DOCSLIB.ORG

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan Record of Decision for Birch Creek South Lewis and Clark National Forest Rocky Mountain Ranger District Teton, and Lewis & Clark Counties, Montana October 2007 Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Official: Lesley W. Thompson FOREST SUPERVISOR Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision For Further Information, Contact: Dick Schwecke, Project Leader th 1101 15 Street North Great Falls, Montana 59403 (406) 791-7700 Equal Employment Opportunity Act - "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer." Data Accuracy - The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those, for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS products without notification. For more information, contact: Lewis and Clark National Forest 1101 15th St. North P.O. Box 869 Great Falls, MT 59403 (406) 791-7700 If a map contains contours, these contours were generated and filtered using the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files. Any contours generated from DEMs using a scale of less than 1:100,000 will lead to less reliable results and should only be used for display purposes. Rocky Mountain Ranger District 2 Lewis and Clark National Forest Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision Birch Creek South -- Travel Management Plan Record of Decision Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 II. Decision .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Management Actions Specific to Decision......................................................................................... 7 III. Rationale for the Decision....................................................................................................................... 12 A. Meeting the Purpose and Need................................................................................................... 12 B. Consideration of Public Comments ............................................................................................. 13 C. Consideration of the Issues......................................................................................................... 14 IV. Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................. 38 V. Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................................................................ 38 VI. Findings Required by Law ...................................................................................................................... 40 VII. Environmentally Preferred Alternative………………………………………………………………………… 40 VIII. Appeal Provisions and Implementation .................................................................................................. 40 IX. Planning Records / Contact Person………………………………………………………………………..…. 42 Approval Signature / Date.................................................................................................................. 42 List of Tables Table 1 Key Features of Summer Recreation Alternatives Selected and Modified for Implementation .. 6 Table 2 Key Features of Winter Recreation Alternatives Selected and Modified for Implementation ..... 7 Table 3 Summer ROS Acreage – Outside Wilderness……………………………………..………..…….. 16 Table 4 Winter Recreation Acreage – Outside Wilderness………………………………..……………...…18 Table 5 Miles of Trails / Roads Accessible for Non-Motorized Winter Recreation………………............. 20 Table 6 Miles of Trails / Roads Accessible for Motorized Winter Recreation........................................... 21 Table 7 Wheelchair Accessible Trails....................................................................................................... 21 Table 8 Miles of Roads/Trails within Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area......... 23 Table 9 Winter Travel Restrictions within Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area . 23 Table 10 Miles of Roads and Trails within Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area...................................... 24 Table 11 Winter Travel Restrictions within Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area ..................................... 24 Table 12 Miles of Roads and Trails with Deep Creek “Further Planning” Area ……………………………. 25 Table 13 Winter Travel Restrictions within Deep Creek “Further Planning” Area …………………………..26 Table 14 Miles of Roads and Trails within Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness Areas ………………..26 Table 15 Winter Travel Restrictions within Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness Areas ………………..27 Table 16 Trailheads Providing Non-Motorized Trail Access to Wilderness Trail System …………………..27 Table 17 Miles of Non-Motorized Trails Outside Wilderness ………………………………………………….28 Table 18 Miles of Open Motorized Routes within Seasonal Habitats ........................................................ .31 Table 19 Total Acreage and % Beyond 500m of Open Motorized Routes in key Spring Wildlife Habitats..................................................................................................... .31 Table 20 Percent of Bear Management Unit Subunits Outside 500m Buffer in Summer and Fall ............ .32 Table 21 Total Acreage and % of Seasonal Habitat Open to Snowmobiles.............................................. .33 Table 22 Miles of Designated Over-Snow Routes & Regularly Used Roads in Lynx Habitat by LAU....... .36 Table 23 Acres Open to Snowmobiling in Lynx Habitat by LAU and Percent of Habitat in LAU Open to Snowmobiling....................................................................... .36 Rocky Mountain Ranger District 3 Lewis and Clark National Forest Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision Appendices Appendix A Trails for Hiking Travel Only……..………………………………………..………………...…….44 Appendix B Trails for Hiking and Stock Travel…….……………………………………..……………………45 Appendix C Trails and Roads for Hiking, Stock, and Bicycle Travel………..……………………………….46 Appendix D Trails and Roads for Motorcycle (single-track) Travel…………………………………………..49 Appendix E Trails and Roads for ATV (double-track) Travel…………………………………………………51 Appendix F Roads for Seasonal Travel with Passenger Vehicles…………………………………………...53 Appendix G Roads for Yearlong Travel with Passenger Vehicles……………………………………………54 Appendix H Yearlong Access Roads Not Changed or Included in ROD……………..…………………...…56 Appendix I Disposition of “Undetermined” Routes…………………………………………………………….58 Appendix J Decommissioned Trails and Roads………………………………………………………………..64 Appendix K Biological Assessment…………………..…………………………………………… …………..66 List of Maps Map 1 Record Of Decision – Birch Creek South (located in separate map pocket) Rocky Mountain Ranger District 4 Lewis and Clark National Forest Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision I. INTRODUCTION Motorized and non-motorized travel on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District has been managed for the past 19 years under regulations described on the 1988 Lewis and Clark Forest Travel Plan map for the Rocky Mountain Division. In 2005, the Lewis and Clark National Forest proposed to revise and update the travel management plan for the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. In doing so, the Lewis and Clark National Forest proposed to designate roads, trails, and airfields that would be managed as system routes and comprise part of the Forest transportation system. The analysis area encompassed approximately 391,700 acres (the entire non-wilderness portion of the Rocky Mountain Division) of the 777,600 total acres that comprise the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. Approximately 385,900 acres of designated Wilderness in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex (BMWC) were not addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for the project. Of the 391,700 acres analyzed in the FEIS, about one-third (129,520 acres) are located in the Badger-Two Medicine area, and about two-thirds (262,180 acres) are located south of there in the Birch-Teton-South Fork Sun-Dearborn-Elk Creek area. II. DECISION This decision covers the southern two-thirds of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District, referred to as the Birch Creek South area. It encompasses approximately 262,180 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands that are located south of Birch Creek
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EARLY DAYS in the FOREST SERVICE Volume 2
    EARLY DAYS IN THE FOREST SERVICE Volume 2 Compiled and Edited by Jessie Thompson 1955 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Northern Region Missoula, Montana TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Cover Photo: Northern Region Fire Warehouse, 240 West Pine, Missoula, Montana, about 1922. Stories By: JACK CLACK (Retired 1933) "A Trip Down the Flathead" JACK CLACK "Battle of Belton" CLYDE P. FICKES (Retired 1948) "Forest Ranger, 1907" LEON C. HURTT (Retired 1951) "Transportation, Then and Now" DAVID LAKE (Retired 1940) "Early Day Experiences" DAVID LAKE "The Snowy Mountain Fire of 1900" ROY A. PHILLIPS (Retired 1951) "Recollections" G.I. PORTER (Retired 1942) "The Major and the Miner" G.I. PORTER "The Ranger's Wife" G.I. PORTER "Reminiscences of G.I. Porter" CHARLIE E. POWELL (Retired 1955) "Recollections" THEODORE SHOEMAKER (Retired 1938) "Fighting Forest Fires -- Then and Now" THEODORE SHOEMAKER "Memories" K.D. SWAN (Retired 1941) "Musselshell Reminiscences" RYLE TEED (Retired 1952) "Reminiscences of Early Days In The Forest Service" C.S. WEBB (Retired 1914) "Some Incidents Occuring During My Employment With The U.S. Forest Service, 1913- 1949" WALLACE W. WEBER (Retired 1949) "Rafting the Flathead" WILLIAM G. WEIGLE "Reminisces" Index (omitted from the online edition) LIST OF FIGURES 1. Jack Clack, center, then deputy supervisor of Flathead National Forest, 1915, on the trail up the South Fork of the Flathead River in Montana. 