United States Department of Agriculture Environmental

Forest Service Assessment

2014 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Musselshell Ranger District, Lewis and Clark National Forest Fergus County and Golden Valley County, Montana

For More Information Contact: Lewis and Clark National Forest Musselshell Ranger District 406-566-2292 www.fs.usda.gov/lcnf/

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

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Location and Size of the Proposed Project Area ...... 1 What Led Us to Develop This Proposal? ...... 1 Our Need for the Project...... 1 Forest Plan Direction ...... 2 Other Regulatory Direction ...... 2 What Are We Proposing to Do? ...... 4 What Will be Decided? ...... 4 Public Involvement ...... 4 The Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 5 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 5 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 5 Alternative 3 ...... 6 Mitigation and Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 6 Monitoring ...... 11 Wildlife ...... 12 Knutson-Vandenberg Opportunities ...... 12 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 12 Effects to Fuels and Fire ...... 13 Effects to Soils ...... 30 Effects to Sensitive Plants ...... 42 Effects to Watershed Resources ...... 46 Effects to Recreation and Scenery (Visuals) ...... 54 Effects to Silviculture ...... 57 Effects to Heritage ...... 77 Effects to Economics ...... 80 Effects to Range ...... 83 Effects to Wildlife ...... 85 Big Game ...... 132 Bibliography including Literature Citations ...... 147 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 180 Appendix A: Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 181 Appendix B: Compliance with Forest Plan Standards ...... 183 MAPS ...... 203

List of Tables Table 1. Fire intensity classes, flame length ranges and interpretations ...... 15 Table 2. Percent of project area in flame length ranges for potential fire modeling scenarios ...... 15 Table 3. Fire types and definitions ...... 15 Table 4. Percent of project area in each potential fire type for modeled fire weather scenarios ...... 16 Table 5. Predicted flame lengths before and after treatment in alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 25 Table 6. Predicted fire types before and after treatment in alternative 2 ...... 25 Table 7. Potential disturbance from proposed treatments ...... 37 Table 8. Proposed units approaching or above 15% detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) for alternative 2 ...... 37 Table 9. Modeled ECA results for both action alternatives...... 51 Table 10. Summary of measurement indicators for recreation and scenery ...... 57 Table 11. Summary of key vegetation attributes goals by ELU ...... 63

i Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Table 12. Mountain pine beetle hazard over time ...... 66 Table 13. Summary of treatments by ELU ...... 68 Table 14. ELU treatment goals summarized by stand for each ELU ...... 68 Table 15. Summary of effects by treatment group ...... 69 Table 16. Mountain pine beetle hazard overtime ...... 71 Table 17. Summary of treatments by ELU ...... 74 Table 18. ELU treatment goals ...... 74 Table 19. Mountain pine beetle hazard overtime ...... 76 Table 20. Total employment and income (2010 dollars) over the life of the project ...... 82 Table 21. Table: Little Snowy habitat conditions ...... 88 Table 22. Wildlife species summary ...... 94 Table 23. Wildlife effect indicator ...... 96 Table 24. Alternative treatment summary ...... 97 Table 25. Wildlife project design features ...... 109 Table 26. Determination summary...... 131 Table 27. Existing snag distribution ...... 136 Table 28. Past and ongoing actions in the Little Snowy Mountains analysis area ...... 181 Table 29. Foreseeable management in the Little Snowy Mountains analysis area ...... 182

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map ...... 3

List of Maps Map 1. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project alternative 2 (proposed action) treatments ...... 204 Map 2. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project alternative 3 (non-removal) treatments ...... 205 Map 3. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project ecological land units ...... 206 Map 4. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project elk habitat, existing situation ...... 207 Map 5. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project alternative 2 elk analysis ...... 208 Map 6. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project mule deer winter range and tree size class ...... 209 Map 7. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project old growth and goshawk habitat ...... 210

ii Environmental Assessment

Introduction We are proposing to begin restoring dry-site open ponderosa pine forests and associated habitat on the Musselshell Ranger District in the Little Snowy Mountains northwest of Roundup, Montana.

We prepared this environmental assessment to determine whether effects of the proposed activities may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing this environmental assessment, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations.

Location and Size of the Proposed Project Area The proposed project area is approximately 13,000 acres of National Forest System lands in the Little Snowy Mountains located in portions of Fergus and Golden Valley counties in central Montana (see Figure 1).

What Led Us to Develop This Proposal? In 2008, the Lewis and Clark National Forest identified the Little Snowy Mountains as an area that may have opportunity for some level of vegetation restoration. This mountain range was identified as being susceptible to stand-replacing wildfire, epidemic levels of insect mortality, and a continued reduction of open parks, pine savanna, and aspen communities. The Little Snowy Mountains in central Montana contain both two- and three-needle ponderosa pine. This is somewhat unique as two-needle pine is more commonly found further to the east in the western Dakota’s. During the past century, this open ponderosa pine ecosystem has become a dense and crowded forest as mostly young ponderosa pine and some other conifer species have grown in due to a lack of natural fire, which maintained more open stands.

In 2009, the Musselshell Ranger District initiated a landscape-level assessment for the Little Snowy Mountains. That assessment confirmed there had been a lack of natural processes to maintain this fire-adapted system. Even with past forest management, the project area remains dominated by dense, closed-canopy forests. Early successional grass and shrub communities are localized or limited across the landscape. These forest conditions are not meeting Forest Plan goals. For these reasons, we identified the Little Snowy Mountains as an area to consider in need of restoration.

Between 2009 and 2010, the interdisciplinary team for this project developed the desired future conditions and critical elements for restoring ponderosa pine based on field surveys, review of existing condition information and forest data, and input from interested stakeholders through a collaborative approach. In the fall of 2010, we presented several scenarios of management opportunities to the stakeholder group for review, discussion, and feedback. With this information, along with input from forest staff and specialists, we developed the final Little Snowy Mountains Restoration proposed action.

Our Need for the Project We identified the need for this project by comparing the existing conditions of the forest in the project area with our desired conditions, which are derived from the Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986, as amended; hereafter referred to as the “Forest Plan”) and other regulatory direction. The existing condition of dense,

1 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

closed-canopy forests and encroaching conifers across meadows, pine savannas, and The purpose of this project is to begin the aspen communities is trending toward an process of restoring the dry-site open increasing threat of stand-replacing wildfire, ponderosa pine forest and its associated potential loss of trees from insect attacks, and communities . . . to provide habitat loss of key vegetative and habitat diversity across the mountain range for components, including loss of large trees and multiple plant and animal species, reduce desired age class distributions. These the risk of larger stand-replacing conditions do not reflect the desired wildfire, and reduce the threat of conditions of the Forest Plan or the desired epidemic levels of insects and diseases in conditions refined by the 2009 Little Snowy this unique ponderosa pine system. Mountains Landscape Assessment ( on-line at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/lcnf/landmanagement/projects) to provide for ecological diversity across the landscape in a way to make them more resilient over time to changing conditions. Refer to the “Silviculture” and “Fuels” sections for more discussion on the vegetative desired conditions outlined by ecological land unit (ELU).

Forest Plan Direction The Little Snowy Mountains are situated in Forest Plan management areas T, R, and M. Forest plan amendment 9, which designated the Little Snowy Mountains as management area T in 1993, states: Management area T is primarily a ponderosa pine forest in the Little Snowies. Important wildlife species include whitetail deer, and turkeys. Management is focused on moving the existing vegetative condition to a more natural ecological state, that in the past was maintained by light ground fires. The emphasis is also directed toward providing a mosaic of different vegetative successional stages for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species.

Management area R is designed to protect or enhance unique ecosystem values associated with riparian zones. Management area M is the Minerva Research Natural Area. This research natural area is established to maintain non-manipulative research and observation and no treatments are proposed there for this project.

The purpose of this project is to begin the process of restoring the dry-site open ponderosa pine forest and its associated communities. These communities include a mosaic of vegetation successional stages such as open grassy meadows and aspen stands that are important to big game species such as white-tailed deer, elk, and black bear; other species including turkeys and upland game birds, and nongame species. Management emphasis over time would be to provide habitat diversity across the mountain range for multiple plant and animal species, reduce the risk of larger stand-replacing wildfire, and improve forest conditions to maintain resiliency by reducing the threat of epidemic levels of insects, and diseases in this unique ponderosa pine system.

Other Regulatory Direction USDA Strategic Plan—Our management proposal would help achieve goal 2 of the USDA Strategic Plan, which states: “ensure our national forests and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.”

Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy—Our proposal also would help achieve goal 1 of the cohesive strategy to “restore fire-adapted ecosystems on a landscape scale by reducing fuels and reintroducing fire.” Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell addresses use of the cohesive strategy in an essay entitled, “The Challenge of Wildfire Management in the Era of Climate Change” (Tidwell 2011).

2 Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity map

3 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

What Are We Proposing to Do? We are proposing to use a combination of vegetation treatments across portions of the landscape to achieve our desired future conditions over time. Treatments would include prescribed fire, mastication, hand cutting (slashing), and mechanical tree removal. We would use about 7.6 miles of existing closed nonsystem roads and construct 11.3 miles of temporary road to access the project area. The project is designed to reduce tree densities of smaller tree size classes while promoting larger, older tree development including snag availability. The project is also designed to reintroduce more frequent disturbances such as low- to moderate-intensity maintenance fire. Over time, the proposed action would meet our desired condition objective of restoring a mosaic of diverse forested and grassland communities including enhancement of aspen stands and by returning periodic fire to the landscape. For more details on the proposed action, see the description of alternative 2 in the “Proposed Action and Alternatives” section of this document.

What Will be Decided? The purpose and need outlined earlier sets the scope of the project and analysis to be completed. Based on the analysis, the Judith-Musselshell District Ranger will determine whether the proposed project and alternatives could result in a significant impact. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the District Ranger would select an alternative deciding:

• Whether to implement the proposed activities, or choose another alternative; • What specific design criteria or mitigation measures are needed; and • What specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design criteria and mitigation measures are implemented and effective.

The decision will be based on how well the selected alternative: • Achieves the purpose and need; • achieves moving toward the desired condition; • can adapt to changing ecological conditions; • protects the natural environment; • addresses the identified issues and concerns; and • complies with relevant policies, laws and regulations.

Public Involvement During the early stages of developing the desired condition, we worked with a local group of stakeholders to talk about the project area desired conditions and opportunities for future management. These stakeholders consisted of private individuals, interested groups, county governments, adjacent landowners, and adjacent Federal land managers. This collaborative approach encouraged dialog and provided valuable feedback in our development of the proposal.

In November 2010, we listed the proposal in the Lewis and Clark National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (with updates in 2011 and 2012). In December 2010, we provided the proposal to interested members of the public, organizations, tribes, and other agencies for comment. We

4 Environmental Assessment

also posted the proposal and a map on the Lewis and Clark National Forest website. In September 2011, we sent a project status update to individuals and groups that provided comments or expressed interest. In October 2011, a project overview was presented at the monthly meeting of the Great Falls Conservation Council in Great Falls, Montana.

The input and comments we received consisted of concerns and issues about the effects of the proposed project on various resources, as well as concerns about what would happen if the project were not carried out. Issues and concerns helped us to add protective mitigation and design features to the proposed action, and to develop an additional alternative to the proposed action.

The Proposed Action and Alternatives This section describes and compares the proposed action and alternatives we considered for the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project.

Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative provides a comparative baseline of conditions that would occur if we do nothing to change the existing conditions in the project area. In this scenario, the existing use and management of the project area would remain unchanged, including current implementation of the travel management plan for motorized roads and trails.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The intent of this alternative is to meet the purpose and need as described previously. Vegetation treatments in the proposed action would consist of:

• hand thinning of trees generally 7 inches d.b.h. or less on approximately 1,334 acres; • mechanically removing trees generally larger than 7 inches d.b.h., but generally limited to trees less than 17 inches d.b.h., with ground-based equipment across approximately 5,247 acres; • masticating (on site shredding and chipping) approximately 2,141 acres of primarily conifer vegetation generally 9 inches d.b.h. or less; and • using prescribed fire only on approximately 4,254 acres. We would use prescribed fire over time as a maintenance tool across all acreage that had fuel reduction thinning and mastication treatments completed. Prescribed fire would reintroduce this ecological process to the treatment sites. We envision prescribed fire being applied as a maintenance tool over time that would not fully replicate but closer mimic more historical natural fire intervals and mosaic patterns across the project area. Prescribed burning would occur based on an operational priority generally from east to west in the project area as fuel and weather condition windows allow over various seasons To access areas with ground-based equipment we would temporarily use 7.6 miles of existing nonsystem roads and construct 11.3 miles of temporary roads. After use for the project, all temporary roads used and nonsystem road prisms not identified as open for continued use on the motor vehicle use map would be rehabilitated and stabilized to restore land and site productivity. These restorative road treatments would include a combination of erosion control features, scarification, revegetation, decompaction, or recontouring methods. We would leave approximately 651 acres of the project area untreated, creating a mosaic of forest conditions across the landscape that, over time, would achieve our desired conditions.

5 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Alternative 3 We developed this alternative to address issues and concerns from the public and the interdisciplinary team regarding the following:

• effects to big game security and avian species habitat including goshawk and songbirds; • concerns regarding loss of opportunity to encounter big game while hunting on National Forest System lands; and • concerns related to the cost of forest products removal. Vegetation treatments in this alternative would consist of: • hand thinning trees generally 7 inches d.b.h. or less (with combination of lop and scatter or hand piling) as a pretreatment to prescribed fire use on approximately 4,993 acres; and • using primarily prescribed fire treatments across 6,945 acres. We would use prescribed fire over the life of the project to help achieve the desired future condition. Approximately 9.3 miles of existing nonsystem road prisms not identified for continued use on the motor vehicle use map would be rehabilitated to restore land and site productivity. These restorative road treatments would include a combination of erosion control features, scarification, revegetation, decompaction, or recontouring methods. This alternative would not include mechanized ground-based machinery for the vegetation treatments. Ground- based equipment may be used for road rehabilitation and stabilization. Prescribed burning would occur based on an operational priority generally from east to west in the project area as fuel and weather condition windows allow over various seasons. Prescribed fire would be planned to closer mimic the historical natural fire intervals and mosaic patterns overtime.

We would not treat approximately 1,351 acres; this would create a mosaic of forest conditions across the landscape that is fairly dense in some areas, more open in other areas. This alternative addresses concerns about big game security and avian habitat by increasing the patch size and patterns of the vegetation. This alternative was also designed to have less overall implementation costs. Although this alternative still moves the landscape towards the desired condition and meets the purpose and need, it would take longer to accomplish due to uncertainty of timing of burning opportunities.

Mitigation and Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 Note: Harvest-specific items are not applicable to alternative 3.

In response to public comments on the proposal, mitigation measures and design features were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various alternatives may cause.

The following measures have been designed into the proposed action and alternative 3:

• No new permanent roads would be constructed. Only temporary roads would be constructed with an emphasis on the use of existing road prisms where possible. • No treatments are proposed within the Minerva Creek Research Natural Area. • Treatments were designed to ensure compliance with regional and forest protocols for protecting or maintaining big game, old growth, and goshawk habitat.

6 Environmental Assessment

• Treatment implementation and site specific pre or post-treatment grazing rest periods will be coordinated with grazing permittees to ensure resource objectives are met. • All mandatory State and Federal permits would be obtained prior to the implementation of the alternatives as required in 40 CFR 1502.25(b); this project would also comply with 40 CFR 1503.1 (2)(a)(i). • Montana Forestry best management practices would be followed. See the project file for State required best management practices. The following measures are designs or mitigation measures for avoiding or minimizing effects to specific resources.

Sensitive Plants • Areas identified as potential habitat for short-styled columbine would be surveyed prior to implementation of ground-disturbing activities. If individuals are found, they will be documented and avoided during implementation. • If a new sensitive plant population is located in a treatment area prior to or during project implementation, the population would be evaluated, delineated, and avoided during all ground-disturbing activities. • Water quality best management practices for forestry activities would be followed to reduce physical impacts to potential sensitive plant habitat and any unknown individual plants in moist bottoms and associated springs. • There would be no ignition of prescribed fires within identified streamside management zones.

Soil and Watershed • All mandatory State and Federal permits will be obtained prior to the implementation of an alternative as required in 40 CFR 1502.25(b); this project will also comply with 40 CFR 1503.1 (2)(a)(i). • The Montana Streamside Management Zone Act does not include isolated wetlands; however, because of the importance of springs and their associated wetlands in the Little Snowy Mountains, the following forest practices are prohibited; and the law is extended to include isolated wetlands and springs within the project area: 1. Broadcast burning. 2. The operation of wheeled or tracked vehicles except on established roads. 3. The forest practice of clearcutting. 4. The construction of roads except when necessary to cross a stream or wetland. 5. The handling, storage, application, or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials in a manner that pollutes streams, lakes or wetlands, or that may cause damage or injury to humans, land, animals, or plants. 6. The side-casting of road material into streams, lakes, wetlands, or watercourse. 7. The deposit of slash in streams, lakes, or other water bodies. • Landings, temporary roads and skid trails would be rehabilitated and decommissioned following use. All skid trails in units showing detrimental soil impacts would be

7 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

rehabilitated. These steps would minimize detrimental impacts to soils, help restore soil function, and help minimize the establishment of noxious weeds. Rehabilitation and decommissioning efforts would include relieving detrimental soil compaction where needed by shallow ripping to approximately 12 inches in depth where possible, incorporating any bermed (stockpiled) soil and slash across the impacted area, providing permanent drainage, seeding with native species of grasses and forbs, and scattering slash and rock over the impacted area to discourage unauthorized travel and noxious weed establishment. This would occur on all landings and temporary roads. In order to meet Northern Region soil quality standards this restoration is mandatory on skid trails in unit: F8, K8, S8, C9, I9, I1, N9, J8, B9, C8, and B8. • Ground-based equipment would be restricted from operating in areas with more than 35 percent average slope except for areas with short pitches (40 to 45 percent in less than 100 feet), unless reviewed by the Forest soil scientist. • Ground-based equipment would be limited to periods of dry soils or soils frozen to a depth of 4 inches or approximately 20 to 24 inches of snow cover. • Mastication would be limited to periods when dry conditions, snow depth or frozen ground is adequate to protect soils. Mastication would be conducted in a manner to leave a thin layer of wood shreds of various sizes not to exceed 2 inches depth over 65 to 85 percent of the soil surface. Operation of mastication equipment off of designated trails would be minimized. Stationary skid turns and side-slope movement of mastication equipment between designated trails would be minimized. • Approximately 10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris over 4 inches in diameter would be left randomly scattered over the area (this does not apply to units that are not in a timber landtype). • Burning operations would be conducted on the wetter end of fuel moisture parameters. Mosaic burn patterns are desired. Prescribed burning would be conducted in a manner to maintain 85 percent soil cover (duff and fine litter) so that less than 15 percent of bare mineral soil is exposed over the burned area. • Seeps and springs would be avoided with ground-based equipment. Hand treatment would be allowed in these areas.

Recreation • To inform the public and reduce safety concerns, the public would be notified of closures to areas, roads, or trails due to harvest activities occurring in the project area. Signing, information in the local newspaper, and the Forest webpage would be used. • Visual screening and trees would be retained for shade at established dispersed campsites. • Landings would not be placed at established dispersed campsites. • To eliminate or reduce the potential for unauthorized motorized use on roads and trails, road intersections with skid trails, temporary roads, and paths used or created during mechanical harvesting would be covered with sufficient slash and/or barriers would be placed.

8 Environmental Assessment

Visual Resources • Treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation in all units. Straight lines and geometric shapes would be minimized to create vegetative shapes that mimic natural patterns. • Unit edges would be shaped and/or feathered to avoid a shadowing effect in the cut unit. Feathering should be a gradual transition between treated and nontreated areas. • Leave trees in all units would be left in irregular patterns in an effort to mimic the natural vegetation patterns characteristic of the area. • If vegetation clearing is needed at landings, edges would be shaped to mimic natural patterns and openings.

Range and Weeds The following weed prevention measures would be incorporated into road layout and design: • All mud, dirt, and plant parts would be removed from all off road equipment before moving into project area. Cleaning must occur off National Forest System lands. This would not apply to service vehicles that stay on the roadway and travel frequently in and out of the project area. • All disturbed soil would be revegetated, except the travel way on surfaced roads, in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site unless ongoing disturbance at the site would prevent weed establishment. Native material would be used where appropriate and available. A seed mix would be used that includes fast, early- season species to provide quick, dense revegetation. • Weed prevention and management would be integrated into all prescribed burning. Weed spread would be mitigated and reduced during prescribed fire activities according to direction provided in the Northern Region supplement to the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2080 supplement R1-2000-2001). • All crews would inspect, remove, and properly dispose of weed seed and plant parts found on their clothing and equipment. • Travel routes for people and equipment to and from project units would be established and noxious weeds would be treated along these routes before work commences.

Silviculture • Within aspen restoration treatments, hand thinning of conifer trees would be completed after underburning. Slash has been shown to protect aspen regeneration from ungulate browsing (Shepperd 2001). However, because burning will consume a portion of the slash, generally small conifer trees would be cut and left after prescribed burning to help create a barrier to browsing animals. • Forest restoration goals include the retention of large-diameter trees. At least one season prior to underburning, large trees (larger than 17.0 inches d.b.h.) with duff exceeding 5 to 6 inches would be protected by raking or snow well burning. Raking should remove most duff from at least 9 inches around the base of the tree, taking care to create a mound of duff. Additional information can be found in Hood’s 2010 study, “Mitigating Old Tree Mortality in Long-Unburned, Fire-Dependent Forests: A Synthesis.”

9 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Wildlife • Retain all soft snags unless they pose a safety or fire hazard. • Retain all snags greater than or equal to 20 inches d.b.h. In areas of concentrated mortality retain a minimum of 2, 20 inch d.b.h. or larger snags per acre. • Where feasible, protect snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. that do not provide a safety hazard by clearing brush or duff away from the base of the tree. • Within Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine sands, retain a minimum of 158 snags per 100 acres with a minimum d.b.h. of 10 inches where possible. Larger diameter snags are preferred when available. • Within aspen/riparian stands, retain 300 snags per 100 acres with a minimum diameter of 6 inches where possible. Larger diameter snags are preferred when available. • Leave large diameter (greater than 16 inch d.b.h.) deformed, cull and spike-topped trees during harvest to provide future wildlife trees. These trees should be girdled or killed so that they stop producing seed. • Retain snags and wildlife trees in clusters or groups whenever possible rather than uniformly across the area. Locate wildlife trees adjacent to natural openings or aspen, near water, or in valley bottoms whenever possible. To reduce cutting for firewood, snags would be retained away from roads and/or signed as wildlife trees to ensure retention. • To retain habitat for snag-dependent species and species dependent on large diameter trees, new temporary road corridors will be located to avoid large diameter trees and snags to the extent possible. • All temporary roads constructed will be effectively closed to public use during implementation and obliterated immediately following use. • Where feasible and when consistent with fuel reduction objectives, use control lines and/or firing techniques to maintain pockets of native understory shrubs. Strive to retain 30 to 50 percent of the existing hardwood shrubs in a mosaic pattern. • Adequate vegetative cover should be maintained along open roads in areas with documented deer and elk use. These areas, and the vegetative cover to be left, will be identified during layout by the fuels specialist and district wildlife biologist. • Calving, nursery, or deer fawning areas would be protected from late May through July unless surveys indicate areas are no longer used. These areas will be determined annually over the course of implementation through coordination with the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the district wildlife biologist. • Additional recommendations from the final report of the Montana cooperative elk- logging study would be implemented during timber harvest activities and include: 1. Logging activity would be confined to a single drainage at a time with all work completed in the shortest time frame possible. 2. Logging operations would be prohibited during the first 2 weeks of the general rifle season in order to maintain big game habitat capability and hunting opportunity. 3. Recreational use of firearms would be prohibited for anyone working within an area closed to the general public.

10 Environmental Assessment

4. Road construction will not occur within elk winter range. 5. Forest adjacent to winter foraging areas would be retained. 6. Any timber harvest on winter range will be scheduled outside the winter use period. • Within active goshawk territories, maintain a 40 acre (minimum) no-activity-buffer around known nests. Restrict ground-disturbing activities inside post-fledgling areas between April 15 and August 15 to protect goshawk pair and young from disturbance during the breeding season until fledglings are capable of sustained flight. • If raptor nests or any threatened, endangered or sensitive species are located during project layout or implementation, a wildlife biologist will be contacted and consulted regarding necessary protection measures to be applied.

Monitoring Monitoring would be conducted in accordance with direction outlined in the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan or as specified by resource area below. Not all monitoring is considered mandatory, and its implementation is not a consideration in the determination of environmental effects. Monitoring projects are designed to be accomplished during project activities, but are dependent upon the availability of funds and other resources. Some monitoring is accomplished by Forest Service representatives during various phases of implementation.

Heritage • Site condition monitoring is prescribed by the Forest Plan (page 2-27 and Amendment 10) and Forest Service Heritage Program requirements. Program standards outline a monitoring schedule for sites evaluated as historically important. Also, monitoring is required for unevaluated, but potentially important sites thought to be at risk, and as opportunities arise. Forest heritage personnel have evaluated one site, 24FR1045, as important.

Silviculture and Fuels • Timber marking of harvest units should be monitored to ensure that silvicultural prescriptions and marking guides are being followed. • Implementation monitoring of all prescriptions should be conducted during timber harvest procedures, precommercial thinning and slashing, and prescribed fire. • Effectiveness monitoring should be conducted following prescribed burning activities to determine mortality results versus objectives. Of particular concern is survival of large- diameters trees. • Stocking surveys should be conducted within aspen restoration treatments for aspen regeneration response within and around clones. Monitoring should verify adequate suckering response and browsing protection measures. • Monitoring of beetle activity changes should be conducted, given the potential for mountain pine and Douglas-fir beetle increases following prescribed burning (Parker et al. 2006). • Unacceptable mortality to the residual trees should be monitored to determine if cooler burning conditions are warranted.

11 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

• Harvest units would be monitored after treatment to determine detrimental soil impacts and best management practice effectiveness.

Soil and Water • Post-implementation monitoring would occur on unit B8, which currently exceeds Northern Region and Forest soil quality standards. Monitoring is also required on units where disturbance is predicted to be under, but close to, 15 percent detrimental disturbance; these include units I7, A8, and H8. These units will be monitored using the National Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). • Best management practices monitoring of forestry practices would be completed throughout the implementation of the project. After implementation, burn severity should also be monitored along with monitoring riparian areas to document the effects as a result of the treatments.

Wildlife • Final snag retention numbers will be assessed following implementation of burning to monitor any delayed prescribed burn mortality.

Knutson-Vandenberg Opportunities Dollars from the sale of National Forest timber can be used to finance projects under authorization of the Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Act of 1930 (16 U.S.C. 576-576b; 46 Stat. 527), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). Only those projects that are within the timber sale area and meet specifications in FSH 2409.19 can qualify for K-V funding (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Since the potential sale of timber from the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project is expected to yield very little monetary value, the potential for sufficient K-V funds is extremely low at this time under current market conditions.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for the Little Snowy Mountains project area on those resources affected by implementation. The scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives is presented, including regulatory framework of law, policy, and direction pertinent to the analysis.

Cumulative Effects. According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment that results in the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). As past actions are already included in the affected environment, the cumulative effects analysis builds upon this existing condition assessment by considering the incremental addition of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action as well as ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. Appendix A provides a list of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions considered for this analysis.

12 Environmental Assessment

Effects to Fuels and Fire This section evaluates the fuels and fire resource. The full report, with references, is contained in the project file. Site conditions and findings are summarized here.

Issue Indicators Indicators used in this analysis to address the purpose and need as well as identified issues include:

• Increase/decrease in surface fuel loads in terms of tons/acre by surface fuel class • Changes in fire type in terms of surface, passive crown, active crown, and conditional crown fire • Fire intensity in terms of flame lengths in feet

Existing Condition The existing condition of forest stands within the Little Snowy Mountains are largely the result of a long-term disruption in the historic frequent fire regime, as well as recent management practices including combinations of prescribed fire and commercial timber harvest using mechanical treatment methods (Keefe 2011). The affected environment in terms of tree dominance type, tree canopy cover, life form, and tree diameter class for the four ecological land units (ELUs) is classified and discussed in Romey et al. (1992). For this project, the affected environment for the vegetation resource is discussed in the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project Silviculture Report (Keefe 2011).

Fire History In a “Landscape Analysis of the Little Snowy Mountains,” Romey et al. (1992) evaluated and discussed the role of fire in the Little Snowy Mountains using a combination of fire literature, field sampling of fire scars, and other sources of information such as the timber stand inventory data base, land type inventory maps, historical range maps, historical photos, fire occurrence records, and several publications concerning fire history of adjacent areas. They found that fires occurred relatively frequently in the Little Snowy Mountains with observed fire scar intervals ranging from four to 47 years, the most common intervals being from 10 to 15 years.

The effect of frequent fires in the area was to generally maintain open savannah-like stands usually dominated by large-diameter ponderosa pine trees with Douglas-fir present at low levels (Romey et al. 1992).

European settlement occurred in the area in about 1870 and brought several changes including removal of Native Americans, elimination of bison, introduction of livestock grazing, and timber harvest for lumber and fuelwood. These changes reduced fire frequency on the landscape, which, over time, has resulted in increases in forested area, stand densities, and surface fuel loadings (Romey et al. 1992). These conditions have, in turn, resulted in increased potential for intense and severe wildfires.

Lewis and Clark National Forest fire history GIS data has 33 fires recorded in the Little Snowy Mountains from 1940 through 2003. No fires were recorded for most years during that 63-year period, with all fires occurring during about 40 percent of the years. About 36 percent of the fires occurred in July and another 36 percent in August. About 85 percent of the fires were started by lightning. The largest recorded fire, North Fork, which burned 350 acres in 1984, was started by

13 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

equipment. The second largest fire, the Minerva Creek Fire that burned 260 acres in 1940, was caused by lightning. All other fires were less than 40 acres with about one-half of the fires being 1 acre or less. Since 1940, these wildfires have burned about 3 percent of the project area.

The existing condition for vegetation can be found in the “Little Snowy Ponderosa Pine Restoration Silviculture Report” (Keefe 2010). This report only discusses those aspects of the existing condition related to the fire and fuels portion of the purpose and need, and includes vegetation, insect, and disease discussions.

Fire Weather and Fuel Moistures For this analysis, we obtained historic weather and fuel moisture data for the peak fire season months of July and August for the years 1991−2008 from the Little Snowy Remote Automated Weather Station, which is located in the project area. For potential fire modeling, we used the 90th percentile weather parameter scenario because it is the normally accepted fuel model set used for fuels planning (appendix C). The 90th percentile parameters represent the “average worst” conditions that can be expected on 90 percent of all the days that fires occur. The data used does not show wind gusts, but only recorded 10-minute average wind speed (Zachariassen et al. 2003). The most intense and severe fires in the Little Snowy Mountains can be expected to occur during wind events, often associated with thunderstorms. The high and gusty winds during these events would likely result in more severe fire behavior and fire effects. Therefore, in addition to the 90th percentile values, we also modeled potential fire behavior using a 25 mile-per-hour wind speed to better assess behavior during high wind events.

Fire Behavior We modeled potential fire behavior using the FlamMap potential fire modeling program (appendix C) with: (1) the weather and fuel moisture parameters discussed above and in appendix C; (2) spatial data for site attributes of aspect, slope, and elevation; and (3) spatial data for fuels attributes of crown bulk density, crown base height, crown height, and percent canopy cover. We modeled fireline intensity in terms of flame length, which indicates the rate at which a fire produces heat at the flaming front and fire type in terms of surface, passive crown, active crown, and conditional crown fire.

Surface Flame Length. Fireline intensity is widely used as a means to relate visible fire characteristics to general suppression strategies. A visual indicator of fireline intensity is flame length (Rothermel 1983; DeBano et al. 1998). Table 1 displays commonly used fireline intensity classes, flame length ranges, and associated fire suppression difficulty interpretations. For fire suppression purposes it is desirable to have low fireline intensities. Although not a direct measure of fire severity, one can infer from fireline intensity that moderate and high fireline intensities would tend to create severe fire effects.

14 Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Fire intensity classes, flame length ranges and interpretations Fireline Flame Intensity length Interpretations Low <4 feet Direct attack at head and flanks with hand crews; handlines should stop spread of fire Low- 4−8 feet Employment of engines, dozers, and aircraft needed for direct attack; too Moderate intense for persons with hand tools Moderate 8−11 feet Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control efforts at the head are likely ineffective; this would require indirect attack methods High >11 feet Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control efforts at the head are ineffective; this would require indirect attack methods

In Table 2, we display the percent of the project area in each flame length range for both modeling scenarios. Currently, about one-half of the project area (49 percent) is modeled as having 0 to 4 feet surface flame lengths under the 90th percentile conditions, and could be directly attacked with hand crews. With an increase in wind speed to 25 mph, the proportions change a little with about one-half (48 percent) of the project area still amenable to direct attack with hand crews, but with a substantial portion (47 percent) of the area in moderate to high fireline intensity levels.

Table 2. Percent of project area in flame length ranges for potential fire modeling scenarios Flame Length (% of Area) FlamMap model scenario 0−4 feet 4−8 feet 8−11 feet >11 feet 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture 49 24 5 22 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture 25 mph wind 48 5 10 37 speed

Fire Type. We classified fires into surface fires and three crown fire types in this analysis (Table 3) (Scott and Reinhardt 2001).

Table 3. Fire types and definitions Fire Type Definition Surface fire A fire that spreads through surface fuel without consuming any overlying canopy fuel Passive crown fire A type of crown fire in which the crowns of individual trees burn, but solid flaming in the canopy cannot be maintained except for short periods; also called “torching” Active crown fire A crown fire in which the entire fuel complex is involved in flame, but the crowning phase remains dependent on heat released from surface fuel for continued spread; also called running or continuous crown fire Conditional crown fire A potential type of fire in which conditions for sustained active crown fire spread are met but conditions for crown fire initiation are not; if the fire begins as a surface fire then it is expected to remain so; if it begins as an active crown fire in an adjacent stand, then it may continue to spread as an active crown fire; also can be referred to as an “independent crown fire,” which is a crown fire that spreads without the aid of supporting surface fire.

15 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Table 4 shows the proportion of the project area classified in each fire type for both fuels/weather scenarios.

Table 4. Percent of project area in each potential fire type for modeled fire weather scenarios Fire Type FlamMap Model Surface Passive Crown Active Crown Conditional Scenario (%) (%) (%) Crown (%) 90th percentile weather 43 20 12 25 and fuel moisture

Under the 90th percentile conditions slightly over one-half (57 percent) of the project area could support some type of crown fire behavior. This condition worsens substantially with the increase in wind speed from 15 mph to 25 mph at which almost three-quarters (76 percent) of the project area could support some type of crown fire behavior.

Fire Severity We are indirectly discussing potential fire severity in this analysis as inferred from fire intensity and potential fire type. Fire severity describes the effects of fire on vegetation, litter, or soils. Unlike fire intensity, fire severity "cannot be expressed as a single quantitative measure that relates to resource impact" (Robichaud et al. 2000) and is instead typically ranked from low to high severity based on the post fire appearance of soil, litter, vegetation, or other resource of interest. Although not direct measures of fire severity in terms of tree mortality, high fireline intensities and the potential for crown fire behavior can be used as an indirect indicator of fire severity.

Fuel Loads Fuels of concern in fire and fuels management are classified into:

Duff: Organic material on the forest floor that is partially decayed and sufficiently decayed that its original source cannot be distinguished Litter: Fallen leaves or needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches that have not decayed sufficiently to have lost their identity 1-hour time lag fuels: Fallen needle and leaf litter, grassy fuels, lichens, and small twigs fuels that are less than 0.25 inches diameter and respond to changes in weather in less than 2 hours 10-hour time lag fuels: Small branches and woody stems from 0.25 to 1 inch in diameter that respond in 2 to 20 hours 100-hour time lag fuels: Large downed woody debris from 1 to 3 inches in diameter that respond in 20 to 200 hours 1000-hour time lag fuels: Large downed branches, logs, and tree stumps greater than 3 inches in diameter that respond in greater than 200 hours Live herbaceous Live shrubs Current field-sampled fuels data is not available for stands in the project area. Fire behavior fuel models observed during site visits and used in this analysis indicate that the sum of fuel loads for

16 Environmental Assessment

fuels less than 3 inches in diameter plus live herbaceous and live shrubs roughly ranges from 4 to 14 tons per acre for the forested fuel models used.

Estimates from site visit observations indicate that fuels greater than 3 inches in diameter can be considered low (less than 5 tons per acre) except in small patches where high winds have resulted in broken tops and downed trees and where bark beetles or fire have killed trees that have fallen. In no stand did woody debris appear to be greater than 10 tons per acre during site visits, and those concentrations were relatively small and isolated.

Desired Condition We developed desired conditions for fire and fuels management based on direction provided in the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986, as amended in 1993), agency direction, technical guides, available and pertinent research, and available local vegetation and fire studies.

As discussed previously, Romey et al. (1992) conducted a landscape analysis of the Little Snowy Mountains. In the landscape analysis, they documented and discussed: (1) ecosystem processes and the role they played in the Little Snowy Mountains, (2) historic and existing conditions in the area by ecological land units, (3) target stand conditions by ecological land units, and (4) the relationship of the desired future condition to the Forest Plan. In 2009, the Musselshell Ranger District also documented desired conditions as part of an analysis conducted under National Forest Management Act direction prior to the project analysis of which this report is a part of (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Desired vegetation conditions are also discussed in the “Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Silviculture Report” (Keefe 2011). In this document, we will incorporate desired condition discussions by reference from these three documents and will focus on desired conditions only in terms of fire and fuels management and the measurement indicators identified above.

Management Direction The Lewis and Clark Forest Plan was completed in 1986 (USDA Forest Service 1986) to provide direction for managing National Forest System lands within the Lewis and Clark National Forest. In 1993, the Forest Plan was amended to designate the Little Snowy Mountains as “Management Area T” (MA-T) with its own desired conditions and management direction (USDA Forest Service 1993). Forest plan direction pertaining to fire and fuels management is cited on page 2 and in appendix B.

National fire and fuels management direction has been evolving over the last decade. The National Fire Plan provided national direction for hazardous fuels reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research, and technology transfer. It established the framework for a fire management Comprehensive Strategy initiated in 2001, revised in 2006, and revised again in 2011 (appendix I). Goals and objectives stated in the comprehensive strategy documents are many, but the most pertinent to this analysis are the goals associated with restoring and maintaining fire resilient landscapes with objectives to:

1. Actively manage the land to achieve healthy forest and rangeland conditions. 2. Protect landscapes and multiple values from the effects of unwanted fire. The goal associated with implementing a safe, effective, efficient wildfire management decisions have objectives to:

17 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

1. Provide for safety of wildland fire responders and the public. 2. Improve effectiveness and efficiency of the wildland fire management organization. Our desired condition for the Little Snowy Mountains is to establish and maintain conditions in which wildfires The desired future condition would typically occur as low-intensity and low-severity for the Little Snowy Mountains ground fires (USDA Forest Service 2009a). During is that forests should be wildfires, passive crown fire might occur in occasional resistant and resilient to the individual trees or groups of trees, but active crown fires effects of a changing climate, would not progress through the forest except for during which will probably include the most severe, wind-driven fires. Even under the most increased wildfire activity. severe wildfire conditions, crown fires would be limited in extent due to a mosaic of tree densities and size classes. In terms of fire type, our desired conditions are a landscape that, under modeled fire weather and fuel moisture conditions, is dominated by surface fire with isolated areas of passive, active, and conditional crown fire. Areas of potential crown fires would be limited in size so that there would be little potential for large stand-replacing fires to occur. In terms of fire intensity, surface fires on most of the area would burn with less than 4 feet flame lengths during 90th percentile conditions so that fires could be attacked directly by hand crews.

Climate Change The Forest Plan does not directly address climate change in its desired future condition discussion, and there is not a legislative or regulatory requirement to do so. One of the purpose and need objectives for this project is to restore dry ponderosa pine forests that would typically occur as a result of a low-intensity and low-severity fire regime. In 2010, Forest Service Manual direction for restoration was modified to define ecosystem restoration as: “The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions” (USDA Forest Service 2010b). The direction identifies one of the guiding principles to be used when planning and implementing restoration projects to be: “Knowledge of past and current ecosystem dynamics, current and desired conditions, climate change projections, and human uses is fundamental to planning restoration activities.”

Likely climate changes projected for the state of Montana include (Karl et al. 2009, appendix D):

• More winter precipitation will fall as rain. • Snow levels will rise in elevation. • Snowmelt will occur earlier in the spring. • The late-spring to summer dry season (fire season) will increase in length. • Summer dry seasons will be drier and warmer. • Prolonged drought periods will increase, but their occurrence will probably be variable. • Storms will become more intense with a larger portion of annual precipitation falling in the heaviest storms. • Nighttime minimum temperatures will increase.

18 Environmental Assessment

These projected climate changes will have an impact on future wildfire regimes. Increases in drought periods, and increased average temperatures with warmer, earlier springs can lead to an increase in wildfire activity with warmer, earlier, and longer fire seasons (Flannigan et al. 2000; Brown et al. 2004; Gillett et al. 2004; Running 2006; Westerling et al. 2006; Fauria and Johnson 2008). Increased wildfire activity has been shown to be occurring and is thought to be related to climate change (Balling et al. 1992; Westerling et al. 2006; Gillett et al. 2004).

The desired future condition for the Little Snowy Mountains is that forests should be resistant and resilient to the effects of a changing climate, which will probably include increased wildfire activity.

Methodology for Analysis Data used in this analysis include: • 10-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) spatial data from which we attained elevation, percent slope and aspect • 2009 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial photo imagery • Lewis and Clark National Forest’s GIS spatial data including: • Stand examination data stored in the Field Sampled Vegetation database (FSVeg) • Site visits and informal exam data collected during the summer of 2009 • Weather and fuel moisture data from the Little Snowy Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) station • LANDFIRE (USGS 2011) spatial data • Northern Region Vegetation Mapping Project (VMap) vegetation classification spatial data (USDA 2009) We are using fire type, fireline intensity in terms of flame length, and fuel loadings to analyze current condition and treatment effects. We are using fireline intensity to serve as an indicator of fire suppression difficulty. As Stratton (2006) states: “It should be noted a model is a simplification or approximation of reality and hence will not reflect all of reality.” The use of models such as the Forest Vegetation Simulator (Eastern Montana Variant; FVS) with the Fire and Fuel Extension (FEE) and FlamMap depend upon sample data and attributes derived from that data which are estimates, upon the validity of the models themselves, and upon assumptions made by the modeler. All three affect the results. The use of FVS and FlamMap in this analysis is to generally characterize and display existing conditions and the nature and magnitude of treatment effects to inform decisions to be made.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information We used FVS to model current conditions and treatment effects to stands where stand exam data was available. Exam data was not available for all stands (Keefe 2010) so to model treatment effects in FlamMap, we used FVS analysis results for individual stands where data was available and FVS analysis results averaged over forest type and treatment type where exam data was not available. The fuels attributes spatial data also did not cover the area outside of the project area so fuels attributes were computed for that area using other sources.

19 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis In this analysis, the “project area” is all of the National Forest System land in the Little Snowy Mountains. The project area serves as the spatial context for the direct and indirect effects analysis. All past activities and natural disturbances affecting vegetation, fuels, and fire behavior are included in the existing condition. Effects are discussed as changes in the existing condition due to the proposed activities. Effects occurring over the 20-year period from the time the activity is accomplished are referred to as “short-term” effects, whereas beyond the 20-year period we will be referring to effects as “long term.”

Cumulative effects are discussed in this analysis as changes in the existing condition due to the proposed activities plus other present and foreseeable future activities. For analyzing cumulative effects, we will be using a 27,660-acre area that includes the project area and a 1-mile band around the project area. This area was selected so that vegetation and fuels conditions, and activities on private land affecting fire behavior surrounding the project area, could be considered. In this analysis, the cumulative effects analysis area will be referred to as the “analysis area” to distinguish it from the “project area” which serves as the spatial context for direct and indirect effects analysis.

The temporal context for the cumulative effects analyze is the same as for the indirect and direct effects analysis.

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Actions are considered connected if they (40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1)):

• Automatically trigger other actions • Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken • Depend on another action for their justification The treatments proposed in this analysis are not considered to be “connected” to any other action by Lewis and Clark National Forest. The proposed vegetation and fuels treatments would not automatically trigger other actions, and do not depend on other actions to be taken.

Current and foreseeable actions within the analysis area being considered in the cumulative effects include:

• Recent thinning/patch cutting on the Pronghorn Ranch adjacent to the project area along the eastern and southern border • Continuing personal use firewood cutting in the project area at what can be considered a “moderate” level • Continuing permitted grazing within the project area • Private forest management activities that may occur adjacent to the project area • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed thinning, prescribed burning and meadow restoration in the Willow Creek Drainage

20 Environmental Assessment

Effects of the Alternatives to Fire and Fuels

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects. There would be no direct effects with no action. Indirect effects of no action would be the continuation of existing potential fire types and flame lengths into the short term. As discussed above, (1) about one-half of the area would burn with less than 4-foot surface flame lengths and would be amenable to direct attack with the rest requiring direct attach with equipment or indirect attack, and (2) slightly over one-half (57 percent) of the project area could support some type of crown fire behavior under modeled 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture conditions, which increases to almost three-quarters (76 percent) with an increase in wind speed to 25 mph. The existing condition is not desirable because wildfires over a large portion of the area probably would not burn as low-intensity and low-severity ground fires on a hot and dry day, and high fire intensities would hamper control efforts. With high winds, a large and severe wildfire would be a likely result.

As discussed in the silviculture report (Keefe 2011), stand stocking over much of the project area can be considered high, with many Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine stands currently in the “zone of imminent mortality.” The amount of area in that condition would increase over time. Self- thinning in these stands (trees dying due to competition for water, light and nutrients) would increase, increasing surface fuel loads. Increasing fuel loads would contribute to increasing fire intensity and crown fire behavior and so by implication, fire severity. The increase in surface fuel loads due to self-thinning would be slow and so the effects would be low in the short term, but would increase over time and could be substantial in the long-term if future actions are not taken to reduce surface fuels.

High stocking levels contribute to high bark beetle hazard ratings, especially in the ponderosa pine stands (Keefe 2010). Currently 84 percent of the ponderosa pine stands have a high bark beetle hazard rating with the proportion increasing to 92 percent by 2031 (Keefe 2011). With no action, in the short-term and long-term, a large portion of the ponderosa pine stands in the project area could experience a mountain pine beetle outbreak. The outbreak would greatly increase standing dead (until the trees fell down) and surface fuels in the short term and long term. The increases in surface fuels would be abrupt and could be large. Such increases in surface fuels would contribute to increasing fire intensity and crown fire behavior and so fire severity.

Indirect effects of no action would be that the currently undesirable condition would get worse over time.

Climate Change. In relation to fire and fuels management, there would be neither a direct effect of this alternative on climate change, nor an effect from climate change on forests in the project area. Indirect effects of climate change on fire and fuels would be as follows:

1. Bark beetle epidemics would become more likely (Keefe 2011), leading to an increased likelihood of large and abrupt increases in surface fuels. 2. Live and dead fuel moistures would be low for longer periods of time during the summer making extreme fire behavior more likely. 3. Hot, dry, and windy conditions would become more common and the potential for future wildfires developing into and propagating as crown fires would increase. 4. As water becomes more limiting during summer droughts competition-related mortality and so surface fuel loadings would increase.

21 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

In most of the project area, with no wildfires, carbon sequestration in project area forests would remain high into the long term. However, this alternative would do nothing to reduce the potential for high-intensity and high-severity wildfires, which would be increasing in the long term. These wildfires, when they occur, would result in high levels of mortality and the conversion of forested areas from sinks for atmospheric carbon to sources of atmospheric carbon due directly to burning and indirectly to decomposition of the dead trees.

Cumulative Effects. Management actions or natural disturbances that have taken place in the analysis area prior to this analysis are included in the current condition. Exceptions to this are relatively recent activities on private land that have taken place within the past few years on the Pronghorn Ranch. These recent and any potential future treatments would change fire intensities little within the larger analysis area of the Little Snowy Mountains.

Fire intensities in the analysis area outside of the project area are similar to those within the analysis area, but with (1) a lower portion of the area burning with less than 4-foot flame lengths, and (2) a greater proportion of the area in the 4- to 8-foot flame length class, largely because more of the area is in lower elevation grass/shrub fuel models. As displayed in figures 13 and 14 in the Fire and Fuels report, forest conditions conducive to crown fire behavior also exist outside of the project area immediately adjacent to National Forest System land. In the southeast corner of the analysis area, thinning on the Pronghorn Ranch has reduced potential crown fire behavior to some degree from that displayed.

With no action, forest conditions would not change in the short term across most of the analysis area. Wildfires burning within the analysis area would often burn at intensities where fire suppression would be difficult. Wildfires could enter the project area from outside as crown fires in many locations, and due to the relatively large and continuous expanse of crown fire- susceptible stands in the project area, could continue through the project area as crown fires. Fires starting within the project area under hot, dry, windy conditions would be difficult to control and could become crown fires. If they do so, they would be likely to progress outside of the project area onto private land as crown fires.

In the short term and long term, surface and ladder fuels would continue to increase as discussed above in the analysis area inside and outside of the project area. Management on the Pronghorn Ranch in areas has: (1) decreased crown fuels in the short term, (2) decreased the potential for fuels increasing abruptly in the short term due to bark beetle activity, and (3) reduced short-term competition-related mortality. But the management is impacting only a small portion of the forested area in the analysis area, and none within the project area. Any proposed thinning on BLM-administered land would also only impact a small portion of the forested area in the analysis area. Firewood cutting would reduce the accumulation of large fuels only in a small portion of the project area along open forest roads.

Climate Change. Timber harvest and prescribed burning in the project area, and timber harvest on private land, have reduced tree stocking. These treated areas are currently more resilient to the effects of climate change. The resilience is likely to be short term and continued treatments would be necessary in the long term to maintain resilience to climate change. The proportion of the analysis area that has been treated is also relatively minor. In most of the analysis area, carbon sequestration would remain high. The potential for high-intensity and high-severity wildfires would continue to exist and would increase in the long term. When wildfires occur, the likely result would be high levels of mortality and the conversion of forested areas from sinks for atmospheric carbon to sources of atmospheric carbon due directly to burning and indirectly to decomposition of the dead trees.

22 Environmental Assessment

Summary of Effects. This alternative would not meet the project purpose and need stated above because it would not:

• Reduce fire hazard, allowing a situation to continue in which fire hazard can be considered to be high and getting higher, with potential fires moving further toward a high-intensity and high-severity, stand-replacing regime. • Move forest stands toward a more historic structure, stocking, and composition (Keefe 2010) and would not move the forest toward a condition where it could be maintained by more natural low-intensity and low-severity fires. • Reduce surface fuel loads or prevent the increase in fuel loads, which have the potential to increase abruptly due to bark beetle risk. • Reduce the potential for wildfires in most of the project area to burn as crown fires, especially under windy conditions, under which large, stand-replacing fires could occur. • Reduce fireline intensities, with direct attack by hand crews continuing to be unfeasible on about one-half of the project area under 90th percentile conditions.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct Effects. Direct effects of the proposed action would be to (1) reduce crown bulk density, (2) increase crown base heights, and (3) modify fuels (reflected in changes in the fuel models and fuel loads). Most of these direct effects are not discussed in detail in this document because the issue indicators identified previously are considered to address indirect effects in this document. The exception is the direct effects on fuel loads.

We are analyzing the effects of treatments on surface fuel loadings in this analysis by comparing pre-treatment FVS default surface fuel loadings by fuel class with modeled post-treatment fuel loadings. Fuels would be added to the surface by treatments such as thinning. Surface fuels would be modified (broken up and moved from one class to another) by treatments such as mastication. Fuels would be removed by yarding, hand piling and burning, and underburning. Although the pretreatment surface fuel loadings are model default values, comparing the modeled pre- and post-treatment fuel loadings displays the trend and magnitude of expected effects where all additions, modifications, and subtractions are taken into account.

Proposed treatments would: 1. Reduce short-term fuel loadings in the sum of litter, woody less than 3 inches diameter, live herbaceous, and live shrub to a range from 1.2 to 7.3 tons/acre (averaging 2.4 tons/acre). 2. Reduce duff loadings in the short term. 3. Slightly reduce short-term fuel loadings for fuels greater than 3 inches diameter, keeping levels less than 5 tons per acre (see appendix G of the Fire and Fuels report). 4. Slightly reduce live herbaceous fuels and reduce live shrub fuels immediately following the treatments (Metlen et al. 2004) but result in increases in live herbaceous fuels in the short term (Moore et al. 2006). Underburning would kill many seedling and sapling trees and top-kill shrubs, but there would be a small number of trees larger than sapling-size killed by underburning (Harrod et al. 2008). The number of trees and the resulting addition of those trees to surface fuels are difficult to predict because burning mortality depends on how the burn is implemented as well as fuel and weather

23 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project parameters. Underburning in stands that have been thinned include the objective of minimizing the number of trees killed, and burn timing and lighting patterns would be varied to accomplish that objective. In stands not being thinned, the underburns can be expected to kill many seedling and small sapling trees, which would indirectly increase future surface fuel loads. FVS-modeled total surface fuel loads in 5 years following the treatments would increase from a post-treatment average for all treatments of 6 tons per acre to about 11 tons per acre, which is less than the current modeled 13 tons per acre. The modeled total surface fuel increase includes not only fuels from trees killed by the underburning, but also increases in litter due to litter cast, live herbaceous plants, and live shrubs. Although the fuel loads are modeled, they do indicate that increases to surface fuels due to prescribed burn mortality in this alternative would be low.

In the long term with no further action, shrubs could be expected to increase, herbaceous vegetation would decrease as tree canopies close in, and duff/litter loads would increase (Harrod et al. 2008).

Indirect Effects. The indirect effects of the proposed action would be that following all treatments:

1. Potential fire behavior would be shifted more toward surface fires with a reduction in crown fire behavior. 2. Fire intensity in term of flame lengths would be reduced over most of the project area making fire control by direct attack of hand crews more feasible under most conditions. Fire intensity in terms of flame length (FL) for both modeling scenarios is displayed in Table 5. In the short term, potential wildfires under most conditions would burn through most of the project area as low-intensity wildfires. Flame lengths would be sufficiently low to enable direct fire suppression by hand crews.

Under both modeling scenarios most of the project area would burn with less than 4-feet flame lengths. Under the highest wind speeds modeled, only about 8 percent of the area would be expected to burn with more than 4-foot flame lengths. Direct attack by hand crews would most likely be successful except for areas that are relatively small and isolated.

Table 6 displays the proportion of the project area in each fire type under the two modeled scenarios. Under the 90th percentile conditions, with the 15 mph wind speed, most of the project area (90 percent) would burn as a surface fire. The areas modeled as burning with any crown fire type would be generally isolated and scattered although there would be a concentration of area modeled as passive crown fire in the center of the project area. With the higher wind speed (25 mph) the proportion of area as surface fire would be substantially less and the amount as conditional crown would be substantially greater than with the 15 mph scenario, but a much greater area would burn as a surface fire than under the current condition (Table 6). The area in all crown fire classes with 25 mph wind speed would also be considerably fragmented by the treatments compared to the current condition and would be present as smaller areas that are distributed and relatively isolated by areas that would burn as surface fire.

24 Environmental Assessment

Table 5. Predicted flame lengths before and after treatment in alternatives 2 and 3 Flame length (% of area) FlamMap model scenario 0-4 feet 4-8 feet 8-11 feet >11 feet Before treatment (no action) 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture 49 24 5 22 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture at 25 mph wind 48 5 10 37 speed After treatment (alternatives 2/3) 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture after treatment 99 / 97 <1 / 1 <1 / 1 1 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture 25 mph wind 92 / 90 6 / 6 <1 / <1 2 / 4 speed after treatment

Table 6. Predicted fire types before and after treatment in alternative 2 Fire Type (%) Passive Active Conditional FlamMap model scenario Surface crown crown crown Before Treatment (no action) 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture 43 20 12 25 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture at 25 mph 24 9 28 39 wind speed After Treatment (Alternatives 2/3) 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture 90 / 89 8 / 9 <1 / 1 1 / 1 90th percentile weather and fuel moisture at 25 mph 64 / 32 8 / 8 4 / 5 24 / 55 wind speed

In the short term, ladder fuels would be reduced due to shrub and small tree mortality and small tree removal. Understory herbaceous vegetation would increase in coverage following a slight decrease immediately following the treatments (Sparks et al. 1998; Ritchie 205; Harrod et al. 2008; Laughlin and Fule 2008). In the long term, with no further actions, shrubs would increase to levels exceeding the current condition due largely to the more open tree canopies (Ritchie 2005). Ladder fuels would increase as shrubs increase and as understory trees become established. As stocking increases, so would competition-related mortality as well as bark beetle risk and activity. Surface woody fuel loads would increase, as would duff layers, but herbaceous vegetation coverage would decrease. In the short term and extending into the long term, because of the reduced stocking and reduced bark beetle risk (Keefe 2011), there would be much lower potential for the abrupt increases in fuels occurring as a result of bark beetle activity.

Climate Change. In this analysis, in relation to fire and fuels management we are considering all effects of proposed treatments on climate change and the effects of climate change on the project area under the alternative to be indirect.

In terms of fire and fuels management, the indirect effect of alternative 2 on climate change would be: (1) a short-term release of greenhouse gas emissions that are very small relative to other sources of emissions (Keefe 2011), and (2) a short-term extending into long-term stability of carbon sequestered in the treated area because the possibility of remaining trees being killed by wildfires would be greatly reduced (appendix A, Fire and Fuels report). In the long term, due to

25 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project the establishment of understory trees and increases in surface and ladder fuels, fire intensity, and crown fire behavior, the potential for greenhouse gas emissions due to wildfires would again increase. Future treatments would be needed to maintain decreased potential for severe, intense fires.

