North and West Big Hole AMPs Final Environmental Impact...

UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

MA NAME

KEY WATERSHED

GIS Acres

Dry Creek Lower Dry Creek Pasture

West Big Hole Flats NA 2764

Dry Creek Upper Dry Creek Pasture



West Bighole NA 1776

Fishtrap EAST FORK Fishtrap-Mount Haggin NA 3382 Fishtrap WEST FORK Fishtrap-Mount Haggin NA 3007 Monument Hamby Creek

Pasture West Big Hole Flats NA 10235

Monument Hamby Creek Pasture


Monument Miner Creek Pasture



West Bighole NA 673

Monument Not a Pasture/Special Use


Mudd Creek MUDD CREEK Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness

NA 874

Mudd Creek MUDD CREEK Fishtrap-Mount Haggin NA 10746 Mussigbrod Bender Pasture Anaconda-Pintler

Recommended Wilderness Additions

NA 14

Mussigbrod Bender Pasture Pintler Face NA 283 Mussigbrod Bender Pasture Tie-Johnson NA 1155 Mussigbrod Mussigbrod

Pasture Anaconda-Pintler Recommended Wilderness Additions

NA 113

Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture

Anaconda-Pintler Recommended Wilderness Additions

Fisheries 2


Pintler Face NA 1908


Pintler Face Fisheries 237


Tie-Johnson NA 1316


Tie-Johnson Fisheries 9

Pintlar Creek PINTLAR CREEK

Anaconda-Pintler Recommended

NA 2

B-1

North and West Big Hole AMPs Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices

Appendix B- Tables

UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

MA NAME

KEY WATERSHED

GIS Acres

Wilderness Additions Pintlar Creek PINTLAR

CREEK Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness

NA 2372


Fishtrap-Mount Haggin NA 4548


Pintler Face NA 532

Pioneer Pioneer Pasture West Big Hole Flats NA 2628 Pioneer Pioneer Pasture West Big Hole Flats Restoration 34 Pioneer Pioneer Pasture West Bighole NA 7406 Pioneer Skinner

Meadows Pasture

Selway-Saginaw NA 6

Pioneer Skinner Meadows Pasture

Selway-Saginaw Restoration 2




West Big Hole Flats Restoration 5


West Bighole NA 18

Pioneer VanHouten Pasture

Selway-Saginaw Restoration 16




West Big Hole Flats Restoration 1074

Ruby Creek Butler Pasture Anderson Mountain NA 2644 Ruby Creek Butler Pasture Anderson Mountain Restoration 4 Ruby Creek Butler Pasture Ruby NA 1279 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture Anderson Mountain NA 4806 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture Anderson Mountain Restoration 10 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture Ruby NA 5878 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture Ruby Restoration 1 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture West Bighole NA 8 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture West Bighole Restoration 1 Ruby Creek Lower Ruby

Pasture Anderson Mountain NA 280

Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Anderson Mountain Restoration 2263

B-2


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

MA NAME

KEY WATERSHED

GIS Acres

Pasture Ruby Creek Lower Ruby

Pasture Ruby NA 1652

Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Pasture

Ruby Restoration 7728


West Bighole NA 1


West Bighole Restoration 278

Saginaw Pasture 1 Selway-Saginaw NA 15 Saginaw Pasture 1 Selway-Saginaw Restoration 1564 Saginaw Pasture 2 Selway-Saginaw NA 6 Saginaw Pasture 2 Selway-Saginaw Restoration 3202 Saginaw Pasture 2 West Big Hole Flats NA 403 Saginaw Pasture 2 West Big Hole Flats Restoration 317 Saginaw Pasture 3 Selway-Saginaw NA 37 Saginaw Pasture 3 Selway-Saginaw Restoration 3534 Saginaw Pasture 3 West Big Hole Flats NA 9 Saginaw Pasture 3 West Big Hole Flats Restoration 5 Saginaw Pasture 4 Selway-Saginaw NA 3390 Saginaw Pasture 4 Selway-Saginaw Restoration 52 Seymour Seymour Fishtrap-Mount Haggin NA 1994 Seymour Seymour Fishtrap-Mount Haggin Restoration 6359 Seymour Sullivan Fishtrap-Mount Haggin Fisheries 7 Seymour Sullivan Fishtrap-Mount Haggin Restoration 5441 Seymour Tenmile Fishtrap-Mount Haggin Fisheries 3804 Seymour Tenmile Fishtrap-Mount Haggin Restoration 89 Twin Lakes Lower Big Lake

Pasture West Big Hole Flats NA 2924

Twin Lakes Lower Little Lake Pasture



West Bighole NA 265

Twin Lakes Upper Big Lake Pasture



West Bighole NA 281

Twin Lakes Upper Little Lake Pasture




B-3


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name LANDSCAPE

GIS Acres


Big Hole 3786


Big Hole 11244

Fishtrap EAST FORK Big Hole 3382 Fishtrap WEST FORK Big Hole 3007 Monument Hamby Creek Pasture Big Hole 14047 Monument Miner Creek Pasture Big Hole 9089 Monument Not a Pasture/Special

Use Big Hole 207

Mudd Creek MUDD CREEK Big Hole 11620 Mussigbrod Bender Pasture Big Hole 1627 Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture Big Hole 3620 Pintlar Creek PINTLAR CREEK Big Hole 7454 Pioneer Pioneer Pasture Big Hole 10068 Pioneer Skinner Meadows

Pasture Big Hole 5264

Pioneer VanHouten Pasture Big Hole 3317 Ruby Creek Butler Pasture Big Hole 3926 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture Big Hole 10704 Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Pasture Big Hole 12243 Saginaw Pasture 1 Big Hole 1649 Saginaw Pasture 2 Big Hole 3928 Saginaw Pasture 3 Big Hole 3573 Saginaw Pasture 3 Lima Tendoy 12 Saginaw Pasture 4 Big Hole 3438 Saginaw Pasture 4 Lima Tendoy 4 Seymour Seymour Big Hole 8595 Seymour Sullivan Big Hole 5486 Seymour Tenmile Big Hole 3893 Twin Lakes Lower Big Lake Pasture Big Hole 2924 Twin Lakes Lower Little Lake


Twin Lakes Upper Big Lake Pasture Big Hole 4565 Twin Lakes Upper Little Lake


B-4


This dataset displays past activities from the FACTS database to include vegetation (timber) harvest, pre-commercial and commercil thinning, broadcast burning, jackpot burning, underburning, and wildfire. These activities are either WITHIN a FACTS polygon or are the entire FACTS polygon, acres in this summary table reflect the smallest acre call within the FACTS parent table attached. (Column E, NBR_UNITS_ACCOMPLISHED, and column M, GIS_Acres were used to determine these summary acres.) In addition acres could be "double counted" for a specific polygon. ex. A 20 acre polygone could show a clearcut, a broadcast burn, and jackpot burn and all be coded 20 acres, this does not indicate that there are 60 acres of activity when it all occured within the same 20 acres. Source data; T:\FS\NFS\BeaverheadDeerlodge\Project\BigHoleAMPs\GIS\Data\Bighole AMP 121211.mdb//Vegetation//FACTS_Activities_Allotments_Laura

Allotment, Pasture and Activity Acres Dry Creek 1964.5 Lower Dry Creek Pasture 226.8 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 80 Commercial Thin 6.8 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 8.7 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 18 Special Cut 83 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 30.3 Upper Dry Creek Pasture 1737.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 26.4 Commercial Thin 72.3 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 1 Precommercial Thin 264 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 2 Special Cut 17.2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1183.7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 15.8 Strip clearcutting (EA/RH/FH) 6 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 62.3 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 87 Fishtrap 1787.8 EAST FORK 1144.9 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 4 Precommercial Thin 214.3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 922.6 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 4 WEST FORK 642.9

B-5


Allotment, Pasture and Activity Acres Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 499.5 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 133.4 Monument 23.5 Miner Creek Pasture 23.5 Commercial Thin 10.6 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 0.9 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 5 Mudd Creek 2812.3 MUDD CREEK 2812.3 Commercial Thin 5 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 34 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 22.7 Precommercial Thin 615.8 Sanitation (salvage) 344.8 Seed-tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 63.6 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

40

Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1289 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 387.4 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 10 Mussigbrod 700.3 Bender Pasture 462.4 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 19.3 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 318.6 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

36.2

Special Cut 34.5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 19.3 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 34.5 Mussigbrod Pasture 237.9 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 172.8 Special Cut 32.4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 0.3 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 32.4 Pintlar Creek 1337.2 PINTLAR CREEK 1337.2 Commercial Thin 20 Sanitation (salvage) 387.4 Seed-tree Removal Cut (w/ leave trees) (EA/NRH/FH) 14 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 29.2 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 2

B-6


Allotment, Pasture and Activity Acres Special Cut 4.3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 304.4 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 58 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 517.9 Pioneer 5 VanHouten Pasture 5 Special Cut 5 Ruby Creek 5079.9 Butler Pasture 696.5 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 76.1 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 102.5 Liberation Cut 6 Sanitation (salvage) 12.9 Seed-tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 48.5 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 54 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 396.5 Cow Cr. Pasture 60.6 Commercial Thin 4 Improvement Cut 15 Precommercial Thin 15 Special Cut 0.9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 15.7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 10 Lower Ruby Pasture 4322.8 Commercial Thin 40 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 19 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 43.1 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 65 Precommercial Thin 1374.5 Sanitation (salvage) 17 Seed-tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 2.7 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 1.7 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

9.5

Shelterwood Staged Removal Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 5 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 123.9 Special Cut 391 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 2074.8 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 2 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 145.6 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 8 Saginaw 3618.6 Pasture 1 667.8 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 150

B-7


Allotment, Pasture and Activity Acres Commercial Thin 139 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 93.5 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 15.7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 7.9 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 261.7 Pasture 2 790 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 109 Commercial Thin 98.7 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 298 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 92.3 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 192 Pasture 3 1428.3 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 683.1 Commercial Thin 36 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 20 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 258.8 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 6.4 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 424 Pasture 4 732.5 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 11.6 Commercial Thin 92.3 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 137.8 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 10.5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 308.1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 5.3 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 165.9 Seymour 12690.1 Seymour 5620.9 Commercial Thin 567 Liberation Cut 0.1 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 91 Permanent Land Clearing 2 Precommercial Thin 949.8 Sanitation (salvage) 138.2 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 225.9 Special Cut 153.7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 2637.1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 739.8 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 116.3 Sullivan 4622.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 45 Commercial Thin 156 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 13.3

B-8


Allotment, Pasture and Activity Acres Liberation Cut 209.4 Precommercial Thin 951.3 Sanitation (salvage) 34 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 58 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 2375.6 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 780.1 Tenmile 2446.5 Commercial Thin 84.2 Precommercial Thin 439 Sanitation (salvage) 18 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 59.6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1163.4 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 682.3 Twin Lakes 1455.4 Lower Big Lake Pasture 304 Commercial Thin 7 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 73.2 Precommercial Thin 71.7 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 10 Special Cut 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 125.1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 9 Upper Big Lake Pasture 1151.4 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 111.2 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1 Precommercial Thin 133.7 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 796.8 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 103.7 (blank) (blank) (blank) Grand Total 31474.6

B-9


Watershed and Activities Acres

Big Swamp Creek 1354.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 111.2 Commercial Thin 1 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 12.4 Precommercial Thin 205.4 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 906 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 103.7 Big Hole River-Big Swamp Creek 120.7 Commercial Thin 7.8 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 61.8 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 18 Special Cut 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 16.1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 9 Big Hole River-Fishtrap 587 Precommercial Thin 284 Sanitation (salvage) 1.9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 273.1 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 28 Big Hole River-Saginaw Creek 2873.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 946.6 Commercial Thin 265.6 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 421 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 18.7 Special Cut 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 348.1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 14.6 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 854.1 Big Hole River-Spring Creek 0.6 Commercial Thin 0.6 Big Hole River-Squaw Creek 1659.9 Commercial Thin 1 Precommercial Thin 173.3 Sanitation (salvage) 504.2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 471.4 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 505 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 5 Big Lake Creek 1307.8 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 82.4 Commercial Thin 26 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 8.7 Precommercial Thin 264

B-10


Watershed and Activities Acres Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 2 Special Cut 84.2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 747.5 Strip clearcutting (EA/RH/FH) 6 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 87 Deep Creek 6765.8 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 45 Commercial Thin 149.4 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 13.3 Liberation Cut 153.4 Precommercial Thin 1420.3 Sanitation (salvage) 52 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 117.6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 3523.7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 1291.1 Fishtrap Creek 2071.2 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 4 Commercial Thin 3 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 22.7 Precommercial Thin 130.5 Sanitation (salvage) 10 Seed-tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 63.6 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

40

Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1514.1 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 273.3 Johnson Creek 465.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 19.3 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 320.9 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

36.2

Special Cut 35 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 19.3 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 35 LaMarche Creek 1424.9 Commercial Thin 22 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 80 Precommercial Thin 297.4 Sanitation (salvage) 138.2 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 189.7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 542.3 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 112.6 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 42.7

B-11


Watershed and Activities Acres Lower Trail Creek 27.7 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 1 Liberation Cut 6 Sanitation (salvage) 11 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 8.7 Miner Creek 22.9 Commercial Thin 10 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 0.9 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 5 Mudd Creek 1056.3 Commercial Thin 1 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 34 Precommercial Thin 158.5 Sanitation (salvage) 173.3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 587.5 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 97 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 5 Mussigbrod Creek 231.8 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 170.5 Special Cut 30.5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 0.3 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 30.5 North Fork Bighole River 2 Special Cut 1 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 1 Pintler Creek 372.8 Commercial Thin 20 Sanitation (salvage) 42.8 Seed-tree Removal Cut (w/ leave trees) (EA/NRH/FH) 14 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 29.2 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 2 Special Cut 4.3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 63.1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 58 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 139.4 Plimpton Creek 0.8 Special Cut 0.4 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 0.4 Ruby Creek 4572.3 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 76.1 Commercial Thin 22.1

B-12


Watershed and Activities Acres Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 19 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 144.6 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 65 Precommercial Thin 1201.1 Sanitation (salvage) 17.9 Seed-tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 2.7 Seed-tree Preparatory Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 48.5 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) 1.7 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

9.5

Shelterwood Staged Removal Cut (EA/NRH/NFH) 5 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 175.9 Special Cut 326.7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 2403.4 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 2 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 43.1 Wildfire - Fuels Benefit 8 Selway Creek 0.2 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 0.1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 0.1 Seymour Creek 4689.5 Commercial Thin 635.8 Liberation Cut 56.1 Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 11 Permanent Land Clearing 2 Precommercial Thin 706.2 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 36.2 Special Cut 153.7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 2216.4 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 798.5 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 73.6 Swamp Creek 420.2 Commercial Thin 17.9 Precommercial Thin 173.4 Sanitation (salvage) 1 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1 Special Cut 65.2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 59.2 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 102.5 Upper Governor Creek 749.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 7 Commercial Thin 100.4 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 128.3

B-13


Watershed and Activities Acres Patch Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 7.5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 311 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 5 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 189.5 Upper Rock Creek 636.7 Broadcast Burning - Covers a majority of the unit 24 Commercial Thin 51.3 Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 1 Special Cut 16 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 466.3 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 15.8 Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 62.3 West Fork Ruby Creek 59.7 Commercial Thin 4 Improvement Cut 15 Precommercial Thin 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 15.7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) (EA/RH/FH) 10 Grand Total 31474.6

B-14


Figure 1. Figure one displays the Seymour Allotment recreation allocations by pasture.