2. First Prefire Ranger Meeting, Bitterroot-Idaho National Forest, 1907. Major Frank Fenn, Supervisor. 3. Old Store Building, 1927, Diamond City, Montana, Confederate Gulch. Helena National Forest. 4. Libby-Troy Road in Montana, 1915, Kootenai National Forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Métis Cultural Recovery Oral History Project—Bibliography
    Métis Cultural Recovery Oral History Project—Bibliography This bibliography includes oral histories from the Montana Historical Society’s Métis Cultural Recovery Oral History Project. Where possible, audio format is noted. The collection is divided between oral histories that have been transcribed and those that have not. Where possible, length of typed transcription is noted. ___________________________________________________________________________ Transcribed: Alice Gleason and Ripley Hugo interview, 1995. Métis Cultural Recovery Oral History Project (OH 1906). Montana Historical Society Archives. Audio tape(s). 25-page transcript. Alice Gleason was born in Muscatine, Iowa, in 1905, the daughter of Joe and Maggie Rosenfelt. The family moved to Choteau from Billings, Montana, in the 1930s. She talks about dances; prejudice against the Métis; Indian children being sent to boarding school at Holy Family Mission; teaching at the Kalma and Bellview schools; early history of the Métis in Montana; and Matt Hansen’s research. Carolyn Harsh interview, 1994. Métis Cultural Recovery Oral History Project (OH 1909). Montana Historical Society Archives. No tape. Transcribed from shorthand, 5 pages. Carolyn Peterson Harsh was born in Farmington, Montana, the daughter of Sheriff Albert Oliver Peterson and his wife, Sophie. She speaks of the dances at Twin Lakes, west of Choteau, and other parties; her father’s homestead and trapping; and her childhood. Catherine Belgarde interview, 1980. Métis Cultural Recovery Oral History Project (OH 1894). Montana Historical Society Archives. Audio tape(s). 35-page transcript. In this interview Catherine Belgarde discusses her early childhood in Edmonton; moving to Lewistown, Montana; washing clothes and dishes as a young women in a mining town named Giltridge; her two marriages (both men died); her work at the Boulder School and Hospital; her parents meeting; her stay at the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus on Genetics Important Plant 2016 Plant Conservation Conference Areas for Montana by Peter Lesica, Clark Fork Chapter by Peter Lesica, Clark Fork Chapter
    Volume 29 No. 3 | Spring 2016 elseyaNewsletter of the Montana Native Plant Society Kelseya uniflora K ill. by Bonnie Heidel Approved: Two More Focus on Genetics Important Plant 2016 Plant Conservation Conference Areas for Montana By Peter Lesica, Clark Fork Chapter By Peter Lesica, Clark Fork Chapter he Montana Native Plant Society, along with the U.S. Forest Service, the MONTANA NOW HAS TWO NEW University of Montana Division of Biological Sciences, the Montana Natural IMPORTANT PLANT AREAS (IPAs), THeritage Program and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, hosted the approved during the February Plant Ninth Montana Plant Conservation Conference at the University of Montana in mid- Conservation Conference, bringing the February. More than 100 people attended, about half being MNPS members. total number of state IPAs to nine. Both The first day was dedicated to learning about population genetics and how new locales are in the southwest part of our molecular-based methods can help inform plant conservation. The three talks in the state — one is above treeline and the morning were conceptual in nature. Fred Allendorf from UM provided a refresher course other in a valley bottom. Descriptions on population genetics that helped provide a context for later talks. Loreen Allphin from of the new new IPAs, as well as of the Brigham Young University followed Fred, focusing on the importance of genetic variation previously approved sites, can be found to rare plant conservation and how using on the Montana Native Plant Society molecular markers can inform these efforts. new molecular-based website (http://www.mtnativeplants.org/ Matt Lavin from MSU ended the morning methods can help inform Important_Plant_Areas).
