January 25, 2018

United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Assessment Report for Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater South

Location: Maudlow Allotment

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Butte Field Office 106 North Parkmont Butte, MT 59701 Phone: 406-533-7600

Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater South Assessment Report Page

Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 2 1.2.1 Fire History ...... 3 1.2.2 Fire Regime ...... 3 1.2.3 Sensitive Plant Species ...... 3 1.2.4 Climate ...... 5 Table 1: Summary of Climate Stations Information ...... 5 Figure 1: Trident Climate Station ...... 5 Figure 2: Livingston Airport Climate Station ...... 6 Figure 3: Townsend Climate Station ...... 6 Figure 4: Lennep Climate Station ...... 7 1.3 Prehistory and History of the Planning Area ...... 7 1.4 Authorized Uses ...... 8 1.4.1 Forest Products ...... 8 1.4.2 Recreational Uses ...... 8 1.4.3 Mineral Resources and Geology ...... 8 1.4.3.1 Geology ...... 8 1.4.3.2 Mineral Resources ...... 9 1.4.4 Livestock Grazing ...... 9 Table 2. Current Grazing Management and Allocation within PGB PA Allotments ...... 9 1.5 Process ...... 12 1.5.1 Format ...... 13 2.0 STANDARD #1- UPLAND HEALTH ...... 13 2.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard ...... 13 2.2 Affected Environment ...... 14 2.2.1 Soils ...... 14 2.2.2 Vegetation ...... 14 Table 3. Summary of Acres by General Cover Type within the PGB PA ...... 15 2.2.3 Noxious Weeds ...... 15 2.2.4 Special Status Plants ...... 16 2.2.5 Forest Health and Fuels Management ...... 16 2.2.5.1 Fuels Conditions ...... 16 Table 4. Description of VCC Classes ...... 17 2.2.5.2 Forest and Woodland Condition ...... 17 2.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations ...... 18 Table 5. Upland Qualitative Assessment Summary, Degree of Departure from Expected and Upland Standards ...... 19 2.3.1 Recommendations for Upland Health ...... 21 3.0 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND AREAS ...... 22

3.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard ...... 22 3.2 Affected Environment ...... 22 3.2.1 Seeps and Springs ...... 23 3.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations ...... 23 Table 6 Riparian (lotic) Resources in the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater County South Planning Area. . 24 3.3.1 Recommendations for Riparian Health ...... 28 4.0 WATER QUALITY ...... 29 4.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard ...... 29 4.2 Affected Environment ...... 29 4.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations ...... 30 Table 7. Water Quality Qualitative Assessment Summary for the PGB PA...... 30 4.3.1 Recommendation for Water Quality ...... 31 5.0 AIR QUALITY ...... 32 5.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard ...... 32 5.2 Affected Environment ...... 32 5.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations ...... 32 5.3.1 Recommendation for Air Quality ...... 32 6.0 BIODIVERSITY ...... 32 6.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard ...... 32 6.2 Affected Environment ...... 33 6.2.1 Introduction ...... 33 6.2.2 Mammals ...... 33 6.2.3 Birds ...... 34 6.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 34 6.2.5 Fish ...... 34 Table 8. Fish Species Present on TMA Stream Segments ...... 34 6.2.6 Endangered Species Act Listed Species ...... 35 Table 9. Endangered Species Act Listed Species with Potential to Occur in the TMA ...... 35 6.2.7 Sensitive Species ...... 36 Table 10. BLM-listed Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the PA ...... 36 6.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations ...... 37 Table 11. Biodiversity Qualitative Assessment Summary for the PGB PA ...... 37 6.3.1 Recommendation for Biodiversity ...... 39 References – Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of this Document ...... 41 Appendix A - Maps of Allotments and Riparian Resources ...... 43

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction

This land health assessment report is for the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater South (PGB) Planning Area (PA).

This is the first in a series of documents: the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater South Assessment Report (AR), the Authorized Officer’s Determination of Standards, the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, and subsequent management Decision(s), will be prepared, where needed. This document reports the condition and/or function of public land resources within the PGB PA to the authorized officer. The authorized officer reviews the findings contained in the AR to determine if the five Standards of Rangeland Health are being met. The authorized officer then signs a Determination of Standards documenting whether or not the standards are being met.

The five Standards of Rangeland Health, as detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision for Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (USDI-BLM Montana State Office. August 1997) are:

Standard #1: Uplands are in proper functioning condition. Standard #2: Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition. Standard #3: Water quality meets state standards. Standard #4: Air quality meets state standards. Standard #5: Provide habitat as necessary, to maintain a viable and diverse population of native plant and animal species, including special status species.

The AR also contains initial recommendations developed by the PGB interdisciplinary team (IDT). These recommendations were developed during and after the completion of field assessments that were conducted by the IDT in 2015. The recommendations in the AR focus primarily on livestock grazing, timber and fuels management, noxious weed control, wildlife and fisheries habitat. Impacts from all uses and relevant programs were assessed and documented as part of this process. The assessed condition, function, and recommendations contained in the AR and Determination of Standards will subsequently be used as a basis for future management.

Also, if existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are determined to be significant factors in failing to achieve one or more of the five Standards, the BLM is required per regulation (43 CFR §4180.1) to make grazing management adjustments. Implementation of new projects initiated by this report may begin in 2018, but full implementation of forest treatments, fuels projects, revised grazing plans, and/or range improvement projects associated with these projects may take several years.

The new projects will be developed in consultation and coordination with the affected lessees, agencies having lands or managing resources within the area, and other interested parties.

The BLM completed the Butte Resource Management Plan (RMP) in April of 2009 to provide program guidance for the next 20 years. The Butte RMP replaces the Headwaters Resource Management Plan (1983).

In 2011, the Butte Field Office (BFO) developed a prioritization method and approach for planning and implementing work across most major programs. The key concept behind this was 1 to establish long-term Field Office Planning Areas (PAs) as well as procedures and a schedule of planning and implementation for activities occurring within those PAs. The PAs were defined as units with discrete geographic boundaries and comprised of multiple watersheds with similar vegetation and hydrologic characteristics. Other variables were also used to develop PA boundaries which included; weed management areas, grazing allotment boundaries, travel plan area boundaries, and distinct political boundaries; these boundaries were revised in early 2016.

By working on a planning area basis, a broader landscape is considered and more consistent management can be applied. It is the BLM's intent to implement management actions cooperatively with permittees and public land users. Any changes proposed for livestock management would be implemented through grazing decisions that address allotments or groups of allotments with a common permittee. Forest health and fuels management treatments or projects, and any other management projects or changes, would be implemented through the respective program procedures. As with all similar BLM decisions, affected parties will have an opportunity to protest and/or appeal these decisions; procedures for protests and appeals will be described in subsequent decision documents.

1.2 Background

The Park, Gallatin, Broadwater South Planning Area is located in western Montana and encompasses all of the BLM lands in Park County, Gallatin County, and portions of southern Broadwater County (MAP 1).

BLM lands within the PGB PA range from north of Gardiner Montana, along the Yellowstone River in Paradise Valley, to the western boundary of Sweet Grass County. BLM parcels are also found in northern Gallatin County in the Bridger Mountain Range, and in the Horseshoe Hills, which are a roughly crescent-shaped range of hills north of Manhattan. They lie in the area between the southern Big Belt Mountains and the northern Bridger Range. The hills are bounded on the north by Sixteen Mile Creek (which begins in the Crazy Mountains), the first major tributary of the Missouri River. The rest of the BLM parcels are mostly found along the Missouri River corridor or two of its three tributaries, the Jefferson and the Map 1. Vicinity Map of Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater South Planning Madison Rivers. Area

2

Within the PGB PA there are approximately 3.7 million total acres of land, of which approximately 35,931 acres are BLM lands. Of these 35,931 acres approximately 30,780 are allotted for livestock grazing. The remaining acres are either not currently permitted/leased for livestock grazing or are not available for grazing. This AR addresses only land health conditions on BLM lands within the PGB PA, including part of the Iverson Allotment which is split between and Broadwater County and Meagher County.

1.2.1 Fire History

The presence or absence of fire plays an integral role in the composition and structure of the vegetation that occurs in the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater PA. Fire has shaped western landscapes for the past 10,000 years, but more than a century of settlement activities have seriously disrupted that crucial role (Arno 1980, Pyne 1982, Quigley et.al 1996). An abrupt decline in fire frequency around 1900 was much greater than any regional or local variation in the previous several centuries and indicates that 20th-century fire regimes in these watersheds were dramatically affected by additional controls such as livestock grazing and fire (Heyerdahl et al. 2001). Ignitions were primarily due to lightning and Native Americans, who used fire to signal, drive game, rout enemies, and green up pastures to ensure the return of game from year to year. Throughout the assessment area, signs of past fires are evident in the form of fire scars on trees and charred pieces of wood. Long-term fire history is difficult to determine in the sagebrush/grassland communities due to fire generally killing and completely consuming the vegetation.

1.2.2 Fire Regime

The term “natural fire regime” describes the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention (Agee 1993). The five natural (historic) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of stand replacement) of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation (Schmidt et al. 2002). These five regimes include:

 I – 0 to 35 year frequency and low to mixed severity (*non-lethal surface fires most common; less than 70 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced)  II – 0 to 35 year frequency and high severity (stand replacement fires);  III – 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity;  IV – 35 to 100+ year frequency and high severity (stand replacement fires); and  V – 200+ year frequency and high severity (stand replacement fires).

*Fire severity is what happens to the dominant vegetation (in this case trees) during a fire event. If most of the overstory trees die in most fires, (i.e., greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation) then that area is said to be characterized by a “stand replacement fire regime.” Conversely, if most trees survive most fires, it is called a “non-lethal fire regime.” If severity is generally intermediate (many trees dying and many surviving), it is a mixed severity fire regime (Arno et al. 2000).

1.2.3 Sensitive Plant Species

BLM Sensitive Species are defined by the BLM 6840 Manual as those that normally occur on BLM lands for which BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management. The State Director may designate additional categories of special status species as appropriate and applicable to his or her state's needs. The sensitive 3 species designation, for species other than federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, may include such native species as those that:

 Could become endangered in or extirpated from a state, or within a significant portion of its distribution in the foreseeable future.  Are under status review by Fish & Wildlife Service.  Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.  Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density such that federally listed, proposed, candidate, or State listed status may become necessary.  Have typically small and widely dispersed populations.  Are inhabiting ecological refugia, specialized or unique habitats.  Are State listed but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive species status. Such species should be managed to the level of protection required by State laws or under the BLM policy for candidate species, whichever would provide better opportunity for its conservation.