Seymour Pasture

(Backcountry = 0.26%, Inholding = 4.19%, Road-based = 94.73%, Summer Non-motorized =

0.82%) 47%

Sullivan Pasture (Road-based=

98.95%, Summer Non-motorized =

1.05%) 31%

Tenmile Pasture (Road-based=

95.70%, Summer Non-motorized =

4.30%) 22%

Seymour Allotment (Total Acreage= 17690.9)

B-15


Figure 2. Figure displays the Seymour Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Seymour Pasture (Motorized

Recreation 96%, Inholding = 4%)

47%

Sullivan Pasture (Motorized

Recreation = 100%) 31%

Tenmile Pasture (Motorized


Winter Recreation Allocations for the Seymour Allotment (Total Acreage 17690.9)

B-16


Figure 3. Figure three displays Fishtrap Allotment recreation allocations by pasture.

East Fork Pasture (Backcountry = 3%, Inholding = 0.14%, Road-based = 71%,

Summer Non-motorized = 26%)

53%

West Fork Pasture

(Backcountry = 4%, Inholding = 1%,

Road-based = 57%, Summer Non-

motorized = 39%) 47%

Fishtrap Allotment (Total Acreage 6386.8)

B-17


Figure 4. Figure four displays the Fishtrap Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

East Fork Pasture (Motorized

Recreation= 100%) 53%

West Fork Pasture

(Motorized= 99%, Inholding= 1%)

47%

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Fishtrap Allotment (Total Acreage 6388.3)

B-18


Figure 5. Figure five displays the Mudd Creek Allotment summer recreation allocations by pasture.

100%

Mudd Creek Pasture (Backcountry = 3%,

Inholding = 1%, Road-based = 48%,

Summer Non-motorized = 41%, Wilderness 8%)

Mudd Creek Allotment (Total Acreage = 11614.8)

B-19


Figure 6. Figure six displays the Mudd Creek Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

100%

Mudd Creek Pasture (Motorized Recreation= 91%, Wilderness= 8%, Inholding= 1%)

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Mudd Creek Allotment (Total Acreage = 11614.8)

B-20


Figure 7. Figure seven displays the Pintler Creek Allotment summer recreation allocations by pasture.

100%

Pintler Creek Pasture (Backcountry = 0.38%, Inholding = 0.09%, Rec Wilderness = 0.03%, Road-based = 57%, Summer Non-motorized = 11%, Wilderness = 32%)

Pintler Creek Allotment (Total Acreage = 7453.1)

B-21


Figure 8. Figure eight displays Pintler Creek Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

100%

Pintler Creek Pasture (Motorized = 68%, Wilderness = 32%)

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Pintler

B-22


Figure 9. Figure nine displays the Mussigbroad Allotment summer recreation allocations by pasture.

Bender Pasture (Backcountry = 15%, Road-based = 77%,

Summer Non-motorized = 7%, Rec

Wilderness 1%) 29%

Mussigbroad Pasture

(Backcountry = 44%, Road-based = 57%,

Summer Non-motorized = 11%,

Wilderness = 32%Rec Wilderness 0.03%)

71%

Mussigbrod Allotment (Total Acreage = 5033.9)

B-23


Figure 10. Figure ten displays the Mussigbrod Creek Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Bender Pasture (Motorized

Recreation 99%, Rec Wilderness 1%)

29% Mussigbroad Pasture

(Motorized Recreation 96%, Rec

Wilderness 3%) 71%

Winter Recreation Allocation for the Mussigbrod Allotment (Total Acreage 5033.9)

B-24


Figure 11. Ruby Creek Allotment recreation allocations by pasture.

Butler Pasture (Road-based = 31%,


15%

Cow Cr. Pasture (Backcountry = 27%,

Inholding = 10%, Road-based = 18 %,


40%

Lower Ruby Pasture

(Backcountry = 19%, Inholding = 3%,

Road-based = 54%, Summer Non-


Ruby Creek Allotment (Total Acreage = 26829)

B-25


Figure 12. Ruby Creek Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Butler Pasture

(Motorized = 41%, Winter

Non-motorized = 59%) 15%

Cow Cr. Pasture (Motorized = 43%, Inholding = 10%,

Winter Non-motorized = 47%)

40%

Lower Ruby Pasture (Motorized

Recreation = 64%, Inholding = 3%,

Winter Non-motorized = 33%)

45%

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Ruby Creek Allotment (Total Acreage 26829)

B-26


Figure 13. Dry Creek Allotment recreation allocations by pasture.

Lower Dry Creek Pasture(Backcountry

= 66%, Inholding = 0.04%, Road-based =

34%) 20% Upper Dry Creek

Pasture (Backcountry = 47%, Road-based = 38%,


80%

Dry Creek Allotment (Total Acreage = 14001.3)

B-27


Figure 14. Dry Creek Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Lower Dry Creek Pasture (Motorized

Recreation= 100%) 20% Upper Dry Creek

Pasture (Motorized= 93%,

Winter non-motorized= 7%)

80%

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Dry Creek Allotment (Total Acreage 14006)

B-28


Figure 15. Twin Lakes Allotment recreation allocations by pasture.

Lower Big Lake Pasture

(Backcountry = 65%, Road-based = 35 %)

23%

Lower Little Lake Pasture (Backcountry

= 92%, Inholding = 0.44%, Summer Non-

motorized = 8%) 27%

Upper Big Lake Pasture



36%

Upper Little Lake Pasture (Summer Non-motorized =

100%) 14%

Twin Lakes Allotment (Total Acreage= 12714.5)

B-29


Figure 16. Twin Lakes Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Lower Big Lake Pasture (Motorized Recreation = 100%)

23%

Lower Little Lake Pasture (Motorized Recreation = 100%)

27%

Upper Big Lake Pasture (Motorized Recreation = 100%)

36%

Upper Little Lake Pasture (Motorized Recreation = 100%)

14%

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Twin Lakes Allotment (Total Acreage 12714.5)

B-30


Figure 17. Monument Allotment summer recreation allocations by pasture.

Hamby Creek Pasture

(Backcountry = 73%, Inholding = 0.08%,


60%

Miner Creek Pasture



39%

Special Use Pasture

(Backcountry = 100%) 1%

Monument Allotment (Total Acreage =23219.9)

B-31


Figure 18. Monument Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Hamby Creek Pasture (Motorized

Recreation= 55%, Winter non-


Miner Creek Pasture (Motorized

Recreation= 99%, Winter non-

motorized = 1%) 39%

Special Use Pasture (Motorized Recreation = 100%)

1%

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Monument Alltoment (Total Acreage 23219.9)

B-32


Figure 19. Pioneer Allotment recreation allocations by pasture.

Pioneer Pasture (Backcountry = 22%,



54%

Skinner Meadows

Pasture (Backcountry = 22%,



28%

Van HoutenPasture

(Backcountry = 86%, Inholding = 0.43%,

Road-based = 14 %) 18%

Pioneer Alltoment (Total Acreage=18649.9)

B-33


Figure 20. Pioneer Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Pioneer Pasture (Motorized = 21%,

Inholding = 2%, Winter Non-


Skinner Meadows Pasture (Motorized = 100%)

28%

Van HoutenPasture

(Motorized Recreation 100%)

18%

Winter Recreation Allocations for the Pioneer Allotment (Total Allotment Acreage 18649.8)

B-34


Figure 21. Saginaw Allotment summer recreation allocations by pasture.

Pasture 1 (Inholding =

0.23%, Road-based = 99.77%)

13%

Pasture 2 (Inholding = 1%,

Road-based = 87 %, Summer Non-


Pasture 3 (Road-based = 82 %, Summer Non-


Pasture 4 (Road-based = 100%)

27%

Saginaw Allotment (Total Acreage= 12533.4)

B-35


Figure 22. Saginaw Allotment winter recreation allocations by pasture.

Pasture 1 (Motorized



Recreation = 100%) 31% Pasture 3

(Motorized Recreation = 100%)

29%



Winter Recreation Allocations for the Saginaw Allotment (Total Acreage 12533.4)

B-36


2010 State of Montana Noxious Weed List

Priority 1A

These weeds are not present in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication if detected; education; and prevention.

- Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Priority 1B

These weeds have limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication or containment and education.

- Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) - Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) - Japanese knotweed complex (Polygonum spp.) - Purple loosestrife (Lythrum spp.) - Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) - Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) - Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)

Priority 2A

These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by local weed districts.

- Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) - Meadow hawkweed complex (Hieracium spp.) - Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) - Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris) - Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) - Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus) - Blueweed (Echium vulgare) - Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana)

Priority 2B

These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by local weed districts.

- Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) - Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) - Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) - Whitetop (Cardaria draba) - Russian kapweed (Centaurea repens) - Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe or maculosa) - Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) - Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) - St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) - Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) - Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) - Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum or Leucanthemum vulgare) - Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) - Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) - Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)

Priority 3

Regulated Plants: (NOT MONTANA LISTED NOXIOUS WEEDS) These regulated plants have the potential to have significant negative impacts. The plant may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural products. The state recommends research, education and prevention to minimize the spread of the regulated plant.

- Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) - Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)

B-37


Allotment Forest Plan Compliance Summary for 2003-2012 Allotment 2012 2011 2010 2009* 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

1 Seymour** Yes Yes Unknown. Lack of range staff to conduct end of season monitoring.

Unknown. Early snow cover prevented inspection of the ground.

Unknown. Early snow cover prevented inspection of the ground.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Fishtrap Unknown. Lack of time to inspect allotment prior to snow cover.

Unknown. Lack of range staff to conduct end of season monitoring.

Yes Yes Unknown. Early snow cover prevented inspection of the ground.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 Mudd Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No. Did not meet FP range standard #7. Riparian forage utilization exceeded on WCT stream.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

4 Pintlar Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No. Did not meet FP range standard #6. Upland forage utilization exceeded.

Yes Yes

5 Mussigbrod** No. Did not meet FP standards #1 and #3. Stream bank disturbance standard exceeded, and special grazing area was not protected.

No. Did not meet FP standards #1 and #3. Stream bank disturbance standard exceeded, and special grazing area was not protected.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

B-38



6 Ruby Creek No. Did not meet FP standard #1. Stream bank disturbance was exceeded.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

7 Dry Creek** Yes Yes Yes No. Did not meet FP range standards #2, #6, and #7. AOI was not followed, and upland and riparian forage utilization standards were exceeded.

Yes Yes No. Did not meet FP range standards #2, and #6. AOI was not followed and upland forage utilization standard was exceeded.

Yes Yes Yes

8 Twin Lakes Little Lake - Yes

Big Lake – Yes

Little Lake-Yes

Big Lake-No. AOI and FP #1. AOI was not followed, and stream bank disturbance standard was exceeded.

Little Lake-Yes

Big Lake-Yes

Little Lake-Yes (rested)

Big Lake-Yes-

Little Lake-Yes

Big Lake-Yes

Little Lake-No. Did not meet FP range standard #7. Riparian forage utilization standard was exceeded.

Big Lake-Yes

Little Lake-Yes

Big Lake-Yes

Little Lake-Yes (rested)

Big Lake-Yes

Little Lake-No. Did not meet FP range standard #7. Riparian forage utilization standard was exceeded.

Big Lake-No. Did not meet FP range standard #2. AOI was not followed.

Little Lake-Yes

Big Lake-Yes

9 Monument Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 Pioneer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No. Did not

meet FP range standard#7. Riparian forage utilization standard was

Yes Yes Yes Yes

B-39



exceeded. 11 Saginaw No. Did not meet

FP standards #1 and #3. Upland forage utilization was exceeded, and stream bank disturbance standard was exceeded on WCT streams. Special grazing areas were not protected.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No. Did not meet FP range standards #6 and #7. Upland and riparian forage utilization standards were exceeded.

No. Did not meet FP range standards #6 and #7. Upland and riparian forage utilization standards were exceeded.

* Prior to and including 2009, allotments were administered under interim grazing standards identified in the 1997 Forest Plan Riparian Amendment to the 1986 Forest Plan.** Allotments are co-managed with the BLM, and with the FS as the lead agency. Seymour allotment is also co-managed with the MTFWP.

WCT – Westslope cutthroat trout AOI – Annual Operating Instructions

B-40


Rangeland Health Indicator Assessment Summary By Allotment

Allotment Rangeland Health Indicators

Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Seymour Uplands: Upland sites are

considered to be meeting desired conditions, but the current composition consists of a higher than expected amount of less desirable native grasses. Overall, there has been an increase in desirable grasses, which would suggest an improving trend for these sites.

Riparian: The sampled riparian site is considered to be meeting desired conditions for the composition of important shrubs and grasses. Composition trend not known.

Uplands: No shrub cover was recorded on grassland sites, and sagebrush-grassland habitat types were not sampled.

Riparian: Total shrub cover for dominant willows is considered low, but is within the range of variability for the habitat type. Shrub cover trend is not known.

Uplands: Overall, upland sites are meeting desired ground cover conditions, and there is an apparent trend towards increased ground cover on these sites.

Riparian: For the sampled riparian site, ground cover is considered to be slightly below desired amounts. Ground cover trend is not known.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within allotment. Uplands are currently functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds.

Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within allotment. The sampled riparian site may be at increased risk to invasion due to reduced ground cover, but is functioning in a manner the resists invasion by weeds.

B-41



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Fishtrap Uplands: Sampled upland

sites are meeting desired conditions for the composition of important shrubs and grasses. There appears to be an improving trend towards more desirable grass species.

Riparian: Species composition is not known, but there is an apparent trend towards desirable shrubs and grasses based on photo point monitoring on one transect site.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover is low, but is within the range of variability for the habitat type. The apparent trend is towards increased shrub cover on sagebrush-grassland sites.

Riparian: Shrub cover is not known, but photo point monitoring on one transect indicates a trend towards increased shrub cover.

Uplands: Sampled upland sites are meeting desired ground cover conditions. The apparent trend is towards increased cover.

Riparian: Ground cover is not known, but there is an apparent trend towards increased ground cover based on photo point monitoring on one transect site.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Uplands are currently functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds.

Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. The riparian photo point monitoring site is thought to be functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds.

Mudd Creek Uplands: Overall, uplands are meeting desired conditions for species composition, but a decrease in important forage species was recorded on two transects. The condition trend is considered to be static.

Riparian: Species composition is not known, but may be a trend towards more desirable shrubs and grasses based on photo point monitoring on one transect site.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover is meeting desired conditions, and the trend is towards increased shrub cover on sagebrush-grassland sites.

Riparian: Shrub cover not known, but photo point monitoring on one transect site showed an appreciable increase in willow cover. This suggests a trend towards increased shrub cover.