    [Show full text]
  • Surface. Water Supply of the United States 1919-1920 Part Vi
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 506 SURFACE. WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1919-1920 PART VI. MISSOURI RIVER BASIN NATHAN C. GROVER, Chief Hydraulic Engineer W. A. IAMB, ROBERT FOLLANSBEE, W. G. HOYT, and R. C. RICE District Engineers Prepared in cooperation with the STATES OF MONTANA, WYOMING, IOWA, COLORADO, AND KANSAS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS ,,.;. ,..:. .. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ' 'WASHINGTON, D. C. - .:: - :> -AT 35 CENTS PER COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COPY FOR PROFIT. PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAY 11, 1922 CONTENTS. Page. Authorization and scope of work...................".....................-.. 9 Definition of terms......................................................... 10 Explanation of data........................................................ H Accuracy of field data and computed results................................ 12 Cooperation.............................................................. 13- Division of work.......................................................... 15 Gaging-station records...................................................... 16 Missouri River proper.................................................. 16 Beaverhead River at Barratts, Mont................................ 16 Jefferson River near Silverstar, Mont............................... 18 Missouri River at Fort
    [Show full text]
  • EIS Fairfield to Dupuyer
    STPP 3-2(27)28; CN 4051 Final Environmental Impact Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the results of the Corridor Study conducted for the portion of U.S. Highway 89 (US 89) from Fairfield, in Teton County, to Dupuyer, in Pondera County. This document was prepared in conformance with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, and contains the information required for an Environmental Impact Statement. This document identifies potential social, economic, and environmental impacts that would result from the proposed reconstruction, widening, and realignment of US 89 in this corridor. Mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts are also identified. Proposed Action MDT is proposing to reconstruct, widen, and realign US 89 from approximately 5.8 km (3.6 mi) north of Fairfield (approximately 32 km (20± mi.) west-northwest of Great Falls) to a location approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) south of Dupuyer, for a total length of approximately 74.3 km (46.2 mi). Existing bridges, culverts, and stockpasses would be replaced, and new right-of-way will be required throughout the corridor. The Preferred Alternative would provide a 10.8 m (36 ft) paved width to include two 3.6 m (12 ft) driving lanes, and 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders. Purpose and Need MDT has identified the US 89 corridor for improvements generally due to its outdated design, including inadequate passing opportunities, narrow shoulders, sharp curves, and poor operations due to the mix of recreational vehicles, trucks, and passenger vehicles. Another factor in its identification for improvements is the corridor’s attractiveness as a recreational route.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Record of Decision: NCDE Grizzly Bear Forest Amendment
    United States Department of Agriculture Record of Decision for the Forest Plan Amendments to Incorporate Habitat Management Direction for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Population Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Kootenai National Forest, Lolo National Forest Forest Service Northern Region December 2018 Cover photo credit: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Record of Decision for the Forest Plan Amendments to Incorporate Relevant Direction from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Draft Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy Helena-Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Responsible Officials: William Avey, Forest Supervisor Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forests 2880 Skyway Drive Helena, MT 59602 telephone: 406-449-5201 Chad Benson, Acting Forest Supervisor Kootenai National Forest 31374 U.S. Highway 2 Libby, MT 59923-3022 telephone: 406-293-6211 Joe Alexander, Acting Forest Supervisor Lolo National Forest 24 Fort Missoula Road Missoula MT 59803 telephone 406-329-3750 i In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutcracker Notes Cyndi Smith, Interim Director Canmore, Alberta FOUNDATION NEWS Robert Keane, Interim Associate Director Interim Director’S Message
