SSOURI
BREAKS
Grazing Environmental Statement
maev
DEPARTMENT OF THE1NTERIOR
^) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
'MONTANA STATE OFFICE
Bureau of Land Management
Library
Denver Service Center
NOTICE
(Attach to inside front cover of Draft)
This draft environmental statement should be
used in conjunction with the final environmental
statement. The final statement incorporates this
document by reference and includes the modifica-
tions and corrections which should be made to the
draft. The final statement also includes a record of
public comments on this draft and the responses
to those comments.
BLtf Library
D-553A, Buildir>g50
Dexv. »r I od?r^I Center
P. 0. Bcx2£C47 c R
Denver, CO 80325-0047 -> c
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
ON
GRAZING MANAGEMENT IN THE
MISSOURI BREAKS OF MONTANA
Prepared By
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
STATE DIRECTOR
MONTANA STATE OFFICE
Bureau of L,,- Bf||
- \r-j
Denver Service Center
SUMMARY
Draft (x) Final ( ) Environmental Statement
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
1. Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( )
2. Brief Description of Action; The Bureau of Land Management proposes to
implement an improved grazing management program in the "Missouri Breaks" area
of central Montana. The proposed action involves nearly 2,200,000 acres of
public land intermingled with over 6,300,000 acres of state and private land.
Components of the proposed action are:
A. Continued operation of 42 existing Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) .
B. Revision of 10 existing AMPs.
C. Implementation of 266 proposed AMPs.
D. Less intensive management on approximately 251,000 acres of public
land.
E. Continuation of unallotted status on approximately 31,000 acres of
public land.
F. Construction of various range improvements necessary to implement the
grazing systems included in the proposed and revised AMPs.
G. An overall reduction in livestock use of one percent (ranging from
+158 percent to -58 percent on individual allotments) .
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts: Vegetation cover and litter would
increase thereby reducing erosion and improving watershed conditions. Sedi-
ment yield would be reduced by approximately 186,000 tons annually. Although
livestock distribution would be improved, concentrations of livestock would
continue near water sources. Where grazing systems are implemented, desirable
forage species would increase and vegetation vigor and reproduction would be
improved. An increase of about 24,000 AUMs (8 percent increase from initial
stocking proposed) is projected by the year 2000. There would be an increase
in the amount of range in excellent condition (270,000 acres) and a decrease
in the amount in poor condition (2,600 acres) . Overall, wildlife population
numbers would increase slightly. Disturbance of archaeological and historical
resources would occur due to construction of range improvements and livestock
trampling. The proposed range improvements would slightly reduce visual
quality; however, recreational opportunities, primarily hunting, would be
improved. The additional forage resulting from AMP implementation would
result in a small increase ($284,000 yearly) in personal income. The
construction expenditures for the range improvements would result in a more
significant ($1,532,000), though short-term, increase in income.
4. Alternatives Considered
A. Continuation of the Present Grazing Management Program (No Action)
B. Elimination of Livestock on Public Lands
C. Reduced Levels of Livestock Use
D. Livestock Forage Maximization
5- Comments Requested From the Following:
see attachment
6. Date Draft Made Available to EPA and the Public:
ATTACHMENT
Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement will be requested from the
following agencies, interest groups, and individuals:
Federal
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Mines
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
National Park Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Congress ional
Office of Congressman Marlenee
Office of Congressman Williams
Office of Senator Baucus
Office of Senator Melcher
Montana - State Agencies
Association of State Grazing Districts
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Department of State Lands
Governor's Office
Historical Society
Old West Regional Commission
County Commissioners
Blaine County
Chouteau County
Fergus County
Garfield County
Judith Basin County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Petroleum County
Phillips County
Valley County
Local Government
Fort Benton Mayor
Glasgow Mayor
Jordan Mayor
I
Lewis town Mayor
Malta Mayor
Miles City Mayor
Roundup Mayor
Stanford Mayor
Winnett Mayor
Wolf Point Mayor
Other Organizations
Ada County Fish and Game League (Idaho)
American Fisheries Society
American Horse Protective Association
Audubon Society
Badlands County Cooperative State Grazing District (CSGD)
Chain Buttes CSGD
Crooked Creek CSGD
Defenders of Wildlife
Flatwillow CSGD
Friends of the Earth
Grassrange CSGD
Indian Butte CSGD
Izaak Walton League of America
Montana Farm Bureau
Montana Farmers Union
Montana Historical Society
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Montana Wilderness Association
Montana Wildlife Federation
Montana Woolgrowers Association
National Council of Public Land Users
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association, Inc.
Northern Plains Resource Council
Pacific Legal Foundation
Phillips County Cowbelles
Phillips County Livestock Association
Phillips County Soil and Water Conservation District
Public Lands Council
Sierra Club
Society for Range Management
South Phillips County CSGD
The Humane Society of the United States
Valley County Soil and Water Conservation District
Weede CSGD
Wild Horse Organized Assistance
Wilderness Society
Wildlife Society
Williams Coulee CSGD
Winnett CSGD
Individuals
James Morgan (plaintiff in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et
al., vs. Rogers C.B. Morton et al.)
in
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION - CHAPTER ONE
Page
SETTING 1_1
MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND RESOURCE COORDINATION 1-4
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1-4
Livestock Forage Allocation 1-4
Allotment Management Plans 1-11
Objectives 1-11
Grazing Systems 1-13
Rest Rotation Grazing 1-13
Deferred Rotation Grazing 1-13
Seasonal Grazing 1-16
Range Improvements 1-16
Monitoring and Evaluation 1-16
Benefit/Cost Analysis 1-23
Non-AMP Allotments 1-2 3
Unallotted Public Lands 1-2 3
IMPLEMENTATION 1-2 3
INTERRELATIONSHIPS 1-25
Bureau of Land Management - The Upper Missouri
1-25
1-27
1-27
Environmental Protection Agency 1-27
Forest Service 1-2 8
Soil Conservation Service 1-28
Montana Department of Fish and Game 1-2 8
Montana Department of State Lands 1-28
Montana Cooperative State Grazing Districts 1-29
Old West Regional Commission 1-29
Private Grazing Associations 1-29
Wild
and Scenic
River
Bureau
of Indian ,
affairs
Fish ai
-id Wildlife
Service
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT - CHAPTER TWO
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 2-1
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 2-1
SOILS 2-3
WATER RESOURCES 2-12
VEGETATION 2-17
WILDLIFE 2-26
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC FEATURES 2-36
VISUAL RESOURCES 2-44
RECREATION 2-48
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 2-70
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE 2-8 5
Land Ownership 2-8 5
Livestock Grazing 2-8 5
Wilderness 2-86
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - CHAPTER THREE
PROCEDURES AND ASSUMPTIONS 3-1
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3-2
GEOLOGY 3-2
SOILS 3-2
WATER RESOURCES 3-6
VEGETATION 3-7
WILDLIFE 3-16
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC FEATURES 3-23
VISUAL RESOURCES 3-25
RECREATION 3-28
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3-31
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE 3-3 5
Livestock Grazing 3-3 5
Wilderness 3-39
MITIGATING MEASURES - CHAPTER FOUR
MITIGATING MEASURES 4-1
Water Resources 4-1
Vegetation 4 1
Wildlife 4-1
Prehistoric and Historic Features 4-2
Visual Resources 4-2
Recreation 4-2
Wilderness 4-2
STUDIES AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 4-4
RESIDUAL ADVERSE IMPACTS - CHAPTER FIVE
SOILS 5-1
WATER RESOURCES 5-1
VEGETATION 5-1
WILDLIFE 5-2
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC FEATURES 5-2
VISUAL RESOURCES 5-2
RECREATION 5-4
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 5-4
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE 5-4
Livestock Grazing 5-4
Wilderness 5-4
SHORT TERM USES VS LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY - CHAPTER 6
SOILS 6-1
WATER RESOURCES 6-1
VEGETATION * 6-1
WILDLIFE 6-1
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC FEATURES 6-2
VISUAL RESOURCES 6-2
RECREATION 6-2
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 6-2
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE 6-2
Livestock Grazing 6-2
Wilderness 6-2
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES -
CHAPTER 7
SOILS 7-1
WATER RESOURCES 7-1
VEGETATION 7-1
WILDLIFE 7-1
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC FEATURES 7-1
VISUAL RESOURCES 7-1
RECREATION 7-1
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 7-1
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE 7-2
Livestock Grazing 7-2
Wilderness 7-2
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION - CHAPTER EIGHT
CONTINUATION OF THE PRESENT GRAZING MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS 8-1
ELIMINATION OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON PUBLIC LAND 8-12
REDUCED LEVELS OF LIVESTOCK USE 8-16
LIVESTOCK FORAGE MAXIMIZATION 8-22
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION - CHAPTER NINE 9-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING LIVESTOCK
FORAGE ALLOCATION AND STOCKING RATES A-l
APPENDIX 2 - RANGE IMPROVEMENTS BY AMP A-ll
APPENDIX 3 - DESIGN FEATURES FOR GRAZING SYSTEMS
AND RANGE IMPROVEMENTS A-2 5
APPENDIX 4 - DATA ON INDIVIDUAL AMPs A-37
APPENDIX 5 - THE EFFECTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON SOILS A-49
APPENDIX 6 - EXISTING AND PROJECTED RANGE CONDITION
AND VEGETATIVE TYPES - BY AMP A-53
APPENDIX 7 - RANGE SITES A-89
APPENDIX 8 - VISUAL RESOURCES A-113
APPENDIX 9 - DYNAMIC REGIONAL ANALYSIS MODEL (DYRAM) A-121
APPENDIX 10 - METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING RANGE
CONDITION A-123
GLOSSARY G-l
REFERENCES R-l
CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Bureau of Land Management proposes an
improved grazing management program involving
1,047 allotments and approximately 2,200,000
acres of public land in central Montana. The pro-
posed grazing management program includes: (1)
continued operation of 42 existing specific grazing
plans or allotment management plans (AMPs) en-
compassing 485,355 acres of public land intermin-
gled with 158,891 acres of non-federal land, (2)
revision of 10 existing AMPs including 108,733
acres of public land and 30,643 acres of non-feder-
al land, (3) implementation of 266 proposed AMPs
covering 1,377,947 acres of public land and
852,823 acres of non-federal land, (4) less inten-
sive grazing management on approximately
251,000 acres of public land not included in AMPs,
and (5) continuation of unallotted status (not allot-
ted to livestock grazing) of approximately 30,612
acres of public land. Allotment management plans
would include establishment of grazing systems
(seasonal, deferred rotation, rest rotation, or a com-
bination of one or more of these systems) and
supporting range improvements that are designed
to meet identified resource objectives. Range im-
provements include nearly 551 miles of fence, 41
cattleguards, 436 stockwater reservoirs, 34 wells,
25 spring developments, nearly 60 miles of water
pipelines, 74 stockwater tanks, 25 rainwater catch-
ments, and vegetation manipulation practices in-
cluding 2,253 acres of contour furrowing, 2,236
acres of sagebrush spraying, and 10,850 acres of
plowing and seeding. Approximately 17,244 acres
would be directly affected by range improvements.
Less intensive management on non-AMP areas in-
cludes grazing permits specifying the numbers of
animals to be grazed, the seasons of use, and any
other terms or conditions deemed appropriate by
the Secretary of the Interior for management of the
lands. The proposed grazing program would be ini-
tiated over a period of four years.
The purpose of the proposed grazing manage-
ment program is to manage the vegetation re-
source to improve or stablize range conditions
while (1) providing livestock forage for dependent
users, (2) protecting watershed values through re-
duction of erosion and enhancement of water qual-
ity, (3) protecting or enhancing wildlife habitat, and
(4) safeguarding other environmental values. A total
of 291,502 animal unit months of forage (an animal
unit month or AUM is the amount of forage neces-
sary to sustain one cow or its equivalent for one
month) would be allocated to livestock due to con-
tinuation or implementation of existing, revised, and
proposed AMPs. This is a reduction of approxi-
mately 2,999 AUMs or 1 percent from the current
situation. Appendix 4 provides specific AMP allot-
ment allocations. An additional 57,896 AUMs would
continue to be allocated on non-AMP areas. Table
1-1 provides data on the allocation of annual vege-
tation production to livestock and other consump-
tive and non-consumptive uses. Appendix 1 in-
cludes a detailed explanation of the allocation
methodology. Table 1-2 shows the livestock forage
allocation (in AUMs) over time.
The preparation and analysis of the proposed
action is based on several assumptions. These as-
sumptions are: (1) the BLM would receive funding
to make the range improvements within the speci-
fied time periods, (2) the personnel would be avail-
able to carry out the related studies, monitoring,
and evaluation required to manage and administer
the proposed grazing programs, and (3) the BLM
would receive funding to maintain existing improve-
ments, maintain new improvements, and make revi-
sions as a result of continuing studies and monitor-
ing programs.
Many of the technical terms used in this envi-
ronmental statement are explained in the glossary;
however, many have also been defined briefly in
the text.
SETTING
The area encompassed by this impact analysis
(Map 1-1) lies in the Missouri Plateau region of the
Great Plains and is characterized by rolling plains
dissected by the Missouri River and its tributaries.
Occasional mountain ranges dot the area. The
band of badland topography within roughly ten
miles of the Missouri River is referred to locally as
the "Missouri Breaks." Nearly 26 percent of the
8,530,200 acres included in the environmental
statement (ES) area are public lands. The Charles
M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, administered
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, straddles the
Missouri River in roughly the eastern two-thirds of
the ES area; however, grazing management within
the Wildlife Refuge is not a part of this analysis.
The Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River, adminis-
tered by the BLM, is included in the western third of
the ES area. The ES area is irregularly shaped
measuring approximately 270 miles east-west and
varying from 25 to 115 miles north-south. Lewis-
town is the largest community in the ES area with a
1-1
TABLE 1-1
Allocation of Annual Vegetation Production
On Public Lands Within AMP Areas-
Annual
Vegetation
Production
Watershed, Wildlife
And Other
Consumptive and
Non-consumptive
Uses
Livestock
Forage
100%
60-70%
30-40%
1_/ Appendix 1 provides the analytical basis from which the allocation
estimates were derived.
TABLE 1-2
Livestock Use (AUMs) on Public Lands Within AMP Areas
Estimated—
(1940-50s)
MRB Rang.
Survey
(1960s)
2/
Current
Licensed
Use
Proposed
Use
Estimated
With AMPs
in 15 Years
350,000
+15%
308,352
-0-
294,401
-4%
291,502
-5%
316,405
+3%
1_/ This general estimate is based on approximate grazing use levels
within the Badlands Cooperative State Grazing District from 1954-1956.
Adjudicative procedures in the late 1950s resulted in approximately a
15 percent reduction in livestock use levels. Based on this sample
(approximately 750,000 acres) and estimates made by individuals involved
in the adjudicative process, it has been 'assumed that a similar reduc-
tion took place throughout the ES area. An unknown amount of non-
permitted livestock and horse use existed in addition to the 15 percent
higher livestock use levels shown for the 1940-50s.
2/ A detailed discussion of the Missouri River Basin survey methodology
is provided in Appendix 1.
1-2
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1792 (962)
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
222 North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 30157
Billings, Montana 59107
Dear Reader:
Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft environmental statement on grazing
management in the Missouri Breaks of Montana.
The proposed action for the Bureau of Land Management is an improved grazing management
program on nearly 2,200,000 acres of public land in the Lewistown and Miles City Districts.
The proposal includes implementation of 266 new grazing plans or Allotment Management
Plans, revision of 10 Allotment Management Plans, and continued operation of 42 Allotment
Management Plans. These plans include provisions for construction of additional fences,
livestock watering facilities, and vegetation treatments.
Four alternatives to the proposed action were considered: (1) continuation of the present
grazing management program (no action), (2) elimination of livestock on public lands, (3)
reduced levels of livestock use, and (4) livestock forage maximization.
Written comments from interested citizens and public agencies will be accepted until April 30,
1979. Comments should be sent to the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, 222
North 32nd Street, P. O. Box 30157, Billings, Montana 59107.
Public meetings on the draft statement have been scheduled as follows:
1. April 2, 1979 — 7:30 p.m., Math and Science Building Auditorium, Northern Montana
College, Havre, Montana
2. April 3, 1979 — 7:30 p.m., Basement Meeting Room, GN Motel, Malta, Montana
3. April 4, 1979 — 7:30 p.m., BLM District Office, Airport Road, Lewistown, Montana
4. April 5, 1979 - 7:30 p.m., V.F.W. Hall, Jordan, Montana
5. April 6, 1979 — 7:30 p.m., City-County Library, Glasgow, Montana
Testimony received through written comments or at the public meetings will be considered
during preparation of the final environmental statement. No decisions on the proposed graz-
ing management program will be made until the final environmental statement is completed.
Sincerely yours,
Edwin Zaidlicz '"" ""*"
State Director
jl&JO<c_-
Enclosure
MAP 1-1
LOCATION MAP
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
1-3
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1970 population of approximately 6,500 persons.
Public lands within the ES area are administered by
the Lewistown and Miles City Districts of the
Bureau of Land Management.
MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND
RESOURCE COORDINATION
Development of the proposed grazing manage-
ment program was guided by the Bureau's man-
dates to manage the public lands for multiple use
and sustained yield based on integration of physi-
cal, biological, economic, and other applicable fac-
tors. The primary Bureau multiple use mandate is
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (90 Stat. 2743). The principles of multiple use
and sustained yield are applied to management of
the public lands through a system of land use plan-
ning. The planning process begins with the multi-
disciplinary resource inventory contained in the unit
resource analysis (URA), socio-economic data ana-
lyzed in the planning area analysis (PAA), and man-
agement decisions developed in the management
framework plan (MFP). Figure 1-1 depicts the BLM
land use planning system.
The URA is a detailed compilation of inventory
data for various resources including, but not limited
to, minerals, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, rec-
reation, and realty management. The URAs outline
the resources present, the current status of each
resource, and the capabilities and opportunities for
management to beneficially affect those resources.
A URA is prepared on an identified geographic area
called a planning unit. The ES area encompasses
11 planning units (Map 1-2) on which URAs have
been completed: Willow Creek, UL Bend, Zortman,
Little Rockies, South Bearpaw, Belt Mountains,
Fergus, Petroleum, Musselshell, Haxby, and
McCone. Updates (incorporation of newly acquired
data) on these URAs were completed in 1977.
The management framework plan (MFP) estab-
lishes coordinated land use allocations for all re-
sources and establishes objectives and constraints
for each resource and support activity. Each re-
source specialist identifies the full potential of the
resources in his field. The overlaps and conflicts
are reconciled through extensive study and discus-
sion, including public input. The major decisions
contained in the MFPs which affected development
of the grazing program in the ES area are summa-
rized in Table 1-3. Each of the ten MFPs in the ES
area contains more site specific resource recom-
mendations, decisions, and trade-offs based on
particular resource conditions existing in the re-
spective planning units. Table 1-3 indicates the
multiple use parameters generally common
throughout the ES area. Updates of the ten MFPs
in the ES area were completed in 1977. Public
input was sought on the updated MFPs through
public meetings and open house sessions held in
the ES area in late 1977 and early 1978.
GRAZING MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
The proposed grazing management program in-
cludes intensive management on 318 AMP allot-
ments, less intensive management on 729 non-
AMP allotments or 251,000 acres of public land,
and exclusion of grazing on 30,612 acres of unal-
lotted public lands. In order to aggregate the large
number of allotments into understandable and
workable units, the ES area has been divided into
four landform areas. Landforms are based upon
similarities in soils and climate as developed in
Climax Vegetation of Montana (Ross and Hunter
1976). The landforms are: (1) rolling plains, (2) ri-
verbreaks, (3) high plains, and (4) mountains (Map
1-3 and Figures 1-2 to 1-5).
NOTE: In the back of this document are two
tissue map overlays. These overlays portray the
landform areas and the existing, revised, and pro-
posed allotment management plans which were
used in this environmental impact analysis. The two
overlays are provided as aids to the reader and
allow more complete use and comparison of the
resource data contained on maps throughout the
report.
The predominant vegetation in the rolling plains
landform area is western, bluebunch, and thickspike
wheatgrass, green needlegrass, and sagebrush.
The riverbreaks landform area is characterized by
rugged topography and wheatgrasses, Rocky
Mountain juniper, ponderosa pine, and some Doug-
las fir. Fescues are the characteristic grasses in the
high plains. Vegetation cover in the mountains is
dominated by timber species such as Douglas fir,
Rocky Mountain juniper, ponderosa pine, subalpine
fir, and limber pine.
Livestock Forage Allocation
Livestock forage has not been allocated based
on a direct field inventory of total annual vegetation
production. However, current livestock allocation
levels were estimated to be approximately 30 per-
1-4
Figure 1-1
BLM LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS
National Policy and Guidance
1-5
Source: BLM, 1978
LEWISTOWN DISTRICT
HAVRE RESOURCE AREA
Little Rockies -
VALLEY RESOURCE AREA
'South;;
I Bearpaw
PHILLIPS
tESOURCE AREA
riZortman'
ffHaxbv ; '
siiiiiiimi^ iminiiiii ''
MILESCITY DISTRICT
Miles
MAP 1-2
BLM PLANNING SUBDIVISIONS
LEGEND
District Boundary
Resource Area Boundary
Planning Unit Boundary
SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management, 1978.
-N-
1-6
MFP STEP I RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR RANGE/LIVESTOCK
1. Improve or maintain existing range condition and available
forage for livestock through intensive livestock management
(allotment management plans). Allotment management plans
should include establishment of rest rotation, deferred
rotation, or seasonal grazing systems and specify seasons of
use. numbers and kinds of animals, and any other terms and
conditions deemed appropriate for management of the public
lands. Continue to permit grazing in accordance with existing
allotment management plans where the objectives of such
plans are being met. Modify existing allotment management
plans if resource objectives are not being met. On non-AMP
areas provide grazing permits specifying the kinds and
numbers of animals to be grazed, the seasons of use, and any
other terms or conditions deemed appropriate for management
of the public lands.
OTHER RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
WHICH INTERACT WITH
RANGE/LIVESTOCK RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 Wildlife - Maintain and improve the quantity and condition
of wildlife food and cover plants through manipulation of use
by foraging animals.
1.2 Wildlife - Where wildlife habitat conditions are less than
desirable, implement deferred rotation or rest rotation grazing
systems to provide for optimum vegetation composition and
quantity. Defer initiation of grazing until June 1.
1.3 Wildlife • Improve the vigor in brush species especially in
coulee bottoms by removal of livestock by October 15 on deer,
antelope, and sage grouse winter ranges.
Watershed - Reduce livestock grazing in areas having
moderate and severe erosion activity, high percent bare
ground, steep slopes, and slow infiltration rates.
TABLE 1-3
SUMMARY (1) MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLANS
MULTIPLE USE CONSIDERATION
1.1 Resource recommendations are complementary.
1.2 Deferring livestock grazing in the spring benefits game and
nongame wildlife species through increased forb production
and perennial grass cover for nesting. Deferrment of spring
grazing would reduce the forage available to livestock
operators.
1.3 Removal of livestock by October 15 would reduce the impact
on browse plants used by wildlife for food and cover. Removal
of livestock by October 15 would cause increased use of forage
in winter pastures resulting in a potential shortage of forage
over the winter months.
1.4 Substantial livestock use in highly erosive areas may lead to
excessive removal of plant cover and physical disturbance to
the soil surface, thereby accelerating erosion and damaging
watershed r
MFP DECISION
1.1 Maintain and improve the quantity and condition of wildlife
food and cover plants through manipulation of use by foraging
animals.
1.2 Where wildlife habitat conditions are less than desirable,
implement deferred rotation or rest rotation grazing systems
to provide for optimum vegetation composition and quantity.
1.3 Improve the vigor in brush species especially in coulee
bottoms by removal of livestock as soon as possible in fall on
deer, antelope, and sage grouse winter ranges.
1.4 Livestock grazing will be carefully monitored and managed to
discourage use on fragile watershed areas.
RESOURCE TRADE-OFFS
1.1 No trade-offs necessary.
1.2 Optimum habitat conditions for wildlife in the spring will not
be reached due to spring livestock grazing.
1.3 Some browse species used by wildlife for winter cover and food
may be adversely affected by livestock.
1.4 Watershed conditions may deteriorate if livestock grazing i
not carefully managed.
Watershed - Manage livestock grazing to maintain or
Initiate range improvement projects and practices to
effectively implement grazing systems. Range improvements
include fences, cattleguards, stock water reservoirs, wells,
spring developments, water pipelines, stock water tanks,
rainwater catchments, and vegetation manipulation
practices such as contour furrowing, sagebrush spraying,
and plowing and seeding.
improve the present watershed condition. If watershed
condition is not maintained or improved within five years (or
one grazing cycle) consider land treatments or reductions in
livestock use. If no positive results occur after 10 years,
remove or reduce livestock.
2.1 Wildlife - Fences on public lands should be located
and designed to restrict movement of wildlife as little as
possible unless that is the primary objective of the fence.
Pasture sizes should be as large as possible to minimize the
amount of fencing. Fences should be located so that crucial big
game habitat or movement lanes are not hampered.
2.2 Wildlife - Stock water should be developed to properly
distribute livestock use and provide supplemental water for
wildlife. A careful evaluation of the location for water
developments should be made to determine their effect on
wildlife habitat and to avoid over-concentration of livestock
use in key wildlife areas.
2.3 Wildlife - Eliminate artificial land treatment practices
such as contour furrowing and plowing and seeding.
1.5 Removal of plant cover and physical disturbance of the soil
surface by livestock grazing can lead to long term watershed
damage. Any reductions in livestock use will adversely affect
livestock operators.
2.1 Fences are required to separate grazing allotments and
pastures, and for administration and management of
livestock. Fences may restrict or modify wildlife habits and
movement.
Placement of water developments and the resulting livestock
concentrations can be detrimental to wildlife populations
through overuse of vegetation and displacement due to species
intolerance.
Artificial land treatments provide a radical change in
habitat over a short period of time. Habitat and/or behavior
adjustments by wildlife to change takes place over a long
period of time; therefore, artificial land treatments can
drastically affect wildlife resources.
1) Each of the ten MFPs in the ES area contains more site-specific resource recommendations, decisions, and trade-offs based on particular resource conditions existing in the respective planning
units. This summary indicates the multiple use parameters generally common throughout the ES area. The individual MFP documents are available for review at the Montana State Office or the
affected District or Resource Area Offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
1.5 Accept watershed recommendation as written.
Accept wildlife recommendation as written.
2.2 Accept wildlife recommendation as written.
2.3 Limit artificial land treatment practices. Such treatments will
be considered only after it has been determined that the
desirable results cannot be attained through grazing
management. Thoroughly evaluate the effects on wildlife
before treatment is initiated. Revegetate with native plant
species preferred by wildlife when possible.
1.5 Livestock numbers may be reduced in the future if watershed
conditions cannot be maintained or improved.
2.1 The effect on wildlife of fence type, location, and pasture size
must be considered in the development of grazing
management systems.
2.2 It may be necessary to place water developments at sites that
are less than optimum for livestock due to the location of key
wildlife areas.
2.3 Wildlife habitat and/or behavior may be significantly changed
or damaged where artificial land treatments are permitted.
1-7
MFP STEP 1 RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR RANGE/LIVESTOCK
Initiate range improvement projects and practices to
effectively implement grazing systems. Range improvements
include fences, cattleguards, stock water reservoirs, wells,
spring developments, water pipelines, stock water tanks,
rainwater catchments, and vegetation manipulation practices
such as contour furrowing, sagebrush spraying, and plowing
and seeding.
3. After studies have indicated an increase in the available forage
due to intensive grazing management, allocate such increases
to livestock use.
OTHER RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
WHICH INTERACT WITH
RANGE/LIVESTOCK RECOMMENDATIONS
2.4 Wildlife - Discontinue sagebrush spraying and plowing
in areas with significant wildlife values.
2.5 Watershed - Contour furrow, plow and seed, and control
sagebrush to reduce overland flow problems, reduce soil loss,
retain water on-site, and increase vegetation cover.
2.6 Recreation - Inventory all roadless areas of 5,000 acres
or more which exhibit wilderness characteristics for possible
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Until the required inventory and subsequent studies are
complete, such areas should continue to be managed so as not
to impair their suitability for wilderness, subject to
continuation of existing grazing and mining uses.
2.7 Recreation - Design and locate landscape altering activities
such as access roads, fences, stockwater reservoirs, pipelines,
contour furrowing, etc., to blend as much as possible with the
existing landscape character.
2.8 Cultural Resources - Inventory all areas proposed for range
improvements to insure that prehistoric or historic resources
are not lost. Modify plans to avoid such resources or provide
for mitigation appropriate to the significance of the site.
3.1 Wildlife - Any forage increases resulting from intensive
grazing management should be made available for wildlife to
increase the actual wildlife carrying capacity towards the
potential carrying capacity.
3.2 Watershed • Allocate all increases in vegetation cover
resulting from intensive grazing management to watershed
protection or enhancement.
TABLE 1-3 (Continued)
SUMMARY (1) - MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLANS
MULTIPLE USE CONSIDERATION
2.4 Sage grouse depend totally on sage as a food and cover source.
Antelope and deer depend on sage as a source of food during
the winter.
2.5 Headcutting, channel scouring, erosion from pan spots,
excessive overland flow and evaporation are occurring in some
areas. Artificial land treatments may be necessary to control
such activity.
2.6 Although this recommendation deals only with inventory, the
results of such inventories could significantly affect
implementation of AMPs with major range improvements.
2.7 In order to meet visual resource management objectives, it
will be necessary to carefully locate and design range
improvements. Projects must be designed to blend with the
surrounding terrain where possible.
2.8 Ground disturbance during construction of range
improvements can cause destruction of sites and loss of
valuable information. Adequate inventory and planning prior
to construction can mitigate such losses.
3.1 Wildlife food and cover are provided by vegetation. Increased
forage has the potential to provide additional residual cover
and food for all wildlife species. Additional residual vegetation
will increase the quantity of habitat for wildlife and at the
same time increase the quality of existing habitat.
3.2 By allocating increased ground cover and plant density to
watershed protection and enhancement, the soil resource will
be stabilized and erosion and sedimentation will decrease.
1) Each of the ten MFPs in the ES area contains more site-specific resource recommendations, decisions, and trade-offs based on particular resource conditions existing in the respective planning
units. This summary indicates the multiple use parameters generally common throughout the ES area. The individual MFP documents are available for review at the Montana State Office or the
affected District or Resource Area Offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
1-8
MFP DECISION
2.4 Allow for control of sagebrush only after 10 years of AMP
implementation has failed to show an improvement in
ecological range condition and then only after a loss of
sagebrush has been shown not to be detrimental to existing
wildlife populations.
2.5 Initiate land treatment practices only where all resource
values can be protected. Intense livestock management
should be established prior to authorization of land
treatments. Other restrictions include: no sagebrush control
on crucial habitat or winter concentration areas for sage
(Jrouse or antelope; no contour furrowing or sagebrush
control within 100 feet of major drainages; and no
destruction of silver sage and deciduous bottoms.
2.6 Continue to permit livestock grazing in areas identified
through the wilderness study areas inventory. Allow
Construction of range improvements so long as the
wilderness characteristics of the wilderness study area are
not impaired.
2.7 Accept the recreation recommendation as written.
ccept cultural resources recommendation as written.
After allotment management plan evaluations and
terdisciplinary reviews indicate that increases in forage
j roduction have occurred, allocate a proportion of the increase
to wildlife habitat.
Increases in vegetation will be allocated in the best interests of
all resources. As a guide, all vegetation increases will be
allocated to watershed until soils are stabilized to a
satisfactory condition as determined by an interdisciplinary
t;am review. Then, allocate no more than 50% of the total
\egetation increases to livestock after the watershed has been
stabilized to the greatest extent possible.
RESOURCE TRADE-OFFS
2.4 Any sagebrush spraying which is allowed will destroy sage
grouse habitat and affect antelope and deer winter food
supply.
2,5 Same as 2.3 and 2.4
2.6 If plans for range improvements are eliminated due to
designation of wilderness study areas, it will be necessary to
redesign grazing systems. Such redesigned systems may be
less than optimum from a livestock perspective.
2.7 Changes in the location and design of range improvements due
to visual resource management may lessen the effectiveness of
grazing management.
2.8 It may prove necessary to change the location of proposed
range improvements to avoid prehistoric or historic sites.
3.1 Portions of any forage increases will be allocated to wildlife
rather than livestock.
3.2 Increases in vegetation will not be allocated to livestock or
wildlife unless watershed values have been adequately
protected.
LEGEND
LANDFORMS
| I Mountains
I High Plains
Rolling Plains
I Riverbreaks
UNITED STATES DEPAETMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STAT EM E N T
LANDFORM AREAS
MAP 1-3
■
- :u
*^^p;*
■wQSSl
»^'a
iwiw
Figure 1-2 Rolling plains landform
i M
* ,*m
Figure 1-3 Riverbreaks landform
1-9
Wmmze
i'*"**^** y . ~**0
Figure 1-4 High plains landform
rj*
Figure 1-5 Mountains landform
1-10
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
cent of the annual vegetation production or growth
in the rough terrain (the mountains and riverbreaks
landform areas) and 40 percent on the more gently
rolling rangelands (the high plains and rolling plains
landform areas). This level of allocation will contin-
ue for future forage increases except in sensitive
areas as identified in individual management frame-
work plans. The primary soil/vegetation inventory
was completed through the Missouri River Basin
Studies. The major result from these surveys was
livestock stocking rates. Current annual vegetation
production was not directly measured. Appendix 1
gives a detailed explanation of the process used to
estimate the allocation of annual vegetation pro-
duction. Appendix 1 also describes the survey
methodology used during the rangeland inventories
for the Missouri River Basin Studies. On an allot-
ment basis, approximately 50 percent of the key
forage species would be used by livestock. Appen-
dix 4 provides specific allocations for AMP allot-
ments.
Allotment Management Plans
An allotment management plan (AMP) is a doc-
ument prepared in consultation with the lessees or
permittees involved, which applies to livestock op-
erations on the public lands which:
(1) prescribes the manner in, and extent to,
which livestock operations will be conducted
in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained-
yield, economic, and other needs and objec-
tives as determined for the lands by the Sec-
retary of the Interior; and
(2) describes the type, location, ownership,
and general specifications for the range im-
provements to be installed and maintained
on the lands to meet the livestock grazing
and other objectives of land management;
and
(3) contains such other provisions relating to
livestock grazing and other objectives found
by the Secretary of the Interior to be consist-
ent with the provisions of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 and
other applicable law.
A summary of AMP data for each landform area
is provided in Table 1-4. Appendix 4 provides data
for individual AMPs by landform area in terms of
allotment name; identification number; type of ob-
jectives; acres; grazing system; number of pastures;
class of livestock; season of use; and the number
of AUMs of livestock forage specified in the range
survey; current licenses; existing, revised, or pro-
posed AMPs; and 15-year AMP objectives. No
AMPs are proposed for the high plains landform
area. Map 1-4 shows existing, revised, and pro-
posed AMPs using the identification number includ-
ed in Appendix 4.
Objectives
All allotment management plans have both gen-
eral and specific objectives. General objectives are
broad in scope and originate from decisions of the
Management Framework Plan (MFP). General ob-
jectives usually apply to more than one allotment.
Specific objectives quantify desired changes in
vegetation composition, soil surface factor, or the
amount of litter within each allotment which will
partially fulfill a general objective. The following ex-
amples illustrate the relationship between general
and specific objectives:
1. General Objective - Minimize soil erosion,
by increasing vegetation cover.
Specific Objective - Increase the total
vegetation ground cover on identified key
areas from 50 percent to 75 percent.
2. General Objective - Improve range condi-
tions from fair to good.
Specific Objective - Increase the amount
of western wheatgrass on identified key
areas from 2 percent to 15 percent, and de-
crease the amount of plains prickly pear
cactus from 20 percent to 1 0 percent.
3. General Objective - Maintain wildlife food
and cover plant species.
Specific Objective - Maintain big sage-
brush (5 to 10 percent) and silver sagebrush
(13 percent) at their present composition to
provide food and cover for major wildlife
species.
There can be a considerable variance among
the general and specific objectives of AMPs. This
variance is due to the relationship of a particular
grazing allotment to a specific multiple use prob-
lem, and the allotment's resource potential to re-
solve this problem. AMPs can generally be divided
into two categories according to the type of objec-
tives established; maintenance or minor improve-
ment (104 AMPs) and substantial improvement
(214 AMPs). The objectives of maintenance or
minor improvement AMPs (approximately 810,000
acres) include relatively minor changes in vegeta-
tion composition, vegetation cover, amount of litter,
and erosion condition class (expression of existing
erosion activity). Objectives for substantial improve-
ment AMPs (approximately 2,200,000 acres) seek
significant increases in desired vegetation, in-
creases in litter and vegetation cover, decreases in
1-11
QQ
-a
a
at
b
to
E
E
3
OS
E
BO
a
a
a
B
CU
s
CU O
05
<o
OS
CO
CO
o
00
CO
00
o
<N
CO
m
CN
t-
I— <
O
■<r oo
t- o
1A 00
o
T
a>"
00
OS
05
o
OS
o
to
"5 ■
S CU
ea «-
CO
c '3
3a!
o
CO
, cs
1_ o
cu >_
> .fi
CO
CO
o
CO
o
CO
a
A
CJ
bo
c
0)
>
he
_C
CO
9 S
is -2 »
a -S ea
J S 9
g3 I
C cb co
to EL cu
"7? cT r;
he
e a
b 5
CU o
D. T3
O cO
CO
c
CU
cu C cu
2 3 "5.
CO cu <
« s
■ -. CO
X c
CU CU
CO
Q, -3 'O
**• co D,
O 41 O
2 cu £
rt CN CO
1-12
LEGEND
ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS
Proposed Allotment Management Plan
I Revised Allotment Management Plan
I Existing Allotment Management Plan
4841- Allotment Management Plan Identification Number.
See Appendix 4 tor details on individual AMPs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEM ENT
ALLOTMENT
MANAGEMENT PLANS
SOURCE: Individual AMPfiles. B.L N
MAP 1-4
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
less desirable plant species, and improvement in
the erosion condition class. For example, increases
in the percent of western wheatgrass, green need-
legrass, needleandthread, bluebunch wheatgrass,
and similar desirable plant species are frequent ob-
jectives. Species frequently mentioned in substan-
tial improvement AMP objectives for decreases in-
clude blue grama, little clubmoss, plains prickly
pear cactus, and, in some places, various species
of sagebrush. The specific objectives are included
in each AMP file and are available for review in the
respective BLM Resource Area Offices.
Grazing Systems
Grazing livestock on rangelands are selective
relating to plant species and areas. The most palat-
able plants and the most accessible areas are
grazed first and heaviest. Plants grazed heavily one
year are usually heavily grazed the following year,
which leads to their gradual loss. This is also the
trend for the preferred areas. When forage produc-
tion of the most desirable plants falls below the
needs of the animal, they will start grazing the less
desirable species and/or areas, which leads to an
ever enlarging area of range deterioration (Stoddart
and Smith 1955; Hormay 1970). Grazing systems
are prescribed in AMPs to regulate livestock graz-
ing, to alleviate a particular problem, and/or give a
desired result. The AMPs for the ES area involve
three primary grazing systems: rest rotation, de-
ferred rotation, and seasonal, or a combination of
these systems.
The harmful effects of selective grazing of pre-
ferred plants can be reduced by resting the range
at appropriate intervals. An allotment is usually
fenced into pastures to facilitate controlled pasture
grazing and pasture resting. A grazing formula is
tailored for each allotment; the number of pastures
and amount and timing of pasture grazing and rest-
ing are based on key forage plant physiological
needs, existing range conditions, and potential for
improvement.
Rest Rotation Grazing
Under a rest rotation grazing system, grazing is
deferred on various parts of an allotment during
succeeding years, and the deferred parts are al-
lowed complete rest for one or more years (Society
for Range Management 1974). The allotment is di-
vided into two or more pastures, usually with com-
parable grazing capacities. Each pasture is system-
atically grazed and rested, providing for livestock
production and other resource values, while simul-
taneously maintaining or improving the vegetation
cover, hence providing greater protection of the soil
resource against wind and water erosion (Johnson
1965; Hormay 1970; Ratliff et al. 1972; Ratliff and
Reppert 1974).
Rest rotation grazing systems may include sev-
eral treatments depending upon the objectives for
the allotment and the number of pastures. Figure 1-
6 gives a typical example of a four pasture rest
rotation system. Rest rotation grazing systems are
included in 81 AMPs encompassing 1,160,166
acres.
Rest rotation grazing systems were recommend-
ed on allotments which exhibit some or all of the
following characteristics:
1. Substantial improvement in range condi-
tion is desired and attainable through grazing
management.
2. At least one full year of rest is needed for
seedling establishment.
3. Allotment is large enough to justify project
expenditures.
4. Topography is not a limiting factor in con-
structing needed projects.
5. Desired results have occurred in nearby
operational AMPs.
6. The operator has a preference in tailoring
grazing use of the allotment into his overall
ranch operation.
Deferred Rotation Grazing
Deferred rotation is the discontinuance of graz-
ing on various parts of an allotment in succeeding
years. This allows each part or pasture to rest suc-
cessively during the growing season to permit seed
production, establishment of seedlings, and restora-
tion of plant vigor (Society for Range Management
1974). One or more pastures are grazed during the
spring, while the remaining one or more pastures
are rested until after seed ripening of key species
and then grazed. Deferred rotation grazing differs
from rest rotation grazing in that there is no year-
long rest provided for any part of the allotment.
Figure 1-7 illustrates a typical example of deferred
rotation grazing. Deferred rotation grazing systems
are included in 142 AMPs encompassing 1,133,898
acres.
Deferred rotation grazing systems were recom-
mended on the basis of some or all of the following
criteria:
1. Minor improvement in range condition is
desired.
2. Size and shape of an allotment and to-
pography often may be limiting factors in
project feasibility.
1-13
Figure 1-6
FOUR PASTURE REST ROTATION
GRAZING SYSTEM
May1 «*■
■+ October 31
B
C
D
Treatment
A
Treatment
B
Treatment
C
Treatment
D
Graze Ny
Rest
Rest
Nv Graze after seed ripe
Complete Rest
Rest \.
Graze after flowering
Graze for livestock production
Rest for plant vigor until seed has ripened, then graze (approximately July 15)
Complete rest for new seedling establishment and litter accumulation
Rest for continued seedling establishment (flowering time), then graze
(approximately June 15)
/ Pasture 1
/ A
Pasture 2 \
D }
\ Pasture 4
\ B
Pasture 3 /
C /
/ Pasture 1
/ B
Pasture 2\
A \
\ Pasture 4
\ C
Pasture 3 /
D /
Year 1
Year 2
/ Pasture 1
/ D
Pasture 2 \
C \
\ Pasture 4
\ A
Pasture 3 /
B /
Year 3
Year 4
1-14 Source: BLM, 1978
Figure 1-7
THREE PASTURE DEFERRED ROTATION
GRAZING SYSTEM
May1 -«-
-*• October 31
A
Graze
\
Rest
B
Rest
\^ Graze after seed ripe
C
Rest
\
Graze after flowering
Treatment A
Treatment B
Treatment C
Graze for livestock production
Rest for plant vigor until seed has ripened, then graze
Rest for seedling establishment and continued plant vigor (flowering time),
then graze
Year 1
Year 2
Source: BLM, 1978
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
3. The existence of unfenced agricultural
cropland intermingled with public land, con-
straining the period of use by livestock.
Seasonal Grazing
Seasonal grazing is restricted to a specific
season (Society for Range Management 1974). Al-
lotments are not necessarily divided into pastures,
but are grazed at a moderate rate during the same
period of time each year. An example may be 7/1
to 9/15 annually. Seasonal grazing would be pro-
posed on allotments or pastures in excellent to
good condition, with a moderate stocking rate and
usually for short periods (2 to 3 weeks) during
spring, and longer periods for late summer and fall.
Seasonal grazing is the primary system in 95 AMPs
encompassing 720,328 acres.
Seasonal grazing was recommended for those
allotments based on some or all of the following
criteria:
1. Maintenance of range conditions is de-
sired.
2. Past and current livestock use has been
on a seasonal basis and range is producing
at a satisfactory level.
3. Topographic limitations constrain season
of use.
4. Recognition of the overall needs of ranch
operation.
Twenty-two AMPs use a combination of two
grazing systems. When seasonal grazing is com-
bined with a rest or deferred rotation grazing
system, generally only one pasture is grazed on a
seasonal basis with the remainder of the allotment
being placed under some form of rotational system.
In several instances deferred and rest rotation sys-
tems are used on a single allotment. Such combi-
nations are suggested when a single system type
will not fully meet allotment resource objectives.
Range Improvements
Range improvements are often necessary in
order to implement a grazing system. Construction
of stock water reservoirs, wells, spring develop-
ments, water pipelines, stock water tanks, rainwater
catchments, fencing, cattleguards, and vegetation
manipulation would be required for implementing
the grazing systems of the proposed AMPs (see
Figures 1-8 to 1-12). Only those developments con-
sidered absolutely necessary are proposed for the
initial implementation of the proposed AMPs. Devel-
opments are designed to provide water for live-
stock and wildlife, control movement of livestock,
provide additional forage where needed, encourage
distribution of livestock and possibly wildlife, and
enhance proper utilization of available forage.