Designation Descriptions

 Sensitive - Denotes species listed as sensitive on BLM lands.  Special Status - Denotes species that are listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

There are three BLM sensitive plant species in the Butte Field Office: Idaho sedge (Carex idahoa), sapphire rockcress (Boechera fecunda), and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). No known occurrences of Special Status Plants occur on BLM lands within the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater PA.

4

1.2.4 Climate

The interdisciplinary team identified four climate stations within the PGB PA to provide insight into long-term maximum and minimum daily temperatures and precipitation trends within the PA. The interdisciplinary team selected the climate stations based upon proximity to and similarity of elevation of allotments assessed. Table 1 summarizes information about each of the climate stations; Figures 1-4 present average maximum temperature, average minimum temperature, and average precipitation throughout the water year (October – September) for each climate station.

Table 1: Summary of Climate Stations Information Station Station Name Latitude Longitude Elevation Dates of Record Number (ft) USC00248363 Trident, MT US 45.9468 -111.4757 4,036 10/1/1922 – 9/30/2017 (Max. and Min. Temperature) 10/1/1937 – 9/30/2017 (Precipitation) USW00024150 Livingston 45.6983 -110.4408 4,643 10/1/1948-9/30/2017 Airport, MT US USC00248324 Townsend, MT 46.331 -111.5383 3,840 10/1/1948-9/30/2017 US USC00244954 Lennep 5 SW, 46.3615 -110.5998 5,600 10/1/1959-9/30/2016 MT US

Figure 1: Trident Climate Station 90 2.50 80 70 2.00 F) ° 60 1.50 50 40 1.00 30 Temperature ( Temperature Precipitation (in.) Precipitation 20 0.50 10 0 0.00 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Average Max. Temp. 62 45 36 34 38 48 59 68 77 87 86 74 Average Min. Temp. 33 22 15 12 16 23 31 40 47 52 50 41 Average Precip. 0.87 0.51 0.43 0.43 0.31 0.64 1.15 2.13 2.36 1.25 1.07 1.25

Figure 1: Average maximum daily temperatures, average daily minimum temperatures, and average monthly precipitation for the Trident Climate Station. Temperature data the average monthly temperature maximums and

5 minimums based upon daily readings from 10/1/1922 through 9/30/2017. Precipitation data is the average monthly accumulation of precipitation from 10/1/1937-9/30/2017.

Figure 2: Livingston Airport Climate Station 90 4.00 80 3.50 70

F) 3.00 ° 60 2.50 50 40 2.00 30 1.50 Temperature ( Temperature 20 1.00 (in.) Precipitation 10 0.50 0 0.00 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Average Max. Temp. 59 44 36 35 39 46 55 64 74 85 83 72 Average Min. Temp. 34 26 19 17 20 24 31 38 46 51 49 41 Average Precip. 1.26 0.66 0.51 0.53 0.47 0.85 1.49 2.70 2.35 1.35 1.22 1.42

Figure 2 Average maximum daily temperatures, average daily minimum temperatures, and average monthly precipitation for the Livingston Climate Station. Temperature data the average monthly temperature maximums and minimums based upon daily readings. Precipitation data is the average monthly accumulation of precipitation. The data is from 10/1/1948-9/30/2017

Figure 3: Townsend Climate Station 90 80 2.00 70 F) ° 60 1.50 50 40 1.00 30 Temperature ( Temperature 20 0.50 (in.) Precipitation 10 0 0.00 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Average Max. Temp. 60 45 35 32 39 48 58 67 75 84 82 72 Average Min. Temp. 31 21 13 11 16 22 30 39 46 51 48 40 Average Precip. 0.59 0.37 0.29 0.31 0.23 0.49 0.80 1.73 2.14 1.22 1.18 0.95

Figure 3: Average maximum daily temperatures, average daily minimum temperatures, and average monthly precipitation for the Townsend Climate Station. Temperature data the average monthly temperature maximums and

6 minimums based upon daily readings. Precipitation data is the average monthly accumulation of precipitation. The data is from 10/1/1948-9/30/2017.

Figure 4: Lennep Climate Station 90 3.00 80 2.50 70 F) ° 60 2.00 50 1.50 40 30 1.00 Temperature ( Temperature 20 (in.) Precipitation 0.50 10 0 0.00 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Average Max. Temp. 53 38 31 30 33 40 49 58 68 77 76 66 Average Min. Temp. 28 19 13 11 13 18 25 32 39 44 42 35 Average Precip. 1.24 0.93 0.88 0.98 0.72 0.98 1.43 2.56 2.75 1.60 1.41 1.31

Figure 4: Average maximum daily temperatures, average daily minimum temperatures, and average monthly precipitation for the Lennep Climate Station. Temperature data the average monthly temperature maximums and minimums based upon daily readings. Precipitation data is the average monthly accumulation of precipitation. The data is from 10/1/1959-9/30/2016.

1.3 Prehistory and History of the Planning Area

The Park, Gallatin and south Broadwater area feature the same broad spectrum of site types found in other locations within the Butte Field Office management unit. Prehistoric sites and artifacts as old as 7,500 and 8,000 years have been recorded in the Planning Area. Known prehistoric site types follow the predominant subsistence strategy of hunting and gathering, including the spectacular Madison Buffalo Jump site, now a state park. As with other locations in Montana, the predominant prehistoric site type is the lithic scatter, consisting of stone chips left over from tool manufacturing activity. Open camps and geoglyphs outlining smaller jumps and traps are common in areas with traces of alpine glacial activity.

Historic site types are overwhelmingly represented by historic mining activity, although a few ranching and homesteading buildings and features are present, although largely on private land.

Miners came to the area before the end of the Civil War, utilizing two access routes: the river system of the upper Missouri and Yellowstone, and the Bozeman Trail. The Yellowstone and upper Missouri were first explored and mapped by the Lewis and Clark expedition, while the Bozeman trail was a known Indian route capitalized by John Bozeman, an entrepreneur and speculator. The trail essentially cut across what is now south central Montana and passed through northern Park and Gallatin counties to Ft. Ellis, just west of Bozeman, MT, before proceeding overland along the Madison River valley to Virginia City. The trail was closed as a treaty provision after Red Cloud’s War in 1866, but was briefly reopened in the mid-1870s. It is now largely a series of state and federal highways.

7

1.4 Authorized Uses

1.4.1 Forest Products

Forest resources in the watershed have been utilized historically and continue to be utilized today. Evidence in the form of old stumps can be found across all ownerships through forested habitats in the Planning Area. Recently, there have been a limited number of forest management activities (timber harvests) on BLM lands within the PGB PA. The last known timber sales within the PA occurred in the mid 1990’s within the Quinn Creek and Suce Creek allotments (see Area Map 7, Appendix A). The majority of the historic forest product from BLM land was through small sales such as firewood, small sawlogs, and post and poles.

1.4.2 Recreational Uses

Except for approximately 2000 acres located in the Uppermost Missouri River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA - an area where BLM focuses significant staffing and financial resources to improve recreation opportunities and experiences), all of the BLM lands within the PGB PA are located within the Butte Field Office’s Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA), as defined in the Record of Decision and Approved Butte Resource Management Plan (2009). The primary focus of an ERMA is to provide for resource protection, public safety, and user satisfaction. Public services, monitoring, improvements, and facility maintenance are generally conducted, but at a lower scale than an SRMA, but can still be present. Currently, recreation use within the PGB PA is primarily dispersed in nature, with hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, camping, and driving for pleasure being the primary uses. The Carbella Recreation Site, a BLM non-fee camping area located just north of Yellowstone National Park, is a very popular location for camping and fishing along the Yellowstone River.

A Travel Management Plan (TMP) for the PGB Planning Area was completed in 2016. This new plan includes the implementation of a mountain bike-optimized trail system at the Copper City area, which is located approximately 5 miles northeast of Three Forks. When complete, this project will result in approximately 17 miles of trails open to mountain bikers and hikers only, and a parking area and trailhead. To accommodate riders with disabilities, approximately one- half of the trails would average 30 inches in width, slightly wider than a typical mountain bike single-track trail (18-24 inches). This new construction will result in approximately eight total acres of surface disturbance, only 0.2% of the “Copper City” area of approximately 2,500 acres.

1.4.3 Mineral Resources and Geology

1.4.3.1 Geology

Geology in the PGB Planning Area includes the entire range of Montana’s geologic past with rocks ranging in age from Archean (Precambrian) rocks, as much as 2.5 billion years in age, to relatively recent glacial and alluvial deposits. Included within this range are sedimentary rocks ranging from Precambrian Belt Supergroup rocks, the full stratigraphic column of Paleozoic rocks, and a wide range of Cretaceous sediments from the Mesozoic Era.

Structurally the PGB Planning area is highly complex with a wide variety of structural features that complicate any generalizations on geology other than to note that an extensive area of relatively undisturbed Cretaceous sediments exists north of Livingston. The remainder of the

8

PGB Planning Area includes extensive folding and thrust faults of Paleozoic rocks in a general northwest/southeast trend typical of the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Intrusive igneous rocks occur in the core of the Big Belt Mountains northeast of Townsend, north of the Planning Area. There are no intrusive igneous rocks within the Planning Area. Volcanic igneous rocks of Paleogene age are located along the east Flank of the Elkhorn Mountains west of Townsend. Paleogene volcanic rocks also form the core of the southern Absaroka Range south and east of Livingston.

1.4.3.2 Mineral Resources

The PGB Planning Area includes several historic mining districts including Radersburg, Elkhorn, Jardine, Crevice and Emigrant. The planning area also includes two major limestone mines, Graymont Western’s Limestone Hills mine and Holcim’s mine near Trident. Lode deposits in the Emigrant area were the likely source for placer deposits in the along Emigrant Creek south of Chico Hot Springs.

The areas adjacent to existing mining districts have the highest potential for future locatable mineral exploration and development.

Energy minerals, coal, oil and gas and geothermal also occur within the planning area. The Livingston and Coal Creek coal fields lie between Bozeman and Livingston. The Electric coal field is north of Gardiner. These are small relatively low grade deposits of coal and are highly unlikely to see any development. Geothermal resources exist close to Yellowstone National Park at Corwin Springs. Their proximity to the park and distance from distribution lines/centers makes development unlikely. Oil and gas resources are found throughout portions of the Planning Area but potential is rated as low for any actual development. The Crazy Mountain Oil and Gas play is located in the area of extensive sedimentary rocks north of Livingston. While potential here is higher than elsewhere in the Planning Area, no producing wells have been identified.

