20526, (C) None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush

ALLOTMENT NAME, DEGREE OF DEPARTURE FROM EXPECTED NUMBER & ECOLOGICAL DOMINANT SOIL SITE HYDROLOGIC BIOTIC CATEGORY SITE PLANT SPECIES STABILITY FUNCTION INTEGRITY Stony Loam Bluebunch Elser, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 20477, (C) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Stony Loam Bluebunch Funk, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 10478, (C) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Bluebunch Granite-Moore, Gravely Loam wheatgrass/Idaho 10427, (C) 20” Precipitation None-Slight None-Slight Slight fescue/Mountain Zone big sagebrush Loamy (Limey) Hillside, Needle and 12-17” 10514, (C) Thread/Wyoming None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation sagebrush Zone Very Rocky Bluebunch Hungry Hollow, 15-19” wheatgrass/Idaho 10491, (C) None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Limey Wyoming big Lott, 10-14” sagebrush/ Slight- 10331, (C) Slight Slight Precipitation bluebunch Moderate

Zone wheatgrass Mill Gulch Gravely Loam Bluebunch Isolated, 17-20” wheatgrass/Idaho None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight 20450, (C) Precipitation fescue/Mountain Zone big sagebrush Loamy Wisconsin Cr. skeletal/Sandy Isolated., Loam NeedleandThread None-Slight None-Slight None-Slight 10523, (C) 12-14” Precipitation Zone Sandy Loam Bluebunch Miller, 12-14” wheatgrass/Idaho 20418, (C) None-Slight None-Slight Slight Precipitation fescue/Mountain

Zone big sagebrush Limey Sandy Valley Garden, Loam Prairie junegrass, 10547, (C) 10-14” None-Slight None-Slight Slight NeedleandThread Precipitation Zone

Findings and Analysis Sites with none to slight departures from what is expected, the quantitative monitoring data supports the findings of the IDT. The ecological condition at these upland sites is stable or improving. Where erosion is present, it is scarce and usually a remnant of historical grazing.

Tall cool-season bunchgrasses, specifically bluebunch wheatgrass and other palatable native grasses and forbs match, or nearly match, what is expected for the site.

The sites with moderate departures, it is likely due to past and occasionally current, repeated spring and summer cattle grazing with little or no rest periods during the growing season. It can also be from a properly stocked allotment that has poor grazing distribution due to lack of available water across the pasture or difficult topography. Moderate departures denote a poorly functioning upland.

Treatments to reduce conifer expansion into sagebrush and grassland habitat generally met project objectives. Prescribed fire effectively killed the targeted, young conifers that had established within mountain big sagebrush habitat. Unburned stringers of sagebrush within the prescribed fire treatment units, and abundant sagebrush in the nearby landscape, is providing a seed source for sagebrush reestablishment following burn treatments. Mechanical treatments without follow-up prescribed to reduce conifer expansion produced mixed results. In the short term, fuel continuity has been reduced in treated areas. However, in all areas treated solely with mechanical means, young conifers have reestablished. The photograph on page 19 shows young conifers reestablishing within a mechanically treated area near Virginia City.

Recommendations for Uplands

1. Continue to maintain or improve upland health in all 32 allotments that exhibit healthy or improving upland conditions. 2. On the Baker Summit allotment, adjust the grazing management to incorporate deferment and/or rest, or adjust the season of use. 3. Remove dysfunctional or unnecessary improvements, e.g. down fences, unwanted fences, or old water troughs and headboxes. 4. Consider the use of mechanical treatment and/or prescribed fire to reduce conifer expansion in sagebrush and grasslands.

Riparian and Wetland Areas

Western Montana Standard #2: "Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition."

Procedure to determine conformance with Standard BLM policy specifies using several complimentary monitoring and evaluation methodologies to determine conformance with the Riparian Health Standard regarding riparian (lotic) and wetland (lentic) areas. The IDT used the Lotic and Lentic Riparian Area Management Assessment Methodologies TR 1737-15and TR 1737-16 (USDI 2015c, 1999), also known as Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment Methodologies as well as Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health TR 1734-6 (USDI 2005), to evaluate riparian wetland systems including streams, riparian meadows and riparian wet meadows. The lotic methodology is used for flowing water systems and their associated riparian areas. The lentic methodology is used for ponds and still water systems. Wetlands are transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic

systems. Sensitivity to grazing impacts varies along a gradient from wet to dry. The wettest and the driest sites are often more resilient than intermediate sites where pugging frequently occurs. Applicable portions of the lentic methodology are used to assess springs and wet meadows. A Guide to Managing, Restoring, and Conserving Springs in the Western United States TR 1737- 17 (USDI 2001) is also used for springs. These technical references are available online at https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/blm-library/publications/blm_publications/tech_refs.html.

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is a range of conditions (continuum), not a single point. A high PFC rating may be analogous to Desired Future Condition (DFC), however a low PFC rating, while meeting the Riparian Health Standard, may not meet site specific objectives. “Riparian-wetland areas can function properly before they achieve their potential.” The lotic PFC assessment utilizes attributes and processes that can be judged visually to evaluate riparian wetland areas with flowing water against their capability and potential. Some of these attributes and processes include the stream channel’s physical characteristics or stream geometry (dimension, pattern and profile). To function properly, adequate vegetation, landform or woody debris should be present to dissipate energy associated with relatively frequent high flow events and to filter sediment, capture bed load and aid floodplain development so the stream does not excessively aggrade or degrade (down-cut). The IDT uses the Rosgen Stream Classification System as a tool to help determine stream potential (Rosgen 1994). This system has gained wide recognition throughout the United States and abroad and its use is recommended in the Second Edition of the BLM Technical Reference 1737-15 (USDI 2015). A major benefit of the system is the ability to determine stream sensitivity and to predict channel evolution with some level of accuracy (Rosgen 1996). The classification system is available online at http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/assets/A_Classification_of_Natural_Rivers- Catena_Paper.pdf.

The Dillon Field Office used its riparian database, which has been developed over the course of 20 years, as a starting point for the STRW. Many of the riparian areas in the assessment area were originally described and mapped based on aerial photos and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps. This information was the basis for GIS mapping. In recent years, springs and wetlands have been added to the GIS inventory and mapping effort. Subsequent ground-truthing has verified that a number of drainages previously mapped as riparian habitat are actually ephemeral drainages which lack riparian characteristics. These reaches have been removed from the stream/wetland inventory. Conversely, several stream reaches, springs and wetlands not previously categorized were identified during the watershed assessment process. These new streams, springs and wetlands were assessed by the BLM and added to the BLM riparian-wetland database.

Data were collected on all the streams flowing through BLM administered land in the STRW using a modified version of the Montana Riparian Wetland Assessment (MRWA) methodology (Hansen et al. 1995) during the 2015 field season prior to the IDT’s PFC assessments. In accordance with the Dillon Resource Management Plan, the MRWA methodology has been adapted and modified by the Dillon Field Office to include channel morphology parameters. The MRWA methodology includes inventories of physical and vegetative characteristics and streambed materials, and measurements of channel dimensions (bank full width, mean bank full depth, flood prone width). Physical measurements are utilized to assess channel morphology and

stability and tentatively classify streams at Rosgen Level I (Rosgen 1994, 1996). The MRWA also includes inventories and observations of the composition, cover, vigor and the amount of recruitment, regeneration and utilization of vegetative species within the riparian zone. The data gathered were used by the IDT in conjunction with the PFC assessment process to ascertain riparian health and trends on a reach by reach basis.

Riparian coverboards, greenline, woody browse and cumulative width/depth transects, and pebble counts were also used to measure various riparian attributes in the STRW. Riparian coverboards were established in the STRW in the 1980’s. Coverboard data measures relative change in canopy cover of woody species in the riparian zone. Greenline transects are also used to measure changes in the relative abundance of different plant community types in the riparian area. Greenline data track changes in vegetative composition and cover within the narrow green vegetation ribbon adjacent to the channel. Woody browse, short for woody browse regeneration, is used to monitor age classes and recruitment of deciduous woody shrubs. Pebble counts are utilized to determine changes in substrate. Cumulative width/depth is used to monitor changes in stream geometry. Rosgen monitoring, similar to cumulative width/depth, is conducted to track changes in channel morphology. Photographs are also taken at the various monitoring sites to record current conditions and relative changes over time. All the monitoring data used to aid the IDT in its assessment are included in the STRW project file and are available for review at the Dillon Field Office.

Affected Environment BLM-managed riparian habitat within the STRW is dominated by lotic (flowing water) systems as there are no lentic (wetland) areas currently inventoried in the DFO Riparian database, nor in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI).

Due to the close proximity of Virginia City, nearly all of the primary streams and their secondary tributaries have been severely impacted by placer mining or hydraulic dredging operations of the 1800’s and early 1900’s. This disturbance has channelized most of the streams, altered the gradient and overall function of these streams. In many cases the placer mining left an entrenched channel which has lowered the water table and dried the valley bottom creating an environment more conducive to conifer expansion. See the Findings & Analysis section for further discussion on the impacts of historic placer mining. During the same time period, beavers were trapped out of this area, which has further affected the hydrology of streams that had deciduous woody habitat types. The streams furthest north in the watershed and at higher elevations were impacted less than those closer to Virginia City, which was the hub of the mining activity.

Streams Total inventoried stream miles within the assessment area is 41.3 miles. This figure is post- assessment and includes 2016 updates to the DFO riparian database. The majority of the assessment area and stream miles fall within the northern portion of the Ruby 4th level hydrologic unit (a.k.a. 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code or HUC8) as the majority of streams cascade off the Tobacco Root mountains and contribute to the Ruby River downstream of Ruby Reservoir. Due to grazing allotment boundaries, the southeast portion of the STRW, including 7.3 miles of riparian, contributes to the Madison HUC8 and the northern most riparian 2.5 miles contribute to

the Beaverhead HUC8. The USGS has delineated watersheds into smaller subwatersheds (i.e. 5th and 6th level or HUC10 and HUC12 respectively). Table 6 in Appendix C includes a list of the 4th-6th level HUCs that are included in the STRW.

All 41.3 miles of stream within the assessment area are moderate gradient (2-4%, Rosgen type B or G) to high gradient (>4%, Rosgen type A) streams, and the largest percentage by vegetative habitat type is characterized by conifers (spruce, Douglas-fir). Tables 4 and 5 below provide a breakdown of STRW channel types and habitat types as inventoried in 2016. Appendix C provides further breakdown of STRW channel types and habitat types as inventoried through 2016.

Table 4: STRW Channel Types Rosgen Level I % of Channel Type* Count Miles total A 22 10.5 25% A/B 8 7.1 17% B 29 22.5 54% B/G 2 1.2 3% Totals 61 41.3 *more discussion of Rosgen channel types in “Findings and Analysis” below.

Table 5: STRW Riparian Habitat Types Dominant % of total Vegetation Type Count Miles miles Spruce/Douglas-fir 24 18.2 44% Aspen 14 8.4 20% Willow/Sedge 17 7.7 19% Juniper 6 7.0 17% Totals 61 41.3

The mainstem tributaries to the Ruby River within the STRW are Alder Gulch, California Creek, Granite Creek, Indian Creek, Mill Creek, Ramshorn Creek, and Wisconsin Creek. Moore Creek, on the eastern slope of assessment area, flows to the Madison River. To provide a relative size of these creeks, base flow is estimated within a range of 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 12 cfs. In addition to past mining impacts, most of these streams have a gravel road encroaching upon, or within, the riparian area.

Springs and Wetlands There are six developed springs within the assessment area and there are numerous other springs scattered throughout the watershed. The only wetland habitat identified is associated with spring or live water stream habitat, there are no independent wetland habitats inventoried at this time. The Dillon Field Office has not developed nor does it plan to develop a comprehensive wetland inventory, but rather supports the Montana Natural Heritage Program wetland mapping program. See discussion below under National Wetland Inventory (NWI).

All developed springs were inventoried and assessed and are listed and described in the Findings, Analysis and Recommendations section.

National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a nationwide inventory of wetlands. The Inventory was developed to facilitate conservation efforts by identifying various wetland types and their distribution throughout the United States. To do this a wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) was developed that is now the Federal Standard (see glossary). The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), with financial assistance from the BLM, is in the process of mapping riparian and wetland resources to NWI standards for all of Southwest Montana. Wetland and riparian mapping within the STRW has been completed and data is available for download from the Montana State Library at: http://geoinfo.msl.mt.gov/home/msdi/wetlands or can be viewed on the MNHP webpage at: http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t. The Cowardian wetland classification system is accessible at: http://mtnhp.org/nwi/Cowardin.pdf

Findings and Analysis

Streams The overarching theme for streams in the STRW is impact from past mining activity and the close proximity of roads to these streams. Both have severely altered stream morphology and often the morphology of the whole valley bottom. Where placer mining activities have occurred, valley bottom alluvium, including the streambed, has been turned over, sorted, and redistributed. The result is typically a lower, more confined valley bottom, with artificial concentrations of large cobble that are not movable by the typical channel forming flows. Channels were left, or have become, highly entrenched and/or have become locked laterally into place. A lowered valley bottom on a mainstem tributary in many cases has accelerated the erosion and down- cutting of adjacent tributaries as they degrade to meet the elevation at their confluence with the altered mainstem valley bottom (e.g.; California Creek, Ramshorn Creek).

The increased entrenchment of stream channels has disconnected many miles of stream from their adjacent floodplains. The concentration of immobile large bed material has disrupted and lessened typical rates of bed scour, lateral migration and floodplain development. While all reaches within the STRW are classified with gradients greater than 2% and therefore do not typically exhibit high potential for lateral migration or floodplain development; a large percentage (>70%) are classified as B channels (2-4% grade) which by definition should only be moderately entrenched with narrow floodplain development (i.e.; retain some sediment) (Rosgen, 2006). Under current conditions, the potential and capacity for sediment and temporary water storage in adjacent floodplains is greatly reduced. This is of particular concern as sediment loads are elevated above expected natural rate due to anthropogenic sources such as roads, mining activities, and cattle grazing throughout both private and publically managed land. A 2006 report from the Montana DEQ discloses that many tributaries have sediment values that exceed expected values by over 100% and the same report attributes 49-90% of total sediment yield to human-caused sources (DEQ, 2006). These figures are not specific to BLM managed land but include stream length through all ownerships and management.

The IDT assessed sixty-one stream reaches totaling 41 miles for functional condition. As described above, past disturbance has resulted in valley bottoms greatly departed from what may have been before human impact and associated stream channel potential has been altered. In these cases Proper Functioning Condition is not analogous with Desired Future Condition. The ID team took this under consideration and if appropriate, assessed for Proper Function at a reaches current potential. The breakdown for stream condition is shown in Table 6 below. The locations and functional class ratings for streams in the STRW are also shown on Maps 2 and 3. The percentage of the total lotic stream miles in each functional class as determined in 2016 versus the previous 2006 assessment is illustrated in Figure 3 below.

Table 6: STRW Lotic Reach Condition Summary % of total Condition Count Miles miles PFC 35 24.88 60.3% FAR-UP 9 5.20 12.6% FAR 15 10.95 26.5% FAR-DN 0 0 0.0% NF 2 0.26 0.6% Totals 61 41.28

Figure 3. Percent of STRW Lotic Reach Miles Meeting/Not Meeting Standards in 2006 Compared to 2016

100% 90% 80% 70% 73% 60% PFC or FAR up FAR static/down or NF 50% 49% 51% 40% 30% 27% 20% 10% 0% 2006 Lotic Reaches 2016 Lotic Reaches

Where streams were not PFC, some of the concerns included: alteration of stream morphology, reduced access to floodplains, down cutting, reduction in species diversity and composition, reduced vegetative cover, limited vegetative species recruitment and regeneration, reduced structural diversity, and/or decreased vigor of streamside vegetation. Of the seventeen reaches

(11.2 miles) not at or making progress towards PFC, ungulate grazing was determined as the primary causal factor for eight reaches (2.78 miles). Five reaches (5.1 miles) have primary causal factors directly related to mining activity, roads, juniper encroachment or a combination thereof. The remaining four reaches (3.3 miles) have multiple factors inhibiting achievement of PFC with ungulate grazing having a lesser influence (Table 7).

Table 7: Summary of Causal Factors Preventing PFC on STRW Lotic Reaches Percent of Causal Factor Count Miles Total miles @ FAR or NF Mining, roads, juniper encroachment 5 5.09 45% Multiple w/ ungulate grazing as secondary- tertiary 4 3.33 30% Ungulate Grazing is primary 8 2.78 25% Totals 17 11.20

Riparian Resource Concerns by Allotment Allotments in which the riparian resources rated as PFC or FAR with an upward trend are not discussed in this section, but information on these resources is available upon request. Additional stream reach specific data for any of the riparian areas in the STRW is available at the Dillon Field Office.

Of the 17 stream reaches that are not meeting standards, 12 are located on five of the STRW’s thirty-three allotments. These same five allotments also contain all reaches that have ungulate grazing as the primary causal factor for impairment. These allotments are Alder Gulch, Hungry Hollow, Mill Gulch AMP, Mill Gulch Isolated, and Virginia City Hill. Riparian conditions for all are further described below.

Three more allotments did not meet riparian standards; Georgia Gulch, Cal Creek, and McGovern. This section will also include a brief description of riparian condition in these allotments.

Alder Gulch The Alder Gulch allotment includes three reaches totaling about 1.7 miles of riparian. Two reaches for about 0.8 miles or 46% of the riparian in this allotment did not meet standards. One reach is a tributary to Water Gulch (reach 1252, ~0.2 miles) which rated NF with cattle use as the causal factor. This channel is a small, steep (>4%), spring seep with sedge along its banks and an over story dominated by dense juniper trees. The side slopes to the channel are relatively steep and dry. Cattle are currently trailing up and down the channel causing excessive bank shearing and removal of streambank vegetation. The second reach is a tributary to Alder Creek (reach 1261, ~0.6 mi) and rated FAR static. This reach is of similar characteristics to reach 1252 except for the presence of large rock throughout the channel that is more resistant to hoof action.

Mill Gulch AMP/Mill Gulch Isolated Mill Gulch AMP and Isolated are presented together here as there is no fence between the reaches of concern during the assessment and therefore management is the same. There is 3.8 miles of riparian within these allotments. Approximately three miles of that is the West Fork of Granite Creek rated PFC. This three-mile reach is comprised of large cobble and boulder substrate and is classified as Douglas-fir/Dogwood habitat type; both characteristics provide a highly resilient stream channel. The remaining 0.8 miles (21%) is of sedge/willow or aspen/dogwood habitat type and rated FAR static due to bank shearing from hoof action and lack of woody vegetative reproduction. The reaches rated at FAR are on a tributary to Mill Gulch and are confined in the bottom of a relatively deep drainage with steep side hills of sagebrush bordering the channel.

Virginia City Hill There are seven reaches for a total of 2.54 miles of riparian within the Virginia City Hill allotment. Six of seven reaches are classified as a sedge/willow habitat type. Three reaches for about 1.34 miles (53%) rated at FAR static and one reach rated at NF (.07 miles). Two of the three reaches that rated FAR had cattle as the primary causal factor for impairment. Those were Slade Creek (reach 1234, 0.56 mi) and a tributary to Moore Creek (reach 1275, 0.25 mi). The NF reach is a small spring brook that had cattle as the primary causal factor.

In Slade Creek, what appeared to be active head cuts were observed, a large percentage of the channel was over widened, and the channel was deeply entrenched in many places if not throughout its entirety. Numerous decadent willow clumps lined the riparian area and juniper continues to encroach into the meadows adjacent to the channel. Both conditions are likely related to entrenchment lowering the water table throughout the riparian corridor. While it is probable that the large scale degradation to this reach occurred during historic management, it is apparent that current use is impeding the channel’s ability to recover. This reach of Slade Creek is located in the upper basin where the creek becomes a perennial stream fed by springs and seeps just upstream of the assessed reach. Upstream of the reach, flow is intermittent and/or ephemeral and the drainage is relatively small (about 1,000 acres) and of relatively low elevation (under 7,000 feet) so this reach may not see bank full flow on an annual basis and therefore, a lack of energy input typically associated with high flows. This is to be considered because over time, the stresses created by high flow events can correct degradation of a channel through natural channel evolutionary processes (i.e.; scour and deposition), but without regular high flows this may never happen or the time period for that to occur may be prolonged.

The tributary to Moore Creek that rated FAR is the upstream portion of a tributary that crosses an allotment boundary. The downstream portion of creek that is outside of the Virginia City Hill allotment rated PFC. This reach is an interrupted, low energy, spring fed system, bordered by steep side slopes of sagebrush and cattle appear to trail along the narrow creek bottom. Where the water is at the surface, heavy bank and vegetation impact occur.