Range improvements for the proposed and revised
AMPs are summarized in Table 1-5 and shown for
each AMP in Appendix 2. A detailed discussion of
the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
various types of range improvements is included in
Appendix 3. Table 1-5 also provides a summary of
the acreage disturbed for the proposed range im-
provements. Table 1-6 provides a summary of the
costs for the proposed range improvements.
Reservoirs, springs, pipelines, wells, and rain-
water catchments are proposed to provide a source
of water to improve distribution of livestock on
areas where water is presently limited. Fences and
cattleguards are proposed to control movement of
livestock. Vegetation manipulation practices are
proposed to improve the productivity of individual
pastures. Pastures in less than satisfactory condi-
tion that are not expected to improve in a reason-
able amount of time have been scheduled for treat-
ment. In addition, vegetation manipulation would
allow pastures that are low in forage to be bal-
anced with those having adequate supply and, in
some areas, to meet watershed objectives.
Monitoring and Evaluation
BLM procedures would be followed to conduct
forage, watershed, and wildlife habitat studies to
evaluate and make any necessary adjustments in
the allotment management plans. These studies in-
clude actual use, utilization, climate analyses, and
range trend. Study locations are identified on a
base map overlay in each specific allotment man-
agement plan (AMP). Modifications would be made
as indicated by interdisciplinary evaluations of the
AMP monitoring systems. For example, monitoring
may indicate that important wildlife areas need
more rest than provided for by the grazing system;
thereby indicating possible grazing formula adjust-
ment or selective fencing of some areas. As an-
other example, grazing management alone may
prove to be relatively ineffective in improving vege-
tation production on some sodbound sites. In this
situation, mechanical treatment might then be iden-
tified to accomplish the vegetation production ob-
jective stated in the AMP.
Permanent range trend plots would be estab-
lished in key areas, utilizing standard procedures.
General, overhead and aerial photos would be used
to document changes in ground cover, plant vigor,
and species composition. Using an adaptation of
the techniques of Meyer (1976) and Taylor (1977),
low level aerial photography at 1:3,000 negative
scale has been obtained on nearly all key study
sites to complement ground information. In addition
1-16
a*
•^':
Figure 1-8 Five hundred and fifty-one stockwater reservoirs are proposed in the ES area.
Figure 1-9 Typical stockwater reservoir with earth fill
1-17
Figure 1-10 Typical rainwater catchment
1-18
(a) contour furrower
(b) resulting landscape
Figure 1-11 Contour furrowing is proposed for 2,253 acres in the ES area.
1-19
' < "":-■■*.■■■■ -.-J"-- ■■-■■- ■'■■**■■ ■■■■** ■■ :-~ ■
" ^ 4fr* V1*** >*
(a) before spraying *|
f%G&- :** "
*^ m.
(b) spraying operation
tiMMtt*,.- •
V
si
(c) after spraying Q
Figure 1-12 Sagebrush spraying has been proposed on 2,236 acres.
. -4 4£, .
^
1-20
60
BO C oo
p £ S
5 a; o
3 <u C8
Pa
» 2P~
3 .S "on
x £ 2;
4) 2 W
BO 5,5
o o o
in iO
CO CO
QQ
c
V
E
>
o
i-
a
E
V
BO
e
ES
oo
o
O E -
_^ X
© c e
^,
a
C "3
s
E
so E
E
0>
>
o
u
00
a
BC_
E
.E 6
"- c
o
a —
03
0J
a
>>
H
00
o o o
o o
<N (M
£-*
X —
CO t- o
s 2
CM CO
CM <N
> —
X TS ~
O B0
(0
BO
.E ~
'3 o
x c
o —
b
o
as ~
11 s
o o o
CO CM O
i-i co m
CC003
OS ^ CO
m to in
co io co
iO CJ5 in
t> <N O
m cd .-h
•t C- CM
h n m
co co
"3
o
w _
BO
o J a o
asm oh
O ^H ,-1
CM CM
O CO CD
O ©
CM CM
o o o
co cm m
lO CO 00
Tt co* O
CO O CO
05 Tj" CO
m CD CM
co m co
in cj^ in
<35 CM CM
co m
cm co in
in i ^4 cb
in -^> C55
to
C8
X
£ J a o
(tiCQO H
08 _
5- o
© © o
CM O CM
CM CM
to
1^ ^5
2«Oe2
CO O CO
CM CM
y-l i-l CM
CM CM TJ1
<
en
w
WfflOh
m
CO
00
CM
o
co
CO
CO
CM
Tj"
©
o
in
o
CO
in
o
o
CD
CO
CM
CM
o
CO
o
m
CM
o
^ -a
a, £
BOX
>.23
<Q
B0
.5 c
o J2
CM
09
U
CM
a
CO
•M
JS
(V
c
tH
o
m
vt-«
CM
tu
a> to
tfx
o .5
o
H
a
■a
00
a
B0
OS
Cy
U
u
08
■a
X
T3
CD
X
H
cu
B0
08
0>
b
o
C8
o
c
3
CO
"3
"3
>
o
ts
X
T3
ts
c
Cu
0)
X
CO
ts
X
1-21
o> CT> X
CM « tt
<n n co
O C£ CO
r- — x
a* a> tx.
*T CO x
<4)
.5 =3 £
£ 4- O
5 w -
— CM «
— CM CO
c- -rr — •
■-« CM
03
<
E
>
o
h
a
E
it
e
cs
OS
o. a E
CO CO N
CD N fll
<u
a
T CM r-
£ S
a>
o
5 S 1
fc o -
d JS 03 C fS
o a. ^
3
■e s
£ J a o
|BOH
CT3 _
S 2
S S 2
-3 a o
OOc-
m in o
O O *■»
— — - j
5 -
to m O h
en -o
a
--
|
8
CL,
9
£
OJ
<
3
o
S
CD
s
o
td
0.
1
BB
8
CV
1
0
EC
HO
iO
t*
r~
31
0)
d
0)
o
JS
to
i
z *
1-22
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
numerous photo stations have been established
throughout each allotment to monitor vegetation
changes.
The trend in range condition would be consid-
ered along with stocking rates in relation to the
estimated carrying capacity, climatic conditions and
results of utilization studies, when making decisions
affecting future stocking levels.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
An analysis of benefits versus costs (B/C ratio)
in dollars has been completed for all proposed al-
lotment management plans. This analysis indicates
that 48 AMPs had B/C ratios of less than 1:1
(costs in excess of benefits), 55 AMPs had B/C
ratios of from 1:1 to 2:1, and 163 AMPs had B/C
ratios greater than 2:1. The benefit versus cost
analysis for each AMP is available for review at the
Montana State Office of the BLM. The highest B/C
ratios were generally obtained on those proposed
AMPs where minimal range improvements were
identified. Nearly one-third of the proposed AMPs
fall into this category, because present range condi-
tions are generally satisfactory and vegetation ob-
jectives seek maintenance or minor improvement.
The lowest B/C ratios were attained on those
proposed AMPs requiring substantial range im-
provements. Important resource problems, not all of
which were accounted for in the B/C calculation,
were identified for correction in these allotments.
Watershed problems, for example, were identified
and recommendations made for grazing but not
quantified in dollars in AMP B/C ratios. Neverthe-
less, an urgent need exists to correct important
watershed problems related to livestock grazing.
Non-AMP Allotments
Less intensive grazing management is proposed
on approximately 251,000 acres (729 allotments) of
public lands not encompassed in allotment man-
agement plans. Non-AMP areas proposed for less
intensive grazing management generally are small
scattered tracts of public land interspersed with
large privately-owned land areas. Most non-AMP
areas include a small number of AUMs in relation-
ship to AUMs on surrounding private land and lack
high value for resource uses other than grazing.
Management on non-AMP areas would require
minimal supervision by BLM, primarily to insure
compliance and evaluate resource conditions. A
grazing permit would be issued specifying the
season of use, numbers of livestock, and any other
stipulations deemed necessary by the Secretary of
the Interior for management of the public lands. No
range improvements currently are proposed for
non-AMP areas. No specific management objec-
tives have been established other than the im-
provement and maintenance of desirable resource
conditions.
Unallotted Public Lands
Approximately 30,612 acres of public land within
the ES area would continue in an unallotted status.
These lands are not allocated to livestock grazing.
However, 3,547 acres (12 percent) in the Little
Rockies are grazed periodically on a temporary,
non-renewable basis when forage condition is fa-
vorable. Most unallotted lands are unsuitable or
inaccessible for livestock use. Supervision of unal-
lotted lands is primarily limited to trespass control.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the revised and proposed
AMPs would take place over a four year period
following completion of the ES. Continuation of
operational AMPs, grazing management on non-
AMP areas, and unallotted status designations
would also be fully implemented following comple-
tion of the ES. All necessary livestock use adjust-
ments would be made over a period of one to three
years from the issuance of a decision to the affect-
ed operator in accordance with BLM grazing regula-
tions. After a grazing system is established, ap-
proximately 15 years would be needed to meet the
resource objectives contained in each AMP. The
implementation program outlined in Table 1-7 as-
sumes that adequate funds and manpower would
be made available in the specified time period.
Some of the new positions must be allocated in
fiscal year 1979 as shown (ten range technicians
and five operations technicians). On-the-job training
for these new employees and general employee
orientation is necessary before a major commit-
ment is made in fiscal year 1980 to new AMP
supervision, range studies, project layout and
design, and contract preparation and contract su-
pervision. Operations technicians are needed for
project layout and design and contract develop-
ment prior to the expenditure of range improvement
funds. Range technicians are necessary in advance
of project layout to reevaluate the proposed AMPs
in light of this environmental analysis and to com-
plete any supplemental environmental analysis
which may be required.
1-23
TABLE 1-7
Implementation Schedule
AMPs (No.)
Additional
Positions
Approximate Costs
Fiscal
Year
Exist-
ing
Revi-
sion
Pro-
posed
Range
Tech.
Opera-
tions
Range Im- ,
provements—
Govt . Sal-
ary Costs
Total
FY79
FY80
FY81
FY82
FY83
42
10
10
50
75
131
10
10
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
$
154,642
517,050
775,575
1,354,619
? 178,500
357,000
357,000
357,000
357,000
$ 178,500
511,642
874,050
1,132,575
1,711,619
TOTALS
42
10
266
20
10
$2,801,886
$1,606,500
$4,408,386
1/ Includes BLM and operator costs.
1-24
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The AMP implementation schedule would be
based on the following factors: (1) existing AMPs
scheduled for revision due to recommendations
from ongoing study and monitoring programs, (2)
AMPs which can be implemented with minimal
costs (generally proposed AMPs with maintenance
or minor improvement objectives), (3) benefit/cost
analyses, (4) AMPs with specific resource problems
which can be remedied with grazing systems, and
(5) AMPs affected by their relationship to the
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and
the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River.
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
The administration of public lands involves the
complex interdependence between lands of differ-
ent ownership, uses, capabilities, and needs. The
ES area involves lands that are managed by the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Man-
agement, US Forest Service, State of Montana, and
private parties. The use patterns of these lands
have evolved over a long period of time and a
strong interdependence has developed in their
management.
Private lands along the drainage bottoms have
been used primarily for the production of forage
crops to sustain livestock operations through winter
months. These properties are also the lands to
which federal grazing privileges are attached. Most
of the private lands are dependent upon additional
federal or state lands to sustain a year long cattle
operation.
Public lands are used primarily for livestock
grazing, wildlife habitat, recreation, and other re-
source uses compatible with multiple resource
management.
Grazing use of public lands is dependent upon
the capability of private lands to sustain livestock
during early spring until the forage on public lands
is ready for grazing.
Bureau of Land Management - The
Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic
River
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as
amended by Public Law 94-486) incorporated the
149 mile segment of the Missouri River from Fort
Benton downstream to Fred Robinson Bridge within
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Map
1-5). This segment of the Missouri is to be adminis-
tered by the BLM, pursuant to the provisions of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Taylor Grazing Act
(48 Stat. 1269 as amended), and other authorities
under principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
Livestock grazing and other uses are allowed, but
such management must be consistent with Wild
and Scenic Rivers values.
Three potential classifications are cited in Sec-
tion 2.(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:
"(1) Wild river areas - those rivers or sec-
tions of rivers that are free of impoundments
and generally inaccessible except by trail;
with watersheds or shorelines essentially
primitive and waters unpolluted. These repre-
sent vestiges of primitive America.
(2) Scenic river areas - those rivers or sec-
tions of rivers that are free of impoundments,
with shorelines or watersheds still largely
primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped,
but accessible in places by roads.
(3) Recreational river areas - those rivers or
sections of rivers that are readily accessible
by road or railroad, that may have some de-
velopment along their shorelines, and that
may have undergone some impoundment or
diversion in the past."
The river contains all three of the classifications
listed:
Segment Length Classification
Fort Benton to Ebersole Bottom 52 miles... Recreational
Ebersole Bottom to Deadman Rapids 33 miles... Wild
Deadman Rapids to Holmes Rapids.... 7 miles ... Recreational
Holmes Rapids to Leslie Point 7 miles ... Wild
Leslie Point to Magdall Homestead 5 miles ... Scenic
Magdall Homestead to Cow Island 24 miles... Wild
Cow Island to Fred Robinson Bridge .. 21 miles... Scenic
A conceptual plan for river management was
completed by BLM in 1977, and a detailed manage-
ment plan was completed in 1978. The conceptual
river management plan included general manage-
ment objectives which have been refined in the
detailed management plan. General management
objectives for livestock grazing on public lands, and
other lands in which the federal government ac-
quires an interest, for the designated segment of
the Missouri River are as follows:
Manage grazing of public lands in a manner
which maintains and improves forage pro-
duction, maintains or enhances riparian
vegetation, wildlife habitat, watershed and
scenic values; and minimizes conflict be-
tween livestock and recreationists.
Construct livestock management facilities
such as fences and water sources to comply
with scenic restrictions appropriate to the
classification of the Missouri River segment.
1-25
MAP 1-5
UPPER MISSOURI WILD AND SCENIC RIVER
CHARLES M. RUSSELL
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Recreational Segment
Fori Benton - Ebersole Bottoms
Deadman Rapids-Holmes Rapids
Wild Segment
Ebersole Bottoms -Deadman Rapids
Holmes Rapids-Leslie Point
Magdall Homestead-Cow Island Landing
Scenic Segment
Leslie Point -Magdall Homestead
Cow Island Landing-Fred Robinson Bridge
Highway— 2 Lanes Paved
Unsurfaced Road
1-26
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Livestock may be excluded from high visitor
use areas, such as camping sites, through
fencing or changes in use seasons.
Specific management objectives for livestock
grazing on BLM administered lands within the
"wild" segments of the river include:
A minimum of livestock grazing facilities will
be permitted. Subject to valid existing rights,
all existing fences, water sources, and cor-
rals will be evaluated for need and eliminat-
ed where found to seriously detract from
scenic and wild values. New facilities will be
unobtrusive from the Missouri River. Live-
stock on public lands will be managed to
enhance wild and scenic river values. Graz-
ing management plans will be prepared for
all allotments. Objectives will include mini-
mum development and avoidance of live-
stock and recreational conflicts. Present
uses are generally found compatible with
scenic and recreational uses; however, rec-
reational and scenic values may take priority.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for
the administration of Indian lands and water. In
proximity or adjacent to the Missouri Breaks ES
area are three reservations: the Fort Peck, Fort
Belknap, and Rocky Boy. The Indians on each of
these reservations have some claim to the use of
the waters which are located on or which flow
through or along the boundaries of the Indian reser-
vation thus affecting operators and water develop-
ments on allotments within affected watersheds.
Within the South Bearpaw Planning Unit, 3,464
acres are in Indian ownership. These are tribal-
administered lands without reservation status. Indi-
ans have preference in obtaining grazing rights on
these scattered tracts; however, leases are fre-
quently granted to surrounding non-Indian landown-
ers. Because of the mixture of unfenced public,
private, and Indian lands, the administration of
AMPs and trespass violations is often difficult.
with additional natural forage being allocated to
sustaining a balanced wildlife population. Beyond
this base, forage resources could be made availa-
ble for domestic livestock use. The Range was
redesignated the Charles M. Russell National Wild-
life Range (now Refuge) in 1963, with primary re-
sponsibility for policy and programs vested in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Allotments that
adjoin the wildlife refuge are licensed by BLM only
for that area lying outside the wildlife refuge bound-
ary, even though pastures may extend into the wild-
life refuge. All existing allotment management plans
bordering the wildlife refuge have involved coopera-
tion with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Where con-
trol of livestock numbers from adjacent areas is
desired, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed
fencing segments of the wildlife refuge boundary.
An environmental impact assessment has been
completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for fenc-
ing of the entire wildlife refuge boundary. Long
range planning, including meetings with individual
operators and the interested public, is ongoing.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also administers
about 7,900 acres adjacent to Wild Horse and War
Horse Lakes and Yellow Water Reservoir in Petro-
leum County. In recent years, these properties have
been grazed as part of allotments administered by
BLM under a cooperative agreement with the Fish
and Wildlife Service; however, this cooperative
agreement expired in January 1978, and at the end
of the 1 978 grazing season, management will revert
to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Hunting is allowed
on these properties but except for the grazing pro-
gram, they have not been actively managed. Be-
cause fences do not separate wildlife refuge lands
from adjacent public and private lands, the Fish
and Wildlife Service will likely continue to license
grazing at the same levels of use and during the
same time periods as in previous years. Depending
on the future management of refuge lands, as
many as four AMPs may need revision (South War
Horse 5048, War Horse 4875, Yellow Water 5040,
and King 5055).
Environmental Protection Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
In 1936 the 1,100,000 acre Fort Peck Game
Range was withdrawn to conserve and develop
natural wildlife resources and to protect and im-
prove public grazing lands and natural forage re-
sources. Maintenance of populations of antelope
and sharp-tailed grouse was of primary concern,
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (FWPCA) provided local governments with
the necessary authority for the control of point and
nonpoint sources of water pollution. The Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
has been designated by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency as the state agency responsible for
208 planning. A cooperative agreement between
the Montana State Office of BLM and the State of
Montana was signed in mid-1977. This agreement
1-27
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
stipulates that the BLM will coordinate closely with
the state during the land use planning process to
insure that the water quality objectives of the
FWPCA are met where public lands are involved. In
addition, the BLM will make resource information
and expertise available to determine the effects of
grazing systems on water quality. Thus, implemen-
tation of the proposed AMPs must be done in com-
pliance with the guidelines established by the 208
planning process.
velopments, erosion control, and practices to
remove woody plant species; the SCS provides
technical support in planning, surveying, designing,
and laying out the project. These activities and pro-
grams are confined to nonfederal lands and do not
conflict with the proposed action.
Montana Department of Fish and
Game
Forest Service
The Nebel Coulee AMP (9665) lies adjacent to
US Forest Service managed lands of the Lewis and
Clark National Forest. The boundary between Na-
tional Forest lands and the allotment is not fenced.
The allotment management plan has involved co-
operation with the Forest Service; however a joint
grazing system has not been established. The AMP
proposes seasonal use from July 1 to September
15. Use of National Forest lands currently is author-
ized from June 21 to October 15. A cooperative
grazing plan with the Forest Service may be devel-
oped in the future. The Bald Butte AMP (2806) also
borders the Lewis and Clark National Forest in the
Little Snowy Mountains; however, the allotment is
fenced from National Forest lands.
Soil Conservation Service
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) efforts are
primarily directed towards stabilization of the soil
and watershed resources and increasing the pro-
ductive capability of private land. In an effort to
improve production capabilities on private land,
SCS has developed farm and ranch plan programs
which include such soil conservation projects as
detention reservoirs and seedings. In ranch plan
development, grazing systems are designed to use
the private range effectively. In an integrated pro-
gram, other range lands such as public land must
be considered. If the private ranch plan develop-
ment incorporates other use on public land, con-
flicts could arise, particularly if use on public land is
adjusted. Soil Conservation Service assistance on
private lands is accomplished primarily through
eight soil and water conservation districts in or ad-
jacent to the ES area.
Through the Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service (ASCS), the Soil Conservation
Service provides assistance to landowners who
want to improve their private range lands. The
ASCS provides cost sharing on fences, water de-
The Montana Department of Fish and Game is
responsible for a wide variety of fish, wildlife, and
recreation-related programs which directly affect
the management of public lands. These programs
include, in part, the protection and propagation of
both game and non-game fish and wildlife and the
setting of seasons and limits for utilizing such spe-
cies. In addition, the Department is the state
agency in charge of outdoor recreation.
Through a master memorandum of understand-
ing dated November 1, 1977, the BLM and the
Department have agreed to work for the common
purpose of maintenance, improvement, and man-
agement of the wildlife resources found in the State
of Montana and the habitat necessary to the propa-
gation, protection, and survival of those resources.
Further, the two agencies have agreed to cooper-
ate in the inventory, research, and management of
wildlife and wildlife habitat relationships on or adja-
cent to the public lands, as necessary to insure the
welfare and proper management of the species and
its habitat. The two agencies have agreed to co-
ordinate and exchange information on such items
as reservation of forage for big game animals, live-
stock control fences, alteration of vegetation by
chemical or mechanical means, water develop-
ments, and the joint development of habitat man-
agement plans. Therefore, many of the items in-
cluded in the proposed action (development of
range improvements, vegetation manipulation, etc.)
must be closely coordinated with the Montana De-
partment of Fish and Game.
Montana Department of State Lands
The largest state land manager, the Department
of State Lands, is responsible for the School Trust
Lands (usually sections 16 and 36) and other small-
er areas. These lands generally are leased to indi-
vidual livestock operators or Cooperative State
Grazing Districts on a long-term basis and are often
intermingled with public lands. Nearly 7 percent of
the total ES area is composed of state lands. The
AMPs included in the proposed action contain vary-
1-28
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
ing amounts of state land. The Department of State
Lands is becoming increasingly involved in man-
agement planning and development of range im-
provements. Coordination with the Montana Depart-
ment of State Lands within allotments involving
state lands is ongoing.
Thus, cooperative state grazing districts are directly
involved in the development and implementation of
the Bureau's AMP program.
Old West Regional Commission
Montana Cooperative State Grazing
Districts
Cooperative state grazing districts are non-profit
cooperative associations of livestock operators or-
ganized under the 1934 Montana Grass Conserva-
tion Act. They are specifically empowered to lease
or purchase grazing lands, to develop and manage
district controlled lands, and to allocate grazing
preferences among members and non-members.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation is the state agency responsible
for administration of cooperative state grazing dis-
trict activities.
Districts are organized to provide for the conser-
vation, protection, restoration, and proper utilization
of the state's forage resource, to provide a means
for government agency cooperation in dealing with
federally owned lands, to provide for unification of
grazing administration where ownership is diverse
and lands intermingled, and to provide for stabliza-
tion of the livestock industry.
There are 10 cooperative state grazing districts
within the ES area, cooperating with the BLM in
development of allotment management plans (Map
1-6). Table 1-8 provides detailed data on the affect-
ed cooperative state grazing districts. A memoran-
dum of understanding between the BLM and the
Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation establishes procedures for coopera-
tion on grazing management where public lands are
included within grazing districts. The statewide
agreement, and the complementary agreements
between the individual state grazing districts and
the BLM, specify in part that: (a) state grazing dis-
trict approval of each AMP is required where state
grazing district lands are involved, (b) BLM approval
is required for any AMPs developed by the state
grazing districts where public lands are involved,
and (c) when BLM undertakes to write an environ-
mental statement on any land within a state grazing
district, the Bureau will notify the Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation and the state
grazing district(s) involved and request their recom-
mendations and review. The memorandum also
deals with cooperative administration of grazing
trespass, determination of grazing capacities and
levels of use, and billing and licensing procedures.
The Old West Regional Commission is a Feder-
al-State partnership whose function is to stimulate
programs for orderly economic growth and develop-
ment in the states of Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Established
in 1972 under the Public Works and Economic De-
velopment Act of 1965, it is one of seven such
commissions in the United States.
In 1977, the Old West Commission instituted a
two-year "Grazing Assistance and Evaluation Pro-
gram" grant with the Montana Public Lands Coun-
cil, a public lands users organization formed by the
Montana Stock Growers Association. Because the
BLM operates under tight time constraints in prepa-
ration of allotment management plans and environ-
mental impact assessment, the Montana Public
Lands Council was organized to facilitate the ex-
change of information between public land users
and the BLM, and to evaluate the various tech-
niques, procedures, and economics of the allotment
management plans.
The objectives of the Grazing Assistance and
Evaluation Program are:
1 To make an economic overview of the im-
plications of the Bureau's actions on local
communities and to assess the economic ef-
fects of the Bureau's planning decisions on
the economy of the Old West Region states.
2. Technical monitoring of procedures used
by the BLM to make sure they are adequate
to reflect public interest.
3. Communicate with users as to the BLM's
decision and effects on their own operations.
4. To develop avenues of communication be-
tween the BLM, users, and Old West spon-
sored team.
Private Grazing Associations
Four private grazing associations - Square Butte
(26 members), Wittmayer (29 members), PN (17
members), and Silver Dollar (27 members) - exist
within the ES area. These associations are char-
tered under the laws of the State of Montana, and
three were formed with monies made available
through the Farmers Home Administration (the
1-29
MAP 1-6
COOPERATIVE STATE GRAZING DISTRICTS
LEGEND
Grazing Districts
7. South Phillips
11. Badlands
12. Indian Buttes
13. Crooked Creek
14. Chain Buttes
15. Grass Range
16. Winnett
17. Williams Coulee
18. Weede
19. Flatwillow
SOURCE: Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation.
1-30
00
co
Eh
U
H
fa
EH
W
H
n
w
Eh
W
W
>
3
w
fa
o
o
CJ
Eh
I
id
cn
LD
o
<tf
r-»
vo
O
o
■*
CTi
^
cd
^-
rH
vO
00
^
o
00
o
CT>
CN
tf>
<2 In
n
ID
r~
VO
r*
m
<3*
o
^r
rH
VO
CD
m
O
r~
H
^
n
<*
m
CTi
r~
en
10 M
<*
LD
H
CN
00
00
**
r~
CN
o
m
03 O
00
CN
rH
CN
^
CN
VD
H
H
m
VO
0 <
«•
■*•
H ~
•-{
^
u
\.
(n|
P T(
O 3
o
H
in
CN
c*
o
P"
m
**
^f
OO
•h (d
o
rH
o
in
oo
•^
m
CN
rH
CN
r-i
n J
rH
rH
•^
CN
O
o
00
•*
vO
vo
•-{
p
CO •
v£>
H
CN
o
O
H
o
CN
o
00
CO
•H -P
•sr
r~
r»
CN
■*
m
r-\
in
CO
^
^
Q 3
r^
rH
H
^r
CN
CN
O
•.
• U
H
o
<
\.
H|
m
D TJ
< cd
CN
O
oo
O
CTi
m
CT»
v£>
r>
•^
O
P
r»
O
CN
O
«X»
CN
in
CN
CN
CN
00
4H -p
m
H
CN
r-i
rH
CN
00
CN
CT>
t>
r-i
0 -H
a
CN
"tf
n
m
CN
^r
CN
<*
CN
oo
in
M k
H
<-i
CN
<-i
00
CD CD
"§ A
S
cn
MH (1)
0 CD
-P
U -P
00
H
o
<*
r-
oo
<tf
<-i
<£>
m
c\
CD -H
r»
CN
CN
00
00
00
rH
CN
m
o
m
3 cd
S CM
g
T3
P
rH
CD
CD
<-i
•H
0
«W
U
^
•P
<d
CD
o
fa
\
>1
g
\
g
g
3 -P
3
cn
T3
3
3
0 3
<u
0i
rH
CD
CD
■H 3
>i
rH
cn
cn
cn
cn
•H
CD
r-i
t-i
-P 0
0)
0
3
3
3
3
rH
•H
0
0
fd u
H
n
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
H
m
r)
M
o
■H
■p
u
U
r)
r)
■H
n
P
P
0 >i
rd
cd
CD
CD
CD
CD
,3
id
CD
CD
J £1
>
fa
fa
fa
fa
fa
fa
o
fa
Cm
p
o
CD
•H
CD
M
M
H
■P
cn
CD
CD
d
cn
d)
CD
CD
P
cn
o
•H
■p
U
S
Cr>
P
a
u
Q
-p
CJ
0
3
3
•rl
3
•-{
cd
PQ
rH
cn
MH
TJ
fa
Tl
H
«
t-^
+J
0
3
CD
■H
3
•H
f3
P
C/3
rd
3
X
&
cn
fd
JCJ
CD
■H
CD
J
CD
rH
■H
0
P
cn
•H
fa
t(
^-{
G
<
g
Tl
fd
0
fd
(d
t3
CD
t-\
C
Eh
(d
<d
.3
U
<-\
n
3
•
CD
•H
•H
o
s
m
u
CJ
fa
u
H
w
£
s
s
^ !
cn
-P
•H
a
fd
g
c
cn
C
<d
r5
CD
O
r<
■P
CJ
o
U
-P
O
■H
r(
P
cn
•H
a
m
o
cn
CD
u
o
<
a
o
■H
P
fd
>
SH
CD
cn
a
o
CJ
T3
fd
cn
CD
o
M
d
o
cn
CD
fa
fd
M
p
(d
m
o
P
CD
g
p
u
fd
ft
CD
Q
fd
C
fd
P
0
s
Cr>
o
fa
CD
U
in
o
cn
CD
fa
c
fd
rH
CD
cn
a
cd
fa
fd
C
fd
+j t
c; t
o (
£ r
CD
CJ
>H
3
O
W
1-31
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Silver Dollar Association did not use FHA funds).
Grazing permits or licenses are held by individual
members of the association; however, private graz-
ing associations facilitate BLM administration of
common allotments where numerous permittees
are involved. In several instances, base property
has been purchased and is used by all association
members.
1-32
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The following sections describe the environment
of the Missouri Breaks Environmental Statement
(ES) area. Each environmental component empha-
sizes those items most likely to be impacted by
implementation of the proposed action.
and other places where bare soil is exposed. Pollen
and spores from vegetation are seasonal additions
to suspended particulate matter. Other air contami-
nants are exhaust emissions from vehicles, and
herbicides and pesticides from spraying.
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY
The climate of the ES area is semiarid continen-
tal. It is marked by cold winters, warm to rarely hot
summers, 10 to 40 inches of precipitation annually,
winds primarily from the west, and abundant sun-
shine.
Average annual precipitation ranges from less
than 12 to more than 40 inches, but the bulk of the
area is in the 12-inch to 16-inch range. Snow in the
mountain areas may be several feet thick; on the
plains, snow more than 12 inches deep is uncom-
mon but not rare. Snow generally falls between
November and April, although traces have been
reported at Lewistown even in July and August.
Average precipitation recorded at weather sta-
tions in and adjacent to the ES area is shown by 3-
month increments in Figure 2-1. Rainfall is concen-
trated in the period from April through June. Pre-
cipitation from July through September is character-
ized by localized intense thunderstorms that can
drop more than an inch of rain or hail on a small
area in a few minutes.
Winter temperatures in the ES area may be as
low as -40 degrees for short periods, but the aver-
age January mean monthly temperatures are
around 15 degrees Fahrenheit. Summer tempera-
tures as high as 110 degrees Fahrenheit have been
recorded, but the mean monthly July temperature is
about 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures may
fluctuate widely during the course of a single day in
either winter or summer, and local temperatures
may be several degrees different than the average.
The higher mountains generally are cooler than the
plains and "breaks" areas during the summer.
Growing seasons, defined as the times between
the last frost in spring and the first fall frost (tem-
peratures of 32 degrees Fahrenheit), range within
the ES area from 1 04 to 1 32 days.
Air quality in the ES area is regarded as good.
No industrial sources of air contaminants lie within
or adjacent to the area. Dust is blown about within
and near the area from fallow grain fields, roads,
The ES area includes mountains, plains, and
riverbreaks topography. The mountains are con-
fined to the western part of the area in Chouteau,
Judith Basin, and Fergus Counties. The Little Rock-
ies, which lie on the border of Blaine and Phillips
Counties, is an isolated mountain area, but it
shares climatic, topographic, and many geologic
features with the other mountain areas.
Topographically, the mountain areas are charac-
teristically high. Altitudes range from around 4,000
feet to over 8,000 feet. Steep slopes are common
in the interstream areas, where the surface de-
scends away from the central parts of the mountain
masses. Streams radiate from the mountain ranges
to the surrounding plains and thence to creeks or
rivers that ultimately reach the Missouri River.
The high plains areas, in contrast to the moun-
tains, are lower in altitude, with land surface slopes
on the order of a few tens or hundreds of feet per
mile. The high plains are transitional from the
mountains to the rolling plains, which are analogous
to the prairies of the midwest. The high plains in
the ES area border the mountains, and range from
around 3,000 to 5,000 feet in altitude. Both types of
plains are cut by steep-walled, low gradient inter-
mittent to perennial streams.
The rolling plains landform area includes the
bulk of the nearly flat, low lying upland area be-
tween the mountains with their skirting of high
plains and the riverbreaks area. Topographically,
relief in the rolling plains is largely produced by
steep walls of low gradient intermittent or perennial
streams.
The riverbreaks topography is confined to that
part of the ES area adjacent to the Missouri, Mus-
selshell, and Judith Rivers and Arrow Creek. The
land has undergone rapid erosion because of diver-
sion of the Missouri (near the close of the ice ages,
roughly 10,000 years ago) from its former course
now occupied by Big Sandy Creek and Milk River.
In terms of landscape development, the breaks
2-1
Figure 2-1
AVERAGE PRECIPITATION IN ES AREA
7 -i
6 -
5 -
c
o
QJ
c
4 -
2 -
0— l
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
Source: U.S. Weather Bureau
2-2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
area is in a youthful to early mature stage. Bottom-
lands are narrow bands adjacent to the river, hill-
sides are steep, tributary streams are steep- walled
and have steep gradients, and the upland areas are
gradually being removed by headward erosion of
the small intermittent tributaries to the main
streams. The land is intricately dissected, particular-
ly near the Missouri River. The riverbreaks range in
altitude from around 2,000 feet to about 3,000 feet.
Fossils-evidence of life that existed in the geo-
logic past-are found in many of the sedimentary
rocks throughout the ES area. In Garfield and
McCone Counties, remains of dinosaurs have been
recovered from the Hell Creek Formation of Late
Cretaceous age, and early mammal fossils have
been found in the Tullock Member of the Fort
Union Formation of early Tertiary age. Plant fossils
are abundant in the coal beds of the Tullock and
Tongue River Members of the Fort Union Forma-
tion. Mammals of Pleistocene age have been dug
out of gravels along both present-day and aban-
doned streams.
SOILS
Soils in the ES area generally are well drained
and moderately deep to shallow, with high clay
contents. Deep soils occur as alluvial deposits
along drainages. Sloping to very steep slopes pre-
dominate, especially in the riverbreaks.
Active geologic erosion is observed throughout
the ES area, and is especially noticeable within the
riverbreaks landform. Water erosion hazard gener-
ally is severe whereas hazard of erosion due to
wind varies from moderate to severe over most of
the ES area. The low water permeability and slow
water infiltration properties of the predominating
clay loams, clays, and silty clays, combined with
widespread occurrence of bare ground areas, pro-
duces rapid surface runoff. This runoff erodes the
predominating shallow and moderately deep soils
that overlie the generally strongly rolling to steep
terrain.
Within the ES area, nine percent of the acreage
under consideration for allotment management
plans (AMPs) is presently in critical or severe ero-
sion condition; within the riverbreaks landform this
figure rises to 1 3 percent. Critical or severe erosion
conditions are not restricted to badland vegetation
types.
The fine-textured soils (high in clay content) are
especially susceptible to compaction from livestock
trampling. Compaction-especially aggravated by
trampling under wet soil conditions that occur
during the spring months-results in reduced water
infiltration (with less water available for plant
growth) and increased surface runoff and associat-
ed erosion.
Accelerated erosion due to livestock in the ES
area occurs near water sources and along drainage
bottoms, with active gullying and headcutting ob-
served in many of the allotments. Livestock trails
are incised, particularly near existing water sources.
Trail incision has not been quantified by monitoring
studies.
Soil Mapping Units
County soil maps published by the Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS) were used to depict general
distribution of soil properties throughout the ES
area. Soil property interpretations were developed
in cooperation with Jack Rogers, SCS, Montana
State Soil Scientist. Fifty-one separate soil associ-
ations were identified for the ES area. Map 2-1
displays distribution of general soil associations.
Interpretations for specific areas under consider-
ation for allotment management plans (AMPs) were
based on the most detailed soil surveys available.
Chouteau County data north of the Missouri River is
based upon Soils of Chouteau County, Soil Recon-
naissance of Montana 1931, A General Survey. For
Judith Basin County and adjacent Chouteau County
areas south of the Missouri River, the Soil Survey,
Judith Basin Area, Montana 1967, was utilized.
Fergus and Petroleum County soil data was ob-
tained from the less detailed Soils Survey (recon-
naisance) for Central Montana 1953. Garfield
County soils information was developed from a
1977 detailed soil survey performed by the SCS
under a Bureau of Land Management cooperative
agreement. This data was aggregated and analyzed
by the ES staff after completion of AMPs and man-
agement framework plans (MFPs) within the Mus-
selshell and Haxby Planning Units of Garfield
County. Comparable unpublished detailed soils as-
sociation data for McCone County was obtained
from the McCone County SCS Office at Circle,
Montana. Soils within the Willow Creek Planning
Unit of Valley County were given a detailed inven-
tory to the series level. Data was obtained from the
Valley County SCS Office at Glasgow, Montana.
For planning units in Phillips County, a 1977 de-
tailed soil survey performed by the SCS under BLM
cooperative agreement was utilized. As with the
Garfield County planning units, this data was aggre-
gated and analyzed by the ES staff after comple-
tion of AMPs and MFPs. Unpublished detailed
Blaine County soil data was obtained from the SCS
Office at Chinook, Montana.
2-3
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Fifteen soil mapping units dominate 58 percent
of the total AMP acreage (see Map 2-1 and Table
2-1). Descriptions of these major mapping units are
included in Table 2-2 to give a general soils over-
view of the ES area. Detailed descriptions of all soil
mapping units are found in unit resource analysis
(URA) records for the planning units, and are on file
in the respective BLM Resource Area Offices.
Physical Properties
Physical properties of a soil largely determine
soil capabilities and limitations. Size and arrange-
ment of soil particles determine water infiltration
and available water capacity, soil air movement,
soil compaction and stability, and the soil's ability to
supply nutrients to vegetation. Within the ES area,
and particularly in the riverbreaks landform, soil tex-
tures include high amounts of clay with associated
soil compaction hazards. Permeability is slow and
available water capacity tends to be moderate to
low. Moderately deep and shallow soils predomi-
nate, with deep soils generally found as alluvial
deposits along drainages. There is a preponder-
ance of slopes approaching 45 percent in steep-
ness, and a nearly equal area including slopes ap-
proaching 90 percent. Surface runoff is rapid. Ero-
sion hazard is moderate to severe from water and
moderate from wind over most of the area.
Livestock grazing historically has affected the
ES area soils. Under heavy grazing, trampling by
livestock causes soil compaction, with lowered
water infiltration and increased surface runoff. Less
water is available for plant growth and the in-
creased surface runoff accelerates geologic ero-
sion. The fine-textured soils prevalent in the ES
area are especially vulnerable to trampling damage.
Trampling causes the greatest amount of compac-
tion under wet soil conditions, as occur in the
spring of the year. This damage is intensified
through vegetation removal by livestock grazing.
Under light grazing and dry soil conditions, tramp-
ling has beneficial watershed effects in binding
plant litter, green herbage and excreta to the soil,
and in pressing seeds into the soil surface. Periodi-
cally grazed vegetation has been found to be more
vigorous thus creating more watershed ground
cover than comparable areas excluded from graz-
ing.
Livestock tend to congregate along drainages
and near additional water sources. Soil compaction
from trampling is especially noted in these areas.
Within the rolling plains landform, alluvial soils
along drainages constitute approximately 22 per-
cent of allotment acreage. In the riverbreaks land-
form, this figure drops to 13 percent.
Erosion
The susceptibility of soil to erosion by water
determines in large part the multiple use manage-
ment decisions involved in protection of watershed
and water quality. Extent and distribution of water
erosion susceptibility is displayed in Table 2-3 and
on Map 2-2. Figure 2-3 graphically illustrates the
preponderance of severe to very severe water ero-
sion susceptibility in the ES area (65.36 percent). In
the riverbreaks area, where slopes are steep and
geologic erosion predominates, severe to very
severe water erosion susceptibility exists on 88 per-
cent of the area.
The present erosion condition classes (soil sur-
face factor, or SSF) are an expression of current
erosion activity based on field observation. Seven
categories of surface features were evaluated to
determine the present erosion condition class
within each allotment area under study for allot-
ment management plans within the total ES area.
These evaluation categories include soil movement,
surface litter, surface rock, pedestalling, rills, slope
pattern, and gullies (see Figure 2-4). Five erosion
condition classes were used to depict erosion activ-
ity through numerical values: stable (SSF 0-20),
slight (21-40), moderate (41-60), critical (61-80),
and severe (81-100). Erosion condition categories,
with acres and percentages, are given for the
mountains, riverbreaks, and rolling plains AMPs in
Table 2-4. Of the total ES allotment acreages, nine
percent is in critical or severe erosion condition.
Critical and severe erosion condition classes are
of primary significance in evaluation of watershed
condition. Map 2-3 displays the allotments in which
critical and severe erosion classes occur with a
breakdown by the percentage of the total area
within each allotment which falls into the erosion
condition classes. While less than seven percent of
rolling plains AMP acreage is in critical or severe
erosion condition, the comparable figure for the ri-
verbreaks is 1 3 percent, reflecting the rough topog-
raphy with high geologic erosion naturally occurring.
There is not always a direct relationship be-
tween range condition and erosion condition within
the ES area. Approximately 21 percent of the grass
vegetation type is in fair to poor range condition.
Less than 4 percent of the grass type is in critical
to severe erosion condition. Blue grama and club
moss dominate silty range sites areas that are in
fair to poor range condition, yet these same areas
are in stable to moderate erosion condition. This
ground cover is extremely effective in prevention of
the acceleration of erosion.
Within individual AMP areas, geologic erosion is
generally observed, especially in the badland soils
2-4
Figure 2-2 Geologic erosion is a natural phenomenon from shale outcrops in the riverbreaks landform.
2-5
TABLE 2-1
Soil Mapping Units Within AMPs
Mapping Unit-
Rolling Plains
Riverbreaks
Total AMP
Area-
Acres
Rank
Acres
Rank
Acres
Rank
Badlands
158,252
1
423,969
1
582,221
1
Lismas
99,256
2
122,730
2
221,986
2
Lisam
86,512
3
49,459
4
135 971
3
Bainville
32,802
76,648
3
109,450
4
Lambeth
59,388
5
48,302
5
107,690
5
Dilts
71,123
4
28,571
10
99.694
6
Gerdrum
58,686
6
22,652
81,338
7
Alluvial Soils
37,262
8
32,837
7
70,099
8
Cabbart
33,104
10
29,832
8
62,936
9
Evanston
22,852
29,594
9
52,446
10
Busby
24,468
25,847
50,315
11
Pierre
37,167
9
12,581
49,748
12
Elloam
42,161
7
6,366
48,527
13
Thebo
9,392
38,320
6
46,712
14
Cambeth
32,000
34,340
15
Total Acres
804,425
950,048
1,754,437
Percent of
AMP Area
47
74
58
1/ Mapping units within individual landforms were given rankings through
the ten greatest acreage blocks. Because acreages for individual mapping
units varied markedly between landforms, the largest 15 mapping units
were ranked for the total study area.
2/ The mountains landform (17,079 acres) consists of mainly rough
mountainous land and has not been mapped to sufficient detail for
soil analysis.
SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management and SCS soil survey data.
2-6
EROSION CONDITION
AMPs with 20% or more of
their acreage in critical or
severe erosion condition.
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STAT EM ENT
EROSION CONDITION
SOURCE: Based on Individual AMP files. BLM
MAP 2-3
MAP 2-1
K I
£ > £
tf> as
c
3
M
B
a
>.
—
X
3
'5
CO
§
"3
>
£
X
*?
—
<
U
p!l
05
w
<*■
J
0
m
X
>■
<
.Si
~
H
u
1*
a
o
a,
13
"K
-C
■
1
X
Si
CV
&
j=
ea
3
s.
M
J5S
E 3
£ E
° E
.i t-
£ £
— c/:
■a ■§ ■
I I
£ S
£ £
E 5
3 D.
1
£ 3
2-7
r^
•^
rH
in
oo
m
CO
00
in
"*
•
•
•
•
•
cm i-H
O
CT
<tf
CT
rH
LD
ro ro
o
CM rH
^
iH
rH
CO
IT)
CN
r-
o
o
rH
CN
00
CT
CN
*
*.
».
*.
^
*.
o
CN
IT)
CT.