1.4.4 Livestock Grazing

Forty one (41) individual operators have active grazing leases on approximately 30,780 acres (43 allotments) of BLM lands within the PGB PA. There are 5 allotments with approximately 1576 acres of public land within the PA that are currently allotted but unleased. BLM lands within the PA provide an important source of livestock forage. The BLM currently permits 3,503 active AUMs on the allotments included in this Assessment Report as seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Current Grazing Management and Allocation within PGB PA Allotments BLM Reference Map Allotment Allotment Livestock Season BLM BLM Stocking (Appendix A) Name Number Kind of Use Acres AUM’s Rate (acres/AUM) Airport 15505 Cattle 5/1-7/1 720 111 6.5 Area 7 Map 8/15- Antelope Butte 11093 Cattle 279 37 7.5 Area 9 Map 12/31 Bald Hills 5/9- 20279 Cattle 802 100 8.0 Area 1 Map SGC 10/31

9

BLM Reference Map Allotment Allotment Livestock Season BLM BLM Stocking (Appendix A) Name Number Kind of Use Acres AUM’s Rate (acres/AUM) Buffalo Hump 07959 Cattle 4/1-7/31 435 64 6.8 Area 8 Map 5/15- Cable Gulch 20244 Cattle 739 66 11.2 Area 2 Map 10/15 Carbella 05583 Cattle 5/1-9/15 508 68 7.5 Area 10 Map

Chuck Reid 05529 Cattle 1/1-5/1 80 4 20 Area 8 Map 5/15- Copper City 20284 Cattle 3234 142 22.8 Area 5 Map 10/15 5/1- Devils Bottom 20235 Cattle 310 20 15.5 Area 2 Map 11/15 2/15- Donald Wood 05563 Cattle 65 24 2.7 Area 8 Map 5/15 Dunbar 6/1- 20381 Cattle 920 49 18.8 Area 2 Map Springs 10/15 6/15- East Trident 03101 Cattle 320 17 18.8 Area 5 Map 12/31 6/15- Ellis Basin 05531 Cattle 115 16 7.2 Area 10 Map 10/15 Emigrant 6/01- 20237 Cattle 126 14 9 Area 10 Map Creek 12/30 Flatland 07708 Sheep 6/1-10/1 40 4 10 Area 9 Map

Gaging Station 15430 Cattle 5/15-7/1 320 22 14.5 Area 7 Map 6/15- Garden Gulch 20392 Cattle 519 60 8.7 Area 2 Map 11/4 Gold Run 6/15- 15412 Cattle 1630 170 9.6 Area 10 Map Creek 7/30 Green 05496 Unleased N/A 489 N/A N/A Area 9 Map Mountain 6/1- High Peak 20234 Cattle 280 41 6.8 Area 5 Map 10/15 6/15- Hilltop 00943 Cattle 128 13 9.8 Area 5 Map 9/15 5/1- Hot Springs 05577 Cattle 5 6 0.8 Area 9 Map 10/31 3/1- Iverson 10403 Cattle 360 60 6 Area 3 Map 11/30 Limestone East 20281 Sheep 11/2-3/3 7787 796 9.8 Area 1 Map Madison 05/01- 20389 Horses 160 16 10 Area 6 Map Buffalo Jump 06/30

10

BLM Reference Map Allotment Allotment Livestock Season BLM BLM Stocking (Appendix A) Name Number Kind of Use Acres AUM’s Rate (acres/AUM) Madison 11171 Unleased N/A 40 6 6.7 Area 6 Map Plateau 5/15- Maudlow 03170 Cattle 320 16 20 Area 2 Map 1/15 McAdows 12/1- 15445 Cattle 130 12 10.8 Area 8 Map Canyon 3/31 Milligan 5/16- 20250 Cattle 491 47 10.4 Area 6 Map Common 9/15 5/12- Missouri 20201 Cattle 664 74 9 Area 1 Map 10/31 Mountain 7/1- 05493 Cattle 200 24 8.3 Area 7 Map Range 10/31 5/15- North Fork 15421 Cattle 80 10 8 Area 7 Map 10/14 6/1- Poison 05551 Cattle 530 120 4.4 Area 7 Map 11/30 6/15- Pole Gulch 20414 Cattle 1889 454 4.2 Area 4 Map 9/30 Quarry Gulch 03171 Unleased N/A 240 N/A N/A Area 2 Map

Quinn Creek 05487 Unleased N/A 280 N/A N/A Area 7 Map Riverside 20272 Cattle 5/1-6/20 399 67 6 Area 1 Map School 6/1- Roy Gulch 20383 Cattle 1365 233 5.9 Area 2 Map 10/31 11/01- Sixmile 20398 Cattle 681 96 7.1 Area 2 Map 5/01 Sixmile Park 05507 Unleased N/A 329 N/A N/A Area 10 Map County 7/14- Slaughterhouse 05519 Cattle 327 34 9.6 Area 9 Map 9/15 Smith 20286 Cattle 5/1-6/30 441 50 8.8 Area 1 Map Individual Suce Creek 15420 Cattle 6/1-9/30 280 42 6.7 Area 7 Map

Toston Canal 10376 Cattle 6/1-10/1 1709 169 10.1 Area 2 Map 7/1- Wall Mountain 10425 Cattle 872 111 7.9 Area 3 Map 11/30 West Dexter 7/16- 15400 Cattle 404 3 134.7 Area 9 Map Point 10/15 Wineglass 15452 Unleased N/A 238 N/A N/A Area 7 Map Mountain

11

BLM Reference Map Allotment Allotment Livestock Season BLM BLM Stocking (Appendix A) Name Number Kind of Use Acres AUM’s Rate (acres/AUM) 5/15- Yellowstone 05538 Cattle 176 15 11.7 Area 7 Map 12/31

*Unleased, therefore acres are not included in the stocking rate calculation for the allotment and PA.

Current authorized stocking rates on BLM lands, that are leased for grazing, within the project area averages approximately 12.5 acres/Animal Unit Month (AUM) and varies from 0.8 to 134.7 acres/AUM (Table 2). An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one animal unit for one month. An animal unit is one mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds and her calf up to 6 months of age, or their equivalent. The wide variation in stocking rate is directly related to the difference in average annual precipitation, soils, vegetation, topography (aspect, elevation, and slope), and distance from water throughout the project area. 1.5 Process

This assessment was completed in 2015 in accordance with the BLM regulations regarding Rangeland Health Standards (Standards) and other applicable guidance:

 BLM Manual H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards Handbook and Guidance for Conducting Watershed-Based Land Health Assessments.  Code of Federal Regulation 43 CFR, Subpart 4180.  Record of Decision (ROD) - Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (S&Gs) for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.  Healthy Forest Initiative.  Healthy Forests Restoration Act.  National Fire Plan.

Rangeland Health Standards are described in detail in the 1997 ROD - Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota-Western Montana Standards.

The preamble of the Western Montana Standards states: “The purpose of the Standards and Guidelines are to facilitate the achievement and maintenance of healthy, properly functioning ecosystems within the historic and natural range of variability for long-term sustainable use.” Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable lands. Achieving or making significant progress towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of public lands as stated in 43 CFR §4180.1.

The Western Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) has developed standards for rangeland health and guidelines for grazing management on BLM lands in the Western Montana District.

This assessment will report condition and/or function for the following five standards:

Standard #1: Upland Health Standard #2: Riparian/ Wetland Health Standard #3: Water Quality 12

Standard #4: Air Quality Standard #5: Biodiversity

In addition, this assessment will report condition and/or function for forest health and fuels. Forest health can affect each of the five standards, but in this assessment will be reflected under Standard #1 Upland Health, along with other factors that affect upland health. These assessments are made on an allotment scale.

The RAC determined that the following considerations were very important in adoption of these Standards and Guidelines:

 For implementation, the BLM should emphasize a watershed approach that incorporates both upland and riparian standards and guidelines.  The standards are applicable to rangeland health, regardless of use.  The social and cultural heritage of the region and the viability of the local economy, are part of the ecosystem.  Wildlife is integral to the proper function of rangeland ecosystems.

Condition/function statements regarding the Standards are made as either meeting (Yes) or not meeting (No). Land Health Standards are met when conditions across an allotment are achieving or making significant progress towards the appropriate physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. This is dependent on scope and scale and determined by the Authorized Officer.

Available trend monitoring data, existing inventories, historical photographs and standardized methodology are used by an IDT to assess condition and function. Trend monitoring data, riparian assessment data and historic photographs used for this assessment are available at the Butte Field Office.

1.5.1 Format

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

 Affected Environment - This section briefly describes the area and resources that were assessed.  Findings, Analysis and Recommendations - This section lists the findings and discloses recommendations developed by the IDT during the field assessments. 2.0 STANDARD #1- UPLAND HEALTH

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

2.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard

The uplands were assessed on an allotment basis according to Interagency Technical Reference 1734-6 “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health.” This qualitative process evaluates 17 “indicators” (e.g., soil compaction, water flow patterns, plant community composition) to assess three interrelated components or “attributes” of rangeland health: soil/site stability, hydrological function, and biotic integrity. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) based on specific soil types, precipitation zones, 13 and location. They describe various characteristics and attributes including what vegetative species and relative percentage of each are expected to be present on the site. The IDT refers to these site descriptions while completing the upland evaluation matrix if the ESDs are available.

The IDT reviewed the long term trend study data, conducted extensive field surveys, and used the Indicators of Upland Health assessment process to assess the functionality of the upland habitat in the PGB PA.

The PA was also evaluated for weed infestations using treatment records and inventories from the Butte Field Office, and the IDT’s collective observations during the field assessments.

2.2 Affected Environment

2.2.1 Soils

Soils in the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater Planning Area are primarily affected by climate (temperature and precipitation), topography (slope and aspect), and parent material (geology and geomorphology). The PA encompasses four Montana soil survey areas from which soil information was gathered: Broadwater County Area (2015), Gallatin County Area (2015), Meagher County Area (2015), and Park County Area (2014). The soils in this watershed are generally classified as frigid or cryic soil temperature regimes. Lands administered by BLM within the PGB receive approximately 10 to 17 inches of average annual precipitation (Section 1.2.4 – Climate) and fall into the aridic to ustic soil moisture regime.