The short spring brook that rated NF (reach 1282, 0.07 miles) contributes to a larger tributary of Moore Creek (reach 1224). This spring brook was discovered this year. Its source is a series of springs that collect and flow through a small channel before leaving the allotment onto the Granite-Moore allotment. Shortly after crossing the fenceline into Granite-Moore, the stream

channel dissipates and flow spreads over a wet meadow that continues for about 0.05 miles until meeting reach 1224. There does not appear to be a direct perennial surface water connection between this spring brook and reach 1224. Because of this springs location on the fenceline and the low energy characteristics of the reach, it is highly susceptible to impact from livestock.

Hungry Hollow Within the Hungry Hollow allotment there were 3.24 miles of riparian assessed. A portion of Browns Gulch, reach 1202, overlaps the allotment boundary between Hungry Hollow and McGovern. Only the portion within Hungry Hollow is included in the 3.24 mile total. Although the entirety of 1202 rated at FAR static, this rating was largely due to the condition of the lower portion of the reach which happens to be on McGovern, therefore the approximately 0.75 miles of 1202 on Hungry Hollow will be considered as meeting objectives for the purpose of this description.

Of the total miles assessed, about 1.76 miles rated FAR static (54%). The only reach with cattle identified as the primary causal factor was a tributary to the West Fork of Williams Creek (reach 1281, 0.32 miles) in the southern portion of the allotment. This reach was newly discovered during the 2016 assessment and is again, a small, steep channel, but unlike the other FAR reaches described in the above allotments, this channel is classified as a spruce/horsetail habitat type. Where the channel is impacted, the streambed does not consist of large cobble or boulders, rather forest soil and duff. Use may be concentrated on this reach as it is located at the headwaters where the terrain is steep and densely forested. It is likely the area has very limited areas for ungulates to water. The only other BLM inventoried reach in the vicinity rated PFC due to dense deadfall over the length of the channel making it inaccessible as a water source.

McGovern Browns Gulch, reach 1201 is the only riparian on this allotment and is rated at FAR. The reasons for the FAR rating were multi-faceted. The channel is entrenched due to historic placer mining as well as straightened to accommodate a diversion structure on the downstream end of the reach. Juniper is encroaching into the riparian and spotted knapweed is a concern. Livestock related impacts also contribute to the impairment of this reach as bank shearing and over- widening of the channel from hoof action was noted at numerous locations within the McGovern allotment.

Georgia Gulch There are four reaches totaling 3.72 miles on the Georgia Gulch Allotment. Two reaches totaling 1.38 miles rated FAR (37%); Wet Georgia Gulch (reach 1240) and a tributary to Wet Georgia Gulch (reach 1239). Both are entrenched, have juniper encroachment as an issue, and noxious weeds are present. Reach 1240 received a riparian juniper treatment in 2009 and the slash created has largely created a barrier for ungulates to reach the stream channel. The FAR rating for 1240 is due to severe entrenchment credited to past mining activity. Reach 1239 was over widened and entrenched with a moderate percentage of bank impact due to livestock. The largest concern for 1239 was stagnant condition of the riparian vegetation.

Cal Creek AMP There are 4 reaches totaling 4.38 miles of riparian within Cal Creek AMP. One 2.13 mile reach of California Creek (reach 1204) rated at FAR. The FAR rating is completely related to historic placer mining activity and the degraded channel conditions left behind as further described in the Streams section above.

Developed Springs The BLM’s Rangeland Improvement Project System (RIPS) database shows six spring developments in the STRW. BLM staff visited most of these developments to determine resource condition, condition of infrastructure, and water production (flow). Table 8 lists the spring developments on BLM administered land in the watershed.

Table 8. Developed Springs Project Spring Name Allotment Number Sand Coulee Spring 007686 Sand Coulee Mapleton Spring 477244 Granite Creek Postlewaite Spring 006155 Virginia City Hill Water Gulch Spring 006161 Alder Gulch Wood Gulch Spring 000660 Wisconsin Creek Elser Spring 006966 Elser

Two of the six developed springs no longer produce water (Elser and Sand Coulee). Postlewaite Spring, Mapleton Spring, and Water Gulch are all within exclosures with intact riparian habitat. At the time of the IDT visit, there was evidence of light cattle use within the Postlewaite exclosure but the riparian area was still in good condition. Wood Gulch Spring is an isolated spring that does not contribute to any lotic system whereas Postlewaite, Water Gulch, and Mapleton Spring have a direct connection to perennial streams.

Recommendations for Riparian 1. Revise livestock management in the following allotments, pastures, or site specific areas to mitigate impacts to riparian/wetland habitat: Virginia City Hill, Mill Gulch AMP, Mill Gulch Isolated, McGovern and site specific reaches that rated FAR-static or Non- functioning with livestock as a significant causal factor. Consider changes in timing, duration, frequency and/or intensity of use as well as number and/or kind of livestock. Incorporation of rest, or where applicable, additional rest, into a grazing systems as well as structural projects should also be considered to mitigate resource concerns. 2. Verify that routine maintenance is conducted by the permittees on all spring developments on an annual basis as agreed to in the Cooperative Agreements for the projects. If spring developments are dry and dysfunctional, they should be abandoned and infrastructure cleaned up. Exclosures should be constructed, maintained, reconstructed or removed depending on resource needs. 3. Where riparian juniper treatments were completed in 2008 and 2009 it is evident that some small juniper survived the first round of removal. Consider another phase of treatment on these reaches to clean-up what live juniper remains. In addition, consider

treatment on additional reaches throughout the watershed and evaluate adjacent land owner/management interest in partnering to treat a larger area of riparian where there’s opportunity. 4. Where channels are severely entrenched, consider active restoration to bring the streambed back up to grade to where high flows can access adjacent floodplains. This includes the installation of structures that may accelerate a channels natural evolutionary process to attain its functional potential (e.g.; encourage lateral migration). The use of woody material as well as native or imported gravel or cobble should be considered for use in any restoration effort. 5. Improve road crossings through streams by installing culverts or improved hardened crossings where appropriate. 6. Pursue and/or assist with BMP implementation to address road sediment point sources as identified in the Ruby Watershed Restoration Plan (RWC, 2015). Coordination with Madison County or Forest Service may be necessary for any manipulation of a road prism.

Water Quality

Western Montana Standard #3: “Water quality meets State standards.” Procedure to determine conformance with Standard The Bureau of Land Management defers to the State of Montana with respect to this standard. The Bureau of Land Management and the State of Montana work together to implement the objectives of the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and Article IX of the Montana Constitution “…maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” Restoring and maintaining the Nations Waters and a clean and healthful environment require assessment and problem identification. In Montana, water quality impairment is more often the result of nonpoint source pollution. “Nonpoint source pollution generally results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage or hydrologic modification. The term "nonpoint source" is defined to mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of "point source" in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution comes from many diffuse sources.” (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm). Montana has developed a nonpoint source management plan for the State and the Montana-Dakotas BLM, through a Memorandum of Understanding, works with the State of Montana to implement this plan on public land. http://deq.mt.gov/water/wpb/Nonpoint-Source-Program

The following is an excerpt from the 2012 Plan, “The goal of Montana’s Nonpoint Source Management Program is to provide a clean and healthy environment by protecting and restoring water quality from the harmful effects of nonpoint source pollution. We believe this can best be achieved through the voluntary implementation of best management practices identified in science-based, community-supported watershed plans. The goals of this plan are to: • Inform Montana citizens about the causes and effects of NPS pollution on water quality. • Set priorities for controlling NPS pollution on a statewide basis. • Identify strategies for restoring water quality affected by NPS pollution.

• Describe a set of focused, short-term activities (5-year action plan) for attaining the statewide NPS pollution control program goals.” One way that the Dillon Field Office works to implement provisions of the nonpoint source management plan is through the watershed assessment process and implementation of management and projects.

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act addresses non-point source pollution through the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BLM uses a variety of BMPs to address nonpoint source pollution resulting from silviculture, livestock grazing, road construction and maintenance and mining. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) are recognized as grazing BMPs to the extent that they address non-point pollution (EPA2003). The BLM uses AMPs developed to improve riparian and upland conditions as an effective BMP to improve water quality. Western Montana Guideline #10 states “Livestock management should utilize BMPs for livestock grazing that meet or exceed those approved by the State of Montana in order to maintain, restore or enhance water quality.” Other grazing BMPs used by the BLM include off-stream water, exclosures, and riparian fences.

The BLM’s responsibilities under the 1987 amendments of the Clean Water Act include evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented BMPs. The watershed assessment is an evaluation of BMP effectiveness as well as an evaluation of land health. For the STRW assessment, the IDT used a combination of methodologies to evaluate the watershed characteristics, as well as condition and function of floodplains, springs, and streams.

In conducting watershed assessments with respect to nonpoint source water pollution, upland, forest, wetland and riparian assessments are used to determine how BLM management is affecting water quality. The BLM evaluates uplands for land cover condition (ability of plants, rocks, and litter to protect soil from erosion, promote infiltration and reduce runoff). Wetlands are assessed to determine their extent and condition and their ability to recharge ground water, cycle nutrients, filter sediments, promote infiltration and mitigate flooding. Streams and their adjacent riparian areas are evaluated to determine channel morphology and stability, access to floodplains, species composition and condition of riparian vegetation. Wells, pipelines and spring developments are recognized as BMPs, and are evaluated to determine condition and effectiveness. Due to the extent of stream miles in the Dillon Field Office, temperature monitoring is limited to high priority streams. PFC assessments also provide clues to stream temperature. Shallow, over-widened streams with limited vegetation receive more solar radiation and are more at risk for thermal impacts than deep, narrow, well-vegetated streams. Improvements in channel condition and riparian cover directly correlate to reductions in thermal impacts.

The assessment team also looks at current and historic mining, timber harvests, abandoned beaver dams, erosion from roads, concentrated livestock waste and other disturbances that may contribute to non-point source pollution. Road maintenance including stream crossings, culvert sizing and installations are also evaluated.

Affected Environment The affected environment is described in the introduction and the sections addressing the Upland and Riparian Standard. The majority of the South Tobacco Roots Watershed assessment area

falls within the Ruby River TMDL Planning Area which DEQ has completed its Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework for a Water Quality Restoration Plan final report (DEQ, 2006). The final report can be found here: http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WQPB/tmdl/finalreports. In addition the Ruby Watershed Council (RWC) has completed a Ruby Watershed Restoration Plan that was been accepted by the DEQ in 2015 (http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/WRPs/Ruby_WRP_Final_072 72015.pdf).

Findings and Analysis Refer to the Findings and Analysis under the Upland and Riparian sections for a more detailed analysis of BMP/AMP assessment results. Appendix D includes a Water Quality Summary that breaks out which BLM allotments and reaches contribute to each DEQ impaired stream in the STRW and summarizes the assessment results of each riparian reach or allotment that rated as FAR static, FAR down or NF.

The State makes Beneficial Use Determinations. The BLM shares their findings to assist DEQ in making Beneficial Use Determinations.

Recommendations for Water Quality

Please refer to the recommendations under Upland and Riparian, and additionally: 1. Work with the Ruby Watershed Council as they implement their Ruby Watershed Restoration Plan and continue to assist the Ruby Watershed Council with water quality or quantity data collection efforts. 2. Continue BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring to address NPS pollution. 3. Continue to share Watershed Assessment findings with DEQ. 4. Continue implementation of Water Quality MOU (BLM-MOU-MT923-1030) between Montana DEQ and BLM, including submission of biannual reports. 5. Continue to implement the Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan and strategies for Agriculture, Forestry, Mining and Road Maintenance. 6. Continue temperature monitoring on high priority streams.

Air Quality

Western Montana Standard #4: “Air quality meets State standards.” Procedure to determine conformance with Standard The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq), and Executive Order 12088 require the BLM to work with appropriate agencies to protect air quality, maintain Federal and State designated air quality standards, and abide by the requirements of State Implementation Plans.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated the authority to implement the provisions of the CAA to the State of Montana. Determination of compliance with air quality standards is the responsibility of the State of Montana. To address the issue of wildland fire, the EPA developed the 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy for Wildland and Prescribed Fires which required states to develop smoke management plans. Montana and Idaho responded by forming

the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group and by developing the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Program

Affected Environment The United States EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that limit air pollutant concentrations of six principal pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and lead). The EPA also regulates additional pollutants such as hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs), although these pollutants have no regulatory thresholds for ambient concentrations. Emissions of GHGs, including primarily carbon dioxide and methane, contribute to climate change.

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA must regularly review and revise the NAAQS, ensure that the standards are attained (in cooperation with States), require control of hazardous air pollutant emissions, and set standards for air quality monitoring. Installation and operation of monitors is primarily carried out by State and local agencies and the monitors are typically located in population centers or near certain industrial sites. Monitors are rare in rural areas, unless air quality agencies have reason to believe that pollutant concentrations may approach or exceed ambient air standards in rural locations.

For most of the year, air quality in rural southwestern Montana is excellent. Air quality issues in the STRW develop predominantly during wildfires and are limited to PM2.5 emissions, which can travel hundreds and even thousands of miles. Consequently, air quality in the STRW can be affected by fires located far from the STRW. Because pollutant emissions associated with wildfires are largely beyond human control, exceedances of air quality standards that are associated with large wildfires are considered to be natural events and are typically exempted from consideration when determining NAAQS compliance.

The Ruby Valley is populated by several small communities and numerous, scattered private residences and ranches. The closest population center to the STRW is Ennis, Montana. The 2015 U.S. Census population estimate for Madison County is 7,915, equating to a population density of 2.1 people per square mile (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).

Findings and Analysis Air quality concerns in the planning area are primarily related to smoke. Smoke contributors in the planning area include wildfire, prescribed fires, private debris burning, agricultural burning, slash burning, and wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Wildfire can produce short-term adverse effects on air quality. Air quality and visibility can deteriorate due to temporary air stagnation during wildfire events, which are most common during the months of July, August, and September. Smoke from wildland and prescribed fires are the primary concerns affecting human health.

Prescribed burning is conducted in accordance with the Montana/Dakotas Fire Management Plan and is coordinated with MT DEQ and the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. During prescribed fire season, the Smoke Monitoring Unit supports the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group to prevent or reduce the impact of smoke on area communities, especially when that smoke could contribute to

a violation of national air quality standards. During the summer wildfire season, the Smoke Monitoring Unit assists state and local governments in monitoring smoke levels and providing information about smoke to the public, firefighters, and land managers.

Recommendations for Air Quality 1. Continue to follow burn plans and coordinate with the Smoke Monitoring Unit.

Biodiversity

Western Montana Standard #5: “Provide habitat as necessary, to maintain a viable and diverse population of native plant and animal species, including special status species.”

Procedure to Determine Conformance with the Standard This Standard is an overall assessment of biodiversity and plant and wildlife habitat. The present state of each allotment and habitat type was compared to the natural and historic condition. The indicators described under the definition of Standard #5, as well as condition/function of the other standards, specifically uplands and riparian, were considered to determine whether or not the Biodiversity Standard was met. The IDT considered the range of natural variation within this ecosystem as well as the species composition, condition of available habitat, and forest health to determine the condition/function of biodiversity.

Affected Environment and Findings and Analysis The foothills of the STRW provide a broad distribution of forested habitats interspersed with a variety of sagebrush and riparian habitats. Increasingly widespread residential development within these habitats creates conditions and issues unique in the Dillon Field Office. Wildlife species occurrence is consistent with the rest of the resource area, but seasonal wildlife use and distribution is influenced to a greater degree by human activity and increasing forest and woodland cover, especially conifer expansion into sagebrush habitat. Noxious weeds and invasive species are also increasing in several STRW allotments.

Sagebrush Habitats and Sagebrush Dependent Species Sagebrush habitat comprises approximately 63% of BLM administered acreage in the STRW. As noted above under the Uplands section, a majority of the sagebrush habitat in the watershed is being affected by juniper expansion. The Biodiversity Standard was rated as FAR in the Georgia Gulch allotment due to Douglas-fir and juniper expansion into sagebrush grassland habitat and along riparian areas, as well as knapweed invasion. Dry Lakes, Virginia City Hill, and Madison Overlook are the only allotments in the STRW that do not have extensive juniper expansion into sagebrush habitat. Several species of sagebrush are found in the watershed. Basin big sagebrush is mostly found in dry drainages. Mountain big sagebrush is widespread across the STRW at higher elevations. Douglas-fir and juniper expansion are common in this habitat. Wyoming big sagebrush is uncommon in the STRW, located mostly in the western part of the watershed. Three-tip sagebrush and black sagebrush are also found in the watershed. The variety of sagebrush provides habitat for pronghorn, mule deer, elk, sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, small mammals, and several bird species. Bats also forage for insects in sagebrush habitat.

The STRW is not within a sage grouse priority habitat management area (PHMA), but a majority of BLM administered land is within a sage grouse general habitat management area (GHMA) (see Map 4). Sagebrush is an important habitat component for sage grouse. It comprises nearly 100% of sage grouse winter diets and provides thermal, hiding, and nesting cover. As mentioned above, a majority of the sage grouse GHMA has extensive juniper and Douglas-fir expansion, resulting in it no longer being suitable sage grouse habitat. Sagebrush habitat loss to conifer expansion can be detrimental to sagebrush obligates, especially species of conservation concern, such as the sage grouse (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013, Knick et al. 2013). Baruch-Mordo et al. (2013) found that sage grouse incur population-level impacts at a very low level of conifer expansion, as no leks were active in areas where conifer canopy cover exceeded 4%. This study also found that sage grouse have a negative response to areas of active conifer expansion in addition to areas with more established stands. These results align with other studies’ findings of sage grouse avoidance of conifer habitats during all stages of life (i.e. nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering) (Doherty et al., 2008, Atamian et al., 2010, Casazza et al., 2011). Severson et al. (2016) found that the relative probability of sage grouse nesting was negatively associated with >3% conifer cover within 800 meters of nests. They note that “sage grouse are expected to lose nesting habitat as conifer expansion continues, but management intervention may be a possible solution to increase habitat availability where open space for nesting is a limiting factor”.

There are two unconfirmed leks in the Alder Gulch allotment. The unconfirmed status, as defined by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), means that these locations were recorded in a federal or state lands assessment at some point long ago, but never confirmed to be an established lek (pers. comm. Waltee, 2016). These leks have had this status since 2002, and zero sage grouse have been documented at these leks. They were monitored in the spring of 2016 and no activity was found. It has been noted that these areas have extensive juniper expansion, which has resulted in it no longer being suitable sage grouse habitat. A new lek was located in the spring of 2016 off of Virginia City Hill. As mentioned above, this area is the last in the STRW where conifer expansion has not taken over sagebrush grassland habitat. This area is largely disconnected from sage grouse habitat to the west, due to conifer expansion. Sage grouse have not been commonly documented in the watershed. In mid-May, 2014 sage grouse were documented within the Wisconsin Creek burn unit where the BLM implemented a prescribed fire to reduce conifer expansion in 2009. The sage grouse were observed within the previously burned area, near the location where the 2013 Indian Creek wildfire intersected the prescribed fire treatment. Abundant sagebrush habitat surrounding the burn was mentioned in the documentation notes. The wildfire’s spread slowed significantly when it intersected the prescribed fire treatment.

The Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) (Stiver et al., 2015) and Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (USDI, 2015a), are BLM’s guidance for sage grouse habitat. “Suitable” summer/late brood-rearing habitat guidelines include: 10-25% sagebrush cover, 40-80 cm sagebrush height, and ≥15% perennial grass and forb cover (combined). During nesting/early brood rearing, suitable habitat also includes ≥18 cm perennial grass and forb height and ≥5% perennial forb cover.

Data gathered from habitat plots completed during the 2016 late brood-rearing/summer season found that shrub cover ranged from 22-69%. Twenty-seven percent of the habitat plots were

within the “suitable” habitat range, with the remaining 73% having shrub canopy cover exceeding 25%. Shrub height ranged from 26-69 cm, with 82% of the habitat plots within the suitable range for summer habitat. Perennial grass cover ranged from 16-58% and grass height was 25-54 cm. Perennial forb cover ranged from 7-21% and forb height was 14-37 cm. Sage grouse preferred forbs were common at these habitat plots. Due to extensive Douglas-fir and juniper expansion, several HAF plots were not completed because they were no longer considered suitable sage grouse habitat. Habitat plots in the Dry Lakes, Virginia City Hill, and Madison Overlook allotments, which is sagebrush habitat without extensive conifer expansion (as noted above), had a high sagebrush canopy cover (25-69%, averaging 45%).

Elser Allotment where HAF plot was not completed due to juniper expansion precluding sage grouse habitat suitability, July 2016.