    Issue No. 34: Spring 2018 nutcrackerJournal of the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem notes Foundation September 20-22, 2018 Community Center, Stanley, Idaho Litterfall in Whitebark Pine Forests after Mountain Pine Beetle Limber Pine Monitoring along Photo courtesy of Rob Mutch Ecosystem Photography Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front By Dave Hanna, The Nature Conservancy The limber pine trees at the grassland ecotone are also cultural On the Rocky Mountain Front along the eastern edge of the features on the landscape. Many of the individual limber pines Crown of the Continent, limber pine occurs from lower to upper are centuries old, and were shaped by native peoples managing treeline. At lower treeline, along the ecotone with the grasslands fire and buffalo. These forests are also important for an array of of the Great Plains, these limber pine forests occur along the wildlife, including wintering elk and deer, grizzly bears, cavity ecological margin, in a mixed grassland, savanna, and woodland nesting birds and, of course, Clark’s nutcrackers. matrix. LIMBER continued on page 4 OUR MISSION The Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation is a science-based nonprofit organization dedicated to counteracting the decline of whitebark pine and enhancing knowledge of its ecosystems. BOARD Inside Nutcracker Notes Cyndi Smith, Interim Director Canmore, Alberta FOUNDATION NEWS Robert Keane, Interim Associate Director Interim Director’s Message............................................................................2 Missoula, Montana Canada Director’s News................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Oil and Gas Geology of the Birch Creek-Sun River Area, Northwestern Montana
    OIL AND GAS GEOLOGY OF THE BIRCH CREEK-SUN RIVER AREA, NORTHWESTERN MONTANA. By EUGENE STEBINGER. INTRODUCTION. The area described in this paper lies adjacent to the front range of the Rocky Mountains in northwestern Montana and is part of a large region in the northern Great Plains of the United States and Canada which seems to deserve consideration as prospective territory for oil and gas development. The thick bodies of Upper Cretaceous shale, the sands of which have yielded the greater part of the oil produced in Wyoming and Colorado and large quantities of gas in Alberta, underlie much of this region, in many places at depths that can be reached by the drill. The outcrops of .these Cretaceous forma­ tions afford unquestionable evidence of being petroliferous, so that drilling in places of favorable structure, .such as on well-developed domes or anticlines, seems to offer a reasonable chance of success. It is certain that the plains of northwestern Montana can not be classed as barren of oil until a considerable number of the favorable lo­ calities have been carefully drilled. Random drilling regardless of the lay of the rocks, such as has been undertaken up to the present time, has been uniformly unsuccessful. Moreover, even though the region as a whole should eventually prove to contain fair amounts of oil, the area actually underlain by commercial pools might comprise much less than 1 per cent of the total area underlain by the Cretaceous formations, so that the chances of success by random locations are very slight. Predictions of oil pools from a formation some hundreds of miles beyond localities where it has already proved productive, on the basis of identical geologic age and kind of rock and un­ doubted indications that it is petroliferous, have often proved unwarranted in the Rocky Mountain region, especially in parts of southern Wyoming and western Colorado, and also in other parts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement
    STPP 3-2(27)28; CN 4051 Final Environmental Impact Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document presents the results of the Corridor Study conducted for the portion of U.S. Highway 89 (US 89) from Fairfield, in Teton County, to Dupuyer, in Pondera County. This document was prepared in conformance with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, and contains the information required for an Environmental Impact Statement. This document identifies potential social, economic, and environmental impacts that would result from the proposed reconstruction, widening, and realignment of US 89 in this corridor. Mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts are also identified. Proposed Action MDT is proposing to reconstruct, widen, and realign US 89 from approximately 5.8 km (3.6 mi) north of Fairfield (approximately 32 km (20± mi.) west-northwest of Great Falls) to a location approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) south of Dupuyer, for a total length of approximately 74.3 km (46.2 mi). Existing bridges, culverts, and stockpasses would be replaced, and new right-of-way will be required throughout the corridor. The Preferred Alternative would provide a 10.8 m (36 ft) paved width to include two 3.6 m (12 ft) driving lanes, and 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders. Purpose and Need MDT has identified the US 89 corridor for improvements generally due to its outdated design, including inadequate passing opportunities, narrow shoulders, sharp curves, and poor operations due to the mix of recreational vehicles, trucks, and passenger vehicles. Another factor in its identification for improvements is the corridor’s attractiveness as a recreational route.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E. Priority Watersheds