The soils within the watershed formed in glaciofluvial deposits, residuum, till, glacial drift, colluvium, gravelly alluvium, or loess mainly from argillite, igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary, hornfels, basic volcanic breccia, granite, metaquartzite, limestone, sandstone, shale, siltstone, and shale-siltstone rock sources. Major landforms include scarp slopes, hills, glacial drainage channels, knolls on ground moraines, lateral moraines on mountains, drainageways, fan remnants, floodplain step, backswamps, alluvial fans, escarpments, knolls, ridges, structural benches on foothills, swales, plains, hillsides, dip slopes, strath terraces, flood plains, cirques, troughs, valleys, terraces, mountains, stream terraces, mountain slopes, outwash fans, streams, moraines, and foothills. Slopes range from nearly level and undulating (1 to 8 percent), rolling and hilly (8 to 30 percent), to steep and very steep (25 to more than 45 percent). Surface soil textures include loam, silty clay loam, sand, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silt loam, and sandy loam; soil depths generally vary from shallow (less than 20 inches to a root restrictive layer) to very deep (more than 60 inches to a restrictive layer).

Soil classifications and ecological sites within the assessment area reflect these soil physical and chemical properties and variables. The ecological sites associated with the upland areas include: Shallow, Silty-Droughty-Steep, Silty, Silty-Steep, Shallow Clay, Very Shallow, Subirrigated, Silty-Limy, Sandy, Shallow to Gravel, Overflow, loamy steep, rubbly, shallow droughty, shallow sandy, shallow loamy, loamy steep, droughty steep, stony, silty-coarse, silty-stony, wet meadow, clayey, and shallow limy.

2.2.2 Vegetation

Wyoming sage, Mountain sage, grassland, and deciduous shrubland areas are considered uplands for purposes of this report. Satellite imagery analysis classifies 41% of the planning area as sagebrush-steppe and grassland uplands (5% shrubland, 22% grasslands, 9% Wyoming sage, and 5% Mountain sage). Forest and woodland habitats are discussed under Forest Health and Fuels

14

Management. Other (13.5% Total Watershed Acres and 1.8% BLM acres) includes waterbodies, farmlands, roadways and corridors.

The variety and distribution of plant communities and seral stages in the watershed area is a function of climate, geology, and soil combined with:

 Historic uses. (e.g., grazing, mining, etc.)  Short term weather patterns.  Disturbance regimes. (e.g., drought, fire, floods, and herbivory)

Vegetation on BLM lands are similar to what is found throughout the PA, with variations in abundance (Table 3).

The upland habitats found on BLM land are dominated by both 50% shrublands (including 35% Wyoming sage and 5% Mountain sage) and 25% grasslands. Some of the prominent herbaceous species included in the grasslands are bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comate), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). These same cool season grasses are prominent understory vegetation in the shrubland cover types. Rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and green rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus) are common native shrubs found on numerous ecological sites throughout the watershed.

Current vegetative cover was calculated using satellite imagery and the LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting Model (USGS 2007). Acres are approximate and minor discrepancies may exist due to mapping errors.

Table 3. Summary of Acres by General Cover Type within the PGB PA Total % of BLM % of Total Cover Type BLM Acreage Watershed Acreage Acreage Acreage Aspen 163.9 0.5% 44,734.3 1.2% Cool/Moist Forest 497.1 1.4% 952,395.2 25.1% Dry Forest 7,363.2 20.5% 679,710.0 17.9% Deciduous Shrubland 3,509.6 9.8% 175,091.4 4.6% Grassland 8,958.9 24.9% 845,973.7 22.3% Mountain Sage 1,959.7 5.5% 193,825.9 5.1% Wyoming Sage 12,408.9 34.5% 322,589.3 8.5% Riparian 376.1 1% 59,511.3 1.6% Mahogany 28.9 <1% 279.5 <1% Other 652.5 1.8% 512,886.3 13.5% Totals 35,918.8 100% 3,786,997.0 100%

2.2.3 Noxious Weeds

There are scattered infestations of noxious weeds and cheat grass throughout the PA. These infestations are found primarily in areas of past ground disturbance, such as roads, pipelines, stock tanks, along river corridors, and burned areas. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica),

15 spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are the most prevalent noxious and invasive species in the PA. Many BLM parcels have little to no weed infestations present.

2.2.4 Special Status Plants

No occurrences of Special Status plants have been documented on BLM lands in the PGB PA, but could occur within areas of potential habitat. No whitebark pine was found during Land Health Assessments but has the highest probability of being found in the Paradise Valley area.

2.2.5 Forest Health and Fuels Management

2.2.5.1 Fuels Conditions

The 2009 Butte Resource Management plan states that all fire management activities will use Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC), product of Landfire, to determine levels of fuel treatment. Since that time, Landfire has altered the vegetation models and now refers to FRCC as Vegetation Condition Class (VCC). The VCC data layer categorizes Vegetation Departure (VDEP) between current vegetation conditions and reference vegetation conditions to determine how similar a landscape's fire regime is to its natural or historical state. Vegetation condition classes are broken down into three categories: 1, 2, and 3. Landscapes determined to fall within the category of VCC 1 contain vegetation, fuels, and disturbances characteristic of the natural regime; VCC 2 landscapes are those that are moderately departed from the natural regime; and VCC 3 landscapes reflect vegetation, fuels, and disturbances that are uncharacteristic of the natural regime. A landscape in VCC 1 has key ecosystem components, such as large old trees and soil characteristics that would naturally be found on that site, intact. A landscape with a VCC rating of 3 indicates that the land is not very similar to its natural regime in terms of its vegetation or disturbance or both.

16

Table 4. Description of VCC Classes

VCC DESCRIPTION

VDEP less than 33 percent from the central tendency of the historical range of variation. Fire regimes are within the natural or historical range, and the VCC 1 risk of losing key ecosystems components is low. Vegetation attributes are well intact and functioning.

VDEP 33-66 percent. Fire regimes have been moderately altered. Risk of losing key ecosystems components may have departed by one or more VCC 2 return intervals (either increased or decreased). This departure may result in moderate changes in fire and vegetation attributes.

VDEP greater than 66 percent. Fire regimes have been substantially altered. Risk of losing key ecosystems components is high. Fire frequency may VCC 3 have departed by multiple return intervals. This may result in dramatic changes in fire size, fire intensity and severity and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been substantially altered.

The PGB PA consists of 3,787,019 acres, with 425,652 acres of rock, water, agriculture, or barren lands that were not analyzed. BLM administered lands in the PGB PA account for 35,931 acres, with 388 acres of rock, water, agriculture or barren lands that were not analyzed. The VCC data layer showed that approximately 706,140 acres (21%), were in Condition Class 1, while 2,356,705 acres (70%), were moderately departed in Condition Class 2, and the remaining 298,519 acres (9%), were classified as Condition Class 3 within the PGB PA.

Using the VCC layer, the BLM lands were shown to be in slightly better condition overall: 14,580 acres (41%), were in Condition Class 1, 15,775 acres (44 %), were in Condition Class 2, and 5,184 acres (15%), and were classified as Condition Class 3.

2.2.5.2 Forest and Woodland Condition

The Butte RMP separates forests and woodlands into two main conifer cover types, Dry Forest Types and Cool and Moist Forest Types. Both types occur throughout the PGB PA. Conifer cover types comprise approximately 43% of all ownerships, and approximately 21% of BLM lands within the PGB PA (Table 3).

In broad terms, a healthy forest is one that maintains desirable ecosystem functions and processes. Aspects of forest health include biological diversity; soil, air, and water productivity; ability to withstand natural disturbances; and the capacity of the forest to provide a sustaining flow of goods and services for people.

Low-elevation and mid-elevation forest/woodlands within the PA are typically Dry Forest Types that contain Douglas-fir, limber pine, ponderosa pine, and Rocky Mountain juniper. Conifer expansion into openings and sagebrush/grassland is most evident at the low to mid-elevations of

17 the assessment area. Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain juniper colonization has affected many of the allotments within the PA.

At higher elevations, the Dry Forest Types transition into more Cool and Moist Forest Types. These forested habitats are mainly found on US Forest Service land. They contain mixed conifer communities of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine.

As a result of fire exclusion, conifer densities have increased within forested stands. The recent drought and increased densities have resulted in forest susceptibility to insect and/or disease infestations and subsequent mortality.

Spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) activity is present throughout most of the forested areas within the PGB PA, but is almost entirely at endemic levels. Defoliation caused by spruce budworm is most evident on Douglas-fir, but also affects subalpine fir and spruce species. While spruce budworm does not usually cause direct tree mortality, it can predispose trees to attacks by other insects or diseases. Budworms grow more vigorously in stressed trees, and spruce budworm populations can increase dramatically during drought conditions.

Mountain pine beetle (MPB) (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is present throughout the PGB PA and has caused mortality in ponderosa, limber, whitebark, and lodgepole pine. At endemic levels, the beetle typically survives in stressed, weakened, or previously damaged trees, and causes minimal mortality. However, MPB populations can build and spread quickly under favorable conditions. At epidemic levels, MPB can decimate mature forests, often killing virtually all trees over extensive areas (Worrall, 2000). Mountain pine beetle activity is highly variable throughout the PGB PA due to a wide range of suitability in stand conditions. The majority of the mortality seen on the BLM is at endemic levels, within the ponderosa and limber pine stands.

Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) activity has been observed in the PGB PA but is at endemic levels. Douglas-fir trees most susceptible to bark beetle attack are larger than 14 inches DBH; older than 120 years; growing in dense stands; weakened by drought, root disease, or defoliation; or are located near existing beetle-infested trees (Forest Health Protection, 2006).

White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) has been observed within the PGB PA. Host species within the PA include limber and whitebark pine. No known whitebark pine have been found on BLM within the PA yet but scattered limber pine have been observed. White pine blister rust within the limber pine has been sporadic.

2.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations

Members of the IDT visited all of the grazing allotments, as well as the unallotted public lands in the PGB PA during 2015 and completed 17 Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrices on various ecological sites and plant associations. In addition, Daubenmire trend studies and permanent photo plots were evaluated to determine vegetative trend. The data collected were summarized and compared to baseline and interim data providing supporting information for interpreting the upland indicators.

The vast majority of the uplands in the watershed are functioning properly and meeting the Standard for Upland Health. Table 5 outlines the findings at sites throughout the watershed where the IDT completed the Indicators of Rangeland Health evaluation matrix. Upland sites

18 that were found to be in the none-to-slight or slight-to-moderate departure from expected conditions category generally show that the Standard is being met. A moderate to severe departure from expected conditions may show that the Standard is not being met. Table 5 also outlines the final evaluation of each allotment.