Pygmy rabbits have been documented in several locations in STRW. In 2005, Montana Natural Heritage Program found older pygmy rabbit sign in the Herman Gulch area. Subsequent surveys in 2013 did not find any pygmy rabbits or sign at the 2005 locations or surrounding area. Pygmy rabbits have also been documented in the Indian Creek area. Pygmy rabbits require sagebrush for forage and cover, as well as deep alluvial soil to dig burrows. Sagebrush comprises nearly 100% of their winter diet and over half of their summer diet. Pygmy rabbits are endemic to sagebrush and are one of only two Leporids on the continent to dig their own burrows, the other being the volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi) found in central Mexico (USDI, 2003).

Basin big sagebrush along drainage bottoms has largely been reduced by roads, subdivisions, and agriculture. These communities, along with the other sagebrush species, provide important structure and cover for wildlife, particularly for special status species that require tall dense sagebrush such as sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and loggerhead shrike. Golden eagles, prairie falcons, great horned owls, and ferruginous hawks also inhabit sagebrush

grassland habitat. Sagebrush habitat in the watershed also provides mule deer, elk, and antelope winter range.

Generalist or Widespread Species Challenges for big game in the STRW include increased housing development, especially across winter range, which displaces big game, contributes to direct mortality with vehicle collisions, adds fences on the landscape which increases entanglement hazards that lead to mortality, minimizes ability to manage big game populations since people cannot hunt within subdivisions, and increases noxious weeds which reduce habitat quality. Conifer expansion is also an issue for big game in the watershed. It reduces forage and browse, which reduces the carrying capacity of the land to support big game populations. Junipers growing on dry, gravelly hillsides where they don’t outcompete other vegetation have more value as cover. Whereas junipers outcompeting sagebrush, grass, forbs, and deciduous shrubs is greatly reducing forage to the detriment of big game populations.

In the winter mule deer prefer mountain mahogany, then sagebrush, with juniper being more of a last resort when preferred browse species are not available whether due to loss of browse species or inaccessibility from deep snow (pers. comm. Waltee, 2016). Mountain mahogany is heavily browsed throughout the area, whereas browse effects to juniper are absent. The mule deer population is 10% below the long-term average, but is trending upwards over the last five years since a low point in the mid-2000s. Habitat projects to reduce conifer expansion for winter range are essential, especially for mule deer populations in the region (pers. comm. Waltee, 2016).

White-tailed deer can be found along the bottoms of the foothills bedded in sagebrush-juniper habitat adjacent to agricultural lands. They are common along riparian areas and the Ruby River, mostly on private property. The population had been reduced in 2009-2010, but has since been trending upward over the last three years.

The STRW is part of the Tobacco Root Elk Management Unit (EMU), which includes two hunting districts, 320 and 333, encompassing the Tobacco Root Mountain Range. This EMU has a large amount of timbered habitat in steep and rugged terrain. The BLM administers 8% of this EMU. Most of the elk winter range in the EMU is on private lands that are managed for livestock and hay production (MFWP, 2004). The elk population is within objectives for the EMU and has been stable for the last ten years (pers. comm., Waltee, 2016). Within the STRW, BLM administered land along the southern end of the Tobacco Root Mountains provides elk winter range. As noted by Thomas and Toweill (1982), elk primarily eat grass on winter ranges in areas of Montana that are predominately grasses and shrubs, as is the case in the DFO. While conifer expansion provides cover for elk, the reduction in herbaceous and shrub forage for wintering big game outweighs these benefits, especially with abundant adjacent conifer habitat available throughout the watershed.

The antelope population has been relatively stable over the last ten years in the STRW. Since antelope spend a lot of time on agricultural fields, management objectives are a balance of landowner tolerance and public hunting and viewing opportunities. Besides croplands, forbs and browse, particularly big sagebrush, are important forages for antelope. Fences are major

movement barriers and entanglement hazards, as most antelope pass under fences rather than jumping over them.

Moose are well-distributed across all suitable habitat, from valley agricultural lands to uplands and all drainages in the STRW with aspen, mountain mahogany, and Douglas-fir forests (pers. comm. Waltee, 2016). There are longer-term habitat concerns similar to those for mule deer, with aspen, willow, chokecherry, and mountain mahogany being reduced from Douglas-fir and juniper expansion. If conifer expansion continues to limit deciduous browse species, the moose population is expected to decline over time (pers. comm. Waltee, 2016).

Mountain goats summer on USFS lands on higher alpine habitats in the Tobacco Root Mountains, but will drop down to lower elevations in the winter. Transient bighorn sheep have been in the watershed over the years, mostly after they were reintroduced in the neighboring Greenhorn Mountains to the south in 2003-2004. There is also a population in the Highland Mountains west of the STRW.

A wolf pack has consistently occupied the STRW over the last two years, ranging across the southern end of the Tobacco Root Mountains. While not common, issues with mountain lions have increased with human expansion and a healthy mountain lion population. Black bears are common in the STRW.

Net-wire and barbed-wire fences are found throughout STRW. BLM administered lands within the watershed are very interspersed with private lands, increasing the number of fences present across the landscape. These fences represent an entanglement hazard and travel barrier, especially for antelope and deer, elk and moose calves. Barbed wire fences with more than four wires, wires spaced too closely, or wires higher than 40-inches or lower than 16-inches hinder wildlife movement between pastures and are also an entanglement hazard. Fences near sage grouse leks or in areas with low visibility can be a collision hazard for sage grouse. Fence markers can be placed on the top wire to increase visibility. Fences for marking, modification, removal, or rebuilding have been identified in STRW allotments. Spring developments are an important water source for wildlife, but associated tanks can be fatal when escape ramps for birds and small mammals are not installed in them. Escape ramps will be installed in stock tanks that are lacking them.

Table 9. Primary Game Species and Habitat Use within the STRW Species Forested Sagebrush Riparian Antelope Y Black bear Y S S Dusky grouse Y S, B Y Elk S, C W, C Y Gray Wolf Y Y Y Hungarian Partridge Y Moose Y Y Y Mountain lion Y Y Mule deer S, C Y W Ruffed Grouse Y Y Sage grouse Y B

White-tail deer S Y Y = yearlong, S = summer, B = brood rearing, C = calving/fawning, W = winter

Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Habitat and Associated Species Riparian habitat comprises a small percentage of acreage across BLM administered lands in the STRW, but receives a disproportionate amount of wildlife and livestock use, as it provides green vegetation later into the summer and fall. Riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitat offers habitat diversity and are crucial water sources for wildlife. Riparian areas provide important habitat for moose, elk, beaver, songbirds, and sage grouse. Protein rich succulent forbs and insects, largely found in riparian areas, are a key component of sage grouse brood diets.

Within its range, Columbia spotted frogs are common in most clean water bodies with emergent vegetation and no fish or bullfrogs, including mountainous areas of Montana in both forested and non-forested habitat (Werner et al., 2004). Adults overwinter in larger ponds and in extremely dry conditions they become inactive and burrow in the mud or under rocks. The western toad is a BLM sensitive species that occurs in mountainous terrain on both sides of the Continental Divide in Montana (Werner et al., 2004). They will wander miles from breeding sites through coniferous forests and subalpine meadows, lakes, ponds, and marshes. Western toads seek shelter when not feeding in rodent burrows or under logs or partially bury themselves in soft soil.

Aspen in the STRW is also an important forage, cover, and nesting component for various species including elk, moose, and ruffed grouse. Riparian woodlands support the highest diversity of landbird species of all habitats. Riparian corridors are crucial to several northern- breeding Neotropical migrants and breeding or wintering species, even though they may not carry water year-round (Rich et al., 2004). Most species are summer residents that use habitats ranging from lower elevation wetlands to high elevation forests for breeding and raising young. Some species are migratory, but small populations may stay yearlong depending on seasonal

conditions.

As is occurring in the uplands, juniper is also expanding throughout riparian areas. This juniper encroachment along streams alters native riparian vegetation communities, increases soil erosion, impacts hydrology, soil resources, nutrient cycling, and crucial habitat for a diversity of bird and wildlife species. In 2008-2010 the DFO removed junipers along several riparian reaches within the STRW, with the objective to increase the deciduous riparian vegetation that was being outcompeted by juniper. As a component of this project, University of Montana Bird Ecology Lab was contracted by the DFO to gather pre- and post-treatment bird point counts and vegetation plot data to compare possible changes in riparian dependent and obligate bird species with a reduction in juniper canopy and increase in deciduous riparian vegetation. This data was also gathered along several control reaches in the STRW to compare to reaches that were treated. During the summer of 2016 the final year of field data was collected. Analysis is currently being completed to determine if measurable changes were recorded. These results will be available in early 2017. In 2014, five years after treatment, 1,825 individual birds were recorded and 61 bird species detected, including six Montana Species of Concern (Noson, 2014). The most common species recorded were riparian dependent species including warbling vireo and dusky flycatcher. BLM sensitive species detected were Brewer’s sparrow, golden eagle, and veery.

Fish Streams The STRW has ten perennial streams on public land supporting cold water fisheries. Native species, including westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) and mottled sculpin are found in BLM stream reaches within the watershed. Common sport fish species are brook trout, rainbow trout and rainbow/cutthroat hybrids. These non-native species were introduced into the area around the early 1900’s. Brook trout are the most common salmonid found in the assessment area, occurring in most perennial waters capable of supporting a fishery. Rainbow and brown trout are incidentally to commonly found in the lower reaches of several streams.

Fish streams within the assessment area do not generally support popular recreational fishing. Wisconsin Creek provides approximately 112 angler use days per year (MFWP 2011). Granite Creek supports a small sport fishery providing around 40 angler use days per year, and Indian Creek provides approximately 50 angler use days per year (MFWP 2009). Several other streams likely support light fishing use as well, but were not reported through MFWP angler use surveys.

Table 10. Fisheries Streams and Fish Species Present on BLM administered land Stream Reach(s) Fish Species Present on BLM BLM Stream miles

Granite Creek 1212, 1213, Brook trout, rainbow trout, mottled 2.2 1265 sculpin Harris Creek 1215 WCT 97%, brook trout 0.6

California Creek 1204,1205, WCT 95%, brook trout 3.8 1206 Mill Gulch Creek 1222,1223 WCT 94%, brook trout 2.98

Ramshorn Creek 1229 Brook Trout, mottled sculpin 1.6

Indian Creek 1221 Brook trout, mottled sculpin 0.7

Nugget Creek 1226 WCT 91%, brook trout 1.2

Currant Creek 1207 Brook trout 0.6

Gibbs Creek* 1210,1211 Brook trout, cutthroat trout 1.7

Downey Creek * 1264 Brook trout, cutthroat trout 0.3

*Gibbs and Downey Creeks have not been surveyed. Brook trout and cutthroat trout were observed during the 2016 field assessment.

Fishery Habitat Fishery surveys were conducted on BLM administered land in the STRW in 2015 and fish habitat was found to be in good to fair condition. Negative impacts to fish habitat are primarily due to sediment input from past mining activities and from roads. Of note, all surveyed streams that support fish in the STRW were historically placer mined. Past mining has altered both the potential of the stream and expected in-stream habitat conditions. Without active restoration efforts, it’s unlikely these streams will naturally improve in condition or function.

All surveyed streams, with the exception of Indian Creek, have greater than naturally expected sediment levels based on channel type and gradient. Pool frequency was found to be lower than expected based on stream size and gradient on most streams. This is likely a result of historic mining impacts and increased sediment loads.

Surveys were conducted on random 300 foot segments on selected streams. In-stream habitat was identified by type (pool, riffle, run), with habitat length, width, and residual pool depth measurements taken. Stream substrate data was collected using a 300 point “zig zag” pebble count using a gravelometer within riffles within each reach. In addition to general habitat monitoring, long-term water temperature monitoring was initiated in 2009 on selected streams to track potential changes in summer stream temperatures (see table 12). Fishery population surveys were conducted on established 300 foot reaches using a two-pass depletion estimate. When possible, all monitoring was conducted on the same reach(s).

Numerous studies indicate that cutthroat trout reproduction can be impacted by low levels of fine sediment (Ringler and Hall 1975; Irving and Bjornn 1984; Weaver and Fraley 1991; Horan et al. 2000; Bjornn et. al. 1977). These studies found that as the percentage of fine sediment exceeds 20% to 30% in spawning riffles, salmonid reproduction begins to decline. Bryce, et al. (2010) evaluated fine sediment impacts on fish and macro-invertebrates and found that sediment impacts begin at 13% for fish and 10% for macro-invertebrates. As indicated in Table 11 below, sediment levels in some surveyed streams are higher than optimum. Given the sediment levels observed, it’s likely that salmonid spawning success and pool quality is being impacted in most streams.

Using baselines identified in the “Beaverhead Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework Water Quality Protection Plan” (Montana DEQ. 2012), streams < 15 foot wetted width would be expected to have a minimum of ≥ 90 pools per stream mile, while streams 15-30 feet bankfull width would be expected to have ≥ 52 pools per stream mile. Residual pool depth would be expected to be approximately 10 inches and the percent fines (<6mm) would be expected to be between 10% and 30%, depending on stream gradient and channel type. Steeper gradient “B” channels would be expected to have slightly more or less than 10% fines < 6mm, while lower gradient “E” type channels are expected to have up to 30% fines < 6mm. Stream size and gradient affect pool number, residual depth and the percentage of fine sediment present. Generally, as stream size decreases, pool frequency increases and pool depth decreases. Table 11 below indicates that the majority of the surveyed streams are outside the expected range of variability for sediment based on channel type. Based on stream width and channel type, most surveyed streams were lower than expected on the pool frequency. This is likely related to both historic mining, which significantly altered the streams, and increased sediment loads.

Table 11. Pool Frequency, Depth and Percent Fine Sediment

Residual 2016 Primary Average Pool % Pool Assessment Stream Channel Stream Frequency Fines Depth Riparian Type width (per mile) (<6mm) (inches) Rating (feet) Ramshorn Creek B 8 158 9.5 19 PFC Harris Creek B 4.8 141 4.4 22 PFC Indian Creek A 26 123 18.5 5 PFC California Creek B 6.4 123 6 19 FAR Currant Creek B 2.6 106 6 25 FAR Nugget Creek B 4.2 106 5.5 22 PFC

Throughout the west, the threat of increasing water temperatures on fisheries habitat due to climate change is a growing concern. Studies have linked water temperature with lower cutthroat condition in water temperatures greater than 59 degrees F (DeStatso and Rahel 1994; Dunham et al. 1999; Novinger 2000). Water temperature monitoring within the STRW was initiated in 2009 on selected streams to track potential changes in summer stream temperatures. Data collected to date shows that both average and summer peak temperatures have remained relatively consistent, and overall within the preferred temperature range of cold water species (see Table 12 below). However, with the limited data set, several streams have experienced a number of days where water temperatures reached or exceeded 59 degrees F. This can likely be attributed to variations in summer temperatures and/or seasonal stream flows influenced by the prior winter’s snowpack. With only limited temperature data, it’s difficult to interpret whether the observed temperature fluctuations are normal and based on weather and snowpack, or the beginnings of a long-term trend. In cases where temperatures reached or exceeded 59 degrees F, it was for short periods of time during the warmest part of the day, and temperatures in most streams dropped back into the 40 or 50 degree F range during the night.

Table 12. STRW Stream Temperature Data Average Peak Temperature Temperature Stream/Year June 1 – September 1 June 1 - September 1 (Degrees F) (Degrees F) Wisconsin Creek 2015 48 58 Wisconsin Creek 2016 47 55 Average 47.5 56.5 Harris Creek 2009 52 64 Harris Creek 2015 54 70

Average Peak Temperature Temperature Stream/Year June 1 – September 1 June 1 - September 1 (Degrees F) (Degrees F) Harris Creek 2016 54 67 Average 53.3 67 Ramshorn Creek 2009 49 57 Ramshorn Creek 2015 51 61 Ramshorn Creek 2016 50 59 Average 50 59 Currant Creek 2009 52 61 Currant Creek 2015 54 63 Currant Creek 2016 52 62 Average 52.6 62 California Creek 2015 56 69 California Creek 2016 55 66 Average 55.6 67.5

Harris Creek-- Historically, the entire length of Harris Creek was extensively placer mined. Evidence in the form of tailings and rock walls adjacent to the stream are present throughout the drainage. The altered channel and banks has influenced the stream’s ability to function naturally. The higher than expected sediment levels in the surveyed portion of Harris Creek is likely due to a high stream flow event in 2010 that washed out the culvert at the stream crossing. In 2016, the BLM installed a new, Harris Creek Culvert post-2010 flow event oversized culvert at the road crossing that will allow for improved fish passage, and will better withstand future high flow events.

Harris Creek historic channel restored

Replacement Harris Creek culvert Harris Creek habitat surveys were Step pools created to assist fish passage conducted on BLM administered land in 2015. Fine sediment was found to be higher than expected, but stream banks were overall found to be stable and well armored with boulders. The surveyed reach supports a variety of vegetation along its banks including conifers, alder, willow, and herbaceous vegetation. Spawning habitat was found throughout the reach, though in limited amounts. The number of pools per mile was found to be lower than expected, which is likely related to both higher in- stream sediment levels, as well as historic mining influences.

During the past ten years, the WCT population in Harris Creek has experienced a rapid shift in species composition, abundance and genetic purity. In 2006, a monitoring survey noted WCT as being abundant with all age classes present. A 25 fish genetic sample collected at that time found the population to be genetically pure. No other fish species were collected. In 2012, a fishery survey of the same monitoring reach collected 30 WCT for genetic testing, and found that the population was hybridized at 98% WCT. A single adult brook trout was collected during the 2012 survey. In 2016, a two-pass population survey/estimate collected 3 adult WCT and 70 brook trout within the monitoring reach. A population estimate calculated ~1.3 WCT and ~25 brook trout per 100 feet of stream.

It’s apparent that whatever isolating mechanism was present in the lower drainage prior to 2012 has failed, likely during the high flow event in 2010. This allowed both hybridized WCT and brook trout from California Creek access into Harris Creek with deleterious results. In 2015 the headwaters of Harris Creek were surveyed in an effort to find some remnant pure WCT. Genetic results indicated that all samples contained hybridized WCT.

California Creek--Historic mining within the drainage has caused channel degradation and reduced the streams ability to function naturally. During the 2006 STRW field assessment, the IDT noted that abundant juniper on the streambanks was likely negatively impacting riparian health. In 2008, a juniper reduction treatment was implemented to promote the establishment and growth of more stabilizing and desirable riparian vegetation, such as sedges, willow and aspen. All juniper plants within 50 feet of the stream centerline were cut and left in place. During the 2016 field assessment, the IDT found desirable riparian vegetation increasing in presence in response to the juniper reduction treatment. Habitat surveys found the stream banks were well vegetated and stable, though pool frequency was reduced from expected for the channel type. Sediment levels were slightly elevated from that expected for channel type and gradient as well. This is most likely related to past mining impacts.

A 2016 monitoring survey collected 1 adult WCT and 68 brook trout within the monitoring reach. A population estimate calculated ~0.3 WCT and ~24 brook trout per 100 feet of stream.

Ramshorn Creek--Sediment input from the county road that runs adjacent to the stream is negatively impacting pool quality and frequency. Ramshorn Creek is effectively transporting some of the sediment, but the high amounts of sediment from the adjacent road are likely overwhelming the stream’s ability to fully transport the load.

In 2016, a drainage-wide survey found no WCT on BLM administered land. Non-native brook trout and native mottled sculpin were common within all surveyed reaches on BLM. A small population of potentially genetically pure WCT is present within the headwaters of Ramshorn Creek, and is currently being tested to confirm genetic purity.

Currant Creek--In-stream fishery habitat conditions were found to be less than optimal in the surveyed portions of Currant Creek. Sediment levels were found to be relatively high and are likely the reason for the low pool frequency in this stream. The road which parallels the stream for the entire length of the drainage is the primary sediment source. Spawning habitat was noted as rare, which is expected due to the high sediment levels.

In conjunction with the 2016 WCT survey in Ramshorn Creek, Currant Creek was also surveyed for WCT presences/absence. WCT were not found within the drainage; brook trout were found in the lower portion of the stream, near the confluence of Ramshorn and Currant Creeks.

Indian Creek--This large, high-gradient stream was found to be in good condition. Banks are well armored with large boulders with dense, woody vegetation along the streambanks. Sediment levels were found to be very low, and the pool frequency high for a stream of its size. Due to the stream size and high flow, population data was not collected.

Special Status Species “Special Status Species” refers to both plants and animals and includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); State-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive species (USDI, 2014a). Special Status Species are vital to maintain watershed biodiversity. In 2014 the Special Status Species List was updated to assist in addressing conservation management needs and to help establish priorities. The 6840 manual gives the State Director the responsibilities of designating the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive species and periodically reviewing/updating the list in cooperation with states and with the Natural Heritage Programs. The sensitive species designation is used for species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Table 13 lists Special Status Species that potentially occur within the STRW during all or part of the year.