The indirect effects of climate change on forests under alternative 2 would be much less than with no action, because the treated forest stands would be: 1) More resistant to bark beetle epidemics, even under the expected climate changes (Keefe 2011), and so the likelihood of large and abrupt increases in surface fuels would be less; 2) more resistant to crown fire behavior under hot, dry, and windy conditions which are projected to increase due to climate change; 3) more resistant to competition-related mortality even under the expected climate-change- induced increases in tree stress; and 4) more likely to have reduced surface fire intensity even under the projected longer, hotter, drier and windier conditions. As mentioned above, however, these effects are short term, extending into long term, whereas climate change is long term and additional future treatments would be needed to maintain forest resilience to the effects of climate change.

Cumulative Effects. As discussed above, tree thinning on private land has taken place within the last few years on the Pronghorn Ranch. These activities reduced the potential for crown fire activity in the southeast corner of the analysis area. At this time, we do not know the effects of those treatments on fire intensity and suppression difficulty on the private land.

The proposed action would, in some way, treat most National Forest System land in the analysis area. These treatments would substantially reduce fire intensity, and some fire suppression difficulty, and reduce the potential for crown fire behavior in the short term and into the long term. Wildfires starting on private land surrounding National Forest would decrease in intensity when they entered National Forest System land and would become more easily suppressed and less damaging. If the wildfires enter public lands of the Lewis and Clark National Forest as crown fires, they would soon convert to surface fires under the 15 mph wind speed scenario. Under conditions of high winds they would also largely convert to surface fires except in a few stands where they would continue to burn as a conditional crown fire before “dropping to the ground” as a surface fire. Wildfires starting on national forest would be low intensity making suppression easier and reducing their potential for burning out of the national forest and onto private land. Even under windy conditions, crown fire behavior would be isolated.

Climate Change. The cumulative effects of alternative 2 on climate change, and of climate change on forests in the analysis area, are very similar to those stated previously as indirect effects for the project area. These areas would have cumulative effects similar to those described under alternative 1.

Summary of Effects. This alternative would meet the project purpose and need stated above because it would:

• Reduce fire hazard over most of the project area, reducing fire-intensity and crown fire potential, moving future fires toward a low-intensity and low-severity regime.

26 Environmental Assessment

• Move forest stands toward their historic structure, stocking, and composition and toward a condition where it could be maintained by more natural low-intensity and low-severity fires. • Greatly reduce the likelihood that large, stand-replacing fires would occur. • Reduce surface fuel loads and prevent the increase in fuel loads due to competition- related mortality and bark beetle activity. • Change the potential for wildfires in most of the project area (90 percent) to burn as surface fires under hot, dry summer conditions and mild winds (15 mph), with 64 percent of the project area burning as surface fires under hot, dry summer conditions and 25 mph winds, and the remaining 36 percent still susceptible to crown fire behavior. • Increase the area that would potentially burn with flame lengths less than 4 feet under mild (15 mph) wind speeds to about 99 percent of the project area, and under higher wind speeds (25 mph) wind speeds to about 92 percent, making direct attack by hand crews feasible over almost all of the project area.

Alternative 3 In alternative 3, a combination of vegetation and fuels treatments was designed to move forest conditions towards the desired condition without the use of commercial thinning and mastication.

Direct Effects. As for alternative 2 above, the direct effects of the proposed action would be to (1) reduce crown bulk density, (2) increase crown base heights, and (3) modify fuels (reflected in changes in the fuel models and fuel loads). The issue indicators identified above are considered to address indirect effects in this document, except the direct effect on fuel loads.

Proposed treatments under alternative 3 would: 1) Reduce short-term fuel loadings in the sum of litter, woody less than 3 inches diameter, live herbaceous, and live shrub to a range from 3.6 to 4.0 tons/acre (average 3.7 tons/acre); 2) reduce duff loadings in the short term; 3) slightly reduce short-term fuel loadings for fuels greater than 3 inches diameter, keeping levels less than 5 tons/acre; and 4) slightly reduce live herbaceous fuels and reduce live shrub fuels immediately following the treatments but result in increases in live herbaceous fuels in the short term.

As described under earlier “The Proposed Action and Alternatives” section, alternative 3 relies largely on precommercial thinning and underburning. As discussed in the “Alternative 2, Direct Effects” section, trees would be killed by the underburns. Most of the trees killed would be seedlings and saplings, but a greater number of sapling and larger trees would be killed under alternative 3 than under alternative 2. FVS-modeled total surface fuel loads in 5 years following the treatments would increase from a post-treatment average for all treatments of 6 tons per acre to about 16 tons per acre, which is greater than the current modeled 13 tons per acre. The increase is largely due to FVS-modeled prescribed burn mortality.

The response of live herbaceous and live shrub fuels would generally be as discussed for alternative 2, except the increase in both live herbaceous and live shrubs would be less than discussed for alternative 2, because in alternative 3, tree stocking would not be reduced to the

27 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

degree that it would be under alternative 2. The greater tree coverage under alternative 3 would inhibit the growth of understory vegetation to a greater degree than under alternative 2.

Indirect Effects. As in alternative 2, the indirect effects of alternative 3 would be: (1) potential fire behavior would be shifted more toward surface fires with a reduction in crown fire behavior; and (2) fire intensity in term of flame lengths would be reduced over most of the project area making fire control by direct attack of hand crews more feasible under most conditions. However, alternative 2 would lead toward greater change than alternative 3.

As in alternative 2, in the short term, potential wildfires would burn through most of the project area as low-intensity and low-severity wildfires under most conditions. Under 90th percentile conditions, alternatives 2 and 3 would be about the same. However, under higher wind conditions, much less of the area treated in alternative 2 would support crown fire behavior than alternative 3. Flame lengths would be sufficiently low to enable direct fire suppression by hand crews on slightly less of the area than under alternative 2. Stocking and bark beetle risk would also be reduced from the current condition by this alternative, although not to the degree that they would be under alternative 2 (Keefe 2011). There would be lower potential for abrupt increases in fuels occurring as a result of bark beetle activity than under alternative 1, but greater than under alternative 2.

Fire intensity in terms of flame length for both modeling scenarios is displayed in Table 5. As with alternative 2, under both modeling scenarios most of the project area would burn with less than 4-feet flame lengths. With higher wind speeds about 7 percent less of the area would burn with less than 4-feet flame lengths. Direct attack by hand crews would most likely be successful except for areas that are relatively small and isolated.

Table 6 displays the proportion of the project area in each fire type under the two modeled scenarios. Under the 90th percentile conditions, which have a 15 mph wind speed, most of the project area (89 percent) would burn as a surface fire. The areas that would burn with any crown fire type are generally isolated and scattered, although there is a concentration of area that would burn as passive crown fire in the center of the project area (see figure 11 in the Fire and Fuels report). With the higher (25 mph) wind speeds, the proportion of area that would burn as surface fire would be considerably less and the amount as conditional crown fire would be much greater (55 percent). The area in active and passive crown fire would be fragmented under this scenario, but as with the existing condition the area in all crown fire classes would still be present in large and connected blocks (see figure 12 in the Fire and Fuels report). The treatments in alternative 3 would be underburns and noncommercial thinning which would result in reducing the small trees, lower branches, and shrubs, increasing crown base height, but would not thin the stand mid- stories and overstories and so would not substantially reduce crown bulk density. Many of the thinned stands would move from active crown fire into the conditional crown fire class. Under alternative 3, the large and connected area of crown fire behavior indicates that a large portion of the area would still potentially support a large, high-intensity and high-severity wildfire under hot, dry, and windy conditions (see figure 12 in the Fire and Fuels report).

In the long term, assuming no future action, ladder fuels would again increase as shrubs increase and understory trees become established. As stocking increases, so would competition-related mortality as well as bark beetle risk and activity. Surface fuel loads would increase. Flame lengths would increase, making fire suppression efforts more difficult, and the potential for crown fire behavior would again increase. Unless future treatments occurred, the process would take place sooner than under alternative 2.

28 Environmental Assessment

Climate Change. In terms of fire and fuels management, the indirect effect of alternative 3 on climate change would be similar to alternative 2. In the long term, the stability of sequestered carbon would tend to decrease due to the establishment of understory trees and increases in surface and ladder fuels, leading to potential increases in fire intensity and crown fire behavior. The carbon-storage stability under alternative 3 would be less than under alternative 2 because following treatment under alternative 3, a larger portion of the project area would be susceptible to crown fire behavior under the more extreme fire weather conditions.

The indirect effects of climate change on forests under alternative 3 would be much less than with no action for the same reasons listed above for alternative 2. Alternative 3, however, would not reduce the potential effects of climate change on forests to the degree, and for not as long, of alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects. Cumulative effects of alternative 3 are similar to those discussed above under alternative 2, with one main difference. During the more severe fire weather conditions, under alternative 3, a larger portion of the area would be susceptible to crown fire behavior than under alternative 2 (see figures 16 and 18 in the Fire and Fuels report). Under conditions of high winds, crown fires burning into the project area from the surrounding land would be much more likely to continue to burn into the project area as a conditional crown fire (see figure 18 in the Fire and Fuels report), making a large, stand-replacing fire more likely.

Climate Change. The cumulative effects of alternative 3 on climate change and of climate change on forests in the analysis area are very similar to that stated for alternative 2.

Summary of Effects. Alternative 3 would meet the project purpose and need stated above because it would:

• Reduce fire hazard over most of the project area, reducing fire-intensity and crown fire potential, moving future fires toward a low-intensity and low-severity regime. • Move forest stands toward their historic structure, stocking, and composition and toward a condition where they could be maintained by more natural low-intensity and low- severity fires. • Reduce the likelihood of large, stand-replacing fires. • Reduce surface fuel loads and prevent the increase in fuel loads, which, following treatment would no longer have the potential to increase abruptly due to bark beetle risk. • Change the potential for wildfires in most of the project area (89 percent) to burn as surface fires under hot, dry summer conditions and mild winds (15 mph), with 32 percent of the area burning as surface fires under hot, dry summer conditions with greater winds (25 mph), and the remaining 68 percent still susceptible to crown fire behavior (compared to 36 percent in alternative 2). • Increase the area that would potentially burn with flame lengths less than 4 feet under mild wind speeds over about 97 percent of the project area and under higher wind speeds (25 mph) to about 90 percent, making direct attack by hand crews feasible over almost all of the project area (slightly less percentage than alternative 2).

29 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Compliance of the Alternatives with the Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 1 would not be compliant with Forest Plan direction or Cohesive Strategy described earlier as no actions would occur to work toward achieving the stated goals, objectives, and standards.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would both comply with Forest Plan and Cohesive Strategy goals, objectives and standards; however, alternative 2 would treat more acres than alternative 3 and therefore would go further to achieve the desired conditions.

Effects to Soils This section evaluates the current soil conditions and discloses the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the alternatives for the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project. The full report with references is contained in the project file. Findings are summarized here.

This project is designed to comply with the goals and standards of the Forest Service’s Northern Region soil quality standards, the Lewis and Clark Forest Plan, and the National Forest Management Act for restoring and maintaining long-term soil and land productivity. The management treatments proposed in each alternative would not adversely affect soil resources because site-specific design criteria would be implemented as part of each management alternative. These design criteria would help to ensure that resource safeguards would be in place to prevent further adverse effects on soils.

Methodology for Analysis For soils, the treatment unit (boundary of harvest or burn unit) serves as the “analysis area.” Harvest or fuel treatment units or groups of units are considered the activity area for which direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on soil productivity should be analyzed (R1 Supplement to FSH 2500-99-1:definitions). Temporary roads, skid roads, and landings within unit boundaries are included in the disturbance analysis. System roads and long-term specified roads are considered part of the Forest Transportation System and are not considered for detrimental soil disturbance.

Soil productivity is a site-specific characteristic. Loss of soil productivity in a treatment unit alone would not lead to a loss in soil productivity in an adjacent stand or other areas across a watershed.

The analysis areas for consideration of cumulative effects are the same that are used for the existing and direct and indirect effects analysis. Assessment of cumulative effects on soil productivity at scales larger than the specific treatment unit boundary (such as the watershed scale) misrepresents the effects of management activities by diluting the site-specific effects across a larger area. In contrast to soil productivity, processes such as erosion regimes and hydrologic functions occur at a watershed scale and have been analyzed as such in the hydrology analysis.

In September and October of 2010, all units proposed for ground-based harvest were surveyed. Field soil quality assessments were performed by a professional journey-level soil scientist and trained soils crews. The National Soil Condition Assessment protocols were used (Page- Dumroese et al. 2009). Field surveys consisted of random transects with confidence intervals at or above 80 percent (+/- 5 percent) and included examination of the indicators listed below. During October of 2010, all areas proposed for ground-based activities and several areas proposed for mastication or prescribed fire were surveyed.

30 Environmental Assessment

Vegetation management has had a relatively long history within the project area. Although the intensity of current management differs from that which has historically occurred, and modern practices have allowed managers to reduce the impacts of certain activities, it is essential to examine existing soil quality and to ensure that soil productivity is maintained within desired and ecologically sustainable levels. In order to evaluate soil quality, a site-specific assessment of soil quality indicators has been conducted within the analysis area. In each area, the following indicators were examined:

• percent detrimental soil disturbance: defined as a decrease in soil porosity, or increase in soil bulk density, that impairs site productivity; • percent cover by category: rock, wood, vegetation, and litter; • down woody debris (tons per acre); • litter and duff depths; • percent of rock in the uppermost soil horizon; and • noted slope instability, erosion concerns, and other soil concerns. The sampling protocol used was the Soil Disturbance Field Guide (Page-Dumroese et al 2009). This soil effects protocol is designed to conform to Northern Region soil quality standards, which are designed to comply with the National Forest Management Act, and conform to Lewis and Clark Forest Plan.

The natural soil biophysical resiliency of each unit was assessed to gain insight that would tie current conditions to proposed treatments and cumulative effects. Understanding the complex web of processes and elements that maintain how and why the soil is resilient to disturbance is key to sustained soil productivity. In addition to soil disturbance data collection, 40 shallow soil pits were dug in order to verify soil mapping units found by Holdorf (1981) and collect information on additional soils found within the project area.

Desired Conditions Direction for management of soils is provided by the following documents:

National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604): “timber harvested from National Forest System lands...only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” Forest plans will “insure…evaluation of the effects of each management system to the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land.”

Forest Service Manual (FSM 2550): The Northern Region has one FSM supplement related to soil management applicable to this project (Supplement 2500-99-1, effective 11/12/99). Except for this regional supplement, national Forest Service Manual direction applies. Supplement 2500- 99-1 updates and clarifies the previous soil quality supplement (FSH 2509.18-94-1, chapter 2) based on recent research and collective experience. The analysis standards address basic elements for the soils resource: (1) soil productivity (including soil loss, porosity, and organic matter), and (2) soil hydrologic function. The soil productivity direction identifies a value of 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance as a guideline for maintaining loss of soil productivity. To meet Northern Region soil quality standards a unit must have less than 15 percent of its area in detrimental soil conditions or the cumulative effects from project implementation and rehabilitation should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality (R1 Supplement FSM 2500-99-1 – 2554.03 USDA

31 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

1999). If this threshold for change is reached, corrective actions are taken to restore or stabilize the impacted sites and move the unit towards a net improvement in soil quality.

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSM 2509.22, R-1/R-4 Amendment No. 1, effective 05/88): This provides direction for implementation of watershed conservation practices or best management practices. Implementing best management practices would minimize effects of management activities on soil and water and protect water-related beneficial uses. Best management practices are designed to assure compliance with the Clean Water Act (Section 208 and 319 Non-Point Source Pollution) and State of Montana water quality standards (MOU National Forest and State of Montana, January 30, 1987).

The Lewis and Clark Forest Plan (1986) has Forestwide standards that stipulate “all management practices will be designed or modified as necessary to maintain land productivity.”

Existing Conditions The geology in the project area is dominated by limestone. The Little Snowy Mountains is a plateau formed by an erosional remnant of limestone beds, which formerly capped underlying shales (Holdorff 1981). The landforms consist of broad, undissected flat ridge tops, steep canyons and escarpments along drainages, and bedrock slump landforms at the limestone-shale contact. Eight landtypes exist within the project area.

Soil disturbance affects the soil functions of stability (both from an erosional standpoint as well as a medium for plant growth); hydrology (the ability of water to infiltrate, percolate, and be released to plants); nutrient and gas exchange and cycling; and biological function. These soil functions work together to create an interrelated and dynamic environment. The evaluation of detrimental soil disturbance looks at pieces of these soil functions as a method to help the soil scientist and decisionmaker assess the existing soil condition and expected project effects. However, a single detrimental soil disturbance number does not tell the whole story; the data needs to be interpreted (Powers et al. 1998). The magnitude, duration, extent, type of disturbance, as well as the site resiliency and recovery potentials, must be taken into account.

Historical harvesting in the Little Snowy Mountains area has generally been intense with clearcutting and shelterwood prescriptions common (see the past harvest activities table in soils project file). Approximately 700 acres of the project area (5 percent) have some type of prior harvesting disturbance. Prescribed fire was also a tool used in many areas of the Little Snowies as well. A network of skid trails and landings already exists on the ground in some areas. Grazing also occurred in most of the project area in the past.

Soil Organic Matter The importance of soil organic matter cannot be overstated (Okinarian 1996; Jurgensen et al. 1997). This organic component contains a large reserve of nutrients and carbon, and it is dynamically alive with microbial activity. The character of forest soil organic matter influences many critical ecosystem processes, such as the formation of soil structure, which in turn influences soil gas exchange, soil water infiltration rates, and soil water-holding capacity. Soil organic matter is also the primary location of nutrient recycling and humus formation, which enhances soil cation exchange capacity and overall fertility.

These processes have direct and tremendous effect on site productivity and sustainability. Organic matter is the one component of the soil resource that, if managed correctly, can actually be improved by human activity. Manipulation of the organic constituents of the soil may be the

32 Environmental Assessment only practical tool available for mitigating effects of harvesting systems that remove standing trees and dead and down trees, or cause extensive soil disturbance. Of the many organic materials incorporated in a forest soil, the woody component is in many ways the most important. To protect the sustainable productivity of the forest soil, a continuous supply of organic materials must be provided, particularly in harsh environments (Harvey et al. 1987).

Soil Wood. Currently, coarse woody debris is relatively sparse throughout the entire project area. The desired amount of coarse woody debris in ponderosa pine forest types is 7 to 15 tons per acre. In the Little Snowy Mountains project area, coarse woody debris averages 3.5 tons per acre ranging from 0 to 17 tons per acre. As a result, coarse woody debris standards outlined in the Forest Plan and by Graham et al. (1994) are not being met in the project area at this time. Large- diameter trees and snags are present in the project area. Some trees would die from prescribed burning prescriptions for woody debris recruitment, but more coarse woody debris needs to be left on site to meet standards.

Large woody material and organic matter are good indicators of site resiliency and overall forest health. Organic matter including the forest floor and large woody material is essential for maintaining ecosystem function by supporting moderate soil temperatures, improved water availability, and bio diversity (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010). Large woody material, both standing (future recruitment) and down, is important to site resiliency and recovery.

Residue left after advanced brown-rot decay is a brown, crumbly mass composed largely of lignin. In healthy forest ecosystems, especially coniferous forests, the upper-most soil horizon contains a significant portion of brown-rotted wood residues. The sponge-like properties of advanced brown-rotted wood act as a moisture and nutrient sink. Because of the high lignin concentrations, and low carbohydrate rates, it persists in the forest for a long time (Blanchette 1995). The soil wood in the project area is generally low due to prior harvesting. Some units where cull logs were left following harvesting, have higher rates of soil wood.

The lignin product of brown rot is tremendously important in the forests of the West. Since brown rot typically affects only heartwood, large trees allowed to die and decompose naturally in the woods serve as an important lignin source. Soil wood and large woody material promote increased soil water infiltration rates, soil water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, nutrient availability, nitrogen fixing activity, and habitat for mycorrhizae associations.

Natural replacement of the woody soil components from a site that has lost such may take from 100 to 300 years (Harvey et al. 1987, Brown and See 1981). Current deficiencies within units are leading to a loss in soil productivity. Leaving appropriate amounts of large woody material in these units would increase soil productivity over time. Mechanisms that can be implemented to increase large woody material include: dropping trees of different size classes following implementation of the project if surveys deem necessary, harvesting over slash mats, and death of trees from prescribed fire.

Ground Cover and Forest Floor. Soil cover from organic matter averaged about 97 percent across all the units surveyed. Sixty percent of this was litter and duff and 30 percent was vegetative cover. The other 3 percent was bare soil. Average observed depth of litter was 2 centimeters and duff was 2.5 centimeters. The litter/duff layer averages 4.5 centimeters. Thin litter and duff layers were found in areas with past management activities. These areas are still recovering from past activities; therefore, litter and duff layers are still developing.

33 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

A root tight layer is intact in most of the project area, but is lacking in areas heavily disturbed in the past. This layer is extremely important in soil resilience because it provides increased water holding capacity and nutrient availability. In addition to cover directly on the soil surface, cover from vegetation can provide litter contributions in the future. Much of the project area has good vegetative cover between 75 and 90 percent. Shade and vegetative cover are important factors in the recovery of these sites. Charcoal was also found in all the units indicating this ecosystem experiences fire and may therefore have shallower litter/duff layers overall. Some of the charcoal is likely from site preparation activities from past management as well.

Soil Porosity Within the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration project area, soil porosity is generally intact; however, it has been greatly reduced on the skid trails and landings. Reduced soil porosity leads to reduced ability of soils to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide, thus affecting the ability of soil organisms to survive. Reduced soil porosity also impedes root growth. Many of the soils in this area are inherently rocky, skeletal, and well drained.

Compaction was found on existing skid trails and landings in many of the proposed treatment units surveyed. Several units have high detrimental soil disturbance due to past harvesting and burning activities (314 acres or 2 percent of the project area). These units include B9 (12 percent), I7 (13 percent), C8 (13 percent), and B8 (20 percent). Disturbance in these units is due to skid trail compaction and soil displacement, landings, and cattle grazing. Other factors leading to detrimental soil disturbance in these units were soil displacement, rutting, and soil erosion caused from steep skid trails and bared soil. There are opportunities to restore soils in these units, and ripping skid trails and landings and placing slash on these sites would increase recovery over time.

Eleven of the proposed treatment units (1,510 acres or 12 percent of the project area) have between 5 and 9 percent detrimental soil disturbance (units Y1, Y2, O4, I1, N9, C1, G1, I9, J8, I2, and J5). This disturbance was also associated with compaction from skid trails, landings and grazing, and soil displacement and loss of soil organic matter. The remaining units had less than 5 percent detrimental soil disturbance with the majority of the acreage having no disturbance (86 percent of the project area).

Soil Water Infiltration Rates. Severely compacted soils do not allow appropriate water infiltration, which can lead to overland flow and associated erosion, sediment delivery, spring flooding, and low summer flows. Main skid trails and landings typically display a greater amount of detrimental disturbance where many machines travel over the same route. Activities on moist soils are especially damaging.

Rock content is an indicator of the susceptibility of compaction on a specific soil type. Rock content over 35 percent greatly reduces the effect of mechanical compaction. Generally, coarse fragments in the project area are greater than 35 percent, but range between 20 and 90 percent. Areas with coarse fragments less than 35 percent with more clay content are more susceptible to compaction. The silt loam textures tend to be more prone to compaction (about 1,328 acres or 9 percent of the soils in the project area in landtypes 59B and 68). These landtypes would be avoided with ground-based equipment. Moisture is also an important factor in determining susceptibility to compaction, especially on finer textured soils. Dry soils are less likely to compact and have lower risk of compaction than moist soils (Welke and Fryles 2005). Even under moist conditions, coarse textured soils can compact.

34 Environmental Assessment

Effects of the Alternatives to Soils Mitigations and best management practices have been found to be effective at minimizing soil disturbance. For example, units are proposed for summer harvest during dry soil conditions because Han-Sup et al. (2005) found logging during dry months can reduce compaction effects in fine textured soils since soil strength is maximized when soil moisture is lower than 10 to 15 percent (below field capacity). Harvesting when soils are dry also appears to limit the machinery impact to the wheel track. Above this moisture content, soils are more prone to compaction and the extent of compaction is greater in width and depth. Units within the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration project area may also be logged during winter conditions to protect the soil resource. Logging on snow and frozen soil is a highly effective method for reducing compaction, rutting, soil displacement, and associated issues (Flatten 2003; Reeves et al. 2011).

Effectiveness of best management practices and mitigation measures have been investigated in research studies and monitored by the Lewis and Clark National Forest as well as by the State of Montana. These studies and evaluations demonstrate that these measures can be effective at preventing erosion and sedimentation.

Monitoring on the Lewis and Clark National Forest found that units harvested under winter conditions were right in line with predicted disturbance percentages of 4 percent (Reeves et al. 2011). However, disturbance caused from summer/fall ground-based harvesting activities were high at 30 percent detrimental soil disturbance following implementation. Skidding was found to create the highest disturbance. This monitoring was done on only two harvest units within the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Sale administration issues on these two units containing high soil clay content contributed to the reason why soil disturbance levels following implementation were high. However, across the entire Northern Region, the average aerial extent of detrimental soil disturbance on ground-based harvest units during the summer/fall was 9 percent (Reeves et al. 2011). Strict sale administration would be extremely important on the Little Snowy project to ensure that units do not exceed standards and are within detrimental soil disturbance levels found across the Northern Region. Pre-contract reviews are conducted to ensure design features and mitigation is carried forward to contracts. Monitoring on similar forest types and soils on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Helena national forests found that units harvested with ground-based methods did not exceed Northern Region soil quality standards following implementation (USDA Forest Service 2008; Fletcher and Ruppert 2011).

The State of Montana and other land managers monitor the implementation and effectiveness of Montana Forestry best management practices within recent forest management activities. This effort adopted in 1989 and is known as “BMP Auditing.” Results are provided in a bi-annual report. The Montana State audit found that across all ownerships, best management practices were properly applied 93 percent of the time and overall effectiveness of the implementation was 98 percent (MT-DNRC 2010).

It is acknowledged that the effectiveness of soil rehabilitation treatments may be low, often improving soil conditions by 30 to 50 percent (Luce 1997; Rone, R1 Soil Scientist, personal conversation 2011). Where standard timber sale contract or stewardship contract provisions for erosion control are proposed, 33 percent effectiveness has been used. This implies that erosion control work is completed and effective, but that biological and other physical soil processes have not been “jumpstarted”. For temporary road rehabilitation, road decommissioning, or where slash is left on the skid trail, 50 percent effectiveness has been used implying that biological and physical soil processes have been improved.

35 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Work in Canada has shown that soil restoration techniques, when prescribed on a site-specific basis, are generally effective (no percentage given for rehabilitation effectiveness) in reducing the effects of equipment use on the soil resource (BC Ministry of Forestry 2000, 2002). For techniques to be effective, soil texture, soil moisture, organic matter content, and erosion potentials must be considered.

When determining a significant change in productivity, a 15 percent reduction in inherent soil productivity potential was used as a basis for setting threshold values. This 15 percent reduction is generally considered a reduction of productivity over 15 percent of an area. Threshold values would apply to measurable or observable soil properties or conditions that are sensitive to significant change. The threshold values, along with aerial extent limits, serve as an early warning sign of reduced soil productive capacity, where changes to management practices or rehabilitation measures may be warranted. This is the rationale behind the Northern Region soil quality standards.

The existing and estimated values for detrimental soil disturbance are not absolute and best used to compare differences between alternatives. The calculation of the percent of additional detrimental disturbance from a given activity is an estimate since detrimental disturbance is a combination of such factors as existing groundcover, soil texture, timing of operations, equipment used, skill of the equipment operator, the amount of wood to be removed, and sale administration. The detrimental soil disturbance estimates assume that best management practices would be implemented and that soil recovery occurs over time.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects. Coarse woody debris recruitment would lag and lower amounts of soil wood would be present until disturbance occurs. Recovery of existing impacted soils would continue through natural means (e.g., freeze/thaw cycles, root penetration into compacted soils). Litter and duff accumulations would continue to increase, unless removed by wildfire. Overall, trends towards increased soil productivity on those units with existing levels of detrimental soil disturbance would occur, but gradually. Under this alternative, road decommissioning and landing rehabilitation opportunities would be lost.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects. Proposed activities would have long- and short-term direct effects on forest soil productivity. However, by implementing the mitigations prescribed, the project would meet the Northern Region soil quality standards as shown below, and would therefore not have a significant impact to soils. Table 7 displays potential percent of detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) caused by proposed treatments. These percentages are based on no existing disturbance within a treatment unit. The assumptions are:

• existing skid trails would be reused where appropriate; • units with higher disturbance and a network of skid trails already on the ground would have a 50 percent overlap in disturbance; • restoration activities performed would have a 33 percent effectiveness at reducing detrimental soil disturbance; and • mastication disturbance is assumed to be similar to that of mechanical removal because a similar piece of equipment is used.

36 Environmental Assessment

Table 7. Potential disturbance from proposed treatments % Detrimental Soil Treatment Disturbance Reference Underburn only 1 Niehoff 2002 Hand treat/pile burn and/or underburn 1 Niehoff 2002 Mechanical removal/Underburn (winter) 4 Niehoff 2002; Lolo NF monitoring (Vander Meer and Archer 2007); Flathead NF monitoring (Basko 2002); Northern Region monitoring (Reeves et al. 2011) Mechanical removal/underburn (dry soil) 11 Froelick 1985; Niehoff 2002 Mastication/underburn (dry soil) 11 Mastication/underburn (winter) 4

Expected detrimental disturbance to units approaching or above soil quality standards is shown in (Table 8). These estimates are based on culmination of monitoring reports and literature. Detrimental disturbance percent refers to the activity area, in this case unit boundaries. Though much of the soils within the project area have substantial coarse rock to buffer compaction, clayey soils lacking coarse rock are highly susceptible. Recovery depends on the effectiveness of roots to penetrate the soil, restoration of soil chemistry and the return of porosity and drainage. Recovery accelerates once the soil loosens and organics begin to accumulate. Expected detrimental disturbance from proposed activities are not necessarily additive to existing disturbance in all units. Most of the new disturbance proposed would overlap with existing disturbance because there are widespread skid trails in most of the units. Also project design features and restoration activities (landing restoration, road obliteration, and skid trail rehabilitation) would reduce total detrimental soil disturbance within a unit.

Table 8. Proposed units approaching or above 15% detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) for alternative 2 Restoration Total Potential and estimated treatment mitigation DSD after Existing additions Estimated reductions to rehab in Unit DSD Proposed to DSD DSD DSD alternative 2 no. Acres (%) treatment (%) (%) (%) (%) I7 42 13 L&S/HC/ 1 14 - 14 HP/PB/UB

C8* 199 13 Masticate 6 19 33 13 B8* 34 20 Masticate 6 26 33 17 (net improvement) B9* 39 12 Mechanical 6 18 33 12 Removal HC = hand cut, HP = hand pile, PB = pile burn, UB = underburn, L&S = lop and scatter. * Assumes 50% overlap of new disturbance on old disturbance. Note: Unit identifiers can be cross-referenced with stand ID list in the project record. Restoration measures are found in the “Mitigation and Design Criteria” section.

37 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Restoration reductions to detrimental soil disturbance include rehabilitation of landings and temporary roads in all units (and skid trails in units that require restoration in order to meet Northern Region soil quality standards); this work is 33 percent effective at soil restoration (Rone 2011). A 33 percent effectiveness means that soils would recover at 33 percent of the disturbance caused by the equipment proposed as well as disturbance caused from past activities. This reduction in disturbance would occur within 3 years of activities, meeting Northern Region standards and NFMA requirements because there would not be impairment in productivity. Unit B8 is currently greater than the 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance standards. Proposed rehabilitation treatments would reduce and trend this unit towards disturbance levels below 15 percent. This unit would not have disturbance greater than current disturbance following treatments, soil productivity would not be impaired, and the unit would trend toward reduced disturbance in the future.

Activity units that have had little prior disturbance would show a greater incremental increase in potential disturbance than those units that already contain a network of existing skid trails. Little to no increase in disturbance is expected there because equipment would reuse existing skid trails, landings, and temporary roads where possible as specified by best management practices. Units in Table 8 that have an asterisk next to them are units that have higher disturbance levels currently; therefore, the overlap with current disturbance is assumed to be 50 percent, so additional disturbance levels would be less than those possible disturbance percentages shown in Table 7.

Mechanical removal (ground-based treatments) effects could include compaction, rutting, displacement, degradation of the litter layer and soil organic matter, and possible weed incursions.

Effects from past logging operations can be detectable up to 80 or more years. Newer logging systems create less soil disturbance and although disturbance is still created, long-term soil productivity is not reduced. Proposed activities use techniques that maintain or promote natural soil biophysical resiliency. The effect of proposed activities should be relatively short compared to techniques used in the past. If all natural elements and processes remain intact, we can expect soil impacts to be nearly undetectable within 20 to 40 years based on professional judgment and experience on these soil types. Freeze-thaw cycles, soil organisms, and root growth would help alleviate compaction and rutting. Soil displacement may last longer, but design features can minimize displacement. Although effects last 20 to 80 years, long-term soil productivity would not be reduced over more than 15 percent of an area.

Harvesting within mechanical removal units is designed to avoid detrimental soil impacts on more than 15 percent of the activity area. Any soil disturbance is not expected to be a substantial or permanent impairment. Aside from unit B8, two other units proposed for ground-based activities have higher detrimental soil disturbance levels: B9 (12 percent) and C8 (13 percent). These units would also receive restoration treatments in order to improve soil conditions and meet Northern Region soil quality standards.

Ground-based tractor harvest units are planned on 5,268 acres across the project area. Soils within the project area generally have greater than 35 percent coarse fragments and are well- drained soils that resist compaction. Slash material left on skid trails and within the harvesting unit would be left on site and would facilitate water-holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, and nutrient cycling, increasing soil productivity and decreasing recovery time following harvesting. Whole-tree harvesting during dry soil conditions with no slash mat generally results in around 10 percent detrimental soil disturbance with recovery periods between 30 and 50 years

38 Environmental Assessment

(Froehlich 1985 [USDA Forest Service Lolo NF Monitoring 2010]; Bisbing et al. 2010; Reeves et al. 2011).

Compaction can indirectly lead to decreased water infiltration rates, leading to increased overland flow and associated erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Increased overland flow also increases intensity of spring flooding, degrading stream morphological integrity and low summer flows. Compaction indirectly leads to decreased gas exchange, which in turn degrades subsurface biological activity and aboveground forest vitality. Most research has found that detrimental soil compaction and displacement is associated with landings, temporary roads, and the main skid trails, especially near the landings. Thinning operations were found to have the smallest amount of physical soil disturbance (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010). Landings would be rehabbed and skid trails would be slashed to reduce erosion potential.

Harvest operations could remove biomass and remove site organic matter in units harvested in the summer with no slash mat (i.e., units 5, 26, and 29), on skid trails, and landings, thus affecting nutrient cycling. Generally, nutrient losses are proportional to the volume of biomass removed from a site. Nutrients are lost during harvesting by removing the stored nutrients in trees. Yarding unmerchantable materials, which extracts larger amounts of biomass, especially nutrient- rich foliage, compared to conventional sawlog, cut-to-length or thinning operations, removes a larger amount of nutrients from the site. The exact amount of nutrients lost from a particular site would vary with forest types and particular site conditions (Grier et al. 1989). The amount of nutrients present in the trees would also vary with stand age and development of the humus layer (Grier et al. 1989). Moreover, the greater the proportion of nutrients stored in trees, the greater the potential for site degradation and declines in productivity after harvesting operations. Masticated units would leave a large amount of litter and woody debris on site, increasing available nutrients in these units. Units that would be whole-tree yarded would have sufficient woody debris and breakage from hauling to maintain nutrient cycling within these units. If units are harvested in the winter, the organic matter on the soil surface would not be disturbed, leaving sufficient material for nutrient cycling. Also recommended amounts of coarse woody debris would be left in each unit.

Harvest operations also have the potential to spread noxious weeds and introduce noxious weeds to areas where they are not currently present. The two most common noxious weeds found are spotted knapweed and cheatgrass (see the Invasive Plants report for a detailed list and range of weeds found in the area). Noxious weeds can have a detrimental effect on soil productivity through competition for resources such as space, light, water, and nutrients, and also through allelopathy. Allelopathy is defined as “chemical interactions among and between plants that do not include positive effects” (Foy and Inderjit 2001). For example, allelopathic weed species exude chemicals that can have a negative effect on native plant species. Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, and leafy spurge are known to be allelopathic (Foy and Inderjit 2001); all of these are found within the project area.

Though the potential exists for impacts to soil productivity as a result of noxious weed infestation, the actual impact to long-term soil productivity is likely minimal. Refer to the mitigation measures and design features on page 9.

Prescribed Burning (Underburning) and Pile Burning. Prescribed burning would occur on 12,343 acres. Pile burning would occur on 966 acres. The impacts of burning depend on levels of fire severity. Slash piles would result in the highest severity from concentrated burning. Litter and duff consumption is likely to occur at high rates in pile burns. Small spread out piles would minimize litter loss. Prescribed underburning typically results in a positive benefit with a mosaic

39 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

pattern of burned and unburned ground and predominately low-severity burn. Effects are significantly reduced when soil moisture levels are below 25 percent (Neihoff 2002). Prescribed fire adds about 1 percent detrimental soil disturbance and recovery is about 10 years (Vander Meer and Archer 2007; Niehoff 2002).

Prescribed fire can increase available nitrogen for 1 to 2 years (Choromanska and DeLuca 2002). Burning slash piles could create extremely high temperatures in concentrated areas and would lead to volatilization of nitrogen, and loss of phosphorus and potassium (DeBano 1981). If litter layers and organic matter are kept intact throughout the rest of the stand, nutrient losses would be minimal and localized from burning slash. Nitrogen-fixing plants can colonize sites following fire and help restore nitrogen in the ecosystem (Newland and DeLuca 2000; Jurgensen et al. 1997). Following fire, soil erosion can increase, which could also reduce the nutrient pool (Megahan 1990). Generally, if plants colonize sites following fire, nutrient levels can reach pre- fire levels quickly (Certini 2005). Charcoal deposited following fire also adds carbon to the soil (DeLuca and Aplet 2007). Prescribed fire also has the potential to spread noxious weeds as discussed above.

Mastication. Masticating is proposed on 2,281 acres. Effects of mastication include fuel rearrangement, increased soil cover, temperature, moisture and microbe activity, possible short- term (less than 5 years) carbon/nitrogen imbalance if too much material is incorporated into the soil. The mulched material created by the masticator reduces the risk of soil compaction. Disturbance from mastication would include compaction (but would be minimal because mastication would occur during the winter or equipment would work over masticated materials during the summer) and minor soil displacement. This treatment would add approximately 10 percent detrimental soil disturbance and recovery times would be between 10 and 40 years (Vander Meer and Archer 2007; Basko 2002).

Lop and Scatter. Lop and scatter treatments are proposed on 430 acres. Effects of lop scatter include fuel rearrangement, increased soil cover, temperature, moisture and moisture and microbe activity. Lop and scatter alone does not add any detrimental soil disturbance to a unit.

Road Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance. All temporary roads proposed for use during treatment would be located on existing roads and therefore would not add any detrimental soil disturbance. Following activities, all temporary roads would be removed/obliterated (out- sloped or full recontour with slash and duff placed on the surface or seeding) for hydrologic stability. Hydrological recovery is expected within the first 10 years with soil infiltration rates lower than natural forest rates (Luce 1997; Foltz and Maillard 2003). For the long term, infiltration rates improve over time as freeze/thaw and plant roots improve soil porosity, though rates would remain lower than adjacent natural forest soil (Switalski et al. 2004). Soil biological function restores as forest floor and native plant communities returns.

Approximately 18.9 miles of road would be partially or fully obliterated. The goal of road decompaction and recontouring is restoration of site productivity and hydrologic function. Assuming a 35-foot road width, about 38 acres of National Forest System land would be returned to the productive land base.

Road maintenance activities such (blading, drainage improvements, and surfacing) on existing system roads is included in this proposed action. These activities may increase short-term sediment movement from road surface runoff initially but should be minimal, especially at road locations higher on the slope that are at a relatively low gradient and provide for sufficient buffer zones.

40 Environmental Assessment

Landings. Log landings are mainly 0.25 to 0.5 acre in size and no new landings would be constructed during this project. Approximately 250 landings would be needed to implement the proposed action for a total of 125 acres. Existing landings would be used where feasible. All landings used would be decompacted along with duff and woody debris being placed on the landing sites.

Decompaction, ripping or subsoiling have been shown to be effective for treating compacted soils in soil textures found in the project area that are susceptible to compaction, including gravelly silt loams (Kolka and Smidt 2004). Landing subsoiling has been shown to be effective at reducing soil bulk density as long as soil moisture levels are not high (Carr 1989).

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects. Direct and indirect effects from implementing alternative 3 would be similar to those under alternative 2 for pile burning, lop and scatter and underburning treatments. No ground-based activities would occur; therefore, no compaction, rutting or soil displacement would occur. Potential disturbance from proposed treatment is from Table 7 above. Hand cut, hand pile and pile burn is proposed on 128 acres. Lop and scatter is proposed on 3,877 acres. Underburning is proposed on 8,367 acres. All treatments proposed would take place on fewer acres than under alternative 2, so effects to soils would be less widespread.

Cumulative Effects. For the soil resource, the cumulative effects analysis area is the unit because effects on soils are site specific and they do not extend beyond the area being impacted.

The effects of project implementation are discussed above under direct and indirect effects. Alternative 1 would not add cumulative soil effects unless stand-replacing fires occur. Cumulative effects would occur where fire overlaps in existing harvest units with prior machine operation-related detrimental soil disturbance. No additional soil disturbance would occur since ground-based thinning, fuel treatments, or road construction would not occur.

Harvesting activities including product removal, excavator piling, and mastication would not overlap in time and space with ongoing or foreseeable projects. Some overlap would occur with areas of past disturbance (existing soil conditions are discussed above). Cumulative effects of project implementation would occur where equipment operates outside of existing skid trails causing new detrimental disturbance within a harvest unit. Fuel treatments, mechanical piling, or the burning of slash piles that occur following harvest would also add to unit soil disturbance and cumulative effects where it overlaps with prior disturbance. This is expected in units with small amounts of current detrimental disturbance. None of these units is expected to exceed 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance.

Cumulative Effects of Recreation. Disturbance from general motorized use and recreational access has been occurring and would continue throughout the project area indefinitely. No changes in the existing recreation profile are anticipated. Other recreational activities that occur off the developed roads, such as the gathering of miscellaneous forest products and hunting, are generally carried out on foot and have no additional effects on soils in the activity areas. In addition, any unauthorized off-road, motorized use would be discouraged through implementation of design features listed on page 8.

Cumulative Effects of Noxious Weeds. Areas of disturbed soil provide an optimal location for weed establishment and subsequent invasion (DiTomaso 2000). Weeds establish quickly and can increase erosion, deplete soil moisture, and alter nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). Because the roots of noxious weeds are often deeper than native grasses, they also contribute less organic

41 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

matter near the soil surface (Sperber et al. 2003). Weeds would be sprayed along skid trails and at landings. Refer to the Weeds Report for additional details.

Noxious weed monitoring and treatment would occur as needed and would follow guidelines established in the Lewis and Clark National Forest Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision (1994). Effects to soil resources were analyzed in the document and its adaptive strategy. No additional effects to soils beyond what was analyzed for and disclosed in the weed EIS are expected to occur.

Cumulative Effects of Grazing. The treatment units are subject to cumulative grazing impacts. There are three allotments (Cameron Creek: 45 yearlings used 7/15−10/15; Little Snowies: 285 yearlings used 6/01−9/30; and Morrison: 90 cow/calf pairs used 7/01−9/30) within the project area that overlap in space and time with the proposed treatment units. Impacts of grazing are limited to areas where the animals bed, lounge, trail, or access water. These areas are generally small in aerial extent. Impacts include compaction, removal of groundcover, and displacement. Grazing will continue in the foreseeable future on these allotments. Generally, compaction in this area is limited to the grassland portions of the project area. The harvest units in which ground- based equipment would be used are generally located in forested areas; therefore, grazing cattle generally do not overlap in space with the thinning treatment units. Grazing effects do overlap in space and time with many of the prescribed fire treatments. Assessing units following implementation would be extremely important to determine when soils are resilient enough to handle the return of cattle grazing. This would ensure that effects from prescribed fire would be almost none prior to cattle returning to the units; therefore, cumulative impacts to soils from grazing are not expected.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The planned actions adhere to the Northern Region soil quality standards for maintaining soil productivity as described on page 31. The Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project would not create new detrimental soil conditions in excess of 15 percent in units that are currently below 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance. Units currently above 15 percent would be rehabilitated to achieve net improvement in soil quality. Therefore, the project is consistent with Forestwide standards and regional direction for site productivity.

Effects to Sensitive Plants This section presents the affected environment and the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives in the Little Snowy Mountains project area on botanical resources. There are no federally-listed threatened, endangered or proposed plant species known to occur on the Lewis and Clark National Forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011); therefore, this report will be limited to Northern Region sensitive species and their habitats. The full report with references is contained in the project file. Findings are summarized as follows.

Methodology for Analysis This effects analysis is based on known sensitive plant occurrences, as provided by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 2005; MNHP 2006; MNHP 2010) and the Lewis and Clark National Forest plant atlas (USDA Forest Service 2006); and on potential habitat, as displayed in the Forest’s GIS sensitive plant model and from current site conditions. A preliminary analysis of the project area to determine potential habitat was conducted using information available from color aerial and National Agriculture Imagery Program photography, topographic and landtype

42 Environmental Assessment maps, the timber stand management record system database, and the inventory of known sensitive plant populations. Habitat requirements for each of the sensitive plant species were compared with habitat occurring in the project area.

The following analysis indicator was used to measure the differences between alternatives:

• Impacts to sensitive species and sensitive species habitat: Impacts to the sensitive plant species may be direct impacts, such as trampling, defoliation, and mechanical damage; or the impacts may be more indirect such as a change in the microclimate or a change in species composition, both of which may result in a loss of habitat. In general, direct impacts are short-term impacts, occurring immediately, while indirect impacts such as changes to the habitat occur over a longer timeframe. • To accomplish this analysis, this report reviews the proposed action and alternatives in sufficient detail to determine the level of effect that would occur to each sensitive species evaluated. One of four possible determinations was chosen based on the best available scientific literature, a thorough analysis of the potential effects of the project, and the professional judgment of the botanist who completed the evaluation. The four possible determinations are as follows: ○ No impact; ○ May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species; ○ Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action will contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species; or ○ Beneficial impact

Existing Condition The sensitive species list for the Northern Region was updated on February 25, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011). The updated list became effective May 27, 2011. On August 26, 2011, the Regional Forester added whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) to the list, stating the sensitive species designation will go into effect 120 days from that date (Weldon 2011). Appendix A of the Botany report addresses whitebark pine and includes all the Northern Region sensitive species that are known or suspected to occur on the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

All Northern Region sensitive plant species potentially occurring on the Lewis and Clark National Forest were considered in this evaluation. There are no known occurrences of sensitive species in the project area. The Lewis and Clark plant atlas (USDA Forest Service 2006) indicates an occurrence of northern rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera repens) in the project area, but it has been determined that the map shows that occurrence as being within the project area because of a mapping error. Occurrences of northern rattlesnake plantain are well documented by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2010). There are known occurrences to the west of the project area (greater than 10 miles away) and potential habitat just north of the Forest boundary. The area indicated in the plant atlas was visited and it was noted that it is too dry to support suitable habitat for northern rattlesnake plantain (Murphy, personal correspondence, 2011).

Based on the pre-field review, and a site review conducted in September 2010, habitat may exist in the Little Snowy Mountains for one Northern Region sensitive species, short-styled columbine

43 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

(Aquilegia brevistyla). All other species will not be discussed further in this document due to the lack of suitable habitat, and therefore, lack of impacts to those species (see appendix A of the Botany report for suitable habitat descriptions for all Northern Region sensitive plant species found or suspected to occur on the Lewis and Clark National Forest).

Species Information

Short-styled Columbine (Aquilegia brevistyla) Biological Requirements. Short-styled columbine typically grows in semi-open, moist drainage bottoms or toe slopes on alluvial or colluvial limestone substrates at mid-elevations (5,000−6,200 feet) in the montane zone (Ladyman 2006; Roe 1992). Populations can also be located along streambanks. Partial overstory shade from conifers is a common component of occupied habitat. More open locations such as meadow edges can support low numbers of columbine if the plants receive shade from the adjacent overstory or topographic features (Ladyman 2006; Roe 1992). It is frequently found on calcarious soils and limestone rock outcrops. Short-styled columbine competes well with high understory canopy cover (Roe 1992).

Trend and Potential Occurrence. Short-styled columbine has a global ranking of G5 (secure), and is ranked as S2 (imperiled) in Montana. It is found from eastern Alaska to Ontario, south to British Columbia and southern Manitoba. Disjunct populations are known form the Little Belt Mountains in Montana and the Black Hills in South Dakota and Wyoming (Montana Field Guide 2010). There are no known occurrences in the project area. The GIS sensitive plant model for the Lewis and Clark National Forest indicates that there are a few scattered locations that have a moderate probability of being suitable habitat present in the project area.

Threats. Across the species’ range, the most immediate threat to short-styled columbine is habitat loss and modification of hydrologic conditions from recreation activities, livestock grazing, extraction of natural resources (minerals, timber), fire, fire suppression activities, and rural development (Ladyman 2006; Roe 1992). Modification of hydrologic conditions that maintain preferred mesic habitat also poses a potential threat to species survival (Ladyman 2006). On the Lewis and Clark, habitat loss and modification of hydrologic conditions would be most notable due to livestock grazing, timber harvest, fire, and fire suppression activities. Invasive weed establishment threatens individual plants and contributes to habitat degradation, especially when occurrences are adjacent to areas of recreation use or management activities. Herbicides used in the treatment of invasive weeds also present a risk to the species, although that risk is most often mitigated with proper training of the personnel applying the herbicide. Based on Ladyman’s (2006) assessment of short-styled columbine in the Rocky Mountain Region, small, disjunct occurrences such as those in Montana are the most vulnerable to loss from threats described above and genetic loss through hybridization.

Desired Condition Forest Plan Direction. Management Standard C-2 (2 & 13) states: “Conduct biological evaluations of each program or activity carried out on occupied sensitive species habitat to determine whether the activity may affect sensitive species. Assessments of suitable habitats for sensitive plants will be conducted before surface disturbing activities are permitted” (USDA Forest Service 1986).

Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.41) states: “Ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species” (USDA Forest Service 2005).

44 Environmental Assessment

Effects of the Alternatives to Sensitive Plants

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects. Based on the information that is available, a determination of “no impact” is made for short-styled columbine relative to implementation of the no-action alternative because there would be no management activities.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects. Based on the information that is available and the analysis in the Botany report, alternatives 2 and 3 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for the following reasons:

• While there are no known occurrences of short-styled columbine, there may be habitat in the project area. When habitat is present in a project area, there is always the possibility that unknown individuals are present which management activities may directly affect. However, for this project the risk is very low. • None of the known occurrences of short-styled columbine known to occur on the Lewis and Clark National Forest are located within this project area and none of those occurrences would be disturbed by activities associated with this project. Therefore, while loss of unknown individuals may occur in this project area, the viable populations at the known occurrences would not be affected. • With ground-disturbing activities, there is a chance of invasive species infestation, which can degrade sensitive species habitat. • Overstory canopy removal in areas of potential habitat may lead to a loss of habitat due to loss of shade, alternation of hydrologic features, and a loss of moist microsite. • Project design features and mitigation measures are in place to help protect potential habitat and individual plants. Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects analysis area will be the areas identified as potential short-styled columbine habitat within the project area. Effects from this project outside of these areas are either minimal or cannot be tracked and defined. This analysis is bounded in time by 10 years into the past and 10 years into the future, which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative changes.

Within this analysis area past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have the potential to impact short-styled columbine include livestock grazing, timber harvest and thinning (fuels reduction), motorized and non-motorized recreational use, road and trail construction and maintenance, fire suppression, prescribed fire, urban development (subdividing and development of private land), climate change, and noxious weed infestation and treatment. A list documenting past and planned future activities for the project area is included in Appendix A. For sensitive species, there are policies in place that reduce or eliminate impacts from all these management activities. Because of these policies, the cumulative effects expected from the alternatives proposed for this project, when combined with the effects from the other management activities, are not expected to contribute to any change in status or viability of short-styled columbine. Nor are the cumulative effects expected to contribute to an increase in any current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or habitat capability that would reduce the existing distribution of short-styled columbine, under any of the alternatives.

45 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Summary of Effects. Based on the lack of occurrences of short-styled columbine and the moderate probability that there is suitable habitat, alternatives 2 and 3 “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.” There would be no impact from alternative 1, no action.

Effects to Watershed Resources Both natural events and human activities can have significant effects upon the soil and water resources within a watershed. The degree of effect depends upon the soil and hydrologic characteristics (erosion and streamflow) of the watershed and how sensitive and resilient they are to disturbance. These characteristics are dictated by the influence of landform, geologic material, and climate. Natural events, such as wildfire and floods, and human activities, such as mining, roads, floodplain development, recreation, timber harvest, and livestock grazing, can alter soil and water quality and ultimately affect beneficial uses. The full Hydrology report with references is contained in the project file. Findings are summarized here.

Methodology for Analysis Issues addressed in this report will be the effects of the alternatives as they would impinge on the natural watershed functions. This would include the effect to the general watershed function, water quality, water quantity, and erosion.

The analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to riparian conditions is defined by 6th-level hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds, which contain areas proposed for vegetation treatment. Beneficial uses defined by Montana Department of Environmental Quality are fully met in all 6th-HUC watersheds in which treatments are proposed.

Existing Conditions The dominant underlying geology within the project area includes limestone and dolomite rock. These rocks have weathered to form steep limestone cliffs and slopes in the lower elevations and rounded, more gently sloped hillsides and ridges in mid to upper elevations. The Little Snowy Mountain watersheds are characterized by dry (ephemeral) draws that flow only during high spring runoff events. Only one perennial stream, Willow Creek, is located in the project area and is located along the north side of the mountain range. Willow Creek flows east, with steep sideslopes.

Elevations within the Little Snowy Mountains range from 4,600 to 6,200 feet. Average annual precipitation associated with these elevations, based on the Rock Clime (USDA 2009), ranges from 14 to 29 inches (prisform v. 2005.06.06) per year. Although the majority of the precipitation falls as snow, a major portion falls as spring rain in May and June. The combination of spring rains on top of melting snowpacks and/or saturated soils causes infrequent, high magnitude flood events.

The average level of precipitation is adequate to maintain stream flows throughout the year along Willow Creek. However, the underlying geology plays a major role in determining whether streamflow is perennial or intermittent. Streamflow losses to the limestone geology in the Little Snowy Mountains appear to be substantial based on the lack of perennial streams. These losses result in low or no flow along most first- and second-order drainage reaches within the project area. Small springs are located throughout the project area and can resulting in short stringers of perennially wet riparian areas.

46 Environmental Assessment

Historically, beaver played a major role in Willow Creek mainstem through the development of extensive dam and pond networks. Current beaver activity is now confined to the lower mainstem.

Erosion and Sediment Erosion is a natural process of geologic decomposition that occurs in all watersheds and the rate at which it occurs is a function of soil and stream characteristics, precipitation and flow regimes, and vegetative cover. There are three basic types of erosion: (1) detachment and routing of individual soil particles from the land surface, (2) mass movement such as landslides and slumps, and (3) detachment and mobilization of stream channel banks or bottom material (i.e., instream erosion). All of these processes produce "sediment" and all stream systems transport sediment. Sediment is a loosely used term that can refer to a wide range of channel substrate particle sizes, (i.e., silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulders). The larger particle sizes are generally produced through instream erosion or mass wasting and are commonly referred to as bedload. The finer particles that are suspended in flowing water can be produced through all of the erosion processes mentioned above.

The geology and landforms within the project area have produced soils that are generally stable and not highly erodible. These soils are generally well vegetated with trees, grasses and forbs. In the absence of wildfire, surface erosion within undisturbed areas of the Snowy Mountains is basically nonexistent and does not contribute measurable (detectable) levels of sediment to stream systems. Therefore, the current and dominant erosion process in the Little Snowy is confined to the small amount of instream erosion. Other erosion processes do occur, including dry creep (gravitational movement of surface soils) and mass wasting, but to a very limited extent.

Human Influences on Natural Processes and Components The major human-induced impacts to stream systems and springs in the project area include roads, recreation, timber harvest, and livestock grazing.

Roads within the project area occur mostly along ridge tops and have only minor influence on drainages and creeks in the Little Snowy Mountains. There only two perennial stream crossings found within the project area, the county road on the lower sections of Little Willow Creek located on private lands and South Fork Flat Willow Creek, also found on private lands. Impacts are occurring where springs intersect level 1 and 2 road surfaces that lack culverts. It is important to note that many of the existing forest system roads within the project area are well drained, and are not contributing to water quality impacts.

Off-road vehicle use and other recreational uses has steadily increased over the last 20 years within the Little Snowy Mountains; however, the impacts to soils and water have been minimal.

Past timber harvest activities have been completed across most of the project area. These past harvest acres have been converted to an equivalent clearcut acre (ECA). ECA calculations reflect different harvest prescriptions that remove different levels of forest canopy. The results standardize these harvest areas to a percentage of a clearcut acre. For example, 10 acres of two- story harvest that removes 60 percent of the canopy is equal to 6 equivalent clearcut acres, and 10 acres of commercial thinning that removes 40 percent of the canopy is equal to 2.5 ECAs. The relationship of percent canopy removal to equivalent clearcut acre is nonlinear as presented in Forest Hydrology Part II (USDA forest Service 1974). ECA calculations are in the Hydrology report. Percentage figures reflect the percentage of the specific drainage that is in an ECA status.

47 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

ECA figures also reflect the hydrologic recovery that has occurred as these stands have regenerated.

Studies have shown historic canopy cover in most areas of the Little Snowy Mountains was likely less than 40 percent with a fire interval of 10 to 15 years before European settlement. In general, past timber harvest and fire suppression have resulted in a canopy cover well above pre-European levels on National Forest System lands. The result of this dense canopy cover has likely resulted in lower stream and spring flows throughout the project area.

