Land Protection Plan Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion

February 2011 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 922 Bootlegger Trail Great Falls, Montana 59404-6133 406 / 727 7400 http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning P. O. Box 25486 DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 303 / 236 4378 303 / 236 4792 fax http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm

CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Land Protection Plan, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 70p. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, a land protection plan has been prepared to analyze the effects of expanding the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area in western Montana.

■ The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion Land Protection Plan describes the priorities for acquiring up to an additional 125,000 acres in conservation easements within an expanded project boundary of 918,600 acres.

Note: Information contained in the maps within this document is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership information may not be complete Contents

Abbreviations ...... iii 1 Introduction ...... 1 Project Description ...... 1 Issues ...... 3 Biological Issues Identified During Scoping ...... 3 Socioeconomic Issues Identified During Scoping ...... 5 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis ...... 5 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities ...... 5 Related Actions and Activities ...... 6 Habitat Protection and the Easement Acquisition Process ...... 6 Conservation Easements ...... 6 2 Area Description and Resources ...... 9 Biological Environment ...... 9 Climate ...... 9 Climate Change ...... 9 Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement ...... 10 Geological Resources ...... 11 Habitat ...... 11 Wildlife ...... 12 Cultural Resources ...... 13 Socioeconomic Environment ...... 14 Agricultural Resources ...... 14 Landownership ...... 14 Property Tax ...... 14 Public Use and Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities ...... 14 3 Threats to and Status of Resources ...... 17 Effects on the Biological Environment ...... 17 Wildlife Habitat ...... 17 Water Resources ...... 17 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment...... 18 Landownership and Land Use ...... 18 Value of Intact Ecosystems ...... 18 Oil and Gas Exploration and Development...... 18 Wind Energy Development ...... 18 Public Use...... 19 Economic Impacts...... 19 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 20 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 20 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity ...... 20 Cumulative Impacts ...... 20 Past Actions ...... 20 Present Actions ...... 20 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 22 ii LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

4 Project Implementation...... 23 Land Protection Options ...... 23 Action and Objectives...... 23 Acquisition Alternatives ...... 23 Strategic Habitat Conservation ...... 23 Biological Planning...... 24 Conservation Design...... 25 Conservation Delivery ...... 26 Monitoring and Research...... 26 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ...... 28 Coordination ...... 28 Contaminants and Hazardous Materials ...... 28 National Environmental Policy Act ...... 28 Distribution and Availability ...... 29

Appendixes A List of Plants and Animals...... 31 B List of Endangered and Threatened Species ...... 35 C List of Preparers and Reviewers ...... 37 D Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 39 E Environmental Action Statement ...... 43 F Environmental Compliance Certificate ...... 45 G Section 7 Biological Evaluation ...... 49 H Director’s Approval to Expand the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area ...... 55 I Public Involvement ...... 59

Bibliography ...... 69

Figures 1 Crown of the Continent ecosystem ...... 2 2 Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion project area ...... 4 3 Landownership in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area ...... 15 4 Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services ...... 19 5 The basic strategic habitat conservation cycle...... 24 6 Priority areas for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion ...... 27 7 Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion...... 29

Tables 1 Summary of annual operating costs and salaries associated with the economic impacts of conservation easements in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion ...... 20 2 Summary of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projects for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem...... 21

Abbreviations

BLM Bureau of Land Management BMU bear management unit CA Conservation Area CoCE Crown of the Continent ecosystem EA environmental assessment FONSI finding of no significant impact Front Rocky Mountain Front FTE full-time equivalent GIS geographic information system GNLCC Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative GNP Glacier National Park LPP land protection plan LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SHC strategic habitat conservation SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program TNC The Nature Conservancy USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

1 Introduction and Project Description © Dave Hanna/The Nature Conservancy of Montana Upper Teton River watershed in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. Among conservation biologists, the Rocky Mountain benefit federal trust species such as the grizzly bear, Front (Front) is ranked in the top one percent of gray wolf, wolverine, and Canada lynx; migratory wildlife habitat remaining in the United States (The birds such as harlequin ducks, red-necked grebes, Nature Conservancy 1999). Virtually every wildlife black terns, peregrine falcons, greater sandhill species found in this area upon the arrival of Lewis cranes, northern pintail, and trumpeter swans; and Clark in 1806, with the exception of free ranging and westslope cutthroat trout. The Front provides bison, remains today in relatively stable or increasing excellent habitat for black bear, elk, mule deer, white- numbers. In addition, it is the only remaining area in tailed deer, moose, mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, the continental United States with a complete, intact wolverine, and a wide variety of small mammals. assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, pine marten, and Canada lynx. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Front is part of the Crown of the Continent This project involves acquisition of up to an ecosystem (CoCE), which includes the larger additional 125,000 acres of conservation easements Columbia Basin and Upper Missouri/Yellowstone within an expanded project boundary encompassing Rivers watersheds (see figure 1). Within the approximately 918,000 acres. No land will be CoCE, an exceptional diversity of wetland types purchased in fee title under this project. Depressed occurs including: major riparian areas (including agricultural markets continue to stress the financial the Teton, Sun, Blackfoot, and Dearborn rivers), solvency of many large family ranches in the area, smaller riparian tributaries, glacial prairie potholes, which are being placed onto the real estate market lakes, bogs, fens, swamps, and boreal peatlands. and commanding high recreational prices. Adjacent The lowlands support over 170 different species of ranchers simply can not afford to purchase these wetland plants. Along the elevation gradient, large properties at inflated prices, and the land use expanses of fescue grasslands phase into alpine patterns change accordingly. This is the beginning of meadows or sagebrush steppe, which then transition the unraveling of the ecosystem, as historical ranch into montane forests consisting of white pine, families (and the ranching economy) have been the Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. These transitional primary reason the landscape has remained largely zones of valley floors to montane forests are intact. extremely important to fish and wildlife. The Front has been a successful model for partnering The continued presence of this large expanse of with and connecting to lands already owned by intact habitat and historic wildlife corridors will the State of Montana, The Nature Conservancy 2 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Figure 1. Crown of the Continent ecosystem. Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 3

(TNC), the U.S. Forest Service, the Montana Land Scoping was conducted during a public open house on Reliance, the Boone and Crockett Club, and the May 17, 2010; 4–7 p.m. at the Stage Stop Inn, 1005 N. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In addition, Main Avenue, in Choteau, Montana. The purpose of local ranchers, business owners, and representatives scoping was to seek input from the public regarding of local governments have formed a landowner the proposed expansion of the conservation advisory council to identify options and strategies for easement project, and to identify the issues that maintaining ranching and rural lifestyles in the area. needed to be addressed during the planning process. Conservation easements are a tool that they strongly Approximately thirty people attended the open support as a means of conserving the ranching house. Additionally, fourteen individuals, four lifestyle along the Front. agencies, and two organizations provided written comments during the scoping period. Funding will come primarily from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and potential Many of the comments received addressed the need conservation partners. for a balance between natural and cultural systems. There were two main categories of commonly The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expressed issues and concerns, biological and (CA) was approved as a unit of the National socioeconomic. Wildlife Refuge System in 2005 and is a landscape conservation strategy to protect a unique, highly diverse, and largely unfragmented ecosystem in BIOLOGICAL ISSUES north central Montana. The Front encompasses IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING the massive ecotone formed by the intersection of the western edge of the Northern Great Plains and The biological issues mentioned were the Rocky Mountains. Mid-grass prairie, foothills ■ the impacts of habitat fragmentation due to prairie, montane forest, and alpine tundra occur in residential development; close juxtaposition, resulting in high species and community diversity. ■ the Service’s role in management of private land encumbered with a conservation easement;

The expansion encompasses a project area totaling ■ concerns about habitat fragmentation and approximately 918,000 acres along the eastern edge potential impacts on wildlife habitat and water of the CoCE and is centered 65 miles northwest resources. of Great Falls, Montana. Lying in the shadow of the rugged Continental Divide, the Bob Marshall Wildlife Habitat Wilderness Area and the Lewis and Clark National Forest mark its western boundary. The 1.5 million- Habitat fragmentation is a concern not only in the acre Blackfeet Indian Reservation borders the Rocky Mountain Front, but also in other areas project to the north, and the eastern boundary is of Montana. Given the current strong market for dictated by the distribution of fescue grasslands scenic western properties, especially when cattle and critical riparian areas. The southern boundary prices are low, there is concern that ranches in the falls approximately along the watershed of the Rocky Mountain Front will be vulnerable to sale South Fork of the Dearborn River. The U.S. Fish and subdivision for residential and commercial and Wildlife Service (Service) plans to expand the development. The subdivision process is not difficult. authorized acquisition goal by up to an additional Under Montana law, land may be split into lots of 160 125,000 acres, resulting in the approval to acquire acres or greater without local review or approval. conservation easements on up to 295,000 acres of Moreover, with no county zoning in place, small-lot private land within the expanded project boundary subdivisions are possible. (see figure 2). Housing development, and the associated infrastructure, can disrupt wildlife migration ISSUES patterns. Nesting raptors and grassland bird species may be especially vulnerable to habitat Public involvement was initiated for the proposed fragmentation in the Rocky Mountain Front. expansion of the conservation easement project in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area in Riparian habitat loss due to development is a key May 2010. A media contact list was compiled and concern. Riparian habitat is a key component to news releases and factsheets were developed and grizzly bear movement between the mountains and distributed to media outlets, local organizations, valley. Livestock grazing and ranching practices elected officials, and interested parties. The news tend to be compatible with grizzly bears, which move releases and factsheets described the proposed unimpeded up and down riparian corridors. Riparian expansion of the conservation easement project, and areas also provide nest sites for many species of announced an open house to gather input from the migratory birds that may be negatively impacted by public. Personal outreach efforts were made with development. county commissioners and other persons of interest. 4 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Figure 2. Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion project area. Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 5

The Service, as well as conservation groups and Wind Energy Development people in the region, have voiced concern with the fragmentation of habitats in other areas of Montana. The potential impact of conservation easements to In a landscape which is largely intact, habitat wind energy development on private lands in the fragmentation poses a substantial threat to the Rocky Mountain Front was a concern. continued viability of wildlife populations within the Front, including grizzly bear recovery efforts. Public Use The public’s right to use or access lands encumbered Water Resources with a conservation easement was a concern. Residential development in the Rocky Mountain Landowners were concerned they would be forced Front presents a potentially significant threat to the to allow the public to access their land for hunting, aquatic ecosystem. Housing developments can bring fishing, or other recreational uses. about sewage-derived nutrient additions to streams and lakes, additional wetland drainage, water ISSUES NOT SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS diversion, and introduction of invasive plants and nonnative fishes into aquatic ecosystems. Historically, there has been concern about the amount of tax generated for the counties when land SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES protection programs take place. Since the project involves conservation easements, the land enrolled in IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING the project does not change hands and, therefore, the property taxes paid by the landowner to the county Socioeconomic issues mentioned were are not affected. ■ the loss of rural character of the Rocky Mountain Front; Development of rural landscapes often leads to increased demand for services and higher costs to ■ the need to keep private land in private rural counties. There will generally be an offset ownership; of any perceived reduction in the tax base since ■ the effect of easements on oil and gas the county will not incur the expense of providing exploration; services to rural developments. The use of ■ the impacts of conservation easements on local conservation easements serves an additional function community centers and their ability to grow; since easements preclude the necessity for county zoning in the project area. ■ public access for hunting or other recreational opportunities. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM Landownership and Land Use AND AUTHORITIES The rural character of the Rocky Mountain Front is likely to undergo substantial change over the next 10 The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to 20 years. is to preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and There was concern that perpetual easements will where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, negatively affect future generations of landowners. and plant resources and their habitats within the Specifically, that conservation easements will limit United States for the benefit of present and future the choices of future landowners, even though they generations of Americans. The Rocky Mountain may have paid as much for the land as if it had no restrictions. There was concern that perpetual easements will lower the resale value of the land. There was concern that the selection process will favor landowners whose properties are larger in size, over smaller, but biologically valuable properties.