Uplands: Ground cover is not meeting desired conditions. The trend is considered to be mostly static.

Riparian: Ground cover is not known, but there is an apparent trend towards increased ground cover based on photo point monitoring on one transect site.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Uplands are thought to be at increased risk to invasion due high amounts of bare ground.

Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. The photo point monitoring site is thought to be functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds.

B-42


Allotment

Rangeland Health Indicators Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds

Pintlar Creek

Uplands: Overall, sampled upland sites are not meeting desired conditions for species composition. Overall, the composition of important forage plants has been reduced, which would suggest that conditions are trending away from desired objectives. Riparian: The sampled riparian site is not meeting desired conditions for species composition, and the trend in plant composition is not known.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover is meeting desired conditions on sagebrush-grassland sites. The trend in shrub cover is variable, but appears to be static overall. Riparian: Total shrub cover for dominant willows on the sampled site is considered to be appreciably below desired amounts. The trend in shrub cover is not known.

Uplands: Overall, uplands are considered to be meeting desired conditions for ground cover, and are trending towards increased cover. Riparian: The sampled riparian site is not meeting desired conditions for ground cover. The amount of bare ground recorded on this site is considered excessive. The trend in ground cover is not known.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Uplands are currently functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds. Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within allotment. The sampled riparian site is at increased risk to invasion due to reduced ground cover, and is not functioning in a manner the resists invasion by weeds.

B-43



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Mussigbrod Uplands: Upland sites are

meeting desired composition objectives for important shrubs, but the composition of important forage species such as Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass are below desired amounts. Overall, they are considered to be trending away from desired conditions.

Riparian: The sampled riparian site is meeting desired conditions for species composition, but trend is not known.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover on sagebrush-grassland sites is considered to be meeting desired conditions. The trend in shrub cover is unclear, but is likely towards increased amounts due to sites recovering from a wildfire event in 2000.

Riparian: Total shrub cover on the sampled riparian site was considered to be very low, but is likely still recovering from the wildfire event in 2000.

Uplands: Overall, ground cover on upland sites are considered to be somewhat below desired objectives, but are within the range of variability expected for these rangelands. Trend in ground cover is variable, but is estimated to be mostly static.

Riparian: The sampled riparian site is considered to be meeting desired conditions for ground cover. Trend is not known.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Overall, uplands are currently functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds, but where ground cover is below average, these sites have an increased risk to invasion by weeds.

Riparian: Canada thistle was detected on sampled riparian site, but the site has high native plant cover which would suggest high resistance to weed expansion, and to invasion by weeds.

B-44



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Ruby Creek Uplands: Upland sites

sampled are not meeting desired conditions for species composition. The composition of some important native forage species has been appreciably reduced, and nonnative grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass have increased substantially. The apparent trend appears to be away from desired conditions.

Riparian: Sampled riparian sites are considered to be meeting desired conditions for species composition. The trend in composition is not known.

Uplands: No shrub cover was recorded on grassland sites, and sagebrush-grassland habitat types were not sampled.

Riparian: Total shrub cover for dominant willows on sampled riparian sites is considered to be below desired conditions. The trend in shrub cover is not known.

Uplands: Overall, ground cover on sampled upland sites is considered to be below desired conditions. The trend in ground cover appears to be static.

Riparian: On sampled riparian sites, average ground cover was determined to be meeting desired objectives, but two of the four sampled sites had high amounts of bare ground. Trend is not known.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. The higher than desired amounts of bare ground recorded on uplands may cause these sites to be at greater risk to invasion by weeds.

Riparian: Canada thistle was detected on one sampled riparian site, but, overall, these sites are considered to be functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds, and resists expansion of existing weed populations.

B-45



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Dry Creek Uplands: Overall, the

composition of important shrubs and grasses on sampled upland sites are thought to be meeting desired conditions. The apparent trend is towards an increased composition of desirable grasses.

Riparian: On the sampled riparian site, the composition of desirable shrubs and grasses was considered to be not meeting desired objectives. The trend in composition is not known.

Uplands: On sagebrush-grassland sites, sagebrush cover is considered to be meeting desired conditions. The trend in sagebrush cover is not clear, but data collected on these sites suggest that cover may be decreasing.

Riparian: Total shrub cover for dominant willows on the sampled riparian site is considered to be well below desired amounts. The trend in shrub cover is not known.

Uplands: Overall, ground cover is not meeting desired conditions on sampled upland sites, and is also considered to be outside the range of variability for the habitat type. However, two of three transects showed an improving trend in ground cover.

Riparian: The amount of ground cover recorded on the sampled riparian site is considerably lower than expected amounts, and is not meeting desired conditions. The ground cover trend for this site is not known.


Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. The sampled riparian site is at increased risk to invasion due to reduced ground cover, and is not functioning in a manner the resists invasion by weeds.

B-46



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Twin Lakes Uplands: On upland sites, the

composition of important shrubs is meeting desired conditions. On two of three transects, the composition of important forage species such as Idaho fescue is desirable, but this species was completely absent on the third transect. A high composition of less desirable grasses was found on all three sites, which may suggest an undesirable trend towards these species.

Riparian: Riparian sites sampled are either forested riparian habitats, or are trending towards a forested plant community.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover on upland sites is meeting desired conditions, and is within the range of variability for this habitat type. The apparent trend is towards increased sagebrush cover on these sites.

Riparian: Sampled riparian sites had low willow cover, which is expected for riparian plant communities that are trending towards a more forested habitat.

Uplands: Upland sites are meeting desired conditions for ground cover, and the apparent trend is towards increasing cover.

Riparian: Riparian sites are meeting desired conditions for ground cover. Trend is not known.


Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Sampled sites are considered to be functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds.

B-47



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Monument Uplands: Overall, the existing

composition of important shrubs and grasses is in a desirable condition, but there has been an overall reduction in desirable grasses such as Idaho fescue. For this reason, the trend is considered to be moving away from desired objectives for these sites.

Riparian: Riparian sites are considered to meeting desired conditions for important shrubs and grasses. A high composition of these plants was recorded. The composition trend for these sites is not known.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover is meeting desired conditions, and is within the range of variability for this sagebrush-grassland habitat type. The apparent trend is towards increased sagebrush cover.

Riparian: Total shrub cover for dominant willows on sampled riparian sites is considered to be below desired objectives. The trend for shrub cover on these sites is not known.

Uplands: Upland sites are not meeting desired conditions for ground cover; however, the apparent trend is that these sites are moving towards desired objectives.

Riparian: Overall, ground cover on sampled riparian sites is considered to be somewhat below desired levels. The trend for ground cover is not known.


Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within allotment. The sampled riparian sites may be at increased risk to invasion by weeds due to reduced ground cover.

B-48


Allotment

Rangeland Health Indicators Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds

Pioneer Uplands: The composition of important shrubs and grasses is considered to be meeting desired conditions, but an overall reduction in a key forage grass (i.e., Idaho fescue) was recorded. The trend in composition is considered to be static. Riparian: Overall, sampled riparian sites are considered to be meeting desired conditions for species composition. Both high frequency and cover was recorded for desirable plants. The composition trend for these sites is not known.

Uplands: Sagebrush cover is considered to be meeting desired conditions, and is within the range of variability for this sagebrush-grassland habitat type. However, the average cover for sampled sites is high (27%), and these sites are thought to be trending towards increased cover. This could result in a lack of age class diversity on these sites. Riparian: Total shrub cover for dominant willows was recorded to be well below desired levels on the only willow/grass plant community sampled. However, this low amount may be expected due to inherent site characteristics. The trend for riparian shrub cover is not known.

Uplands: Overall, upland sites are meeting desired conditions for ground cover, but are considered to be somewhat below the average for similar habitat types in late seral or climax vegetation condition. However, these upland sites appear to be trending towards increased cover. Riparian: Overall, riparian sites are meeting desired conditions for ground cover amounts. The trend in ground cover for these sites is not known.

Uplands: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Uplands are currently functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds. Riparian: Noxious weeds were not detected, but are present within the allotment. Sampled riparian sites are considered to be functioning in a manner that resists invasion by weeds.

B-49



Species Composition Shrub Cover Ground Cover Noxious Weeds Saginaw Uplands: The composition of

important shrub and grass species was found to be present in satisfactory amounts to meet rangeland health objectives, but, overall, the composition of a key forage plant (Idaho fescue) was recorded to be appreciably below average amounts shown in research data for similar habitat types. The apparent composition trend for most transect sites is considered to be static.

Riparian: Overall, sampled riparian sites are meeting desired composition conditions for key shrub and grass species. The composition trend for these sites is not known.

Uplands: On sampled sagebrush-grassland sites, sagebrush cover is considered to be meeting desired conditions, and is considered to be within the range of variability for this habitat type. Although recorded data shows a major decrease in shrub cover, these sites are still recovering from prescribed burn events conducted in 2004. For this reason, there is a likely trend towards increased sagebrush cover.

Riparian: For sampled willow/grass sites, the total shrub cover recorded for dominant willows is considered to be below desired amounts. Encroachment by conifers could provide a partial explanation for this existing condition. The trend for shrub cover on these willow sites is not known.

Uplands: All upland sites sampled are meeting desired conditions for ground cover, and the apparent trend in cover appears to be static.

Riparian: Overall, sampled riparian sites are considered to be not meeting desired conditions for ground cover. The trend in ground cover is not known.


Riparian: Canada thistle was detected on one sampled riparian site, and other weed species are known to occur within the allotment. Overall, riparian sites are considered to be at increased risk to weed invasion due to higher than desired amounts of bare ground.

B-50


Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Consistency

Range and Weeds Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Consistency Regulatory Requirement

No Grazing Alternative

Current Grazing Alternative

Proposed Action Alternative 4

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because there would be beneficial effects to the vegetation resource.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because interim Forest Plan grazing standards would be implemented to reduce or prevent adverse effects to the vegetation resource.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because proposed allowable use levels and mitigation measures and design features would be implemented to reduce or prevent adverse effects to the vegetation resource.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because proposed allowable use levels and mitigation measures and design features would be implemented to reduce or prevent adverse effects to the vegetation resource.

National Forest Management Act (1976)

No. Alternative is not consistent with Act because it does not provide forage for livestock grazing, and does not contribute to the social and economic well-being of local communities (Forest Plan, pp. 21 and 25)

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it provides forage for livestock grazing, and contributes to the social and economic well-being of local communities.



B-51






The Granger-Thayer Act (1950)

No. Alternative is not consistent with Act because it would terminate existing term grazing permits, and no receipts would be collected for range improvement work.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it would allow for reissuance of existing term grazing permits, and receipts would be collected for range improvement work.



The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960)

Yes. Although this alternative does not provide for livestock grazing, it does not prohibit other multiple uses, or impair the productivity of the land.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it provides for multiple uses, including sustained yield of livestock forage, and does not impair the productivity of the land.



The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Planning Act (1974)

Not applicable because livestock grazing would be removed from the project area, and there would be no need for a suitability analysis.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it identified the suitability of lands for grazing based on the Forest Plan capability analysis.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it identified the suitability of lands for grazing based on the Forest Plan capability analysis, and site-specific suitability analysis.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it identified the suitability of lands for grazing based on the Forest Plan capability analysis, and site-specific suitability analysis.

B-52






The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976)

Yes. Although this alternative does not provide forage for livestock grazing, it provides food and habitat for fish and wildlife resources.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it provides for sustainable livestock forage, and food and habitat for fish and wildlife.



The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978)

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it would result in improvement to the rangeland resource.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it would result in improvement to the rangeland resource with implementation of, and compliance with interim Forest Plan grazing standards.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it would result in improvement to the rangeland resource with implementation of proposed allowable use levels, and mitigation measures and design features.

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Act because it would result in improvement to the rangeland resource with implementation of proposed allowable use levels, and mitigation measures and design features.

Forest Service Manual 2200 and Forest Service Handbook 2209.13

Yes. Alternative would be consistent with policy because it does not conflict with direction provided in the manual or handbook.

Yes. Alternative is consistent because livestock grazing would be administered in accordance with direction provided in the manual and handbook.



B-53






Beaverhead-Deerlodge Land and Resource Management Plan, or Forest Plan (2009)

No. Alternative is not consistent with Forest Plan because it does not provide forage for livestock grazing, and does not contribute to the social and economic well-being of local communities (Forest Plan, pp. 21 and 25)

Yes. Alternative is consistent with Forest Plan because it provides forage for livestock grazing, and contributes to the social and economic well-being of local communities (Forest Plan, pp. 21 and 25)



B-54


USFS REGION 1 SENSITIVE PLANT LIST (2011) Populations occur on

the District

Populations occur in the project area

Suitable habitat present

FEDERALLY LISTED PLANTS Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) N N N Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) N N N Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) N N N BDNF SENSITIVE PLANTS Alkali primrose (Primula alcalina) N N N Alpine meadow -rue (Thalictrum alpinum) N N N Arctic pussytoes (Antennaria densifolia) Y N N Austin knotweed (Polygonum douglasii ssp.austiniae) N N N Beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) N N N Beautiful bladderpod (Physaria carinata var.pulchella) Y N N Bitterroot milkvetch (Astragalus scaphoides) N N N California false-helleborne (Veratrum californicum) Y N Y Colville Indian paintbrush (Castilleja covilleana) N N N Cusick’s horse-mint (Agastache cusickii) N N N Discoid goldenweed (Haplopappus macronema var. macronema) Y N N

English sundew (Drosera anglica) Y N N Five-leaf cinquefoil (Potentilla quinquefolia) N N N Giant helleborne (Epipactis gigantea) N N N Hall’s rush (Juncus hallii) Y Y Y Hiker’s gentian (Gentianopsis simplex) Y Y Y Hollyleaf clover (Trifolium gymnocarpon) N N N Idaho fleebane (Erigeron asperugineus) N N N Idaho sedge (Carex idahoa) Y P Y Large-leaved balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrophylla) N N N Lemhi penstemon (Penstemon lemhiensis) Y Y Y Mealy primrose (Primula incana) N N N Missoula phlox (Phlox kelseyi var. missoulensis) N N N Musk-root (Adoxa moschatellina) N N N Payson’s bladderpod (Pysaria carinata var. carinata) Y N N Peculiar moonwort (Botrychium paradoxum) N N N Pod grass (Scheuchzeria palustris) N N N Primrose monkey-flower (Mimulus primuloides) Y Y Y Sapphire rockcress (Arabis fecunda) Y N N Small onion (Allium parvum) N N N Stalked-pod crazyweed (Oxytropis podocarpa) N N N Storm saxifrage (Saxifraga tempestiva) Y N N Tapertip onion (Allium acuminatum) N N N Tufted club-rush (Tricophorum cespistosus) Y N N Wavy moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) Y Y Y Weber’s saw-wort (Saussurea weberi) N N N Western Joepye weed (Eupatorium occidentale) N N N Western moonwort (Botrychium hesperium) N N N Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) Y Y Y Wolly-headed clover (Trifolium eriocephalum) N N N