CN
o
r*"
CTi
(7l
r^
en
00
CTi
VO
m
H
CN
in
CN
CO
co
CTi
rH
VO
CO
00
c
rH
r-
rH
LD
po
■H
•
•
•
•
•
id
<T>
rH
n
CN
rn
ro
<T>
r-
CTi LD
ro
■p
CTi
vo
CO
rH
00
"vT
en ro
ro
c
LD
00
CN
00
vO
ro
3
*.
*•
*
»»
•*
«.
£
CT>
rH
CN
CO
O
■H
m
CO
ro
m
CO
CN
o
CO
n
i
CN
w
PQ
Eh
o
rH
<tf
in
rH
00
ro
r^
co
•
•
•
•
rH
^
CO
CN
CO
CT.
CN
m
CT.
CN
r^
0)
fC
rH
rH
O
CN
*#
VO
CO
>H
>
<u
00
oo
CO
CN
^
Eh
-H
M
•>
k.
*
«.
1
*
H
«
m
o
oo
rH
O
CO
r-1
P0
"nT
r-
CN
v£>
H
rH
ro
CTi
">*
co-
rd
rn
rH
P
E-i
<d
CU
t3
w
o
r-
r-
CN
•<*
u
r»
rH
<T>
r>
^r
>i
en
•
•
•
•
•
CU
!=>
CO
o
cr.
00
r^
00
^
CN
r~-
^r
CN
>
CO
JS
c
00
CN
VD
00
m
r^
r^
CO
M
cn
■H
CN
in
CN
r^
CN
rH
3
3
•H
rd
».
•.
«.
k
^
«.
CO
O
ffi
rH
H
CO
CTi
r-
r-
^
H
O.
<T>
rH
o
CN
in
rH
CO
^r
rH
CT.
■H
vo
•H
9
•>
0
&
rH
CO
w
«
CO
o
w
CO
Eh
CN
en
•^
in
&
in
in
vo
CN
t3
&
CP
•
•
•
•
e
c
w
m
CT
rH
o
rH
ro
rH
VD
CO
(d
-H
C
CN
<Ti
ro
"tf
^r
■^r
rH
a\
rH
-H
ro
CO
o
CT.
rH
P
rH
id
^
•»
«.
^
I
»•
C
Q
rH
CO
r^
CO
r^
CN
CU
04
cu
ro
p
o
rH
p
O
o
CN
+J
+J
o
e
CU
Cn
cd
id
S
cd
CO
£
CO
c
CO
a
CO
c
CO
J
CD
cu
(U
CU
<u
CU
CU
CU
CU
u
CJ
u
o
u
CJ
u
CJ
u
IH
o
<
iH
(1)
o
<
rH
CU
<
CU
o
u
0)
CJ
<
0
>i
Cm
Cm
Cm
Pm
(d
4J
N
cu
•H
•H
u
rH
CU
U
3
•H
u
O
PQ
43
CU
CP
•H
CD
>
CU
P
P
a>
-p
,,
&
p
fd
CU
CO
cd
CU
CD
45
u
u
u
a
o
CJ
tr
Q)
CU
>i
<
Sh
CO
•H
T!
>
rH
■p
Eh
rj
3
rH
O
CU
CU
0
o
0
CO
CO
s
co
>
2
Eh
CO
2-8
LEGEND
WATER EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY
I Very Severe
Severe
□
Slight
NoncategorizerS U.S.
Forest Service Lands
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
WATER EROSION
SUSCEPTIBILITY
SOURCE: Based O
eSoiiConservaironSe'
MAP 2-2
Figure 2-3
WATER EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY
Rolling Plains
High Plains
E. S. Area
LEGEND
J Very Severe
Riverbreaks
Mountains
| | Severe
| 1 Moderate
Slight
Not Categorized
Source: BLM 1978, based on SCS general county soil maps
2-9
(a) Splash erosion from raindrop impact
m^~z:
*• - 1 •-
M»,
*v i
i
r
m
r •-
>•■ - •
if/.
■*
. V
SBw
*
rar--<*k
" ' >
5fc
I
r "*^.
1 i*
ViHKf^LiMilf'i
'-A
(b) Partial ground cover allows active sheet erosion and pedestalling (under-cutting of soil around plants).
Figure 2-4
2-10
ix)
o
iH
IT)
<Ti
r-
CM
rH
<X>
LD
^
CN
CO
CN
<*
<tf
<n
00
00
CM
J
^r
rH
CO
<*
<Ti
ro
m
^r
c*
<
en
CN
O
O
x>
00
ro
Eh
ft
«.
^
v
••
•>
*.
O
^
CN
03
o
r>
<*
Eh
§
00
H
CM
O
H
CN
rH
O
ro
pa
Eh
CN
CN
O
c
O
CN
m
•H
•
•
•
rd
en
CO
rH
ro
m
CN
ro
-P
ft
CXi
CO
CN
^r
r^
rH
C
CN
r^
CN
3
<J
«.
•.
■»
0
U0
r-
CN
S
H
En
D
m
s
Eh
W
H
Q
W <u
w >
3 -A
u
z
o
H
Eh
H
Q
§
B
CO
.*
rrj
en
a)
Ph
pq
§
to
•H W
rd ft
5
ft ft
H
r-
rH
o
•sT
r^
rH
r-i
iX)
ro
00
CO
CN
CN
ro
CT>
en
rH
ro rH
ro
rH
<H<
CO
en
CO
<X>
rH
CN
r*»
CO
CN
LT>
CN
ft»
*,
*
«.
fe
iX)
«tf
<*
<r>
r>
r-.
rH
o
*tf
rH
H
<nT
in
<-^
<tf
i*
>*
o
<*
CO
r~
in
in
o
CO
r-{
CO
<Ti
CT>
o
o
X)
m
o
r-i
rH
"sT
CM
co
r~»
CN
CM
If)
in
o
>X>
*.
•.
k>
*,
CM
CT>
r-i
rH
O
^
CN
r-A
CM
CO
in
rH
CTi
o
en
o
CO
CN
o
CXi
r--
o
r-
C
<D
>
-rl
CD
-P
0
10
•H
rd
+J
o
-p
rd
CD
rl
rd
0
-P
CP
-H
>i
<-\
■g
■P
C
CD
o
u
CD
ft
en
<x>
■P
-P
4-1
P
p
CO
G
CO
c
w
c
w
c
0)
c
CD
(D
<D
0)
CD
CD
0)
d)
CD
QJ
rl
U
rl
o
rl
O
rl
O
U
0
u
iH
O
u
o
rl
U
rl
u
u
<C
CD
<
<D
<
0)
<
CD
<
o
Ph
ft
Ph
Ph
ft
CD
rl
u
0
r-i
-p
td
CD
•P
rd
o
CD
-9
X3
U
<D
•H
4->
rl
CD
ij
(d
-H
T3
•H
>
Eh
4->
r-f
0
rl
(D
O
00
CO
S
u
W
Eh
<D
tn
rd
<D
rl
U
rd
TS
O
•H
•H
tn
w
cd
rH
o
c
2-11
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
types. Accelerated erosion due to livestock primar-
ily occurs near water sources and along drainage
bottoms, with active gullying and headcutting ob-
served. Livestock trails are incised, particularly near
water sources.
WATER RESOURCES
Ground Water
Sedimentation
Several data sources, listed in the accompany-
ing tabulations, provide sedimentation rates for lo-
cations within the four landform areas within the ES
area. Differences in sedimentation rates for these
areas result from soil variability, method of analysis,
and length of record. Stable to slight sedimentation
rates averaged .16 tons per acre, moderate rates
averaged .48 tons per acre, severe rates averaged
.94 tons per acre, and very severe rates averaged
2.04 tons per acre. A total of 6,442,972 tons of
sediment annually is estimated for the ES area (see
Table 2-5). Sedimentation estimated for AMP areas
is given in Table 2-6.
Sediments carried in streams within the ES area
represent a serious source of water pollution, and
reflect high runoff and erosion rates, and stream
channel erosion. Arrow Creek is the dominant silt
carrier in the ES area. Other drainages posing sedi-
mentation problems are Bullwhacker, Two Calf, and
Cow Creeks and the Judith River (Montana Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Sciences, Envi-
ronmental Sciences Division, Water Quality Bureau
1975). The Willow Creek drainage, in the northeas-
tern portion of the ES area, yields 3.8 tons per acre
annually (Frickel 1972). Between 1948 and 1962,
the BLM has developed 2,399 acres of water
spreaders and 347 acres of contour furrowing to
control sedimentation in the Willow Creek drainage.
Without implementation of allotment manage-
ment plans, accelerated erosion due to livestock
could degrade erosion condition in drainage bot-
toms and near water source developments. Trail
incising also could continue to degrade watershed
conditions. An overall long term five percent de-
cline in erosion condition has been projected (see
Table 2-7). Sediment yield also is expected to in-
crease by five percent (see Table 2-6). Compaction
effects of livestock trampling have not been quanti-
fied.
Ground water occurs in unconsolidated material
(e.g., alluvium, glacial outwash, or terrace deposits)
and in consolidated rocks such as sandstone,
shaley sandstone, coal, limestone, or igneous
rocks. The alluvium and glacial outwash, where
they are mostly sand or gravel and are saturated,
generally are potentially the most productive
aquifers. However, they are limited to valleys of
present or past streams. Much of the alluvium
along small streams is composed of silt and clay
derived from adjacent shale formations, and wells
may require gravel packing or other special devel-
opment techniques to furnish adequate supplies of
stock water.
The terrace deposits within the ES area are
confined primarily to the high plains lands adjacent
to the mountains. Their ground water supplies vary
with the size and shape of the terraces - long and
narrow terraces are likely to be essentially dry,
whereas broad and wide terraces may capture and
retain ground water in quantities adequate for live-
stock use.
The main bedrock aquifers in the ES area are
(in descending order) the Fort Union Formation, the
Fox Hills-basal Hell Creek unit, the Judith River
Formation, the Eagle Sandstone, and the Kootenai
Formation. Where they are exposed at the surface,
they furnish good quality water, suitable for live-
stock or household purposes. Where the formations
are deeply buried, the water quality may be unsatis-
factory for household use, but it may be suitable for
livestock. Water in the bedrock aquifers is obtained
principally from sandstone or coal beds. Limestone
is scarce, and shaley sandstones generally yield
little water.
Between the aquifers listed are shale formations
that normally do not yield water to wells. They may
include beds or lenses of sandstone, but quality of
the contained water is likely to be unsatisfactory for
livestock or home usage. Shaley formations include
the Bearpaw, Claggett, and Colorado Group. Where
these formations crop out, ground water is not
readily available. Wells can be drilled through the
shale to tap underlying aquifers, but the wells may
need to be several hundred feet deep. Water ob-
tained from deep wells is likely to be a sodium
bicarbonate type, high in total dissolved solids,
warm, and under artesian pressure.
2-12
CO
CO
Sh
<
CO
in
w
CN
i
W
rl
m
1
c
0
•H
P
cd
-P
C
Q)
e
-H
TJ
0)
co
cd
CD
Sh
<
co
w
rH
cd
-P
0
Eh
970,022
155,204
3,219,372
1,545,299
3,213,738
3,020,913
834,096
1,701,556
8,530,200
6,422,972
CO
C
■H
cd
-P
0
S
9,599
1,536
512,038
245,777
i i
i i
i i
i i
807,333
247,313
en
cd
d)
Sh
,Q
n
CD
>
•H
P5
30,818
4,931
143,818
69,033
831,727
781,823
460,125
938,655
1,466,487
1,794,442
CO
c
•H
<d
rH
CU
CT
•H
491,280
78,605
1,155,628
554,701
i i
l l
i i
i i
1,654,182
633,306
CO
•H
cd
r-i
Cm
tn
•H
rH
rH
0
438,325
70,132
1,407,891
675,788
2,382,011
2,239,090
373,971
762,901
4,602,198
3,747,911
CD
■P
cd
PS
0
■rl
-P
cd
■P
CD
e
■H
CD
CO
Stable to Slight
Acres
Annual Tons
Moderate
Acres
Annual Tons
Severe
Acres
Annual Tons
1
Very Severe
Acres
Annual Tons
1
Total
Acres
Annual Tons
cd
.»
c
in
m
r»
■p
en
a
rH
o
s
CD
U
• •.
•H
1
>
Sh
CN
CD
oo
CO
•
in
cd
r-i
A
CD
o
u
U
Sh
cd
CD
cd
ft
<D
CO
cd
CO
CD
cd
r-i
r-i
-P
ft
cd
0
ft
Sh
-p
3
3
co
•P
CD
rH
-C
u
d
-P
CD
o
P
•rl
>+H
cd
Sh
0
S:
en
<
p
CO
c
o
<
CD
CO
Q
O
D
CO
Sh
P
CD
• .
ft
CN
...
r-
m
oo
en
r-
^
rH
en
r-i
OO
k
r-i
CO
U
f»
CD
0
cn
o
r-i
c
CO
CD
CD
CO
•H
Sh
CD
O
o
•rl
CO
cd
T3
3
rH
•
00
p
cd
r-
r-
CO
■p
r^
<n
c
en
».
c
CD
r-i
CN
•H
e
l
en
CO
c
o
CN
cd
o
<£>
CQ
Sh
en
0
•H
r-i
P
Sh
>
CD
G
CO
CO
>
w
-p
•P
•rl
Sh
C
PS
T3
0
3
£
ft
0
•H
cd
CD
£
r)
tf
cd
3
x;
0
-p
cd
CD
CO
r-i
-P
en
CO
cd
cd
cd
-H
CD
Q
CD
2
ffi
M
Sh
o
e
4H
CD
cd
0
0
P
Sh
cd
T3
Hh
-p
S
CD
c
•rH
T3
CD
CO
4H
CD
e
u
•H
rH
p
CO
CO
•H
^
O
CO
ft
cd
cd
e
ft TI
r-i
0
CD
C
O
u
Q
cd
C
D
U
CD
P4
p
D
0
O
2
CO
2-13
C
4->
4-> 0
C!
3 -H 03
03
O 4-> C
5
x: o o
LD
cy,
CO
CO
[^
CM
4-i <C H
CO
LD
CO
CO
LD
CM
u
•H
00
a\
kO
CM
WD
cn
rd
5 TS H
CM
(0
03 Id
LD
CT>
(N
CO
CO
LD
03
0
(13 03 3
<r>
O
>X)
LD
ID
CO
Q
n
SH O G
en
rH
LD
r-
Sh
<
3 cm q
4J o >5
v
^
03
Id 03
rH
CN
>
C 4-1
CM
3 >H
0
id sh
5
fa CM
03
C CM
03
03
O 03
rH
C
cd
S &
(d
4-) O
ID
CO
0>
CO
•^J-
CJl
03
4-1
C Eh
en
fM
IS
O
VD
LD
Sh
•- id
o
0)
r>
LD
(N
r^
CO
CM
u
C3 4-J
Eh
01 iH
c
1 id
CD id
rH
LD
r-
•-\
LD
CO
■H
CM Q
U 3
CTl
LD
o
CO
LD
ID
00
CM C
CO
rH
LD
LO
03
LD U
5
r-i
CN
CJi
id
Sh
03
, 4J
u id
0) £
c
>
Q
4-1 O
cd
rd CO
3 -H 1)1
CM rj
O 4-> C
4-1
CO
Xi o o
O
CN
ID
r-~
C
>iD
4-1 -=C Eh
o>
(T<
CO
LO
03
rH
•H
CO
CO
CO
1
1
lD
U
CM ..
S'OH
•»
•.
1
1
Sh
CMLD
en
Q3 Id
00
l-t
LD
03
3 r-
CM
0) 01 3
CM
co <n
\.
<!
SH O C
3 cm c
ID
rH
SH
•Hi
4-1 O <
0) QJ
C
03
3 IH
<
4J U
o
C
fa CM
id -h
•H
■H
S >
4-1
id
0)
•
Sh
U
4->
c
C
CO 01
<
C
4-1 O
CO
r-
LD
O
03
O CO
3
C Eh
<tf
o
<T\
ID
>
CO
TS
0
03
CO
r-
r~-
1
1
CO
■H
o x
0)
£
01 iH
•*
«.
1
1
•.
Cn
o
03
Q3 Id
CO
t-\
LD
•- Sh
0
SH 3
4-1
r-i Id
cm
CM C
0
r- 03
0
C
c
0> 03
u
<
rH 01
cm
03
cc
•H
>1
LD QJ
C
01 rH
i x:
4-1 O
01
rH fO
CN 4-J
3 -H 03
O 4-1 C
rH
rd 3
W 4-1
.coo
CO
•-A
cr>
r-
ro
CO
4->
K 4-1
i-l 3
4-1 <C Eh
00
rH
cr>
r~
O
CM
0
rH
« 0
to
•H
ID
rH
CT\
CO
<o
lO
4-1
•• 3
^ ^
Qj
s -d -h
•-
•■
*.
•*
-
CM U
H 4->
§
03 (0
^
<3"
LD
o
<x>
H
<d
r- -h
•H
53
03 03 3
<tf
T
^
CM
LD
r-i
03
en Sh
3=
03
U O C
3 CM C
CO
kO
CO
rf
Sh
cd
<-t C30
<
C
M
4J O <C
<-l
o
id
3 M
0
rH <
•H
4-1
(0
01
U
X!
fa CM
4-1
t> Q
0^ CO
rH D
03
Cn
4->
U
C
C
C
ai
4-1 O
r~
ID
r-~
rH
CO
CO
•H
03 -
03
>
C Eh
rH
CM
CO
CM
O
o
>i
Ql LD
B
■H
03
<tf
r-
CN
rH
cn
"tf
rH
•H r-
•iH
«
03 rH
CM
T3 CTi
T!
0) rd
CM
r>
LD
LD
ro
'H^
CM
3 rH
0)
Sh 3
<tf
(N
•-\
O
ID
'a-
rd
4->
CO
CM C
C
<
CO
\D
CO
CO
rH
03
i-H
•H
X.
CO 01
03
C O
•H C
03 03
Id -H
C
4-1 O
CQ U
3 -H 03
^^
CO
O 4-1 C
4->
Sh
03
X O O
r>
ld
cn
r-\
T
r-
C
03 rH
CM
4J < Eh
LD
ID
•^t
r-t
ID
CN
03
> id
s
•H
(Ti
<7\
r^
<y\
O
LD
U
-rH 4-1
<c
5 -a H
Sh
K C
03 Id
O
r-{
'*
r^
CM
r--
0)
03
03
03 01 3
ID
VD
<-\
ro
LD
CM
•rH E
c
HOC
3 cm c
4-1 O <
ID
LD
CM
CO
Sh C
•H
*.
<y\ ts
3 O
(0
•-\
LD 03
O Sh
H
3 Sh
• V
03 -H
EM
fa CM
— 03
■r~i
03 >
•H C
S W
SJi
01
C
c
03 O
•H
4-> O
O
1X1
r-
CM
LD
•-{
CP SH
e -c
rH
C En
oo
cn
CO
CO
LD
o
id CM
o c
rH
03
ID
rH
CM
LD
CT\
ID
03
Sh rd
(§
03 i-H
SH 03
4H
0) rd
CO
LD
o
vD
<-!
CN
U -H
x: r-
Sh 3
<*/
n
C\
CM
o
rd
T) 4-> r^
CM C
ID
<#
CM
CO
03
03 rH CTl
£
*.
TJ U
rH Id H
•-\
03 Id
•H 03 1
•H 03
CM X O
e ld
4-1
■rH
O Mh C?i
1
x
03 C
U OH
Id 03
O Cn
03 01
4-1 4-1
4-> -H
03
•-t
rd 03
C rd
rH
4->
US
>-\ 4->
■ ■
qj »;
03 CO
4-1
ns
o
03
CO
U MH
w
e
r-H
X
sh
•H
SH
a
C -H
u
•H C
X >i
Cn
0)
4J
03
<
D 'W
rt
T3 O
rd Sh
•r)
T)
•H
>
EH
D
0) -H
4-1 03
rH
0
Sh
03
o
\.
o
CO 4-1
CO >
00
s
U
CO
Eh
H|
CO
2-14
i
CM
ft
CQ
C
c
•H
p
u
<:
CD
to
O
a
o
u
ft
cd
-p
-p
o
x;
■p
•M
co
ai
cd
u
<
ft
SH
o
tp
o
-H
+J
■H
TJ
c
o
u
c
o
•H
CO
o
w
c
P 0
3 -H
0 P
X. O
P <C
(N
rH
l>
cn
O
(0
•H CO
m
CT>
o
cn
CO
a;
S "C (1)
o
*£
^r
00
CO
H
a) M
<c
cd to o
in
l»
o
00
O
CN
u o <
vO
CN
•^r
cn
cn
cn
cm
d &
CN
CN
o
CN
cn
P o
ft ft
t-l
r-i
i-4
id
o
-p
p
<tf
m
■*r
cn
CO
cn
o
C W
•^
CO
cn
ro
"tf
LH
a; a>
CN
o
o
>£>
CO
CD O
*tf
CN
CO
o
r^
U <
00
r-
CN
VO
rH
ft
OO
CN
o
CN
c.
P 0
3 -H
0 P
x u
p <
•h co
m
CN
CO
LS T3 d>
cn
O
m
d) 5-1
O
VO
vD
1
I
to
d> w o
*■
*
*
1
l
c
u o <
ID
r»
CN
•H
3 Ck
cn
td
P 0
r^
■P
3 5H
o
C
ft ft
»
3
0
g
-p
C to
00
cn
CN
CD CD
cn
CN
r~
to >-i
CN
r-
CN
1
l
CD o
•■
•»
«■
1
I
u <
LD
r-
CN
ft
c
-P 0
3 -H
0 P
X! O
P rtj
H
r~
o
&
H
•h to
O
cn
CN
o
O
IS T3 d>
<n
cn
CO
ro
r-
ra
CD 5h
AS
oj in u
l>
CN
cn
r>
-<*
cn
id
5h 0 <
VO
o
cn
>£>
CN
o
d)
3 &
rH
<*
M1
rH
■^
U
■P 0
»
XI
3 u
cn
5-1
ft ft
CO
a)
>
CN
•H
-p
00
CN
m
cn
cn
t-{
ft
C to
m
<tf
cn
VD
CN
«D CD
r^
00
CN
m
CN
CO 5h
d) U
i£
^r
•^
cn
F>
5h f<
r-
r-i
o
■*
•H
ft
rH
^
in
<-{
a
-P 0
3 -H
0 P
X O
P <
00
CN
cn
cn
cn
co
•H CO
<n
IT)
CM
cn
r-
C
& T3 CD
O
r-i
cn
m
r-{
•H
CD 5-1
td
<u co u
CN
t~~
l>
r-{
VO
*r
<-i
H 0 <
CTi
H
m
cn
o
ft
3 ft
-P 0
rH
CO
in
rH
cn
Cn
3 5-)
r~
c
ft ft
o
•H
H
F>
rH
-P
00
00
cn
O
m
<~\
0
c to
O
rH
CN
r-
CN
ft
CD Q)
CN
in
m
o
UD
W 5-1
*
*
^
ik
<D U
CN
CTi
r-i
<-\
Sh <
O
<tf
CN
rH
ft
CN
00
m
rH
CO
0)
c
5h
0
d)
r-i
O
C -H
P
id
<
0 P
a)
p
<d
U
CD
■H -H CO
rH
x:
5h
•H
5h
rH
CO T3 CO
X!
CT>
<D
■P
0)
id
o c id
id
-H
T3
•H
>
+J
U 0 H
p
rH
0
5H
Q)
o
w u u
CO
CO
s
U
CO
En
CD
■P
O
t»
•n
0
^
to
•H
to
5H
id
cu
>i
C!
d)
dJ
P
M-l
■H
m
rl
d)
>
o
a
o
•H
■p
■n
c
o
u
c:
o
•H
CO
o
u
d)
c
•H
CI)
c
•H
rH
O
d)
13
P
C!
d)
U
5h
d)
m
<
■H
Cn
-P
0
C
to
•H
id
-P
0
P
id
d)
5h
id
0
■P
tn
•H
>:
rH
&
id
X
S
-P
a
d)
o
rl
d)
cn
Cl)
cn
id
d)
o
id
d)
•H
MH
•H
CO
CO
id
rH
o
c
D
c>|
2-15
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Pumped wells in the ES area yield 3-10 gallons
per minute with some artesian wells yielding as
much as 50 gallons per minute.
Surface Water-Peak Discharges
Discharge of surface water occurs when more
water is available to the soil and plants than can be
accepted. Peak discharge represents the maximum
rejection of potential water supply, usually recorded
as an annual event. Records of peak discharge are
useful in determining the size of dams, spillways,
bridge openings, and culverts that would be needed
to retain or pass the flow without structural damage
or failure. In the ES area, peak discharge must be
considered in determining the size of dams and
spillways for stock ponds in drainageways that nor-
mally carry water for only a few weeks per year.
The dams have to be provided with spillways that
will pass a predictable peak discharge without loss
of the dam or spillway channel.
Statistics concerning annual peak flows for
about 70 small drainage basins in and near the ES
area have been published by the U.S. Geological
Survey (Omang and Hull 1978). The report includes
the annual peak flows for the period of record of
each crest-stage gaging station. Not included are
lesser discharges from storm or snowmelt events
that may have exceeded peak discharges of other
years. Most of the peak discharge stations in the
ES area have been in operation since the early
1960s; many have been discontinued after 15 to 20
years, and some were installed in the early 1970s.
Data from these stations is not meaningful to the
analysis of the more remote locations on minor
drainages which would be potentially impacted by
the proposed action.
Runoff
When rain, hail, or snow falls on the land, its
potential paths are varied. They are determined by
factors that include the amount of available water;
the condition of the soil (frozen, warm, dry, saturat-
ed, dense, porous); growth stage of the vegetation;
steepness, roughness, and orientation of land
slopes; and amount of litter on the land surface.
Most of the precipitation is transpired, evaporated,
added to soil moisture, or added to the supply of
ground water. Over broad areas, average annual
precipitation of 10 to 40 inches will yield between
0.25 and 5 inches of runoff.
Most runoff is limited in time of occurrence to
the first half of the year. Snowmelt in March or
April, when the ground is still partly frozen, wi1'
produce runoff that may be the record flow of the
year from a small gully or intermittent stream. Pre-
cipitation in April, May, and June usually produces a
second peak flow, which may or may not exceed
the volume from snowmelt. Later rain usually does
not result in noticeable runoff unless it is from an
intense thunderstorm. The gentle rains in late
spring and summer generally serve only to replen-
ish soil moisture. Rainfall in spring seldom pro-
duces significant runoff until the soil zone has
become nearly saturated.
Runoff in a small drainage area determines if a
stock pond or reservoir can furnish water through-
out the year or only during the spring and early
summer. The amount of water that can be inter-
cepted from runoff also governs the possible in-
crease in forage production from surface manipula-
tion techniques.
The U.S. Geological Survey has established 29
continuous-record gaging stations in and adjacent
to the ES area to measure streamflow in the Mis-
souri River, Musselshell River, Redwater Creek, Big
Dry Creek, Peoples Creek, and two tributaries to
the Judith River (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey 1977). The distribution of the
stations makes their data nearly useless for deter-
mining average annual streamflow or runoff in the
small drainage basins within the ES area. A gener-
alized figure, based on the average annual runoff of
0.25 to 5 inches, is more meaningful in terms of the
amount of surface water available to replenish or
maintain stock ponds and reservoirs or to sustain
additional vegetation.
Chemical Quality
No meaningful data on a broad scale is availa-
ble on the chemical quality for the affected sites in
the ES area. The chemical quality of water in the
ES area is controlled by the paths that the water
takes from the land surface to its point of withdraw-
al. The U.S. Geological Survey operates 15 stream
sampling stations in and adjacent to the ES area.
Surface water in the mountain areas usually has
the least opportunity to pick up soluble material and
therefore is apt to contain the lowest concentration
of dissolved solids of any water in the area except
snowmelt or rain water. As streams pass from the
mountains to the plains, they pass over and
through particles of rock and soil in their valleys.
They also receive ground water from aquifers
through which they pass. The rock and soil parti-
cles contribute soluble material, and the ground
water adds solutes from its aquifers. Consequently,
the concentration of dissolved solids in streams in
2-16
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
the plains areas is normally higher than in the
mountain streams. Water in the riverbreaks area
tends to have a still higher concentration of dis-
solved solids. However, the water in Fort Peak
Reservoir does not reflect this trend. The reservoir
is operated in part to retain the runoff from snow-
melt and spring rains. Its chemical load is markedly
lower than that of the contributing perennial
streams, primarily because the water in the reser-
voir dilutes their water.
Seeps are places where water comes to the
land surface. Some seeps have formed down-
stream from reservoirs. Water has passed through
the dam or through the rock bounding the reservoir
and has emerged below the dam. In places, the
emergent water contains undesirable amounts of
sodium, calcium, bicarbonate, or sulfate. Generally,
the salts have been acquired from the shaley bed-
rock basin of the reservoir. When the water is
evaporated or transpired, the dissolved salts that
are precipitated at the land surface or in the soil
zone may effectively sterilize the soil. The barren
patch, which is termed a saline seep, may cover as
much area as the reservoir.
The Bearpaw, Claggett, and Colorado Shales
commonly underlie reservoir sites. Movement of
water through shale normally is so slow as to be
insignificant. However, if bedrock at the reservoir
includes sandy shale or shaley sandstone beds, the
coarser strata may be avenues for relatively rapid
movement of water from the reservoir to the land
surface elsewhere below the dam.
Biological Quality
Fecal coliform bacteria are part of the water
quality where livestock and wildlife have access to
streams and reservoirs. Runoff from areas around
stock tanks is also liable to be bacterially contami-
nated; however, the chances for degradation of ad-
jacent water are reduced with distance of overland
flow and time for consequent aeration. The existing
contamination does not cause physical problems
with the animals which subsequently use the water;
rather, it presents an aesthetic impact to the human
observer. Biologically, the addition of animal waste
to streams and reservoirs promotes growth of
aquatic and semi-aquatic plants by providing nutri-
ents in soluble form to the water.
VEGETATION
Vegetation Types and Species
Composition
Vegetal cover in the ES area consists primarily
of various types of grassland with short and mid-
grasses typical of the Northern Great Plains pre-
dominating. Sagebrush is typically found on the
heavier soils and along stream bottoms and flood
plains. Other dominant shrub-like plants are broom
snakeweed and rabbitbrush. Woodland type timber
is common in the breaks of the Missouri River and
on other rough lands in the area. Most trees in the
ES area are scrub trees of little commercial value.
Along streams and draws are thickets of such
shrubs as buffaloberry, chokecherry, snowberry,
serviceberry, willow, and wild rose.
Some of the dominant grasses are blue grama;
bluebunch, western, and thickspike wheatgrasses;
needleandthread; prairie junegrass; threadleaf
sedge; and sandberg bluegrass. Disturbed sites
have a predominance of blue grama, and forb in-
vaders and half-shrubs such as fringed sagebrush,
broom snakeweed, and phlox are not uncommon.
Because of the size of the ES area, it was not
possible to map the existing vegetation types at the
scale necessary to be included as part of the ES
document, although each allotment in the ES area
has had the vegetation types mapped; the maps
are part of the allotment record. Allotment records
containing existing detailed vegetation information
are available at the BLM State Office. Major vege-
tation types by allotment, and the existing range
condition of these types are displayed in Appendix
6.
For purposes of this analysis, the map, "Climax
Vegetation, Montana" from the publication "Climax
Vegetation of Montana Based on Soils and Cli-
mate" (Ross and Hunter 1976) was used, with
some modification, to delineate the climax (poten-
tial) plant communities within the ES area (Map 2-
4). The distribution of existing vegetation types is
similar to the climax distribution at the map scale
used in this analysis.
The vegetation types in Table 2-8 and in Appen-
dix 6 are in accordance with BLM Manual designa-
tions (4412.11 A) and are determined by the domi-
nant plants in the current aspect. The vegetation
types occurring within the ES area allotments are:
grass, meadow, sagebrush, mountain shrub, coni-
fer, saltbush, greasewood, and annuals. A brief
definition for these types follows:
2-17
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Grass. Grassland other than meadow. Perennial
grasses such as western and bluebunch wheat-
grass, needleandthread, Sandberg bluegrass, green
needlegrass, blue grama, little bluestem, and June
grass predominate and determine the aspect, al-
though forbs and shrubs may be present.
Meadow. Sedges, rushes, and moisture-enduring
grasses such as bluegrass, needlegrass, and west-
ern wheatgrass predominate.
Sagebrush. All untimbered lands where sagebrush
or shrubby species of similar character predomi-
nate. Grasses associated with this type include
western and bluebunch wheatgrass, blue grama,
Sandberg bluegrass, plains reedgrass, and need-
leandthread.
Mountain Shrub. All untimbered lands where moun-
tain shrubs, excepting sagebrush, give the main
aspect or are the predominant vegetation. Common
species associated with this type include Douglas
fir, ponderosa pine, snowberry, shrubby cinquefoil,
arrowleaf balsamroot, Columbia needlegrass, and
bluebunch wheatgrass.
Conifer. All range in coniferous timber supporting
grasses, forbs, or shrubs, either singly or in combi-
nation. Common species include ponderosa pine,
snowberry, skunkbrush, bluebunch and western
wheatgrass, green needlegrass, plains muhly,
carex, and June grass.
Saltbush. The various salt desert shrubs of the Atri-
p/ex genus form the predominant vegetation, or
give the characteristic aspect. Other species in-
clude big sagebrush, tumble grass, western wheat-
grass, and blue grama.
Greasewood. Greasewood (Sarcobatus) is the pre-
dominant vegetation, or gives the characteristic
aspect. Other species include western wheatgrass,
Sandberg bluegrass, inland saltgrass, and big sage-
brush.
Annuals. Annual forbs or grasses constitute the
dominant vegetation. Common annuals include
broom snakeweed, cheatgrass, Russian thistle, and
six weeks fescue.
The grass vegetative type is the most common
type in the ES area, accounting for 60 percent of
the total acres. Sagebrush is the second most
dominant vegetative type (22 percent), followed by
conifer (13 percent). The other types make up the
remaining 5 percent.
There are no existing or proposed allotments in
the high plains landform. The rolling plains landform
has the largest amount of acreage within the ES
area with 58 percent of the total. The riverbreaks
landform accounts for 42 percent, while the moun-
tains landform is less than 1 percent.
The four major landforms within the ES area,
i.e., mountains, high plains, riverbreaks, and rolling
plains (Map 1-3), were used to group the range
sites by topographic similarities and precipitation
zones.
Each landform has its own characteristic live-
stock management considerations, precipitation
zones, topography, land uses, land ownership pat-
terns, and vegetative potentials. The landforms
were therefore treated as separate units as op-
posed to the division by geographic areas used by
Ross and Hunter (1976). Range sites were grouped
into landforms based on these similar characteris-
tics. Within the rolling plains landform are 17 range
sites. The precipitation zone is primarily 10-14
inches, and the predominant vegetation is western,
bluebunch, and thickspike wheatgrass, and green
needlegrass. The riverbreaks landform is composed
of two range sites, and is also in the 10-14 inch
precipitation zone. Wheatgrasses, Rocky Mountain
juniper, ponderosa pine, and some Douglas fir are
the common vegetative cover, with the distinguish-
ing feature of this landform being the Missouri River
Breaks. The high plains landform has four range
sites, and is primarily in the 15-19 inch precipitation
zone, with fescues the characteristic grasses. The
mountains landform is composed of the seven
higher elevation range sites, precipitation is gener-
ally greater than 19 inches, and the vegetative
cover is dominated by timber species such as
Douglas fir, Rocky Mountain juniper, ponderosa
pine, subalpine fir, and limber pine.
Range sites are the mapping units for the climax
plant communities map (Map 2-4). A range site is a
distinctive kind of rangeland that differs from other
kinds of rangeland in its ability to produce a charac-
teristic natural plant community. A range site is the
product of all the environmental factors responsible
for its development. It is capable of supporting a
native plant community typified by an association of
species that differs from that of other range sites in
the kind or proportion of species or in total produc-
tion.
A climax plant community is capable of perpet-
uation under prevailing climatic and edaphic condi-
tions (Society for Range Management 1974, p. 5).
The climax plant community of a range site is gen-
erally dominated by one or more species. Their
dominance does not vary from place to place or
year to year. Because of their stability in the climax
plant community, the dominant species are used to
identify sites and distinguish one site from another
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service 1 976, Sec. 302.3).
The plant species for each range site in Appen-
dix 7 are listed in order of dominance. Grasslands
and forest understory dominance was determined
2-18
LEGEND
PLANT CLIMAX COMMUNITIES
Silty Range Sites ft ■ 3 • 6- 11 - 12 - 20- 21)
Silty-Clayey Range Sites (2-4 -7 -13-22)
Clayey-Shallow Clayey Range Sites (5- 8- 14- 15- 17 -23)
Dense Clay-Clayey-Saline Upland Range Sites (9)
Badlands Range Sites (10)
Riverbreaks Range Sites (18-19)
Alpine Grassland Range Sites (24)
I I Forest Grassland Range Sites (16-25)
| Rockland & High Elevation Vegetation Range Sites (30)
J Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine Range Sites (26)
CZH Subalpine Fir, Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine Range Sites (27)
I H Subalpine Fir, Douglas Fir Climax Range Sites (28)
I I Spruce, Douglas Fir Climax Range Sites (29)
NOTE: For discussion of individually numbered range sites,
refer to the Range Site Appendix 7.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEM EN T
CLIMAX PLANT
COMMUNITIES
MAP 2-4
TABLE 2-8
Present Range Condition by Vegetation Type
Within Landform Areas
Veg . Type
Acres
Range Condition (acres)
Landform
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Mountains
Grass
6,221
120
4,176
1,925
0
Conifer
4,877
0
589
4,288
0
Meadow
557
0
0
275
282
Subtotal
11,655
120
4,765
6,488
282
(<1%)
(1%)
(41%)
(56%)
(2%)
Riverbreaks
Grass
643,243
212,813
293,908
133,259
3,263
Conifer
333,601
96,277
187,722
47,843
1,759
Sagebrush
210,279
37,141
113,157
56,570
3,411
Greasewood
16,845
3,932
7,686
4,384
843
Saltbush
270
0
270
0
0
Subtotal
1,204,238
350,163
602,743
242,056
9,276
(42%)
(29%)
(50%)
(20%)
(1%)
Rolling
Plains
Grass
1,075,522
161,875
705,030
201,904
6,713
Conifer
36,695
3,086
32,446
1,163
0
Sagebrush
437,719
74,407
259,748
89,820
13,744
Greasewood
78,004
616
48,005
28,466
917
Saltbush
27,252
0
2,398
18,324
6,530
Mtn. Shrub
770
0
740
30
0
Meadow
1,385
0
1,385
0
0
Annuals
16,741
640
4,644
11,457
0
Subtotal
1,665,263
240,624
1,054,396
351,164
27,904
(58%)
(14%)
(63%)
(21%)
(2%)
TOTAL
2,889,981
590,907
1,661,904
599,708
37,462
(20%)
(58%)
i
(21%)
(1%)
2-19
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
by the average relative plant composition by
weight. Species dominance in the forest overstory
was determined by relative canopy cover (Ross and
Hunter 1976, p. 3). A description of the soil group
names used to define the range sites within the ES
area is also included in Appendix 7.
Some range sites are a combination of one or
more soil-group names and are referred to as an
association or complex. A range site complex has
two different soil types within the same mapping
unit. Each type responds differently to various land
uses and management practices, but they were
mapped as one unit because they could not be
delineated separately at the map scale used
(1:500,000). Range site associations are two or
more range sites that have been consolidated
under one designation also, because they too
would be difficult to delineate separately, and their
response to land use and management is similar
enough to justify grouping them (Hunter 1978, per-
sonal communication).
The proposed action would revise, implement,
or maintain existing allotment management plans
(AMPs) on 18 of the 30 climax range sites located
within the ES area.
Riparian vegetation, an important component of
the vegetation mosaic, lines the banks of the Mis-
souri and Musselshell Rivers, with scattered stands
along streams and springs within the ES area. Be-
cause the riparian vegetation type generally has
more diversity in composition, and provides more
green, succulent forage later in the year than the
surrounding range which has cured out, it is utilized
heavily by livestock as well as most other herbi-
vores.
Cottonwoods are the major riparian overstory
species, along with ash, boxelder, and willows. A
variety of forb and grass species provide a diverse
understory. Livestock and wildlife also seek these
sites for the shade and cover they provide.
Appendix 6, Existing and Projected Range Con-
dition and Productivity by Allotment, lists the exist-
ing forage productivity for each allotment in the ES
area. In summary, the rolling plains landform area
has 179,508 AUMs, the riverbreaks landform area
has 111,226 AUMs, and the mountains landform
has 768 AUMs, for a total existing livestock forage
productivity within the ES area of 291,502 AUMs.
Potential Livestock Forage
Productivity
For the individual soil mapping units within the
ES area (see Chapter 2 Soils), acreages were plan-
imetered within each area with a proposed allot-
ment management plan. Total potential productivity
figures include a high value for favorable years, a
low value for unfavorable years, and an average
value (see Appendix 4). These estimates are for
potential forage productivity, given range in excel-
lent condition under climax vegetation conditions.
The figures represent an estimate of the greatest
potential of which this land is capable under opti-
mum conditions.
The average livestock forage estimate for the
rolling plains landform area was calculated at 40
percent of total forage; that for the riverbreaks was
calculated at 30 percent of total forage. In the ab-
sence of livestock forage productivity data on an
individual soil basis for the mountains landform
area, the figure of seven acres per AUM was uti-
lized, as given in "Vegetative Rangeland Types,"
Bulletin 671, Montana Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, April 1973. Conversion to AUMs utilize a 1,000
pounds per AUM ratio. Summations of these poten-
tial productivity figures by landform area are given
in Table 2-9. Comparable data was not available for
existing AMP areas.
Range Condition and Trend
Present Livestock Forage Productivity
The Missouri River Breaks Rangeland Inventory
data have been the basis for setting grazing capac-
ity on most allotments, including the 52 operational
AMPs. Based on the utilization, trend, and actual
use data that are being collected on these allot-
ments, it has generally been found to be reliable
information. See Appendix 1 , Methodology for De-
termining Livestock Forage Allocation and Stocking
Rates, for a detailed explanation of how present
livestock forage productivity was determined.
The range condition of the allotments within the
ES area is expressed as excellent, good, fair, or
poor. These condition classes reflect the current
vegetation composition of the range relative to
what the composition would be in climax. Range
condition is an expression of departure from poten-
tial (Dyksterhuis 1949, p. 106). As Dyksterhuis
(1949, p. 107) points out, range classified in excel-
lent condition could be producing less than maxi-
mum forage production. For example, a timber site
near climax condition may provide little livestock
forage because of a dense canopy cover. On the
other hand, the California annual grasslands are
2-20
TABLE 2-9
Potential Forage Productivity
1/
Landform
Proposed
Area
AMP Areas
(AUMs)
Rolling Plains
BLM
794,875
OTHER
496,725
TOTAL
1
,291,600
Riverbreaks
BLM
572,070
OTHER
351,021
TOTAL
923,091
• 3/
Mountains—
BLM
11,004
OTHER
6,075
TOTAL
17,079
Total
BLM
1
,377,949
OTHER
853,821
TOTAL
2
,231,770
Average
Total
Productivity
(AUMs)
632,397
395,222
1,027,619
410,243
251,760
662,003
5,240
2,893
8,133
1,047,880
649,875
1,697,755
Average
Livestock
Forage
2/
(AUMs)
242,959
158,089
411,048
123,073
75,528
198,601
1,572
868
2,440
377,604
234,485
612,089
1/ Productivity estimates expressed in AUMs are based on pounds total forage
per acre for individual soil series, as supplied by the U.S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
2/ Average estimate for forage was calculated at 40% of total forage in the
rolling plains landform area, and at 30% of total forage in the river-
breaks and mountains.
3/ In the absence of livestock forage productivity data on an individual soil
basis for the mountains landform area, the figure of 7 acres per AUM was
utilized, as given in "Vegetative Rangeland Types," Bulletin 671, Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman, Montana, April 1973. Conversion
to pounds of forage use a 1,000 pounds forage per AUM ratio.
2-21
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
presently managed to maximize forage production
in its present poor condition class. Therefore, the
range management goal may be to maintain range
condition at something less than climax in order to
maximize forage production. Appendix 6 displays
present and future range condition and productivity
by vegetation type within each allotment. Allot-
ments are further identified by range site, landform,
and finally by those allotments requiring substantial
or minor improvements. Table 2-8 is a summariza-
tion of the present range condition data from Ap-
pendix 6.
Overall range condition for the entire ES area is
20 percent excellent, 58 percent good, 21 percent
fair, and 1 percent in poor condition. As 78 percent
of the range that is grazed by livestock is in good
to excellent condition, present livestock manage-
ment practices would appear to be doing an ade-
quate job. But some range that is in good to excel-
lent condition is in a downward trend. Also, good
condition rangeland may be producing only one-half
of its potential. Map 2-5 shows existing and pro-
posed AMPs with 20 to 50 percent and 51 to 100
percent of their acreage in fair and/or poor range
condition class.
Present range condition is shown only for those
acres that are native rangeland and are accessible
to livestock. Therefore, dense stands of timber or
brush, and extremely steep slopes which are either
inaccessible or have little or no forage value for
domestic livestock, were not included. Likewise,
seedings of exotic species (such as crested wheat-
grass), and privately owned lands that are used for
crop or hay production within an allotment were not
included in the range condition computations.