Table 13. Special Status Species Potentially Occurring Within the STRW Current Management Occurrence Wildlife Species Status * Preferred habitat Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened T Forest Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Threatened T All North American wolverine (Gulo Proposed T Alpine Forest gulo luscus) Threatened Bald eagle Sensitive R Forest/Riparian/wetland (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Black-backed woodpecker Sensitive T Forest (Picoides arcticus) Boreal/western toad Sensitive R Riparian/wetland/forest (Bufo boreas) Brewer’s sparrow Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl Sensitive T Grassland (Athene cunicularia) Ferruginous hawk Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Buteo regalis) Flammulated owl Sensitive T Forest (Otus flammeolus) Fringed myotis Sensitive T All (Myotis thysanodes) Gray wolf Sensitive R All (Canis lupus) Great Basin pocket mouse Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Perognathus parvus) Golden eagle Sensitive R Riparian/wetland (Aquila chrysaetos) Sagebrush shrubland Great gray owl Sensitive R Forest (Strix nebulosa) Greater sage grouse Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Centrocercus urophasianus) Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes Sensitive R Forest/woodland lewis) Loggerhead shrike Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew Sensitive R Grassland (Numenius americanus) McCown’s longspur Sensitive R Grasslands (Calcarius mccownii) Mountain Plover (Charadrius Sensitive T Grasslands montanus)

Current Management Occurrence Wildlife Species Status * Preferred habitat Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Sensitive R Grassland/shrubland/ riparian Pygmy rabbit Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Brachylagus idahoensis) Sagebrush sparrow Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) Sage thrasher Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Oreoscoptes montanus) Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) Sensitive T All Townsend's big-eared bat Sensitive T Forest/riparian (Corynorhinus townsendii) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus Sensitive T Riparian/wetland buccinator) Veery (Catharus fuscescens) Sensitive R Riparian/wetland/ woodland Current Management Known from Fish Species Status BLM lands? Preferred habitat Westslope cutthroat trout Sensitive Yes Aquatic (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) Current Known from Management BLM lands? Tree Species Status Preferred habitat Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) Candidate Yes High elevation subalpine zone *Resident (R) = yearlong or main part of lifecycle including reproduction, Transient (T) = seasonal use or migratory, not expected to be found regularly.

Special Status Wildlife Lynx are primarily restricted to northwestern Montana from the Purcell Mountains east to Glacier National Park, then south through the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex to Highway 200. The southern-most lynx population in Montana is currently in the Garnet Range, except for a few individuals in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). The Dillon Field Office does not contain any lynx critical habitat. Forested areas may provide temporary habitat for transient lynx dispersing from established lynx populations, but these areas likely do not contain all physical and biological features in adequate quantities and spatial arrangements to support lynx populations over time (USDI, 2014b). The forest habitat within the DFO is generally drier than the preferred moist boreal forests that include dense understories that provide foraging habitat and cover for the lynx’s main prey, the snowshoe hare (USDI, 2013). Forest habitat on BLM administered lands in STRW isn’t considered adequate lynx habitat. The watershed may be used as a lynx linkage zone between suitable habitats. However, lynx have not been documented within the STRW. The most recent record found in the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s (MNHP) Mapviewer database is a furbearer harvest in 1986 in the northeast

section of the Tobacco Root Mountains. The nearest lynx critical habitat is on the Gallatin National Forest, east of highway 91 (USDI, 2014b).

According to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST), the 2015 Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population is roughly 717 individuals (van Manen and Haroldson, 2016). Population estimates peaked in 2013 and 2014. The IGBST data supports the interpretation that the population may be nearing carrying capacity in some areas of the GYE, therefore population fluctuations around a long-term mean are to be expected (van Manen and Haroldson, 2016). The STRW is within the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) boundary, which distinguishes the grizzly bear population in the GYE as distinct from the other populations in the lower 48 States. It includes all landscapes where Yellowstone grizzly bear occur and may occur given future range expansion. The northern boundary is Interstate 90 and western boundary is Interstate 15. The STRW is outside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA) and Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (GBRZ). The DMA depicts the area where all demographic criteria for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population are monitored and evaluated. Only grizzly bear observations and mortalities inside the DMA count toward population estimates and mortality thresholds. The DFO is outside the GBRZ, which is the area surrounding Yellowstone National Park where inter-agency grizzly bear recovery efforts are concentrated for long-term conservation of the distinct Yellowstone grizzly bear population (IGBST, 2016). There have not been any confirmed grizzly bear sightings in the STRW, however there have been reports of possible grizzlies in the area. Grizzly bear are found in surrounding mountain ranges including the Gravelly Range just south of the STRW. Although research by Lukins et al. (2004) did not document grizzly bear in the Tobacco Root Mountains, they did suggest that as the grizzly bear population increases and the availability of suitable habitat within the GYE decreases, the Tobacco Root Mountains have potential for grizzly bear occupancy.

In 2014 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) withdrew a proposal to list the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA (USDI, 2014c). However, the District Court for the District of Montana vacated this withdrawal of the USFWS’s proposed rule, which returned the process to the stage of the proposed listing rule published in 2013 (USDI, 2016c), making them a Proposed Threatened species. Wolverines occur in coniferous montane forest types, preferring rugged, roadless, isolated habitats. Home range size in western Montana averages 150 mi2 for females and 163 mi2 for males (Foresman, 2012). Wolverines are more likely to occur at higher elevations on Forest Service land in the Tobacco Root Mountains and Gravelly Range, with transient individuals on BLM lands. The STRW does not have the high elevation alpine habitat to sustain the large home range females require for natal areas.

In September, 2015 after reviewing petitions to list the greater sage grouse on the Endangered Species List, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced that listing of the greater sage grouse was not warranted (USDI, 2015b). The BLM completed Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments and revisions to demonstrate to the USFWS that protections for sage grouse have been improved. The Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana (USDI, 2015a) and Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment

Framework (Stiver et al., 2015) are used as guidance for sage grouse habitat management. Sage grouse are also discussed above under “Sagebrush Habitats and Sagebrush Dependent Species”.

The Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves, including Montana wolves, was delisted from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 2011 as part of the Appropriations Act. To avoid relisting, Montana will comply with federal regulations to manage wolves in a manner that will guarantee that the state maintains at least a minimum of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs (Coltrane et al., 2015). Since delisting, a hunting season for wolves has been implemented in Montana. The combined maximum hunting and trapping bag limit is five wolves per person during the 2016-17 season. In 2015, an estimated 109 wolves in 19 verified packs, 8 of which qualified as a breeding pair, were documented within the Montana Portion of the Greater Yellowstone Experimental Area (Coltrane et al., 2015). This is a 12% reduction in the minimum count compared to the 122 wolves in 2014. A pack of wolves has been consistently seen over the past two years across the STRW.

Fringed myotis occurs in a variety of habitats, from low- to mid-elevation grass, woodland, and desert regions (Foresman, 2012). They are found primarily in desert shrublands, sagebrush- grassland, and woodland habitats; roosting in caves, mines, rock crevices, buildings, and other protected sites (MNHP, 2016a). Spotted bats inhabit a wide range of habitats from montane forests to, most commonly, desolate deserts (Foresman, 2012). They have most often been documented in open arid sagebrush habitats with juniper and sometimes limber pine and Douglas-fir (MNHP, 2016a). Townsend’s big-eared bats are also found in a variety of habitats from western mesic Douglas-fir forests to more arid Rocky Mountain juniper-limber pine- curlleaf mountain mahogany vegetative types (Foresman, 2012). Fringed myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bats have been documented within the STRW. Spotted bats are very difficult to capture, which could be due to low trapping effort in the rough, dry, desert habitat that they prefer. Spotted bats also forage at a higher altitude, above mist nets that are used for capture (Foresman, 2012). These species, along with twelve other species of bats found in the state of Montana, consume an enormous quantity of insects. One little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) can catch 1,200 insects in an hour. Loss of bats destabilizes ecosystems and increases reliance on chemical alternatives to control insects (BCI, 1996).

The bald eagle and golden eagle are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and are BLM sensitive species. Cooperative interagency monitoring is occurring through the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. The DFO monitors three bald eagle nests in the Ruby Valley. Golden eagles and ferruginous hawks are found in the watershed. Peregrine falcon nests are typically located on cliff ledges, ideally in areas with a wide view, near water, and close to plentiful prey (MNHP, 2016a). Trumpeter swans frequent wetland habitat in the Ruby Valley along the Ruby River.

The Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and sage thrasher utilize sagebrush habitats. McCown’s longspur and long-billed curlew nest in dry, shortgrass prairies. Loggerhead shrikes are associated with open woodlands, and have also been documented nesting in sagebrush, bitterbrush, and greasewood. Black-backed woodpeckers inhabit early successional, burned forest of mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce-fir. Important habitat features for Lewis’s woodpeckers include an open tree canopy, a brushy understory with ground cover,

dead trees for nest cavities, dead or downed woody debris, perch sites, and abundant insects. Veery are found in very thick and wide willow or alder shrub riparian habitat near water. They have been documented during bird point count transects in association with the DFO’s juniper removal along riparian reaches, as noted above under the “Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Habitat and Associated Species” section.

Great gray owl habitat consists of mature forests with clearings such as bogs, meadows, and wetlands for foraging. Flammulated owls are one of the smallest owl species in Montana. They are not common in the DFO, but Avian Science Center documented one in mature Douglas-fir forest along South Meadow Creek on USFS lands, north of the STRW. Flammulated owls are associated with mature and old-growth ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests in Montana. Ponderosa pine are absent in the STRW, but Douglas-fir is common, especially at higher elevations and on USFS lands. Burrowing owls are found in open grasslands characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground where abandoned burrows dug by mammals such as ground squirrels and badgers are available. They have not been documented within the STRW, but have been reported west of Sheridan, MT.

The Great Basin pocket mouse has not been documented in the STRW. Habitats in Montana are arid and sometimes sparsely vegetated, including grassland-shrubland with less than 40% cover, and landscapes with sandy soils. Mountain plover also have not been reported in the STRW, but there are records from 1994 northwest of the watershed, outside of Twin Bridges. Mountain plover breeding habitat in Montana includes heavily grazed, shortgrass prairie sites (MNHP, 2016a).

Special Status Fish The Westslope cutthroat trout in Montana is currently listed as a special status species. Genetically pure WCT have declined in the STRW to a single population located in the headwaters of Ramshorn Creek. Since the 2006 assessment, the Harris Creek WCT population has become hybridized and drastically declined. With the loss of the Harris Creek population, there are currently no known pure populations of WCT found on BLM administered land in the STRW. All remaining WCT populations in the watershed can be characterized as small, isolated populations found in headwater habitat, primarily on land administered by Westslope cutthroat trout-Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi the U.S. Forest Service. There are four streams (Harris, Nugget, Mill Gulch and California Creeks) that flow through BLM administered land that support hybridized WCT populations. The headwaters of Ramshorn Creek, which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service, potentially supports a genetically pure WCT population. However, a 2016 fishery survey did not detect WCT lower in the drainage on BLM administered land.

Special Status Plants None of the plants currently listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are known to be growing on BLM administered lands in the Dillon Field Office. Twelve sensitive plant species inhabit BLM administered lands in the Dillon Field Office. There are none of these species known to be found within the STRW assessment area. Extensive field searches for sensitive plants haven’t been conducted within the assessment area, so it’s quite probable that some sensitive plant species will be discovered when botanical surveys are completed in conjunction with proposed projects requiring surface disturbance.

During the summer of 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a 90-day finding on a petition to list whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) as endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat. In July of 2011, the finding was released; whitebark was given a warranted but precluded listing with a current priority of 8. It is currently on the candidate species list (For further discussion on whitebark pine in the STRW, see the Forest and Woodland Habitats and Associated Species section below).

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species Noxious weeds are defined in the Montana Weed Management Plan as “plants of foreign origin that can directly or indirectly injure agriculture, navigation, fish or wildlife, or public health.” Currently there are 38 weeds on the statewide noxious weed list that infest about 7.6 million acres in Montana. Of these 38 weeds, three are of major concern in the STRW: spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), dalmation toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) and houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale). Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), another state declared noxious weed, is also found throughout the STRW. It is widespread throughout the Dillon Field Office and mostly found in riparian areas making treatment difficult.

Noxious and invasive weeds are one of the major issues affecting land health within the STRW. Weeds negatively affect land health to varying degrees in both riparian and upland habitats by reducing biodiversity, displacing native vegetation and by reducing soil resistance to erosion. Historic mining (dredging and placer) along most streams in the watershed, as well as hard-rock mining in the uplands, created wide-spread areas of soil disturbances. These disturbed areas are common throughout the STRW and have provided noxious and invasive species ample opportunities to establish. Because of the aggressive and competitive nature of these noxious weeds, they have spread throughout the watershed, primarily along road systems, utility corridors, and other disturbed areas, but have also spread into some undisturbed uplands.

Spotted knapweed is an aggressive perennial invader and a prolific seed producer. Spotted knapweed seeds remain viable for up to ten years. It is found in large infestations scattered throughout the watershed especially along roads and areas disturbed by past mining operations. Because of where it is found, the potential is high for knapweed to be spread by vehicles, livestock, wildlife, recreation and other activities.

Dalmatian toadflax, an aggressive perennial introduced from southeastern Europe as an ornamental, is difficult to control due to a waxy leaf and an extensive, deep root system. Wide- spread infestations of dalmatian toadflax are found in the Brandon Pasture, Elser, and Sand Coulee allotments, and smaller more scattered infestations are found in other areas of the

watershed. Due to its aggressive nature and ability to reproduce by both seeds and creeping root stalks, the potential for spread is high.

Houndstongue is a biennial plant introduced from Europe and is toxic to animals due to high levels of alkaloids. It is an opportunistic invader (moves into disturbed areas), not an aggressive invader like spotted knapweed. It is scattered throughout the watershed, particularly within riparian areas, and along roads and trails. Houndstongue is found in almost every allotment in the STRW, with Georgia Gulch and Ramshorn allotments having some of the largest infestations. Due to the difficulty in treating infestations found in riparian areas, and because of its’ seeds ability to cling to hair and clothing, the potential is high for it to be spread to other disturbed areas within the watershed.

Musk or nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) is a biennial, or winter annual, which spreads rapidly forming dense stands, particularly in disturbed areas. It out-competes more desirable grasses and forbs and is becoming a concern in some areas. In the Granite-Moore allotment, which has recently been fenced from private land and rested from livestock grazing, musk thistle has become so dense the IDT found it difficult to even walk through several riparian areas during the 2016 field assessment.

Other invasive noxious weeds present in isolated locations within the STRW are hoary cress, or whitetop (Cardaria draba, and black henbane (Hyoscyamus nigar).

Since 1989, the BLM has been involved in cooperative weed control efforts with Madison County. Throughout this period, the goal has been to prevent new noxious weed infestations and reduce or eradicate existing infestations on public lands using Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

Table 14 shows the herbicide treatments applied in the STRW during the past five years.

Table 14. Weed Treatments Year Acres Acres Treated Inventoried 2011 56 8621 2012 62 8947 2013 46 7338 2014 64 7800 2015 75 8000

Aerial herbicide application has been completed through a cooperative project with Madison County and various private landowners and is shown in the Table 15 below.

Table 15. Aerial herbicide Application Year Acres Treated Allotment 200 Georgia Gulch 2011 200 Granite Creek 80 Butcher Gulch 2014 185 Georgia Gulch 2015 230 McGovern 2016 40 Ruby

Biological controls such as the seed head fly (Urophora sp), knapweed root-boring weevil (Cyphocleonus achates), knapweed flower weevil (Larinus minutus), and toadflax stem weevil (Mecinus janthinus) have been released and are present within the STRW. The harsh climate and shallow soils found in southwest Montana appear to be limiting the effectiveness or successful expansion of some biological weed control agents. Research is ongoing to find biological control methods that are better adapted to local conditions and will contribute to noxious and invasive weed reduction.

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has established and is spreading into disturbed areas throughout the STRW. Relatively large infestations were observed by IDT during the 2006 and 2016 field assessments along many stream corridors and adjacent uplands, specifically on warm south or west facing slopes. Cheatgrass is an extremely competitive early cool season species that flourishes in disturbed sites. Old mining sites, roads, construction locations, burned areas and other disturbed areas have allowed cheatgrass to become established. Once established, cheatgrass, a winter annual, has the potential to change (shorten) the fire return interval because it dries out in early summer and becomes a fine, flashy fuel. Cheatgrass tends to form monocultures, displacing native vegetation and adversely affecting habitat quality and biodiversity. Cheatgrass seed sources are present throughout most of the watershed so there is high potential for it to spread into additional areas of natural and/or human-caused disturbance.

Invasive Aquatic Species There are no known populations of aquatic invasive species found within the STRW.

Forest and Woodland Habitats and Associated Species Forest and woodland habitats comprise approximately 27% of all ownerships, and approximately 25% of BLM-administered lands within the STRW. Effective precipitation and aspect influences the establishment and composition of forests and woodlands. The close association of forests with adjoining sagebrush and riparian habitats supports a broad array of wildlife species. This habitat provides important thermal and hiding cover including security habitat for big game. Forest and woodland habitat, especially aspen and mountain mahogany, offers high protein browse species in the fall and winter, as well as year-round browse for moose. Forests in the STRW provide habitat for a large variety of species including mountain lions, dusky grouse, ruffed grouse, northern goshawk, and black bear. Forest-dwelling bird species require suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Bird species such as the hairy and black-backed woodpeckers help

protect forests by eating millions of damaging insects, such as the mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm.

Based upon field reconnaissance, local monitoring data, and LANDFIRE data, the dominant existing forest types within the STRW are shown in Table 16, along with the approximate distributions within the watershed across all ownerships.

Table 16. Dominant Existing Forest Types and Distribution within the STRW Forested Acres by Type % of Forest Type % of BLM (all ownerships) Watershed

Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland 40,717 60 % 83 % Subalpine/Spruce/Fir Woodland and 14,351 21% 1 % Parkland Lodgepole pine 5,993 9 % <1 %

Aspen Forest and Woodland 6,506 10 % 14 %

Limber Pine Woodland 570 < 1% 2 %

Total Acres 68,137 100 % 100 %

The low to mid-elevation woodlands within the STRW are dominated by Douglas-fir, Rocky Mountain juniper and limber pine. For purposes of this assessment report, Rocky Mountain juniper is described below as a conifer forest component, but the extent in acres is combined with sagebrush and is included as part of the upland shrub community. The dry forest types, typical of those found on BLM administered land in the STRW, were historically influenced by the relatively short fire return interval of the adjacent valley bottoms and foothills. The influence of past fire is evidenced by large diameter, relic Douglas-fir trees with multiple fire scars. Often, old stumps from trees that were cut long ago also show multiple fires scars. Trees less than 150 years old without evidence of past fire have filled in around these relic trees creating dense, multi-storied stands in abundance today. Many hillsides once dominated by Douglas-fir trees were clearcut to support historic mining and agricultural activities. Most of these cut-over slopes have naturally regenerated and are currently dense even-age Douglas-fir stands with little understory vegetation. The combination of the historic use of timber, and the relative absence of the regulatory effects of fire, much of the lower elevation Douglas-fir-dominated forest is currently departed from historic fuel loading, structure, species composition, and biodiversity.

Dusky grouse forage on Douglas-fir needles and buds in the winter and, along with other birds, heavily rely on Douglas-fir communities for cover. Several bird species extract seeds from Douglas-fir cones or forage for seeds on the ground (Steinberg, 2002). Douglas-fir habitat types provide excellent hiding and thermal cover for deer and elk. It also provides nesting and/or roosting habitat for numerous bird species including great-horned owls, sharp-shinned hawks, great gray owls, and northern goshawks.

Over the past 10-15 years, Douglas-fir beetle, spruce budworm and mountain pine beetle populations expanded to epidemic levels. The simultaneous population spike of these native forest insects caused extensive mortality of several trees species. Insect outbreaks are cyclic, but are also influenced by prolonged drought, overstocked stand conditions, and stands of trees of homogenous age and/or structure. Douglas-fir beetle attacked and killed many relic, large-diameter Douglas-fir trees, as well as co-dominant trees stressed Young Douglas-fir trees killed by spruce budworm. by drought or other insects, throughout the Ballard allotment. June, 2016 Tobacco Root Mountains.

During the 2016 field assessment, evidence of active Douglas-fir beetle was identified but it appears the insect population is returning to endemic population levels. Spruce budworm affects all conifer species except lodgepole pine and Rocky Mountain juniper. Repeated spruce budworm defoliation of young to mid-age-class Douglas-fir trees has caused widespread top-kill and mortality. Some young stands of Douglas-fir trees that had relatively recently expanded into former sagebrush/grassland experienced nearly one hundred percent mortality caused by spruce budworm. Other more mature stands experienced scattered mortality, in effect thinning the timber stand. Douglas-fir trees that were top-killed by spruce budworm are likely to live, but with an abnormal growth form. Due to favorable environmental conditions or some level of resistance to spruce budworm, some Douglas-fir trees were only minimally or not at all affected by the recent spruce budworm outbreak. Active spruce budworm defoliation was observed during the 2016 field assessment, but it appears to be less prevalent than in the past five to ten years.

