Red Rock/Lima Watershed Assessment Report Dillon Field Office 12/21/2017
Photo of Lima Peaks from Pine Butte Pasture of Snowline AMP Allotment July 2017
This page left intentionally blank
Table of Contents Assessment Process ...... 1 Background ...... 3 Cultural History and Paleontology ...... 5 Agricultural History and Socioeconomics ...... 6 Wilderness Study Area ...... 8 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ...... 8 Visual Resource Management...... 8 Geology ...... 9 Fire History...... 9 Authorized Uses ...... 9 Forest Products ...... 9 Livestock Grazing ...... 10 Recreation ...... 12 Mining, Minerals, and Abandon Mine Lands ...... 13 Format for Standards ...... 13 Uplands ...... 14 Affected Environment ...... 14 Findings, Analysis and Recommendations ...... 16 Findings and Analysis ...... 20 Recommendations for Uplands ...... 21 Riparian and Wetland Areas ...... 22 Affected Environment ...... 24 Findings and Analysis ...... 27 Recommendations for Riparian ...... 33 Water Quality ...... 34 Affected Environment ...... 35 Findings and Analysis ...... 36 Recommendations for Water Quality ...... 36 Air Quality ...... 37 Affected Environment ...... 37 Findings and Analysis ...... 38 Recommendations for Air Quality ...... 38
i
Biodiversity ...... 38 Affected Environment and Findings and Analysis ...... 38 Recommendations for Biodiversity ...... 72 Additional Programs, Issues and/or Concerns ...... 73 Interdisciplinary Team Composition ...... 74 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 75 REFERENCES-Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of this Document...... 79 Appendix A ...... 1 Appendix B ...... 1 Appendix C ...... 1 Appendix D ...... 5
Table 1. Grazing Allotment Summary ...... 10 Table 2. General Vegetation Cover Types ...... 15 Table 3. Vegetative Treatments Conducted on BLM Lands within the RRLW ...... 16 Table 4. Summary of Upland Health Evaluations Within the RRLW During 2017 ...... 18 Table 5. 2016 RRLW Assessment, Inventory, Monitor (AIM) Data Summary ...... 19 Table 6: Red Rock-Lima Watershed Channel Types ...... 25 Table 7: RRLW Lotic Reach Condition Summary ...... 28 Table 8: Summary of Causal Factors Preventing PFC on RRLW Lotic Reaches ...... 29 Table 9: 2017 Red Rock Lima Watershed HAF Data Summary ...... 41 Table 10: 2016 Red Rock Lima Watershed AIM Data Summary within Sage Grouse GHMA and PHMA ...... 41 Table 11: Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within the RRLW ...... 45 Table 12: Fisheries Streams and Fish Species Present on BLM ...... 53 Table 13: Red Rock Watershed Pool Frequency, Depth, and % Fines ...... 55 Table 14: Red Rock Watershed Stream Temperature Data ...... 56 Table 15: Dominant Conifer Forest Types and Aspen on BLM Administered Lands Within the RRLW . 60 Table 16: Distribution of Dominant BpS in the RRLW (All Ownerships) ...... 66 Table 17: Natural Fire Regimes and Descriptions (Schmidt et al. 2002) ...... 67 Table 18: FRCC Summary of RRLW (All Ownership) ...... 70 Table 19: Weed Treatments within the RRLW ...... 72
Figure 1: Reach 26 of Gallagher Creek...... 27 Figure 2: Percent of RRLW Lotic Reach Miles Meeting/Not Meeting Standards in 2007 Compared to 2017 ...... 28 Figure 3: RRLW 2017 Lentic Reach ...... 29 Figure 5: Forested Areas on BLM Administered Lands ...... 57
ii
Assessment Process This document reports the land health assessment of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Red Rock/Lima Watershed (RRLW). This is the first in a series of documents: the Watershed Assessment Report, the Authorized Officer’s Determination of Standards, and the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document and subsequent Decision(s). The Watershed Assessment reports the condition and/or function of BLM administered land and resources within the RRLW to the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer considers the report to determine if the five Standards for Rangeland Health (Standards) are currently being met, and then signs the Determination of Standards documenting where land health standards are, or are not, in compliance. This assessment will report condition and/or function for the following five Standards: Standard #1- Upland Health Standard #2- Riparian/Wetland Health Standard #3- Water Quality Standard #4- Air Quality Standard #5- Biodiversity The standards are assessed on an allotment scale, with the exception of Air Quality, which is made at the watershed level. This assessment will also report condition and/or function of forest and woodland health. Forest and woodland health can affect each of the five standards, but in this assessment will be reflected under Standard #5 Biodiversity, along with other factors pertinent to biodiversity including Special Status Species and invasive species.
Condition/function declarations regarding the Standards are made as either: Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Functioning at Risk (FAR); which is assigned a trend of up, down, static, or not apparent, or Nonfunctioning (NF) Land Health Standards are met when conditions across an allotment as a whole are at PFC or FAR with and upward trend. This is dependent on scope and scale and is determined by the Authorized Officer. Reporting the conditions of the Standards will follow the following format: 1) Affected Environment – This section briefly describes the area and resources that were assessed.
1 2) Analysis and Recommendations – This section outlines the procedures the interdisciplinary team (IDT) used to determine conformance with the various standards, lists the findings, and includes recommendations suggested by the IDT during the field assessments. The Standards are described in detail in the Record of Decision (ROD) Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (S&G’s) for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota- Western Montana Standards (Butte Standards). The preamble of the Western Montana Standards, formerly the Butte District, states: “The purpose of the S&G’s are to facilitate the achievement and maintenance of healthy, properly functioning ecosystems within the historic and natural range of variability for long-term sustainable use.” Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustained lands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of BLM administered lands as stated in 43 CFR 4180.1. This assessment is being done in accordance with the BLM regulations regarding Rangeland Health Standards. BLM Manual H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards Handbook and Guidance for Conducting Watershed-Based Land Health Assessments. Code of Federal Regulation 43 CFR, Subpart 4180 Record of Decision – Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Available trend monitoring data, existing inventories, historical photographs and standardized methodology are used by the IDT to assess condition and function of BLM administered lands. This information, including technical references, BLM policy and procedure handbooks, and monitoring guidelines and methodologies are available for review at the Dillon Field Office. Technical references and BLM procedural handbooks are also available at the BLM Library web site. The initial recommendations developed by the IDT during field assessments contained in this report are designed to improve land health, including upland and riparian/wetland health, water quality, forest/woodland health, conserving/restoring high priority species and/or enhancing biodiversity within the RRLW. The recommendations focus primarily on livestock management, forest and woodland treatments, sagebrush steppe treatments and wildlife and fisheries habitat. Other BLM administered public land resources, concerns, uses and designations addressed in the RRLW include roads and road maintenance, recreation and travel management, wilderness study areas (WSA), noxious weeds and invasive species, cultural resources, and special status species. The assessed land health conditions and/or functionality are the basis for the IDT’s management recommendations in this report and the Determination of Standards. As required by NEPA regulations, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be completed to address resource concerns identified within the 28 allotments in the RRLW.
2 Alternative management will be analyzed wherever it is determined that: Specific grazing allotments are not meeting standards. Allotments are meeting the Standards but have site specific concerns. There are unhealthy forest or woodland conditions in the watershed. Vegetation composition and/or structure are outside the natural range of variability. There are other documented resource concerns Also, if existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on BLM administered lands are determined to be significant factors in failing to achieve one or more of the five Standards, the BLM is required by regulation (43 CFR 4180.1) to make grazing management adjustments. Alternative management may also be analyzed where permittee’s/lessee’s or BLM staff has recommended changes to current livestock management. Implementation of new plans will begin in 2019; however, it may take several years to fully implement revised grazing management plans, range improvement projects, and forest and woodland treatments. The new plans will be developed in consultation and coordination with the affected permittee’s/lessee’s, the agencies having lands or managing resources within the area, and other interested parties. As with all similar BLM decisions, affected parties will have an opportunity to protest and/or appeal these decisions.
Background The Red Rock Lima Watershed (RRLW) is located in southern Beaverhead County, Montana. The watershed lies in Townships 8-16 South, Ranges 6-12 West, Montana Principal Meridian (M.P.M). The RRLW follows the I-15 corridor from the Barrett’s exit south of Dillon, Montana south to the Montana/Idaho border near Monida, Montana. This assessment covers only BLM administered public lands in this area. The RRLW is primarily in the central portion of the 4th level Hydrologic Unit (HU) known as the Red Rock (10020001) used by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The RRLW also overlaps a small portion of the Beaverhead HU (ID# 10020002). The current watershed boundary for the RRLW has been modified from the boundary area used during the 2007 watershed assessment process. Some areas have been removed, while other areas that were assessed as part of the Beaverhead West Watershed in 2007 were included into the RRLW. The watershed boundary modification was an administrative remedy to improve efficiency of workloads and rangeland administration throughout the entire Dillon Field Office. Watershed Boundaries continue to follow grazing allotment boundaries, not the HU watershed boundaries. The RRLW assessment boundary is shown on Map 1. Within the RRLW there are approximately 338,027 acres. Of these acres, 69,730 acres are BLM managed public land. This represents approximately 21 percent of the watershed. This report addresses only the public lands administered by the BLM. There are also 80,948 acres (24% of the watershed) administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS), 9,500 acres (3% of the watershed) administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 53,451 acres (16% of the
3 watershed) administered by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), and 124,394 acres (37% of the watershed) of privately own lands within the RRLW. Elevations on BLM administered public land within the RRLW range from approximately 5,300 feet along the Beaverhead River at the north end of the watershed, to over 9,200 feet near the communications tower on Mauer Mountain, east of Clark Canyon Reservoir. Common with foothill/mountainous areas, the topography varies greatly. Flat to gently sloping uplands are commonly found along the Red Rock River valley. These areas typically receive 11-14 inches of precipitation annually. A majority of these lands are either privately owned or administered by the DNRC, however portions of the Clark Canyon, Williams, Roe West, Bell Canyon, North McKnight, and Norris Canyon allotments contain public lands on these flat to gently sloping rangelands. Foothills and mountain slopes are common within the RRLW and are found between the valley floors and alpine mountaintops. The foothills and mountain slopes typically receive between 12-16 inches of precipitation annually. Typically these landforms are administered either the BLM or the USFS, however significant tracts of private property occur within the foothills/mountain slopes areas within the RRLW. The mountain tops and alpine areas are primarily managed by either the BLM or USFS within the RRLW. Precipitation in these areas can range from 16-22 inches annually. Due to the large elevation, precipitation, and topographical gradient found throughout the RRLW vegetation is diverse. BLM administered rangelands along valley floor of the RRLW are typically dominated by cool mid-height and short bunchgrasses. Toward the north end of the RRLW common grass species include needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), Prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) with bluegrama (bouteloua gracilis) a common increaser grass plant. These rangelands have varying canopies of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia Tridentata spp. wyomingensis), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia Tridentata spp. vaseyana), isolated pockets of black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), and a variety of rabbitbrush (Chysothamnis spp.) Toward the southern end of the RRLW as the valley floor raises in elevation the proportion of needle-and-thread and prairie junegrass typically decreases and is replaced by increasing amounts of Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). Additionally the Wyoming big sagebrush and rabbitbrush decline and are replaced by increasing amounts of Mountain big sagebrush and three tip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita). Foothills and Mountain slope vegetation is typically composed of a mix of bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), Idaho fescue, mountain big sagebrush, and pockets of curl leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) In addition, forested habitats are common including: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) and quaking aspen (populous tremuloides).
Mountain tops and alpine meadow habitats are typically composed of bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, timber oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia), bluegrasses (Poa spp.), mountain big sagebrush, and a high diversity and composition of native forbs. Forested habitats in this area include whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), and subalpine
4 fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Additionally, the tree species found on the foothills and mountain slopes, listed above, are also present at higher elevations.
Throughout all landforms, elevation gradients, and precipitation zones riparian habitats are present. These habitats are typically narrow stringers of deciduous trees/shrubs and sedges. Occasionally these habitats have experienced succession and are now dominated by a spruce (Picea spp.) overstory.
The 2006 Dillon RMP as amended provides guidance for all programs in the Dillon Field Office.
All BLM administered land within the Dillon Field Office has been assessed for land health during the past 16 years. The current RRLW was assessed in 2007 as either the RRLW or the Beaverhead West Watershed. By working on a watershed basis, a broader landscape is considered and more consistent management can be applied. It is the BLM’s intent to implement watershed management cooperatively. Any changes in livestock management will be implemented through grazing decisions that address allotments or groups of allotments with a common permittee/lessee. Forest management actions and any other management projects or changes will be implemented through decisions appropriate for the respective programs.
All 16 watersheds within the Dillon Field Office covering over 900,000 acres of BLM administered land have been assessed at least once and several have been assessed a second time. These watershed assessments include evaluating all five standards for Rangeland health, including both upland and riparian systems. Uplands are defined as any part of the landscape beyond the non-streamside boundary of the riparian area (USDI, 1998). Riparian areas are the “green zones” which lie between channels of flowing water and uplands. For each watershed assessment, an interdisciplinary team of trained BLM resource professionals observed these systems and made an on the ground rating call of BLM resource conditions related to the Land Health Standards following approved BLM protocol. Cultural History and Paleontology The Native American presence in the RRLW probably spans the entire record of documented human occupation in North America. The abundant floral, faunal and lithic resources of this high mountain valley, coupled with the presence of natural travel corridors, have attracted native peoples to the area for the past 10-12,000 years. The uninterrupted use of the area by Native Americans is documented within the archaeological record, which to date consists of over 39 recorded prehistoric sites within the RRLW Assessment area. Early fur trappers traversed the area where they encountered native peoples belonging to the Shoshone, Bannock, Flathead, and Blackfeet Tribes. Historically, portions of the RRLW were explored by Lewis and Clark in the summer of 1805, eventually leading to further explorations during the fur trade in the 1830s. Early settlements were established based on stopping points on transportation routes along the Red Rock River. The town of Red Rock, originally established as a stage station along The Great Beaverhead Road, eventually became the terminus for the Utah and Northern Railroad, first in Dell and then in its present location. Armstead, now under Clark Canyon Reservoir, was the starting point for
5 the Gilmore and Pittsburg Railroad. Mining may have occurred in the watershed as well but to a lesser extent. The RRLW contains no identified paleontological resources. Agricultural History and Socioeconomics Although mining was an impetus in the region’s development, cattle ranching was already established when the first miners found their way to Montana. The Grant and Orrs in the Beaverhead region and the Kohrs in the Deer Lodge were grazing cattle and providing beef to local miners as well as consumers in other parts of the west and east. These early ranchers faced difficult circumstances fighting with Blackfeet and other tribes over territory and initially competing with bison for range. Yet, through the 1870’s the cattle and sheep business as well as farming continued to expand. By the end of the 1870’s, bison were on the brink of extinction. Public lands became more accessible facilitated by an “open range” policy that made available public lands for grazing. Cattle ranching in Montana became another means to “strike it rich” and spurred another rush of settlers and speculators. Before the boom of the 1880’s, most Montana cattle operations were partnerships or family affairs, but many of the new outfits were full-fledged corporations with access to plenty of capitol and plenty of livestock. Dozens of corporate ranches held Montana charters by 1886; and many others, such as the Texas-based XIT, and Continental Land and Cattle spreads, were incorporated in other states and territories. By 1886, at the peak of the open range boom, roughly 664,000 cattle and 986,000 sheep grazed Montana rangelands. A large percentage of the animals belonged to the new corporate ranchers, whose managers packed them into limited ranges with no provisions of winter hay, in hope of quick profits from minimal investments (Malone, Roeder, and Lang, 1991: 157). A severe drought and hard winter in 1886-87 combined with overgrazing on public lands resulted in severe impacts to Montana’s cattle business, with some estimates that half or more of the cattle died (Fletcher, 1960:89-94). Small operators who put up hay adapted better than the “get rich quick” operators did, and after 1887, the cattle industry settled into a period of recuperation and ultimately further expansion as the value of hay for winter feed became apparent (Fletcher, 1960). The agricultural boom began to go bust in the post-war depression in the 1920’s, and large numbers of Montana farmers moved out of the state, leaving a demographic profile that is similar to that of present day Montana: larger numbers of older persons and younger persons with the middle-age demographic group showing large declines. Prior to World War II, ranching and farming continued under pressure, but various New Deal programs supported these industries into World War II, when once again there was a small boom. A combination of weather, world economics, and cultural change in the United States have continued to influence the boom and bust cycles in ranching and farming in southwest Montana. Today these activities remain important to the overall economy and culture of the region, but the face of agriculture and ranching are changing. Ranchers and their family members may also work as fishing guides or outfitters, or in town to supplement their incomes. Fluctuations in cattle prices, other market
6 forces, and increasing equipment and operating costs require some diversification in order to ensure the fiscal viability of present day ranching operations. Some choose to lease their land, or access through them for hunting or fishing and thereby supplement ranch income. It is common for wives and children to work for the cash to keep family and ranching life viable. Unfortunately, for many ranchers, children are not staying on to ranch, either because the isolation and the lifestyle demands are not appealing or because financial realities do not allow it. The RRLW is sparsely populated with Dillon being the largest town near the watershed. Recreation and tourism are important components of the economy of the RRLW. Most of this recreation occurs during the big game hunting season, which provides substantial contributions to the local economy. According to the National Agricultural Statistical Service (www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications) overall cattle production in Montana has been relatively stable since 1986. Data shows that cattle production peaked in 1996 at 2.75 million head while the 2012 inventory reported 2.63 million head. Sheep production, on the other hand has showed a general decline across the state, reflecting a broader national pattern. Of Montana’s 56 counties, Beaverhead County is the largest livestock producer. The USDA Census of Agriculture Inventory (www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/) indicated that there were 153,655 head of cattle, calves, and beef cattle, as well as 16,191 sheep and lambs inventoried in Beaverhead County in 2012. Very few grain fed cattle were produced. The focus was on calves and feeder steers along with beef cows of breeding stock. The data from 2012 reports that, Beaverhead county ranked 1st in total cattle, 5th in sheep numbers and 2nd in total hay production within the state. Several economic factors have changed since the early 1980’s which might have affected ranching operations in southwest Montana, including rising real estate values, volatile commodity prices fluctuations, and rising overhead costs for agriculture. These factors along with state and national politics and changing livestock market conditions have affected the livestock industry over the last twenty years. Social factors including the rising popularity of southwest Montana as a place to live, work, and play accompanied by related population growth and change. BLM grazing fees are calculated using the formula required by 43 CFR 4130.8 and are considerably less than those charged by private landowners. In 2004, the average fee in Montana for grazing on private land was $16 per AUM based on Montana Agricultural Statistics Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service figures, and the minimum fee charged on Montana State Lands was $5.48 per AUM. In 2017, these same fees rose as the average fee in Montana for grazing on private land was $24.00 per AUM, and the minimum fee charged for Montana State Lands was $14.01 per AUM. The BLM and Forest Service used the same formula to derive a $1.87 per AUM fee in 2017, which makes federal land the least expensive grazing available to area ranchers. Federal grazing authorizations are desirable for area cattle producers as a source of inexpensive forage, even though additional management costs are usually incurred.
7 On page 252 of the 2006 Dillon RMP as amended, Table 48 employment and Labor Earning by Major Type and Sector in 2000, reports that private on-farm employment accounted for 17% of total employment in Beaverhead County. Refer to Table 56 on page 286 of the 2006 Dillon RMP as amended, which shows employment and labor income response coefficients related to livestock grazing, timber management and recreation uses for the area influenced by the Dillon Field Office. In addition, page 251 of the EIS presents personal income statistics from 2000 that indicate that labor earnings are the largest source of income in Beaverhead County. The 2006 Dillon RMP as amended is available at ePlanning 2.0 Front Office. Wilderness Study Area There is no designated wilderness areas within the watershed boundary. However, the majority (6,676 of the 9,650 acres) of the Bell-Limekiln Canyon Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is within the watershed boundary. This WSA is managed in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, entitled Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas. Management according to this policy is intended to ensure that wilderness values within these areas are not impaired until such time as congress either designates them as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, or releases the area from further consideration as wilderness. Wilderness Study Areas within the RRLW are shown on map 4. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics The planning area was inventoried for lands with wilderness characteristics in accordance with BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands, published in March, 2012. The purpose of an inventory is to determine the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics. The BLM must document existing conditions as opposed to potential future conditions. The inventory evaluates wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act and incorporated in FLPMA. In order for an area to qualify as lands with wilderness characteristics, it must possess sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also possess supplemental values. A small portion, 1872 acres, of the Maurer Mountain LWC unit (MT-050-004N) is within the watershed boundary, shown on Map 4. This unit was originally inventoried in 1974 as a portion of the Big Spring Gulch (MT-076-004) unit. The area possess sufficient size, appears natural, and possess outstanding opportunities’ for solitude and unconfined primitive recreation. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics within the RRLW are shown on map 4. Visual Resource Management The 6,676 acres within the Bell-Limekiln Canyon Wilderness Study Area on the west end of RRLW, will are managed as Class I. Preservation of the landscape is the primary management goal in Class I areas. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. A small portion of the watershed, 2,922 acres, located east of the Blacktail Mountains WSA is classified as VRM Class II. The objective of this class is to retain existing character of the landscape. Activities or modifications of the environment should not be evident or attract the
8 attention of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. The remainder of the watershed is classified as VRM Class III. VRM Class III objectives require partial retention of the existing character of the landscape and allow for moderate changes to the existing landscape. Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes may be evident but may not detract from the existing landscape. The visual resource contrast rating system will be used during project level planning to determine whether or not proposed activities will meet VRM objectives. Projects will identify mitigation measures to reduce visual contrasts and prepare rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications on a case-by-case basis. Geology Geology within the RRLW is primarily comprised of Mesozoic and Paleozoic sedimentary rock, including limestone, sandstone, mudstone, shale, and conglomerate. The area is bisected by the Red Rock River valley, which is fault bounded and comprised of deep deposits of alluvium and colluvium. The north south trending valley block is bounded by the uplifted Tendoy Mountains to the west and foothills and the Blacktail Mountains to the east. The northeast corner of the RRLW, specifically the Gallagher Creek and Clark Canyon Creek drainages are blanketed in younger tertiary volcanic deposits including rhyolite ash and andesite. Where rhyolite ash is exposed, soils can be highly erosive. There are also small exposures of basalt throughout the watershed. Fire History The presence or absence of fire plays an integral role in the composition and structure of the vegetation that occurs in the RRLW. Fire has shaped western landscapes for the past 10,000 years, but more than a century of settlement activities have seriously disrupted that crucial role in most areas. Since the mid-1800s, the frequency of wildland fires occurring in southwestern Montana and the western United States in general have been reduced by domestic livestock grazing, land use practices, and aggressive fire suppression. Fire scarred trees and charred wood are commonly found in the mountainous terrain and foothills of the RRLW. The sagebrush/grassland communities that dominate the majority of the RRLW BLM administered land typically retain evidence of past wildfires for a relatively short amount of time. However, photographic evidence and local knowledge shows conifers have greatly increased in density and extent throughout the watershed, due in part to fire exclusion. Authorized Uses Forest Products Throughout the forested areas in this watershed, evidence of small scale historic logging exists in the form of old stumps cut by crosscut saws. These harvest activities likely date to the 1860’s with the influx of mining and cattle operations. We do not have information that points to any more recent forest management activities, and there have been no timber harvests of recent on BLM-administered lands.
9 The BLM issues and sells special permits which authorize cutting and removal of firewood, posts and poles, and Christmas trees. Livestock Grazing The assessment areas includes 28 grazing allotments covering 69,334 acres of BLM administered public land. There are an additional 396 acres that are not currently allotted. Map 1 shows the grazing allotments as well as un-allotted areas. Twelve business entities or individuals hold grazing authorizations on these allotments. Grazing allotments in the RRLW provide spring, summer, and fall forage for livestock, most of which are cattle. There are 11,348 Animal Unit Month’s (AUM’s) of allocated livestock forage on the BLM administered lands within the allotments. The stocking rate on BLM administered lands within the watershed ranges from 2.3 acres/AUM to 36.1 acres/AUM. This variance is influenced by soils, vegetation type, topography (aspect, elevation, and slope), distance from water, and local weather. Cattle (mature individuals or cow/calf pairs) are the primary type of livestock authorized to graze on the 28 grazing allotments; however, several allotments have the flexibility to graze yearling cattle. Livestock grazing allotments were assigned to a management category during the development of the resource management plan. All grazing allotments in the Dillon Field Office have been categorized as either Improve(I), Maintain (M), or Custodial(C) based on resource values, opportunities for improvement, and the BLM’s level of management. Allotment categorization is also used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. Improve (I) category allotments are managed more intensively and are monitored more frequently. Maintain (M) category allotments are usually at a desired ecological condition and are managed to maintain or improve that condition. Custodial (C) category allotments are generally isolated parcels where BLM administered land is a small part of the grazing unit, there is limited or no public access, and/or have few resource concerns. These small allotments are managed in conjunction with the permittee/lessee’s normal livestock operations and generally monitored less frequently. Seven allotments within the RRLW are categorized as I allotments, seven allotments are M allotments, and 14 are C allotments. Table 1 summarizes the grazing allotment information.