B-55


Seymour Allotment Acreage Summary for Each Interpretation by Risk Level

Seymour Allotment Interpretation \ Rating High High Moderate Moderate

Moderate Slight Slight

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Erosion Risk 450 215 610 469 250 Compaction Risk 644 418 931 Hummocking Risk 644 418 931

Plot Data Summary for the Seymour Allotment

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Soil

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure

Detrimental Disturbance Comments

47 80-100 0-20 0-11 cm 9-26 cm 9-26+

cm 17 plots No 2 plots with no

turf

2 50-79 21-50 0-4 cm 20-23

cm 20-23+

cm 0 plot No 2 plots with no

turf

4 20-49 51-80 0-5 cm 15-20

cm 11-20

cm 0 plots No 2 plots with no

turf

4 0-19 81-100 0-5 cm 18-20

cm 18-20

cm 2 plots No

3 plots with no

turf, 2 of these with

disturbance from

burrowing animals

B-56


Fishtrap Allotment Acreage Summary for Each Interpretation by Risk Level

Fishtrap Allotment Interpretation \ Rating High High Moderate Moderate

Moderate Slight Slight

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres


Plot Data Summary for the Fishtrap Allotment

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Soil

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


29 80-100 0-20 0-7 cm 15-27

cm 15-27+

cm 13 plots No

3 plots with strong

platy structure, not root limiting

4 50-79 21-50 0-3 cm 10-13

cm 15-18+

cm 0 plots No

1 20-49 51-80 3 cm 14 cm 14+ cm 1 plot No

Weak medium

platy structure

3 0-19 81-100 0 cm 4-28+

cm 4-28+

cm 2 plots No

2 plots with strong

platy structure, not root limiting

B-57


Mudd Creek Allotment Acreage Summary for Each Interpretation by Risk Level

Interpretation/Rating High High Moderate Moderate Moderate

Slight Slight

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Erosion Risk 92 0 125 467 55

Compaction Risk 92 484 163 Hummocking Risk 92 0 647

Plot Data Summary for the Mudd Creek Allotment. # of Plots

% Soil Cover

% Bare Soil

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


19 80-100 0-20 1-8cm 10-38cm 9-33cm 13 plots None

6 plots with strong platy structure, all with roots

2 50-79 21-50 0-3cm 30-36cm 30-36cm 2 plots None roots through

platy structure

0 20-49 51-80 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2 0-19 81-100 0 21-27cm 8-16cm 2 plots None

1 plot with strong platy

structure, with roots

B-58


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Pintlar Creek Allotment.


Slight Slight

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Erosion Risk 304 0 154 415 108 Compaction Risk 379 387 215 Hummocking Risk 379 0 602

Plot Data Summary for the Pintlar Creek Allotment.

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


206 80-100 0-20 0-9cm

5 plots measured, 18-25cm

7.5-33 cm 1 of 11 Plots None

11 plots w soil data, 1 Plot with

strong platy

structure and with vertical roots

9 50-79 21-50 5cm na 10cm n None 1 plot w soil data

5 20-49 51-80 na na na na na

14 0-19 81-100 na 20+ & 25+cm

20+ & 25+cm y None

2 Plots w soil data, 1

plot w moderate

platy structure and with

roots

B-59


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Mussigbrod Allotment.


Slight Slight


Plot Data Summary for the Mussigbrod Allotment.

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover % Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


31 80-100 0-20 0-15cm 12-

26+cm 12-

26+cm 1 0

1 plot w mod. platy structure,

many plots burned in

2000.

6 50-79 21-50 0-10cm 11-26+cm

11-26+cm 0 0

Many plots burned in

2000

3 20-49 51-80 0-7cm 13-18+cm

13-18+cm 0 0


2000

3 0-19 81-100 0-2cm 11-17cm 11-23+cm 0 0


2000

B-60


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Ruby Creek Allotment.


Slight Slight


Plot Data Summary for the Ruby Creek Allotment.

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


36 80-100 0-20 0-8cm 10-24cm 10-24cm 1 0

34 plots had less than 10% bare soil. Platy structure on 1 plot-not detrimental

4 50-79 21-50 0-4cm 10-13cm 0-13cm 0 0

2 20-49 51-80 0cm 16-23cm 16-23cm 1 0

Platy structure on 1 plot-not detrimental

5 0-19 81-100 0cm 9-21cm 6-21+cm 0 0

B-61


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Dry Creek Allotment.


Slight Slight


Plot Data Summary for the Dry Creek Allotment.

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


4 80-100 0-20 3-8cm 14-20cm 14-

20+cm 0 plots none Based on 4 soil pits

1 50-79 21-50 na na na na na No soil pit opened

5 20-49 51-80 0cm 15-19cm 15-19+cm 0 plots none

Based on 3 soil pits, 2

plots without

pits

0 0-19 81-100 na na na na na No plots

with >80% bare soil

B-62


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Twin Lakes Allotment.


Slight Slight


Plot Data Summary for the Twin Lakes Allotment.

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover % Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


13 80-100 0-20 2-8cm 10-26cm 10-26cm 1 plot None

Weak, thin, platy structure from alluvial deposition. Six plots with soil pits.

0 50-79 21-50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 20-49 51-80 0 18cm 18cm None None 1 plot with a soil pit 0 0-19 81-100 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

B-63


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Monument Allotment.


Slight Slight


Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Pioneer Allotment.


Slight Slight


Plot Data Summary for the Pioneer Allotment

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


11 80-100 0-20 2.5-8cm 11-30cm 11-30cm no no 6 plots with

soil data

4 50-79 21-50 na na na na no only surface measurements

0 20-49 51-80 na na na na na na

2 0-19 81-100 0 7-9cm 7-15+cm 1 plot no

2 plots with soil data,

roots in platy layer

B-64


. Erosion, Compaction, and Hummocking Risk for Soils in the Saginaw Allotment.

Interpretation/Rating High High

Moderate Moderate Moderate

Slight Slight Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres


Plot Data Summary for the Saginaw Allotment.

Number of Plots

% Soil

Cover

% Bare Ground

Turf Thickness

Rooting Depth

A Horizon Depth

Platy Structure


10 80-100 0-20 2.5-5cm 12-

28cm+ 12-

28cm+ 0 no 5 plots with a soil pit

3 50-79 21-50 0-3cm 10-20cm 10-20cm 0 no All plots with a soil pit

0 20-49 51-80 na na na na na na

2 0-19 81-100 0 15-20cm 15-20cm 0 no All plots with a soil pit

B-65


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name HUC 12 HUC12 NAME GIS Acres


100200040309 Big Hole River-Big Swamp Creek

892


100200040404 Big Lake Creek 2781


100200040405 Upper Rock Creek 113


100200040308 Big Swamp Creek 11



1602


100200040404 Big Lake Creek 5936


100200040405 Upper Rock Creek 3695

Fishtrap EAST FORK 100200040801 Fishtrap Creek 2843 Fishtrap EAST FORK 100200040802 LaMarche Creek 440 Fishtrap EAST FORK 100200040803 Big Hole River-Fishtrap 99 Fishtrap WEST FORK 100200040801 Fishtrap Creek 3007 Monument Hamby Creek Pasture 100200040303 Berry Creek 210 Monument Hamby Creek Pasture 100200040304 Englejard Creek 11921 Monument Hamby Creek Pasture 100200040305 Big Hole River-Spring

Creek 1902

Monument Hamby Creek Pasture 100200040306 Miner Creek 14 Monument Miner Creek Pasture 100200040304 Englejard Creek 73 Monument Miner Creek Pasture 100200040305 Big Hole River-Spring

Creek 303

Monument Miner Creek Pasture 100200040306 Miner Creek 5638 Monument Miner Creek Pasture 100200040307 Little Lake Creek 1925 Monument Miner Creek Pasture 100200040309 Big Hole River-Big

Swamp Creek 1149


100200040304 Englejard Creek 207

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK 100200040605 Pintler Creek 104

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK 100200040607 Mudd Creek 6009

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK 100200040608 Big Hole River-Squaw Creek

1958

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK 100200040801 Fishtrap Creek 2586

B-66


UNIT NAME


Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK 100200040803 Big Hole River-Fishtrap 962

Mussigbrod Bender Pasture 100200040507 Johnson Creek 1601 Mussigbrod Bender Pasture 100200040508 Mussigbrod Creek 26 Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture 100200040507 Johnson Creek 181 Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture 100200040508 Mussigbrod Creek 3131 Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture 100200040509 North Fork Bighole River 59 Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture 100200040603 Plimpton Creek 249 Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK 100200040602 Howell Creek 27

Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK 100200040605 Pintler Creek 5407

Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK 100200040607 Mudd Creek 40

Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK 100200040608 Big Hole River-Squaw Creek

1979

Pioneer Pioneer Pasture 100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole River

4956

Pioneer Pioneer Pasture 100200040302 Big Hole River-Saginaw Creek

37

Pioneer Pioneer Pasture 100200040303 Berry Creek 5074 Pioneer Pioneer Pasture 100200040304 Englejard Creek 1 Pioneer Skinner Meadows

Pasture 100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole

River 5257


100200040302 Big Hole River-Saginaw Creek

7

Pioneer VanHouten Pasture 100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole River

10

Pioneer VanHouten Pasture 100200040302 Big Hole River-Saginaw Creek

1120

Pioneer VanHouten Pasture 100200040303 Berry Creek 888 Pioneer VanHouten Pasture 100200040305 Big Hole River-Spring

Creek 1298

Ruby Creek Butler Pasture 100200040503 Lower Trail Creek 71 Ruby Creek Butler Pasture 100200040505 Ruby Creek 3856 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture 100200040504 West Fork Ruby Creek 10642 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture 100200040505 Ruby Creek 54 Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Pasture 100200040408 Swamp Creek 582 Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Pasture 100200040504 West Fork Ruby Creek 50 Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Pasture 100200040505 Ruby Creek 11611 Saginaw Pasture 1 100200040102 Upper Governor Creek 18 Saginaw Pasture 1 100200040302 Big Hole River-Saginaw

Creek 1631

B-67


UNIT NAME


Saginaw Pasture 2 100200040102 Upper Governor Creek 7 Saginaw Pasture 2 100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole

River 465

Saginaw Pasture 2 100200040302 Big Hole River-Saginaw Creek

3456

Saginaw Pasture 3 100200011001 Selway Creek 10 Saginaw Pasture 3 100200040102 Upper Governor Creek 22 Saginaw Pasture 3 100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole

River 17


3536

Saginaw Pasture 4 100200040102 Upper Governor Creek 3412 Saginaw Pasture 4 100200040302 Big Hole River-Saginaw

Creek 30

Seymour Seymour 100200040703 Deep Creek 365 Seymour Seymour 100200040802 LaMarche Creek 1822 Seymour Seymour 100200040804 Seymour Creek 6408 Seymour Sullivan 100200040703 Deep Creek 4830 Seymour Sullivan 100200040804 Seymour Creek 656 Seymour Tenmile 100200040703 Deep Creek 3893 Twin Lakes Lower Big Lake

Pasture 100200040307 Little Lake Creek 11

Twin Lakes Lower Big Lake Pasture

100200040308 Big Swamp Creek 1958



954


100200040307 Little Lake Creek 2881






100200040308 Big Swamp Creek 4553



10





B-68


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name KEY WATERSHED

GIS Acres

Mussigbrod Mussigbrod Pasture Fisheries 247 Pioneer Pioneer Pasture Restoration 34 Pioneer Skinner Meadows

Pasture Restoration 7

Pioneer VanHouten Pasture Restoration 1089 Ruby Creek Butler Pasture Restoration 4 Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture Restoration 13 Ruby Creek Lower Ruby Pasture Restoration 10269 Saginaw Pasture 1 Restoration 1564 Saginaw Pasture 2 Restoration 3519 Saginaw Pasture 3 Restoration 3539 Saginaw Pasture 4 Restoration 52 Seymour Seymour Restoration 6359 Seymour Sullivan Fisheries 7 Seymour Sullivan Restoration 5441 Seymour Tenmile Fisheries 3804 Seymour Tenmile Restoration 89

B-69


This table shows perennial streams within the allotment and pasture boundaries, it also shows if the stream is within a key watershed or is a TMDL stream. In addition it shows which 6th code HUC the stream is located in, DO NOT use this table to show 6th code HUCs for the project area as there could be pieces of included 6th code HUCS that have no perennial streams. Please use the summary 6HUCS or Allotments_Pastures_6HUCs tabs for that analysis. UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME

TRIB OF Key Watershed

TMDL GIS Miles



Sawmill Cr Big Swamp Cr, N Branch

NA No 1.3


100200040404 Big Lake Creek

Big Lake Cr Big Hole R NA No 2.2



Sawmill Cr Big Swamp Cr, N Branch

NA No 2.7



Big Lake Cr Big Hole R NA No 5.6



Big Lake Cr, Trib1

Big Lake Cr NA No 2.1



Big Lake Cr, Trib1, Trib1

Big Lake Cr, Trib1

NA No 1.3


100200040405 Upper Rock Creek

Dry Cr Rock Cr NA No 3.1

Fishtrap EAST FORK 100200040801 Fishtrap Creek

Fishtrap Cr, E Fk

Fishtrap Cr NA No 2.1

Fishtrap EAST FORK 100200040801 Fishtrap Creek

Fishtrap Cr, E Fk, Trib1

Fishtrap Cr, E Fk

NA No 2.6

Fishtrap WEST FORK 100200040801 Fishtrap Creek

Fishtrap Cr Big Hole R NA Yes 1.3

B-70


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles


Fishtrap Cr, Middle Fk

Fishtrap Cr NA No 2


Fishtrap Cr, W Fk

Fishtrap Cr NA No 4


Swamp Cr Fishtrap Cr NA No 2.2


100200040304 Englejard Creek

Englejard Cr Hamby Cr NA No 6.2



Hamby Cr Big Hole R NA No 8.9


100200040305 Big Hole River-Spring Creek

Little Swamp Cr

Big Hole R NA No 1.9


100200040306 Miner Creek Miner Cr Big Hole R NA Yes 8.4


100200040307 Little Lake Creek

Gravelle Cr Big Hole R NA No 4.1



Hamby Cr Big Hole R NA No 0.5

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040607 Mudd Creek Calvert Cr Big Hole R NA No 0.6

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040607 Mudd Creek Mudd Cr Big Hole R NA No 2.9

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040607 Mudd Creek Mudd Cr, E Fk Mudd Cr NA No 3.4

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040607 Mudd Creek Mudd Cr, Trib1

Mudd Cr NA No 0.6

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040607 Mudd Creek Mudd Cr, Trib2

Mudd Cr NA No 0.7

Mudd MUDD 100200040607 Mudd Creek Mudd Cr, W Mudd Cr NA No 3

B-71


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles

Creek CREEK Fk Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040607 Mudd Creek York Gulch Big Hole R NA No 0.7

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040608 Big Hole River-Squaw Creek

York Gulch Big Hole R NA No 2.2

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK


York Gulch, Trib1

York Gulch NA No 2.3

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK


York Gulch, Trib1, Trib2

York Gulch, Trib1

NA No 0.5

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040803 Big Hole River-Fishtrap

Calvert Cr Big Hole R NA No 2.1

Mudd Creek

MUDD CREEK

100200040803 Big Hole River-Fishtrap

Calvert Cr, Trib1

Calvert Cr NA No 1.2

Mussigbrod Bender Pasture 100200040507 Johnson Creek

Bender Cr Johnson Cr NA No 1


Bender Cr, Trib1

Bender Cr NA No 1.8


Bender Cr, Trib1, Trib1

Bender Cr, Trib1

NA No 0.5


100200040508 Mussigbrod Creek

Mussigbrod Cr Big Hole R NA Yes 3.4

Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK

100200040605 Pintler Creek

Beaver Cr Pintler Cr NA No 0.1

B-72


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles

Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK


Pintler Cr Big Hole R NA Yes 8

Pintlar Creek

PINTLAR CREEK


Pintler Cr, Trib1

Pintler Cr NA No 4.4

Pioneer Pioneer Pasture

100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole River

Pioneer Cr Big Hole R NA No 6



Pioneer Cr, N Fk

Pioneer Cr NA No 2.4



Pioneer Cr, Trib1

Pioneer Cr NA No 0.4


100200040303 Berry Creek Berry Cr Big Hole R NA No 9.1



Big Hole R Jefferson R NA No 3



Blind Canyon Cr




Darkhorse Cr Big Hole R NA No 0.6



Jahnke Cr Big Hole R NA No 3.3



Big Hole R Jefferson R Restoration Yes 0.5

B-73


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles



Big Hole R, Trib1

Big Hole R Restoration No 1.1


100200040303 Berry Creek Berry Cr Big Hole R NA No 2


100200040305 Big Hole River-Spring Creek

Berry Cr Big Hole R NA No 0.2

Ruby Creek Butler Pasture 100200040505 Ruby Creek Butler Cr Ruby Cr NA No 4.2 Ruby Creek Cow Cr.