Widespread outbreaks of mountain pine beetle have killed mature lodgepole pine throughout the northern Rockies over the past 10-15 years, including the Tobacco Root Mountains. As suitable host trees decline, the beetle population also returns to endemic levels. Currently, mountain pine beetle activity in the STRW is limited to remaining pockets of live, mature lodgepole pine and limber pine. The standing dead trees which were killed over the past decade will contribute to ground fuel loading as they fall over the next decades. The sunlight now reaching the ground will promote new stands of lodgepole pine trees, as well as a flush of grasses, forbs and potentially aspen.

Mountain pine beetle and/or white pine blister rust have killed many mature limber pine trees. Interestingly, some limber pine trees appear to be completely unaffected by mountain pine beetle or white pine blister rust and appear healthy and robust, despite the majority of neighboring limber pine succumbing to insect and/or disease. This suggests some limber pine have some level of resistance to mountain pine beetle and/or white pine blister rust. During the 2016 field

assessment, the IDT positively identified several cone-producing whitebark pine trees growing on BLM-administered lands at relatively low elevations. All whitebark pine trees the IDT observed that are larger than seedling size-class are being affected by white pine blister rust. The cones and seeds of whitebark are a primary food source for several wildlife species due to their high caloric and fat content. Seed dispersal is done almost entirely by the Clark’s nutcracker, a bird that caches the seeds which will eventually germinate, if not found again by the Clark’s nutcracker, bears, rodents or other birds. Whitebark pine has been recognized as a keystone species of high elevation habitats. They are important resources for wildlife food, snowpack retention, and watershed protection. Limber pine seeds provide critical food for rodents and birds, including squirrels and Clark’s nutcrackers, which also cache the seeds for later use. Other birds, small mammals, and bears benefit from these caches.

Rocky Mountain juniper is common on BLM administered land in the STRW. Historic photographs, rangeland trend monitoring files, and local knowledge all show Rocky Mountain juniper is expanding throughout the uplands, particularly on harsh, dry sites. Juniper expansion is shading-out sagebrush on many upland sites, creating an understory void of almost any other vegetation. Rocky Mountain juniper is also expanding along most low to mid-elevation riparian systems in the STRW. Juniper can negatively affect the amount of water and sunlight available to riparian obligate deciduous trees, shrubs and sedges.

Between 2013 and 2014, the BLM completed approximately 890 acres of commercial timber harvest in several drainages on the south face of the Tobacco Root Mountains. The objectives of the timber harvest included salvaging dead/dying timber, sanitation harvest of live trees, thinning of high density Rocky Mountain juniper overstory with little conifer stands, and the harvest of conifers understory vegetation. Miller allotment. September, from around aspen stands. The silvicultural 2016 prescription for thinning live Douglas-fir was to thin from below to an average residual basal area of 80 square feet per acre, with a range of 20 to 120 square feet per acre. This variability of desired post-harvest timber stand conditions allowed unhealthy trees to be removed and utilized, while providing the healthiest residual trees with more available sunlight, nutrients and water. The goal of thinning in Douglas-fir stands was to make the trees more resistant to future insect attack, and to create a forest stand structure that is more likely withstand future wildfire.

In 2008, 2009, and 2010 the BLM implemented 15.34 miles (approximately 157 acres) of riparian juniper removal treatments. See Appendix C for a list of treated riparian areas with the STRW. The primary objective of the treatments was to cut/remove Rocky Mountain juniper that were competing with more desirable, stabilizing, deciduous riparian shrubs and sedges for limited resources (i.e. sunlight and water). By removing the shading effect of juniper and reducing juniper water consumption within the riparian areas, willow, aspen and sedges have sufficient resources available to recolonize the riparian areas. A secondary objective of the treatment was to leave the juniper that was cut in place along the streams to deter ungulates from browsing the new growth. During the 2016 field assessment, the IDT found the juniper removal treatments are meeting objectives in some areas, such as Horse Creek, and the results of the treatment are not yet apparent in other areas.

Completed riparian juniper removal treatment on Horse Creek. June, 2016

Quaking aspen is primarily found in riparian corridors and near springs or seeps within the STRW. Though aspen woodlands comprise a relatively small portion of the STRW, aspen habitat contributes greatly to biological diversity. The high value of aspen to wildlife and the positive influences aspen stands have on hydrologic functions are just several of the reasons aspen is considered the most important deciduous forest type in North America (Long and Mock 2012). Most existing aspen stands include some conifer component, both Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain juniper, in varying stages of succession. Within some riparian areas where aspen are present, young conifers have established in the understory but are not yet shading-out the mature

parent aspen stand. The young conifers will begin to affect aspen regeneration as they restrict sunlight from reaching the ground. More commonly, existing aspen stands are mixed with conifers that have overtopped the aspen trees, shading them and causing overstory aspen mortality. The aspen clone root systems may continue to remain viable with only several live stems, potentially capable of asexual reproduction following a disturbance that stimulates the root system and/or full sunlight is allowed to reach the ground.

Many animals browse aspen year-round, but it is especially valuable during fall and winter when protein levels are high relative to other browse species (Howard, 1996). Aspen is an important browse species for ungulates including deer, elk, and moose. It also provides hiding cover, summer shade and some thermal cover for ungulates in the winter, as well as hiding and thermal cover for many small mammals. Aspen also provides nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species including dusky grouse, dark-eyed junco, house wren, chipping sparrow, and pine siskin. Aspen buds, flowers, and seeds are palatable to many bird species. Ruffed grouse depend on aspen for foraging, courting, breeding, and nesting throughout most of its range. Aspen buds, catkins, and leaves provide year-round food for ruffed grouse.

Englemann spruce is not common on BLM administered land in the STRW but it is present at some higher elevation, cooler, moist sites. Spruce is also present along several high-energy streams that are confined by steep, timber-shaded hillsides. Englemann spruce is susceptible to spruce beetle, but the IDT found only isolated spruce beetle activity during the 2016 field assessment

Mountain mahogany is present on some of the driest, steepest foothills of the Tobacco Root Mountains, primarily on south-facing slopes. In most places, Rocky Mountain juniper is intermixed with the mountain mahogany. All age classes of mountain mahogany are generally present, though the IDT did note some dead mature mahogany plants. Mountain mahogany is an extremely palatable and important food source for deer, elk and moose so most accessible plants show moderate levels of browse. Mountain mahogany is not shade tolerant so expanding conifers, particularly Rocky Mountain juniper, have the potential to shade-out existing mahogany plants and to inhibit seedling establishment.

Fire Ecology and Fire Regimes of the STRW As a prominent disturbance process in southwestern Montana, fire is directly tied to land health by affecting seral stage diversity, age classes, and landscape vegetation structures. Understanding the historic role of fire helps inform decisions on ecological status, trend and treatment needs. Recently, fire regimes for most terrestrial communities have been mapped and textually described for vegetation types across the entire U.S. (LANDFIRE, 2013). These descriptions give context for assessing land health, reference conditions, and functioning ecosystems.

Biophysical Settings (BpS) are most simply defined as the native vegetation communities present in the pre-Euro-American era, and therefore developed under the influence of natural disturbances such as fire. BpS’s describe vegetation communities at a larger scale than Ecological Sites, and as such can be applied to characterize broad areas such as watersheds. Each BpS description describes the historic composition and dominance of seral stages for that type, as well as the historic fire frequency and severity. Together, this information describes a reference condition, or a standard against which current conditions may be compared. Comparing Biophysical Settings to current conditions is useful for identifying trends in forest and non-forest vegetation communities. Based upon field reconnaissance and LANDFIRE data, the dominant BpS’s found in the watershed include several species of big sagebrush, Douglas-fir forest, and subalpine conifer forests. Many other individual BpS’s are present within this watershed that are isolated or comprise a small percentage of the total area; these BpS’s are grouped in the “other” category in the table below.

Successional processes, seral stage descriptions, and historic fire regimes for these types are described in the LANDFIRE BpS description documents for Map Zone 21 (LANDFIRE 2013). These descriptions of historic conditions were compared with current conditions to depict landscape trends in vegetation and fire regime departure. The approximate distribution of the dominant BpS(s) in the watershed, are presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Distribution of Dominant BpS in the STRW (All Ownerships) Biophysical Setting Name Acres by BpS in STRW % of STRW (Number) Inter-mountain basins montane sagebrush 79,709 34% steppe (1911260) Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir 39,730 17% Forest and Woodland (1911661) Inter-mountain basins big sagebrush 16,928 7% shrubland-Wyoming big sagebrush (1910800) Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine 15,026 7% Woodland and Parkland (1910460) Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic 11,949 5% Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (1910550) Rocky Mountain Montane Riparian Systems 10,499 5% (1911590 Other 57,372 25%

Fire Regimes in the STRW The fire regime concept is used to describe the fire frequency, behavior, ecological effects, seasonality, pattern, and type for a given ecosystem or vegetation type. Based upon the most current fire regime classification system, each BpS corresponds to a unique fire regime (Schmidt et al. 2002). Table 18 outlines fire regime and descriptions.

Table 18. Natural Fire Regimes and Descriptions Regime Frequency Severity Severity Description I 0-35 years Low/Mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25% of the dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixed-severity fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory. II 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation. III 35-200 years Mixed/Low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires. IV 35-200 years Replacement High-severity fires. V 200+ years Replacement/ Generally replacement-severity; can include any severity type in this Any severity frequency range.

Mountain Big Sagebrush (Bps 1911260) Fire Regime: Mountain big sagebrush dominated communities are found above about 7000 feet in elevation, and on sites that annually receive 12-20 inches of effective precipitation. This vegetative community is characterized by fire regime Group I. Fire is a major disturbance factor for mountain big sagebrush and likely played a large role in maintaining this habitat as a sagebrush/grassland. Periodic fire restricted conifer establishment on sites capable of supporting trees, and held in check the conversion of sagebrush habitat to forest habitat. Mountain big sagebrush has the fastest recovery rate of the three subspecies of big sagebrush. Fire size for this type is larger than other big sagebrush species because of greater fine fuel load, but some unburned pockets remain after fires, often resulting in a patchy mosaic. The fire return intervals vary from 10-200 years. However, estimating historic fire regimes for sagebrush ecosystems is tenuous at best and often based on fire scar and age structure data from adjacent forest types, shrub age structure and fuel characteristics. Fire regimes also vary considerably across the range of mountain big sagebrush, based on factors like elevation, soil depth, slope, aspect, adjacent vegetation, frequency of lightning and climate. While the majority of fires were likely stand- replacing, some mixed severity fire may have occurred. Mixed severity fires were likely small in area, but ignitions may have occurred as frequently as 5-20 years. There were probably also portions of this system that never carried fire because of sparse fuel. Historic fires likely occurred during the summer months and were wind driven events. Lightning ignitions are variable and affect fire frequency on regional landscapes in the Northern Rockies. Fire may spread from adjacent forested communities. Mountain big sagebrush does not re-sprout following fire and re-colonization of burned areas must come from either a short-lived seed bank or seed dispersed by plants in unburned patches or adjacent stands.

Current Conditions: The mountain big sagebrush stratum is moderately departed from reference conditions due to fire exclusion and the effects of abundant conifer expansion. Three-tip sagebrush is found in localized areas throughout the watershed. Three-tip sagebrush re-sprouts after fire. The proportions of mid- to late-development mountain big sagebrush are near reference conditions, however the early development sagebrush component is lacking throughout the watershed. Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper trees are establishing in a many areas and are converting former sagebrush habitat into closed canopy forest habitat.

Douglas-fir Forest (BpS 1911661) Fire Regime: The Douglas-fir forest in this watershed is best characterized by Fire Regime Groups I and III. Fires were predominantly surface and mixed-severity, with a mean fire interval of 7-80 years. Occasional stand replacement fires may also occur. Much of the Douglas-fir forest is on dry, south-facing slopes at the sagebrush-forest interface and was historically affected by fires in adjacent vegetation. Abundant evidence of past fires is present in the lower elevation, mature Douglas-fir timber stands, primarily in the form of fire scars on large diameter relic trees. The low frequency and wide spacing of existing relic trees and stumps in these stands indicates historic low-severity fires likely promoted and maintained a fairly open Douglas-fir forest. Mixed-severity fires occurred primarily in denser stands, and at higher elevations. The mean fire interval in these stands was lengthened, with slightly more late-development, closed- canopy forest structure. Douglas-fir increases in canopy density in the absence of fire disturbance. Much of this landscape today has canopy cover denser than the historic range of variability. Canopy closure of >80% in this BpS is considered uncharacteristic. Many of the young, dense Douglas-fir stands (<100 years old) in this watershed have sagebrush skeletons on the ground, which indicates these sites were previously dominated by sagebrush.

Current Conditions: The Douglas-fir forest stratum is moderately to severely departed from reference conditions due to altered stand structure. Past timber harvesting followed by more than a century of fire exclusion has promoted an increase of dense, single age-class Douglas-fir forest. Herbaceous understory vegetation is sparse in many stands due to nearly complete canopy closure.

Big Sagebrush Shrubland-Wyoming Big Sagebrush (1910800) Fire regime: This type is found at elevations between 3000 and 7000ft. It exists on sites with deep well-drained, alluvial soils. This vegetative community is characterized by fire regime group IV, but may also encompass III and IV. Fire return intervals are estimated to average approximately 60yrs, and range from 10-150yrs.). Mixed severity fire was probably present where fuels were discontinuous. However, estimating historic fire regimes for sagebrush ecosystems is tenuous at best and often based on fire scar and age structure data from adjacent forest types, shrub age structure and fuel characteristics.

Current Conditions: Propagation of this community throughout the watershed was affected by historic mining practices in most drainages as well as fire exclusion tied to major travel corridors where big sagebrush species are most abundant. Conifer expansion from Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain juniper is very prevalent within existing stands.

Subalpine Forest (BpS 1910460) Fire Regime: The highest elevation forest types in this watershed are dominated by five-needle pines, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. This forest type is characterized by Fire Regime Groups III and IV, primarily long-interval (100-200+ year) mixed severity (25-75% top kill) and stand replacement fires. Ignitions are frequent due to lightning, though fires seldom carry due to lack of fuel from the slow-growing vegetation. Nonlethal surface fires may be possible where short grasses provide a continuous ground fuel; individual tree torching is more

common. Climate variability and slow fuel loading could extend the stand-replacing fire interval to many hundreds of years.

Current Conditions: The subalpine forest stratum is within the range of variation for its natural fire regime. Fire has not recently affected large portions of this forest type in this area, which has led to predominantly mid to late-development stands. However, most of the whitebark and limber pine is being affected by both white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle. White pine blister rust is not a native disease agent; therefore the current whitebark pine die-off is creating an uncharacteristic condition. Mortality caused by these agents will increase fuel loading and will lead to more open stands dominated by tree species not susceptible to blister rust or pine beetle. Even with increased fuel loading, many fires that start in these high elevation stands will continue to be inhibited from spreading by rock, scree and green and/or sparse vegetation. Fires that start in lower elevation, drier forest types may affect the fringes of the subalpine forest.

Rocky Mountain Montane Riparian Systems (BpS 1911590) Fire Regime: This ecological system typically exists as relatively small linear stringers, but can occupy relatively wide and flat valleys. This ecological system occurs as a mosaic of multiple communities that are tree dominated with a diverse shrub component. Deciduous woody trees dominate, including: Populus angustifolia, P. balsamifera, P.tremuloides and Salix amygdaloides. Dominant shrubs include Acer glabrum, Alnus incana, Betula occidentalis, Cornus sericea, Crataegus rivularis, Prunus virginiana and numerous tall willow species: Salix lutea, S. geyeriana, S. boothii, S. drummondiana, S. lasiandra, S. bebbiana and S. exigua. Frequent fire maintains the deciduous shrub component, especially at the lower elevation range of this BpS. In the absence of fire, shade-tolerant conifers will encroach and shade out the deciduous shrubs. Fire intervals may have ranged from 35-150yrs, depending strongly on the fire regimes of the surrounding upland vegetation.

Current Conditions: The montane riparian stratum is moderately departed from its natural fire regime. Fire has not recently affected large portions of this habitat type in this area, which has led to predominantly mid to late-development stands with deciduous woody trees like aspen and willow in heavy decline as a result of conifer expansion. Conifer expansion into riparian areas, like many areas of the watershed, is a direct result of fire exclusion and associated change in fire return intervals.

Fire Regime Condition Class Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a general index providing two pieces of information: the historic fire regime group, and the condition class. Fire Regime Groups are described in the previous section and summarized in Table 19 below. Condition class reflects the degree of ecological departure when current conditions are compared against modeled reference conditions in terms of two main ecosystem components: fire regime and associated vegetation. This departure is from changes to one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought).

Three fire regime condition classes have been defined (Schmidt et al. 2002) based on the following criteria: FRCC 1 represents ecosystems with low (<33 percent) departure and that are still within an estimated historical range of variation as determined by modeling for the pre- Euro-American era; FRCC 2 indicates ecosystems with moderate (33 to 66 percent) departure; and FRCC 3 indicates ecosystems with high (>66 percent) departure (Hann and Bunnell 2001; Hardy et al. 2001, and Schmidt et al. 2002). A low departure indicates current conditions are characteristic of those occurring in the natural fire regime and associated vegetation. A high departure indicates uncharacteristic conditions that did not occur within the natural fire regime. The following table represents the two most dominant BpS by existing FRCC as well as the FRCC rating for the watershed as a whole. Condition classes were assessed using LANDFIRE (2013) data.

Table 19. FRCC Summary for South Tobacco Root Watershed (all ownerships) Fire Regime Condition Condition Condition Biophysical Setting Total Acres Group (I-V) Class 1 (ac) Class 2 (ac) Class 3 (ac) Inter-mountain basins I 1,370 78,330 9 79,709 montane sagebrush steppe (1911260) Middle Rocky Mountain I & III 1,557 38,163 10 39,730 Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland (1911661) Inter-mountain basins III & IV 16,128 796 4 16,928 big sagebrush shrubland- Wyoming big sagebrush (1910800) Northern Rocky III &IV 14,710 316 0 15,026 Mountain Subalpine Woodland and Parkland (1910460) Rocky Mountain IV 11,627 322 0 11,949 Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (1910550) Rocky Mountain III 486 9,989 24 10,499 Montane Riparian Systems (1911590 Other BpS acres not included in FRCC assessment 57,372 Total Acres 45878 127,916 47 173,841 % of Watershed 26% 74% <1%

Recommendations for Biodiversity 1. Modify old net-wire fence, dilapidated fences, and fences with improper wire spacing to meet wildlife-friendly specifications and ensure that new fences are built to BLM specifications. Remove any unnecessary fences and work with private landowners to improve BLM-private boundary fences. 2. Continue to maintain wildlife escape ramps in all stock tanks in the watershed.

3. Identify fences that pose a collision hazard with sage grouse or other wildlife and install fence markers to improve visibility and reduce the risk of collision. 4. Consider thinning sagebrush in areas of Dry Lakes, Virginia City Hill, and/or Madison Overlook allotments where sagebrush cover is “marginal” due to canopy cover exceeding the suitable habitat objectives. 5. Explore opportunities to enhance/improve/protect “Priority Habitats” such as aspen, mahogany, and five needle pines (prescribed fire, mechanical, herbicide, planting and /or seeding). 6. Consider commercial harvest and non-commercial mechanical treatments to make progress towards shifting forest vegetation back to historic composition, structure and density. 7. Consider commercial harvest to salvage timber stands currently affected by forest insects and diseases, and sanitation treatments to reduce future insect and disease impacts. 8. Consider use of mechanical and/or prescribed fire treatments to address conifer expansion within identified sage grouse habitat. 9. Explore opportunities for protection, conservation and restoration of five-needle pines (whitebark and limber pine) through application of pheromones, cone/seed collection, and seedling planting. 10. Continue to monitor insect activity in and/or near forest restoration treatments. Consider pheromone applications to prevent insect outbreaks. 11. Continue to work with MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks to expand and re-establish genetically pure WCT populations within the STRW. 12. Continue stream temperature monitoring in STRW streams. 13. Continue to address localized weed infestations cooperatively with Madison County, other landowners, and partners as appropriate. Continue the existing education effort on weed identification with permittees and other public land users. 14. Limit soil disturbing activities that may increase the risk of noxious weed invasion. Where disturbance does occur, use BMPs to mitigate the chance of noxious weed establishment. 15. Request funding from abandoned mine lands money and other sources to treat infestations on abandoned historic mining areas. 16. Actively seek corporate and private landowner participation to help control weed spread and reduce existing infestations. 17. Request that utility and other right-of- way grant holders control noxious weeds within the ROW, per stipulations on their ROW grant. Follow up to ensure noxious weeds are treated in these areas. 18. Concentrate all initial chemical treatments on the main vectors for weed spread such as roads, utility corridors, trails, streams, camping areas, etc. Establish biological controls on larger areas of established weeds. 19. Survey Gibbs and Downey Creeks to document fish species presence. 20. Explore the possibility of reintroducing cattle grazing into the Granite-Moore allotment to help reduce musk thistle seed production and vigor.