Table 1. Grazing Allotment Summary Allotment Stocking Grazing Livestock BLM Acres in Number Season of Grazing Rate on BLM Total Authorization Number active Other (Mgmt. Use System BLM* Acres Number and Kind AUM’s Ownership Acres Category) Allotment E 2505003 6 Cattle 4/1-1/24 Custodial Use 26.3 59 1,550 0 1,329 10149 (C) Bell Canyon 2500195 175 Cattle 5/15-9/30 Rest Rotation/ 19.1 448 8,576 4,240 12,817 20193 (I) Annual Use Cedar Creek 2504842 176 Cattle 5/9-6/30 Rest Rotation 15.2 307 4,664 501 5,165 10124 (I) Clark Canyon 2500195 400 Cattle 5/15-10/15 Rest Rotation 9.2 935 8,557 8,012 16,570 30002 (I) Clark Canyon 2500195 2 Cattle 5/15-12/31 Custodial Use 8.8 16 140 539 680 Isolated 20206 (C)
10 Allotment Stocking Grazing Livestock BLM Acres in Number Season of Grazing Rate on BLM Total Authorization Number active Other (Mgmt. Use System BLM* Acres Number and Kind AUM’s Ownership Acres Category) Gallagher 2502473 140 Cattle 6/1-10/7 Rest Rotation 9.4 534 5,023 739 5,762 20114 (M) Gallagher 2505176 1200 5/1-11/20 Rest Rotation 2.9 3231 9,460 8,676 18,136 Mountain Cattle AMP 30013 15 Horses 12/1-5/15 (I) Lima Peaks 2502681 264 Cattle 7/1-10/15 Rest Rotation 6.5 236 1,542 9,300 10,842 30270 (M) Little Sheep 2502681 1 Cattle 5/15-12/31 Custodial Use 10.9 11 120 0 120 10622 (C) Lovell’s Lake 2505176 4 Cattle 5/1-11/30 Custodial Use 7.8 24 186 1,349 1,390 30605 (C) Norris Canyon 2505140 450 Cattle 6/1-6/21 Season Long 4.5 72 321 320 641 20109 (M) 11/6-11/11 North 2500195 137 Cattle 5/10-6/10 Season Long 9.3 241 2,242 894 3,136 McKnight 10/16-11/16 20746 (I) 38 Cattle 7/11-12/10 Phalarope 2505708 40 Cattle 10/1-4/30 Season Long 13.7 75 1,029 110 1,139 West 30204 (C) Pinetop Hill 2505140 2 Cattle 6/2-9/29 Custodial Use 6.9 7 48 0 48 03192 (C) Radio TV 2505003 368 Cattle 10/1-11/30 Season Long 4.4 412 1,830 2,025 3,855 00150 (M) Roe 2505080 232 7/1-10/15 Rest Rotation 7.3 350 2,555 2,647 5,202 20727 (M) Indigenou s Roe Isolated 2505080 2 5/15-2/28 Custodial Use 7.1 12 85 0 85 20729 (C) Indigenou s Roe West 2505003 1164 4/10-5/10 Season Long 4.6 980 4,492 689 5,181 20728 (M) Cattle Seybold 2505152 1 Cattle 5/1-11/30 Custodial Use 40 4 160 0 160 Individual 20686 (C) Seybold Non- 2500308 1 Cattle 5/1-11/30 Custodial Use 13.3 6 80 0 80 AMP 20187 (C) Shoshone 2504842 195 Cattle 5/9-6/30 Rest Rotation 9.8 170 1,671 1,039 2,710 Cove 20192 (M) Slanger 2504415 8 Cattle 6/1-8/30 Season Long 14 22 308 64 372 20712 (C) Snowline 2505116 1044 6/6-10/21 Rest Rotation 5.6 1,989 9,445 11,196 20,641 AMP Cattle 30029 (I) Snowline 2505116 126 Cattle 6/1-10/31 Custodial Use 2.3 632 1,453 0 1,453 AMP with restrictions Custodial 20607 (C)
11 Allotment Stocking Grazing Livestock BLM Acres in Number Season of Grazing Rate on BLM Total Authorization Number active Other (Mgmt. Use System BLM* Acres Number and Kind AUM’s Ownership Acres Category) Snowline 2505116 32 Cattle 6/1-10/31 Custodial Use 2.2 164 359 0 360 Isolated 20719 (C) Straight Creek 2502681 4 Cattle 5/15-12/31 Custodial Use 36.1 30 1,083 0 1,083 Non-AMP 2505178 9 Cattle 5/15-12/30 Custodial Use 14.6 74 10697 (C) Truax Creek 2502681 19 Cattle 7/1-11/1 Custodial Use 4.9 77 379 0 379 20642 (C) Williams 2504842 136 Cattle 5/9-6/30 Rest Rotation 7 230 1,619 311 1,930 20195 (I) *Stocking rate = Acres of BLM surface / BLM AUM
The BLM has worked cooperatively with individual livestock permittee’s/ lessee’s in the watershed for many years to develop Allotment Management Plans (AMP’s) that prescribe grazing management to maintain or improve natural resource conditions. Of the 28 BLM administered allotments within the RRLW, 12 allotments are managed under formal AMP’s or have agreed upon grazing systems that prescribe a grazing system such as rest rotation or deferred rotation. This represents 86% of the BLM surface acres within RRLW. Fourteen of the allotments or 8% of the BLM surface acres within the RRLW are custodial allotments, where management inputs are minimal because of the small proportion of public land in the allotments (see Map 1). Recreation Three commercial outfitters are authorized under Special Recreation Permits to conduct big game hunting in all or part of the RRLW. The majority of their commercial trips occur outside the watershed but they are authorized to operate within the watershed. One commercial guide school is also authorized under a Special Recreation Permit to operate in portions of the RRLW. No other active Special Recreation Permits exist within watershed boundary. Special Recreation Permits will be consider on a case-by-case basis. The majority of lands within the RRLW are used yearlong for a variety of dispersed recreational uses including; hunting, fishing, off-highway vehicle use, camping, and mountain biking. The heaviest recreational use of these lands occurs during the big game hunting seasons, dramatically increasing the intensity of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and camping. During this intense period of OHV use is when most of the unauthorized vehicle violations occur. The BLM administers a rental cabin known as the Henneberry House within the watershed. It is available for rent year round through Recreation.gov for $75 a night. This historic cabin, built in 1905, is located approximately 14 miles south of Dillon, Montana, on the banks of the Beaverhead River. The cabin sleeps a maximum of eight people on two queen size fold-out futons, and four bunk beds. A propane stove/oven, lights, and small refrigerator, wood cook stove, wood stove, outhouse, non-potable water pump, and basic cooking and eating utensils are provided. No potable water is available. The cabin does have electricity from a small solar
12 electric power system. Firewood and propane are provided. There are no other BLM administered developed recreation sites within the watershed. Mining, Minerals, and Abandon Mine Lands The RRLW generally has low potential for locatable minerals such as gold, silver, copper, etc. There are currently no active Notices or Plans of Operation in the RRLW. There is however, some potential for the development of a wide variety of other minerals. Gypsum is present in some of the geologic units near Little Sheep Creek, and was mined for a short time in the 1950’s. North of Gallagher Creek, on the east side of the Beaverhead River, sandstone was mined and crushed to produce high purity silica. There is also widespread phosphate potential in the sedimentary Paleozoic units in the Lima area. The entire RRLW has potential for salable minerals such as sand, gravel, and decorative stone. There are numerous areas which have been mined for salable minerals in the past, most of these sites are relatively small. There are a small number of abandoned mines in the area, none of which are known to the BLM to be a high risk for environmental damage. Some however may pose a risk to public safety. The area has potential for oil and gas and over the years various levels of exploration have been conducted. This includes a number of exploratory wells dug in the area, primarily west of Interstate 15. A well was reportedly dug in the 1980s on state land in the McKnight Canyon area but was capped shortly after it was dug. West of Dell and Lima, geophysical work was conducted in the late 2000s. There are a number of oil and gas leases within the RRLW, however, there are currently no producing oil or gas wells in the area. In 2016, the BLM received an application to drill (APD) in the Big Sheep Creek Watershed, west of Dell. The initial APD and access is located on BLM managed lands. There is another alternative that has been developed to drill on lands managed by the United States Forest Service on White Pine Ridge. The APD is currently being processed and undergoing the NEPA analysis.
Format for Standards The Upland, Riparian, Air Quality, and Water Quality Standards will follow the following format: Affected Environment- This section briefly describes the area and resources that were assessed. Findings and Analysis- This section describes the findings of the IDT during the field assessments. Recommendations- This section presents initial recommendations developed by the IDT during the field assessment. Because of the complexities involved with addressing the Biodiversity Standard, the Affected Environment and Findings and Analysis are presented together and Recommendations are presented at the end of the section
13 Uplands Western Montana Standard #1: “Uplands are in Proper Functioning Condition.” Affected Environment Shrublands (Sagebrush and Rocky Mountain juniper) and grasslands are considered uplands for the purpose of this report. The LANDFIRE satellite imagery used to delineate existing vegetation types is unable to accurately distinguish sagebrush from Rocky Mountain juniper so they are combined for this report and are referred to as shrubland. According to LANDFIRE (2013) satellite imagery of vegetation across all ownerships, approximately 58% of the RRLW is shrubland and 9% is grassland. The variety and distribution of plant communities and seral stages in the watershed area is a function of climate, geology, and soil combined with: Historic uses (grazing and timber harvest) Short term weather patterns Disturbance regimes (drought, fire, floods and herbivory) Soils Soil development, formation, and stability are influenced by parent material, topography, local climate, plant cover and species composition, as well as historic and current uses. Information for the soils within the Red Rocks Lima Watershed was obtained from the Horse Prairie – South Valley, Part of Beaverhead County, Montana (USDA, NRCS 2015) soil survey. Soils on BLM managed public lands in the Red Rocks Lima Watershed are formed primarily from colluvium, alluvium, slide deposits, or slope alluvium. The soils within the Red Rocks Lima Watershed occur on mountain slopes, ridge tops, hill slopes, and drainage bottoms. Slopes generally range from 5-30%, though there are smaller area, generally in valley bottoms that are relatively flat (0- 5%) and areas with slopes ranging from 30-45%.
As a result of the underlying geology, parent material and topography soils within the Red Rocks Lima Watershed range from shallow to very deep. Surface texture of the soil map units are predominantly cobbly loam, cobbly sandy loam, extremely gravelly coarse sandy loam, extremely gravelly loam, gravelly loam, gravelly sandy loam, gravelly silt loam, loam, peat, sandy loam, stony sandy loam, very cobbly loam, very cobbly loam, very gravelly loam, and very gravelly sandy loam. These soils are generally well drained to somewhat excessively drained though isolated areas are classified as poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained or very poorly drained. As a result of parent material, topographic position and slope, local climate, and ecological communities the soils within the Red Rocks Lima Watershed have developed distinct characteristics that affect what uses the soils can support and how the soils will respond to disturbances. One important use is for farmland, and Prime and Unique Farmlands or Farmland of state or local importance should be protected to the extent possible. Within the Red Rocks Lima Watershed there are isolated areas identified as farmlands of State-wide importance and prime farmland if irrigated.
14 Additional soil information is provided in the forest and woodland habitat discussed Biodiversity Standard
Vegetation Current vegetative cover was calculated using remotely sensed LANDFIRE (2013) existing vegetation type data. Some acreage will be over or under estimated, but generally follow the amounts shown on Table 2.
Table 2. General Vegetation Cover Types Description All Land % of BLM Land % BLM % BLM of Acres Total* Acres Total Shrubland/Sagebrush 194,723 58% 49,881 72% 15% Forest 46,154 14% 7,301 10% 2% Grassland 29,860 9% 8,354 12% 2% Agriculture 29,616 9% 316 <1% <1% Riparian 18,765 6% 2,530 4% <1% Aspen 2,206 <1% 437 <1% <1% Other 12,024 4% 902 1% <1% Water 4,679 1% 9 <1% <1% Total 338,027 101% 69,730 100% 21% *% of Total = percent of acreage for each land type, due to rounding the total percent is greater than 100% % BLM = Percent of acreage for each land type that BLM manages % BLM of Total = Percent of acreage for each land type occurring on BLM lands as compared to all lands with the watershed
The upland plant composition in the RRLW is changing as the result of ecological succession. The natural progression from early seral (successional) stage plant communities towards a climax plant community (the final vegetation community and highest ecological development) is inevitable. Aerial photographs clearly show the spread of coniferous trees down-slope onto benches previously dominated by sagebrush and cool season grasses. The spread of primarily Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain juniper can be attributed, in part to the reduced frequency of wildfire which has changed the dominant plant species and habitat types on some of the uplands in the watershed. This shift affects the overall biodiversity of the watershed and is addressed in greater detail in the Biodiversity Standard #5 section of this report.
Most of the watershed’s public lands are dominated by shrublands, which include Rocky Mountain juniper and several species of sagebrush, including all three subspecies of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), three-tip sagebrush (Artemisia tripartita) and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). Cool season grasses grow in the sagebrush understory and sagebrush interspaces of sagebrush/grassland habitats. Some of the common herbaceous species include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicatum), needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa sandbergii).
15 Vegetative Treatments Many of the vegetative treatments completed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were designed to improve rangeland forage productions for livestock. Sagebrush, largely unpalatable to cattle, was sprayed with chemicals in an effort to reduced cover of sagebrush and increase grasses. To ensures quick response from grass species after chemical spraying operations, BLM often plowed and drilled grass seed the following year. The goal of the chemical spraying and seeding operation was nearly always achieved, and grass production greatly increased after a chemical treatment. However, in most cases sagebrush has recovered to post treatment coverage levels in 15-25 years. Management of BLM grassland and shrub communities in the 1960’s and early 1970’s was largely focused on maximizing palatable forage for livestock production. Now, sagebrush is considered a critical component to healthy rangelands. The 2010 Bell Canyon Seeding treatment was conducted to control an infestation of cheatgrass. The treatment area was chemically treated to control the cheatgrass, and then was seeded with native perennial plants. The treatment is discussed on page 72. Table 3 summarizes the past chemical spraying, plowing, and seeding project completed within the RRLW assessment area. Table 3 below does not include treatments such as weed control or prescribed fire.
Table 3. Vegetative Treatments Conducted on BLM Lands within the RRLW Allotment Project Treatment Type BLM Acres Year Name/ Number Treated Snowline AMP Snowline East Spray Chemical Sagebrush 2087 1969 474829 Control Clark Canyon CC #2 and EM Spray Chemical Sagebrush 737 1971 #474888 Control Gallagher Mountain Gallagher MT. Spray Chemical Sagebrush 2924 1969 AMP #474832 Control Gallagher Mountain B&H Spray Chemical Sagebrush 1270 1971 AMP #474887 Control Snowline Custodial Upper 34 Spray Chemical Sagebrush 400 1971 #474886 Control Snowline AMP Field #8 Spray Chemical Sagebrush 600 1971 #474885 Control Snowline AMP Snowline Spray #1 Chemical Sagebrush 2372 1968 #470717 Control Snowline Custodial Field #21 Plowing Mechanical 270 1972 #474967 Sagebrush Control Snowline Custodial Field #21 Seeding Seeding 180 1972 #474915 Bell Canyon Bell Canyon Seeding Seeding 60 2010 #008988
Findings, Analysis and Recommendations Procedure to determine conformance with Standard The uplands were assessed on an allotment basis according to Interagency Technical Reference 1734-6 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. This technical reference is available to the
16 public to read at the Dillon Field Office or download from, the BLM Library web page. This qualitative process evaluates 17 “indicators” (e.g., soil compaction, water flow patterns, plant community composition) to assess three interrelated components or “attributes” of rangeland health. These attributes are:1) Soil and Site Stability, 2) Hydrologic Function, 3) Biotic Integrity. The IDT visits specific ecological sites and rates each indicator on the degree of departure, if any, from what is expected on the site in reference condition. There are five departure ratings ranging from “None to Slight” meaning the indicator or attribute is nearly identical to what is expected on the site, to “Extreme” meaning site conditions are greatly departed from what is expected for the site. The rating for each indicator is then weighed to determine the degree of departure of the three attributes of rangeland health. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD’s) based on site specific soil types, precipitation zones and location. They describe the various characteristics and attributes including what vegetative species, and relative percentage of each, are expected to be present on the site. The IDT refers to these site descriptions while completing the upland evaluation matrix. Where ESD’s have not been developed, the IDT referred to Range Site Descriptions where applicable. The Range Site Descriptions preceded the development of ESD’s.
As part of the procedure to determine conformance with the Upland standard, the 2017 RRLW IDT reviewed the long term trend study data including photographic records, utilized newly implemented (2016) Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) data, conducted extensive field surveys, and used the Indicators of Rangeland Health Assessment process while visiting each allotment to assess the functionality of the uplands in the RRLW. The RRLW was also evaluated for weed infestations using treatment records, and inventories from the Dillon Field Office, the Beaverhead County Weed Coordinator, and the IDT’s collective observations during the field assessments. Members of the IDT visited 26 of the 28 grazing allotments in the RRLW during the 2017 field assessment. During the watershed assessment 34 Rangeland Health Assessments (RHA) were conducted on various ecological sites within these allotments. The two allotments not visited had a combine BLM surface acreage of 240 acres or 0.3% of the total BLM surface within the watershed. Numerous Daubenmire trend studies, and permanent photo plots, which were established in the 1960’s through the 1980’s were re-duplicated in 2016 to help determine vegetative trends. The data duplicated in 2016 was summarized, then compared with the baseline and interim data, providing supporting information and photographic record, for interpreting the upland indicators. Additionally, the IDT used newly established AIM data to supplement existing long term trend data. AIM is a relatively new monitoring protocol being implemented on randomly generated sites throughout BLM. The Dillon Field Office began collecting AIM data in 2016 and collected data at 20 randomly generated locations within the RRLW. Table 4 summarizes the findings of the 34 RHA’s conducted in the RRLW during the 2017 field season. Table 5 summarizes portions of the AIM Data. Descriptions of the upland monitoring methodology used to support and inform the IDT during Rangeland Health Evaluations are found in interagency Technical Reference 1734-4 Sampling Vegetation Attributes, which is available at the Dillon Field Office or online at the BLM library.
17 Table 4. Summary of Upland Health Evaluations Within the RRLW During 2017 Allotment Ecological Site Dominant Vegetation Degree of Departure from the Reference Name and State for each Attribute of Rangeland Management Health Category Soil and Hydrologic Biotic Site Function Integrity Stability Allotment E Limey Droughty mountain big sagebrush, None to None to Slight to (C) 10”-14” Sandberg bluegrass, Idaho Slight Slight Moderate fescue Bell Canyon Limey Droughty needle-and-thread, Sandberg None to None to Slight to (I) 10”-14” bluegrass Slight Slight Moderate Limey 10”-14” needle-and-thread, fringed Slight to Slight to Slight to sagewort Moderate Moderate Moderate Limey Droughty bluebunch wheatgrass, None to None to None to 10”-14” Sandberg bluegrass, broom Slight Slight Slight snakeweed Silty Steep 10”- phlox, prairie Junegrass, Slight to Slight to Slight to 14” Sandberg bluegrass, bluebunch Moderate Moderate Moderate wheatgrass Silty 10”-14” mountain big sagebrush, Slight to Slight to Slight to bluebunch wheatgrass, Moderate Moderate Moderate pussytoes Cedar Creek Limey 10”-14” mountain big sagebrush, None to None to None to (I) bluebunch wheatgrass Slight Slight Slight Clark Canyon Limey Droughty threadleaf sedge, needle-and- None to None to None to (I) 10”-14” thread Slight Slight Slight Droughty 10”-14” threadleaf sedge, Sandberg None to Slight to Slight to bluegrass, needle-and-thread Slight Moderate Moderate Gallagher (M) Shallow Limey Idaho fescue, three tip None to None to None to Droughty 10”-14” sagebrush, bluebunch Slight Slight Slight wheatgrass Gallagher Limey Idaho fescue, prairie None to None to None to Mountain Droughty10”-14” Junegrass, bluebunch Slight Slight Slight AMP (I) wheatgrass Thin Clayey 15”- bluebunch wheatgrass, None to None to None to 19” mountain big sagebrush Slight Slight Slight
Lima Peaks Silty 15”-19” Idaho fescue, iris, mountain None to None to None to (M) big sagebrush Slight Slight Slight Silty 15”-19” mountain big sagebrush, Idaho None to None to None to fescue, Slight Slight Slight Lovell’s Lake Dense Clay Non- bluebunch wheatgrass, needle- None to None to None to (C) Sodic 10”-14” and-thread Slight Slight Slight Norris Canyon Drought 10”-14” Sandberg bluegrass, Idaho None to None to Slight to (M) fescue, fringed sagewort Slight Slight Moderate North Limey 10”-14” prairie Junegrass, Sandberg Slight to Slight to Slight to McKnight bluegrass, bluebunch Moderate Moderate Moderate (I) wheatgrass, black sagebrush Phalarope Limey Droughty bluebunch wheatgrass, fringed None to None to None to West 10”-14” sagewort Slight Slight Slight (C) Pinetop Hill Silty 15”-19” Idaho fescue, mountain big None to None to None to (C) sagebrush Slight Slight Slight
18 Allotment Ecological Site Dominant Vegetation Degree of Departure from the Reference Name and State for each Attribute of Rangeland Management Health Category Soil and Hydrologic Biotic Site Function Integrity Stability Radio TV Silty Droughty bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho None to None to None to (M) 15”-19” fescue, mountain big Slight Slight Slight sagebrush Roe Droughty Steep Idaho Fescue, Mountain big None to None to None to (M) 15”-19” Sagebursh Slight Slight Slight Roe West Silty Steep 15-19 prairie Junegrass, needle-and- Slight to Slight to Slight to (M) thread, Sandberg bluegrass, Moderate Moderate Moderate mountain big sagebrush Limey 10”-14” bluebunch wheatgrass, None to None to Slight to mountain big sagebrush Slight Slight Moderate Droughty Steep bluebunch wheatgrass, needle- None to None to None to 10”-14” and-thread Slight Slight Slight Shoshone Limey 10”-14” mountain big sagebrush, Slight to Slight to Slight to Cove (M) bluebunch wheatgrass, Moderate Moderate Moderate Sandberg bluegrass Slanger Loamy 10”-14” bluebunch wheatgrass, needle- None to None to None to (C) and-thread, mountain big Slight Slight Slight sagebrush Snowline Droughty Steep bluebunch wheatgrass, needle- None to None to None to AMP 10”-14” and- thread Slight Slight Slight (I) Silty 15”-19” Idaho fescue, mountain big None to None to Slight to sagebrush Slight Slight Moderate Shallow Loamy Idaho fescue, three tip None to None to None to 15”-19” sagebrush Slight Slight Slight Silty 15”-19” Sandberg bluegrass, prairie None to Slight to Slight to Junegrass, mountain big Slight Moderate Moderate sagebrush Silty 15”-19” Idaho fescue, Sandberg None to None to None to bluegrass, mountain big Slight Slight Slight sagebrush Straight Creek Droughty Steep Idaho fescue, Sandberg Slight to Slight to Slight to Non-AMP (C) 10”-14” bluegrass, mountain big Moderate Moderate Moderate sagebrush Truax Creek Droughty Steep Idaho fescue, mountain big None to None to None to (C) 15”-19” sagebrush Slight Slight Slight Williams (I) Limey Drought needle-and-thread, Sandberg None to None to None to 10”-14” bluegrass, Idaho fescue Slight Slight Slight
Table 5. 2016 RRLW Assessment, Inventory, Monitor (AIM) Data Summary Range of Data Average % % of Sites Average from From 20 Sites Present Sites Present Foliar Cover 41%-99% 72% 100% 72% Bare Ground 0%-11% 4.15% 90% 4.6% Litter 40%-99% 76% 100 76% Bluebunch 2%-45% 16% 100% 16% wheatgrass
19 Range of Data Average % % of Sites Average from From 20 Sites Present Sites Present Idaho Fescue 0%-53% 17.5% 65% 27% Sagebrush 0-45% 11% 65% 17% Cool Season 7%-77% 43% 100% 43% Mid Height Bunchgrasses 1 1.Cool Season Mid Height Bunchgrasses used for this calculation included only bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho Fescue, prairie junegrass, and needlegrass species. While other species such as Indian ricegrass were encountered, they were not included in this computation as they did not consistently occur across most sites .
Findings and Analysis During the watershed assessment process, 34 RHA’s were conducted. Of the 34 RHA’s conducted, 20 RHA’s rated all three attributes as “none to slight” departure. Five of the RHA’s rated two of the attributed as “None to Slight” departure with one attribute being rated at “Slight to Moderate” departure. Attribute ratings of “None to Slight” or “Slight to Moderate” departure are equivalent to a PFC rating while, a rating of “Moderate” may be analogous to a FAR rating. None of the RHA’s conducted rated any attribute of rangeland health as “Moderate” or more departed. Seven of the RHA’s rated Soil and Site stability as “Slight to Moderate” departure, Nine RHA’s rated Hydrologic function as “Slight to Moderate” departure, and 14 RHA’s rated Biotic integrity at “Slight to Moderate Departure”. This tends to suggest that the biotic attribute is a commonly departed attribute throughout the RRLW. This departure may be associated with recent or current livestock grazing, or other disturbances (or lack of). It can also be a remnant effect from historical disturbances, or grazing practices, which resulted in a plant community crossing an ecological threshold. The lack of natural disturbance has been noted throughout the watershed, which may be necessary to maintain high quality rangelands. These qualitative RHA summaries are also supported by the AIM data. Throughout the watershed twenty quantitative AIM plots were established in 2016. Table 5 summarized some of the data collected within the RRLW, showing that across all AIM sites foliar cover ranged from 41% to 99% with an average of 72%. More striking is that bare ground ranged from 0%-11% with an average of ~4%. Additionally bare ground was not present on 10% of the sites. The data also shows that across most sites a healthy herbaceous grass community exists to support healthy biotic communities. Throughout the watershed process, the functional/structural group indicator was found to be departed on 18 of the 34 assessments, 15 of these assessments noted an increase in shrubs affecting this indicator. While there are a host of “decreaser” shrubs, most shrubs within the RRLW are commonly referred to as “increaser’s”. The terms “increaser” and “decreaser” refer to a plants response to moderate levels of repeated grazing use. Therefore, under moderate levels of repeated grazing, shrubs can often increase in dominance across the grazing unit. As shrubs are typically long lived hardy plants, natural disturbance is often necessary to keep these
20 plant groups in check within the natural community. Absence of fire across many of these communities may be restricting the sites recovery from past treatments, even if current management is promoting healthy plant communities. These effects can also be observed as conifer encroachment, which will be discussed in the Biodiversity Standard discussion. While none of the rangeland health assessments had an attribute rating of “moderate” or more departed, there are site specific areas where authorized uses may need to be closely monitored, and potentially altered, or vegetative treatments may be warranted to ensure that uplands continue to be healthy. A brief summary of these site specific departures by allotment are listed below: Allotment E: The RHA conducted on allotment E found slight to moderate departure of the biotic integrity attribute. On this allotment, a livestock salt ground has been placed near (within 50 yards) of the permanent Daubenmire trend study. This study point shows a general shift in species composition toward and “increaser” dominated community. It was noted by the IDT that vegetative conditions improved as distance away from the salt ground increased. These conditions are consistent with other areas where livestock concentrate. Williams, Roe West, Bell Canyon: Throughout each of these allotments, high carbonate (lime) concentrations (indicated by strong to violent effervescence found within the surface horizons of soil pits) occur in the soils throughout low lying gentle terrain of the valley floor. Areas of high lime concentrations within the surface horizons are known to have a reduced ecological potential and are much slower to respond to improved vegetative management practices. As a result of the lime concentrations, topography, and historic grazing practices, species diversity is limited. These rangelands are primarily dominated by needle-and-thread, and most of the RHA’s conducted on these sites were rated at slight to moderate departure for the biotic attribute. Norris Canyon: During the assessment bull bovine were found on the Norris Canyon allotment outside of the authorized season of use. The bulls were concentrated on private land located on lower ground than the BLM managed public land, near the only water source in the allotment. Additionally, high amounts of elk fecal pellets were noted during the assessment on the BLM managed public land. The RHA conducted on this allotment rated the biotic attribute as slight to moderate departure, due in part to the composition and vigor of the perennial vegetation. Snowline AMP, Snowline Custodial: During the assessment, the IDT documented the effects of an unauthorized chemical application on sagebrush. It appeared that the chemical application had occurred 1-3 years prior to the assessment. The extent of the application on public lands was not accurately mapped during the assessment, but estimated to be approximately 25 acres in size. The unauthorized treatment was located Pine Butte Pasture of the Snowline AMP allotment and the Snowline Custodial allotment, with varying degrees of mortality on the sagebrush. Recommendations for Uplands 1. Continue to maintain or improve upland health on all 28 grazing allotments. Where RHA’s indicate high quality rangelands, continue to implement designed management systems, if other standards are being achieved, or there is no need by the permittee/lessee to modify the management. Where RHA’s indicated departure from expected conditions
21 and grazing use is suspected as a causal factor, continue to implement rotational grazing strategies, BMP’s, and other tools as discussed in Appendix B , minor modifications may be warranted. Continue to enforce utilization thresholds to ensure that the level of grazing use promotes healthy ecological function. 2. On the Norris Canyon allotment, increased monitoring to ensure the authorized season of use is being followed. Additionally, periodic utilization monitoring should be conducted in the fall and spring to determine utilization by wintering big game. 3. On allotment E, discuss movement of salting/mineral locations, and discuss rangeland trend data with permittee/lessee allowing for voluntary modifications to grazing use/season. 4. On the Snowline, Snowline Isolated, and Snowline Custodial allotments, inventory un- authorized sagebrush treatments, and monitor allotments to ensure no new stands of sagebrush are treated. 5. Add additional upland monitoring studies in the Roe West and Snowline allotments as historical trend studies are now located in close proximity to water sources, or are not located on BLM managed surface. 6. Remove dysfunctional, or unnecessary improvements. 7. Consider the use of mechanical and/or prescribed fire to reduce conifer expansion in sagebrush and grasslands. 8. Consider the use of seeding treatments to improve vegetative composition and diversity on needle-and-thread grass/Sandberg bluegrass dominated rangelands in the Williams, Roe West, and Bell Canyon Allotments.