The present range condition determinations
were made in the 1950s and 1960s by the Missouri
River Basin BLM Range Survey and BLM District
personnel. Beginning July 1, 1975, parts of the area
were again analyzed. The latest inventory resulted
in more land in several allotments being classified
as unsuitable, with subsequent reductions in AUMs
and livestock numbers. Where range condition had
obviously changed since the original survey, condi-
tion class adjustments were also made.
Range trend data is collected each year on the
existing AMPs. Several standard BLM techniques,
which include 3x3 plots, point transects, and
photo trend plots, are used to establish trend.
Based on these studies, the relative ecological con-
dition for the existing AMP allotments is either in an
upward, static, or downward trend (Table 2-10). For
those allotments that have not completed one graz-
ing cycle, trend projections would be premature and
were not attempted.
There are 52 allotments currently under an allot-
ment management plan. Of these existing AMPs,
17 are in an upward range condition trend, and 22
are static (reflect no change in range condition
either upward or downward). There are also 13
AMPs that have not yet completed one grazing
cycle so no projections were attempted. There are
no existing AMPs in either the high plains or moun-
tains landforms.
Poisonous and Noxious Plants
Several noxious and poisonous plant species
are found within the ES area. Although these spe-
cies do not pose a major problem, livestock opera-
tors have occasionally reported livestock losses
that are significant to individual operations.
The five important noxious species found in the
ES area are Canada thistle, leafy spurge, dalmation
toad flax, field bindweed, and Russian knapweed.
These species are unpalatable to nearly all classes
of livestock. Only under extreme conditions would
they be eaten even in small amounts, with the
possible exception of leafy spurge which is occa-
sionally utilized by sheep. They are invader species
that once established will compete with desirable
forage species for space, moisture, and soil nutri-
ents.
Table 2-1 1 lists the important poisonous species
known to occur in the ES area. It should be recog-
nized that many species that are potentially poison-
ous may be harmless under most circumstances.
Some of these species are valuable forage for live-
stock and wildlife. Also, many poisonous species
affect all classes of livestock to some degree, but
the class that has been checked in the table is
most susceptible.
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no officially recognized threatened or
endangered plant species; however, four plant spe-
cies have been identified as potentially threatened
or endangered in Montana based on an unpub-
lished study conducted for the U.S. Forest Service
by T.J. Watson, Jr., Assistant Professor of Botany,
University of Montana, in September 1976. None of
these plants are known to occur within the ES area.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public
Law 93-205) approved December 28, 1973, was
established to provide statutory protection for
threatened and endangered species of plants and
animals. As a result of this Act, the Smithsonian
2-22
TABLE 2-10
Range Trend for Existing Allotment Management Plans
Allotment
Allotment
Number
Upward
Trend
Static
Downward
Cycle Not
Completed
Rolling Plains Landform
Erie
Burgess Ranch
Thorgarrd Unit
Harbaugh
Nickels Ranch
Snell & Sons
Rafter 3 Ranch
Taylor
Trumbo & Sons
S. Hungry Creek
Snap Creek
Lone Tree Creek
Lower Little Beaver
Lewis/Bomber
Willow Creek
Seven Point
Pike Creek
Blood Creek
Flatwillow
King
First Creek School
Upper Long Coulee
Stratton Coulee
Lower Dog Creek
West Dry Fork
Lavelle Creek
Nichols Coulee
Telegraph Creek
Sherard Field
N. Fork Lion Coulee
0030
X
2038
X
2104
2124
X
2242
X
2316
X
2318
2334
X
2342
2345
X
2347
X
4581
4583
X
4585
X
4590
4598
X
4880
X
4896
X
5036
X
5055
X
5450
5451
5453
5455
5615
X
5625
X
5627
X
5654
X
6176
X
6192
X
7
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Riverbreaks Landform
Demars
Woodhawk
Mattuscheck
River
PN
Stulc
Norskog
WJ Brown & Son
0025
X
0031
X
0045
X
0046
0067
X
0081
X
2023
X
2030
X
2-23
TABLE 2-10, continued
Allotment
Trend
Cycle Not
Allotment
Number
Upward
Static
Downward
Completed
Rich
2274
X
Pense
2374
X
Busenbark
2503
X
Iverson
4957
X
Jackson
4958
X
Cabin Creek
5609
X
Square Butte
5612
X
Beauchamp Creek
5628
X
3 Mile Ridge
6164
X
Bullwhacker
6181
X
Hay Coulee Common
6182
X
Greens Bench
6184
X
Golf Bench
6203
X
Dostal
9863
• X
10
TOTAL
52
17
22
13
Source: Cpntinuing range trend studies (AMP files)
2-24
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
RANGE CONDITION
□
AMPs with 20 to 50% of their acreage
in fair and/or poor condition
□ AMPs with 51 to 100% of their acreage
In lair and/or poor range condition
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
RANGE CONDITION
SOURCE: Based on individual AMP files. 8LM
MAP 2-5
TABLE 2-11
Important Poisonous Plants Found Within the ES Area
Type of
Plant
Habitat
Poisonous
Principle
Most Dangerous
Seasons
Livestock
Affected
Species Name
O
4J
3
8
c
ea
a;
x
u
O
cc
c
i- o
o c
u -*
qj C
o
c
c
c
c
D
Death Camas
(Zygadenus spp)
Low larkspur
(Delphinium bicolor)
Tall larkspur
(D. occidentale)
Lupine
(Lupinus spp.)
Pointloco
(Oxytropis spp.)
White Sweetclover
(Melilotus alba)
Yellow Sweetclover
(M. officinalis)
Ponderosa Pine
(Pinus ponderosa)
Greasewood
(Sarcobatus
vermiculatus)
Milkweed
(Asclepias spp.)
Milkvetch
(Astragalus spp.)
Water Hemlock
(Cicuta douglasii)
Poison Hemlock
Conium maculatum)
Halogeton
Halogeton
glomeratus)
Chokecherry
(Prunus virginiana)
"troublesome in hay
SOURCE: Leininger, Wayne C, John E. Taylor and Carl L.
Wambolt, 1977. Poisonous range plants in Montana:
Cooperative Extension Service, Montana State
University, Bozeman, Bull. 348, 60 pp.
2-25
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Institution submitted a list of plant species suspect-
ed of being threatened or endangered in the United
States. This list was printed in the Federal Register
of July 1, 1975. There were ten species located in
Montana. This list was later revised by the Office of
Endangered Species of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and published in the Federal Register of
June 16, 1976. This new list eliminated eight of the
previously included species but added one other.
Thus, only three remained.
The findings of Watson (1976) were in agree-
ment with the revised threatened and endangered
list for the species Silene spaldingii and Trisetum
orthochaetum, but reported that Phlox missoulen-
sis, the third species on the revised list of Montana
species, was not at the present time either threat-
ened or endangered. He also concluded that Grin-
delia howellii and Penstemon lemhiensis which
were not on the list should be included.
Therefore, based on Watson's investigation,
only four species should be considered at this time
as potentially endangered in Montana. These four
species-Si/ene spa/dengii, Grindelia howellii, Pen-
stemon lemhiensis, and Trisetum orthochaetum are
all found only on the western side of the state.
The species Rorippa ca/ycena, known to occur
in eastern Montana, was reported by Watson as
needing further exploration before its status is de-
termined. Therefore, as this species may potentially
be found within the ES area, for purposes of this
analysis it will be considered as if it were threat-
ened.
WILDLIFE
Mammals
Mule Deer
Mule deer are the most abundant big game
animal in the ES area with an estimated population
between 14,000 and 23,000 (Table 2-12 and Figure
2-5). This population is relatively low compared to
the deer populations of the mid 1950s. Mule deer
populations declined starting in the late 1950s and
have remained at moderate to low densities from
the early 1970s to the present time. Although re-
search on the causes of mule deer population fluc-
tuations has been generally inconclusive, many au-
thors have concluded that, ". . . where deer are on
a high quality diet, other environmental factors are
not as important" (Pengelly 1976). Mackie (1970)
considers the occurrence of drought every three to
four years the basic limiting factor in big game/
livestock management in this area. Mule deer com-
petition with livestock for forage (South Bearpaw
and other URAs) is most significant from October
through June. Sagebrush manipulations have re-
duced mule deer habitat (South Bearpaw Planning
Unit URA). Probably the most serious situation
occurs when livestock are wintered, often with sup-
plemental feed, on key winter ranges for mule deer.
This problem is most common, however, on private
land in the mountain foothills (Belt Planning Unit
URA). In some areas poor habitat conditions have
resulted from overuse during periods of high deer
populations. Without the proposed action, mule
deer populations are expected to continue to in-
crease for the next few (perhaps 3 to 4) years.
Beyond that, the timing, direction, and magnitude of
their fluctuations are impossible to predict.
High value mule deer habitat in the Missouri
Breaks is characterized by the pine/juniper and sa-
gebrush/wheatgrass vegetation types. High value
prairie habitat is characterized by coulee heads
containing deciduous browse with an interspersion
of palatable forbs along intermittent streams and
broken badlands. Important habitats that have been
identified are delineated and acreages tabulated on
Map 2-6. Most of the 487,000 acres of winter con-
centration areas are in mountainous areas where
there are no AMPs, while most of the identified
high value year round habitat is within the AMPs.
The only areas of non-habitat are areas of intensive
agriculture, mostly near the south half of the border
between Judith Basin and Fergus Counties.
Mackie (1970) showed that (in the breaks)
browse was the most important forage classifica-
tion for mule deer in all seasons, increasing from
56 percent use in spring to 97 percent use in
winter. Forbs were most important (41 percent of
the diet) in the summer time, grasses most impor-
tant (11 percent of the diet) in the spring. Key
forage sources for mule deer are skunkbush sumac
and rubber rabbitbrush. When or where these
plants are abundant and moderately utilized during
summer and fall, big sagebrush and Rocky Moun-
tain juniper are of secondary importance. Yellow
sweetclover is also important to mule deer, and its
heavy use during years of abundance can relieve
pressure on key browse species.
White-tailed Deer
Roughly 9,000 to 14,000 white-tailed deer prob-
ably occur within the ES area (Table 2-12). They
are most abundant along the bottomlands of the
major waterways such as the Missouri, Musselshell,
and Judith Rivers. However, whitetails also occur
along lesser drainages, and they have moved into
2-26
Figure 2-5 Mule deer. This is the most abundant big game animal in the ES area. There is evidence that drought
and competition with livestock are important limiting factors.
2-27
>>
o
©
;3.
o
IE *■>
oo"
a 2
CN
■o "?
£ 2
o
o
©
o
Tf
us
o
a
o
s
c
3
o
c
c
c
c
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
■B 4>
£ a
o
o
o
o
"0 S
c E
o
o
o
o
w
LA
UO
©
3 tJ3
O uo
OS W
00
.— r
of
<M*
FH
1—1
3 ©
S".E a
2 Si
M a
a
w
CO
w
E
IS
3
a
o
a.
0J
E
a
C5
«
a
B "
.2 oo
B >
a 03
2K
25 J
*- a
a -r
§ a
DO Q,
oo
CN
00
CD
C£>"
oo
cn
a S
•*> B
~ .2 s 3
CO -w -w B
o ^
a o
<- «
2
3
S
<.S
.5 4> 03
sin
a-o
a, 3
oo **" CO
*> °- „,
> ->-> 4>
B S -
K^ B
C30
CM
01
Q
T3
a>
'3
aj
4-1
a
i
_o
4-1
"53
+_•
■C
E
5:
<
u
■ .a e
0> >>
>- "3
§.«
2 S
1 S
2 2
e
fc§ 5
E 0) -
OJ jS -C
-5 "t; 1c
u. O >
« « -5
a c —
o> £ U
Q I &
a be g
« 3 T3
O j- oo
J2
o>
oo
c
£
„ 3
o o
-o o
C X)
* OO
o-S
c "
2o
a m
0
a
00
ai
5tj
.. 4)
.9 c
a
o>
a
CO
K
o>
a oo
3 bo
s «
a. u
c a>
03 -C
0J 4->
6
o -c
c
t? , i 3.
oo ^3 J->
c5.s
O 4"- >
oj a =3
.5 a
-"-G "io
0) ■** E
■G tj O
^ G • -
4) .t;
O -B
5*ok
3 0J *" 4)
ft"3 *j -G
o -° 3 «
Q.JS 5 °
4) '3 -G X)
E>«S
oj a oo a
be oo '" o
E^.§
oj o o
o -r?
£ 4) oj 3
S JO J5T3
oo 0)
0J jC ■"
oj « 2
»5 oi "5
0) l.
js a -u
CO
0>
u
'2
a
3
J3
0J
00
o>
OJ
J5
J=
4->
4->
t*-i
<*N
O
o
T3
?
C
be
OJ
a
OJ
u
u
0J
a
a
a
0J
3
-C
O)
■u
-G
•M
*J
o
T3
4J
b
c
a
0J
S
u
0J
o
4J
a
OO
o
a
00
Ol
3
a
O
CO
43
<
w
OJ
cd
OJ
h
c
a
>>
G
T3
_o
3
'-2
4->
a
03
OJ
3
a
o
a
a
a
OJ
a
0J
a
4-3
Q
oo
>-
oo
4J
OO
OJ
a
OJ
'E
_u
>
3
-3
a
W)
.c
X
_G
'-4J
"oj
t~-
B
>
c~
3
O
yb
-C
^2
OO
O
O0
a
cn"
0J
u
oj"
J=
0J
E
a
*4-t
o
a
O
o
JS
O
T3
B
a
_>>
_E
JS
B
o
JS
00
_E
OJ
(4-1
O
T3
0J
oo
*J
S
c
B
_o
o
OJ
E
08
aj
a
■•—■
U
o
oo
a
E
CO
CO
i*
a
■I-
£
CD
>,
Q
m
bO-u
.5 3
^E
a
B
X
B
on
-2
15
a
<
3
0j
a
B
O
s
II
Q
J5 J=
4->
=1 B
«2
'3
>
<
oj srr _r =_•■
dt3 £ >> £1 E2 21 s: £
2-28
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
some of the timbered breaks and mountainous
areas. Important use areas for white-tailed deer are
delineated and acreages tabulated on Map 2-7.
The vast majority of these habitats occur on non-
AMP areas.
Whitetail populations are generally increasing
within the ES area. The main factor limiting whitetail
populations from more rapid expansion is the use
of bottomlands and coulees by livestock (South
Bearpaw Planning Unit URA).
Browse and forbs were the most important
vegetation classes for whitetails at all seasons in
the Missouri River bottoms with browse being espe-
cially important in fall and winter, at which time
heavy use of browse by cattle was also document-
ed (Allen 1968). The use of grass species was
significant only in the spring when they comprised
about 38 percent of the diet in Allen's study.
Whitetails appear to be more dependent on
drinking water than are mule deer (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1973) and
frequently drink from ponds, streams, springs, and
reservoirs. As these water sources are commonly
associated with the bottomland habitat whitetails
prefer, water is seldom limiting for them.
Antelope
There are probably 13,000 to 20,000 antelope in
the ES area (Table 2-12), primarily in the high
plains and rolling plains landforms. The use of tim-
bered breaks and mountainous areas by antelope
is very limited. Antelope security is highest in rela-
tively open areas where they can take full advan-
tage of their highly developed sight and running
ability.
Antelope often coexist well with livestock appar-
ently because their diet includes relatively little
grass. However, competition between antelope and
livestock for forbs can be significant (Pyrah 1978,
personal communication; and Becker 1972). The
pronghorn's diet during the summer is about 66
percent forbs and 33 percent browse; grasses com-
prise only about 1 percent (Grensten and Ryerson
1973). In the fall, the pronghorn's diet is about 50
percent browse and 50 percent forbs. In winter,
browse species comprise almost all of the antelope
diet. Winter survival is largely dependent on sup-
plies of big sagebrush and silver sagebrush (Mar-
tinka 1967).
In some areas pronghorn densities are highest
on well watered range (Sundstrom 1968). Yoakum
(1977) recommends water distribution every three
to four miles. However, the effect of water availabil-
ity on antelope distribution in Montana is not well
established.
Concentration areas during severe winters are
delineated and acreages tabulated on Map 2-8.
The condition of wintering areas is often limiting for
antelope populations. Throughout much of the ES
area, livestock are summered on public lands and
wintered on private and state lands. The wintering
areas for livestock are often sagebrush areas
needed by wintering antelope (Belt and Fergus
Planning Units URA). Expanding agricultural devel-
opment also limits antelope populations by reducing
grass-shrubland habitat. The current trend of ante-
lope populations within the ES area is generally
stable with a few areas showing recent increases
and at least one showing decreases (Fergus Plan-
ning Unit URA and other URAs).
Elk
There are probably 2,500 to 3,000 elk that use
the ES area, primarily in the mountains and river-
breaks landforms (Table 2-12). Important elk popu-
lations occur on the State Fish and Game Depart-
ment's Judith River Game Range and other parts of
the Little Belt Mountains, in the Highwood Moun-
tains east of Great Falls, in the Judith Mountains
northeast of Lewistown, and in various parts of the
breaks surrounding and in the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge (see Map 2-9). As is the
case with many wildlife species, many of the elk
have home ranges that include areas within and
outside the refuge.
Although elk are native to the Missouri Breaks,
they vanished from the area in the 1860s because
of hunting and competition with livestock. They
were reintroduced via transplants from Yellowstone
National Park from 1935 to 1951. Populations are
still expanding, but the rate of expansion is quite
slow due to the combined effect of poaching and
substantial legal harvest (Willow Creek Planning
Unit URA). In some areas road development, such
as that associated with timber harvesting and oil
and gas exploration, is a current and future threat
to elk expansion (South Bearpaw Planning Unit
URA). The access roads and trails spawn human
activity on a year-round basis and deny security for
elk during periods of stress. Although the elk popu-
lations in the breaks do not currently compete sig-
nificantly with livestock for forage, the potential for
such competition exists and is one of the reasons
for landowner resistance to rapid expansion of the
elk herds (Eichhorn 1978, personal communica-
tion).
The Judith River Game Range is the primary
wintering area for approximately 1,000 head of elk.
2-29
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Herds are kept within the carrying capacity by
annual harvest. Most elk in the mountains landform
summer at higher elevations and winter on the
lower mountain foothills. Particularly in the High-
wood Mountains area, landowners often complain
that elk move to lower elevations and winter on
private lands. The elk herd in the Judith Mountains
numbers about 100 animals, its expansion being
restricted by a lack of winter range in areas where
landowners will tolerate the presence of elk.
Most of the approximately 1,000 elk in the
breaks area occur north of the river. However, year-
long use occurs in the breaks in northeast Fergus
County, and some winter use by elk of the breaks
south of the Missouri from the Musselshell River to
Seven Blackfoot Creek is probable but not docu-
mented. Elk have been recently observed along
Cow Creek and elsewhere in the South Bearpaw
Planning Unit in southern Blaine County. Since the
elk in the Missouri Breaks region generally use
habitat on both sides of the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge, the condition of their
range depends partly upon coordination between
BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Elk have recently been observed in the Little
Rocky Mountains (Little Rockies URA). Desirable
aspects of this area for elk habitat include the re-
moteness due to the mountain character, integra-
tion of timber and park tracts, and a variety of
vegetation. Motorized vehicle travel is limited, and
the timber provides ample cover. Elk also occur in
the southwestern part of the UL Bend Planning Unit
where the breaks extend into the planning unit and
in the east part of that planning unit in the breaks
and Larb Hills.
South Valley County has two separate elk
herds. To the southeast, 60 to 80 head overlap
onto BLM lands from the Pines area of the Charles
M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. To the south-
west, 130 to 140 head inhabit the Harper Ridge
area of the refuge and the Timber Creek, Square
Creek, and Southerland Creek regions on BLM
land. These two areas in south Valley County are
important to elk because of the security their rough
topography provides and because of the scattered
verdant spots created by natural springs. Range
conditions in these areas are exceptionally good;
however, the populations have not increased
beyond current levels, apparently because of
poaching and other human harassment.
(Eichhorn and Watts 1976). (See Figure 2-6.) In
1972 and 1973, 30 bighorns were introduced into
the Little Rocky Mountains. This herd has had
some reproduction and seems to be holding its
own. Winter feed is scarce, however, and the herd
feeds on the hay stacks on the adjacent private
lands.
Bighorns introduced in the Missouri River
Breaks of Fergus County from 1958 to 1961 in-
creased for several years but suffered severe die-
offs during the winters of 1972 and 1978 and now
number only nine animals. Although their range
originally included BLM land as shown on Map 2-9,
it now appears to be restricted within the bound-
aries of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife
Refuge. Other attempted introductions within the
ES area have failed.
Bighorns use forbs, shrubs, and grasses during
all seasons. They are vulnerable to competition
from elk, deer, and livestock (Couey and Schallen-
berger 1971).
Wild Horses
A band of approximately 30 wild or semi-wild
horses occurs on and adjacent to the Ervin Ridge
allotment (#6212) in the South Bearpaw Planning
Unit (Map 2-9). The MFP states (RM-11) that the
horses will be rounded up to determine whether
they are truly wild or if they include branded individ-
uals. The Ervin Ridge AMP states that the horses
compete significantly with cattle and deer for avail-
able forage. The MFP approves (WL-6) a study to
document the extent of competition between the
horses and wildlife on important habitat areas.
Mountain Lions
Although mountain lions roam throughout the
mountains and riverbreaks landforms within the ES
area, reports of mountain lion observations are very
rare. Their far ranging habits and territorial behavior
preclude dense populations. Intensive hunting (out-
side of Montana) sometimes produces many more
mountain lions than expected (Johnson and Couch
1954); however, it is judged that less than 20 occur
in the ES area.
Furbearers
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep
Introductions of bighorn sheep in the ES area
have met with only limited success because of lim-
ited winter habitat and competition with livestock
The most important furbearer within the ES area
in terms of numbers harvested is the muskrat which
occurs in most stockwater ponds and natural wet-
land habitats. Although data are not available, fox,
coyote, and bobcat are probably the most impor-
2-30
LEGEND
MULE DEER HABITAT TYPE
J Concentration Areas During Severe Winters
I High Value Year Long Habitat
I General Distribution
I Non Habitat
Acres and Percent
of Tola/ ES Area
487,100(6%)
377,800 (4%)
7,467,800(88%)
197,400(2%)
Acres and Percent
within AMPs
67,000(2%)
315,900(10%)
2,616,700(87%)
14,800 (.05%)
UNITED STATES DEPAETMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
MULE DEER HABITAT
MAP 2-6
LEGEND
WHITE-TAILED DEER HA BIT A T TYPE
Concentration Areas During Severe Winters
! I Year Long Habitat
I Summer Habitat
J Non Habitat
Acres and Percent
of Total ES Area
72,800(1%)
2,182,800(26%)
76,200(1%)
6,198,400(73%)
Acres and Percent
within AMPs
300 (.01%)
340,300(11%)
500 (.02%)
2,673,200(89%)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEM E NT
WHITE-TAILED
DEER HABITAT
MAP 2-7
LEGEND
ANTELOPE HABITAT TYPE
Concentration Areas During Severe Winters
I High Value Year Long Habitat
I General Distribution
J Non Habitat
Acres and Percent
of Total ES Area
293,600(3%)
19,800 (.2%)
5,184,000(61%)
3,032,800(36%)
Acres and Percent
within AMPs
132,900(4%)
19,300(1%)
1,666,000(55%)
1,196,200(40%)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
ANTELOPE HABITAT
MAP 2-8
LEGEND
ELK HABITAT TyPE
I Concentration Areas During Severe Winters
I Summer Habitat
I Year Long Habitat
1 Non-Habitat
J BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT
1 WILD HORSE HABITAT
Acres and Percent
of Total ES Area
68,300(1%)
305,400(4%)
438,800(5%)
7,717,700(90%)
28,100
23,100
Acres and Percent
within AMPs
500 (.02%)
200 (.01%)
251,200(8%)
2,762,600(92%)
25,000
23,100
,■ PRAIRIE DOG TOWNS
»• RESERVOIRS WITH GOOSE ISLANDS
UNITED STATES DEPAETMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
ADDITIONAL
WILDLIFE HABITATS
SOURCE. Montana Departmenl ol Fish and Game 1974
Habilat Maps, and BLM Planning System. URA Slep 3
MAP 2-9
Figure 2-6 Bighorn sheep. Attempts to re-establish bighorns in the ES area have had very limited success because
of limited winter habitat and competition with livestock. Small populations currently exist in the Little
Rocky Mountains and in the riverbreaks of Fergus County.
2-31
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
tant furbearers in the ES area in terms of the value
of the harvest.
The wolverine, least weasel, and Canadian lynx
have been identified by the Montana Department of
Fish and Game as species of "special interest or
concern" (Flath 1978), because they are rare, sen-
sitive to environmental changes, on the periphery
of their range, or controversial. The endange-ed
black-footed ferret is discussed in the section on
threatened or endangered species. Habitat areas,
populations, and population trends have not been
determined for furbearers within the ES area.
Small Mammals
A variety of small mammals occur within the ES
area. Typical examples are the desert cottontail,
masked shrew, and deer mouse. Several species
known or suspected to occur within the ES area
(Merriam shrew, dwarf shrew, preble shrew, long-
legged bat, big-eared bat, meadow jumping mouse,
and the black-tailed prairie dog) have been identi-
fied by the State of Montana as being of "special
interest or concern" (Flath 1978). Annotated lists of
mammals occurring within the ES area are on file
at the BLM district offices in Lewistown and Miles
City. Information on population levels and trends for
small mammals within the ES area is not available.
There are 134 prairie dog towns ranging in size
from 17 to 780 acres in the ES area (Map 2-9). The
adverse impacts of prairie dogs on public lands
have not been measured. However, reports and
observations from South Phillips County indicate
prairie dogs have contributed to significant declines
in forage production and watershed stability. A Prai-
rie Dog Habitat Management Plan has been drafted
which outlines control measures to be considered
for selected public lands in conjunction with a com-
prehensive program for improving overall range re-
sources. The plan will be coordinated with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Montana Depart-
ment of Fish and Game. Management practices,
including manipulation of livestock grazing and wa-
tershed treatment projects, will complement prairie
dog control.
An interdisciplinary team will be established to
examine public rangelands where prairie dog
damage has been reported. Beginning in FY 1979,
the team will inspect public lands in South Phillips
County. Intensive pre-control inventories will be
conducted at each dog town to determine the pres-
ence of the black-footed ferret. The team will be
responsible for providing data to support any deci-
sion affecting prairie dog control.
Birds
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Sharp-tailed grouse are the most abundant
upland game bird in the ES area. Population esti-
mates are not available; however, during 1976, ap-
proximately 55,400 sharptails were harvested by
hunters in the nine counties represented in the ES
area. About 12,000 of these birds were harvested
in Fergus County alone. Sharptails occur through-
out the ES area, about 21 percent of which is
considered high value habitat (Map 2-10). One hun-
dred and thirty-three dancing grounds have been
located within the ES area (Map 2-10). Many more
undoubtedly exist.
Sharptail habitat includes hills, benchlands, and
other areas of rolling topography and should have a
good stand of residual cover composed chiefly of
grasses for roosting, feeding, and nesting. Dancing
grounds are usually flat areas on elevated knolls or
benches. The sites are nearly bare of vegetation,
although brushy cover is near for feeding and
escape. The nest site is usually within one-half to
three-quarters of a mile from the dancing ground
and has a protective cover of grasses or low
shrubs.
A major food source for sharptails in spring is
rose hips. Other food utilized during this period in-
cludes sage, corn, shoots (where available), and
grasshoppers. Summer foods consist mainly of
annual forbs and grasshoppers. Fall foods include
rose hips, buffaloberries, sunflowers, plums, sumac,
and grasshoppers. Winter foods resemble the fall
foods except for the grasshoppers. Succulent foods
and snow satisfy sharptail water requirements, al-
though they may drink from water sources when
readily available (Musselshell Planning Unit URA).
Limiting factors for sharptails are intensive farm-
ing and heavy grazing. However, they have been
increasing significantly in recent years in Petroleum
County and the eastern half of Fergus County.
Good moisture conditions and reduced livestock
numbers appear to be partly responsible.
Studies in southwestern North Dakota have
shown that over 90 percent of the nest sites were
in residual vegetation over six inches high, and 70
percent of brood locations were in vegetation over
nine inches high (Kohn 1976). Habitat preferences
in the ES area are probably similar.
Sage Grouse
Sage grouse occur on almost half of the ES
area, 3 percent of which has been identified as
2-32
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
crucial winter habitat (Map 2-11). They are closely
associated with sagebrush, which provides many of
their habitat requirements.
Information on sage grouse population densities
and trends in the ES area is not available. Howev-
er, their distribution in Montana has remained
stable since about 1941 (Martin and Pyrah 1971).
About 23,000 sage grouse were harvested in 1976
in the nine counties that are represented in the ES
area.
Although insects and forbs are important to
sage grouse in the summer (June to August), they
are less important in May and September; from
October through April sage grouse live almost en-
tirely on sage. Important summer food plants in-
clude common dandelion, salsify, American vetch,
prickly lettuce, alfalfa, curlycup gumweed, and
fringed sagewort. Insects account for about 25 per-
cent of the diet of juvenile sage grouse during the
first six weeks. Juvenile grouse prefer areas with
from 1 to 20 percent sagebrush canopy coverage
and a diversity of forbs (Wallestad 1975).
Sage grouse generally nest within two miles of
strutting grounds in sagebrush with canopy cover-
age from 20 to 30 percent, the preferred height of
the sage being about 16 inches. During winter,
sage grouse prefer areas with sage canopy cover-
age of 20 percent or more and during periods of
heavy snow, sage heights greater than 12 inches
are necessary (Wallestad 1975).
Sage grouse obtain moisture from succulent
foods and snow. Use of free water by sage grouse
in central Montana has not been documented.
Pheasants and Hungarian Partridge
These two introduced species are popular game
birds that are closely associated with agricultural
land. Population estimates for the ES area are not
available. However, in 1976, hunters harvested
33,700 pheasants and 36,600 Hungarian partridge
from the nine counties represented in the ES area.
Habitats for these species have not been delin-
eated within the ES area. However, areas along
drainages where brushy vegetation and croplands
are interspersed are often good pheasant habitat.
Pheasant populations appear to be decreasing in
the ES area because of the loss of habitat due to
intensified farming, land clearing, and the grazing of
riparian vegetation (Weigand and Janson 1976 and
Fergus Planning Unit URA). Exceptions may be Pe-
troleum County where pheasant harvests have
been increasing in recent years and the Willow
Creek Planning Unit where the increasing growth of
willows in the dike and water spreading systems in
combination with an increase in grain crops on pri-
vate land appears to be improving habitat condi-
tions for pheasants.
In addition to utilizing pheasant habitat, partridg-
es use the drier farming sites that have reverted to
weed cover types. Both partridge and pheasants
utilize cereal grains and weed seeds heavily.
Pheasants also eat snowberry, chokecherry, buffa-
loberry, and wild rose. During the spring and
summer, insects are important to both species, par-
ticularly young birds. Neither species appear to re-
quire open water but they both use it when availa-
ble.
Although pheasant populations are decreasing
for the reasons mentioned above, Hungarian par-
tridges probably are increasing slightly due to their
relatively high adapatability (compared to other
upland game birds) to certain agricultural develop-
ments (Trueblood and Weigand 1971), and be-
cause they apparently have lesser cover require-
ments than do pheasants.
Merriam's Turkey
Turkeys occur in the Judith, Big Snowy, Little
Snowy, Little Belt, and Little Rocky Mountains and
portions of the riverbreaks landform (notably north-
ern Fergus and Petroleum Counties) as well as
other areas throughout the ES area where there is
suitable habitat. Turkeys need trees for roosting
and do best where deciduous trees and brush are
adjacent to agricultural lands, particularly wheat
fields. A variety of vegetation types and the result-
ing edge effects apparently are essential elements
of turkey habitat. Turkeys are seldom observed
more than 100 yards from cover (Greene and Ellis
1971). Turkeys utilize ponds, streams, and other
sources of water whenever available and usually
drink twice per day.
There is probably a fairly stable turkey popula-
tion of several thousand within the ES area; howev-
er, reliable population data are not available. There
appears to be denser populations of turkeys in the
Snowy, Moccasin, and Judith Mountains than in the
Missouri River Breaks. A general lack of sufficient
deciduous shrub for winter habitat is the apparent
limiting factor. Populations are probably stable.
During fall and winter many turkeys move into the
farmsteads and feedlots for food.
Mountain Grouse
Blue, ruffed, and spruce grouse occur within the
ES area. There appear to be good populations of
blue grouse in the Snowy, Big Belt, Little Belt, High-
wood, Judith, Moccasin, and Little Rocky Moun-
2-33
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
tains. Blue grouse are usually associated with
Douglas fir throughout their range (Mussehl et al.
1971). Ruffed grouse are generally abundant along
the foothill drainages of the mountain ranges.
Spruce grouse within the ES area are limited to the
Little Belt Mountains (Mussehl et al. 1971).
Grouse are generally ground nesters. Nest and
brood security depends on the amount of ground
cover available during the nesting season. Popula-
tion information for mountain grouse in the ES area
is not available; however, about 1 ,900 blue grouse,
900 ruffed grouse, and 170 spruce grouse were
harvested during 1976 in the nine counties repre-
sented in the ES area. Generally, the distribution of
these grouse has changed little in the last 25 years
(Mussehl etal. 1971).
Waterfowl
A large variety of ducks, geese, and shorebirds
use wetland habitats within the ES area for both
nesting and migration stopovers. Common species
include the mallard, pintail, gadwall, blue-winged
teal, Canada goose, killdeer, and avocet. Species
identified as being of "special interest or concern"
by the Montana Department of Fish and Game
(Flath 1978) are the piping plover, mountain plover,
American golden plover, ruddy turnstone, knot,
dunlin, short-billed dowitcher, semipalmated sand-
piper, western sandpiper, sanderling, and black-
necked stilt. The whooping crane is discussed
below under threatened or endangered species. An
annotated list of all birds occurring within the ES
area is on file at the BLM district offices in Lewis-
town and Miles City.
Approximately 80,000 to 120,000 ducks (esti-
mate extrapolated from Montana Department of
Fish and Game 1965) are produced within the ES
area annually in addition to several thousand
geese. The approximately 1,000 stockwater reser-
voirs on public land within the ES area contribute
significantly to this production. Based on the ratio
of public to private land, there may be four times
this number of stockwater ponds on private lands
within the ES area and these also supplement natu-
ral wetland areas. As an aid toward waterfowl pro-
duction, particularly goose nesting, about 240 is-
lands have been constructed on 54 stockwater
ponds on public lands in recent years (Map 2-9).
After four years, about 57 percent of these islands
are used by geese, and geese seldom use reser-
voirs without islands (Eng, Jones, and Gjersing
1978, in press). Particularly significant is the Little
Bear Lake project east of War Horse Reservoir in
the Petroleum Planning Unit. This project involves
the construction of 80 islands at Little Bear Lake
and a well that will enable water levels to be stabi-
lized.
Waterfowl populations within the ES area are
increasing gradually. Reservoir construction on
public lands in the ES area has been halted pend-
ing completion of this environmental statement;
however, reservoir construction on private land
continues. The increase in habitat from reservoir
construction on private lands is partially offset by
wetland drainage for agricultural and other develop-
ments in Fergus and Judith Basin Counties (Eich-
horn 1978, personal communication).
Raptors
More than half of the raptors occurring in the
ES area have been identified by the State of Mon-
tana as species of "special interest or concern"
(Flath 1978). Those so listed by the state include
the goshawk, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk,
ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, marsh hawk,
osprey, gyrfalcon, prairie falcon, merlin, screech
owl, snowy owl, pygmy owl, burrowing owl, long-
eared owl, and saw-whet owl. The endangered bald
eagle and peregrine falcon are also listed by the
state and are discussed in the section on threat-
ened or endangered species. The state is con-
cerned about so many species within this group
because of public interest in them and their vulner-
ability to pollution and other environmental changes
due to their position at the top of the food chain.
An annotated list of all birds occurring within the ES
area is on file at the BLM district offices in Lewis-
town and Miles City. Information on population
levels and trends for raptors within the ES area is
not available.
Other Non-Game Birds
Although a large variety of non-game birds in-
habit the ES area, little information is available on
their distribution, numbers, or population trends.
Several species occurring within the ES area
(northern three-toed woodpecker, western bluebird,
eastern bluebird, and dickcissel) have been identi-
fied by the State of Montana as species of "special
interest or concern" (Flath 1978). A complete an-
notated list of the birds in the ES area is on file at
the BLM district offices in Lewistown and Miles
City.
Two species that nest in sagebrush habitats,
Brewer's sparrow and vesper sparrow, were studied
by Best (1972) in southern Petroleum County. He
noted that the vesper sparrow nested on the
ground near sagebrush whereas the Brewer's spar-
row nested in the sagebrush. The study analyzed
2-34
LEGEND
□
SHARP- TAILED GROUSE HABITAT TYPE
I High Value Habitat
Medium Value Habitat
I Low Value Habitat
Non Habitat
• Dancing Grounds
Acres and Percent
of Total ES Area
1,768,800 (21%)
2,149,000 (25%)
3.707.100 (43%;
906,700 (11%)
Acres and Percent
within AMPs
926,600 (31%)
787,100 (26%)
1,014,300 (34°
286,500 ( 9%)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STAT EM ENT
SHARP-TAILED
GROUSE HABITAT
SOURCE Montana Department of Fish ano Game 197J
HabMat Maps amJ Blv p\i ■-■■ ■■-■ : i.-^"- u^-' S--e: 3
MAP 2-10
LEGEND
SAGE GROUSE HABITAT TYPE
I Crucial Winter Habitat
I High Value Habitat
I Medium Value Habitat
I Low Value Habitat
1 Non Habitat
0 Strutting Grounds
Acres and Percent
of Total ES Area
218,000(3%)
1,661,700(19%)
771,000(9%)
1,351,600(16%)
4,527, BOO (53%)
Number in ES Area
97
Acres and Percent
within AMPs
147,000(5%)
1,038,900(34%)
261,700(9%)
923,400(31%)
643,400(21%)
Number in AMPs
68
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
SAGE GROUSE
HABITAT
MAP 2-11
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
the impact on breeding populations of the two spe-
cies of various degrees of sagebrush control by
spraying.
Reptiles and Amphibians
There are no reptile or amphibian species of
management significance within the ES area. The
ecological significance of reptiles and amphibians is
recognized, however, and several species within
the ES area (plains hognose snake, milk snake,
snapping turtle, western spiny softshell, and Dakota
toad) have been identified by the State of Montana
as species of "special interest or concern" (Flath
1978).
Amphibians and aquatic reptiles are subject to
the same influences that degrade fish habitat.
Where excessive siltation or pollution occurs, suffo-
cation of eggs and clogging of gill filaments may
result. A complete list of reptiles and amphibians in
the ES area is on file at the BLM district offices in
Lewistown and Miles City. Population estimates and
trends for reptiles and amphibians in the ES area
are not available.
Fish
The most important cold water fish on public
lands in the ES area is the rainbow trout, which has
been stocked in 29 stock water reservoirs. Brook
trout were stocked in at least one of the reservoirs
in the South Bearpaw Planning Unit. Cutthroat trout
and grayling were stocked in Buffalo Wallow Reser-
voir in the Petroleum Planning Unit in 1972 but
have since died out. Rainbows have been stocked
in this reservoir since 1973.
Numerous streams in or derived from the moun-
tainous areas in the Belt and Fergus Planning Units
support populations of brown, rainbow, and brook
trout. However, these are generally away from the
proposed AMPs. Streams supporting cold water
fisheries that could potentially be affected by the
proposed AMPs are shown on Map 2-19 in the
Recreation section.
Lake trout, brown trout, and kokanee and possi-
bly coho salmon occur in Fort Peck Reservoir in
limited numbers. Rainbow trout have been intro-
duced into the dredge cut ponds at Fort Peck and
are in the tailrace below the dam. However, the
reservoir and the portions of the Missouri River
within the ES area are more suited to warm water
species. Northern pike, channel catfish, ling, large-
mouth bass, sauger, walleye, and paddlefish consti-
tute a much more important fishery in this portion
of the Missouri than do the cold water species.
Twenty-nine reservoirs on public land within the
ES area have been stocked with warm water game
fish, primarily largemouth bass, but in some cases,
northern pike, walleye, or sauger.
Collar Gulch, a small stream in the Judith Moun-
tains, is characterized by heavy deposits of iron
hydroxide precipitate in its headwaters and milk-
white deposits downstream. A possibly relict popu-
lation of cutthroat inhabit approximately one mile of
stream below this and then the stream goes under-
ground. The complexity of this stream is unique, as
is the population of cutthroat trout.
The only trout streams north of the Missouri
River within the ES area are in the Little Rocky
Mountains. These are small streams with limited
habitat that includes few pools over 12 inches in
depth. The best habitat is in beaver ponds where
the greatest populations of brook trout occur. Dis-
turbance of stream channels by mining activities
and road construction creates a serious problem for
the fishery. Siltation from logging operations is also
a concern here.
The major problem associated with the condi-
tion of stock water reservoirs in the ES area that
have been planted with fish is siltation and the
resultant reduction of pond basin size and depth.
Siltation also affects such water quality factors as
water temperature and oxygen content. In some
areas, particularly portions of the Willow Creek
Planning Unit, siltation is so rapid that short periods
of excellent fishing probably will be overshadowed
by continued deterioration of the sport fisheries.
Many ponds are silted in in a decade or two, and
even before that become so shallow that they are
extremely vulnerable to winterkill. However, be-
cause of the joint BLM/Montana Department of
Fish and Game reservoir stocking program, the
overall reservoir fisheries in the ES area are ex-
pected to increase without the proposed action,
even though individual fisheries will deteriorate.
Three fish species that occur in the ES area
(blue sucker, finescale dace, and shortnose gar)
and one that is suspected to occur (creek chub)
have been identified by the State of Montana as
species of "special interest or concern" (Flath
1978). An annotated list of the more than 50 spe-
cies of fish that occur within the ES area is on file
at the BLM district offices in Lewistown and Miles
City.
Invertebrates
Of the thousands of species of invertebrates
that occur on the ES area, those that are most
likely to be of management significance are the
grasshoppers. Grasshopper densities of 6 per
2-35
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
square meter in grassland habitats are common
and they can reach 30 or more per square meter
when vegetative and climatic conditions are right
(Nerney 1957). However, extrapolation of local esti-
mates of grasshopper densities to large areas is
risky at best (Anderson 1970).
During population highs, grasshoppers compete
significantly with livestock and wildlife for forage.
They have perennially been rated among the 10
most important pests in the United States. Grass-
hoppers prefer areas with low growing weeds and
relatively sparse vegetative cover (Nerney 1957,
Anderson 1964). In the southwest, grasshopper
populations appear to increase during years with
normal or above normal precipitation (Nerney
1957). There are no data relating precipitation and
grasshopper abundance on the Great Plains.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf
The chance of this species occurring within the
ES area is quite remote; however, wolves are occa-
sionally seen in northern Valley County. The most
recent, although unconfirmed, sighting occurred in
the Frenchman Creek area 30 to 40 miles north of
the ES area in 1975 (Flath 1978, personal commu-
nication).
Black-Footed Ferret
There have been enough sightings and evi-
dences of ferret activity within recent years to make
their occurrence on the ES area probable. Recent
evidence (see Petroleum Planning Unit URA) of the
presence of ferrets in the ES area includes (1) a
ferret trapped in the Little Belt Mountains near Har-
lowton in 1942, (2) a ferret trapped near Billy Creek
in Garfield County in 1945, (3) a survey of 27 prairie
dog towns on the Charles M. Russell National Wild-
life Refuge in 1967 that showed that seven of the
towns had possible evidence of black-footed ferret
occurrence, (4) a survey of 25 towns on the
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in 1970
that showed 9 towns with possible signs of ferret,
(5) an unconfirmed sighting of a ferret by a rancher
who was poisoning prairie dogs on private land
within the Fergus Planning Unit in the summer of
1976, and (6) a confirmed sighting of a black-
footed ferret on private land in Carter County (out-
side of the ES area) on September 13, 1977.
Black-footed ferret habitat and prairie dog towns
are synonymous (Snow 1972b). Although a com-
plete survey has not been accomplished, 134 prai-
rie dogs towns have been delineated within the ES
area (Map 2-9). This map shows clusters or con-
centrations of prairie dog towns in northeastern
Garfield County, south central and southwest Phil-
lips County, and near the southern border between
Blaine and Chouteau Counties. If there are ferrets
in the ES area, they are probably within these clus-
ters. A complete survey of black-footed ferret habi-
tat in the ES area (and all of eastern Montana) will
begin in the fall of 1978. (See section on small
mammals, above.)
Peregrine Falcon
Two subspecies of the peregrine falcon, the
American peregrine falcon and the Arctic peregrine
falcon, could be seen on the ES area (Snow
1972a). However, the two species are nearly im-
possible to distinguish in the field. The Arctic per-
egrine falcon is the most numerous. It nests in
northern Canada and Alaska and passes through
Montana in migration. The American subspecies'
breeding range historically includes the cliffs of the
Missouri River Breaks and there have been some
recent sightings. However, the Rocky Mountain/
Southwestern Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team
has no evidence of current nesting activity by per-
egrines in the ES area (Craig 1978, personal com-
munication).