Additional Programs, Issues and/or Concerns

Recreation, Travel Management and Public Land Access The dispersed land pattern of the BLM administered public land within the STRW results in limited and sometimes no public access to several parcels of public land within the watershed. The BLM’s goal is to retain or improve access to BLM administered public lands. However, smaller parcels of public land that are surrounded by private land leave the BLM few options to improve public access. Land or easement acquisitions are available options to pursue, but are labor intensive, can be very costly and require a willing private landowner. Public land inholdings increase the value to the surrounding private land; therefore the private landowners are often times not willing to sell an easement to allow public access to the public land. Scattered parcels of publicly owned land, which are surrounded by private lands, are common throughout the watershed. In addition to limiting public access, this land pattern makes it difficult to monitor recreation uses and impacts. Many of the BLM administered lands in this watershed serve as access corridors to recreation opportunities that exist within other Federal and State lands.

As a result of the 2006 Dillon Field Office RMP, public motorized wheeled vehicle use is limited to those routes designated as open. All other routes are considered closed, with few exceptions to accommodate administration of permits, to access private lands, or other limited circumstances. Travel management will continue to be implemented as prescribed in the Dillon RMP. Roads identified as open to public use will be signed with a white arrow symbol on a flexible sign post. Roads not identified as open to public use would be:  Left unsigned unless there is evidence of regular use.  Signed closed if there is evidence of regular use.  If signing is ineffective at discouraging use, roads would be obliterated to the extent possible (made unnoticeable), at least at the intersection with an open route, or physically closed when continued use is causing significant unacceptable resource impacts or user conflicts.

Corrections of mapping errors in the original route designations in the RMP, and other minor adjustments to route designations will be made through this watershed assessment process and specified in the environmental assessment and decision record. Travel management issues are a concern in STRW, although not as significant as in other watersheds. The watershed assessment process provides an appropriate avenue to refine those decisions due to the area specific focus across multiple resources. Any potential modifications will be considered and analyzed in a subsequent environmental assessment.

Recreation and Travel Management Recommendations 1. Analyze, and make necessary adjustments to route designations where concerns were documented. 2. Consider installing culverts or other appropriate structures where frequently traveled roads intersect perennial streams within the watershed. 3. Consider options to increase compliance with travel management and reduce off-road or closed road motorized vehicle use. Consider and/or analyze the following actions: press releases prior to big game hunting, more accurate and accessible maps, more visible and

effective patrols, increased law enforcement, more durable signs, blocking or obliterating roads where signing is not working, citizens watch groups, interpretive signs/education at access points. 4. Discuss and analyze where to physically close or obliterate roads due to noncompliance with signing.

Interdisciplinary Team Composition

Core IDT members for the STRW Assessment: Kipper Blotkamp, Forester and ID Team Leader Pat Fosse, Assistant Field Manager-Renewable Resources Katie Benzel, Wildlife Biologist Kelly Savage, Rangeland Management Specialist (Special Status Plants) Paul Hutchinson, Fisheries Biologist Sean Claffey, Hydrologist (Soil, Water & Air) Joe Sampson, Fire Management Specialist

Support IDT members: Michael Mooney, Weeds Specialist Jason Strahl, Archaeologist Chris McGrath, Outdoor Recreation Planner Laurie Blinn, GIS Specialist Brandy Janzen, Soil Scientist Dave Ruppert, Soil Scientist, U.S. Forest Service Ashley Durham, Forestry Technician Bob Gunderson, Geologist

Other resource members involved: Dave Williams, Geologist, Butte Field Office Berett Erb, Range Technician Leea Anderson, Range Technician Haleigh Stott, Range Technician Cari Forsgren, Range Technician Thoneta Bond, Wildlife Technician Trina Wade, Wildlife Technician Jed Berry, Fisheries Technician

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Animal Unit- A 1,000-pound cow, with or without an un-weaned calf, with such a cow consuming 26 pounds of forage dry matter per day.

Animal Unit Month- The amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” (AU) grazing for one month.

Anticline: In structural geology, an anticline is a fold that is convex up and has its oldest beds at its core.

Anthropogenic: Caused or influenced by humans.

Bankfull stage: “The bankfull stage corresponds to the discharge at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and meanders, and generally doing the work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of channels.” Dunne and Leopold (1978).

Census County Division: Census county divisions (CCDs) are geographic statistical subdivisions of counties established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and officials of state and local governments in states where minor civil divisions (MCDs) either do not exist or are unsatisfactory for census purposes.

Channel stability: the ability of the stream, over time, to transport the flows and sediment of its watershed in such a manner that the dimension, pattern and profile of the river is maintained without either aggrading nor degrading.

Critical Shear Stress: For a fluid to begin transporting sediment that is currently at rest on a surface, the boundary (or bed) shear stress exerted by the fluid must exceed the critical shear stress for the initiation of motion of grains at the bed. This is typically represented by a comparison between a dimensionless shear stress ( ) and a dimensionless critical shear stress ( ). The nondimensionalization is in order to compare the driving forces of particle motion (shear stress) to the resisting forces that would make it stationary (particle density and size). This dimensionless shear stress, , is called the Shields parameter. Critical shear stress: the Shields diagram empirically shows how the dimensionless critical shear stress required for the initiation of motion is a function of a particular form of the particle Reynolds number, or Reynolds number related to the particle.

Desired Condition: A desired condition is a description of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be determined, but do not include completion dates (36 CFR 219.7(e)(1)(i)).

Ecological Sites: a distinctive kind of land with specific characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation. (USDA Definition).

Entrenchment: the vertical containment of river and the degree to which it is incised in the valley floor.

Entrenchment ratio: a quantitative expression of the ratio of the flood prone width to the bankfull width.

Flood prone width: width measured at an elevation which is determined at twice the bankfull depth.

Forest land: land that is now, or has the potential of being, at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees (based on crown closures) or 16.7 percent stocked (based on tree stocking).

Functional at risk (FAR): riparian wetland areas that are functional, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA): Encompass habitat that is outside of Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA). GHMA contain approximately 10 percent of the occupied leks that are also of relatively low male attendance compared to leks in PHMA. GHMA are generally characterized by lower quality disturbed or patchy habitat of low lek connectivity.

Greenline: that specific area where a more or less continuous cover of vegetation is encountered when moving away from the center of an observable channel. The greenline is often, but not necessarily, located at the water’s edge.

Hummocking: a form of micro-topographic relief characterized by raised pedicels of vegetated soil as much as 0.6 m (2ft) higher than the surrounding ground which results from long term large animal trampling and tracking in soft soil. Vegetation on the pedicels usually differs from that on the surrounding lower area due to moisture difference between the two levels. Hummocking is also caused by abnormal hydrologic heaving.

Hydric soil: soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.

Hydrophyte: Any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.

Hydrologic Unit: The USGS has developed a system of geographic units based upon watersheds. These units were originally subdivided to four levels. Subsequently two additional subdivisions have been developed. Currently there are six levels, with the sixth being the smallest unit.

Lacustrine: from the French “lacustre” or lake. Permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, generally over 20 acres, exhibiting wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features. (Cowardin et al., 1979).

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: those lands that have been inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act. These are separate from lands already designated as wilderness or wilderness study areas.

Lentic: standing or still water such as lakes and ponds.

Lotic: flowing or actively moving water such as rivers and streams.

Nonpoint source pollution: pollution originating from diffuse sources (land surface or atmosphere) having no well-defined source.

Palustrine: from the Latin "palus" or marsh. All non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, emergent mosses or lichens. (Cowardin et al., 1979)

Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA): PHMA have the highest conservation value for greater sage grouse, based on the presence of larger leks, habitat extent, important movement and connectivity corridors, and winter habitat. They include adequate area to accommodate existing land uses and landowner activities.

Proper functioning condition (PFC): Lotic riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in proper functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:  Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality;  Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development;  Improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge;  Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses;  Support greater biodiversity Riparian –wetland areas can function properly before they achieve their potential. The PFC definition does not mean potential or optimal conditions have been achieved.

Pugging: the small depressions and areas of compaction in saturated soils caused by the hoof action of animals.

Riparian zone: the banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, water coursed, seeps, and springs whose waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available locally so as to provide a moister habitat than that of contiguous flood plains and uplands.

Rosgen Classification System: A classification system for natural rivers in which a morphological arrangement of stream characteristics is organized into relatively homogeneous stream types. Morphologically similar stream reaches are divided into 7 major stream type categories that differ in entrenchment, gradient, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity in various landforms. Within each major category are six additional types delineated by dominant channel materials from bedrock to silt/clay along a continuum of gradient ranges.

Spring brook: a channel that carries water from a spring. Where there is sufficient flow, the channel forms a perennial stream. Frequently in arid environments, the flow is insufficient to create a perennial stream. Groundwater emerges at the springhead, flows a short distance within the spring brook, and then submerges.

Spring province: a group of springs in close geographical proximity.

Stream power: Stream power is the rate of energy dissipation against the bed and banks of a river or stream per unit downstream length. It is given by the equation: where Ω is the stream power, ρ is the density of water (1000 kg/m3), g is acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2), Q is discharge (m3/s), and S is the channel slope. Unit stream power is stream power per unit channel width, and is given by the equation: where ω is the unit stream power, and b is the width of the channel. Stream power is used extensively in models of landscape evolution and river incision.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. The law requires that states establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.

TMDL Planning Areas: Montana DEQ is using a watershed approach to address TMDLs based on the premise that water quality restoration and protection are best addressed through integrated efforts within a defined geographic area. DEQ has divided the state into 91 watershed planning areas to facilitate development of TMDL/water quality restoration plans.

Wilderness Characteristics: These attributes include the area’s size, its apparent naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also include supplemental values.

Woodland: forest communities occupied primarily by noncommercial species such as juniper, mountain mahogany, or quaking aspen groves. All western juniper forest lands are classified as woodlands, since juniper is classified as a noncommercial species. Woodland tree and shrub canopy cover varies, but generally individual plant crowns do not overlap.

References – Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of this Document

Atamian, M.T., J.S. Sedinger, J.S. Heaton, and E.J. Blomberg. 2010. Landscape-level assessment of brood rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse in Nevada. J. Wildlife Manage. 74, 1533-1543.

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski, C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167, pp. 233- 241.

BCI. 1996. Bat Conservation International, Inc. Bats of America. Austin, TX.

Bjornn, T.C., M.A. Brusven, M.P. Molnau, and J.H. Milligan 1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and its effects on insects and fish. University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, Bulletin Number 17. Moscow, Idaho).

Bryce, S. A., G. A. Lomnicky, and P. R. Kaufmann. 2010. Protecting sediment-sensitive aquatic species in mountain streams through the application of biologically based streambed sediment criteria. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29:657–672).

Casazza, M.L., P.S. Coates, and C.T. Overton. 2011. Linking habitat selection and brood success in Greater Sage-Grouse. In: Sandercock, B.K., Martin, K., Segelbacher, G. (Eds). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Grouse. Studies in Avian Biology 39. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA, pp. 151-167.

Coltrane, J. Gude, B. Inman, N. Lance, K. Laudon, A. Messer, A. Nelson, T. Parks, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber, and J. Vore. 2015. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2015 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 74pp.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Available: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov

DEQ, 2006. Ruby River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework for a Water Quality restoration Plan, Version 1.0. December 2006. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

De Staso, J., and F. J. Rahel. 1994. Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:289-297. Dunham et al. 1999; Novinger 2000.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, and J.M. Graham. 2008. Greater sage-grouse winter habitat selection and energy development. J. Wildlife Manage. 72, 187-195.

Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco, CA, 818p.

Fletcher, Robert H. 1960. Free Grass to Fences. University Publishers Inc.

Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Hann, W.J., and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:389-403

Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana’s Riparian and Wetland Sites. Misc. Publication No. 54. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula, MT.

Hardy, C.C., K.M. Schmidt, J.M. Menakis, and N.R. Samson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:353-372.

Horan, D.L., Kershner, J.L., Hawkins, C.P., Crowl, T.A., 2000. Effects of habitat area and complexity on Colorado River cutthroat trout density in Uinta Mountain streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129 (6), 1250–1263.

Howard, J.L. 1996. Populus tremuloides. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2009, November 6].

IGBST. 2016. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (alias Primary Conservation Area). Found at: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/IGBST/Web_Map_Files/Grizzly_Bear_Recovery_Zone. pdf. Accessed December 1, 2016.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp.

Irving, J. S. and Bjorn, T. C. 1984. Effects of Substrate Size Composition on Survival of Kokanee Salmon and Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout Embryos. Technical Report 84-6. Moscow, ID, University of Idaho.

Kellogg, K.S., and Williams, V.S., 2006, Geologic map of the Ennis 30' x 60' quadrangle, Madison and Gallatin counties, Montana, and Park County, Wyoming: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 529, 27 p., 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000.

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, and K.L. Preston. 2013. Modeling ecological minimum requirements for distribution of greater sage-grouse leks: implications for population connectivity across their western range, USA. Ecology and Evolution 3(6): 1539-1551.

LANDFIRE (2013): LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. [Online]. Available: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [2013, May 8].

Long J.N. and K. Mock. 2012. Changing perspectives on regeneration ecology and genetic diversity in western quaking aspen: implications for silviculture. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(12); 2011-2021.

Lonn, J.D., Skipp, B., Ruppel, E.T., Janecke, S.U., Perry Jr., W.J., Sears, J.W., Bartholomew, M.J., Stickney, M.C., Fritz, W.J., Hurlow, H.A., and Thomas, R.C., 2000, Geologic map of the Lima 30' x 60' quadrangle, southwest Montana: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open- File Report 408, 42 p.

Lukins, W. J., S. Creel, B. Erbes, and G. Spong. 2004. An Assessment of the Tobacco Root Mountain Range in Southwestern Montana as a Linkage Zone for Grizzly Bears. Northwest Science Vol. 78, No. 2.

Malone, Michael P., Richard B. Roeder, and William L. Lang. 1976. Montana A History of Two Centuries. University of Washington Press, Seattle Washington.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Section, Watershed Protection Bureau. 2012. Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Helena, Montana http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/nonpoint/NonpointSourceProgram.mcpx

MFWP. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2004. Draft Statewide Elk Management Plan for Montana. Wildlife Division, Helena, Montana.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2009. Angler Pressure 2009 Summary Report. Available at http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/anglingData/anglingPressureSurveys/2009.html

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2011. Angler Pressure 2011 Summary Report. Available at http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/anglingData/anglingPressureSurveys/2011.html

MNHP. 2016a. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Montana Field Guide. Available at http://fielduide.mt.gov. [2016, December].

MNHP. 2016b. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Natural Heritage Map Viewer. Available at http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/. [2016, December].

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Data Online, Grant 5, Montana (January 1961 – October 2015). Available online at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/. Accessed: 11/19/2015.

Neil H. Ringler & James D. Hall (1975) Effects of Logging on Water Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen in Spawning Beds, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 104:1, 111-121.

Noson, A. 2014. Riparian Bird Community Monitoring of Juniper Removal: South Tobacco Root Watershed, Montana. Annual Report. Avian Science Center, Missoula, Montana, 14pp.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, Vol 22: 169-199 Elsevier Science, B.V. Amsterdam.

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Rosgen D. and L. Silvey. 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Second edition ISBN 0-9653289-1-0.

Ruppel, E.T., O'Neill, J.M., and Lopez, D.A., 1993, Geologic map of the Dillon 1 x 2 degree quadrangle, Montana and Idaho: United States Geological Survey USGS Miscellaneous Geologic Investigation 1803-H, 1 sheet, scale 1:250,000.

RWC, 2015. Ruby Watershed Restoration Plan; July 27, 2015. Ruby Watershed Council of the Ruby Valley Conservation District, Sheridan, MT.

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Severson, J. P., C. A. Hagen, J. D. Maestas, D. E. Naugle, J. T. Forbes, and K. P. Reese. 2016. Effects of Conifer Expansion on Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat Selection. The Journal of Wildlife Management; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21183.

Steinberg, P.D. 2002. Psuedotsuga menziesii var. glauca. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2009, November 6].

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. Sage- Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado.

Thomas, Jack Ward, and Dale E. Toweill, editors. 1982. Elk of North America: Ecology and management. A Wildlife Management Institute Book. 698 p. Stackpole Books, Inc. Harrisburg, Pa.

Tysdal, R.G., Lee, G.K., Haddemer, J.H., and Hanna, W.F., Mineral Resources of the Blacktail Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Beaverhead County, Montana, 1987, U.G.S. Bulletin 1724-B.

USDA. 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Madison County Area, Montana. Survey Version 18. Survey Area Date: 09/25/2015. Database accessed 12/5/2016.

USDA. 2006. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, V 6.0 G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Available: http://landcare.sc.egov.usda.gov/images/pdf/HydricFieldIndicators_v6_0.pdf

USDA. 2011. The National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), administered by the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), acquires aerial imagery during the agricultural growing seasons in the continental U.S. The imagery, digital ortho photography, is available to governmental agencies and the public. Available: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prog&topic=nai

USDA. 2013. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Montana Rangeland Ecological Site Key. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_0 57025 [Accessed December 10, 2015].

USDI. 1999. Bureau of Land Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lentic Areas - TR 1737-16, revised 2003

USDI. 2005. Bureau of Land Management. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health – TR 1734-6.

USDI. 2001. Bureau of Land Management. A Guide to Managing, Restoring, and Conserving Springs in the Western United States-TR 1737-17.

USDI. 2001. Bureau of Land Management. BLM manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management.

USDI. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Columbia Basin District population segment of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as endangered. Federal Register 68:10388-10409.

USDI. 2004. Bureau of Land Management. Dillon Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DRAFT), Volume 1. Dillon Field Office. Dillon, Montana. 389 pp.

USDI. 2006. Bureau of Land Management. Record of Decision and Approved Dillon Resource Management Plan. Dillon Field Office. Dillon, Montana. 227 pp.

USDI. 2008.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Available: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/. [2011, November 22].

USDI. 2010. Bureau of Land Management. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Quality Management on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Montana Between the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management BLM-MOU-MT923-1030.

USDI. 2014a. Bureau of Land Management. 2014 Montana/Dakotas Special Status Species List. Instruction Memorandum No. MT-2014-067.

USDI. 2014b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule. Vol. 79, No. 177. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.

USDI. 2014c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.

USDI. 2015a. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.

USDI. 2015b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.

USDI. 2015c. Bureau of Land Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas - TR 1737-15. USEPA. 1998. Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf

USEPA. 2003. Office of Water. National Management Measures for the Control of Nonpoint Pollution from Agriculture. EPA-841-B-03-004. Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.epa.gov/nps/agmm/

USEPA. 2011. Office of Air and Radiation, Air Quality Planning and Standards, Ambient Air Monitoring Program. Available: http://epa.gov/airquality/qa/monprog.html

USEPA. 2012. The Clean Water Act: Protecting and Restoring our Nation’s Waters. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/action/cleanwater40/cwa101.cfm (accessed March 4, 2014).

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Available: http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/30057 van Manen, F. T. and M. A. Haroldson. 2016. Introduction. Pages 1-4 in F. T. van Manen, M. A. Haroldson, and B. E. Karabensh, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Vuke, S.M., K.W. Porter, J.D. Lonn, and D.A. Lopez. 2007. Geologic Map of Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Geologic Map 62-D, 73 p.

Waltee, D. 2016. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Weaver, T. and J. Fraley. 1991. Fisheries Habitat and Fish Populations. Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative Program. Flathead Basin Commission. Kalispell, Montana.

Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, Montana. 262 pp.

Appendix A

A List of Known Plants Found On or Near BLM Lands Within the South Tobacco Root Watershed

And

Wildlife Species List

A-1

(Plant scientific names and alphanumeric codes presented in the following table correspond to those found in The PLANTS Database/http://plants.usda.gov; and the Synthesis of the North American Flora. Plant common names are generally those listed for the State of Montana in the above references unless BLM resource specialists are aware of a more frequently used locally accepted plant name.)