Riparian and Wetland Areas Western Montana Standard #2: “Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition.” Procedure to determine conformance with Standard BLM policy specifies using several complimentary monitoring and evaluation methodologies to determine conformance with the Riparian Health Standard regarding riparian (lotic) and wetland (lentic) areas. The IDT used the Lotic and Lentic Riparian Area Management Assessment Methodologies TR 1737-15 and TR 1737-16 (USDI 2015b, 1999), also known as Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment Methodologies, to evaluate riparian systems including streams, wetlands, and wet meadows. The lotic methodology is used for flowing water systems and their associated riparian areas. The lentic methodology is used for ponds and still water systems. Riparian habitat is the transitional area between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Sensitivity to grazing impacts vary along this gradient from wet to dry with the wettest and the driest sites often being the more resilient than intermediate sites where pugging frequently occurs. As there is no specific methodology to assess wet meadows or mesic habitat, applicable portions of the lentic methodology are used to assess springs and wet meadows. A Guide to Managing, Restoring, and Conserving Springs in the Western United States TR 1737-17 (USDI 2001) is also used for springs. These technical references are available online at: https://www.blm.gov/learn/blm-library/agency-publications/technical-references
22 Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is a range of conditions (continuum), not a single point. A high PFC rating may be analogous to Desired Future Condition (DFC), however a low PFC rating, while meeting the Riparian Health Standard, may not meet site specific objectives. “Riparian-wetland areas can function properly before they achieve their potential.” The lotic PFC assessment utilizes attributes and processes that can be judged visually to evaluate riparian wetland areas with flowing water against their capability and potential. Some of these attributes and processes include the stream channel’s physical characteristics or stream geometry (dimension, pattern, and profile). To function properly, adequate vegetation, landform or woody debris should be present to dissipate energy associated with relatively frequent high flow events and to filter sediment, capture bed load and aid floodplain development so the stream does not excessively aggrade or degrade (down-cut). The IDT uses the Rosgen Stream Classification System as a tool to help determine stream potential (Rosgen 1994). Major benefits of the system are the ability to determine stream sensitivity and to predict channel evolution with some level of accuracy (Rosgen 1996). The classification system is available online at: https://wildlandhydrology.com/resources/.
The Dillon Field Office used its riparian database, which has been developed over the course of 20 years, as a starting point for the RRLW. Many of the riparian areas in the assessment area were originally described and mapped based on aerial photos and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps. This information was the basis for GIS mapping. In recent years, springs and wetlands have been added to the GIS inventory and mapping effort. Subsequent ground-truthing has verified that a number of drainages previously mapped as riparian habitat are actually ephemeral drainages which lack riparian characteristics. These reaches have been removed from the stream/wetland inventory. Conversely, several stream reaches, springs, and wetlands not previously categorized were identified during the watershed assessment process. These new streams, springs and wetlands were assessed by the BLM and added to the BLM riparian-wetland database.
Data were collected on all inventoried streams in the RRLW area using a modified version of the Montana Riparian Wetland Assessment (MRWA) methodology (Hansen et al. 1995) during the 2016 field season prior to the IDT’s PFC assessments. In accordance with the Dillon Resource Management Plan, the MRWA methodology has been adapted and modified by the Dillon Field Office to include channel morphology parameters. The MRWA methodology includes inventories of physical and vegetative characteristics and streambed materials, and measurements of channel dimensions (bank full width, mean bank full depth, flood prone width). Physical measurements are utilized to assess channel morphology and stability and tentatively classify streams at Rosgen Level I (Rosgen 1994, 1996). The MRWA also includes inventories and observations of the composition, cover, vigor and the amount of recruitment, regeneration and utilization of vegetative species within the riparian zone. The data gathered were used by the IDT in conjunction with the PFC assessment process and other quantitative studies to ascertain riparian health and trends on a reach by reach basis.
Riparian coverboards, greenline, woody browse and cumulative width/depth transects, and pebble counts were also used to measure various riparian attributes in the RRLW. Riparian coverboards were established in the RRLW in the 1980’s. Coverboard data measures relative change in canopy cover of woody species in the riparian zone. Greenline transects are also used
23 to measure changes in the relative abundance of different plant community types in the riparian area. Greenline data track changes in vegetative composition and cover within the narrow green vegetation ribbon adjacent to the channel. Woody browse, short for woody browse regeneration, is used to monitor age classes and recruitment of deciduous woody shrubs. Pebble counts are utilized to determine changes in substrate. Cumulative width/depth is used to monitor changes in stream geometry. Photographs are also taken at the various monitoring sites to record current conditions and relative changes over time. All the monitoring data used to aid the IDT in its assessment are available for review at the Dillon Field Office.
Affected Environment Streams There are approximately 35 miles of stream inventoried in the RRLW, consisting of numerous smaller intermittent and perennial reaches in the higher elevations that feed the larger perennial streams down in the valley bottoms. Stream flow in the RRLW fluctuates annually and seasonally in response to precipitation in the form of rain and snow.
The majority of BLM within the assessment area (67%) is south, or upstream, of Clark Canyon Reservoir therefore the majority of the assessment area falls within the Red Rock 4th level hydrologic unit (a.k.a. 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code or HUC8). Within the Red Rock HUC8, the assessment area includes stream reaches that contribute to four different 5th level hydrologic units (a.k.a. HUC10) as described below.
Little Sheep HUC10 (1002000104) In the southeast portion of the RRLW, 2.6 miles of the East Fork Little Sheep are inventoried on BLM as it runs off the north slope of the Lima Peaks.
Junction Creek HUC10 (1002000103) The Junction Creek HUC10 includes riparian on Dutch Hollow Creek as it leaves the eastern side of the Lima Peaks; portions of the mainstem Junction Creek where it parallels the railroad near I-15 north of Monida; small tributaries to Junction Creek near Pinetop Hill west of Monida; and a half mile of the East Fork Big Beaver Creek as it runs off the continental divide south of Monida. There are 6 miles of riparian inventoried on BLM within the Junction Creek HUC10.
Red Rock River HUC10 (1002000114) Within the Red Rock River HUC10 there are a total of 1.8 miles of riparian. This includes 0.25 miles of Mauer Creek that run out of the foothills of the Blacktail Mountains and 1.55 miles that flow out of the Tendoy Mountains within Bell Canyon and Limekiln Canyon.
Lower Horse Prairie Creek HUC10 (1002000113) Flowing southwest off of Henneberry Ridge are Cedar Creek and Spring Gulch accounting for roughly 2.4 miles of riparian.
Though the majority of the assessment area falls into the Red Rock HUC8, the majority of stream miles are tributaries to the Beaverhead River downstream of Clark Canyon Reservoir (64% of stream miles) within the Beaverhead HUC8 (10020002). The BLM riparian in this watershed runs off of foothills of Blacktail Mountains and is comprised of portions of Clark
24 Canyon Creek including its headwater tributaries, Gallagher Creek from above 6,500 feet in elevation all the way to its confluence with the Beaverhead River near 5,300 feet, Bill Hill Creek, Lovells Gulch, and Little Basin Canyon.
Channel types vary through the assessment area but nearly 80% are classified as moderate gradient (2-4%, Rosgen type B or G) to high gradient (>4%, Rosgen type A) streams. Table 6 below provides a breakdown of RRLW channel types. By stream miles the proportion of vegetative habitat types tips heavily to the deciduous woody habitat types of aspen, willow, and narrowleaf cottonwood at a combined 75% of the total miles. Variations of the herbaceous sedge habitat type are next with 14% of total stream miles followed by conifer habitat types (spruce, Douglas-Fir) at 10% with the remaining portion made up of Juniper.
Table 6: Red Rock-Lima Watershed Channel Types Rosgen Level I % of total miles Channel Type A (>4% slope) 35% B (2-4% slope) 43% C (<2% slope) 8% E (<2% slope) 4% F (<2% slope) 11%
Springs and Wetlands Numerous isolated springs and wetlands exist within the assessment area. The Dillon Field Office has not developed nor does it plan to develop a comprehensive wetland inventory, but rather supports the Montana Natural Heritage Program wetland mapping program. Nevertheless some wetlands have been mapped and inventoried. See discussion below under National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Developed springs within the RRLW were inventoried. All the developed springs in the watershed are listed in Table 3 of Appendix C. National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a nationwide inventory of wetlands. The Inventory was developed to facilitate conservation efforts by identifying various wetland types and their distribution throughout the United States. To do this, a wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) was developed that is now the Federal Standard (see glossary). The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), with financial assistance from the BLM, has mapped riparian and wetland resources to NWI standards. Wetland and riparian mapping within the RRLW has been completed and data is available for download from the Montana State Library at: http://geoinfo.msl.mt.gov/home/msdi/wetlands or portions of the RRLW can be viewed on the
25 MNHP webpage at: http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/?t=. The Cowardian wetland classification system is accessible at: http://mtnhp.org/nwi/Cowardin.pdf Riparian Vegetation Treatments In 2010, the DFO implemented about 1.9 miles of riparian juniper removal treatment along multiple drainages within the Gallagher and Clark Canyon Isolated allotments. Gallagher Creek reaches numbers 25, 26, 75, and 76 (note: 75 & 76 have been removed from stream inventory and are now tracked as riparian points) and reach 926 of Clark Canyon Creek were treated (reaches shown on Map 2). The primary objective of the treatments was to cut Rocky Mountain juniper that were competing with more desirable stabilizing deciduous riparian shrubs and sedges for limited resources (i.e. sunlight and water). By removing the shading effect of juniper within the riparian areas, willow, aspen, cottonwood, and sedges have sufficient resources available to recolonize the riparian areas. A secondary objective of the treatment was to leave the juniper that was cut in place along the streams to deter ungulates from browsing the new growth. Gallagher Creek reaches 25 & 26 make up close to 1.6 miles of the total 1.9 treated. Gallagher Creek has a history of large disturbance events that make it difficult to assess the riparian areas response to the juniper removal. The Middle Fork of Gallagher Creek shares a ridge line with the East Fork of Clark Canyon Creek and therefore shares the same geologic properties. Clark Canyon is a watershed that consists of a large percentage of soil belonging to the “C” hydrologic soil group which designates low infiltration capabilities (Sanford, 2013). This soil classification agrees well the observed flashy hydrologic response of both the Middle Fork of Gallagher and the East Fork of Clark Canyon. Rain on snow events in these drainages can cause significant movement of sediment and bedload. Gallagher was impacted by at least one such event in the 1980s where substantial erosion and channel incision occurred. In 2006 the Clark Canyon fire burned the upper portions of the drainage, including the riparian. In 2012, two years after treatment, these reaches were subject to an abnormally large flow event triggered by an upstream reservoir breach on private land at the headwaters of the drainage. The event caused significant reduction in streambed elevation from the headwaters to the bottom of the drainage. In some places the stream incised itself up to 10 feet deep (Figure 1).
26
Figure 1: Reach 26 of Gallagher Creek.
Findings and Analysis Streams There are 49 riparian reaches inventoried for a total of about 35 miles within the RRLW that were assessed for functional condition. These figures vary from the 2007 assessment and from the pre-2017 assessment inventory for the RRLW. The discrepancies are due to changes in assessment area boundaries or adjustments to the lotic inventory following the 2017 assessment due to lack of riparian vegetation and/or perennial flowing water characteristics. Where appropriate these reaches were added as polygons within the lentic (wetland) inventory or as points within the riparian point inventory.
The breakdown for stream condition is shown in Table 7. The locations and functional class ratings for streams in the Red Rock-Lima Watershed are also shown on Maps 2 and 3 and the list of lotic reaches can be found in Appendix C. The percentage of the total lotic stream miles in each functional class as determined in 2017 versus the previous 2007 assessment is illustrated in Figure 2 below.
27 Table 7: RRLW Lotic Reach Condition Summary Reach % of total Condition Count Miles miles PFC 35 24.0 68% FAR-UP 5 5.7 16% FAR 6 4.5 13% FAR-DN 2 0.8 2% NF 1 0.3 1% Total 49 35.2 100%
Figure 2: Percent of RRLW Lotic Reach Miles Meeting/Not Meeting Standards in 2007 Compared to 2017
100% 90% 84% 80% 70% 63% 60% PFC or FAR up 50% FAR static/down or NF
40% 37% 30% 20% 16% 10% 0% 2007 Lotic Reaches 2017 Lotic Reaches
In general, where streams were not PFC, concerns included: alteration of stream morphology, reduced access to floodplains, down cutting, reduction in species diversity and composition, reduced vegetative cover, limited vegetative species recruitment and regeneration, reduced structural diversity, and/or decreased vigor of streamside vegetation. Generally, ungulate grazing and browsing, roads and road crossings, and juniper encroachment were the most frequently observed causal factors. Stream morphology (channel shape and dimensions, including width and depth, and gradient) and bed materials provide important information to determine a stream’s function. Critical shear stress must be achieved before a stream channel is capable of reshaping and maintaining itself. If impact to a channel causes it to widen, shear stress or stream power is reduced and the channels ability to move bedload and sediment is diminished. As these reductions continue, sediments often accumulate which force the stream to widen further (USDI, 2015b). If a channels vertical stability is compromised and a channel becomes entrenched, stream power is increased and size of material movable by the stream will increase. Both alterations in channel geometry will inhibit the ability of a stream to maintain riffles and pools at a natural rate or
28 frequency. The BLM’s regulation requires streams to have the ability to maintain stable dimensions, patterns and profiles. Of the nine reaches (5 miles) not at or making progress towards PFC, current ungulate grazing was determined as the primary causal factor for four reaches (2.1 miles). The remaining five reaches (2.9 miles) have primary causal factors directly related to roads, juniper encroachment, ditching or some form of physical alteration, or a combination thereof (Table 8). In one case, East Fork Beaver Creek, historic trailing severely altered the riparian area and those effects are still having a negative impact on the system (further discussed below).
Table 8: Summary of Causal Factors Preventing PFC on RRLW Lotic Reaches Percent Primary Casual Reach of FAR- Factor Count Miles NF Roads, Ditching, Juniper, Other 5 2.9 57% human manipulation Ungulate Grazing 4 2.1 43% Totals 9 5.0
Wetlands Eight lentic (wetland) reaches totaling about 398 acres were assessed in the RRLW. Approximately 330 acres is accounted for in one wetland complex along the Beaverhead River downstream of the Pipe Organ fishing access. Of the eight lentic reaches assessed, seven reaches, totaling roughly 362 acres or 90% of the total, were rated PFC or FAR- Figure 3: RRLW 2017 Lentic Reach upward (Figure 3). A list of lentic reaches Condition Summary (Acres) and there functional rating can be found in Appendix C. FAR-DN, 9% The lentic reach that rated FAR with a FAR-UP, 2% downward trend was previously inventoried as lotic complex but was reclassified as a wet meadow following PFC this assessment. This reach will be discussed in more detail below with the FAR- UP Snowline AMP allotment. FAR
PFC, 88%
29 Riparian Resource Concerns by Allotment Allotments in which the riparian resources rated as PFC or FAR with an upward trend are not discussed in this section, but information on these resources is available upon request. Additional stream reach specific data for any of the riparian areas in the RRLW is available at the Dillon Field Office.
Gallagher Mountain AMP The majority of the riparian on the Gallagher Mountain AMP allotment rated well with the exception of the Dry Mast pasture. Lovells Gulch, Reach #80, rated FAR-Static within the Dry Mast pasture. The channel is deeply incised throughout with numerous active headcuts, sections are over wide due to hoof action, there is heavy trailing directly adjacent to the channel, juniper have started to encroach within the riparian, there are areas of bare soil and bare streambank, and there appears to be excessive sediment deposition within the channel. At its potential this channel would likely function as Rosgen B channel; at its current state it has taken on the geometry of a G channel with sections of F where over widened. There is a small culvert on the reach that is plugged and knapweed and houndstongue were also noted. Gallagher Within the Bill Hill Creek Upper Pasture, Bill Hill Creek Reach #14 rated FAR-Static, the same rating it received in 2007. Greenline data supports a static trend over the last 10 years. The channel is relatively steep and therefore is naturally confined through much of the reach but there are areas where the drainage bottom opens up and there should be potential for high flows to spread out more than they do at its current state. Of the most concern is the road crossing at about the midpoint of the mapped reach. At the time of assessment there was no surface flow at the road crossing but the road effectively dams the drainage at high flows and an inappropriately placed culvert sends flows into the uplands where active headcuts are moving up-valley towards the road.
Below the road crossing, from the southwest, an ephemeral drainage formerly mapped as a separate reach (#78) has now been joined with Reach #14. This ephemeral fork of #14 is valuable wet meadow/mesic habitat but contains numerous active headcuts that are working their way through the meadow effectively draining and reducing the available mesic habitat.
Ney Ranch Unallotted Sandwiched within the Gallagher Allotment is riparian Reach #2, the Beaverhead River, and the large riverine wetland complex Reach #2401, also known as the Ney Ranch wetland. Though both reaches rated PFC during the assessment there is concern about the vigor and reproduction of riparian shrubs. Discharge of the Beaverhead River is controlled by Clark Canyon Reservoir therefore the floodplain is no longer active. There are currently large contiguous stands of decadent willow along abandoned meanders within Reach 2401 that can be attributed to the upstream flow regulation and a lack of disturbance by high water events.
Clark Canyon and Clark Canyon Isolated Within Clark Canyon Isolated, Reach #926 rated FAR-Static because it is deeply entrenched with a very high width to depth ratio. Given its position on a relatively broad valley bottom and
30 visible alluvium in its banks this channel could function as a C channel with an active floodplain and well developed point bars. It is unclear how much in the past this reach was directly manipulated to accommodate irrigated hay fields on the terrace to the north but it appears the channel is abnormally straight and locked in this position by large cobble that make up its banks. There is evidence of an inset floodplain trying to establish itself in sections of the reach but the stream does not seem to be able to breakdown the larger cobble in the outside banks to further its evolution. In addition there appears to be excessive mid-channel deposition in areas. A high sediment load is not out of the ordinary given the highly erosive characteristics of the Clark Canyon drainage but there are many upstream diversions that likely dampen transport capabilities. It is also possible that the upstream diversion reduce the streams ability to evolve by breaking down its banks and building a new inset floodplain. It appears this channel is locked into F and G channel type.
Upstream of #926, on the Clark Canyon allotment, Reach #949 rated FAR with a downward trend due to the lower half of the channel being converted to and maintained as a ditch to feed a head gate located on the reach. The straightening and resultant increase in velocities have caused the channel to downcut and disconnect itself from its former floodplain. As of the assessment the upper half of the reach would have rated well but it is at risk due to the downstream conditions. A four foot headcut stabilized by large woody debris now separates the downstream “ditch” and the upstream stream channel. Once this wood fails the headcut will move rapidly upstream and continue to degrade riparian habitat.
Lima Peaks Within the Lima Peaks allotment Reach #913 rated as non-functional as the stream has been diverted and ditched away from its natural flow path. The natural channel is therefore not supporting the riparian community it could. Within the ditch the flow has been diverted to, there are numerous active headcuts and it is incised throughout.
Snowline AMP and Snowline AMP Custodial Within the RRLW the Snowline AMP allotment had the highest percentage of its riparian not meeting PFC or making progress towards it. With that said, all of the issues were isolated to the Pine Butte pasture or the Custodial pastures directly adjacent to the Pine Butte pasture.
Reach #941 is located within the custodial pasture and along the railroad right-of-way near the interstate. Undoubtedly the railroad and interstate of had some effect on this reaches alignment and overall function. Regardless, the channel at its current potential is not properly functioning due to excessive bank impact from hoof shear and over widening of the channel.
Reaches #945 and #993 were inventoried are one contiguous reach located just southeast of Pine Butte and were inventoried under only #945 prior to the 2017 assessment. The reach was split at a change in channel type and #993 was created as the lower portion of this tributary. Throughout both reaches the channel was overwide, there were sloughing banks lacking vegetation, excessive sediment within the channel, and extensive hummocking within the riparian zone and in adjacent wet meadows. Willow regeneration is lacking a middle age class and young willow were heavily browsed at the time of assessment.
31 Previously, reach #904 was inventoried as a stream, it is now inventoried in the lentic database as a wet meadow that contributes to reach #993 from the southeast. Reach #904 is the bottom of the drainage and includes one draw off the southwest slope of the drainage. Excessive trailing and hummocking have altered flow paths through the reach and is a concern throughout. There are multiple dysfunctional water developments placed in the bottom and old check dams that have failed and caused headcutting to occur upstream. Deciduous woody vegetation is severely hedged along #904 but aspen regeneration is good within the wooded draws to the southeast. Approximately 0.6 miles to the west of #904 is Snowline Spring #1 (inventoried as developed spring Reach #947). This spring was developed historically but it is no longer functioning and the condition of the associated riparian is similar to other riparian in the area with livestock as the primary cause for its poor condition.
Reach #946 is the East Fork of Beaver Creek. Current management was not the causal factor for this reach rating FAR with a downward trend. It appears that historically this riparian area was used as a corridor to trail livestock from one pasture to another. The topography of this area, the remnant fence lines that border either side of the riparian, and the condition of the riparian all indicate this corridor as a likely place that heavy repeated trailing occurred. The channel here is severely incised through fine grained material with large blocks of bank breaking off into the channel. Though it is deeply incised there are still active headcuts threatening to downcut even further throughout the BLM and immediately downstream of the BLM boundary. Prior to historic trailing this riparian likely functioned as a wet meadow that experienced the majority of its surface flow as sheet flow during snowmelt. There may have been a shallow swale that conveyed flow but nothing indicates the 3-5 foot deep by 2-3 foot wide channel is a stable state for this system. Trailing captured and concentrated flow which increased flow velocities and caused this channel to downcut. The degradation of the mainstem of Beaver Creek through the confluence of the two channels has also likely attributed to the degradation as the East Fork appears to still be adjusting vertically (i.e. active headcuts) to meet the new, lower, elevation of the mainstem.
Developed Springs There are 27 spring developments on BLM managed public land within the RRLW. BLM staff visited most of these developments to determine resource condition, condition of infrastructure, and water production (flow). Table 3 of Appendix C lists the spring developments on BLM administered land in the watershed.
Maintenance of water developments was a noted concern on a handful of developments in the watershed. Maintenance problems primarily included dysfunctional pipelines and structural maintenance needs for the exclosure or need for a new exclosure. These maintenance issues can negatively impact wetland hydrology and do not help attain the objective(s) that the development was originally intended to achieve (i.e., livestock distribution or mitigation of impacts to perennial streams). Properly maintained water developments are considered Best Management Practices for riparian resources. The BLM must report on BMP effectiveness as part of our participation in Montana’s Nonpoint Source Management Strategy. Permittee/lessee partnership and cooperation is critical to achieve these goals.
32 Recommendations for Riparian 1. Revise livestock management in the following allotments, pastures, or site specific areas to mitigate impacts to riparian/wetland habitat: Pine Butte Pasture of the Snowline AMP, Upper Bill Hill Pasture of Gallagher, and the Dry Mast pasture of Gallagher Mountain AMP. Consider changes in timing, duration, frequency and/or intensity of use as well as number and/or kind of livestock. Incorporation of rest, or where applicable, additional rest, into a grazing systems as well as structural projects should also be considered to mitigate resource concerns. 2. At reach 941 on Junction Creek, move the railroad right-of-way fence to exclude the reach. Include 1-2 water gaps as determined with permittee/lessee. Willows could be planted along this reach. 3. On reach 904 remove old dysfunctional water troughs/pipelines located on the reach and evaluate possible offsite water developments. Consider manipulation of abandoned check dams to stabilize the drainage and consider other stabilization treatments to slow and spread flow throughout the drainage. 4. On the East Fork of Beaver Creek, reach 946, consider installation of grade control structures throughout the reach to raise the water table and halt the continued degradation of this wet meadow. To be successful, any project must include stabilization of all headcuts along this stream. 5. On reach 906 of Dutch Hollow the spring exclosure near the top of the reach should be extended upstream to include the whole spring source. In addition, evaluate where flows return to native stream reach when flows are not filling the trough and return flows as close to the source as possible. 6. On the East Fork of Little Sheep Creek, reach 913, restore flow to the native channel. 7. At the top of Bill Hill Creek, reach 13, a road crosses the creek. Evaluate road drainage and opportunity to send runoff through a vegetated area before it enters the stream. Currently road runoff from both slopes is dumping in right on top of the culvert and excessive sediment deposition is visible immediately downstream of crossing. 8. Improve the road crossing about mid-reach across reach 14 of Bill Hill Creek. The current culvert is causing impoundment upstream and severe erosion downstream. The road will be undermined in the coming years if nothing is done. 9. Add the ephemeral tributary that is lumped in with reach 14 to the list of mesic habitats that need stabilization treatment. 10. Within Clark Canyon evaluate opportunity to reconnect or reestablish floodplains and alluvial fans. Work with the Beaverhead Watershed committee and refer to past studies to identify and implement opportunities to improve sediment and water storage within the watershed. 11. Where riparian juniper treatments were completed, consider another phase of treatment to clean-up what live juniper remains. In addition consider treatment on additional reaches throughout the watershed. Where there’s opportunity, evaluate adjacent land owner/management interest in partnering to treat a larger area of riparian. 12. Consider action to improve riparian shrub vigor within lentic Reach #2401 adjacent to the Beaverhead River. Consider mechanical treatment or prescribed fire to reduce willow decadence and stimulate reproduction. 13. Verify that routine maintenance is conducted by the permittee/lessee on all spring developments on an annual basis as agreed to in the Cooperative Agreements for the
33 projects. If spring developments are dry and dysfunctional, they should be abandoned and infrastructure cleaned up. Exclosures should be constructed, maintained, reconstructed or removed depending on resource needs.
Water Quality Western Montana Standard #3: “Water quality meets State standards.” Procedure to determine conformance with Standard. The Bureau of Land Management defers to the State of Montana with respect to this standard. The Bureau of Land Management and the State of Montana work together to implement the objectives of the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” and Article IX of the Montana Constitution “…maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” Restoring and maintaining the Nations Waters and a clean and healthful environment require assessment and problem identification. In Montana, water quality impairment is more often the result of nonpoint source pollution. “Nonpoint source pollution generally results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage or hydrologic modification. The term "nonpoint source" is defined to mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of "point source" in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution comes from many diffuse sources.” ( http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm). Montana has developed a nonpoint source management plan for the State and the Montana-Dakotas BLM through a Memorandum of Understanding. The BLM works with the State of Montana to implement this plan on public land. http://deq.mt.gov/water/wpb/Nonpoint-Source-Program The following is an excerpt from the 2012 Plan, “The goal of Montana’s Nonpoint Source Management Program is to provide a clean and healthy environment by protecting and restoring water quality from the harmful effects of nonpoint source pollution. We believe this can best be achieved through the voluntary implementation of best management practices identified in science-based, community-supported watershed plans. The goals of this plan are to: • Inform Montana citizens about the causes and effects of NPS pollution on water quality. • Set priorities for controlling NPS pollution on a statewide basis. • Identify strategies for restoring water quality affected by NPS pollution. • Describe a set of focused, short-term activities (5-year action plan) for attaining the statewide NPS pollution control program goals.”