Table 5. Upland Qualitative Assessment Summary, Degree of Departure from Expected and Upland Standards

Meeting Allotment Name and Soil Site Hydrologic Biotic Integrity Upland Number Stability Function Standards Airport 15505 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Antelope Butte None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 11093 Bald Hills SGC None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 20244 Buffalo Hump 07959 None to Slight None to Slight Moderate Y

Cable Gulch 20244 None to Slight Moderate Moderate to Extreme Y

Carbella 05583* None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y

Chuck Reid 05529 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Copper City 20284 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Devil’s Bottom None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 202351 Donald Wood 055631 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Dunbar Springs None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 20381 East Trident 03101 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Ellis Basin 055311 None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y Emigrant Creek None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 20237 Flatland 07708 None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y Gaging Station Slight to None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 15412* Moderate Garden Gulch 20392 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Gold Run Creek Slight to None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 15412* Moderate Green Mountain N/A N/A N/A Y 05496*

19

Meeting Allotment Name and Soil Site Hydrologic Biotic Integrity Upland Number Stability Function Standards High Peak 20234 None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y Slight to Hilltop 00943 None to Slight None to Slight Y Moderate Hot Springs 055771 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Iverson 10403 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Limestone East None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 20281 Madison Buffalo None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Jump 20389 Madison Plateau None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 11171 Maudlow 031701 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y McAdows Canyon None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 15445 Milligan Common None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 20250 Missouri 20201 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Mountain Range None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 054931 North Fork 154211 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Poison 05551 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Pole Gulch 20414* None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Quarry Gulch 03171* N/A N/A N/A Y

Quinn Creek 05487* None to Slight None to Slight None to slight Y Riverside School Slight to None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 20272 Moderate Roy Gulch 203831 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Sixmile 20398 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y Sixmile Park County None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 055071 Slaughterhouse N/A N/A N/A Y 05519* Smith Individual Slight to None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y 20286 Moderate 20

Meeting Allotment Name and Soil Site Hydrologic Biotic Integrity Upland Number Stability Function Standards Suce Creek 15420 *1 None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y

Toston Canal 10376 None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y Wall Mountain None to Slight None to Slight None to Slight Y 10425 West Dexter Point N/A N/A N/A Y 15400* Wineglass Mountain N/A N/A N/A N 15452* Yellowstone 05538 None to Slight None to Slight Slight to Moderate Y *Forestry Checklist used on these allotments instead of/or including the 17 Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrices 1 –indicates a previous Land Health Assessment rating that was adopted for these allotments assessment with field verification during the 2015 field season.

On the sites rated as meeting the Upland Standard (Y), the quantitative monitoring data supports the findings of the IDT (Table 5). The ecological condition at these upland sites is stable or improving. Evidence of erosion appears to be remnant of historical impacts associated with grazing and mining activities, and generally matches what is expected for that ecological site. Conifer encroachment was also observed throughout the PA and was present to some degree in many of the allotments. Invasive and noxious plants were present in portions of the PA and depending on abundance, did contribute to a slight-moderate departure in some allotments.

A “Moderate to Extreme” Biotic Integrity for Cable Gulch was made because the 15 acre site location where the 17 Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrices occurred. This site was located next to a road and livestock salting area which was dominated by cheatgrass and blue grama. Further assessment of the 724 BLM acres revealed the allotment was meeting Biotic Integrity.

On Allotments where we were unable to use the 17 Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrices, the BLM used a Forestry Checklist to determine if the Allotments were meeting Upland Health. These allotments were mostly timber covered and/or had no active grazing lease. Some allotments, which had grazing and timber, both the 17 Rangeland Health Indicator Evaluation Matrices and the Forestry Checklist were used.

The Wineglass Mountain Allotment was determined to not be meeting the upland standards due to changes in forest stand structure and insect and disease activity. Forest structure has changed from open growth and pockets of limber pine and Douglas-fir to dense stands of Douglas-fir and juniper, with little interspace. Limber pine has seen high levels of mortality from MPB, while also being overcrowed and outcompeted by Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir are also seeing high levels of defoliation and mortality from spruce budworm.

2.3.1 Recommendations for Upland Health

1. Continue treating weed infestations throughout the PA.

21

2. Reduce Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper encroachment in sagebrush and grassland upland sites, as opportunities arise, and where necessary to improve upland health. 3. Continue to maintain or improve upland health in all areas that exhibit healthy and/or improving conditions. 3.0 RIPARIAN AND WETLAND AREAS

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

3.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard

Lotic and Lentic Riparian Area Management Assessment Methodologies (TR 1737-15 and TR 1737-16), also known as Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment Methodologies, were used to evaluate riparian systems.

PFC is a methodology for assessing the physical functioning of riparian (lotic)-wetland (lentic) areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process, and a defined, on the ground condition of the riparian-wetland area. In either case, PFC defines a minimum level or starting point for assessing riparian-wetland areas.

The PFC assessment provides a consistent approach for assessing the physical functioning of riparian-wetland areas through consideration of hydrology, vegetation, and soil/landform attributes. The PFC assessment synthesizes information that is foundational to determining the overall health of a riparian-wetland area.

The on the ground condition term PFC refers to how well the physical processes are functioning. PFC is a state of resiliency that will allow a riparian-wetland area to hold together during a high flow event, sustaining that system’s ability to produce values related to both physical and biological attributes.

BLM personnel reviewed existing data, re-read established transects and established monitoring in several areas that were identified by the ID team prior to and during the 2015 evaluations. All available data were evaluated and considered by the ID team prior to a functionality rating being made on each reach.

3.2 Affected Environment

There were approximately 32 miles of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral stream reaches identified and assessed during the 2015 land health assessments. These reaches are identified in Table 6, below. In addition to the name and identification number, the table includes the approximate length of each reach, previous rating, 2015 rating, and the qualitative call on the allotment meeting the riparian standard.

Many of the resources within the BFO stream and wetland database have been identified based upon mapped information, aerial photos, and USGS Quads. As part of the PGB PA assessment process, the resource inventory has been updated based upon field notes, photographs and ground surveys.

22

Previously identified reaches that were reclassified as non-riparian are included as well. Other riparian areas that may fall outside of allotment boundaries but were assessed are included under Unallotted.

3.2.1 Seeps and Springs

Federal protection of wetlands and riparian systems became official policy under the authority of two Executive Orders issued in 1977. The majority of developed springs in the PGB PA were developed prior to the issuance of these orders, other federal laws, directives, or regulations for the management and protection of wetlands (Mitch 1986). Current management direction requires minimization of wetland loss or degradation as well as preservation and enhancement of natural and beneficial values. This includes maintenance of hydrology. All developed springs are required to be maintained so as to reduce livestock impacts.

Undeveloped seeps and springs can be an attractant to both livestock and wildlife. Although, generally too small to meet Lentic PFC criteria, these are a unique and important features on the landscape. These are to be managed so as to reduce any adverse impacts or degradation to the site.

Well managed seeps and springs have the potential to support rare plants, macroinvertebrates, insects, fish, spring snails, amphibians and migratory birds as well as to provide water for wildlife and livestock; however, when spring sources are not properly developed or regularly maintained, they can result in reduced wetland function due to soil compaction, the loss of desirable vegetation, and the loss of the potential for diversity of life forms.

The developed springs within the PGB PA work to various degrees of efficiency and success. Much of this depends upon the amount of water the spring supplies that particular year, which is often directly related to the amount of annual precipitation that is received. Developed spring sources typically improve livestock management. In most cases, livestock will prefer to use developed water and stock tanks over undeveloped water such as streams, springs, or seeps.

Special Status Plants

No occurrences of Special Status plants have been documented in the PGB PA, but could occur within areas of potential habitat.

3.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations

Riparian condition of streams, springs, ponds, potholes and wet meadows were placed into one of five categories: Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Functioning At Risk with an Upward trend (FAR Up), Functioning At Risk with a static trend or no apparent trend (FAR), Functioning At Risk with a Downward Trend (FAR Down), or Non Functional (NF) using the lentic and lotic methodologies described above.

The final column is a result of the ID Team’s review of assessments and findings compared to Western Montana Standard #2: Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition as identified in the Montana Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement.

23

Table 6 Riparian (lotic) Resources in the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater County South Planning Area.

Allotment Previous Allotment Name Reach ID Length 2015 Meeting Reach Name Rating and Number Number (miles) Rating Riparian (Year) Standard Airport 15505 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Antelope Butte N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y1 11093 Bald Hills SGC MIDR-11 Missouri River 0.94 FAR (2002) PFC Y 20279 Buffalo Hump YWLV-1 Yellowstone River 1.03 PFC (2005) PFC Y 07959 YWLV-3 Yellowstone River 1.17 PFC (1995) PFC Y

YWLV-4 Yellowstone River 0.96 PFC (1995) PFC Y

Cable Gulch 20244 MIHW-4 Missouri River 0.16 FAR= (2002) PFC Y

MIHW-7 Missouri River 0.55 FAR= (2002) PFC Y Point of Rocks Carbella 05583 YWBC-8 13 ac. FAR↓ (2006) PFC Y (Lentic) Point of Rocks YWBC-9 4 ac. FAR (2006) PFC Y (Lentic) YWBC-10 Thelma Gray 0.56 PFC (2006) PFC Y

YWBC-11 Thelma Gray 0.28 FAR↑ (2006) PFC Y

YWBC-13 Yellowstone River 0.25 PFC (2006) PFC Y West Fork Boulder Chuck Reid 05529 WBDR-1 0.78 PFC (2009) PFC* Y River Copper City 20284 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Devil’s Bottom ½ PFC ½ MIHW-13 Missouri River 0.29 PFC Y 20235 FAR (2002) MIHW-14 Missouri River 0.09 PFC Y

MIHW-15 Missouri River 1.52 PFC Y

Donald Wood 05563 YWLV-5 Yellowstone River 0.53 FAR= (2005) PFC Y Dunbar Springs MIHW-6 Garden Gulch 0.59 PFC (2003) PFC* Y 20381 East Trident 03101 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

24

Allotment Previous Allotment Name Reach ID Length 2015 Meeting Reach Name Rating and Number Number (miles) Rating Riparian (Year) Standard Ellis Basin 05531 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Emigrant Creek N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20237 Flatland 07708 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gaging Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15412 NON- Garden Gulch 20392 MIHW-5 Garden Gulch 0.22 NF (2004) N/A RIP Green Mountain MILL-1 Mill Creek 0.20 PFC (2010) PFC* Y 05496 Gold Run Creek NON- YWBC-2 Tunnel Spring 0.07 PFC N 15412 RIP YWBC-4 Colley Creek 0.51 FAR↑(2005) FAR↑* N