Pasture 100200040504 West Fork

Ruby Creek Calf Cr Cow Cr NA No 1.4

Ruby Creek Cow Cr. Pasture

100200040504 West Fork Ruby Creek

Cow Cr Ruby Cr NA No 1.7



Nugget Cr Ruby Cr NA No 3.3



Pioneer Cr Ruby Cr NA No 3.8



Rabbit Cr Nugget Cr NA No 1.6



Ruby Cr Big Hole R, N Fk

NA Yes 2



Ruby Cr, Trib1 Ruby Cr NA Yes 1.1



Ruby Cr, Trib2 Ruby Cr NA No 2



Ruby Cr, Trib3 Ruby Cr NA No 0.8



Ruby Cr, Trib3, Trib1

Ruby Cr, Trib3

NA No 0.7

B-74


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles



Ruby Cr, W Fk Ruby Cr NA No 2.2


100200040505 Ruby Creek Cow Cr Ruby Cr NA No 0.1


100200040505 Ruby Creek Ruby Cr Big Hole R, N Fk

NA Yes 0.2


100200040505 Ruby Creek Big Moosehorn Cr

Ruby Cr Restoration No 2.7


100200040505 Ruby Creek Butler Cr Ruby Cr NA No 0.4


100200040505 Ruby Creek Gory Cr Ruby Cr Restoration No 2.2


100200040505 Ruby Creek Little Moosehorn Cr

Ruby Cr NA No 3


100200040505 Ruby Creek Nickel Bar Gulch

Ruby Cr NA No 1.3


100200040505 Ruby Creek Ruby Cr Big Hole R, N Fk

Restoration Yes 7


100200040505 Ruby Creek Wenger Gulch Ruby Cr Restoration No 0.6


Big Hole R, Trib2

Big Hole R Restoration No 1.3

Saginaw Pasture 2 100200040301 Headwaters Big Hole River

Big Hole R Jefferson R NA Yes 0.5


Englebaugh Cr Big Hole R Restoration No 1.3

B-75


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles


Englebaugh Cr, E Fk

Englebaugh Cr

Restoration No 0.3


Englebaugh Cr, W Fk

Englebaugh Cr

Restoration No 1


Englebaugh Cr, W Fk, Trib1

Englebaugh Cr, W Fk

Restoration No 0.7


Saginaw Cr Big Hole R Restoration No 2.7


Englebaugh Cr, E Fk

Englebaugh Cr

Restoration No 2.8


Englebaugh Cr, E Fk, Trib1

Englebaugh Cr, E Fk

Restoration No 1.2


Englebaugh Cr, W Fk

Englebaugh Cr

Restoration No 1.8

Saginaw Pasture 4 100200040102 Upper Governor Creek

Governor Cr Big Hole R NA Yes 0.1

B-76


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles


Governor Cr, Trib1

Governor Cr

NA No 1.9


Governor Cr, Trib1, Trib1

Governor Cr, Trib1

NA No 1.8


Indian Cr Governor Cr

NA No 1.9


Little Indian Cr Governor Cr

NA No 2.3

Seymour Seymour 100200040802 LaMarche Creek

LaMarche Cr, E Fk

LaMarche Cr

NA No 2.7

Seymour Seymour 100200040804 Seymour Creek

Seymour Cr Big Hole R Restoration No 4.9

Seymour Sullivan 100200040703 Deep Creek Bear Trap Gulch

Sullivan Cr Restoration No 2.2

Seymour Sullivan 100200040703 Deep Creek Sullivan Cr Deep Cr Restoration No 2.5 Seymour Sullivan 100200040703 Deep Creek Sullivan Cr,

Trib1 Sullivan Cr Restoration No 1.2

Seymour Sullivan 100200040703 Deep Creek Twelvemile Cr Deep Cr Restoration Yes 2.9 Seymour Sullivan 100200040703 Deep Creek Twelvemile Cr,

W Fk Twelvemile Cr

Restoration No 1.5

Seymour Tenmile 100200040703 Deep Creek Corral Cr Deep Cr Fisheries Yes 3.1 Seymour Tenmile 100200040703 Deep Creek Slaughterhouse

Cr Corral Cr Fisheries No 2.5

Seymour Tenmile 100200040703 Deep Creek Tenmile Cr Deep Cr Fisheries No 2.9 Twin Lakes Lower Big

Lake Pasture 100200040308 Big Swamp

Creek Big Swamp Cr Big Hole R NA No 2.5

B-77


UNIT NAME

Pasture Name

HUC_12 HUC12 NAME

STREAM NAME


TMDL GIS Miles


100200040308 Big Swamp Creek

Slag-a-melt Cr Big Swamp Cr, S Branch

NA No 1.3



Big Swamp Cr, N Branch




Little Lake Cr Big Hole R NA No 3.5



Big Swamp Cr Big Hole R NA No 6.3



Slag-a-melt Cr Big Swamp Cr, S Branch

NA No 3.6



Little Lake Cr Big Hole R NA No 5.1

B-78


:Seymour Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations

Activity/Event Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable in Future

Currently Measurable Effect

Positive Negative Summary of Effects

Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x

Livestock grazing affects toads and other amphibians, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative. Maxell (2000), however, indicated that toads tend to prefer areas with some level of disturbance; and livestock alteration, if not excessive, may function as a benefit for this species.

Irrigation diversion x x x minor -

mod x

Irrigation diversion effects on toads and other amphibians occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on toads is probably low to moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and the most extensive and dramatic diversions occurs downstream of national forest lands

Noxious weed control

x x x minor - none x

Noxious weed treatment provides beneficial effects from reversing trends in vegetative conditions. Potential negative effects can occur if herbicides contact individuals directly. Risk is low for this; The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Noxious Weed EIS provides mitigations to reduce risks of this to an acceptable level. We expect the balance of effects related to this management to be beneficial.

Prescribed burning x x x minor -

none x Prescribed burning and has some risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, however we expect toads will move during implementation. Benefit will occur through improved vegetation cover in riparian areas and uplands.

Sagebrush manipulation (burning, spraying)

x minor x Large scale sagebrush manipulation has some risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, and possibly through site conversion away from naturally occurring vegetation

Wildland Fire Suppression x x x minor x Wildfire suppression activities pose minor risks to toads as wetlands could be

drawn upon to supply water and retardant and foams likely have toxic effects. Timber Management – All Harvest types x x x minor x x

Timber management impacts are common and widespread throughout this allotment from 1970s and 80s era harvests and associated roads. Riparian areas and wetlands have been impacted through sedimentation related to these activities.

B-79






Hazard Tree Removal – Developed sites and roadsides

x x x minor x

Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on individual toads with traffic related mortality

Pre-commercial Thinning no effect

Public Firewood cutting no effect

Water Impoundments x x minor x x

Water impoundments may pose either positive or negative minor effects for toads. Positive effects may occur in that breeding area is created, but if water levels are heavily managed, this could dessicate developing larvae and end up as wasted breeding efforts.

Non-native fish stocking x x x minor x

Nonnative predatory fishes have been known to negatively impact amphibian populations. This is not considered to be a major population impact to western toads, but may have a minor negative effect.

WCT restoration projects no effect

Beetle related tree mortality x x minor -

none x

Beetle related tree mortality is expected to improve conditions for toads by increasing the amount of breeding habitat. There may be a small negative influence on migrational routes with the change in overhead cover and exposure to sunlight.

Range improvements x x minor x Range improvements are expected to help with livestock distribution, decreasing

impacts to streams, ponds and wetlands. Dispersed Recreation x x x moderate x

Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to toads and other amphibians is likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats.

B-80






Travel Management Roads and Trails

x x x moderate x Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads are a small source of traffic related mortality and some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events

x moderate x

Climatic events include frequent drought over the last 20 or more years; and the possibility of climate change in the future. Drought has had a moderate level of effect on toads and other amphibians by influencing the quality and availability of breeding areas. Climate change has the potential to have measurable effects; however newer models highlight the likelihood of substantial variability in changes in precipitation levels across landscapes. At this point it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what the effects might be.

Mining

x x x moderate x

Mining impacts can range from rare to widespread in any watershed and can alter stream channels and water quality. Additionally, mining created impoundments that can be used as breeding sites by amphibians. Since amphibians are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, impoundments of this nature can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease x x substantial x Disease, primarily chytrid fungus is believed to be the cause of substantial declines in toad and other amphibian species in western Montana.

B-81


:Seymour Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing x x x moderate x

Livestock grazing affects mussels, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. The presence of cattle also poses the risk of trampling on mussels in the stream substrate. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative.

Irrigation diversion x x x moderate x

Irrigation diversion effects on mussels occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on mussels is probably moderate because they are somewhat mobile and can select where they want to become established and the most extensive and dramatic diversions occurs downstream of national forest lands.


x x x minor - none

x

Noxious weed treatment provides beneficial effects from reversing trends in vegetative conditions. Potential negative effects can occur if herbicides contact individuals directly. Risk is low for this; The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Noxious Weed EIS provides mitigations to reduce risks of this to an acceptable level. We expect the balance of effects related to this management to be beneficial

Prescribed burning x x x

minor - none

x Prescribed burning and has very little risk of influencing individuals directly during the action. Benefit may occur through improved vegetation cover in riparian areas and uplands.


x minor- none

x Large scale sagebrush manipulation has very little risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, and possibly through site conversion away from naturally occurring vegetation.

Wildland Fire Suppression

x x x minor x Wildfire suppression activities pose minor risks to mussels as streams could be drawn upon to supply water and retardant and foams likely have toxic effects.

Timber Management – All Harvest types x x x moderate x


B-82







x x x minor- none

x Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on mussel habitat.

Pre-commercial Thinning

no effect

Public Firewood cutting

no effect

Water Impoundments

x x minor x Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for mussels since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment.

Non-native fish stocking x x minor x

Nonnative fish stocking has had negative impacts on native fisheries. Mussels use native fishes to disperse their young. While there is some evidence mussels can also use other fish species, changes to this critical process are deemed at least a minor negative impact

WCT restoration projects

x x minor x

WCT restoration projects reverse some of the negative impacts of nonnative fish presence, so we expect a minor positive impact. As the Sixmile Creek population of WCT recovers and individuals reestablish their presence in reaches of stream with mussels, WCT will again become a viable option for spreading young mussels.

Beetle related tree mortality

x x minor x Beetle related tree mortality is expected to slightly improve conditions for mussels by increasing the amount of streamflow and future large woody debris.

Range improvements

x x minor x Range improvements are expected to help with livestock distribution, decreasing impacts to streams, ponds and wetlands.

Dispersed Recreation x x x moderate x

Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to mussels are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats.

Travel Management

B-83






Roads and Trails x x x moderate x

Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads are extensive in this allotment from past timber harvest and are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x

Climatic events include frequent drought over the last 20 or more years; and the possibility of climate change in the future. Drought has had a moderate level of effect on mussels by influencing the quality and availability of streamflows. Climate change has the potential to have measurable effects, however newer models highlight the likelihood of substantial variability in changes in precipitation levels across landscapes. At this point it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what the effects might be.

Mining x x x moderate x

Mining can alter stream channels and water quality. Since mussels are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease

B-84


:Seymour Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations





Livestock grazing affects trout, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. The presence of cattle also poses the risk of trampling on trout spawning redds. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative


Irrigation diversion effects on trout occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on trout is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and the most extensive and dramatic diversions occurs downstream of national forest lands.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor- none



x x x minor x Wildfire suppression activities pose minor risks to trout as streams could be drawn upon to supply water and retardant and foams likely have toxic effects.



B-85







x x minor- none

x Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on trout habitat.


x x no effect


x x x no effect

Water Impoundments

x x minor x Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for trout since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment.

Non-native fish stocking

x x x major x

Non-native trout like EBT have displaced WCT throughout much of their historic distribution. Generally where the 2 species overlap, WCT are decreasing in number and distribution and relegated to the extreme headwaters of stream systems. Rainbow and Yellowstone cutthroat trout, where stocked, have the ability to breed with WCT and the genetic integrity of the offspring often decreases to less than 90% WCT. This influences all WCT populations in this allotment.

WCT restoration projects x x major x

Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and populations, this action has taken place in Sixmile Creek on the state managed portion of this allotment and is highly beneficial to WCT overall distribution.


x x minor x Beetle related tree mortality is expected to slightly improve conditions for trout by increasing the amount of streamflow and future large woody debris.

Range improvements

x x minor x Range improvements are expected to help with livestock distribution, decreasing impacts to streams, ponds and wetlands


Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to trout are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats

B-86






Travel Management x x x

minor - none

x



Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x

Climatic events include frequent drought over the last 20 or more years; and the possibility of climate change in the future. Drought has had a moderate level of effect on trout by influencing the quality and availability of streamflows. Climate change has the potential to have measurable effects; however newer models highlight the likelihood of substantial variability in changes in precipitation levels across landscapes. At this point it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what the effects might be


Mining impacts can range from rare to widespread in any watershed and has altered stream channels and water quality. Since salmonids are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts

Disease

B-87


:Seymour Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing x x x moderate x Livestock grazing affects grayling, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative


Irrigation diversion effects on grayling occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on grayling is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and the most extensive and dramatic diversions occurs downstream of national forest lands.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none

x Prescribed burning and has very little risk of influencing individuals directly during the action. Benefit may occur through improved vegetation cover in riparian areas and uplands


x minor- none

x Large scale sagebrush manipulation has very little risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, and possibly through site conversion away from naturally occurring vegetation


x x x minor x Wildfire suppression activities pose minor risks to trout as streams could be drawn upon to supply water and retardant and foams likely have toxic effects



B-88







x x minor- none

x Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on fishery habitat


no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments

x x minor x Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for fish since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment


x x x moderate x Non-native fish are and will continue to exert negative pressure on Arctic grayling populations in the Seymour and Deep Creek drainages.