One way that the Dillon Field Office works to implement provisions of the nonpoint source management plan is through the watershed assessment process and implementation of management and projects. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act addresses non-point source pollution through the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BLM uses a variety of BMPs to address nonpoint source pollution resulting from silviculture, livestock grazing, road construction and maintenance and mining. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs)
34 are recognized as grazing BMPs to the extent that they address non-point pollution. The BLM uses AMPs developed to improve riparian and upland conditions as an effective BMP to improve water quality. Western Montana Guideline #10 states “Livestock management should utilize BMPs for livestock grazing that meet or exceed those approved by the State of Montana in order to maintain, restore or enhance water quality.” Other grazing BMPs used by the BLM include off-stream water, exclosures, and riparian fences.
The BLM’s responsibilities under the 1987 amendments of the Clean Water Act include evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented BMPs. The watershed assessment is an evaluation of BMP effectiveness as well as an evaluation of land health. For the RRLW assessment, the IDT used a combination of methodologies to evaluate the watershed characteristics, as well as condition and function of floodplains, springs, and streams.
In conducting watershed assessments with respect to nonpoint source water pollution, upland, forest, wetland and riparian assessments are used to determine how BLM management is affecting water quality. The BLM evaluates uplands for land cover condition (ability of plants, rocks, and litter to protect soil from erosion, promote infiltration and reduce runoff). Wetlands are assessed to determine their extent and condition and their ability to recharge ground water, cycle nutrients, filter sediments, promote infiltration and mitigate flooding. Streams and their adjacent riparian areas are evaluated to determine channel morphology and stability, access to floodplains, species composition and condition of riparian vegetation. Wells, pipelines and spring developments are recognized as BMPs, and are evaluated to determine condition and effectiveness. Due to the extent of stream miles in the Dillon Field Office, temperature monitoring is limited to high priority streams. PFC assessments also provide clues to stream temperature. Shallow, over-widened streams with limited vegetation receive more solar radiation and are more at risk for thermal impacts than deep narrow well vegetated streams. Improvements in channel condition and riparian cover directly correlate to reductions in thermal impacts.
The assessment team also looks at current and historic mining, timber harvests, abandoned beaver dams, erosion from roads, concentrated livestock waste and other disturbances that may contribute to non-point source pollution. Road maintenance including stream crossings, culvert sizing and installations are also evaluated.
Affected Environment The affected environment is described in the introduction and the sections addressing the Upland and Riparian Health Standards. The area of RRLW upstream of Clark Canyon Reservoir falls within the Red Rock TMDL Planning area for the DEQ. The DEQ is currently in the process of assessing this planning area, TMDLs have not been developed as of the time of this report. The area of RRLW downstream of Clark Canyon Reservoir falls within the Beaverhead TMDL Planning Area for the DEQ. The DEQ completed their Beaverhead Sediment TMDL and Framework Water Quality Protection Plan in 2012. The completed TMDL reports can be found at: http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WQPB/tmdl/finalreports.
35 Findings and Analysis Clark Canyon Creek The DEQ has only assessed water quality in Clark Canyon Creek within the RRLW and it is listed as impaired. The probable causes listed for impairment are: alteration to stream-side vegetative cover, phosphorus, and sedimentation-siltation. “Grazing in Riparian or Shoreline Zones” is listed as the probable source for these causes. Reaches 926 and 949 of Clark Canyon were rated poorly by the ID team but causal factors were not related to current grazing. These reaches rated poorly due to flow alterations and historic physical manipulation of the channel/s preventing the riparian areas to function at their full potential.
Clark Canyon has been a focus of sediment studies and analysis for reduction due its high sediment contribution to the tail water section of the Beaverhead River, a designated Blue Ribbon trout fishery. The conclusion has been that due to the geology of Clark Canyon, the amount of fine grained sediment produced during large storm events is a natural phenomenon (Sanford, 2013; Boyd, 2011). To date, rather than trying to capture sediment within the watershed, the most viable solution to addressing sediment in the Beaverhead River has been releasing flushing flows from Clark Canyon Reservoir.
During the 2017 assessment the ID team noted several breached and/or failing beaver dams in the headwaters of Clark Canyon. These dams were old inactive features - no recent beaver activity was noted. As discussed above, ditching and manipulation of stream courses were also noted on BLM managed ground in the lower reaches of Clark Canyon.
Henneberry Ridge Across the Shoshone Cove and Cedar Creek allotments, the Henneberry Ridge road has numerous locations where water has been captured on the road and is causing significant sedimentation to drainages, excessive gullying in the uplands, and damage to the road itself.
Recommendations for Water Quality 1. Work with the Beaverhead Watershed Committee as they implement their Watershed Restoration Plan. 2. Within Clark Canyon Creek, consider alternatives that could stabilize gully erosion in the uplands, spread flow over abandoned alluvial surfaces, enhance or stabilize beaver complexes, and enhance the development of new floodplain surfaces where viable. 3. Improve and stabilize drainage across the Henneberry Ridge road. Where gullying has resulted from road run-off install grade control or harden headcuts to halt further degradation. 4. Continue BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring to address NPS pollution. 5. Continue to share Watershed Assessment findings with DEQ. 6. Continue implementation of Water Quality MOU (BLM-MOU-MT923-1030) between Montana DEQ and BLM, including submission of biennual reports. 7. Continue to implement the Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan and strategies for Agriculture, Forestry, Mining and Road Maintenance. 8. Continue temperature monitoring on high priority streams.
36 Air Quality Western Montana Standard #4: “Air quality meets State standards.” Procedure to determine conformance with Standard. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq), and Executive Order 12088 require the BLM to work with appropriate agencies to protect air quality, maintain Federal and State designated air quality standards, and abide by the requirements of State Implementation Plans. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated the authority to implement the provisions of the CAA to the State of Montana. Determination of compliance with air quality standards is the responsibility of the State of Montana. To address the issue of wildland fire, the EPA developed the 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy for Wildland and Prescribed Fires which required states to develop smoke management plans. Montana and Idaho responded by forming the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group and by developing the Montana/Idaho Smoke Management Program Affected Environment The United States EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that limit air pollutant concentrations of six principal pollutants (particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and lead). The EPA also regulates additional pollutants such as hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs), although these pollutants have no regulatory thresholds for ambient concentrations. Emissions of GHGs, including primarily carbon dioxide and methane, contribute to climate change. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA must regularly review and revise the NAAQS, ensure that the standards are attained (in cooperation with States), require control of hazardous air pollutant emissions, and set standards for air quality monitoring. Installation and operation of monitors is primarily carried out by State and local agencies and the monitors are typically located in population centers or near certain industrial sites. Monitors are rare in rural areas, unless air quality agencies have reason to believe that pollutant concentrations may approach or exceed ambient air standards in rural locations. For most of the year, air quality in rural southwestern Montana is excellent. Air quality issues in the RRLW develop predominantly during wildfires and are limited to PM2.5 emissions, which can travel hundreds and even thousands of miles. Consequently, air quality in the RRLW can be affected by fires located far from the RRLW. Because pollutant emissions associated with wildfires are largely beyond human control, exceedances of air quality standards that are associated with large wildfires are considered to be natural events and are typically exempted from consideration when determining NAAQS compliance. The closest population to the RRLW is Dillon, Montana. The 2010 U.S. Census population estimate for Dillon Census County Division (CCD) was 7,880. Beaverhead County’s population estimate, also for 2010, was 9,246.
37 Findings and Analysis Air quality concerns in the planning area are primarily related to smoke. Smoke contributors in the planning area include wildfire, prescribed fires, private debris burning, agricultural burning, slash burning, and wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Wildfire can produce short-term adverse effects on air quality. Air quality and visibility can deteriorate due to temporary air stagnation during wildfire events, which are most common during the months of July, August, and September. Smoke from wildland and prescribed fires are the primary concerns affecting human health. Prescribed burning is conducted in accordance with the Montana/Dakotas Fire Management Plan and is coordinated with MT DEQ and the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. During prescribed fire season, the Smoke Monitoring Unit supports the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group to prevent or reduce the impact of smoke on area communities, especially when that smoke could contribute to a violation of national air quality standards. During the summer wildfire season, the Smoke Monitoring Unit assists state and local governments in monitoring smoke levels and providing information about smoke to the public, firefighters, and land managers. Recommendations for Air Quality 1. Continue to follow burn plans and coordinate with the Smoke Monitoring Unit. Biodiversity Western Montana Standard #5: “Provide habitat necessary, to maintain a viable and diverse population of native plant and animal species, including special status species.” Procedure to determine conformance with Standard. This Standard is an overall assessment of biodiversity and plant and wildlife habitat. The present state of each allotment and habitat type was compared to the natural and historic condition. The indicators described under the definition of Standard #5, as well as condition/function of the other standards, specifically uplands and riparian, were considered to determine whether or not the Biodiversity Standard was met. The IDT considered the range of natural variation within these ecosystems as well as the species composition, condition of available habitat, and forest health to determine the condition/function of biodiversity. Affected Environment and Findings and Analysis The RRLW includes several diverse habitat mosaics. The watershed is primarily made up of a relatively contiguous area of sagebrush and/or grassland habitat. Conifer habitat makes up about 10% of the assessment area. The largest component of conifer habitat is found on the western side of the Red Rock River within the Tendoy Mountains. Smaller areas of conifer and aspen habitat can be found on the east side in Maurer Creek, in the headwaters of Clark Canyon Creek, and in the southeast portion of the watershed in the Dutch Hollow area. The assessment area provides seasonal and yearlong habitat for a wide variety of sagebrush dependent species and other wildlife uses that are enhanced by the interspersion and diversity of sagebrush species, grasslands, riparian habitat, rocky outcrops and forested areas.
38 The Biodiversity standard was rated as PFC throughout the watershed, with concerns in some allotments. Concerns include reduced mountain mahogany vigor due to big game browsing pressure, lacking aspen regeneration, cheatgrass and noxious weed invasion, Douglas-fir and juniper expansion into sagebrush and riparian habitat, motorized travel off designated routes, and fences that inhibit wildlife passage. Sagebrush Habitats and Sagebrush Dependent Species The watershed contains most of the sagebrush species that are found in southwestern Montana including mountain big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, black sage, and three-tip sagebrush. Several patches of Basin big sagebrush are present in drainage bottoms such as Bell and Limekiln Canyons. The variety of sagebrush communities provide structure and cover for special status species that require tall dense sagebrush such as sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and loggerhead shrike. Golden eagles, prairie falcons, great horned owls, and ferruginous hawks inhabit and forage in sagebrush grassland habitat. This is also important habitat for pronghorn, mule deer, elk, sage grouse, and pygmy rabbit. Juniper and Douglas-fir expansion into sagebrush habitat was noted in several allotments, including Cedar Creek, Radio TV, and Roe West. Sagebrush habitat loss to conifer expansion can be detrimental to sagebrush obligates, especially species of conservation concern, such as the sage grouse (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013, Knick et al. 2013). Although some avian species of tree and cavity nesters may benefit from conifer expansion, grassland and sagebrush obligates decline with increasing conifers (Coppedge et al. 2001, Rosenstock and Van Riper 2001, Reinkensmeyer et al. 2007).
BLM administered land in the RRLW has roughly 19,291 acres (28%) in sage grouse priority habitat management areas (PHMA) and 36,772 acres (53%) in sage grouse general habitat management areas (GHMA) (see Maps 2 and 3). PHMA have the highest conservation value for greater sage grouse, based on the presence of larger leks, habitat extent, important movement and connectivity corridors, and winter habitat. They include adequate area to accommodate existing land uses and landowner activities (USDI, 2015). GHMA encompass habitat that is outside of PHMA, containing approximately 10 percent of the occupied leks that are also of relatively low male attendance compared to leks in PHMA. GHMA are generally characterized by lower quality disturbed or patchy habitat of low lek connectivity (USDI, 2015). PHMAs are the same as Core Areas and GHMAs are the same as General Habitat, as defined by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). In southwest Montana Core Areas were defined by sage-grouse lek complexes and associated habitat important to sage-grouse distribution (MFWP, 2009). Mapped habitat, refinements based upon biological expert opinion and integration of existing research data were incorporated to develop Core Areas. The delineation of PHMA was broad, taking in areas that are not necessarily important sage grouse habitat or sage grouse habitat at all (i.e. forest and grassland habitats, etc). GHMA is based on mapping completed by Schroeder in 2004 (Schroeder et al., 2004). PHMA and GHMA is not delineated on a watershed scale by BLM, but was a collaborative effort between several agencies across Montana.
Sagebrush comprises nearly 100% of sage grouse winter diets and provides thermal, hiding, and nesting cover. Nesting usually occurs within two miles of the lek, where suitable habitat is available. Brood rearing habitats require a mix of forbs and insects for a high protein diet, usually in association with riparian habitats. The watershed provides year-round sage grouse
39 habitat, with most public land habitat in the Snowline and Henneberry Ridge areas. There are two sage grouse leks within one mile of each other near Henneberry Ridge and one lek near Snowline. Counts of male sage grouse attendance at these leks have been relatively stable over nearly two decades. Birds using the Henneberry Ridge leks are likely non-migratory, with movements around five to ten miles into seasonal habitats. Sage grouse in the watershed seasonally move into Idaho and birds from Idaho also move into Montana. A sage grouse hen that was GPS-collared off a lek north of Tendoy, Idaho moved into Montana over Lemhi Pass and has been using habitat year-round in Horse Prairie, spending time within five miles of the Henneberry Ridge leks in March of 2017. The Snowline area, both east and west of Interstate 15 provides year-round and migratory sage grouse habitat. The DFO radio-collared sage grouse throughout the Field Office from 1999-2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana State University currently have sage grouse radio-collared in the Centennial Valley. Based on telemetry data gathered from both of these studies, sage grouse from the Sage Creek watershed and Centennial Valley move through the Snowline area on the way to southeast Idaho during the winter, and return through the area in the spring. Likewise, sage grouse that were radio-collared and GPS-collared in southeast Idaho during lekking season have been documented in Snowline AMP in 2002 and 2017. Hens GPS-collared over the past couple of years have utilized habitat in Snowline AMP during all seasons except winter, when they return to southeast Idaho (pers. comm. Englestead, 2017).
The Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) (Stiver et al., 2015) and Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment (ARMPA) (USDI, 2015) are BLM’s guidance for sage grouse habitat. “Suitable” nesting/early brood-rearing habitat objectives include >80% of nesting habitat meeting these vegetation characteristics where appropriate (relative to ecological site potential, etc.): 15-25% sagebrush cover, 30-80 cm sagebrush height, ≥10% perennial grass cover, ≥18 cm perennial grass and forb height, and ≥5% perennial forb cover. “Suitable” late brood-rearing/summer habitat objectives include >40% of summer/brood habitat meeting these recommended brood habitat characteristics where appropriate (relative to ecological site potential, etc.): 10-25% sagebrush cover, 40-80 cm sagebrush height, and >15% perennial grass and forb cover.
Recent research has shown no association between grass height and sage grouse nest survival, and that previous research that did show a positive association between the two was biased. Previous research measured grass heights following nest failure or hatch, resulting in hatched nests being measured later in the season than failed nests, giving grasses more time to grow. It is now suggested that grass height be measured at all nests after the predicted hatch date to remove this bias. The recent research points out that grass height greatly fluctuates from year to year with weather conditions, and ecological site potentials vary, making it an inaccurate metric for management decisions (SGI, 2017).
HAF plot data gathered between mid-June and mid-July, 2017 found that shrub cover ranged from 0-48%, and 77% of habitat plots had shrub cover >25%. Shrub height ranged from 0-74 cm, and 77% of plots had shrub height between 30-80 cm. Perennial grass cover ranged from 36-83%, and 100% of plots had ≥10% perennial grass cover. Perennial grass height ranged from 11-40 cm, with over 92% of plots ≥18 cm. Perennial forb cover ranged from 1-49%, and over 92% of plots had forb cover ≥5% and one plot had <3%. HAF 8 plot was randomly plotted
40 within grassland habitat. Abundant sagebrush habitat surrounds this site. Table 9 shows cover and height HAF plot data gathered in 2017. Table 9: 2017 Red Rock Lima Watershed HAF Data Summary Plot Shrub Shrub Ht Forb Forb Ht Grass Grass Ht Cover (%) (cm) Cover (%) (cm) Cover (%) (cm) HAF 1 (G) 45 59 32 21 68 36 HAF 2 (G) 35 18 1 3 47 26 HAF 3 (P) 35 60 5 12 58 40 HAF 4 (P) 30 33 44 13 43 32 HAF 5 (P) 32 31 30 17 67 34 HAF 6 (P) 17 32 6 12 53 25 HAF 7 (G) 9 14 19 11 61 28 HAF 8 (G) 0 0 34 17 53 11 HAF 9 (G) 47 36 13 6 36 35 HAF 10 (P) 48 57 27 16 55 27 HAF 11 (P) 37 44 29 15 48 32 HAF 12 (P) 33 42 15 17 83 32 HAF 13 (P) 47 74 49 13 65 32 *G = Sage Grouse General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) **P = Sage Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)
Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) data gathered between mid-August and the beginning of October, 2016 within sage grouse GHMA and PHMA found a range of sagebrush cover between 0-45%, with 6% between 15-25%, 56% of the plots <15%, and 38% with >25% sagebrush cover. Sagebrush height ranged from 0-63 cm, and 50% of plots within 30-80 cm and 50% with shrub height <30 cm. Perennial grass cover ranged from 14-86%, perennial grass height ranged from 22-50 cm, perennial forb cover ranged from 5-41%, and forb height was 13- 38 cm with 81% of the plots ≥18 cm. Table 10 shows AIM data gathered within sage grouse GHMA and PHMA in the RRLW in 2016 (16 of the 20 AIM plots).
Table 10: 2016 Red Rock Lima Watershed AIM Data Summary within Sage Grouse GHMA and PHMA Plot Shrub Shrub Ht Forb Forb Ht Grass Grass Ht Cover (%) (cm) Cover (%) (cm) Cover (%) (cm) AIM 1 (G) 5 27 12 19 57 41 AIM 2 (G) 3 19 33 25 42 31 AIM 3 (G) 37 59 39 24 53 36 AIM 4 (G) 13 17 9 19 48 22 AIM 6 (G) 28 63 14 33 45 41 AIM 7 (P) 27 52 17 24 42 31 AIM 10 (G) 3 43 21 25 65 49 AIM 11 (P) 33 30 15 38 74 37 AIM 12 (G) 0 0 23 16 14 32 AIM 14 (P) 45 43 23 34 57 50 AIM 16 (G) 18 12 41 24 37 25 AIM 17 (G) 9 47 5 29 42 45
41 Plot Shrub Shrub Ht Forb Forb Ht Grass Grass Ht Cover (%) (cm) Cover (%) (cm) Cover (%) (cm) AIM 19 (P) 3 24 23 13 40 35 AIM 20 (G) 27 56 29 37 60 48 AIM G1 (G) 0 0 23 22 86 29 AIM S2 (G) 1 16 19 14 52 41 *G = Sage Grouse General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) **P = Sage Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA)
Pygmy rabbits occupy sagebrush habitat year-round on both sides of Interstate-15 in the Snowline area, along the east face of the Tendoy Mountains, and in the Henneberry Ridge area. Pygmy rabbits require sagebrush for forage and cover, as well as deep alluvial soil to dig burrows. Sagebrush comprises nearly 100% of their winter diet and over half of their summer diet. Pygmy rabbits are endemic to sagebrush and are one of only two Leporids on the continent to dig their own burrows, the other being the volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi) found in central Mexico (USDI, 2003).
Generalist or Widespread Species Most of the BLM administered land within the RRLW is big game winter range. The watershed provides year-round big game habitat. Concerns include reduced mountain mahogany vigor due to heavy browsing, lack of aspen regeneration, juniper and Douglas-fir expansion into riparian deciduous shrubs/trees and sagebrush grasslands, noxious weed invasion, motorized travel off designated routes, and fences. While juniper provides hiding and thermal cover, as well as browse, its expansion into mountain mahogany, aspen, sagebrush, and riparian deciduous shrubs is more detrimental to the loss of those species as cover and forage. Fencing across the landscape can create barriers and collision and entanglement hazards for wildlife, especially if not built to wildlife-friendly standards. Motorized travel on routes that are not designated as open reduces big game security, degrades riparian areas, increases the spread of invasive weeds, and increases erosion. All of these effects reduce big game habitat quality. Since closed routes are routinely traveled in the watershed and the 2006 Dillon RMP as amended guidance of signing open roads is not effective, it is recommended that closed routes be signed as closed.
Within the watershed, elk winter range extends across the Tendoy Mountains, Clark Canyon to Maurer Mountain, Dutch Hollow, White Pine Ridge and Little Sheep Creek areas, and Henneberry Ridge. While elk occur throughout all of these areas yearlong, some migrate into the Henneberry Ridge area and Rocky Hills from the East Pioneers and Big Hole Divide for the winter. Elk migrate to the Tendoy Mountains from Sage Creek on the east side of I-15, the Beaverhead Mountains in Medicine Lodge and Big Sheep, as well as Idaho. Norris Canyon allotment had noticeable wintering elk sign during the assessment. There is elk calving habitat on BLM administered land in Clark Canyon, Bell and Limekiln Canyons, Dutch Hollow, and East Fork Little Sheep Creek. Forest Service lands at higher elevations in the Lima Peaks and Tendoy Mountains also provides calving habitat. RRLW is within the Gravelly, Pioneer, and Tendoy Elk Management Units (EMU), which include HDs 300, 302, 325, and 329. The Tendoy EMU is well above population objectives, with 2017 elk counts increasing 12% within HD 302,
42 and a 29% increase in HD 300. The Pioneer EMU is within population objectives, but exceeds objectives for HD 329 (pers. comm. Fager, 2017). The Gravelly EMU is within objectives with an increasing trend (EMU herd grew by approximately 880 elk in 2017). This increase is likely due to healthy calf production in the spring of 2016, followed by a below average elk harvest during fall 2016. Reduced hunter harvest is the product of warm temperatures, minimal snowfall, and ample fall green-up across all elevations. These conditions do not move elk to concentrate on traditional winter range, instead they utilize forest habitat through November. The 2015 hunting season had the highest record elk harvest in the Gravelly EMU since data collection started in the 1950s. This is likely a result of early and steady fall snowpack, as well as increased motorized vehicle use across the landscape, both displacing elk and reducing elk security. The Blacktail Mountains portion of this herd has been difficult to manage due to elk use of private agricultural land where they are not available for harvest. Since 2015, this herd has stabilized with increased harvest pressure on private ag lands, increased antlerless harvest opportunity, and elk redistributing on public lands where they’re more accessible to hunters (pers. comm. Waltee, 2017). MFWP has tested elk for brucellosis (Brucella abortus) in two RRLW hunting districts (HD), HDs 325 and 329. Brucella abortus is a bacteria primarily transmitted through contact with infected birth tissues and fluids that can infect cattle, bison, and elk. It can result in abortion during pregnancy or birth of weak calves with high mortality (MFWP, 2015). Seropositive elk were documented in HD 325. Some elk from this HD move to the Tendoy Mountains for winter. MFWP is proposing to test elk for brucellosis in the Tendoy Mountains and Lima Peaks beginning in February, 2018. Mule deer winter range extends across the Tendoy Mountains and White Pine Ridge, east of I-15 from Cedar Gulch to Dell, and the Rocky Hills/Henneberry Ridge area. Mule deer numbers in the Lima Peaks were up 6% during spring 2017 surveys, 1% above the long-term average. Numbers in the East Pioneers population (HD 331) were 48% below the long-term average. The fawn production trend in the Tendoy Mountains is negative (pers. comm. Fager, 2017). The population east of I-15 on the face of Maurer Mountain and to the south has increased over the past three years to the point that they’re 20-30% above the long-term average (pers. comm. Waltee, 2017). Concerns for mule deer throughout the RRLW are low winter range security due to open habitat and high motorized use, declining browse capacity, and juniper and Douglas-fir competition with browse species. The Lima Peaks mule deer population is extremely resource limited by heavy wildlife browsing on preferred species and conifer competition (pers. comm. Fager, 2017). These factors are the foundation for allowing anterless mule deer harvest during the general rifle hunting season. Either-sex mule deer hunting has not been utilized at a landscape scale in southwest Montana in over 45 years, but is being recommended by MFWP biologists due to declining browse habitat, attempt to improve buck survival, provide sustainable harvest opportunity, and give landowners a tool to manage deer populations within their tolerances (pers. comm. Fager, 2017). Reducing the open road density and increasing signage for travel management is also suggested for big game security in the watershed.
43 Antelope numbers are stable in the watershed, since dropping from highs in the 1980s. Although it is unknown, numbers may not have recovered from those in the 1980s due to winter range, a wintering elk population that has increased several-fold, competing with antelope on winter range (pers. comm. Waltee, 2017). Antelope are found in the watershed yearlong, with use increasing as herds migrate from the Centennial Valley in the winter. Winter range extends west and east of I-15 from Clark Canyon Reservoir to Lima, as well as off Henneberry Ridge above the Beaverhead River and into the Rocky Hills. Moose utilize the RRLW year-round, with more concentrated winter use along willow- dominated riparian areas including along the Red Rock River and Horse Prairie Creek. Clark Canyon and north, as well as the Tendoy Mountains through the Snowline area provide yearlong habitat. Concerns for moose revolve around impaired habitat with declining mountain mahogany and conifer expansion into mahogany and riparian woodlands. Projects to enhance mountain mahogany and riparian shrubs would greatly benefit moose in the watershed. There was a strong mountain goat population in the Lima Peaks in the 1980s. They were also present in the Tendoy Mountains at that time. Ovipneumonia may have reduced the population, as well as over-hunting in Montana and Idaho. There is no mountain goat hunting opportunity within the watershed currently. The last observation of mountain goats was in the fall of 2012 in the Lima Peaks. Bighorn sheep core habitat covers the east side of the Tendoy Mountains from around Kelmbeck Canyon to Big Sheep Creek. The population has gone through several die-offs and augmentations since the 1990s. Since the population has steadily declined due to endemic pneumonia, MFWP began an effort in 2015 to remove all individuals in this population. Today, around ten bighorns remain in the area. Once all individuals are removed, MFWP plans to reintroduce a new healthy population into the area, since adding individuals to a sickly population has not worked (pers. comm. Fager, 2017). Black bears, wolves, mountain lions, and bobcats occupy the watershed. Projects that enhance ungulate habitat are also in turn beneficial to these species. Special Status Species “Special Status Species” refers to both plants and animals and includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); State-listed species; and BLM State Director-designated sensitive species (USDI, 2014a). Special Status Species are vital to maintain watershed biodiversity. In 2014 the Special Status Species List was updated to assist in addressing conservation management needs and to help establish priorities. The 6840 manual gives the State Director the responsibilities of designating the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sensitive species and periodically reviewing/updating the list in cooperation with states and with the Natural Heritage Programs. The sensitive species designation is used for species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). See Table 11 for special status species that potentially occur in the RRLW.