    Helena – Lewis and Clark National Forest Proposed Action – Revised Forest Plan Appendix E. Priority Watersheds Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Watershed Condition Framework ............................................................................................ 1 Restoration of Impaired Waterbodies ...................................................................................... 4 Protection of Municipal Watersheds ........................................................................................ 5 Conservation Watershed Network ........................................................................................... 7 List of Tables Table 1. Number of 6th level watersheds rated in each condition class using the watershed condition framework ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Current watershed condition framework priority watersheds on the HLC NF* .................... 3 Table 3. 303(d) listed stream segments by GA. ................................................................................. 4 Table 4. Municipal and source waters of the HLC NF......................................................................... 6 Table 5. Conservation watershed network subwatersheds west of the continental divide on the HLC NF ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Water Supply Outlook Report January 1St, 2020
    Montana Water Supply Outlook Report January 1st, 2020 What is the difference between Water Year Precipitation and Snowpack? It has been an interesting year so far weather-wise in the state of Montana, and a little bit of everything has been thrown our way. As of January 1st, there is a stark contrast between snowpack for this date and how much precipitation we have received since October 1st (beginning of Water Year 2020). While snowpack remains near or even above normal in some regions, those same areas have precipitation totals that are below normal for this date. Snow totals this year were boosted by early season snowfall in late September and October. However, the persistently dry conditions in November and early December resulted in well below average precipitation since then. It is best to think of these two data types like this; Water Year Precipitation is the total amount of water we have received in the form of rain and snow, and Snow Water Equivalent (or snowpack) is how much of that water has been stored as snow on the ground for runoff in the spring and summer. While snowpack may seem to be in good shape on January 1st in some regions, below-normal precipitation means there is a component in the hydrologic system that is lacking, which could potentially have impacts in the future if the deficits persist. 1 Page For more water supply and resource management information, contact: Lucas Zukiewicz Water Supply Specialist Federal Building 10 East Babcock, Room 443 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone 406-587-6843 [email protected] http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/mt/snow/ Montana Water Supply Outlook Report as of January 1st, 2020 How Forecasts Are Made Most of the annual streamflow in the Western United States originates as snowfall that has accumulated high in the mountains during winter and early spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources
    7. NATURAL RESOURCES 7.1 Executive Summary – Key Findings Precipitation, elevation, and topography are varied across the county. The diversity of soils, vegetation, and wildlife distribution vary with these factors. Western areas of the county are more fire prone due to steeper slopes and heavier fuels. The higher elevations in the western tip of the county provides key habitat for a variety of important species including elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and the two species in the county listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, grizzly bear and lynx. Wolves have been listed and de-listed over the course of the past year and status will be in flux with pending litigation and possible congressional legislation. Grizzly bear numbers have been increasing with a resulting increase in corresponding sightings and expansion of range to the east. In general, streams in the county that have been surveyed for impairment support the entire range of uses. Probable sources for waters in the county that do not fully support uses relate to either flow alterations from diversions or agricultural uses, or both. Flood plains have not been designated or mapped in the county. Air quality in the county is presumed to be good. All of the 17 water discharge permits in the county have expired, including the municipal waste water discharge permits. An area of the Rocky Mountain Front has been determined by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places to be an eligible Traditional Cultural District. The Forest Service in consultation with the Blackfeet Tribe will give consideration to this situation in decision making related to all proposed uses (recreation, oil and gas development, and others) on the National Forest lands within this district.
    [Show full text]