The Vegetation report reviewed research that has suggested historic vegetation across the Little Snowy Mountains as very open grown ponderosa pine. The landscape was dominated by open grassland perhaps 60 percent of the landscape. Ponderosa pine/grassland savanna forest was perhaps containing 20 to 50 middle-aged to mature trees per acre or approximately 35 percent of the landscape. The Vegetation Report also found that fire was thought to have occurred relatively frequently throughout the Little Snowy Mountains. Fire scar intervals ranged from 4 to 47 years between fires, with 10 to 15 years the most common interval.

Fire suppression efforts since the early 1900s have reduced the number and size of recent wildfires. This has resulted in a nearly continuous canopy cover for most of this century. These conditions have likely resulted in reduced water yields (McCaughey et al. 1997) as compared to recent historic levels when fire played a role in creating large openings in the forest canopy. It is also likely that erosion processes have changed without the influence of fire and have resulted in reduced sediment yields compared to historic levels. Suppression efforts have resulted in vegetative conditions and fuel accumulations that may be outside the natural range of conditions relative to the last few hundred years, although it is unknown whether or not they are outside the range of conditions for more than the last few hundred years.

Livestock grazing occurs on both National Forest System and private lands throughout the project analysis area. As a result of livestock grazing, trampling of channels has destabilized streambanks along localized portions of the mainstem of Willow Creek; cattle have also impacted small springs and associated wetlands.

Channel Conditions The Little Snowy Mountains are very dry. Because of the underlying geology, limestone and shale, the only perennial water with the forest boundary is located in Willow Creek on the north side of the project area. Many small springs are located on side slopes throughout the project area. Willow Creek alternates between moderately entrenched channels with a narrow floodplain in the headwaters to slightly entrenched channels with a well-defined floodplain lower. Gradients and sinuosity vary accordingly; gradients greater than 2 percent with low sinuosity in the entrenched segments versus gradients less than 2 percent with higher sinuosity in the slightly entrenched segments. Cobble-sized material makes up a majority of the channel substrate, including recent deposition areas. These characteristics equate to B3, C3 and D3 stream types. The B3 stream segment is relatively resistant to increases in streamflow or sediment, while the C3 and D3 segments are more sensitive. The lower reaches of Willow Creek are heavily impacted by beavers. Beaver dams have resulted in widened riparian corridor and large beaver pond habitat.

48 Environmental Assessment

Desired Conditions Desired conditions for watersheds are guided by a variety of laws, Executive orders, state regulations, and Forest Service direction. These include the following (for a complete description, please refer to the Hydrology report in the project file):

• Clean Water Act, section 303(d) • Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management • Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands • Montana State Code and Administrative Rules ○ Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 75-5-303: Non-Degradation Policy ○ MCA 75-5-703: Development and Implementation of TMDLs ○ MCA 77-5-301: Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Act ○ Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.30.6: Surface Water Quality Standards and Procedures ○ ARM 17.30.7: Non-degradation of Water Quality ○ Best management practices • Forest Service Manual sections 2532.02, 2532.03 • Forest plan standards E-4, F-1, F-3, and P-2 • Forest plan Management Area R (riparian area management) The Clean Water Act and Montana State Code require waterbodies identified as “impaired” to have a “total maximum daily load” (TMDL) water quality restoration plan. None of the watersheds in the project area contains TMDL-listed streams.

Effects of the Alternatives to Water Resources

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects. Watersheds, undisturbed by human influences, are not static systems. Deep snowpacks and heavy spring rains can cause major flooding. Wildfire, wind, or insect and disease mortality can drastically alter the vegetative composition of a watershed. Depending on the extent of mortality and rate of stand decomposition, impacts to stream systems can be great (Bethlahmy 1975). Beneficial uses, including fisheries habitat, can be negatively affected by these natural events. However, watersheds left undisturbed after natural events can and do recover rapidly, and ultimately provide conditions that fully support all beneficial uses within a relatively short period of time. These natural disturbances currently occur infrequently, which allows for substantial and generally rapid recovery of hydrologic and erosional processes prior to the next major disturbance event. This results in pulse effects, which are moderate to high in magnitude, but low in frequency. Within the current climatic regime and prior to European influence, aquatic systems have developed under pulse type effects (frequent low intensity fires). Water yield increases are expected as crown cover decreases as a result of tree mortality from mountain pine beetle increases (Potts 1984). Tree mortality would also increase fuel loading and heighten the risk of severe fire.

49 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Natural disturbance events would continue to influence hydrologic and erosional processes within the Little Snowy Mountains. Given the current vegetative conditions and associated fuel accumulations, there is potential for wildfires to occur that may be outside the range of conditions (intensity and duration) that have occurred over the last few hundred years. Depending on the intensity and area burned, accelerated soil erosion would be likely, particularly where hydrophobic soils may be formed. Sizeable channel adjustments could be expected, especially during years of average or higher precipitation/runoff conditions. Stream systems would however, stabilize as vegetative recovery occurs.

Cumulative Effects. The effects of a stand-replacement wildfire within the Little Snowy Mountains would be compounded by existing roads and floodplain development. Roads would increase surface and subsurface drainage efficiency, routing upslope waters to natural channels at higher rates, thereby increasing floodwater levels. Floodplain developments that restrict floodwater access to floodplains would also result in higher flood stage. The combination of these conditions would increase the risk of more flood damage to streams and adjacent human developments following a wildfire. The effects are expected to be highest in those drainages or subdrainages that burn with high intensity over a large area and where road densities are moderate to high.

Summary of Effects. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need to reduce fuel loads and return low intensity fire to the landscape. It would not alter the current condition of a riparian corridors or watersheds. Riparian areas rated as poor within the project area would be addressed through grazing permit administration of the current allotment management plans.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action No new system roads would be built under the proposed action alternative. Only temporary roads would be constructed and removed after the completion of the proposed action. Vegetation management activities that include the construction of new roads and/or timber harvest on a regular schedule result in low to moderate changes to hydrologic and erosional processes over the long term. However, this would result in chronic effects, which are low to moderate in magnitude, but occur with moderate to high frequency. In contrast to pulse effects discussed previously, chronic effects may not allow for recovery of the soil and water resource over time.

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed management activities on water resources are quantified using ECA acres and percent of drainage based on 6th-HUC watershed. No riparian harvest or stream crossings are proposed. The quantification points (drainage areas) include the following watersheds: Upper Cameron, Dry, Headwaters of Willow, Minerva, and South Fork Flat Willow creeks.

Direct and Indirect Effects. Only stream crossings are considered direct effects to the water resource. This is due to the immediate sediment delivery and flow disruption that normally occurs during the construction of stream crossing structures (i.e., bridges, culverts or fords). All other impact variables are considered indirect effects because the effect occurs at a later time and/or distance from the activity. No stream crossings would be constructed under this alternative. Only temporary roads would be used during the vegetation treatments. Therefore, there would be no direct effect to watershed conditions.

The proposed action alternative would maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of streams in the project area, in adherence with 33 U.S.C. §1251 (Clean Water Act). Changes to spring runoff regimes are considered to be the main concern with respect to indirect and

50 Environmental Assessment

cumulative effects on water resources. Specifically, changes that cause spring stream flows to increase in magnitude and approach or equal bankfull stage, or increase the duration of existing bankfull flows are likely to affect stream channels. Since bankfull flows are the flow levels that define channel geometry and provide most of the energy for bank erosion, channel scour and sediment transport, increases in bankfull flows (magnitude or duration) have the potential to accelerate these instream erosion processes.

Vegetation management activities have the potential to alter hydrologic processes (Troendle 1996). Timber harvest and associated activities that remove forest canopy would decrease transpiration rates, which may result in increases to on-site water yield. Removal of forest canopy may also increase snowmelt rates and result in increased bankfull flows (magnitude or duration). Timber harvest involving tractor yarding, especially where mechanical site preparation occurs, may cause varying degrees of soil compaction and increases in surface runoff efficiency, again leading to increases in bankfull flows.

For this analysis, a cumulative ECA of 20 percent or less is considered to be a low risk for causing measurable (detectable) changes in water quantity or channel function. Modeled ECA results for both action alternatives are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Modeled ECA results for both action alternatives Cumulative ECA increase % ECA* % ECA Watershed (channel) name Class Alt 2 (Alt 3) Alt 2 (Alt 3) threashold % Upper Cameron Creek Ephemeral 1 (1) 2 (2) 20 Dry Creek Ephemeral 4 (2) 8 (4) 20 Headwaters of Willow Creek Perennial 10 (5) 14 (9) 20 Minerva Creek Intermittent 2 (1) 3 (2) 20 South Fork Flat Willow Creek Ephemeral 2 (1) 3 (2) 20 * Includes model ECA estimates for both the proposed restoration treatments plus past vegetation treatment activities.

Cumulative Effects. Concerning road density, the Interior Columbia Basin Assessment correlated road density in relation to surface fines and found: "The effect of roads on surface fines is unclear, though the highest mean values were found in the highest road density class" (Quigley 1997). The road density class referred to is 1.7 to 4.7 miles per square mile. Within the Little Snowy Mountains watersheds, all drainages have existing road densities below 1 mile per square mile.

The effects of vegetation management on stream flows diminish as the drainage area increases. In other words, effects that may be measurable (detectable) in small headwater drainages (100 to 1,000 acres), as in the Little Snowy Mountains, would be masked by other natural and human variables and become undetectable as the drainage area increases downstream. For this analysis, a cumulative ECA of 20 percent or less is considered to be a low risk for causing measurable (detectable) changes in water quantity. Troendle (1983) states: "It has been generally noted that 20 to 30 percent of the watershed has to be harvested before a change in flow can be detected.” This statement is based on data displayed in Troendle and Leaf (1980). Data pertaining to Colorado and Arizona was collected in watersheds with mean annual precipitation ranging from 19 to 32 inches. Proposed harvest units in the Little Snowy Mountains lie at elevations with mean annual precipitation between 14 to 29 inches (prisform v. 2005.06.06). Since mean annual

51 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

precipitation is a major factor in water yield modeling, it is appropriate to extrapolate this data and reference it to the project area.

Additionally, vegetation management activities are expected to have little effect on stream flows associated with extreme flood events (50 or 100-year-recurrence interval). Brooks (1997) suggests that "…as the amount and duration of precipitation increases, the influence of the soil- plant system on storm flow diminishes. Therefore, the influence of vegetative cover is minimal for extremely large precipitation events that usually are associated with major floods. Changes in land use, particularly changes in forest cover, would more likely affect smaller floods with return periods of from 5 to 20 years, for example, than major floods with return periods of 50 years or greater." Troendle (1994) suggests that "...generally smaller [streamflow] peaks (precipitation limited) are influenced proportionally more than large peaks with the largest, or extreme [flood] events probably not affected by treatment."

Sedimentation is not a major issue because the majority of drainages are ephemeral and landtypes are composed of relatively stable soil types (i.e., soils that are not highly erodible). Also, best management practices to control erosion and sediment transport would be implemented. The exceptions to this are the treatments proposed on sensitive landtypes and any new temporary road construction activities. The effects of these have been discussed under other headings and below.

Best management practices are intended to control the extent, kind, and distribution of soil disturbance and resulting sedimentation effects to stream systems and beneficial uses. They permit areas to be treated and site-specific objectives to be met, while reducing the impact on soil quality and watershed function. Please refer to the project file where the objective, effectiveness and implementation of each best management practice are identified. Most effectiveness ratings are qualitative, although some ratings are quantitative with references. Most implementation discussions included linkages to contract clauses and specifications. In many cases, best management practices are general contract requirements, although some are more site-specific. For example, under 14.05–Protection of Unstable Areas, and 15.05–Slope Stabilization and Prevention of Mass Failures, proposed units that are located on sensitive landtypes are identified.

According to The Montana 2010 Forestry BMP Field Review Report (MT-DNRC 2010), 98 percent of the best management practices rated on Federal lands were effective in protecting soil and water resources, while 93 percent of the "high risk" practices rated on Federal lands were effective. In comparison to past audit results, there has been a slight decrease in best management practices application and effectiveness has occurred for all practices, including high risk practices across all ownerships. See the project file for a discussion of effective monitoring of best management practices on timbered projects located on the Lewis and Clark.

Few, if any, of the best management practices and mitigation measures are dependent on additional funding sources. Their implementation is required as part of fulfilling the harvest or road construction contract. The exceptions to this would be road closure activities that may include gates and other road reclamation work outside of the timber sale contract. Road reclamation work on the Forest has received adequate funding in recent years.

Indirect and cumulative effects are discussed in terms of risk of causing measurable changes to water quality or quantity. If the risk is identified as low or not measurable (not detectable), it means that the improvements in water quantity or quality due to the proposed activities cannot be distinguished from variations that are occurring naturally, or from variations due to existing or past activities. The proposed action would not cumulatively impact beneficial uses of the North

52 Environmental Assessment

Fork Flat Willow Creek a 1998 303(d) listed waterbody located well downstream from the South Fork Flat Willow and project area.

Alternative 3 The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be similar to that of alternative 2, for pile burning and underburning treatments. No ground-based timber activities would occur under this alternative; therefore, no road building or maintenance would occur outside the normal forest road maintenance program. The activities on water resources are quantified for the following 6th-HUC watersheds: Upper Cameron, Dry, Headwaters of Willow, Minerva, and South Fork Flat Willow creeks.

Direct and Indirect Effects. As stated previously, only stream crossings are considered direct effects to the water resource. No stream crossings would be constructed under this alternative. Only temporary roads would be used during the vegetation treatments. Therefore, there would be no direct effects to watershed conditions.

This alternative would also maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the project area, in adherence with the Clean Water Act.

As with the alternative 2, a cumulative ECA of 20 percent or less is considered to be a low risk for causing measurable (detectable) changes in water quantity. ECA results for both action alternatives are displayed above under alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects. Indirect and cumulative effects are discussed in terms of risk of causing measurable changes to water quality or quantity. If the risk is identified as low or no measurable (not detectable), it means that the improvements in water quantity or quality due to the proposed activities cannot be distinguished from variations that are occurring naturally, or from variations due to existing or past activities. This alternative would not cumulatively impact the beneficial uses of the North Fork Flat Willow Creek a 1998 303(d) listed waterbody located well downstream from the South Fork Flat Willow and outside of the project area.

Summary of Effects. The analysis of alternative 3 found the alternative would have similar watershed affect as alternative 2 and would result in a non-detectable change to water quality. Changes in flow regimes may increase as the canopy cover is reduced. However, the increase in flows would be well within the range of natural variability. Modeled estimates of ECA values of the vegetation treatments indicate alternative 3 would have very little to no detectable increases in the flow of Willow Creek. Riparian areas are not expected to change; because changes in grazing are not proposed in the action alternatives. However, the opening on the canopy would result in an increase in aspen and other moist site species. There is a low to moderate potential to increase flow to local springs from the removal of vegetation; however, any increases in flow would be well within the range of natural variability. Because no haul roads are in the contributing zone of any riparian area and there are no perennial stream crossings.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternatives 2 and 3 comply with Forest Plan direction (see appendix B) and all applicable state and Federal laws and regulations. All mandatory state and Federal permits would be obtained prior to the implementation of the project as required in 40 CFR 1502.25(b).

53 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Effects to Recreation and Scenery (Visuals) This section evaluates the recreation and scenery resources with a full report and references contained in the project file. Evaluations and findings are summarized here.

Methodology for Analysis Recreation. ArcMap and geographic information system (GIS) data layers were used to analyze the proposed activities in regards to recreation use and facilities, dispersed recreation sites, and the ROS (recreational opportunity spectrum) classes assigned to the project area. The potential impacts to recreation resources from this project were determined based on review of photos of the project area, use and interpretation of GIS data, conversations with local district personnel, and review of research and analysis of similar projects. No field visits were made to the project area as part of this analysis. The recreation analysis considered the area within the project area boundary, unless otherwise noted.

Visuals. The entire project area is assigned an ROS class of Roaded Natural. Roaded Natural ROS is defined as an area characterized by predominantly natural appearing environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities (USDA Forest Service 1986b, glossary 8).

In 1986, when the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan was adopted, the visual resource was inventoried and analyzed using the visual management system as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 462 (USDA Forest Service 1974). This system, which was released in 1974, established standards of measurement (i.e., visual quality objectives) for assessing proposed and existing impact to the scenic quality. In 1995, after 20 years of experience with the visual management system and after additional research in the public and private sectors, the Forest Service revised the visual management system and replaced it with the scenery management system. This revised system is described in Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA Forest Service 1995). The scenery management system was used in combination with the visual management system in this analysis because the scenery management system would not fully replace the visual management system on the Lewis and Clark National Forest until the Forest Plan is revised. ArcMap and GIS data layers were used to analyze the proposed activities in regards to recreation use, sensitive travel corridor locations, potential seen areas from sensitive travel corridors, and visual quality objectives assigned to the area.

The effects analysis considered how each alternative meets the modification VQO (visual quality objective). Effects caused by the no action and action alternatives were also considered in relation to the desired landscape character.

Existing Condition The project area attracts mostly local users and provides a range of recreation opportunities for the public. Water within the project area is limited, which in turn limits use as people bring their own water or access known springs. The Little Snowy Mountains are characterized by low and rolling areas of ponderosa pine forest. Important wildlife species include whitetail deer, turkeys, and nongame species with importance also placed on big game such as elk and black bear. The current vegetative condition includes fuel buildups resulting from the control and absence of

54 Environmental Assessment natural fire. This has resulted in multi-level, ladder fuel conditions in many ponderosa pine stands. Ponderosa pine has also encroached on aspen stands and natural grassland and meadow openings. The current vegetative condition is outside of what is desired and outlined as a management area goal in the Forest Plan.

Desired Condition General desired conditions for scenery can be described as the desired landscape character. Desired landscape character is defined as the appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time (USDA Forest Service 1995). The desired landscape character is a predominantly natural appearing forest with scenic quality that is sustainable over the long term. A naturally appearing forest is often achieved by mimicking natural openings in scale, shape, and edge effects to blend with the surrounding characteristic landscape. See the methodology for analysis section for other information regarding desired landscape character.

Desired conditions specifically for the project area are to restore a dry-site, open, ponderosa pine forest and the associated communities including a mosaic of open grassy meadows and aspen stands that are important to whitetail deer, turkeys and non-game species while also recognizing the importance of other big game such as elk and black bear. Management is focused on moving the existing vegetative condition to a more natural ecological state, which in the past was maintained by light ground fires. Evidence of light ground fires, such as burn scars on trees, is a part of this area’s desired landscape character as this evidence would be typical under a more natural ecological state.

Effects of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action Recreation activities and settings characterizing the area in the past would continue. The recreation opportunities and access for all current recreation activities would continue. This alternative would accept changes to scenery initiated by natural processes only. If consumed by a fire, views of the area may be dominated by large amounts of dead trees, which is not part of the desired landscape character. This alternative likely results in conditions and trends that put valued scenery attributes at risk with potential indirect effects that reduce the stability of visual resources.

Opportunities for hunting would be same as what currently exists. Any existing non-system road templates would remain, and there would be no road obliteration of any non-system roads. Alternative 1 would not change the existing vegetation density of the project area as no vegetation treatments would occur. Motorized access would be the same as what currently exists on the motor vehicle use map.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed action alternative would result in little change from the existing condition to recreation, and the ROS classification would remain the same. Motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities would be similar to what currently exists. Some improvements to road systems such as surface and draining structures may be noticed. Improvements to roads would increase opportunities for recreationists who prefer an easily accessed setting and improve access for hunting, viewing scenery, and other non-motorized recreational use of the area. Some short- term and temporary displacement of recreationists, including hunters, during the time management activities take place may occur. Less displacement of big game and hunters would

55 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

occur if harvest activities are restricted during hunting seasons or if harvest activities occur outside of hunting seasons. No negative direct or indirect effects to recreation settings or overall recreation opportunities are expected from the proposed activities in the long term.

Alternative 2 would create short-term effects to scenic resources while project activities are taking place and depending on the treatments proposed in an area, for up to three growing season after all project activities are complete. This alternative would improve the stability of scenic resources treatment vegetative fuels and leads the landscape toward the desired landscape character. In the long term, the project area would be naturally appearing with attributes of visually preferred settings: smooth, herbaceous ground cover, an open midstory canopy with high visual penetration, and large tree promotion.

Modification VQO assigned to the project area would be met at project completion. Although the proposed activities may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape, resource protection measures are recommended so that the vegetation treatments borrow from naturally established form, line, color, and texture so that the project area has visual characteristics of natural occurrences within the surrounding area. With 3 years of completing all project activities, slash and stumps would remain visually subordinate until they are compatible with the natural surroundings.

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments related to scenic resources from this alternative.

Alternative 3 – Non-Removal Some short-term displacement of big game may occur during vegetation treatment activities due to additional noise and presence of humans in the area. However, less displacement is anticipated in alternative 3, since equipment associated with mechanical removal would not be in the area. Big game may not stay on public land when the treatment is being implemented due to the disruption of additional humans and activity in the area. Portions of the project area may be closed to public use for public safety during operations. Some temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists, including hunters, during the time when treatment activities take place is anticipated. Hunting opportunities on public land are likely to be affected in the short- term during implementation of thinning and prescribed burning, but at a lesser degree than alternative 2. About 1,680 acres within the project area is proposed for no treatment providing the same vegetation density in these areas as what currently exists. No change in motorized access is proposed; therefore, access for hunting opportunities would not change in the long term. In the long term, once project activities are complete, it is anticipated that hunting opportunities would be similar to what currently exists. Approximately 19 miles of temporary roads would be used to provide access to vegetation treatment areas and obliterated after use. The effects of obliterating these roads after use would be the same as those described for alternative 2.

The cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be the same as those described for alternative 2, but to a lesser degree since no mechanical removal or mastication would occur. Table 10 summarizes the measurement indicators for this issue.

56 Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Summary of measurement indicators for recreation and scenery Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Approximate acres of no treatment 13,550 650 1,680 Miles of temporary road restoration 0 19 19 Change in motorized access No change No change No change

Summary Effects Common Across all Alternatives The majority of effects to recreation resources are short term in duration. We anticipate some temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists during the time when harvest activities take place. We do not anticipate any long-term displacement in the project area, however. The majority of effects to scenic resources are short term in duration with long-term benefits to scenic quality. Short-term effects of vegetation treatments and fuels reduction are often most noticeable in foreground views until the growth of grasses, shrubs, and remaining trees begin to soften the effects of vegetation treatments.

Long-term changes in economic and recreational value associated with hunting are not expected, beyond potential and uncertain indirect effects related to game and game habitat impacts resulting from inclusion or exclusion of specific treatment units or short-term effects due to limited access during proposed project activities. Consideration of economic and recreational value associated with hunting is implicit in the efforts to design alternatives that comply with existing Forest Plan and management area objectives and requirements and desired conditions.

Snowmobile use is guided by the winter motorized use maps and proposed obliteration of temporary roads with little to no side slope is not likely to affect snowmobile use. However, the obliteration of temporary roads with side slopes would make use by snowmobiles more difficult for up to 5 years. However, snowmobile use (where legal) may occur adjacent to these or in different areas than it has in the past. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose about the same amount of temporary road obliteration.

No key issues were identified for visual resources in the Little Snowy Mountains project. With all the visual resource protection measures implemented, the activities in the action alternatives would meet the modification VQO. It is anticipated that the proposed activities would meet the assigned VQO at project completion. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for visual resources.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consistent with Forest Plan goals, standards, and guidelines for recreation and visual resources. No negative direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to recreation settings, overall recreation opportunities, or visual resources are expected from the action alternatives in the long term. There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments related to recreation or visual resources from this project.

Effects to Silviculture Descriptions of forest silvicultural conditions within the project area were developed using information from the Little Snowy Mountains Ponderosa Pine Restoration Project (Lewis and Clark National Forest 2009), Northern Region Vegetation Mapping Project (VMap) vegetation classification, stand exam, FVS modeling, field reconnaissance, FACTS database, insect and disease detection surveys, various reports and publications, and GIS vegetation layers. A more detailed explanation of the information sources, methodology and how it was used is located in

57 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project the full Silviculture report with references contained in the project file. Findings are summarized here.

Existing Condition The Little Snowies project area is a low lying mountain range with elevations ranging from about 4,600 to 6,200 feet above sea level. The project area is composed primarily of conifer forests interspersed with grassland meadows of varying size. Ponderosa pine is the dominant conifer over most of the project area, with Douglas-fir co-dominant or dominant on the more moist sites located in the western portion of the area. Small aspen clones occur in most drainages or in occasional “upland” sites. The vast majority of the area is either ponderosa pine or Douglas- fir/snowberry habitat types. Although Douglas-fir is the climax species, ponderosa pine dominates due to past fire activity.

Fire was thought to have occurred relatively frequently throughout the Little Snowy Mountains (Romey et al. 1992). Fire scar intervals ranged from 4 to 47 years between fires, with the most common interval being 10 to 15 years. It is not known what effect Native Americans had on fire within this area; however, they did use fire to alter forage and aid in herding. Fire shaped the composition and structure of forests, favoring species such as ponderosa pine and helped produce open, park-like fire resistant stands (Arno et al. 1996).

European settlement occurred in this area about 1870 with forest activities primarily related to livestock grazing and harvest of timber to use for lumber and fuelwood. Settlement resulted in several changes. Removal of Native Americans from the area may have resulted in a reduction in fire starts. Elimination of bison and the introduction of domestic livestock resulted in reduction in fine fuels. Finally, fire suppression practices were implemented. The net effect of these changes was a reduction in the frequency of fire (Romey et al. 1992).

The loss of frequent fire and land use changes resulted in increased conifer tree establishment of primarily ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the forest overstory and increased juniper in the understory. The addition of conifer regeneration over time has resulted in multi-storied canopy layers and increasing canopy cover. As conifer regeneration has expanded, areas dominated by grasslands, meadows, and aspen have been lost.

The existing vegetation is detailed by each ecological land unit (ELU) as follows.

ELU 1: Ponderosa pine composes 80 percent, grass 12 percent, Douglas-fir 12 percent, and aspen well less than 1 percent. Most (86 percent) of the ponderosa pine has canopy cover exceeding 40 percent. Douglas-fir is also dominated (88 percent) by canopy cover exceeding 40 percent. VMAP did not delineate aspen in to canopy cover ranges.

ELU 2: Contains 65 percent as ponderosa pine, 30 percent as Douglas-fir, 3 percent as grasslands, 2 percent as aspen, and less than 1 percent as shrubs. Again, both ponderosa pine (96 percent) and Douglas-fir (91 percent) are dominated in the higher canopy cover ranges. Approximately 44 percent of the conifer exceeds 60 percent cover.

ELU 3: Has 69 percent as ponderosa pine, 16 percent as Douglas-fir, 13 percent as grasslands, less than 1 percent as aspen, and 1 percent in shrubs. Ninety percent of the ponderosa pine and 75 percent of the Douglas-fir are in the upper canopy cover ranges.

58 Environmental Assessment

ELU 4: Is composed of 57 percent as grasslands, 16 percent as ponderosa pine, 21 percent as Douglas-fir, 2 percent in aspen, and 3 percent as shrubs. Sixty percent of the ponderosa pine and 82 percent of the Douglas-fir are in the upper canopy cover ranges.

Grasslands are a dominant feature of the landscape and occur throughout the project area. Distribution is decreasing due to conifer regeneration.

Although only 74 acres were typed as aspen, field reconnaissance detected multiple small aspen clones within the ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, representing potential for future aspen dominance. These aspen clones generally can be described as seral, mature aspen shifting from aspen dominance in the upper canopy to conifer dominance underneath. Bartos (2001) would define these aspen clones as successional to conifers. Lack of disturbance within these clones has allowed for establishment of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir at the expense of aspen. Lacking disturbance, conifer trees have become more dominant in the lower and middle canopy layers. Generally the older aspen trees found in the upper canopy range in age from 80 to 100-years old (FSVEG_LittleSnowy_Treedata.pdf) representing a mature stage of development. Campbell and Barots (2001) consider dominant aspen exceeding 100 years old as a risk factor for aspen. A different condition exists whereby past timber harvests within aspen clones have created some young aspen dominated clones within the sapling stage.

Steed and Kearns( 2010) evaluated aspen in northern Idaho and Montana based on permanent 76 plots, one of which falls within the western portion of the Little Snowies project area. The study concludes that although sudden aspen decline is not prevalent, aspen decline is occurring. This decline is associated with advancing succession from lack of fire leading to conifer encroachment, increased susceptibility to insects and disease, and reduced regeneration from ungulate browsing.

Most the lands classified as shrubs occur on private lands along Willow Creek. Other lands are riparian or upland shrubs found within large meadow areas, composed of willow, chokecherry, serviceberry and other shrub species. Sparsely vegetated lands occur within limestone steep sideslopes or ridge tops.

For evaluation of the tree species’ structural size class, the VMAP classification was used. The tree size classes are based on the dominant diameter class of the live trees, using basal area weighted average diameter. Using the same vegetation groups described in the canopy cover analysis coupled with four diameter classes, a general relationship of stand development can be described for the project area). For the purpose of this analysis, the diameter ranges have been labeled as seedling, sapling, sawtimber, and large sawtimber. Percentages by ELU are as follows:

ELU 1: Ponderosa pine has 6 percent in the seedling class, 57 percent in the sapling class, 35 percent in sawtimber, and 2 percent in large sawtimber. Douglas-fir is composed of less than 1 percent in the seedling class, 36 percent in the sapling class, 57 percent in sawtimber, and 6 percent in large sawtimber.

ELU 2: Contains 1 percent in the seedling class, 57 percent in the sapling class, 29 percent in sawtimber, and 13 percent in large sawtimber, ponderosa pine. Douglas-fir is composed of 3 percent in the seedling class, 38 percent in the sapling class, 43 percent in sawtimber, and 16 percent in large sawtimber.

ELU 3: Ponderosa pine has 1 percent in the seedling class, 47 percent in the sapling class, 49 percent in sawtimber, and 3 percent in large sawtimber. Douglas-fir consists of no areas

59 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

identified in the seedling class, 58 percent in the sapling class, 39 percent in sawtimber, and 3 percent in large sawtimber.

ELU 4: Ponderosa pine has 2 percent in the seedling class, 51 percent in the sapling class, 38 percent in sawtimber, and 9 percent in large sawtimber. Douglas-fir has no areas delineated as in the seedling class, but contains 21 percent in the sapling class, 49 percent in sawtimber, and 30 percent in large sawtimber.

Summarized for the entire project area, ponderosa pine has 2 percent in the seedling class, 51 percent in the sapling class, 38 percent in sawtimber, and 9 percent in large sawtimber. Douglas- fir has 1 percent in the seedling class, 36 percent in the sapling class, 51 percent in sawtimber, and 12 percent in large sawtimber. Most of the seedling class is associated with timber regeneration harvests or regeneration within meadow areas. Although the distribution shows a general lack in the seedling class, field reconnaissance detected considerable regeneration. Much of this regeneration occurs underneath the canopy and would be classified by the larger size class. Field reconnaissance substantiates the preponderance of the middle size classes and the minor presence of large diameter trees.

Insect and Disease Field reconnaissance conducted in the project area observed the presence of mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine and western spruce budworm in Douglas-fir. Although the mortality to ponderosa pine has been limited, there are observations of activity moving beyond the endemic level. Evaluation of stand conditions indicates increasing hazards for beetle activity. Comparison of aerial detection surveys completed from 2007 through 2009 indicate increasing observed mortality associated with mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine. The areas with mortality have changed from 1,492 acres mapped in 2007, decreasing to 558 in 2008, and then increasing to 7,067 in 2009, with mortality rate estimated at one tree per acre. The 2010 survey did not cover the project area so no information is available.

Forest insects require three things to cause significant impact to resource values: (1) susceptible hosts; (2) insect populations; and (3) favorable weather conditions. Hazard rating systems measure the susceptibility of forested areas to a particular insect. High and moderate hazard forested areas are more likely to experience significant mortality if insect populations are present and the weather is favorable.

Bark beetles respond to stressed ponderosa pine. Stands most susceptible to bark beetle attacks have a high composition of susceptible host, or dense stands of large diameter ponderosa pine. Dense stands of ponderosa pine are more susceptible than open grown stands (Parker et al. 2006).

As part of Region 1’s Integrated Restoration Strategy, FHP entomologists devised bark beetle and defoliator hazard ratings (USDA Forest Service 2010) to assist with determining the risk of various agents to inventory data such as from stand exams and Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). These hazard ratings are available to assist land managers: they are keyword files that can be used with the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to determine current hazard and model hazards over time, with or without management or disturbances.

Reconnaissance throughout the ponderosa pine stands noted the dominance of stand conditions leading to a determination as at high risk: stand density levels exceeding 120 square feet per acre of basal area, dominance of ponderosa pine, and most trees exceeding 10 inches d.b.h.

60 Environmental Assessment

Aerial Detection Surveys from 2007 thru 2009 did not detect evidence of Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins). Field reconnaissance in 2009 also did not observe any evidence. Douglas-fir beetles normally kill small groups of trees, but during outbreaks groups of up to 100 trees are not uncommon.

The likelihood of a Douglas-fir beetle infestation developing within a stand is related to the proportion of susceptible Douglas-fir and overall stand density. Generally, in unmanaged stands, Douglas-fir beetle attacks are most successful on Douglas-fir trees that are mature or overmature, large in diameter, and in more densely stocked stands.

Aerial Detection Surveys completed from 2007 thru 2009 observed crown damage from western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) only in 2007. Field reconnaissance in 2009 noted some crown damage in a portion of the project area, within stands containing multi-storied Douglas-fir. Additional field observations in 2011 and 2012 confirm spruce budworm continues to be a common defoliator in the Douglas fir stands with a west to east movement pattern. Observations are consistent with the hazard rating identified above.

No dwarf mistletoe infection in the ponderosa pine (Arceuthobium vaginatum) or Douglas-fir (Arceuthobium douglasii) was observed and no observations or known reports of root disease centers present within the project area.

Climate Change On January 16, 2009, the Washington Office of the USDA Forest Service released guidance to Forest Service units regarding the incorporation of climate change science into project level NEPA documents (USDA Forest Service 2009b). In general, that guidance recognizes that while some actions may warrant qualitative or even quantitative analysis of the effects of an action on climate change, some actions are at such a minor scale that the effects would be meaningless to a reasoned decision. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed with that reasoning, finding that a project of similar scope as that proposed here did not warrant detailed, quantitative analysis of the projects potential impacts on climate change (Hapner v Tidwell, No. 09-35896 (9th Cir. 2010)).

The forests cycle of carbon is in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Over the long term, through one or more cycles of disturbance and regrowth, net carbon storage is often zero because regrowth of trees recovers the carbon lost in the disturbance and decomposition of vegetation killed by the disturbance (Kashian et al. 2006; Ryan et al. 2010).

The majority of the Little Snowy Mountains project area is currently stocked more heavily than desired, thus competition for water and nutrients is high and the trees in the area are more susceptible to drought, insects, disease, and fire (Negron et al. 2008). At this stage of their development, the affected forest stands are estimated to be net carbon sinks. That is, they are likely sequestering carbon faster than they are releasing it to the atmosphere. As they continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase (typically peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually declining, but remaining positive) (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). On the other hand, the strength of that sink can be weakened in some stands due to mortality caused by insect infestations or unwanted wildfire (Kurz et al. 2008a).

61 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Desired Condition Desired conditions for vegetation was developed based on direction provided in the Forest Plan, in agency direction technical guides, and in studies for vegetation types found in the area. Recent regional and national direction includes managing for greater forest resiliency by restoring historic conditions and disturbances. Applicable management area and Forestwide direction provided by the Forest Plan as it relates to the project will be summarized below. Development of a more refined desired future condition was completed in 2009 based largely upon historical conditions by Ecological Land Units (ELU) found within the Little Snowy Mountains (Lewis and Clark National Forest 2009).

The NFMA analysis for Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project (Lewis and Clark National Forest 2009) developed a desired condition based on Forest Plan direction, estimates of historical vegetation and processes within the project area, and public comments. The product is a goal by ELU of forest related structure, functions, and processes. ELUs are mapping units used in large- scale conservation planning projects to map and characterize landscape features. The rationale for using this landscape classification method was based on the fact that ELUs were already mapped with historical forest conditions described for the Little Snowy Mountains and also corresponded well with Forest Plan direction for Management Area “T”.

ELU 1: Vegetation appears as a heterogeneous mosaic of grasslands, aspen stands, ponderosa pine savannah, and denser ponderosa pine forest. Ponderosa pine trees would be present as widely spaced individuals to small, even-aged groups of 20 to 50 trees per acre with less than 30 percent canopy closure. A minimum of 4 trees per acre, greater than 17 inches d.b.h., are expected to persist indefinitely across the ELU. Mature trees dominate the landscape, but a range of age classes are present. Tree density varies at a “group” level with group size ranging up to 2 acres and density varying from scattered individuals to dense groups. Dry meadow and grassland inclusions are restored and mixed within a forested landscape. Forest stand initiation groups and stands comprise 1 to 5 percent of the forest. Old growth forest comprises 10 to 15 percent of the ELU. Deer and elk hiding cover is available in untreated forest inclusions and sapling or pole stands on approximately one-third of the forested landscape. A minimum of 400 to 500 acres of northern goshawk nesting habitat is available and well distributed; post-fledging area habitat occurs on over one-half of the forested landscape. Suitable turkey foraging and nesting habitat is available and well distributed. Patch sizes vary from 400 to 1,000+ acres and characterized as a ponderosa pine/grassland mosaic with 70 to 80 percent ponderosa pine and 20 to 30 percent grassland. Low intensity disturbances, such as commercial or non-commercial thinning, and prescribed fire, occur within any given patch, at 20 to 30 year intervals.

ELU 2: Stands of single and multi-storied ponderosa pine, occasional Douglas-fir trees, with greater than 70 percent canopy closure, comprise 60 to 80 percent of the ELU. A minimum of 4 trees per acre, greater than 17 inches d.b.h., are expected to persist indefinitely across the ELU. Mature trees dominate the landscape, but two or more age classes are present. Tree density would vary at a “group” level with group size ranging up to 2 acres. Grass inclusions, likely appearing as “gaps” and aspen clones, are mixed within forested landscapes. Stand initiation comprises 5 to 10 percent of the ELU; aspen clones occupy 10 to 20 percent of the ELU. Old growth forest comprises 10 to 15 percent of the ELU. Deer and elk hiding cover is available in untreated forest inclusions and sapling or pole stands on approximately one-half of the forested landscape. A minimum of 100 to 200 acres of northern goshawk nesting habitat is available and well distributed; post-fledging area habitat occurs on over one-third of the forested landscape. Patch sizes vary from 40 to 250 acres. Low- and mixed-severity

62 Environmental Assessment

commercial and non-commercial thinning, and/or prescribed fire, occurs within any given patch at 20 to 30 year intervals.

ELU 3: Very open stands of ponderosa pine would be present as widely spaced individuals and small groups at about 20 to 50 trees per acre with less than 30 percent canopy closure. Ponderosa pine trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h. are sparse, irregularly spaced, and persist indefinitely across forested landscapes. Mature trees are few. Younger, smaller trees that survived fire disturbance may be present. Grasslands are mixed within open forest landscapes. Aspen would be at or near its historic extent of less than 3 percent of the ELU. Principal habitat values are deer and elk foraging; northern goshawk foraging habitat; and turkey foraging and nesting. Small clumps (generally less than 20 acres) of deer and elk hiding cover are scattered through the ELU. This deer and elk hiding cover is incidental and available in untreated forest inclusions and sapling or pole stands. Suitable turkey foraging and nesting habitat is available and well distributed. Patch sizes vary from 50 to 200 acres and are characterized as a ponderosa pine/grassland mosaic with 30 to 70 percent ponderosa pine and 70 to 30 percent grasslands. Low-intensity, and low-severity prescribed fire or limited mechanical treatment within any given patch occur at 5 to 10 year intervals.

ELU 4: Greater than 80 percent of grass/meadow habitats are dominated by bunchgrass or meadow cover types. Aspen would be at or near its historic extent of less than 3 percent of the ELU. Conifer encroachment into grass habitats is inhibited by frequent low intensity fires. Large, old trees and deer and elk hiding cover are rare or absent. The principal habitat values are elk spring grazing and calving. Low-intensity, low-severity prescribed fire occurs within any given patch at 5 to 10 year intervals. Patch sizes vary from 50 to 200 acres.

Key vegetation attributes goals by ELU are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. Summary of key vegetation attributes goals by ELU Key vegetation attribute goals Stand initiation ELU Conifer Aspen Grasslands phase 1 70-80% of ELU Present 20-30% of ELU 1-5% of forest

2 60-80% of ELU 10-20% of ELU Present 5-10% of ELU

3 30-70% of ELU 3% of ELU 30-70% of ELU Unspecified

4 Present <3% of ELU 80% of ELU Unspecified

The Lewis and Clark Forest Plan does not describe a desired future condition with regard to climate change. Nor is there a legislative or regulatory requirement to do so. The topic is included in neither the National Forest Management Act (1976) nor its implementing regulations. As for the NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality has issued draft guidance for addressing climate change in NEPA documents: “Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35, page 8046). The Council on Environmental Quality, however, has explicitly excluded Federal land and resource management from the draft guidance.

In general, providing for ecological diversity across landscapes is a way to make them more resilient in the face of changing conditions. There are a number of strategies for this, including

63 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

preventing the spread of invasive species, assisting the regeneration of native species following disturbance, and reducing the potential for future catastrophic disturbances (Bosworth et al. 2008). Caution in describing desired management in the face of potential climate changes is, however, warranted. While there is currently credible scientific work being done in an attempt to predict the future impacts of climate change, these are predictions only and, for the purposes of treating forest conditions on a small project area, are likely to produce only the most general (not to mention conjectural) conclusions. “[I]dentifying specific adaptation strategies at local scales is extremely challenging given the uncertainty surrounding key factors such as the ultimate effectiveness of internationally-driven climate change mitigation efforts, the accuracy of global and regional climate change models, the genetic adaptation and responses of plants to rapid climate change, and forecasting the effects of unforeseen disturbance agents such as fire, pests and the introduction of alien species” (McKenney et al. 2009).

Effects of the Alternatives to Silviculture In the effects discussion, “short-term” effects refers to effects over the 20-year period from the time the activity was accomplished. Beyond 20 years we would be considering effects as “long- term”. Most long-term studies of forest vegetation condition agree that time periods from 15 to 20 years are sufficient for evaluating the long-term effect of silvicultural treatments (Hornbeck et al. 1993; Monleon et al. 1997; Zausen et al. 2005).

Likewise, in the effects discussion below, the potential effects on project area vegetation will not generally be forecast beyond about 20 years. The project is designed to improve forest conditions for residual trees and that these conditions would be improved and sustained over the next 20 years.

The Lewis and Clark National Forest does not consider this proposal to be “connected” to any other action as defined by 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(1). Actions are connected if they “automatically trigger other actions, . . . [c]annot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken, [or] . . . depend on the [other] action for their justification.” The proposed project involves various vegetation treatments within the project boundary. Implementing these treatments does not automatically trigger any other actions, the need for the project does not require that it be the precursor to any other action. The treatments are not dependent on any other action. In short, the proposal is founded on an independent necessity that neither depends upon nor derives its justification from any other action. As a result, it is not a connected action under the regulation.

Appendix A contains past, present and foreseeable activities, in addition to identified as ongoing, and include timber treatments on BLM lands outside of but adjacent to the project area, agricultural activities on private lands located both within and adjacent to the project area, and travel management.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects. Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, the proposed management activities would not be implemented. In general, forest conditions described in the existing condition section would persist. These conditions have led to a shift from historic, including increasing stand density, loss of openings and grasslands, a shift in composition for ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir and aspen to conifer, as well as more of a homogenous landscape. Risk to insects and stand replacement fire has increased. The trend away from desired conditions would continue and the opportunity to move the existing vegetative condition to a more ecologically natural state would be lost.

64 Environmental Assessment

Restoration of the Dry Ponderosa Pine Forest. Without disturbances such as from fire or insects, in the short term forest conditions would remain similar to those described under existing conditions. Continued regeneration of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir would increase stand density and stocking. Stand in-growth would increase inter-tree competition resulting in lower growth rates and vigor, reduction in tree crowns, and increasing tree stress. Such changes in the past have led to a decline in old growth forests due to either intense competition for resources leading to tree stress or increased fuel ladders which have led to increased large tree mortality during wildfires fire (Arno et al. 1996).

Species composition would shift towards the more shade tolerant Douglas-fir where a seed source is present, especially on the more moist microsites. Stands would continue in the short term towards more dense and multi-storied canopies. The landscape would become more homogenous. These changes have been well described as impacting the dry forest type in the western United States and moving away from historic conditions (Keane et al. 2002).

Enhancement of Aspen. In the short term, conditions that favor aspen vigor and suckering would continue to deteriorate as conifer competition increases. These conditions, barring any disturbance which removes conifer, would likely result to a change in dominance to conifer trees (DeByle and Winokur 1985).

Exceptions to this scenario are young aspen clones with little if any conifer regeneration located in past timber regeneration harvest areas. These clones would continue to attain larger tree size and expand around the clonal edge with continued suckering out in to the openings.

Restoration of Meadow/Grasslands. The expansion of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in to the dry meadow and grasslands would continue. Increase in both stocking levels and tree canopy size would increase canopy cover leading to loss in plant vigor of grassland species. Small openings within the interior of conifers stands would also decrease.

Forest Health. Without treatment, conifer stocking densities would continue to increase over time resulting in loss of diameter growth and increased competition between individual trees for moisture and nutrients. As both basal area per acre and associated SDI indices continue to rise above the recommended levels for resistance to insects and disease, mortality would occur at higher rates than in thinned stands. The ability of trees to withstand future drought would decrease. Risk of widespread insect attack, especially from the mountain pine beetle would increase.

Ponderosa Pine and Mountain Pine Beetle. To evaluate management decisions concerning mountain pine beetle, FVS modeling of stands through 2031 using the R1 Forest Insect Hazard Rating System was calculated to show changes to stand hazard ratings. The following table displays hazard rating through year 2031.

65 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Table 12. Mountain pine beetle hazard over time

Hazard Rating Moderate Total Forest Type Year Low (acres) (acres) High (acres) (acres) Douglas-fir 2011 46 254 74 374 2021 0 300 74 2031 0 300 74 Ponderosa 2011 0 732 3,814 4,546 pine 2021 0 458 4,088 2031 0 364 4,182 Aspen 2011 18 39 0 57 2021 18 39 0 2031 0 57 0

Additional modeling of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine stands over time using the R1 Forest Insect Hazard Rating System for Douglas-fir beetle indicate no change to the hazard rating of moderate for Douglas-fir stands and a small shift in acres from low to moderate for ponderosa pine. For western spruce budworm, modeling indicated no change to the hazard rating of high. High-hazard stands are those in which large amounts of Douglas-fir/true fir defoliation would be expected once an outbreak of western spruce budworm/Douglas-fir tussock moth (defoliation) occurs. Radial tree growth is reduced after several years of defoliation. After 3 to 5 years, branch dieback, top kill, and tree mortality occurs (USDA Forest Service 2010b).

Because there would be no direct emission of greenhouse gases from proposed activities, there would be no direct effect on climate change from the no-action alternative. Indirectly, forest stands would likely continue as carbon sinks until an insect epidemic or wildfire causes widespread mortality. When this stand-replacing disturbance event occurs, the affected areas would convert to a carbon source condition (emitting more carbon than is being sequestered). This state would continue for up to a decade or more until the rate of forest regrowth, assuming trees regenerate, meets and exceeds the rate of decomposition of the killed trees. As stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase (typically peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually declining, but remaining positive) (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). Carbon stocks would continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until again impacted by subsequent disturbance. For at least the short term, onsite carbon stocks would remain higher under the no-action alternative than under either action alternative.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects analysis area being considered is composed of 27,660 acres, surrounding the project area (Silviculture Cumulative Effects Analysis Area). This area was selected as containing sufficient surrounding conifer stands for project influence for which VMAP vegetation classification information is available to describe forest conditions.

The no-action alternative would not improve conditions within the cumulative effects area for either the dry ponderosa pine forest, aspen, or meadow/grasslands. The selection of no action would not improve conditions of forest health as related to stand susceptibility to insect infestation. Short term trends as discussed under direct and indirect would continue within the cumulative effects area.

66 Environmental Assessment

Under the no-action alternative, the indirect effects described above would be added to the portions of the cumulative effects area that are currently at risk from major disturbance events (Stephens and others 2009). It is unlikely that the cumulative effects of the no-action alternative would include a discernible impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or global warming, considering the limited changes in both rate and timing of carbon flux predicted within these few affected forest acres and the global scale of the atmospheric greenhouse gas pool and the multitude of natural events and human activities globally contributing to that pool.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects. The design of this alternative is based on restoring dry ponderosa, aspen, and meadow/grasslands using a variety of treatments. In general, forest conditions as described in the existing condition section would be improved towards the desired future condition by the treated acres. The magnitude of the change is dependent on the type of treatment and methods used as detailed following in this section. The proposed action entails a combination of vegetation treatments designed to move conditions towards the desired condition. Vegetation treatments include prescribed burning only on approximately 4,200 acres, mechanical thinning followed by prescribed burning on approximately 5,300 acres, mastication followed by prescribed burning on approximately 2,100 acres, and hand thinning followed by pile or prescribed fire burning on 1,300 acres.

The proposed treatments are consistent with several of the highest priorities identified in the Integrated Restoration and Protection Strategy. These priorities include:

• Restoration of forests, grasslands, and human communities to a more resilient condition. Three specific resource area objectives have been developed within this theme. • Vegetation resilience and current departure from desired conditions in forested areas addressing resiliency and vulnerability. • Ecosystem resilience and vulnerability in non-forested areas. • Restoration and maintenance of wildlife habitats, including restoration of more resilient vegetation conditions, where appropriate to meet ecological and social goals. • Low elevation dry forest communities. • Aspen. • Mixed grass prairie. The proposed treatments are also consistent with the goals and desired future condition for Management Area “T”. The desired future condition include:

• A mosaic of succession stages would provide a diversity of forest habitats. • The area would appear to be a managed forest including new plantations, stands thinned mechanically and by fire, areas of fuels reduction, and a variety of harvest openings. • Steeper southerly aspects would be managed in an open grown ponderosa pine park type of habitat to encourage large yellow bark trees. • Steeper northerly aspects and riparian areas would be managed to provide for a variety of tree species, higher density of crown closure, and more layering of forest canopy. • Gentle and rolling aspects which occupy most of the area would be managed to provide a mosaic of ponderosa pine forest densities, stories, tree spacing, and size classes.

67 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

• Natural openings would be present and maintained. • The potential of an epidemic outbreak of pine beetle would be low. Proposed treatments would result in a reduction in beetle hazard as detailed further in this section. The following table delineates the approximate treatment acres by ELU. Note that minor differences in the subtotals may occur throughout the following tables showing effects by acres because of rounding to whole acres.

Table 13. Summary of treatments by ELU Acres of Proposed Treatment ELU Burn only Hand treat Masticate Mechanical Total 1 2,829 661 1,626 4,622 9,738 2 427 324 298 295 1,344 3 347 96 73 308 824 4 587 237 104 25 953 Total 4,190 1,318 2,101 5,250 12,859

The goals of the mechanical thinning, mastication, and hand thinning treatments are to restore forest conditions towards desired future condition, restore aspen clones, or restore meadow/grasslands. The development of the specific treatments and methods is based from on the ground reconnaissance which identified likely historical conditions. This strategy follows the methods developed by Romey (1992) to develop desired conditions by ELU. The following table lists the overall treatment goals, summarized by stand for each ELU. Note that the combination category represents stands in which more than one treatment goal is proposed. An example is aspen restoration in combination with a pine savannah.

Table 14. ELU treatment goals summarized by stand for each ELU Proposed treatment by desired future condition (measured in approximate acres and percent of ELU) Pine Dense Com- ELU Aspen Meadow savannah Denser pine PP/DF bination Total 1 153 (1%) 386 (4%) 2,803 (27%) 4,405 (42%) 813 (8%) 1,173 (11%) 9,733 (94%) 2 50(3%) 20 (1%) 170 (11%) 0 (0%) 651 (42%) 452 (29%) 1,343 (87%) 3 2(<1%) 78 (8%) 433 (45%) 233 (24%) 34 (4%) 44 (4%) 824 (85%) 4 19(1%) 272 (15%) 327 (17%) 31 (2%) 7 (<1%) 297 (16%) 953 (51%) Total 224 756 3,733 5,005 1,169 1,966 12,853 Source: ELU_Proposed_Action_Treatments.xlsx (project file)

In summary, the proposed treatments are designed to move current conditions towards the ELU desired future condition by:

ELU 1 • increase meadow/grassland • reduce both area occupied by conifer and density levels • increase aspen ELU 2

68 Environmental Assessment

• maintain presence of meadow/grassland • reduce area of conifer forests • Provide for single and multi-storied structure at 70 percent canopy closures • increase aspen ELU 3 • increase meadow/grassland • reduce both area occupied by conifer and density levels • increase aspen ELU 4 • increase meadow/grassland • reduce both area occupied by conifer and density levels • maintain or slightly increase aspen Restoration of the Dry Ponderosa Pine Forest. To aid in assessing how stands would respond to the proposed treatments, available stand data was modeled using FVS by applying the appropriate dominant treatment method for each individual stand. The following table summarizes predicted changes in SDI and basal area by treatment groups as modeled FVS.

Table 15. Summary of effects by treatment group Treatment group Year Burn only Hand treat Mastication Mechanical Example SDI BA SDI BA SDI BA SDI BA 2011 (pre-treat) 392 148 423 168 477 187 466 185 2016 (post treat) 260 117 296 141 216 110 123 60 Percent Change 34% 21% 30% 16% 55% 41% 74% 68% Source: prop_action_run.xls

Stand density levels would be reduced by a range of 21 to 74 percent, depending on treatment group and desired forest condition. The mechanical group, which allows for tree removals up to 17 inches d.b.h. and prescribed fire are the most effective in reducing density. The goal for a savannah forest would produce the highest change from existing, while conversely, high density conifer in ELU 2 the lowest change.

Since much of ELU 2 serves as a source for higher density and canopy closure, stand density levels were maintained at the higher levels (45 percent of maximum SDI), approaching the zone of imminent mortality due to tree competition. FVS modeling in ELU 2 stands shows density reduced by an average of 38 percent for SDI and 22 percent for BA. There would be an immediate loss of canopy cover correlated to the loss of stand density. For example, treated stands within ELU 2 were predicted to reduce canopy cover by 24 percent following treatments. These stands were included in the treatments to reduce stand density levels in the lower canopy and fuel loadings, thereby increasing resilience and growth to larger tree canopies.

Enhancement of Aspen. Proposed aspen restoration treatments are featured in the 224 acres of aspen restoration and a minor portion of the 1,966 acres of combination treatments. These

69 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project treatments would result in substantially reduced presence of conifer trees both within and around aspen clones. Aspen is very shade intolerant and requires full sunlight to persist. The loss of conifer trees within the clones would return or maintain dominance by aspen and enhance conditions for additional aspen regeneration (Jones et al. 2005). Removal of conifer trees around the clones would reduce competing vegetation and enhance aspen growing conditions (Shepperd et al. 2006). Underburning associated with the surrounding conifer areas would likely kill a portion of the standing aspen and near surface roots, thereby stimulating aspen regeneration. Fire can consume competing understory growth and conifer seedlings, allowing greater sunlight to penetrate to the floor (Shepperd 2001). Lopping and scattering of the non-commercial sized tree tops at the appropriate concentrations can provide protection of aspen seedlings from ungulate browsing (Shepperd 2001), which has been observed in the areas. These actions would move aspen clone conditions towards properly functioning condition, characterized by mult-aged aspen stems, adequate regeneration to sustain the clone, most of the stems being less than 100-years old, and good undergrowth (Campbell and Bartos 2001). Removal of surrounding conifers would result in an increase of aspen.

Restoration of Meadow/Grasslands. The proposed action includes 756 acres of meadow restoration as well as a portion within the 1,966 acres of combination treatments. Within the conifer restoration treatments, some minor meadow restoration may occur, creating small openings. Within the meadow restoration, most trees would be eliminated using a combination of tree cutting and prescribed fire. As a result, areas of meadow or grassland would be increased, approaching desired future condition distributions by ELU.

Forest Health. The combination of treatments as proposed would result in greater resiliency and less vulnerability to future disturbances. The increase in aspen and meadow openings would increase landscape diversity and reduce the area prone to conifer insects. Reduction in conifer stand density associated with forest restoration would improve tree vigor and growth while decreasing potential risk from insects. The reduction in stand density levels is contingent upon treatment method and goals.

Ponderosa Pine and Mountain Pine Beetle. Forest restoration treatments are designed towards uneven-aged stands, forming a mosaic of age classes at lower stand density levels than present today. A study evaluating mountain pine beetle in uneven-aged stands of ponderosa pine in the Black Hills (Negron et al. 2007) concluded that the probability of mountain pine beetle attack on a tree was related to both tree size and density. Reducing stand density and managing for a variety of tree sizes reduces the likelihood of attack.

To further evaluate management decisions concerning mountain pine beetle in forested stands, FVS modeling of ponderosa pine stand over time, using the R1 Forest Insect Hazard Rating System, was calculated to show changes in stand hazard ratings. The following table displays hazard rating through 2031. Note that acres with a forest type can change over time as FVS predicts change to another forest type.

70 Environmental Assessment

Table 16. Mountain pine beetle hazard overtime

Hazard rating Moderate Total Forest type Year Low (acres) (acres) High (acres) (acres) Douglas-fir 2011 0 254 74 328 2016 0 165 163 2021 0 165 163 2031 0 188 140 Ponderosa 2011 0 501 3,944 4,546 pine 2016 0 2,696 1,742 2021 0 2,301 1,914 2031 0 2,072 2,133 Aspen 2011 0 39 18 57 2016 0 39 18 2021 18 39 18 2031 0 0 57 Source: prop_action_run.xls(project file)

Douglas-fir Beetle. The likelihood of a Douglas-fir beetle infestation developing within a stand is related to the proportion of susceptible Douglas-fir and overall stand density. Proposed treatments which reduce stand density and or large Douglas-fir would reduce the hazard.