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development The potential impact of conservation easements to oil and gas development on private lands in the Rocky Mountain Front was a concern. USFWS Ear Mountain in the Rocky Mountain Front. 6 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Front Conservation Area expansion project will (2,000 to 25,000 acre blocks) which helps maintain continue to be administered as part of the Refuge this intact landscape. The human population is sparse System in accordance with the National Wildlife and towns are widely scattered. Landowners along Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and other the Front are representative of rural Montana’s relevant legislation, executive orders, regulations, independent and conservative social fabric. The and policies. ranchers’ livelihoods depend on natural resources (grass, water, and open space) and, while generally Conservation of additional wildlife habitat in the resistant to regulation, the ranchers have a deep- Rocky Mountain Front region will also continue rooted feeling for the land. Unlike many other areas to be consistent with the following policies and in the country, the key to protecting the Front management plans: lies primarily in sustaining the current pattern of ■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965) ranching and low-density use, not in large-scale restoration. ■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973) Other significant public lands within the project area

■ Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) include 113,000 acres of state (school trust) lands that are managed to generate revenues for public schools ■ Migratory Nongame Birds of Management in Montana. Concern in the U.S. (2002)

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) Habitat protection will occur through the purchase of conservation easements. It is the long-established ■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan (1994) policy of the Service to acquire minimum interest in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat protection RELATED ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES goals. The acquisition authority for the project is the Fish The project area lies adjacent to and includes and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742 a-742j). a large complex of federal, state, and private The federal money used to acquire conservation conservation lands that serve as anchors or core easements from the Land and Water Conservation areas for numerous trust species. These include Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases the 1.5 million-acre Bob Marshall Wilderness on the outer continental shelf, motorboat fuel tax Complex; three state wildlife management areas revenues, and sale of surplus federal property. There (Sun River, Ear Mountain, and Blackleaf wildlife could be additional funds to acquire lands, waters, management areas totaling 34,000 acres); The Nature or interest therein for fish and wildlife conservation Conservancy’s Pine Butte Swamp Preserve (13,000 purposes through congressional appropriations, acres); two Bureau of Land Management areas the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the North of critical environmental concern (11,500 acres); American Waterfowl Conservation Act funds, and two Bureau of Reclamation resource management donations from nonprofit organizations. areas (formerly Pishkun and Willow Creek national wildlife refuges totaling 9,000 acres); and the Boone The basic considerations in acquiring an easement and Crockett Club’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial interest in private land are the biological significance Ranch (6,055 acres). In addition, nearly 100,000 acres of the area, existing and anticipated threats to of private land are already protected with perpetual wildlife resources, and landowner interest in the conservation easements held by TNC and the project. The purchase of conservation easements will Montana Land Reliance. occur with willing sellers only and will be subject to available funding. The Service has been acquiring conservation easements on properties with significant wetland habitat under the Small Wetlands Acquisition CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Program (SWAP). To date, over 21,000 acres have been protected through the Migratory Bird The easement project is a conservation tool, Conservation Fund. LWCF will continue to be used complementing other efforts in the area. to target acquisition of easements on properties that Conservation easements are the most cost-effective do not meet the wetland requirements of the SWAP. and socially acceptable means to ensure protection of important habitats within the project area. HABITAT PROTECTION AND THE Fee-title acquisition is not required for, nor is it preferable to conservation easements to achieve EASEMENT ACQUISITION PROCESS habitat protection. Fee-title acquisition will triple or The economy of the Front is primarily agrarian, and quadruple the cost of land acquisition, add significant cattle ranches dominate the private lands within the increases in management costs, and may not be project area. Ownerships are relatively large in size accepted by landowners. Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 7

A strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, with ranching as the dominant land use, is one of the key components for ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource protection. Conservation easements are a viable means to protect wildlife values on a landscape scale.

2 Area Description and Resources USFWS Ear Mountain in Blackleaf Wildlife Management Area. This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and Gibson Dam receives almost 18 inches of socioeconomic resources most likely affected by precipitation annually; May and June are the expanding the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation wettest months with about 3 inches per month. Area. All of the winter months receive less than one inch of precipitation per month. Augusta has a similar pattern with relatively wet springs and dry winters, BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT although the total precipitation averages only about In this section climate; climate change; adaptation, 14 inches annually. This precipitation gradient mitigation, and engagement responses to climate (along with soils) is vital for structuring vegetation change; geological resources; habitat; and wildlife of communities across the Front (Kudray and Cooper the Front are discussed. 2006).

CLIMATE CLIMATE CHANGE

The climate is generally cool and dry, but there is Climate change is the pre-eminent issue for considerable variability corresponding to the east– conservation in future decades. Current trends west elevational gradient that greatly influences in climate change are expected to more acutely vegetation and habitat. The weather station at the affect high mountain ecotypes and lower elevation, Gibson Reservoir near the western boundary has snowmelt-dependent watersheds, such as those found above freezing average maximum temperatures all in the Front. year, with the coldest minimum temperatures in Predictions regarding the specific effects of climate January (12.4ºF). July and August are the warmest change in the Front are in the early stages. Empirical months with an average high around 77ºF and a data indicates that during the 20th century, the low near 45ºF. The Augusta climatic station at the region has grown warmer, and in some areas drier, eastern boundary of the Front has similar above especially east of the Continental Divide on the freezing winter average maximums, but is colder Rocky Mountain Front. Annual average temperature at night with January average minimums of 10ºF. has increased 1–3 degrees over most of the region. Average summer temperatures are also warmer in This seemingly modest increase masks much larger Augusta with July and August having maximums shifts in minimum winter temperatures (10°F) and slightly over 80ºF and minimums around 47ºF. shifts in maximum summer temperatures (7°F). In 10 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT the “2007 Introduction to the Summary for Policy water required by some species. Some species’ Makers Synthesis Report,” the Intergovernmental distributions are expected to be negatively impacted Panel on Climate Change described that average by the heightened ambient air temperatures air temperatures may raise by up to six degrees (Endangered Species Coalition 2009). by the end of this century, according to regionally downscaled models from the Pacific Northwest The impacts of climate change will extend beyond (USFWS 2009). the boundaries of any single refuge or easement project and will require large-scale, landscape-level Changes in temperature and precipitation are solutions that extend throughout the CoCE. A goal expected to decrease snowpack and will affect of the project area expansion is to build resilience in streamflow and water quality throughout the ecological systems and communities, so that, even as Front. Warmer temperatures will result in more climate conditions change, the Front will continue winter precipitation falling as rain rather than snow to support its full range of native biodiversity and throughout much of the region, particularly in mid- ecological processes. Building resilience includes elevation basins where average winter temperatures maintaining intact, interconnected landscapes, and are near freezing. This will result in restoring fragmented or degraded habitats.

■ less winter snow accumulation;