WCT restoration projects x x x moderate x

Restoration activities targeting grayling habitat have taken place in the Seymour and Deep Creek watersheds, even in the short term grayling have responded positively to these actions and will likely continue to do so as streambanks and vegetation fully recover and develop


x x minor x Beetle related tree mortality is expected to slightly improve conditions for fish by increasing the amount of streamflow and future large woody debris.

Range improvements



Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to grayling are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats


minor- none

x

Roads and Trails x x x moderate x Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads are extensive in this

B-89






allotment from past timber harvest and are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x

Climatic events include frequent drought over the last 20 or more years; and the possibility of climate change in the future. Drought has had a moderate level of effect on grayling by influencing the quality and availability of streamflows. Climate change has the potential to have measurable effects, however newer models highlight the likelihood of substantial variability in changes in precipitation levels across landscapes. At this point it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what the effects might be



Disease

B-90


:Fishtrap Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x

Livestock grazing affects toads and other amphibians, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative. Maxell (2000), however, indicated that toads tend to prefer areas with some level of disturbance; and livestock alteration, if not excessive, may function as a benefit for this species

Irrigation diversion

x x x minor - mod

x

Irrigation diversion effects on toads and other amphibians occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on toads is probably low to moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and there are large and extensive ditches and diversions on national forest lands in the Fishtrap watershed


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none

x Prescribed burning and has some risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, however we expect toads will move during implementation. Benefit will occur through improved vegetation cover in riparian areas and uplands.


x minor x Large scale sagebrush manipulation has some risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, and possibly through site conversion away from naturally occurring vegetation.


x x x minor x Wildfire suppression activities pose minor risks to toads as wetlands could be drawn upon to supply water and retardant and foams likely have toxic effects.

Timber Management – All Harvest types

x x x minor x x Timber management impacts are common throughout this allotment from past harvests. Riparian areas and wetlands have been impacted through sedimentation related to these activities.

B-91







x x x minor x Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on individual toads with traffic related mortality.


no effect


no effect


Water impoundments may pose either positive or negative minor effects for toads. Positive effects may occur in that breeding area is created, but if water levels are heavily managed, this could desiccate developing larvae and end up as wasted breeding efforts


Nonnative predatory fishes have been known to negatively impact amphibian populations. This is not considered to be a major population impact to western toads, but may have a minor negative effect


no effect

Beetle related tree mortality x x

minor -none

x Beetle related tree mortality is expected to improve conditions for toads by increasing the amount of breeding habitat. There may be a small negative influence on migration routes with the change in overhead cover and exposure to sunlight

Range improvements




B-92








Climatic Events

x moderate x

Climatic events include frequent drought over the last 20 or more years; and the possibility of climate change in the future. Drought has had a moderate level of effect on toads and other amphibians by influencing the quality and availability of breeding areas. Climate change has the potential to have measurable effects; however newer models highlight the likelihood of substantial variability in changes in precipitation levels across landscapes. At this point it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what the effects might be

Mining

x x x moderate x

Mining impacts can range from rare to widespread in any watershed and can alter stream channels and water quality. Additionally, mining created impoundments that can be used as breeding sites by amphibians. Since amphibians are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, impoundments of this nature can have moderately negative impacts

Disease x x substantial x Disease, primarily chytrid fungus is believed to be the cause of substantial declines in toad and other amphibian species in western Montana

B-93


:Fishtrap Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor- none





Timber management impacts are common and widespread throughout this allotment from past harvests and associated roads. Riparian areas and wetlands have been impacted through sedimentation related to these activities.

Hazard Tree Removal –

x x x minor- x Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on mussel habitat.

B-94






Developed sites and roadsides

none


no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments





x x minor x WCT restoration projects reverse some of the negative impacts of nonnative fish presence, so we expect a minor positive impact.



Range improvements




Travel Management

Roads and Trails x x x moderate x Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads in this allotment are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events x x x moderate x x Climatic events include frequent drought over the last 20 or more years; and the possibility of climate change in the future. Drought has had a moderate level of

B-95






effect on mussels by influencing the quality and availability of streamflows. Climate change has the potential to have measurable effects, however newer models highlight the likelihood of substantial variability in changes in precipitation levels across landscapes. At this point it is difficult to accurately determine exactly what the effects might be.



Disease

B-96


:Fishtrap Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations







Irrigation diversion effects on trout occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on trout is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and the most extensive and dramatic diversions occurs downstream of national forest lands.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor- none




Timber Management – All Harvest types x x x moderate x Timber management impacts are common and widespread throughout this

allotment from past harvests and associated roads. Riparian areas and wetlands have been impacted through sedimentation related to these activities.

B-97







x x minor- none



x x no effect


x x x no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x major x

Non-native trout like EBT have displaced WCT throughout much of their historic distribution. Generally where the 2 species overlap, WCT are decreasing in number and distribution and relegated to the extreme headwaters of stream systems. Rainbow and Yellowstone cutthroat trout, where stocked, have the ability to breed with WCT and the genetic integrity of the offspring often decreases to less than 90% WCT. Non-native fishes influence all streams in this allotment and are suspected to be the reason WCT do not occupy habitat in the allotment currently


Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and populations, this action has taken place in Sixmile Creek on the state managed portion of this allotment and is highly beneficial to WCT overall distribution.



Range improvements


Dispersed Recreation x x x moderate x Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and

probably increase – in the future. Effects to trout are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and

B-98






capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats Travel Management

x x x minor - none

x


Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads in this allotment are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-99


:Fishtrap Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






x x x moderate x

Irrigation diversion effects on grayling occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on grayling is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches are extensive and occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor- none






B-100







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x moderate x Non-native fish are and will continue to exert negative pressure on Arctic grayling populations in the Fishtrap Creek drainages.

AG restoration projects x x x moderate x

Restoration activities targeting grayling habitat have taken place in theFishtrap Creek watersheds, even in the short term grayling have responded positively to these actions and will likely continue to do so as streambanks and vegetation fully recover and develop



Range improvements





minor- none

x


B-101






allotment are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-102


:Mudd Creek Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



x x x minor - mod

x

Irrigation diversion effects on toads and other amphibians occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on toads is probably low to moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and there are large and extensive ditches and diversions on national forest lands in the Mudd and York watershed


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor x Large scale sagebrush manipulation has some risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, and possibly through site conversion away from naturally occurring vegetation.





B-103









no effect


no effect






no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-104








Climatic Events

x moderate x


Mining

x x x moderate x



B-105


:Mudd Creek Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor- none






B-106







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements





minor- none

x

B-107







Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-108


:Mudd Creek Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations







x x x moderate x

Irrigation diversion effects on trout occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on trout is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches are extensive and occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest. The flow regime of York Gulch is very heavily influenced by the interbasin ditch from the WF Mudd Creek.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x minor- none





x x x moderate x Timber management impacts are common and widespread throughout this allotment from past harvests and associated roads. Riparian areas and wetlands

B-109






have been impacted through sedimentation related to these activities. Hazard Tree Removal – Developed sites and roadsides

x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x major x



Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and populations. This was conducted in York Gulch and WF Mudd Creek in 2013 and will likely prove to be highly beneficial to WCT overall distribution.



Range improvements x x minor x Range improvements are expected to help with livestock distribution, decreasing

impacts to streams, ponds and wetlands. York Gulch has a cattle exclosure fence blocking cattle from 90% of the WCT in the stream.

B-110








Travel Management x x minor x


Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-111


:Mudd Creek Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






x x x moderate x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-112







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x moderate x Non-native fish are and will continue to exert negative pressure on Arctic grayling populations in the Fishtrap Creek drainages.


Restoration activities targeting grayling habitat have taken place in theFishtrap Creek watersheds, even in the short term grayling have responded positively to these actions and will likely continue to do so as streambanks and vegetation fully recover and develop



Range improvements





minor- none

x


B-113






allotment are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-114


:Pintlar Creek Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



x x x minor - mod

x

Irrigation diversion effects on toads and other amphibians occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on toads is probably low to moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and there are large and extensive ditches and diversions on national forest lands in the Pintlar watershed


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor x Large scale sagebrush manipulation has some risk of influencing individuals directly during the action, and possibly through site conversion away from naturally occurring vegetation.





B-115









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-116






Travel Management

x x x minor x


Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads are a small source of traffic related mortality and some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events

x moderate x


Mining

x x x moderate x



B-117


:Pintlar Creek Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-118







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements





minor- none

x

B-119







Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-120


:Pintlar Creek Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations







Irrigation diversion effects on trout occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on trout is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches are extensive and occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-121







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x major x



Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and populations. Opportunities for this action have not been identified in this allotment, but would be highly beneficial to WCT overall distribution.



Range improvements




B-122






capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats Travel Management x x x minor x


Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-123


:Pintlar Creek Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






x x x moderate x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-124







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x moderate x Non-native fish are and will continue to exert negative pressure on Arctic grayling populations.


Restoration activities targeting grayling habitat have taken place in the Big Hole River watersheds, even in the short term grayling have responded positively to these actions and will likely continue to do so as streambanks and vegetation fully recover and develop



Range improvements


Dispersed Recreation

x x x moderate x

Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to grayling are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats. Pintler campground is on the shores of Pintler Lake and recreation associated with this creates some shoreline disturbance in the form of fishing and trails.


minor- none

x

B-125






Roads and Trails x x x moderate x Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads are extensive in this allotment are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat

Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-126


:Mussigbrod Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



x x x minor - mod

x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-127









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-128






Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x


Mining

x x x moderate x



B-129


:Mussigbrod Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations







x x x moderate x

Irrigation diversion effects on mussels occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on mussels is probably moderate because they are somewhat mobile and can select where they want to become established and this allotment encompasses some diversions on national forest lands. Flows and mussel habitat are altered in Mussigbrod Creek due to diversions.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-130







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments x x minor x

Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for mussels since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment. Mussigbrod Lake is an impoundment upstream from mussel habitat in Mussigbrod Creek







Range improvements




Travel Management x x x minor x

B-131








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-132


:Mussigbrod Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-133







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x major x



Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and populations. Opportunities for this action have not been identified in this allotment, but would be highly beneficial to WCT overall distribution.



Range improvements




B-134








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-135


:Mussigbrod Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






Irrigation diversion effects on grayling occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on grayling is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






Hazard Tree Removal –

x x minor- x Hazard tree removal timber harvest may have minor effects on fishery habitat

B-136






Developed sites and roadsides

none


no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments x x x minor x

Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for fish since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment. Mussigbrod Lake and flows to Mussigbrod Creek are altered by the impoundment and diversions.







Range improvements


Dispersed Recreation

x x x moderate x

Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to grayling are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats. Mussigbrod campground is on the shores of Mussigbrod Lake and recreation associated with this create some shoreline disturbance in the form of fishing and trails.


Roads and Trails x x x moderate x Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads in this allotment are a

B-137






source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat. Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-138


:Ruby Creek Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



x x x minor - mod

x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-139









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-140






Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x


Mining

x x x moderate x

Mining in the Ruby watershed is widespread and has altered stream channels and water quality. Additionally, mining created impoundments that can be used as breeding sites by amphibians. Since amphibians are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, impoundments of this nature can have moderately negative impacts.


B-141


:Ruby Creek Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations





Livestock grazing affects trout, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. The presence of cattle also poses the risk of trampling on trout spawning redds. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative.


Irrigation diversion effects on mussels occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on mussels is probably moderate because they are somewhat mobile and can select where they want to become established and this allotment encompasses some diversions on national forest lands


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-142







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments


Non-native fish stocking x x x major x



x x major x WCT restoration projects reverse some of the negative impacts of nonnative fish presence, so we expect a minor positive impact.



Range improvements





B-143








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Mining in the Ruby watershed is widespread and has altered stream channels and water quality. Since mussels are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.x

Disease

B-144


:Ruby Creek Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-145







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x major x



x x major x Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and populations.



Range improvements




B-146









Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x


Mining x x x moderate x Mining in the Ruby watershed is widespread and has altered stream channels and water quality. Since trout are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease

B-147


Ruby Creek Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations








x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-148







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments

x x minor x Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for fish since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment.







Range improvements



Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to grayling are likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats.


Roads and Trails x x x moderate x Roads and Trails: There are no foreseeable actions that would add permanent roads or trails around the project area. Existing roads in this allotment are a source of some sedimentation into riparian habitat.

B-149






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Mining in the Ruby watershed is widespread and has altered stream channels and water quality. Since salmonids are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease

B-150


:Dry Creek Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



x x x minor - mod

x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-151









no effect


no effect




Nonnative predatory fishes have been known to negatively impact amphibian populations. This is not considered to be a major population impact to western toads, but may have a minor negative effect. Twin Lakes is occupied by predatory fishes.


x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements


B-152







Dispersed recreation is common across the analysis area and will continue – and probably increase – in the future. Effects to toads and other amphibians is likely moderate, because of the attraction of water for recreationists and the opportunity for them to find and capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats. Twin Lakes campground is right on the shores of Twin Lakes and habitat impacts are evident.

Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x


Mining x x x moderate x Mining in this allotment has occurred and has altered stream channels and water quality to a minor degree in this allotment.


B-153


:Dry Creek Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations





Livestock grazing affects trout, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. The presence of cattle also poses the risk of trampling on trout spawning redds. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative.




x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-154







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments


Non-native fish stocking x x x major x



x x major x WCT restoration projects reverse some of the negative impacts of nonnative fish presence, so we expect a minor positive impact.



Range improvements





B-155








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-156


:Dry Creek Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-157







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x major x



Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and population, opportunities for this action have not been identified in this allotment, but would be highly beneficial to WCT overall distribution.



Range improvements




B-158






capture individuals and disturb riparian habitats Travel Management x x minor x


Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x


Mining

Disease

B-159


:Dry Creek Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations








x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-160







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements





B-161








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Mining has altered stream channels and water quality. Since salmonids are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease

B-162


:Twin Lakes Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



x x x minor - mod

x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-163









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-164






Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x



Mining has altered stream channels and water quality. Additionally, mining created impoundments that can be used as breeding sites by amphibians. Since amphibians are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, impoundments of this nature can have moderately negative impacts.