44 Table 11: Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within the RRLW Current Management Wildlife Species Status Occurrence* Preferred habitat Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened T Forest Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Threatened T All North American wolverine Proposed T Alpine Forest (Gulo gulo luscus) Threatened American Bittern Sensitive T Wetland (Botaurus lentiginosus) Bald eagle Sensitive R Forest/Riparian/ wetland (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Black Tern Sensitive T Wetland (Chlidonias niger) Black-backed woodpecker Sensitive T Forest (Picoides arcticus) Boreal/western toad Sensitive R Riparian/wetland/ forest (Bufo boreas) Brewer’s sparrow Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Spizella breweri) Burrowing owl Sensitive T Grassland (Athene cunicularia) Caspian Tern Sensitive T Wetland (Hydroprogne caspia) Common Tern Sensitive T Wetland (Sterna hirundo) Ferruginous hawk Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Buteo regalis) Flammulated owl Sensitive T Forest (Otus flammeolus) Forster’s Tern Sensitive T Wetland (Sterna forsteri) Franklin’s Gull Sensitive T Wetland (Larus pipixcan) Fringed myotis Sensitive T All (Myotis thysanodes) Gray wolf Sensitive R All (Canis lupus) Golden eagle Sensitive R Riparian/wetland (Aquila chrysaetos) Sagebrush shrubland
45 Current Management Wildlife Species Status Occurrence* Preferred habitat Great gray owl Sensitive R Forest (Strix nebulosa) Greater sage grouse Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Centrocercus urophasianus) Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes Sensitive R Forest/woodland lewis) Loggerhead shrike Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Lanius ludovicianus) Long-billed curlew Sensitive R Grassland (Numenius americanus) McCown’s longspur Sensitive R Grasslands (Calcarius mccownii) Peregrine falcon (Falco Sensitive R Grassland/shrubland/ peregrinus) riparian Pygmy rabbit Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Brachylagus idahoensis) Sagebrush sparrow Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) Sage thrasher Sensitive R Sagebrush shrubland (Oreoscoptes montanus) Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) Sensitive T All Townsend's big-eared bat Sensitive T Forest/riparian (Corynorhinus townsendii) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus Sensitive T Riparian/wetland buccinator) Veery (Catharus fuscescens) Sensitive R Riparian/wetland/ woodland
*Resident (R) = yearlong or main part of lifecycle including reproduction, Transient (T) = seasonal use or migratory, not expected to be found regularly.
Current Known Management from BLM Plant Species Status lands? Preferred habitat Alkali primrose (Primula alcalina) Sensitive No Wet to moist alkaline meadows
Bitterroot milkvetch (Astragalus Sensitive Yes Sagebrush steppe and scaphoides) grasslands
46 Current Known Management from BLM Plant Species Status lands? Preferred habitat
Chicken sage (Sphaeromeria Sensitive Yes Sagebrush steppe and argentea) grasslands Idaho sedge (Carex idahoa) Sensitive Yes Moist alkaline meadows
Lemhi beardtongue (Penstemon Sensitive Yes Moderate to steep, east to lemhiensis) southwest facing slopes, often on open soils
Railhead milkvetch (Astragalus Sensitive Yes Sagebrush steppe and terminalis) grasslands
Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) Candidate Yes High elevation sub-alpine zone
Special Status Wildlife Lynx are primarily restricted to northwestern Montana from the Purcell Mountains east to Glacier National Park, then south through the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex to Highway 200 (Interagency Lynx Biology Team, 2013). The Dillon Field Office does not contain any lynx critical habitat. Forested areas may provide temporary habitat for transient lynx dispersing from established lynx populations, but these areas likely do not contain all physical and biological features in adequate quantities and spatial arrangements to support lynx populations over time (USDI, 2014a). The forest habitat within the DFO is generally drier than the preferred moist boreal forests that include dense understories that provide foraging habitat and cover for the lynx’s main prey, the snowshoe hare (USDI, 2014a). Forest habitat in RRLW isn’t considered adequate lynx habitat. The watershed may be used as a lynx linkage zone between suitable habitats. However, lynx have not been documented within the RRLW.
Effective July 31, 2017 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears is a valid distinct population segment (DPS) and that this DPS has recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (USDI, 2017). The FWS determined that the GYE grizzly bear DPS has increased in size and more than tripled its occupied range since being listed as threatened under the Act in 1975 and that threats to the population are sufficiently minimized. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Federal agencies have approved post-delisting plans and regulations so that the GYE population of grizzly bears remains recovered. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) estimates a 2016 GYE grizzly bear population size to be 695 within the demographic monitoring area (DMA) (Haroldson et al., 2017). Demographic monitoring protocols for the GYE grizzly population are focused on the DMA. Population size, distribution of females with young, and all forms of mortality are monitored and documented within the DMA (YGCC, 2017). The RRLW is outside of the DMA, but the allotments on the east side of Interstate-15 are within the distinct population segment (DPS) area which delineates the legal boundary where grizzly bears are delisted. West of I-15 is outside of the DPS and grizzly bears are still a listed species. There
47 are no confirmed grizzly bear sightings within the RRLW, although they’re likely to move into the area as the GYE population continues to expand and individuals have been confirmed in the Centennial Valley and Sage Creek drainage, bordering the RRLW. In 2009, barbed wire DNA hair stations and heat-and-motion-triggered cameras were setup along the Montana-Idaho border from Monida to Eighteen Mile Peak in the Beaverhead Mountains, in an attempt to document grizzly presence. While no grizzly bears were detected, an interesting finding was that only 17% of black bears detected were a black color phase, emphasizing the potential for mistaking a black bear for a grizzly bear in some situations (Servheen et al., 2010).
In 2014 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) withdrew a proposal to list the North American wolverine in the contiguous United States as a threatened species under the ESA (USDI, 2014b). However, the District Court for the District of Montana vacated this withdrawal of the USFWS’s proposed rule, which returned the process to the stage of the proposed listing rule published in 2013 (USDI, 2016), making them a Proposed Threatened species. Wolverines occur in coniferous montane forest types, preferring rugged, roadless, isolated habitats. Home range size in western Montana averages 150 mi2 for females and 163 mi2 for males (Foresman, 2012). Wolverines are more likely to occur at higher elevations on Forest Service land in the Lima Peaks and Tendoy Mountains.
In September, 2015 after reviewing petitions to list the greater sage grouse on the Endangered Species List, the USFWS announced that listing of the greater sage grouse was not warranted (USDI, 2015). The BLM completed Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments and revisions to demonstrate to the USFWS that protections for sage grouse have been improved. The Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana (USDI, 2015) and Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al., 2015) are used as guidance for sage grouse habitat management. Sage grouse and pygmy rabbits are also discussed above under “Sagebrush Habitats and Sagebrush Dependent Species”. The Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves, including Montana wolves, was delisted from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 2011 as part of the Appropriations Act. To avoid relisting, Montana will comply with federal regulations to manage wolves in a manner that will guarantee that the state maintains at least a minimum of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs (Boyd et al., 2017). Since delisting, hunting and trapping seasons for wolves have been implemented in Montana. The combined maximum hunting and trapping bag limit is five wolves per person during the 2017-18 season. Minimum counts of wolves and breeding pairs were the metric used during wolf recovery and were more achieveable when wolf populations were lower. As populations have expanded and increased in size, minimum counts have become expensive and unachievable. During 2016, FWP’s minimum count goal was to verify the presence of at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs as required by the state management plan. They confirmed at least 109 packs, 477 wolves, and 50 breeding pairs in Montana at the end of 2016 (Boyd et al., 2017). Wolves are found throughout the Dillon Field Office, including the RRLW.
48 Out of more than 1,100 species of bats worldwide, Montana is home to 15 species. Fringed myotis, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat are BLM special status species. These species, along with twelve other species of bats found in the state of Montana, consume an enormous quantity of insects. One little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) can catch 1,200 insects in an hour. Loss of bats destabilizes ecosystems and increases reliance on chemical alternatives to control insects (BCI, 1996). Bats could save agriculture more than 3 billion dollars in pest control every year simply by eating insects. Fringed myotis occurs in a variety of habitats, from low- to mid-elevation grass, woodland, and desert regions (Foresman, 2012). They are found primarily in desert shrublands, sagebrush-grassland, and woodland habitats; roosting in caves, mines, rock crevices, buildings, and other protected sites (MNHP, 2017a). Spotted bats are most often documented in open arid sagebrush habitats with juniper and sometimes limber pine and Douglas-fir (MNHP, 2017a). Townsend’s big-eared bats are also found in a variety of habitats from western mesic Douglas-fir forests to more arid Rocky Mountain juniper-limber pine- curlleaf mountain mahogany vegetative types (Foresman, 2012). The bald eagle and golden eagle are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and are BLM special status species. Cooperative interagency monitoring is occurring through the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. The DFO monitors eight bald eagle nests and one peregrine falcon eyrie within the RRLW. Peregrine falcons nest on cliff ledges with a wide view, near water, and close to plentiful prey (MNHP, 2017a). Golden eagle nests are found on cliffs and in large trees. Ferruginous hawks are common summer residents of sagebrush grassland habitat in the RRLW. They nest on steep slopes, rock outcrops, and trees. Exposure of nests, especially those on the ground, make ferruginous hawks vulnerable to disturbance and predation. This is likely the reason why monitoring efforts over the past decade have not found active ground nests. The area from McKenzie Canyon to Clark Canyon Reservoir and northeast of I-15 between Lima and Monida lie within the Lima/Sweetwater Breaks key raptor management area. This area was designated through Fish and Wildlife 2000 and the 2006 Dillon RMP as amended because of the concentrated nesting density of ferruginous hawks, prairie falcon, golden eagles and other raptors in the 1980s to mid-1990s. Since that time, there has been a decline in ferruginous hawk breeding territories, while no apparent changes to habitat have occurred (USDI, 2005). These changes may be related to declines in prey availability or impacts on wintering/migration habitats. Management objectives for the key raptor management area include maintaining sagebrush steppe and mountain mahogany habitat, and controlling disturbance of nest sites.
American bitterns, black terns, Forster’s terns, and Franklin’s gulls are summer residents in freshwater wetlands with tall emergent vegetation, where they forage along shorelines (MNHP, 2017a). Caspian terns and common terns prefer to nest on islands within large lakes or reservoirs with sandy or stony beaches. These species have been documented at Clark Canyon Reservoir and foraging in agricultural fields within the RRLW. Trumpeter swans have also been reported during migration at Clark Canyon Reservoir and DFO’s Ducks Unlimited pond at Pipe Organ. Lakes and ponds that provide forage including aquatic vegetation and invertebrates, are important trumpeter swan habitat.
McCown’s longspur nest in sparse vegetation on semi-arid shortgrass steppe, structurally similar to habitats like overgrazed pastures (With, 2010). Although not reported in the RRLW,
49 burrowing owls are found in open grasslands with sparse vegetation and bare ground with abandoned burrows dug by mammals such as ground squirrels, prairie dogs, and badgers. Long- billed curlews prefer breeding habitat of mixed grass prairie and wet meadows, nesting in open, short-statured grasslands, avoiding trees, dense shrubs, or tall and dense grasses (MNHP, 2017a). Short graminoid vegetation is a key habitat variable for nesting curlews (Casey, 2013). The DFO is participating in spring curlew surveys efforts organized by MFWP.
Veery are summer migrants that breed in moist, low elevation deciduous forests with dense understory. They prefer willow or alder shrub riparian habitat near water. Black-backed woodpeckers inhabit early successional burned forests of mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce-fir. They are responsive to forest fires and spruce budworm outbreaks that result in high concentrations of wood-boring insects that invade the dead trees. This habitat is lacking in the RRLW and black-backed woodpeckers are not known to be common. Lewis’s woodpecker breeding habitat includes forest and woodland, often logged or burned, with an open tree canopy, brushy understory with ground cover, dead trees for nest cavities, dead or downed woody debris, perch sites, and abundant insects. They are not morphologically well adapted to excavate their own cavities in hard wood and tend to nest in natural cavities, abandoned Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) holes, or a previously used cavity.
Flammulated owls have not been reported in the RRLW. They are cavity nesters that prefer mature open canopy ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests, but have also been documented using cavities in pure aspen stands. Great gray owls are found in various habitats across the watershed, preferring mature coniferous and deciduous forests near meadows, bogs, and fens where they can perch and spot prey for foraging.
Brewer’s sparrow, sagebrush sparrow, and sage thrasher depend on sagebrush habitat for forage, nesting, and cover. They nest within or under sagebrush plants and forage for insects, arthropods, and plant materials in sagebrush or on the ground. Loggerhead shrikes are associated with open woodlands, and have been documented nesting in sagebrush, bitterbrush, and greasewood. They forage on arthropods, amphibians, small to medium-sized reptiles, small mammals and birds.
Western toads are found in beaver ponds, reservoirs, streams, marshes, lake shores, potholes, wet meadows, ponds, and fens. Their diet consists of flies, ants, and sometimes smaller individuals of their own species. They breed in any clean standing water and often wander miles from breeding sites through coniferous forests and subalpine meadows, lakes, ponds, and marshes (Werner et al. 2004).
Special Status Fish There are no Special Status fish species present within the Assessment area.
Special Status Plants Bitterroot milkvetch (Astragalus scaphoides), railhead milkvetch (Astragalus terminalis), and Lemhi beardtongue (Penstemon lemhiensis) are palatable and are sensitive to intensive grazing, especially during spring and early summer. Repeated herbivory, particularly between mid-May
50 and mid-July may lead to population Bitterroot milkvetch (Astragalus scaphoides) declines. Rest-rotation grazing regimes may allow enough recruitment to maintain stable populations of these palatable sensitive plants.
Trend monitoring for Bitterroot milkvetch (Astragalus scaphoides) was established in the Cedar Creek and Shoshone Cove allotments in June, 2009. These sites were monitored again May 31, 2017. The data collected showed an overall reduction in number of Bitterroot milkvetch plants and an increase on herbivory of reproductive plants. Herbivory was from both cattle and wildlife; the Cedar Creek allotment had not been visited by cattle yet when monitoring data was collected in 2017. Strictly following an early, late, rest grazing rotation in each allotment is important for this species. Annual monitoring at these sites is recommended rather than every ten years as annual precipitation/weather can affect the population dramatically each year. The annual monitoring will provide more accurate data to determine the trend of these populations.
Chicken sage (Sphaeromeria argentea) prefers sparsely vegetated habitats with low competition. The known populations of this plant species, in the RRLW, face no anthropogenic threats. They appear to tolerate and may benefit from disturbances that reduce competition such as livestock grazing.
Idaho sedge (Carex idahoa) is found in a few different riparian habitat locations throughout the RRLW. It is found in wet to moist alkaline meadows, is palatable, and sensitive to intensive grazing, especially during spring and early summer. Repeated herbivory, particularly between mid-May and mid-July may lead to population declines. Rest-rotation grazing regimes may allow enough recruitment to maintain stable populations of these palatable sensitive plants. Kentucky bluegrass and common dandelion are present in most wet meadow habitat and along many stream reaches. Kentucky bluegrass may compete with Idaho sedge. Canada thistle and houndstongue are scattered throughout the RRLW and were observed in many riparian and wetland habitats, especially along intermittent stream reaches. These noxious weeds may also compete with Idaho sedge which prefers these streamside and meadow habitats.
Alkali primrose (Primula alcalina) is found in moist to wet alkaline meadows near headwaters streams at 6,300 to 7,200 feet elevation. Alkali primrose has not been yet documented on BLM administered lands within the RRLW boundary but it has been documented on private lands within the watershed boundary and it has also been documented on BLM lands in adjacent watersheds so there is potential habitat on BLM lands within RRLW as well. Habitat for this
51 species appears to be restricted to wet meadow habitats associated with relatively stable water tables. Soils remain moist to saturated throughout the growing season, but there is little or no inundation. The density of Alkali primrose declines with increased abundance of rhizomatous graminoids such as sedge and rushes. It is often most abundant on the tops and sides of hummocks where little other vegetation is present. Hummock habitats are moist without being wet and are more open than the wetter microhabitats dominated by sedges and rushes. Livestock congregate near wetlands in the summer for the lush vegetation and proximity to water. The effects of livestock grazing on Alkali primrose are both positive and negative. Because the leaves of Alkali primrose are all at ground level, livestock grazing can prevent seed production, however it will not kill the plant or remove significant photosynthetic tissue. Grazing can also be positive by partially removing the overtopping canopy of grasses and sedges, allowing more light to reach the leaf rosettes. Livestock grazing can also indirectly affect wetland vegetation by altering hydrologic regimes. Trampling by livestock may benefit this species by creating microhabitats on the tops and sides of the hummocks. Loss of wetlands would likely result in population declines. This can be minimized by restricting livestock grazing to later summer in as many years as possible to reduce trampling and grazing in these hummocked wetland habitats.
During the summer of 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a 90-day finding on a petition to list whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) as endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat. In July of 2011, the finding was released; whitebark was given a warranted but precluded listing. The most recent review of the species status of whitebark pine was in December of 2015. The FWS lowered the priority from 2 to 8. For background, each candidate species is assigned a priority number from 1 to 12 based on factors such as the magnitude of threats facing the species, the immediacy of the threat and the species' taxonomic status. A lower priority number means that the species is under greater threat. For example, a number of 2 indicate a higher degree of concern than a number of 8. The basis for this change in listing priority for whitebark pine is due to the reduced magnitude of the threat from mountain pine beetle; the beetle epidemic appears to be subsiding, and the Service no longer considers this threat to be having the high level of impact that was seen in recent years.”(Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 2015). For more of a discussion about whitebark pine in the RRLW see Forest and Woodland Habitat section below. Riparian, Aquatic and Wetland Habitat and Associated Species Riparian habitat comprises less than 4% of BLM administered acreage in the RRLW. However, this habitat receives a disproportionate amount of wildlife and livestock use, as it provides green vegetation later into the summer and fall. Riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats offer forage, cover, and crucial water sources for wildlife. Big game, beaver, songbirds, woodpeckers, grouse, and amphibians depend on this habitat. Protein rich succulent forbs and insects are more common in riparian areas, providing a key component to sage grouse brood diets. Aspen and riparian woodlands are important forage, cover, and nesting habitat for various bird species including house wrens, warbling vireos, yellow warblers, and ruffed grouse. Riparian corridors are crucial to several northern-breeding Neotropical migrants and breeding or wintering species, even though they may not carry water year-round (Rich et al., 2004). Most species are
52 summer residents that use habitats ranging from lower elevation wetlands to high elevation forests for breeding and raising young. Small populations may stay yearlong depending on seasonal conditions. There is extensive past beaver activity along the upper reaches of Clark Canyon. Drainages in Dutch Hollow also have old beaver dams and cuttings. Beaver occur in low numbers in suitable habitat on the Red Rock River, West Fork of Sheep Creek, and drainages in the Snowline area. Beaver complexes provide important amphibian habitat in the watershed.
Several amphibians can be found in aquatic habitat throughout the watershed including Boreal chorus frogs, Columbia spotted frogs, and western toads. Boreal chorus frogs are found in the water of marshes, ponds, and small lakes during spring breeding, then move to damp grassy/marsh areas or damp forests near water (MNHP, 2017a). They overwinter in underground rodent burrows or crevices created by roots or building foundations (Werner et al., 2004). Columbia spotted frogs are the most common frog in mountainous regions of Montana and frequent wetlands in both forested and non-forested habitat. During their active season, individuals may move up to over a mile from breeding sites to new locations along shorelines or adjacent marshes. Adults overwinter in larger ponds or lakes, moving as needed under the ice to areas with more oxygen (Werner et al., 2004). Western toads, also discussed under Special Status Wildlife, inhabit mountainous terrain on both sides of the Continental Divide in Montana. When not feeding, they find shelter in rodent burrows, under logs, or partially bury themselves in soft soil (Werner et al., 2004). Fish Streams Within the Red Rock Assessment area, there are three streams and one river which support cold water fisheries. Most streams within the assessment area receive little fishing pressure. The exception is the Beaverhead River, which is a popular sport fishery, providing around 48,681 angler use days of fishing (MFWP 2013). Native fish found within the Red Rock watershed include mountain whitefish, white, longnose and mountain sucker and mottled sculpin. Non-native rainbow, brown and brook trout were introduced, likely about the turn of the century and are found in area streams. Fishery habitat conditions on streams within the RRLW are generally in good condition. In some cases, streams have been surveyed multiple times over the last 10 years to address data gaps in past fishery related surveys. These include evaluating west slope cutthroat trout (WCT) genetic purity, assessing suitability for WCT restoration and monitoring general fishery habitat condition.
Table 12: Fisheries Streams and Fish Species Present on BLM Stream Reach Stream Fish Species Present on BLM BLM Stream Miles (s) Little Brook trout, mottled sculpin, rainbow x 915 0.18 Sheep cutthroat hybrids, East Fork Brook trout, mottled sculpin, rainbow x Little 914 1.68 cutthroat hybrids, Sheep
53 Stream Reach Stream Fish Species Present on BLM BLM Stream Miles (s) Maurer 983 Cutthroat hybrids 0.28 Brown trout, rainbow trout, white Beaverhead 2 sucker, longnose sucker, mottled 2.55 River sculpin, mountain whitefish
Invasive Aquatic Species There are no known populations of aquatic invasive species found within the Red Rock/Lima Watershed.
Fisheries and Aquatic
Maurer Creek Maurer Creek supports a population of hybridized trout of unknown genetic origin. Fish surveys conducted on this stream in 2007 and 2017 indicate a relatively robust population of hybrid cutthroat trout in the drainage. Trout numbers were found to be ~ 8.6 per 100 feet of stream. Habitat conditions on the short BLM reach were found to be fair to good. Stream banks supported a diversity of riparian vegetation dominated by woody species such as willow and river birch. Sedges and herbaceous species were present at low levels. Spawning gravels were noted throughout the reach. The elevated sediment levels originating from the open route adjacent to the stream are likely having some impact on pool quality/quantity.
Little Sheep Creek This drainage supports a population of eastern brook trout and hybridized cutthroat trout as well as native species such as mottled sculpin. In 2008 an electrofishing survey was conducted within the BLM reach. Brook trout and mottled sculpin were the only species collected.
East Fork Little Sheep Creek The East Fork of Little Sheep Creek supports populations of eastern brook trout and hybridized cutthroat trout. This stream was surveyed for westslope cutthroat trout in 2008. Brook trout were found in the lower and middle portions of the drainage. Sculpin and hybrid cutthroat showing a strong rainbow appearance were found at low abundance in the lowest reaches. No westslope cutthroat trout were found.
54
Clark Canyon Creek Clark Canyon Creek was identified as needing a fishery survey to determine fish species presence and distribution within the drainage during the 2007 Red Rock Assessment. In August 2008, the drainage was surveyed. Surveys conducted at that time indicated this drainage does not support a fishery. One Rainbow trout and one mottled sculpin were collected in the lowest reaches of the drainage approximately 300 yards above the confluence with the Beaverhead River. Surveys were conducted throughout the drainage from approximately 300 yards above the confluence with the Beaverhead River to the headwaters. No other fish were collected within the drainage. The uplands within the drainage are prone to slumping events within the headwaters. The high sediment loads resulting from these periodic events is likely the limiting factor preventing long term fish occupation.
Using baselines identified in the “Beaverhead Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework Water Quality Protection Plan” (Montana DEQ. 2012), streams < 15 foot wetted width would be expected to have a minimum of ≥ 90 pools per stream mile while streams 15-30 feet bankfull width would be expected to have ≥ 52. Residual pool depth would be expected to be approximately 10 inches and % fines (<6mm) would be expected to be between 10% and 30% depending on stream gradient and channel type. Steeper gradient “B” channels would be expected to have slightly more or less than 10% fines < 6mm while lower gradient “E” type channels are expected to have up to 30% fines < 6mm. Stream size and gradient will affect pool number, residual depth and the percentage of fine sediment present. Generally, as stream size decreases pool frequency increases and pool depth decreases. Using the data in Table 13 below, both surveyed streams are on the low end of the natural range of variability for expected pool frequency based on stream size. Both streams exhibit slightly elevated sediment levels to likely inhibit pool frequency and quality. However, both surveyed streams have an open road directly adjacent to the stream and are likely the primary source of a large percentage of the excess sediment. Spawning habitat was present throughout both BLM reaches. The sediment levels within the Little Sheep reach are likely high enough to inhibit spawning.
Table 13: Red Rock Watershed Pool Frequency, Depth, and % Fines Stream Primary Average Pool Residual % Fines 2017 Channel Stream Frequency Pool (<6mm) watershed Width (per mile) Depth Riparian (feet) (inches) Rating Little Sheep C 9 88 11.2 33 PFC Creek Mauer Creek B 3 123 6.4 20 PFC
Throughout the west, the threat of increasing water temperatures on fisheries habitat due to climate change is a growing concern. Studies have linked water temperature with lower cutthroat performance in water temperatures >59F (DeStatso and Rahel 1994; Dunham et al. 1999; Novinger 2000). Water temperature monitoring within the assessment area was initiated in 2013 to track potential changes in summer stream temperatures. Data collected to date shows that both average and summer peak temperatures have remained relatively consistent since temperature monitoring began (see Table 14 below). Average summer stream temperatures to
55 date indicate that the area streams are within cold water fish tolerances. Peak temperatures observed were generally for short periods of time and temperatures dropped back into preferred ranges rather quickly.
Table 14: Red Rock Watershed Stream Temperature Data Peak temperature Stream/Year Year Avg. temperature 6/1-9/1 6/1-9/1 Little Sheep Creek 2013 53.7 64.9 Little Sheep Creek 2014 52.6 62.9 Little Sheep Cree 2015 53 60.7 Little Sheep Creek 2016 51.4 58.3 Little Sheep Creek 2017 51.4 58.2 Average 52.4 61 Mauer Creek 2017 48 58 Clark Canyon Creek 2017 54 67.7
Forest and Woodland Habitats and Associated Species Forest and woodland habitats comprise approximately 10% of BLM administered lands and 14% across all ownerships within the RRLW. The close association of forests with adjoining sagebrush and riparian habitats supports a broad array of wildlife species. This habitat provides important thermal and hiding cover, including security habitat for big game. Forest and woodland habitat, especially aspen and mountain mahogany, offers high protein browse species in the fall and winter, as well as year-round browse for moose. Forests in the RRLW provide habitat for several species including mountain lions, dusky grouse, ruffed grouse, northern goshawk, and black bear. Forest-dwelling bird species utilize nesting and foraging habitat. Bird species such as the hairy and black-backed woodpeckers help protect forests by eating millions of damaging insects, such as the mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm. Within the watershed, there are four distinct areas that contain the majority of forested lands on BLM administered lands: Clark Canyon, East Fork of Little Sheep Creek, Dutch Hollow and Bell Canyon in the Tendoy Mountains (Figure 4).
56 Figure 4: Forested Areas on BLM Administered Lands
A healthy forest requires adequate sunlight, water, and nutrients, which are dependent on having enough space for each tree to acquire these basic needs. The reverse is that an overcrowded forest is less ideal and can increase the susceptibility of insect infestations and diseases and the potential for higher severity wildfires. The forests of the RRLW are experiencing moderate to high levels of insect activity. Native insects are vital components of a healthy ecosystem: they help to regulate forest diversity and density, are agents of disturbance and nutrient cycling, and are important components of the food chain. Outbreaks can be beneficial for forest health by culling the weaker genetic trees therefore increasing resistance to future outbreaks (Clancy 1993 and Alfaro and Shepherd 1991). Forest health should not be considered solely on insect epidemics, but a big picture approach should be used in assessing forest health by looking at stand densities, tree species and age class diversities, fuel loading, and insect and pathogens present.