Douglas-fir and Western Spruce Budworm. The forest restoration treatments are designed to promote uneven-aged stands including multi-storied structure which can promote budworm activity. However, reducing density in uneven-aged stands can be effective in preventing or reducing damage from budworm by promoting tree vigor. Budworm is more likely to feed on foliage from stressed trees (USDA Forest Service 2010b).

Climate Change. Under this alternative, proposed treatments would remove and release some carbon currently stored within treatment area biomass through harvest of live and dead trees and other fuel reduction activities, including prescribed burning. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period of time in wood products (Depro et al. 2008; US EPA 2010). In addition, there would be direct greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of machinery, including vehicle emissions from masticating, harvesting, yarding, and hauling (Karjalainen and Asikainen 1996). For fewer than 13,000 acres of treatments, these emissions would be very small. Athanassiadis (2000), for example, estimated that carbon dioxide emissions from forest harvesting operations in Sweden accounted for just 1 percent of the total amount emitted by all sources nationwide. Moreover, the emissions of carbon from forest operations are also tiny (approximately 1.4 percent) relative to the amount of carbon sequestered in the harvested timber (Berg and Karjalainen 2003).

For at least the short term, onsite carbon stocks would likely be lower under the proposed action alternative then under no action. While actions such as those proposed here may, in some cases, increase long-term carbon storage (Finkral and Evans 2008; North et al. 2009; Mitchell et al. 2009), current research in this field shows highly variable and situational results (Mitchell et al. 2009; Reinhardt and Holsinger 2010; Ryan et al. 2010). As a result, the proposed stand vegetation and fuel reduction treatments would reduce existing carbon stocks and temporarily

71 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

reduce net carbon sequestration rates within treated stands, in some areas possibly enough that for the short term the stands would emit more carbon than they are sequestering. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere (or weakened sink) until carbon uptake by new and remaining trees again exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material.

As discussed elsewhere, the risk of some high mortality disturbance events is greater under the no-action alternative. To the extent the proposed actions reduce the risk or delay the event of future stand replacing disturbance events, potential emissions from those events are equally reduced or forestalled.

Sustaining forest productivity and other multiple-use goods and services requires that land managers balance multiple objectives. The long-term ability of forests to sequester carbon depends in part on their resilience to multiple stresses, including increasing probability of drought stress, high severity fires and large scale insect outbreaks associated with projected climate change. Management actions, such as those proposed with this project, that maintain the vigor and long-term productivity of forests and reduce the likelihood of high severity fires and insect outbreaks can maintain the capacity of the forest to sequester carbon in the long term. Thus, even though some management actions may in the near term reduce total carbon stored below current levels, in the long term they maintain the overall capacity of these stands to sequester carbon, while also contributing other multiple-use goods and services (Reinhardt and Holsinger 2010).

Cumulative Effects. The 12,859 acres of proposed treatments represent 47 percent of the cumulative effects area. Combining the Douglas-fir with the ponderosa pine type shows that of the 20,635 acres found within the cumulative effects area, 12,460 acres (60 percent) are within the project area. The proposed forest restoration treatments would reduce some of the conifer for the benefit of increasing meadow/grassland and aspen, but would contribute towards restoration of much of the conifer type.

Approximately 187 acres of aspen occur in the cumulative effects area, of which 40 percent occur within the project area. Aspen restoration treatments represent an important opportunity to provide long-term retention in the cumulative effects area.

Roughly 6,488 acres have been delineated as grasslands. Of that, 2,120 or 33 percent of the cumulative effects area is present in the project area. Restoration treatments favoring grassland would contribute towards increasing its presence across the cumulative effects area.

The proposed treatments in general reduce susceptibility from insects, but can be impacted by adjacent stands. The location of adjacent forest stands outside of the project area, which are at greater risk can influence management success. As noted by the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2010c), thinning in a small stand surrounded by un-thinned infested stands may not be successful in managing mountain pine beetle populations. Aerial detection surveys have mapped adjacent mountain pine beetle populations outside of the project area on private lands. Ongoing timber harvest activities on private land generally result in lower susceptibility by decreasing stand density and host tree size. Remaining untreated stands with mountain pine beetle can serve as a source for infestation to the stands proposed for treatment.

Climate Change. Carbon flux rates have not been calculated for the Little Snowy Mountains Project. Nor have they been calculated for past or planned projects within the cumulative effects area. It is highly unlikely, however, that the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with forest management across the cumulative effects area over the years has resulted in a discernible impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or global warming, considering the limited

72 Environmental Assessment

changes in both rate and timing of carbon flux predicted within these few affected forest acres and the global scale of the atmospheric greenhouse gas pool and the multitude of natural events and human activities globally contributing to that pool.

Most importantly, however, U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit (Houghton 2003; US EPA 2010). For the period 2000 to 2008, the net carbon sequestration of U.S. forests was more than 190 million tons of carbon per year, with harvest wood products sequestering an additional 20 to 30 million tons per year (US EPA 2010). The amount of carbon sequestered in U.S. forests annually offsets roughly 11 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion—the equivalent of eliminating the emissions from about 135 million passenger vehicles. Within the United States, land use conversion from forest to other uses (primarily for development or agriculture) is identified as the primary human activity exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in this country’s forests (Conant et al. 2007; Ryan et al. 2010). In this case, the affected forests would remain forests, and long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained.

In summary from a silvicultural perspective, the proposal would not result in harmful impacts.

• Acres of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir restored: 9,907 and 1,966 acres of combination treatments that lead to improvements involving aspen, grassland meadow, and ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir restoration.

• Acres of aspen restoration treatments: 224

• Acres of meadow restoration: 756

• Acres of risk reduction for mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, and western spruce budworm analysis shows treatments result in moderate change to most of the 12,859 acres.

The project was designed, in part, to improve and maintain forest conditions. Vegetation would be modified to meet the goals of the Forest Plan. In this case, proposed forest vegetation treatments are limited to approximately 12,800 acres or less of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. As a result, this is a site-specific action with localized effects on the forest resources of the area. To put this in perspective, the forest is composed of approximately 1,862,291 acres of public land (USDA Forest Service 2002). In contrast, the proposal includes treatment of a project area that composes less than one percent of the Lewis and Clark’s areal extent. Moreover, as this report notes in numerous locations, the proposals do not result in deforestation or land use changes, which are the primary large-scale impacts to forest vegetation resources of regional or global concern.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects. The design of this alternative is based on restoring dry ponderosa, aspen, and meadow/grasslands utilizing prescribed fire with limited tree cutting. These treatments would improve conditions towards the desired future condition (as detailed in the proposed action), using a more conservative treatment strategy as compared to the proposed action. The magnitude of change is dependent on the treatment and methods as detailed in this section. Overall, the changes are less than those attached to the proposed action.

The proposal entails a combination of vegetation treatments designed to move conditions towards the desired condition. Vegetation treatments include prescribed burning only on approximately

73 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

6,792 acres; hand thinning followed by prescribed fire burning on 4,742 acres; hand thinning and hand pile and burn on 246 acres; and hand thinning, hand pile and then underburn on 47 acres. For a more complete description of the treatment regimes prescribed, see appendix A. The following table delineates the treatment acres by ELU. Note that minor differences in the subtotals may occur throughout the tables showing effects by acres because of rounding to whole acres.

Table 17. Summary of treatments by ELU

Acres of proposed treatment

Hand treat and Hand treat, ELU Burn only burn pile, burn Hand treat, pile Total 1 5,504 3,954 158 32 9,648 2 162 223 40 0 425 3 490 309 21 0 820 4 636 256 27 15 934 Total 6,792 4,742 246 47 11,827 Source: ELU_ALT3_STAND.xlsx (project file)

The goals of the mechanical thinning, mastication, and hand thinning treatments are to restore forest conditions towards desired future condition, restore aspen clones, or restore meadow/grasslands. The following table lists the treatments by goals, summarized for each ELU. Note that the combination category represents stands in which more than one treatment goal is proposed. An example is aspen restoration in combination with a pine savannah.

Table 18. ELU treatment goals Proposed treatment by desired future condition (measured in approximate acres and percent of ELU) Pine Dense Combin- ELU Aspen Meadow savannah Denser pine PP/DF ation Total 1 147 (1%) 337 (3%) 2,730 (26%) 4,495 (43%) 782 (8%) 1,158 (11%) 9,648 (93%) 2 12 (<1%) 8 (<1%) 112 (7%) 66 (4%) 73 (5%) 155 (10%) 425 (27%) 3 2 (<1%) 71 (7%) 428 (44%) 242 (25%) 33 (3%) 44 (5%) 821 (85%) 4 14 (<1%) 544 (29%) 53 (3%) 17 (1%) 7(<1%) 297 (16%) 933 (50%) Total 175 960 3,323 4,820 895 1,654 11,827 Source: ELU_ALT3_STAND.xlsx (project file)

The goals of the various treatments are similar to those described in the proposed action. The difference is in the method of treatments, being limited to cutting of smaller sized trees. Since use of mechanical equipment is restricted in this alternative, skidding of material to landings or mastication of trees would not be included.

Hand treatment would limit cutting to trees generally less than 7 inches d.b.h. following the goal and treatment descriptions in the proposed action for the conifer, aspen, and meadow restoration.

As in the proposed action, a variety of prescribed fire techniques would be used to meet restoration objectives. Underburning would be accomplished by applying low- to moderate- intensity fire using hand, mechanical or aerial firing methods. It would be used to reduce surface and ladder fuels (small trees and shrubs) and so reduce potential wildfire behavior, as well as a

74 Environmental Assessment

tool to restore more historic and “natural” understory vegetation species composition and coverage. Prescribed fire would also be used to restore meadows. Higher intensity burning would be required to meet meadow restoration objectives. Pile and burn would entail piling of downed fuels and then burned. Hand piling was included as a treatment method within younger ponderosa pine plantations or adjacent to private land.

Minor damage to the residual trees would be expected with the felling. All piling and/or low- intensity burning treatments would also reduce understory stocking and reduce inter-tree competition as well as stimulate understory vegetation (shrubs, forbs, grasses). Some mortality associated with burning in the residual stand would be expected, especially in the smaller trees and Douglas-fir.

Restoration of the Dry Ponderosa Pine Forest. The treatment strategy and techniques selected follow those described in the proposed action, removing use of mechanical methods and restricting tree cutting to generally less than 7 inches d.b.h. These restrictions would retain higher stand density levels and different slash conditions prior to prescribed fire treatments.

Stand density levels would be reduced by a range of 17 to 25 percent within either burn only or hand treat and burn treatments. The hand treat, pile and burn actually increases by 2 to 3 percent. The hand treat and pile was not modeled due to lack of stand data. As this treatment would thin seedlings and saplings within plantations, stand density levels would decrease from the tree cutting with some mortality expected following pile burning. The overall impact of the treatment is moving conditions towards historic, but at a more conservative rate and across less acres than the proposed action, leaving higher stand density levels within forest, aspen, and meadows. These limitations to stand condition are discussed by Kaufmann and others (2004), stating, “…prescribed burning by itself rarely can accomplish the changes in forest structure needed to make forests ecologically sustainable.”

Another aspect to this alternative is a reduction in treatments within ELU 2 which serve a higher density conifer. Treatment was reduced to 425 acres, following the strategy described in proposed action.

Enhancement of Aspen. Proposed aspen restoration treatments are featured in the 175 acres of aspen restoration and a minor portion of the 1,654 acres of combination treatments. These treatments follow the strategy described under the proposed action but would not include removal of conifer trees generally greater than 7 inches d.b.h. The result of this change would be the retention of larger conifer trees within the aspen clones.

Restoration of Meadow/Grasslands. The alternative includes 960 acres of meadow restoration as well as a portion within the 1,654 acres of combination treatments. Treatment strategy would follow those described in the proposed action, with tree removal limited to those generally less than 7 inches d.b.h. This would result in retention of larger sized trees within meadow areas.

Forest Health. The combination of treatments as proposed would result in greater resiliency and less vulnerability to future disturbances. The increase in aspen and meadow openings would increase landscape diversity and reduce the area prone to conifer insects. Reduction in conifer stand density associated with forest restoration would improve tree vigor and growth while decreasing potential risk from insects. The reduction in stand density levels is contingent upon treatment method and goals.

75 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Ponderosa Pine and Mountain Pine Beetle. Forest restoration treatments are designed towards uneven-aged stands, forming a mosaic of age classes at lower stand density levels than present today. A study evaluating mountain pine beetle in uneven-aged stands of ponderosa pine in the Black Hills (Negron et al. 2007) concluded that the probability of mountain pine beetle attack on a tree was related to both tree size and density. Reducing stand density and managing for a variety of tree sizes reduces the likelihood of attack. Appendix C provides additional insight in how thinning would be an effective tool for reducing mountain pine beetle.

To further evaluate management decisions concerning mountain pine beetle in forested stands, FVS modeling of ponderosa pine stand over time, using the R1 Forest Insect Hazard Rating System was calculated to show changes in stand hazard ratings. The following table displays hazard rating thru 2031. Note that acres with a forest type can change over time as FVS predicts change to another forest type

Table 19. Mountain pine beetle hazard overtime

Hazard rating Moderate Total Forest type Year Low (acres) (acres) High (acres) (acres) Douglas-fir 2011 0 101 54 155 2016 0 100 0 2021 0 100 0 2031 0 100 0 Ponderosa 2011 0 398 3,739 4,137 pine 2016 0 388 3,796 2021 0 340 3,851 2031 0 242 3,948 Aspen 2011 0 19 0 19 2016 0 0 19 2021 0 19 0 2031 0 19 0 Source: Alt3_run.xls (project file)

Douglas-fir Beetle. The likelihood of a Douglas-fir beetle infestation developing within a stand is related to the proportion of susceptible Douglas-fir and overall stand density. Proposed treatments which reduce stand density and or large Douglas-fir would reduce hazard.

Douglas-fir and Western Spruce Budworm. The forest restoration treatments are designed to promote uneven-aged stands including multi-storied structure which could promote budworm activity. However, reducing density in uneven-aged stands could be effective in preventing or reducing damage from budworm by promoting tree vigor. Budworm is more likely to feed on foliage from stressed trees (USDA Forest Service 2010b).

Cumulative Effects. The 11,827 acres of proposed treatments represent 43 percent of the cumulative effects area. Up to 10,692 acres include forest restoration goals, representing 52 percent of the forested acres. Combining the Douglas-fir with the ponderosa pine type shows that of the 20,635 acres within the cumulative effects area, 12,460 acres (60 percent) are within the project area. The proposed forest restoration treatments would reduce some of the conifer for the

76 Environmental Assessment

benefit of increasing meadow/grassland and aspen, but would contribute towards restoration of much of the conifer type. Forest restoration treatments are less in areal extent and less effective in change than the proposed action.

The proposed treatments in general reduce susceptibility from insects, but could be impacted by adjacent stands. The location of adjacent forest stands outside of the project area, which are at greater risk can influence management success. As noted by the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2010c), thinning in a small stand surrounded by un-thinned infested stands may not be successful in managing mountain pine beetle populations. Aerial detection surveys have mapped adjacent mountain pine beetle populations outside of the project area on private lands. Ongoing timber harvest activities on private land generally result in lower susceptibility by decreasing stand density and host tree size. Remaining untreated stands with mountain pine beetle could serve as a source for infestation to the stands proposed for treatment.

Climate Change. Effects for this alternative are similar to those described in the proposed action.

Summary From a silvicultural perspective, this action alternative would not result in harmful impacts and would restore about 9,038 acres of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, about 1,654 acres of combination treatments that lead to improvements involving aspen, grassland meadow, and ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir restoration, about 175 acres of aspen restoration treatments and approximately 960 acres of meadow restoration. The acres of risk reduction for mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, and western spruce budworm analysis shows treatments result in moderate change to most of the 10,690 acres.

The proposed forest vegetation treatments assessed in the action alternatives would be site- specific actions with localized effects on the forest resources of the area. To put this in perspective, the forest is composed of almost 1.9 million acres of public land (USDA Forest Service 2002). In contrast, the proposal includes treatment of a project area that composes less than one percent of the Lewis and Clark’s areal extent. Moreover, the proposals would not result in deforestation or land use changes, which are the primary large-scale impacts to forest vegetation resources of regional or global concern.

Effects to Heritage This section evaluates the heritage resources with a full report and references contained in the project file. Historic site evaluations and findings are summarized here.

Heritage resources or cultural resources are broad terms referring to properties and traditional lifeway values resulting from human occupation and use. A cultural property may be the physical remains of archaeological, historic or architectural sites and/or a place of traditional cultural use. Because these resources are nonrenewable and easily damaged, laws and regulations exist to help protect them.

The key indicators for cultural resource analysis are generally: (1) the list of sites, by type, that are eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places, or those that have not been evaluated, which overlap with proposed activities; (2) the potential for the occurrence of cultural resources in areas that have not previously been surveyed; and (3) the nature of the proposed treatments. Undertakings involving ground disturbance or those that may adversely affect the character of significant cultural resources are primary considerations of the NEPA effects analysis. Sites that have been evaluated and found ‘not eligible’ (insignificant) according to

77 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

criteria of 36CFR60.4 are reviewed for context, but not otherwise carried forward into the analysis.

Desired Condition Because cultural resources are non-renewable, the concept of ‘integrity’ is more appropriate than the concept of resource ‘health’. Cultural resource integrity is present when sites retain physical characteristics such as undisturbed arrangements of features and materials—intact clues that yield historic information. Heritage resource desired conditions focus on preserving the physical integrity of sites, especially those evaluated as potentially or formally eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Desired future conditions also include evaluating sites for eligibility to the NRHP, nominating the eligible sites, and providing for public enjoyment of appropriate historic resources. These goals are articulated in National Heritage Program Standards and the Forest Plan (page 2-27 and Amendment 10).

Comparison of Alternatives Analysis started by considering all known Little Snowy Mountain sites for an indication of site types, densities, and potential settings applicable to the range of activities proposed in the alternatives.

No traditional cultural properties, which represent customary use or sacred sites, have been documented for the analysis area. A review of the Forest’s Ethnographic Overview (Deaver 1995) identified no sites or resources in the project area that might be sensitive or sacred to tribes. Tribes with ties to the Little Snowy Mountains include the Arapaho, Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Atsina, White Clay People, Metis, Nez Perce, Salish, and Shoshone. Though not included in the Ethnographic review, the Crow have asserted an interest in lands between their Reservation and the Missouri River; the Little Snowies would be included (Crow Summit 2002). Recorded prehistoric sites inside the project area are limited to two material scatters (24FR0151 and 24FR1045), both considered to be potentially eligible to the National Register.

Recorded historic sites in the project area include three historic roads and three components of the dispersed Pine Grove community: school and church foundation remnants and a cemetery. All are in the south part of the project area. Historic maps show a cabin in this area, also. It has not yet been field recorded or evaluated for eligibility to the National Register. Fieldwork to locate the cabin, and a significance evaluation of it and the Pine Grove sites mentioned above, are planned as part of phased pre-implementation work.

The types of actions being considered that could disturb cultural resources include timber harvest and associated temporary road construction, mastication, prescribed burning, and hand treatment involving piling and burning. Lop and scatter hand treatment would not disturb cultural resources. Implementation schedules would allow adequate time for surveys to precede ground disturbance. Proposed actions would have design or location options to allow for site avoidance. The cumulative effects area considered for all alternatives in the analysis is the extent of lands under the Lewis and Clark National Forest administration in the Little Snowy Mountains.

Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects. Under the no-action alternative, effects, all indirect, that impact sites include on-going trends of increasing traffic and recreation activities, grazing pressure, insect infestation, wildfire and associated suppression actions, climate change; and erosion, compaction, and site exposure related to those situations. Of those impacts listed, only insect

78 Environmental Assessment

infestation and wildfire risk are addressed by the proposed project. The no-action alternative would not cause significant impacts to cultural sites.

Cumulative Effects. For the no-action alternative, cumulative effects that impact sites include continued site exposure, modification, and erosion from synergistic effects of the situations mentioned above. Choosing the no-action alternative would not compound those impacts or cause significant effects to sites.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects. This alternative proposes timber harvesting and related temporary road construction, mastication, burning, and hand felling, piling, and burning. Recorded site types in the Little Snowy Mountains include prehistoric material scatters, historic dispersed community features, two track roads without blazes or historic signs, and possibly an isolated cabin. Proposed harvesting and haul road construction, mastication, prescribed burning, and hand treatments outside site boundaries would cause vegetation breaks that would be a temporary visual change from current conditions. The actions are designed to restore historic vegetation patterns to the landscape, however, so they would be only temporary, indirect impacts to the avoided sites. In the event of wildfires, these vegetation breaks might serve as fire breaks.

Specific proposals relative to each cultural resource site are contained in the project file. The historic roads (‘linear’ sites) would not be directly impacted. If other sites (‘point’ sites) are flagged and avoided, they would not be impacted either. With the exception of the Historic Maps Cabin not yet field-verified, all known point sites are on or near unit boundaries. It will be crucial for Forest heritage specialists to work with project planners to modify unit boundaries in project plans and on the ground, to effectively and discreetly avoid sites. At 24FR1045, a proposed timber haul road would have to be moved about 100 yards to avoid the site. The proposed road location is relatively arbitrary and area terrain is fairly level. With good communication between the heritage shop and project planners, this change is not expected to be problematic. The ‘flag and avoid’ technique complies with heritage preservation requirements.

Cumulative Effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions or events that have altered or could alter the project area’s natural and cultural landscapes were identified (refer to appendix A). Cumulative actions initiated by the Forest relevant to cultural resources include timber harvests and tree thinning; prescribed burning and wildfire suppression; weed and grazing allotment management; and minimal recreation developments. Actions and events not initiated by the Forest include climate conditions, insect infestations, wildfires, and aspects of grazing, firewood cutting, post and pole cutting, and recreation. These actions cause increased exposure of sites due to loss of vegetative cover, soil compaction or erosion, looting, and changes to routes and use patterns of historic linear features.

Alternative 3 – Non-Removal Direct and Indirect Effects. This alternative proposes prescribed burning or combinations of hand felling, piling, and prescribed underburning. The historic roads (‘linear’ sites) would not be impacted. If the other sites (‘point’ sites) are flagged and avoided, they would not be impacted either. With the exception of the Historic Maps Cabin not yet field-verified, all the point sites are on or near unit boundaries. It will be crucial for Forest heritage specialists to work with project planners to modify unit boundaries in project plans and on the ground, to effectively and discreetly avoid sites. This flag and avoid technique complies with heritage preservation requirements. Recorded site types in the Little Snowy Mountains include prehistoric material scatters, historic dispersed community features, two track roads without blazes or historic signs,

79 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

and possibly an isolated cabin. Proposed burning, or hand treatment followed by burning, done outside site boundaries would cause vegetation breaks that would be a temporary visual change from current conditions. The actions are designed to restore historic vegetation patterns to the landscape, however, so they would be only temporary, indirect impacts to the avoided sites. In the event of wildfires, these vegetation breaks might serve as fire breaks.

Cumulative Effects. Cumulative effects are the same as in alternative 2 above.

Summary For all proposed alternatives there are no known cultural properties present that cannot be avoided or mitigated under provisions in the programmatic agreement arranged between Region 1 of the Forest Service and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. Some impact areas have already been surveyed for cultural resources. Future surveys are planned prior to ground disturbance in areas where previous survey coverage is inadequate. This phased approach to project proposals is in compliance with NHPA and Section 106 regulations and the Forest Plan. If additional sites are identified in proposed impact areas, consultation with the SHPO would determine whether they are historically significant. The programmatic agreement includes provisions and options to address avoidance or mitigation of impacts to significant historic sites.

Effects to Economics This section evaluates the project effects on economics. The full report for timber, specific county demographics (population, employment and income) economics, and references are contained in the project file. Economic conditions and timber sale feasibility findings are summarized here.

Existing Condition The analysis area for the economic efficiency analysis is the project area. Timber management activities within the project area have the potential to impact the economic conditions of local communities and counties. The economic impact analysis area for this project is Fergus County, Golden Valley County, and Musselshell County.

The combination of small towns and rural settings in these counties, along with recreation visitors from some of Montana’s largest communities (Billings, Bozeman, Helena, and Great Falls), provides a diverse social environment for the central Montana geographic region.

Timber harvest and processing, mining, tourism, and agricultural industries are important to the economy of local areas. Despite the common concern for, and dependence on, natural resources within the local communities, social attitudes vary widely with respect to public land management. Local residents hold a broad spectrum of perspectives and preferences ranging from complete preservation to maximum development and recreational utilization of natural resources.

Socioeconomic measures used to describe the affected environment were obtained from the Headwater Economics’ Economic Profile System–Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT 2011), which compiles and summarizes primary population and economic data from a variety of government sources into a report. Key measures used in this report include land ownership, population, income, and economic diversity

In 2010, the unemployment rate in Fergus, Golden Valley, and Musselshell counties was 6.3 percent, 5.9 percent, and 6.7 percent respectively. The rates were 7.2 percent in Montana and 9.6 percent in the Nation in 2010.

80 Environmental Assessment

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The development of timber sale programs and individual timber sales is guided by Agency direction found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2430. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.18 guides the financial and, if applicable, economic efficiency analysis for timber sales.

Many of the costs and benefits associated with a project are not quantifiable in financial terms. For example, the benefit to wildlife from habitat improvement from a project is not quantifiable in financial terms. These costs and benefits are described qualitatively in the indicated resource sections of this document. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1502.23) indicates: “For the purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are qualitative considerations.”

The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan includes several standards relevant to this project:

• Management standard E-4 (12) in the Forest Plan (Lewis and Clark Forest Plan 1986a) requires a timber harvest economic assessment when sales are planned for an undeveloped area. An economic assessment is also required where previous sales have shown substantial economic problems. A financial efficiency (cash flow) analysis is required on this Forest for sales over 1 million board feet.

• Management standard E-4 (13) suggests deferring infeasible and inefficient sales during periods of poor market conditions.

Income Labor income and total personal income are often used to proxy standard of living. In the three- county-region personal income during the period of 1970−2009 grew at an average of 55.5 percent compared to the national average of 164.4 percent. Earnings per job were highest in Fergus County; however, all three counties lagged behind the national average.

Comparison of Alternatives The estimation of project feasibility for the proposed action was based on the Region 1 sale feasibility model, which is a residual value timber appraisal approach that takes into account logging system, timber species and quality, volume removed per acre, lumber market trends, costs for slash treatment; and the cost of specified roads, temporary roads, and road maintenance. The appraised stumpage rate from the feasibility analysis was compared to base rates (revenues considered essential to cover regeneration plus minimum return to the Federal treasury), which in this case is the same as the minimum rates at $3.00 per CCF (hundred cubic feet). The project feasibility analysis is contained in the project file. The appraised stumpage rate for the commercial timber products is $-105.00/CCF. Since the appraised stumpage rate is less than the minimum rate, the project is infeasible as a standard timber sale. However, this project may not be handled through a standard timber sale contract, but rather through an Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC) and/or Forest Service crew labor (force account). In order to fund the project activities, supplemental funding would be required either through a mix of appropriated funds or outside funding.

A financial efficiency analysis, or present net value analysis, was not conducted since there is little revenue connected to this project and would not likely be conducted through a standard timber sale. Planning costs (NEPA) were not included since they are sunk costs at the point of alternative selection. Many of the values and costs associated with natural resource management

81 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

can be difficult or impossible to quantify. Therefore, they are not described in financial or economic terms for this project, but rather are discussed in the various resource sections of this report. For instance, changes in fire risk are described in terms of changes in fire behavior, while wildlife resource changes are described in terms of changes to habitat conditions.

Timber production from this proposed project would have direct and indirect effects on local jobs and labor income. An input-output model, IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), was used to estimate effects on employment and labor income within the impact area.

For timber harvest, the direct employment and labor income response coefficients (e.g., jobs and labor income per million cubic feet) were derived by the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research. The indirect and induced multiplier effects were estimated using the IMPLAN model for the economic impact area.

For restoration and reforestation activities, the direct, indirect and induced effects were derived using IMPLAN. The resulting direct, indirect, and induced employment and labor income coefficients have been incorporated into a spreadsheet developed by the Regional Economist for the USFS, Northern Region. Refer to “The Proposed Action and Alternatives,” section under “Knutson-Vandenberg Opportunities.”

The analysis calculated the jobs and labor income associated with timber harvest, reforestation, and restoration activities. In order to estimate jobs and labor income associated with timber harvest, the timber harvest levels were proportionally broken out by product type. In order to estimate jobs and labor income associated with reforestation and restoration activities, expenditures for these activities were developed by the resource specialists. The following table displays both direct and total estimates for employment (part and full-time) and labor income that may be attributed to the proposed action. Since the expenditures occur over a 10-year period, the estimated impacts of jobs and labor income would be spread out over the life of the project. These are not new jobs or income, but rather jobs and income that can be attributed to this project. It is important to note that the proportion of the harvest designated as pulp was not included in the impact analysis since that material would most likely be exported out of the impact area.

Table 20. Total employment and income (2010 dollars) over the life of the project No action Analysis item alternative Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Direct employment 0 43 0

Total employment 0 36 0

Direct labor income (thousands of $) 0 $2,698 $0.00

Total labor income (thousands of $) 0 $5,283 $0.00

Definitions: 1. Employment is the total full- and part-time wage, salaried, and self-employed jobs in the region. 2. Labor income includes the wages, salaries and benefits of workers who are paid by employers and income paid to proprietors.

Summary Estimates in the above table indicate that the proposed action would maintain approximately 43 direct jobs spread over the life of the project. It is anticipated that the majority of the activity

82 Environmental Assessment

would be spread out over a 10-year period, equating to an average of four direct jobs per year. These direct jobs would lead to an additional 36 indirect and induced jobs spread over the life of the project, or roughly 4 jobs for each of the 10 years. All together, these jobs would provide roughly $2.6 million of direct labor income and $5.3 million in total labor income over the life of the project. There would be no employment or labor income generated from the no-action alternative or alternative 3.

The analysis assumes that approximately 10 percent of the timber volume processed would occur within the designated impact area. If the remaining timber were processed outside the region, then a portion of the jobs and income would be lost by this regional economy.

Effects to Range This section evaluates the range resource and noxious weed management. The full reports for range, weeds, and allotment information with references are contained in the project file. Site conditions and findings are summarized here.

Existing Condition There are currently three active range allotments, Cameron Creek, Little Snowy, and Morrison allotments. Cameron Creek Cattle Allotment provides forage for 45 yearlings from July 15 to October 15 annually. The Little Snowy Allotment supports 285 yearlings from June 1 through September 30, while the Morrison On/Off Allotment supports a total of 90 cow/calf pairs (45 on and 45 off).The project area is composed primarily of conifer forests interspersed with grassland meadows of varying size. Ponderosa pine is the dominant conifer over most of the project area, with Douglas-fir codominant or dominant on the more moist sites located in the western portion of the area. Small aspen clones occur in most drainages or in occasional “upland” sites. As conifer encroachment has expanded, areas dominated by grasslands, meadows, and aspen have been lost.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to the Action Alternatives In the short term, adjustments to grazing schedules would be required to create conditions favorable to prescribed fire application. Arrangements with permittees may be needed to rest the larger treatment units in the year prior to implementation of jackpot or broadcast burning in order to promote the buildup of fine fuels. Reductions in forage would be experienced immediately after the application of fire to treatment units. Additional adjustments in grazing schedules would be used to minimize the impacts of prescribed fire in the year following treatment. In particular, grazing schedules would be managed to promote the effectiveness of burned area rehabilitation, ensure the propagation and vigor of native vegetation.

In the long term, treatments in the Little Snowy Mountain Project would increase the quantity and quality of forage in area allotments. The proposed treatments would remove conifer species encroaching on natural openings. This action would promote the reclamation of grasses and forbs in these openings. In addition, the introduction of fire to existing openings would enhance the palatability of grasses. Periodic burning would maintain the open ponderosa savannah that historically dominated this landscape resulting in an increase in forage.

Noxious Weeds. Currently there are infestations of noxious weeds located within the treatment areas within the project area with 538.5 acres mapped to date. The predominate weeds in this area are leafy spurge, Canada thistle, houndstongue, and spotted knapweed. Noxious weed

83 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

inventory data was derived from the Forest Service NRIS invasive database. The project area is treated annually per the Lewis and Clark Noxious Weed Control ROD (1994).

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the proposed Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project area. Past prescribed fire has not caused an increase in noxious weeds within the project area and therefore should not cause any cumulative impacts on weed infestations. Weed infestations within the project area seem more linked to human disturbance along the travel corridor of roads and trails.

Cumulative Effects. After reviewing past harvest maps, the mapped infestations within past harvest units appears to be associated with roads, skid trails, and landings It is not clear whether these infestations were the result of the harvest activity or recreational use of these roads and trails following harvest. These infestations have the potential to spread if previously listed mitigation measures are not followed. The actions prescribed for the Little Snowies hand felling and burning should not cause ground disturbance that would create seed beds for noxious weeds. The opening of the canopy and broadcast burning should increase the vigor and density of native vegetation decreasing the susceptibility of the unit to invasion by noxious weeds. Mechanically treated units would need to avoid ground disturbing activities within infested sites to reduce the chance of increasing the density of weeds within the infested area as well as spreading weeds to new areas

Using the Northern Region Risk Assessment Rating Procedure, this proposal would have a moderate likelihood of noxious weeds spreading into the project area because of the high use of the area and infestations currently within the project area. The project would also receive a rating of moderate for the consequences of noxious weed establishment because if the mitigation measures for noxious weeds are followed the risk of new infestation or existing ones expanding are relatively low. These two risk assessment factors combined give the project a overall rating of moderate risk. The risk assessment tool is contained in the project file. Monitoring the area for at least 3 consecutive years along with treatment would provide for locating and control of new infestations.

Livestock, wildlife, recreation use, vegetation treatments, and road construction are all agents in the spread of noxious weeds. Integrated weed management is a systematic approach to noxious weed control and involves various methods such as education, prevention, biological control, cultural methods, herbicides or mechanical methods to contain or control noxious weeds. Noxious weeds would be managed using the most effective combination of treatment methods available. The prescribed noxious weed control, prevention, and monitoring activities would effectively reduce and mitigate any effects. Obliterating existing non-system and new temp roads would help reduce the spread of noxious weeds in those areas. Weed monitoring within the project area presently includes mapping all infestations (including new); daily documentation of all chemical applications; annual reports of mechanical, chemical and biological control used; follow-up inspections of bio-control sites; and effectiveness evaluations of chemical treatments.

Summary The proposed actions would result in potentially moderate impacts to noxious weeds spread in the project area. The treatment proposals including prescribed burning would increase overall forage for both wildlife and livestock while enhancing the palatability of grasses.

84 Environmental Assessment

Effects to Wildlife This section contains the full wildlife resource report, biological evaluation for sensitive species, and biological assessment for threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Specific effects analysis summaries are included for big game, snags, migratory birds, old growth and goshawk. Supporting documentation and references are contained in the project file.

Introduction This report analyzes impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat from Federal activities proposed in the Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. It considers regulatory direction related to the wildlife resource, describes the current wildlife habitat conditions that exist within the project area, and evaluates effects to Regionally Sensitive (Sensitive) and Lewis and Clark National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) (USDA Forest Service 1986). Because wildlife distribution and use is determined by both site-specific and landscape-level conditions, a multi- scale analysis is presented that looks at specific stands proposed for treatment (fine filter analysis), as well as landscape considerations (coarse filter analysis) such as the availability of habitat within and adjacent to the project area.

Regulatory Framework The principle laws and management direction relevant to wildlife for this project include the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (as amended), the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2600), Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Strategy (2005), and the Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1986). The following summarizes each.

National Forest Management Act of 1976. NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native vertebrate wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered species populations (36 CFR219.19).

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). Under provisions of the ESA, Federal agencies are directed to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. Whenever an action may affect a species that is listed (or proposed for listing) or its habitat, Federal agencies must consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the ESA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the killing, capture, “take” or otherwise harming of birds listed as migratory. Migratory species include most types of birds, including waterfowl and most songbirds and hawks. Section 703 of the Act states, “unless and except as permitted by regulations, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, or possess any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird.” The Presidential Executive Order 13186 dated 10 January 2001, further defines the intent of the Act and directs that the Act applies to Federal agencies.

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy is a collaborative effort among agencies, organizations, and individuals within the State to address wildlife and fish species of greatest

85 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

conservation need. The purpose of the strategy is to assess the diversity of fish and wildlife and their habitats, identify threats or concerns facing native species, and develop conservation actions that can be implemented to restore the diversity of Montana’s native species (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks [MFWP] 2005).

Forest Plan. The principle policy document related to wildlife management on the Forest is the 1986 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986), which established Forestwide management direction, goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines for the management of wildlife species and habitats on the Forest. This direction, which includes identification of Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS), is described below.

Forest Plan Direction. The goals, objectives, standards, management practices and monitoring and evaluation requirements comprise the Plan’s management direction (USDA Forest Service 1986). The following is a summary of Forest Plan goals and objectives related to wildlife.

Forestwide Goals and Objectives:

• Promote high quality wildlife and fish habitat to insure a desired mixture of well- distributed species and numbers for public benefit. Aid in the recovery of the grizzly bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Aid in the recovery of the gray wolf. Give special emphasis to elk habitat management. Give special emphasis to sensitive species and management (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2).

• Management will emphasize the recovery of the endangered gray wolf and threatened grizzly bear on the Rocky Mountain Division and the maintenance of current populations of elk and coldwater fish throughout the Forest. Programs will also be conducted to provide for huntable and trapable populations of small game and furbearers and viable populations of other existing wildlife and fish species (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5).

• To maintain elk habitat an annual program of habitat improvements will be conducted. Emphasis will center on prescribed burning on the winter range and a road management program to decrease human disturbance (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-6).

Management Area Direction and Standards:

With the exception of riparian zones that are listed as Management Area (MA) R, the entire project area occurs in Management Area “T”, as defined in USDA Forest Service 1993a. The Minerva Research Natural Area (USDA Forest Service 1993a) has been excluded from the project area and is surrounded by project area lands on three sides. The following is a discussion of Forest Plan direction for MA’s T and R related to wildlife.

Management Area T

• Management Area T which includes approximately 14, 740 acres and is characterized by ponderosa pine in the Little Snowy Mountains. Management is focused on moving the existing vegetative condition to a more natural ecological state, that historically was maintained by light ground fires (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2). Management will be practiced where it is compatible with wildlife management objectives and manipulation of vegetation with fire, timber harvest, and mechanical means will provide the desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 1993b).

86 Environmental Assessment

• Emphasis includes providing a mosaic of different vegetative successional stages for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2).

• While elk and their habitat are important, due to their uniqueness on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, other wildlife such as white-tail deer and turkey rank higher (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2). Management will provide for quality habitat for white-tail deer, turkey, old growth and snag dependent species. Hunting and viewing wildlife will be important features of the area.

• Standards include maintaining or enhancing important wildlife habitat, big game winter ranges, calving/fawning areas, raptor nest sites and significant nongame habitat (USDA Forest Service 1993b page 3-96). Specific management includes:

o Maintain effective hiding cover percentages by timber compartment at an average of 40 percent with a minimum of 35 percent (or the natural level if less than 35 percent) for any individual sub-compartment (USDA Forest Service 2011d pages 22−23. Exceptions to these percentages are permissible if a benefit for wildlife is demonstrated (USDA Forest Service 1993b).

o Maintaining areas free from motorized use will be positively managed through area and road restrictions and other necessary controls on resource activities (USDA Forest Service 2011d).

o Maintain 10 to 15 percent of the commercial forest land in an old growth forest condition. A minimum block size of 20 acres is recommended (USDA Forest Service 1993b page 3-97).

Management Area R

• Maintain or enhance important wildlife and fish habitat. Important habitat includes; T&E species habitat, big game winter ranges, calving or lambing areas, migration routes, elk summer-fall ranges, raptor nest sites, and significant non-game wildlife habitat.

Management Indicator Species. Management indicator species (MIS) include; species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs, species commonly hunted, fished or trapped, non-game species of special interest, and additional species selected because their local population’s changes are believed to indicate the effects of management on other species or selected major biological communities. The following are indicator species by category (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 6-14).

• Threatened and Endangered Species: Gray wolf, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, lynx, and grizzly bear.

• Commonly Hunted and Fished: Elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, mountain lion, blue grouse, cutthroat trout, brook trout and rainbow trout.

• Commonly Trapped: Beaver and bobcat.

• Special Interest Species: Wolverine, golden eagle, and prairie falcon.

• Special Habitat Needs: Northern goshawk and northern three-toed woodpecker.

87 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Project Area Description The Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project area location is described earlier in this document. Habitat conditions across the project area including Ecological Land Units (ELU) are displayed in the Habitat Conditions Table. The following is a discussion of wildlife habitat conditions that presently characterize the project area, as well as some discussion of historical conditions and documented changes in habitat. More detailed habitat information is presented in the species specific section of this report, as well as in the project Big Game Report and Goshawk/Old Growth report (and clarification addendum). More detailed information on ELU’s and vegetation can be found in the project vegetation report (USDA Forest Service 2011e).

Table 21. Table: Little Snowy habitat conditions Habitat category Amount % (Approximate acres1) Ownership Private 1,559 11 National Forest 13,183 89 Ecological Land Units1 Ponderosa Pine on Rolling Terrain (ELU 1) 10,365 70 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas Fir on Steep Northern 1,549 11 Terrain (ELU 2) Ponderosa Pine on Steep Southern Terrain (ELU 3) 967 7 Grassland or Meadow on Gentle Terrain (ELU 4) 1,861 13 Cover Types1 Coniferous Forest 12,459 85 Deciduous Forest 74 <1 Herbaceous Opening 2,135 15 Shrub Opening 74 <1 Forest Type1 Ponderosa Pine 10,177 69 Douglas Fir 2,283 16 Aspen 74 <1 Forest Canopy Closure1 10-24 percent 1,033 82 25-39.9 percent 830 72 40-59.9 percent 7,577 612 2 ≥60 percent 3,223 26 Forest Structure1 ≥15” d.b.h. (large diameter) 606 5 10-14.9 “ d.b.h. (medium diameter) 4,855 38 5-9.9” d.b.h. (small diameter) 6,720 53 <50” d.b.h. (seedling, sapling/pole) 508 4 Water/Riparian Surface Water 6 <1

88 Environmental Assessment

Perennial Streams 12.9 NA

Stream Density 0.85 mi/mi2 NA Riparian 949 6 Wetlands (NWI)3 14 <1 Old Growth/Remote Habitat Old Growth 1,1384 8 Remote Lands (>1/4 mile from a road) 3,856 26 Roads (miles) Total Roads 55.7 NA Open Roads 28.2 NA Open Road Density 1.2 mi/mi2 NA Total Road Density 2.4 mi/mi2 NA 1 Taken from project silvicultural report. 2 Percent of coniferous forest. 3 National Wetland Inventory Wetlands. 4 Includes 35 acres outside the project area in the Minerva Creek RNA.(acres that meet Green etal.1992)

The Little Snowies are a low lying mountain range with elevations ranging from about 4,600 to 6,200 feet above sea level. While there is a small deciduous forest and non-forest shrub component, coniferous forest and meadows/grasslands make up approximately 86 percent of and 15 percent of the project area, respectively, with ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir/snowberry habitat types occur across the project area. While Douglas-fir is the climax species, due to past fire activity, ponderosa pine is the dominant community and Douglas-fir occurs on more moist sites in the western portion of the project area.

Within forest communities closed canopy (>40 percent crown closure) conditions predominate (86 percent) and over 25 percent of the coniferous forest contains greater than 60 percent canopy closure. The absence of fire has resulted in increased conifer regeneration, resulting in a progression from single-storied to multi-storied stands and a reduction in openings/grasslands. The absence of fire has also increased the amount and distribution of Douglas-fir, with increasing Douglas-fir seedlings and saplings. Also while fire maintained more open canopy conditions historically, most of the vegetation found in the 10 to 24 percent canopy cover range today is associated with past timber harvest or conifer encroachment into meadows.

Historically (e.g.,1885) open ponderosa pine savannahs occurred on approximately 70 percent of the area, whereas dense ponderosa pine stands were restricted to 2 percent. Due to the absence of fire and conifer encroachment by 1990, savannah habitat had been reduced to 6 percent, whereas dense ponderosa pine stands had increased to almost 60 percent of the project area (USDA Forest Service 1992). These trends have continued and relatively closed canopy (>40 percent canopy closure) stands now exist on over 80 percent of the project area.

Meadows and grasslands occur on approximately 15 percent of the project area including large meadows in the head of Posey and Willow Creeks and near the confluence of Pole and North Fork Pole creeks. Historically, perennial bunch grasses dominated these meadows along with a well-represented shrub component interspersed throughout. As conifers invaded, they began to kill back the grass component, and reduce shrub diversity. Today project area meadows are declining and conifer encroachment has expanded to a level where much of the shrubs have been lost and a juniper monoculture dominates the understory in many stands.

89 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Aspen historically occurred on over 400 acres. However due to conifer encroachment by 1990 aspen had declined by almost 40 percent (USDA Forest Service 1992). While small aspen inclusions within conifer stands are common and some young aspen has been created from past harvest, due to continued conifer encroachment, over browsing by deer and elk, and susceptibility to insect and disease, aspen has continued to decline (USDA Forest Service 2011e). In the absence of future disturbances that would control conifer and promote aspen regeneration, this decline is expected to continue.

While the project area contains over 12 miles of perennial streams, approximately half of the streams miles occur in the Willow Creek drainage in the northeast one-third of the project area. This drainage also contains two small ponds, most of the wetlands, over 200 acres of meadows and one-third of the typed aspen. Also, most of these habitats occur on private land. Cameron Creek also contains some larger more diverse riparian habitat, although this portion of the drainage also occurs on private lands. Streams on NFS lands are all spring fed and typically only run water seasonally. As a result, most of the project area is dry with little standing or running water (refer back to the “Soil” and “Watershed” resource sections.

Potentially suitable old growth within the project area was surveyed in 2011 (with additional field verification in 2014) and a total of 1,319 acres of old growth are being designated. This occurs in eleven separate blocks with in the project area and an additional block in the adjacent Minerva Creek RNA. These blocks are scattered over much of the project area (USDA Forest Service 2011b.(2014) old growth report) and all blocks exceed the 20 acre minimum thus meeting Forest Plan standard. While old growth trees in these areas still persist; due to the dense conifer encroachment that dominates the site, they cannot compete with the younger, more vigorous conifers. As a result, old growth trees are in a weakened condition and more susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestation. Also, it is unlikely that existing old growth would survive without some form of disturbance to reduce conifer encroachment (USDA Forest Service 2011b). A more detailed discussion of old growth can be found in the project northern goshawk/old growth report. Additionally, while not designated as old growth, the project area also contains approximately 500 acres of late successional forest that are characterized by a component of larger diameter trees that also provide valuable wildlife habitat. These areas are not being designated as old growth because they occur as small isolated stands or because they would not recover from encroaching conifer (USDA Forest Service 2011b). However when viewed as a whole, approximately 12 percent of the NFS lands contain late successional/old growth habitat.

Much of the eastern and central portions of the project area is well roaded with an open road density of 1.2 miles per square mile. Consequently, remote habitat or lands greater than one- quarter mile from a road only occur on approximately 3,900 acres or 26 percent of the project area. This includes a number of smaller blocks less than 100 acres, several blocks 100 to 150 acres, and two blocks 200 to 300 acres in size. The largest blocks of remote habitat occur in the Cameron Creek drainage in the west (approximately 1,200 acres) and in the Five Mile, Coulee, and Willow Creek drainages in the east (approximately 750 acres).

Analysis Process and Methodology National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations, adopted in 1982, require that habitat be managed to support viable populations of native and desired nonnative vertebrates within the planning area (36 CFR 219.19). USDA regulation 9500-004, adopted in 1983, reinforces the NFMA viability regulation by requiring that habitats on national forests be managed to support viable populations of native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife. The following five-

90 Environmental Assessment

step process was used in this analysis to assess changes in wildlife habitat and determine possible effects to viability:

Step 1—Pre-field Assessment: The analysis process related to wildlife started prior to identification of proposed activities. For example, previous analysis within the area (USDA Forest Service 2009; USDA Forest Service 1992) identified concerns related to conifer encroachment and changes in habitat conditions and the wildlife biologist consulted during initial planning identified wildlife needs and objectives considered in the development of the proposed action. Once the proposed action was developed, information was collected to identify the wildlife present condition or affected environment. This information included aerial photos, GIS data, past timber sale activity, existing wildlife surveys, Forest and District monitoring data, stand vegetation data and information on insect and disease related mortality.

Step 2—Field Assessment: Sites proposed for treatment were visited by a biologist(s). During this review, observations and incidental sign of wildlife were recorded, and habitat conditions identified in the pre-field assessment were validated and described. Field assessment was also associated with Forest monitoring related to wildlife and old growth evaluation.

Step 3—Wildlife Screening: Collective information from the pre-field and field assessments were used to identify project design features or modifications to the proposed action that may be necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts to wildlife. This information was then used in combination with the most recent scientific literature, Forestwide and Regionwide assessments and monitoring, and referenced literature to identify species and habitats most likely to be affected by the proposed activities. We also identified the appropriate level of analysis necessary to determine effects to wildlife.

Step 4—Habitat & Species Assessment: The analysis of the wildlife resource was done using a multi-scale assessment that includes a combination of three basic strategies.

• The first strategy is a coarse filter approach (described below), which is used to identify wildlife communities across the watershed. This approach assumes that if the species, genetics, functions, and processes are protected at the community level, then the bulk of the biotic species, both known and unknown, would also be protected. • The second strategy is the MIS approach (FSM 2620.1, 2621.4, 2620.3), which assesses effects to wildlife species associated with vegetation communities or key habitat components identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) as management indicators. Potential effects of proposed actions are then evaluated by assessing habitat changes to the selected indicator species. • The third strategy is to assess habitat and effects to those species considered most at risk or those species with potential viability concerns. These include Federally threatened and endangered species and regionally sensitive species (FSM 2670.32, 16 USC 1536). Using information from steps 1−3, anticipated changes in wildlife habitat and the associated communities are predicted under the alternatives considered and associated effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat evaluated. Information from steps 1 and 2 is also used to complete the course filter analysis, identify and evaluate spatial relationships between habitat(s), assess changes in landscape diversity and predict changes and effects to MIS species. Whereas site-specific data is used to assess stand-level changes in habitat and to ensure that unique vegetative and physical habitat conditions are maintained and/or protected. This information is also used to assess changes in population viability in step 5.

91 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Step 5—Population Viability Assessment and Determination: Using information from steps 1- 4, the population viability for all MIS and sensitive species evaluated in detail is assessed under each of the alternatives. Region 1 uses a principle-based approach to population viability analysis, which follows Regional direction (USDA Forest Service 1999). This assessment is based on the best available forest and rangeland vegetation data, the most current scientific information related to species requirements, and effects of proposed actions, and when available, Region and Forestwide conservation assessments. Collectively, this information is used to assess the availability of suitable habitat and ultimately evaluate short- and long-term viability to each species.

The strategies and assessment described above are used to ensure that National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements are met by ensuring that a diversity of plant and animal communities are maintained across the planning area (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b); and FSM 2670.12). The information identified in steps 1 through 4 in combination with applicable scientific information (referenced literature) and professional judgment are used to predict anticipated effects, as well as determine the scope of effects.

For sensitive species, a determination is made as to whether or not the Federal action would cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability. Listing factors are based on 50 CFR 424.11 including; the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, disease or predation, the adequacy of existing regulatory direction or other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ survival. A loss of viability is determined though the regional process identified above and would occur if anticipated effects included changes in the number or distribution of reproductive individuals that would affect the continued existence of the species on the Forest (36 CFR 219.9).

Scale of Analysis The appropriate methodology and level of analysis needed to determine effects are influenced by a number of variables including the presence of species or habitat, the scope and nature of activities associated with the proposed action and alternatives, and the potential risks that could ultimately result in adverse effects. Wildlife distribution and use of an area is largely determined by the availability of suitable habitat, and can be influenced by site-specific needs such as the vegetative structure or physical features on a site, as well as by landscape considerations such as the proximity to other habitat or the need for isolation or seclusion. As a result, a multi-scale analysis that looks at site-specific conditions in stands proposed for treatment (fine filter), as well as landscape considerations such as the proximity and availability to other habitat (coarse filter) will be considered. The multi-scale of analyses used in this assessment includes the following.

Site Level Assessment: This level of assessment involves evaluation of individual stands or sites proposed for treatment. Sites at this scale vary in size from 1 to several hundred acres. Wildlife use is often influenced by specific conditions that can only be identified at the stand or site scale. This level of analysis identifies stand-level habitat conditions that influence wildlife use. This assessment is also used to identify habitat features that may need to be protected or enhanced and to identify effects based on localized stand structure. This level of assessment is also used to identify site-specific mitigation measures or project design features.

Project Area Assessment: Direct and indirect effects to wildlife are assessed by evaluating effects and changes in habitat on NFS lands within the project area boundary. The Little Snowy restoration project area encompasses approximately 14,700 acres including 13,183 acres of NFS

92 Environmental Assessment

land and 1,559 acres of private land. The project area boundary was selected for analysis of direct and indirect effects on wildlife because it includes all areas proposed for treatment and contains an adequate diversity of habitat conditions (vegetative and topographic) to assess wildlife distribution and use.

Cumulative Effects Assessment: Cumulative effects related to wildlife are evaluated by looking at past, present, and foreseeable future activities that could adversely affect wildlife when considered cumulatively over time. When considering cumulative effects to wildlife based on past and anticipated future disturbances, the primary factors of change include timber harvest, insect- and disease-related tree mortality, private land activities, mountain pine beetle mortality and grazing. Effects of these past and on-going actions were considered throughout this analysis (a complete list of past activities can be found in appendix A). The effect many of these actions have on wildlife is reflected in the existing condition for species evaluated throughout this analysis.

The cumulative effects boundary used in this analysis varies by species. For example, cumulative effects for species with small home ranges would be analyzed across the project area. For species that have large home ranges and select habitat based partially on landscape conditions, the cumulative effects analysis area includes the project area combined with all lands within approximately 0.75 miles of the project boundary. This combined area totals approximately 28,141 acres, including 13,506 acres of NFS land, 14,635 acres of private, State, and BLM land. Rationale for selection of this area includes:

• This area is large enough to assess the individual home range for all species analyzed, thereby framing the context and significance of potential impacts to each species. • It includes all lands affected by treatment. • This area is large enough to assess landscape-level considerations and connectivity. • Wildlife habitat conditions and land uses within the area are representative of those found across the landscape or watershed(s).

Timeframes Timeframes for direct and indirect effects include short-term effects, which generally go out 5 to 10 years or until the proposed activities are completed, and long-term effects, which are greater than 10 years and may go out several decades. Although some historic effects are considered, the cumulative effects analysis spans a period of approximately 70 years and runs from the mid- 1950s, which is the period of time when recent timber harvest began, to 2021 which is the time when all of the proposed treatments are expected to be completed, as well as the time when future projects can be reasonably predicted.

Species Evaluated A total of 32 threatened, endangered and candidate species, regionally sensitive or Forest management indicator species (MIS) species were initially considered. These species and their status are displayed in Table 22. Using the evaluation process described above.17 species were eliminated from detailed study. Based on documentation and the presence of suitable habitat, 15 species will be evaluated in detail and the last column in Table 22 identifies these species, as well as species considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. .

93 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Table 22. Wildlife species summary Detailed Species Status1 Project Documentation Analysis Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) T, MIS Does not occur on the Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest (USFWS 2011a). No Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) T, MIS Does not occur in the Little Snowy Mountains (USFWS 2011a). No Regionally Sensitive and Federal Candidate2 Species Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus S Does not occur on the Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest (USFWS 2011a). No urophasianus)2 Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii)2 C Not documented from Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Wolverine (Gulo gulo)2 C(S), Only documented from Golden Valley County within the Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark Yes MIS National Forest (USFWS 2011b). Project area lacks suitable high elevation den habitat, but use by transient individuals is possible. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco S, MIS The project area lacks suitable cliffline nest habitat. Although not documented from the Little Snowy Yes peregrinus anatum) Mountains (MFWP 2011) an individual bird has been documented west of the project area. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) S, MIS There are no known nest sites on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2011a) and due to the absence Yes of large standing water or river habitat, the project area lacks preferred nest, roost or foraging habitat. However, wintering or transient birds may use the project area. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a) and there is no No arcticus) recent post fire habitat within the project area. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No histironicus) Bighorn Sheep (Ovis candadensis) S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Fisher (Martes pennant) S Project area is outside the current range of this species (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Gray Wolf (Canus lupus) S Project area lacks den and rendezvous habitat, although suitable foraging habitat exists. While Yes unlikely, it is possible that incidental use by forging individuals may occur. Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No borealis) Townsend’s Big-eared Bat S The project area lacks suitable caves for hibernacula or maternity roost. While not documented Yes (Corynorhinus townsendii) from the project area, it has been observed approximately 50 miles to the south and north (Leonard et al. 2009). So although unlikely, because the project area contains suitable foraging habitat, it is possible that Townsend’s big eared bat foraging occurs within the project area.

94 Environmental Assessment

Detailed Species Status1 Project Documentation Analysis Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Western Toad (Bufo boreas) S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Greater short-horned Lizard S Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Management Indicator Species not Federally Listed, a Federal Candidate or Regionally Sensitive Beaver (Castor Canadensis) MIS Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Black Bear (Ursus americanus) MIS Has been documented from the project area and suitable habitat present. Yes Bobcat (Lynx rufus) MIS Has been documented from the project area and suitable habitat is present. Yes Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) MIS Has been documented from the project area and suitable habitat is present. Yes Elk (Cervis canadensis) MIS Has been documented from the project area and habitat is widespread. Yes Mule Deer (Odocoileus heminous) MIS Has been documented from the project area and habitat is widespread. Yes White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus MIS Has been documented from the project area and habitat is widespread. Yes virginianus) Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) MIS Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No Dusky (blue) Grouse (Dendragapus MIS Project area provides suitable habitat and species is documented. Yes obscurus) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) MIS The project area does not provide suitable cliff nesting habitat. However, foraging habitat is present Yes and seasonal use of the area by individual birds is likely to occur. Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) MIS While the project area does not contain preferred cliff nest habitat, suitable foraging habitat is Yes present and nesting prairie falcons have been documented south of the project area (MFWP 2011). Also an individual bird has been documented west of the Little Snowy Mountains (Laura Conway, personal communication). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) MIS The project area has had documented goshawk use since 1998, and suitable foraging and nest Yes habitat is widespread. Northern Three-toed Woodpecker MIS Not documented from the Little Snowy Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2011a). No (Picoides dorsalis) 1 T = Federally threatened, C = Federal candidate, S = Regionally sensitive, MIS = Management indicator species. 2 Federal candidate species evaluated in the project biological evaluation as a regionally sensitive species.