Whooping Crane
Although the whooping crane is occasionally ob-
served in migration over the ES area, no part of the
ES area can be considered whooping crane habitat.
Northern Bald Eagle
Probably 40 to 60 bald eagles spend the winter
along the Missouri River within the ES area. Even
more use parts of the ES area during spring migra-
tion (March and April). Dead livestock and game
are a common source of food for the eagles. In the
spring, 30 to 40 eagles commonly feed on winter-
killed fish (mostly carp) at War Horse Lake in the
rolling plains landform about 18 miles from the ri-
verbreaks in Petroleum County.
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC
FEATURES
Prehistoric Features
Approximately 500 prehistoric sites have been
documented in the ES area, including 250 from a 5
percent sampling inventory drawn from each plan-
ning unit and 160 from inventories along the Upper
Missouri Wild and Scenic River. As many as 5,000
or as few as 3,400 sites can be projected for the
ES area. Approximately 40 percent of the presently
known sites are undisturbed or in stable condition,
2-36
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
but 60 percent are deteriorating due to erosion,
livestock trampling, vandalism, or current land uses.
Information on local prehistory comes from two
sources. A sampling-type inventory was conducted
over the ES area in three separate efforts (Siegel
1977, 1978; Gregg 1978) to obtain information
about the number, quality, and type of prehistoric
features for purposes of prediction. Other, more
scattered archaeological work has contributed sup-
porting data (Davis 1975, Davis and Aaberg 1976,
Secrist 1960, Dally 1952, Mallory 1963, Sorenson
1975, Davis and Stallcop 1965, and District Office
files).
Evidence exists to document man's prehistoric
occupation of most of the ES area throughout pre-
history. Table 2-13 shows the number of features in
each planning unit within the ES area that are iden-
tified from each prehistoric cultural period. Because
the artifacts identified or collected from the surface
are not always sufficient proof of cultural period
association, the greatest number of sites fall into
the category "Prehistoric - Cultural Period Un-
known." If these sites were excavated to recover
subsurface material, many would be definitely tied
to one or more of the three cultural periods.
The local prehistory is divided into three general
cultural periods (Mulloy 1958, Wedel 1961, Worm-
ington and Forbis 1965). During all three cultural
periods, the way of life was oriented towards hunt-
ing game and collecting wild plant foods. The
groups of people were quite small, had no perma-
nent settlements, and possessed only a limited
toolkit composed principally of stone, wood, and
bone objects. (At least those objects most likely to
be preserved in an archaeological site are formed
from these materials). Because of these factors,
most prehistoric sites in the plains are small and
contain only limited numbers of artifacts and faunal
or vegetable material used as food. Older sites are
more likely to have been destroyed by erosion and
natural deterioration of organic objects than youn-
ger sites, which makes sites from the Early Prehis-
toric Period the most rare and sites from the Late
Prehistoric Period the most common.
The hunting and gathering way of life limited the
types of prehistoric sites that occur. Table 2-14
shows the major types of sites present on the
Northern Plains and the frequency of their discov-
ery within the planning units of the ES area (based
on the data available in the current archaeological
inventory). Lithic scatters, which are the stone
debris and stone tools discarded when tools were
made or used, and tipi rings, which are circular
stone features usually 4 to 8 meters in diameter
and assumed to have been anchor stones for the
conical skin tent or tipi of prehistoric peoples, make
up the most common site types. The other site
types are less common. Rock cairns and rock
alignments are often associated with animal kill
sites, as features used to channel herd animals
toward a kill location. The exact function of rock
cairns is difficult to determine where they stand
alone and are not associated with other site types.
Rock art refers to paintings or carvings executed
on rock by prehistoric people. Rockshelters are
listed in Table 2-14 as a separate site type because
some artifacts and features made of perishable ma-
terial are often preserved in this protected environ-
ment, but not in open sites. The burial site category
refers to human burials. Some site types are not
represented in all planning units. Because only a
small percentage of each planning unit has thus far
been inventoried, a small number of each of the
more rare site types will probably be found in the
future. Typical site types are shown in Figure 2-7.
The sampling-type inventory conducted on the
ES area covered a small percentage of the area in
each planning unit (Table 2-15). The resultant site
density was quite low and that, combined with the
low percentage of surface coverage, produced ar-
chaeological data of limited predictive usefulness.
The statistics derived from the inventory include
site density per 640 acres, the expected number of
sites in each planning unit, and range of site num-
bers (or margin of error in the expected number of
sites statistics) in each planning unit (Table 2-15).
Because of the wide margin of error and low
number of sites found, this level of precision in
prediction precluded development of other useful
information such as the correlation between envi-
ronment and site numbers and types, or even the
accurate prediction of number of sites in each site
type per planning unit. (For further detail, see
Canan 1977).
Table 2-15 shows that a prediction of site num-
bers in each planning unit that is 90 percent accu-
rate produces an expected number with a large
variance, which in turn means that the expected
range of site numbers is also large. The sample
indicates that there is a considerably larger number
of sites in each planning unit than inventories have
thus far produced. It also suggests that site density
differs in the various planning units, and may be
quite low in places, but medium in others. Only the
McCone Planning Unit has data suggestive of a
high site density. This apparently is related to how
fit the land is for vegetative growth and diversity
because the better vegetated land is more often in
or scattered among privately owned land. Often the
site density is higher here also, probably indicating
greater numbers and diversity of the animals and
plants depended on by prehistoric inhabitants for
food. This has not yet been solidly established,
however, because one cannot totally rely on the
variable statistical results. All density and expected
2-37
rd
cu
u
<
CO
H
0>
x:
p
CD
O
c
0)
TS
-H
>
W
o
•H
p
o
•4-1
CO
•H
0>
P
ft
TD
<D
P
C
0)
CO
0)
w
ft
ft
CO
o
-H
u
0>
ft
(0
p
d
p
H
d
u
<U
to
H
P
p
CN
in
o
CN
03
3
d)
CN
r»
CN
cn
P
P
o
O
rd
g
En
ft
2
n3
O
•H Q)
P a,
O
co rd
-H
,d
<D
P
CM
o
o
CO
rH
I
o
o
CN
a
c
o
d
p" ^
o
•H
P
o
p
0) CO
P -H
rd X
J cu
p
CM
•
O
u
o
■H
•
o
cu
P
m
CN
■H
0
T)
P
o
i
TJ
CO
o
Q
■H
•H
in
•
g
X!
in
<
cu
ft
i
.
u
o
u
-H
o
•
>i
P
o
CQ
H
0
«.
P
P
ro
O
m
CO
rH
O
w
■H
1
in
.C
in
rH
m
0
P
ft
CO
p
■H
d
D
cn
d
•H
c
c
rd
rH
Cm
10
en
CN
oo
o
O
00
CN
\o
00
CN
r»
rH
CN
00
rH
CN
00
m
CN
00
oo
00
in
in
CN
<tf
vO
00
00
CN
H
oo
o
00
CU
rd
>
CO
ft
•H
•H
ft
rd
ft
H
cd
cu
CQ
A
P
d
0
co
d
-H
rd
P
d
3
0
g
0>
CQ
-*
CO
d
CU
ft
g
a)
rH
o
p
01
ft
01
A
CO
iH
Q)
CO
CO
g
g
>1
X!
X
rd
ai
d
o
u
u
g
<tf
d
cu
P
d
P
(d
0)
ft
rd
P
O
En
I
rd
- P
co co
p a>
p <p
o -h
ft c
0) rd
u g
0) U
P -H
■H P
CO 0
P
tr> co
C -H
■H X
T3 CU
3 P
rH ft
U
C CU
■H X
p
fe
O
C
0
P
X!
u
CT
a
•H
P
rd
U
•H
Tl
d
•H
o
-H
P
rd
g
P
O
ip
d
•H
<P
O
a
o
■H
P
ft
•H
P
U
CO
d)
u
-H
P
rd
e
<u
p
CO
>M
CO
CU *P
P o
rd
> M
•H U
P rd
ft rH
<u
p
rd
u
co c
0) o
ft -H
>, +J -H
P rd nrj
g C
P -H
O
m
c
•H
O
P
P
c
0)
CO
CD
P
ft
0)
p
0J
CO
CU
p
d
p
rd
0)
tp
co
rd
O
P
CO
p
p
X!
rd P
P O
rd
CO IP cu
•H -H IP
P CU
P P
rd
CU
P
(U rd
rd P
P rd CO
■H C
O O
CO -H
-H P
P
d
•H T3
rrj
Q
rH
d
o
p
■H
d
D
d
•H
d
d
rd
rH
ft
<u
(1)
P
U
S:
O
CO
cu
n
d
H
O
d
rH
d
o
co
P
•H
d
Cn
d
•H
d
d
rd
H
ft
CO
<u
-H
O
P
P
•H
d
rd
d
rd
g
P
P
o
N
d
cu
CQ
D
CO
cu
d
rH
u
d
00
r-
m
rH
tn
&i
cu
p
o
T3
d
rd
CO
CU
CO
>1
rH
rd
p
0)
a
>
-H
ft
0)
o
p
O
•H
d
0)
u
d
o
CO
Si
ft
CO
p
T5
•p
c
d
rd
D
rH
CT
d
•H
■H
d
d
•H
rd
rH
P
d
ft
0
CO
CO
g
o
p
-H
g
IP
P
CD
ft
T3
CU
rH
•H
ft
D
£
CO
cu
d
H
o
d
cn| oo| <^|
o
rj
01
u
p
d
o
co
2-38
■^
^ p
U 01
co
0 P
CU
ft -h
■P
<D
■H
X
to
CO
re
ID
lp
P
0
"S
<C
h|
u
X p
CO
CU
U P
w
■s
0 <
CU
3
\
X
s
H
P
0)
M
1
co
CN
cu
rH
ft
rd
1?
■P
m
C
<
0
<
IH
•H
CO
c
0
!h
■H
■P
P
rd
0
U
4J
CO
^
•H
u
J3
0
cu
ft
u
ft
0)
O
P
m
Hi
-p
c
(U
E
C
Cr
Cd
•H Cn
ft c
•H -H
^ ft
O P
•H 0)
X P
P P
•H fO
PI O
CO
in
P
■H
C
D1
C
■H
c
5
rd
rH
ft
CN
CN
en
CD
CN
00
O
CN
oo
CN
OO
cn
CO
CN
CO
00
r-
LT)
en
m
CN
CN
<d
5
C
03
•H
ft
03
H
\,
U
P
H
rn|
03
C
g
CU
\,
CO
CU
3
\,
3
£
cn|
ft
CQ
0
«rl
0)
CO
>.
•H
g
CO
■H
■H
(U
rH
X
3
o
CU
rH
H
P
P
cn
p
CO
rH
-H
3
H
P
p
CO
CO
,G
O
CU
CU
CU
3
>
ft
U)
m
ft
ft
s
r^
CN
o
CN
ID
cn
<*
d in the
ably
P
X
P
0
cn
cu
Cr
rd
CJ
o
H
CN
een place
ters prob
CP
•H
£
P
X
0)
p
c
P
O
CT
cu
p
03
o
cn
c
•H
P
-P
ft
•P
o
O
"sT
x -p
03
cn u
rd CO
X
CJ
CU -H
P X
•P +J
CO -H
PI
CU
-p ••
CU
0
u
0)
P
ro
r— 1
O
IT;
■H
C
fO
p
CU
P>
-P
rd
O
CO
o
-H
-P
•H
rH
■P
CU
Xi
-p
c
■p
CU
o
03
rH
ft
o
o
CN
hat occurs,
For exampl
C
•H
CO
o
•H
,G
P
•H
rH
CU
P»
c
-H
CU
o
fd
CO
03
<u
p
-p
CO
cu
o
o
H
p
C c
CU 0
3=
cu
IP
rH
ft
p
CO
■p
X -H
<
cu
cn
•p
00
5 P
X
C
c
r-
o
p
•H
P
O
cn
rH
. p
p
CO
&
CU H-l
X
rd
•H
•
c
cn
ft
0)
3
ft TJ
•p
cn
o
o
O
>> P
p
•P
CD
c
0
CN
P c
c
cu
P
P
c
p
03
0
p
P
03
CJ
<U C
u
-H
rd
9
rH
P -H
CO
u
ft
TS
■H g
CD
x:
u
c
co 0
X
CU
-P
0
CO
P
03
TS
p
X
-H
cu
CU
cu cu
P
S
0
•H
>
CO
C P
c
IT,
a:
•p
CU
0 ft
0
1
T3
CU
H
rd
>i
o
o
ft
CO
C P
CX>
&i
+J
H
ft
o
rH
o
CN
CO
rd 0
c
c
rd
Cr
C
•p
03
CN
X
■H
-H
■H
C
0
cu
c
c
P T3
TD
,*
CD
•H
rH
cu
(3
CU
C
rd
0
a;
P
P
u
CU N
CD
g
CO
rrj
•H
P
CO
p
P -H
a
1
CO
E
c
•P
■p
0 rH
CD
H
rd
1
D
PI
T3
c
g 03
T3
O
H
c
p
P
O
CO
O
(T
t!
rd
m
CD
CN
>P CU
CO
P
rd
0
C
C
cn
H
CD
O C
C
•s
p
•H
03
T3
c
H
CU
0
ip
c
H
■H
co cn
■rH
O
p
CD
c
•.
■P
c
cu
P
cu
P
03
C
S
c
P P
O
cu
p
CD
rH
03
rd
P CO
c
o
■p
rC|
ft
E
■P
H
X 0
3
c
03
3
p
P
ft
•H g
>P
03
O
M
p
D
p
■P
CO
».
CD
0
0
E
CN
00
CD
P cu
ip
CO
0
CD
N
CO
0
CN
oo
oo
-p X
0
c
o
■p
P
CO
P
CN
rd P
u
-H
■p
•P
CO
U
T3
•p
<p
5 en
CD
CD
-p
3
C
TJ
O £
X!
rH
•p
p
O
CU
P
CU
X -H
g
0".
rH
rrj
rH
ffl
CD
rH
CO >i
3
c
P
rH
ft
-P
rH
C
•H
03
■H
•H
rP
ft
ft
CO ft
CO
rQ
s
D
D
g
CU
CU g
rd
4-1
rt
0
p
•P -H
rd
•P
X3
Uj
CO
CO
u
•H
•H
P
CD
CU
CU
CO CO
CO >,
c
CU
*.
CJ-
>a
T3
*v
P
P
CD
P>
P
c
3
3
p
..
CU
rH CU
CU o
CO
rd
CU
•H
rH
■H
rH
cu
>1
C
51
g Cn
CD
O
>
>1
U
o
o
o
■9
0
o cu
P
•P
CU
rH
c
c
c
p
u
0 3
CO -P
ft T
3
ft
H
H
H
3
03
o
E-< 22
S m
CU
C
0
E \, W.
0
a
s
rHl O
P
•P
K
•HCN |
-0|^|
CO
2-39
'Oj'vjta^
(a) lithic scatter
(b) tipi rings
ih*
+ -+-'
V:
-5W>fa
(c) rock cairn and rock alignments
wM-i
% W4
*
(d) hunting/kill site
't ZiffiFZik
(e) rock art
Figure 2-7 Typical prehistoric site types in the ES area
SOURCE: Leslie B. Davis, Department of Sociology, Montana State University, Bozeman (except (d), Soil Conservation Service).
2-40
I
CM
W
P
PQ
<C
Eh
QJ
u
<
co
w
3
■H
>i
P
o
-p
a
0J
QJ
+J
•H
CO
O
■H
P
O
+J
U)
■H
45
CD
P
cm
QJ
ft
I
en
3
•H
rH
ft
co
4-1
O
en
p
H
en
a)
1
5-1
in
0)
QJ
>i
ft
p
P
u
oo
o
in
m
0>
in
vO
r-
oo
CO
■H
in
<C
cn
oo
m
IT)
CM
m
"*
n
i-*
CM
U]
QJ
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
P
o
o
CN
o
rH
H
o
o
H
oo
rH
0)
■H
sj"
a
CO
kO
QJ
tn
rd rd
P QJ
3 P
QJ <C
CJ
P 4-1
<b 0
Cm
3 ,c in
p o m
3 S
a)
o
s
3
rd
ft P
e a
< rd P rd
H h CQ
Cm
Cn
3
•H
a
a
rd
a,
00
in
r-
o
\o
o
CM
CM
r^
m
in
00
T
CM
o
rH
00
00
m
<tf
00
cn
CM
rH
1
rH
1
I
rH
|
i
rH
|
1
m
1
1
rH
o
IT)
<*
<n
cn
00
<D
CM
cn
rH
00
kO
CM
00
r^
rH
^r
T
CM
CM
00
rH
CM
O
in
m
CO
00
CM
o
00
m
<tf
r-~
cn
o
CM
m
<D
rH
r-
^r
rH
in
00
CM
o
oo
i£>
in
CO
r-
CM
^D
<X>
^0
o
00
o
o
CO
o
in
o
in
o
oo
o
o
o
cn
>1
QJ
rd
>
in
ft
45
Cm
in
CM
"i
rd
ft
P
rd
QJ
m
45
p
3
o
CO
00
*l
rd
P
3
3
o
g
aj
m
in
3
cn
p
QJ
e
3
QJ
rH
o
p
p
QJ
Cm
QJ
45
in
rH
QJ
in
in
^r
o
00
i£) in o oo
co oo in ^r
00 00 rH CM
cn
r>
00
cn
CM
"SJ1
CM
>1
X
rd
55
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
^r
o
o
r-~
10
V0
m
cn
m
m
o
o
CO
m
QJ
3
0
U
u
cn
n
cn
u
•H
P
in
•p
p
rd
P
CO
rd
OJ
P
<
CO
w
rd
P
0
E-<
0
0
«.
P
0)
o
en
c
rd
QJ
3
EC
T3
s
•
rd
3
rH
0
•p
U
p
■H
3
r-i
X!
43
■H
3
P
ft
P
in
IH
TS
c
rd
45
P
P
QJ
45
P
• rd
>i P
ft
E
rd
in
o
cm in
0
JZ
p
QJ
6
p P
•H 3
3 43
P -P
P
Cn P
3 in
■H -H
3 T3
3
rd 3
rH 0
Cm in
en
en -p
QJ o
■H Cm
• U rd
>i O
rH
• rd
en u
0) -p
P P
o en
rd -h
P
cm rd
<D P
cm en
CO >i
r- 42
o
- 3
CN 0
■H
• 14-1 P
>. o u
P o\° x)
QJ
P
ft
CD
P P
•P P
3 -P
3
0
-a
0)
CO
rd
3
QJ
P 0
QJ P
14-1
4-1 en
•p P
3
3
T3 0 -P
P PI X!
Cn t~J tS
3 3 0)
•H rd P
3 rd
rd 3 3
rH rd O
ft £H
P rd
X P u
QJ 0
QJ N 0J
P P
U - QJ
~. ^ S
3 3
0 QJ en
rH cq ej
3
u 3
rH o
rd
U 3
•H
QJ rd
P
rd ft
•P
>i P
O
en
QJ
P 4-1
3 Cn
3
QJ 0 -H
O S 3
3 rd
rd P QJ
•H rH g
P QJ
rd PQ QJ
>
3
•H J +J
S P en
■H
in en P
QJ aj re)
t3 T3 P
3 3 en
u
3
TJ -H TJ
o
p
ft
o
p
3
rd TD
3
CD rd
Cn rH
3
rd O
P -H rH
U U QJ CD X) rd
3 3 £ 45 3 E
H H Eh P Cm en
rH|(M |oo|
^r
en
CD
en
>i
rH
rd
3
<C
QJ
U
P
3
0
en
QJ
Pi
p
•H
3
p
p
o
•H
p
p
en
■H
E
O
P
4H
QJ
ft
E
0
U
u
<x
p
o
CO
2-41
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
site numbers statistics should be viewed cautiously
due to small size of the sample.
In the South Bearpaw Planning Unit, the sample
was environmentally stratified before inventory oc-
curred. This planning unit contains extremely con-
trasting landforms and vegetation communities.
Four strata were identified: badlands, pine breaks,
river/creek bottoms, and grasslands (Gregg 1978).
Site density varied significantly across the four
strata, ranging from 0.25 (badlands) to 1.25 (grass-
lands) per 640 acres (Gregg 1978). This suggests
that most sites in the northwest portion of the ES
area are associated with the flatter, grassy portions
of the land surface. Again, the small sample size
dictates that these results must be viewed with
caution. Also, the apparent correlation between en-
vironment and site location cannot be extended to
other portions of the ES area based on present
information.
The ES area thus contains (as a conservative
estimate) 3,400 prehistoric sites, based on the
average standard deviation from the expected site
numbers of each planning unit. An optimistic esti-
mate would be 5,000 sites, with a middle estimate
of nearly 4,200 sites. Based on the parameters
indicated by Tables 2-13 and 2-14, some sites
should be associated with all known time periods in
Plains prehistory. However, excavation would
almost certainly be needed to identify cultural
period association. As 79 percent of the discovered
sites in each planning unit are lithic scatters or tipi
rings, the great majority of sites yet to be found
probably will also fall into these two categories.
The condition and integrity of the known prehis-
toric sites has only been subjectively described. No
unified criteria have been used to measure the
effect of factors of site destruction. Major process-
es that lead to site destruction or deterioration in-
clude erosion, livestock trampling, vandalism, and
modern land use. Based on brief site descriptions
from the sampling-type inventory as tabulated in
Unit Resource Analyses, about 40 percent of the
approximately 250 sites (from Table 2-15) are pres-
ently in stable or undisturbed condition. However,
this figure varies from 15 to 20 percent in the more
populated western end of the ES area (where more
vandalism occurs) to 50 to 60 percent along the
north side of the Missouri River and in the eastern
portions of the ES area, which are less densely
populated.
Site significance is measured by how much in-
formation the sites can contribute to the knowledge
of what form prehistoric life took in the area and
what caused that pattern to change through time.
Another factor in site significance is the potential of
a site for development for public enjoyment and
education. More than 80 percent of the sites and
their content described above were discovered be-
tween 1974 and 1977, and most of those sites
have only been minimally described. Therefore,
little synthesis of the material has been attempted,
and importance of the sites remains essentially un-
known. Relatively rare site types, such as animal
kill and butchering sites, rock art, burials, and rock
shelters, among others, should be considered of
major importance because the information they
contain is irreplaceable. Although the more
common lithic scatters and tipi rings are equally as
important to interpreting prehistory, most of the in-
formation they contain probably will be repeated in
similar sites. When it can be proved that the infor-
mation is repeated, a sampling scheme should be
used to make decisions about which sites are con-
sidered significant enough to preserve or study fur-
ther. Other factors will also have to be considered
when assigning importance to individual sites, in-
cluding the state of preservation of the site and its
proximity to potential visitors.
Historic Features
The archaeological inventories conducted along
the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River and
which sampled each planning unit in the ES area
located a small number of historic sites. Twenty-
three sites were recorded, but most were not docu-
mented by historical records. Twelve sites were ap-
parently the remains of homestead era buildings
and dugouts, and three sites included features re-
lated to early sheepherding and ranching. Along the
Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River, the small
number of site types were more varied: one historic
burial, the remains of an early twentieth century
coal-fired electric power plant, two steamboat land-
ings, three trading or military posts, and an example
of historical graffiti.
Although this list of systematically inventoried
sites is small, enough historical records exist to
outline the major human use of the ES area and to
at least localize other major sites associated with
the series of historic events. Major sources for the
summary presented below are Malone and Roeder
(1976), Burlingame and Toole (1957). Burlingame
(1942), Toole (1959, 1972), and Gates (1968).
The earliest recorded historical events in the
area were explorations by Europeans or the United
States at the end of the eighteenth and beginning
of the nineteenth centuries. Presently known rec-
ords do not show that either British or French ex-
plorers entered the area, but the Lewis and Clark
expedition of 1804-1806 did travel along the Mis-
souri and camped several times within the ES area.
2-42
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The American fur trade expanded into the
Upper Missouri country following the Lewis and
Clark expedition. The fur trade flourished until the
1860s. Features associated with the actual capture
and processing of the animals would now be rare,
but the centers of the commerce, namely forts and
posts, may still exist as ruins or concentrations of
historic artifacts. Major fur trade posts within the ES
area were all on the Missouri River and include Fort
Piegan, at the mouth of the Marias River; Fort
McKenzie, six miles above the mouth of the Marias
River; Fort Chardon, at the mouth of the Judith
River; Fort Benton, at the site of the present town;
Fort Dauphin, at the mouth of the Milk River; Fort
LaBarge, adjacent to Fort Benton; and Fort Galpin,
12 miles above the mouth of the Milk River (Burlin-
game 1942).
By the 1860s, gold and silver had been discov-
ered in western Montana. The fur trade was declin-
ing, but the need for transportation to the gold
fields continued to add to historic activity in the ES
area. The first steamboat reached Fort Benton in
1859, and the head of navigation on the Missouri
became a staging location for the travel of people
and the shipping of goods to and from the gold
fields. The use of the Missouri as a major transpor-
tation route brought more people into certain areas
along the river, downstream from Fort Benton.
These include steamboat landings, which at times
were discharge points for passengers and freight at
times of low water, and woodhawkers' locations,
where fuel was provided to the passing steam-
boats. The major steamboat landings are Rowe's
Landing, 12 miles downstream from Fort Benton;
Ophir Landing, at the mouth of the Marias River;
Coal Banks Landing, 20 miles downstream from the
mouth of the Marias River; Eagle Creek, 33 miles
downstream from the mouth of the Marias River;
Judith Landing and Fort Claggett, at the mouth of
the Judith River; Dauphin Rapids, 15 miles down-
stream from the mouth of the Judith River; and
Cow Island, near the mouth of Cow Creek. The
woodhawkers locations are more difficult to locate
exactly, because often they were temporary, de-
pending on the seasonal enterprise of a single indi-
vidual. They would be more likely found through
archaeological inventory than from historic records.
Effects of this transportation boom resulted in
trails which traversed portions of the ES area. From
the Missouri River landings, particularly from Cow
Island upstream, freight was off-loaded and carried
overland to Fort Benton when water levels did not
permit further upstream navigation. Although the
trails have not been exactly located, they apparent-
ly were along the north side of the Missouri. Traces
of the trails or historic artifacts could be discovered
by archaeological inventories, although none have
been to date. During a brief period (1866-1869),
two locations attempted to replace Fort Benton as
the major shipping point for overland freight. One,
at the mouth of the Musselshell River, was essen-
tially unsuccessful, but a second location about 25
miles downstream did operate as a shipping point
for a time. The river port was called Carroll, and
from it the Carroll Trail was routed to Fort Logan
(near White Sulphur Springs) and Helena. The trail
crossed the ES area in the Fergus Planning Unit,
passing near present-day Lewistown and leaving
the area near Judith Gap.
Because the population from the established
states was pushing west to mine for gold, and to
carry on transportation and commerce, it increas-
ingly came into conflict with the native American
Indian population. Thus, the period from the discov-
ery of gold in Montana (early 1860s) to the late
1880s produced United States military action in
Montana, and also left historic features in the ES
area. These include camps, posts, forts, and battle
sites. The three major events producing conflicts
with Indians were the Blackfeet War of 1869-70;
the attempted Nez Perce flight to Canada under the
leadership of Chief Joseph (1877); and pursuit of
remnants of the Sioux Indians after the Battle of
the Little Bighorn (1876-77). Military posts within
the ES area include Camp Cooke, near the conflu-
ence of the Judith and Missouri Rivers; Camp Otis,
at Coal Banks Landing; Fort Benton, at the' present
town of Fort Benton; Cow Island, on the Missouri
River near the mouth of Cow Creek; and Fort Ma-
ginnis, 20 miles northeast of Lewistown (Burlin-
game 1942).
In the late 1880s, the Great Northern and North-
ern Pacific Railroads were built through Montana.
Both roads bypassed the Missouri River in north-
central Montana, and thus diverted the mainstream
of historic activity away from the ES area. Between
1900 and 1925, the Great Northern built feeder
lines and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and
Pacific (the Milwaukee Road) also built into a por-
tion of the ES area, principally in the Lewistown
area, but also through the western portion of the
ES area south of the Missouri River, and as far
north as Winifred and east to Winnett. Much aban-
doned trackage and the remains of structures and
construction camps may still exist.
Except for some isolated examples discussed
below, the ES area was settled very slowly and
remains sparsely populated even today. Following
the cessation of Indian problems and the annihila-
tion of the great buffalo herds, cattle and sheep
ranchers moved into north-central Montana. The
initial operations were large, with thousands of
head of livestock and few ranch headquarters. After
the disastrous winter of 1886-87 many operations
contracted, centering around the more watered val-
2-43
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
leys where hay could be raised to provide supple-
mental feed in the winter. Most of the ranch head-
quarters of this era located in the most attractive
areas for ranching, and today are in private land.
Major features located on public land are likely to
be more ephemeral corrals, sheepsheds, line
camps, and sheepherders' stone piles. These fea-
tures are not well documented and are more likely
to be discovered by systematic ground inventory
(see opening paragraph of this section) than by
record searches.
Although gold and silver mining was important
historically further west in Montana during the three
decades after 1860, it did not touch the ES area
until after 1880 except marginally from transporta-
tion along the Missouri River. After 1880, however,
gold and silver were mined at several places in the
ES area and created several mine boom towns,
lasting in some places until about 1915. Most of the
old mining camps are not total ghost towns. They
still have a few residents today, although many
historic buildings and features remain.
Changes in the Homestead Act and railroad pro-
motion helped create the last major influx of people
into the ES area. With the promise of dry farming
techniques, many people took up 160-, 320-, or
640-acre homesteads in the ES area between 1910
and 1925. Because the Homestead Act required it,
domiciles and outbuildings were put up on most
homesteads. However, because the amount of cap-
ital commanded by most homesteaders was small,
many of the buildings were of sod or were tarpaper
shacks (Figure 2-8). Some, however, were of log
construction. The early promise of dry farming did
not prove true when drought came and combined
with falling agricultural prices in the late teens.
Later, with the nationwide depression of the 1 930s,
many homesteads were abandoned. In 1937, the
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act was passed to
provide for federal repurchase of some homestead-
ed land. Some historic features from the home-
stead era may be preserved throughout the public
lands. Lands shown as public domain may have
been entered but not deeded, while lands acquired
under the Bankhead-Jones Act were definitely once
in private ownership. The archaeological inventory
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section
located what are apparently homestead features.
The best lands, however, were kept in private own-
ership, so many historic features of the homestead
era are not on public land.
National Register of Historic Places
The most current annual compilation of sites
which are either listed on or have been determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
was consulted (Federal Register, Volume 43,
Number 26, Tuesday, February 7, 1978). A total of
seven sites in the ES area were in this status as of
the above date. They include the Lewis and Clark
Camp at Slaughter River, 40 miles south of Big
Sandy on the Missouri River (Chouteau County);
Fort Benton, at the present town of Fort Benton
(Chouteau County); Fort Benton Historic District, at
the present town of Fort Benton (Chouteau
County); the Grand Union Hotel at Fort Benton
(Chouteau County); Citadel Rock, east of Fort
Benton (Chouteau County); the Judith Landing His-
toric District, on the Missouri River at the mouth of
the Judith River (Chouteau and Fergus Counties);
and the Lewis and Clark Camp of May 24, 1805, on
the Missouri River, north of Lewistown (Fergus
County). Most of the ES area counties had no listed
sites, but some sites within ES counties were not
within the ES area boundaries, and thus were not
listed.
VISUAL RESOURCES
Visual resources are the visual features of land,
water surface, vegetation, and structures.
The inventory of visual resource values consid-
ers scenery quality, visual sensitivity, visual zones,
and visual resource management classes. (See Ap-
pendix 8 for a detailed explanation.)
Scenery Quality
Scenery quality ratings are based on the prem-
ise that all landscapes have value, but those with
the most interest, variety, harmony, and contrast
have the highest scenery quality.
The scenery in the ES area was broken into
scenery units as shown on Map 2-12. The scenery
quality for each unit was rated as A (excellent), B
(good), or C (average) (see Appendix 8). Class C
landscapes are the most common, class A land-
scapes are the most outstanding, and class B land-
scapes are in-between. Class A landscapes in the
ES area are small in acreage, but it is this rarity or
uniqueness that, in part, makes them outstanding.
The rolling plains comprise nearly 54 percent of
the ES area. The predominant features are the flat
to rolling hills stretching in some areas from horizon
to horizon. In most places, this landform type was
rated as "C" (average) in visual quality. In the west-
ern portion of the ES area, mountains and buttes
2-44
■
Figure 2-8 Homesteaders' buildings on the northern plains of Montana, probably before 1915. Note that two of
these scenes show that housing was insubstantial. Such buildings probably have not survived to the
present. A more substantial "soddy" is shown in the third scene.
SOURCE: Montana Historical Society.
2-45
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
provide diversity and orientation to the observer.
Creeks, reservoirs, and lakes scattered throughout
the rolling plains enhance local scenic values. Oc-
casional farmsteads and ranch houses generally do
not degrade the rolling plains scene and are usually
considered to be quite picturesque on the rolling
plains landscape.
Visual intrusions created by existing grazing
practices are evident in the rolling plains landscape.
Existing range improvements and fenceline con-
trasts are the most noticeable intrusions.
The rolling plains include grass/sagebrush ran-
gelands and scattered croplands with fine to
medium visual textures (see glossary). Croplands
create bold rectilinear patterns which sometimes
distract from the natural landscape. Riparian vege-
tation found along most wet drainages, creek bot-
toms, and river corridors provide strong linear con-
trasts and adds to the scenic quality. Intrusions
include roads, fences, power lines, and abandoned
farm machinery.
Colors range from greens and golden browns in
spring and summer, to golds and brown in fall and
early winter. Winter snows normally blanket the roll-
ing plains in white providing stark contrasts.
A majority of the high plains landscape falls
within the "C" scenic category. This landform
covers about 19 percent of the ES area and is
generally located on the approaches to the moun-
tains in the southwest corner of the ES area and in
the foothills of the Little Rockies. The predominant
features are sloping hills dissected by numerous
dendritic (see glossary) drainages. The background
scene is dominated by mountains which range in
height from 4,000 to 8,000 feet. Numerous creeks
and streams lined with riparian vegetation stretch
toward the rolling plains providing interesting linear
contrasts.
Ranch houses and farmsteads scattered
throughout the area generally do not detract from
the scene. Intrusions include buildings, roads,
fences, power lines, and abandoned farm machin-
ery. These intrusions are not so extensive as to
degrade the visual scene significantly.
The high plains are dominated by a grassland/
sagebrush vegetative complex with fine to medium
visual textures. Numerous cropland areas provide
bold linear patterns which differ from the natural
lines of the landscape.
Colors range from greens and golden browns in
spring and summer, to shades of golds and browns
accentuated by the turning aspens in the fall and
early winter. Snows cover the area in the winter
providing extreme black and white contrasts.
An outstanding natural feature located within the
high plains is Square Butte. This "A" rated scenery
unit stands 1 ,700 feet above the surrounding plains
and is a major landmark in the region. Gothic-look-
ing rock spires near the base of the butte greatly
enhance the scenic quality of the site.
Mountains comprise about 10 percent of the ES
area and are generally concentrated in the south-
west portion with the exception of the Little Rock-
ies. A majority of the mountains are in the "A"
(excellent) scenery category. Steep slopes and di-
versity in the major landscape elements of line,
form, color, and texture are characteristic. The
mountains include the Little Belt Mountains (7,000
feet), the Highwood Mountains (7,000 feet), the Big
and Little Snowy Mountains (7,000 feet), the North
and South Moccasin Mountains (5,000 feet), the
Judith Mountains (6,000 feet), and the Little Rock-
ies (5,000 feet). Other than fenceline contrasts,
visual intrusions relating to livestock grazing on
public lands are minimal.
The mountain landscapes contain several land-
form features ranging from steep walled rocky can-
yons to high alpine meadows. The mountain slopes
are generally forested with ponderosa pine or
Douglas fir. Alpine meadows scattered throughout
the mountain areas provide variety in the land-
scape.
Intrusions in the mountainous areas include
roads and surface disturbances associated with
past timber harvests and mining activities. These
intrusions are extensive in the Little Rockies, Judith
Mountains, and North and South Moccasins where
mining activities were intense. Colors range from
dark greens, browns, and golds in spring, summer,
and fall; to bold contrasts caused by snow cover in
winter. Colors are derived from both rock outcrops
and vegetation. Visual textures range from fine to
coarse and provide diverse scenic values.
The riverbreaks landscape contains diverse
landforms and vegetation ranging from highly
eroded badlands topography with sparse vegeta-
tion, to steep sandstone cliffs and rock spires, to a
rolling well developed flood plain topography with
grassland/timber plant associations. This landform
comprises 17 percent of the ES area and generally
falls in the "A" (excellent) and "B" (good) scenery
categories. A majority of the "A" areas are located
close to the Missouri River and its major tributaries.
Intrusions include roads, fences, and power
lines, but are limited in number. Occasional farm-
steads and ranch houses are scattered throughout
the area. A few cropland areas present distracting
rectilinear contrasts to the basically naturalistic
landscape. Existing range improvement projects
and fenceline contrasts detract from the scenic
2-46
LEGEND
SCENERY QUALITY CLASSES
1
I Excellent Scenery Quality (Class A)
I Good Scenery Quality (Class B)
Average Scenery Quality (Class C)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
SCENERY QUALITY
SOURCE BLM Planning System. URA Step 3
MAP 2-12
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
quality of the area. Rock outcroppings and cliffs
along the Missouri River range in color from white
to reddish brown. River bottom areas present green
to golden brown colors in spring and summer, and
brown and gold colors in fall. The badlands vegeta-
tion and soils possess a wide variety of colors
ranging from greens and browns in spring and
summer to browns and golds in fall. Winter snows
present stark black and white contrasts, especially
in timbered areas. Fine to coarse visual textures
are represented in this landform.
Visual Sensitivity
Visual sensitivity levels indicate the relative im-
portance of people's responses to the visual envi-
ronment. For example, areas near roads and towns
are seen more often than those in remote inacces-
sible areas and are consequently more sensitive.
Areas are rated for visual sensitivity as high,
medium, or low. Criteria for these ratings are de-
scribed in Appendix 8.
Visual Zones
The visual zones are the areas which can be
seen from major roadways or use areas and are
identified as foreground-middleground, background,
or seldom seen zones. The foreground-middle-
ground zone is visible to a distance of three to five
miles. Background is seen from five to fifteen miles.
The seldom seen zone is the area beyond the
fifteen mile background zone or not visible from any
major roadway or use area. In relative importance,
the foreground-middleground is the most important,
the background is moderately important, and the
seldom seen zone is the least important.
Visual Resource Management Classes
Visual resource management classes (Map 2-
13) represent the overall existing quality of the en-
vironment. They describe the degree of alteration
that idealistically could be allowed within a charac-
teristic landscape considering only the visual as-
pects of the environment (see Appendix 8). Visual
resource management classes are developed
through analysis of the existing scenery quality
classes, existing visual sensitivity levels, and exist-
ing visual zones. The following is a discussion of
the five VRM classes that could exist in an area.
Class I areas (preservation) provide for natural
ecological changes only. This class includes primi-
tive areas, some natural areas, some wild and
scenic rivers, and other similar sites where land-
scape modification activities should be restricted.
Class II (retention of the landscape character)
includes areas where changes in any of the basic
elements (form, line, color, or texture) caused by a
management activity should not be evident in the
characteristic landscape.
Class III (partial retention of the landscape char-
acter) includes areas where changes in the basic
elements (form, line, color, or texture) caused by a
management activity may be evident in the charac-
teristic landscape. However, the changes should
remain subordinate to the visual strength of the
existing character.
Class IV (modification of the landscape charac-
ter) includes areas where changes may subordinate
the original composition and character, but should
reflect what could be a natural occurrence within
the characteristic landscape.
Class V (rehabilitation or enhancement of the
landscape character) includes areas where change
is needed. This class applies to areas where the
landscape character has been so disturbed that
rehabilitation is needed. This class would apply to
areas where the quality class has been reduced
because of unacceptable intrusions. It should be
considered an interim short-term classification until
one of the other classes can be reached through
rehabilitation or enhancement.
Class I zones in the ES area include Square
Butte Natural Area and the segments of the Upper
Missouri Wild and Scenic River designated as
"wild." These Class I areas include both existing
and proposed AMPs. Class II zones are situated
along the major creeks and rivers and in all the
major mountain ranges in the ES area. Those seg-
ments of the Missouri River designated as "scenic"
or "recreational" are also Class II zones. Class III
zones lie primarily within the visual corridors of
major highways. Most Class IV zones in the ES
area are located outside the highway visual corridor
and in seldom seen areas. No Class V zones have
been identified.
Visibility is an important factor to those who
participate in outdoor activities and is crucial to
maintaining large and open panoramic views. Re-
duction in visibility is one of the most noticeable
effects of a deterioration in air quality. No data on
visibility is available for the ES area, but horizontal
visibility is generally considered to be good. Excep-
tions occur during periods of high winds resulting in
dust associated with agricultural practices, high hu-
2-47
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
midity, or during pollen production times when sus-
pended particles produce hazy conditions.
If the proposed action is not implemented, the
existing visual environment is not expected to
change substantially from the current natural and
rural landscape.
RECREATION
Public lands comprise approximately 26 percent
of the ES area. They provide a variety of dispersed
and site oriented recreational opportunities encom-
passing a wide range of activities.
Participation in specific recreational activities on
the public lands varies with the season of the year.
Hunting dominates the scene in fall; cross-country
skiing and snowmobiling occur during the winter.
Springtime recreation includes fishing, sightseeing,
and photography. Sightseeing, fishing, floatboating,
picnicking, and camping dominate recreation during
the summer months. Overall, the public lands in the
ES area support some type of recreational activity
during all times of the year with the heaviest use
occurring during fall hunting seasons.
The common unit for calculating recreation use
is the man/day, which is defined as one person
using the resource for some portion of a 24 hour
day (Montana Department of Fish and Game 1978).
Hunting
Hunting is one of the major recreational oppor-
tunities provided by the public lands in the ES area
(Figure 2-9). Huntable populations of big game,
small game, upland game, waterfowl, and several
non-game species reside in the area. More than
2.46 million hunter days were provided to license
holders in 1975 and 2.85 million hunter days are
projected for 1980 (Montana Department of Fish
and Game 1978).
With the exception of mule deer which require
special management beginning in 1976 (buck-only
season), populations of all major huntable wildlife
species in the ES area are either stable or on the
increase (Montana Department of Fish and Game
1978).
A summary of hunting use of the 1976-77
season is displayed in Tables 2-16 through 2-18.
Because some Montana Fish and Game hunting
districts and state counties do not correspond to
the ES area boundary, precise use estimates are
not possible.
When comparing hunter days in one district to
another, it is important to understand that an equal
number of hunter days does not imply equal hunt-
ing quality or opportunities. Total hunter days
depend on length of season, effort (number days/
animal harvested), proximity to population centers,
and supply (number of harvestable animals). Hunter
days is an indication of actual use, not necessarily
of hunting quality.
Table 2-19 portrays the percentage of the total
state hunter days (for each wildlife type) provided
by the ES area. As shown by the table, the ES area
supports a substantial percentage of the statewide
antelope and upland game hunting use. For com-
parative purposes, the entire ES area comprises 9
percent of the total state acreage.
Table 2-20 describes hunting use within the ES
area by wildlife type. Deer and elk hunting account
for approximately 50 percent of the total hunter
days recorded.
Big Game
Major big game species found in the ES area
include deer (white-tailed and mule), elk, antelope,
and black bear. Hunting opportunities exist for both
archery and firearm enthusiasts. A summary of big
game hunting use for the 1976-77 season is dis-
played in Table 2-16.
The ES area lies within Montana Department of
Fish and Game regions 4, 6, and 7 (see Map 2-14).
Percentage estimates of habitat on public lands
(includes state and federal) (see Table 2-21) in the
ES area were made using data from these three
regions. No further breakdown in data was possi-
ble.
Maps 2-15 and 2-16 illustrate by hunting district
where the greatest amount of big game hunting use
occurs within the ES area.
Upland Game
Upland bird hunting is a popular sport in the ES
area. Approximately 24 percent of the nearly
360,000 upland game hunter days recorded for the
state in 1976 were provided by the nine counties
which encompass the ES area (Montana Fish and
Game Harvest Data 1 976).
Major native species include blue, ruffed, and
Franklin grouse found primarily in the mountainous
or forested areas and sharp-tailed and sage grouse
both found in prairie habitats. Mountain grouse
2-48
LEGEND
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSES
CLASS / (Preservation)- Areas which, by law, have been formally
designated as a primitive area; natural area; some portions ot
wild and scenic rivers; and other similar sites where landscape
modification activities should be restricted.
■ CLASS II (Retention)- Landscapes with Class A scenery quality,
or Class B scenery quality in the foreground-middleground zone
L_J
with high visual sensitivity.