57 The dominant tree species (Table 15) in this area are Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), limber pine (pinus flexilis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). The following information on each of the forest ecological systems is from the online Montana Field Guide from the Montana Natural Heritage Program (http://www.fieldguide.mt.gov). Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland is the dominate forest type in the RRLW. A generalist, the Douglas-fir is associated with a dry to submesic climate which has an annual precipitation range of 20-40 inches, and ranges in elevation from 6,500 to 7,500 feet. The fire return interval ranges from 20-45 years, although can be as infrequent as 500 years, leaving some very old trees in places. This tree species is mainly found on the lower treeline above sagebrush steppe, and is usually associated with gravelly soils on mountain slopes and benches (http://www.fieldguide.mt.gov). Dusky grouse forage on Douglas-fir needles and buds in the winter and, along with other birds, heavily rely on Douglas-fir communities for cover. Several bird species extract seeds from Douglas-fir cones or forage for seeds on the ground (Steinberg, 2002). Douglas-fir habitat types provide excellent hiding and thermal cover for deer and elk. It also provides nesting and/or roosting habitat for numerous bird species including great-horned owls, sharp-shinned hawks, great gray owls, and northern goshawks. Englemann spruce also have a large presence in the RRLW, and are associated with mesic to wet microsites, with elevation ranges from 5,200-8,800 feet. They are typically found in locations with cool and moist environments, like north facing slopes and cold-air drainages. Fire return intervals are often longer with the spruce-fir forest and woodlands, ranging between 170-300 years. They are susceptible to insect outbreaks, and the shallow root system makes them susceptible to blowdown (http://www.fieldguide.mt.gov). Engelmann spruce, unlike other tree species, can grow steadily without decline for 300 years, and dominant spruce often range between 250-450 years old (USDA, NRCS 2017). The aspen forest and woodland is a small but vital part of the RRLW as aspen stands are host to high biodiversity on the landscape. The distribution of aspen is dictated by the amount of precipitation it receives which ranges from 15-20 inches, or in places that hold moisture for a longer duration of time like north-facing slopes, swales or under large snow drifts, and they prefer deep well developed soils that are not rocky. Aspen stands regenerate after large disturbances such as disease outbreaks, logging activities, or fires, which have a return interval that ranges from 30-165 years. Aspen most often regenerates by sprouting which comes from the root system of the existing clone, but can regenerate from seed as well. Regionally aspen stands have experienced a decline, which is largely attributed to fire suppression and excessive ungulate browse. Aspen is also susceptible to insect and disease, one of which is the Cytospora canker which is caused by various species of the fungus Cytospora (http://www.fieldguide.mt.gov). Many animals browse aspen year-round, but it is especially valuable during fall and winter when protein levels are high relative to other browse species (Howard, 1996). Aspen is an important browse species for ungulates including deer, elk, and moose. It also provides hiding cover, summer shade and some thermal cover for ungulates in the winter, as well as hiding and thermal cover for many small mammals. Aspen also provides nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species including dusky grouse, dark-eyed junco, house wren, chipping sparrow, and pine
58 siskin. Aspen buds, flowers, and seeds are palatable to many bird species. Ruffed grouse depend on aspen for foraging, courting, breeding, and nesting throughout most of its range. Aspen buds, catkins, and leaves provide year-round food for ruffed grouse.
Limber Pine and Juniper Woodlands make up a smaller component of this watershed. These two tree species are often found in the same ecological system ranging in elevation from 4,000-7,500 feet and often higher in southwest Montana. Typically, these species grown on calcareous or limestone substrates, with rocky soils, and are usually found below the continuous forests of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. These two species thrive with very small amounts of precipitation, and are well adapted to rocky locations that can have harsh winters and summers of drought. The typical fire return interval ranges from 40-400 years. Neither of these species are well adapted for fire, and are easily killed by fire due to their thin bark. Limber pine is susceptible to the non-native white pine blister rust (cronartium ribicola), mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), and in southwestern Montana pine dwarf-mistletoe (Arceuthobium cyanocarpum). The Clark’s nutcracker is the primary seed disperser for limber pine. Limber pine seeds provide critical food for rodents and birds, including squirrels and Clark’s nutcrackers, which also cache the seeds for later use. Other birds, small mammals, and bears benefit from these caches. Limber pine has been shown recently to have shifted on the landscape, both upslope and downslope (Means, 2010). Rocky Mountain juniper, on the other hand, is fairly resistant to most insects and diseases, is shallow rooted, and commonly grows in southwest Montana in a savanna-like manner (http://www.fieldguide.mt.gov). Juniper berries are consumed by various birds and small mammals. While mule deer browse juniper, palatability can be poor and the high levels of volatile oils may cause mule deer to select against the foliage in favor of other browse when available (Dietz and Nagy, 1976). The volatile oils in juniper may interfere with rumen microorganism function, reducing energy supply for mule deer. Juniper provides hiding and thermal cover for big game, especially during the winter. Juniper woodlands provide nesting habitat, migratory corridors, and winter food and cover for birds on sagebrush grassland edges (Sieg, 1991).
Whitebark pine (Pinus Albicaulis) is typically found on treelines and krummholtz habitats and is usually associated with subalpine forests. There is a small component of whitebark pine in the RRLW. In southwestern Montana, whitebark pine are usually found at higher elevations ranging from 8,100-8,800 feet, but have been found locally at lower elevations. Whitebark is listed as a sensitive species due to the threat from the non-native white pine blister rust and the mountain pine beetle epidemic. The cones and seeds of whitebark are a primary food source for several wildlife species due to their high caloric and fat content. Seed dispersal is done almost entirely by the Clark’s nutcracker, a bird that caches the seeds which will eventually germinate, if not found again by the Clark’s nutcracker, bears, rodents or other birds. Whitebark pine has been recognized as a keystone species of high elevation habitats. They are important resources for wildlife food, snowpack retention, and watershed protection.
Mountain mahogany is an extremely palatable and important food source for deer, elk and moose. Most accessible plants throughout the watershed show moderate to heavy levels of browse, especially noted along the east face of the Tendoy Mountains. Heavy browsing appears to be killing mountain mahogany in the Bell Canyon area, where decadence was a noted concern during the assessment. Juniper and Douglas-fir expansion is also shading and outcompeting
59 mountain mahogany in several locations. Reducing this competition should be a priority for retaining this important species on the landscape. Planting mountain mahogany should also be considered within the watershed. Although ungulate browsing is a major concern for the survivability of planted mahogany, planting on a trial basis is worthwhile for this declining species.
Table 15: Dominant Conifer Forest Types and Aspen on BLM Administered Lands Within the RRLW Forested Percent of Percent of Forest Type Acres by Forested Area Watershed Area Type Douglas-fir Forest and 5,866 76% 8.4% Woodland Spruce-Fir Forest and 584 7.5% .8% Woodland Aspen Forest and Woodland 437 5.6% .6% Douglas-fir/Lodgepole Pine 355 4.6% .5% Forest and Woodland Subalpine Woodland 280 3.6% .4% Parkland Limber Pine Woodland 118 1.5% .2% Lodgepole Pine Forest and 86 1.2% .1% Woodland Total 7726 100% 11%
Clark Canyon Overview of forested area within Clark Canyon
Once up in Clark Canyon, the narrow draw opens up into a large bowl that contains approximately 3,000 acres of timbered habitat. The dominant tree species is Douglas-fir, but there is a fair amount of Engelmann spruce, limber pine and aspen too. Aspen stands in Clark Canyon are in a fair condition and the extent of the stands is declining. There are several factors contributing to the overall stand health: lack of disturbance, browse from elk, and advancement of conifer species. Without periodic disturbance on the landscape, the forest succession advances, allowing the short lived aspen species to decline and the conifer species to progress and take hold among the aspen (Rogers, 2002). Disturbance resets the seral stage of the landscape allowing new grasses, forbs and the shade intolerant aspen trees to thrive. Browse levels within the Clark Canyon drainage
60 are high, and ungulate species such Patch of older timber reveals a more open forest and as deer and elk have heavily possibly a clue to historic tree densities browsed a high percentage of young aspen sprouts. There is also evidence of historic beaver activity that has left many trees on the forest floor. The aspen stands lack recruitment in the 1 to 4 inch diameter class which is crucial for the continuance of aspen colonies.
Although a native insect, the western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) appears to have reached epidemic levels in many of the stands. Budworm populations are usually maintained at endemic levels by a suite of natural factors including: Example of heavy defoliation from Western Spruce vertebrate and invertebrate Budworm on small diameter Douglas-fir predators, insect parasites, and adverse weather conditions, specifically cool summers (Fellen and Dewey 1982). The combination of favorable forest conditions and climatic conditions result in increased budworm activity, and typically the outbreak is more severe in dense stands (Hadley and Veblen 1993). The freshly hatched larvae of the budworm feed mostly on the needles of the new foliage, but also feed on the flowers and cones that are just developing. The repeated attacks and defoliation of the host tree year after year weakens the tree, eventually killing it from the top down (Fellen and Dewey 1982). The prolonged effect of the budworm is that it can change the overall stand structure by decreasing cone production, creating ideal conditions for subsequent bark beetle attacks in larger diameter trees, and creates
61 potentially higher mortality rates for the defoliated understory trees (Hadley and Veblen 1993). This budworm has affected both the Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce within the Clark Canyon drainage. Additionally, the native Douglas-fir bark beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) is also found within the forested stands in Clark Canyon. Typically Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks occur in conjunction with weakening of host trees by a number of different agents including fire, drought, or insect defoliation, and often target larger diameter trees which have thicker phloem, cambium and outer sapwood which the insects prefer (Hadley and Veblen 1993). The highest mortality rates from a bark beetle outbreak would most likely occur in even aged stands with large diameter trees weakened from a prior agent. Douglas-fir bark beetle populations appear to be at endemic levels within these stands. Other factors of the assessment area that should be considered for potential forest health treatments are: are fuel loads, soils, steep topography, and wet areas. Pockets of dead and down trees present potentially high levels of fuel loading in some portions of the assessment area. High forest densities combined with moderate to high fuel loads can increase the likelihood of higher severity wildfire in the future. Slumping and slow moving soils can be found in places around the Clark Canyon Drainage. High levels of sediment have been deposited at the top of the drainage, and the same soil issues persists down Examples of slumping and erodible soils canyon. Soils within the area are mapped as 806E - Sicklesteets, stony-Eastridge, very stony-Rooset, very stony complex, 8-35% slopes, landslides and 807F - Sicklesteets-Loberg-Rooset complex, 206-60% slopes, very stony, landslides. The three major components of 806E all occur on landslides on mountain slopes and are derived from slide deposits. The dominant component (35% of the mapunit) of 807F occurs on landslides on mountain slopes and is derived from slide deposits. Landslides, or other mass wasting events, occur when soil slips down slope. Many times saturation of the soil aids in down slope movement of the soil by reducing the shear strength of the material.
62
East Fork of Little Sheep Creek There is one section (640 acres) of BLM Administered land up the East Fork drainage in Little Sheep Creek. Within the section, there are about 110 acres that are forested with the potential of being harvested commercially. The dominant tree species in this area is Douglas-fir, but there is also a small component of limber pine, juniper, and aspen. Some larger and older Douglas- fir trees exist within the stand averaging Overview of timbered areas in the East 23.5” at Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). Fork of Little Sheep Creek, Lima Peak Although, the majority of the forested area Allotment consists of smaller diameter trees (<12”DBH). There is a slight level of mortality, approximately 15% of trees are dead now, and about 75% of the stand is severely defoliated with advanced western spruce budworm.
Smaller diameter Douglas-fir with Advanced spruce budworm on
advanced Western spruce budworm adjacent Forest Service land defoliation The adjacent parcel of Forest Service administered land exhibits very high levels of advanced budworm. Here the majority of Douglas-fir trees have been killed by budworm, and this may provide insight on what the future of the BLM trees may look like in the near future.
63 There are pockets of healthy aspen stands within this section. Although there is conifer tree encroachment that has taken hold within the aspen stands, there is also a healthy amount of aspen regeneration. The stands also exhibit a wider variety of size classes, which is necessary for the longevity of the aspen clone on the landscape. The Limber pine and Rocky Mountain juniper in this area are found on more open slopes on the periphery of the Douglas-fir. Both of these tree species appear to be in good health and vigor.
Aspen stand within Little Sheep Creek that exhibits multiple age classes
Dutch Hollow There is a narrow section of timbered habitat in the Dutch Hollow area in the Lima Peaks and Snowline AMP Allotments. The forested portion is roughly 128 acres, and borders Forest Service and State ownerships. The dominant tree species in this drainage is Douglas-fir. Again, this drainage exhibits moderate to high levels of defoliation from the Western spruce budworm. There is also a large component of younger Douglas-fir trees that are healthy and are spreading out into the sagebrush grassland areas.
Overview of timbered areas within Dutch Hollow in the Lima Peaks and Snowline AMP Allotments
64
Western spruce budworm affecting both Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce trees on Reach 906
Engelmann spruce is the co-dominate species along the riparian corridor. The spruce budworm has affected the spruce trees in the same way, with roughly one third of the trees experiencing heavy defoliation or mortality. There is evidence along the entire reach of historic logging, with very old stumps. Steep slopes dip into the riparian drainage, and loose soils can be found along the reach. Surprisingly, there is a component of Limber pine trees intermixed with the Douglas- fir and Engelmann spruce trees all along the riparian corridor. Limber pine exhibits high vigor with many cone producing trees. Aspen trees dominate the lower portion of Reach 906 and most of Reach 907. The aspen stands are experiencing advancing conifers into the stands, but are also showing a spectrum of age classes. Moderate ungulate browse was noted in this area.
Fire Ecology and Fire Regimes of the RRLW As a prominent disturbance process in Old stumps provide evidence of historic southwestern Montana, fire is directly tied to logging land health by affecting seral stage diversity, age classes, and landscape vegetation structures. Understanding the historic role of fire helps inform decisions on ecological status, trend and treatment needs. Recently, fire regimes for most terrestrial communities have been mapped and textually described for vegetation types across the entire U.S. (LANDFIRE, 2013). These descriptions give context for assessing land health, reference conditions, and functioning ecosystems. Biophysical Settings (BpS) are most simply defined as the native vegetation communities present in the pre-Euro-American era, and therefore developed under the influence of natural
65 disturbances such as fire. BpS’s describe vegetation communities at a larger scale than Ecological Sites, and as such can be applied to characterize broad areas such as watersheds. Each BpS description describes the historic composition and dominance of seral stages for that type, as well as the historic fire frequency and severity. Together, this information describes a reference condition, or a standard against which current conditions may be compared. Comparing Biophysical Settings to current conditions is useful for identifying trends in forest and non-forest vegetation communities. Based upon field reconnaissance and LANDFIRE data, the dominant BpS’s found in the watershed include several species of big sagebrush, Douglas-fir forest, and subalpine conifer forests. Many other individual BpS’s are present within this watershed that are isolated or comprise a small percentage of the total area; these BpS’s are grouped in the “other” category in the table below. Successional processes, seral stage descriptions, and historic fire regimes for these types are described in the LANDFIRE BpS description documents for Map Zone 21 (LANDFIRE 2013). These descriptions of historic conditions were compared with current conditions to depict landscape trends in vegetation and fire regime departure. The approximate distribution of the dominant BpS(s) in the watershed, are presented in Table 16.
Table 16: Distribution of Dominant BpS in the RRLW (All Ownerships) Biophysical Setting Name Acres by BpS in RRLW % of RRLW (Number) Inter-mountain basins montane sagebrush 106,720 32% steppe (1911260) Inter-mountain basins big sagebrush steppe 94,985 28% (19111250) Rocky Mountain Subalpine/Upper Montane 37,697 11% Riparian (1911600) Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic 19,060 6% Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (1910451) Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic 14,390 4% Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (1910550) Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas- 14,115 4% fir Forest and Woodland (1911661) Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine 7,888 2% Woodland and Parkland (1910460) Other 43,008 13%
Fire Regimes in the RRLW The fire regime concept is used to describe the fire frequency, behavior, ecological effects, seasonality, pattern, and type for a given ecosystem or vegetation type. Based upon the most current fire regime classification system, each BpS corresponds to a unique fire regime outlined and described in Table 17.
66 Table 17: Natural Fire Regimes and Descriptions (Schmidt et al. 2002) Regime Frequency Severity Severity Description I 0-35 years Low/Mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25% of the dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixed-severity fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory. II 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation. III 35-200 years Mixed/Low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires. IV 35-200 years Replacement High-severity fires. V 200+ years Replacement/ Generally replacement-severity; can include any severity type in Any severity this frequency range.
Mountain Big Sagebrush (Bps 1911250 & 1911260) Fire Regime: Mountain big sagebrush dominated communities are found above about 7000 feet in elevation, and on sites that annually receive 12-20 inches of effective precipitation. This vegetative community is characterized by fire regime Group I. Fire is a major disturbance factor for mountain big sagebrush and likely played a large role in maintaining this habitat as a sagebrush/grassland. Periodic fire restricted conifer establishment on sites capable of supporting trees, and held in check the conversion of sagebrush habitat to forest habitat. Mountain big sagebrush has the fastest recovery rate of the three subspecies of big sagebrush. Fire size for this type is larger than other big sagebrush species because of greater fine fuel load, but some unburned pockets remain after fires, often resulting in a patchy mosaic. The fire return intervals vary from 10-200 years. However, estimating historic fire regimes for sagebrush ecosystems is tenuous at best and often based on fire scar and age structure data from adjacent forest types, shrub age structure and fuel characteristics. Fire regimes also vary considerably across the range of mountain big sagebrush, based on factors like elevation, soil depth, slope, aspect, adjacent vegetation, frequency of lightning and climate. While the majority of fires were likely stand- replacing, some mixed severity fire may have occurred. Mixed severity fires were likely small in area, but ignitions may have occurred as frequently as 5-20 years. There were probably also portions of this system that never carried fire because of sparse fuel. Historic fires likely occurred during the summer months and were wind driven events. Lightning ignitions are variable and affect fire frequency on regional landscapes in the Northern Rockies. Fire may spread from adjacent forested communities. Mountain big sagebrush does not re-sprout following fire and re-colonization of burned areas must come from either a short-lived seed bank or seed dispersed by plants in unburned patches or adjacent stands.
Current Conditions: The mountain big sagebrush stratum is moderately departed from reference conditions due to fire exclusion and the effects of abundant conifer expansion. Three-tip sagebrush is found in localized areas throughout the watershed and occurs commonly in the southern portion of the Snowline area. Three-tip sagebrush re-sprouts after fire. The proportions of mid- to late-development mountain big sagebrush are near reference conditions, however the early development sagebrush component is lacking throughout the watershed. Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper trees are establishing in a many areas and are converting former sagebrush habitat into closed canopy forest habitat
67 Rocky Mountain Subalpine/Upper Montane Riparian Systems (BpS 1911600) Fire Regime: The highest elevation forest types in this watershed are dominated by five-needle pines, subalpine fir, Engleman spruce and lodgepole pine. This forest type is characterized by Fire Regime Groups III and IV, primarily long-interval (100-200+ year) mixed severity (25-75% top kill) and stand replacement fires. Ignitions are frequent due to lightning, though fires seldom carry due to lack of fuel from the slow-growing vegetation. Nonlethal surface fires may be possible where short grasses provide a continuous ground fuel; individual tree torching is more common. Climate variability and slow fuel loading could extend the stand-replacing fire interval to many hundreds of years.
Current Conditions: The subalpine forest stratum is within the range of variation for its natural fire regime. Fire has not recently affected large portions of this forest type in this area, which has led to predominantly mid to late-development stands. However, most of the limber pine is being affected by both white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle. White pine blister rust is not a native disease agent; therefore the current limber pine die-off is creating an uncharacteristic condition. Mortality caused by these agents will increase fuel loading and will lead to more open stands dominated by tree species not susceptible to blister rust or pine beetle. Even with increased fuel loading, many fires that start in these high elevation stands will continue to be inhibited from spreading by rock, scree and green and/or sparse vegetation. Fires that start in lower elevation, drier forest types may affect the fringes of the subalpine forest.
Douglas-fir Forest (BpS’s 1910451 and 1911661) Fire Regime: The Douglas-fir forest in this watershed is best characterized by Fire Regime Groups I and III. Fires were predominantly surface and mixed-severity, with a mean fire interval of 7-80 years. Occasional stand replacement fires may also occur. Much of the Douglas-fir forest is on dry, south-facing slopes at the sagebrush-forest interface and was historically affected by fires in adjacent vegetation. Abundant evidence of past fires is present in the lower elevation, mature Douglas-fir timber stands, primarily in the form of fire scars on large diameter relic trees. The low frequency and wide spacing of existing relic trees and stumps in these stands indicates historic low-severity fires likely promoted and maintained a fairly open Douglas-fir forest. Mixed-severity fires occurred primarily in denser stands, and at higher elevations. The mean fire interval in these stands was lengthened, with slightly more late-development, closed- canopy forest structure. Douglas-fir increases in canopy density in the absence of fire disturbance. Much of this landscape today has canopy cover denser than the historic range of variability. Canopy closure of >80% in this BpS is considered uncharacteristic. Many of the young, dense Douglas-fir stands (<100 years old) in this watershed have sagebrush skeletons on the ground, which indicates these sites were previously dominated by sagebrush.
Current Conditions: The Douglas-fir forest stratum is moderately to severely departed from reference conditions due to altered stand structure. Past timber harvesting followed by more than a century of fire exclusion has promoted an increase of dense, single age-class Douglas-fir forest. Herbaceous understory vegetation is sparse in many stands due to nearly complete canopy closure.
68 Subalpine-Spruce Forest (BpS 1910550 & 1910460) Fire Regime: The whitebark pine and Englemann spruce-dominated forests are found at higher elevations or on cooler, moister aspects than Douglas-fir forests. These forest types are characterized by Fire Regime Groups IV or III; primarily moderately long-interval mixed and stand replacement fires. Lightning strikes are frequent, but will often result in small, patchy spot fires. The low elevation extent of this forest type was likely affected by the more frequent fire intervals of the adjacent, drier Douglas-fir forest. More moist sites, or sites protected from fire by topographic features have much longer fire intervals, possibly up to 600 years. Fire sizes ranged widely from single tree spot fires, to many thousands of acres. In 5 needle sites consisting of whitebark pine fire size is limited by lack of ground fuels. Variability of climate, topography and other site factors can result in a wide range of representation of successional stages on the landscape. Fire regimes in this system are strongly related to climatic cycles. Long-term changes in climate as well as inter-annual climate variability will affect the frequency of fire in this system and its distribution along an elevational gradient. Current Conditions: The subalpine-spruce forest stratum is predominantly within the range of variation for its natural fire regime. Fire has not recently affected large portions of this forest type in this area. The current fuel loading is sufficient to propagate stand replacing fire in many areas, but only under very dry, and windy conditions. Fuel loading is anticipated to increase in whitebark pine and lodgepole pine stands as a result of recent beetle and/or blister rust caused mortality. Fire Regime Condition Class Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a general index providing two pieces of information: the historic fire regime group, and the condition class. Fire Regime Groups are described in the previous section and summarized in Table 18 below. Condition class reflects the degree of ecological departure when current conditions are compared against modeled reference conditions in terms of two main ecosystem components: fire regime and associated vegetation. This departure is from changes to one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). Three fire regime condition classes have been defined (Schmidt et al. 2002) based on the following criteria: FRCC 1 represents ecosystems with low (<33 percent) departure and that are still within an estimated historical range of variation as determined by modeling for the pre- Euro-American era; FRCC 2 indicates ecosystems with moderate (33 to 66 percent) departure; and FRCC 3 indicates ecosystems with high (>66 percent) departure (Hann and Bunnell 2001; Hardy et al. 2001, and Schmidt et al. 2002). A low departure indicates current conditions are characteristic of those occurring in the natural fire regime and associated vegetation. A high departure indicates uncharacteristic conditions that did not occur within the natural fire regime. The following table represents the seven most dominant BpS by existing FRCC as well as the FRCC rating for the watershed as a whole. Condition classes were assessed using LANDFIRE (2013) data.
69 Table 18: FRCC Summary of RRLW (All Ownership) Fire Regime Condition Condition Condition Biophysical Setting Total Acres Group (I-V) Class 1 (ac) Class 2 (ac) Class 3 (ac) Inter-mountain basins I 2,767 98,090 5,267 106,124 montane sagebrush steppe (1911260) Inter-mountain basins I 89,232 993 141 90,366 big sagebrush steppe (19111250) Rocky Mountain III & IV 28,022 4,450 215 32,687 Subalpine/Upper Montane Riparian (1911600) Northern Rocky III &IV 941 5,276 12,818 19,035 Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (1910451) Rocky Mountain IV 13,313 863 137 14,313 Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (1910550) Middle Rocky Mountain III 745 13,022 340 14,107 Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland (1911661) Northern Rocky III & IV 7,173 374 134 7,681 Mountain Subalpine Woodland and Parkland (1910460) Other BpS acres not included in FRCC assessment 16,126 Total Acres 142,193 123,068 19,052 284,313 % of Watershed 50% 43% 7%
Noxious Weeds and Cheatgrass Infestations Noxious weeds are defined in the Montana Weed Management Plan as “plants of foreign origin that can directly or indirectly injure agriculture, navigation, fish or wildlife, or public health.” Currently there are 38 weeds on the statewide noxious weed list that infest about 7.6 million acres in Montana. Of these 38 weeds, three are of major concern in the RRLW: leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale). Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), another state declared noxious weed, is also found throughout the RRLW. It is widespread throughout the Dillon Field Office and mostly found in riparian areas making treatment difficult.
Leafy spurge, an aggressive perennial, is found in three small infestations in the RRLW. The first is a small infestation that was discovered by the assessment team in the southeast corner of Allotment E. Another infestation is found in a dry wash in sections 26 and 35 in the southern portion of the Cedar Creek allotment, where ownership changes from BLM to State. The third is the largest infestation and is located on state land within the Shoshone Cove allotment. These two infestation have been aggressively treated by both Beaverhead County and the BLM since 2003, and in 2017 only a few scattered plants were found.
70
Spotted knapweed, a biennial or short-lived perennial, is one of the more aggressive noxious weeds in the area administered by the Dillon Field Office. A large infestation (200 acres) was found in 2002 in the Bell Canyon allotment. This infestation was initially treated by helicopter in 2002 and again in 2005 with ground treatments applied by both BLM and Beaverhead county crews in the years since. A reduction in infestation size has been seen but due to the ruggedness of the terrain, new satellite infestations have been found in the area. Other infestations are mostly small in size and are found scattered throughout the watershed, primarily along roads accessible to the public. Due to its location, the potential is high for knapweed to be spread by vehicles, livestock, wildlife, recreation and other activities.
Houndstongue, a noxious weed that is toxic to animals due to high levels of alkaloids contained in the plant, is found scattered in trace amounts in various locations within the watershed along roads, trails, and streams. Because of its seeds ability to cling to hair and clothing, the potential is high for it to be spread rapidly within the watershed.