YWBC-5 Aspen Grove 3 ac. FAR= NF N

YWBC-6 Last Chance Creek 0.87 FAR↑ FAR= N

High Peak 20234 MIHW-2 Missouri River 0.26 FAR↓ (2002) PFC Y

MIHW-3 Missouri River 0.92 NF (2002) PFC Y

Hilltop 00943 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Hot Springs 05577 YWBC-1 Chico Lentic 1 ac. PFC (2005) PFC* Y

Iverson 10403 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Limestone East MIDR-3 Missouri River 0.24 PFC Y 20281 NON- MIDR-4 0.25 WD2 Y RIP NON- MIDR-5 0.51 FAR Y RIP NON- MIDR-6 0.37 PFC Y RIP NON- MIDR-7 0.47 FAR Y RIP NON- MIDR-10 0.27 PFC Y RIP Madison Buffalo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Jump 20389

25

Allotment Previous Allotment Name Reach ID Length 2015 Meeting Reach Name Rating and Number Number (miles) Rating Riparian (Year) Standard Madison Plateau N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11171 Maudlow 03170 SXML-2 Sixteenmile Creek 0.52 PFC (2003) PFC Y McAdows Canyon YWLV-2 Yellowstone River 1.14 FAR= (2005) PFC Y 15445 Milligan Common N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20250 Missouri 20201 MIDR-8 Missouri River 0.14 FAR↑ (2002) PFC Y

MIDR-9 Missouri River 0.36 FAR↑ (2002) PFC Y Mountain Range YWTC-1 Suce Creek 0.15 PFC (2005) PFC* Y 05493 North Fork 15421 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Poison 05551 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pole Gulch 20414 SXMF-1 Coal Gulch 0.24 NF (2003) FAR↑ Y

SXMF-2 Coal Gulch 0.19 NF (2003) FAR↑ Y Sixteenmile Creek SXMF-3 0.14 PFC Y Trib. Sixteenmile Creek SXMF-4 0.62 PFC Y Trib. Sixteenmile Creek SXMF-5 0.43 FAR= (2003) FAR↑ Y Trib. Middle Fork SXMF-6 0.77 PFC (2003) FAR↑ Y Sixteenmile Creek East Fork Middle SXMF-7 0.23 FAR↑ Y Sixteenmile Creek SXMF-8 Lentic area 4 ac. NEW3 PFC Y

Quarry Gulch 03171 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Quinn Creek 05487 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Riverside School N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20272 Whiskey Gulch Roy Gulch 20383 SXML-1 1ac. PFC (2003) PFC Y Lentic Seep SXML-4 Unnamed Spring 2 ac. NEW3 FAR= Y

26

Allotment Previous Allotment Name Reach ID Length 2015 Meeting Reach Name Rating and Number Number (miles) Rating Riparian (Year) Standard Sixmile 20398 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sixmile Park County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 05507 Slaughterhouse YWTC-4 Elbow Creek 0.20 PFC (2005) PFC Y 05519 YWTC-5 Fire Creek 0.10 PFC PFC Y Smith Individual N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20286 Suce Creek 15420 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NON- Toston Canal 10376 MIHW-18 Coal Hollow 0.54 WD2 (2004) N/A RIP Wall Mountain NON- SXML-3 Horse Creek 0.40 WD2 (2007) N/A 10425 RIP West Dexter Point Kaufman Creek YWTC-2 0.95 PFC (2006) PFC* Y 15400 Trib. Kaufman Creek YWTC-3 0.44 PFC (2006) PFC* Y Trib. Wineglass Mountain N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15452 Yellowstone 05538 YWLV-6 Yellowstone River 0.43 FAR= (2005) PFC Y

Unallotted MDTF-1 Madison River 1.18 FAR FAR*

MIDR-1 Missouri River 0.24 PFC PFC*

MIDR-12 Missouri River 0.34 FAR (2002) PFC

MIHW-1 Missouri River 0.52 PFC PFC

MIHW-8 Missouri River 1.13 PFC

MIHW-9 Missouri River 0.46 PFC

MIHW-10 Missouri River N/A NON-BLM

MIHW-11 Missouri River 0.28 PFC

MIHW-12 Missouri River 1.52 PFC

MIHW-16 Missouri River 1.46 PFC

27

Allotment Previous Allotment Name Reach ID Length 2015 Meeting Reach Name Rating and Number Number (miles) Rating Riparian (Year) Standard YWBC-7 Sixmile Creek N/A NON-BLM

YWBC-12 Yellowstone River 0.84 PFC Missouri River YWLV-7 1.64 PFC PFC* Island

1Antelope Butte has less than 0.1 miles of Trail Creek occurring in the northwest portion of the allotment. This is under the minimum guidance for reach length therefore no assessment was completed. 2Woody draw, not an accepted term for PFC riparian areas 3A feature not previously recorded ↑ indicates upward trend, ↓ indicates downward trend, = indicates a static trend * indicates a previous rating that was adopted for this assessment, field assessment forms were not completed in 2015.

Across the PGB PA 29 miles of lotic resources were assessed. Of these 29 lotic miles, 85% (24.6 miles) were rated PFC, 8% (2.4 miles) were rated FAR with an upward trend, and 7% (2.1 miles) were rated as FAR static. During the LHAs, 28 acres of large lentic systems were also assessed. Of these 28 lentic acres, 82% (23 acres) were rated PFC, 7% (2 acres) were rated FAR static, and 11% (3 acres) were rated NF.

Previous ratings, monitoring, management changes, and inventory data were analyzed to aid the ID Team in an informed finding. Only 1 allotment was found not to be meeting the Riparian Standard. Additional undesired conditions did occur across the planning areas although these deficiencies were not at a large enough scale for the team to determine the allotments were not meeting the standard.

Gold Run Creek allotment was found to not be meeting the Riparian Standard. The aspen grove (YWBC-6) lentic area has reduced in size and quality. Also Last Chance Creek (YWBC-5) had a large amount of hoof action that directed water out of the channel creating overland flow and hummocks directly above the aspen grove. Improvement is not expected without management change.

Below are preliminary recommendations for improvement to riparian health on specific riparian reaches.

3.3.1 Recommendations for Riparian Health

1. Reduce noxious weeds across all riparian areas where present and reduce opportunity for new populations to start. 2. Specific riparian recommendations: a. MIHW-5: Remove the exclosure as the reach is non-riparian. b. MIHW-7: Reduce amount of time livestock have access to the river bench. c. SXMF-6: Plant deciduous shrubs and trees in riparian area. d. SXMF-8: Relocate water tank from the saturated area.

28

e. SXML-4: Improve/cleaning up spring exclosure and reduce hoof action below headbox f. YWBC-5: Reduce livestock disturbance on lower end of reach g. YWBC-6: Reduce livestock disturbance 4.0 WATER QUALITY

Western Montana Standard #3: “Water quality meets State standards”

4.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard

Montana DEQ is responsible for assessing the condition of streams, establishing reference sites, setting standards, and developing water quality restoration plans. The Butte Field Office shares assessment findings with DEQ to support their efforts.

The foundation for Montana Water Quality Law is the Federal Clean Water Act. The goal of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” To meet that goal, waters of Montana are required to support beneficial uses.

4.2 Affected Environment

Within the lands administered by the BLM within the PGB PA there are approximately 6.4 miles of perennial streams. The perennial streams include Dry Creek, Elbow Creek, Fire Creek, Gold Run Creek, Middle Fork of Sixteenmile Creek, Mill Creek, Sheep Creek, Sixteenmile Creek, Suce Creek, and Trail Creek. There are also approximately 108 miles of intermittent streams within the PGB PA that include portions of Dry Creek, Gold Run Creek, and Horse Creek. Portions of the Missouri River and the Yellowstone River also flow adjacent to some allotments within the PGB PA.

According to Montana’s 2016 Final Water Quality Integrated Report, six of the streams and rivers within the PGB PA are not supporting their beneficial uses, and therefore considered impaired. The impaired streams/rivers are Dry Creek, Missouri River, Sixteenmile Creek, Yellowstone River, Mill Creek, and Suce Creek.

The portion of Dry Creek (MT41H003_100) considered impaired within BLM lands occurs within the Dunbar Springs Allotment. This section of Dry Creek is considered impaired due to physical substrate habitat alterations, nitrogen (total), phosphorus (total), sedimentation-siltation, and alterations in streamside or littoral vegetative cover. Sources of impairment include agriculture, channelization, crop production, unknown sources, unspecified unpaved roads or trails, and grazing in riparian or shoreline zones. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) have been completed for nitrogen (total), phosphorus (total), and sedimentation-siltation and are reported in the Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDLs & Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan (March 2013).

The portion of the Missouri River (MT41I001_011) considered impaired adjacent to BLM lands occurs along the High Peak Allotment. This section of the Missouri River is impaired due to arsenic, low flow alterations, nitrogen (total), and sedimentation-siltation. Sources of impairment include non-irrigated crop production, irrigated crop production, municipal point source discharge, grazing in riparian or shoreline zones, and natural sources. TMDLs have not been completed for this portion of the Missouri River.

29

The portion of Sixteenmile Creek (MT41I002_120) considered impaired within the BLM lands occurs within the Maudlow Allotment. This section of Sixteenmile Creek is considered impaired due to alterations in streamside or littoral vegetative covers, nitrogen (total), phosphorus (total), and sedimentation-siltation. Sources of impairment include grazing in riparian or shoreline zones and channelization. TMDLs have not been completed for this portion of Sixteenmile Creek.

The portion of the Yellowstone River (MT43B003_010) considered impaired adjacent to BLM lands occurs along the Buffalo Hump Allotment. This section of the Yellowstone River is impaired due to alteration in streamside or littoral vegetative covers and physical substrate habitat alterations. Sources of impairment include loss of riparian habitat, site clearance (land development or redevelopment), and streambank modifications-destabilization. TMDLs have not been completed for this section of the Yellowstone River.

The portion of Mill Creek (MT43B004_071) considered impaired within the BLM lands occurs within the Green Mountain Allotment. This section of Mill Creek is considered impaired due to low flow alterations. Sources of impairment include agriculture and impacts from hydrostructure flow regulation-modification. A TMDL have not been completed for this section of Mill Creek.

The portion of Suce Creek (MT43B004_090) considered impaired within the BLM lands occurs within the Mountain Range Allotment. This section of Suce Creek is considered impaired due to low flow alterations. The source of this impairment is from hydrostructure flow regulation- modification. A TMDL have not been completed for this section of Suce Creek.