■ higher winter streamflows; ADAPTATION, MITIGATION, AND ENGAGEMENT ■ earlier spring snowmelt; The Service’s strategic response to climate ■ earlier peak spring streamflow and lower change involves three core strategies: adaptation, summer streamflows in rivers that depend on mitigation, and engagement (USFWS 2009). Through snowmelt (USFWS 2009). adaptation, the impacts of climate change on wildlife can be reduced by conserving habitats expected to be As glaciers and alpine snowfields melt and winters resilient. warm in Montana, specialized habitat for fish and wildlife species is expected to diminish. Snow Increased landscape connectivity is one of the most conditions that facilitate hunting success for forest effective methods to help wildlife adapt to climate carnivores, such as Canada lynx, are now changing change. Large landscapes, especially those within due to winter warming (Stenseth 2004). High- mountains, and the ability to move between them, elevation forest plants such as whitebark pine, an provide the best chances for plant and animal species, important food source for grizzly bears and other as well as ecosystems and ecological processes, birds and mammals throughout the Crown of the to survive changing conditions. The ability to Continent and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems migrate to higher latitudes, higher elevations, or (Kendall and Arno 1989), will also be negatively cooler exposures can make possible the successful impacted by winter warming. Whitebark pine is adaptation of plants and animals. The Yellowstone to susceptible to increased mortality as the incidence of Yukon Ecosystem, which encompasses the Crown of drought, high elevation wildfire, and mountain pine the Continent ecosystem, is the most intact mountain beetle attacks increase, all associated with a warming ecosystem remaining on Earth and is one of the climate (Hanna et al. 2009). world’s few remaining areas with the geographic variety and biological diversity to accommodate This warming may also have impacts on grizzly the wide-scale adaptive responses that might allow bears. Important food resources are expected to whole populations of animals and plants to survive decline as warming causes an increase in whitebark (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 2009). pine blister rust, reducing the availability of the pine to bears. This may result in shifts in foraging One of the results of changing climates is the elevations and a potential increase in grizzly bear alteration of the habitats upon which wildlife depend. conflict with humans and livestock. Wildlife will have to adapt to changes in habitat to survive. Protecting and linking contiguous blocks According to Service Grizzly Bear Recovery of unfragmented habitat will facilitate movement of Coordinator, Chris Servheen (University of Montana, wildlife responding to climate change. Missoula, MT; personal interview, 11 June 2008), it is highly likely that grizzly bear delayed fall den entry Carbon sequestration forms one of the key dates and earlier spring emergence dates will begin elements of mitigation. The Rocky Mountain Front occurring on the Front as they have in the Greater conservation easement project will protect large Yellowstone area; a change which is related to forested areas from subdivision. Forests are critically climate change. This will also potentially increase the important in the efforts to remove carbon dioxide likelihood of human-caused mortality from increased from the atmosphere and mitigate climate change. encounters (Endangered Species Coalition 2009). The carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees through photosynthesis and stored as As late summer flows are affected by global warming, carbon in the tree trunk, branches, foliage, and roots, fewer rivers will be able to supply the ample cold with oxygen as a byproduct. The organic matter Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 11 in forest soils, such as the humus produced by the of limber pine, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine decomposition of dead plant material, also acts to transition eastward into aspen parklands and a large store carbon. expanse of fescue grasslands. The Front’s varied topography and soils give rise to a diverse array of Engagement involves cooperation, communication, plant communities, including some of considerable and partnerships to address the conservation scientific importance. The Montana Natural Heritage challenges presented by climate change (USFWS Program (MNHP) has rated the Rocky Mountain 2009). The Rocky Mountain Front CA is located Front as highly significant for biodiversity including in an area that is designated as a high priority for 114 species or communities of special concern. conservation and linkage protection by many of our partners including Montana Fish, Wildlife and The landscape is extremely variable and extends Parks (MFWP); The National Fish and Wildlife from higher elevation barren rock or forested stands Foundation; The Nature Conservancy; The of Douglas-fir or aspen, to mid-elevation limber pine Conservation Fund; and American Wildlands. Many woodlands down to a complex mosaic of mixed-grass of these organizations are involved in trans-boundary prairie with agricultural grain and hay fields at lower conservation, protecting and connecting habitat in elevations and in floodplains. the United States and Canada. Strong partnerships have already been developed to meet the challenges Numerous hydrological features bisect the of climate change and wildlife resources. project area. The Dearborn, Sun, and Teton rivers form major riparian corridors running from the Given the level of public and private partnerships mountains eastward into the prairies. Numerous focused on land protection within the Rocky other tributaries provide a diversity of riparian Mountain Front, this landscape is arguably one and wetland plant communities. A large number of of the most promising large-scale opportunities vascular plants occur within the project boundary, remaining in North America for species resiliency representing a remarkable biological diversity. and adaptation in the face of climate change. Approximately 30% of the 700 plus species of plants are associated exclusively with wetland or riparian GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES habitats, including some of the largest remaining fens in the Pacific Northwest. The project area contains The Front lies at the eastern edge of the Rocky the largest intact expanse of fescue grasslands left in Mountains where tectonic plates collided and pushed the Northern Great Plains (Lesica 1994). large slabs of rock upward in a fold-and-thrust belt. Higher elevations also include fescue grasslands The highest elevation landforms are located in the and a large acreage recovering from a wildfire that most western section of the Front and are mapped is now a mix of mostly Douglas-fir regeneration, as Paleozoic Era sedimentary rock composed of among burned tree trunks over relatively lush fescue sandstone, shale, and limestone (including dolomite). grasslands. The fescue is often mixed with shrubs; The Kootenai Formation from the Mesozoic Era creeping juniper and kinnikinnick occur on somewhat is found adjacent at lower elevations and is also drier sites, while shrubby cinquefoil is common in sedimentary rock, but is composed of conglomerate, more mesic areas (habitat with a moderate- or well- sandstone, shale, and mudstone. The Colorado Shale balanced supply of moisture). Shrubby cinquefoil Formation of shale and siltstone is typically found is particularly common in the northern extreme of at the next lowest topographic position. At lower the Front, but also follows the greater eastward elevations, alluvial deposits are common with layers expansion of the fescue-type habitat in the southern of gravel, sand, and silt. There are also significant end, where it is more closely associated with stream low-elevation glacial deposits from the Pleistocene terraces. The aspen stands are typically small clonal Age that have variable, mostly coarse textures. The (genetically identical) patches in landforms that Two Medicine Formation from the Cretaceous Era is receive some additional moisture or have a more one of the most common lower elevation types, and mesic aspect. Limber pine stands are generally is sedimentary with clay, limestone, and sandstone. in decline, primarily from white pine blister rust There is also a prominent area of Cretaceous volcanic disease. Dead and dying trees are typical; some rock in the far southern part of the Front (Kudray former stands can only be recognized by the dead and Cooper 2006). tree trunks.

HABITAT The riparian corridors associated with the larger drainage system are especially diverse and rich An ecotone formed by the meeting of two major in habitat value. Natural vegetation communities ecoregions along a mountains–plains gradient, the generally correspond to the height of the floodplain Front hosts a rich mixture of glaciated wetlands above the water table, although successional (“prairie potholes”), riparian corridors, mixed grass influences also affect the distribution of shrubby and prairie, and coniferous forests. Alpine meadows lie forested types—early shrub establishment can give on the shoulders of the high peaks along the western way to later forested stands on suitable sites. edge of the Front. Montane forests consisting 12 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

The shrub communities also respond to a moisture Mammals gradient; willows and red-osier dogwood dominate the wetter sites while chokecherry, Saskatoon Lying adjacent to Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, serviceberry, and Woods’ rose occur on drier sites, the diverse habitats of the Front play a critical role sometimes with an aspen overstory. Wet meadows in sustaining the Northern Continental Divide’s free- dominate riparian areas where water tables are ranging wildlife populations. It is the last remaining high and there is not sufficient water movement area in the continental United States with an intact to oxygenate the soil enough for shrubs and trees. assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, and it is Flood-irrigated hay meadows are also common where the only place in the world where grizzly bears still the floodplain is wider and soils are suitable. roam from the mountains onto the prairies as they did nearly 200 years ago. An estimated 100–150 bears The fescue grasslands at higher elevation (and frequent the project area, which is included in much correspondingly greater precipitation) transition at of the recovery plan for the Northern Continental lower elevations to grasslands dominated by various Divide grizzly bear population. Gray wolves continue grass species in response to soil and topography. to migrate back into the area from the Canadian Western wheatgrass is the dominant species in Rockies and several packs have established home swales (lower elevation land that remain moist) with ranges in Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. The heavier soils and often moisture run-in. Needle and Front supports one of the largest populations of thread is the most common species on sandier soils, wolverine and Canada lynx in the lower forty-eight which tends to occur somewhat higher in the local states and it once supported a large concentration landscape. Bluebunch wheatgrass is associated with of swift fox which were nearly extirpated from the steeper slopes; mixtures of any or all these grasses state. Swift fox are now being reintroduced just can occur with the variable conditions found in this north of the project area through a partnership diverse landscape. Blue grama can become very between Defenders of Wildlife and the Blackfeet common with sustained heavy grazing. The absence Indian Nation and are expected to eventually move of sagebrush is notable and currently unexplained. back into the project area (see appendix B, “List of Endangered and Threatened Species”). A variety of wetland types occurs throughout the upland matrix in pothole depressions, larger shallow Protecting these private lands from habitat basins, or swales with impeded drainage. There fragmentation is a critical step that will ultimately is considerable diversity; some basins have dry to assist in the recovery of the Northern Continental bare soil after seasonal flooding while others will have a variety of wetland types in a zoned pattern dependent on seasonal water table depths and salt concentrations. Most of these areas are dominated by graminoids (grasses), but shrubby cinquefoil is common in swales. Willows may be found, but are much more common in riparian wetlands. Agricultural fields are most common in the central part of the project area. In addition to flood-irrigated hay fields, there are some central pivot-irrigated hay fields and dryland small grain production. Barley and wheat are the typical dryland crops but some fields have been planted to a variety of introduced species Grizzly and are used for grazing land or hay production. ©Cindie Brunner Although a somewhat uncommon practice, fields have also been planted back to cultivars (presumed) of native species (mostly western wheatgrass) and can Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) grizzly bear population be identified by their unusual degree of uniformity, (Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery lack of forb (herbaceous flowering plant) diversity, Coordinator, University of Montana, Missoula, and telltale furrowing. MT; personal interview, 11 June 2008). In addition, protecting these lands may help prevent the need for the listing of several species the Service has WILDLIFE been petitioned to list such as the trumpeter swan, wolverine, and westslope cutthroat trout. About 240 species of birds or approximately 65% of all birds found in Montana are known to inhabit The windswept plains along the mountains provide this area. At least 134 species of birds are known to critical winter range for all large ungulates (hoofed breed, an additional fifty-four species are suspected mammals) found within the eastern section of the of breeding within the project area, and some 108 Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Thousands of species of Neotropical migrants have been observed elk and mule deer winter primarily on state wildlife (see appendix A). management areas along the Front. Shiras moose, Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 13 a subspecies found in the Central Rocky Mountains, sandhill cranes from the Rocky Mountain population occasionally frequent the project area and white- use the river corridors during their spring and fall tailed deer are found throughout the riparian migration, and a portion of the cranes breed in these corridors. The grasslands along the eastern portion areas as well. of the project boundary sustain small populations of pronghorn. Mountainous terrain along the western Cliff and riparian areas provide the two most edge of the project area supports the largest important habitats for nesting raptors within the populations of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and project area. At least twenty-one species of raptors mountain goats in the continental United States breed along the Front, including nine species of (USFWS 1987). owls. One of the nation’s densest populations of golden eagles and prairie falcons reside in the rock escarpments along the western edge of the project Amphibians and Reptiles area. The Front hosts relatively robust populations A number of amphibians occur along the Front of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ferruginous hawks, including three species of frogs (boreal chorus, and goshawks. northern leopard, and Columbia spotted), two species The project area includes one of the largest of toads (plains spadefoot and western), and two remaining expanses of native prairie left in the species of salamanders (tiger and long-toed). The Northern Great Plains. This “sea of grass” provides common garter snake, plains garter snake, terrestrial essential habitat for numerous grassland birds, many garter snake, western rattlesnake, greater short- of which are experiencing significant population horned lizard, and painted turtle are reptiles known declines. These include chestnut-collared longspurs, to occur along the Front (Maxwell et al. 2003). Le Conte’s sparrows, bobolinks, Sprague’s pipit, burrowing owls, marbled godwits, long-billed Fish curlews, and lark buntings. Several streams and rivers along the Front support pure strains of westslope cutthroat trout, and are CULTURAL RESOURCES considered to be highly significant for the population found on the east slope of the Front. The Sun River The Service has a trust responsibility to American was historically a stronghold for fluvial Arctic Indian tribes that includes protection of the tribal grayling which were eliminated from the system as sovereignty and preservation of tribal culture and a result of habitat degradation. In the spring of 1999, other trust resources. grayling were reintroduced above Gibson Dam into the upper Sun River tributaries. A rare hybrid of the northern redbelly dace also occurs within the project area.