□
C/ass /// (Partial Retention)- Landscapes with Class B scenery
quality and high visual sensitivity in the background visual
zone, or with Class B scenery quality and medium visual
sensitivity in the foreground-middleground visual zone or with
Class C scenery of high visual sensitivity in the foreground-
middleground zone.
Class IV (Modification)- Landscapes with Class B scenery
quality and high visual sensitivity in the seldom seen visual
zone, or with Class B scenery quality and medium or low visual
sensitivity in the background or seldom seen zones, or with
Class C scenery quality (except with high sensitivity In the
foreground-middleground zone.)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
VISUAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
CLASSES
SOURCE: BLM Planning System. URA Step3
MAP 2-13
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
comprise 33 percent of the total upland game bird
harvest in the state and prairie grouse 36 percent.
Introduced upland game birds comprise the re-
mainder of the harvest. These birds occupy margin-
al habitats adjacent to and within agricultural areas
supporting low to high (Fergus County) densities of
birds and provide fair to excellent hunting opportu-
nities (Montana Department of Fish and Game
1978). These species include ring-necked pheasant
and Hungarian (grey) partridge.
Map 2-17 illustrates by county where the great-
est amount of upland bird hunting use occurs within
the ES area. According to Montana Fish and Game
projections, the statewide supply of harvestable
upland game birds exceeds current and anticipated
hunting demands.
Merriam's Turkey
Although not a major game species, turkeys
provided over 6,000 hunter days of use for over
2,000 turkey hunters in the state in 1976. Turkeys
are found in the Missouri breaks and the Judiths,
Moccasins, Little Rockies, and Snowy Mountains.
The statewide harvestable supply exceeds current
demands, but significant segments of the turkey
habitat are on private land, and the availability of
part of the harvestable supply is limited (Montana
Department of Fish and Game 1978).
10). Based on a statewide recreation survey con-
ducted by the State of Montana in 1976-77, nearly
18.5 percent of the people sampled fished in the
nine counties that comprise the ES area. Several
species of fish exist including both warm water and
cold water varieties. The majority of the fishing use
in the area occurs on a few large streams and
lakes (see Table 2-22), but construction of numer-
ous reservoirs by the Bureau of Land Management
for livestock utilization has provided additional fish-
ing opportunities. Selected reservoirs, if found suit-
able, are stocked with trout, bass, perch, walleye,
and northern pike.
A large number of the high quality public fishing
reservoirs are located north of the Missouri River in
the southern portions of Blaine, Phillips, and Valley
Counties (see Map 2-19). Although little use data
have been collected in these areas, it is suspected
that substantial fishing pressure occurs on these
reservoirs.
Increases in demand for both stream and lake
fishing of cold water trout species in the ES region
is quickly approaching harvestable supplies. Ac-
cording to the Montana Department of Fish and
Game (1978), the overriding reason for this is loss
of habitat as a result of intensive land use and
development practices near trout fisheries. Trout
are extremely sensitive to changes in their habitats
and will require more intensive management to
insure future harvestable populations.
Waterfowl
The ES area is situated on the central flyway
and supports several species of ducks and geese.
About 30 percent of the Montana duck harvest and
37 percent of the goose harvest comes from this
flyway (Montana Department of Fish and Game
1978).
In 1976, the nine counties encompassing the ES
area provided over 30,000 hunter days of waterfowl
hunting use or 14 percent of the state total (Mon-
tana Fish and Game Harvest Data 1976). Increases
in waterfowl hunting demand are expected but the
current overall supply of harvestable ducks and
geese exceeds current and anticipated hunting
demand (Montana Department of Fish and Game
1978). Map 2-18 illustrates by county where the
greatest amount of waterfowl hunting use occurs
within the ES area.
Fishing
Fishing is a major recreational opportunity pro-
vided by the public lands in the ES area (Figure 2-
Sightseeing
Sightseeing and driving or walking for pleasure
account for nearly 40 percent of the total time
spent on leisure recreation activities in the state of
Montana (Montana Department of Fish and Game
1978). Although sightseeing is often associated
with some other activity such as camping, hunting,
or fishing, it is nonetheless an important recreation-
al pursuit.
The ES area provides outstanding sightseeing
opportunities, some very unique to this region. Driv-
ing for pleasure, the major sightseeing activity,
allows the recreationist to view the varied scenic
resources from the many roads and trails which
exist in the area. However, some of the most spec-
tacular scenery, the Missouri River Breaks, is nearly
inaccessible by automobile. In this instance, river
floating becomes the major mode of transportation.
The Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River and por-
tions of the Judith River provide excellent sightsee-
ing opportunities.
Recent surveys indicate nonconsumptive uses
of wildlife in Montana are of major importance.
2-49
Figure 2-9 Sage grouse hunting
2-50
a
a.
o
K
E-
Z
<
H
CO
H
>
<
ml
e- a
CO
05
a:
w
a .u
c
5Q
CO -w ^
-*■* e —
O
H
01 10
M S c
SQ o
-w
gn
c
X
u
a^
u
u
t-
u
01
3
ft. X
E e
3 3
za
- e y
Q-5 E
— o
c
3a
03 •*» >-,
1/
0D
X
>>«
a
s§ Z
w
gn
c
IT
a^
oi
g
u
u
u
o<
3
0.
X
totor-osoiNNOffiffliNHoniofflr-
t~t-tot~to^ooTnxno n n oi v «
cn* cm* pi" — •" cn* cn" pi" co cn* cn"
n ffi cm n to in co
<
O
E-
(D0101inn(NCONfflCDO»iO»»'<)'IN!D
IOt^t^t~t~«»MtOtOCC®t^m»MXt^
n(NO)ON"t-nnncomt*0'HmNCj)
CD-tCNiOOOpHCNCOCOOCOOO ■*)■ — i N CO CO
CONM!NCCC-0)C-rtf-^.CD
co oo t—
o o o
cn co r-
Tf ■* TT
O^COOOOOOOOOpiOCO
coartcorniNcoinwcDO^coco
■*fiOincDcD!flcD»ccc-t-r-t^
£ oj
E e
3 3
ZI
£ ffl
5Q
Oi <0
s? Z
3
0> Cv
U «
o
Oi 3
ft. cn
os
u
u
Q
I- X
0) t-
.o 0>
E a
3 3
ZS
CN CO CO 00
CN CT> T CO
CO CN CO TC
05 00
00 CD
cn o>
00 CO
a> cn
■g- in
lOO pi
cn t- co
lO lO
**■ ** 00
cn —i ~ co oo co m
' 00* "*'
CN
m t- (D co ■*
Nrt rtOlO
pi CN CO 00 CX>
CO co" T* CO* CN*
05010t^O>t01»CCCDXCOCC>OCJ)00
cocDOCBcocMinoNTfr-rfcsoii'Tr
NON^OtOOliNHCtctOOOO
" CN* lO* rl -PJ* m* CO* CO* CN
CN CN CN
CN pi
<
Eh
o
Eh
in oi id t~ cc oho co co ai co co omcccosisicocoTf
t-moi i M
r~ co r~ ai o oo
O N O) r- m ai
-1 co in m m
t CO i pJ1 N
O in CD CN o
oo oo r- co m
ff: Oi O NO)
mt-iNHt^r-oiicor-coaioiNrow
CSNCOmcONINTfcOtCOCO-*'*'*'*
ooaiifflmooooit-aii'Ncocot- -^r
CNint~CNpir--cDOOpipiinoO'H;t-
r-cBcomt-rfcoicococointcoici)
n" 1 pi* i pi" pi" CN*
CD
CC
-r
—
cc
CO
CN
m
-J
<
O
Eh
00 CN
CN CO
m o
O pi
piCNt^00C7)OC0t-00piCNt~pi'Pi'OOOpiCNOpiOOOOOpiC0
iiiiiNNTf^^t-t-HiCOiMMINCOCOiOOOCBClOCOM
TtTtTf-PT'Pt'rJ.'pJ'-^'-PtTr'PJ'Tj.ininincOCOCOCOCDCDCDCDCDC^C^t^t^
OJ
«
u
o
o
-a
-u
3
o
•* J? .5
cd cu to
od > g
CD O
CO CD
Pi -V
pi t-oO,g
t- t- m S
CD 00 CN -
00* pi' CO* 2
-
<
o
Ei
in oo co
01 CD -Pf
■pj" co m
W J3
&&
s|
CN*0
t— cl)
■<t -a
If*
cd -u
_ «
G co
CO +->
?l
-a oo
C f-
co a>
pi ^
■* C
,„ CO
■a Q
m ^i
C co
■so
S«8
CO
O) • -
>~ Uh
«^
r- O
1" c
^ a)
^ S
«"S
o °B
CN D.
■p). CU
sa
T3 O
O
CO
W
ca a*
-o
2-51
00
o
Tf
Tf
TT
OS
OS
H
T
in
in
CO
OS
lO
CC
,
CO
x
■ffl
to
CO
lO
in
lO
CO
OS
CO
as
OS
co
OS
CO
co
*t
cn
CM
CO
05
OS
©
»-J
co
""I
o
CD
r-
Oi
~
lO
X
en
OS
X
0
OS
o*
OS*
co*
o"
(0
■q*
oc
cm'
co
0s"
CO*
r4
o"
x"
c*
rf
CM
,"H
^^
co
CM
— '
^
*"H
CM
3 S
S p
a
-o SB
S SO
•M 3
3 u
w
03
<
3 2
— 0
CO •-
SB
C!
CB
>
i-
eo
S
V
5 BC
U
<- -a
CO •—
■o
set
c
C u
CB
3 so
"a
I0-
D
CD
t^
OS
""H
01
CB SB
0C 3
a o
™o
~ a>
o so
*" 3
a. °
«o
JS
s/3
t— —1
as cd
CD CD
— . lO
CM CM
CM — i
CM
— CM
-h CO
CO o
as x
o t-
CD X
o as
rH
co m
^H CM
O <M
t O
as o
CO •-<
CM lO
co co
CM CO
rH O
r- t—
in in
CM CM
co in
in x
r-C as
X CO
co cm
co_ as
—. CD
O TT
CO_ X_
r- t
co as
CM CO
co as
m cm
CD r-<
as co
CM ri
CM CO
CO ^h
co co
TJ- cO_
o" CO*
as* ■*
■** l-H
CM* -h"
TT rH*
l-H rH*
■*" CM*
CM* r-I
CO
r-
CO
to
en
CO
X CD
m t—
-H CO
as co
o in
CM CO
O m
O r~
as o
m m
© ■*
-r as
in cm
C- CM
co in
o in
x t-
m in
r-i CM
C- CM
CM o
r- x
as cm
CD CM
CM
to
t~
CC
OS
rH
in co
rH 00
X x_
CO Tf
co as
O CD_
rH T}<
as r-
*""i °i
in r-
m as
co as
-* as
m as
cm as
r-, co
Tf X_
T OS
o as
■"1 "^
X — '
c- cm
as_ in
m* cm'
cm" m"
co" r-J
■* p-I
TJ* rH
m" cm'
as" co'
X* ■*
O r-
r- i-h
co x
t— x
CO
in cm
CB
00 co_
CO
>
CM* tt"
as
SO
CM i-c
c
E
3
T3
O
in
CJ
01
5
CO
T3
C
,53
CM
"a
m —
o
D
© m
CO
be
CB
m* cd*
CD
r-
OS
r-H
m cm
CB
CJ
.
CO
CB
CB
E
-C
CO
4J
a
in cd
CO o
rH CD
CO Tf
as co
o as
CO ~
cm as
f X
as r~
r- x
CO CM
as x
CO_ o
X CM
as r~
O CO
as x
o o
X CM_
m cm
co x
X -"Cf
m" co"
rH CD*
rH
CM* h
CM* CM*
CM* h
CO* CM*
co' CM*
O m
Tj" rH
as ti«
=3
-* x
CO X
CO X
3
o
_o
CO
3
CO
CB CO
CO
Q
CB CB
3 > c
O fc- c
^ CO 3
OKI
>.
CO
p
4^
s
CO
L.
3
CB
CB
>
4H
C
CO
3
u.
XX
CO
CO
CO
Q
aj -
l c
CO 3
•"5 rC X
I a
3 —
CB CO L.
— cu CB
O "> -»H
h £ c
"S « 3
3. E -
co
Q
* S 3
CQ X -C
CB SB
> '
C
CJ CO 3
SrCX
CO
2 » t.
CU CB CB
3 >"S
1£ CO 3
Cl, X X
CO
Q
gj 03 3
CO
Q
"0 -^
- » I.
CB CB CB
u t. £
CO so 3
>,
CO
7 u
a> -
l B
CO 3
IS
- -
H H
OO
H E-
c
o
s
W
O
O
09
2-52
County
Chouteau
Ducks
Geese
Fergus
Ducks
Geese
Judith Basin
Ducks
Geese
Petroleum
Ducks
Geese
Blaine
Ducks
Geese
McCone
Ducks
Geese
Phillips
Ducks
Geese
Valley
Ducks
Geese
Garfield
Ducks
Geese
TABLE 2-
-18
1976 WATERFOWL
HUNTING
Number
Total
Hunters
Hunter Days
453
2836
387
1935
412
2579
181
905
90
563
379
1895
98
614
272
1360
247
1546
206
1030
206
1290
49
245
667
4175
758
3790
610
3819
272
1360
49
307
32
160
SOURCE: Montana Department of Fish & Game, 1976 Waterfowl Harvest.
2-53
TABLE 2-19
PERCENT OF STATEWIDE HUNTER DAYS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ES AREA
Wildlife Type
Big Game
1/
1/
Deer —
Elk
Antelope
1/
Black Bear —
2/
Upland Game —
Waterfowl
2/
Percent of Total State
Hunter Days in ES Area
13%
6%
27%
2%
24%
14%
Percent Total State Hunter Days
in ES Area for Above Species
13%
1/
Percentage estimates based on hunter days for hunting districts in
ES area. Districts with small percentage of land within ES area were
excluded from analysis.
2/
— Percentage estimates based on hunter days for counties either completely
or partially in ES area.
SOURCE: Information compiled from Montana Department of Fish & Game,
1976 Harvest Data.
2-54
TABLE 2-20
PERCENT OF TOTAL HUNTER DAYS
IN ES AREA BY WILDLIFE TYPE
Wildlife Type
Big Game
Deer (37%)
Elk (13%)
Antelope (7%)
Black Bear (1%)
Upland Game
Waterfowl
Percent of Total Hunter
Days in ES Area
58%
31%
11%
100%
SOURCE: Information compiled from Montana Department of Fish & Game
1976 Harvest Data.
2-55
MAP 2-14
MONTANA DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME REGIONS
A Regional Office
* State Office
Administrative Boundaries
2-56
TABLE 2-21
HABITAT DISTRIBUTION
Wildlife Species
Percent Habitat1
Mule Deer
88%
Whitetail
28%
Elk (99% in Region 4)
13%
Antelope
61%
Black Bear (Region 4)
28%
1/
Percent Habitat
Public Land—
22%
13%
67%
21%
— Percentage of the three-region area (4, 6, 7) encompassing the ES area
containing habitat for each species.
2/
— Public land includes state and federal land.
SOURCE: 1978 Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
2-57
MAP 2-15
BIG GAME HUNTING: (Deer- Elk- Bear)
Combined Hunter Days
LEGEND
^S 0-4000 Hunter Days
mm 4001 - 8000 Hunter Days
■■ 8001 -over Hunter Days
^^ Data Combined with Other Districts
(wj Hunting Districts
SOURCE: Montana Department of Fish and Game.
2-58
MAP 2-16
BIG GAME HUNTING: (Antelope)
LEGEND
^^ 0-1,000 Hunter Days
EM 1,001 -2,000 Hunter Days
■■ 2,001 - over Hunter Days
(jb) Hunting Districts
SOURCE: Montana Department of Fish and Came.
2-59
MAP 2-1 7
UPLAND BIRD HUNTING
All Species Combined
LEGEND
0-8,000 Hunter Days
8,001 -16,000 Hunter Days
16,001 - over Hunter Days
SOURCE: Montana Department of Fish and Game.
2-60
MAP 2-18
WATERFOWL HUNTING: (Ducks - Geese)
Combined Hunter Days
LEGEND
0-2000 Hunter Days
2001 -4000 Hunter Days
4001 - over Hunter Days
SOURCE: Montana Department of Fish and Game.
2-61
'•'■
■ . . .
Figure 2-10 Fishing is a recreational opportunity provided by the public lands in the ES area.
2-62
Waterbody
Judith River
TABLE 2-22
MAJOR FISHING WATERS IN ES AREA
Man/days
273
1/
Missouri River
Musselshell River
Flatwillow Creek
Warm Springs Creek
War Horse Lake
Yellow Water Lake
Box Elder Creek Reservoir
Clark Reservoir
South Fork McDonald Creek
Arrow Creek
7157
1402
779
299
328
782
338
456
288
— Only those waters located in or near proposed or existing AMPs are
listed here.
SOURCE: Montana Department of Fish & Game, Creel Census Data, 1976.
2-63
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
(Forty-three percent of Montanans (age 16-60) par-
ticipated in wildlife viewing, 21 percent participated
in wildlife photography, 34 percent of campers
stated that the opportunity to observe wildlife was a
major reason for camping (Montana Department of
Fish and Game 1978)). Several species of wildlife
can be viewed in the ES area, most of which can
be seen on public lands. Animals most often
viewed during the recreation use season include
antelope, deer, prairie dogs, many species of rap-
tors (including bald eagle and golden eagle), and
many species of birds and other non-game mam-
mals, reptiles and amphibians.
A small herd of wild or semi-wild horses roam
just north of the Missouri River in the Ervin Ridge
area of south Blaine County. They can sometimes
be viewed by a floatboater on the Missouri River or
from a few roads that exist in the area; however,
viewing opportunities are limited.
Cultural sightseeing opportunities are provided
by numerous historic mining areas, a few historical
ghost towns (Zortman, Giltedge, Kendall, Maiden),
and several historic locations along the Missouri
River associated with the Lewis and Clark Expedi-
tion and other historic events.
Off-Road Vehicle Use
Recreational off-road vehicle (ORV) use in the
ES area is, for the most part, unorganized and
associated with other activities such as hunting,
fishing, and sightseeing. The major vehicle for off-
road travel is the two-wheel or four-wheel drive
pickup. The many unimproved roads and trails scat-
tered throughout the ES area provide access for
off-road travel. Cross-country off-road use also
occurs, but is limited to areas of suitable terrain.
One identified ORV use area occurs in the
South Moccasin Mountains near Lewistown, the
largest population center in the ES area. The
mountain slopes and old mining roads found in the
area are used by cross-country off-road motorcy-
clists. The Limekiln Canyon and New Year's Gulch
areas in the Judith Mountains also receive rather
intensive ORV use, especially motorcycles.
Winter snows provide opportunities for snowmo-
bile use on public lands in the ES area. Most snow-
mobiling is done strictly for the enjoyment derived
from operating the machine. No specific use areas
have been identified.
Floatboating
Floatboating is one of the fastest growing recre-
ational activities in the ES area. This is due in large
part to the designation of a 149-mile segment of
the Missouri River as "wild and scenic." A statisti-
cal sample taken on the river during the floating
use season (one week prior to Memorial Day to
one week after Labor Day) identified 6,890 floater
days in 1975 and 9,313 floater days in 1976; an
increase in use of 35 percent in one year.
As floatboating on the Missouri becomes more
popular and other floatboating areas are identified
(e.g., Judith River), substantial increases in use are
expected to occur in the ES area (see Figure 2-11).
Sport Shooting
Sport shooting activities include plinking, target
shooting, and varmint hunting. In most cases, these
activities are done for nonconsumptive purposes.
The term "varmint" includes rabbits, squirrels, prai-
rie dogs, marmots, and some other small non-game
species. Interest in the sport of varmint hunting has
increased substantially over recent years due to
increased leisure time and affluence. More and
more dedicated varmint hunters are investing large
amounts of money in highly specialized equipment.
Some nonresidents travel great distances solely to
shoot prairie dogs, a sport rapidly becoming popu-
lar. These species constitute a valuable recreation-
al resource (Montana Department of Fish and
Game 1978).
Other Activities
The public lands in the ES area provide oppor-
tunities for several other recreational activities in-
cluding camping, picnicking, collecting (rocks, min-
erals, plants, fossils), and hiking. These activities
are associated with other recreational activities
(hunting, fishing, and floatboating) and usually
occur in a dispersed fashion at undeveloped sites.
According to statewide projections for undeveloped
camping and day use, a 42 percent increase is
expected by 1990 (Montana Department of Fish
and Game 1978).
2-64
LEGEND
FISHING AREAS
0 Cold Water Fishery
1 I Warm Water Fishery
O Species Unknown
Quality Rating From
BLM Recreation Information System
n
B
C
Unknown
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
FISHING AREAS
MAP 2-19
Figure 2-11 Floatboating is one of the fastest growing recreational activities in the ES area.
2-65
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Special Management Areas
Upper Misouri Wild and Scenic River
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as
amended by Public Law 94-486) incorporated the
149-mile segment of the Missouri River from Fort
Benton downstream to Fred Robinson Bridge within
the National Wild and Scenic River system (see
Figure 2-12). The act requires protection and pres-
ervation of the outstanding scenic, recreational, his-
toric, and cultural values on the river.
The area is rich in wildlife, and game species
are hunted actively during open seasons. About 45
species of mammals and over 200 different birds,
including the protected bald (now on the threatened
and endangered list) and golden eagles inhabit the
area.
The sport fishery resource includes the popular
paddlefish, northern pike, catfish, sturgeon, walleye,
sauger, and lingcod.
Excellent sightseeing opportunities provide the
recreationist with a diversity of experiences.
Recreational use of the Upper Missouri Wild and
Scenic River has changed over the past 20 years.
From limited use by local hunters and fishermen,
use has rapidly expanded to include recreational
boating and camping. All recreational uses in 1976
amounted to just over 15,000 man days. The Mon-
tana Fish and Game Department has provided limit-
ed camping facilities at Coal Banks Landing, Hole-
in-the-Wall, Slaughter River, Judith Landing, Cow
Island Landing, and Kipp State Part at Fred Robin-
son Bridge. Commercial guide services included
eight outfitters as of 1978-six from Montana, one
from Oregon, and one from Washington. The major
use season extends from one week prior to Memo-
rial Day to one week after Labor Day.
A conceptual plan was developed to meet legis-
lative mandates in 1977, which outlines the man-
agement objectives and goals and identified the
specific management segments along the route. A
comprehensive management plan is being devel-
oped in 1978. (Additional background information
concerning the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic
River along with a map of the area is located in
Chapter 1, Interrelationships.
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
(CMR)
The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife
Refuge, currently managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, provides a variety of recreational
opportunities to the recreationist. Foremost are
hunting and wildlife sightseeing activities. A com-
prehensive planning effort is currently underway for
the refuge. This effort is in its early stages so no
management decisions have been reached.
Square Butte
One of the most scenic and unusual geologic
features in the ES area, Square Butte, stands
nearly 1,700 feet above the rolling plains topogra-
phy of southern Chouteau County approximately 65
miles northwest of Lewistown (see Figure 2-13).
Square Butte was designated as an Outstanding
Natural Area in 1972 and qualifies as an "instant
study area" for wilderness review. The Bureau
planning system emphasizes the importance of pro-
tecting and/or enhancing the scenic and recre-
ational values in the Square Butte area.
In addition to its outstanding scenic values,
Square Butte provides other recreational opportuni-
ties such as hiking, rock climbing, and hunting. The
Butte is also used by academic institutions for edu-
cational purposes.
Overall, Square Butte is as untouched today as
it was when it was recommended for natural area
status. Increased visitor use at the Butte appears to
have had no detrimental effect on the area.
There are two non-AMP grazing allotments
within the natural area designation. These allot-
ments involve few AUMs and have required no
additional range improvements.
Nez Perce Trail
Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce Indians, in their
famous retreat from the U.S. Army in 1877, passed
through the central portion of the ES area. They
crossed the Missouri River at Cow Island and trav-
eled northward up Cow Creek to their last battle on
the northern flank of the Bearpaw Mountains.
A study is currently underway to determine if the
Nez Perce Trail should be included in the National
Trails System as a National Historic Trail. The study
was initiated by Congressional action; when com-
pleted, it will await action by Congress.
Participation in the previously described recre-
ational activities and special management areas will
continue to increase without implementation of the
proposed action. Table 2-23 is a summary of the
proposed increases in recreational use for selected
activities present in the three Fish and Game re-
gions encompassing the ES area.
2-66
Figure 2-12 The Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River provides outstanding sightseeing
opportunities.
2-67
CO
LU
OJ
a>
3
08
0)
o
O)
o
o
0
re
CO
C
c
(0
o
'c
0
o
0
c
3
m
3
CO
CO
■
CM
a>
t.
3
2-68
TABLE 2-23
Future Trends
Activity
Hunting
Big Game
Upland Game
Waterfowl
Fishing
Cold Water Species
Warm Water Species
Off-Road Vehicle Use
(July participation)
Camping and Day Use
(Undeveloped) (July part.)
Hiking
(July participation)
Use in Man Days
1976
1990
% Increase
415,816
710,400
71
146,536
232,900
59
53,300
97,600
83
615,700
888,200
44
179,000
256,400
43
108,735
144,557
33
236,456
323,798
37
192,217
257,226
34
Cross-Country Skiing
(February participation)
62,298
86,281
38
Snowmobiling
(February participation)
164,600
217,246
32
SOURCE: 1978 Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
2-69
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONDITIONS
that the portion of each county's economy resulting
from BLM land can be estimated with acceptable
accuracy.
Economic Conditions
The county is the smallest geopolitical unit for
which most economic data is collected. The ES
area, however, follows the boundaries of BLM plan-
ning units. These often do not coincide with county
boundaries (Map 2-20). At the local level, economic
activity centers around the county seat and other
towns. Whatever changes occur within the ES area
will have some effect on each county, and an over-
all effect on the nine counties touching upon the
ES area. This description and analysis focuses on
the effect of range management practices within
the ES area on the economic activity of the rele-
vant counties.
The nine counties which either wholly or partly
comprise the ES area contain 23 percent of Mon-
tana's area and 7.3 percent of its population. How-
ever, of the 1 1 BLM planning units which comprise
the ES area, only 3 take up total county areas. The
other 8 planning units are located in some of the
most sparsely populated portions of the remaining
6 counties (Map 2-20). The ES area contains 9.1
percent of Montana's area and an estimated 3.9
percent of its population. Population figures for the
ES area are estimates based on the 1970 census
county subdivisions which most closely coincide
with the ES area (Map 2-21). Only 25.8 percent of
the area is under BLM jurisdiction. However, the
proposed action calls for changes in management
only on allotment management plans (AMPs). On
AMPs, BLM administered lands comprise 65.3 per-
cent of the total lands in those units.
These factors impose limitations on both de-
scription and analysis of the major socio-economic
components: population, income, employment,
social well-being, public finance, and social atti-
tudes. County census data indicates the general
economic condition and trends for the nine county
area as a whole. However, because the same kinds
of data are not collected for the ES area specifical-
ly, the same level of precision cannot be attained
within that boundary.
Present condition and future effects of changes
in management can be measured in a more general
way for the 26 percent of the ES area over which
BLM exercises management. The portion of eco-
nomic activity generated by grazing on public land
can be estimated by using employment and income
multipliers for the area. Because planned improve-
ments on the rangelands and resultant changes in
AUM values can also be quantified, it is believed
Population
Since 1950, the nine ES area counties have
comprised a decreasing percentage of Montana's
total population. From 1950 to 1976, the percent-
age of state population living in the nine county
area fell from 9.6 percent to 7.1 percent. Although
population increases fell dramatically between 1960
and 1970, there have been modest population in-
creases from 1970 to the present (Table, 2-24). The
population changes in the nine counties since 1970
have been relatively small, except for Valley
County.
The area's residence pattern as a whole is pre-
dominantly rural farm or rural non-farm. Only Glas-
gow in Valley County and Lewistown in Fergus
County have enough residents (over 2,500) to qual-
ify as urban areas according to Bureau of Census
guidelines (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Census 1970). The average percentage of rural
non-farm and rural farm residents for the nine
county area is 49.1 percent and 40.5 percent, re-
spectively. In contrast, the total Montana population
is 33.5 percent rural non-farm and 12.8 percent
rural farm. The general lack of employment oppor-
tunities and the semiarid nature of the climate hold
the average population density in the nine counties
to 1.4 persons per square mile, compared to 5.1
persons per square mile for the state as a whole.
The ES area within the nine county region is cer-
tainly more rural and has less population density
than the nine county region, because all towns
north of the Missouri River and all populated areas
along the river valleys north of the Missouri River
are outside the ES area.
Income
Per capita income data (Table 2-25) shows that
the county average in the nine county region which
includes the ES area exceeded the state levels for
both 1975 and 1970, although the individual coun-
ties differ significantly. Per capita income in this
area also exceeds or matches the statistics for the
United States (1975-$5,852 and 1970-$3,966).
Because other statistics which measure the well-
being of individuals and families in terms of income
are almost ten years old as of this writing (mid
1978), they would not provide accurate indicators
of the income levels at the present time in the nine
counties, especially in view of the fact that between
1970 and 1975 per capita income rose from equali-
2-70
2-71
MAP 2-21
CENSUS SUBDIVISIONS
LEGEND
County Line
Subdivision Line
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1970 Census of the Population.
2-72
CO
<
3
a
o
Cu
E
s
co
•—
o
CO
B
a
-r
r~
rH CD O
TOO
TT
ci
r^
CO 00
CO
<N
CO
O
Tj"
O
oo
rr
c-i
co cd
m
Cu
o
r~
Tf
CN
o
00
CD
00
co
c
,_,
-T
■*
CD
co
00
IN
CN
o
CD t-
CD
■*
m
00
CO
r~
CO
£
in
CS
CD
C~
c~
CN
co
ine
unty
rea
OOmOrHrHOOO©
■*t •* 00 I> o
00 00 CD CN •<)■
t cn c— m t— CN
ioco t- ■* n n
CN rH h
rH
co m o
CD
*Q<
CD --I O CN CO
m cd m m m
CO CO —
rH CN i-H
O co co
CN O O
CO
CN m T
Cv
"a
C0OK)h«NhO
m oo r- i co o
CO O f ffl T
MOOt»OH
CO <N ->f CO O ^
to cn t—
CN
rHCOO
CD
>
Hh- i-H CN CO
CN -J- "T
CO
lO t-i o
a.
IS
a.
6,334
6,027
-0
5,386
-1
5,388
0
5,500
E
3
CO Tf CN
-* c
cc
m cd p
CD CO CD
co in
C^ O CD CO
O CO f 00
00 O O 00
cd m co co
O CD 00 O
CD cn oo CD
CD CN CD O
CO CN CN t-
O CD T CO
in o •* co
tT CD CN t-
f-r-oio
in t— o —
co co CD in
t^ccro^
Tf CO H CD
o — r- cm
t~ t- I— 00
O O C— CD CN •* CD CN
OCCCT1 CO t~ T 00 CO
lO t~ CM -< tflOOO)
cn co o r-
in in co co
oof n
co c— o in
cn oo oo co
co m cn co
•*_ r- rr h
oo" in" co* —*
M* T r$* T
ocomo CN 00 00 CD CO t~ CO CD
OCOt-ffl CD 00 CD "* rtCC^CO
(N rf rt t- — co cd CD cn -rj" in in
co* Tf* oo" cn" in" oo' CD* oo* cn" cm" co" ■»
— rH — CN -h -^CM tf _ ,—c ,—. rH
CDtr-incNOOO
cn Ci 1 c^ I in I o
oo rH o m
in cn c--
cm co oo
0)00
O I o
m t- rH cn
CN CO CO CO
O P
CO t-
O co m cd
CO m rH -*
c- co
co ot-oi
in m rH TT
o oo CN
in tt o
cd
hCOO
aido
O rH 00 CN
O O C~ 00
f locnn
m" in* m" co*
cncooooo nooa^f
r- -t oo T r~ T — oo
cn cn m cn en co cn t-
co" t— " o" in ■*" ^* ^c" CO*
0100
CD
CN rH rH
OOllOO COrHrHrH CC IN CO CD
Ot-C^Cji rHrHTj-Tf CO CO iffl CO
r- cd cd co oo cd in r- coin^rco
OOCCO) rlt-CCH CD 00 CD 00
ocor-oo co coco O) coo) cot-
C-lOCOt- OrlOCO lOnO)CO
CN* CN* CN* CN* CO* CO* Tf CD* CN* CN* rH* ri
omot- — ooo
O 00 I CO I c- o
CN O I CO ' CO t-
co' co" CN* CN* CN
0)00
cd
OrHCOrH CNCNinO
OCOOO) CCCOO)
r~COt-~00 rHinrHrH
t- oo cn co
TT rH CD CO
CN-HOCOO— 'OO
r~ oo i cd i oo i ©
rH CD I C- ' t~ ' 00
CN — " —" 1-4 rH*
t- 00 CD —
co ■* cn m
oo cd
CN CM N CN COCOlOf- CN CN rH rH
OCDrHOO CD lOCN lO rrCNOCD
OOOCOCO OCDrHCN lOO) C-O
C~ CD 00 CD © CN ■*}■ CD mcOCNrH
rH ^ rH rH* CN CN CO* "*" —' —" rH rH*
O O in CD T O
inOOOrHrHmOO •^"rHrHinr-rH
•-I r* — I CN O CNCNOCNCOin
r-i c—s cn ' rr\
OO
©
rH m CO
oidd
CD
OCNnif
O rH O CO
O rH o r~
m cd oo o
rH CO rH O
O CD CD CN
■q- CD rH CO
CD cd r— "<t
CO CO T "*Cr
m cn -H-
rH CD
TfCOOtOHfllOO
[-* 1 t- 1 ■* 1 O
OICO ' f ' CO ' CN
m t oo m
m Tf rH m
CO CD
CD C- CO CO CD
IN CO
in r~ co
corndt-rHinoo
rH CD I CN I rH O
m o
oo" oo"
CD
00
CD*
TC 00 CO CN
00 CN Tf t-
00 00
CD 00 CO
CO rH rH
CO m rH
00 O CO
CD CD rH
CO Tf rH
o o m oj
o
50-6
60-7
70-7
mat
t-
? -2
cd =^ :
CD CD O) 4j
rH rH rH C/)
S p a
- C 0) U
CL, O
- . M. M. M_
CCcCr-C£-C
d.tn
OOrrjOcCjOcaO
o c E
ww_C^_C^_C^
m P
al U
-Far
_ca_c2CJ>_c3(_)_cao ca
33—3—3—3
oopo = o = o
Dh^ gPn g(X gd.
I Fai
Tot
Nor
oo<o<m<co
go"™
m cd r- t- t—
3 -a 3
CDCD^CD^CD^CD
O u
C- 4)
O *-> CO
Ch ■*£ C Ql Ql
— 3 __ M 5
co Q, ca C *s
■u O ^J O cu
O Oh © — £
H CHiS 3
o ^ n 3 O*
3
J2
o IS
co
CO QJ
T3J5
w
i^^^
O "5
O CN O
o c CD
O rH
CO -
cu CD
C cu T5
.2 a "3
"a E •
cu 2 CO
So >>
p
>
_c
X
rr
0
L-
ID
Tl
cn
a;
O
C
Q
C
CO
lO
0)
3
—
CO
<
^c#^
cu cn
§E
— 3
co t3
(X
C 3^
co co ^ ■
•- L-Ot-
•SacO)
JSCQ co-
C - *L_' CO
— * ^Z c
hh >- CD u
i- E >, o
lO- co-
3 uh CO C
Z ON*
. *j CD ^
co c r- X
C U .
5 E o co*
= -z-s
° a^'-r
<
_5D £ 3
3 .-CO C
co . =
O t co fa
T3 c <U c
^_ a o- ^
o o c c
S2-5E
CO CO *■>
C
CD
o
I 3 CO
! a. a,
CO
-i-> CO "^
ig 4j B
■j cj o 0
CO co t; 2
-a co 3 §
3 E
co" O
CO
c.2
CD ""
3 go '-3
cn O „, co
c o CJ . _
Hi c o
X
J- CO
— no bo
.2 CD —
OCDt^CO
CO T CD t-
CD CO CD 00
k 3 °
g^rOQ
O CO CN 00
COCDtt-
r-rn CD CO
CO CN CO 00
CO CO O O
r~ cn m cd
CD CD CD CO
r~ oo CN ir-
m m tt co
erce, Bure
d General
1977; U.S.
0, Richarc
O CD CO t-
CO CN ■* -q-
00 T t~ CD
'omm
cs, an
May
5-200
O CO O O
t- CD t- O
cd r~ — t-
oq p m_ o_
co p p tr
co p oo m
co" cd" t— * oo"
C-" 00* rH CD'
co" co" in in
of C
risti
674,
197
i co Z o
5 «m* o
>- r- Ol CJ
co o • •-?
D. „ CU O
CD C J-
Q.2 S^
*J .— r-
co -2 a, o
CO
•Si
CO
r-; 3 CO ' "3
>— > Q. . co
9)
CD
'^
.. O co —
W6- S a
inooocOinooo
CD
X
m o o o
t~ 00 CD O _
t~ 00 CD O
t- 00 CD o
U "^ c o
£ 2 So,
CD CD CD O -F
CD CD CD O
Is
CD CD CD O
rH rH rH CN M
rH rH rH CN
rH rH rH CN
X
o
o S_S =
2-73
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ty with the national average to above the national
average.
Not all income would be relevant to impacts that
might result from implementing the proposed action
in the ES area. The economic sectors that would
be most affected are those that depend at least in
part on management of the public lands: income
from range livestock, construction income, recrea-
tion-related income, and government-related
income. Other sectors are not directly affected by
range activities and are not, therefore, analyzed
beyond their inclusion in Figure 2-14 (e.g., non-
livestock farm income, manufacturing, mining, pri-
vate sector services). Each of the affected eco-
nomic sectors are described below in terms of
direct income produced and the indirect effect on
employment and retail trade.
According to the most recent information availa-
ble, range livestock-related earnings for the nine
county region averaged $92,066,000 annually be-
tween 1970 and 1975, based on an average yearly
base of 907,250 livestock (cattle and sheep). The
annual animal unit months (AUM) required to sus-
tain this livestock base is 9,161,170. By dividing
direct livestock earnings by AUMs, one obtains a
direct receipt value per AUM of $10.04. Multiplying
this direct income effect by the gross output multi-
plier of 2.345 (Water Resources Council, Guideline
5) produces total average yearly business activity of
$23.54 per AUM in the nine county region as a
result of the base livestock activity. Table 2-25
shows individual county variations from this total.
Within the ES area, BLM presently provides a
yearly total of 352,397 AUMs. The livestock re-
ceipts from these AUMs would be about $3.5 mil-
lion annually based on the $10.04 average value of
an AUM. Total business activity produced by these
352,397 AUMs would be about $8.1 million annual-
ly. Receipts from BLM AUMs in the ES area repre-
sent 3.8 percent of the total livestock receipts in
the nine county region. However, approximately
400 operators have some use of BLM AUMs, and
compared with the total of 3,938 farms (U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1974) having range pastureland, this represents
10.2 percent of that total.
The annual average business activity from con-
tract construction was $16.2 million from 1970 to
1976. Using the gross output multiplier for the con-
struction sector, the total indirect and direct effect
on the economy averaged $48.7 million (Table 2-
25). The trend in each county in the ES area was
not consistent, but in most cases, 1976 was higher
than 1970.
Annual federal wages in the nine county area
averaged $20.6 million while total indirect and
direct business activity averaged $53.5 million.
Recreation-related income is difficult to quantify.
The area is remote from population centers and
many roads are unpaved and difficult to travel in
inclement weather. Also, services are not abundant
so that sightseeing, casual snowmobiling, and off-
road vehicle use are limited. However, the very
remoteness of the area contributes to its desirability
as a hunting and fishing area.
The number of hunters and fishermen using
BLM land in the ES area, days of use, and expendi-
tures per day have been quantified (Table 2-25). In
1976 expenditures amounted to $929,000 in the
total ES area. Because the expenditures for this
recreation activity are included in the overall retail
trade and service sectors, it is difficult to accurately
estimate the total business effect provided by hunt-
ing and fishing. The best estimates available, how-
ever, indicate a total indirect and direct business
activity caused by hunting and fishing of $1.3 mil-
lion.
Employment
Employment increased during the early 1970s
and has remained relatively stable from 1974
through 1977 in the nine county ES region (Table
2-26). The unemployment rate at the end of 1977
was 5.6 percent, below both state and national
levels.
The largest single sector for employment is agri-
culture (Figure 2-15), which is relatively stable. This
is reflected in the low unemployment rates in Chou-
teau, Garfield, McCone, and Petroleum Counties
(Table 2-26), which are all primarily agricultural with
few towns. Other important sectors of employment
are government, trade, and services which are as-
sociated with the population centers serving the
rural areas.
Employment distribution among sectors appears
to be relatively stable. Only increased development
of coal, oil, and gas would change the proportions
displayed in Figure 2-15. These cannot be quanti-
fied at present, because much of the minerals de-
velopment is only at the exploration stage.
Social Conditions
Social Well-Being
The region is continuing to have a declining
proportion of the state's population (Table 2-24).
2-74
EQ
<
c
V
E
"a.
&
u
-o
c
eg
v
E
o
t*x CO
o c
60S
o.2
o t-
lO
"*
m o
i— <
CM
O sc
a> oo
o
^*
<u ^
CO co
o
CM
C3
>
a.
a
©
>>
c
a
s
-c
0
O
"V
s
1-8
CQ
o CO
O CO
co
CN
CO
00
o
CN
CO
CO
©
CN
o
d
CO
t-
r-
CN
Oi
<J)
CO
CN
CN
CO
m
co
m tt
a> o
0> ©
co" CO*
CO
oo
o
co
CO CN
CO ^h
co" co"
in
CM
CO
O
Tf
r— (
CO
CO
m
00
ai
CN
CN
r— <
CN
00
o
1-1
m
CN
■*
r-
CN
CO
a>
CO
O
CN
CO
<35
i— i
CN
"*
CO
00
CM
03 CN
cm m
t- m
CO <N
■*
o
m ■*
CN
00
CO i-l
m
CM
CM
CO
o
t-
t-
CM
t>
00
CM
C~
f— 1
co
tj<
<J>
00
i-H
CO
CO
CO
i— (
m
CM
T
o
O
CO
in
a>
©
CM
co
o
o
CO
i-H
CM
m
m
•— '
ai
t-
t- CM
m o
pH CT>_
-*" m"
jo
'eo
>
CO
c
O
CO
oc»
o
CM
CO
r- 00
t> CO
00
o
m
CO
CM
CO
<J>
CM
CM
CJ5
o
CD
IB
s
CXI
cn m
m i-i
■* m
CO
h
co m
co
fa.
CO
CM
in
co*
c-
o
o
m
m
m
cai
m
CO
in
oo
t- co
"*1 °°.
co" m"
r-
m
CO
i— 1
CM
CO
o
CM
m
CM
CM
CO
CM
CO
CO
00
£
o
O o m
Z t- t-
S © cr>
<a ca • -
j_a j_a -*-»
►J
<
z
o
cn
™ m ji
WO, ft.
ft.
ca
3
5 m
^ o
C (J,
O ,— i
CD
Eh
a a
cs eg
OO
i3 t- o
CO CJ O
C > O
O
2 ..
>
E 25
Eh
0 u o
> > ©
<
2<£
CO
CO
S 3 t-
w
CO 3 •
fc C ©
2
V, 5 ©
CD <T ^h
ft.
ro
D
ft)
lC
6
t»
09
CD
ox
ca
o a. £ © a
■StC
■J
CD o
> o
< S*
< o
§11
c © o
J?©'§P
K
-a
>- c
CO i-^i
CD
4J "(3
o. °
<
to co »
5>— m
3Q
CO
) JH < S
"PQ
co
_ 33 o ©
£<<S
CT>
2-75
O B
5 §
o.2
O Ml
O
o
o
00
to
in
<M
m
00
o
cm
CO
m
o
CO
CO
o
CO
at
t>
CM
CM
o
OS
m
o
q
l-l CO
in
to
to
in
en
00
00
Ol
00
01
CM
o
o
CO
to
CM
o
o
T
9)
Oi
CO
00
X
00
CM
o
>>
c
3
O
U
'3
>
CO
c
00
CO
to
CM
in
oi
OS
co
to
o
to
co
CM
OI
ci
o
o
c
CM
to
CM
o
CO
CJ
-r
to
o
o
to
CO
00
in
CM
CO
00
CO
o
o
03
00
o
CO
00
O0
00
oo
•v
9
B
O
-C
U > 00
en — in
•o « «t-
<D--cajr;3>-C.E2o
£a S§05 « S g|
eQ< >2 coa-M<2
4J CO
c 2
a; C m
c < o
S|lg|o|sI|ls
2 ^ 2, 5 & «
C en CQ •< ,-c *j
o w CO
= o > ©
a o „ < < &
O CO
O °-
— VI
co -
«- oc
.£ co
-o ai
eu
3 „
O .Si
-X ^ 3
to
ox
- u CQ < — '
o- » - -
3
o *-> bD
co-rO^P a^'C co —
fa. co H
j o
CQ o z> 73
- fi© 3 I* C
« 5 oi co •- « CQ -
• C CO O «3 Q 01 "r —
y a> . -33
£ c
a> X
OS
X CO
W J
3 o
co 3 -^ c J2 2
CO E-1
2-76
4>
3
"■3
s
o
u
CU
3
<— 1
a
O
e
oc
CO
o
in
lO
en
OJ
co
E
o
en
o
en
OJ
o
OB
lO
c-
T
©
CD
■w
CO
§
00
c-
CN
lO
<N
■*
o
en
CD
(T>
CO
CO
1-1
>■
w
B
3
O
B
0
lO
CO
iri
co
en
eg
r~
O
"53b
CU
CO
.— 1
CT>
in
C-
CO
0)
s
eti
<m"
OJ
l>
f— (
CM
OJ
Z
>>
cu
co
X
o
c
CO
CO
"o
>
CM
o
TT
m
o
X
-!•_
O
OJ
■<t
■>**
in
. — i
ce
D.
co
23
. — i
Tl<
GN
TT
1 — 1
o
73
-r
co
X
CO
X>
-C
-j-
. — i
t—
a,
oi
cm"
E
3
cu
X
©
oc
CN
en
en
liO
X
t-
^^
en
co
-w
cu
to
CM
l-H
a.