4.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations

The ID team determined that all of the allotments within the PGB PA met the water quality standard, except Buffalo Hump, Dunbar Springs, Green Mountain, High Peak, Maudlow, Mountain Range, and Pole Gulch. The water quality standard was not met within these allotments because the streams and/or rivers within the allotments have been listed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality as being impaired. Impairment of water quality is not due to current livestock use on BLM lands.

Table 7. Water Quality Qualitative Assessment Summary for the PGB PA.

Allotment Name Allotment Number Meeting Water Quality Standard

Airport 15505 Not Applicable Antelope Butte 11093 Yes Bald Hills SGC 20279 Not Applicable Buffalo Hump 07959 No Cable Gulch 20244 Not Applicable Carbella 05583 Yes Chuck Reid 05529 Not Applicable Copper City 20284 Not Applicable Devil’s Bottom 20235 Not Applicable Donald Wood 05563 Yes Dunbar Springs 20381 No 30

Allotment Name Allotment Number Meeting Water Quality Standard

East Trident 03101 Not Applicable Ellis Basin 05531 Not Applicable Emigrant Creek 20237 Not Applicable Flatland 07708 Not Applicable Gaging Station 15412 Not Applicable Garden Gulch 20392 Not Applicable Gold Run Creek 15412 Yes Green Mountain 05496 No High Peak 20234 No Hilltop 00943 Not Applicable Hot Springs 05577 Not Applicable Iverson 10403 Not Applicable Limestone East 20281 Not Applicable Madison Buffalo Jump 20389 Not Applicable Madison Plateau 11171 Not Applicable Maudlow 03170 No McAdows Canyon 15445 Yes Milligan Common 20250 Not Applicable Missouri 20201 Not Applicable Mountain Range 05493 No North Fork 15421 Not Applicable Poison 05551 Not Applicable Pole Gulch 20414 No Quarry Gulch 03171 Yes Quinn Creek 05487 Not Applicable Riverside School 20272 Not Applicable Roy Gulch 20383 Not Applicable Sixmile 20398 Not Applicable Sixmile Park County 05507 Not Applicable Slaughterhouse 05519 Yes Smith Individual 20286 Not Applicable Suce Creek 15420 Not Applicable Toston Canal 10376 Not Applicable Wall Mountain 10425 Not Applicable West Dexter Point 15400 Not Applicable Wineglass Mountain 15452 Not Applicable Yellowstone 05538 Not Applicable

4.3.1 Recommendation for Water Quality

1. Continue working with Montana DEQ and local watershed committees as applicable.

31

5.0 AIR QUALITY

Western Montana Standard #4: “Air quality meets State standards”

5.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard

The Clean Air Act of 1990 as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq) requires the BLM to protect air quality, maintain Federal and State designated air quality standards, and abide by the requirements of State Implementation Plans.

The Environmental Protection Agency has delegated the authority to implement the provisions of the Clean Air Act to the State of Montana. Determination of compliance with air quality standards is the responsibility of the State of Montana. All of southwest Montana is in attainment, meaning that the air resource meets or exceeds all National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

5.2 Affected Environment

The Montana Air Quality Bureau has divided Montana into ten airsheds. Each airshed in Montana is designated as “Class 1” or “Class 2”, with “Class 1” having the strictest standards. Air Quality Standards are set by the state. The PGB PA lies within Airsheds 6, 8A and 8B; all three airsheds have a “Class 2” air quality designation. The Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group and the State of Montana monitors air quality within the PGB PA. The Bozeman Station is the most central station established by the State of Montana to the PGB PA.

5.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations

The ID team determined that all of the allotments within the PGB PA met the air quality standard. No adverse impacts to air quality were observed during Land Health Assessments, dust from roads is localized and temporary.

5.3.1 Recommendation for Air Quality

1. Continue to follow Burn Plans and coordinate with the Smoke Monitoring Unit of the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group. 6.0 BIODIVERSITY

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

6.1 Procedure to Determine Conformance with Standard

This Standard is an overall assessment of biodiversity and wildlife habitat. The indicators described under the definition of Standard #5 include:

 Plants and animals are diverse, vigorous and reproducing satisfactory, noxious weeds are absent or insignificant in the overall plant community.  Spatial distribution of species is suitable to ensure reproductive capability and recovery; a variety of age classes present.  Connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors prevents habitat fragmentation. 32

 Diversity of species (including plants, animals, insects and microbes) are represented; plant communities in a variety of successional stages are represented across the landscape.

Additionally, the condition/function of the other standards, specifically uplands and riparian, were considered to determine whether or not the Biodiversity Standard was met.

The IDT considered the range of natural variation within this ecosystem as well as the species composition, condition of available habitat, and forest health to determine the condition/function of biodiversity. The wildlife habitat niches expected are: grasslands (short and mid grasses), bare ground, small streams, riparian/wetlands, sagebrush steppe, conifer forests, aspen stands, and various mixes of these components. Providing habitat for special status plant and animal species is key to meeting the biodiversity standard.

6.2 Affected Environment

Upland and riparian habitats, which are used to assess the biodiversity finding, are described in the affected environments of those respective sections above.

6.2.1 Introduction

Wildlife in the PA is typical of southwestern Montana. Basic life history and habitat requirement information on all species mentioned in this document can be found in the Montana Field Guide (http://fieldguide.mt.gov/), and numerous other sources. Species location information is largely obtained from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks GIS layers and Montana Natural Heritage Program information provided to BLM.

6.2.2 Mammals The PA provides important big game habitat. The most commonly found big game species in the PA are elk and mule deer. The most important habitat types for these species are those used for winter range, calving, and security. Much of the Park, Gallatin, and Broadwater South PA is winter range for these species. A total of 2,250,920 acres (61 %) of the PA is considered winter distribution for elk and mule deer, and a total of 32,636 acres (91 %) of BLM lands in the PA is considered winter range for these species. Elk calving which has key components of hiding cover, open foraging areas (ideally, small enough so that no point is more than 600 feet from a forest edge), forested forage, and riparian sites (including some open water), has been confirmed in only one allotment, Wall Mountain, located in the northeast section of the PA. Security habitat, as defined by Hillis et. al. (1991) must be a nonlinear block of hiding cover > 250 acres in size and > ½ mile from any open road. There are no allotments found within the PA of this classification. Summer habitat for deer and elk encompasses the entire PA.

Less wide-ranging big game species include white-tailed deer, which mostly occur in and near riparian corridors. Pronghorn winter range includes the Airport and Poison allotments. Moose habitat varies and they may travel through any of the allotments. Their winter range can be found in the Quinn Creek, and Sixmile Park County allotments. Bighorn sheep and mountain goats are rarely found on BLM land in the PA, but Bighorn sheep may occur on the Southern portion of the PA in summer or winter. Mountain goats have been reintroduced throughout the PA and may range out of USFS lands into allotments adjacent to steeper terrain.

33

Predators in the PA include mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, black bears, and badgers. The gray wolf has also moved into the PA in recent years. Canada Lynx, classified as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act, may occur in forested areas at higher elevations.

Numerous small mammals are present in the area as well, including shrew species, many rodent species, and several bat species.

6.2.3 Birds

Many species of migratory and non-migratory birds are found in the PA. Species commonly seen in the lower elevation grassy habitats that are found in the BLM sections of the PA include the horned lark, vesper sparrow, sage thrasher, brewers sparrow, loggerhead shrike, sagebrush sparrow, and western meadowlark. Examples of species associated with mature closed-canopied forested areas include golden-crowned kinglet, brown creeper, pine grosbeak, northern goshawk, boreal owl, hermit thrush, and Townsend’s warbler. Many birds are more general in habitat preferences and may be found in shrub and coniferous habitats including the American robin, chipping sparrow, dark-eyed junco, mountain chickadee, pine siskin, Clark’s nutcracker, and quite a few others. Raptors recorded in the area include bald eagle, golden eagle, kestrel, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, peregrine falcon, and northern harrier.

6.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians

Reptiles that could occur in the project area include the gopher snake, terrestrial and common garter snakes, eastern racer, rubber boa, and western rattlesnake. Amphibians that could occur in the project area are the Columbia spotted frog, western toad, and plains spadefoot. Other reptiles and amphibians are unlikely to occupy the area.

6.2.5 Fish

Rivers and stream segments on PA lands known to support fish are listed in Table 8 (Montana Fisheries Information System 2014).

Table 8. Fish Species Present on TMA Stream Segments Waterbody name Allotment Fish species present Colley Creek Gold Run Creek No data Last Chance Creek Gold Run Creek No data Mill Creek Green Mountain Yellowstone cutthroat trout- common Elbow Creek Slaughter Creek Brown trout – rare Rainbow trout – unknown Rainbow X cutthroat trout – unknown Fire Creek (Elbow Cr Slaughter Creek No data Tributary) Suce Creek Mountain Range Brown trout – common Rainbow trout – common Rainbow X cutthroat trout – unknown Yellowstone River Buffalo Hump, Yellowstone cutthroat trout – common Donald Wood, Brook trout – common McAdows Brown trout – common Canyon, Rocky Mountain Whitefish – common Yellowstone, Rainbow trout – rare Carbella 34

Waterbody name Allotment Fish species present West Fork Boulder Chuck Reid Brown trout- common River Rainbow trout- common Coal Gulch Pole Gulch Brook trout- common Sixteen Mile Creek Maudlow Rainbow trout- common Sixteen Mile Creek Pole Gulch Rainbow trout- common (Tributary) Missouri River High Peak, Hill Brown trout- common Top, Cable Rainbow trout- common Gulch, Devils Others- common Bottom, Toston Canal, Missouri, Bald Hills Garden Gulch Dunbar Springs No data

6.2.6 Endangered Species Act Listed Species

Three animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act have the potential to occur in the PA (Table 9):

Table 9. Endangered Species Act Listed Species with Potential to Occur in the TMA

Species Status Notes Lynx Threatened The lower elevation dry forest types found on BLM lands in the PA are considered to be lower quality habitat for lynx. Lynx found on this less optimal habitat are considered transitory or short-term residents. These lynx generally do not establish home ranges and do not attempt or are unsuccessful at reproduction. Because of this, the habitat requirements are not as stringent as in areas where reproduction occurs. Designated critical habitat for lynx is located near the southern portion of the PA. BLM lands that are adjacent to designated critical habitat and have limited suitable characteristics for lynx could be found on Gaging Station, Mountain Range, Suce Creek, North Fork, West Dexter Point, Slaughterhouse, Green Mountain, Emigrant creek, Gold Run creek, Sixmile Park creek, and Carbella allotments. Lynx have not been documented on BLM land in the PA. Designated critical habitat and the majority of suitable habitat for lynx in the PA occurs on USFS lands.