Migratory and Other Birds Lying at the western end of the Prairie Pothole Region, the Front provides habitat for a significant diversity of wetland-dependent species. Some seventeen species of waterfowl breed within the project area, including the harlequin duck, which is found in several mountain streams. Three nesting pairs of rare trumpeter swans have been documented in the Bean Lake-Nylan Reservoir Complex, one of the few breeding occurrences outside of Mike Parker/USFWS the Centennial Valley in southwestern Montana. Long-billed curlew. Hundreds of thousands of snow geese migrate along the Front, including 40,000 Wrangel Island Currently, the Service does not propose any project, snow geese, representing 50% of the entire known activity, or program that would result in changes in population. Peak flights of waterfowl along the Front the character of, or adversely affect, any historical during spring and fall migration often exceed several cultural resource or archaeological site. When such million birds. Six species of grebes are known to nest undertakings are considered, the Service takes all including the red-necked grebe, a species in serious necessary steps to comply with Section 106 of the decline in many other areas. Eleven different species National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, of shorebirds breed in the wetlands and adjacent as amended. The Service pursues compliance with grasslands scattered throughout the area. The Section 110 of the NHPA to survey, inventory, and western most breeding occurrence of inland piping evaluate cultural resources. plovers occurs at Alkali Lake near the northeastern boundary of the project area. Several thousand 14 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT LANDOWNERSHIP The project area includes portions of three Ownerships are relatively large in size (2,000 to counties—Lewis and Clark, Pondera, and Teton. 25,000 acre blocks) which helps maintain this intact Four communities are within the project area, all landscape. The human population is sparse and located along the eastern boundary on Highway towns are widely scattered. Towns tend to be service 89/287. The largest community is Choteau with a centers for the agricultural economy, but also support population of 1,781. Augusta has 284 people, and tourism and recreation. Dupuyer and Bynum both have less than 200 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Other significant public lands within the project area include 113,000 acres of state (school trust) lands that Most of the rural population is involved in ranching are managed to generate revenues for public schools and livestock production. Hunting of a wide variety in Montana (see figure 3). of game species occurs on private lands, with elk hunting bringing the most people to the Front. PROPERTY TAX A seasonal influx of tourists are attracted to the Front for opportunities to bird watch, mountain Currently, landowners pay property taxes on their bike, horseback ride, backpack, camp, canoe, fish, private lands to the counties. The land does not and view archeological and paleontological resources. change hands and, therefore, the property taxes paid Choteau and Augusta are “gateway” communities by the landowner to the county are not affected. No for recreational activities in the Lewis and Clark changes to the tax base are anticipated. National Forest, Bob Marshall, and Scapegoat wildernesses, and Glacier National Park (GNP). PUBLIC USE AND WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Hunting and fishing are very popular throughout The economy of the Rocky Mountain Front is the project area. Hunting for a variety of wildlife primarily agrarian. Large cattle ranches dominate includes waterfowl, upland game birds, pronghorn, the private lands within the project area. elk, moose, deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and furbearers. Private landowners often give permission for hunting and fishing on their land. Under a conservation easement, control of public access to land will remain under the discretion of the landowner.

Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 15

Figure 3. Landownership in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area.

3 Threats to and Status of Resources USFWS A grizzly bear roams a streamside in the Rocky Mountain Front. This chapter discusses the effects of expanding the Conservation easements along the Rocky Mountain Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. Front will help alleviate habitat fragmentation issues. Key biological linkages will facilitate wildlife movement and provide for wildlife habitat EFFECTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL requirements. The potential for human–wildlife ENVIRONMENT conflicts will be greatly reduced. The expansion of the Rocky Mountain Front CA Compatible agricultural practices such as livestock has a variety of effects on wildlife habitat and water grazing or haying will continue, while sodbusting resources. (breaking of native rangeland) will be prohibited. Easements will maximize the connectivity with other protected grasslands and decrease the negative WILDLIFE HABITAT impacts of habitat fragmentation on grassland birds Expanding the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation (Owens and Myers 1972). Area will provide for an increase in conservation protection on up to 125,000 acres of important WATER RESOURCES habitat on private land. This will help maintain the uniqueness of the Rocky Mountain Front and Water resources on the up to 125,000 acres of complement conservation efforts of the MFWP, TNC, additional conservation easements will be protected Boone and Crockett Club, Montana Land Reliance, from increased nonpoint source pollution from and other federal and state agencies. residential subdivision, commercial development, and draining of wetlands, all of which are prohibited The fact that the Front remains biologically and under the easement project. ecologically intact is a tribute to the area’s ranchers and residents, who have long recognized what this The landowner will continue to own and control unique and important landscape represents for water rights. ranching and wildlife. The project aims to ensure habitat for wildlife remains intact in perpetuity and, by doing so, strengthens the ranching heritage of the Rocky Mountain Front. 18 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

EFFECTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC woody expansion into grasslands (Wali et al. 2002), inevitably leading to changes in ecosystem function ENVIRONMENT (Dodds et al. 2008). Landownership and land use, the value of The MNHP has rated the Front as one of the most intact ecosystems, oil and gas explorations and significant natural landscapes in the state, a tribute development, wind energy development, public to its intact ecological systems, expansive wetlands, use, and economic effects on the socioeconomic and diverse native fauna and flora, including a environment are discussed in the following section. concentration of rare species.

LANDOWNERSHIP AND LAND USE Conserving native land cover is an important component of maintaining ecosystem structure and The expanded easement project will enhance the function. Under the expansion project, native forest protection of trust resources through conservation of habitats will remain intact, continuing to provide wildlife habitat, and protection of land from surface ecosystem goods and services to landowners and disturbance or development. local communities. Ecosystem services include: soil erosion control, water supply, biodiversity, and The project will affect location and distribution, but carbon sequestration. Forested ecoregions (eastern not rate or density, of human population growth. temperate, western mountain, and west coast Ongoing, traditional agricultural uses such as marine) have less than 5% of native area remaining. livestock grazing will allow compatible ranching to The expansion project will help protect valuable continue. This project will maintain open space on a ecosystem services (see figure 4). Furthermore, large landscape scale, thereby preserving the rural it will prevent the prohibitively high cost of lifestyle of the area. restoration. Preventing subdivision and development could decrease future tax revenues in a defined market OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT area. However, open space could actually provide a net savings to local governments when compared The easement expansion project will not preclude to the revenues generated and costs of services oil and gas exploration or development on private associated with residential development (Haggerty land. Typically, conservation easements do not affect 1996). subsurface estates (oil and gas deposits) because the Service only acquires rights associated with surface Positive effects may occur from increased public ownership. In many places where the subsurface wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting opportunities. estate has been severed from surface ownership, Open space also may enhance property values including those in the Rocky Mountain Front, the on adjoining lands as people begin to seek out landowner does not own the subsurface rights; this undeveloped lands in the future. means that the easement that the Service acquires from the landowner is junior to the subsurface rights. The purchase of an easement will not result in a transfer of land title and, therefore, the property In instances where a landowner owns both the taxes paid by the landowner to the county are not surface and the subsurface estate, the Service will affected. No changes to the tax base are anticipated. treat oil and gas development as a permitted use The land remains under private ownership. and provide for such development in the easement document. Easements will contain reasonable surface The easement expansion project will have no effect stipulations for such actions as revegetation of on tribal jurisdiction or tribal rights because it is disturbed areas, access, and site reclamation. outside of reservation land. Easements will not be acquired on federal lands where the BLM administers the oil and gas leasing VALUE OF INTACT ECOSYSTEMS program. The BLM program is concentrated on public lands, whereas the Service’s conservation Humans influence every ecosystem on earth, leading easements are concentrated on private lands. to impairment of natural ecosystem structure and function (MEA 2005). Converting native land to row crop agriculture, suppressing fire, diverting water WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT flow, increasing nutrient and toxic pollution, altering global precipitation patterns and gas concentration, Conservation easements purchased from willing and homogenizing and lowering global biodiversity sellers on private land will prevent the development are a few of the ways humans have altered of commercial wind resources on those lands. ecosystems. North American forests, savannas, and The easement expansion project will enhance grasslands have experienced substantial losses, the protection of an intact ecosystem through whereas woody savanna, shrubland, and desert conservation of wildlife habitat and protection areas have expanded because of desertification and from surface disturbance or development of wind Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of Resources 19

Figure 4. Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services. Note: The relative value, RI, is determined as the ratio of estimated benefits derived from native and restored acreages per year. (Source: Dodds et al. 2008) energy infrastructure while providing some financial ECONOMIC IMPACTS compensation to landowners through the sale of the easements. Increases in employment, annual operating expenditures, and easement purchases will The expansion project will affect only lands on which contribute to the economic activity that the Benton the Service has acquired a conservation easement. Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex generates in Location and distribution, and sales by willing sellers the project area. The socioeconomic impact of visitor of wind energy development on adjacent lands expenditure is undetermined, as historical public without Service conservation easements will not be visitor data at conservation areas is not available restricted by the Service. This expansion project and visitor increases due to public awareness of will maintain open space on a large landscape scale, conservation activities is difficult to quantify. thereby preserving the rural lifestyle of the area. According to Service staff, new employment associated with Rocky Mountain Front CA will PUBLIC USE increase by 1.67 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to Conservation easements purchased on private tracts a total of 5.97 FTEs. New employee salaries total will not change the landowner’s right to manage $91,518, or an average of approximately $54,801 public access to their property. per new employee. Assuming employees spend 79 percent of their earnings locally, the direct Under the expanded easement project, private socioeconomic impacts of increased employment at landowners will continue to retain full control the Rocky Mountain Front CA is $72,299 annually. over their property rights, including allowing or restricting hunting and fishing on their lands. This The direct economic impacts of easement acquisitions is different from the MFWP’s block management are more difficult to attribute as it is less obvious program, where participating landowners are paid to where landowners may spend this income. In the provide hunter access to their private lands. Rocky Mountain Front CA, easements are worth an estimated $48,875,000. 20 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Approximately $29,365 in operating expenditures system. The nation will gain the protection of species associated with landowner management, employee dependent on these habitats for future generations of training, and travel expenses will be added. These Americans. funds are spent on local goods and services and therefore directly impact the economy in the study area. Table 1 presents a summary of annual operating CUMULATIVE IMPACTS costs and salaries associated with the economic Cumulative impacts are defined by National impacts. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) policy as the impacts on the environment which result from the Table 1. Summary of annual operating costs and salaries associated with the economic impacts in the incremental impact of the action when added to other Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion. past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non- Conservation Area federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 Current Expansion CFR § 1508.7). Impacts Impacts This section describes the cumulative impacts Salaries $119,981 $192,280 that may result from the combination of expected Operations $ 3,076 $ 32,441 actions of the expansion project, together with other biological and socioeconomic conditions, events, and Total Impacts $123,057 $224,721 developments. Increase above baseline $101,664 PAST ACTIONS