There are four other noxious weeds that have been found in the RRLW that have the potential to impact the watershed if allowed to spread. They are; yellow starthistle, rush skeletonweed, dyer’s woad and a yellow – dalmatian toadflax hybrid. Yellow starthistle was found in June of 2010 in the Limekiln canyon area by a hiker. It was pulled and the area sprayed and inventoried and to this date no other plants have been found. Rush skeletonweed was found in 2015 in the median of Interstate 15 south of Snowline exit by a county spray crew. It appeared that the plant had probably went to seed the year before but the area has been inventoried for the past two years and no new plants have been found. Dyer’s woad is found in about a half mile wide area centered on the railroad tracks from Lima to Snowline. This infestation has been aggressively treated by hand-pulling and with herbicide at least three times a year since the early 90’s. The number of plants found has steadily declined with only 518 plants being found with none having produced seed. The toadflax hybrid, which is a cross between yellow and dalmatian with traits of both plants, was found about 2.5 miles north of the Monida interchange along the frontage road. Despite this plant showing some resistance to herbicide the infestation size and density has steadily decreased.
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), an invasive annual grass, has established and is spreading into disturbed areas, as well as drier south facing slopes in areas naturally devoid of vegetation, throughout the RRLW. Infestations were observed by the IDT during the 2007 and 2017 field assessments along stream corridors and adjacent uplands, specifically on warm south or west facing slopes. It is an extremely competitive early cool season species that flourishes in disturbed sites. Old mining sites, roads, construction locations, burned areas and other disturbed areas allow cheatgrass to become established. Once established, cheatgrass, a winter annual, has the potential to change (shorten) the fire return interval because it dries out in early summer and becomes a fine, flashy fuel. It tends to form monocultures, displacing native vegetation and adversely affecting habitat quality and biodiversity. Seed sources are present throughout most of the watershed so there is high potential for it to spread into additional areas of natural and/or human-caused disturbance.
71 In 2009 the BLM aerially treated 100 acres of cheatgrass in the Bell Canyon allotment. This treatment was followed up the following spring with a planting of native seed (blue bunch wheatgrass). When this site was revisited by the IDT it was noted that the treatment had little to no effect with the size and density of the infestation remaining about the same as in 2007. The failure of this treatment can probably be attributed to many causal factors including: application using to low of a water volume so that the herbicide didn’t penetrate through the duff layer to the soil, lack of a follow up to the treatment, and timing of the treatment. A treatment done during the same time period on Bureau of Reclamation managed land near Clark Canyon Reservoir had about a 70% control rate initially but was followed up with a spring treatment of Glyphosate (Roundup), which increased the control to almost 100%. In 2017, this site is showing some reestablishment coming from the highway but overall is still cheatgrass free.
Since 1989, BLM has been involved in cooperative control efforts with Beaverhead County. Private land owners in the RRLW have also been involved in control efforts. Throughout this period, the goal has been to prevent new noxious weed infestations and control or eradicate existing infestations in Beaverhead County using Integrated Pest Management.
Table 19 shows the herbicide treatments applied in the RRLW, including aerial treatments during the past five years. The acres treated that are referred to in the table are the actual acres of weeds treated if they were all gathered together into one location. The total area that these weeds cover is a lot larger. In the table, the acres inventoried is an estimation of the total number of acres within the watershed that were covered during the treatment process.
Table 19: Weed Treatments within the RRLW Year Acres Treated Acres Inventoried 2013 125 7000 2014 50 5900 2015 45 5500 2016 40 6000+ 2017 50 6500+ In 2013 the BLM along with the Montana Department of Transportation and the Snowline Grazing Association aerially treated 150 acres (80 on BLM) of spotted knapweed along the interstate just south of Lima in an area that is hard to access by other means.
Due to the scattered nature of the infestations, the harshness of the climate and the elevation of the valley, no biological controls have been released. However, a release of both a seed head weevil (Larinus minutus) and a root boring weevil (Cyphocleonus achates) is being considered in the Bell Canyon allotment for spotted knapweed.
Recommendations for Biodiversity 1. Work with MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks to expand and/or re-establish genetically pure WCT populations within the RRLW. 2. Expand the current livestock exclosure along Stream Reach #915 on Little Sheep Creek. 3. Modify or remove dysfunctional fences and those not built to wildlife-friendly specifications.
72 4. Increase signage to designate closed roads since they are routinely traveled and increase enforcement of travel management for big game security and habitat. 5. Work with mobile media maps/companies to label open routes for phone apps and GPS cards. 6. Remove juniper and Douglas-fir from mountain mahogany, riparian shrubs, and sagebrush grasslands to retain these habitats for wildlife. 7. Consider planting mountain mahogany with the objective to retain this declining species on the landscape. 8. Continue to address localized weed infestations cooperatively with Beaverhead County, other landowners, and partners as appropriate. Continue the existing education effort on weed identification with permittee’s/ lessee’s and other public land users. 9. Limit any ground disturbance activities that may increase the risk of noxious weed invasion. Where disturbance does occur, use BMPs to mitigate the chance of noxious weed establishment. 10. Release biocontrol insects on the spotted knapweed in the Bell Canyon allotment and monitor yearly to see if they become established. 11. Develop a plan to treat the cheatgrass infestations with in the watershed. Include in the plan follow up treatments and monitoring to make sure progress is being made. 12. Work with Beaverhead County to control the existing infestations of Dyer’s woad and hybridized toadflax. 13. Continue with Beaverhead County to encourage the neighboring counties in Idaho to share weed location data. This will help to identify possible areas that are at risk of invasion by yellow starthistle and rush skeletonweed. 14. Explore opportunities to enhance/improve/protect “Priority Habitats” such as aspen, mahogany, whitebark pine and limber pine. 15. Consider commercial and non-commercial harvest to salvage timber stands currently affected by forest insects and diseases, or to improve forest health conditions based on historic composition, structure and density.
Additional Programs, Issues and/or Concerns Recreation and Travel Management. As a result of the 2006 Dillon Field Office RMP as amended, public motorized wheeled vehicle use is limited to those routes designated as open. All other routes are considered closed to motorized travel, with few exceptions to accommodate administration of authorizations, to access private lands, or other limited circumstances. Travel management will continue to be implemented as prescribed in the 2006 Dillon RMP as amended. Roads identified as open to public use will be signed with a white arrow symbol on a flexible sign post. Roads not identified as open to public use would be:
Left unsigned unless there is evidence of regular use.
Signed closed if there is evidence of regular use.
73 If signing is ineffective at discouraging use, roads would be obliterated to the extent possible (made unnoticeable), at least at the intersection with an open route, or physically closed when continued use is causing significant unacceptable resource impacts or user conflicts. Corrections of mapping errors in the original route designations in the 2006 Dillon RMP as amended, and other minor adjustments to route designations will be made through this watershed assessment process and specified in the environmental assessment and decision record. Travel management issues are a concern in RRLW, although not as significant as in other watersheds. The watershed assessment process provides an appropriate avenue to refine those decisions due to the area specific focus across multiple resources. Any potential modifications will be considered and analyzed in a subsequent environmental assessment. Recreation and Travel Management Recommendations 1. Analyze, and make necessary adjustments to motorized route designations where concerns were documented and/or where errors were found. 2. Consider installing culverts or other appropriate structures where frequently traveled roads intersect perennial streams within the watershed. 3. Consider options to increase compliance with travel management and reduce off-road or closed road motorized vehicle use. Consider and/or analyze the following actions: press releases prior to big game hunting, more accurate and accessible maps, more visible and effective patrols, increased law enforcement, more durable signs, blocking or obliterating roads where signing is not working, citizens watch groups, interpretive signs/education at access points. 4. Discuss and analyze where to physically close or obliterate roads due to noncompliance with signing. 5. Continue to look for opportunities to retain or improve access to public land.
Interdisciplinary Team Composition Core IDT Members for the RRLW assessment: Dustin Crowe, Rangeland Management Specialist and ID Team Leader Pat Fosse, Assistant Field Manager-Renewable Resources Katie Benzel, Wildlife Biologist Sean Claffey, Hydrologist Joe Sampson, Fire Management Specialist Ashley Durham, Forestry Technician
Support IDT members: Kelly Savage, Rangeland Management Specialist (Special Status Species) Paul Hutchinson, Fisheries Biologist Michael Mooney, Weed Specialist Jason Strahl, Archeologist Chris McGrath, Outdoor Recreation Planner Steven Lubinski, Geologist
74 Laurie Blinn, GIS Specialist Brandy Janzen, Soil Scientist Dave Ruppert, Soil Scientist, U.S. Forest Service
Other Resource Members Involved: Berett Erb, Range Technician Whitney Morrison, Range Technician Kyle Hauns, Range Technician Adrianna Pittman, Range Technician Thoneta Bond, Wildlife Technician Matt Kasprzak, Wildlife Technician Stella Rose Scheel, CLM Intern Jed Berry, Fisheries Technician Floyd Thompson, Montana/Dakota’s State Office Range Program Lead Wendy Velman, Montana/Dakota’s State Office Botany Program Lead Ken Reed, Montana/Dakota’s State Office Forestry Program Lead Melissa Hovey, Montana/Dakota’s State Air Resource Specialist Carmella Romerio, Montana/Dakota’s State Office Planning and Environmental Specialist
GLOSSARY OF TERMS Animal Unit- A 1,000-pound cow, with or without an un-weaned calf, with such a cow consuming 26 pounds of forage dry matter per day.
Animal Unit Month- The amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” (AU) grazing for one month.
Anticline: In structural geology, an anticline is a fold that is convex up and has its oldest beds at its core. Anthropogenic: Caused or influenced by humans. Bankfull stage: “The bankfull stage corresponds to the discharge at which channel maintenance is most effective, that is, the discharge at which moving sediment, forming or removing bars, forming or changing bends and meanders, and generally doing the work that results in the average morphologic characteristics of channels.” Dunne and Leopold (1978). Census County Division: Census county divisions (CCDs) are geographic statistical subdivisions of counties established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and officials of state and local governments in states where minor civil divisions (MCDs) either do not exist or are unsatisfactory for census purposes. Channel stability: the ability of the stream, over time, to transport the flows and sediment of its watershed in such a manner that the dimension, pattern and profile of the river is maintained without either aggrading nor degrading.
75 Critical Shear Stress: For a fluid to begin transporting sediment that is currently at rest on a surface, the boundary (or bed) shear stress exerted by the fluid must exceed the critical shear stress for the initiation of motion of grains at the bed. This is typically represented by a comparison between a dimensionless shear stress ( ) and a dimensionless critical shear stress ( ). The nondimensionalization is in order to compare the driving forces of particle motion (shear stress) to the resisting forces that would make it stationary (particle density and size). This dimensionless shear stress, , is called the Shields parameter. Critical shear stress: the Shields diagram empirically shows how the dimensionless critical shear stress required for the initiation of motion is a function of a particular form of the particle Reynolds number, or Reynolds number related to the particle. Desired Condition: A desired condition is a description of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be determined, but do not include completion dates (36 CFR 219.7(e)(1)(i)). Ecological Sites: a distinctive kind of land with specific characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation. (USDA Definition). Entrenchment: the vertical containment of river and the degree to which it is incised in the valley floor. Entrenchment ratio: a quantitative expression of the ratio of the flood prone width to the bankfull width. Flood prone width: width measured at an elevation which is determined at twice the bankfull depth. Forest land: land that is now, or has the potential of being, at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees (based on crown closures) or 16.7 percent stocked (based on tree stocking). Functional at risk (FAR): riparian wetland areas that are functional, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA): Encompass habitat that is outside of Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA). GHMA contain approximately 10 percent of the occupied leks that are also of relatively low male attendance compared to leks in PHMA. GHMA are generally characterized by lower quality disturbed or patchy habitat of low lek connectivity. Greenline: that specific area where a more or less continuous cover of vegetation is encountered when moving away from the center of an observable channel. The greenline is often, but not necessarily, located at the water’s edge. Hummocking: a form of micro-topographic relief characterized by raised pedicels of vegetated soil as much as 0.6 m (2ft) higher than the surrounding ground which results from long term large animal trampling and tracking in soft soil. Vegetation on the pedicels usually differs from that on the surrounding lower area due to moisture difference between the two levels. Hummocking is also caused by abnormal hydrologic heaving.
76 Hydric soil: soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydrophyte: Any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Hydrologic Unit: The USGS has developed a system of geographic units based upon watersheds. These units were originally subdivided to four levels. Subsequently two additional subdivisions have been developed. Currently there are six levels, with the sixth being the smallest unit. Lacustrine: from the French “lacustre” or lake. Permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, generally over 20 acres, exhibiting wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features. (Cowardin et al., 1979). Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: those lands that have been inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act. These are separate from lands already designated as wilderness or wilderness study areas. Lentic: standing or still water such as lakes and ponds. Lotic: flowing or actively moving water such as rivers and streams. Nonpoint source pollution: pollution originating from diffuse sources (land surface or atmosphere) having no well-defined source. Palustrine: from the Latin "palus" or marsh. All non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, emergent mosses or lichens. (Cowardin et al., 1979) Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA): PHMA have the highest conservation value for greater sage grouse, based on the presence of larger leks, habitat extent, important movement and connectivity corridors, and winter habitat. They include adequate area to accommodate existing land uses and landowner activities. Proper functioning condition (PFC): Lotic riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in proper functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:
Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; Improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; Support greater biodiversity Riparian –wetland areas can function properly before they achieve their potential. The PFC definition does not mean potential or optimal conditions have been achieved. Pugging: the small depressions and areas of compaction in saturated soils caused by the hoof action of animals.
77 Riparian zone: the banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, water coursed, seeps, and springs whose waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of that otherwise available locally so as to provide a moister habitat than that of contiguous flood plains and uplands. Rosgen Classification System: A classification system for natural rivers in which a morphological arrangement of stream characteristics is organized into relatively homogeneous stream types. Morphologically similar stream reaches are divided into 7 major stream type categories that differ in entrenchment, gradient, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity in various landforms. Within each major category are six additional types delineated by dominant channel materials from bedrock to silt/clay along a continuum of gradient ranges. Spring brook: a channel that carries water from a spring. Where there is sufficient flow, the channel forms a perennial stream. Frequently in arid environments, the flow is insufficient to create a perennial stream. Groundwater emerges at the springhead, flows a short distance within the spring brook, and then submerges. Spring province: a group of springs in close geographical proximity. Stream power: Stream power is the rate of energy dissipation against the bed and banks of a river or stream per unit downstream length. It is given by the equation: where Ω is the stream power, ρ is the density of water (1000 kg/m3), g is acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2), Q is discharge (m3/s), and S is the channel slope. Unit stream power is stream power per unit channel width, and is given by the equation: where ω is the unit stream power, and b is the width of the channel. Stream power is used extensively in models of landscape evolution and river incision.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. The law requires that states establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop TMDLs for these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. TMDL Planning Areas: Montana DEQ is using a watershed approach to address TMDLs based on the premise that water quality restoration and protection are best addressed through integrated efforts within a defined geographic area. DEQ has divided the state into 91 watershed planning areas to facilitate development of TMDL/water quality restoration plans. Wilderness Characteristics: These attributes include the area’s size, its apparent naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also include supplemental values. Woodland: forest communities occupied primarily by noncommercial species such as juniper, mountain mahogany, or quaking aspen groves. All western juniper forest lands are classified as woodlands, since juniper is classified as a noncommercial species. Woodland tree and shrub canopy cover varies, but generally individual plant crowns do not overlap.
78
REFERENCES-Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of this Document.
Alfaro, R.I., and R.F. Shepherd. 1991. Tree-ring growth of interior Douglas-fir after one year’s defoliation by Douglas-fir tussock moth. Forest Science 37(3): 959–64. Aspen Forest and Woodland — Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program Retrieved on November 16, 2017, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=4104 Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski, C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167, pp. 233- 241. BCI. 1996. Bat Conservation International, Inc. Bats of America. Austin, TX.
Boyd, D., J. Gude, B. Inman, N. Lance, A. Messer, A. Nelson, T. Parks, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber, and J. Vore. 2017. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 71 pages. Boyd, Karen. 2011. Memorandum: Clark Canyon Creek Field Visit. To: Matt Jaeger, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. From: Karin Boyd, Applied Geomorphology, Inc. 211 N Grand Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715.September 13, 2011. Casey, D. 2013. Conservation Strategies for the Long-billed Curlew. American Bird Conservancy, Kalispell, MT. 35pp.
Clancy, K.M. 1993. Research approaches to understanding the roles of insect defoliators in forest ecosystems. In Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management, pp. 211–17. USDA General Technical Report RM-247. Coppedge, B. R., D. M. Engle, R. E. Masters, and M. S. Gregory. 2001. Avian response to landscape change in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands. Ecological Applications 11: 47-59.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/Classification-of-Wetlands-and- Deepwater-Habitats-of-the-United-States.pdf or http://mtnhp.org/nwi/Cowardin.pdf
79 De Staso, J., and F. J. Rahel. 1994. Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:289-297
Dietz, D. R.; Nagy, J. G. 1976. Mule deer nutrition and plant utilization. In: G.W. Workman, and J.B. Low (eds). Mule deer decline in the West: A symposium. p. 71-78.. Coll. Natur. Resour. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta., Logan.
Dunham, J.B., Peacock, M.M., Rieman, B.E., Schroeter, R.E. & Vinyard, G.L. 1999. Local and geographic variability in the distribution of stream-living Lahontan cutthroat trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 0:000-000.
Englestead, D. 2017. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Upper Snake Field Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Fellin D.G., Dewey, J.E. 1982 Western spruce budworm. USDA Forest Servie. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 53.
Fletcher, Robert H. (1960). Free Grass to Fences. University Publishers Inc.
Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.
Hadley, K.S. and Veblen, T.T. 1993. Stand response to western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreaks, Colorado Front Range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:479-491. Hann, W.J., and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:389-403 Hansen, P.L., R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J. Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana’s Riparian and Wetland Sites. Misc. Publication No. 54. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Missoula, MT. Hardy, C.C., K.M. Schmidt, J.M. Menakis, and N.R. Samson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10:353-372. Haroldson, M.A., F.T. van Manen, and D.D. Bjornlie. 2017. Estimating Number of Females with Cubs. Pages 15-24 in F.T. van Manen, M.A. Haroldson, and B.E. Karabensh, editors. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2016. U.S. Geological Survey, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Howard, J.L. 1996. Populus tremuloides. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2009, November 6].
Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land
80 Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp.
Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, and K.L. Preston. 2013. Modeling ecological minimum requirements for distribution of greater sage-grouse leks: implications for population connectivity across their western range, USA. Ecology and Evolution 3(6): 1539-1551.
Malone, Michael P., Richard B. Roeder, William L. Lang (1991 rev). Montana: A History of Two Centuries. University of Washington Press, 157p.
Means, R.E. 2010. Synthesis of lower treeline limber pine (Pinus flexilis) woodland knowledge, research needs, and management considerations. Pp. 29-36 In: Proceedings of the high five symposium on the future of high-elevation, five-needle white pines in western North America, Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Murray, M.P., and Smith, C.M. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-P-63. MFWP. 2004. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Montana Draft Elk Management Plan. Hamlin, K. L. (ed). Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, Montana. MFWP. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2009. Greater Sage-grouse Core Areas Designation for Montana Version 1.0. Definition, Methods, and Numerical Results.
MFWP. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks 2013. Angler Pressure 2013 Summary Report. Available at http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/anglingData/anglingPressureSurveys/2013.html MFWP. 2015. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Brucellosis. Available at http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/brucellosis/default.html. [November, 2015]. MT DEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality), Water Quality Planning Section, Watershed Protection Bureau. 2012. Beaverhead Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads and Framework Water Quality Protection Plan. July 2012 MNHP. 2017a. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Montana Field Guide. Available at http://fielduide.mt.gov. [2017, November]. MNHP. 2017b. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Natural Heritage Map Viewer. Available at http://mtnhp.org/mapviewer/. [2017, November].
Novinger, D. C. 2000. Reversals in competitive ability: do cutthroat trout have a thermal refuge from competition with brook trout? Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie
Waltee, D. 2017. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Sheridan, Montana. Fager, C. 2017. Personal Communication. Wildlife Biologist. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Dillon, Montana.
81 O'Brien, M., Rogers, P.C., Mueller, K., MacWhorter, R., Rowley, R., Hopkins, B., Christensen, B. & Dremann, P. 2010. Guidelines for aspen restoration on the National Forests in Utah. Western Aspen Alliance, Utah State University, Logan, UT. Reinkensmeyer, D. P., R. F. Miller, R. G. Anthony, and V. E. Marr. 2007. Avian community structure along a mountain big sagebrush successional gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1057-1066.
Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.
Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine - Juniper Woodland. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program Retrieved onNovember 16, 2017, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=4236 Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland — Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-Fir Forest and Woodland. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program Retrieved on November 15, 2017, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=4266 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on November 15, 2017, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/displayES_Detail.aspx?ES=4243 Rogers, P. 2002. Using forest health monitoring to assess aspen forest cover change in the southern Rockies ecore- gion. Forest Ecology and Management 155:233-23. Rosenstock, S. S., and C. Van Riper III. 2001. Breeding bird responses to juniper woodland expansion. Journal of Range Management 54: 226-232.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, Vol 22: 169-199 Elsevier Science, B.V. Amsterdam.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen D. and L. Silvey. 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Second edition ISBN 0-9653289-1-0. Sanford, Paul. 2013. Final Technical Report: Clark Canyon Creek Sediment Reduction Project, Beaverhead Count, MT. Submitted to: Beaverhead Watershed Committee. Presented by: Allied Engineering Service, Inc. 32 Discovery Dr. Bozeman, MT 59718. January 15, 2013.
Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO
82
Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106: 363-376.
Servheen, C., S. Eggeman, and R. Shoemaker. 2010. Surveying for grizzly bear presence in the Beaverhead Mountains of Montana and Idaho Final Report. College of Forestry and Conservation. University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812.
SGI. 2017. Sage Grouse Initiative. Taking the Bias Out of Grass Height Measurements. Science to Solutions Series Number 15. Sage Grouse Initiative. 4pp. sagegrouseinitiative.com/ taking-bias-out-sage-grouse-nesting-studies.
Sieg, Carolyn Hull. 1991. Rocky Mountain juniper woodlands: year-round avian habitat. Res. Pap. RM-296. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.
Steinberg, P.D. 2002. Psuedotsuga menziesii var. glauca. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2009, November 6].
Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. Sage- Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado.
USDA, NRCS. 2015 Horse Prairie-South Valley Area Part of Beaverhead County, Montana, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online at: http://sdmdataaccess.nrcs.usda.gov/. Survey Area Version Date: 09/28/2015.
USDA, NRCS. 2017. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 15 November 2017). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. USDI. 1999. Bureau of Land Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lentic Areas - TR 1737-16, revised 2003. USDI. 2001. Bureau of Land Management. A Guide to Managing, Restoring, and Conserving Springs in the Western United States-TR 1737-17.USDI. 2004. Bureau of Land Management. USDI. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Columbia Basin District population segment of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) as endangered. Federal Register 68:10388-10409.
83 USDI. 2005. United States Department of the Interior. Proposed Dillon Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I.
USDI. 2014a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule. Vol. 79, No. 177. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.
USDI. 2014b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.
USDI. 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. USDI. 2015b. Bureau of Land Management. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas - TR 1737-15. USDI. 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule for the North American Wolverine. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17. Vol. 81, No. 201. October 18, 2016. Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0106; 4500030114.
USDI. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17.
USDI. 2015. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.
Werner, J. K., B. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.