95 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

The following table summarizes the indicators used to evaluate effects to sensitive and MIS species that are evaluated in detail in this report.

Table 23. Wildlife effect indicator Species Indicator Sensitive Species Gray Wolf Effects to individuals and changes in big game. Effects to den, rendezvous sites and foraging habitat. Wolverine Effects to individuals and changes in the amount and quality of den and foraging habitat. Changes in human access. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Effects to individuals and changes in suitable roost and foraging habitat. Availability of snags for roosts. Bald Eagle Effects to individuals, reproduction and changes in nesting and foraging habitat. Peregrine Falcon Effects to individuals, reproduction and changes in nesting and foraging habitat. Management Indicator Species Northern Goshawk Effects to individuals and reproduction. Changes in available nest, foraging and post-fledgling habitat. Elk Changes in effective hiding cover, security habitat, habitat effectiveness and non-hunting security. Hunting opportunity. Mule Deer Changes in the amount and quality of cover and forage and project area distribution and use. Hunting opportunity. White-tailed Deer Changes in the amount and quality of cover and forage and project area distribution and use. Hunting opportunity. Black Bear and Mountain Lion Changes in habitat for elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer. Bobcat Effects to individuals, changes in den and foraging habitat. Maintenance of riparian areas and old growth. Dusky Grouse (Blue) Effects to individuals and reproduction. Changes in winter conifer and nesting/brood rearing habitat. Golden Eagle Effects to individuals, reproduction and changes in nesting and foraging habitat. Prairie Falcon Effects to individuals and reproduction. Changes in nesting and foraging habitat.

Twenty additional avian species were considered with only five being analyzed in detail including the Ferruginous Hawk, Lewis’s Woodpecker, Upland Sandpiper, Red-headed Woodpecker and Chestnut-collared Longspur. Additional migratory songbird information is contained in the project record; summary findings have been outlined below.

Proposed Action and Alternatives The proposed action and alternatives have been previously described in this document. The following is a summary of proposed activities and treatment objectives under the two action alternatives (alternatives 2 and 3) and no action (alternative 1). The alternative treatment summary table displays activities proposed under the action alternatives. Alternative 1 is not displayed because there are no activities proposed.

96 Environmental Assessment

Table 24. Alternative treatment summary Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Activity/Objective Acres %2 Acres %2 Activity Burn Only 4,190 32 6,792 51 Hand Treat and Burn 1,318 10 4,742 39 Hand Treat, Pile and Burn 246 Hand Treat and Pile 47 Mastication 2,101 16 0 0 Mechanical Removal 5,250 40 0 0 Total Treatment 12,859 98 11,827 90 Total Burning 4,739 36 11,780 89 Untreated 658 2 1,356 10 Objective Dry Ponderosa Pine Restoration 11,873 90 10,691 81 Meadow Restoration 7561 6 9601 7 Aspen Enhancement 2241 2 1751 1 1 Includes a portion of combined treatments. 2 Percent of NFS land. Project Area Acres = 14,472; NFS Acres = 13,183; Private Acres = 1,559

Alternative 1 (No Action) The proposed vegetation treatments and restoration activities would not be completed under this alternative. While routine custodial or maintenance activities would occur, there are no new Federal activities proposed. Alternative 1 would let ecological processes control vegetation development and habitat changes would occur primarily from natural disturbances. This is a viable alternative and provides a baseline or reference point, from which effects of the action alternatives can be evaluated.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Ponderosa pine communities across the Little Snowies are recognized as a unique resource on the Forest that provides valuable wildlife habitat (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2). As described under the project description, due to the absence of fire, vegetation conditions in the Little Snowy Mountains are greatly altered from what occurred historically. Conifer encroachment in combination with mountain pine beetle infestations have reduced open ponderosa pine savannahs, grassland/meadows, and aspen by over 80 percent, 75 percent, and 32 percent, respectively. Conversely, dense ponderosa pine stands have increased from 2 percent of the project area to over 40 percent (USDA Forest Service1992). The dense conifer stands that exist today as well as the increased levels of dead wood resulting from mountain pine beetle mortality have also greatly increased the risk of catastrophic wildfire. As a result, the purpose and need of the Little Snowy Restoration Project includes reducing the risk of large scale wildfire, restoring dry ponderosa pine stands, savannahs and mountain meadows while maintaining or enhancing aspen.

The proposed action entails a combination of vegetation treatments designed to move conditions towards the desired condition. Vegetation treatments include prescribed burning only on approximately 4,200 acres; mechanical thinning followed by prescribed burning on approximately 5,300 acres; mastication followed by prescribed burning on approximately 2,100 acres; and hand thinning followed by pile or prescribed fire burning on 1,300 acres. A more

97 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

complete description of the treatment regimes prescribed by stand can be found in appendix A of the project vegetation report (USDA Forest Service 2011e). The following is a summary of the objectives of the treatments associated with the proposed action, whereas specific treatments are discussed under the effects section of this document.

Restoration of Dry Ponderosa Forest A mix of treatments is proposed within the ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir habitat types, considered dry ponderosa pine communities. The treatment strategy is designed for improving forest stability from insect outbreaks in the short term, while developing desired future conditions by ELU in the long term. The treatment techniques were developed from on-site field reconnaissance which considered site specific conditions and potential treatment techniques. The combination of treatment methods, goals, and objectives follow considerations in studies on forest restoration (Allen et al. 2002). In particular, the retention of large diameter trees follows suggested silvicultural goals for old growth trees by Noss and others (2006).

In the short term, the proposed treatments would move the distribution of forest, grasslands, and aspen closer to the desired future condition. Areas dominated by conifers would be reduced by meadow and aspen restoration treatments. Density levels would be reduced, stand structure would become more single-storied (except for certain stands within ELU 2), composed of even- aged clumps forming an uneven-aged structure, and stand composition favored to the appropriate seral tree species. Stand diversity and landscape heterogeneity would be increased. Reduced stand density levels would result in less tree stress, greater vigor, and improved resilience to insect and drought. Consequently, over the long term, treatment would reduce mortality.

Aspen Restoration The goal of aspen restoration activities is to provide healthy aspen clones composed of aspen with minimal conifer presence and multiple aspen age classes distributed across the landscape similar to historic conditions. No aspen trees would be cut; treatment includes cutting competing conifer trees from both within and around existing aspen clones. Restoration treatment would occur in stands that contain predominantly aspen. In addition, because smaller aspen often occurs as inclusions within a larger conifer stand, treatment would also occur in these smaller aspen inclusions that only occur in a portion of the stand. The exact acreage of these smaller aspen inclusions would be identified during layout, therefore the acreage is not displayed in Table 24.

Meadow Restoration The goal of meadow restoration treatment is to create meadow/grassland conditions, distribution and range, which is similar to historic conditions described in the desired future condition (USDA Forest Service 2011e). The extent of tree cutting would depend upon site factors and specific meadow/grassland objectives. While most meadow stands are delineated separately, they often occur as inclusions within the larger forested stand. As a result, some meadow restoration treatments would only occur within a small portion of a forested stand.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is designed to restore dry ponderosa pine, meadow/grassland and aspen communities utilizing prescribed fire with limited tree cutting. These treatments would promote historical conditions identified in the desired future condition using a more conservative treatment strategy as compared to the proposed action. Vegetation treatments include prescribed burning only on approximately 6,792 acres; hand thinning followed by prescribed fire burning on 4,742 acres; hand thinning and hand pile and burn on 246 acres; and hand thinning, hand pile and then

98 Environmental Assessment

underburn on 47 acres. For a more complete description of the treatment regimes prescribed, see appendix A of the vegetation report (USDA Forest Service 2011e).

Affected Environment As shown in Table 22 a total of 14 species are evaluated in detail. All big game species (elk, mule deer, white-tail deer, black bear, mountain lion and bobcat) are discussed in the project big game report, whereas the northern goshawk is evaluated in the project old growth/northern goshawk report. The remaining species including wolverine, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, Townsend’s big-eared bat, dusky (blue) grouse, golden eagle, and prairie falcon are evaluated in this report.

The Forest viability report includes a detailed discussion of the individual species biology, status, threats and management and this information is incorporated by reference. The following is brief discussion of individual species ecology and background, as well as project area documentation and habitat.

Regionally Sensitive Species

Wolverine Species Ecology and Background. The wolverine was formally listed as a “Candidate” species under ESA in December 2010 (USDI FWS 2010). Because it has not yet been formally listed, it is addressed as a Forest Service Sensitive Species. It has a global rank of G4, and is apparently secure, although may be quite rare in parts of its range. The State rank for the wolverine is S3, and although it may be abundant in some areas, it is potentially at risk because of limited and/or decline in numbers, range, or habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), on February 4, 2013, issued a proposed rule to list the wolverine as a threatened species. The wolverine was withdrawn from consideration and a candidate species (Federal Register Publication (08/13/2014) and is currently regionally sensitive. All information regarding this status change for wolverine is contained in the project file.

Wolverines are low density, wide ranging species that inhabit remote forested areas, ranging over a variety of habitats. In Idaho, Copeland (1996) found that females selected natal den sites in glacial cirque basins or at vegetation/rock interface at higher elevations. In Montana and Idaho, researchers have documented wolverine in forests with low to medium canopy closure in areas dominated by subalpine fir and indicate they rarely used dense young timber, burned areas or wet meadows (Whitmer et al. 1998). While wolverines predominantly use coniferous forest, their significant use of nonforest alpine habitats distinguishes them from fisher and marten.

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of foods depending on availability. They primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small mammals and birds, and eat fruits, berries and insects (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). In both Montana and Idaho, big game carrion appears to be the major food source with snowshoe hare, squirrels, and small mammals making up the rest of their diet (Copeland and Harris 1994; Hornocker and Hash 1981). Winter is probably the most difficult time for wolverines to find food. Research on marked wolverines in Idaho showed animals did not move to big game winter range as expected, but fed on carcasses of animals that probably died during the late summer and fall (Copeland and Harris 1994).

Wolverine home ranges are generally extremely large and the availability and distribution of food is likely the primary factor in determining wolverine movements and home range. Home ranges of adult wolverines range from less than 38.5 square miles to 348 square miles (USDI Fish and

99 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Wildlife Service 2010). Home ranges of adult males and females overlap extensively with the range of one male covering the ranges of two to six females, which is considered one reproductive unit.

Based on available research, the limiting factors for wolverine appear to be undisturbed denning habitat, big game as a food source, and trapping pressure. Witmer et al. (1998) suggested long- term conservation of wolverine may be achieved through maintenance of large, remote areas of habitat and engaging in management activities that do not decrease ungulate prey density.

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. Within the Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest the wolverine has only been documented from Golden Valley County (USDI FWS 2011), although the Little Snowy restoration project is on the eastern end of this species range (MFWP 2011). There is no recent documentation of wolverine in the project area, which also lacks upper elevation den habitat. Foraging habitat is marginal because much of the project area is heavily roaded with year-round human access. As a result, any use of the project area by wolverine would be limited to infrequent use by foraging or dispersing individuals.

Gray Wolf Species Status, Ecology and Background. The population distribution, life history, habitat status and recovery objectives for the gray wolf are summarized in the recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). The legal status of a wolf under the ESA is tied to its location rather than its point of origin. In Montana, wolves are part of the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment and have achieved biological recovery under ESA. Consequently on May 5, 2011, wolves that were part of the distinct population segment encompassing Idaho, Montana, and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah were delisted under ESA. As a result, the gray wolf is evaluated as a Regionally Sensitive Species.

Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae), and typically prey on medium and large mammals. Prey species in the Rockies include white-tailed and mule deer, moose, elk, woodland caribou, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, beaver, and snowshoe hare, with small mammals, birds, and large invertebrates sometimes being taken (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Opportunistic feeders, they will also prey on carrion when it is available. Habitat can include forests of all types, rangelands, brush land, steppes, agricultural lands, wetlands, deserts, tundra, and barren ground areas.

Wolves are highly social animals requiring large areas to roam and feed. Key components of wolf habitat include (1) sufficient, year-round prey base of big game and alternate prey, (2) suitable and somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites, and (3) sufficient space with minimal exposure to humans (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987).

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. There has not been recent documentation of wolves within the project area and the closest known pack is located on the north end of the Crazy Mountains over 50 miles southwest of the project area. While the project area lacks den and rendezvous habitat, suitable foraging habitat does exist. As a result, it is possible that incidental use by foraging or dispersing individuals may occur.

Bald Eagle Species Status, Ecology and Background. Until recently the bald eagle was listed as Federally Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. However, effective August 8, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially delisted the bald eagle and this species has been added to the

100 Environmental Assessment

Northern Region (R1) sensitive species list. The Forest Service would continue to follow management direction outlined in the Montana Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI-BOR 1994) and this species is also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The State rank for the bald eagle is G3, and although it may be abundant in some areas, it is potentially at risk because of limited and/or decline in numbers, range or habitat.

Bald eagles are associated with large bodies of water and major river drainages, which provide most of their foraging opportunities. Wintering habitat may include upland sites, and nesting areas are generally located within larger forested areas near lakes and rivers. In Montana, bald eagles nest in stands containing large trees (greater than 30 inches d.b.h.) with uneven canopy structure, and in direct line of sight of a river or lake generally less than 1-mile away (MFWP 2011a). Nest site selection is dependent upon maximum food availability and minimum disturbance from human activity. Eagles are opportunistic feeders, preying on fish, waterfowl, small mammals and carrion (MNHP 2011). During migration and at wintering sites, eagles tend to concentrate on locally abundant food and often roost communally.

General objectives of habitat management for bald eagles in Montana include maintaining prey bases; maintaining forest stands currently used for nesting, roosting, and foraging; maintaining potential nest habitat; minimizing disturbances in nesting territories, communal roosts, and at feeding sites (MFWP 2011a).

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. Due to the absence of large bodies of water and rivers, there is no documented nest, roost, or foraging habitat within the project area. However eagles do occasionally fly over the project area and some incidental foraging (e.g., carrion) could occur.

Peregrine Falcon Species Status, Ecology and Background. The peregrine falcon is a management indicator species (MIS) on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. At the time the peregrine was designated as a MIS, it was listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as Endangered; listing under the ESA is one of the potential criteria for designating a species as a MIS. Among other species and habitats, this falcon is an indicator that the needs of other species associated with lakes and rivers are met, particularly those that use cliff areas. The falcon has recovered and has been removed from Federal listing. The species has a global ranking of G4 and a State ranking of S3.

Peregrines exhibit extreme variability in habitat use due to their enormous geographic range. In general, peregrines nest on tall cliffs, usually near streams, rivers, or other bodies of water. Peregrines are migratory, with North American birds wintering from Texas south into South America. Montana peregrines usually depart for wintering areas in late August to early September, and return to breeding areas by late April to early May (MNHP 2011). Peregrines appear to show fidelity to one nest location, although alternate nests are frequently used on the same cliff or within a few kilometers (White et al. 2002).

Nests are usually located in the upper one-third of tall cliffs, and are not constructed but rather consist of simple scrapes in the existing substrate (www.montanaperegrine.org/Nesting_Ledges.html). Peregrines feed primarily on medium-sized birds and small waterfowl, with occasional predation reported on small mammals, lizards, fish, or insects. Peregrines may hunt at any time of day, traveling up to several kilometers from the nest site (MNHP 2011).

101 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Peregrine habitat is widely varied, reflecting its extreme geographic distribution. Wintering peregrines may use habitats devoid of cliffs: major river valleys and lake shores, pasture lands, urban areas, and other areas where prey is available (White et al. 2002). Breeding peregrines use cliffs in open, rather than confined areas for nesting and breeding cliffs are generally near open landscapes where foraging can occur, and are usually near streams, rivers, or other bodies of water.

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. Four aeries have been documented on or immediately adjacent to the Lewis and Clark National Forest in recent years (two on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District and two on the White Sulphur Springs Ranger District). However the project area lacks preferred nest habitat and there is no peregrine falcon nesting documented in the Little Snowy Mountains. However, foraging habitat exists and winter use may occur.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Species Status, Ecology and Background. A year-round resident, the State rank for the Townsend’s big-eared bat is G2 (MNHP 2011) and it is locally imperiled in the State of Montana.

The Townsend’s big-eared bat has been documented throughout most of Montana, with the exception of the far northeastern corner of the state. They are found at elevations between 1,968 and 7,820 feet. Townsend’s big-eared bats are generally found at low densities across occupied habitats, and Montana is no exception. Only five maternity colonies have been located, ranging in size from less than 20 adult females to an estimated 50 to 75. The best-known colony is at Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park, although less than 30 hibernacula have been located, most with just a few hibernating bats (MFWP 2006).

Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in mesic to dry conifer forests, ponderosa pine and limber pine woodlands, juniper, mountain mahogany, riparian, and shrub-steppe habitats where suitable roost sites are present. Studies in other states indicate that Townsend’s big-eared bats also forage over wetlands and agricultural areas. Caves and abandoned mines are the primary roost sites through most of the range, although buildings have been used by maternity colonies in the northern, cooler portions of the range. In Montana, four maternity colonies are in natural caves and one is in an abandoned mine (MFWP 2011a).

The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a moth specialist with over 90 percent of its diet composed of moths. They forage in edge habitats along streams and woodlands, and within a variety of woodland types. They can travel long distances while foraging, including movements of over 150 kilometers during a single evening (WBWG 2005).

Townsend’s big-eared bats feed on various nocturnal flying insects near the foliage of trees and shrubs, but appear to specialize primarily on small moths. There are reports of gleaning insects from foliage, but most are captured in the air, often near foliage.

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. The species is known to occur at Lick Creek Cave in the Little Belt Mountains. There are also sightings reported for Blaine, Cascade, Chouteau, Fergus, and Lewis and Clark counties off the forest.

While not documented from the project area, suitable foraging habitat exists. So while the project area lacks hibernacula and roost sites, considering the long distances this species can travel in a single night (WBWG 2005), it is possible that portions of the project area could be utilized for foraging.

102 Environmental Assessment

Management Indicator Species

Black Bear, Mountain Lion, Elk, Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer These species are addressed in the project Big Game Report.

Bobcat Species Status, Ecology and Background. Bobcat is a management indicator species for commonly trapped animals on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The have a global ranking of G5 and a State ranking of S5. They are considered common, widespread, and abundant. Although they may be rare in parts of its range, they are not vulnerable in most their range (MFWP 2011a).

Bobcats use a variety of habitats, particularly areas with dense understory vegetation and high prey densities (MFWP 2011a). Den sites are preferentially located in natural rocky areas. Dens can be in caves, between boulders, in hollow logs, or in abandoned mine shafts. Bobcats are non- migratory, but juveniles have been known to disperse long distances. Snowshoe hares and jackrabbits are the most common prey of bobcat along with medium sized rodents. Grouse can are also an important prey item (USDA Forest Service 2011a).

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. There are documented occurrences of bobcat on all mountains of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, including project area. Due to conifer encroachment and understory density, bobcat habitat has increased across much of the project area. This species is conserved through protection of riparian resources and old growth and snag retention management (USDA Forest Service 2011a).

Dusky (blue) Grouse Species Ecology and Background. Blue grouse (called dusky grouse in the interior part of its range) is a commonly hunted MIS on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. It is the largest of Montana’s three mountain grouse species and occurs in every mountain range of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Dusky grouse are considered forest grouse, but during different times of year they utilize distinctly different habitats (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2012). Blue grouse winter at high elevations in conifer stands and descends to lower elevations during early spring to feed along forest edges and openings. They breed in a variety of habitats, including subalpine meadows and creek bottoms, but their preferred breeding habitat is along the aspen/sage interface (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2012) and they prefer coniferous forest edges and aspen (USFWS 1984). Food habitats vary consisting in winter of primarily conifer needles, to a summer diet of a variety of green leaves, fruits, seeds, flowers, animal matter and conifer needles (USFWS 1984). Blue grouse breed in the spring and newborn chicks are dependent on invertebrates during the first month of growth (USFWS 1984). Broods may be found in more open foothills and riparian areas during late spring, summer, and early fall.

Blue grouse are often found in areas where either free water or succulent vegetation is available (USFWS 1984). Blue grouse in Idaho relied almost totally on conifers for escape cover and male blue grouse utilized small conifer thickets, log tangles, and spaces under logs and stumps during the breeding season. Hens with broods were found most often in more exposed locations, particularly road edges and moist depressions with lush vegetation. Shrubs and forbs supplied most of the cover during the summer months in Colorado and blue grouse had not been observed where shrubs were lacking (USFWS 1984). Common features of blue grouse territories in Colorado included (1) some type of tree cover, (2) shrub thickets, (3) open areas, and (4) openness in the canopy and the understory vegetation. Blue grouse females with broods in

103 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Montana used grass/forb areas in early summer, and as vegetation dried out by late July, broods increased their use of deciduous thickets (USFWS 1984).

Preferred blue grouse habitats contain only a moderately dense shrub cover and it is assumed that optimum shrub densities occur between 10 and 30 percent canopy cover. Also, habitat suitability rapidly declines as canopy cover exceeds 50 percent. Herbaceous vegetation provides food, cover, and water and is especially important to blue grouse females and broods. Optimal herbaceous densities are assumed to occur between 40 and 75 percent canopy cover. Finally, maximum blue grouse densities occur in areas where trees are well interspersed with more open habitats and it is assumed that optimum conditions are provided when the distance from herbaceous or shrub cover types to forest or savannah cover is 0.25 miles or less (USFWS 1984).

Research conducted to date indicates that blue grouse populations generally appear stable (USDA Forest Service 2011c), although are somewhat cyclic. Population fluctuations vary largely with chick survival, which can be affected by cool wet springs, dry summers and harsh winters, although hunter harvest appears to have little impact on population fluctuations (Rawley et al. 1996). Blue grouse populations are cyclic both in Montana and on the Lewis and Clark National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2011c).

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. Dusky grouse have been documented throughout much of the Little Snowy Mountains (MNHP 2011). Much of the project area provides suitable habitat with winter habitat occurring in conifer stands at upper elevations and breeding/brood habitat occurring at lower elevation riparian areas and in shrub/meadow/conifer habitats.

Golden Eagle Species Status, Ecology and Background. Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are ranked by the State of Montana as an S3 species, meaning that it is potentially at risk because of limited or potentially declining population numbers, range, and/or habitat, although it may be abundant in some areas. The Bureau of Land Management considers the golden eagle Sensitive. Globally, golden eagles are considered common and not vulnerable through most of their range. Golden eagles nest on or near cliffs, canyons, riparian areas or grass shrub habitats, and rely on open habitats in which to forage. Golden eagles occur throughout the western United States, south into Mexico and north into Canada, with breeding range northward as far as northern Alaska and northeastern Canada. They have been observed throughout the Lewis and Clark National Forest, particularly on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District where nesting habitat appears to be abundant.

Golden eagles are most commonly found in open spaces that provide hunting habitat, often near cliffs used for nesting (Kochert et al. 2002). Golden eagles prey primarily on small mammals, although they are capable of killing large birds, ungulates, and livestock. Throughout much of its range the black-tailed jackrabbit is a primary food source, and fluctuations in golden eagle reproduction may be tied to jackrabbit population cycles (Kochert et al. 2002).

The golden eagle is considered a short- to medium-distance partial migrant, with birds in northern areas usually migrating to wintering areas further south (Kochert et al. 2002). Fall migration usually begins in September to early October, and spring migration in late March to mid-May (Kochert et al. 2002). Migration corridors appear to exist along the Rocky Mountains in western North America, particularly along north-south oriented ranges such as along the Rocky Mountain Front.

104 Environmental Assessment

In Montana, golden eagles can be found breeding and overwintering throughout the state (MNHP 2011). Harlow and Bloom (1989 [in Kochert et al. 2002]) estimated that there were about 50 territories in Montana. In a 1982−1983 survey along the Rocky Mountain Front, although cliff habitats represented only about 1% of the study area, 97 percent of golden eagle nests documented in the study were found on cliffs (DuBois 1984).

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. The project area does not provide suitable cliff nesting habitat. However open-land foraging habitat is present and seasonal use (e.g., migration and winter) is likely to occur.

Prairie Falcon Species Status, Ecology and Background. Prairie falcons are ranked by the State of Montana as an S4 species, meaning that it is apparently secure although it may be rare and/or declining in parts of its range. They rely on cliff habitats for nesting and therefore are limited to areas where suitable nesting habitat is available.

The prairie falcon has been described as a “wanderer” rather than a true migrant, moving among widely separated nesting, post-nesting, and wintering areas depending on food availability (Steenhof 1998). They use primarily open habitats, including shrub-steppe desert, grasslands, mixed shrub communities, alpine tundra, and chaparral. Prairie falcons appear to prefer ground squirrels and horned larks as prey, but also feed on lizards, other passerines, and small rodents (Steenhof 1998). In Montana, western meadowlarks also appear to be an important prey item (MTNHP Field Guide).

Prairie falcons nest where cliffs or bluffs are available, and forage in open areas such as grasslands, shrublands, and desert. Wintering areas are usually open grassland or shrubland habitats mainly in the Great Plains. In Montana, breeding records appear to coincide with topographically varied areas providing cliffs or bluffs.

Project Area Habitat and Documentation. Prairie falcons have been observed throughout the Lewis and Clark National Forest, particularly on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District where nesting habitat appears to be abundant. The majority of prairie falcon observations on the Jefferson Division have occurred on the Musselshell Ranger District along cliffs and bluffs at the head of tributaries of the Musselshell River. There are at least four records of indirect or circumstantial evidence of breeding in and adjacent to the Jefferson Division (MNHP data).

While the project area does not contain preferred cliff nest habitat, suitable open-land foraging habitat is present and nesting falcons have been documented south of the project area (MFWP 2011). Also an individual bird has been documented west of the Little Snowy Mountains (Laura Conway, personal communication).

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk is discussed in the project old growth report.

Environmental Effects

Methodology The methodology used for analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is described above. Information used in the effects analysis includes aerial photographs, stand exam data, Northern Region Vegetation Mapping Project (R1-VMAP) data, field surveys and photos, data collected

105 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

from project field visits and referenced research and literature. Because this assessment involves a multi-scale analysis, geographical information system (GIS) coverage’s and data sets for vegetation stand and landscape structural characteristics, past management activities, stream and aquatic data, wildfire activity, stand-level FVS modeling and district and Forestwide observation data and surveys were collectively used to assess wildlife habitat conditions and effects.

Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are evaluated by looking at the individual treatment and alternative effects, effects to species, and by looking at the issue indictors identified in Table 23.

Mechanical Treatments (Alternative 2) Commercial thinning treatments achieve restoration objectives by reducing stocking to desired levels, while increasing or maintaining stand structural diversity and restoring meadows, grasslands, and aspen. Thinned trees would be cut by a ground-based machine such as a track- mounted feller-buncher, but hand cutting may be necessary on occasion. Machine cutting and hand cutting are not designated by stand, but given the mild slopes found in the project area, it is conceivable that almost all commercial thinning could be by machine. The type of thinning would be identified during project implementation.

Whole-tree-yarding is a harvesting system in which whole trees are cut and transported to a collection point (landing) with limbs and tops attached to the stem. Given the general small tree size in the Little Snowy Mountains, it is expected that most trees can and would be yarded using this method. In the case where the entire tree is too large to be transported as one piece, the trees would be cut into log length sections and the tree sections would be transported with the tops and limbs attached. Thinned trees would be pulled from the site to landings by a ground-based machine (skidder or tractor) equipped with a grapple or cable (chokers and winch).

Mechanical treatment is designed to create more open stand conditions composed of predominantly ponderosa pine, or to a lesser extent ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir on the cooler sites. Trees would be distributed in even-aged groups or scattered individuals that form an uneven-aged forest condition. Since restoration objectives include providing large diameter trees, thinning would only remove trees generally between 7 inches and 17 inches d.b.h. In stands with a large component of smaller diameter trees, this treatment may be utilized with pre-commercial thinning or hand treatment, which would remove trees mostly less than 7 inches d.b.h.

Hand Thinning or Pre-commercial Thinning (Alternative 2 and 3) Hand thinning would involve removal of trees generally 7 inches d.b.h. or less. Felled trees and shrubs would be limbed, lopped and bucked up so that slash would lie close to the ground with hand tools or chainsaws to create the desired spacing. Objectives of this treatment include removal of encroaching conifers and may be used as an individual treatment within a stand or in combination with commercial thinning.

Mastication (Alternative 2) Objectives of mastication include removing ladder fuels and fuel on the ground to moderate fire behavior. Treatment involves using a tracked or rubber-tired machine to chop, shred, and or grind small trees, limbs shrubs and dead wood into smaller pieces that remain on site. Trees less than 9 inches d.b.h. would be removed and the masticated material that results is generally less than 3- feet long and not more than 6 inches in height. Depending on the ELU and the treatment need within the ELU, shrubs, trees, or both would be masticated. Mastication may be done as an individual treatment or in combination with thinning and pre-commercial thinning.

106 Environmental Assessment

Underburning (Alternative 2 and 3) A variety of prescribed fire techniques would be used to meet restoration activities. Underburning would be accomplished by applying low to moderate intensity fire using hand, mechanical, or aerial firing methods. Treatment is designed to reduce surface and ladder fuels (small trees and shrubs) to both reduce intense fire behavior, as well as to restore “natural” understory conditions. Underburning would be accomplished when conditions are favorable and the risk of fire escape low. Also, all burning would follow site specific conditions identified in the burn plan.

Fire Control Lines (Alternative 2 and 3) Fire control lines (firelines) would be used to facilitate prescribed burning operations. Fireline construction may consist of removing herbaceous vegetation, pruning, or cutting breaks in the fuel by hand. All vegetation would be cleared for a 3-foot strip down to mineral soil. Firelines would be rehabilitated, which may include pulling removed material back into the lines, hand constructing water diversion channels, or laying shrubs or woody debris in the lines following burning. Where possible, fire control lines would be located on natural barriers, roads, and trails.

Handcut, Pile and Burn (Alternative 2 and 3) Hand cut, pile, and burn is a type of prescribed burning in which downed fuels, natural fuels, brush and heavy accumulations of litter would be piled by hand and burned during conditions when risk of fire spread is low and when smoke would be adequately dispersed. Handpiles would be up to 6-feet high and 8 feet in diameter and would be placed as far from the canopy drip-line of trees as possible to prevent scorch. In a number of settings, such as meadow restoration areas, this treatment is prescribed, but the area actually treated would be much less than the total treatment acres.

Temporary Road Construction (Alternative 2) Alternative 2 proposed a total of 18.9 miles of new road construction. Approximately one-half of these occur on existing road templates and one-half would involve clearing to create a new right- of-way. All roads would be closed to public use during implementation and restored following implementation (5 years). Restoration includes stabilization and de-compaction and incorporation of coarse woody debris on the roadbed. Also, roads would be re-contoured to meet Forest standards.

Road Restoration (Alternative 3) A total of 7 miles of existing non-system roads would be obliterated under this alternative, using restoration treatments described under temporary road construction.

Alternative Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) Because there are no treatments proposed, there would be no direct effects to wildlife (e.g., mortality or harm and harassment). In general under this alternative, forest conditions described in the existing condition section would persist. These conditions have led to a shift from historic conditions, including: increasing stand density, loss of openings and grasslands, declining hardwood shrubs, a shift in composition from ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir, and a reduction in aspen. Collectively these changes have resulted in a more homogenous landscape that has reduced both stand and landscape diversity. While there would be some changes due to future

107 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

insect related mortality (described below), these changes and departure from historic conditions would continue under this alternative.

Due to the continued suppression of fire, increasing levels of ladder and surface fuels and considering that mountain pine beetle mortality would continue to increase dead wood (84 to 92 percent of the ponderosa pine stands in a high hazard rating [USDA Forest Service 2011f]), the risk of wildfire would increase. If wildfires occurred, approximately one-half of the project area would experience flame lengths greater than 4 feet in height and the likelihood of crown fires would be between 57 and 75 percent depending on moisture and wind conditions. As a result, the likelihood of a high intensity, stand-replacing wildfire is greatest under this alternative.

Because road density and use would not change habitat for species that are sensitive to road related or human disturbance would be unchanged. Also, any changes in cover or forage conditions would largely occur due to natural disturbances. However, mountain pine beetle mortality is expected to occur on approximately 5,000 acres and of this, 4,256 acres are in a high hazard category. As a result, it is estimated that ponderosa pine mortality would occur on 70 percent of the trees in the 5.0 to 9.9 inch size class and 80 to 90 percent of the 10 inch d.b.h. or larger trees, and large-diameter conifer cover would be reduced on the affected acres (29 percent of the project area). This reduction would vary over time and in the short term (10 years), standing dead trees would continue to increase. Also as trees die, downed wood would increase and provide some increases in wildlife forage. However as trees die, the large amount of jack- strawed downed wood would reduce access for some species such as elk and deer. Additionally, over the long-term (greater than 10 years), overstory conditions would be reduced and in areas where mortality is concentrated, it is likely that affected stands would be poorly stocked, reducing overhead cover. The actual changes due to beetle activity are dependent on weather and cannot be accurately predicted at this time.

Alternatives 2 and 3 (Action Alternatives) Treatments proposed under alternatives 2 and 3 are displayed in Table 24; direct and indirect effects are discussed below. Anticipated effects of the action alternatives are based on implementation of project design features which are designed to reduce potential impacts to wildlife. Project design features are summarized in Table 25.

108 Environmental Assessment

Table 25. Wildlife project design features Target Reference Design feature Unit species/habitat Snags and Wildlife Trees Plan 2-35 Retain all soft snags unless they pose a safety or fire hazard. All Snag Dependent PDF Due to the importance of large-diameter hard snags for wildlife; with the exception of trees All Wildlife near roads, trails, or high use recreation sites, or where public or operator safety and facility protection is necessary; all snags greater than or equal to 20 inches d.b.h. should be retained. In areas of concentrated mortality retain a minimum of 2, 20-inch d.b.h. or larger snags per acre. Plan 2-36 Where feasible, protect snags >20 inches d.b.h. that do not provide a safety hazard by All clearing brush or duff away from the base of the tree. Plan 2-35 Within Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine sands, retain a minimum of 158 snags/100 acres Identified during with a minimum d.b.h. of 10 inches. Larger diameter snags are preferred when available. implementation Final snag numbers would be assessed following burning to include delayed prescribed burn mortality. Plan 2-35 Within aspen/riparian stands, retain 300 snags/100 acres with a minimum diameter of 6 Identified during inches. Larger-diameter snags are preferred when available. Final snag numbers would implementation be assessed following burning to include delayed prescribed burn mortality. Plan 2-36 In order to reduce cutting for firewood, snags should be retained away from roads. Identified during implementation Plan 2-36 Leave large-diameter (>16 inch d.b.h.) deformed, cull, and spike-topped trees during See snag retention map harvest to provide future wildlife trees. These trees should be girdled or killed so that they stop producing seed. Plan 2-35 Retain snags and wildlife trees in clusters or groups whenever possible rather than All units To uniformly across the area. Locate wildlife trees adjacent to natural openings or aspen, 2-36 near water or in valley bottoms whenever possible. Plan 2-36 Utilize timber sale contract “C” clauses to protect snags and dead wood. All units Downed Woody Debris and Understory Diversity PDF When available in dry ponderosa pine habitats retain up to 5 tons per acre downed woody See downed woody Wildlife Dependent debris, with material greater than 3 inches d.b.h. being preferred. debris map on Downed Wood PDF When available in forest types other than dry ponderosa pine retain a minimum of 10 tons See downed woody per acre (when available) downed woody debris. Material greater than 3 inches d.b.h. is debris map preferred. PDF When present on the site and where feasible maintain two down logs per acre at least 12 All units inches in diameter (at large end) and 2-feet long.

109 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Target Reference Design feature Unit species/habitat Roads and Skid Trails PDF To retain habitat for snag dependent species and species dependent on large-diameter All temporary roads Snag Dependent trees, new road corridors would be located to avoid large diameter trees and snags to the Wildlife extent possible. PDF All temporary roads constructed would be closed to public use (e.g., gates or barricades) All temporary roads Wildlife Sensitive to during implementation and obliterated immediately following use Disturbance Burning, Mastication and Hand Treatment PDF Where feasible and when consistent with fuel reduction objectives, use control lines and/or All burn units Big Game and firing techniques to maintain pockets of native understory shrubs. Understory Diversity PDF Due to the importance of understory hardwood shrubs for wildlife, and when consistent All mastication and Big game and with fuel management objectives, strive to retain 30 to 50 percent of the existing hardwood hand treatment units Understory Diversity shrubs. To the extent possible, shrubs should be maintained in a patchy mosaic across the site. Wildlife PDF Recommendations from the final report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-logging study All units Elk would be implemented during timber harvest activities. Applicable design features include: • Logging activity would be confined to a single drainage at a time with all work completed in the shortest time frame possible. • Logging operations would be prohibited during the first 2 weeks of the general rifle season in order to maintain big game habitat capability and hunting opportunity. • All temporary roads would be closed to public use. • Recreational use of firearms would be prohibited for anyone working within an area closed to the general public. • Temporary road construction would not occur within elk winter range. • Forest adjacent to winter foraging areas would be retained. • Timber harvest on winter range would be scheduled outside the winter use period (see PDF Map). PDF In order to reduce wildlife avoidance of, and hunting mortality in areas and when To be identified during consistent with fuel reduction objectives, adequate vegetative cover should be maintained layout along open roads in areas with documented deer and elk use. These areas, and the vegetative cover to be left, would be identified during layout by the fuels specialist and District wildlife biologist.

110 Environmental Assessment

Target Reference Design feature Unit species/habitat PDF If elk calving or nursery areas or deer fawning areas are identified prior to or during project To be identified during Elk and Deer implementation, these area would be protected. This would be from late May through July layout unless surveys indicate areas are no longer used. These areas would be determined annually through coordination with the MFWP and the district wildlife biologist. PDF Within active goshawk territories, maintain a 40 acre (minimum) no-activity buffer around See PDF map Goshawk known nests. Restrict ground-disturbing activities inside post-fledgling Areas between April 15 and August 15 to protect goshawk pair and young from disturbance during the breeding season until fledglings are capable of sustained flight. PDF If raptor nests are identified during project implementation, a wildlife biologist would be All units contacted and appropriate buffers and limiting operating periods established. PDF If any threatened, endangered or sensitive species are located during project layout or All units TES Wildlife implementation, a wildlife biologist would be notified. Management activities would be altered, if necessary, so that protection measures can be taken.

111 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Mechanical Treatments (Alternative 2 Only) Mechanical treatment or thinning would only occur under alternative 2 and is designed to create more open stand conditions composed of predominantly ponderosa pine, or to a lesser extent ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir on the cooler sites.

Direct and Indirect Effects. Direct effects to wildlife from harvest are generally short term (less than 1 year) and may involve some direct mortality of some less mobile species during logging. Cutting may also result in avoidance of the site by some species sensitive to disturbance, while other species would be attracted to the site because of the increased slash and associated cover or the increased forage that would be available on the site (within 1 year of treatment).

Because thinning would remove some overstory trees, canopy closure would be reduced and following implementation approximately 2,500 acres would have a canopy closure of less than 40 percent, whereas between 40 and 60 percent canopy cover would be retained on most of the acres treated. Conversely, thinning combined with proposed burning (described below) would result in meadow and savannah restoration and improve habitat for species that prefer or require open-forest conditions. Effects of canopy closure changes are also discussed in the project goshawk/old growth report.

Over the long term (greater than 10 years) as the woody understory develops, treatment would create more diverse stand conditions with continued increases in both forage (shrubs and herbaceous vegetation) and cover. While mature forest species in the Rocky Mountains are generally less affected by partial harvest similar to that proposed (Hejl 2011), a shift in species use following harvest can be expected, with benefits to ground foraging birds and small mammals and decreased use of some canopy and bole foraging species (Raphael et al. 1988 [in Hejl 2011]; Salabanks and Arnett 2002; USDA Forest Service 2006b). Potential effects to reptiles and amphibians would also vary, and because few reptiles occupy closed-canopy forests in the western United States (with the exception of the rubber boa), potential impacts to this group would be expected to be low and short term. Conversely, because reducing canopy cover would result in warmer and drier conditions, potential impacts to amphibians would be greater including some reduction in diversity and abundance (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Due to increased structural diversity that will develop on these sites, amphibian diversity and abundance is expected to be maintained over the long term.

Dead trees would be removed, so adverse impacts to species requiring snags can be expected (Salabanks and Arnett 2002; Hejl 2011). Project design features that retain snags greater than 20 inches, as well as a component of small-diameter snags and snag recruitment trees, would reduce impacts to these species and help to maintain suitable habitat on the treated site. Forest Plan snag requirements would be met or exceeded on all sites. Treatments would result in improved stand structure and diversity over the long term; and it is expected that the diversity of snag and downed wood dependent species would be maintained or improved (USDA Forest Service 2006b).

Because treatment would increase light to the forest floor, there would be an increase in herbaceous and understory diversity. While there may be an immediate (1 to 2 years) decrease in some grasses and forbs following harvest, a large increase would occur within 2 to 3 years and would last over the long term (e.g., greater than 10 years) (Wisdom et al. 2004). Conversely, there would be a decrease in overhead cover until woody understory vegetation is established on the site (greater than 10 years). However, because the desired future condition is to restore the open stand conditions that occurred historically, there would be a long-term reduction in cover on all sites. Conversely, over the long- term, treatment would improve the health and vigor of remaining trees and increase resistance to insects and disease and promote the growth of large fire resistant trees.

112 Environmental Assessment

Burning (Alternative 2 and 3) Direct Effects. Proposed burning is expected to have some direct effects on wildlife inhabiting the site at the time of treatment, although this would vary depending on time of burn and fuel conditions, proximity to breeding habitat, and species. For example, fall burns burn hotter, increasing the likelihood of mortality. However, while some animals may be killed during burning, behavioral avoidance of wildlife by fire is well documented and large mobile mammals, adult birds, and even small less mobile species (e.g., frogs and toads) are capable of either moving quickly to unburned refugia, or seeking out refugia in burrows and crevices (Kennedy and Fontaine 2009; Russell et al. 1999; Smith 2000; Yager et al. 2007). Potential direct impacts to riparian areas, as well as impacts to amphibian breeding habitat would be reduced with implementation of project design features, riparian management zones, and considering that burning intensity would be reduced in these areas.

Most undesirable direct effects are overcome by choosing proper times, places and methods of prescribed burning. For example, because burning would occur largely outside the breeding season, potential for direct mortality is reduced (Bagne and Purcell 2008). Also, natural and human-ignited fire has historically been a part of Montana landscapes (Amacher et al. 2008) and many forest species have evolved with the presence of fire. Consequently, when mortality does occur, it is usually negligible at the population level (Lyon et al. 1978) and is not expected to adversely affect local populations for any species.

Indirect Effects. Indirect effects of proposed burning include modifications or changes in vegetative conditions on the affected sites at both the stand and landscape level (Kennedy and Fontane 2009). Generally, burning would result in a reduction in shrubs and woody material and an increase in herbaceous vegetation (Bowles et.al. 2007; USDA Forest Service 2006b). In the short term this is expected to improve habitat for species that prefer or require forested habitat with a grass/forb understory, and decrease habitat for species that utilize understory shrubs or low cover provided by small-diameter woody vegetation. However over the long term, shrub diversity and vigor would increase as a result of burning. Burning intensity would vary and most treatment areas are expected to have a mosaic of understory conditions. These changes vary over time; Metlen and Fiedler (2006) found that while burning initially reduced cover and richness of the understory, by year three, understory richness increased when compared to the pre-treatment and control. While there would be a reduction in downed woody debris on the site, with implementation of project design features all sites would continue to meet or exceed Forest Plan guidelines for standing and downed woody debris, and suitable habitat for all species that currently use the site would continue to be available following treatment.

Burning would modify understory conditions on approximately 80 percent of the site, so there would be shifts in species diversity and abundance immediately following treatment. However, burning intensity would not be uniform and treatment areas would have a mosaic of burned and unburned lands due to variations in site conditions. Changes in understory would vary over time. For example, small mammals that need high understory cover to avoid predators may do poorly the first few years following treatment, whereas their numbers would be expected to exceed pre-treatment population levels when shrubs recover and forage (herbaceous vegetation and mast) increases (USDA Forest Service 2006b). So while impacts would affect species that prefer closed-canopy mature forest and utilize downed woody debris and woody vegetation removed during burning, effects on much of the site are expected to be short term. Considering that structural complexity and heterogeneity may be improved on the site (USDA Forest Service 2006b) and that the treated stand may be more resistant to wildfire and insects and disease, over the long term, habitat conditions and wildlife diversity and abundance would be maintained or improved both within the treatment unit and across the landscape.

113 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are determined by a number of factors including the burning intensity, as well as site-level fuels, topography, and moisture. This burn intensity would be expected to consume the litter, fine fuels. and small diameter trees and shrubs less than 5 inches in diameter (Bowles et al. 2007); although it generally would not be hot enough to scorch the soil or result in mortality of overstory trees on most of the area burned. There would be small areas that contain higher fuel levels and/or site conditions that create more intense burning conditions. In these areas, some overstory mortality may occur, although overstory mortality is not expected to exceed 5 percent of any unit. Overstory mortality would be widely scattered and consist of small canopy gaps.

Because stands would be characterized by more open conditions, overhead cover (e.g., conifer trees) would be reduced on all sites. Conversely, understory diversity including increased shrubs (Ritchie 2005 [Fuels Report]), herbaceous vegetation (grasses and forbs) and aspen would occur over both short (less than 5years) and long term (greater than 5 years). Because treatments proposed under alternative 2 would result in more open understory and overstory conditions, it is expected that both the amount and diversity of herbaceous and shrub diversity would increase the most under this alternative.

In order to ensure that desired burning conditions are met, all areas would be burned when weather conditions provide for safe ignition. A prescribed burn plan and all required documentation in accordance with USDA Forest Service and Region 1 standards must be completed and approved prior to implementation. These actions would ensure that burning conditions would be controlled and that adequate smoke dispersal would occur. Additionally, prior to treatment Forest Service personnel would survey the site and identify firing patterns and retention areas that would be expected to achieve objectives, including protection of riparian areas, shrub communities, and unique or uncommon habitats. Collectively these actions would help to ensure that fire-related effects are consistent with those anticipated.

Mastication (Alternative 2 Only) Direct and Indirect Effects. Direct effects include possible mortality of less mobile species utilizing understory vegetation as well as short-term avoidance of the site during treatment. However, because 85 percent of the project area would not be treated and with implementation of project design features to maintain a shrub component on sites treated, the likelihood of mortality is reduced.

This treatment uses a tracked or wheeled machine that shreds or chips shrubs, small trees, and down material up to 4 inches in diameter. As a result, most of the shrubs and other woody vegetation are removed from the site and mastication in combination with thinning can greatly reduce understory tree and shrub cover (Collins et al. 2007), as well as large diameter coarse woody debris (Fire Science 2009). Conversely because the existing dense conifer would be reduced, herbaceous vegetation would increase in the short term, whereas hardwood shrub diversity would increase over the long term. Also, because this treatment is used in combination with burning, shrub diversity and vigor would further be enhanced. Finally, project design features are in place that would maintain a shrub component on sites treated and habitat for species that prefer or require this component would continue to be available.

Hand Thinning and Handcut/Pile and Burn (Alternatives 2 and 3) Direct and Indirect Effects. Objectives of these treatments include removal of encroaching conifers and may be used as an individual treatment within a stand or in combination with commercial thinning and burning. Like mastication, possible direct effects include possible mortality of less mobile species and short term (1 year) avoidance of the site during treatment.

114 Environmental Assessment

Indirect effects include a reduction in understory and mid-story conifer cover due to treatment. On some smaller diameter stands, this would reduce canopy cover below 40 percent (approximately 200 acres), although overstory cover would be largely maintained on treatment sites. Also, if shrub cover is dense enough to create ladder fuels and present a fire risk, there could also be a reduction in shrub cover on some sites. Conversely, there would be both a short- (within 2 years) and long-term (greater than 10 years) increase in herbaceous vegetation and shrubs due to the more open understory conditions created, as well as through prescribed burning which is also proposed on the site (see Table 24).

Temporary Roads Construction and Maintenance (Alternatives 2 and 3) Roads can affect wildlife in many ways including:

• Direct loss of habitat through a loss of forest cover • Degradation of habitat quality through increased sedimentation or risk of invasive plants • Habitat fragmentation including increased edge or a loss of interior habitat • Avoidance by wildlife sensitive to the disturbance • Increased mortality associated with hunting or poaching • Road mortality, or barriers to wildlife movement and dispersal (NRDC 1999) Conversely, benefits may result to species that utilize the herbaceous vegetation associated with the road right-of-way.

Road activities including construction of temporary roads that are utilized for timber removal (alternative 2) and road maintenance activities (alternatives 2 and 3). The following is a description of the road treatments and a discussion of the general effects on wildlife, whereas additional road related effects are addressed in the species specific analysis.

Temporary Road Construction (Alternative 2) Alternative 2 proposed 18.9 miles of temporary road construction. Approximately one-half of this occurs on existing road prisms and one-half would involve creating a new right-of-way, and direct effects are largely limited to activities that occur to the roadbed and the associated right-of-way. Treatment on new road corridors would involve clearing a 15- to 20-foot rights-of-way within existing forest, which would result in approximately 15 acres of clearing. Treatment (all road miles) may also include shaping, adding culverts, improving drainage, and applying surfacing material. Effects include a short-term increase in sediment, as well as possible mortality to less mobile wildlife and behavioral avoidance of some mobile wildlife species during construction. However, potential effects depend in part on the location of the project road corridors. For example, over 85 percent of proposed roads occur within 0.5 miles of an existing open road, which are less likely to be used by species sensitive to disturbance and use associated with roads.

All temporary roads would be closed to public access during project implementation, so potential impacts associated with road use including road related mortality, poaching, noise and increased human activity are also reduced. As a result any increase in human action would be short term (less than 5 years). While roads would be permanently closed following use, by creating a new right-of- way, some increased human access would be expected to occur in the vicinity. Also low standard roads similar to those proposed have been shown to be barriers to the dispersal of some small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (NRDC 1999); hence, potential adverse effects can be expected to occur on a localized basis for some species. Effects to movement and dispersal are not expected to affect long-term reproduction or local populations of affected species due to the small amount of

115 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

acres affected, proximity to existing roads and because restoration treatments include road obliteration and de-compaction, which would reduce the likelihood roads would serve as a barrier to less mobile species.

Road Obliteration (Alternative 3) Under alternative 3 a total 7.6 miles of existing road prisms would be obliterated. Treatment would be similar to road obliteration described under alternative 2 and involve roadbed de-compaction and re-contouring. Also coarse woody debris would be put over the old template to help stabilize the site. Because these roads are already closed to the public there would be no change in access, although restoration treatments would the likelihood that roads would serve as a barrier to less mobile species.

Road Maintenance (Alternatives 2 and 3) Road maintenance includes shaping the roadbed, adding culverts and/or applying surfacing material. Like temporary road construction, this activity is expected to result in increased sedimentation during activities, although implementation of Forest BMPs would reduce these impacts (refer to the “Soil and Watershed” section). Effects to wildlife also include possible mortality to less mobile species, as well as behavioral avoidance during maintenance activities. Because this activity occurs on existing roads, wildlife related disturbance and mortality would be expected to be reduced.

Road Management (Alternatives 2 and 3) Many effects to wildlife are determined by road management, or whether a road is open, closed or restricted. The Lewis and Clark National Forest reduces impacts to wildlife by keeping roads into key habitats closed or restricted during critical periods of the year. In addition, all roads used by the project which are currently closed or restricted to meet wildlife or other resource objectives would be maintained in their pre-project status. Further, in order to reduce disturbance-related impacts to wildlife, all roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal would be closed to public access during and following implementation. As a result, the road management strategy in effect is expected to greatly reduce road-related disturbance to wildlife under both alternatives.

Cumulative Effects This section summarizes anticipated cumulative effects that would occur under all alternatives and information presented is used in the species cumulative effects analysis presented throughout this report. A complete list of past, on-going and future cumulative effects considered can be found in appendix A.

The cumulative analysis area is described above and includes a total of approximately 28,150 acres of NFS, private, state, and BLM land. The following is a discussion of the anticipated cumulative effects under each of the alternatives, whereas cumulative effects to specific species are discussed in the next section.

Alternative 1 Since 1980, past activities on NFS lands within the project area have included approximately 2,500 acres of timber harvest and 1,700 acres of underburning. Sites harvested have also had fuel reduction treatments such as burning and slash disposal, as well as reforestation activities such as site preparation and planting. Effects of these activities vary spatially and temporally and while cover and forage was reduced immediately following harvest and reforestation treatments, understory structure and the resulting cover and forage on many of these sites has since been restored or enhanced. Similarly overstory conditions of many older sites affected by harvest have started to close, whereas more recent sites still provide more open canopy conditions. More recently 400 acres of underburning

116 Environmental Assessment

occurred in 2009 in association with the Ashbridge 1-2-3-4-5 project. Effects on wildlife habitat would be similar to those described under treatment effects for burning. Also, effects of past activities are reflected in the existing canopy cover and size class conditions used throughout this analysis.

Other past and on-going activities on NFS lands (refer to appendix A) have included personal use firewood collection, noxious weed control along roadsides and at scattered locations within the project area, road maintenance, grazing, and dispersed recreational use. Activities on private land have included largely seasonal agricultural use and some scattered timber harvest. Additional wildlife effects summaries by activity are contained in the wildlife report.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Past, on-going and anticipated future cumulative effects are described under alternative 1 and by the year 2021 up to approximately 42 percent of the cumulative effects area would have been affected (alternative 2). However, all of the proposed burning and much of the proposed timber harvest would result in short-term effects. Also, overstory cover would be maintained on all sites, and collectively, the proposed activities are expected to restore historical conditions, reintroduce fire to the landscape, and reduce future insect and disease morality. For these reasons, both stand and landscape level habitat conditions would be improved. Also, while there would be a reduction in closed canopy forest habitat (up to 2,500 acres under alternative 2), closed canopy forested conditions would continue to predominate across the landscape including all affected drainages. As a result and considering that treatments would reduce the mortality of large diameter trees important to many wildlife species, reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire, and promote habitat diversity across the landscape, there are no significant cumulative effects to wildlife anticipated.

Species Effects

Wolverine

Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects. There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct impacts to wolverine and existing, remote habitat would remain unchanged. Also, in the absence of a catastrophic event such as large-scale blowdown or stand-replacing wildfire, over the short term (less than5 years) habitat conditions would not be expected to change under this alternative.

Over the long term (10 to 50 years), stands would continue to mature and late-successional habitat would develop. Changes in stand structure would result largely from individual tree mortality associated with inter-tree competition, blowdown, and epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle. While the amount and type of mortality varies by forest type and species, due to overstocking conditions, overcrowded stands would be at greater risk due to insect infestation and increased competition for nutrients, and water may lead to increased tree mortality. This would result in long-term increases in snags and downed woody debris of all size classes, although the availability of medium- and large- diameter trees would be reduced.

While big game forage would continue to decline due to increased conifer encroachment, cover would increase and project area big game populations (i.e, carrion) and wolverine foraging habitat would be maintained.

In addition to stand structure changes, species composition may continue to change. In the absence of fire there would be a shift away from fire tolerant species and there would be a continued reduction in

117 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

ponderosa pine. Also, departure from historical conditions would continue and because there would be no reduction in stand stocking the risk of insect related mortality would be greatest under this alternative. Fuel loading and stand structure would not be modified. The risk of wildfire and the likelihood of a long-term loss of habitat is anticipated to continue to increase under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects. Past, on-going, and future activities are discussed above and there is very little anticipated change in existing uses, including livestock grazing and human access. Much of this activity would continue to occur along roads or in areas that already receive more concentrated human use (e.g., trails and campground) where wolverines are less likely to occur. As a result, and due to the marginal foraging habitat conditions provided, and considering big game populations and remote habitat would be maintained, there are no long-term adverse cumulative effects to the wolverine anticipated.

Determination of Effects and Rationale Suitable wolverine dispersal and forging habitat would remain relatively unchanged and implementation of alternative 1 would have “No impact” on wolverines or their habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Effects. Because the project area does not provide denning habitat, there would be no effects to breeding individuals or reproduction. However, direct effects including short-term (less than 5 years) behavioral avoidance may occur to foraging or dispersing individuals. However, over 85 percent of the treatments occur within 0.5 mile of an open road which are less likely to be utilized by wolverine due to increased human presence and the likelihood that an individual would be directly affected is reduced. As a result, and considering that big game populations and wolverine foraging habitat would be maintained, direct effects would be limited to short-term avoidance of the site and no morality or reduced reproductive success would occur.

Indirect Effects. The maintenance of roads used, as well as newly constructed roads, would result in a reduction in forest cover on up to16 acres. Also under alternative 2, temporary road construction would reduce remote forest habitat, or lands greater than 0.5 mile from an open road by approximately 400 acres and there would be a short-term (5 years) reduction in remote forest habitat under this alternative. However, because temporary roads would be obliterated and restored following use, and considering that none of the roads would be open to designated public access, existing remote forest habitat would be maintained over the long term.

The immediate effects of harvest and fuel activities would be a reduction of vertical and horizontal structure due to removal of trees, downed woody debris, and understory vegetation, with canopy cover being reduced below 40 percent on up to 2,502 acres under alternative 2. However, most of the proposed treatments (greater than 85 percent under both alternatives) occur within 0.5 mile of an open road that has elevated levels of human activity. As a result, these areas would not be preferred and the likelihood that wolverine would be affected is reduced. Mature forest conditions would continue to predominate within all affected watersheds and big game populations would be maintained in the short term and maintained or increased (due to increases in forage) over the long term. While some treatments would reduce suitable wolverine habitat, long-term human access and disturbance is not anticipated to increase. As a result, remote habitat or lands greater than 0.5 mile from an open road would be maintained over the long term and suitable wolverine foraging and dispersal habitat would continue to be available under both action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects. Anticipated cumulative effects are discussed above and under alternative 1. Collectively, future actions would affect up to approximately 42 percent of the analysis area

118 Environmental Assessment

(alternative 2), although very little change is expected in existing uses, including livestock grazing and dispersed recreational use. Also, much of these activities would continue to occur along roads or in areas that already receive concentrated human use where wolverines are less likely to occur. While there would be a reduction in closed canopy forest on up to 9 percent of the cumulative effects area, closed canopy mature forest conditions would continue to predominate across the landscape. As a result, suitable wolverine foraging and dispersal habitat would continue to be available and there would be no long-term adverse cumulative effects to wolverine anticipated.