V
B
lO
O
r-
CO
o
O
m
t-
t-
CM
in
-r
f—i
u
m
iq
t-
s
"-1"
'-'"
CO
IK
I-
<
_B
_CU
O
'33
a
m
CO
X
OS
-O,
JS
'as
>
CO
CM
j=
c-
o
o
co
c
"-1
OI
CO
3
•3
1 — (
^H
c
©
3
p
2
T
[3
co
<n
X.
-r
o
05
. — i
co
^H
1—t
-
t-
os
-r
o
X
3
m
=£
O
in
m
Tf
m
X
l-
CO
lO
en
o
r-
CU
T
CO
Ol
CO
CT>
fc,
in
«5
'-l
3
3
0/
eo
CO
CO
O
CO
CO
O
3
o
o
r~
OJ
Tf
O
°i
©
in
-C
IN
co'
,—1
CO
CO
^H
o
m
'S
O
CO
| 1
o
CO
CO
01
(N
CN
-•
a
-»->
a
s
c
lO
0>
2
W
>
o
c
c
• S
01
u
c
St
>>CN
O rH
"a ■
S 2
B
<
c
cu
E
>.
o
a.
£
s-
cn
CO
bX
CO
J-
Cu
03
o
In
3
3
b£
B
o
CJ
3
J-
CTj
c
o
s
c
O)
>
o
O
Oh
2
>
c
cu
c
D
ES
>
<
H < O fc
w
CO O
CJ> eo
OS CO
°3 _
< 3
BJ
O i-
CJ ^>
3
cu
C3
0j
£
3
(Tl
OJ
a
cu
cu
o
Q
h
CU
£
CO
B
eg
£
4J
c
0
o
o -a
*j c
c co
u CTJ
CO -H
CU ^
Q §
CO <m"
i-: t-
P en
i> .
t- o
cc E:
S. os
o
>.CO
CO
3 co
13 3
c CO
£ C
~* *
C°
CO cu
- 3js
o cu t-
° >- OS
-t-> 3 ^h
B rn
cu
£
cu
-a
CO CU CO
afit-
CU 5 OS
Q B -1
co rj rt
3 Zl r-
« "^ os
§^£
5 CU 3
sis
t- CO .H
3 D. I-
o cu be
co Q <
2-77
Figure 2-14
TOTAL LABOR AND PROPRIETORS PERSONAL
INCOME, 1975 NINE COUNTY ES AREA
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economics Information System
2-78
TABLE 2-26
Total Employment in the Nine County Area
1971
21,970
1972
22,419
1973
22,497
1974
23,244
1975
22,852
1977
23,093
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information
System; Montana Department of Labor and Industry, Research
and Analysis Section, Employment Security Division
2-79
Figure 2-15
EMPLOYMENT BY ECONOMIC SECTOR1, 1975
'Chart includes employment of both proprietors and labor. The Agriculture sector includes both proprietors and
farm labor employment. The Trade sector is labor employment only.
^Estimated because of confidentiality of statistics.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System; Montana Department of Labor
and Industry, Research and Analysis Section, Employment Security Division.
2-80
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
These population statistics are indicative of the
area's remote nature, and its position as a place
with fewer employment and social opportunities
than other areas of Montana.
Other social well-being indicators support this
reasoning. The age distribution of the ES area
shows Montana as a whole to have a greater pro-
portion of the age 18 to 64 population, indicating
greater opportunities for the major working portion
of the population outside the nine county ES area.
Although the area is still predominantly rural (Table
2-24), the number of farms is declining (Table 2-
27). The towns in the area are lacking in some
basic services. For example, the number of persons
per physician is critically higher than elsewhere in
Montana and two counties have no physicians at all
(Table 2-27).
Median family income is also lower than the
average for Montana, and the number of families
with incomes below the national poverty level are
higher than the overall Montana figures. However,
families with incomes higher than $15,000 (Table 2-
27) are proportionally similar to the rest of Mon-
tana, and the higher poverty level income figures
must be balanced with the often significant invest-
ment in land, buildings, and equipment some of the
low income families have.
Even though the area is remote and sparsely
populated, all of these factors used to measure
social well-being cannot be considered as negative.
Many urban problems such as high crime rates and
overcrowding are less significant here. Unemploy-
ment is below both state and national levels, and in
some counties is less than half the national rate
(Table 2-27). The median education level is compa-
rable to the rest of Montana (Table 2-27).
The number of families with incomes over
$15,000 is also comparable to Montana as a whole.
In summary, this area has a mixed level of social
well-being. It would appear that individual opportuni-
ties and freedoms are present, evidenced by edu-
cational level, crime rates, etc., but are countered
by factors endemic to remote rural areas, principal-
ly lack of a large enough social base to provide
some services.
Public Finance and Infrastructure
The nine county ES area has 10 percent of
assessed property valuation and taxable valuation
within the state, and paid about 9 percent of the
state total property taxes (see Table 2-28 for raw
data). The proportion of total taxes paid was slightly
higher than the proportion of the state's population
contained in the ES area counties (7.3 percent).
Per capita taxation (Table 2-28) was higher
($412.60) than the state ($315.41). The public
lands located in the nine counties contributed pay-
ments amounting to 16.1 million dollars (Table 2-
28) from return of grazing fees, mineral leases, and
payments in lieu of taxes. The low population, large
area (23 percent of the state), and high per capita
taxation place limits on the amount of services the
ES area counties and population can provide
(Table 2-29).
Socio-Cultural Attitudes
General attitudinal surveys indicate the state to
be generally conservative (Montana State Universi-
ty 1977). That is, economic development is viewed
in a positive way. Most people are against govern-
ment encroachment on private property rights, and
government influence is seen as most desirable
when it is exercised at the local level. Among differ-
ent types of economic development, most people
favor agriculture. Although conservative, most
people would not totally sacrifice the environment
for economic development. There is widespread in-
terest in wildlife, and more people than not feel that
land and water use planning is a necessity. Once
again, however, prevailing opinion favors planning
occurring at a state or local level, rather than by
the federal government. About 60 percent of the
population agree or strongly agree that they are
willing to forego some economic opportunities in
order to live in Montana.
Within the ES area counties, public opinion ex-
pressed by means of open houses, public meeting,
direct individual contact, and correspondence has
identified several issues bearing on range manage-
ment. Rancher groups and individual citizen com-
ments are expressions of attitudes towards the var-
ious issues. The patterns are generally similar to
the opinions expressed in the attitude survey dis-
cussed above.
These people and groups gave moderate sup-
port to keeping essentially primitive parcels of land
in that state as long as it does not prohibit livestock
grazing. It is not clear, however, if there is support
for formal wilderness designation. Most rural people
would limit off-road vehicle use. Support exists for
improving wildlife habitat if it is in conjunction with
sound management that also provides for livestock
grazing. Measures are definitely supported that
would increase the quality and quantity of livestock
grazing: effective predator and prairie dog control;
range improvements such as stock water reser-
voirs, other water developments, and judicious
fencing; and artificial range treatments such as sa-
gebrush spraying, seeding, and contour furrowing.
2-81
>- co
1 —
5 =
SB
&c
c
CM
CM
'5
a?
U
~z
CQ
£
<
is
H
"o
o
Cfl
<
w
as
<
as
o
>-
H
Z
O
c c
1 «
CO
CO
_c
cu
o
H
r-
co
co
>>
X
Cu
o
Z
i-O CO O".
CO CO d
oc
in
CN
CO
X
00
05
30
CM
cm
q
ic
q
in
co
cd
-0)0
IS t^ N
co m
>>
x
CU
00
in
I
co
I
OC
O
I
CN
d
I
o
o
X
« "^
cu
CO cu
a
CO
C co
c a
.2 E
o £;
en Oi
-a o
CU
Oh
CU O
- *
CO cj
3 cu
a a
o —
Q. cu
'r 3
O X
t- CJ
CO
CO
c
oc
iO
■*
co oi in
d
00
in d co
co m — >
CO
CO"
02
o
c
<M CN CO
co d -J
CO
CO
CM
00
oo o co
in
CM
d
co tj- — i
5b S
c
C "-
CO cu
>.
JS °>
73
CJ
CO
E
Oi c
CD C
CO
r_i CO
5 <=
T* <_i
CO t~-
CO o
(U — 1
73 O
3 rft
X
o
a
q
is
in
CO
1)
se
~
cu
E
r3
c
s*-
CO
0
cu
^_)
E
c
c
c
-r.
C
C
o
05
c
CO
X
1~
cu
0
—
k-
c
3
e
cu
TO
X
s
c -»•
C
*r
'-3
3 =?
CO
tJ
~
O 00
in
CO
^
>>~
CO
-5
o
a
£? if
t?
cu
<
cu
Q
TO
c
CS
c
o
3
a
o
a,
o
a
X
c
o
CO
e
>
3C
CO
Oi
>,
hi
4-3
3
CQ
3
CJ
cu
£ a
w
-4->
K
c
cu
CO
E
CU
>1
r3
o
O
a
Cu
E
W
u
£
c"
o
o
c
o
o
CU
CJ
CO
W
CO
6
CO
'u
_>>
o
CO
"3
c
CO
<
c
CO
TO
4J
c
c
CS
o
§
X
u
L.
CO
C
cu
CO
cu
cu
Eos
cu
bfi
>>
CO
i-,
c
CO
-4->
CO
3
■a
c
TO
C
co
TO
c
CO
E*H
fc-
O
o
„ X
3
CO
ca
cu
J
*- H-
3
o
CQ
4-»
c
cu
E
CtS
u
D
cs
a
o
cu
co Q
2-82
00
u
cy
c
CN
eg
B
n9
IZ
a:
U
<
JD
E-
3
>— to
°s
3 §
Z o <
U
£
3
V
<
"3
W
OJ
X
D.
<
as
o
V
>
C
o
H
O
Z
u
D
s
O
u
5 .5
CQ
OS
O
'5
5
"T —
O
00
■*r «
CC
x
r- -h
>> c
-Jj o c
oi '.3 o
a to 3
O 3 03
o -a *^
o £ o3o
!£3 qj O ca O
_ en o * o
2 «» s»
>
— i -<r
<x> co
W CD
f- CD
co
00 t-
cd "0-
CD
CD CO
00 ■*
lO
CD CO
tJ- CD
O
CN 00
00 CO
CN
— < CD
CM CO
in
00
£ «3
X o ^
« o 2
f— i ?? CO
"On
._ m i~
iy — cj
i_ "3" C
a> r— "
D.CJ1 „0
O —i £
O
=
03
c
CC Q
£ e-
O CU
02 "o
s o
£- bxi"0
o s c
7! & "
CO > •*"
> __ c
* ca 3
►J *J o
o
o
co'
CO
X
U
tx,
O c ><
T3 o («'
.S "- a;
^ -Q c
0. 3 O
en (X "7
3 0l
£ -o -C
<
be
X
c
cu Q-» rQ
•a 02
O*
fa.
Ojo!:
o a) o _2
© c o >,
!£ £ " «
_ c _
o«io
© £ ©
o >. o
« ca'*
~ D- ~
T3
C
CO
JO
3
Ph
X
CB
a
c
en
u
>> o
CO IS
x O
CO
o>
C/3
c
3
c
X
§
3
0
01
3
§
c
01
>
3
01
Oj
ti
3
64_,
0)
0
M
J -
CO
3
3
CD
CO
ES
4J
U
t:
co
3
a.
CO
o>
Q
l#-
01
o
CO 3
CO
3
3
cc
CO
~j
3
X
C
l>
§
w
3-.
u
.
OS
SB
c
01
M
c7) Q
2-83
>
c
o
CJ
-c
3
-
CQ
<
3
M
9
0
J=
CJ
X
o
CJ
b; 3 r'^2
r- t- cj^i
i q
Ol [t,
c —
-3 CO
"O 3
> OS
Q
a
_3
o
>
Q
a
T3
3 fJ
Q
en
eg
a
BJ
.
-p
-C
3
e
o
CO
"5
C
eg
co
!-a
—
X
Q
a -a
c CO ->
3 T3 C
— = 3
O O o
>2u
Q
a
2 2 >> £
o o - S
b. o "
Ol
!r c c -j
9* £ 3 o.
c *J > u
>tut
Q -o
a c
-U s >-.tu CO
c c c ~ c
o
a
b.
3: a
oj >> co
CO CJ ^L
9- o
cu £
S: a. to
>,
CO
co cj e
X
X
X
X
8-8 I
i: o. .2
^ ^ 5
2 .^ "*
7)UC
i ; o
2 G
5 o
o c
j=
>, o
^cc
>- X
C3
Si* j
.S M
coot
lw ^
jj
3 _
a o>
Cl2^
1 §
J3
leriff
ty Po
hinoo
.5 M
cocjy
Cu I
.a _sc
a £
co
P -=
•- .SP
_c
o
c
J3
>>
<J
1m
X
eg
E
-C
cu I
c
a
a I
2 c
•5 c
x
c
o
'CO
>'. « .2
CO c M C
E - — ^
'C cy c x
a x cj a
I a
X a
o
X
o —
a .2
X >•
5 -*=
X a
c
IS .2
~J CI
'3,'k
I a
CO
2 c c
Q. 0) ca
a 85
coi^-
z ^- a
CO
£ I
a m
U 9
a a
cj e
CO
C^
be
O
U
O
be
c —
1. c
a a
>.Y
-> c
03
bi 5
c c
a 2
>. i
_- 01
u •=
£2
^- 0
a jx
0
>. .
c
c
2
Gfe
c -55
a c
c
c3y
>>
>
01
c
X
3
O
c
O
0
-
!0
£
Ol
u
0
01
a ai
o
2
c
o
2
CJ
i.: co
X CJ
U 3
X cc
U 3
X CC
u
CO i_ 3
r- X CC
a
>.
u
T3
C
CO
c
o
CJ
D
co
2-84
On the other hand, some special interest
groups-particularly wildlife oriented organizations
(with membership both inside and outside the ES
area)--expressed some contrasting attitudes. Al-
though there were no objections to livestock graz-
ing, these opinions were more restrictive on meas-
ures to promote livestock economic benefits. They
were against artificial range treatments and some
measures for predator and prairie dog control. Wil-
derness or primitive status for some areas was
seen as beneficial.
The public response by BLM dependent opera-
tors to the latest BLM planning documents was
limited. The documents included detailed discus-
sion of the allotment management plans presented
in this environmental analysis. Individual discus-
sions between BLM employees and ranchers con-
cerning either already implemented allotment man-
agement plans or those that are proposed show a
mixed response. Most ranchers regard maintaining
the condition of public lands with the same sense
of responsibility accorded their private lands. On
implemented allotment management plans, most
ranchers follow these plans closely. For proposed
plans, some resistance was shown to AUM reduc-
tions but at the same time there was agreement
with the need for more careful management. Be-
cause grazing leases are always operated in con-
junction with private base property, some of the
attitudinal survey patterns are present; namely, a
feeling that private property is managed in the best
interest of both economics and environment. Some
resistance is shown to the federal government's
dictating management practices upon which most
ranchers already hold firm and sometimes different
opinions. That the proposed action and rancher
practices are not too far apart is shown by agree-
ment in principle by most ranchers that careful
management is needed, but some disagreement
occurs in specific methods.
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE
Land Ownership
Surface lands within the ES area are predomi-
nantly in private ownership (62 percent, Table 2-30
and Map 2-22). Lands administered by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) constitute 26 percent,
or 2,199,570 acres of the ES area. BLM adminis-
tered lands predominate in those areas under con-
sideration for allotment management plans (AMPs).
Surface lands under BLM administration constitute
65 percent of the total AMP acreage (see Figure 2-
16). This ownership pattern is consistent throughout
the rolling plains, riverbreaks, and mountains land-
form areas.
Livestock Grazing
There are approximately 400 livestock operators
currently licensed to graze on 1,972,035 acres of
public lands included in AMPs within the ES area.
These livestock operations use 318 allotments and
harvest about 294,401 AUMs of forage annually.
Actual numbers of livestock grazing on these allot-
ments are not readily available, but the annual har-
vest of AUMs is equivalent to 24,553 animal units.
The current annual licensed use of 294,401 AUMs
is 13,951 AUMs less than the 308,352 AUMs re-
ported by range surveys (see Appendix 4). The
lower level of current licensed use is due, in part, to
BLM's required suspension of grazing privileges be-
cause in some allotments, adequate forage does
not exist, and to the identification of acreage as
unsuitable for grazing subsequent to the initial
range surveys. Within AMP allotments, approxi-
mately 3 percent (101,918 acres) of the total acre-
age has been classified as unsuitable.
Cattle are the most prevalent class of livestock,
although sheep, horses, and buffalo also graze
some of these public lands. The 318 allotments
consist of 267 cattle allotments; 4 sheep allot-
ments; 17 cattle and sheep allotments; 26 cattle
and horse allotments, 3 cattle, sheep, and horse
allotments; and 1 cattle, horse and buffalo allot-
ment. Cattle graze over 99 percent of these allot-
ments and there is a wide variance in management
practices among these cattle operations. Most
ranches run a cow/calf operation, and all sell fall
weaner calves. However, there are some oper-
ations which hold over weaner calves and run year-
ling operations. Breeding season usually runs from
about mid-June to the end of August, thus calves
begin dropping around mid-March and runs to
about the end of May. Weaner and/or yearling
calves are usually sold in October and November.
About 10 to 15 percent of the annual calf crop are
usually retained as replacement heifers. Beef
breeds within the ES area are too numerous to
mention. There are several breeds constantly being
imported from Canada, and while some registered
or purebred herds do exist, crossbreeding is most
predominant.
Due to a wide variety of management practices
among livestock operators, seasons of use of these
public lands vary considerably and range from a
few weeks or months to year-long grazing. Within
these 318 allotments, there are 94 allotments
grazed year-long, and 224 allotments grazed peri-
2-85
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
odically during various periods or combinations of
periods of spring, summer, fall, and winter use.
There are approximately 125 of these 224 allot-
ments which receive all of their use between the
dates of March 1 through October 31 annually. The
remaining 99 allotments receive most of their use
between the dates of November 1 through Febru-
ary 28; however, some of these turn-in dates may
precede November 1 by a month or six weeks.
Weather conditions may also require the removal of
livestock from these allotments during severe win-
ters.
Forage production varies considerably between
and within allotments, and from year to year. Range
surveys show forage production to range from less
than one acre per AUM to 20 or more acres per
AUM. Unsuitable rangeland in these 318 allotments
is about 101,918 acres (3 percent of the total AMP
acres). Approximately 74,985 acres (74 percent)
classified as unsuitable lie within the riverbreaks
landform area; 21,509 acres (21 percent) are in the
rolling plains landform area; and 5,424 acres (5
percent) are within the mountains landform area.
The overall average for current licensed use is
about 6.7 acres per AUM. The average production
of all suitable rangelands is about 6.3 acres per
AUM for current annual use. The variance in annual
forage production can create considerable concen-
tration of livestock in areas of the allotments where
more palatable species and water developments
are located. This creates poor livestock distribution
in the good years as well as in the poor years of
forage production. During drought years, this com-
petition leads to reduced calf crops, lighter weaning
weights, and increased stress on mother cows. Fur-
thermore, plant vigor is reduced and seed produc-
tion is almost nonexistent.
Livestock populations as of January 1, 1976,
were estimated at approximately 161,000 head of
beef cattle and 46,000 head of sheep for the ES
area (Montana Department of Agriculture 1976).
These figures represent a decrease in livestock
populations from 1974 as shown in Table 2-31.
With both cattle and sheep showing a decrease,
the total animal units of the ES area have de-
creased by about 9 percent from 1974 to 1976
(one animal unit equals one cow, one cow and calf,
or five sheep).
According to Montana Agricultural Statistics
1976, cattle numbers reached a recorded peak in
1974. Sheep populations have been decreasing
since the 1930s and 1940s with a fairly steady
trend since 1960. These trends apply to the entire
state, and it is assumed they would be applicable
to the ES area. Future trends of cattle populations
are totally speculative; however, it appears that
sheep populations will continue to decline due to
limited predator control programs and increased
production costs such as for labor and fencing.
Using the 1976 population estimates, the ES
area has a total of 170,200 animal units which
would require 2,042,400 AUMs of forage and sup-
plements annually. Present licensed use from BLM
records show a total of 352,397 AUMs being used
annually from public lands within the ES area.
These AUMs represent about 17 percent of the
total annual needs of the ES area. Although this 17
percent does not represent the only major source
of livestock forage, it does represent a dependency
on public lands for forage during critical periods of
the grazing season for most operators.
Wilderness
The wilderness inventory, in accordance with
Sec. 603(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Man-
agement Act (FLPMA), has not been completed on
the public lands that would be impacted by the
proposal. Prior to implementation of any actions,
the areas will have to be inventoried and impacts
on potential or existing wilderness areas assessed.
Until Congress acts on an area that has been
designated for wilderness study, existing multiple-
use activities, including grazing and supporting ac-
tivities, will continue. New uses or expanded exist-
ing uses will be allowed if the impacts will not
impair the suitability of the area for wilderness.
Under the guidance of FLPMA, the Bureau has
developed draft wilderness review procedures to be
used to inventory and select potential wilderness
areas (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management 1978). These procedures pro-
vide for protection and interim management of
areas that may qualify for wilderness until a final
determination can by made by Congress.
The BLM role in the wilderness review proce-
dure is to recommend to the Secretary of the Interi-
or, President, and Congress which public lands are
suitable or nonsuitable for wilderness preservation.
Congress makes the final decision on what areas
will be included in the National Wilderness Preser-
vation System.
Figure 2-17 identifies the steps involved in the
wilderness review process. Public involvement is an
integral part of these procedures.
One "instant study area," Square Butte Natural
Area (designated prior to November 1, 1975), lies
within the ES area. The proposed Arrow Creek
AMP would be located within this natural area;
however, no range improvement projects are pro-
posed.
2-86
j 1 Public Domain Land (BLM)
j J State Land
|| J Forest Service Land
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
MISSOURI BREAKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
LAND OWNERSHIP
SOURCE: BLM Status Records, 1978
MAP 2-22
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
A 5,000 acre roadless area inventory and sub-
sequent identification of additional wilderness study
areas has not been completed. However, because
the ES area contains many relatively remote sites,
several wilderness study areas may be identified
through the inventory process.
One proposed "primitive area" was identified
through the BLM planning process (the primitive
area designation was used prior to the enactment
of FLPMA). This site, proposed as the Seven
Blackfoot Primitive Area, contains portions of four
proposed AMPs (Emmett Clark and Son - 2052,
McKeever Homestead - 2214, Seven Blackfoot
Common - 2362, and Seven Blackfoot - 2371). No
range improvements are proposed in Emmett Clark
and Son and Seven Blackfoot Common AMPs. Five
reservoirs, 1 well, 2.5 miles of fence, and 480 acres
of plowing and seeding are proposed within the
primitive area in the Seven Blackfoot AMP and 1
reservoir and 180 acres of plowing and seeding are
proposed within the McKeever Homestead AMP.
Fifteen areas within the Charles M. Russell Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge have been recommended for
wilderness designation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service 1974). Several of these areas are
located adjacent to public lands.
Until Congress determines whether or not to
designate an area identified during the inventory as
wilderness, multiple use activities will continue with
minimum interruption in a manner that will not
impair the suitability for preservation as wilderness
in accordance with Section 603(c) of FLPMA.
2-87
<x>
o\°
o\°
o\°
0\°
o\°
of
o\°
o\°
o\°
o\°
01
X)
ID
^r
**
r-»
CM
lo
r-
LD
01
oo
^r ^
in x>
01
rH
lo
in
o- m
CN
o
vO
01
oo
O
LD
CM
X>
CO
oo
o
vr
O X>
r- ro
r>
oo
iX)
m oo
Ol
rH"
<
oi
01
cn
r~\
CM
■ST
o
o
o
O
oo
ro
in
*»
*
*1
^
•^
•»
V
H,
^
o
&
00
00
r»
CM
r-
01
l—l
X>
r-
CM
CM
^r
!S
cm
r-
o
m
LfO
co
rH
iH
r~~
^f
rH
En
<
rH
LD
r-
00
<tf
CM
0>
O
o
>0
OJ
10
W
■H
>
§
a)
<
Bj
o\°
o\°
o\°
o\°
o\°
o\°
rH
CO
O
CM
<-{
01
01
CM
CO
CO
P- rH
X)
CO
CO
rH
*?
LD
in
r-
^
CM
o <tf
CO
<tf
m
CM
X)
01
^
*>■
*.
*.
*.
■k
c—
<*
CM
r-^
ro
^
o
rH
CM
<X>
CM
CO
o\<=
o\°
o\°
O CM
CO
00
oo r-
CM CO
CM
<-t
<tf
rH
rH
CM
^
^
*
C>
CO
r>
X)
CO
o
r-i
CM
o
CO
I
CM
W
<
Cn
G
-H
p
W
•H
X
w
o\°
o\°
o\°
oo
r~
o
CO
co <-i
r-
r^
01
CM
x> m
rH
r^
01
K
^
*
X)
r^
00
CM
\D
Ol
CM
CM
o\°
0\°
o\°
LD
o
X3
o
rH
01
01
r-
rH
oo
rH
^T
r»
X)
<tf
^
^
*
CO
OO
CM
01
CO
00
rH
CM
CO "^ <D X) ^ (Ji
X) r» o cm r- ^
ojo ^r oo
CM
m
X)
m
o\°
o\°
o\°
o\°
o\°
0\°
oV
0\°
o\°
o\°
m cm
m
00
o
CO
CM
CO
00
r-i
<* ^r
m x)
Ol
rH
r-~
CM
00
00
o ^
r~ X)
CM
oo
o
X)
X)
CM
oo
oi
O X)
r^ oo
r»
«tf
X)
CM
O0
r- r-
00
r*
X)
O
O
o
o
o
o
01
CO
r*
*>
^
V
^
*
*
*
*.
v
*
■»
*
^
X)
rH
CM
o
CM
r-i
X)
r^
r-
CM
o
oi
ai
Ol
r»
m
CM
rH
rH
r-
in
oo
r-
^r
CM
m
00
01
OO
oo
CM
QJ
p
T3
T3
T3
T3
Cn
C
0)
QJ
QJ
QJ
(0
0)
u
M
>H
M
QJ
o
(D
CD
+J
0)
-P
QJ
QJ
+J
QJ
+J
QJ
OJ
+j
QJ
P
QJ
Q)
p
U
SH
U) +J
Cn
c
Gn
C
■P
&i
C
Oo
C
+J
Oi
c
Cn
c
P
Cn
c
U
a>
C CO
co
a)
(0
0)
cn
CO
QJ
(0
QJ
cn
CO
QJ
co
QJ
cn
co
QJ
CO
O.
•H -H
<D
u
a)
u
■H
cu
U
QJ
0
■H
QJ
u
OJ
U
-H
QJ
U
CO C
U
>H
in
M
cn
a
u
Vl
Sh
!h
C
u
!h
u
M
C
Sh
rH
J
•-* -H
U
QJ
0
<u
M
•H
o
QJ
U
QJ
•H
u
Q)
u
QJ
•iH
CJ
OJ
<c
CU g
d)
+J
(0
Oh
CO
a
CO
E
CD
+J
CO
a
cO
Oh
cn
P
QJ
+J
cO
Oh
(0
CU
g
0)
P
CO
Oh
En
T3
On
c
QJ
'u
&i
c
c
"o
rr>
G
TJ
Cn
G
O
Cn CO
rO
0)
in
J
>H
CO
fO
QJ
rH
J
■H
cO
rd
QJ
u
tJ
cO
rrj
QJ
rH
Eh
C 1
0)
u
a)
<
X5
1
a)
O
QJ
<
CO
1
QJ
o
QJ
<
w
1
QJ
O
QJ
•H S
H
SH
X!
Eh
M
S
m
iH
£
B
+J
S
m
u
x;
Eh
J
S
'H
!h
X
Q
rH i-q
o
<u
+J
O
0)
J
u
0
■P
o
C
3
u
QJ
p
o
<
J_3
o
QJ
P
2
rH PQ
CO
Oh
o
B
>
m
ra
a,
o
Eh
3
CQ
rfl
Oh
o
&H
Eh
m
rrj
Oh
o
1
0
•H
0
O
Pi
Oh
S
Eh
CJ
2-88
Figure 2-16
AMP ACREAGE DISTRIBUTION
AND LAND OWNERSHIP
E. S. Area
LEGEND
| | BLM Administered Lands
I | Other Lands
Mountains
Source: BLM, 1978
2-89
TABLE 2-31
Estimated Livestock Populations of ES Area-
Class^ 1974 - 1975- 1976- % Decrease
Beef Cattle 177,000 174,800 161,000 9.04
Sheep 55,300 49,800 46,000 16.82
— All figures are based upon data from Montana Agricultural Statistics
(Montana Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Statistical Reportinq Service, 1976)
2/
— Figures estimated as of January 1
2-90
Figure 2-17
BLM WILDERNESS INVENTORY PROCESS
BLM STATE DIRECTORS START INVENTORY
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
BLM DISTRICTS CONDUCT INITIAL INVENTORY
Analyze Existing Information
Ownership - Roads - Impacts - Uses
Identify Inventory Units Prepare Situation Evaluation
STATE DIRECTOR ISSUES PROPOSED INITIAL INVENTORY DECISION
(Map)
AREAS THAT WILL
BE SUBJECT TO
INTENSIVE INVENTORY
DISTRICTS
CONDUCT
INTENSIVE
INVENTORY WITH
FULL PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
LANDS THATCLEARLY AND
OVBIOUSLYDONOT
MEET WSA CRITERIA
90-Day Public Review
State Director
Issues Final Initial
Inventory Decision
X
Areas Relumed
for
intensive Inventory
Lands That Clearly And
Obviously Do Not
Meet WSA Criteria
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
BY SEC 603FLPMA
WILL NO LONGER APPLY
State Director Issues Proposed Decision (Map)
AREAS IDENTIFIED
AS WSA s
:
AREAS THAT
DO NOT MEET
WSA CRITERIA
90-Day Public Review
STATE DIRECTOR ISSUES FINAL DECISION
(Map)
(TO BE FINAL 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION)
WSA s IDENTIFIED
WSA Man, »menl
Study and Recommend
Suitable or Nonsuitable
Report to Sec Pres. Congress
_L
Management Restrictions
IMPOSED BY
SEC.603FLPMA
WILL NO LONGER APPLY
2-91
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This chapter analyzes the significant environ-
mental impacts caused by implementation of the
proposed action.
Procedures and Assumptions
Two primary elements of the proposed action
may affect the resources or environmental compo-
nents. Each component was analyzed by determin-
ing the effect of all elements of the primary actions
upon that component. The impact causing ele-
ments of the proposed action are:
1 . Grazing Systems:
Seasonal
Deferred Rotation
Rest Rotation
Combination of Systems
2. Range Improvements:
Fencing and Cattleguards
Stockwater Reservoirs
Wells
Spring Developments
Water Pipelines
Stockwater Tanks
Rainwater Catchments
Vegetative Manipulation
Basic assumptions were made to facilitate anal-
ysis, to adhere to basic policy, and to measure the
effect of the proposal. The assumptions, used in
the analysis of the impacts on each component,
are:
1. BLM will have the funding and manpower to
implement the AMPs and manage the allot-
ments.
2. All range improvements, vegetative manipulation,
and grazing systems will be implemented within
four years of approval.
3. BLM will receive sufficient funding to maintain
new and existing improvements, and to make
revisions in AMPs as necessary.
4. BLM will verify the level of impacts and monitor
the AMPs for the purpose of making necessary
adjustments in those plans which are not meet-
ing the desired multiple use objectives.
5. Short term impacts are those which would occur
during AMP implementation (1980 through
1984). Long term impacts are those projected
when AMP objectives are met (approximately
the year 2000).
6. Newly implemented grazing systems would be
adhered to through at least one complete
cycle. Unauthorized livestock use would be
strictly controlled and would not be a signifi-
cant impact causing agent.
7. Allocation of additional forage resulting from im-
proved grazing management would generally
be at the same level as the existing allocation
(i.e., 30 to 40 percent of the total annual vege-
tation production allocated to livestock with the
remaining 60 to 70 percent allocated to water-
shed, wildlife, and other consumptive and non-
consumptive uses).
8. Available livestock forage (expressed in AUMs)
on proposed AMP areas would decrease
nearly 5 percent from existing levels, without
the proposed action, by the year 2000. With
the proposed action, available livestock forage
would increase over 7 percent from existing
levels by the year 2000. The methodology
used to obtain the foregoing livestock forage
increases and decreases are discussed in
Chapter 3, Vegetation.
9. The large number of AMPs (318) made aggrega-
tion of allotments necessary so that analysis
could be made workable and easily under-
stood. The major divisions of allotment groups
used for analysis was by landform: riverbreaks,
rolling plains, high plains, and mountains. This
aggregation system was used primarily by the
soils and vegetation components. Some com-
ponents, for which data was collected by other
parameters, could not be analyzed according
to landform (for example, prehistoric and his-
toric features, recreation, and economic and
social conditions).
A general comparison of the implementation
and impacts of the proposed action and the alter-
natives is presented in Chapter 8.
3-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
The proposed action would have no significant
effect on the climate of the ES area.
Dust and exhaust emissions would be produced
locally and temporarily by construction of range im-
provements. Spraying would add herbicides to the
air over 2,236 acres for short times. The duration of
dust production from each operation would depend
on the time of the activity (season) and the rate at
which revegetation would occur. Contour furrowing
and plowing and seeding would put dust in the air
locally. In no case would dust or exhaust gases be
expected to exceed state or federal air quality
standards.
GEOLOGY
The proposed action could lead to discovery
and/or destruction of significant fossils by ground
disturbance during construction of reservoirs or
other water related improvements or during plowing
and seeding or contour furrowing. About 100 reser-
voirs are planned to be installed in 32 proposed
AMPs that overlie the Hell Creek or Fort Union
beds in McCone, Garfield, and northeastern Petro-
leum Counties. Fossils of Late Cretaceous age
could be unearthed through excavations in the Hell
Creek Formation, and fossils of early Tertiary age
could be found in the Tullock or Tongue River
Members of the Fort Union Formation.
SOILS
Implementation of proposed grazing systems
which incorporate deferral of grazing based upon
seed ripening for plant regeneration (37 percent or
approximately 1,126,000 acres of the ES area allot-
ment acreage), and those which incorporate a
cyclic rest period (39 percent or 1,168,000 acres)
are designed to increase vegetative cover and litter.
Rest would be cyclic; within a four-pasture system,
each pasture would be rested one year in four, for
example. A summary discussion of the effects of
livestock grazing on soils is included as Appendix 5.
Soil compaction induced by livestock trampling
would be reduced due to better livestock distribu-
tion. Water infiltration would increase, resulting in
higher available water capacity, with high clay con-
tent soils experiencing the least improvement. Sur-
face runoff and associated erosion and sedimenta-
tion would be reduced. Within the project life of 15
years after AMP implementation, based on project-
ed increases in vegetative cover and litter from
improved range condition, an average long term
improvement of 7 percent of present acreage within
each erosion condition class (slight, moderate, criti-
cal, or severe) to the next better condition class is
expected (see Table 3-1). Critical and severe ero-
sion condition reduction would be 18,245 acres in
the long term. Sediment quantities would decrease
proportionally, as shown in Table 3-2. Total long
term reduction in sediment is projected as 185,729
tons annually.
Compaction effects from livestock trampling
would be further reduced by avoidance of livestock
grazing during the March through May wet period in
18 percent or approximately 542,600 acres of the
ES area under consideration for allotment manage-
ment plans. Quantification of compaction effects
has not been documented in the ES area, although
future studies are proposed.
Net short term (4-year) increase in erosion
losses is estimated at 36,396 tons from 17,244
acres disturbed by proposed range improvements.
Estimates are based on a maximum projected 5
tons of erosion loss per acre annually for the four
year implementation period for all improvements
except vegetative conversion, contour furrows, and
sagebrush spraying. Contour furrows are expected
to decrease erosion and sediment yield by 1,690
tons on 2,253 acres, based on average ES area
loss estimates of .75 tons per acre (see Table 3-3).
Lands disturbed for water developments (1,352
acres) would be permanently removed from forage
productivity. Beneficial impacts of improved live-
stock and wildlife distribution, as further discussed
in Appendix 5, should outweigh this acreage remov-
al, by reducing grazing utilization and associated
watershed impacts along present drainage bottoms
and adjacent to other permanent water sources,
involving approximately 543,300 acres or 18 per-
cent of total AMP acreage. Accelerated erosion at
or near the proposed water developments, although
not presently quantified, would occur.
Incised trails, presently not quantified by moni-
toring, in most areas where slopes do not exceed
20 percent would improve moderately.
3-2
c
•
0
Tl
-C -H
CD
p p
P
•H U
O
ro
oo
"sf
00
U
rd
12 < co
cn
o
r^
^
cn
CD
0)
0)
CN
o
00
<X)
m
&
rH
ill 13 V)
■Si
U CD o
ro
in
"sT
oo
iX)
CD
^J co <C
r»
CN
r»
-stf
r-^
CN
ph
P 0
3 ft
^r
CN
CT>
CN
cn
oo
CO
•rH
<
fc O
SH
rH
<*
„
tH
Oi
rH
C
(0
o
0
p
k
•H
0
p
^
00
^r
cn
00
oo
P
Eh
C co
^
00
CTi
oo
■5J1
fd
CD CU
CN
O
o
^0
00
p
CO rH
C
0) u
■^
CN
00
o
r^
CD
u <
00
r»
CN
\D
<-i
e
Pj
m
CN
o
rH
CN
CD
rH
•H
c
0
A -H
Pm
p p
•H O
CTi
rH
«*
^
5 < w
m
^r
<-i
\,
CD
CX3
oo
r-i
1
i
U
H
CD T) H
•-
«■
»■
1
I
CD
C
en
n CI U
in
r^
CN
P
0
C
3 M <
cn
MH
•
•H
•H
P O
r-~
rd
C
P
rd
3 ft
o
(D
U
P
fa 0
•>
*
>
<
G
3
u
Cm
(0
•rl
Cn
■d
0
rd
0)
g
(1)
P
co
p
oo
oo
00
>K
0
0
C w
CT>
CN
r~
C
ft
CD CD
CN
r^
CN
1
l
c
0
03 U
•-
»
•■
1
I
CD
CO
rH
CD U
m
p-
CN
CD
-rl
P-4
5H <
P*
P
IM
^
CD
-H
CO
p
m
^-{
fd
C
M
P
rH -G
O
CD
0
1 -1-1
A -H
>
P
oo '■"'
P P
0
s
•H U
r>
<tf
CN
in
r-
rd
S < co
r-
o
V£>
o
H
t/2
CD
w c
a>
r-
rH
•^
00
o
CO
n
a o
w
O T3 rl
fd
rd
3 U
^
n I) O
in
r-i
01
o
X)
rH
CO
d co <
o
CN
r-»
^
r-i
cn
o
0
Eh -H
(1)
P 0
CN
<tf
•^
rH
o
P
Ti
u
3 a,
•^
c
C
A
Cm O
»
0
cn
0
rl
U
cn
•H
c
U
>
Cm
00
CN
p
■rl
•H
>1
C
-H
■»
TJ
rH
0
Pi
P
00
CN
00
cn
00
•-i
c
ft
•H
d cn
oo
<tf
cn
&
CN
0
ft
CO
CD CD
r-
00
CN
in
CN
u
rd
0
cn u
in
CD o
<D
sr
"sT
cn
r^
c
CD
W
U sC
r-
<-{
O
^
rH
0
r-i
eu
r-\
*#
m
rH
•rl
•H
CD
CO
x:
M
0
3
3
u
P
c
CD
«.
3
0
^-^
Pm
A -H
p p
•H
p
c
•H O
^f
00
p*
cn
rH
CD
CO
!2 «; co
r^
m
cn
oo
00
p
o
C
CD
vO
m
r-
00
in
fi
u
•H
CD TS M
^
^
^
^
CD
CD
fd
H CD O
rH
*£
CN
00
£
ft
rH
3 CO <
VO
CN
CT>
o
*T
CD
cu
P O
3 ft
CN
CO
•=*
r-\
O
cn
>
0
cn
Cn
En O
«.
u
•
C
U
r~~
ft
rH
-H
Cm
o
E
»-•
rH
r-~
■H
rH
■>
CD
0
P
00
00
cn
O
in
r-\
CD
Cn
Pi
C CO
O
>-{
CN
r^
CN
tn
rd
CD CD
CN
m
in
o
^D
rd
CD
W JH
*
v
»
^
rH
U
CD O
CN
Cn
•-i
•-i
CD
U
u <
O
^
CN
r-H
>
fd
Cm
CN
CO
in
^-\
rd
P
CD
CD
-H
»W
CO
U
•H
\.
CD
U
CO
CN C
!H
CD
CO
C 0
CD
<-i
U
ft
rd
0 -H CO
P
<a
<
r-i
•H P CO
CD
P
fO
o
CD
r-~
u
W -H Id
rH
A
H
•rl
u
<-{
c
0 fl H
■a
Cn
CD
P
CD
rd
<
D
n c u
•H
T3
•H
>
P
W 0
p
<-{
0
U
CD
0
\,
\,
U
co
U)
X
o
CO
EH
H|
CN|
3-3
c
o
p
u
•a
CD
CO
o
ft
o
u
CM
tu
a
+j
fl
p
c
o
■H
4-1
(0
-P
fi
<U
e
•H
T)
Q)
00
+J
3
&4
fl
0
fl
■H
03
P
+J
C
■iH
C)
n
IS
rt!
H
m
fl)
T)
h
cu
M
(1)
ifi
M
3
[fl
3
<
+J
o
C
eu
3
ft
0
£
rH
Dl
fO
C
+J
P
0
n
c
H
H
0
0)
H
CD
id
K
3
CD T! H
M (U It
3 en 3
■P o c
3 a c
U-, o <
u
ex,
en
fl
P o
C En
CD
03 iH
CD rd
>H fl
CU C
2
fi
eu c
(1) 'O H
M CD tO
3 91 3
P O C
3 & c
^ o <
>H
(X
03
C
P o
fl Eh
CD
w h
<D (0
ft c
c
<
p p c
■H U O
S < Eh
CD T3 H
!H CD (0
3 CO 3
P O C
3 O.C
ij O <=C
(X
0)
C
P O
C Eh
CD
03 iH
CD Id
H fl
ft C
CD <X,
e
•h
CD
CO
o
•^r
cn
<*
m
r~
CD
LT1
CO
IT)
oo
cn
r-
^r
cn
^
^
».
*.
*
LO
in
cn
•^
rH
CX3
o
CM
cn
IT)
CD
o
^
in
00
cn
00
•^
cn
CN
CD
o
CO
r-
CD
CN
r--
00
*
*
«.
*
*
iH
CD
r»
rH
in
cn
CD
o
P0
in
CO
iH
in
cn
00
cn
00
^
CD
r*
**
CD 1
CO
r»
m
<tf
o
cn
00
r^
r- I I
h.
I I
m
h
00
■<*
o
O0
^r
<tf
00
r-
CD
OO
>*
r-
H
r-
H
k.
*
*.
•*
*.
cn
^r
CM
00
o
OO
o
r-
CO
in
OO
m
CM
r~
m
r>
H
00
iH
CN
OO
CM
o
^r
r-
CM
rH
cn
CM
r>
in
in
00
*T
CM
ro
CD
o
CO
m
O0
CM
o
rH
cn
OO
ro
CM
CM
rH
rH
r-
cn
r-
00
^
*.
^
*>
*l
m
r-
in
o
■H
■3*
cn
m
-H
<*
^r
CM
o
CD
r-
CM
CD
OO
cn
oo
CO
in
in
rH
CM
m
cn
n
k
^
■k
*.