As shown above, the total direct economic impacts The project area lies adjacent to and includes related to the Rocky Mountain Front CA expansion a large complex of federal, state, and private is estimated at $224,721, an increase of $101,664 conservation lands that serve as anchors or core above baseline impacts. areas for numerous trust species. These include the 1.5 million-acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex; three state wildlife management areas UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS (Sun River, Ear Mountain, and Blackleaf wildlife management areas totaling 34,000 acres); The Nature No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse Conservancy’s Pine Butte Swamp Preserve (13,000 impacts to the environment will result from the acres); two Bureau of Land Management areas easement expansion project, and it will not result of critical environmental concern (11,500 acres); in unavoidable adverse impacts on the physical two Bureau of Reclamation resource management or biological environment. The expansion of the areas (formerly Pishkun and Willow Creek national conservation area boundary will not, by itself, affect wildlife refuges totaling 9,000 acres); and the Boone any aspect of landownership or values. and Crockett Club’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch (6,055 acres). In addition, nearly 100,000 acres IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE of private land are already protected with perpetual conservation easements held by TNC and the COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Montana Land Reliance. There will not be any irreversible or irretrievable The Service has been acquiring conservation commitments of resources associated with expanding easements on properties with significant wetland the conservation easement project, as lands will only habitat under the SWAP. To date, over 21,000 acres be acquired as funding is available. Once easements have been protected through the Migratory Bird are acquired, irreversible and irretrievable Conservation Fund. LWCF will continue to be used commitments of funds to protect these lands (such to target acquisition of easements on properties that as expenditure for fuel and staff for monitoring) will do not meet the wetland requirements of the SWAP. exist. PRESENT ACTIONS SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS Within the CoCE, areas that were not suitable for LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY homesteading and settlement were designated as The conservation easement expansion project will federal lands. Settlers selected the milder, more maintain the long term biological productivity of the fertile valleys. These areas are currently under grassland, riparian, forest, and tundra ecosystems; the greatest developmental pressure. Because including the increased protection of endangered and of these threats and pressures, the Service has threatened species and the protection of biological defined three project areas within the CoCE to diversity by preserving a large, intact, functioning concentrate strategic acquisition to (1) maintain Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of Resources 21 biological diversity related to wildlife values; (2) Economic Effects of Present Actions link together existing protected areas; (3) preserve existing wildlife corridors; and (4) protect the large, Combining the effects of Service employment intact, functioning ecosystem, while maintaining ($228,177) and operations ($22,123), the total baseline the rural character and agricultural lifestyle of economic activity generated by the conservation western Montana. The Land and Water Conservation areas in the twelve-county region is approximately Fund and potential conservation partners will $250,300 annually. provide funding for these efforts. Table 2 shows Implementation of all three conservation areas (two the acquisition acreage, type of acquisition tool, expansions, one new area), as described in Table focal species, and key partners for each of the three 2, will increase total operational expenditures by project areas, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area $64,423. A total of 5.01 new FTE employees will be expansion, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation hired at a combined salary of $274,554. Assuming Area expansion, and Swan Valley Conservation Area.

Table 2. Summary of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projects for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. Potential Type of Proposed Project New Acquisition Project Area Area Acreage Tool Focal Species Key Partners Rocky Grizzly bear, Private landowners, The Mountain Expand existing migratory birds, Nature Conservancy, Front area from 125,000 Conservation long-billed The Conservation Fund, Conservation 527,000 acres to acres easement curlew, Sprague’s Richard King Mellon Area 918,000 acres pipit, McCown’s Foundation expansion longspur

Blackfoot Grizzly bear, Expand existing Private landowners, The Valley Canada lynx, bull area from 80,000 Conservation Blackfoot Challenge, The Conservation trout, westslope 165,000 acres to acres easement Nature Conservancy, Area cutthroat trout, 824,024 acres Trout Unlimited expansion migratory birds

Grizzly bear, Private landowners, The Conservation Canada lynx, bull Nature Conservancy, easement trout, migratory Trust for Public Lands, Swan Valley New proposed 11,000 and limited birds: Lewis’ Swan Valley Ecosystem Conservation area of 187,400 acres fee title (less woodpecker, black Center, Plum Creek Area acres than 1,000 tern, trumpeter Timber Company, Vital acres) swan, olive-sided Ground, Trout Unlimited, flycatcher Northwest Connections

79 percent of salaries are spent within the impact region, there will be an additional $216,897 in direct economic impacts to the study area. The increased operational ($64,423) and employment ($216,897) expenditures added to baseline direct economic activity ($250,300) yields a total direct economic impact of $531,620 annually, which is an increase of $281,320 from current baseline impacts.

Other Present Actions by the Service In the past 5 years, TNC has provided $2.1 million in private funding to the Service’s easement program within the project area. In addition, this partnership recently expanded to include The Conservation Fund and the Richard King Mellon Foundation, both of whom have committed to provide an additional $15 million dollars in private funding for the purchase of

USFWS conservation easements along the Front. McCown’s longspur. 22 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Program Lewis and Clark County Open Space Bond continues to develop strong partnerships with private landowners along the Front through Lewis and Clark County has established an open the implementation of habitat restoration and space bond with over $5,000,000 dedicated to management projects on private lands. Strong protecting private lands while keeping it in private partnerships have also developed with a variety ownership and on the tax rolls. Future partnerships of agencies and organizations jointly involved to to protect private land and their associated fish and accomplish similar objectives through restoration wildlife resources are expected to occur with the and protection projects. Habitat restoration efforts Service under this initiative. currently focus on wetlands, streams, native grasslands, and riparian areas. Typical projects Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front include wetland restoration, riparian corridor enhancement (revegetation), instream restoration, On September 16, 2009, The Coalition to Protect and the development of grazing systems to the Rocky Mountain Front unveiled a draft plan rejuvenate native grasslands. proposing a new comprehensive approach for managing public lands along the Rocky Mountain Several grant programs administered by the Division Front. The proposal, termed the Rocky Mountain of Ecological Services are available to tribes, states, Front Heritage Act, was developed through 3 and individual private landowners, for projects years of meetings and negotiations with ranchers, that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate sportsmen, private landowners, weed experts, and species. The Front provides an opportunity for the conservation groups. It encompasses roughly 400,000 Service to collaborate with many public and private acres of public land south of Birch Creek/Swift partners to conserve endangered species. Reservoir. Conservation easements will protect and maintain The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is a the integrity of the Front’s unique complex of Montana-made proposal that would give local wetland, grassland, and riparian habitats and their communities and land managers more tools to control diverse complement of fish, wildlife, and plants. the spread of noxious weeds. The coalition goals These easements will also provide a vital link or are to create legislative options that could buffer protected habitat corridor between the existing ranchers and wildlife from the impacts of noxious protected “biological anchors” including three state weeds, safeguard traditional access to renowned wildlife management areas, Pine Butte Swamp hunting and fishing areas, and help protect a way Preserve, Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch, of life. The grassroots proposal will eventually Bureau of Reclamation Resource Management include congressional direction and tools to help Areas, the adjacent Lewis and Clark National control noxious weeds, create a unique landscape Forest, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and protection designation for the majority of the public Bureau of Land Management Areas of Critical lands called a “Conservation Management Area,” Environmental Concern lands. as well as make common-sense additions to the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex. The noxious The existing easement project will have long term weed management area includes 434,237 acres; the positive impacts on wildlife habitat and will result conservation management area includes 218,327 in the long term conservation of migratory birds, acres; and the wilderness additions include 85,910 threatened and endangered species, native plants, acres. This conservation initiative will further and the overall biological diversity of the Rocky advance conservation along the Rocky Mountain Mountain Front. Front (Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front 2009). REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS The Conservation Fund–Rocky Mountain Front Based on past conservation successes within the Crown of the Continent ecosystem, the Service Initiative anticipates nonprofit organizations will continue The Conservation Fund is partnering with TNC, the to promote and secure conservation easements on Service, and the state of Montana on a 5-year effort additional private lands. It is likely that the bulk of to protect 220,000 acres of wildlife habitat along the nonprofit work involving conservation easements the Rocky Mountain Front. The goal is to maintain will be in partnership with the Service’s goal of the area’s ranching heritage. In its first year, four protecting 216,000 additional acres (Rocky Mountain projects protected 21,274 acres of critical migratory Front CA expansion, Blackfoot Valley CA expansion, corridors for grizzly bears and other species. The and Swan Valley CA) within the Crown of the Conservation Fund is planning future conservation Continent ecosystem. protection for an additional 198,726 acres over the next 4 years (Conservation Fund 2010). 4 Project Implementation

This chapter provides a general description of the acquisition is preferable in some locations, it is operations and management of the expanded Rocky not required and is not preferable to conservation Mountain Front Conservation Area. easements in the Rocky Mountain Front. Fee-title acquisition will triple or quadruple the cost of land acquisition in addition to adding significant increases LAND PROTECTION OPTIONS in long-term management and operational costs for Two alternatives were considered for the the Service. The Service views a strong and vibrant environmental assessment (EA), no action and the rural lifestyle, of which ranching is the dominant land chosen alternative, acquiring additional conservation use, as one of the key components to ensure habitat easements along the Rocky Mountain Front. integrity and wildlife resource protection. The analysis and documentation was prepared by a ACTION AND OBJECTIVES combination of field and regional Service staff, along with partners (see appendix C). After completion of The Service plans to expand the authorized an environmental assessment and after conducting a acquisition goal by up to an additional 125,000 acres, public comment period, the proposed alternative of resulting in the approval to acquire conservation acquiring conservation easements was chosen. The easements on 295,000 acres of private land within the expansion project was found to have no significant expanded project boundary. impacts on the quality of the environment, thus the finding of no significant impact (FONSI) has been The easement expansion project relies on voluntary completed and signed (see appendix D). The FONSI involvement by landowners. The expansion project document is basically the EA modified to reflect all does not involve fee-title acquisitions. Land owner applicable comments and responses. Appendix E management practices such as grazing will continue is the environmental action statement, appendix on the land included in the easement contract. F is the environmental compliance certificate, and All land within an easement remains in private appendix G is the section 7 biological evaluation. ownership and, therefore, property tax and grassland Director’s approval memorandums are appendix H. management activities such as invasive plant and tree control, grazing, and burning will remain the responsibility of the landowner. Public access, ACQUISITION ALTERNATIVES including hunting, also remains under the control of the landowner. The Service will acquire conservation easements principally by using funds appropriated under the The easement project will be managed by staff Land and Water Conservation Act, which derives located at the Benton Lake National Wildlife funds primarily from royalties paid for by offshore Complex. The Service staff will be responsible for oil and gas leasing. Such funds are intended for land monitoring and administering of all easements on and water conservation projects. These funds are private land. Monitoring will consist of periodically not derived from general taxes. Funding is subject reviewing land status in meetings with the to annual appropriations by Congress for specific landowners or land managers to ensure that the acquisition projects. stipulations of the conservation easement are being met. The Service’s role is to monitor the purchased Funding from other sources may also be used easements to ensure that landowners comply with within the project area. Management activities the easement agreement so that the property does associated with easements may be funded through not undergo subdivision, commercial or industrial other sources, such as TNC, PFW, and other private development, or conversion of native prairie and public partners. The Service will also consider grassland to cropland. Photo documentation will be accepting voluntary donations for easements. used at the time the easements are established as part of a documentation of baseline conditions. STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION Conservation easements are the most cost-effective, Strategic habitat conservation (SHC) involves an politically acceptable means to ensure protection ongoing cycle of biological planning, conservation of critical habitats that occur within the project design, conservation delivery, outcome-based area. Although habitat protection through fee-title monitoring, and assumption-based research. SHC 24 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT uses science to focus conservation in the right places Riparian areas, wetland, and large expanses of native (USFWS 2008). prairie provide important habitats for migratory birds. There are approximately 240 species of birds In 2004, the Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife that use the Front including species of concern such program led a statewide, strategic habitat as harlequin ducks, trumpeter swans, ferruginous conservation planning effort for focusing work in hawks, peregrine falcons, chestnut-collared Montana. The state was divided into three broad longspurs, Sprague’s pipits, and long-billed curlews. geographic regions based on similar habitat types. Within each region, priority federal trust species and “guilds” were identified. The Montana Habitat and Focal Species Population Evaluation Team office then assisted with In order to strategically conserve habitat along the gathering and creating spatially-explicit models and Front, the Service chose the grizzly bear as a key data sets for priority trust resources. In addition, focal species. Focusing on grizzly bears is likely to the scientific-based planning efforts of partner capture the habitat needs of several of the other key agencies and conservation organizations were trust species. The Service is currently studying how incorporated. These include the “Strategic Habitat waterfowl use wetland and upland habitat along the Conservation Report” prepared by the National Front, and when that study is complete it will be Ecological Assessment Team, the “Upper Missouri/ added to the grizzly bear information to update the Yellowstone/Upper Columbia River Ecosystem Team conservation strategy. Focus Area Plan,” the “Montana Partners Program 1999 Focus Area Plan,” “Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy Plan,” and The Nature Conservancy of Montana’s “Statewide Conservation Plan.” Seven stakeholder meetings were held to gather input from other partners to identify focus areas and to develop an appropriate conservation strategy. The “2007 Montana Step- down Strategic Plan” identified geographic focus areas, habitat accomplishment targets, and benefits to federal trust species. The comprehensive process ultimately produced ten conservation focus areas for Montana, including the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. The preparation of this project area land protection plan (LPP) addresses the four key elements of SHC: planning, design, delivery, and monitoring and research (see figure 5).