Determination of Effect and Conclusion While treatments (alternative 2) would result in a short-term decrease in remote forest habitat, no mortality or reduced reproduction is expected to occur and only short-term effects to this species or its habitat are anticipated. As a result and based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of the action alternatives “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

• Over 85 percent of the harvest, burning, fuels and road treatments would occur in marginal low elevation habitat, greatly reducing potential effects. • No den habitat would be affected and foraging habitat would be maintained both in the short- and long term. • Any increased access would be short term and existing remote habitat would be maintained over the long term. • Proposed treatments would reduce the risk of wildfire and insect mortality, which would help to maintain late successional forest conditions (i.e., large diameter trees) and reduce the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Wolverine habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. While wolverine foraging habitat would be reduced under the action alternatives, there is no mortality anticipated. No den habitat would be affected and year-round foraging habitat would be maintained. No new system roads would be constructed and all temporary roads built then obliterated following timber removal would be closed to public access. As a result, remote forest habitat would be maintained over the long term. While there would be a reduction in closed canopy conifer forests that are common across the Lewis and Clark National Forest, treatments under the action alternatives would help to restore historic desired future conditions, including restoration of the dry ponderosa pine forest which is recognized as an uncommon and important habitat for wildlife.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2); (2) give special emphasis to sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2); (3) maintain current populations of elk and other big game species (USDA Forest Service 1986 pages 2-2 and 2-6); and (4) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state historically maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2). Finally all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

119 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Gray Wolf To ensure the conservation of wolf populations, the Forest Service uses three limiting factors identified in the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987) to evaluate impacts from forest management including (1) potential for wolf/human interaction, (2) effects on the wolf prey base, and (3) impacts to the integrity of key wolf habitat (i.e., rendezvous and den sites). The following is a discussion of these factors by alternative.

Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects. There are no treatments proposed for this alternative, so there are no direct effects anticipated to the gray wolf. Landscape-level habitat is displayed in Table 21 and alternative treatment effects discussed above. As described, there would be little change in forest structure and diversity under alternative 1, although increased levels of downed woody debris would occur. Mature forest conditions would continue to predominate across the project area. While forage for big game may continue to decline in some areas, due to mountain pine beetle mortality, it is expected that localized increases in big game forage would occur and cover may continue to be available within all drainages. There are no anticipated increases in human activity or access and livestock grazing would be unchanged. As a result, there are no direct effects to the gray wolf anticipated.

Indirect effects of this alternative are discussed above. While there may be increased levels of mortality and some stand and landscape level changes, the wolf prey base and foraging/dispersal habitat would be largely unchanged.

Cumulative Effects. Cumulative effects are discussed above and habitat conditions would be largely unchanged. Also, there is little change in existing uses anticipated and most uses occur near open roads where wolves are less likely to occur. As a result, suitable wolf foraging and dispersal habitat would continue to be available and there are no long-term adverse effects to the gray wolf anticipated.

Determination and Conclusions Suitable wolf habitat, including remote areas for denning and big game populations would remain largely unchanged. As a result, and considering that human use and access is not expected to increase, and big game populations would be maintained, implementation of alternative 1 would have “No impact” on wolves.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects. No known wolf den or rendezvous sites would be affected. As a result, no mortality or effects to reproduction are anticipated. While both action alternatives would result in some increase in human activity, based on information described under treatment effects, activities would be short term. Over 85 percent of burning, harvest, fuel reduction and road treatments would occur within 0.5 mile of an open road, reducing the likelihood that the area would be utilized by wolves. While there would be short-term impacts to remote habitat (i.e., lands greater than 0.5 mile from an open road), remote habitat would be maintained over the long term (greater than 5 years).

Big game populations would be maintained in the short term and maintained or increased in the long term due to increased diversity and forage. As a result wolf prey would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects. In addition to cumulative effects discussed above under alternative 1, proposed treatments would result in up to additional 12,859 acres of disturbance (alternative 2). As described under alternative effects, disturbance and most changes in habitat would be short term. Suitable foraging and dispersal habitat would continue to be available within all affected drainages, and over

120 Environmental Assessment

the long term, big game availability and wolf foraging habitat would be maintained. As a result, there are no long-term adverse effects to the gray wolf anticipated.

Action Alternative Determination and Conclusions Alternatives 2 and 3 have potential to result in short-term impacts to foraging or dispersing wolves. However, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

• Wolves in the project area are uncommon and no den or rendezvous sites are known to occur. • Any increases in human activity would be short term and foraging habitat is available within all affected drainages. • There are no anticipated increases in livestock use or any long term (less than 5 years) changes in human access or activity. • Big game populations are expected to be maintained over the short- and long term. • Treatments would reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and future insect and disease related mortality.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans There are no den or rendezvous sites affected under any alternative. Foraging habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. While the action alternatives would affect suitable foraging habitat, big game populations would be maintained or improved. Long-term human access would not be increased and remote habitat would be maintained, no new system roads would be constructed and all temporary roads built then obliterated following timber removal and would be closed to public access. Risks of large-scale wildfire would be reduced.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well-distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2); (2) give special emphasis to sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2); (3) maintain current populations of elk and other big game species (USDA Forest Service 1986 pages 2-2 and 2-6); (4) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5); and (5) aid in the recovery of the gray wolf (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

Bald Eagle

Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Determination. There are no treatments proposed, so there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated. Also, as described above, existing habitat conditions would be largely maintained and on-going and future uses are not expected to change. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have “No impact” to the bald eagle.

121 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Because the project area does not provide nesting, roosting habitat, or open water foraging habitat, potential direct effects would be limited to short-term behavioral avoidance of birds forging over uplands. This would vary and disturbance may only occur for a few days during burning treatments or a single season for mechanical treatments. Because eagle use of the project area is expected to be infrequent, potential direct effects are further reduced. Also, eagle upland foraging habitat is widely available to accommodate any displaced birds.

While habitat conditions described under alternative effects would occur, big game populations (carrion) would be maintained and available eagle upland foraging habitat would be largely unchanged. Similarly, due to the small amount of future activities other than the proposed action (see cumulative effect section) and considering that existing uses are expected to be largely unchanged, there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Determination While proposed treatments may result in short-term disturbance to forging eagles, considering that eagle foraging is infrequent, that no nesting, roosting or open water foraging habitat would be affected, that upland foraging habitat would be maintained, and that any avoidance of the area would be short term, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans No nest, roost or open water foraging habitat would be affected under any alternative, and upland forging habitat would be maintained. While there may be short-term avoidance of the project area during treatment, this would be short term. Big game populations would be maintained and under the action alternatives wildfire risk and insect and disease related mortality would be reduced.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2); (2) give special emphasis to sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2); (3) maintain current populations of elk and other big game species (USDA Forest Service 1986 pages 2-2 and 2-6); (4) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5); and (5) management guidelines identified in the Bald and Golden Eagle Management Act. Additionally the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993 a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

122 Environmental Assessment

Peregrine Falcon

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Determination. There are no treatments proposed, so there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated. Also as described above, existing habitat conditions would be maintained and on-going and future uses are not expected to change. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects to the peregrine falcon anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have “No impact” to this species.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Because the project area does not provide suitable cliffline nest habitat, there are no direct effects to breeding birds or a change in reproduction anticipated. As a result, direct effects are limited to short-term behavioral avoidance of treatment sites during implementation by foraging birds. However, any effects would be short term in nature (a single season), and suitable foraging habitat is widely available to accommodate any displaced birds.

While habitat conditions described under alternative effects would occur, suitable peregrine falcon foraging habitat would be largely unchanged. Similarly, due to the small amount of future activities other than the proposed action (see cumulative effect section) and considering that existing uses are expected to be largely unchanged, there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Determination While proposed treatments may result in short-term disturbance to foraging birds, considering that peregrine falcon foraging is infrequent, that no nest habitat would be affected, and that any avoidance of the area would be short term, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans No nest habitat would be affected under any alternative and peregrine foraging habitat would be largely unchanged. While there may be short-term avoidance of the project area during treatment, this would be short term. Under the action alternatives the risk of wildlife and insect and disease related mortality would be reduced.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2); (2) give special emphasis to sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2); and (3) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993 a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

123 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects, Determination and Conclusion. There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there are no direct, indirect effects anticipated. Also as described above, existing habitat conditions would be maintained and on-going and future uses are not expected to change. As a result there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have “No impact” to the Townsend’s big-eared bat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Effects. The project area does not provide suitable hibernacula or roost sites and only foraging bats would likely be affected. Because bat activity occurs at night or at dawn/dusk, it is unlikely timber harvest or hand treatments would result in direct effects (harm or harassment). While it is possible that smoke from prescribed burning could occur on a site when bats are actively foraging, all burning must adhere to State air quality standards and prior to implementation a prescribed burn plan would be developed. Smoke management is an important part of the burn plan and adherence to atmospheric guidelines helps to ensure that smoke is quickly dispersed. As a result, any smoke related impacts would be short term.

Indirect Effects. Proposed treatments would affect 12,859 acres and 11,780 acres of forested habitat and potentially suitable bat foraging habitat under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. While treatments would reduce snags and downed woody debris, with implementation of project design feature snags and downed woody debris would be retained on all sites. Also, increased structural diversity would result from burning, and bat prey diversity and foraging habitat would be maintained or improved on sites burned. Mechanical and hand treatments would maintain a mature overstory while increasing understory development; therefore, treatments would likely improve habitat by increasing prey diversity and reducing forest “clutter” which would improve maneuverability.

The Townsend’s big-eared bat conservation assessment (Gruver and Keinath 2006) recommends that timber harvest, prescribed burns, and other vegetation management actions strive to maintain a mosaic of mature forest canopy conditions that can be perpetuated over time. Considering that a mature forest canopy would be maintained on all treatment units, that a mosaic of habitat conditions would be available, and that risks of stand-replacing wildfire and insect- and disease-related mortality would be reduced, both action alternatives are expected to provide the landscape conditions preferred by the Townsend’s big eared bat.

Cumulative Effects. Activities that may result in cumulative effects are discussed above. Considering; the small amount of anticipated future activities on State, private and BLM lands anticipated; that suitable foraging habitat would be maintained on all treatment sites under the two action alternatives; that the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire would be reduced (action alternatives only); and that hibernating or roost bats would not be affected; there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects to the Townsend’s big-eared bat anticipated.

Determination The action alternatives would affect the structural conditions of Townsend’s big-eared bat foraging habitat and may result in short-term avoidance of treatment sites. As a result and based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.”

124 Environmental Assessment

• The project area does not provide suitable hibernacula or roost sites, and the closest known hibernacula are over 30 miles from the project area, minimizing use of the area by foraging bats.

• A diversity of habitat conditions would occur and suitable foraging habitat would continue to be available under both alternatives.

• While suitable foraging habitat would be affected, proposed treatments are expected to create landscape conditions preferred by the Townsend’s big-eared bat and promote habitat and prey diversity.

• Proposed treatments would reduce risk of wildfire and insect and disease-related mortality and increase the likelihood that habitat would be sustained over the long term.

• Townsend’s big-eared bats have been documented across the west foraging in dry ponderosa pine (WBWG 2005) and both alternatives would implement treatments to restore preferred bat habitat.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The action alternatives would modify stand structure and existing Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat. No hibernacula or roost sites would be affected and suitable foraging habitat would be maintained or improved. While there would be a reduction in closed canopy conifer forests that are common across the Lewis and Clark National Forest, treatments under the action alternatives would help to restore historic desired future conditions, including restoration of the dry ponderosa pine forest which is recognized as an uncommon and important habitat for wildlife.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2); (2) give special emphasis to sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-2); and (3) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Additionally the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

Bobcat

Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Effects and Determination. Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative, there are no direct effects to bobcat anticipated. Over the long term (10 to 50 years), stands would continue to mature and late-successional habitat would develop. Standing and downed wood and the dense understory conditions preferred by bobcat would increase. The integrity of riparian areas and travel corridors as well as existing prey habitat diversity would be maintained. The would be No Effect to individuals or local populations

125 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Cumulative effects are discussed above and habitat conditions would be largely unchanged. Also there is little change in existing uses anticipated. As a result, and considering preferred habitat would be maintained, there are no long-term or significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Effects. While mortality to individual animals from treatment is not expected to occur, direct effects include short-term avoidance of treatment areas during implementation, as well as possible mortality to young during denning. Effects of mortality from burning would be reduced because treatment would occur largely outside the denning period. Also, harvest would be implemented over a period of 10 years and restricted to a single drainage at a time. As a result, unaffected den habitat would continue to be available and the likelihood of mortality or reduced reproduction is low.

Because proposed treatments under both alternatives would create more open understory conditions, foraging habitat for species such as snowshoe hare that prefer dense understory conditions would be reduced. Although, because burning prescriptions are designed to retain large-sized woody debris, habitat for snowshoe hare would be expected to be retained (Ruediger et al. 2000). As a result, and with implementation of project design features that retain downed wood including large-diameter wood, as well as pockets of understory shrubs and vegetation, and considering that 20 percent or more of the site would be untreated, foraging habitat would be retained on treatment sites. Conversely, because burning would create a mosaic of habitat conditions, understory and prey habitat diversity would increase (USDA Forest Service 2012). Similarly, while harvest and mastication or hand treatment would also reduce understory structure and diversity, with project design features that retain snags, downed wood and understory shrubs, as well as retention of riparian buffers, bobcat prey and foraging habitat would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects. Past, on-going and anticipated future cumulative effects are discussed above. While up to approximately 42 percent of the cumulative effects area would have been affected (alternative 2), proposed burning and much of the proposed timber harvest would result in short-term effects. The likelihood of mortality is low, overstory cover would be maintained on all sites and collectively the proposed activities are expected to restore historical conditions, reintroduce fire to the landscape, and reduce future insect and disease morality. As a result, and considering existing uses are not expected to change and that treatments would promote a diversity of foraging habitat conditions across the landscape, there would be no significant cumulative effects to bobcat anticipated.

Determination While mortality and disturbance of bobcat may occur under both alternatives, because any mortality would be localized and most treatments would occur outside the denning season, the likelihood of mortality is low and disturbance effects are largely short term in nature. Also, both alternatives would maintain suitable den and foraging habitat on treatment sites, promote a diversity of foraging habitat conditions, and reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire. As a result, implementation of the action alternatives “may affect” individuals or habitat, but local and forest populations would be maintained.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans While treatments may result in short-term (1 year) and possible localized mortality to bobcat, direct effects would be largely short term (1 year). Also, suitable den and forging habitat would be maintained in the short- and long term under all alternatives, whereas the risk of large scale wildfire would be reduced under the action alternatives.

126 Environmental Assessment

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2), and (2) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

Dusky (Blue) Grouse

Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Effects and Determination. Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative, there would be no direct effects to grouse anticipated. Additionally, considering that forest/shrub/meadow habitat would be largely unchanged (see “Alternative Effects”), suitable nesting and forging habitat would be largely unaffected. As a result, and considering existing uses are not expected to change, there are no direct, indirect or significant cumulative effects anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have “no effect” on individuals, habitat or local populations of dusky grouse.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Effects. While the likelihood of mortality to adult birds is low, because blue grouse occur throughout much of the project area, it is expected that some mortality to nesting birds is possible, if treatment occurs during the nesting season (approximately 5/15 thought 6/15). However, because most burning would be completed prior this period, the potential mortality associated with burning is considered low. It is also possible that mechanical treatments proposed under alternative 2 and hand treatments proposed under both alternatives could also result in harassment of mobile birds and possible mortality to nestlings or eggs. However, treatment would be limited to a single drainage at a time, and most of the treatments would occur outside the nesting period. As a result, any mortality would be localized and only affect a single year’s reproduction for the affected nest. Consequently, and considering that nesting and brood rearing habitat would be improved, it is expected that blue grouse reproduction would be improved over the long term.

Indirect Effects. As described under the “Alternative Effect” section, because treatments strive to restore meadow and savannah habitat, including a 2,500-acre increase in forested stands with less than 40 percent canopy closure, blue grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat would be increased under alternative 2. While treatments proposed under alternative 3 would reduce canopy cover and increase the availability of shrub and herbaceous vegetation due to proposed burning, closed canopy conditions would continue to predominate in all treatment units. As a result, while habitat would be improved, considering the residual conifer canopy would continue to exceed 50 percent on most sites, alternative 2 would result in the greatest increase in both nesting and brood rearing habitat. However, because both alternatives propose meadow restoration and aspen enhancement treatments (see Table 24) which are expected to improve blue grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat both in the short- and long term Also, because closed canopy conifer stands would continue to predominate in all affected drainages, available winter habitat would be continue to be available.

Cumulative Effects. Anticipated cumulative effects are described above and it is anticipated that existing land uses would be largely maintained and there would be very little State, private, or BLM

127 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

lands affected by future activities. So while there may be short-term (1 year) and localized mortality from proposed treatments, because grouse habitat on non-NFS lands would be maintained and considering both alternatives are expected to improve blue grouse habitat and reproduction, there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Determination While mortality and disturbance of blue grouse may occur under both alternatives, because any mortality would be localized and most treatments would occur outside the nesting season, any impacts would be short term. As a result and considering that both alternatives would result in the long-term improvement in blue grouse habitat and reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire, it is anticipated that that local blue grouse populations would be improved. As a result, implementation of the action alternatives “may effect” individuals or habitat, but local and forest populations would be maintained.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans. While treatments may result in short-term (1 year) and possible localized mortality to blue grouse, effects would be short term (1 year). Also, it is anticipated that due to improved habitat conditions that grouse reproduction would be improved over the long term. Under the action alternatives the risk of large scale wildfire and insect and disease related mortality would be reduced and that shrub diversity and nest/brood habitat would be improved.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2), and (2) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) moving the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

Golden Eagle

Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Effects and Determination. There are no treatments proposed, so there are no direct, indirect effects anticipated. Also, as described above, existing habitat conditions would be maintained and on-going and future uses are not expected to change. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have no effect on individuals, habitat, or local populations of golden eagles.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Because the project area does not provide nesting habitat potential direct effects would be limited to short-term behavioral avoidance of foraging or wintering birds during treatment. Also, because eagle use of the project area is expected to be infrequent and considering eagle foraging habitat is widely available for any displaced birds, potential direct effects are further reduced.

128 Environmental Assessment

While closed canopy forest conditions would continue to predominate under both alternatives, both alternatives would increase the shrub and herbaceous vegetation component and increase available open-land habitat preferred for foraging, with alternative 2 resulting in the largest increase. As a result, habitat for species such as the black-tailed jackrabbit, which is a preferred prey species by golden eagles, would be improved.

Anticipated cumulative effects are described above. Considering that no mortality is anticipated, that any effects to individuals would only involve short-term avoidance, that foraging habitat would be improved over the long term and that existing uses are expected to remain largely unchanged, there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Determination While proposed treatments may result in short-term disturbance to foraging/wintering eagles, considering that eagle use is infrequent, that no nesting or roosting habitat would be affected, that open-land foraging habitat would be improved, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 “may affect” individuals or habitat, but local populations would be maintained.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans There is no nesting habitat affected under any alternative and existing forging habitat would be maintained under alternative 1 and improved under alternatives 2 and 3. While there may be short- term avoidance of the project area during treatment under the action alternatives, this would be short term and the action alternatives would reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire and help restore open-land foraging conditions preferred by the golden eagle.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2), and (2) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Also, all alternatives are consistent with management guidelines identified in the Bald and Golden Eagle Management Act and consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b) and FSM 2670.12). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2).

Prairie Falcon

Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Determination. There are no treatments proposed, so there are no direct, indirect effects anticipated. Also as described above, existing habitat conditions would be maintained and on-going and future uses are not expected to change. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have no effect on individuals, habitat or local populations of prairie falcons.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Direct Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Because the project area does not provide suitable cliffline nest habitat, there are no direct effects to breeding birds or a change in reproduction anticipated. As a result, direct effects are limited to short-term behavioral avoidance of foraging birds during treatment.

129 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

However, any effects would be short term in nature (a single season) and suitable foraging habitat is widely available to accommodate any displaced birds.

As described under the alternatives effects section both alternatives would maintain a predominance of closed canopy forest, while increasing the amount and distribution of open-land foraging habitat preferred by this species. As a result, habitat for preferred species such as the meadow lark would be improved.

Also as described above, existing habitat conditions would be maintained and on-going and future uses are not expected to change. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated and implementation of alternative 1 would have no effect on individuals, habitat, or local populations of prairie falcons.

Determination While proposed treatments may result in short-term disturbance to foraging birds, considering that no nest habitat would be affected, that foraging habitat would be improved and that any avoidance of the area would be short term, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 “may affect” individuals or habitat, but local populations would be maintained.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans There is no nest habitat affected under any alternative and prairie falcon foraging habitat would be maintained under alternative 1 and improved under alternatives 2 and 3. There may be short-term avoidance of the project area during treatment implementation. Also, alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the risk of wildfire and insect and disease related mortality.

Collectively for these reasons, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to (1) promote high quality wildlife habitat to ensure the desired mixture of well distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service-1986 page 2-2), and (2) provide viable populations of existing wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1986 page 2-5). Additionally, the action alternatives are consistent with direction to (1) move the vegetation conditions to a more natural ecological state that historically was maintained by fire (USDA Forest Service 1993 a page 2), and (2) provide a mosaic of vegetation conditions for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA Forest Service 1993 page 2). Finally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

Summary This following table summarizes the effect determination for all federally listed and candidate species, regionally sensitive species and Forest MIS. All alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

130 Environmental Assessment

Species Evaluated in Detail

Table 26. Determination summary Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Grizzly Bear No Affect No Affect No Affect Canada Lynx No Affect No Affect No Affect Regionally Sensitive and Federal Candidate2 Species Greater Sage-Grouse No Impact No Impact No Impact Sprague’s Pipit No Impact No Impact No Impact American Peregrine Falcon No Impact MINL1 MINL1 Bald Eagle No Impact MINL1 MINL1 Black-backed Woodpecker No Impact No Impact No Impact Burrowing owl No Impact No Impact No Impact Flammulated Owl No Impact No Impact No Impact Harlequin Duck No Impact No Impact No Impact Bighorn Sheep No Impact No Impact No Impact Fisher No Impact No Impact No Impact Gray Wolf No Impact MINL1 MINL1 Northern Bog Lemming No Impact No Impact No Impact Townsend’s big-eared bat No Impact MINL1 MINL1 Northern Leopard Frog No Impact No Impact No Impact Western Toad No Impact No Impact No Impact Greater short-horned Lizard No Impact No Impact No Impact Wolverine No Impact MINL MINL Management Indicator Species not Federally Listed, a Federal Candidate or Regionally Sensitive Beaver NEIP2 NEIP2 NEIP2 Black Bear NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Bobcat NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Mountain Lion NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Elk NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Mule Deer NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 White-tailed Deer NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Mountain Goat NEIP2 NEIP2 NEIP2 Dusky (blue) Grouse NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Golden Eagle NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Prairie Falcon NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Northern Goshawk NEIP2 MIPM3 MIPM3 Northern Three-toed Woodpecker NEIP2 NEIP2 NEIP2 1 MINL = May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Not Likely to Lead Toward a Trend in Federal Listing or a Loss of Viability. 2 NEIP = No Effect to individuals or local populations. 3 MIPM = May Impact individuals or habitat, local populations maintained. * Updated status information regarding wolverine is contained in the project file.

131 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Big Game The effects to big game is summarize below. The complete big game report with references including hiding cover and security analysis is contained in the project file

Alternative 1 Under alternative 1 no management activities would be implemented. In general, forest conditions described in the existing condition section would persist. These conditions have led to a shift from historic, including increasing stand density, loss of openings and grasslands, a shift in composition for ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir and aspen to conifer, as well as more of a homogenous landscape. Risk to insects and stand replacement fire has increased.

Because conifer encroachment would continue, understory cover would continue to increase. While overstory cover would also increase on portions of the project area, due to anticipated insect and disease related mortality, it is likely that overstory canopy cover would be reduced on up to 29 percent of the project area. Conversely forage availability would decrease due to continued closed canopy conditions and increasing downed woody debris that would restrict access by big game. However, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to result in a long-term reduction in elk or deer numbers, nor would they have long-term effects to local populations.

• Total and open road density would not change and there is no anticipated change in hunting or non-hunting related mortality, nor is there expected to be an increase in human access.

• While below recommended levels, effective hiding cover would be maintained. Also, while it is expected that some stands would fall below 40 percent canopy closure due to future MPB mortality, big game hiding cover would still be widely distributed.

• Forage availability would be largely unchanged in the short term and adequate to support big game populations.

Cumulative Effects. Since 1980, past activities on NFS lands have included approximately 2,500 acres of timber harvest and 1,700 acres of underburning. Sites harvested have also had fuel reduction treatments such as burning and slash disposal, as well as reforestation activities such as site preparation and planting. Effects of these activities vary spatially and temporally and while cover and forage was reduced immediately following harvest and reforestation treatments, understory structure and the resulting cover and forage on many of these sites has since been restored or enhanced. Similarly, overstory conditions of many older sites affected by harvest have started to close, whereas more recent sites still provide more open canopy conditions. More recently, 400 acres of underburning occurred in 2009 in association with the Ashbridge 1-2-3-4-5 project. Also, mountain pine beetle mortality has been occurring across much of the project area. Changes in vegetation conditions resulting from past activities are reflected in the existing big game habitat conditions.

Other past and on-going activities on NFS lands have included personal use firewood collection, noxious weed control along roadsides and at scattered locations within the project area, road maintenance, grazing associated with three allotments, dispersed recreational use and continued mountain pine beetle mortality (refer to appendix A). Activities on private land have included largely seasonal agricultural use and some scattered timber harvest. Additionally, there is an estimated 150 to 200 acres of TSI thinning and prescribed fire on BLM lands to be conducted for meadow restoration in the Willow Creek drainage.

132 Environmental Assessment

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes a variety of treatments designed to move conditions toward desired future conditions including dry ponderosa pine, aspen, and meadow restoration. Treatments include prescribed burning, mechanical and hand thinning, and mastication. Treatments proposed would reduce project area effective hiding cover and security habitat by 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, although habitat effectiveness within the 7th order HUC would be maintained. Collectively, anticipated effects are expected to increase the likelihood of mortality from hunting and possibly alter big game use patterns within the project area. However, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to result in a long-term reduction in big game numbers, nor would they have long-term effects to local populations.

• Implementation would result in both short- and long-term increases in available forage on both big game summer and winter range, which are expected to result in a long-term increase in herd health and numbers. Also, alternative 2 would result in the greatest increase in big game forage and the largest increase in aspen. • Design features are in place that would (1) retain cover along open roads, (2) retain an understory shrubs component, (3) retain large woody debris on all sites treated, (4) restrict harvest to a single drainage, and (5) restrict activities in winter range. Also, burning would occur in a mosaic of burned and unburned lands on treatment sites. Collectively for these reasons, it is expected that any increase in hunter mortality would be reduced and that big game cover would continue to be available both within sites treated and across the landscape. • There would be no reduction in elk hunting or non-hunting security across the 7th order watershed. • Fire suppression and departure from historical conditions has increased the likelihood that high intensity wildfires would occur and result in long-term reductions in big game habitat. Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the greatest reduction in future wildfire risk. • It is believed that active management is necessary to address fuel loading, species diversity, and forest health concerns. There is also a need to enhance big game winter range by increasing forage (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the treatments proposed under this alternative are designed to address these concerns and the long-term benefits associated with the increased forage availability and reduced wildfire risk, outweigh the short-term risks associated with the anticipated reduction in cover. Cumulative Effects. Past, on-going and anticipated future cumulative effects are described under alternative 1. Additionally, proposed treatments would affect approximately 45 percent of the analysis area under this alternative. Activities would reduce elk security by approximately 3 percent and reduce deer and elk hiding cover from 62 to 53 percent of the analysis area. Conversely, forage availability and the amount and distribution of aspen would be improved. As a result, seasonal use of the area by big game may change in response to these changes. However, there would be no increase in open road densities. Also, elk security habitat would continue to be well distributed across the analysis area. Finally, while there may be a likely increase in mortality from hunting, understory cover would develop on sites treated within 5 and 10 years and any increase in mortality is expected to be short term in nature. Additionally, design features are in place that would retain cover along open roads and within treatment units, which are expected to reduce hunting related mortality. As a result, suitable big game habitat would continue to exist both within and adjacent to treatment units and there are no effects anticipated that would result in long-term changes in big game numbers or reduce local populations.

133 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Alternative 3 Like alternative 2, this alternative moves conditions toward the desired future condition. However it eliminates mechanical treatments (thinning and mastication) and increases burning and hand treatments described above. Also there are no new roads proposed. So while it reduces ponderosa pine, aspen treatments from that of alternative 2, it maintains existing elk security habitat, minimizes reductions in elk hiding cover (EHC) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks recommended cover. Also, although increases in forage are less than alternative 2, treatments would increase the amount and diversity of forage across the project area when compared to no action. As a result, and based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to result in a long-term reduction in big game numbers, nor would they have long-term effects to local populations.

• Implementation would result in both short-term increases in available forage on both big game summer and winter range, which are expected to maintain or improve herd health and numbers. • There would be no reduction in elk non-hunting security, effective hiding cover or habitat effectiveness. • Design features are in place that would ()1) retain cover along open roads, (2) retain an understory shrubs component, (3) retain large woody debris on all sites treated, (4) restrict harvest to a single drainage, and (5) restrict activities in winter range. Also, burning would occur as a mosaic of burned and unburned lands on treatment sites. Collectively for these reasons, it is expected that any increase in hunter mortality would be reduced and that big game cover would continue to be available both within sites treated and across the landscape. • Fire suppression and departure from historical conditions has increased the likelihood that high intensity wildfires would occur and result in long-term reductions in elk habitat. Implementation of alternative 3 would result in a reduction in future wildfire risk. It is believed that active management is necessary to address fuel loading, species diversity, and forest health concerns. There is also a need to enhance elk winter range by increasing forage (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the treatments proposed under this alternative are designed to address these concerns and result in a short-term increase in forage and long-term benefits associated with reduced wildfire risk. As a result, it is expected that anticipated benefits outweigh the short-term risks associated with the anticipated reduction in cover.

Cumulative Effects. Past, on-going and anticipated future cumulative effects are described under alternative 1. Under alternative 3, approximately 41 percent of the analysis area would be affected by future activities. Open road density and elk security habitat would be unchanged and there would be a small reduction in elk hiding cover (1 percent). Like alternative 2, forage availability would increase, but at a somewhat reduced level. As a result, any effects are expected to be short term in nature; suitable big game habitat would continue to occur both within and adjacent to treatment units, and there are no changes in big game numbers or a reduction in local populations anticipated.

Conclusion. None of the alternatives currently meet direction to maintain 40 percent elk hiding cover by compartment, or provide 40 percent security habitat. Also, four sub-compartments fall below the recommended 35 percent elk hiding cover. Security habitat would be unchanged under alternatives 1 and 3, whereas it would be further reduced by 3 percent under alternative 2. While elk hiding cover would be reduced further under alternatives 2 and 3, due to long-term increases in forage and improved understory diversity, treatments would result in benefits to wildlife. Also, because the natural levels of elk hiding cover fall below the Plan threshold and treatments would benefit wildlife, both alternatives are consistent with Forest direction (USDA Forest Service 1993b, 2012). Alternative 2 would further reduce habitat effectiveness below the recommended level in the short

134 Environmental Assessment

term (5 years), whereas it would be unchanged under alternatives 1 and 3. Also, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks recommendations related to hiding cover and road density would not be achieved for one compartment (601) under alternative 2, whereas it would be achieved under alternatives 1 and 3.

Forest Plan objectives and standards are described in the introduction section of this document. While the action alternatives would reduce big game cover, the amount and diversity of big game forage would be improved. Additionally, suitable big game cover would continue to occur within and adjacent to treatment units. As a result, and because big game populations are not expected to change, all alternatives would meet Forest Plan direction to provide viable populations of existing wildlife species (USDA Forest Service 1986) and provide habitat for white-tailed deer (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2). Additionally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b); and FSM 2670.12). Finally, all alternatives positively manage roads through restrictions to control resource activities (USDA Forest Service 1993b) and maintain a low level of road open road densities. Alternatives 2 and 3 also meet Plan direction (USDA Forest Service 1986, page2-6) to promote winter range conditions through prescribed burning.

Snags The findings for snags are summarized below. The complete snag report with references is contained in the project file. Refer to the wildlife and old growth/northern goshawk reports for anticipated changes in stand structure resulting from continued fire suppression and elevated levels of tree stocking.

Existing Condition Using FVS modeling, existing snags were predicted on approximately 5,000 acres. Because there were few mixed conifer stands modeled (less than 100 acres), the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) model results represent ponderosa pine/Douglas fir stands, or the warm habitat type group. These results from the Forest 2004 old growth snag surveys and the Eastside snag report are displayed in the table below.

135 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Table 27. Existing snag distribution Area Average Snags/Acre >6 inches >10 inches >15 inches >20 inches d.b.h. d.b.h. d.b.h. d.b.h. Little Snowy Project Area 33.0 9.4 1.5 0.2 FVS Model Results (0.3−102.3) (1.3−31.0) (0−6.0) (0−2.0) Little Snowy Mountains All Lands NA 4.8 NA NA 2004 Forest Snag Surveys Ponderosa Pine/Douglas Fir NA 5.13 NA NA 2004 Forest Snag Surveys Warm Habitat Type Group NA 4.1 1.2 Eastside Snag Report (1.6−8.4) (0.3−2.9)

Due to overstocked stand conditions combined with insect and disease related mortality, the amount of snags greater than 10 inches d.b.h. within the project area has almost doubled since 2004, including an increase in larger diameter snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. As a result, snag availability greatly exceeds the 70 percent threshold identified in the Forest Plan for the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir type (1.58 snags greater than 10 inches d.b.h./acre) and is at (greater than 15 inches d.b.h.) or above (greater than 10 inch d.b.h.) snag levels documented in the Eastside snag report. Snags greater than 6 inches d.b.h. are displayed because species such as the downy woodpecker utilize smaller diameter snags.

Alternative 1 The mortality of large diameter ponderosa pine trees from mountain pine beetle would be highest under this alternative, while some snags would probably stand longer, it is expected that virtually all would be on the ground within 10 to 20 years of death. So while large diameter snag availability would increase in the next 10 to 20 years, due to future MPB mortality, it is anticipated that over the long-term there would be a reduction in large diameter snags (greater than 20 inches d.b.h.) under this alternative.

Conversely, there would be a continued increase in downed woody debris due to future mortality and fire suppression. As a result, both nesting and foraging habitat for downy, hairy, black-backed and northern three-toed woodpecker would increase under this alternative. However, because aspen would continue to decline, preferred aspen/riparian habitat for downy and hairy woodpeckers would be reduced over the long term.

Due to decades of fire suppression and increased levels of surface and ladder fuels, the likelihood of high intensity wildfire is greatest under this alternative. Should this occur, habitat for black-backed and northern three-toed woodpeckers would increase in the short term following fire; whereas there would likely be a long-term (greater than 10 years) reduction in habitat for the hairy and downy woodpecker, particularly if riparian areas are burned.

Cumulative Effects. Cumulative effects are evaluated across NFS and private lands within the project area. This area totals 14, 742 acres and includes 13,183 acres of NFS lands and 1,559 acres of private land. This area was selected because (1) it includes all areas affected by treatment, 2) the area is large enough to evaluate several home ranges and territories for the species evaluated, and (3) because the habitat conditions within the project area are representative of those found across the landscape. Future cumulative effects are predicted out to the year 2021, which is the time when all

136 Environmental Assessment

proposed treatments are expected to be completed, as well as the time when future projects can be reasonably predicted.

Since 1980, past activities on NFS lands within the project area have included approximately 2,500 acres of timber harvest and 1,700 acres of underburning. Also, of the lands harvested, approximately 1,100 acres have involved salvage harvest. While past low-severity burning would remove small- diameter downed wood, large-diameter logs would have been retained on both burned and unburned portions of the sites. Conversely, harvest and fuel treatments would have reduced both standing and downed woody debris from affected sites, although Forest Plan standards would have retained snags on most of the past harvest (i.e., since 1986). More recently, 400 acres of underburning occurred in 2009 in association with the Ashbridge 1-2-3-4-5 project and effects included a reduction in smaller- diameter downed wood and a localized increase in small-diameter snags due to fire mortality. Conversely, past mountain pine beetle mortality has increased both standing and downed wood across much of the project area. Effects of these past activities are reflected in the existing habitat conditions described in this report.

Other past and on-going activities on NFS lands have included personal-use firewood collection, noxious weed control along roadsides and at scattered locations within the project area, road maintenance, grazing, dispersed recreational use, and continued mountain pine beetle mortality. Activities on private land have included largely seasonal agricultural use and some scattered timber harvest. Additionally, there is an estimated 150 to 200 acres of TSI thinning and prescribed fire on BLM lands to be conducted for meadow restoration in the Wouldow Creek drainage. While there would be localized decreases in snags due to firewood collection or hazard tree removal on private and NFS lands, snag availability is expected to increase due to continued mountain pine beetle mortality. As a result, the availability of snags and downed wood would remain high under this alternative and there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects to the black-backed, northern three-toed, hairy or downy woodpecker anticipated.

Alternative 2 and 3 Suitable habitat would be reduced under both action alternatives on the acreage proposed for harvest, hand clearing and prescribed burning because treatments would reduce snags and downed woody debris on the sites treated. The availability of suitable habitat varies by treatment; for example, Bunnell et al. (2002) found that partial harvest activities similar to those proposed did not affect the abundance of primary cavity nesters in most cases, and in some cases the abundance increased due to small openings and creation of edges. In a study of dry forests in Washington, Lyon et al. (2008) found thinning and low-severity burning may enhance foraging habitat for bark gleaning species as a whole.

Both alternatives would promote aspen regeneration. While there would be a reduction in mature aspen habitat preferred by the downy and hairy woodpeckers, because treatments would help ensure that aspen is maintained across the landscape, aspen/riparian habitat would be maintained or improved over the long term.

The proposed treatments would reduce the risk of wildfire and future insect mortality, which would help to maintain late successional forest conditions (i.e., large diameter trees) and reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing wildfire and a long-term reduction in habitat for the hairy and downy woodpecker. Conversely, because high intensity wildfire improves habitat for the black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers, the action alternatives are less likely to provide preferred habitat for these species.

137 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Anticipated cumulative effects are discussed under alternative 1. While proposed treatments would affect up to 80 percent of the analysis area (under alternative 2), because project design features would retain snags in all treatment units, and considering the widespread availability of snags and downed wood both in the short- and long term, there are no significant long-term cumulative effects to black-backed, northern three-toed, hairy or downy woodpecker anticipated.

Because treatments are designed to reduce fuels, there would be a reduction in downed woody debris on all sites. However, the need to maintain downed woody debris was recognized. Refer to the project design criteria and mitigation section for implementation measure to maintain a dead wood component within all treatment units. In the short- and long term, there are no adverse significant long-term cumulative effects to black-backed, northern three-toed, hairy or the downy woodpecker anticipated.

With implementation of design and mitigation measures all alternatives meet or exceed Forest Plan Standards related to retention of snags and downed woody debris. With the widespread availability of snags and downed wood, no alternative would adversely impact local populations of northern three- toed, hairy or downy woodpeckers or alter the local viability of these species.

Cumulative Effects. In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, proposed treatments would affect up to 80 percent of the analysis area (under alternative 2). However, because design features would retain snags in all treatment units and considering the widespread availability of snags and downed wood both in the short- and long term, there are no significant cumulative effects to black-backed, northern three-toed, hairy or downy woodpecker anticipated.

Old Growth and Northern Goshawk The findings for old growth and northern goshawk are summarized below. The complete Old Growth and Northern Goshawk Report including monitoring/survey information and references is contained in the project file.

Alternative 1 Old Growth. Under alternative 1 no management activities would be implemented. In general, forest conditions described in the existing condition section would persist. These conditions have led to a shift from historic conditions, including increasing stand density, loss of openings and grasslands, a shift in composition from ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir, a decrease in aspen, and a more homogenous landscape. Risk to insects and stand replacement fire has increased.

Because conifer encroachment would continue, understory cover would continue to increase. While overstory cover would also increase on portions of the project area, due to anticipated insect and disease related mortality, it is likely that overstory canopy cover would be reduced on up to 29 percent of the project area. Conversely, there would be some stand- and landscape-level increases in diversity, which would be expected to maintain goshawk habitat. As a result, and based on the analysis, effects are not likely to cause an active territory to become abandoned or affect local populations.

Northern Goshawk. There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct impacts to the northern goshawk. In the absence of a stand-replacing wildfire, over the short term, habitat conditions would not be expected to change under this alternative. However, as described under old growth, mortality of large-diameter trees preferred for nesting would increase up to 90 percent in the next 10 to 20 years due to mountain pine beetle mortality. Also, overstory conditions would be reduced on sites with concentrated mortality and these would likely drop below

138 Environmental Assessment

40 percent canopy cover and no longer provide goshawk nest habitat. Conversely, because goshawk prefer to nest and forage in stands with more open canopy conditions, areas with more open canopy conditions and scattered mortality would likely improve goshawk foraging habitat.

Over the short term, habitat conditions preferred by goshawk in existing old growth (e.g., canopy closure and downed woody debris) would remain largely unchanged and structural conditions such as large-diameter trees and increased levels of snags and downed woody debris would continue to occur both in the short- and long term.

Over the long term, stands would continue to mature, late-successional habitat would develop, and stand density and goshawk nest habitat would be largely maintained. An exception to this would be in areas where there is concentrated mortality that reduces nest habitat due to mortality of large-diameter trees and the canopy is reduced below 40 percent. While the quality of goshawk foraging habitat may decrease somewhat due to the more closed stand conditions, because they utilize a wide range of habitat conditions for foraging (Squires and Ruggiero 1996), suitable goshawk habitat would continue to be available under this alternative.

The current trends in species composition would continue, with a decrease in ponderosa pine, early seral and fire-tolerant species. As described under old growth, fuel loading and stand structure (i.e., ladder fuels) would not be modified and the risk of wildfire and a possible long-term reduction in goshawk habitat is highest under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effect analysis area is described under methodology and includes a total of 22,400 acres. Since 1980, past activities on NFS lands have included approximately 2,500 acres of timber harvest and 1,700 acres of underburning. Sites harvested have also had fuel reduction treatments such as burning and slash disposal, as well as reforestation activities such as site preparation and planting. More recently, 400 acres of underburning occurred in 2009 in association with the Ashbridge 1-2-3-4-5 project and mountain pine beetle mortality. Effects of these activities vary spatially and temporally and are reflected in the existing canopy cover and size class conditions discussed throughout this analysis. A complete list of past, on-going and future cumulative effects considered can be found in the project file.

On-going and future activities on NFS lands have included personal-use firewood collection, noxious weed control along roadsides and at scattered locations within the project area, road and trail maintenance, grazing, and dispersed recreational use. Activities on private land have included largely seasonal agricultural use and some scattered timber harvest. Additionally, there is an estimated 150 to 200 acres of TSI thinning and prescribed fire on BLM lands to be conducted for meadow restoration in the Willow Creek drainage. There would be little change in use or habitat conditions resulting from these activities. Also, because most activities occur in areas with more concentrated human use (e.g., open roads, private land), they are less likely to be used for goshawk nesting. As a result, it is not expected that these activities would alter goshawk nest habitat. While off-forest thinning may reduce young trees in existing meadows, goshawk prey and foraging habitat would be maintained. Also, any disturbance-related effects would be short term in nature. In addition to the above, insect and disease related mortality is expected to continue into the future and under no action, ponderosa pine stands could experience a mountain pine beetle outbreak (USDA Forest Service 2011c). As a result, it is expected that there would be a reduction in goshawk nest habitat under this alternative.

The current levels of human access and use of the area would be largely unchanged and there are no long-term disturbance-related effects anticipated. While on-going and future activities could affect up to 200 acres of foraging and post-fledgling habitat, and nest habitat would be reduced due to future mountain pine beetle mortality, unaffected habitat would continue to be available across the

139 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

landscape. Also, adequate nest habitat would continue to be available to support three to four nesting pairs of goshawk. Collectively for these reasons, there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes a variety of treatments designed to move conditions toward desired future conditions including dry ponderosa pine, aspen, and meadow restoration. Treatments include prescribed burning, mechanical and hand thinning, and mastication. Treatments proposed would reduce goshawk nest habitat by approximately 40 percent and possibly change use patterns. However, recommended levels of nest habitat would be maintained and active nest sites unchanged. Also, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to cause an active territory to become abandoned or affect local populations. • Implementation of project design features that protect existing nests and minimize disturbance to post-fledgling habitat, reduce the potential for mortality and impacts to nest production. • Suitable nest habitat would continue to exist within all home ranges. Also, habitat would continue to be well distributed and would continue to support three to four nesting pairs of goshawks within the project area. • Implementation of treatments would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and a possible long-term loss of goshawk habitat. • While some researchers believe more open forests provide sub-optimal habitat, goshawks can successfully forage and reproduce in home ranges dominated by more open habitats and utilize a broad range of structural conditions (Boal et al 2002 [in Kennedy 2003]). • While the short-term quality of foraging habitat may be affected, over the long term it is expected that foraging habitat would be improved and all sites treated would continue to provide functional goshawk foraging habitat. • Closed canopy forested conditions preferred by the goshawk are abundant on the Forest and across the Region. The Forest believes that the long-term benefits associated with the restoration of “uncommon” open-ponderosa pine habitat outweighs the reduction (2,500 acres) of the more common closed canopy forest.

Alternative 3 Like alternative 2, this alternative moves conditions toward the desired future condition. However, it eliminates mechanical treatments (thinning and mastication) and increases burning and hand treatments described above. Also, there are no new roads proposed. So while it reduces ponderosa pine and aspen treatments from that of alternative 2, it maintains existing goshawk nest habitat and minimizes stand- and landscape-level changes in goshawk habitat. As a result, and based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to cause an active territory to become abandoned or affect local populations.

• Implementation of design features that protect existing nests and minimize disturbance to post-fledgling habitat, greatly reduce the potential for mortality and impacts to nest production. • Suitable nest habitat would be maintained within all home ranges. Also, habitat would continue to be well distributed and would continue to support three to four nesting pairs of goshawks within the project area. • Implementation of treatments would reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and a possible long-term loss of goshawk habitat.

140 Environmental Assessment

• While the short-term quality of foraging habitat may be affected, over the long term it is expected that foraging habitat would be improved and all sites treated would continue to provide functional goshawk foraging habitat. Cumulative Effects. Anticipated cumulative effects are discussed under alternative 1. While most of the existing old growth would be modified under both alternatives, impacts are expected to be short term in nature. As a result, and considering that both alternatives would help ensure that the integrity of future old growth would be maintained, there are no significant cumulative effects to old growth anticipated under either alternative.

Direct Effects. Potential direct effects for both action alternatives include possible mortality or a loss of reproduction associated with proposed harvest, understory treatments or project road construction. While alternative 2 proposes construction of temporary roads, no construction is proposed within active territories. Additionally, with implementation of project design features, temporary road construction would not occur within ¼ mile of an active nest during the nesting season. As a result, and considering all new project roads would be closed to public access during implementation, and permanently closed when treatments are completed, potential direct impacts from project road construction would be limited to short-term avoidance (5 years) of foraging birds.

Samson (2006a) summarized recent research related to effects of vegetation treatments on goshawk, which indicates the following: (1) the majority of goshawk pairs move from nest stands when the stand structure is modified by more than 30 percent; (2) human disturbance is not a factor if 70 percent of the nest stand structure is maintained and timber management operations are restricted during the nesting period (April 15 to August 15) at the nest site and within the post-fledgling area; (3) treatments have no effect on goshawk breeding occupancy, nest success, or productivity 1 to 2 years after treatment; and (4) there is no difference in productivity of northern goshawks in logged versus unlogged areas.

The result of this research was considered while designing the project and the project design features, including a 40-acre no-activity buffer around active nests, a seasonal restriction on all ground activities within the post-fledgling area of active nests, and establishment of buffers and seasonal restrictions should a new nest be identified. Considering the project design features, and based on information provided in Samson (2006b), potential impacts to nesting birds and fledglings would be reduced, and there would be no direct mortality to breeding birds or a loss of reproduction anticipated under any of the action alternatives.

While mortality to nesting birds is not expected to occur, activities would result in avoidance of the areas treated by foraging birds. Disturbance-related effects would be short term considering burning would be completed within a few days, and harvest treatments would be confined to a single drainage at a time.

Indirect Effects. Changes in goshawk habitat resulting from treatment under the action alternatives have been assessed. Changes in the project area post-fledgling areas would result under alternative 2. Because structural conditions would be maintained under alternative 3, alternative 3 would be similar to the existing condition (or alternative 1, no-action). Refer to the project file for complete analysis results.

141 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Alternative 2

Post-fledgling Area Changes Because alternative 2 would result in a larger shift toward historical vegetation conditions which are characterized by open ponderosa pine stands, it would result in a greater reduction in canopy closure. Changes in post-fledgling areas are displayed on map 7. While there would be no change in the distribution of size classes, lands characterized by trees greater than 5 inches d.b.h. and greater than 40 percent canopy closure would be reduced in the Upper Ashbridge, Willow Creek North, and Willow Creek South post-fledgling areas; whereas the Minerva Creek Post-fledgling Area would be unchanged. While the resulting habitat conditions within these three post-fledgling areas are at the low end of those characteristic of goshawk habitat throughout the western U.S. as a whole (37 to 69 percent), they are well below those documented by Clough (2000) in west-central Montana (69 percent).

Because there would be no changes in size class, all post-fledgling areas would continue to meet or exceed recommendations for forested lands in the medium- to large-diameter size class (greater than 5 inches d.b.h.), whereas they would continue to fall below recommendations for openings and seedling/sapling size trees (less than 5 inches d.b.h.). However, because treatments under this alternative are designed in part to restore meadows/grasslands, many of the sites that were reduced below 40 percent canopy closure would exist as savannahs, or lands that are dominated by a herbaceous/shrub component with a partial overstory. As a result, project post-fledgling areas would provide a diversity of habitat conditions, interspersed with predominantly mature forest stands. However, due to changes in canopy closure, it is likely that the size and shape of existing post- fledgling area would change for at least three of the four project area post-fledgling areas.

Nest Habitat Changes Nest habitat is evaluated across the four sub-analysis areas or at the home range scale. There would be a reduction in nest habitat within all four areas, although over 600 acres of each home range would continue to contain goshawk nest habitat. So while there would be a reduction in nest habitat, all areas would exceed the 180 acres of nest habitat recommended per home range (Reynolds et al. 1992). When viewed as a whole, suitable goshawk nest habitat would be maintained on approximately 19 percent or 4,300 acres of the analysis area (collection of four home ranges). As a result, adequate nest habitat would continue to exist to support three to four breeding pairs.

Foraging and Landscape Level Changes As described previously, due to the variety of conditions utilized for goshawk foraging, virtually all of the project area provides suitable foraging habitat. Also, the size-class distribution would not change. Although not reflected in the amount of openings, meadow restoration treatments would increase the availability of openings and savannahs within all project area home ranges. Conversely, there would be a small reduction in closed canopy forest greater than 5 inches d.b.h. in the Upper Ashbridge and Minerva Creek home ranges (5 to 6 percent) and a larger reduction within the North and South Willow Creek home ranges (16 to 19 percent). However, mature forest with greater than 40 percent canopy closure would continue to predominate across all areas. As a result, and considering that both understory and overstory diversity would be increased, landscape-level habitat diversity would be increased. Also, because closed canopy forest conditions would continue to predominate and considering all sites treated would continue to provide functional goshawk habitat as well as maintain or enhance structural diversity within all home ranges, alternative 2 would result in landscape conditions that are consistent with goshawk use. Additionally, of the three alternatives, the future risk

142 Environmental Assessment

of insect and disease or wildfire related mortality is lowest under this alternative, increasing the likelihood that goshawk habitat would be maintained in the long term.

Alternative 3

Nest and Post-fledgling Area Habitat Changes Because no mechanical removal would occur under this alternative, there would be no post-fledgling area stands that fall below 40 percent canopy closure and no change in nest habitat in the short term. Consequently, post-fledgling area conditions are the same as those for the existing condition (see map 7), although all post-fledgling areas would continue to exceed the amount of closed canopy forest greater than 5 inches d.b.h. documented by Clough (2000) and other researchers. Also, because stand stocking would remain high, mountain pine beetle mortality would increase and over the long term, nest habitat and closed canopy conditions within post-fledgling areas would be reduced in areas where there is concentrated mortality.

Treatments proposed under this alternative would open up the understory and mid-story to some degree and improve the development of herbaceous vegetation from the present condition. As a result, understory diversity would be increased, and like alternative 2, prey availability would be likely be maintained or improved. Consequently, suitable habitat for both adult and immature birds would be provided under this alternative. Also, because there would be little overstory changes, this alternative would result in the least impact to existing post-fledgling areas.

Forging and Landscape Habitat Like alternative 2, goshawk forging habitat would exist on virtually all of the project area. However, because there would be little change in overstory, landscape-level diversity would be relatively unchanged in the short term and closed canopy conditions would continue to predominate. Like alternative 1, because there would be little change in the overstory, the risk of future mountain pine beetle mortality would be greater under this alternative. As a result, it is expected that varying levels of mortality would occur in the future and create canopy gaps of varying sizes across the project area, increasing diversity somewhat in the long-term.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3 Past and on-going activities are discussed under alternative 1. Additionally, alternatives 2 and 3 propose treatments on approximately 12,844 acres and 11,824 acres, respectively (see Table 24). Collectively, it is anticipated that up to approximately 13,100 acres or 58 percent of the cumulative effect analysis area would be affected (alternative 2).

There would be a reduction in canopy closure and goshawk nest habitat on up to 2,500 acres (under alternative 2). However, because changes under alternative 2 would mimic historic conditions, it is expected that the analysis area would continue to provide suitable goshawk nest habitat. Additionally: (1) the likelihood for mortality is low and disturbance would be short term in nature, (2) closed canopy conditions would continue to predominate across the landscape under both alternatives, (3) no impacts are anticipated to nesting birds or reproduction, and (4) proposed treatments are designed to reduce wildfire risk and risk from future mountain pine beetle mortality. Collectively for these reasons, suitable goshawk habitat would continue to be available across the landscape and there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative effects that would cause existing birds to abandon the area or affect local populations under either alternative.

143 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Common to All Alternatives A Region wide assessment (Samson 2006b) of goshawk habitat has indicated the following:

• Goshawk habitat in Region 1 (R1) is abundant and well distributed where it occurs naturally; more forest, and therefore nesting habitat, exists on today’s landscape than occurred historically. • There have been substantial increases in connectivity for forested habitat since Euro- American settlement. • The level of timber harvest of the forested landscape in Region 1 is insignificant in regard to altering goshawk habitat at the population scale. • Not a single known nest in Region 1 is isolated from other known nests by more than the goshawk’s estimated dispersal distance. • A comparison of habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations indicates that given the natural distribution of habitat, each Forest in Region 1 has an excess of available goshawk habitat.

Summary Goshawk habitat would be largely unchanged under alternatives 1 and 3. While alternative 2 would reduce suitable nest habitat, there are no impacts to nesting birds or reproduction anticipated. Approximately 89 percent of the existing suitable goshawk habitat would be maintained, post- fledgling habitat associated with existing nests would continue to be available, long-term human access would not be increased, old growth forest conditions would be maintained over the long term, and treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and a possible long-term reduction in suitable habitat. As a result, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to promote high quality wildlife and fish habitat to insure a desired mixture of well-distributed species and numbers for public benefit (USDA Forest Service 1986 2-2).

Additionally, under alternative 2 management is focused on moving the existing vegetative condition to a more natural ecological state, that historically was maintained by light ground fires (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2), whereas alternatives 2 and 3 are compatible with wildlife management objectives including manipulation of vegetation with fire, timber harvest, and mechanical means to provide the desired conditions (USDA Forest Service 1993b). Also by providing a mosaic of different vegetative successional stages for habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest, implementation of the action alternatives ensures the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species is maintained (USDA Forest Service 1993a page 2).

Both action alternatives 2 and 3would result in some short-term impacts to existing old growth in terms of reduced structure as there would be some level of treatment on 97% and 93% of the total 1319 acres of identified old growth respectively However, as described above, due to increasing risks of mountain pine beetle mortality, increasing conifer encroachment and risk of wildfire it is unlikely that old growth would be maintained over the long term. As the Forest Plan does not prohibit or exclude management in oldl growth, it is believed that active management is necessary to ensure that old growth forest conditions are maintained across the landscape over time and that the long-term benefits associated with treatment, out-weigh the short-term risks associated with reduced structure. Also of the two alternatives, alternative 2 would result in greater resiliency with the least amount of risk associated with future wildfire and insect and disease related mortality.

144 Environmental Assessment

Finally all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12).

Migratory Birds Management Indicator Species and those species with a viability concern (TES) have been evaluated above. The Wildlife Biological Evaluations and specifics for Migratory birds including various songbirds are contained in the project file. Findings are summarized here:.

Alternative 1 This alternative would maintain habitat over the short-term with no alteration from treatment.

Alternatives 2 and 3 The action alternatives would help to restore declining habitats while maintaining diverse habitat conditions across the landscape. As a result, habitat for migratory birds would be maintained or improved under all alternatives. Also, local populations of all species that currently utilize the project area are expected to be maintained. The action alternatives focus on habitat restoration, and include project design features that are expected to reduce impacts to migratory birds.

All alternatives are in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Merriam’s Turkey Management emphasis species include those species or habitats that are emphasized within project management areas. Due to their uniqueness, white-tail deer and turkey rank high in importance within MA T (USDA FS 1993a p. 2). White-tail deer and other big game species are addressed in the project big game section. The findings for turkey are summarized below. Complete information and references are contained in the project file.