With, K.A. 2010. McCown's Longspur (Rhynchophanes mccownii), 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/096
YGCC. 2017. Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee. 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
84 Appendix A A List of Known Plants Found On or Near BLM Lands Within the Red Rock Lima Watershed And Wildlife Species List
(Plant scientific names and alphanumeric codes presented in the following table correspond to those found in the NRCS PLANTS Database; and the Synthesis of the North American Flora. Plant common names are generally those listed for the State of Montana in the above references unless BLM resource specialists are aware of a more frequently used locally accepted plant name.) Common Name Scientific Name USDA Common Scientific Name USDA A-L Symbol Name L-Y Symbol Agoseris Agoseris spp AGOSE Lupine Lupinus spp. LUPIN Alfalfa Medicago sativa MESA Mealy Primula incana PRIN primrose Alpine Forget-me- Eritrichium spp. ERITR Meadow Hordeum HORR2 not Barley brachyantherum Alpine Timothy Phleum alpinum PHAL2 Montana Thermopsis montana THMO6 Sweet Pea Alumroot Heuchera spp. HEUCH Mountain Big Artemisia tridentata ARTRV Sagebrush ssp. vaseyana
American Bistort Polygonum POBI6 Mountain Bromus carinatus BRCA5 bistortoies Brome Baltic Rush Juncus arcticus ssp. JUARL Mountain Symphoricarpos SYOR2 littoralis Snowberry oreophilus Basin Big Artemisia tridentata ARTRT Musk Thistle Carduus nutans CANU4 Sagebrush ssp. tridentata
Basin Wildrye Leymus cinereus LECI4 Narrowleaf Populus angustifolia POAN3 Cottonwood Beaked Sedge Carex utriculata CAUT Nebraska Carex nebrascensis CANE2 Sedge Bearded wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus ELTRT Nodding Bromus anomalus BRAN ssp. trachycaulus Brome
Bebb Willow Salix bebiana SABE2 Northwestern Packera conterminal PACO53 groundsel Bitterroot Lewisia rediviva LERE7 Oniongrass Melica bulbosa MEBU Bitterroot milkvetch Astragalus ASSC4 Owl-clover Orthocarpus spp. ORTHO scaphoides Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera POBAT Phlox Phlox spp. PHLOX ssp. trichocarpa
Black Henbane Hyoscyamus nigar HYNI Pinegrass Calamagrostis CARU rubescens
A-1 Common Name Scientific Name USDA Common Scientific Name USDA A-L Symbol Name L-Y Symbol Black sagebrush Artemisia nova ARNO4 Plains Opuntia polyacantha OPPO Pricklypear Bladderwort Utricularia spp. UTRIC Planeleaf Salix planifolia SAPL2 Willow Blue Flax Linum perenne LIPE2 Prairie Koeleria macrantha KOMA Junegrass Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis BOGR2 Prairie smoke Geum triflorum GETR Bluebunch Pseudoroegneria PSSP6 Pussy-toes Antennaria spp. ANTEN Wheatgrass spicata Bluegrass Poa spp. POA Quaking Populus tremuloides POTR5 Aspen Bluejoint Reedgrass Calamagrostis CACA4 Railhead Astragalus terminalis ASTE9 canadensis milkvetch Booth’s Willow Salix boothii SABO2 Redoiser Cornus sericea ssp. COSES Dogwood sericea Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia GUSA2 Redtop Agrostis gigantean AGGI2 sarothrae Buckwheat Eriogonum spp. ERIOG Rocky Packera PAST10 Mountain streptanthifolia Groundsel Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare CIVU Rocky Iris missouriensis IRMI Mountain Iris Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense CIAR4 Rocky Juniperus scopulorum JUSC2 Mountain Juniper Chicken sage Sphaeromeria SPAR2 Rubber Ericameria nauseosa ERNA10 argentea Rabbitbrush Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum BRTE Rush Juncus spp. JUNCU Cinquefoil Potentilla spp. POTEN Sandberg Poa secunda POSE Bluegrass Clustered Field Carex praegracilis CAPR5 Sandwort Arenaria spp. ARENA Sedge Common Cattail Typha latifolia TYLA Scarlet Sphaeralcea coccinea SPCO Globe- mallow Common Dandelion Taraxacum TAOF Sedge Carex spp. CAREX officinale Common Juniper Juniperus communis JUCO6 Shy Erysimum ERIN7 Wallflower inconspicuum Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus VETH Short-fruited Salix brachycarpa SABR Willow Common Symphoricarpos SYAL Shrubby Dasiphora fruticosa DAFRF Snowberry albus Cinquefoil ssp. floribunda
Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium ACMI2 Silverweed Argentina anserine ARAN7 Cinquefoil Cow Parsnip Heracleum HEMA80 Silver Artemisia cana ARCA13 maximum Sagebrush Coyote Willow Salix exigua SAEX Slender Carex lasiocarpa CALA11 Sedge
A-2 Common Name Scientific Name USDA Common Scientific Name USDA A-L Symbol Name L-Y Symbol Creeping Catchfly Silene repens SIRE Slender Elymus trachycaulus ELTR7 Wheatgrass Creeping Juniper Juniperus JUHO2 Smooth Bromus inermis BRIN2 horizontalis Brome Curl-leaf Mountain Cercoarpus CELE3 Spike Fescue Leucopoa kingii LEKI2 Mahogany ledifolius
Currant Ribes spp. RIBES Spotted Centaurea stoebe ssp. CESTM Knapweed micranthos
Cutleaf daisy Erigeron compositus ERCO4 Spruce Picea spp. PICEA Deathcamas Zigadenus spp. ZIGAD Stemless Stenotus acaulis STAC Mock Goldenweed Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga PSME Sticky Geranium GEVI2 menziesii Geranium viscosissimum Drummond’s Salix drummondiana SADR Stiffleaf Penstemon aridus PEAR2 willow Penstemon Elephanthead Pedicularis PEGR2 Stonecrop Sedum spp. SEDUM groenlandica Elk thistle Cirsium foliosum CIFO Subalpine Fir Abies lasiocarpa ABLA Engelmann Spruce Picea engelmannii PIEN Sweetscented Galium triflorum GATR3 Bedstraw Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum HOJU Taper-tip Lomatium attenuatum LOAT Desert- parsley Fringed Sagewort Artemisia frigida ARFR4 Thick-spike Elymus lanceolatus ELLA3 Wheatgrass Gardner Saltbush Atriplex garneri ATGO Thinleaf Alnus incana ALIN2 Alder Geyer Willow Salix geyeriana SAGE2 Three-tip Artemisia tripartita ARTR4 Sagebrush Greasewood Sarcobatus SAVE4 Threadleaf Carex folifolia CAFI vermiculatus Sedge Green Needlegrass Nassella viridula NAVI4 Timothy Phleum pratense PHPR3 Green Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus CHVI8 Tufted Deschampsia 18-Dec vividiflorus Hairgrass cespitosa Grey Horsebrush Tetradymia TECA2 Water Birch Betula occidentalis BEOC2 canescens Heartleaf Arnica Arnica cordifolia ARCO9 Water Sedge Carex aquatilis CAAQ Houndstongue Cynoglossum CYOF Water Polygonum POAM8 officinale Smartweed amphibium Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis FEID Western Thalictrum THOC Meadow-rue occidentale Indian Paintbrush Castilleja spp. CASTI2 Western Pascopyrum smithii PASM Wheatgrass Idaho Sedge Carex idahoa CAID Western Achillea millefolium ACMIO Yarrow var. occidentalis
Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum ACHY White Clover Trifolium repens TRRE3 hymenoides
A-3 Common Name Scientific Name USDA Common Scientific Name USDA A-L Symbol Name L-Y Symbol Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis POPR White Artemisia ludoviciana ARLU Sagebrush Kinnikinick Arctostaphylos uva- ARUV Whitebark Pinus albicaulis PIAL ursi Pine Lemhi beardtongue Penstemon PELE8 Winterfat Krascheninnikovia KRLA2 lemhiensis lanata Lewis Flax Linum lewisii LILE3 Wyoming Artemisia tridentata ARTRW8 Big ssp. wyomingensis Sagebrush Limber Pine Pinus flexilis PIFL2 Yampa Perideridia gairdneri PEGA3
Limestone Larkspur Delphinium bicolor DEBIC Yellow Melilotus officinalis MEOF ssp. calcicola Sweetclover
Low Sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula ARARA Yellow Salix lutea SALU2 ssp. arbuscula Willow
WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST Birds
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) Cassin’s Finch (Carpodacus cassinii) American Robin (Turdus migratorius) Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) American Tree Sparrow (Spizelloides Cinnamon Teal (Spatula cyanoptera) arborea) Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga Columbiana) American Wigeon (Mareca americana) Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) Common Raven (Corvus corax) Black-billed Magpie (Pica hudsonia) Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) atricapillus) Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Black Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte atrata) Dusky Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri) Blue-winged Teal (Spatula discors) Dusky Grouse (Dendragapus obscures) Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) cyanocephalus) Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri) Gadwall (Mareca strepera) Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) Calliope Hummingbird (Stellula calliope) Gray Jay (Perisoreus Canadensis)
A-4 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) nuchalis) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius urophasianus) phoeniceus) Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) Hammond's Flycatcher (Empidonax Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) hammondii) Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) Sagebrush Sparrow (Artemisiospiza Hungarian Partridge/Gray Partridge (Perdix nevadensis) perdix) Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) Sandhill Crane (Antigone canadensis) Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) sandwichensis) Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) Steller's Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) MacGillivray's Warbler (Geothlypis tolmiei) Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) Merlin (Falco columbarius) Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides) Veery (Catharus fuscescens) Mountain Chickadee (Poecile gambeli) Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) thalassina) Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius) Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) Northern Rough-winged Swallow Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) sordidulus) Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) acadicus) White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) leucophrys) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) thyroideus) Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Wilson's Warbler (Cardellina pusilla) Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus)
A-5 Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata) Mammals
Badger (Taxidea taxus) Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) Beaver (Castor canadensis) Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) Black bear (Ursus americanus) Northern Pocket Gopher (Thomomys Black-tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus talpoides) californicus) Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) Bobcat (Lynx rufus) Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Columbian Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) columbianus) Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Coyote (Canis latrans) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Elk (Cervus elaphus) Short-tailed Weasel (Mustela erminea) Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris Gray wolf (Canis lupus) noctivagans) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus Least Chipmunk (Tamias minimus) townsendii) Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) Western Jumping Mouse (Zapus princeps) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Western small-footed myotis (Myotis Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) ciliolabrum) Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) White-tailed Jack Rabbit (Lepus townsendii) Marten (Martes americana) Yellow-bellied Marmot (Marmota Moose (Alces alces) flaviventris) Mountain Cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii) Amphibians and Reptiles Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata) Terrestrial gartersnake (Thamnophis Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) elegans) Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) Common gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Fish Brown Trout (salvelinus fontinalis) Rainbow Trout x Cutthroat hybrid Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus) (Oncorhynchus clarki x mykiss) Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii) Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus Mountain whitefish (Prosopium clarki lewisi) williamsoni) White sucker (Catostomus commersoni) Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
A-6
Appendix B Livestock Grazing Tools Available to Improve Resource Conditions
Rangeland health standards have been assessed on all 900,000 acres of BLM administered lands in the Dillon Field Office (DFO) on a ten year adaptive management schedule since 2002. Nearly all (>90%) of the uplands in the DFO met the BLM Upland standard signifying that AUMs authorized by BLM (stocking densities) are appropriate for most allotments across the field office. There are about 860 miles of streams and 854 separate stream reaches identified by BLM in the field office. Of these 854 reaches, about half met the BLM riparian health standard while about half failed to meet this standard. This failure to meet the BLM riparian health standard is typically due to the grazing period or length of time livestock are allowed access to the riparian area (Marlow 1991). Generally, livestock stocking density or AUMs authorized by BLM on an allotment is not the most important parameter affecting riparian health. Upland health standards on BLM allotments are highly dependent on the stocking density or stocking rate for the allotment. A stocking density or rate that is not in concert with the carrying capacity of the allotment will result in the allotment not meeting the Upland Health Standard. This is true for all allotments across the DFO. However, riparian systems are usually much more dynamic than uplands (USDI, 1998). Riparian health is dependent on a variety of key grazing attributes including Duration, Timing, Intensity and Frequency. These four terms have corresponding terms that the Society for Range Management calls: Grazing Period (the length of time that livestock are grazed on a specific area), Seasonal Grazing (Grazing restricted to a specific season or time of year), Stocking Density (Number of animals per unit area expressed as AUM/ac), and Frequency (Number of repeat grazing events in a pasture). Three other important grazing factors are: Palatability of Forage, Availability of Off-Stream Watering Sources and Class of Animal (Age and/or sex-group of a kind of animal). Grazing Period or Duration - The most critical aspect in any grazing plan for the protection of riparian areas is the Grazing Period or length of time cattle have access to a particular stream reach (Marlow 1991). Myers (1989) after reviewing 34 allotments in southwestern Montana, concluded, “Duration in grazing treatments becomes a key factor in determining the severity of damage”. He added that cattle have a tendency to gather at riparian areas and spend a considerable amount of time in the riparian area even when they are not feeding. Cattle spend a disproportionate amount of time in the riparian area and tend to over-utilize the forage that grows there (Clary and Webster 1989). This attrition to riparian areas by a small herd or a large herd of cattle has an important bearing on riparian management and its connection to Grazing Period duration and Stocking Density. Due to social factors associated with cattle dominance around a riparian area and the limited availability of space in the riparian area, it is understood that doubling the number of livestock in a pasture with a riparian area does not equate to doubling the grazing use in the riparian area. A relatively smaller number of livestock will usually graze the riparian area close to the same degree as a large number of livestock during the same period of
B-1 use. Therefore, decreasing the Grazing Period and increasing the Stocking Density in a pasture with riparian will generally benefit riparian conditions by reducing the use in the riparian area even when the same number of AUMs are grazed. This strategy of a reduced duration in a riparian pasture and an increased stocking density will improve the riparian system. Frequency or Number of Grazing Events- Frequency is simply the number of occurrences of a grazing event during a specified period of time or incorporation of non-grazing (rest) of an area of grazing land ranging from a few days to a full year or more. To fully understand frequency, there must be a time frame associated with the frequency of the given event. Historically, the term “rest” referred to non-grazing for a full year along with foregoing grazing on that year’s complete forage crop, but the term now is commonly used to include any period of non-grazing. Thus, rest must be carefully described and interpreted in order to be meaningful. The length of time of prescribed rest will be highly dependent on site specific conditions and objectives for each riparian system. Repeat grazing events during the year are important when dealing with plant health. Plants must have time to recover from a grazing event to properly replenish lost photosynthetic material and recharge energy reserves. The time it takes for this recovery is highly dependent on the growth stage the cool-season plant is in when defoliated and the season of defoliation. Defoliation during the early stages of plant growth in the spring was formerly presumed to be the most detrimental time to graze a cool-season plant (Stoddart 1946). Later research has shown that late growing season grazing is the most critical period to negatively impact perennial forage plants, and adequate time away from grazing during this period is necessary to replenish energy reserves and for bud development (Vallentine 1990). Furthermore, grazing during any time of the plants growing season and then repeat grazing during the same growing season without allowing adequate plant recovery away from grazing will reduce plant health. The greater the frequency of grazing events, the more damage to plants that will occur. Even more detrimental to riparian plant health is when frequency increases during a specific calendar year and this scenario is continued for multiple consecutive years. Recovery of channel morphology or browse species in a riparian system will generally require longer periods of rest within a specified timeframe than recovery of herbaceous riparian vegetation. Seasonal Grazing – Another key attribute in meeting riparian health standards is Seasonal Grazing or grazing during a specific time of year. Clipping studies have indicated that timing can greatly affect plant productivity and vigor (Miller and Donart 1981). Seasonal Grazing is simply changing the time or season of the year when the riparian pasture is grazed. During periods of hotter temperatures, July to September, livestock will congregate considerably more around riparian areas to decrease body temperatures and to forage on green vegetation that is only available near the water. This could result in an over-used riparian. Continual grazing during the plant’s growth period will eventually cause roots to die and the plant to lose vigor and reproductive capacity (USDI, BLM 1998). By simply changing nothing but the seasonal grazing period from summer to fall, spring or winter grazing, the riparian area can improve and may meet BLM standards for riparian areas. The grazing seasons are generally divided into three seasons (USDI, BLM 1998).
B-2 Early Season (spring) Use - Early Spring grazing (April 1 to July 15) in riparian areas may improve a riparian system for a variety of reasons as listed below. 1) Livestock may be attracted to succulent vegetation in the uplands and will not loiter in the riparian areas as much compared to other seasons of the year. 2) Cool temperatures may discourage cows from staying in the riparian or weather is not as harsh in the uplands. Hot temperatures experienced during the hottest months may force cattle into the riparian areas. 3) Soil in the riparian area may be wet as to discourage cows from entering. 4) Well drained soils reduce the possibility of compaction.
Late Season (fall) Grazing Use- Late Season (July 15 to October 31) grazing in riparian areas may improve a riparian system but livestock affinity for browse species later in fall may be a concern. Benefits of late season grazing are listed below. 1) Soils are drying during this period which reduces the probability of compaction and bank trampling. 2) Most plants have completed their life cycle and removing plant material by grazing will not adversely affect plant development and health compared to Grazing during April to July. 3) Ground nesting birds that nest in riparian areas are not negatively impacted.
Winter Use – Winter use (November 1 to March 31) usually has the least impact to the health of riparian systems. 1) Soil compaction is typically not an issue due to frozen soils. 2) Most plants have completed their life cycle and removing plant material by grazing will not adversely affect plant development and health compared to Grazing during April to July. 3) Livestock distribution should improve due animals need for water is lessoned.
Palatability- Livestock palatability is simply an animal’s desire or ability to consume a particular plant species or plant part (Kothmann 2008). Palatability is tied closely with the life cycle of a particular grass plant species (Raleigh and Wallace 1965). Palatability becomes important to riparian and upland management when producers are determining a livestock rotation that will benefit a riparian or upland system. In general, livestock palatability or the closely tied digestibility of a cool-season perennial rangeland grass is high from growth initiation in spring (April/May) and continues being relatively high until the grass sets its seeds in mid to late summer (Raleigh and Wallace 1965). Palatability decreases after seed set and continues to decline into the dormancy period in late summer and into fall. This low palatability continues until the following spring when growth initiation begins. In a similar timing scenario, negative impacts to cool-season rangeland plants caused by a grazing herbivore removing photosynthetic material are much more pronounced during a period when palatability is high. However, herbivory by livestock has little impact to plants when palatability is low. When determining a grazing plan that improves conditions in riparian or
B-3 upland pastures, management should focus on grazing cattle in pastures that need improvement during periods when the plant growth cycle is completed and palatability is low. The dates and terms used in the Seasonal Grazing heading listed above generally correspond to both palatability and the life cycle of a cool-season rangeland plant. Early spring grazing (April 1 to July 15) is when the plant is completing its life cycle and it is most palatable to livestock. During this period, plants are most vulnerable to excessive grazing by livestock (Laycock 1970). Late season grazing (July 16 to November 1) is after rangeland plant’s life cycle is completed and when palatability is low. Grazing during this period has little impact on rangeland plant health if grazing is not extreme (Cook 1971, Laycock 1970). Winter grazing is also after the plant’s life cycle is completed and when palatability is lowest. Grazing during this period has little impact on plant health but excessive grazing may lead to increased erosion and a loss of topsoil (Heady 1984). Stocking Density –Stocking density is simply the number of animals in a given area. As Myers (1989) and Marlow (1991) stated, length of time is the most important factor when determining the amount of use a riparian area will receive. However, stocking density is important. It is fundamentally understood that if a given number of AUMs are be grazed in a riparian pasture, it is most beneficial for the riparian area to graze the largest number of animals for the shortest period of time to harvest the given number of AUMs. This assumption is valid only when strictly dealing with riparian resource health and does not factor important economic and logistical factors such as livestock performance, breeding performance, health of the livestock, logistics of moving livestock, etc. Class of animal – Class of animal is an important consideration when trying to improve a riparian area that has failed standards. A livestock operation that grazes cows and their calves will typically have a livestock herd that travels less and has poorer grazing distribution in the pasture compared to a yearling cattle operation. Yearling or younger cattle will usually spend less time in the riparian area and more time exploring the entire pasture which has the potential to improve riparian conditions and get better use of your upland vegetation. Off-Stream Watering Locations- Developing ways to influence the amount of time livestock spend in the riparian area is a critical part of proper riparian management (USDI, BLM 1998). The development of alternative clean water sources may lure livestock out of the riparian areas. Livestock usually prefer clean water provided in a livestock trough rather than a riparian area, especially during periods outside the hot summer months (July to September). By developing an alternative water system, livestock can improve distribution in the pastures with riparian present and lessen the impact of livestock in the riparian areas. Other Tools to Improve Riparian Areas- There are other options that may be effective in improving a riparian system, yet each one by itself will not change a non-function riparian system into a health riparian.
B-4 Hardened crossings – Hardened crossings are graveled or rocked areas that allow cattle to cross creeks or streams without adding excessive sediment to the stream or compacting soils is this area. Cattle often prefer to use these areas if constructed properly and will travel less on the riparian area that isn’t hardened. Watering Access Point- Sometimes, riparian streams are fenced off from livestock use for protection. However, providing a watering location from the stream is still needed to water the remainder of the pasture. Creating a watering access point off the creek using rock or gravel can allow livestock to water without negatively impacting riparian condition or increasing sediment in the stream. The goal is to construct an access point that allows livestock to water but encourages them to leave quickly and to avoid creating an area where livestock are able to loiter. Riding Cattle Out of Riparian Areas- Riding is increasingly being used as a method to move livestock out of riparian areas (Storch 1979). Proper riding can be an effective tool to improve riparian areas but the quality and quantity of the riding will correspond to the benefits that area derived in improving the riparian area. Drift Fences- In hilly topography, livestock are likely to use the riparian area and sometimes the stream bed itself as a corridor to travel to and from lower and higher elevations. A strategically placed drift fence can interrupt this habitual corridor and reduce pressure on the riparian area. Riparian Pasture- As stated by Marlow and Myers above, length of time is the most critical factor when determining whether or not a riparian will meet BLM standards. Increasing the number of pastures by constructing a grazed riparian pasture may give an operator more flexibility to graze pastures with higher stocking densities but for shorter durations. Pasture Divisions- In a similar fashion to Riparian pastures, dividing an existing pasture may provide more flexibility in the producers operation and result in grazing a pasture with riparian for a shorter period of time which will likely improve riparian condition. Salt and Mineral Placement- Although these alone may not solve a riparian problem, they can improve livestock distribution and reduce the time cattle spend in the riparian area. In conclusion, the length of time livestock are allowed access to a riparian area is the paramount grazing parameter that determines the health of the system. However, many other tools mentioned above may help to reach the goals for the livestock operation and to meet the desired natural resource condition. In summary, there is no single, let alone simple solution for how to graze livestock in riparian areas where both ecologic and economic goals are desired. Ultimately, what is required is an on-the-ground review of the site specific circumstances by resource professionals (livestock producers and land managers) and a carefully considered prescription developed to address the unique conditions and desired objectives of the parties involved (Anderson 1993, Buckhouse and Elmore 1993).
B-5 References – Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of Appendix B Anderson, E. William. 1993. Prescription grazing to enhance rangeland watersheds. Rangelands 15(1):31-34. Buckhouse, John C., and Wayne Elmore. 1991. {re-print 1993}. Grazing practice relations: Predicting riparian vegetation response from stream system. In” Watershed management guide for the Interior Northwest. Edited by Thomas Beell. Oregon State University Extension Service, Corvallis, OR. Pp. 47-52. Clary, Warren P., and Bert F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the Intermountain Region. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-263. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Cook, C. W. (1971). Effects of Season and Intensity of Use on Desert Vegetation. Utah Agrilc. Ept. Stat. Bul. 483. 57 pp. Heady, H.F. (1984). Concepts and Principles Underlying Grazing Systems. In Natl. Res Council/Natl. Acad. Sci. “Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. “Westview Pres. Boulder, CO . pp 885-902. Kothmann, M. (Ed., Chair.). 1974. A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management, 2nd Edition, published by the Society for Range Management. Laycock W. A. (1970). The Effects of spring and Fall Grazing on Sagebrush-Grass Ranges in Eastern Idaho. Intern. Grassland Cong. Proc. 11:52-54. Marlow, Clayton B., Douglas Allen, and Kathyrn Olson-Rutz. 1991. Making riparian zone protection a workable part of grazing management. In: Proceedings of the international beef symposium. January 15-17, Great Falls, MT. Animal Range Sciences Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT pp 256-266. Miller R. F., and G. B. Donart. 1981. Response of Muhlenbergia popteri Schibn. to season of defoliation. J. Range Manage. 34:91-94. Myers, Lewis H. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in southwestern Montana. In: Practical approaches to riparian resource management: An education workshop. Edited by Robert E. Gresswell, Bruce A. Barton and Jeffrey L. Kershner. May 8-11 Billings, MT BLM- MT-PT_89-001-4351. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Pp. 117-120. Raleigh, R. J., and J. B. Wallace. (1965). Nutritive Value of Range Forage and its Effect on Animal Performance. Ore. Agric. Expt. Sta. Spec. Rep. 189. 6 pp. Stoddart, L. A. 1946. Some physical and chemical responses of Agropyron spicatum to herbage removal at various seasons. Utah Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 324.
B-6 Storch, Robert L. 1979. Livestock/streamside management programs in eastern Oregon. In: Proceedings: Forum-on grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc., Vienna, VA pp. 56-59. United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Dillon, field Office. 2006. Record of Decision and Approved Dillon Resource Management Plan. United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office. 1998. Successful Strategies for Grazing Cattle in Riparian Zone. Riparian Technical Bulletin No. 4. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. Pp. 2-20. Vallentine, John F. 1990. Grazing Management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 101-102.
B-7 This page left intentionally blank.
Appendix C Riparian Data and Inventory
Table 1: Functional Status of Lotic Riparian Reaches within the Red Rock Lima Assessment Area BLM Functional Reach Name Reach Allotment Miles Rating Number Beaverhead R 2 Gallagher PFC 2.6 Bill Hill 13 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 0.7 Bill Hill 14 Gallagher FAR 0.1 Bill Hill 14 Gallagher FAR 0.9 Bill Hill 14 Gallagher FAR 0.5 Gallagher Trib 22 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 0.7 Gallagher 23 Gallagher Mtn AMP FAR-UP 1.9 Gallagher 24 Gallagher PFC 0.7 Gallagher 25 Gallagher FAR-UP 0.7 Gallagher 26 Gallagher PFC 0.8 Gallagher Trib 28 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 0.3 Beaverhead trib 71 Gallagher PFC 0.4 Lovells Gulch 80 Gallagher Mtn AMP FAR 0.7 Little Basin Canyon 81 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 0.5 Bell Canyon 900 Bell Canyon PFC 0.8 Cedar Creek 901 Cedar Creek FAR-UP 1.7 Bell Canyon 902 Bell Canyon PFC 0.3 Dutch Hollow 905 Lima Peaks PFC 0.9 Dutch Hollow 906 Snowline AMP FAR-UP 0.6 Dutch Hollow 907 Snowline AMP PFC 0.1 Junction 910 Snowline AMP PFC 0.5 Junction 911 Snowline AMP PFC 0.3 Little Sheep EF 912 Lima Peaks PFC 0.5 Little Sheep EF 913 Lima Peaks NF 0.3 Little Sheep EF 914 Lima Peaks PFC 1.7 Little Sheep 915 Little Sheep PFC 0.2 Spring G 925 Cedar Creek FAR-UP 0.8 Clark Canyon 926 Clark Canyon Isolated FAR 0.3 Clark Canyon 927 Clark Canyon PFC 0.8 Clark Canyon EF 928 Clark Canyon PFC 0.4 Clark Canyon 929 Clark Canyon PFC 0.3 Clark Canyon Trib 930 Clark Canyon PFC 0.6
C-1 BLM Functional Reach Name Reach Allotment Miles Rating Number Bell Canyon trib 931 Bell Canyon PFC 0.1 Junction Trib 933 Phalarope West PFC 0.3 Dutch Hollow 937 Lima Peaks PFC 0.5 Snowline AMP Junction 939 PFC 0.7 Custodial Snowline AMP Junction 941 FAR 0.9 Custodial Junction Trib 945 Snowline AMP FAR 0.2 Snowline AMP Big Beaver EF 946 FAR-DN 0.5 Custodial Clark Canyon 949 Clark Canyon FAR-DN 0.3 Clark Canyon 950 Clark Canyon PFC 1.0 Clark Canyon Trib 951 Clark Canyon PFC 0.5 Poison Gulch 952 Clark Canyon PFC 0.4 Whiskey Draw 953 Clark Canyon PFC 1.3 Clark Canyon 980 Clark Canyon PFC 1.0 Maurer 983 Roe PFC 0.3 Limekiln Canyon N 985 Bell Canyon PFC 0.3 Clark Canyon Trib 986 Clark Canyon PFC 2.0 Clark Canyon Cr 988 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 0.5 Upper MF Gallagher Creek 990 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 1.0 Trib Lower Junction Trib 993 Snowline AMP FAR 0.4
Table 2: Functional Status of Lentic Riparian Reaches within the Red Rock Lima Assessment Area BLM Functional BLM Reach Name Reach Allotment Acres Rating Number Gravel Pit Pond 5 Gallagher PFC 0.6 Bill Hill Trib 79 Gallagher PFC 0.7 Gallagher Butte 93 Gallagher Mtn AMP PFC 1.4 Pothole Johnson pothole 785 Bell Canyon PFC 2.9 Junction Trib 904 Snowline AMP FAR-DN 37.0 Junction Trib 909 Snowline AMP FAR-UP 8.9 Junction 943 Unalloted PFC 17.4 Ney Ranch Wetland 2401 Gallagher/Unavailable PFC 329.5
C-2
Table 3: Developed Springs within the Red Rock Lima Assessment Area Spring Name Project Allotment Spring Name Project Allotment Number Number
Leonard 474871 Clark Clark Canyon 470716 Clark Spring#2 Canyon Spring#1 Canyon Cedar Hill 476732 Cedar Rye Grass 474772 Clark Spring Creek Spring Canyon Upper Bill Hill 477319 Gallagher Clark Canyon 474814 Clark Spring Spring#2 Canyon Beacon Spring 477178 Gallagher Clark Canyon 476228 Clark Spring#3 Canyon Bathtub Spring 477179 Gallagher Horse Mtn 476236 Clark Spring#3 Canyon Pipe Organ 470354 Gallagher Two Badger 007689 Gallagher Spring Spring Mtn AMP Truck Box 477206 Gallagher Gallagher Mtn 474809 Gallagher Spring Spring#1 Mtn AMP Bill Hill Spring 477205 Gallagher Gallagher Mtn 477810 Gallagher Spring#2 Mtn AMP Dry Slope 470313 Roe Snowline 470673 Snowline Spring Spring#2 AMP Maurer Spring 470177 Roe Snowline 470660 Snowline Spring#1 AMP Maurer 474939 Roe Snowline 470674 Snowline Spring/Pipeline Spring#3 AMP Gordon 470368 Clark CRMP Spring 477315 Snowline Brothers Canyon AMP Spring Horse Mtn 470713 Clark East Creek 476901 Lima Spring#1 Canyon Spring Peaks Horse Mtn 470714 Clark Spring#2 Canyon
C-3 This page left intentionally blank.
C-4 Appendix D
Maps
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4