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING

Among conservation biologists, the Front is ranked in the top one percent of wildlife habitat remaining in Figure 5. The basic strategic habitat conservation the United States (The Nature Conservancy 1999). cycle. Virtually every wildlife species found in this area upon the arrival of Lewis and Clark in 1806, with Population Objectives for Grizzly Bear the exception of free ranging bison, remains today in relatively stable or increasing numbers. In addition, The Rocky Mountain Front CA is part of the it is the only remaining area in the continental Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem recovery United States with a complete, intact assemblage of zone. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS large mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly 1993) specifies multiple thresholds that must be bear, gray wolf, wolverine, pine marten, and Canada maintained before the grizzly bear population in the lynx. NCDE can be considered recovered. For the NCDE these thresholds are: Three federally listed mammals will benefit from ■ Ten females with cubs inside Glacier National habitat protection. A stable population of grizzly Park, and twelve females with cubs outside bears occurs throughout the area. Gray wolves have GNP over a running 6-year average, both inside migrated back into the Front from the Canadian the recovery zone, and within a 10-mile area Rockies and several packs have established home immediately surrounding the recovery zone, ranges west of the project boundary in Bob Marshall excluding Canada; and Wilderness. The Front also supports one of the largest populations of Canada lynx in the lower forty- ■ Twenty-one of twenty-three bear management eight states. units (BMUs) occupied by females with young Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 25

form a running 6-year sum of verified sightings Current State of the System and evidence, with no two adjacent BMUs unoccupied; and known human-caused mortality In recent years, the mortality threshold for grizzly not to exceed 4 percent of the population bear recovery in the NCDE has been exceeded, estimate based on the most recent 3-year sum but the significance of these numbers cannot be of females with cubs. evaluated until there is accurate information on population size. Through the use of genetic analysis Limiting Factors on collected hair samples, researchers were able to determine that an estimated 765 grizzly bears make Increasing urbanization causing increased their home in the Northern Continental Divide. fragmentation of habitat from housing developments Of those 765, researchers estimate 470 bears are and associated road development is a major threat females. Female bears were also found throughout to the Rocky Mountain Front and the entire CoCE. the entire study area, indicating a good reproductive For wide-ranging species, such as the grizzly bear, potential for the species. Analysis of hair samples has unplanned development leads to loss of habitat allowed researchers to determine the genetic health connectivity within the project area and, on a larger of the grizzly bear population. Although overall scale, between the CoCE and other historical or genetic variation indicates a healthy population, it potential ranges. is only one piece of the puzzle that managers need for the recovery of grizzlies in the NCDE to be Riparian zones, for example, provide excellent successful (Kendall et al 2009). habitat and cover for bears moving throughout the watersheds, but they are also among the most desired locations for building sites (Lolo National Forest 2003). An increase in development also leads to more frequent conflicts between bears and people due in large part to the increased presence of bear attractants. Human garbage, dog food, and bird seed can condition and habituate bears leading to more interactions and conflicts with people. These factors can lead to human-caused grizzly bear mortality, which in turn results in a decrease in grizzly bear

reproduction and loss of population and genetic USFWS viability. More than 17% of the NCDE is private Subdivision development impacts habitat connectivity. land and an estimated 71% of bear–human conflicts and bear deaths occur on these private lands (Dr. Formulation of Habitat Objectives Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, University of Montana, Missoula, Currently, there are approximately 600,000 acres of MT; personal interview, 11 June 2008). Minimizing unencumbered private land in the Rocky Mountain attractants on private lands and limiting subdivision Front CA. With the current levels of development are keys to reducing this threat to grizzly bears. and fragmentation along the Front, grizzly bear populations appear stable; however, the pressure Key Habitats for Protection of human-cause mortality on grizzly bears is higher than acceptable for recovery across the NCDE. In order to identify which habitats along the Front How much more fragmentation or development are the highest priorities for grizzly bears, the could occur without affecting population stability Service used a model developed specifically for or significantly effecting grizzly bear mortality is the eastern side of the NCDE recovery zone by a unknown. Given that conserving all of the remaining multi-agency working group. The NCDE model uses private land with easements to prevent additional logistic regression in calculating seasonal resource development is not a reasonable or desired goal, selection functions for grizzly bear habitat (Mace et especially around the existing population centers of al. 1999). The model considers several characteristics Augusta, Choteau, Dupuyer, and Bynum, the Service of habitat, disturbance by human activity and has set a goal to protect 295,000 acres of existing telemetry locations of grizzly bears. private lands. Long-term monitoring of grizzly bears will be conducted and the goal of 295,000 acres will be CONSERVATION DESIGN periodically re-evaluated. Buffer areas will be maintained around communities The design stage of the SHC process involves to provide rural communities the ability to meet their assessment of the current state of the system, community development goals and objectives. The formulation of habitat objectives, and determination Service will work individually with communities to of priority areas. determine the configuration of the community buffer to address growth issues within the buffer zones. 26 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Priority Areas interest in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals. The Service will expand the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area by purchasing conservation The acquisition authority for the expansion project easements to reduce future impacts of development is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. and habitat fragmentation. Typically, the Service will 742 a-742j). The federal money used to acquire purchase an easement for the entire ownership of a conservation easements from the Land and Water landowner; therefore the priorities for the “Rocky Conservation Fund are derived primarily from Mountain Front Conservation Area Land Protection oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, Plan” are based on the best available data on existing motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of surplus private ownerships. federal property. There could be additional funds to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein for The Service and its partners recognize that there fish and wildlife conservation purposes through is tremendous opportunity to expand existing congressional appropriations, the Migratory Bird blocks of conservation lands within the project area. Conservation Fund, the North American Waterfowl This includes state or federal fee-title ownership Conservation Act funds, and donations from and private lands already under conservation nonprofit organizations. easement. This also includes conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization ownership such The basic considerations in acquiring an easement as The Nature Conservancy, and the Boone and interest in private land are the biological significance Crockett Club. of the area, existing and anticipated threats to wildlife resources, landowner interest in the The project area has been split into three priority expansion project, and size of the parcel. The zones (see figure 6) for acquiring conservation purchase of conservation easements will occur with easements using the following criteria: willing sellers only and will be subject to available ■ biological significance to grizzly bears (as funding. umbrella species for other species) ■ connectivity to other protected lands MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Priority 1 includes areas within the project with the As the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area highest quality grizzly bear habitat and the greatest expansion project develops and conservation opportunity for connectivity. The eastern boundary easements are purchased, grizzly bears will continue is based generally on the eastern edge of the NCDE to be monitored. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife grizzly model. Key anchors, which can be expanded Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and U.S. upon to increase connectivity, are the state wildlife Geological Survey (USGS) all have active grizzly management areas, TNC lands, Lewis and Clark bear monitoring and research projects. MFWP, in National Forest, Boone and Crockett lands, and particular, is focused on developing a science-based private lands with existing conservation easements. population monitoring program that provides the information necessary to successfully manage bears Priority 2 includes other important grizzly bear in western Montana (Dood et al. 2006). Specifically, habitat and some opportunities for connectivity. It MFWP will monitor a representative sample of also includes areas where other funding sources are twenty-five or more adult females in the NCDE to available to purchase conservation easements. establish population trends, and will use verified Priority 3 includes the remaining areas within the sightings to document changes in bear distribution project area. This zone is part of the Front ecoregion, and linkage areas used, especially by female bears. and contains large continuous blocks of native prairie. MFWP will monitor mortality including timing and Priority 3 also includes the opportunity to protect causes and gather survivorship data in cooperation important riparian corridors for grizzlies across the with other agencies. In addition, results from the entire project area. 2004 USGS NCDE Grizzly Bear DNA project (USGS 2004) will assist MFWP with bear population size These priority areas will be regularly reevaluated estimation, distribution, and population trends which and may change as data on the habitat needs and will provide additional information for focusing limiting factors for focal species in the Rocky acquisition efforts. Mountain Front CA become available. The “Monitoring and Research” section that follows Grizzly bears and bull trout have been identified as provides further details on this feedback loop. a focal species for the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) (see figure 7). The GNLCC was established, in part, to CONSERVATION DELIVERY foster cooperation between agencies and support monitoring and research where there are common Habitat protection will occur through the purchase interests. Continual evaluation of grizzly bear of additional conservation easements. It is the long- population trends and habitat use will be used to established policy of the Service to acquire minimum Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 27

Figure 6. Priority areas for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion. 28 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT evaluate and refine conservation efforts on the The GNLCC works with a variety of science partners ground within the GNLCC. including many of which are also supporters of the expansion of the easement project. The protection of the Rocky Mountain Front, through a conservation LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION easement project, will significantly contribute to the COOPERATIVES conservation of GNLCC priority habitats and the federal trust species identified above. Strategic habitat conservation is a means of applying adaptive management across large landscapes. As the GNLCC continues to develop, an over arching Landscape conservation cooperatives will facilitate priority will be to serve as a convening body, bringing strategic habitat conservation. together partners to address existing and future issues related to climate change and landscape scale The Rocky Mountain Front CA lies within the conservation. The Service will work with existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Great Northern partnerships within the Rocky Mountain Front to Landscape Conservation Cooperative. The GNLCC further refine priorities and leverage resources for includes the mountain and transitional habitats in acquisition. regions of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and the upper Green River basin in southern Wyoming and small parts of Colorado and Utah, and portions of the COORDINATION Interior Columbia Plateau reaching into Oregon and Washington westward to the Cascade Mountains. Public involvement was initiated for the proposed The GNLCC also includes the international expansion of the conservation easement project in landscapes of the interior British Columbia and the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area in Alberta, Canada, and covers the entirety of the May 2010. An open house public scoping meeting northern Rocky Mountains and mid-continent was held in Choteau, Montana on May 17, 2010. lowlands of the interior northwest. Public comments were taken to identify issues to be analyzed for the expansion project. Thirty people attended. In addition, fourteen individuals, four agencies, and two organizations provided written comments during the scoping process. In addition, the Service’s field staff has contacted local government officials, other public agencies, sportsmen’s and women’s groups, and conservation groups, all of which have expressed an interest in and a desire to protect the Rocky Mountain Front from the pressures brought about by rural subdivision. The draft EA and draft LPP was issued on July 26, 2010 for a 30-day comment period. Five written comments were received during the comment period. Detailed comments and their responses are included in appendix I.