B-165


:Twin Lakes Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations





Livestock grazing affects mussels, because it alters stream morphology and vegetative conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. The presence of cattle also poses the risk of trampling on mussels in the stream substrate. Changes related to grazing tend to be inherently negative




x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-166







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments


Non-native fish stocking x x major x






Range improvements






B-167






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-168


:Twin Lakes Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-169







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x major x






Range improvements




B-170








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x


Mining Mining has altered stream channels and water quality. Since salmonids are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease

B-171


:Twin Lakes Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






x x x moderate x



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-172







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements






B-173






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-174


:Monument Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x


Irrigation diversion x x x

minor - mod

x Irrigation diversion effects on toads and other amphibians occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on toads is probably low to moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established and there are ditches and diversions on national forest lands in the allotment.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-175









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-176






Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x





B-177


:Monument Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-178







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements






B-179






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x


Mining Mining can alter stream channels and water quality. Since mussels are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts

Disease

B-180


:Monument Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-181







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x major x






Range improvements




B-182








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Disease

B-183


:Monument Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






Irrigation diversion effects on grayling occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on grayling is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-184







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments

x x x minor x Water impoundments may pose minor negative effects for fish since natural water flow must be disrupted to create the impoundment.







Range improvements





B-185








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x


Mining

Disease

B-186


:Pioneer Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



minor - mod



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-187









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-188






Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x





B-189


:Pioneer Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-190







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements






B-191






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Mining can alter stream channels and water quality. Since mussels are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts

Disease

B-192


:Pioneer Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-193







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x major x






Range improvements




B-194








Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Disease

B-195


:Pioneer Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






Irrigation diversion effects on grayling occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on grayling is probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-196







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements






B-197






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-198


:Saginaw Allotment Western Toads and Other Amphibians - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect, and a rating of their influence on populations




Livestock Grazing

x x x minor x



minor - mod



x x x minor - none

x



minor - none








B-199









no effect


no effect






x no effect


minor -none


Range improvements




B-200






Travel Management

x x x minor x



Climatic Events

x moderate x





B-201


:Saginaw Allotment Western Pearlshell Mussel - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-202







x x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements






B-203






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x



Mining can alter stream channels and water quality. Since mussels are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts

Disease

B-204


:Saginaw Allotment Westslope Cutthroat Trout - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations









x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-205







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments



x x x major x



Westslope cutthroat trout restoration projects aim to remove non-native fish influence by securing WCT habitat and population. This would prove to be very difficult in streams in this allotment given the valley shape of these streams.



Range improvements




B-206









Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x


Mining x x x moderate x Mining has altered stream channels and water quality. Since trout are sensitive to metals and other water quality impairments typical of mining, mining can have moderately negative impacts.

Disease

B-207


:Saginaw Allotment Arctic Grayling - List of past present and reasonably foreseeable actions and natural events that are most likely to currently or in the future affect and a rating of their influence on populations






x x x moderate x

Irrigation diversion effects on grayling occur through the loss of instream flows. The effects on grayling are probably moderate because they are mobile and can select where they want to become established. In this allotment, ditches are extensive and occur on national forest lands as well as downstream of national forest.


x x x minor - none

x



minor - none



x x minor- none






B-208







x x minor- none



no effect


no effect

Water Impoundments








Range improvements






B-209






Climatic Events

x x x moderate x x




Disease

B-210


Species Habitat or structural component

Presence/Absence (MTNHP Tracker 2011) and Determination

Bald Eagle River or lake habitat Bald eagle nests forage and winter along the Big Hole River Valley. Addressed as sensitive species.

Swainson’s Hawk

Shrubsteppe, prairies, open woodlands

No detections within the allotments, but some migratory records through the Big Hole Landscape. Livestock grazing is not expected to impact migration. Conversion of grasslands to croplands and insecticide use are the main threats to this species and none of the alternatives in this project include these actions. There appears to be no conflict from any grazing option and management of this species.

Ferruginous Hawk

Dry open country including native prairie, but also shrubsteppe, plains

No detections within the allotments, but some migratory records through the Big Hole Landscape. Livestock grazing is not expected to impact migration. There appears to be no conflict from any grazing option in this proposed project and management of this species.

Peregrine Falcon

Nests on cliffs This species is not known or expected to occur in the project area. Addressed as sensitive species.

Upland Sandpiper

Prairie grasslands, but also wet and dry meadows, hayfields

This species is not known in the project area as the allotments. There is one non-breeding record of this species in the Big Hole Valley, and migration through the valley is possible. It is ranked S4 (apparently secure) in the Montana Field Guide (MTNHP 2013). Livestock grazing is not expected to impact migration of this species and there appears to be no conflict from any alternatives in this proposed project and management of this species.

Long-billed Curlew

Shortgrass and grazed mixed-grass prairies

As with the upland sandpiper, this is a grassland /native prairie species. Widespread conversion of native short-grass prairie grasslands to agricultural operations and pesticide use has adversely affected populations. It can be found on the valley floors and does migrate through the Big Hole Valley. There are no records of this species within these allotments, which are not classified as short-grass prairie habitat. Livestock grazing is not expected to impact migration of this species through the valley. Grazing as proposed in this project would occur after nesting season. Consequently, adverse impacts from these alternatives to nesting birds are unlikely.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Found west of Continental Divide, uses cottonwood willow riparian bottoms

Outside of the range of this species in Montana.

Flammulated Owl

Mature ponderosa pine but also PP/Douglas-fir

Habitat is present however; livestock grazing and range improvements as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact this species or its forested habitat.

Black Swift Steep cliffs, canyons, nest on rock behind waterfalls

Habitat is present however; livestock grazing and range improvements as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact this species or its habitat. There are no apparent conflicts from any of the alternatives with this species.

Calliope Hummingbird

Open montane forest, meadows, burned areas

The Montana Field Guide (MTNHP 2013) heritage ranking is S5 (secure) which is the most biologically secure heritage ranking possible. Habitat is present and species is known near the allotments in the project area (previously burned areas). However, livestock grazing has not been identified as a threat to this species. According to the Montana Bird Conservation Plan (MTPIF 2000), the Calliope Hummingbird population is increasing in the State. With no vegetation management proposed by any alternatives, there appears to be no conflict from any alternative and management of the Calliope hummingbird.

B-211




Lewis’ woodpecker

Open forest and woodland, and is strongly associated with fire-maintained old-growth ponderosa pine and riparian cottonwood forest.

No detections in the allotments and there are no ponderosa pine or riparian cottonwood forest in the allotments. Livestock grazing and range improvements as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact this species or its forested habitat. Species is not known in the project area and with no vegetation management proposed by any alternatives; there appears to be no conflict from any grazing option and management of the Lewis’s Woodpecker.

Williamson’s sapsucker

Montane conifer forest as well as aspen woodland

Habitat is present however; livestock grazing and range improvements as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact this species or its forested habitat. There are no apparent conflicts from any of the alternatives with this species.

White-headed woodpecker

Open coniferous and deciduous forest

The Montana Field Guide (MTNHP 2013) notes this woodpecker as an accidental species with a heritage ranking of SNA. This is defined as “Species that arrived in Montana via unknown or uncommon circumstances, which could include weather related events or other migratory disturbances. The term Accidental Species is often assigned to species that have less than 20 verified observations in Montana. Livestock grazing and range improvements as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact this species or its forested habitat.

Olive-sided flycatcher

Montane conifer forest, especially burned areas with snags

Habitat is present however; none of the project alternatives proposes any vegetation treatment. With a secure state heritage ranking across a state-wide landscape that currently supports livestock grazing across all landownerships season-wide, none of the grazing alternatives for the project appear to present conflicts with managing the species.

Willow flycatcher

Dense willow thickets; low, dense, riparian woodland. The shrubs should be 6-7 ft. tall at minimum (MTPIF 2000). Shrub thickets interspersed with openings are used more than large continuous stands of willow. In one study, most nests were found in willow patch size of 20 or more acres; patches 10 acres or less were seldom used (Serena 1982; Harris et al. 1988).

The Montana Field Guide (MTNHP 2013) species account notes a State heritage ranking of S4 (apparently secure). Habitat is present and species has been documented within the allotments. Livestock grazing has the potential to impact this species and its habitat. However, populations have increased in response to reductions in cattle grazing and willow control in riparian areas (Dobkin 1994 in MTPIF 2000). Populations have shown an upward trend in both the Northern Rockies and in Montana (MTPIF 2000). Implementation of the revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2009) aquatics standards is expected to enhance riparian habitat. While some disturbance to the willow flycatcher can be expected, habitat conditions are expected to improve over time under all alternatives. The no grazing alternative appears to provide the greatest likelihood of improvement. Given the species apparently secure status State-wide in the face of widespread grazing across all ownerships, implementation of any of the grazing alternatives with the accompanying Forest Plan aquatics standards is expected to maintain and improve habitat for the species.

B-212




Loggerhead shrike

Open areas dominated by grasses and/or forbs, interspersed with shrubs or trees and bare ground-shrub steppe habitat

Suitable habitat for this species is present within the allotments, and in the Big Hole Valley, however this species has not been detected. Conversion of shrub-steppe to agriculture and bioaccumulation of pesticides for insect control are threats to the species. Given the wide general distribution state-wide and the availability of shrub-steppe habitat in the allotments, the shrike could be found in the allotments. None of the alternatives propose any vegetation treatment or habitat conversion to any agricultural use. Consequently, there will be no loss of shrub-steppe habitat available for potential shrike use. None of the alternatives propose any habitat conversion or insecticide use. Consequently, adverse impacts from these alternatives to this species are unlikely.

Sage thrasher Lower elevation shrubsteppe, sagebrush communities

Habitat is present, however marginal as it is on the upper elevation limit where this species prefers and they have not been documented in the allotments. Livestock grazing can also have a positive effect, depending on the plant community, composition, timing and duration (MTPIF 2000). Analysis of breeding bird data indicates that Sage Thrasher population trends are stable in Montana and the western region (MTPIF 2000). Fragmentation of sage habitat and invasion of non-native plants can negatively impact this species. Fragmentation increases habitat edges which can result in an increase in predation and parasitism. Non-native vegetation can reduce food availability. There will be no habitat conversions of sagebrush in these alternatives. Consequently, adverse impacts from these alternatives to this species are unlikely.

Brewer’s sparrow

Shrubsteppe, shortgrass prairie with scattered shrubs

Habitat is present and livestock grazing has the potential to impact this species and its habitat. Reductions in sagebrush cover and vigor from burning or herbicides will reduce or eliminate habitat suitability for the species. Long-term viability of this species in Montana will depend on the maintenance of large stands of sagebrush (PIF 2000). According to the Montana Bird Conservation Plan (PIF 2000), implementing recommendations for sage-grouse should encompass all the needs of brewer’s sparrows. See the Greater Sage-grouse analysis for a more detailed effects analysis.

Sage sparrow Shrubsteppe, especially sagebrush dominated

Habitat is present and livestock grazing has the potential to impact this species and its habitat. However, in Montana this species is not considered a species of conservation concern. Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. It is also a MTFWP Conservation Tier III species meaning although important to Montana’s wildlife diversity, this species, communities, and focus areas are either: 1) abundant and widespread or are 2) believed to have adequate conservation already in place (Montana Field Guide, MTNHP 2013).

B-213




McCown’s longspur

Shortgrass prairie, heavily grazed mixed-grass prairie

The predominant threat is habitat destruction due to agricultural conversion and development of native prairie habitat. Restriction of fire also reduced available shortgrass prairie. The limited detections in southwest Montana could be related to the relative absence of shortgrass prairie habitat. The allotment areas in particular are shrub-steppe sagebrush habitat. None of the alternatives propose any habitat alteration. With no true shortgrass prairie habitat in the allotments, there is a low likelihood of the species using the project. Therefore, adverse impacts from these alternatives to nesting birds are unlikely.

Black Rosy Finch

Alpine tundra in summer, lower on mountain slopes in winter. Nests in crevices in cliffs and talus among glaciers and snowfields above timberline

Habitat is not present within suitable rangelands within the allotments and no impacts to this species or its high alpine habitat are expected.

Cassin’s finch Open coniferous forests of interior western mountains along with mature forests of lodgepole pine

Habitat is present however; livestock grazing and range improvements as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact this species or its forested habitat.

B-214


Notes: (1) For those areas identified as occupied lynx habitat in the Occupied Mapped Lynx Habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement (USDA Forest Service et al. 2006), management direction are the standards and guidelines displayed below. As stated in the ROD (p. 29) unoccupied forests should consider this management direction. (2) Where superscript numbers (43) appear, refer to the Glossary in Chapter 5 of the DEIS under Wildlife.

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Is direction applicable to this project and has it been met

(Yes or No and Met or Not Met)? Where direction is applicable but has not been met,

explain the reason(s).

ALL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES (ALL) The following objectives, standards and guidelines apply to management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU) and in linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to wildfire suppression, or to wildland fire use

Standard43 ALL S1 New or expanded permanent developments33 and vegetation management projects48 must maintain26 habitat connectivity16 in an LAU21 and/or linkage area22.

Yes and Met. The locations of new permanent developments in the action alternatives such as fencing and water developments would maintain habitat connectivity. Grazing would maintain habitat connectivity.

Guideline15 ALL G1 Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used when constructing or reconstructing highways18 or forest highways12 across federal land. Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses.

No, Not applicable. This project is not constructing highways.

Standard LAU S1 Changes in LAU21 boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and after review by the Forest Service Regional Office.

No, Not applicable. This project is not changing LAU boundaries.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJETS (VEG) The following objectives, standards and guidelines apply to vegetation management projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU). With the exception of Objective VEG O3 that specifically concerns wildland fire use, the objectives, standards and guidelines do not apply to wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, or removal of vegetation for permanent developments like mineral operations, ski runs, roads and the like. None of the objectives, standards, or guidelines apply to linkage areas.

B-215





Standard VEG S1 – Stand initiation structural stage limits Standard VEG S1 applies to all vegetation management48 projects that regenerate37 timber, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI) 49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Unless a broad scale assessment has been completed that substantiates different historic levels of stand initiation structural stages44 limit disturbance in each LAU as follows:

If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an LAU is currently in a stand initiation structural stage that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects.

No not applicable, this is not a vegetation management project.

Standard VEG S2 – Limits on regeneration from timber mgmt. projects

Standard VEG S2 applies to all vegetation management48 projects that regenerate37 timber, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Timber management projects shall not regenerate37 more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU in a ten-year period.


B-216





Standard VEG S5 – Precommercial thinning limits Standard VEG S5 applies to all precommercial thinning35 projects, except for fuel treatment13 projects that use precommercial thinning as a tool within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation:

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Precommercial thinning projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat, may occur from the stand initiation structural stage44 until the stands no longer provide winter snowshoe hare habitat only:

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings;or2. For research studies38 or genetic tree tests evaluatinggenetically improved reforestation stock; or3. Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted

by the regional levels of the Forest Service and FWS, where awritten determination states:

a. that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or

b. that a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynxor its habitat, but would result in long-term benefits to lynx andits habitat; or

4. For conifer removal in aspen, or daylight thinning5 aroundindividual aspen trees, where aspen is in decline; or5. For daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant white pine where

80 % of the winter snowshoe hare habitat50 is retained; or 6. To restore whitebark pine.