A diversity of habitat conditions are necessary to provide good turkey habitat including 1) closed and open ponderosa pine stands with large pole and sawtimber sized trees to provide year-round roost habitat, 2) open ponderosa pine stands and meadows with herbaceous vegetation to provide foraging and brood rearing habitat, 3) larger diameter ponderosa pine stands and hardwoods to provide hard mast, and 4) and shrubs to provide soft mast diversity, forage and nesting cover. Effects to turkey are evaluated by looking at stand and landscape conditions provided under each of the alternatives, including ponderosa pine and non-forest.

The absence of fire has resulted in a progression from single-storied to multi-storied stands, a reduction in openings/grasslands and increasing amounts of Douglas-fir. Consequently roost habitat, or stands with greater than 40 percent canopy (i.e. roost habitat) closure currently is fairly widespread and occur on approximately 8,500 acres, whereas open canopy stands (foraging and brood rearing habitat) only occur on approximately 1,200 acres. While some of the larger openings within the project area are too large to be used by turkey, when viewed across the landscape, forging areas are fairly well interspersed with roost habitat and water (USDA FS 1993).

Alternative 1 In the short-term there would be little change turkey habitat and the project area would continue to provide roost, foraging and brood habitat across the landscape. Over the long-term, roost habitat would continue to increase as canopy closure increases, except in areas with concentrated mountain pine beetle mortality. However foraging and brood habitat would continue to decline as meadows are

145 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

lost and herbaceous vegetation within forested stands are reduced due understory conifer encroachment. Due to elevated stocking and fuels, the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a long-term loss of turkey habitat is greatest under this alternative. Because there would be little change in turkey habitat during the analysis period and due to the small amount of on-going future activities anticipated, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Alternative 2 Due to reductions in canopy closure, proposed treatments would reduce existing roost habitat, whereas foraging/brood habitat would be created in closed and open canopy ponderosa pine stands, as well as in meadows and openings. Overall, turkey nest, roost and foraging habitat would be maintained across the landscape in the short-term, and improved over the long-term. Also implementation of project design features to retain shrubs and dead wood, cover within treatment sites would continue to be available for nesting. Consequently alternative 2 is consistent with management area T direction to promote habitat for turkey.

•Winter and spring/summer turkey roost habitat would be maintained across the landscape and in all project area watersheds. Also foraging habitat would be enhanced within roost habitat.

•Due to conifer encroachment, turkey foraging and brood rearing habitat has been declining. Implementation of proposed treatments would enhance foraging and brood rearing habitat in forested and non-forested stands.

•Shrub, hardwood and mast diversity would be enhanced over the long-term.

•Treatment would reduce the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire and a long-term reduction in turkey habitat.

•When viewed across the landscape, the interspersion of roosting habitat, foraging habitat and water would be provided at levels necessary to maintain or promote habitat for wild turkey

Alternative 3 This alternative would largely maintain existing roost and ponderosa pine habitat, while improving understory diversity and the amount and distribution of foraging and brood habitat. Also, due to unburned areas and with implementation of project design features to retain shrubs and down/dead wood, cover within treatment sites would continue to be available for nesting. As a result it is consistent with management area T direction to promote habitat for turkey.

Cumulative Effects- Alternatives 2 and 3 Past, on-going and cumulative effects are discussed in the project wildlife report. These past and on- going uses are not expected to change and there would be little change in turkey habitat from these activities. As a result and considering that treatments proposed under both alternatives would maintain turkey habitat in the short and long-term, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.

146 Environmental Assessment

Bibliography including Literature Citations Albini, F.A. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-30. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p.

Allen, C.D. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and erosion in northern New Mexico. Ecosystems 10:797–808.

Allen, C.D.; Savage, M.; Falk, D.A.; Suchling, K.F.; Swetnam, T.W.; Schulke, T.; Stacey, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Hoffman, M.; Klingel, J.T. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications. 12: 1418-1433. In USDA Forest Service. 2006. Fuel reduction effects on wildlife habitat. RMRS GTR 173. 41 pp.

Amman, G. D. 1988a. Why partial cutting in lodgepole pine stands reduces losses to mountain pine beetle. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Management of Lodgepole Pine to Minimize Losses to Mountain Pine Beetle. Kalispell, MT. July 12-14, 1988.

Amman, G. D. 1988b. Lodgepole pine selection by mountain pine beetle in relation to growth and vigor following thinning. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Working Party and XVII International Congress of Entomology Symposium, “Integrated Control of Scolytid Bark Beetles” T; L. Payne and H. Saarenmaa Editors. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Amman, G.D., Gene D. Lessard, Lynn A. Rasmussen, Curtis G. O’Neil. 1988a. Lodgepole pine vigor, regeneration, and infestation by mountain pine beetle following partial cutting on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper INT-396.

Amman, G.D.; M. D. McGregor; R. F. Schmitz; R. D. Oakes. 1988b. Susceptibility of lodgepole pine to infestation by mountain pine beetles following partial cutting of stands. Can. J. For. Res. 18: 688-695.

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. Int-122. 22 p.

Andrews, P.L. 1986. BEHAVE: Fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system - BURN subsystem, Part 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-194. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 130 p.

Arno, S. F., Harrington, M,G., Fiedler, C.E.,and Carlson, C.E.1996. Using Silviculture and Prescribed Fire to Reduce Fire Hazard and Improve Forest Health in Ponderosa Pine Forests. Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service and University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

Bagne, K.E. and K. L. Purcell. 2008. Lessons learned from prescribed fire in ponderosa pine forests of the southern Sierra Nevada. Proceeding of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics pp. 679-390.

147 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Baker, W.L. and Ehle, D.S. 2003. Uncertainty in Fire History and Restoration of Ponderosa Pine Forests in the Western United States. RMRS P-29. Department of Geography and Recreation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Balling, Robert C Jr.; Grant A. Meyer; Stephen G. Wells. 1992. Climate change in Yellowstonen National Park: is the drought-related risk of wildfires increasing? Climate Change. 22: 35-45. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Banci, V.A. 1994. Fisher (Pages 44 and 47) and Wolverine (Pages 99-127). In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- 254, Fort Collins, CO.

Barton, A.M. 2002. Intense wildfire in southeastern Arizona: transformation of a Madrean oak-pine forest to oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management 165:205–212. Elsevier Science B.V.

Bartos, D.L, 2001. Landscape Dynamics of Aspen and Conifer Forests., RMRS-P-18, USDA Forest Service Proceedings, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Logan, UT.

Bartos, Dale L. and Gordon D. Booth. 1994. Effects of thinning on thinning on temperature dynamics and mountain pine beetle activity in a lodgepole pine stand. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Res. Pap. INT-RP-479. 9 p.

Basko, W. 2002. Guidelines for analyzing environmental effects on soil. Unpublished inservice report, USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Flathead NF. Kalispell, MT. 6 p.

Berg, S. and T. Karjalainen. 2003. Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from forest operations in Finland and Sweden. Forestry 76: 271–284. Institute of Chartered Foresters, Forestry, Vol. 76, No. 3.

Bethlahmy, Nedavia, 1975. A Colorado Episode: Beetle Epidemic, Ghost Forests, More Streamflow. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.

Birds of North America. 2011. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna, (accessed 9/15/11).

Bisbing, S.M.; Alaback, P.B.; DeLuca, T.H. In press. Carbon storage in old-growth and second growth fire-dependent (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) forests of the inland northwest, USA. Forest Ecology and Management.

Blackford, John L. 1955. Woodpecker concentration in burned forest. Condor 57: 28-30. In Partners In Flight 2000. Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0, January 2000. 288 pp.

Blanchette, R.A. 1995. Degradation of lignocellulose complex in wood. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 999-1010.

Boal, C.W., D.E. Andersen and P.L. Kennedy. 2002. Home range and habitat use of northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in Minnesota. Forest systems of the upper Midwest: research review. Cloquet Forestry Center, University of Minnesota, U. S. Forest Service and Minnesota Forest Resources Council. Cloquet, MN. In Kennedy, Patricia L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A technical conservation assessment . USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

148 Environmental Assessment

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. 1987. Avian habitat occupancy following fire in a Montana shrubsteppe. Prairie Naturalist 19:153-158. In Partners In Flight 2000. Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0, January 2000. 288 pp.

Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’s Woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University of California Zoological Publications 92: 1-100. In Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. 2000. Version 1.0. Draft January 2000. Kalispell, MT. 288 pp.

Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running. 2010. Simulations show decreasing carbon stocks and potential for carbon emissions in Rocky Mountain forests over the next century. Ecological Applications 20(5):1302–1319.

Bowles, M.L., K.A. Jacobs and J.L. Mengler. 2007. Long-term Changes in an Oak Forest’s Woody Understory and Herb Layer with Repeated Burning. Journal of the Torey Botanical Society. 134(2) pp. 223-227.

Brawn, J. D., S. K. Robinson, and F. R. Thompson III. 2001. The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 32:251- 276. In Covert, K.A. 2003. Hairy woodpecker winter ecology following wildfire: Effects of burn severity and age. MS thesis, Northern Arizona University. 98 pp.

Breashears, D.D., and C.D. Allen. 2002. The importance of rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management and sequestration. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:1–5.

British of Columbia, Ministry of Forestry, Canada. 2000. “Forest Soil Rehabilitation Guidebook,” www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/soilreha/REHABTOC.htm [accessed July 8, 2009].

British of Columbia, Ministry of Forestry, Canada. 2002. “Forest Soil Conservation and Rehabilitation in British Columbia,” Forest Science Publication 70. Southern Interior forest Extension and Research.

Britton, C. M.; C. M. Countryman; H. A. Wright; A. G. Walvekar. 1973. The effect of humidity, air temperature, and wind speed on fine fuel moisture content. Fire Technology. 9(1): 46-55.

Brown, J.K.; See, T.E. 1981. Downed dead woody fuel and biomass in the Northern Rocky Mountains. General Technical Report INT-117, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Odgen, UT. 48 p.

Brown, R. 2000. Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A Science-Based Approach for National Forests in the Interior Northwest. Defenders of Wildlife, Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Brown, Timothy J.; Beth L. Hall; Anthony L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger in the western United States: an applications perspective. Climate Change. 62: 365-388.

Bull, Evelyn L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 51, No. 2 472-81.

Bunnell, F. L. and D. J. Vales. 1990. Comparison of methods for estimating forest overstory cover: differences among techniques. Can. J. For. Res. 20:101-107.

149 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Bunnell, F.L., M. Boyland, and E. Wind. 2002. How should we spatially distribute dying and dead wood? Pages 739-752 in W.F. Laudenslayer.; P.J. Shea, and B.E. Valentine, compilers. Symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 949 p.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS),” Available at: http://www.bls.gov/LAU , (Accessed via Economic Profile System).

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),” http://www.bls.gov/cew. (accessed via Economic Profile System).

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “County Business Patterns (CBP),” http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html, (accessed via Economic Profile System).

Byram, George M. 1940. Sun and wind and fuel moisture. Journal of Forestry. 38(8): 639-640.

Byram, George M. 1943. Solar radiation and forest fuel moisture. Journal of Agricultural Research. 67(4): 149-176.

Campbell, R.B. and Bartos, D.L. 2001.Aspen Ecosystems: Objectives for Sustaining Biodiversity In USDA Forest Service 2011. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

Carr, T. 1989. An evaluation of forest soil tillage using the winged subsoiler on landings in the Prince George Forest District: A Pilot Study. Contract Report Silviculture Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. 24p.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia 143: 1−10. Florence, Italy

Choromanska, U.; DeLuca, T.H. 2002. Microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization in forest mineral soils following heating: Evaluation of post-fire effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 263−271.

Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, and J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk Management in the Northern Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep INT-303. November 1993. 12 pages.

Clough, L.T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. Master’s thesis, University of Montana. Missoula, MT. 95 pp.

Cochran P. H. and Walter G. Dahms. 2000. Growth of lodgepole pine thinned to various densities on two sites with differing productivities in central Oregon. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-520.

Cochran, P. H. 1992. Stocking levels and underlying assumptions for uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RN-509.

Cochran, P. H. and J. M. Geist; D. L. Clemens; Rodrick R. Clausnitzer; David C. Powell. 1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RN-513

150 Environmental Assessment

Cochran, P. H. and James W. Barrett. 1995. Growth and mortality of ponderosa pine poles thinned to various densities in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-483.

Cochran, P. H. and James W. Barrett. 1999a. Growth of ponderosa pine thinned to different stocking levels in central Oregon: 30-year results. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-508.

Cochran, P. H. and James W. Barrett. 1999b. Thirty-five-year growth of ponderosa pine saplings in response to thinning and understory removal. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-512.

Cole, W.E.; Donn B. Cahill.; and Gene D. Lessard. 1983. Harvesting strategies for management of mountain pine beetle infestations in lodgepole pine: preliminary evaluation, east Long Creek demonstration area, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. Research Note INT-333.

Cole, Walter E. and Mark D. McGregor. 1985. Reducing or preventing mountain pine beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine stands by selective cutting. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference on: the role of the host in the population dynamics of forest insects. L. Safranyik Editor. Published jointly by Canadian Forestry Service and USDA Forest Service. Pacific Forest Research Center, Victoria BC.

Collins, B.M., J.J. Moghaddas and S.L. 2007 Stephens. Initial Changes in Forest Structure and Understory Plant Communities Following Fuel Reduction Activities in a Sierra Nevada Mixed Conifer Forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 239 (2007) 102-111.

Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds 2005. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis). A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Rigby, Idaho. 64 pp.

Colorado Division of Wildlife 2012. “Wildlife Species Profile - Dusky Grouse,” Available online at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/Birds/Pages/DuskyGrouse.aspx ,(accessed on 5/16/12).

Conant, R.T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H.H. Janzen, V.J. Jaramillo, D.E. Johnson, and S.N. Kulshreshtha. 2007. Chapter 10 Agricultural and Grazing Lands. In: CCSP, 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA, 242 pp.

Cook, John G..; Thomas W. Stutzman; Clinton W. Bowers; Kathryn A. Brenner; Larry L. Irwin. 1995. Spherical densiometers produce biased estimates of forest canopy cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 711-717.

Copeland, J. P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. In Carroll, R.N. 2001. Carnivores as Focal Species for Conservation Planning in the Rocky Mountain Region. Ecological Applications, Vol. 11, No. 4. pp. 961-980.

151 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Copeland, J. P., and C. E. Harris. 1994. Wolverine ecology and habitat use in central Idaho. Progress report. Cooperative Wildlife Research Project, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Sawtooth National Forest, Challis National Forest, and Boise National Forest. 20pp.

Covert, K.A. 2003. Hairy woodpecker winter ecology following wildfire: Effects of burn severity and age. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 98 pp.

Cram, D.; Baker, T.; Boren, J. 2006. Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs. untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona. Research Paper RMRS-RP-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 28 p.

Crookston, Nicholas L.; Stage, Albert R. 1999. Percent canopy cover and stand structure statistics from the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-24. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 11 p.

Crow Summit Meeting, “Crow Summit Handouts,” Rocky Mountain College, Billings, MT, March 13, 2002.

Curtis, R. O. and D. D. Marshall. 2000. Why Quadratic Mean Diameter? Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(3): 137-139.

Dailey, Scott; JoAnn Fites; Alicia Reiner; Sylvia Mori. 2008. Fire behavior and effects in fuels treatments and protected habitat on the Moonlight Fire. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Dale, V.H, L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723–734.

Daniel, Terry C.; Boster, Ron S. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

Deaver, S. 1995. Ethnographic Overview of Selected Portions of the Lewis and Clark National Forest and Adjacent Bureau of Land Management Lands (Vols. 1 & 2). Ethnoscience, Billings, MT; prepared under Contract No. 53-0355-4-15003 for the Lewis and Clark National Forest Great Falls, MT. Vol 1. (p.1-101).

DeBano, L.F. 1981. Water repellant soils: A state-of-the-art. General Technical Report PSW-46, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 21 p.

DeBano, Leonard F.; Daniel G. Neary; Peter F. Foliott. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pages 53-58.

DeByle, N.V. and R.P. Winokur, eds 1985. Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States. GTR- RM-119, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

DeLuca, T.H.; Aplet, G.H. 2008. Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Mountain West. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(1): 18−24.

152 Environmental Assessment

Depro, B.M., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255(2008):1122–1134.

Desimone, S.M. 1997. Occupancy Rates and Habitat Relationships of Northern Goshawks in Historic Nesting Areas in Oregon. Masters thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands. Weed Science 48:255-265.

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2007. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 204p.

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2010. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 240p. (Revised: September 9, 2010)

Dixon, Rita D. and Victoria A. Saab. 2000. “Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus),” The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/509.

DuBois (1984 – eagle – Forest Viability Report

“Economic Profile System,” (2008), Sonoran Institute. http://eps.sonoran.org/.

Edminster, C. B.; Mowrer, H. T.; Mathiasen, R. L.; Schuler, T. M.; Olsen, W. K.; Hawksworth, F. G. 1991. GENGYM: A variable density stand table projection system calibrated for mixed conifer and ponderosa pine stands in the southwest. Research Paper RM-297. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32p. (Accessed online on 09/10/2010) at: http://babel.hathitrust.org

Estes, Becky; Eric Knapp; Carl Skinner. 2008. Seasonal variation in fuel moisture among fuel reduction treatments: Implications for fire behavior and effects. Presented at: Pacific Coast Fire Conference. Changing Fire Regimes, Goals, and Ecosystems. San Diego, California. December 1-4, 2008.

Fairhurst, G.D. and M.J. Bechard. 2005. Relationships Between Winter and Spring Weather and Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Reproduction in Northern Nevada. Journal of Raptor Research 39(3):229-236.

Fauria, Marc Macias and E. A. Johnson. 2008. Climate and wildfires in the North American boreal forest. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 363: 2317-2329.

Fernandes, Paulo A. M.; Carlos A. Loureiro, Hermínio S. Botelho. 2004. Fire behavior and severity in a maritime pine stand under differing fuel conditions. Ann. For. Sci. 61: 537-544.

Fiala, Anne C. S.; Steven L. Garman; Andrew N. Gray. 2006. Comparison of five canopy cover estimation techniques in the western Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 232: 188-197.

Fiddler, Gary O.; Hart, Dennis R.; Fiddler, Troy A; McDonald, Philip M. 1989. Thinning decreases mortality and increases growth of ponderosa pine in northeastern California. Research Paper

153 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

PSW-194. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 7 p.

Fiedler, C. 2002-Natural Process Based Management of Fire-Based Western Forests. Small Diameter Timber: Resource Management, Manufacturing, and Markets proceedings from conference held February 2002, Spokane, Washington.

Fiedler, C.E. 2000. Silvicultural Treatments. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-17. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Fiedler, Carl E. and Todd A. Morgan. 2002. Mortality as a source of coarse woody debris in managed stands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 255 (7):2743–2750.

Finney, Mark A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap fire modeling capabilities. In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. Fuels Management—How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. RMRS-P-41, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Finney, Mark A.; Charles W. McHugh; Isaac C. Grenfell. 2005. Stand and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: 1714-1722

Fire Science. 2009 – Masticating Fuels: Effects on Prescribed Fire Behavior and Subsequent Vegetation Effects. Issue 47. May 2009. 4 pp.

Fites, JoAnn; Mike Campbell; Alicia Reiner;.Todd Decker. 2007. Fire behavior and effects relating to suppression, fuel treatments, and protected areas on the Antelope Complex Wheeler Fire. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Fitzgerald, S.A. 2005. Fire Ecology of Ponderosa Pine and the Rebuilding of Fire-Resilient Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems. In PSW GTR198, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Flanigan, P. 1996. Survival of Fire-Injured Conifers. Fire Management Notes Vol 56, No.2

Flannigan, M. D.; B. J. Stocks; B.M. Wotton. 2000. Climate change and forest fires. The Science of the Total Environment. 262: 221-229.

Flatten. 2003. Determining appropriate winter logging conditions for protection of the soil resource. Draft.

Fletcher, P. and D. Ruppert. 2011. Fleecer Mountain salvage and restoration project soil resource report. Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest. 33p. Northwest Science Volume 49, No. 2.

Foltz, R.B.; Maillard, E. 2003. Infiltration rates on abandoned road-stream crossings. Paper Number 035009, ASAE Annual International Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. 11 p.

Foy, C.L. and Inderjit. 2001. Understanding the role of allelopathy in weed interference and declining plant diversity. Weed Technology 15(4): 873-878.

154 Environmental Assessment

Froehlich, H.A., R.W. Robbins, D.W.R. Miles, and J.K. Lyons. 1983. Monitoring Recovery of Compacted Skidtrails in Central Idaho. Full report. Also reported in Froehlich, H.A., D.W. R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1015-1017.

Fulé Peter Z.; Charles McHugh; Thomas A. Heinlein; W. Wallace Covington. 2001. Potential fire behavior is reduced following forest restoration treatments. In: Vance, Regina K.; Edminster, Carleton B.; Covington, W. Wallace; Blake, Julie A. comps. 2001. Ponderosa pine ecosystems restoration and conservation: steps toward stewardship; 2000 April 25–27; Flagstaff, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-22. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Galik, C.S. and R.B. Jackson. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 2209–2216.

Gan, J. and B.A. McCarl. 2007. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation. Ecological Economics 64:423–432.

Ganey, Joseph L. and William M. Block. 1994. A comparison of two techniques for measuring canopy closure. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 9(1): 21-23.

Gibson 2009 Bark Beetle Conditions Northern Region 2009. Northern Region Forest Health Protection, Missoula Field Office, USDA Forest Service 56 p.

Gillett, N. P.; A. J. Weaver; F. W. Zwiers; M. D. Flannigan. 2004. Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophysical Research Letters. 31: 1-4.

Gobster, Paul H. 1994. The aesthetic experience of sustainable forest ecosystems. In: Covington, W. Wallace; Debano, Leonard F., tech. coord. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management; 1993 July 12-15; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 246-255.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgenson, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13p.

Graham, Russell T. Tech Ed. 2003. Hayman Fire case study. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-115. 32p.

Gray, Robert W. 2003. Report on the use of thinning and prescribed fire to control fuels and wildfire threat in young Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine plantations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Fire and Forest Meteorology and the 2nd International Wildland Fire Ecology and Fire Management Congress. Orlando, Florida, November 17-20, 2003.

Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 2005 (Errata). 1992. Old-growth forest types of the Northern Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. R-1 SES 4/92. Errata 2005.

Grier, C.C.; Lee, K.M.; Nadkarni, N.M.; Klock, G.O.; Edgerton, P.J. 1989. Productivity of forest of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: A review. PNW-GTR-222, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

155 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Gruell (1986) Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/odhe/all.html#17, (accessed 9/1/11).

Gruver, Jeffery C. and Douglas A. Keinath. 2006. “Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): A technical conservation assessment,” USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project, Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf, (accessed 9/8/11).

Guldin, J.M., Hodges, J.D. 1991. Uneven-aged Silvicultural Systems. Department of Forest Resources, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas, Monticello, Arkansas. 3p.

Han, H., D. Page-Dumroses, S. Han, and J. Tirocke. 2005. Effects of slash, machine passes, and soil wetness on soil strength in cut-to-length harvesting. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR- 194. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Hanson, C.T., Odion, D.C. 2006. Fire Severity in mechanically thinned versus unthinned forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Fire Ecology and Management Congress, November 13-17, 2006, San Diego, CA.

Harlow and Bloom 1989 – eagle – Forest Viability Report

Harmon, Mark E. and Barbara Marks. 2002. Effects of silvicultural practices on carbon stores in Douglas-fir – western hemlock forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A.: results from a simulation model. Canadian Journal of Forestry Resources 32: 863-877.

Harmon, Mark E.; William K. Ferrell; Jerry F. Franklin. 1990. Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests. Science. 247: 699-702

Harrod, Richy J.; Richard W. Fonda; Mara K. McGrath. 2008. Vegetation response to thinning and burning in a ponderosa pine forest, Washington. Northwest Science. 82(2): 141-150.

Harvey, A.E.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Larsen, M.J.; Graham, R.T. 1987. Decaying organic materials and soil quality in the inland northwest: A management opportunity. General Technical Report INT- 225, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 20 p.

Hayden, J. G. Ardt, M. Fleming, T.W. Keegan, J. Peek, T.O. Smith, and A. Wood. 2008. Habitat guidelines for mule deer, Northern forest ecosystem. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, USA. 48 pp.

Hayward G.D., and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91: 476 – 479.

Hejl, S.J. 2011. “A strategy for maintaining healthy populations of Western coniferous forest birds,” Available at: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay/hejl.htm , (Accessed 9/28/11).

Hejl, S.J., 1994. Human-induced changes in bird populations in coniferous forests in western North America during the past 100 years. Studies in Avian Biology 15:232–246.

Hessburg, P.F., Agee, J.K. and Franklin, J.F. 2005. Dry Forets and Wildland Fires of the Inland Northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape Ecology of the Pre-Settlement and Modern Eras.

156 Environmental Assessment

Hillis, J.M., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: The Hillis Paradigm. Pages 38-43. In: A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, compilers, Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability Symposium, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. April 10-12, 1991. 330 pages.

Hobbs, N. T.; Spowart, R. A. 1984. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrition of mountain sheep and mule deer during winter and spring. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(2): 551-560. In USDA Forest Service. Database 2011e.

Hobson, K. A. and J. Shieck. 1999. Changes in bird communities in boreal mixed wood forest: harvest and wildfire effects over 30 years. Ecological Applications 9:849-863. In Covert, K.A. 2003. Hairy woodpecker winter ecology following wildfire: Effects of burn severity and age. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University. 98 pp.

Holdorff, 1981. Soil Resource Inventory. Lewis and Clark National Forest. Interim In-Service Report, Non-Wilderness Portions. USDA Forest Service. 74p.

Hood, S.H.2010. Mitigating Old Tree Mortality in Long-Unburned, Fire-Dependent Forests A Synthesis. RMRS GTR 238. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hornbeck, J.W., Adams, M.B., Corbett, E.S., Verry, E.S. and Lynch, J.A. 1993. Long-term impacts of forest treatments on water yield: a summary for northeastern USA. Journal of Hydrology150:323–344.

Hornocher, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301. 16 pp.

Houghton, R.A. 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus B 55(2):378–390.

Hurteau, Matthew D.; George W. Koch; Bruce A. Hungate. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecological Environment 6(9): 493-498.

Hurteau, Matthew D.; Michael T. Stoddard; Peter Z. Fulé. 2010. The carbon costs of mitigating high- severity wildfire in southwestern ponderosa pine. Global Change Biology. 17: 1516-1521.

Husch, B., T. W. Beers, and J. A. Kershaw, Jr. 2003. Forest Mensuration (4th Edition).John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. Pages 33, 92, 166.

Hutto, Richard L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9, 1041–58.

Hutto, Richard L. and Jock S. Young. 2002. Regional landbird monitoring: Perspectives from the Northern Rocky Mountains. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, no. 3 738–50.

Inman, R.M., K.H. Inman, A.J. McCue, and M.L. Packila. 2007. Wolverine harvest in Montana: survival rates and spatial considerations for harvest management. Pages 85-96 in Wildlife Conservation Society. Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Cumulative Report, May 2007. Ennis, MT.

157 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Jemison, G. M. 1935. Influence of weather factors on moisture content of light fuels in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C. 51: 885-906

Jennings, S. B.; N. D. Brown; D. Sheil. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and understory illumination: canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry. Vol. 72 No. 1. 59-73.

Jones, B.E., Rickman, T.H., Vazquez, A., Sado, Y., Tate, K.W. 2005. Removal of Encroaching Conifers to Regenerate Degrading Aspen Stands in the Sierra Nevada.

Jourdonnais, C.S. and D.J. Bedunah. 1990. Prescribed fire and cattle grazing on an elk winter range in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 18(3): 232-240.

Joy, S. M. 2002. Northern Goshawk habitat on the Kaibab National Forest Arizona: Factors affecting nest locations and territory quality. Dissertation. University of Colorado. 2002.

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson. 2008: National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127.

Julander, Odell. 1966. How mule deer use mountain rangeland in Utah. Utah Acad. Scol, Arts. And Lett. Proc. 43(2), pp. 22-28 In Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September.

Jurgensen, M.F.; Harvey, A.E.; Graham, R.T.; [and others]. 1997. Impacts of timber harvests on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43: 234−251.

Kane, J.M., J. M. Varner, E.E. Knapp, R.F. Powers 2010. Understory vegetation response to mechanical mastication and other fuels treatment in a ponderosa pine forest. In Applied Vegetation Science 13:207-220, 2010.

Karjalainen, T. and A. Asikainen. 1996. Greenhouse gas emissions from the use of primary energy in forest operations and long-distance transportation of timber in Finland. Forestry 69:215–228.

Karl, Thomas R.; Jerry M. Melillo; and Thomas C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. 196 pages.

Kashian, D.M., W.H. Romme, D.B. Tinker, M.G. Turner, and M.G. Ryan. 2006. Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience 56(7):598–606.

Keane, R.E., Ryan, K.C. Veblen T.T., Allen, C.D., Logan, J., and Hawkes, B. 2002. Cascading Effects of Fire Exclusion in Rocky Mountain Ecosystems. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR- 91. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Keefe, David M. 2011. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project silviculture report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest.

158 Environmental Assessment

Kennedy, P. L. and J.B. Fontaine. 2009. Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests. Special Report 1096, Oregon State University. 133 pp.

Kennedy, Patricia L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Keyes, Christopher R. and Kevin L. O’Hara. 2002. Quantifying stand targets for silvicultural prevention of crown fires. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(2): 101-109.

Kirkley, N., and M. King 2010. Effects of Mechanical Thinning, Fire, and Mastication on the Spatial Structure of the Forest Floor. University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado.

Knight, J. 2011. “Mule deer management for Montana landowners,” available at Montana State University Extension Publications. Available at: http://www.msuextension.org/store/Products/Manage-Your-Land-for-Wildlife , (Accessed 9/12/11).

Kochert et al 2002 – eagle – Forest Viability Report

Koplin, James R. 1969. The numerical response of woodpeckers to insect prey in a subalpine forest in Colorado. Condor 71 (4): 436-438. In Partners In Flight 2000. Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0, January 2000. 288 pp.

Kostrzewa, A. and R. Kostrzewa. 1990. The Relationship of Spring and Summer Weather with Density and Breeding Performance of the Buzzard Buteo buteo, Goshawk Accipiter gentilis and Kestrel Falco tinnunculus . Ibis 132:550-559.

Kowalski, S. 2006. Frequency of Northern Goshawk Presence in the Northern Region 2005 Survey. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service Northern Regional Office. On file in USDA Forest Service, Region One Office, Missoula, Montana.

Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll, T. Ebata and L. Safranyik. 2008a. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452:987–990.

Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, C.C. Dymond, and E.T. Neilson. 2008b. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contributions of Canada’s forest to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:1551–1555.

Ladyman, J.A.R. 2006. “Aquilegia brevistyla Hooker (smallflower columbine): a technical conservation assessment,” USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/aquilegiabrevistyla.pdf, (accessed on 3/4/2011).

Latham, P and Tappeiner, J. 2002. Response of Old-Growth Conifers to Reduction in Stand Density in Western Oregon Forests. Tree Physiology 22. p 137-146.

Laughlin, Daniel C. and Peter Z. Fulé. 2008. Wildland fire effects on understory plant communities in two fire-prone forests. Canadian Journal of Forestry Resources 38: 133-142.

159 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Leege, T.A. 1979. “Effects of repeated prescribed burns on northern Idaho elk browse,” Northwest Science. 53(2): 107-113. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html# , (Accessed 8/15/11).

Lenoir, J., J.C. Gegout, P.A. Marquet, P. deRuffray, H. Brisse 2008. “A Significant Upward Shift in Plant Species Optimum Elevation During the 20th Century”. Science 27 June 2008: Vol. 320 no. 5884 pp. 1768-1771 online at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5884/1768.full

Linder, K.A. 1994. Habitat utilization and behavior of nesting Lewis’s Woodpeckers (Melanerpes lewis) in the Laramie range, southeast Wyoming. Masters thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie. In Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. 2000. Version 1.0. Draft January 2000. Kalispell, MT. 288 pp.

Lippke, B., J. Wilson, J. Meil, and A. Taylor. 2010. Characterizing the importance of carbon stored in wood products. Wood and Fiber Science 42(0):5–14.

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecological Applications 19:1003–1021.

Long, J.N. and T.W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of Growing Stock in Uneven-aged Stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry (5)3:93-96.

Long, James N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle, 61. Pg 24.

Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology 5(3): 265−270.

Lyon, A.L., W.L. Gaines, J.F. Lehmkul and R.J. Harrod. 2008. Short-term effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on foraging tree selection by cavity-nesting birds in dry forests of central Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 3203-3211.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry. 81(9): 592-595.

Lyon, L.J. and A.G. Christensen. 1992. A partial glossary of elk management terms. General Technical Report, GTR-INT-288. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 7 pages.

Lyon, L.J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edgek, J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleerey, and L.L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Bozeman, MT. 53 pages.

Lyon, L.J.; Crawford, H.S.; Czuhai, E.; Fredriksen, R.L.; Harlow, F.; Metz, L.J.; Pearson, H.A. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna: a state-of-knowledge review. General Technical Report WO-GTR-6. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 22 pp.

Mackie, R.J. K.L. Hamlin and G. L. Dusek. 1998. Ecology and Management of Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer in Montana. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Wildlife Division, Helena Montana. Federal Aid Project W-120-R. 198 pp.

Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri river Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monographs. 20, 79 pp. In Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S.

160 Environmental Assessment

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Marcum, C.L. 1975. Summer-fall habitat selection and use by a western Montana elk herd. PhD dissertation. University of Montana, 203 pp. In Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Martinka 1976. “Elk,” Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html, (Accessed 3/15/2012).

Mason, Glenn J.; Terrell T. Baker; Douglas S. Cram; Jon C. Boren; Alexander G. Fernald; Dawn M. VanLeeuwen. 2007. Mechanical fuel treatment effects on fuel loads and indices of crown fire potential in a south central New Mexico dry mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 257: 868-875.

McCallum, D.A. and F.G. Gehlbach. 1988. Nest-site preferences of Flammulated Owls in western New Mexico. Condor 90:653-661. In Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. 2000. Version 1.0. Draft January 2000. Kalispell, MT. 288 pp.

McCaughey, Ward W., Phillip E. Farnes and Katherine J. Hansen. 1997. Historic role of fire in determining annual water yield from Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest, Montana, USA. Western Snow Conference, Banff, Alberta Canada.

McGregor, M.D.; G. D. Amman; R. F. Schmitz; R. D. Oakes. 1987. Partial cutting lodgepole pine stands to reduce losses to the mountain pine beetle. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. 17:1234-1239.

McKenney, D., J. Pedlar, and G. O’Neill. 2009. Climate change and forest seed zones: Past trends, future prospects and challenges to ponder. The Forestry Chronicle 85(2):258–266

Megahan, W.F. 1990. Erosion and site productivity in western-Montana forest ecosystems. In: Proceedings, Management and Productivity of Western-Montana Forest Soils. General Technical Reort INT-280, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. 146−150 p.

Metlen, Kerry L.; Carl E. Fiedler; Andrew Youngblood. 2004. Understory response to fuel reduction treatments in the Blue Mountains of Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 78(3): 175- 185.

Metlon, K.L. and C. E. Fiedler. 2006. Restoration treatment effects on the understory of ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests in western Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 222, pp. 355-369.

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8):2145–2151.

Miner, C. L.; Walters, N. R.; Belli, M. L. 1988. A guide to the TWIGS program for the North Central United States. General Technical Report, NC-125. St. Paul, MN: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station. 105p.

161 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Minnesota IMPLAN Group. 2008 IMPLAN data, http://implan.com.

Minnnesota IMPLAN Group. 2003. IMPLAN Pro Version 2.0 User’s Guide, Analysis Guide, Data Guide. 418pp.

Mitchell, R. G., R. H. Waring, G. B. Pitman. 1983. Thinning lodgepole pine increases tree vigor and resistance to mountain pine beetle. Forest Science. 29(1):204-211.

Mitchell, S.R., M.E. Harmon, and K.E.B. O'Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19(3):643–655.

Mitchell, Stephen R.; Mark I. Harmon; Kari E. B. O’Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 19(3): 643-655.

Monleon, V.J., Cormack, K. and Landsberg, J.D. 1997. Short- and long-term effects of prescribed underburning on nitrogen availability in ponderosa pine stands in central Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27:369–378.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. “Year 2006 303 (d) List - A Compilation of Impaired and Threatened Waterbodies in Need of Water Quality Restoration,” Available at: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/ppa/mdm/303_d/303d_information.asp.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division. MontanaForestry Best Management Practices Monitoring, 2010 Forestry BMP Audit Report 2010. Missoula, Montana

Montana Department of State Lands (MDSL) 2006. Guide to Streamside Management Zone Law and Rules. Missoula, Montana.

Montana Field Guide 2010. “Short-styled Columbine — Aquilegia brevistyla, Montana Field Guide,” available at: http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_PDRAN05020.aspx, (accessed on June 8, 2010).

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. “2011. Montana Field Guide,” available at: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/. (Accessed 7/22/11).

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. “2011a. Montana Field Guide,” available at: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/. (Accessed 7/22/11).

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2004. State Elk Management Plan Wildlife Division. Helena Montana. 397 pp.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2005. Montana's comprehensive fish and wildlife conservation strategy. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2008. Winter Survey Summary. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2011b. “2011 Deer Hunting Outlook. Friday September 30,” available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/news.newsReleases/hunting/no. (Accessed 3/19/2012).

162 Environmental Assessment

Montana Natural Heritage Program 2005. BIOTICS element occurrence database. Montana State Library, Helena, Montana.

Montana Natural Heritage Program 2011. “Natural Heritage Tracker. Helena, MT,” available online: http://mtnhp.org/Tracker/NHTMap.aspx?rc=1&0.49258859274614996#

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2009. Montana Animal Species of Concern. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. 17pp.

Montana Natural Heritage Program Field Guide: (fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_ABNKD06070.aspx

Montana Natural Heritage Program. “2011,” available at: http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern.9/11/11, (Accessed 9/11/11).

Montana Natural Heritage Program. “2012. Wildlife Observation Tool,” available at: http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern. (Accessed 5/20/12).

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Data records in GIS format. Sensitive Plant Atlas. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, MT.

Montana State Forest. 2006. BPM Monitoring Report

Montana State University Extension Servic. 2001. Water Quality Best Management Practices for Montana Forests. Bozeman MT

Moore, Margret M.; Cheryl A. Casey; Jonathan D. Bakker; Judith D. Springer; Peter Z. Fulé; W. Wallace Covington; Daniel C. Laughlin. 2006. Herbaceous vegetation responses (1992-2004) to restoration treatments in a ponderosa pine forest. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 59: 135-144.

Morgan, T.A., Keegan, C.E III., and Brandt, J.P. 2007. Employment and Labor Income Direct Response Coefficients for the U.S. Forest Products Industry. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. 13pp.

Moser, B.W. and E.G. Garton. 2009. Short-term effects of timber harvest and weather on northern goshawk reproduction in northern Idaho. Journal of Raptor Research. 43(1): 1-10.

Mosher, B. A. and V. A. Saab. 2009. Implications of a recent mountain pine beetle epidemic for habitat and populations of birds, Elkhorn Mountains, Helena National Forest. 2009 Annual Progress Report. USDA Forest Service, Helena, Montana.

Murphy, Kathy; Tim Rich; Tim Sexon. 2007. An assessment of fuel treatment effects on fire behavior, suppression effectiveness, and structure ignition on the Angora Fire. R5-TP-025, USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region.

Murphy, T.E. 2011. Forest Silviculturist, Lewis and Clark National Forest Personal correspondence with Cynthia Englebert, Rangeland Management Specialist, TEAMS. October 31, 2011.

Murray, B.C. 2008. Leakage from an avoided deforestation compensation policy: Concepts, empirical evidence, and corrective policy options. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 32 pp.

163 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Natural Resources Defense Council. 1999. End of the Road: The adverse ecological impacts of roads and logging: A compilation of independently reviewed research. 11 pp.

Natureserve 2012. “NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application], Version 5.0.” NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, (accessed 05/15/2012).

NatureServe. 2010. “NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1.” NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, (Accessed: July 13, 2011).

Negron, J.F., Allen, K., Cook, B. and Withrow, J.R. 2008. Susceptibility of Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosae (Dougl. ex Laws.), to Mountain Pine Beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, Attack in Uneven-aged Stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, USA.

Nelson, Ralph M. Jr. 2000. Prediction of diurnal change in 10-h fuel stick moisture content. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1071–1087.

Newland, J.A.; DeLuca, T.H. 2000. Influence of fire on native nitrogen-fixing plants and soil nitrogen status in ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forests in western Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 274−282.

Niehoff, J., 2002. Soil NEPA analysis process and source of soil disturbance model coefficients. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

North, M., M. Hurteau, and J. Innes. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed- conifer carbon stocks and emissions Ecological Applications 19:1385–1396.

Noss, R.F., Franklin, J.F., Baker, W.L., Schoennagel, T., and Moyle, P.B., 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4, 481–487. In Kennedy, P. L. and J.B. Fontaine. 2009. Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests. Special Report 1096, Oregon State University. 133 pp.

Oikarinen, M. 1996. Biological soil amelioration as the basis for sustainable agriculture and forestry. Biology and Fertility of Soils 22: 342−344.

Oliver, William W. 1995. Is self-thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus bark beetles? In: Lane G. Eskew, ed. Forest Health Through Silviculture-Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop. General Technical Report, RM-GTR-267. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Pp. 213-218.

Omi, Philip N. and Kostas D. Kalabokidis. 1991. Fire damage on extensively versus intensively managed forest stands within the North Fork Fire. Northwest Science, 65(4): 149-157.

Page-Dumroese, D., A. Abbot, T. Rice. 2009. National Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Volume 1 and 2: Rapid Assessment, Supplementary methods, statistics, data storage. USDA Forest Service. 95p.

164 Environmental Assessment

Page-Dumroese, D., M. Jurgensen, and T. Terry. 2010. Maintaining soil productivity during forest or biomass to energy thinning harvests in the western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25(1): 5-11.

Parker, T.J., Clancy, K.M., and Mathiassen, R.L. 2006. Interactions Among Fire, Insects, and Pathogens in Coniferous Forests of the Interior Western United States and Canada. Journal Compilation, Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 8, 167-189.

Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. 2000. Version 1.0. Draft January 2000. Kalispell, MT. 288 pp.

Pasitschniak, Arts, M., and S. Larivière. 1995. Gulo gulo, Mammalian Species. American Society of Mammalogists, 499: 1-10.

Patla, S.M. 1997. Nesting Ecology and Habitat of the Northern Goshawk in Undisturbed and Timber Harvest Areas on the Targhee National Forest, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Masters Thesis, Idaho State Univ., Pocatello, ID. 164pp.

Patla, S.M. 2005. Monitoring Results of Northern Goshawk Nesting Areas in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Is Decline in Occupancy Related to Habitat Change. Journal of Raptor Research 39(3):324-334.

Personal Communication with Laura Conway – Prairie Falcon Documentation

Pollet, Jolie and Philip N. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 11: 1-10.

Potts, Donald F. 1984. Hydrologic impacts of large scale mountain pine beetle epidemic. Water Resource Bulletin, American Water Resources, Vol. 20 No.3.

Powers, R.F.; Tiarks, A.E.; Boyle, J.R. 1998. Assessing soil quality: practical standards for sustainable forest productivity in the United States. In: The contribution of soil science to the development and implementation of criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 53, Madison, Wisconsin. 53−80 p.

Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10:2052–2077.

Puettmann, K. J., D. H. Hibbs and D. W. Hann. 1993. Evaluation of the size-density relationships for pure red alder and Douglas-fir stands. Forest Science. 39(1): 7-27.

Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. (page 1130)

Raphael, M. G., K. V. Rosenberg, and B. G. Marcot. 1988. Large-scale changes in bird populations of Douglas-fir forests, northwestern California. Bird Conservation 3:63-83. In Hejl, S.J. 2011. A strategy for maintaining healthy populations of Western coniferous forest birds.

Raphael, M.G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86: 1-66. In Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. 2000. Version 1.0. Draft January 2000. Kalispell, MT. 288 pp.

165 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

RAWS. 2011. “Remote Automated Weather Station,” Available at: http://raws.fam.nwcg.gov/, (accessed on 11/29/2011).

Raymond, Crystal L. 2004. The effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in a mixed-evergreen forest of southwestern Oregon. Masters Thesis. University of Washington.

Raymond, Crystal L. and David L. Peterson. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: 2981-2995.

Reeves, D., D. Page-Dumroese, and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest systems on national forests in the northern region. RMRS-RP-89, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 19p.

“Regional Economic Information System (REIS),” Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Available at: http://bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm, (accessed via Economic Profile System).

Reich, Robin M., Suzanne M. Joy, and Richard T. Reynolds. 2004. Predicting the location of northern goshawk nests: modeling the spatial dependency between nest locations and forest structure. Ecological Modeling 176, (2004): 109-33.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a Stand-Density Index for Even-aged Forests. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46(7):621-638.

Reinhardt, E. and L. Holsinger. 2010. Effects of fuel treatments on carbon-disturbance relationships in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(8):1427– 1435.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Brown, J.K. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0, user’s guide. General Technical Report INT-GTR-344. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 65 p.

Reinhardt, Elizabeth; Crookston, Nicholas L. (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-116. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden, UT. 209 p.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham and M. H. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 184 pp.

Reynolds, R.T., J.D. Weins, S.M. Joy, and S.R. Salfsky. 2005. Sampling Considerations for Demographic and Habitat Studies of Northern Goshawks. Journal of Raptor Research 39(3):274-285.

Ritchie, Martin W. 2005. Effects of thinning and prescribed fire on understory vegetation in interior pine forests of California. In: Charles E. Peterson and Douglas A. Maguire, Ed. Balancing Ecosystem Values: Innovative Experiments for Sustainable Forestry. Proceedings, International Workshop. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-635. In USDA Forest Service 2011b.

166 Environmental Assessment

Roberson, A. M., D. E. Andersen, and P. L. Kennedy. 2003. The Northern Goshawk (Accipter gentilis atricapillus) in the Western Great Lakes Region: A Technical Conservation Assessment.

Robichaud, 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire rehabilitation treatments. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-63. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 89 p.

Roccaforte, John P.; Peter Z. Fulé; Wallace Covington. 2008. Landscape-scale changes in canopy fuels and potential fire behavior following ponderosa pine restoration treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 17: 293-303

Roe, L. 1992. Status review of Aquilegia brevistyla. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service – Region 1, Lewis & Clark National Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. Challenge Cost-Share Project. 47 pp.

Romey, M., Martin, S., Gilbert, S., and Godtel, D. 1992. Landscape Analyis of the Little Snowy Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

Rone, G. 2011. Personal Communication.

Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, 1481 Stevens Lake Road, Pagosa Springs CO.

Rothermel, R.C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildlands fuels. Research Paper INT-115. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 40 p.

Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. Research Paper INT-438. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. NFES- 1573. 166 p.

Rothermel, Richard C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Running, Steven W. 2006. Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science. 313: 927-928

Russell, K.R.; Van Lear, D.H.; Guynn, D.C., Jr. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27: 374-384.

Ryan M.G., D.M. Kashian, E.A.H. Smithwick, W.H. Romme, M.G. Turner, and D.B. Tinker. 2008. Unpublished report. Joint Fire Science Program Project Number: 03-1-1-06. Final Report on Carbon cycling at the landscape scale: the effect of changes in climate and fire frequency on age distribution, stand structure, and net ecosystem production. BLM Agreement/Task Order Number: 1422RAH03-0041.

Ryan, Robert L. 2005. Social Science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management. General Technical Report NC-261. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 58 p.

Sachro, L. L., W. L. Strong, et al. (2005). Prescribed burning effects on summer elk forage availability in the subalpine zone, Banff National Park, Canada. Journal of Environmental Management 77(3): 183-193.

167 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Safranyik. L.; T.L. Shore; A.L. Carroll; D.A. Linton. 2004. Bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) diversity in spaced and unmanaged mature lodgepole pine (Pinaceae) in southeastern British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management. 200:23–38.

Salabanks, R. and E.B. Arnett. 2002. Accommodating birds in managed forests of North America: A review of a bird-forestry relationship. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191 28 pp.

Samson , F. B. 2006. (amended September 2, 2008). Unpublished report . Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher. On file USDA Forest Service,Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Samson, Fred B. 2006. A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpeckers, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Sanchez-Martinez, Guillermo and Michael R. Wagner. 2002. Bark beetle community structure under four ponderosa pine forest stand conditions in northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management. 170:145-160.

Sartwell, Charles and R. E. Stevens. 1975. Mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine - prospects for silvicultural control in second-growth stands. Journal of Forestry. 73(3):136-140.

Savage, M. and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 35:967–977.

Schmid, J.M. and S. A.Mata. 2005. Mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots surrounded by unmanaged stands. Research Paper RMRS-RP-5. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins CO. 11 p.

Schroeder, Dave. 2006. Effectiveness of forest fuel management: a crown fire case study in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. 2601 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Schwartz, C.C., J.P. Copeland, N.J. Anderson, J.R. Squires, R.M. Inman, K.S. McKelvey, K.L. Pilgrim, L.P. Waits, and S.A. Cushman. 2009. Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology, 90(11), pp. 3222-3232.

Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 59 p.

Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. General Techical Report RMRS-GTR- 153. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 72 p.

Scott, V.E., K.E. Evans, D.R. Patton, and C.P. Stone. 1977. Cavity-nesting birds of North American forests. USDA Forest Service Agric. Handbook 511. 112 p. In Partners in Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. 2000. Version 1.0. Draft January 2000. Kalispell, MT. 288 pp.

Shepperd, W. 2001. Manipulations to Regenerate Aspen Ecosystems. In USDA Forest Service 2011a. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

168 Environmental Assessment

Shepperd, Wayne D., Paul C. Rogers, David Burton, and Dale L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. In USDA FS 2011a. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

Sieg, C. H., B. Philips, and L. Moser. 2003. Exotic and Noxious Plants. In Frederici, P., ed. Restoration Handbook for Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Pages 251-267.

Skinner, Carl N.; Martin W. Ritchie; Todd Hamilton; Julie Symons. 2004. Effects of prescribed fire and thinning on wildfire severity; the Cone Fire, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest. Proceedings: 25th Vegetation Management Conference. Jan. 2004. Redding, CA.

Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah:. 83 p.

Sousa, P. J. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Hairy woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82(10.146).

Sparks, Jeffrey C.; Ronald E. Masters; David M. Engle; Michael W. Palmer; George A. Bukenhofer. 1998. Effects of late growing-season and late dormant-season prescribed fire on herbaceous vegetation in restored pine-grassland communities. Journal of Vegetation Science. 9: 133- 142.

Sperber, T.D., J.M. Wraith, and B.E. Olson. 2003. Soil physical properties associated with the invasive spotted knapweed and native grasses similar. Plant and Soil 252: 241-249.

Squires, J. R., and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk. No. 298. In Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC, USA.

Squires, J.R., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of Northern goshawks in South-central Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol 60 No. 1, pp. 170-177.

Stage, Albert R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development. INT-137. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 40 p.

Steed and Kearns, 2010. Damaging Agents and Conditions of Mature Aspen Stands In Montana and Northern Idaho.

Stephens, Scott L.; Jason J. Moghaddas; Carl Edminster; Carl E. Fiedler; Sally Haase; Michael Harrington; Jon E. Keeley; Eric I. Knapp; James D. McIver; Kerry Metlen; Carl N. Skinner; Andrew Youngblood. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications. 19(2): 305-320.

Stephens, Scott Lewis and Jason J. Moghaddas. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 215: 21-36.

169 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Stout, S.L., Nyland, R.D., 1986. Role of species composition in relative density measurement in Allegeny hardwoods. Annual Journal of Forest Research 16, 574–579.

Stratton, Richard D. 2006. Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: models, tools, and techniques. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-183. USDA Forest Service,, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, MT. 15 p.

Strom, B.A. and P.Z. Fulé. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16:128–138.

Switalski, T.A.; Bissonette, J.A.; DeLuca, T.H.; Luce, C.H.; Madej, M.A. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21−28.

Taylor, Jonathan G.; Daniel, Terry C. 1984. Prescribed fire: public education and perception. Journal of Forestry. 82: 361-365.

Thomas, J.W., R.G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E.L. Bull. 1979. Snags. P. 60-77 in Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington (J.W. Thomas ed.). USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 553.

Thomas, Jack Ward, C. Maser, and J. E. Rodierk. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands— The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Riparian zones. General Technical Report, PNW- 80. USDA Forest Service.

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Torres-Rojo JM, and Velázquez-Martínez A (2000). Relative stand density index for mixed even-aged stands. Agrociencia. 34: 497-507.

Troendle, Charles A. and Charles F. Leaf. 1980. Hydrology, Chapter III. In An approach to water resources evaluation of non-point silvicultural sources. Environmental Protection Agency document number 60018-80-012. Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. (page III-13)

United States Census, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. “1990 and 2000,” http://www.census.gov, (accessed via Economic Profile System).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. – 1950-2005. Various (6) Site Forms for sites identified in the Little Snowys analysis area. On file with the Lewis and Clark National Forest and the Montana Archaeology Records Department. Great Falls, Montana. (individual reports).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [not dated]. Visual Character Types & Variety Class Description. Northern Region R1 80-11.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [No Date]. Determining water yield from Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest, Montana, USA. USDA Forest Service, Bozeman, Montana. 9 p.

170 Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. Forest Hydrology Part II - Hydrologic Effects of Vegetation Manipulation. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. (page 39)

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1976-2005. Various Individual Cultural Resource Inventory Reports identified relative to the Little Snowys analysis area. On file with the Lewis and Clark National Forest and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. Great Falls, Montana. (numerous individual reports)

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1977. “Cavity Nesting Birds of North America.” Available at: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/wildlife/nesting_birds/index.htm. (Accessed 5/30/2012).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1978. Northern Region. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation, A Watershed Management Procedure. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study Annual Program Report, Job V-1, Elk Guidelines Validation. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. pp. 72-89.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan and Record of Decision. (As amended 1993). USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986a. 1986 ROS Book. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. n.p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. – Region 1. 1992. Cultural Resource Management and NEPA Documentation: Region 1 Analysis and Guidance. USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. 5 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Landscape analysis of Little Snowy Mountains. Lewis and Clark National Forest. Musselshell Ranger District. USDA Forest Service, Great Falls, Montana. 90 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993 Lewis and Clark National Forest Decision Notice and Forest Plan Amendment Number 10 (Monitoring of Cultural Resources). USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 6 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Forest Plan Amendment Number 9. Lewis and Clark National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Management Area T Management Prescriptions. USDA Forest Service, Great Falls, Montana. 6 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement: Little Snowys Vegetative Management and Public Access Project. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook 701.

171 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Lewis and Clark National Forest. 1995 – Site Identification Strategy (SIS) for Eastside Forests as required by the Region 1 Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources. Helena, Custer, Gallatin and Lewis and Clark National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 18 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. “Forest Service National Resource Book on American Indian and Alaska Native Relations”, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Belt Creek Range Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Forest Service Manual, Region 1 Supplement 2500-99-1. Soil Management, Soil Quality Monitoring. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 6 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Regional Viability Strategy. Memorandum to Regional Leadership Teams, Northern Region and Intermountain Regions. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 5 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Northern Region Snag Management Protocol. Prepared by the Snag Protocol Team for the USDA Forest Service Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 34 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Fire Family plus user’s guide. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Lab, Systems for Environmental Management. Fort Collins, Colorado.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Forest Resources of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Conservation Assessment for Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Eastern Region. USDA Forest Service. 14 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Lewis and Clark National Forest, Forest Plan Monitoring Report. Fiscal Years 2002-2003. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 13 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Management Guide for Douglas-fir Beetle. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, .National Headquarters, Washington DC. Effective: September 23, 2005. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Rocky Mountain Research Station, rockclim.pl (a part of Rock:Clime) version 2010.05.28. Available: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/rc/rockclim.pl. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho.

172 Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Lewis and Clark National Forest Sensitive Plant Atlas. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Region 1 Multi-level Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis System. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the western United States: A synthesis. RMRS-GTR-173. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 41 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture/United States Department of Interior. 2006. “Protecting people and natural resources: a cohesive fuels treatment strategy.” Availabe at: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/documents/CFTS_03-03-06.pdf, (accessed on 02/20/2010).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. WILDLIFE: C-8 Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk. June. Unpublished report. On file at: Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisors Office. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 9 pages.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. WILDLIFE: C-8 Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk. September. Unpublished report. On file at: Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisors Office. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 4 pages

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. “2007 Forest Vegetation Simulator Staff Report.” Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/annual_report/FVSsupport.shtml.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Eastern Montana (EM) Variant Overview. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Estimates of Snag Densities for Eastside Forests in the Northern Region. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report. Report 08-07 v2.0, December 19, 2009. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 56 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Helena National Forest Annual Monitoring Report. Internal In-service Report. USDA Forest Service, Helena National Forest, Helena, Montana. 230 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Wildlife Habitat Estimate Updates for the Region 1 Conservation Assessment. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report. Numbered Report 08-04 v1.0. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, Washington Office Direction. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC.

173 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Common stand exam users guide. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, Colorado.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Existing/Desired Wildlife Habitat Condition Report for the Little Snowy Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 8 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Lewis and Clark National Forest Little Snowy Mountains Ponderosa Pine Restoration Project. July 24, 2009.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Little Snowy Mountains Desired Future Condition. Musselshell Ranger District. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report. Region 1 Numbered Report 09-03 5.0. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Assessing Potential Mortality from Mountain Pine Beetle in Lodgepole Pine, Ponderosa Pine, and Whitebark Limber Pine. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Forest Service Manual 2000 – National Forest Resource Management: Chapter 2020 – Ecological Restoration and Resilience: Interim Directive No.: 2020-2010-1. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Little Snowy Mountains Ponderosa Pine Restoration Project scoping. Musselshell Ranger District. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Lolo National Forest soil monitoring report. Analysis of harvest and post-harvest data collected from 2005−2009. Carlson, T. (editor). Internal In-service Report, USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Lolo National Forest, Missoula, Montana. 20 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Management Guide for Western Spruce Budworm. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Management Guide for Mountain Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Region 1 Insect Hazard Rating Numbered Report05252010. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. The Update of the IRPS - a Brief Overview 10/1/10. USDA Forest Service.