USDA Common Name Scientific Name Symbol Agoseris Agoseris spp AGOSE Alfalfa Medicago sativa MESA Alkali Sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba ARARL Alpine Forget-me-not Eritrichium spp. ERITR Alpine Timothy Phleum alpinum PHAL2 Alumroot Heuchera spp. HEUCH American Bistort Polygonum bistortoies POBI6 Baltic Rush Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis JUARL Basin Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata ARTRT Basin Wildrye Leymus cinereus LECI4 Beaked Sedge Carex utriculata CAUT Bearded wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus ELTRT Bebb Willow Salix bebiana SABE2 Bitterroot Lewisia rediviva LERE7 Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa POBAT Black Henbane Hyoscyamus nigar HYNI Bladderwort Utricularia spp. UTRIC Blue Flax Linum perenne LIPE2 Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis BOGR2 Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata PSSP6 Bluegrass Poa spp. POA Bluejoint Reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis CACA4 Booth’s Willow Salix boothii SABO2 Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae GUSA2 Buckwheat Eriogonum spp. ERIOG Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare CIVU Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense CIAR4 Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum BRTE Cinquefoil Potentilla spp. POTEN Clustered Field Sedge Carex praegracilis CAPR5 Common Cattail Typha latifolia TYLA Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale TAOF Common Juniper Juniperus communis JUCO6 Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus VETH Common Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus SYAL Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium ACMI2 Cow Parsnip Heracleum maximum HEMA80

A-2

USDA Common Name Scientific Name Symbol Coyote Willow Salix exigua SAEX Creeping Catchfly Silene repens SIRE Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis JUHO2 Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Cercoarpus ledifolius CELE3 Currant Ribes spp. RIBES Cutleaf daisy Erigeron compositus ERCO4 Deathcamas Zigadenus spp. ZIGAD Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii PSME Drummond’s willow Salix drummondiana SADR Elephanthead Pedicularis groenlandica PEGR2 Elk thistle Cirsium foliosum CIFO Engelmann Spruce Picea engelmannii PIEN Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum HOJU Fringed Sagewort Artemisia frigida ARFR4 Gardner Saltbush Atriplex garneri ATGO Geyer Willow Salix geyeriana SAGE2 Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus SAVE4 Green Needlegrass Nassella viridula NAVI4 Green Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus vividiflorus CHVI8 Grey Horsebrush Tetradymia canescens TECA2 Heartleaf Arnica Arnica cordifolia ARCO9 Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale CYOF Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis FEID Indian Paintbrush Castilleja spp. CASTI2 Inflated Sedge Carex vesicaria CAVE6 Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides ACHY Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis POPR Kinnikinick Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ARUV Lewis Flax Linum lewisii LILE3 Limber Pine Pinus flexilis PIFL2 Limestone Larkspur Delphinium bicolor ssp. calcicola DEBIC Low Sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ssp. arbuscula ARARA Lupine Lupinus spp. LUPIN Meadow Barley Hordeum brachyantherum HORR2 Montana Sweet Pea Thermopsis montana THMO6 Mountain Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana ARTRV Mountain Brome Bromus carinatus BRCA5 Mountain Snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus SYOR2 Musk Thistle Carduus nutans CANU4 Narrowleaf Cottonwood Populus angustifolia POAN3 Nebraska Sedge Carex nebrascensis CANE2 Nodding Brome Bromus anomalus BRAN Northwestern groundsel Packera conterminal PACO53

A-3

USDA Common Name Scientific Name Symbol Oniongrass Melica bulbosa MEBU Owl-clover Orthocarpus spp. ORTHO Phlox Phlox spp. PHLOX Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens CARU Plains Pricklypear Opuntia polyacantha OPPO Planeleaf willow Salix planifolia SAPL2 Planeleaf Willow Salix planifolia SAPL2 Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha KOMA Prairie smoke Geum triflorum GETR Pussy-toes Antennaria spp. ANTEN Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides POTR5 Redoiser Dogwood Cornus sericea ssp. sericea COSES Redtop Agrostis gigantean AGGI2 Rocky Mountain Groundsel Packera streptanthifolia PAST10 Rocky Mountain Iris Iris missouriensis IRMI Rocky Mountain Juniper Juniperus scopulorum JUSC2 Rubber Rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa ERNA10 Rush Juncus spp. JUNCU Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda POSE Sandwort Arenaria spp. ARENA Scarlet Globe-mallow Sphaeralcea coccinea SPCO Sedge Carex spp. CAREX Shy Wallflower Erysimum inconspicuum ERIN7 Short-fruited Willow Salix brachycarpa SABR Shrubby Cinquefoil Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda DAFRF Silverweed Cinquefoil Argentina anserine ARAN7 Silver Sagebrush Artemisia cana ARCA13 Slender Sedge Carex lasiocarpa CALA11 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus ELTR7 Smooth Brome Bromus inermis BRIN2 Spike Fescue Leucopoa kingii LEKI2 Spotted Knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos CESTM Spruce Picea spp. PICEA Stemless Mock Goldenweed Stenotus acaulis STAC Sticky Geranium Geranium viscosissimum GEVI2 Stiffleaf Penstemon Penstemon aridus PEAR2 Stonecrop Sedum spp. SEDUM Subalpine Fir Abies lasiocarpa ABLA Sweetscented Bedstraw Galium triflorum GATR3 Thick-spike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ELLA3 Thinleaf Alder Alnus incana ALIN2 Three-tip Sagebrush Artemisia tripartita ARTR4 Threadleaf Sedge Carex folifolia CAFI

A-4

USDA Common Name Scientific Name Symbol Timothy Phleum pratense PHPR3 Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa DECE18 Water Birch Betula occidentalis BEOC2 Water Sedge Carex aquatilis CAAQ Water Smartweed Polygonum amphibium POAM8 Western Meadow-rue Thalictrum occidentale THOC Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii PASM Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis ACMIO Wheeler's bluegrass Poa wheeleri POWH2 Whiplash Willow Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra SALUL White Clover Trifolium repens TRRE3 White Sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana ARLU Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis PIAL Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata KRLA2 Wyoming Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis ARTRW8 Yampa Perideridia gairdneri PEGA3 Yellow Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis MEOF Yellow Willow Salix lutea SALU2

WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST

Birds American kestrel (Falco sparverius) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) Black rosy-finch (Leucosticte atrata) Bobolink (Dolichonyx orysivorus) Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Calliope hummingbird (Stellula calliope) Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii) Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga Columbiana) Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscures) Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus)

A-5

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) House wren (Troglodytes aedon) Hungarian partridge/Gray partridge (Perdix perdix) Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli) Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Wilson’s phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor)

Mammals Badger (Taxidea taxus) Beaver (Castor canadensis) Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Black bear (Ursus americanus) Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Coyote (Canis latrans) Elk (Cervus elaphus) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) Moose (Alces alces) Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

A-6

Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

Amphibians and Reptiles Boreal/Western toad (Bufo boreas) Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) Common gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis) Terrestrial gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans)

A-7

Appendix B- Livestock Grazing Tools Available to Improve Resource Conditions

Rangeland health standards have been assessed on all 900,000 acres of BLM administered lands in the Dillon Field Office (DFO) on a ten year adaptive management schedule since 2002. Nearly all (>90%) of the uplands in the DFO met the BLM Upland standard signifying that AUMs authorized by BLM (stocking densities) are appropriate for most allotments across the field office. There are about 860 miles of streams and 854 separate stream reaches identified by BLM in the field office. Of these 854 reaches, about half met the BLM riparian health standard while about half failed to meet this standard. This failure to meet the BLM riparian health standard is typically due to the grazing period or length of time livestock are allowed access to the riparian area (Marlow 1991). Generally, livestock stocking density or AUMs authorized by BLM on an allotment is not the most important parameter affecting riparian health.

Upland health standards on BLM allotments are highly dependent on the stocking density or stocking rate for the allotment. A stocking density or rate that is not in concert with the carrying capacity of the allotment will result in the allotment not meeting the Upland Health Standard. This is true for all allotments across the DFO. However, riparian systems are usually much more dynamic than uplands (USDI, 1998). Riparian health is dependent on a variety of key grazing attributes including Duration, Timing, Intensity and Frequency. These four terms have corresponding terms that the Society for Range Management calls: Grazing Period (the length of time that livestock are grazed on a specific area), Seasonal Grazing (Grazing restricted to a specific season or time of year), Stocking Density (Number of animals per unit area expressed as AUM/ac), and Frequency (Number of repeat grazing events in a pasture). Three other important grazing factors are: Palatability of Forage, Availability of Off-Stream Watering Sources and Class of Animal (Age and/or sex-group of a kind of animal).

Grazing Period or Duration - The most critical aspect in any grazing plan for the protection of riparian areas is the Grazing Period or length of time cattle have access to a particular stream reach (Marlow 1991). Myers (1989) after reviewing 34 allotments in southwestern Montana, concluded, “Duration in grazing treatments becomes a key factor in determining the severity of damage”. He added that cattle have a tendency to gather at riparian areas and spend a considerable amount of time in the riparian area even when they are not feeding. Cattle spend a disproportionate amount of time in the riparian area and tend to over-utilize the forage that grows there (Clary and Webster 1989). This attrition to riparian areas by a small herd or a large herd of cattle has an important bearing on riparian management and its connection to Grazing Period duration and Stocking Density. Due to social factors associated with cattle dominance around a riparian area and the limited availability of space in the riparian area, it is understood that doubling the number of livestock in a pasture with a riparian area does not equate to doubling the grazing use in the riparian area. A relatively smaller number of livestock will usually graze the riparian area close to the same degree as a large number of livestock during the same period of use. Therefore, decreasing the Grazing Period and increasing the Stocking Density in a pasture with riparian will generally benefit riparian conditions by reducing the use in the riparian area even when the same number of AUMs are grazed. This strategy of a reduced duration in a riparian pasture and an increased stocking density will improve the riparian system.

C-1

Frequency or Number of Grazing Events- Frequency is simply the number of occurrences of a grazing event during a specified period of time or incorporation of non-grazing (rest) of an area of grazing land ranging from a few days to a full year or more. To fully understand frequency, there must be a time frame associated with the frequency of the given event. Historically, the term “rest” referred to non-grazing for a full year along with foregoing grazing on that year’s complete forage crop, but the term now is commonly used to include any period of non-grazing. Thus, rest must be carefully described and interpreted in order to be meaningful. The length of time of prescribed rest will be highly dependent on site specific conditions and objectives for each riparian system. Repeat grazing events during the year are important when dealing with plant health. Plants must have time to recover from a grazing event to properly replenish lost photosynthetic material and recharge energy reserves. The time it takes for this recovery is highly dependent on the growth stage the cool-season plant is in when defoliated and the season of defoliation. Defoliation during the early stages of plant growth in the spring was formerly presumed to be the most detrimental time to graze a cool-season plant (Stoddart 1946). Later research has shown that late growing season grazing is the most critical period to negatively impact perennial forage plants, and adequate time away from grazing during this period is necessary to replenish energy reserves and for bud development (Vallentine 1990). Furthermore, grazing during any time of the plants growing season and then repeat grazing during the same growing season without allowing adequate plant recovery away from grazing will reduce plant health. The greater the frequency of grazing events, the more damage to plants that will occur. Even more detrimental to riparian plant health is when frequency increases during a specific calendar year and this scenario is continued for multiple consecutive years. Recovery of channel morphology or browse species in a riparian system will generally require longer periods of rest within a specified timeframe than recovery of herbaceous riparian vegetation.

Seasonal Grazing – Another key attribute in meeting riparian health standards is Seasonal Grazing or grazing during a specific time of year. Clipping studies have indicated that timing can greatly affect plant productivity and vigor (Miller and Donart 1981). Seasonal Grazing is simply changing the time or season of the year when the riparian pasture is grazed. During periods of hotter temperatures, July to September, livestock will congregate considerably more around riparian areas to decrease body temperatures and to forage on green vegetation that is only available near the water. This could result in an over-used riparian. Continual grazing during the plant’s growth period will eventually cause roots to die and the plant to lose vigor and reproductive capacity (USDI, BLM 1998). By simply changing nothing but the seasonal grazing period from summer to fall, spring or winter grazing, the riparian area can improve and may meet BLM standards for riparian areas. The grazing seasons are generally divided into three seasons (USDI, BLM 1998).

Early Season (spring) Use - Early Spring grazing (April 1 to July 15) in riparian areas may improve a riparian system for a variety of reasons as listed below.

1) Livestock may be attracted to succulent vegetation in the uplands and will not loiter in the riparian areas as much compared to other seasons of the year.

B-2

2) Cool temperatures may discourage cows from staying in the riparian or weather is not as harsh in the uplands. Hot temperatures experienced during the hottest months may force cattle into the riparian areas.

3) Soil in the riparian area may be wet as to discourage cows from entering.

4) Well drained soils reduce the possibility of compaction.

Late Season (fall) Grazing Use- Late Season (July 15 to October 31) grazing in riparian areas may improve a riparian system but livestock affinity for browse species later in fall may be a concern. Benefits of late season grazing are listed below. 1) Soils are drying during this period which reduces the probability of compaction and bank trampling. 2) Most plants have completed their life cycle and removing plant material by grazing will not adversely affect plant development and health compared to Grazing during April to July. 3) Ground nesting birds that nest in riparian areas are not negatively impacted.

Winter Use – Winter use (November 1 to March 31) usually has the least impact to the health of riparian systems. 1) Soil compaction is typically not an issue due to frozen soils. 2) Most plants have completed their life cycle and removing plant material by grazing will not adversely affect plant development and health compared to Grazing during April to July. 3) Livestock distribution should improve due animals need for water is lessoned.

Palatability- Livestock palatability is simply an animal’s desire or ability to consume a particular plant species or plant part (Kothmann 2008). Palatability is tied closely with the life cycle of a particular grass plant species (Raleigh and Wallace 1965). Palatability becomes important to riparian and upland management when producers are determining a livestock rotation that will benefit a riparian or upland system. In general, livestock palatability or the closely tied digestibility of a cool-season perennial rangeland grass is high from growth initiation in spring (April/May) and continues being relatively high until the grass sets its seeds in mid to late summer (Raleigh and Wallace 1965). Palatability decreases after seed set and continues to decline into the dormancy period in late summer and into fall. This low palatability continues until the following spring when growth initiation begins.

In a similar timing scenario, negative impacts to cool-season rangeland plants caused by a grazing herbivore removing photosynthetic material are much more pronounced during a period when palatability is high. However, herbivory by livestock has little impact to plants when palatability is low. When determining a grazing plan that improves conditions in riparian or upland pastures, management should focus on grazing cattle in pastures that need improvement during periods when the plant growth cycle is completed and palatability is low.

The dates and terms used in the Seasonal Grazing heading listed above generally correspond to both palatability and the life cycle of a cool-season rangeland plant. Early spring grazing (April

B-3

1 to July 15) is when the plant is completing its life cycle and it is most palatable to livestock. During this period, plants are most vulnerable to excessive grazing by livestock (Laycock 1970). Late season grazing (July 16 to November 1) is after rangeland plant’s life cycle is completed and when palatability is low. Grazing during this period has little impact on rangeland plant health if grazing is not extreme (Cook 1971, Laycock 1970). Winter grazing is also after the plant’s life cycle is completed and when palatability is lowest. Grazing during this period has little impact on plant health but excessive grazing may lead to increased erosion and a loss of topsoil (Heady 1984).

Stocking Density –Stocking density is simply the number of animals in a given area. As Myers (1989) and Marlow (1991) stated, length of time is the most important factor when determining the amount of use a riparian area will receive. However, stocking density is important. It is fundamentally understood that if a given number of AUMs are be grazed in a riparian pasture, it is most beneficial for the riparian area to graze the largest number of animals for the shortest period of time to harvest the given number of AUMs. This assumption is valid only when strictly dealing with riparian resource health and does not factor important economic and logistical factors such as livestock performance, breeding performance, health of the livestock, logistics of moving livestock, etc.

Class of animal – Class of animal is an important consideration when trying to improve a riparian area that has failed standards. A livestock operation that grazes cows and their calves will typically have a livestock herd that travels less and has poorer grazing distribution in the pasture compared to a yearling cattle operation. Yearling or younger cattle will usually spend less time in the riparian area and more time exploring the entire pasture which has the potential to improve riparian conditions and get better use of your upland vegetation.

Off-Stream Watering Locations- Developing ways to influence the amount of time livestock spend in the riparian area is a critical part of proper riparian management (USDI, BLM 1998). The development of alternative clean water sources may lure livestock out of the riparian areas. Livestock usually prefer clean water provided in a livestock trough rather than a riparian area, especially during periods outside the hot summer months (July to September). By developing an alternative water system, livestock can improve distribution in the pastures with riparian present and lessen the impact of livestock in the riparian areas.

Other Tools to Improve Riparian Areas- There are other options that may be effective in improving a riparian system, yet each one by itself will not change a non-function riparian system into a health riparian.

Hardened crossings – Hardened crossings are graveled or rocked areas that allow cattle to cross creeks or streams without adding excessive sediment to the stream or compacting soils is this area. Cattle often prefer to use these areas if constructed properly and will travel less on the riparian area that isn’t hardened.

Watering Access Point- Sometimes, riparian streams are fenced off from livestock use for protection. However, providing a watering location from the stream is still needed to water the remainder of the pasture. Creating a watering access point off the creek using rock or gravel can

B-4

allow livestock to water without negatively impacting riparian condition or increasing sediment in the stream. The goal is to construct an access point that allows livestock to water but encourages them to leave quickly and to avoid creating an area where livestock are able to loiter.

Riding Cattle Out of Riparian Areas- Riding is increasingly being used as a method to move livestock out of riparian areas (Storch 1979). Proper riding can be an effective tool to improve riparian areas but the quality and quantity of the riding will correspond to the benefits that area derived in improving the riparian area.

Drift Fences- In hilly topography, livestock are likely to use the riparian area and sometimes the stream bed itself as a corridor to travel to and from lower and higher elevations. A strategically placed drift fence can interrupt this habitual corridor and reduce pressure on the riparian area.

Riparian Pasture- As stated by Marlow and Myers above, length of time is the most critical factor when determining whether or not a riparian will meet BLM standards. Increasing the number of pastures by constructing a grazed riparian pasture may give an operator more flexibility to graze pastures with higher stocking densities but for shorter durations.

Pasture Divisions- In a similar fashion to Riparian pastures, dividing an existing pasture may provide more flexibility in the producers operation and result in grazing a pasture with riparian for a shorter period of time which will likely improve riparian condition.

Salt and Mineral Placement- Although these alone may not solve a riparian problem, they can improve livestock distribution and reduce the time cattle spend in the riparian area.

In conclusion, the length of time livestock are allowed access to a riparian area is the paramount grazing parameter that determines the health of the system. However, many other tools mentioned above may help to reach the goals for the livestock operation and to meet the desired natural resource condition. In summary, there is no single, let alone simple solution for how to graze livestock in riparian areas where both ecologic and economic goals are desired. Ultimately, what is required is an on-the-ground review of the site specific circumstances by resource professionals (livestock producers and land managers) and a carefully considered prescription developed to address the unique conditions and desired objectives of the parties involved (Anderson 1993, Buckhouse and Elmore 1993).

B-5

References – Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of Appendix B

Anderson, E. William. 1993. Prescription grazing to enhance rangeland watersheds. Rangelands 15(1):31-34.

Buckhouse, John C., and Wayne Elmore. 1991. {re-print 1993}. Grazing practice relations: Predicting riparian vegetation response from stream system. In” Watershed management guide for the Interior Northwest. Edited by Thomas Beell. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, OR. Pp. 47-52.

Clary, Warren P., and Bert F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-263. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Cook, C. W. (1971). Effects of Season and Intensity of Use on Desert Vegetation. Utah Agrilc. Ept. Stat. Bul. 483. 57 pp.

Heady, H.F. (1984). Concepts and Principles Underlying Grazing Systems. In Natl. Res Council/Natl. Acad. Sci. “Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. “Westview Pres. Boulder, CO . pp 885-902.

Kothmann, M. (Ed., Chair.). 1974. A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management, 2nd Edition, published by the Society for Range Management.

Laycock W. A. (1970). The Effects of spring and Fall Grazing on Sagebrush-Grass Ranges in Eastern Idaho. Intern. Grassland Cong. Proc. 11:52-54.

Marlow, Clayton B., Douglas Allen, and Kathyrn Olson-Rutz. 1991. Making riparian zone protection a workable part of grazing management. In: Proceedings of the international beef symposium. January 15-17, Great Falls, MT. Animal Range Sciences Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT pp 256-266.

Miller R. F., and G. B. Donart. 1981. Response of Muhlenbergia popteri Schibn. to season of defoliation. J. Range Manage. 34:91-94.

Myers, Lewis H. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in southwestern Montana. In: Practical approaches to riparian resource management: An education workshop. Edited by Robert E. Gresswell, Bruce A. Barton and Jeffrey L. Kershner. May 8-11 Billings, MT BLM- MT-PT_89-001-4351. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Pp. 117-120.

Raleigh, R. J., and J. B. Wallace. (1965). Nutritive Value of Range Forage and its Effect on Animal Performance. Ore. Agric. Expt. Sta. Spec. Rep. 189. 6 pp.