No, Not Applicable. The project is not a precommercial thinning project.

B-217





Standard VEG S6 – Multi-storied stands & snowshoe hare horizontal cover

Standard VEG S6 applies to all vegetation management48 projects, except for fuel treatment13 projects within the wildland urban interface (WUI)49 as defined by HFRA, subject to the following limitation: Fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 that do not meet Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 may occur on no more than 6 percent (cumulatively) of lynx habitat on each administrative unit (a unit is a National Forest). For fuel treatment projects within the WUI49 see guideline VEG G10.

The Standard: Vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or late successional forests29 may occur only:

1. Within 200 feet of administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings,recreation sites, and special use permit improvements, includinginfrastructure within permitted ski area boundaries; or2. For research studies38 or genetic tree tests evaluatinggenetically improved reforestation stock; or3. For incidental removal during salvage harvest41 (e.g. removaldue to location of skid trails).(NOTE: Timber harvest is allowed in areas that have potential toimprove winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorlydeveloped understories that lack dense horizontal cover [e.g.uneven age management systems could be used to createopenings where there is little understory so that new forage cangrow]).


Guideline VEG G1 – Lynx habitat improvement Vegetation management48 projects should be planned to recruit a high density of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such habitat is scarce or not available. Priority should be given to stem-exclusion, closed-canopy structural stage44 stands for lynx or their prey (e.g. mesic, monotypic lodgepole stands).

Winter snowshoe hare habitat50 should be near denning habitat6.


B-218





Guideline VEG G4 – Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire34 activities should not create permanent travel routes that facilitate snow compaction. Constructing permanent firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be avoided.


Guideline VEG G5 – Habitat for alternate prey species Habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel36, should be provided in each LAU.


Guideline VEG G10 – Fuel treatments in the WUI Fuel treatment projects in the WUI 49 as defined by HFRA17, 48 should be designed considering standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 to promote lynx conservation.


Guideline VEG G11 – Denning habitat Denning habitat6 should be distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of large amounts of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of small wind thrown trees (“jack-strawed” piles). If denning habitat appears to be lacking in the LAU, then projects should be designed to retain some coarse woody debris4, piles, or residual trees to provide denning habitat6 in the future.


LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT (GRAZ) The following objectives and guidelines apply to grazing projects in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU). They do not apply to linkage areas.

Guideline GRAZ G1 – Livestock grazing and openings In fire- and harvest-created openings, livestock grazing should be managed so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating.

Yes, Met. Livestock will be managed in all action alternatives so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from regenerating.

Guideline GRAZ G2 – Livestock grazing and aspen In aspen stands, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to the long-term health and sustainability of aspen.

Yes, Met. Livestock grazing in the action alternatives will maintain the long-term health of this species.

B-219





Guideline GRAZ G3 – Livestock grazing and riparian areas & willow carrs

In riparian areas40 and willow carrs3, livestock grazing should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages28 , similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

Yes, Met. Livestock grazing in the action alternatives will maintain or achieve similar conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

Guideline GRAZ G4 – Livestock grazing and shrub-steppe habitats In shrub-steppe habitats42, livestock grazing should be managed in the elevation ranges of forested lynx habitat in LAUs21, to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

Yes, Met. Livestock grazing in the action alternatives will maintain or achieve similar conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

HUMAN USE PROJETS (HU) The following objectives and guidelines apply to human use projects, such as special uses (other than grazing), recreation management, roads, highways, mineral and energy development, in lynx habitat in lynx analysis units (LAU), subject to valid existing rights. They do not apply to vegetation management projects or grazing projects directly. They do not apply to linkage areas.

Guideline HU G1 – Ski area expansion & development, inter-trail islands

When developing or expanding ski areas, provisions should be made for adequately sized inter-trail islands that include coarse woody debris4, so winter snowshoe hare habitat49 is maintained.

No, Not applicable. This is not a ski area project.

Guideline HU G2 – Ski area expansion & development, foraging habitat

When developing or expanding ski areas, foraging should be provided consistent with the ski area’s operational needs, especially where lynx habitat occurs as narrow bands of coniferous forest across mountain slopes.


B-220





Guideline HU G3 – Recreation developments Recreation developments and operations should be planned in ways that both provide for lynx movement and maintain the effectiveness of lynx habitat23.

No, Not applicable. No recreation developments are planned under the action alternative.

Guideline HU G4 – Mineral & energy development For mineral and energy development sites and facilities, remote monitoring should be encouraged to reduce snow compaction.

No, Not applicable. This is not a mineral & energy development project.

Guideline HU G5 – Mineral & energy development, habitat restoration For mineral and energy development sites and facilities that are closed, a reclamation plan that restores39 lynx habitat should be developed.

No, Not applicable. This is not a mineral & energy development project.

Guideline HU G6 – Roads, upgrading Methods to avoid or reduce effects to lynx should be used in lynx habitat when upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in human activity or development.

No, Not applicable. The action alternative will not upgrade any roads to maintenance level 4 or 5.

Guideline HU G7 – Roads, locations New permanent roads should not be built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas identified as important for lynx habitat connectivity16. New permanent roads and trails should be situated away from forested stringers.

No, Not applicable, no new permanent roads are proposed.

Guideline HU G8 – Roads, brushing Cutting brush along low-speed25, low-traffic-volume roads should be done to the minimum level necessary to provide for public safety.

No, Not applicable. Road brushing is not proposed under the action alternatives.

Guideline HU G9 – Roads, new On new roads built for projects, public motorized use should be restricted. Effective closures should be provided in road designs. When the project is over, these roads should be reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for other management objectives.

No, Not applicable. No new permanent roads are proposed under the action alternatives.

Guideline HU G10 – Roads, ski area access When developing or expanding ski areas and trails, access roads and lift termini to maintain and provide lynx security10 habitat.


B-221





Guideline HU G11 – Snow compaction Designated over-the-snow routes, or designated play areas, should not expand outside baseline areas of consistent snow compaction1, unless designation serves to consolidate use and improve lynx habitat. This is calculated on an LAU basis, or on a combination of immediately adjacent LAUs.

This does not apply inside permitted ski area boundaries, to winter logging, to rerouting trails for public safety, to accessing private inholdings, or to access regulated by Guideline HU G12. Use the same analysis boundaries for all actions subject to this guideline.

No, Not applicable. The action alternative does not include any designation of over-the-snow routes, and is not a recreation project.

Guideline HU G12 – Winter access for non-recreation SUP & mineral & energy development

Winter access for non-recreation special uses, and mineral and energy exploration and development, should be limited to designated routes8 or designated over-the-snow routes7.

No, Not applicable. This is not a mineral & energy development or non-recreational special use project.

LINKAGE AREAS (LINK) The following objective, standard and guidelines apply to all projects within linkage areas, subject to valid existing rights.

Standard LINK S1 – Highway or forest highway construction in linkage areas

When highway18 or forest highway12 construction or reconstruction is proposed in linkage areas22, identify potential highway crossings.

No, Not applicable. This project does not construct highways.

Guideline LINK G1 – Land exchanges NFS lands should be retained in public ownership.

No, Not applicable. This project does not include any land exchanges.

Guideline LINK G2 – Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats Livestock grazing in shrub-steppe habitats42 should be managed to contribute to maintaining or achieving a preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages28, similar to conditions that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

Yes, Met. Livestock will be managed in all action alternatives so impacts maintain or achieve conditions similar to that would have occurred under historic disturbance regimes.

B-222


Regional Forester's sensitive species

Common and scientific name Status Habitat requirements and local range Presence/Absence and Effects Additional

analysis?

Gray wolf (Canis lupis)

R1 Sensitive Resident, transient; forests in western Montana; habitat generalist

There are multiple wolf packs in area (Hanauska-Brown et. al 2011). MAY IMPACT

Analyzed further above.

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

USFWS Candidate;

R1 Sensitive

Eastern, central, and southwestern Montana in sagebrush, sagebrush-grasslands and associated

agricultural lands.

No lek sites within the allotments, however there are multiple leks within the Big Hole

Valley and sage-grouse may use the allotments on occasion. MAY IMPACT


American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus

anatum)

R1 Sensitive Peregrine falcons nest on cliffs and rock outcrops. They forage anywhere but prefer riparian areas. Foraging may occur at any one of the 38 named

lakes in this area.

Peregrine falcons occur on the Forest; however, there are no eyries within or near the

allotments. NO IMPACT

Not analyzed further.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

R1 Sensitive Bald eagles nest almost exclusively in live trees usually within 1 mile and in line of sight of a large

river or lake.

Bald eagle nests forage and winter along the Big Hole River Valley however, the presence livestock grazing as proposed in the action alternatives are not expected to impact bald

eagles. NO IMPACT


Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)

R1 Sensitive This species is a primary cavity nesting species that uses areas recently disturbed by fire or mechanisms resulting in an abundance of wood boring insects for

prey.

Direct or indirect impacts to the black-backed woodpecker are not expected because there are no vegetation treatments proposed that

would impact this species habitat or individuals. NO IMPACT


Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus)

R1 Sensitive This species is an insectivorous, obligate secondary cavity nester that commonly breeds in ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous forest in western North

America.

Direct or indirect impacts to this species are not expected because there is no vegetation treatments proposed that would impact this species habitat or individuals. NO IMPACT


Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

R1 Sensitive Harlequin ducks are summer migrants to south-central Montana and use streams typically more

than 4 meters wide, more than 3 percent gradient, with a cobble substrate and with a well-developed

riparian vegetation community.

There is no habitat for this species within the allotments and no recorded observations of harlequin ducks. The nearest detections are on the Pintler RD more than 40 miles to the

northwest. NO IMPACT


Trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator)

R1 Sensitive Trumpeter swans are resident and migratory on the southern end of the Forest, and nesting habitat is

associated with lake edge and marshland.

No nesting or winter habitat occurs within the allotments area. Only nesting within the forest is at the Conklin Lake private inholding and on Elk Lake, on the Madison District. NO IMPACT


B-223




analysis?

Fisher (Martes pennanti)

R1 Sensitive Fishers occur in a variety of low and mid-elevation forested plant communities are associated with moderate to dense forest canopy, are frequently

associated with complex forest structure and riparian areas or water west of the Continental

Divide in Montana

The allotments are outside the Montana range of the fisher. (Heritage Tracker and Vinkey

2003). NO IMPACT


Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

R1 Sensitive The patchy distribution of the spotted bat is thought to be a result of its dependency on rock-faced cliff

roosting habitat. It also uses a wide range of habitat for foraging, from montane forests to wooded

riparian areas to open desert.

The alternatives would not impact cliff or canyon habitat and is unlikely to impact the

distribution or abundance of prey species for the spotted bat. NO IMPACT


Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

R1 Sensitive This bat uses caves and mines during all stages of its life cycle, but specifically for winter hibernacula

and maternity colonies. Large tree cavities and hollow trees are known to be used for day roosts.

The alternatives would not affect caves, mineshafts, tunnels, or abandoned buildings and this species is not known in the project

area. NO IMPACT


Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis)

R1 Sensitive This species is primarily associated with sphagnum bogs, wet meadows, moist mixed and coniferous

forests and mossy stream sides.

There is one location, Hanby Swamp, located within the allotments that has potential bog

lemming habitat. MAY IMPACT


Great Basin pocket mouse

(Perognathus parvus)

R1 Sensitive This species inhabits grasslands, sagebrush/steppe, wooded sites and riparian areas, and typically

forages for and caches seeds. Land management designed to maintain a mosaic of sagebrush cover,

size, and age classes will benefit this species.

The allotments are outside of the range of the species in of Montana. NO IMPACT


Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)

R1 Sensitive Pygmy rabbits are typically associated with basin terrain and dense stands of big sagebrush.

This species was found in the project area during surveys. However, loss of habitat through fire, grazing, invasion of exotic annuals, and agricultural conversion is the most significant factor contributing to pygmy rabbit population declines. This project does not propose any activities that would contribute to a loss of sagebrush. Rauscher (1997) reports that pygmy rabbits are surviving and even thriving at current grazing levels in certain areas of southwest Montana. MAY IMPACT


B-224




analysis?

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)

R1 Sensitive Bighorn sheep are primarily animals of open habitats, such as alpine meadows, open grasslands, shrub-steppe, talus slopes, rock outcrops, and cliffs;

in some places, however, they may use areas of deciduous and conifer forests, especially where

openings may have been created by clearcuts or fire.

Bighorn sheep are not currently found in or near the allotment boundaries. NO IMPACT


B-225


SW Montana Elk Population Trend 1992-2011 FWP

SW MT Elk

Mngmt Units

(EMU)

1992 Elk Plan SW MT EMU Estimate

2004 Elk Plan SW MT EMU Estimate

BDNF Hunting Districts within

SW MT EMUs

2004 FWP State

Elk Plan Obj.

+ 20%

FWP 2003

Estimate + 10%

FWP 2006

Estimate + 10%

FWP 2007 Est.

+ 10%

FWP 2008 Est.

FWP 2010 Est.

FWP 2011 Est.

Deerlodge 2350 1879 210 2500 1043 952 1020 1391 1644 2683

Flint Cr 1400 1500 211 600 679 485 262 135 1125 334

Rock Cr 2200 3165 212 850 1100 1074 1494 1825 2504 2693

Sapphire 3500 3500 213 650 401 689 484 660 1325 1243 Highland 1600 1500 214 200 309 270 284 331 400 193

Fleecer 1500 2000 215 1000 736 1144 1234 1502 2145 2569

Gravelly 7000-7500 9000 216 325 457 288 473 140 314 279

Madison 6500-7000 7200 300 700-900 615 1137 1450 1883 806 2129

T-Root 800-900 1350 302 550-700 399 736 956 1195 783 1239

Tendoy 2000 2200 311 2700 2096 3100 3000 2620 2620 2620

Pioneer 3000 1900 318 500 366 383 535 656 519 519

319 1100 Max 1515 936 819 911 854 1023

320 333

1000 for both

1130 549

942 470

745 477

954 859 1433 1573

321 None No winter elk

No winter elk

No winter elk

No est. No est. No est.

323 324 327 330 Total

Gravelly EMU Total = 7000

8063 6314 5309 6204 At obj. 12,066

328 550-700 574 650 635 620 643 1008

329 900 Max 582 683 727 766 partial survey, 273

1190

331 1400 Max 1250 896 1085 773 869 930

332 900 Max 506 600 376 588 568 494

340 350 370

1600 combined for all

219 602 330 (1151)

557 268 192 (1017)

839 500

(1339)

423 529 529 (1481)

1915 for all at objective

340= 1164 350= 713 370= HD 340

341 600 Max 669 494 272 166 416 370

360 2200 4555 1914 1661 2494 1090 1396

362 2500 1159 3629 3845 3524 4203 4029

Total SW MT EMU Est.

31,850-32,950 35,194 TOTAL 30,575 28,074 28,803 *− 28,48

2 −

31,925 ↑

31,305 −∕↑

42,457 ↑

B-226


Date post:	16-Dec-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trandang
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

North and West Big Hole AMPs Final Environmental Impact...

Documents