174 Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Lewis and Clark National Forest. Evaluation and Compliance with the National Forest Management Act. Requirements to Provide for Viability and Diversity of Animal Communities. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 171 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Lewis and Clark National Forest. Forest Plan Standards. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 39 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 123 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Fuels Report. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 74 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Little Snowy Mountains Old Growth Inventory Report. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 23 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, 2011 Update. February 25, 2011. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. Little Snowy Restoration Project. Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 52 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. Process for analyzing big game cover as required by the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana. 5 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Northern Region (Montana), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Montana State Historic Preservation Officer. 1995. (Hereafter referred to as USDA et al 1995). Programmatic Agreement regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Montana. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.. 21 p. (unpaginated)

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.; U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; National Park Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey; Department of Homeland Security. 2011. “The Federal Land Assistance Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 Report to Congress.” Available at: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov, (accessed on 12/09/2011).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; National Park Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey; Department of Homeland Security. 2011. “A National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy: Western Regional Assessment.” Available at: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov, (accessed on 12/09/2011).

175 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

United States Department of Interior -Bureau of Reclamation. 1994. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. Montana Projects Office. USDOI Bureau of Reclamation, Montana State Office, Billings Montana. 114 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Downy Woodpecker. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 20 pp.

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Blue Grouse. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 31 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Unpublished Report. Northern Goshawk Status Review. Office of Technical Support – Forest Resources. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 250 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Western Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register: April 1, 2003, Volume 68. No. 62.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. 93 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal Register. 12 month Finding on a Petition to List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 2011. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species for the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Forests/L&C_sp _list.pdf. (Accessed on 8/02/2011).

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species for Montana Counties. February 2011. Ecological Services, Montana Field Office. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana. 8 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for the Lewis and Clark National Forest. February 13, 2012. Ecological Services, Montana Field Office. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana. 2 pp.

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Federal Register. Proposal to list the distinct population segment of North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service. 28 pp.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. “Climate change and Montana.” Available at: http://www.spatialsci.com/files/images/EPA_MT_climchange.pdf, (accessed online on 04/18/2011). Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Environmental Protection Agency 230-F-97-008z.

176 Environmental Assessment

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

United States Geologic Survey. 1998. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Chestnut- collared Longspur. US Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota 19 pp.

United States Geologic Survey. 1999. Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Upland Sandpiper. US Geological Survey, Jamestown, North Dakota. 36 pp.

United States Geological Survey. 2011. “Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) fact sheet.” Available at: http://www.landfire.gov, (accessed on 11/28/2011).

Van Dyke, F., and J.A. Darragh. 2006. Short and longer term effects of fire and herbivory on sagebrush communities in South-Central Montana. Environmental Management Vol. 38, No. 3. Pp. 365-376.

Van Dyke, F., and J.A Darragh. 2007. Short and long-term changes in elk use and forage production in sagebrush communities following prescribed burning. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:4375-4398.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 3:373-378.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 7:23-34.

Vander Meer, M.; Archer, V. 2009. Lolo National Forest Soil Monitoring. Post-harvest soil quality assessment Knox Brooks EIS and Mil-Key-Wey EIS. Final In-service Report for Lolo National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Missoula, Montana. 14 p.

Vasievich, M., Smith, D., and Rezlaff, M. 2008. “Quick Silver 6.0 User’s Guide.” Available at: http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/economic_center/QS6_Downloads.html.

Wear, D.N. and B.C. Murray. 2004. Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on U.S. softwood markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47(2):307–330.

Weaver, S.M. 1987. “Fire and elk: summer prescription burning on elk winter range, a new direction in habitat management on the Nez Perce National Forest. Bugle: The quarterly Journal of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 4(2): 41-42.” Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html#, (accessed 9/1/11).

Weldon, L.A.C. 2011. Letter from Regional Forester to Forest and Grassland Supervisors dated August 26, 2011, Sensitive Species Designation for Whitebark Pine. On file at Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Welke, S.; Fyles, J. 2005. “When texture matters: Compaction in boreal forest soils. FSMN research note series.” Available at: http://www.sfmnetwork.ca/docs/e/RN_en_Compaction%20and%20Texture.pdf.

Westerling, A. L; H.G. Hidalgo; D. R. Cayan; T. W. Swetnam. 2006. “Warming and earlier spring increases western U. S. forest wildfire activity.” Sciencexpress. Available at: www.sciencexpress.org, (accessed on 11/04/2009).

177 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change 87(Suppl. 1):S231–S249.

Western Bat Working Group. 2005. “Species Accounts, Townsend’s big-eared bat.” Available at http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/coto.pdf. (Accessed 9/11/11).

White et al 2002. – Forest viability report

Whitehead, R. J.; G. L. Russo; B. C. Hawkes; S.W. Taylor; B. N. Brown; O. B. Armitage; H. J. Barclay; R. A. Benton. 2008. Effect of commercial thinning on within-stand microclimate and fine fuel moisture conditions in a mature lodgepole pine stand. Information Report FI-X- 004. Natural Resources Canada. Canadian Forest Service. Canadian Wood Fibre Centre.

Whitehead, Roger J. and Glenda L. Russo. 2005. “Beetle-proofed” lodgepole pine stands in interior British Columbia have less damage from mountain pine beetle. Information Report BC-X- 402. Canadian Forest Service. Pacific Forestry Centre. Victoria, British Columbia.

Wiggins, David A. 2004. “American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.” Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf. 40 pp.

Wikipedia. 2012. “Black-tailed jackrabbit.” Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black- tailed_jackrabbit. (Accessed 5/18/2012).

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Species Status Assessment Worksheet. Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 13 pp.

Wisdom, M. J., N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson, E. O. Garton, and J. W. Thomas. 2004. Spatial partitioning by mule deer and elk in relation to traffic. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69:509-530.

Wisdom, M.J., B.K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J.M. Boyd, P.K. Coe, J.G. Kie, A.A. Ager, and N.J. Cimon. 2005. Cattle and elk responses to intensive timber harvest. Pp. 197-216 in The Starkey Project: A Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer (M.J. Wisdom, tech. ed.). Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Vavra, Martin; Boyd, Jennifer M.; Coe, Priscilla K.; Kie, John G.; Ager, Alan A. 2004. Cattle and elk responses to intensive timber harvest. In: Rahm, Jennifer, ed. Resource stewardship in the 21st century: a voyage of rediscovery; Transactions, 69th North American wildlife and natural resources conference; 2004 March 16-20; Spokane, WA. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute: 728-758. [83277]. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceel/all.html#345.

Witmer, G.W., S.K. Martin and R.D. Sayler. 1998. Forest Carnivore Conservation and Management in the Interior Columbia Basin: Issues and Environmental Correlates. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-240, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 60 pp.

Witmer, G.W., S.K. Martin and R.D. Sayler. 1998. Forest Carnivore Conservation and Management in the Interior Columbia Basin: Issues and Environmental Correlates. General Technical Report,

178 Environmental Assessment

PNW-GTR-240. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 60 pp.

Woodall, C.W., Fiedler, C.E. and Milner, K.S. 2003. Stand Density Index in Uneven-aged Ponderosa Pine Stands. www.montanaperegrine.org/Migration.html

www.montanaperegrine.org/Nesting_Ledges.html

Yager, L.Y., Hinderliter, M.G., Heise, C.D., and Epperson, D.M., 2007. Gopher tortoise response to habitat management by prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 428–434. In Kennedy, P. L. and J.B. Fontaine. 2009. Synthesis of Knowledge on the Effects of Fire and Fire surrogates on Wildlife in U.S. Dry Forests. Special Report 1096, Oregon State University. 133 pp.

Youngblood, A., Max, T., and Coe,K. 2004. Stand Structure in East-Side Old Growth Ponderosa Pine Forests of Oregon and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management 199 (2004) p 191-217.

Yunick, Robert P. 1985. A review of recent irruptions of the black-backed woodpecker and three-toed woodpecker in eastern North America. Journal of Field Ornithology 56 (2): 138-152. In Partners In Flight 2000. Draft Bird Conservation Plan Montana. Version 1.0, January 2000. 288 pp.

Zachariassen, John; Karl Zeller; Ned Nikolov; Tom McClelland. A review of the Forest Service remote automated weather station (RAWS) network. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 119. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Zausen, G.L., Kolb, T.E., Bailey, J.D. & Wagner, M.R. 2005. Long-term impacts of stand management on ponderosa pine physiology and bark beetle abundance in northern Arizona: a replicated landscape study. Forest Ecology and Management 218:291–305.

Zwolak, R. and K.R. Foresman, 2007. Effects of a stand replacing fire on small mammal communities in montane forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol. 85. pp. 815-822.

179 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Agencies and Persons Consulted The following people participated in the preparation of this environmental assessment.

Larry Amell Fuels and Fire Tricia Burgoyne Soils Cynthia Englebert Botany Wayne Green Watershed Nicole Hill Recreation/Scenery David Keefe Silviculture (Retired) Kelly Keim Heritage Tim Lahey Forestry/Economics Jason Oltrogge Range/Noxious Weeds Scott Reitz Wildlife (Retired) Lori Wollan Geographic Information Systems Ron B. Wiseman Judith-Musselshell District Ranger John Casselli Project Coordinator and Interdisciplinary Team Leader Judith York Editor, TEAMS Enterprise Maple Taylor Editor, TEAMS Enterprise

Others contacted or consulted during the development of this environmental assessment.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks The National Wild Turkey Federation The Crow Tribal Nation Bureau of Land Management University of Great Falls Jenifer Woods, NEPA Coordinator Manuel Silva, Minerals Specialist Dave Cunningham, Public Affairs Specialist Steve Babler, Wildlife Biologist (Retired) Laura Conway, Wildlife Biologist Victor Murphy, Wildlife Technician Tom Stivers, Wildlife Biologist Mike Enk, Fisheries Biologist (Retired) Ed Kelley, Transportation (Retired) Jim Homison, Zone Fire Management Officer (Retired) Darwin Reynolds, Assistant Fire Management Officer (Retired) Rob Marshall, Zone Fire Management Officer Brad McBratney, Forest Fire Management Officer (Retired) Kip Colby, Fuels Technician Tanya Murphy, Silviculture Erin Fryer, Writer-Editor Local interested stakeholders

180 Environmental Assessment

Appendix A: Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Table 28. Past and ongoing actions in the Little Snowy Mountains analysis area Activity Date Acres/Area Project Name NEPA Document Timber Harvest 1997 138 Polecat Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Timber Harvest/Salvage 1992 310 South Bench Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Timber Harvest 1999 200 Flat Whiskey Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Timber Harvest 1989 431 Ashbridge Spring Timber Harvest 1986−89 540 Legacy Sale W/O Name Timber Harvest 1989 72 Bull Pine Timber Harvest/ Private 2000−present Not disclosed by Pronghorn Ranch has done a thinning/patch N/A landowner cut bordering the Forest on the eastern and southern borders Underburn 2009 430 Ashbridge 1-2-3-4-5 Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Underburn 1995 127 Cameron Ridge Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Underburn 1997 300 North Fork Pole Creek UB1A Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Underburn 1999 30 Cemetary Little Snowies Vegetative Management EIS Underburn 1989 160 North Fork Pole Creek Personal Use Firewood yearly Roadside Due to travel distances and timber type a Personal use permits moderate amount of cutting occurs annually Weed Management Yearly or as Roadside and N/A Noxious Weed Control ROD (Lewis and Clark identified scattered areas within National Forest 1994) project area Roads and Trail N/A System Per travel/visitor and MVUM maps Travel Planning Management Roads and Trail Yearly or as System/non-system Various Maintenance CEs or associated with projects Maintenance needed above Range Allotments Seasonal Livestock Grazing Permit Rescission Act Schedule for NEPA review in 2015/2016 Cameron Creek 7/15−10/15 45 yearlings Little Snowies 6/01−9/30 285 yearlings

181 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Morrison 7/01−9/30 90 pair total (on/off)

Table 29. Foreseeable management in the Little Snowy Mountains analysis area Activity Date Acres/Area Project Name NEPA Document Personal firewood cutting Annual Roadside N/A Personal Use Permits Forest Service road and Annual Existing system N/A Under Maintenance CE trail maintenance Travel Management On-going Project area Per travel/visitor and MVUM maps Travel Plan Forest Service permitted Seasonal Existing allotments TBD Rescission Act Schedule for NEPA review in grazing 2015/2016 Weed management and As Identified Not mapped scatted N/A Noxious Weed Control ROD (Lewis and Clark treatments areas across the National Forest 1994) project *Private agricultural Seasonal Private inholdings N/A N/A activities and adjacent lands *Private Forest TBD Private forested N/A N/A management activities acres BLM-proposal (timber 2012 150−200 TBD EA stand improvement, thinning, prescribed fire, meadow restoration) Willow Creek drainage

182 Environmental Assessment

Appendix B: Compliance with Forest Plan Standards Forestwide Plan Standards Compliance with Management Direction Recreation Management Standard A-1: Recreation Information Make recreation information more visible by completing the Recreation Opportunity Guide. Not applicable to this project (refer to project purpose). Management Standard A-2: Developed Recreation Not applicable to this project. (1) Manage fee campgrounds, heavy-use campgrounds, and heavy use picnic areas at full service levels. Not applicable to this project. Maintain facilities to their original standard. Replace or rehabilitate worn and substandard facilities and sites, in accordance with the Northern Regional Guide. (2) Manage low-use campgrounds and picnic areas at a reduced service level. However, to reduce user Not applicable to this project. conflicts and damage to Forest resources and recreation facilities, patrols and educational programs will be increased as necessary. Maintain facilities to protect investment and provide safe, sanitary, and reasonably attractive sites. (3) Follow Management Standard L-4, Maintenance and construction of Roads, Trails, and Other Facilities, Not applicable to this project. for construction and maintenance of recreation facilities. (4) Full implementation requires substantial recreation fund increases. Therefore, implementation should be Not applicable to this project. staged over several years. (a) First Priority: Manage campgrounds at full administration and operation levels. Increase maintenance and education to protect the investment and provide safe, sanitary, and reasonably attractive facilities and sites. (b) Second Priority: Increase information services and public awareness of recreation opportunities. (c) Third Priority: Provide the optimum level of developed site administration, operation, and maintenance. (5) Administer provisions of the Endangered Species Act in occupied T&E species habitat. Use the Not applicable to this project. management guidelines developed under the Interagency Rocky Mountain Front Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program to avoid or mitigate conflicts between developed recreation and T&E species. Management Standard A-3: Recreation Residences (1) Administer recreation-residence permits according to Forest Service Manual 2720. Not applicable to this project. (2) Inspect recreation residences at least every 4 years. Combine fire and recreation inspections. Not applicable to this project. (3) Formally train Forest Service personnel on permit administration. Not applicable to this project. Management Standard A-4: Travel Shelters (1) Authorize travel shelters on the Jefferson Division, in response to user needs. Not applicable to this project.

183 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

(2) Evaluate the use of existing Forest Service facilities to meet a portion of user needs. Assure that such use Not applicable to this project. does not compete with the private sector. Management Standard A-5: Winter Dispersed Recreation Opportunity (1) Provide winter snow trails for motorized and non-motorized use. Not applicable to this project. (2) Pursue cooperative agreements with organizations, clubs, and agencies for snow trail development, Not applicable to this project. maintenance, and operations. Management Standard A-6: Special Interest Areas Inventory and manage, but do not publicly identify special interest areas which need protection. These areas Not applicable to this project. include areas with rare or unusual vegetation and other special sites. Management Standard A-7: Cultural Resource Management (1) Identification of Cultural Resources: A cultural survey will be conducted to identify and record cultural Some impact areas have already been properties within the area of environmental impact. Sites, building, districts, and objects which may qualify for surveyed for cultural resources. Future the National Register of Historic Places will be nominated in accordance with established procedures. surveys are planned prior to ground disturbance in areas where previous survey coverage is inadequate. This phased approach to project proposals is in compliance with NHPA/Section 106 regulations. (2) Protection of Cultural Resources. All alternatives: There are no known cultural (a) Evaluate, according to criteria which determine eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, and properties present that cannot be avoided or in consultation with the SHPO, any identified archaeological or historical site, building, structure, or district. mitigated under provisions in the (b) Consult with the SHPO and together determine the project's effect on significant cultural properties. If no Programmatic Agreement (PA) arranged effect is identified, the Forest proceeds with the project. If an effect is identified, the Forest and the SHPO between Region One of the Forest Service determine whether the effect will be adverse or not. and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). (c) A schedule will be developed for visiting known sites to determine what protection, if any, is necessary. (3) Management of Cultural Resources: Cultural resources are not renewable. Therefore, the Forest will make If additional sites are identified in proposed every effort to design projects without adversely affecting cultural resources. Normally, slight project impact areas, consultation with the SHPO will modification will avoid any potentially adverse effects. determine whether they are historically significant. The PA includes provisions and options to address avoidance or mitigation of impacts to significant historic sites. (4) Interpretation of Cultural Resources: The decision to provide interpretative information will consider the No needed interpretation needs identified. following criteria: (a) Can the site provide visitor information? (b) Is the site near other recreation attractions? (c) How easily can visitor impact on the site be monitored?

184 Environmental Assessment

(d) Is the site representative of cultural resources elsewhere on the Forest and surrounding areas? (e) Can interpretation be coordinated with the protection, preservation, maintenance, and interpretation of other resources? (5) Public Education: Educational efforts will be made to increase public understanding of the importance of Not applicable for this project. these identified cultural resources and thereby mitigate damage and maintenance problems. Management Standard A-8: Visual Resource Management (1) Landscape management principles will be applied to all activities on the Forest (FSM 2380). National Resource protection measures for visual Forest Landscape Management, volume 2, chapter I, The Visual Management System. resources have been outlined to meet A-8(1). Refer to the Scenery Report. (2) A VQO is stated for each management area. If the VQO conflicts with the management prescription, the The project meets the VQO of modification. prescription will prevail, unless the area is within the seen areas of the roads or trails identified on Forest Plan maps. In these seen areas visual resource management principles will be emphasized and visual impacts mitigated to meet the VQO. (3) The Forest adjacent to or as seen from all or segments of the following roads and trails, as shown on Complies refer to the Scenery Report. Forest Plan maps, will be managed for its visual resource. Only roads and trails that may be affected by development are identified. Wildlife and Fish Management Standard C-1: Wildlife Coordination and Habitat Management (1) Strengthen wildlife habitat coordination with all Forest uses by improving cooperation with the MDFW&P. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was Identity wildlife habitat values early in the planning of other resource projects. Protect those values through consulted for this project. involvement of appropriate MDFW&P personnel during all stages of project planning and implementation. (2) Utilize the general concepts presented in Agriculture Handbook No. 533, Wildlife Habitats in Managed Wildlife habitat parameters are described for Forests. This handbook provides management strategies for various wildlife habitat situations. The each species analyzed and are found for each handbook's specific habitat parameters may have to be adjusted for the Lewis and Clark National Forest. individual species. When more site-specific management recommendations are available through the Forest Service or MDFW&P, those recommendations will be followed. (3) An annual meeting will be held at the Forest Supervisor and Regional Supervisor level to discuss Not applicable to this project. programs affecting wildlife resources and habitats, as specified in the MOU dated September 1978. In addition, annual meetings should be held at the District level with appropriate MDFW&P personnel to discuss specific projects and issues of mutual interest or concern. (4) Incorporate recommendations from the Montana Cooperative Elk Logging Study in the planning of timber A Big Game Analysis Report has been sales and road construction projects. completed with recommendations. (5) Require a big-game cover analysis of projects involving significant vegetative removal to ensure that Refer to the big game analysis. effective hiding cover is maintained. The cover analysis should be done on a drainage or elk herd unit basis. Drainages or elk herd units containing identified summer/fall range will be maintained at 30% or greater for effective hiding cover.

185 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

(6) Manage motorized use on National Forest system lands through the Forest Travel Plan, in cooperation Not applicable to this project. No travel with the public, State of Montana, and other Federal agencies, to reduce effects on wildlife during periods of planning changes proposed. high stress. (7) Forage competition and social interaction between wildlife and livestock are important winter ranges. Refer to Big Game Analysis Report. Wildlife habitat needs will be fully met on these important areas prior to any livestock increase. (8) Implement improved grazing management systems at the earliest opportunity on allotments within Not applicable on this project. Not a AMP identified big game winter range. Kinds and numbers of livestock, as well as growing seasons and other proposal practices, may be adjusted from the present situation to maintain or enhance key wildlife habitat components. (9) Cooperate with private, State, and Federal land managers on lands adjacent to identified big-game winter Not applicable on this project. Not a AMP ranges in implementing improved grazing management systems to enhance key wildlife habitat. proposal (10) Cooperate with private landowners, State of Montana, and other Federal agencies in implementing Not applicable on this project. No land programs for land acquisition, land exchanges, access easements, and conservation easements which will adjustments proposed. promote overall wildlife management objectives. (11) Data gathered through the Interagency Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program is the basis for grizzly Not applicable on this project. bear, elk, mountain goat, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and raptors management guidelines. These guidelines will be used in the management of land-use activities occurring within habitat of these species on the Rocky Mountain Front. (12) Schedule district habitat improvement projects to meet outputs. Prescribed fires will be frequently used The project includes activities (prescribed for big game and other wildlife habitat management. burning) that would benefit wildlife species such as big game(including whitetail deer) and wild turkey. (13) Work closely with State of Montana and other Federal agencies in developing long-term plans for specific MDFW&P and BLM have been involved with wildlife habitat improvement projects. this project. Management Standard C-2: Threatened and Endangered Species (1) Comply with the Endangered species Act, other related laws, Executive orders, Forest Service Manual This project is in compliance with the direction, implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act, legal decisions that have a Endangered Species Act. Refer to the wildlife bearing on the Forest Service T&E species program, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, section, Biological Evaluation and Biological recovery plans, and special studies. Cooperate with future interagency recovery efforts. Assessment. Sensitive plant information is contained in the botany section. (2) Conduct a biological evaluation of each program or activity which is Forest Service funded, authorized, or This project is in compliance with the carried out on occupied T&E species and sensitive species habitat. This evaluation will determine whether or Endangered Species Act, as shown in the not informal or formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on T&E species is appropriate. 2012 BE/BA, 2012 Management Indicator Species Report, and 2012 Sensitive plant report. (3) Identify and evaluate cumulative effects as part of each biological evaluation. This evaluation may result in See above. specific management recommendations in addition to those identified above.

186 Environmental Assessment

(4) Maintain active communications with research organizations to ensure current research data are being Not applicable to this project as the Natural used in resource planning and administration affecting T&E and sensitive species and their habitat. As Research Area is outside of the project area. necessary, District Ranger and biologists shall meet to review current research findings and meet to review current research findings and discuss their application in resource management. (5) Participate in the interagency Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program for the Rocky Mountain Front. The Not applicable to this project. members chartered this program in 1980 to promote better coordination of wildlife studies along the Front. Data gathered through this program is the basis of the grizzly bear management guidelines. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines will be used to coordinate multiple-use activities with the biological requirements of endangered and threatened species. (6) Schedule direct habitat improvement projects to meet Forests outputs. Prescribed fires will frequently be Not applicable to this project. Refer to Wildlife used for grizzly bear and gray wolf habitat management. Section (7) The occupied grizzly bear habitat (all of the Rocky Mountain Division) has been stratified according to Not applicable to this project; there are no “The guidelines For Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem” (USDA grizzly bears. Forest Service 1979). Forest management on occupied grizzly bear habitat will comply with this management direction. (8) Manage problem grizzly bears in accordance with the “Guidelines for Determining Grizzly Bear Nuisance Not applicable to this project. Not within the Status for Controlling Nuisance Grizzly Bears in the Northern Continental Divide and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Northern Continental Divide. Bear Ecosystems.” (9) Manage gray wolf primarily by maintaining a suitable prey base and important habitat components such as Not applicable to this project. Refer to the rendezvous sites. Management for big game species will follow the management guidelines established by Wildlife Section. the interagency Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program. (10) Compile all reports of wolf sightings, sign, or other activity in order to maintain knowledge of present Not applicable to this project. Refer to the distribution and population levels. When available, define management situation stratification based on Wildlife Section. current habitat suitability, population, and distribution trends. (11) Establish an active public information and education program addressing T&E and sensitive species Not applicable to this project. management and stressing goals, objectives, and actions required to recover the populations. Provide educational facts on ecology, legal status, present population levels, and disturbance factors to Forest users through a strong educational effort. Emphasize protective measures for allowing T&E and sensitive species populations to become viable. (12) Maintain bald eagle and peregrine falcon essential habitat (currently unoccupied). Suitable habitat exists The project does not alter bald eagle or outside identified essential habitat. If active nest sites or other important habitat components are discovered, peregrine falcon habitat, refer to the Biological a management standard for such area will be developed based on information available in the literature or Evaluation. from knowledgeable persons. (13) There are sensitive plants, as listed by the Regional Forester, of limited distribution that occur on the See the 2012 sensitive plant report. Forest and may require special consideration in land management to maintain diversity within the species gene pool. Assessments of suitable habitats for sensitive plants will be conducted before surface disturbing activities are permitted.

187 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Management Standard C-3: Fish Habitat (1) Increase the coordination of the fisheries resource with other forest activities and programs including Not applicable to this project (no fish bearing timber harvest, range management, and oil and gas exploration or development. streams present). (2) Increase coordination with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks to adequately address Not applicable to this project. issues and concerns related to the Forest's overall annual program of work. (3) Design and schedule fish habitat surveys and studies to develop a program of work to improve fisheries Not applicable to this project. resource. (4) Emphasize the maintenance or enhancement of habitat supporting populations of Upper Missouri River Not applicable to this project. (black spotted) cutthroat trout. (5) The management of soil and vegetation in riparian areas is essential to fisheries habitat management. Standard soil and water conservation BMPs will be applied to protect soils, vegetation and water resources (see Watershed and Soils reports). Management Standard C-4: Wildlife Trees Wildlife trees include snags and down trees. Snags may be 'hard' or 'soft.' Hard snags are sound wood that Meets C-4; refer to the wildlife project design may or may not have commercial value. Soft snags are in advances stages of decay. features and mitigation section. (1) Following are the recommended sizes and numbers of hard snags by timber type. The management level percentage relates to the optimum number of hard snags for the various timber types, based on cavity nesting species present, territory sizes, and other habitat parameters. The primary excavator (woodpecker) species most representative of the type is also listed. Douglas fir ponderosa pine—70% Management Level Hairy woodpecker: 10 inch d.b.h. minimum; 158 snags/100 acres Riparian/Aspen—100% Management Level Downy woodpecker: 6 inch d.b.h. minimum; 300 snags/l00 acres Lodgepole Pine—40% Management Level Northern three-toed woodpecker: 10 inch d.b.h. minimum; 72 snags/100 acres Subalpine Fir/Whitebark Pine—60% Management Level 10 inch d.b.h. minimum; 108 snags/100 acres Mixed Conifer—63% Management Level Black backed three-toed woodpecker: 10 inch d.b.h. minimum; 135 snag/l00 acres (2) Keep all soft snags, which are not a safety or fire hazard. All soft snags that are not a safety or fire hazard would be maintained. Refer to the the mitigation and design features. (3) Locate wildlife trees adjacent to natural openings, near water, in valley bottoms, or in aspen groves, if Existing snags would be retained in clumps, possible. It is in these areas that wildlife trees are utilized most often. where possible, on the edges of or adjacent to

188 Environmental Assessment

units and away from open roads. (4) Cluster wildlife trees in important habitat, rather than spacing them uniformly in an area. Wildlife trees would be maintained in old growth stands, riparian areas, and un-treated areas in clumps where possible within the project area. (5) Retain larger diameter wildlife trees wherever possible, because they provide for more species than do Larger diameter trees are preferred when smaller trees. available, Refer to Mitigation and design features. (6) Concentrate wildlife trees in areas away from roads. To limit firewood cutting, develop and implement Existing snags would be retained in clumps, educational programs to inform the public about the importance of snags to wildlife. Use area closures, road where possible, on the edges of or adjacent to closures, or sign essential snags and "Wildlife Trees where necessary. units (refer to mitigation and design features).

(7) Leave deformed, cull, and spike-topped trees during‟ timber harvest, to provide future wildlife trees. These Larger deformed, spike top and cull trees trees should be girdled or otherwise killed so they stop producing seed. would be retained as future snags. These trees could be girdled as needed. (8) Use timber sale contract 'C' clauses, as needed, to retain dead wood. Contract 'C' clauses would be utilized if implementation involves a timber sale contract. (9) Snags could be provided where there are too few, by killing diseased, mistletoe infested, and cull trees. Yes; refer to (7) above and the mitigation and design features. (10) Where feasible, consider protecting snags when using prescribed fire by clearing brush or applying Protection of large snags within burn units retardant. would be done during implementation as needed to meet objectives. (11) Keep down trees for wildlife feeding sites. To reduce fire hazard, keep logs instead of windrows, slash Refer to the mitigation and design features. piles, and root wads. It is preferable to have two logs with bark per acres and some deteriorated logs. Management Standard C-5: Management Indicator Species Monitor population levels of all management indicator species on the Forest and determine the relationship to Monitoring would be completed as directed by habitat trends. Population levels will be monitored and evaluated as described in the monitoring plan. the Forest Plan C-5. Refer to the monitoring section for additional project required monitoring. Range Management Standard D-1: Range Improvements (1) Cooperate with permittees in constructing range improvements. Use one of the following approaches to Any reconstruction of existing fences removed arrange the cooperative work: due to any harvest operations would be the (a) Modify the grazing permit. responsibility of the timber purchaser. (b) Use collection agreements. (c) Use appropriate procurement procedures when the Forest Service pays the permittee to do all the work.

189 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

(2) Share range improvement cost .to increase or maintain the grazing level. The objective will be a 50/50 Handled under permit administration and not share between the Forest Service and the permittee. Maintenance of these improvements is usually a this proposal project. permittee responsibility. Cost for range improvements to livestock distribution in response to other resource values is the responsibility of the Forest Service. Maintenance of these improvements is usually a Forest Service responsibility. (3) Use prescribed fire for control of sagebrush and tree encroachment and other vegetative manipulation as The use of prescribed fire is outlined; meadow needed to meet outputs. restoration is a component of the project proposal. Management Standard D-2: Noxious Weeds and Other Pests (1) Develop a public information and education program to emphasize practices that prevent resource Not applicable to this project, this would be a degradation and spread of noxious weeds. function of the Lewis and Clark National Forest weed program. (2) Emphasize preventing noxious weeds by reseeding, with desirable plant species, mineral soil exposed .by Incorporated into the analysis as mitigation or Forest activities. standard BMP practices. (3) Evaluate alternatives, as outlined in FSM 2155.3, to determine effective environmentally acceptable Potential impacts from noxious weeds are practices to control noxious weeds and other pests. discussed in the 2012 Invasive Species report. (4) Identify areas where noxious weed and/or pest control is needed. Special attention should be paid to: Areas are identified. Refer to the project file. streams, bogs, and associated riparian habitat; upland game bird nesting habitat; and any other sensitive non-target animal or habitat which may be adversely affected by spraying. (5) Annually review spray projects, in environmentally sensitive areas for opportunities to replace spraying Not applicable to this project, this would be a with other IPM methods. Cooperate and support basic research for biological control of noxious weeds and function of the Lewis and Clark National Forest other pests. weed program. (6) Cooperate closely with other Federal and State agencies, private individuals contractors, and permittees Not applicable to this project, this would be a to control noxious weed and pest infestations. function of the Lewis and Clark National Forest weed program. Management Standard D-3: Riparian Area, Soil, and Water Protection in Range Management (1) Where analysis shows range resource damage, the cause will be identified and corrective action will be This project does not include AMP revision. initiated through an allotment management plan. Allotment planning will be coordinated with adjacent and inclusive landowners. (2) Best management practices will be used to minimize livestock damage to soils, streamsides, and other Not applicable: Grazing BMP adjustments fragile areas. would be handled under current permit administration not this proposed project. (3) Incorporate new research results and management techniques in allotment management plans to protect See above. riparian values and by: (a) Developing and delivering water to tanks away from riparian areas wherever possible.

190 Environmental Assessment

(b) Fencing springs, as necessary, to prevent damage by livestock. Piping water to a tank outside of the fenced area for livestock use. (c) Directing salt blocks to be located away from riparian or wet areas. (4) Protect fish and wildlife habitat in riparian areas when developing allotment management plans. This Not applicable, non-range proposal and no fish should be considered in the assignment of AUMs, grazing season, and indicators of time for removal of bearing streams present. livestock. Three factors which indicate livestock use may be damaging to fisheries habitat in areas adjacent to low/gradient (less than 5 %) streams with small amounts of bank rock and deep, erosive soils are: (a) Total physical bank damage on key areas in excess of 30% (this includes natural erosion). (b) Poor reproduction survival of streamside shrubs. (c) Excessive grass/forb use. Use of grass/forb vegetation should be restricted to no more than 40% in areas with little or no shrub cover adjacent to low gradient streams. In areas with high levels of streamside shrub cover and/or bank rock content, grass/forb use can vary between 50% and 60% before fish habitat values are seriously impacted. If water delivery systems, salting, and other indirect management techniques are not effectively keeping livestock use of riparian areas within management objectives, then construct and maintain fencing as necessary to achieve these objectives. (5) Adjust allotment management plans to consider landtype limitations as given in the Lewis and Clark AMPs will not be adjusted under the project. National Forest Soi1 Resource Inventory (Holdorf 1981). Management Standard D-4: Livestock Grazing Restrictions (1) Exclude livestock grazing from certain areas because of higher priority uses for the land. This project does not include AMP revision. (2) Do not use livestock grazing permits and commercial transportation livestock use permits in the areas This project does not include AMP revision. excluded from grazing, however, livestock (i.e., horses and mules) used by the public for dispersed recreation activities are allowed to graze these areas. (3) Re-open areas excluded from livestock grazing when the reason for excluding livestock ceases. The This project does not include AMP revision. Forest Supervisor may exclude livestock grazing from additional areas or re-open areas by following NEPA procedures. (4) Adhere to the livestock grazing restrictions for developed recreation areas (MA H) and wilderness (MA P), This project does not include AMP revision. as outlined in the management area prescriptions. (5) Administer provisions of the ESA in occupied T&E species habitat. Use the Interagency Wildlife This project does not include AMP revision. Guidelines to avoid or mitigate conflicts between livestock grazing and T&E species. (6) Grazing which affects grizzly bears and/or their habitat will be made compatible with grizzly needs or such Not applicable within this project area. This uses will be disallowed or eliminated. project does not include AMP revision. (7) Place a high priority on implementing improved grazing management systems on range allotments within This project does not include AMP revision. identified big-game winter range. Timber

191 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Management Standard E-1: Timber Management Coordination and Information (1) Develop and implement ongoing public information and education programs to foster an informed public. This is an ongoing Forestwide effort. Provide public information, when requested or needed, to explain harvesting, timber use, reforestation, or other timber management activities. (2) Increase public information and education regarding general rules and regulations on firewood cutting, This is included when firewood permits are including explanations of the reasons for these regulations and the importance of snags and other habitat issued at Forest offices. components to wildlife species. Management Standard E-2: Firewood Administration and Utilization (1) Issue permits for personal use firewood cutting, as directed by National policy. Standard rates, set Firewood cutting would continue in the project annually by the Regional Office, will apply to all firewood cutting. area under personal use permits and following Region 1 direction. (2) Require special authorization whenever tractors, rubber-tired skidders, jammers or other equipment used Not applicable to this project. by the logging industry are used for yarding firewood. (3) Firewood will be emphasized as a slash treatment method. Not applicable to this project. (4) When roads approach diverse complexes of T&E habitat components, they should not be opened to Not applicable to this project: Refer to the firewood cutting during any season. For roads which enter areas of low vertical relief and limited component motor vehicle use map for road use. diversity, access for firewood cutting is compatible with grizzly bear use as long as the access is prohibited during important use seasons. Firewood cutting should be limited to 2 to 3 years after timber harvest. Then the road should be permanently closed to the public. Management Standard E-3: Reforestation (1) The basic approach in all regeneration harvest cuts on the Lewis and Clark National Forest is to specify Not specifically applicable to this restoration state-of-the-art treatments that will assure natural regeneration wherever feasible. Site preparation must project. Final silvicultural prescriptions will be commence as soon after the regeneration cut as feasible. This is immediately after clearcutting and the seed completed. cut of the seed tree and shelterwood systems. (2) The first-year stand examination will certify that the ground conditions necessary for natural regeneration are present and that adequate restocking should occur. (3) Intermediate stand examinations will be scheduled at the appropriate intervals for the individual sites to monitor seedling establishment. If the regeneration process is not working and will not occur under existing site conditions, evaluate the stand to determine if additional treatment is needed to bring the regeneration to a satisfactory level. (4) The 5th-year stand examination will: (a) Certify the stand regeneration is completed by meeting the following criteria: - The required natural regeneration has survived at least three full growing seasons, is in a healthy condition, and is at least 6 inches high. - Planted stock has survived two growing seasons and is in a healthy condition (healthy leaders and buds).

192 Environmental Assessment

- At least 90% of the reforestable land area in the stand meets the prescribed stocking level. - The District Silviculturist has determined the stand is satisfactorily stocked. (b) Identify those stands not meeting all certified standards, but progressing satisfactorily toward certification. (c) Schedule for retreatment those stands not progressing to certification. Management Standard E-4: Timber Harvest (1) Require silvicultural examinations and prescriptions before any silvicultural treatment. Exceptions include Silvicultural prescriptions will be completed cutting of trees that block vision along roads, cutting hazard trees, clearing right-of-way, clearing for mineral and approved after a Decision is made and development, minor and incidental amounts of wood products, and cutting personal firewood. prior to implementation. (2) Manage the timber resource to enhance riparian values by: The project will utilize Water Quality BMPs For (a) Protecting streamside vegetation when its removal could result in increased stream temperature or Montana Forests and the Streamside increased turbidity, bedload, and suspended solids. Management Zone Laws and Rules. (b) Minimizing the amount of debris entering stream channels and lakes by using correct logging and construction operations. If debris enters the streamcourse in amounts which may adversely affect the natural flow of the stream water quality, or fish resource, then debris shall be removed in a manner that will cause the least disturbance to the streamcourse. (c) Locating log landings away from riparian areas or where surface runoff will not discharge directly into the channel. (d) Allow the yarding of logs across a stream only when they can be fully suspended above the stream channel. (e) Locating slash piles away from riparian areas so that residues will not reach perennial streams. (3) Use all necessary measures (BMPs) to minimize soil damage and soil erosion on timber sale areas. All applicable BMPs would be implemented. (4) Limit equipment use where ground conditions are such that excessive damage would result. (5) In plans and contract requirements, stress prevention of erosion and prevention of channel clearing, rather All applicable BMPs would be implemented, than using remedial measures. refer to mitigation and design features. (6) Limit tractor skidding to slopes of 45% or less depending on soil type. (7) Give consideration to limitations on landtypes as described in Lewis and Clark Soil Resource Inventory All applicable BMPs would be implemented. (Holdorf 1981). (8) Satisfy the requirements for a cultural resource survey prior to ground disturbing activities. Phased survey to be completed; refer to Heritage section. (9) Old Growth Forest objective: Minimum of 5% of the commercial forest land within a timber compartment See Old Growth Report. With acres proposed should be maintained in an old growth forest condition. A minimum stand size of 20 acres is recommended for as old growth, all compartments exceed plan old growth management. In management areas included in the regulated timber harvest base (MAs A, B, C, standards for a minimum 5% of commercial and O) a rotation of at least 200 years is recommended on the 5% of the commercial forest land to be lands. maintained in an old growth condition. (10) Administer provisions of the ESA in occupied T&E species habitat. Use the Interagency Wildlife Refer to the project Biological Evaluation (BE)

193 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Guidelines to avoid or mitigate conflicts between timber harvest and T&E species. and wildlife section. (11) Provide personal involvement by supervisors and rangers in management objectives for transportation No travel planning changes would occur with planning. this proposal. District Ranger was directly involved in IDT mtgs and project development (12) Conduct an area timber harvesting economic assessment when sales are planned for an undeveloped See Project Economic Report. area. The level of assessment will be determined by the Forest Supervisor on a case-by case basis. Conduct an area assessment for other developed or partially developed area when previous sales have shown substantial economic problems. Guidelines for designation of such sales areas will be determined by the Forest Supervisor on a case-by-case basis. Conduct a feasibility analysis of each sale over 1 million board feet to assure it has been designed with the most cost-effective measures possible in keeping with environmental concerns. Conduct a cash flow analysis to determine the viability of the sale with current market conditions. (13) When anticipated costs are higher than predicted high bid: Economics review has been completed. (a) Consider deferring the sale until economic conditions would indicate higher bids would be received. Potential purchasers should be notified as early as practical if such a decision is made. (b) Proceed to sell the timber and provide proper documentation that benefits others than immediate monetary return from the timber, are of importance. This step should consider subjects such as timber age class, diversity needs, and wildlife security or forage needs. The Forest expects to continue to make below cost sales, but will articulate the reasons and benefits accurately and effectively. Soil and Water Management Standard F-1: Erosion Control (1) Utilize adequate soil and water conservation practices to protect soil productivity and to control nonpoint Applicable BMPs will be applied water pollution from project activities, using as a minimum, practices specified in any State developed "BMPs.

(2) Develop‟ and update watershed management and erosion control handbooks and supplements. Not applicable to this project. (3) Watershed improvement projects will be identified, prioritized, and developed on a watershed basis. Not applicable to this project. Management Standard F-2: Data Collection (1) Collect soil and water data needed to validate assumptions important in both long-range and project Refer to the Soils report. planning. Include a statement of why the data is needed, and what type of data is needed, as part of a data collection plan. (2) Decide how to get the needed data. Consider extrapolating from other studies, working with existing Analysis methods outlined in the soils section. projects of other agencies, and the capabilities of the Forest Service. (3) Determine the data needed to predict and monitor soil and water impacts from the following activities: Applicable BMPs would be incorporated. (a) Oil and gas exploration and development Noxious weed BMPs as found in FSM 2000, R1 Soil Quality Standards Apply.

194 Environmental Assessment

(b) Timber harvest (c) Commercial special uses (d) Grazing (e) Subdivision of adjacent private lands (f) Development of recreation sites (g) Mining (4) Display the results of the data and analysis in appropriate reports. Use this information to improve Refer to the Watershed section. predictions of watershed impacts and to validate monitoring requirements. (5) Protect snow courses, snotel, and other hydro-meteorological data collection sites from activities that Not applicable to this area. would affect the validity of data from these sites. Provide appropriate access for winter measurement and summer maintenance. Management Standard F-3: Soil, Water and Air Protection (1) Require application of BMPs to project activities to ensure meeting or exceeding State water quality All applicable WQ BMPs would be applied for standards. this project. (2) Develop additional BMPs during the environmental analysis process and incorporate them into all land use BMPs would be applied for this project and and project plans as a principal mechanism for controlling nonpoint pollution sources and meeting soil and Noxious weed BMPs as found in FSM 2000, water quality or other resource goals. Sup. R-1 2000-2001-1. (3) Meet State water quality standards as required by the Clean Water Act, and as detailed in the MOU to Analysis of the proposed project has indicated Implement the 208 Program on National Forests in the State of Montana. Coordinate with the State of there is a low probability of detectable Montana concerning stream channels as agreed to in the MOU with Montana Fish and Game Commission. increases to runoff and sediment delivery to water ways. (4) Require a watershed analysis of projects involving significant vegetative removal to ensure that the Analysis of the proposed project has indicated project, considered with other activities, will not increase water yields or sediment beyond acceptable limits. there is a low probability of detectable The analysis should identify any opportunities for mitigating adverse effects on water related beneficial uses, increases to runoff and sediment delivery to including capital investments for fish habitat or watershed improvement. water ways. (5) Conduct an environmental analysis for all management actions planned for floodplains, wetlands, riparian Analysis of the proposed project has indicated areas, or bodies of water prior to implementation. Adopt the necessary mitigation measure to minimize risk of there is a low probability of detectable flood loss, to restore and preserve floodplain values, and to protect wetlands. increases to runoff and sediment delivery to water ways. Mitigation measures have been proposed and will further reduce impacts from the proposed action. (6) Claim water rights for non-consumptive water uses (instream flows) necessary for fisheries habitat, Not applicable to this project. recreational uses, or other beneficial water uses on appropriate water bodies and streams. Instream flows adequate to protect the aquatic environment will be maintained during any project which removes water from any stream. (7) Do not let any waste waters that are thermally polluted or contain sediments beyond state standards, Not applicable to this project.

195 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

petroleum, and/or other chemicals to enter aquatic systems. (8) Require drainage structures on disturbed areas where it is necessary to control erosion. Applicable BMP would be applied. (9) Cooperate with other landowners in watersheds of mixed ownership, to develop mutually agreeable Not applicable to this project. watershed management plans. (10) In accordance with NFMA, RPA, and Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, all management activities will be Project would comply with R-1 Soil Quality planned to sustain site productivity. During project analysis, ground-disturbing activities will be reviewed and Standards for site productivity. needed mitigating actions prescribed. (11) Require prompt revegetation of disturbed areas, especially cut and fill slopes, to control surface erosion. Applicable BMPs will be applied along with To stabilize disturbed areas, seed with grasses, forbs, and deep-rooted native shrubs, where natural specified mitigation measures. establishment of native cover is not expected within 2 years. Ideally, the seedbed should be firm with a roughened surface. The slope must be stable, usually less than 2:l. Steeper slopes can be benched or terraced. Compacted soils should be ripped from 8 to 12 inches. (12) Select seeding mixtures based on site conditions, soil protection, ease of establishment and seed Applicable BMPs will be applied along with availability. Fertilizer is usually necessary. Native species should be used when available. Mulching will be specified mitigation measures. used only on very critical areas where wind is not a problem or the mulching can be protected. (13) Achieve a 70% vegetative or litter cover level on cut and fill slopes and other soil disturbance areas Not applicable: No new road construction or within two growing seasons or a natural level of vegetative and litter cover when it is less than 70%. major reconstruction that would disturb cut and fill slopes. (14) Comply with Federal and State standards and the Montana Airshed Group's MOU on any management Prescribed fire burn plans will address airshed activity that may affect air quality. with standard operating procedures applied. (15) Protect air quality by cooperating with Montana Air Quality Bureau in the Prevention of Significant Air quality will be protected, Refer to the fuels Deterioration program and State Implementation Plan. and fire section. Minerals Management Standard G-1: Seismic Exploration Not applicable to this project. Management Standard G-2: Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration Drilling Field Development, and Not applicable to this project. Production Management Standard G-3: Mineral Withdrawal Not applicable to this project. Management Standard G-4: Energy Conservation Conserve energy by conforming to the Regional Energy Management Plan. This plan presents alternatives for The Forest complies with this under various conservation in travel, facilities, and project-related work. sustainable initiatives to optimize energy conservation. Management Standard G-5: Locatable and Common Variety Minerals Not applicable to this project. Social Management Standard H-1: Native American Claims

196 Environmental Assessment

(1) The rights and privileges reserved to the Indians of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation by Article I of Not applicable to this project: Tribes have Agreement set forth in, and accepted, ratified and confirmed by the Act of Congress approved June 10, 1896, been consulted. respecting that portion of their Reservation now known as the North End Geographic Unit (RM-1) of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, shall be in no way infringed or modified by this Plan. (2) Any decision respecting 1895 Agreement lands will be made only after informing the Blackfeet Tribe. Not applicable to this project: Tribes have Notice of proposed actions respecting these lands will be sent to the Chairman of the Blackfeet Tribe in been consulted. sufficient time to enable the Blackfeet Tribe to properly consult with the Forest Service. (3) Establish a working group with representatives of the Blackfeet Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Not applicable to this project: Tribes have order to negotiate agreements which will enable both the Forest Service and the Blackfeet Tribe to share in been consulted. the management of those resources reserved by the Blackfeet Tribe. An agreement under this guideline need not affect the legal status of those reserved rights. Management Standard H-2: Native American Rights (1) Protect and preserve for Native Americans their inherent right of freedom of belief, expression, and Forest heritage staff considered American exercise their traditional religions. Indian traditional use, belief systems, religious practices and life-way values as directed by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). (2) Assess impacts o f Forest Service activities on Native American spiritual sites and objects. Phased compliance for Cultural resource surveys. (3) Implement a special-use permit system for needed temporary area closures, to enable Native Americans Not applicable; no spiritual sites identified to exercise their religious rights without interference. within the project area. (4) Expand Forest programs which promote employment for Native Americans. Not applicable to this project; addressed under Federal hiring authorities. (5) Consult with the Blackfeet Tribe regarding the establishment of proper procedures to implement the The Forest does this consultation with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The Forest Service will negotiate an agreement with the Blackfeet Blackfeet Tribe on a regular schedule. It is Tribe on this issue. only relevant to the project on a general, abstract level since no spiritual sites have been identified. Lands Management Standard J-1: Land Ownership Adjustment Seek landownership adjustments to support long-term Forest goals and objectives. Not Applicable to this project. Management Standard J-2: Right-of-Way Acquisition Acquire right-of-way easements for roads and trails, to support long-term Forest goals and objectives. Not Applicable to this project. Consider relocation as an alternative to right-of-way acquisition.

197 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Management Standard J-3: Land Uses Not applicable to this project Facilities Management Standard L-1: Signing Establish and maintain signs according to Regional signing standards, with the following priority: Areas will be appropriately signed during (1) Safety, warning, and regulatory signs operational periods and implementation. (2) Guide and directional signs (3) Informational signs Management Standard L-2: Travel Planning Not Applicable to this project: No changes to travel management are proposed. Management Standard L-3: Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Project is not along the CDNST: Not Applicable to this project. Management Standard L-4: Maintenance and Construction of Roads, Trails and Other Facilities (1) Road construction will be the minimum density, cost, and standards necessary for the intended need, user No permanent road construction proposed: All safety and resource protection. applicable BMP would be applied for any needed temporary road. Special Areas Management Standard N-1: Research Natural Areas (RNA) Not Applicable to this project: Minerva RNA is not within the project boundary. Management Standard N-3: Caves Caves will be managed as required by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 and its Would be managed according to this act; no implementing regulations. caves sites identified. Protection Management Standard P-1: Protection (1) Emphasize harvest of stands that exhibit characteristics of high risk for mountain pine beetle attack. Addressed in the fuels, silviculture, and Locate timber sales in order to break-up continuous natural fuel accumulations. Systems will emphasize economics sections of the analysis. treatments that reduce losses to other insects and diseases by: (a) Improving species diversity, growth and vigor for stands, and (b) increasing the size diversity and class diversity between stands. (2) During ongoing infestations, control insects and disease through silvicultural and biological practices. Chemical controls will be limited to high value areas or used on a broader scale only when all other measures have failed and other resource values can be protected. Emphasize cooperative control measures between Federal, State, and private landowners. (3) Use prescribed fire as appropriate t o achieve land management goals, including improvement or

198 Environmental Assessment

maintenance of vegetation diversity Management area direction indicates the appropriate use of prescribed fire. Management Standard P-2: Debris Control (1) Most slopes over 45% should not be dozer piled. All dozer piling will consider the soil type. All applicable BMPs would be applied: Ground based treatments are not proposed on steeper slopes. (2) Burn debris according to the Montana Cooperative Smoke Management Plan. All management ignited prescribed fire will be coordinated through the Montana Smoke Monitoring Unit as addressed in the management ignited prescribed fire burn plan which is developed for all management ignited prescribed fire. (3) Brush blades should be used for dozer piling. No dozer piling with brush blades will occur in this project. (4) Leave approximately 10 tons of fuel per acre, where available. This should be material over 4 inches in Prescription for any harvest units would diameter, which is randomly scattered over the area. Material should touch the ground for faster prescribe retention of at least 10 tons of decomposition. coarse woody debris per acre or the quantities recommended by Graham and others (1994) (Soil Report). (5) Pile slash to a minimum of 15-feet wide and 6-feet high. Piles should be dirt free and tight. Protruding Only slash piles will be at landing which will objects, such as trees, logs, and limbs should not extend over 8 feet beyond the pile. meet these specifications. (6) Piled material should generally be a minimum of 50 feet from hazardous perimeters. Only slash piles will be at landing which will meet these specifications. (7) Normally do not occupy over 20% of the work area with piles. Only slash piles will be at landing which will meet these specifications. (8) Put slash piles in landings, along skid trails, and on the edge of logging roads, when possible. These Only slash piles will be at landing which will locations facilitate firewood gathering. meet these specifications. (9) Restrict dozer piling from buffer strips that maintain riparian values and water quality. Width of these buffer Montana BMPs will be followed which will strips will vary with slope, erosion hazard, and ground cover density. Buffer strips will include all riparian meet these standards. vegetation, wetlands, floodplains, and any additional areas within approximately 100 feet of perennial streams and other water bodies. Large unwanted debris in these buffer strips will be removed by cable. (10) Windrows should not unduly hinder big game movement, Breaks should be at least every 150 feet or at Only slash piles will be at landing which will reasonable intervals. meet these specifications. In addition to the Forestwide Standards, the following direction applies to Management Areas(MA) Management Area T

199 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

12,980 acres (0.7%), suitable timber acres, 11,900. Management Area T is primarily a ponderosa pine forest in the Little Snowies. Important wildlife species include whitetail deer, turkeys and nongame species. Goal: Management emphasis will be directed toward providing for habitat diversity to ensure the welfare of a variety of indigenous wildlife and plant species. Commodity resource management will be practiced where it is compatible with wildlife management objectives. Manipulation of vegetation with fire, timber harvest, and mechanical means will provide for a mosaic of vegetative successional stages within a ponderosa pine forest. Longer rotation periods will be practiced within this management area. This direction will move the existing vegetative condition to a more ecologically natural state that in the past was maintained by light ground fires. Recreation Dispersed (AP2a): Manage dispersed recreation settings and existing recreation improvements, prepare The alternatives would not change travel plans travel plans, and administer recreation special us permits. or current dispersed recreation opportunities. No new SUP issuances or renewals are proposed. Improvements (AP3c): Improvements may consist of day use (occupancy spots, visitor information services, Not applicable: No new visitor facilities or trailheads, parking facilities, and sanitation facilities). improvements are proposed. Setting: The recreation setting is mostly roaded natural. No change. Visual Quality Objectives (VQO): The VQO will be modification With all visual resource protection measures implemented, the activities in the action alternatives would meet the VQO of modification. Wildlife Operation, Protection, and Maintenance (CW2a): Maintains/enhances various wildlife habitat; refer to the big game, and associated wildlife reports. Maintains 10-15% of commercial forest land in an old growth condition. Block size exceeds 20 acre minimum. Nonstructural Improvements (CW3d): Project proposal includes prescribed burning, mechanical, and hand treatments to meet identified desired future conditions. Structural Improvements (CW3e): Specific needs incorporated into the project as design features. Range Administration (DR2b) No changes to AMP or permit administration with this project. Nonstructural Improvements (DR3a) Proposed prescribed burning would enhance forage. Refer to the proposed action,

200 Environmental Assessment

alternatives and range and wildlife sections. Structural Improvements (DR3e) Range improvements not applicable to this proposal.

Timber Unprogrammed (ET2) Restoration proposal has potential for forest products. Refer to the Economics section. Reforestation (ER3a) Proposal meets MA goals; refer to Silviculture and Economics section regarding treatment and reforstation needs. Precommercial Thinning (E13) Precommercial thinning is included in the proposed treatment types. Refer to the silviculture section. Commercial Thinning (EC3) Commercial thinning is included in the proposed treatment types. Refer to the silviculture section. Even-Aged Management Clearcutting (EP3d) Proposal would move toward MA goals and identified desired future condition. Seed Tree/Shelterwood Cutting (EP3e) Refer to the proposed action and silviculture sections. Final Prescriptions will meet MA goals and move toward desired future condition. Uneven-Aged Management Selection Cutting (EP3f) Proposal includes uneven-aged management. Soil and Water Protection (FW2b) Applicable BMPs would be implemented. Minerals Development (GA3a) Not applicable to this project: No minerals development proposed. Administration (GM2a) Land Use Special-Use (JL2a): New special-use permits must not conflict with the MA goal. This management area is Not applicable to this project, as no new available for utility-transportation corridor allocation or facility siting. Wildlife values must be given the highest special use permits are being proposed. All consideration when planning a utility-transportation corridor or facility site. existing permits would continue.

201 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Roads Management (LR2b) All alternatives meet current travel management plan for the Little Snowies. No changes to existing motorized routes would occur. Construction/Reconstruction (LS1Oa) Both action alternatives meet LS10a and would not change the travel management plan. No permanent road construction would occur. Minerals Access (LS10b) Not applicable to this project: No minerals development proposed. Trails Management (LT2b) Not applicable to this project: No changes to trails management proposed. Construction/ Reconstruction (LS11c) Not applicable to this project: No changes to trails management proposed. Protection Suppression (PD8a) Meets PD8a. The current Forest Fire Management Plan will be followed. Prescribed Fire (PS 12a) Proposal would follow prescriptions and prescribed fire burn plans. Meets MA goal to return maintenance fires to the landscape. Fuels (PS11) Fuels reduction methods are incorporated to meet the desired future condition. Management Area R Management Area R consists of riparian areas through the Forest. They are made up of the lakes, streams and land where vegetation is influenced by surface and subsurface water. Goal: Manage to protect or enhance unique ecosystem values associated with riparian zones. Give preferential consideration to riparian area dependent resources. Timber and range management activities are permitted. Resource Elements Meets all elements based on design features mitigation and applicable BMPs to be implemented. MA-R is unmapped. Refer to resource reports and Soil and Water sections.

202 Environmental Assessment

MAPS Maps for the Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project begin on the next page.

203 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Map 1. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project alternative 2 (proposed action) treatments

204 Environmental Assessment

Map 2. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project alternative 3 (non-removal) treatments

205 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Map 3. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project ecological land units

206 Environmental Assessment

Map 4. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project elk habitat, existing situation

207 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Map 5. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project alternative 2 elk analysis (canopy closure results are similar for Alternative 3)

208 Environmental Assessment

Map 6. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project mule deer winter range and tree size class

209 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project

Map 7. Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project old growth and goshawk habitat

210