Stoddart, L. A. 1946. Some physical and chemical responses of Agropyron spicatum to herbage removal at various seasons. Utah Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 324.

B-6

Storch, Robert L. 1979. Livestock/streamside management programs in eastern Oregon. In: Proceedings: Forum-on grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc., Vienna, VA pp. 56-59.

United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, field Office. 2006. Record of Decision and Approved Dillon Resource Management Plan.

United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office. 1998. Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zone. Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 4. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. Pp. 2-20.

Vallentine, John F. 1990. Grazing Management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 101-102.

B-7

APPENDIX C Riparian Data and Inventory

Table 1: Functional Status of Riparian Reaches within the South Tobacco Root Watershed

BLM Reach Functional Reach Name Number Allotment Rating Miles Alder Gulch Cr 1273 Alder Gulch PFC 0.9 Water Gulch Trib 1252 Alder Gulch NF 0.2 Alder Creek Trib 1261 Alder Gulch FAR 0.6 Alder Gulch Trib 1250 Alder Gulch FAR-UP 0.1 Gibbs 1210 Ballard PFC 1.3 Gibbs Trib 1278 Ballard PFC 0.5 Gibbs 1211 Ballard/Dry Lakes PFC 0.3 Spring Park 1237 Brandon Pasture FAR 0.4 Daylight Creek 1260 Butcher Gulch FAR-UP 0.4 Three Mile Cr 1259 Butcher Gulch FAR-UP 0.1 Butcher Gulch Trib 1257 Butcher Gulch PFC 0.5 Butcher Gulch 1258 Butcher Gulch PFC 0.2 Harris 1215 Cal Creek PFC 0.6 California 1205 Cal Creek PFC 0.3 California Creek Trib 1206 Cal Creek PFC 1.3 California 1204 Cal Creek FAR 2.1 Granite MF 1214 Downey Creek PFC 0.3 Downey Creek 1208 Downey Creek PFC 0.6 Downey 1264 Downey Creek PFC 0.3 Dulea Creek 1209 Downey Creek PFC 0.3 Downey Creek/ Dry Granite EF 1212 Lakes FAR 0.7 Granite MF 1265 Dry Lakes PFC 0.4 Elser/ Brandon Nonpariel Creek 1241 Pasture PFC 1.0 Fletcher Creek 1243 Fletcher Moore PFC 0.6 Moore Cr. E Fk 1244 Fletcher Moore PFC 0.3 Indian Creek 1221 Funk PFC 0.7 Wet Georgia G 1238 Georgia Gulch PFC 1.1 Wet Georgia Gulch 1240 Georgia Gulch FAR 1.2 Nugget 1226 Georgia Gulch PFC 1.2 Wet Georgia G trib 1239 Georgia Gulch FAR 0.2 Granite EF 1213 Granite Moore FAR-UP 1.2

C-1

BLM Reach Functional Reach Name Number Allotment Rating Miles Moore Trib 1225 Granite Moore PFC 1.2 Moore Trib 1224 Granite Moore PFC 1.1 Moore Trib 1277 Granite Moore PFC 0.1 Moore Trib 1276 Granite Moore PFC 0.2 Moore Trib 1267 Granite Moore PFC 0.2 Moore trib Spring Brook 1282 Granite Moore NF 0.1 Granite Moore/ Postlewaite 1227 Virginia City Hill FAR-UP 1.1 Browns Gulch WF 1254 Hungry Hollow PFC 0.3 Browns Gulch EF 1255 Hungry Hollow FAR 0.7 Browns Gulch EF Trib 1256 Hungry Hollow FAR 0.5 Williams Cr Trib E Fork 1280 Hungry Hollow PFC 0.7 Williams Cr Trib W Fork 1281 Hungry Hollow FAR 0.3 McGovern/ Hungry Browns G 1202 Hollow FAR 1.9 Granite Creek WF Trib 1223 Mill Gulch AMP PFC 0.6 Granite Creek WF 1222 Mill Gulch AMP PFC 2.3 Mill Gulch AMP/Mill Gulch Mill G. trib 1263 Isolated FAR 0.5 Mill G. trib 1262 Mill Gulch Isolated FAR 0.3 Horse Cr. Trib 1220 Ramshorn Creek PFC 0.5 Horse Cr 1218 Ramshorn Creek PFC 0.9 Currant 1207 Ramshorn Creek PFC 0.6 Ramshorn trib 1230 Ramshorn Creek FAR-UP 0.3 Ramshorn trib 1231 Ramshorn Creek FAR-UP 0.8 Ramshorn trib 1232 Ramshorn Creek FAR-UP 0.6 Ramshorn 1229 Ramshorn Creek PFC 1.6 Sand Coulee/ Horse Cr 1219 Ramshorn Creek PFC 0.9 Fletcher Creek Trib 1245 South Daisy Creek PFC 0.6 Moore Trib 1275 Virginia City Hill FAR 0.2 Slade 1234 Virginia City Hill FAR 0.6 Postlewaite Trib 1228 Virginia City Hill FAR 0.5 Slade 1233 Virginia City Hill FAR-UP 0.6

C-2

Table 2: Reach Breakdown by Habitat Type % of Habitat Type Count Miles total Aspen/dogwood 14 8.40 20% Douglas- fir/dogwood 10 8.23 20% Juniper/dogwood 6 6.98 17% Spruce/horsetail 9 6.28 15%

Geyer Willow/Beaked Sedge 13 5.02 12% Spruce/dogwood 5 3.70 9% Beaked Sedge 4 2.68 6% Totals 61 41.28

Table 3: Functional Condition by Channel Type Channel Type A A/B B B/G

% of % of % of % of channel channel channel channel Condition Count Miles Type Count Miles Type Count Miles Type Count Miles Type PFC 12 6.61 63% 7 5.9 83% 16 12.37 55% 0 0 0% FAR-UP 4 1.85 18% 1 1.19 17% 3 1.53 7% 1 0.63 53% FAR 5 1.86 18% 0 0 0% 9 8.53 38% 1 0.56 47% FAR-DN 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% NF 1 0.19 2% 0 0 0% 1 0.07 0% 0 0 0% Totals 22 10.5 8 7.1 29 22.5 2 1.2

Table 4: Functional Condition by Vegetative Type Dominant Veg Type Conifer Juniper Aspen Willow/Sedge

% of % of % of % of Veg Veg Veg Veg Condition Count Miles Type Count Miles Type Count Miles Type Count Miles Type PFC 16 14.02 77% 0 0 0% 13 8.15 97% 6 2.71 35% FAR-UP 4 2 11% 2 1.4 20% 0 0 0% 3 1.79 23% FAR 3 2.19 12% 4 5.5 79% 1 0.25 3% 7 3.00 39% FAR-DN 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% NF 0 0 0% 1 0 1% 0 0 0% 1 0.19 2% Totals 23 18.2 7 7.0 14 8.4 17 7.7

C-3

Table 5: Riparian Juniper Treatment Reaches in the STRW Reach Year Number Reach Name Miles Acres Treated 1201* Browns Gulch 1.1 13.3 2009 1204 California Creek 2.3 21.9 2008 1205 California Creek 0.6 3.1 2008 1207 Currant Creek 0.6 2.9 2008 1215 Harris Creek 0.7 3.7 2008 1218 Horse Creek 0.9 10.9 2008 1219 Horse Creek 1.0 12.1 2008 1223 Horse Creek 0.5 6.1 2008 1224 Moore Creek Trib 0.9 10.8 2010 1227 Postlewaite 0.6 7.1 2010 1228 Postlewaite 0.3 4.0 2010 1229 Ramshorn Trib 0.2 1.0 2008 1231 Ramshorn Trib 0.3 2.1 2008 1232 Ramshorn Trib 0.6 2.7 2008 1233 Slade Creek 0.6 7.5 2010 1234 Slade Creek 0.6 6.8 2010 1237 Spring Park Creek 0.4 5.1 2009 1238 & 1240 Wet Georgia 2.3 27.3 2009 1259 Three Mile Creek 0.2 2.2 2009 1202 Browns Gulch 0.4 4.9 2009 Ephemeral Ramshorn Trib 0.4 1.7 2008 draw Totals 15.3 157.1 * Post 2016 assessment, 1201 is now part of 1202.

C-4

Table 6: Hydrologic Units with the STRW boundary HUC 12 Total HUC 8 HUC 10 HUC 10 Name HUC 12 HUC 12 Name Acres

10020002 - Lower 100200020705 Beaverhead River-California Slough*+ 21,401 1002000207 Madison Beaverhead River 100200020706 Beaverhead River-Twin Bridges* 21,906 100200030401 Granite Creek 26,940 1002000304 Alder Gulch 100200030403 Lower Alder Gulch 11,760 100200030402 Upper Alder Gulch* 26,230 100200030508 Ruby River-Silver Spring*+ 30,181 10020003 - 100200030505 Mill Creek 21,882 Ruby 100200030507 Wisconsin Creek 17,777 Lower Ruby 1002000305 River 100200030506 Indian Creek 17,879 100200030504 Ramshorn Creek 19,419 100200030503 Ruby River-Clear Creek* 38,907 100200030502 California Creek 15,454 100200071208 Ennis Lake* 34,993 10020007 - Madison River- 100200071206 Moore Creek 27,198 1002000712 Beaverhead Ennis Lake 100200071205 Madison River-Lower O'Dell Creek*+ 18,885 100200071203 Moran Creek*+ 7,854 *STRW boundary does not include entire HUC, +No BLM riparian within HUC

C-5

Appendix D

South Tobacco Root Water Quality Summary

Completed for 2016 South Tobacco Root Watershed Assessment Bureau of Land Management Dillon Field Office

The purpose of this appendix is to summarize the condition of BLM managed grazing allotments and riparian reaches that contribute to DEQ listed impaired streams. This does not provide any analysis of water quality.

Spatial data used to obtain reach numbers and mileage is prior to minor edits made to the BLM ArcGIS riparian database in 2016. Numbers and mileage may vary slightly if compared to other sources within the STRW Assessment Report document.

C-6

Impaired Streams Alder Gulch HUC10: Alder Gulch, 1002000304 HUC12: Granite Creek 100200030401, Upper Alder Gulch 100200030402, Lower Alder Gulch 100200030403

DEQ Impairment Information TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Placer Alteration in stream-side or Mining, Forest Roads (Road Construction and Aquatic Life N/A littoral vegetative covers Use),Dredge Mining

Placer Mining, Forest Roads (Road Construction Primary Contact Chlorophyll-a N/A and Use),Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones Recreation

Lead Mill Tailings, Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Manganese Mine Tailings, Mill Tailings Aquatic Life No

Mercury Mill Tailings, Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Primary Contact Nitrogen (Total) Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones No Recreation

Physical substrate habitat Placer Mining, Dredge Mining Aquatic Life N/A alterations

Forest Roads (Road Construction and

Sedimentation-Siltation Use),Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Aquatic Life Yes Placer Mining

BLM allotments within contributing HUC10: Allotment Name Upland Condition; Cause (if applicable) Ruby Pass Fail; closed-canopy juniper in hills and livestock Baker Summit concerns on the uplands at lower elevations McGovern PFC Alder Gulch Butcher Gulch PFC Hungary Hollow PFC Hillside PFC

D-2

Allotment Name Upland Condition; Cause (if applicable) Granite Creek PFC Dry Lakes PFC Downey Creek PFC Ballard PFC Mill Gulch AMP PFC Granite-Moore PFC Mill Gulch Isolated PFC Unleased STR PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12’s: Stream Name Reach # Condition Connection with listed impairments Streamside vegetation and streambanks impaired by Alder Creek Trib 1261 FAR cattle. Possible source of sediment (small). Alder Gulch Cr 1273 PFC Alder Gulch Trib 1250 FAR-UP Channel dimensions and geometry altered by cattle, past Browns G 1201 FAR mining, diversion at bottom. Producing some sediment and not storing sediment at its potential. Browns G 1202 FAR See 1201 above Browns Gulch Trib 1254 PFC Butcher Gulch 1258 PFC Butcher Gulch Trib 1257 PFC Daylight Creek 1260 FAR-UP Downy 1264 PFC Dulea Creek 1208 PFC Dulea Creek 1209 PFC Gibbs 1210 PFC Gibbs 1211 PFC Gibbs 1266 PFC Granite 1214 PFC Granite 1265 PFC Road encroachment has increased sediment load and Granite EF 1212 FAR decreased sediment storage potential. Undersized culverts pose mass failure risk. Granite EF 1213 FAR-UP Channel dimensions altered by past mining reducing Browns Gulch EF 1255 FAR sediment storage capacity. Road encroachment has increased sediment load. Mining activity upstream has increased sediment load. Browns Gulch EF trib 1256 FAR Head cuts present. Mill Creek 1222 PFC Mill Creek 1223 PFC Mill G. trib 1262 FAR-UP Streamside woody vegetation and streambanks degraded Mill G. trib 1263 FAR by cattle use. Some incision present affecting sediment storage. Mill G. trib 1271 FAR See 1263 above Three Mile Cr 1259 FAR-UP Heavy use by cattle affecting streambank stability and streamside vegetation. Small high gradient but low Water Gulch Trib 1252 NF energy spring seep. There is an active headcut which may add excess sediment to system. Channel and bank

D-3

Stream Name Reach # Condition Connection with listed impairments condition likely a source of additional sediment during high flows.

Alder Gulch Contributing Reaches Assessment Summary Percent of Miles Total Total BLM Contributing 15.9 Miles FAR-Static 5.40 33.9% Miles FAR-DN 0.15 0.9% Miles NF 0.19 1.2% Overall not meeting 5.74 36.0%

California Creek HUC 10: Lower Ruby River, 1002000305 HUC12: California Creek 100200030502

DEQ Impairment Information Associated TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Uses Completed

Alteration in stream-side or littoral Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Aquatic Life N/A vegetative covers Zones, Placer Mining

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Phosphorus (Total) Aquatic Life No Zones, Placer Mining

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Sedimentation-Siltation Aquatic Life Yes Zones, Placer Mining

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Cal Creek PFC Mill Gulch Isolated PFC Alder Gulch PFC Dry Lakes PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Connection with listed impairments Past mining impacts throughout reach have created an incised California Creek 1204 FAR channel with reduced capacity to store sediment. Adjacent gullies un-vegetated and contributing sediment. California Creek 1205 PFC California Creek 1206 PFC Harris Creek 1215 PFC

D-4

California Creek Contributing Reaches Assessment Summary

Percent of Miles Total Total BLM Contributing 4.38 Miles FAR-Static 2.13 48.6% Miles FAR-DN 0.00 0.0% Miles NF 0.00 0.0% Overall not meeting 2.13 48.6%

2015 BLM habitat survey: Cal Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 19% Harris Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 22%

Currant Creek HUC 10: Lower Ruby River, 1002000305 HUC 12: Ramshorn Creek 100200030504

DEQ Impairment Information Associated TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Uses Completed

Alteration in stream-side or littoral Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Aquatic Life N/A vegetative covers Mine Tailings

Copper Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Lead Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Nitrogen (Total) Aquatic Life No Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Phosphorus (Total) Aquatic Life No Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail, Grazing Sedimentation-Siltation Aquatic Life Yes in Riparian or Shoreline Zones

D-5

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Ramshorn Creek PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Currant Creek 1207 PFC

2015 BLM habitat survey: Currant Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 25%

Indian Creek HUC 10: Lower Ruby River, 1002000305 HUC 12: Indian Creek 100200030506

DEQ Impairment Information TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

Alteration in stream-side Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, or littoral vegetative Aquatic Life N/A Channelization covers

Aquatic Life, Low flow alterations Irrigated Crop Production Primary Contact N/A Recreation

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail, Irrigated Sedimentation-Siltation Crop Production, Channelization, Grazing in Aquatic Life Yes Riparian or Shoreline Zones

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Funk PFC Elser PFC

D-6

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Indian Creek 1221 PFC

2015 BLM habitat survey: Indian Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 5%

Mill Creek HUC 10: Lower Ruby River, 1002000305 HUC 12: Mill Creek 100200030505

DEQ Impairment Information TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

Alteration in stream-side Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, or littoral vegetative Aquatic Life N/A Irrigated Crop Production covers

Aquatic Life, Low flow alterations Irrigated Crop Production Primary Contact N/A Recreation

Nitrogen (Total) Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones Aquatic Life No

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Phosphorus (Total) Aquatic Life No Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail, Impacts Sedimentation-Siltation from Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive), Aquatic Life Yes Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Temperature, water Aquatic Life Yes Irrigated Crop Production

D-7

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Brandon Pasture PFC Elser PFC Funk PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Connection with listed impairments Nonpariel Creek 1241 PFC Spring Park Creek 1237 FAR Flow augmented by upstream impoundment affecting natural channel maintenance. Some bank disturbance by cattle. Surface flow does not continue downstream of reach.

Mill Creek Contributing Reaches Assessment Summary Percent of Miles Total Total BLM Contributing 1.4 Miles FAR-Static 1.01 71.2% Miles FAR-DN 0.00 0.0% Miles NF 0.00 0.0% Overall not meeting 1.01 71.2%

Moore Creek HUC 10: Madison River-Ennis Lake, 1002000712 HUC 12: Moore Creek 100200071206

DEQ Impairment Information TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

Alteration in stream- side or littoral Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones Aquatic Life N/A vegetative covers

Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive), Arsenic Natural Sources, Transfer of Water from an Outside Drinking Water No Watershed

Primary Contact Escherichia coli Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Natural No Sources, On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems Recreation and Similar Decentralized Systems),Rural

D-8

TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

(Residential Areas)

Rural (Residential Areas), Irrigated Crop Production, Aquatic Life, On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Nitrogen (Total) Primary Contact No Similar Decentralized Systems),Grazing in Riparian Recreation or Shoreline Zones

Irrigated Crop Production, Rural (Residential Aquatic Life, Areas),Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, On- Phosphorus (Total) Primary Contact No site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Recreation Decentralized Systems)

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Streambank Sedimentation-Siltation Aquatic Life No Modifications-destabilization

Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Loss of Temperature, water Aquatic Life No Riparian Habitat

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Granite-Moore PFC Fletcher-Moore PFC Virginia City Hill PFC Madison Overlook PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Connection with listed impairments Moore Trib 1224 PFC Moore Trib 1225 PFC Postlewaite 1227 FAR-UP Low energy lentic/lotic system. Spring seeps heavily Postlewaite 1228 FAR impacted and two active head cuts. Very limited transport capability by nature. Slade 1233 FAR-UP Channel is downcut. Channel dimensions impacted by cattle creating overwide sections. Low energy system that may Slade 1234 FAR contribute excess sediment downstream due to altered entrenchment limiting floodplain access. Moore Cr 1243 PFC Moore Cr. E Fk 1244 PFC Moore Trib 1267 PFC

D-9

Ramshorn Creek HUC 10: Lower Ruby River, 1002000305 HUC 12: Ramshorn Creek 100200030504

DEQ Impairment Information TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

Alteration in stream-side Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Placer or littoral vegetative Aquatic Life N/A Mining, Channelization covers

Lead Mine Tailings Aquatic Life Yes

Aquatic Life, Low flow alterations Irrigated Crop Production Primary Contact N/A Recreation

Irrigated Crop Production, Grazing in Riparian or Phosphorus (Total) Shoreline Zones, Unspecified Unpaved Road or Aquatic Life No Trail

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail, Irrigated Sedimentation-Siltation Crop Production, Channelization, Grazing in Aquatic Life Yes Riparian or Shoreline Zones, Placer Mining

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Sand Coulee PFC Ramshorn Creek PFC Copper Mountain PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Currant 1207 PFC Horse Cr 1218 PFC Horse Cr 1219 PFC Horse Cr. Trib 1220 PFC Ramshorn 1229 PFC Ramshorn trib 1230 FAR-UP Ramshorn trib 1231 FAR-UP Ramshorn trib 1232 FAR-UP

2015 BLM habitat survey: Ramshorn Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 19% Currant Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 25%

D-10

Wisconsin Creek HUC 10: Lower Ruby River, 1002000305 HUC 12: Wisconsin Creek 100200030507

DEQ Impairment Information TMDL Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses Completed

Alteration in stream-side or Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Aquatic Life N/A littoral vegetative covers Zones, Irrigated Crop Production

Arsenic Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Copper Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Lead Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Aquatic Life, Primary Low flow alterations Irrigated Crop Production N/A Contact Recreation

Mercury Mine Tailings Aquatic Life No

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail, Sedimentation-Siltation Aquatic Life Yes Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones

BLM allotments within contributing HUC12: Allotment Name Condition Georgia Gulch PFC Wisconsin Creek PFC

BLM Riparian within HUC12: Stream Name Reach # Condition Nugget Creek 1226 PFC

2015 BLM habitat survey: Nugget Creek: %fines (<6mm)= 22%

D-11