CONTAMINANTS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Fieldwork for pre acquisition contaminant surveys will be conducted, on a tract-by-tract basis, prior to the purchase of any land interest. Any suspected problems or contaminants requiring additional

USFWS surveys will be referred to a contaminants specialist Collared grizzly bear movement data is used to assess located in the Service’s Ecological Services office in populations. Helena, Montana.

The GNLCC has identified priority species including: bull trout, grizzly bear, Lewis’s woodpecker, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL trumpeter swan, westslope cutthroat trout, Arctic POLICY ACT grayling, wolverine, willow flycatcher, sage grouse, burrowing owl, and Columbia spotted frog. Eight of As a federal agency, the Service must comply with these priority species exist within the project area. provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. An EA is required under NEPA to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will meet stated Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 29

Figure 7. Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion.

objectives, and to assess the possible impacts to and the human environment. The draft EA, published in July 2010, served as the basis for determining U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service whether implementation of the expansion project Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning will constitute a major federal action significantly Branch of Land Protection Planning affecting the quality of the human environment. P.O. Box 25486–DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 303 / 236 4378 DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY 303 / 236 4792 fax Copies of the LPP were sent to federal and state http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, private groups, and other interested individuals. Additional copies of the document are available from the following offices and websites. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 922 Bootlegger Trail Great Falls, MT 59404-6133 406 / 727 7400 http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake

Appendix A List of Plants and Animals

PLANTS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Populous tremuloides Aspen Pseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Juniperus horizontalis Creeping juniper Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick Pinus flexilis Limber pine Hesperostipa comata Needle and thread Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine Cornus sericea Red-osier dogwood Artemisia tridentata Sagebrush Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry Dasiphora fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine Salix spp. Willow Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose FISH SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling Phoxinus eos Northern redbelly dace Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi Westslope cutthroat trout Salvelinus confluentus Bull trout AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Pseudacris maculata Boreal chorus frog Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted frog Thamnophis sirtalis Common garter snake Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater short-horned lizard Ambystoma macrodactlyum Long toed salamander 32 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Chrysemys picta Painted turtle Thamnophis radix Plains garter snake Spea bombifrons Plains spadefoot Thamnophis elegans Terrestrial garter snake Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander Crotalus viridus Western rattlesnake MAMMALS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep Bison bison Bison Ursus americanus Black bear Lynx rufus Bobcat Lynx canadensis Canada lynx Canis latrans Coyote Cervus elaphus Elk Canis lupus Gray wolf Ursus arctos horribilis Grizzly bear Alces alces Moose Oreamnos americanus Mountain goat Felis concolor Mountain lion Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer Martes americana Pine marten Antilocapra americana Pronghorn Vulpes velox Swift fox Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Gulo gulo Wolverine BIRDS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Falco peregrinus American peregrine falcon Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Chlidonias niger Black tern Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared longspur Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle Accipiter spp. Goshawk Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin duck Calamospiza melanocorys Lark bunting Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte’s sparrow Appendix A — List of Plants and Animals 33

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker Numenius americanus Long billed curlew Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit Anas acuta Northern pintail Charadrius melodus Piping plover Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe Centrocercus urophasianus Sage grouse Grus canadensis Sandhill crane Chen caerulescens Snow goose Anthus spragueii Sprague’s pipit Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan Empidonax traillii extirmus Willow flycatcher

Appendix B List of Endangered and Threatened Species

MAMMALS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPECIES DESIGNATION Lynx canadensis Canada lynx Threatened Canis lupus Gray wolf Endangered Urus acrctos horribilis Grizzly bear Threatened BIRDS SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPECIES DESIGNATION Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened Endangered—listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction. Threatened—listed in the Federal Register as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Appendix C List of Preparers and Reviewers

Author’s Name Position Work Unit USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Kathleen Burchett Project leader Great Falls, MT

Geographic information USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Mark Ely systems (GIS) specialist Lakewood, CO

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Vanessa Fields Wildlife biologist Great Falls, MT

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Randy Gazda Wildlife biologist Great Falls, MT

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Toni Griffin Refuge planner Lakewood, CO

Wetland district USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Jim Lange manager Great Falls, MT

USFWS, Montana Acquisition Office, Gary Sullivan Realty supervisor Great Falls, MT

Jason Steigert Economist BBC Research & Consulting, Denver, CO

Reviewer’s Name Position Work Unit Laurel Bowen Writer-editor TBC Solutions, Clinton, TN

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, David Lucas Chief of planning Lakewood, CO

Appendix D Finding of No Significant Impact 40 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix D — Finding of No Significant Impact 41 42 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix E Environmental Action Statement

Appendix F Environmental Compliance Certificate 46 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix F — Environmental Compliance Certificate 47

Appendix G Section 7 Biological Evaluation 50 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix G — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 51 52 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix G — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 53 54 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix H Director’s Approval to Expand the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 56 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Appendix H — Director’s Approval to Expand the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 57

Appendix I Public Involvement

Public involvement was initiated for the proposed The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all input expansion of the conservation easement project in received from the public. To address this input, the Rocky Mountain Front (Front) Conservation several clarifications and some changes are reflected Area in May 2010. A media contact list was compiled in the final EA and LPP. and news releases and factsheets were developed and distributed to media outlets, local organizations, The issues, comments and concerns are presented elected officials, and interested parties. The news as received, followed by responses from the U.S. releases and factsheets described the proposed Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Comments expansion of the conservation easement project, and about editorial and presentation corrections were announced an open house to gather input from the addressed in the production of the final EA and LPP, public. Personal outreach efforts were made with and are not detailed here. county commissioners and other persons of interest. Comment 1. I am writing in support of the US Fish Scoping was conducted during a public open house on & Wildlife Service proposal to use Land and Water May 17, 2010; 4–7 p.m. at the Stage Stop Inn, 1005 N. Conservation money to purchase easements in Main Avenue, in Choteau, Montana. The purpose of 3 areas of Montana, the Blackfoot Valley, Rocky scoping was to seek input from the public regarding Mountain Front and Swan Valley. the proposed expansion of the conservation During the last 40 years I have recreated in each easement project, and to identify the issues that of the areas in question and I value the relatively needed to be addressed during the planning process. uncluttered space there greatly. What better way to Approximately thirty people attended the open spend tax dollars than to preserve a landscape that house. Fourteen individuals, four agencies, and two can be enjoyed by everyone in perpetuity. organizations provided written comments during the scoping period. Comments identified biological, I would like to continue hunting, fishing, camping social, and economic concerns regarding the proposed and sightseeing in these areas. By purchasing these expansion of the conservation easement project. easements, we can keep the private lands a viable The issues raised and comments received helped the source of income for the owners and at the same time planning team to develop the alternatives presented keep the landscape unchanged for visitors like me. in the draft environmental assessment (EA) and land protection plan (LPP). Key issues are described in Response 1. Thank you for your comments. The Chapter 1 of the draft EA and LPP, under “Issues goals of the conservation easement projects Identified and Selected for Analysis.” are to protect fish and wildlife resources while concurrently maintaining the rural character of the The draft EA/LPP was presented to the public area. Implementation of the expansion will support on July 26, 2010 for a 30-day comment period. your values of preserving a landscape in perpetuity, Five written comments were received during keep private lands a viable source of income for the the comment period on the draft environmental owners, and keep the landscape relatively unchanged assessment and land protection plan. for visitors to the Front.

Comment 2. As landowners on the Rocky Mountain PUBLIC COMMENTS Front, with a conservation easement in place, we The following issues, concerns, and comments are a are fully in support of the proposed expansion by compilation of those expressed during public scoping, the USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] of its and the July–August 2010 comment period for the project boundary to acquire conservation easements. draft environmental assessment and land protection We understand this expansion would give the plan. Comments were provided by local and county Montana staff the authority to acquire an additional governments, state agencies, private organizations, 125,000 acres of easements from willing sellers and individuals concerned about the natural within the project area. resources of the Rocky Mountain Front. Comments Our conservation easement has given us the were received verbally at meetings, via email, and in assurance that some very rich wildlife habitat can be writing. safeguarded alongside a viable ranching operation. 60 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

In the past month, we’ve had a pair of two-year­ up any more land under conservation easements old grizzly bears walk through our barnyard and for a number of reasons. First, it is well known had several gray wolf sightings, not to mention the that most parcels of land that are presently under multiple beaver dams, sandhill cranes, and long- conservation easement by one of the several groups billed curlew. While much of the nation seems to be that facilitate them has been greatly ignored and is losing its biological diversity, the Rocky Mountain very mismanaged and the level of production has Front’s is flourishing. But it will need wide open been diminished significantly. When the government spaces to assure that a growing human population is controlling anything, there are substantial cost doesn’t present obstacles and conflicts. over runs and the care taken is minimal at best. What has happened to the American dream of private The beauty of conservation easements is that ownership of the land and the dedication of the they allow for economic return for the land, while owners to be the best land stewards possible? I am in preventing the threats that compromise natural a position to be a victim of the US Fish and Wildlife diversity. Service in two areas. We have a family ranch on the We support any proposal to expand conservation east front of the Rocky Mountains and also have easement focus areas in Montana. land in the Swan Valley. I would like to respectfully request that you do NOT attempt to occupy these Response 2. Thank you for your comments. The lands and turn them into government run disaster goals of the conservation easement expansion project areas where there is no local involvement other than are to protect fish and wildlife resources while the vocal special interest environmental groups that concurrently maintaining the rural character of the have nothing to lose if some citizen chooses to give up area. Implementation of the expansion will support their rights to property. your values of preserving a landscape in perpetuity, Response 5. keeping private lands a viable source of income for The Service respects private property the owners, and keeping the landscape relatively rights and, as such, will acquire conservation unchanged. easements only from willing sellers. Landowner’s choice whether or not to participate in the project is Comment 3. I would like to lend our families’ support a tangible example of respect for personal property for the expanded easement zone along the Front rights. which you can certainly reference on May 17th as The easement project endorses best management helpful. We have been ranching for 2 ½ decades practices. Ranchers currently on the landscape (relative newcomers in that country) on more than successfully manage their areas to ensure economic 25,000 deeded acres plus many tens of thousands viability. The Service does not endorse management more USFS [U.S. Forest Service] and state practices that degrade resources or production. lands, and all the members of our family support Cattlemen are successful at determining their land’s voluntary conservation easements as a practical carrying capacity and being good stewards of their way to maintain traditional agricultural uses while land which includes determining the number of cattle benefitting the globally significant wildlife resources to graze. The Service does not control their economic of the Front. The way the Front lays, we feel it is production. We do restrict draining wetlands, very practical to extend the boundary of the focus development for residential and commercial zone to the east making 287 the general boundary. operations, and conversion of native grasslands. Please keep up the voluntary, cooperative approach The lands with conservation easements remain in to conservation along the Front. private ownership and are maintained by the private Response 3. Thank you for your comments. The landowner. The Service provides management Service agrees that establishing the eastern suggestions at the landowner’s request. The Service boundary at Highway 287 is a practical solution. works with local individuals, community groups, The Service will continue to maintain the easement county commissioners, as well as special interest project on a voluntary willing-seller basis. conservation groups.