Grizzly Bear Threatened In general, grizzly habitat requirements are determined by large spatial needs for foraging, winter denning, behavior and security. The SE corner of the PA is considered ‘grizzly bear recovery zone”. This area of the PA has suitable or potential habitat for grizzly bears, but they are 35

Species Status Notes considered to be rare visitors as they travel throughout multiple habitats and elevations in search for food. The occurrence rate could change in the PA as their population recovers and grows. Wolverine Proposed Wolverines occur in coniferous montane forest types, preferring rugged, road less, isolated habitats. They are unlikely to occur in the PA, which is considered secondary or peripheral habitat, but may occasionally disperse through the area. Wolverines are more likely to occur at higher elevations on Forest Service land, with transient individuals on BLM lands. The planning area does not have the high elevation alpine habitat to sustain the large home range females require for natal areas. Although they have not been documented in the PA, they are wide-ranging.

6.2.7 Sensitive Species

Species designated “sensitive” by the BLM may occur in the area (Table 10). Species requiring special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood of future Endangered Species Act listings are designated “sensitive” by BLM State Directors.

Table 10. BLM-listed Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in the PA Species Documented Notes in PA or on BLM Fringed myotis BLM & PA Roosts in caves, mines and rock crevices. Townsend’s big- BLM & PA Prefers caves and abandoned mines for roosting. eared bat Known to overwinter in one gated abandoned mine in the area. Long-eared No Undocumented in the area but could occur. myotis Associated with forested stands with old-growth characteristics. Long-legged No Uses tree bark or caves for summer roost sites. Could myotis occur in the area. Occurs in aspen and mixed conifer forests. Gray wolf No Wolves now occur throughout western Montana. However, no resident packs are known to occur on BLM lands in the PA. Bald eagle PA Commonly found near the Yellowstone River, Missouri River and Canyon Ferry Lake. Black-backed PA Unlikely to occur in PA. Prefers recently burned woodpecker forests. Brewer’s sparrow BLM &PA Prefers sagebrush habitat. Ferruginous hawk PA Hunts in open grassland habitats. Flammulated owl PA Nests in cavities excavated by woodpeckers. Occurs in mature forest habitat.

36

Golden eagle PA Likely occurs in the PA. No written documentation. Hunts over open country. Great gray owl No Has not been documented but could occur in the area. Prefers dense forest and has large home range. Greater Sage PA No sightings have been confirmed on BLM lands in Grouse the PA. Long-billed BLM & PA Prefers grassland habitat. curlew McCown’s No Prefers short grass habitat. longspur Mountain plover No Usually associated with prairie dog towns, however, prairie dogs are found in the in the PA, but not on BLM lands. Peregrine falcon BLM & PA Documented as occurring and nesting on BLM land in the PA. Nests on cliffs. Sagebrush No Could occur but the area is at the northern end of the sparrow range of this species. Sage thrasher BLM & PA Prefers sagebrush habitats. Swainson’s hawk No Has not been documented but is likely to occur. Hunts primarily in agricultural land and grasslands. Three-toed No Could occur in the area. Nests in cavities, often near woodpecker water. Milksnake No Area is on the western edge of species’ range, preferred grassland habitat is present. Plains spadefoot PA Could occur in riparian areas with soft or gravelly toad soils. Sprague’s Pipit PA Likely found in native, medium to intermediate height prairie. Trumpeter Swan PA Likely found in lakes and ponds and adjacent marshes containing sufficient vegetation. Veery BLM & PA Likely to occupy riparian areas. Western toad No Likely to occur in or near riparian areas. Westslope PA Rare occurrence as listed in table above. Genetically cutthroat trout pure individuals may not exist in the PA. Yellow-billed No Rare past occurrences have been documented in the Cuckoo PA. Yellowstone BLM & PA Documented in the Yellowstone River and its cutthroat trout tributaries.

6.3 Findings, Analysis, and Recommendations

Table 11. Biodiversity Qualitative Assessment Summary for the PGB PA

Meeting Allotment Biodiversity Allotment Name Number Standard (Y/N) Airport 15505 Y Antelope Butte 11093 Y 37

Meeting Allotment Biodiversity Allotment Name Number Standard (Y/N) Bald Hills SGC 20279 Y Buffalo Hump 07959 N Cable Gulch 20244 Y Carbella 05583 Y Chuck Reid 05529 Y Copper City 20284 Y Devil’s Bottom 20235 Y Donald Wood 05563 Y Dunbar Springs 20381 Y East Trident 03101 Y Ellis Basin 05531 Y Emigrant Creek 20237 Y Flatland 07708 Y Gaging Station 15412 Y Garden Gulch 20392 Y Green Mountain 05496 Y High Peak 20234 Y Hilltop 00943 Y Hot Springs 05577 Y Iverson 10403 Y Limestone East 20281 Y Madison Buffalo Jump 20389 Y Madison Plateau 11171 Y Maudlow 03170 Y McAdows Canyon 15445 Y Milligan Common 20250 Y Missouri 20201 Y Mountain Range 05493 Y North Fork 15421 Y Poison 05551 Y Pole Gulch 20414 Y Quarry Gulch 03171 Y Quinn Creek 05487 Y Riverside School 20272 Y Roy Gulch 20383 Y Sixmile 20398 Y Sixmile Park County 05507 Y Slaughterhouse 05519 Y Smith Individual 20286 Y Suce Creek 15420 Y Toston Canal 10376 Y

38

Meeting Allotment Biodiversity Allotment Name Number Standard (Y/N) Wall Mountain 10425 Y West Dexter Point 15400 Y Wineglass Mountain 15452 Y Yellowstone 05538 Y

Buffalo Hump was the only allotment that did not meet the Biodiversity Standard. The contributing factor being the overabundance of cheatgrass and Japanese brome dominating the landscape. Current grazing does not seem to be a contributing factor.

6.3.1 Recommendation for Biodiversity

1. Continue treating weed infestations throughout the PA. Find a viable and cost feasible treatment option for cheatgrass and Japanese brome in the Buffalo Hump Allotment. 2. Reduce Douglas-fir and Rocky Mountain Juniper encroachment in sagebrush and grassland upland sites, as opportunities arise, and where necessary to improve upland health. 3. Ensure fences meet wildlife-friendly specifications and unneeded fence is removed.

39

Interdisciplinary Team Composition

Core IDT members for the PGB PA Assessment include:

Lacy Decker, Rangeland Technician - (IDT Lead, Noxious Weeds, Sensitive Plants) Brad Colin, Outdoor Recreation Planner - (Recreation) Jason Brooks, Wildlife Biologist - (Wildlife Resources) Michael O’Brien, Forester - (Forest Resources) Roger Olsen, Rangeland Management Specialist - (Rangeland, Riparian) Don Despain, Supervisory Rangeland Management Specialist - (Rangeland Resources) Brandy Janzen, Natural Resource Specialist - (Soils, Water Quality, Air Quality)

Support IDT members include:

Vickie Anderson, Range Technician - (Rangeland Resources) Carrie Kiely, Archeologist - (Cultural Resources) Brenda Geesey, GIS Specialist - (Analysis and Maps) Dave Williams, Geologist (Geology)

40

References – Literature and Materials Reviewed and/or Cited During the Preparation of this Document Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. Washington DC. 493 pp.

Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 478: 460-465.

Arno, S. (2000). Fire in western forest ecosystems (chapter 5). In: J.K Brown and J.K. Smith (eds), pp. 97-120, Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol 2.

Brown, J.K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. In: Proceedings of Soc. of Amer. For. NationalConv.; 1994 Sept. 18-22; Anchorage, AK. Soc. of Amer. For: 171-178.

Ellis, J.H. 2008. Scientific Recommendations on the Size of Stream Vegetated Buffers Needed to Protect Water Quality, Part One, The Need for Stream Vegetated Buffers: What Does the Science Say? Report to Montana Department of Environmental Quality, EPA/DEQ Wetland Development Grant. Montana Audubon, Helena, MT. 24pp.

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

Hann, W.; Shlisky, A.; Havlina, D.; Schon, K.; Barrett, S.; DeMeo, T.; Pohl, K.; Menakis, J. P.; Hamilton, D.; Jones, J.; Levesque, M. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. 120 p.

Hillis, M.J., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, and D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: the Hillis Paradigm. Pages 38-43. In A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon and T.N. Lonner, comps., Proc. Elk Vulnerability Symp., Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 330 pp.

Idaho sedge- (Carex idahoa). Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved December 15, 2017 from http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PMCYP036E0

Landfire Program:Home https://landfire.gov/index.php Accessed 1/18/2018

Landfire Program: Data Notifications-Data Products-Fire Regime Data Products https://www.landfire.gov/notifications33.php Accessed 1/18/2018

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. Montana’s 2016 Final Water Quality Integrated Report . Document number – WQPBIMTSTR-011f.

Montana Fisheries Information System (MFISH). http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/. Accessed 3/24/2014.

National Riparian Service Team. 1998. Handout #2A, PFC (Proper Functioning Condition) What It Is- What It Isn’t-Lotic

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America-A cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. 41

Quigley, T.M. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin. Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report. PNW- GTR-382.

Sapphire rockcress- (Boechera fecunda). Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved December 15, 2017 from http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PDBRA06290

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

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Broadwater County Area, Montana. Distribution generation date: 9/8/2015.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Gallatin County Area, Montana. Distribution generation date: 9/28/2015.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Meagher County Area, Montana. Distribution generation date: 9/9/2015.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Park County Area, Montana. Distribution generation date: 9/24/2014.

USDA- Forest Health Protection. May 2006. Determining Stand Susceptibility to Western Spruce Budworm and Potential Damaging Effects. Numbered Report 06-07.

USDI-BLM. 1983. Headwaters Resource Management Plan. 1983. Butte District, Butte MT.

USDI-BLM. 2009. Record of Decision and Approved Butte Resource Management Plan. April 2009. Butte Field Office, Butte, MT.

USDI-BLM. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, Environmental Impact Statement. Montana State Office. 1997.

Whitebark pine- (Pinus albicaulis). Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved on December 15, 2017 from http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PGPIN04010

42

Appendix A - Maps of Allotments and Riparian Resources

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53