Comment 4. I’m 100% in favor of USF&W [U.S. Comment 6. Economic impacts to cities, towns and Fish and Wildlife Service] conservation easement county should be considered in a project area of this program. The terms are simple and easy to live with. size and magnitude. It’s hard to believe that I get paid to do what I would Response 6. The Service is very sensitive to the do anyway and it will last long after I’m gone. I’m needs of communities to remain economically healthy. looking forward to doing another easement with you We engage the communities to ensure this by such this summer/fall. actions as: coordinating with local communities to Response 4. Thank you for your comments. establish buffer zones as requested, maintaining the land in private ownership so as to not affect tax Comment 5. I am writing in response to your article rolls, and meeting with county commissioners and published in the Seeley Swan Pathfinder of August community planning boards. 5, 2010. I am totally opposed to the government tying Appendix I — Public Involvement 61

Comment 7. Easement program is a great deal. years to accomplish. If accomplishment of objectives occurs earlier than expected, and sound biological Response 7. Thank you for your comment. The justification exists, we could revisit our boundary Service shares this opinion. delineation. Comment 8. Extend [conservation area] to Highway 89. AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Response 8. We concur that is the boundary of the expansion. Agency and organization comments include the original letter received and our responses. Comment 9. I am really pleased about this conservation area expansion. It is good for our rural Comment 16. I will be unable to attend the upcoming economy and good for the environment. meetings regarding easements. I do want to express my support for the easement expansion along Response 9. Thank you for your comment. See the Front and in the Blackfoot. I also support response 2. establishment of an easement program in the Seeley/ Swan region. As you know, there are significant Comment 10. Conservation easements provide a win- amounts of state trust land in all the areas which win for the ranchers, the landscape and wildlife. The we manage in cooperation with neighboring Front’s value will grow exponentially if we can all landowners. Maintaining these working lands for preserve its character without degrading its qualities. habitat and open space as well as livestock and timber productivity is critical for the state and local Response 10. Thank you for your comments. See communities. response 2. Thank you for this opportunity to support Comment 11. I appreciate this open forum meeting conservation easements as a vital tool for today Monday May 17th. The time 4pm to 7pm is maintaining working lands in these important areas good for people who come to the meeting straight of Montana. from work. I also appreciate the number of staff from Fish and Wildlife Service present at this meeting. Mary Sexton, Director DNRC Response 11. Thank you for your comments. The [State of Montana, Department of Natural determination of where, when, and which Service Resources and Conservation] personnel were to attend, was to provide the greatest opportunity for public inclusiveness. We are Response 16. Thank you for your comments. happy to have met your needs. The Service will continue to maintain close communications and implement collaborative Comment 12. Support expansion of [conservation] conservation efforts with the Montana Department area to Hwy 89/287. of Natural Resources Conservation in the future.

Response 12. That is the boundary of the proposed Comment 17. [from City of Choteau] Good expansion. presentation last night. Here’s our map… with the purple dotted line showing the planning area around Comment 13. Expand the easement area east to Choteau. Keep up the good work. Highway 89. Response 17. Thank you for your comments. The Response 13. See response 12. Service recognizes the need to work with local Comment 14. Consider riparian corridors, [they are] communities within the Rocky Mountain Front very important for wildlife. Conservation Area to ensure their ability to grow. We will adopt the “Choteau Area Land Use Response 14. The Service does consider riparian Plan” to include a no-easement buffer within the corridors as priority focus areas. As stated they “Choteau Planning Area” (see figure 6 in chapter 4 are extremely critical as wildlife linkage zones and of the “Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area foraging areas. Expansion Land Protection Plan”). The final land protection plan has been modified to include the no- Comment 15. Consider going further north (near easement buffer area for the City of Choteau. Browning) and maybe further east. Response 15. At this time, the Service believes it can meet its conservation goals and objectives with the proposed expansion. Meeting the proposed acquisition goals is estimated to take 15 or more 62 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT Comment 17 map. Appendix I — Public Involvement 63

Letter # 18

Response

Response 18. Thank you for your comments.

Response 18.1 The Service also looks forward to continuing our conservation partnership with the National Elk Foundation.

Response 18.2 Fish and wildlife benefits generated from conservation easement projects expand to a large suite of species. These benefits are expected to include large herbivores such as elk. 64 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Letter # 19 Appendix I — Public Involvement 65

Letter # 19

Response Response 19. Thank you for your comments. Response 19.1 The Service has had a long standing partnership with The Nature Conservancy. Our partnership has resulted in significant conservation benefit especially along the Front. Response 19.2 We look forward to working together to address future acquisitions generated by willing sellers. As mentioned, the Service’s focus on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation has been through Migratory Bird funding. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has not been used on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. This strategy has been successful for meeting Service priorities in a long-term cost efficient manner. The Service will continue to utilize Migratory Bird funding on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. 66 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Letter # 16

Response

Comment 19 map. Appendix I — Public Involvement 67

Letter # 20

Response

Response 20. Thank you for your comments.

Response 20.1 The Service is actively engaged in climate change issues. The Service concurs that large, intact conservation protection is one avenue for providing resiliency in ecosystems to absorb uncertainties and stressors.

Response 20.2 The Service agrees that the consistency of the proposed boundary with The Nature Conservancy’s boundary will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our conservation efforts.

Bibliography

Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front. 2009. mountain resource. U.S. Forest Service Technical [Coalition unveils Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Report INT-270. Proceedings, symposium on Act]. Revised September 16, 2009. accessed U.S. Forest Service. 264–273. 13 September 2010. Kendall, K.C.; Boulanger, J.; McLeod, A.C.; Paetkau, The Conservation Fund. 2010. [The Rocky Mountain D.; Stetz, J.B.; White, G.C. 2009. Demography Front initiative: successes to date]. [Revision and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly date unknown]. 73(1)3–7. accessed 13 September 2010. Kudray, G.M.; Cooper, S.V.; 2006. Montana’s Rocky Crown Managers Partnership. 2011. Figure 1 Crown Mountain Front: vegetation map and type of the Continent ecosystem [map pdf]. [Internet]. descriptions. Report to the United States Fish and [Revision date unknown]. accessed 10 February 2011. Heritage Program. 26 p. Dodds, W.K.; Bertrand, K.N.; Dalgleish, H.J.; Falke, Lesica, P. 1994. The distribution of plant community J.A.; Knight, G.L.; Rehmeirer, R.L.; Wiggam, S.; diversity associated with glacial wetlands in the Wilson, K.C. 2008. Comparing ecosystem goods Ovando Valley, Montana. On file at The Nature and services provided by restored and native Conservancy, Helena, Montana. lands. Bioscience 58:837–845. Lolo National Forest. 2003. Biological assessment Dood, A.R.; Atkinson, S.J.; Boccadori, V.J. 2006. for grizzly bears: Clearwater Roads Project. Grizzly bear management plan for western On file at U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Montana: final programmatic environmental Forest Service, Lola National Forest, Seeley Lake impact statement. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Ranger District, Seeley Lake, MT. Wildlife and Parks. 163 p. Mace, R.D.; Ake, K.; Manley, T.L.; Waller, J.S.; Endangered Species Coalition. 2009. America’s Wittinger, W.T. 1999. Landscape evaluation of hottest species; ten endangered wildlife, fish, and grizzly bear habitat effectiveness in western plants impacted by climate change. Washington Montana. Conservation Biology 13(2):367–377. DC: Endangered Species Coalition. 16 p. Maxwell, B.A.; Flath, D.L.; Hendricks, P.; Werner, Haggerty, M. 1996. Costs of county and educational J.K. 2003. Herpetology in Montana; a history services in Gallatin County, Montana. Bozeman, status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, MT: Montana State University, Local Government accounts for native, potentially native, and exotic Center. 9 p. species, and indexed bibliography. [Location of publication unknown]: Society for Northwestern Hanna, D.; Bay, L.; Bergman, E. 2009. Proposed Vertebrate Biology. [Number of pages unknown]. climate change case statement for the nature conservancy in Montana. Helena, MT: The Nature [MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Conservancy. 10 p. [Access date unknown]. The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Ecoregional conservation in the Northern Great Plains Steppe. Kendall, K.C.; Arno, S.F. 1989. Whitebark pine— [Place of publication unknown]: Northern Great an important but endangered wildlife species. Plains Ecoregional Planning Team. [Number of In: Schmidt, W.C.; McDonald, K.J.; compilers. pages unknown]. Proceedings of symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high- 70 LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Owens, R.; Myers, M.T. 1972. Effects of agriculture ______. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation upon populations of native passerine birds of an handbook—a guide to implementing the technical Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of elements of SHC. [Place of publication unknown]: Zoology 51:697–713. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 22 p. Stenseth, N. 2004. Snow conditions may create an invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the ______. 2009. Strategic plan for responding to National Academy of Science 101(29):10632–10634. accelerating climate change in the 21st century. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 census of agriculture, of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. volume 1, geographic area series, part 31— 41 p. Montana, state and county data. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Number of pages unknown]. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. [Northern Divide grizzly bear project]. Revised June [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. 2010. [Access date unknown]. monitoring/evaluation program: management guidelines for selected species. Washington DC: Wali, M.K.; Evrendilek, F.; Safaya, N.M. 2002. The U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Americas: With special reference to the United Wildlife Service. 71 p. States of America. In: Perrow, M.R.; Davy, A.J.; editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. ______. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, Volume 2. Restoration in progress. Cambridge MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish UK: Cambridge University Press. 3–31. and Wildlife Service. 181 p. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 2009. [Frequently asked questions]. [Revision date unknown]. [Access date unknown].