00
m
o
CO
rH
^r
OO
cn
CM
in
<3"
CM
p
fl
cn
o "rH
P r-H
03
CD
rH >,
XI U
CO CD
P >
00
P
.fl
cn
w
CD
P
to
u
CD
T)
O
s
to
o
•H
-P
•rH
u
u
CD
Sv|
CD
>
0)
03
O
CO
m
r-
CD
"31
cn
in
CM
ro
m
CO
CD
o
cn
o
m
00
CD
cn
CM
o
m
CM
CO
o
CO
in
CM
ro
O
m
CM
O
00
00
o
Eh
0
P
ft
CD
u
<D
a
>
(0
0
0)
p
U3
fl
o
03
tO
P
CD
s
U
U
O
o
,^
ft
CD
1
CD
TJ
rfl
CM
CD
OO
*
cn
in
p
to
rH
(0
u
Q
<D
<q
>
CD
U
fO
ft
fO
CD
P
P
Ph
10
c
S
CD
>i
U
,H
00
U
ft
o
aj
ft
fl
OO
ft
o
CO
r^-
u
in
<
CD
r»
P
cn
fO
H
c
s
CD
a)
C/3
u
>
o
-H
■H
C/3
>
cn
P
iH
CD
p
,N
CO
0
rH
c
r-
fl
cn
u
0)
rH
iH
H
tO
>i
CD
*■
CD
03
0)
rH
CD
rH
t3
Pd
tO
fO
P
IH
H
O
tO
P
VI
•*.
fl
m
CM
P
CD
r*
H
u
<n
3
(0
■H
u
•H
0
-
IH
-p
rH
cn
e'-
<
cn
en
c
H
<
•H
Q
><
03
CO
rH
CD
D
ft
•rH
ft
TJ
•*.
tO
fl
m
P
r~-
CU
OO
cn
H
H
•H
fl
fl
•H
03
3
03
CD
tO
o
k.
PQ
c
^^
CD
P
U
•rl
fl
CD
U
CD
>
CO
U
•H
U
(X
rH
CD
tO
ft
■H
P
•
M
C
<J^
Ti
3
CD
^D
CD
O
e
•
P
03
a
rH
U
03
o
•*- '
CD
■H
u
•ro
sr
•H
CD
O
>
Cn
U
e
c
<0
ft
0
w
CD
rl
Jh
03
14H
T3 •
u
•H
fl r-
id
T3
to r-
03
CD
cn
TJ
U
H
fl H
CD
nJ
■H
P 1
H
CD
ft rH O
l+H
>i
e
(0 CD
■H
0
(D cn
03
fl
u
S3 H
0)
CD
tO
CD
H
P
••
U
t+H
H
fl
•rH
U
D MH
PS
D
\.
O
H
CO
3-4
a
o
■H
0)
O
u
w
c
o
co
p
c
CD
g
a)
>
o
Sh
ft
n h
I
3
(0
Eh T)
CD
03
O
&
O
u
CM
m
o
01
p
cj
rd
I
cd
Eh
I
P
rl
O
Xi
cd
1
cd
rl
cu
01
P
G
rd
01
01
01
01
SH
Sh
to
CD
CD
•p
01
£
(1)
c
e
Cl
01
14-1
res
-rl
Sh
C
id
tn
&
o
0
m
a
O
a)
u
rd
rH
cd
-rl
•rH
u
o
>i
•H
•rl
g
01
£1
01
01
MH
m
p
CD
IH
CD
0
a)
c
fl
01
P
•Q
MH
X!
w
>
o
>1
o
■H
•a
p
00
id
3
P
0
•H
Sh
p
P
rH
0)
rl
U
01
rH
u
0)
cd
£
0)
id
u
o
CD
rd
ft
rl
>
o
O
-H
Cl)
0
rH
<+H
X!
N
01
g
a)
CM
u
>1 rH
id
01
■H
rl
•H
>
uh
* —
u
3
01
■rl
rH
a)
c
o
V
P
p
id
rr
0)
rH
•H
>
0
u
p
01
01
01
D
C
cd
id
a)
<u
01
id
■3*
•H
c
01
rd
•H
Id
fc
MH
,— *
Cl)
p
P
D
c
a)
E
rH
*J
•H
0
SH
m
Sh
01
01
o
!h
>
•rl
U
§
TS
<D
* —
U
CD
0)
■H
0
■H
^H
a)
0)
ft
C
C)
0)
+J
MH
4J
P
i-l
01
rn
*
•H
O
P
3
ft
rd
P
C
0)
a)
u
P
R
01
P
01
Cl)
•
^^
u
rH
Id
rl
Sh
01
3
c
a)
Q
g
O
CM
Id
•rl
a)
CD
01
CD
C
01
0
tT>
•H
H
— '
E
>i
>
Sh
>
0
01
•rl
(i)
Sh
11
O
T5
0
03
O
•rl
•
<
P
>
(1)
0)
CJ
*
(1)
SH
Sh
0
01
0
P
c
Id
a
01
Xl
0)
CD
>,
rc!
0
rH
+j
ft
CN|
U
ft
ft -a
TS
r-t
•rl
3
u
3
TS
rH
d)
<*
3
P
p
Cl)
c
3
>*
S
3
O
P
rrj
rH
o
, — *
(1)
M
p-*
0)
0)
rl
0
, — .
0
rH
3
(0
X
r-\
•H
0
en
•H
(I)
C)
u
"*
Jh
id
rr
U
QJ
—•
>1
id
rH
TS
4-1
(0
tn
*-*
tn U
w
c
o
•H
p
rd 01
Sh
P
CD
P
rd
•H ft
m
c
CD 01
Sh O
Cl H) II)
Eh 01 CD
I rd 0)
0) 01
Sh
O
0)
Q
TS
a)
oi Xl
p
c
CD
g
CD
>
O
Sh
ft!
t> •
01 <D (d
01 P CD
q 5 si
j e *
■H
rH P W
01 W
0 CD
W CD
CD X
H CJi -P
rd (d
01 Sh Sh
U (D O
CD >
> rd
CD
CO U
CO O
O rd
H
Sh
rH CD
ft
•H
CO O
C (0 CO
o c
•rl * O
P C P
rd O
<-{ -H if)
3 P r»
O id •
•-i 3
rd Cr" P
U W «J
O
CN
O
^1"
o
o
in
CN
+ + + + + +
<7> CN
rH •rj" f~
in
in
in oo in r-
r\] o
01
rl
rd 01
01 01
P Sh
3 cd C -H
tn C CD O
CO CD -rH g >
CD rH rH 01 S U
U P CD -H U CD
G P ft rH P 01
CDrd-rlCDCdCDftP
hU&iSU^wm
01
I
01 rd
Cn P
a ^
•H U
SH o
m
o
>i •
P 4H
-H UH
O O
o c
rH 3
CD rl
>
CD
CD U
CJ rd
3 MH
T3 (H
CD 3
a; 01
C
CD
CD
p
CD
P XI
-a mh
CD
CO T3
CD
CD TS
>H rH
O CD
P
CO >i UH
CD
tn
C
rd
Xi
U
O
S
C
O
•H
TS P
CD rd
oi Sh
rd P
CD rH
U -H
U <4H
C C
•H XI MH
O
CO
O
in
CO
ro
in
CN
.. ca
C C tn
O 0 tn C
•rl -H C -rl
(0
P CO -H TS
U
^
rd Sh 15 CD
3
0
P CD O CD
O
Sh
CD > rH Ul
P
Sh
tn c ft
c
3
CD O
o
Hi
> U
u
CD
U
C
rd
XI
U
3
■P
CO
•H
Tl
•rl
o
(0
CD
O
rd
MH
Sh
3
CO
XI
•H
tn
•H
rH
tn
CD
2
CD
tn
C
rd
x:
u
p
p
•rl
CD
tn
C
rd
x:
CJ
p
p
•rl
CD
ro
CN
01
3
Sh
XI
CD
tn ft
rd CO
CN
■9
p
01
x:
p
-r|
s
01
TS
c
id
p
01
01
0)
Q
g
■8
T)
r-i
(1)
u
CO
3
>i
X!
CD
rl
TS
Cl)
CD
•!
P
n3
CO
C
a>
■rl
p
b
0
g
Tl
-rl
P
>l
01
r-\
0)
P
c
a;
CD
<-i
01
XI
CD
rd
Sh
U
a
id
ft
0)
h
TS
O
C
o
CO
rH
rd
CD
CD
>
rl
^
rd
p
>
CO
C
W
•H
CD
0)
X!
a)
-P
Sh
CJ
rl
<c
0
MH
a
^
rd
CN
-P
rd
*
Tl
tn
C
T)
•r|
r-\
s
a)
0
•rl
Sh
>1
Sh
3
H-)
MH
Cl)
Sh
g
3
•H
0
T)
P
(1)
c
•
CO
0
C
o
0
a>
■H
rH
Sh
O
P
•H
•3
Uh
Tl
•H
C
rH
T)
o
(1)
CD
u
SH
01
0
a
MH
ft
0
0
0
•H
Sh
(0
a)
Hi
o
o
rl
c
ft
CD
Q)
CD
CO
Sh
rd
-p
x:
tn
■8
CD
•rl
CD
J3
rH
A
p
CO
P
Mh
0
C
o
p
H
"V,
H|
CN|
3-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
WATER RESOURCES
Ground Water
Impacts on aquifers from the proposed action
would be nearly insignificant. Where surface water
cannot be developed economically for livestock
use, wells have been considered as alternative
water sources. The Tongue River Member of the
Fort Union Formation, the Judith River Formation,
the Eagle Sandstone, and the Kootenai Formation
are available aquifers. Each aquifer would be
tapped by one or more wells. In much of the ES
area, thick sections of Bearpaw, Claggett, or Colo-
rado Shale at or close to the surface overlie the
shallowest aquifer. Some wells would have to be as
much as 1,400 feet deep. The withdrawal of water
from 34 new wells (at a density of one well per 392
square miles) would be approximately 82 acre-feet
annually, based on estimates of 2.4 acre-feet per
year per well. Within the 8.5 million acre ES area,
the aquifers of the extensive sedimentary beds
would not experience a significant drawdown.
Pumping tests have not been able to estimate the
miniscule withdrawal effect of a 3 gallon-per-minute
average well output on such a vast aquifer.
The proposed action includes development of
25 springs for livestock water. Springs are places
where water is discharged naturally from an aquifer;
the proposed developments would collect the dis-
charged water and pipe it away from the spring site
to a tank or trough. Livestock (and other animals)
would be moved away from the discharge areas.
Aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation would be re-
duced at the spring sites but would be likely to be
relocated downstream from the watering facilities.
Spring development would not alter spring flow, nor
the water supply in the discharging aquifer.
Surface Water
Peak Discharges
Installation of 436 reservoirs throughout the ES
area would affect 109,000 acres, or one percent of
the 8.5 million acre ES area. These reservoirs
would be placed on upland drainages averaging
250 acres in size. They would catch diffuse water,
and until filled, would reduce peak discharge from
those limited diffuse areas. Peak discharges of pri-
mary streams coursing through the ES area, and
fed primarily by snowmelt from mountain areas out-
side the ES area, would not be significantly affect-
ed.
Runoff
Annual runoff would be reduced by several parts
of the proposed action. The 436 proposed reser-
voirs would have an average capacity of 12 acre-
feet. Assuming that all the water in each reservoir
would be used, lost as leakage, evaporated, or
transpired each year, annual runoff would be re-
duced by 5,232 acre-feet from the entire ES area of
approximately 8.5 million acres.
The 25 rainwater catchments would intercept
precipitation before it became runoff from about 6
acres. The impact would not be detectable. Surface
manipulation techniques, such as contour furrowing
and plowing and seeding, would reduce runoff;
however, the total land to be thus treated would be
slightly more than 13,000 acres. If all the potential
runoff from this land were intercepted, the net re-
duction would be less than 550 acre-feet per year,
which would be only marginally significant in the
local watersheds.
The proposed action includes spraying of 2,236
acres of sagebrush in the riverbreaks landform
which would reduce transpiration of soil moisture by
an insignificant amount, but the water would not
necessarily become runoff. The impact would prob-
ably not be detectable.
Proposed modification of grazing systems in-
volving 3 million acres or 35 percent of the 8.5
million acre ES area are projected to improve range
condition on that acreage by 7 percent. That is, 7
percent of the acreage presently classified as good,
fair, or poor would be improved to the next better
range condition category.
The deferred and rest rotation systems would
improve range condition by increasing vegetation
and litter. The increased vegetation would have a
correspondingly higher evapotranspiration rate, in-
creasing water infiltration. Runoff on these 3 million
acres also would be reduced by the ground cover
created from increased vegetation and litter. Esti-
mates of improvement in runoff and infiltration have
not been quantified beyond the projected 7 percent
improvement in range condition class. Trends
would be monitored on study sites within the area
affected. Additional discussion of livestock grazing
effects on infiltration and runoff are included in Ap-
pendix 5.
Chemical Quality
The 436 reservoirs proposed would fill primarily
with snowmelt and rainfall. The water would have a
lower concentration of dissolved solids than water
in perennial or intermittent streams normally has by
midsummer. The quality of water stored from rain-
3-6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
water catchments would be superior to that of
ground water and most other surface water, due to
ground water flow influence. Ground water from the
aquifers of sedimentary beds and surface waters
passing through clayey and shale-derived soil mate-
rials have high levels of dissolved solids.
The proposed 436 reservoirs would be located
after analysis of the most detailed soil data availa-
ble and on-site consultation with a soil scientist.
Tight shale bed locations would be selected over
sandier strata to reduce potential of saline seep
below reservoirs. Reservoirs in the area have expe-
rienced seep areas seldom exceeding .1 acre.
Surface manipulation techniques would have a
slight adverse impact on quality of surface water.
Contour furrowing and plowing and seeding would
tend to trap water on the land and thereby reduce
the volume of runoff on 13,100 acres and thereby
reduce the volume of runoff. This acreage would
retain an insignificant amount of study area surface
water, and the effect on chemical quality would be
undetectable.
Biological Quality
Livestock management systems and additional
water developments are designed to redistribute
livestock over much of the lightly grazed upland,
thus reducing concentration of animals along ripar-
ian areas. Placement of new reservoirs, stock
tanks, and rainfall catchments in areas where lack
of water has restricted grazing of available forage
would reduce the use of existing watering sites.
Biological quality of streams coursing through the
ES area would be improved by relocation of live-
stock to upland areas. Distance of overland flow
and time for consequent aeration would reduce the
likelihood of bacterial constituents from reaching
water courses. Data is not available for estimation
of present biological water quality, nor for changes
expected with redistribution of livestock away from
streams.
Summary of Impacts to Water
Resources
Impacts from livestock use and water develop-
ments on water resources are not significant. Draw-
down from 34 new wells would be approximately 82
acre-feet annually. Installation of 436 reservoirs
would affect drainage from 109,000 acres or 1 per-
cent of the 8.5 million acre ES area. Spring devel-
opment would not alter spring flow nor the water
supply in the discharging aquifer. Runoff would be
reduced and water infiltration enhanced by the pro-
jected 7 percent improvement in vegetation and
litter from implementation of deferred and rest rota-
tion grazing systems. Chemical quality of proposed
reservoirs and rainfall catchments would be superi-
or to that of ground water and most other surface
water. Saline seep areas below reservoirs would
seldom exceed .1 acre per reservoir, or approxi-
mately 44 acres for the entire ES area. Biological
quality would be moderately improved by redistribu-
tion of livestock, reducing concentration of animals
along stream courses.
VEGETATION
Vegetation Types and Species
Composition
Proposed grazing management of public lands
in the ES area includes a variety of grazing sys-
tems, including rest rotation, deferred rotation,
season-long, and various combinations thereof. Es-
timations of vegetation impacts are based on pro-
fessional judgment and cited studies. Although only
one published study was conducted within the ES
area, all cited studies are believed applicable since
the findings discuss the results of meeting basic
plant needs. Providing for plant needs for reproduc-
tion and establishment results in similar responses
regardless of location (Martin 1 975).
Grazing any time during the growing period re-
duces the amount of food made and stored by
plants. This reduction in turn decreases the plants'
capacity to produce both shoot and root growth the
following growing seasons (Hormay 1970, page 14).
This growing period, which varies from one plant
species to another in the ES area, begins in mid-
March and continues into September.
Hormay (1970, page 14) indicates that defolia-
tion is most harmful when food reserves are lowest.
This occurs in the spring or early summer when the
plant is most rapidly growing, or any time until food
storage is completed. Using fall levels of carbohy-
drates (food reserves) as an index to determine the
severity of defoliation, Cook (1971) found reserves
lowest following defoliation during rapid growth peri-
ods, or at maturity. Approximately 75 percent of the
reserves are used in the spring to produce some 10
percent of herbage growth (Stoddart and Smith
1955, page 101).
Continual spring use of browse plants will se-
verely deplete the plants' food reserves and repro-
ductive growth, reduce vigor, and could eventually
cause the death of the plant. Garrison (1972, page
3-7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
276) states that removal of the terminal bud will
activate the lateral dormant buds but that this vege-
tative growth is detrimental to flower and fruit pro-
duction. Therefore, a decrease in the amount of
viable seed would occur, leading to fewer new
plants in the future. Garrison also states that "late
spring and middle of the growing season . . . are
the most damaging periods of use" (1972, page
278). Browse plants completely defoliated three or
four times in a season are readily killed, and remov-
al of only half of the foliage markedly weakens the
plant (Stoddart and Smith 1955, page 104).
Therefore, based on the above discussion, 75
allotments in the ES area currently receiving con-
tinuous spring and summer livestock use subject
the plants to grazing during critical periods. Short
term impacts under these treatments would be a
decrease in plant vigor, reproduction, litter accumu-
lation, and seedling establishment (Hormay 1970).
Fall and winter, or dormant season grazing, are
considered to be the least harmful periods of graz-
ing. Garrison (1972, page 278) found that fall and
winter use of selected species is the least damag-
ing to carbohydrate reserves. Defoliation of 50 to
60 percent of a current year's growth is less harm-
ful in the fall, early or late winter, and early spring
than in late spring or early summer (Cook 1971,
page 51).
With the exception of some of the seasonal and
non-AMP allotments that are grazed during the criti-
cal period, each allotment would have systematic
deferred or rest periods built into a grazing system.
This would assure that each pasture in the rest and
deferred rotation allotments would not be grazed at
the same time each year. The amount of rest
needed would be determined by the species that
needed the most rest to regain vigor after it had
been defoliated during the critical growing period
(Hormay 1970, page 16). Each pasture in a rest
rotation grazing system, for example, would receive
a rest period at least once every two to four years
which has been found adequate based upon past
experience with existing AMPs in this and similar
geographic areas. Short term vegetation impacts
from spring and summer rest would be increased
vigor, reproduction, seedling establishment, and
litter accumulation (Hormay 1970, page 18).
Each AMP contains specific objectives. One of
these objectives is to change plant species compo-
sition. For example, the Dry Armells AMP proposes
to increase needleandthread grass from 7 percent
to 15 percent, and western wheatgrass from 17
percent to 25 percent in ten years in part of the
allotment. The numerical data relative to species
composition changes were derived by obtaining the
existing species composition from field studies and
then projecting the desired species composition
generally obtained from SCS site potential informa-
tion or other protected site data.
These specific objectives, or projected changes
in species composition, are available for review in
the BLM Montana State Office. On a general basis,
species composition shifts can be projected using
the information given in Appendix 7. This appendix
lists the major plant species present, in their ap-
proximate order of dominance, under climax range
condition for each range site.
Appendix 7 also lists those plants that increase
with grazing pressure. Therefore, as range condi-
tion regresses from excellent to poor, successively
greater amounts of those species that increase with
grazing pressure would be found in the present
vegetation composition, with an attendant decrease
in the dominant species composition. The reverse
would be true as range condition improves. The
range site making up the majority of the existing
and proposed AMPs is identified in Appendix 6.
These range site numbers given in Appendix 6 cor-
respond with the range site descriptions in Appen-
dix 7.
As livestock and many wildlife species tend to
congregate on riparian sites, these sites are invari-
ably closely utilized under any stocking rate or
system of grazing. Continuous grazing can result in
reduced diversity and quality of this important vege-
tative type through soil compaction, increased sedi-
mentation, reduced water quality, and curtailed re-
production of such species as willows and cotton-
woods.
However, based on the journals of Lewis and
Clark, and photographs taken near the turn of the
century, there does not appear to be a significant
difference in the distribution or extent of the riparian
communities except, for example, where the Mis-
souri River has through time altered its course
slightly, thereby eliminating some communities
while at the same time establishing new ones. Ad-
ditionally, dams have contributed to the reduction of
some communities along the river by eliminating
seasonal high waters. Occasional flooding provided
for the maintenance of riparian zones further back
from the main channel than in some cases, what
exists today.
Existing Livestock Forage Productivity
Construction of the proposed range improve-
ments would remove approximately 17,300 acres
from production. About 2,000 of these acres would
be permanently removed by such projects as wells,
reservoirs, and cattleguards. The balance, or about
15,300 acres, would be temporarily lost due to the
3-8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
vegetation manipulation projects, i.e., contour fur-
rowing, sagebrush spraying, and plowing and seed-
ing. Recovery rates for the temporarily removed
acres would be closely related to precipitation with
an average recovery time of two to three years for
the ES area.
Contour furrowing is being proposed on 2,253
acres where fine-textured soils inhibit infiltration and
runoff. About 1,200 acres are in the Upper Long
Coulee Allotment, 280 acres in the Whiskey Ridge
Allotment, 673 acres in the Blind Canyon Allotment,
and 100 acres in the Buffington Range Allotment.
Whitfield and Fly (1939), Dickson et al. (1940), and
Barnes and Nelson (1945) reported that contour
furrowing resulted in significant increases in forage
production on deteriorated rangeland. Brown and
Everson (1952) observed that contour furrows in
Arizona retained their effectiveness even after 10
years.
On the other hand, Hubbard and Smoliak (1953)
observed that furrows were of no value for holding
or spreading water in Alberta, Canada, because
they became filled with ice and snow. Nor did fur-
rowing increase plant production on sandy soils in
New Mexico (Valentine 1947).
The effects of contour furrowing were measured
in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New
Mexico, and Arizona (Branson et al. 1966). The
most consistent beneficial response occurred on
medium to fine-textured soils, and the Nuttall salt-
bush sites showed the most improvement in forage
production.
A series of studies conducted in eastern Mon-
tana (White and Siddoway 1 972) indicated that fal-
lowing and contour furrowing effectively removed or
reduced club moss, threadleaf sedge, and cactus.
Reinvasion of the treated areas by more productive
climax species such as western and thickspike
wheatgrass usually occurred within a year.
The short term impact from furrowing would be
the removal of 2,253 acres from production for at
least one year following treatment. After native
plant species became established, the long term
impact would be at least a doubling of available
forage on the treated site (Brown and Everson
1952, Dickson et al. 1940, Thatcher 1966).
Sagebrush spraying is proposed on 2,236 acres
of relatively flat land with low erosion potential in
the Hay Coulee Common Allotment. The spraying
operation is proposed in conjunction with a four-
pasture rest rotation grazing formula to reverse the
deteriorating trend on the allotment and to get
better forage production balance between pastures.
This allotment also has two seasonal pastures. By
spraying two of the six pastures, the short term
impact would be the loss of grazing on these pas-
tures for two or three years. The long term impact
from sagebrush control would be at least a dou-
bling of grass production (Sturges 1973), and would
more evenly balance productivity among all pas-
tures in the Hay Coulee Common Allotment.
After sagebrush control, the moisture normally
withdrawn by sagebrush becomes available to
other plants, or enters a ground water system and
eventually augments streamflow. Sturges (1973) re-
ported that grass production increased 20 percent
on a sagebrush spray project in Wyoming, but the
combined grass-forb production was similar to the
untreated range since the decrease in forb produc-
tion on sprayed plots was offset by increased grass
production. The implication is that wildlife species
such as antelope and sage grouse that utilize sig-
nificant amounts of sagebrush and forbs would lose
some forage initially, but by breaking up large
monotype sagebrush stands into islands and string-
ers of sagebrush scattered throughout a grassland
dominated landscape, the long term impact would
be beneficial. Likewise, the increased forage pro-
duction would benefit grazing animals.
Eleven allotments are involved in the proposed
plowing and seeding operation. The 10,850 acres
proposed for treatment were selected because of
the lack of desirable forage plants that could re-
spond to intensive grazing management in a rea-
sonable period of time. In order to maximize forage
productivity and soil stability in the shortest time-
frame possible, vegetation manipulations reducing
the less desirable plant species while increasing
desirable forage species is often necessary.
The short term impact of plowing and seeding
would be the loss of livestock grazing on the treat-
ed land for at least one year. The long term impact
would be a change in species composition toward
more livestock forage species. Forage production
could at least triple (Hurst 1976, Buckhouse and
Gifford 1976, page 300), and vegetative density
could increase by at least 40 percent. This is fur-
ther supported by seedings conducted on Bank-
head-Jones lands in the early forties within the ES
area. After 35 years, these seeded acres are still
rated at about 1.5 acres per AUM, whereas compa-
rable unseeded acres in the ES area are rated at
approximately 4.5 acres per AUM.
Projected and Potential Livestock
Forage Productivity
Estimates of 15-year projected livestock forage
production shown in Table 3-4 and Appendix 6
were made by first estimating the expected change
in range condition by condition class and range
3-9
Landform
Area
TABLE 3-4
Livestock Forage on BLM Lands
Within Proposed AMPs 1/
Range
Survey
Licensed
Use
Proposed
With
AMP
Projected
With
AMP
2/
V
Average-
Potential
Livestock
Forage
Estimate
Rolling
Plains
142,553
136,609
135,031
146,516
252,959
River-
1
breaks
85,125
81,367
80,091
86,472
123,073
• 4/
Mountains—
827
808
768
911
1,572
Total-/
288,505
218,784
215,890
233,899
377,604
1/ Expressed in AUMs. This data is based on an estimated 1,000 pounds
forage per AUM.
2/ AMP projections are for 15 years.
3/ Potential productivity estimates are based on pounds total forage per
acre for individual soil series, as estimated by the U.S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
4/ In the absence of potential livestock forage productivity data on an
individual soil basis for the mountains landform area, the figure of 7
acres per AUM was used, as given in "Vegetative Rangeland Types,"
Bulletin 671, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman, Montana,
April 1973.
5/ These summaries are for BLM acreage within allotments with proposed
allotment management plans, and do not include existing or revised
allotments in the respective landform areas.
3-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
site. Next, the SCS Technicians' Guides were used
to help determine the change in livestock productiv-
ity (see Appendix 1, 10-14 inch precipitation zone,
poor condition = .1 AUM per acre or 10 acres per
AUM as compared to excellent condition = .4
AUMs per acre or 2.5 acres per AUM). In addition,
these projections were tempered with past experi-
ence on the 52 existing AMPs. This procedure was
used to determine 1 5-year livestock forage produc-
tivity levels at the year 2000 with AMPs (7 percent
increase) and at the year 2000 without AMPs (5
percent decrease).
Average potential livestock forage productivity
was determined for each soil series within the ES
area from data supplied by the U.S. Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS). Productivity aggregation was
made for each general association of soil series
based upon the percent areal composition of soil
series within each soil association. These estimates
are shown for proposed AMPs in Table 3-4. The
figures in Table 3-4 are not consistent with Tables
1-2 and 8-1 as these two tables deal with the
combined totals for the proposed, existing, and re-
vised AMPs.
Overall, 15-year livestock forage projections with
AMP implementation are well within average poten-
tial production estimates. Within 43 allotments (see
Appendix 4) involving 331,329 acres and including
169,720 acres of public land, 15-year projections
with AMP implementation exceed average potential
livestock forage estimates by a total of 6,442 AUMs
or 22 percent. Within 12 allotments involving
101,014 acres and including 46,613 acres of public
land, these differences are quite small and not sta-
tistically significant-none exceed 10 percent of the
potential.
Where potential livestock productivity calcula-
tions were based on detailed soil survey data, sig-
nificantly higher 15-year projections were made for
10 allotments involving 80,053 acres, of which
46,388 acres are public lands. These 15-year pro-
jections were larger than average potential live-
stock forage productivity estimates by 1,661 AUMs
or 18 percent.
General soil association data were utilized to
calculate potential livestock forage productivity for
21 allotments involving 150,262 acres, of which
76,719 acres are public lands, where 15-year pro-
jections were larger than potential estimates by
4,397 AUMs of 42 percent. Mapping units were
very broad, with entire allotments frequently cov-
ered by one or two soil associations. Productivity
estimates based upon these soil associations have
low reliability, because of the large mapping units
utilized for this general level soil survey.
Within these areas, however, 5 allotments in-
volving 8,144 acres, and including 18,845 acres of
public land, also contained greater than 1 0 percent
of the land areas in critical to severe erosion condi-
tion. Within these allotments, long term forage pro-
jections with AMP implementation exceeded aver-
age potential productivity estimates by 1,187 AUMs
or 55 percent. A detailed soil survey would better
clarify the significance of these differences, and
their impact upon the forage and watershed re-
sources.
Range Condition and Trend
Table 3-5, which is a summary of Appendix 6,
compares the existing and predicted long term
vegetation production in animal unit months (AUMs)
by the year 2000 if the proposed action is imple-
mented. Also shown in this table is the existing
range condition by vegetative type for each allot-
ment and the projected range condition by the year
2000.
The proposed grazing systems and range im-
provements are expected to have the following
long term impacts on condition and trend: improved
plant vigor, increased litter accumulation, increased
number of established plants (vegetative density),
as well as increased percentage composition of key
species. These individual plant responses would
result in increased forage production. With in-
creased litter and plant diversity, ranges in excel-
lent condition can take in up to three times as
much water as poor condition range (Rauzi and
Hanson 1966).
A study conducted in a ponderosa pine-bunch-
grass zone by McLean and Tisdale (1972) in British
Columbia found that it took longer for vegetation to
progress from poor to fair condition than from fair
to good condition when protected from livestock
grazing. The same findings were also reported by
Owensby et al. (1973) in a study in Kansas where
little change in plant composition occurred on poor
condition ranges within the first 10 years following
fencing. In the Kansas study, they estimated it
would take at least 40 years for overgrazed range
to recover to excellent condition when fully rested.
This study took place in an annual precipitation
zone of about 25 inches, in rough fescue and pine-
bunchgrass vegetative types. Most of the ES area
is in an annual precipitation zone of 10 to 14
inches. Therefore, it could be assumed that the
recovery period in the ES area could be 40 years or
longer for range in poor condition to improve to
good condition. Especially as livestock will continue
to graze the area, the recovery period will be longer
than for an area provided complete protection from
3-11
ce
o&
s
§s
o
<M <J
<
co ^
T
v . -
-a
o
>£
L.
i.
V
at
a
tit
L.
s
O
Cm
-*h
c
_0
"■3
u
3
■V
O
u
a. —
cn
4)
o
u
o
HH
I,
V
>
« §
W c
■J o
< T3
** §
O
as
&c
c
CO
OS
•a
as
<
e
_o
"3
"5
c
o
U
&c
c
a
X
■v
c
eg
SO
B
6 5
c E
Om1
° 5
ea -a
§ B
-1
CO
os
o
us
CO
OJ
03
©
00
I— 1
(0
CO
CO
CD
00
OS
O
r-,
-3-
m
t~
as
m
rr
Tf
oo
as
OS
t-
O
•>r
I— 1
o
o
00
US
US
as
•*
c
00
00
CN
co
OS
o
r- 1
US
*
CN
^H
t~
OJ
00
lO
CM
to
^
00
CO
t>
°1
CO
OJ
00
^H
r-_
•*
~f'
00
US*
i-H*
CN
os"
CO*
as"
CO*
CO
oo'
©"
co"
,-4
V
CD
to
t-
US
rr
TP
1-1
CO
CN
CN
CN
""■'
C-
CO
co
OJ
CD
rH
■rr
CD
oo
■*
00
CM
Tf
<N
^H
OS
Tf
m
-h
r-(
t~
^H
C~
00
CN
CO
O
O
t~
©
CD
c-
CO
co
m
l-H
CN
CO
CO
O
m<
CD
LO
m
i-H
CO
00
o
i-H
os
CM
OS
o
OJ
°J
CN
-<r
»-H
CO
O
-r
CO
CN
r-_
CM
01
"*.
»— 1
00
uO
oo'
co'
-rl"
^H
Os'
t~
CO'
00"
co"
co'
CO'
©*
co*
^h"
tt"
cn
^h"
CD
lO
CO
CO
rH
CN
CM
CN
rt
t~
OS
oj
as as
tJ- oo
o oo
O CO CO CN
(NTfCOO
CN © CO t~-
CO rH
[- 00
CO 00
in .-h o as
00 t- t- o
^h as oo co
m in
•"31 o
co_ co
us
co co cn as
^h us as as
co co
CD
CO 00 <M T
as as oo T
oo co
CD
as_ as_ co_
in cn co oo
i-H i-H
CN
•-<" —<" t~"
•<j* co* t— * as*
CN* CM*
r-4
us as co
O Tf 00
CO
CN •->
<N r*
as
Tf
^^
as
r-
t^
00
m
•<r
00
CO
CM
CO
us
CN
(N
CM
-<»•
co
Tf
CD
o
OJ
i — (
■t
co
.O
00
CN
CO
TP
CO
CN
»— <
CO
CN
co
CO
CO
CN
CO
rr*
m
rt
CD
as
CN
CD
as
as
Tf
CM
as
LO'
X
as
f-
00
f-H
CO
CN
CO
CO
CO
o
r~
CM
tr~
co
■*
CO
i — i
r4
tT
^H
00
CO
us
t-'
CO
o as"
as"
oo'
r-"
o"
^-H*
CN
i-H
T— *
as
CM
T-i
CM
r*
-*
Tt-
CN CO CO
oo m o
co r- us
co" oo"
as cn
•»ont-
CO t- O CD
co as o o
CM
CM
oo
as cm co co
Tf OS US rH
t- tt t- O
t- m ■* o
t> CD "* rH
t* as co co
OS
f— (
CD
r- r- o
00 oo ■<*■
00 00
as us m
as <n o
rH o_ -*
CN
00
CN
m
CN
co" co"
CN
in" co*
CD*
co
o m <m as
-rf CD m O
US 00
■*
CO CO 00 •*
OS 00 O rH
as oo
CO
CM rH cm as
CM rH CM C~
00 CM
CN
OS CD CN
cn r~ us •*
us
■*
as as rH
cd as -re
CN
<~-t
US
co o o m
■*
■<j> co
o
us oo O r^
00
o t-
CD
co •* t— as
m
t> co
CN
CD CO
as <o
m o
as* as*
co m
CN 00
t- CN
CO CD
•<r oo
t- o
us* as
i-- as
us
00 CN CN CO
CO CM O (N
CD CM
CO
CM US I— US
f H CO CO
■"*• 00
i-H
rf co us -^
P-TfOCO
O CD
CO
o t>* as*
co" o" cm" o"
CN rH
H*
00 US CN
us ■* t-
■^
CO CN
CN rH
^
X
X
^H
i-H
t-
X
o
^H
00
as
i-H
-T
CD
uO
CO
o
CO
t^
X
■rj"
us
t~
as
o
CM
O!
OJ
i-H
I—
rH
o
CD
CO
CD
OJ
OJ
co"
OJ
o
co
t~"
OJ
CN
o"
r-H*
CN
1-1
t~
t-
CM
i-H
as
CM
US
CD
CD
O O US
CN rH !>■
US CO rH
CO -r)- CN 00
CN rH CO CN
in oo_ co_ co_
tj" C5 O* t-"
00 CO CO
US 00 CO CO
•* as as oo
m cm co co
CO CO
^H CO
as
co
o
cd'
r* Oh-Q-
[ih C4 Q W
5? rt o;
&h A Q ex
c
CO
'3
J*
D.
CO
as
be
u
JO
c
u
a>
o
>
tf
£
-J
<
E-
O
CQ
O
03
us o-
X o
rf OS_
CD* O*
as as
rH US
-rf X
O rH
rH CO
^ Oh Oh
&. OS Q CO
r5 P5 OS
fe OS Q CO
os
OS CO
a
00
'S
-*
s
co
as
bfi
c
Ih
o
OS
oChG
Ih
C co
O
T c8
■S c->
3 4J
E
a" a
as co
3
u ii
IS
co ys
w
«'S
"S
T3 bfi
.2 "8
**H _
B
■ - co
as
** n>
as .3
CO
>>
-O 3
CO
— CT
as as
W)
b. Ih
3
CO -Q
N
os T2
** 2
CO
c o
be
as ^
CO
as co
3
> J3
*3
O HJ
T3
u
5j CO
as
as
a
c?
S c
■-^ as
3
Ih
o
O.
U. 6 {J
3
° -^
o
S -2
S"3
as
J3
'3
"3
as
CO »
■o 2
C as
u
3
as
i-
CO
3
O
u
as
bo
3
CO
CO
c 5
CO
Ih
G
O
as o
6.S
3
as
a
CO
CO
as
CO
> 2
£ 3
S *
.3 co
"as
>
as
•a
II
<
o
H_>
CO
• C
esc as
CO
T)
as
as
c
CO
« 9
- >
>
U
as
CO
3
>>
be
w
■ Sh Ih
"c?
o
o
a a
0
"o
-a
os
co E
T3
as
1h
Ih
as
CO Ih
hO o
c
as
E
as
o
-3
as
E
as
J5
M-H
as
Q
IhS
° CO'
be
CO
3
u *
CO
-u
II
§■3
E
~o
os
3 as
-H
3
Q
as
as
_o
9 -5*
** o
E
*UI
CO
a
_o
csOn,
o "^
o
4->
3
4-»
CO
W
CO
4->
"5.
X
as
X)
o
OS
S 0)
3
as
E
^_,
CO -W
as
CO
as
OS
II
T3 as
as as
£3
a
_o
"as
>
'3
as
T3
o o
as
CO
OS
Ebta
■o
CO
OS
CO O
as
>
as
"2
Ih
1- CJ
CO
3
'>
o
as
H, t-
as
i-
w
s «
H->
o.
c
is ■«
X
co as
as
o
^
co 3
Ih
i-H
-3 3
g-9
2 3
O k.
0) CO
Uh r^ hj
x
. -3
co 3
3 as
E a
O D.
^<
3 _
CO CN
3-12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
livestock. For this reason, the year 2020 was used
initially for projecting range condition changes
through intensive livestock management. In order
to show range condition shifts by the year 2000
(the analytical timeframe used throughout this as-
sessment), the methodology shown in Appendix 10
was used.
By the year 2000, it is estimated that there
would be 24,000 additional AUMs (7 percent in-
crease from the existing) of livestock forage pro-
duced on those allotments either presently covered
by a management plan or that would be a part of
this proposal (Table 3-5). The greatest condition
class increase is from good to excellent (Table 3-
5), which coincides with the findings of McLean and
Tisdale (1972) and Smith and Williams (1973).
These estimates are based on professional judg-
ment, trend data on 39 allotments presently under
an AMP that have gone through at least one graz-
ing cycle, and literature covering similar range man-
agement practices (see Appendix 10).
The factors that most influence or determine the
ability of rangeland condition to improve are weath-
er, predominant soil and vegetation types on the
range site, and the livestock grazing system im-
posed on the range site. Nothing can be done
about the weather, nor can soil types be changed,
but the soil profile can be modified (by contour
furrowing, for example) to increase water retention.
Vegetation can be altered using techniques such as
spraying or plowing. The influence of livestock on
both soils and vegetation can be manipulated
through a prescribed grazing system to accomplish
specific objectives and needs for a particular area.
In order to project the future range condition
within the ES area if the proposed action were
implemented, a system was devised in consultation
with the Soil Conservation Service, Lewistown Area
Office, in an attempt to account for the variability in
soils, vegetation, range improvements, and grazing
systems, and their relative influence on range con-
dition. Table 3-6 is the product of this discussion.
The major factors considered in the derivation of
this table are explained below.
To use the table, the predominant soil type for
the range site is obtained from the range site de-
scriptions in Appendix 7. The percent potential for
change for the soil type is multiplied by the grazing
system percent potential for change, which is then
multiplied by the number of acres in each condition
class. The one exception would be for poor and fair
condition grass, conifer, sagebrush, and mountain
shrub ranges. For these situations, the product of
the soil type times grazing system is first multiplied
by 20 percent before multiplying by the number of
acres.
Soils vary greatly in their capability to grow cer-
tain kinds and amounts of vegetation. Significant
soil determinants include moisture absorption and
storage, fertility, essential element balance, pH, and
soluble salt concentration. The soils were ranked
according to their potential to produce livestock
forage. Silty and clayey soils were considered best,
followed by the riverbreaks range site, which is
actually a composite of many soil types too small to
delineate on the range site map (Map 2-4). Next, in
order of potential productivity, were shallow clay,
dense clay, saline upland, and badlands (Table 3-
6).
Grazing systems were ranked by their potential
influence on range condition. A study of the influ-
ence of grazing systems on soils and vegetation
conducted in the ES area from June through Sep-
tember 1977 by Willard and Herman (1977) indicat-
ed that generally, rest rotation grazing allowed for
better vigor of key forage species, faster soil water
infiltration, more litter, reduced amounts of plains
pricklypear, and greater production of desirable
forage grasses. Only winter grazing allowed for
better soil and plant condition that did rest rotation
grazing. Conversely, they reported that season long
grazing was the most detrimental to soil and plant
conditions.
Similar findings were reported by Owensby et al.
(1973) in Kansas, and Smith (1940) in Oklahoma.
Martin (1973), reporting on a study conducted in
southern Arizona, indicated that spring-summer rest
two years out of three increased perennial grasses
more than continuous year-long grazing or any of
13 other rest schedules. Reardon and Merrill
(1976), reporting on a 20-year study in Texas, sug-
gested that deferred rotation allows the better
forage plants to become more vigorous and numer-
ous than continuous grazing.
Continuous grazing has been found to work
best, or as well as any system of deferment, where
plenty of range is available (proper stocking rate)
and the range is in excellent condition (Rogler
1951; Hyder and Sawyer 1951). On the other hand,
it is almost unanimously agreed that when grass-
lands are grazed heavily and continuously through-
out the year, every year, the original palatable spe-
cies are replaced by inedible or unpalatable species
(Smith 1940). There are 72 allotments with about
604,000 acres that would have seasonal grazing
under the proposed action. There are also about
31,000 acres of unallotted lands, and 251,000
acres of public lands within allotments where no
AMPs are proposed. Season-long or continuous
spring grazing on these lands could adversely
affect plant vigor, reproduction, seedling establish-
ment, litter accumulation, and soil stability.
3-13
Table 3-6
The Relative Influence of Soil Type, Grazing System,
and Vegetation Type on Range Condition 1/
Soil Type
Silty clayey
Riverbreaks
Shallow clay
Dense clay
Saline upland
Badlands
Potential
for Change
100%
75%
50%
20%
Grazing
System
Fall-winter
Rest rotation
Deferred
rotation
Seasonal
Potential
for Change
100%
75%
50%
Vegetation
Types
Grass
Conifer
Sagebrush
Mtn . shrub
Greasewood
Saltbush
Annuals
Meadow
Potential
for Change
A maximum of 20%
of poor and fair
acres, and 100%
of good acres
can potentially
improve one
condition class.
A maximum of 100%
of all acres can
potentially improve
one condition class.
1/ Initial range condition class shifts were developed for the year 2020 then
adjusted back to the year 2000 based on the relationships discussed in detail
in Appendix 10.
3-14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The grazing systems presently in operation, and
those that would be implemented by the proposed
action, were ranked from high to low, based on
their potential for influencing range conditions. The
ranking was based on the previously discussed lit-
erature, past experience, and professional opinions.
Fall-winter grazing was rated the best as it would
have the least adverse impact on existing vegeta-
tion and would have the greatest potential for
change. Fall-winter grazing is actually a form of
seasonal grazing but as vegetal response to this
form of grazing differs significantly from any other
form of seasonal grazing, it was treated separately.
Rest rotation was rated next best, followed by de-
ferred rotation and seasonal (Table 3-6). A major
factor influencing the ranking is that generally, sea-
sonal grazing would be applied to allotments al-
ready in good condition; therefore, less room for
change exists. On the other hand, rest rotation
would most often be applied to those allotments in
the greatest need of improvement.
Vegetation type was the other factor used in
determining the projected change in range condi-
tion if the proposed action is implemented. Grass,
conifer, sagebrush, and mountain shrub types in
either poor or fair condition are often dominated by
plant communities that are very slow to change.
Blue grama, club moss, and bluegrass in the moun-
tain shrub and grass types frequently form dense
stands or mats that effectively prevent other spe-
cies from becoming established. Therefore, it was
determined tnat only 20 percent of the total acre-
age in fair or poor condition would be capable of
moving up one condition class by the year 2020
after the other factors were considered. These
same vegetation types in good condition could all
potentially change to excellent condition, depending
on the soil and grazing system for a particular area.
For the greasewood, saltbush, annual, and
meadow vegetation types, no limitation was im-
posed on their potential for improvement, regard-
less of present condition class. Therefore, 100 per-
cent of the acreage for these vegetation types
could potentially move up one condition class.
The 2,236 acres in poor and fair condition that
are proposed to be sprayed were all projected to
be in excellent condition by the year 2000. This is
based on sagebrush spraying operations conducted
within the ES area. For example, areas within the
Bullwacker and Lavelle Creek Allotments, although
sprayed about 14 years ago, are still considered in
excellent condition with no noticeable decline in
trend. However, no special adjustments were made
for the proposed contour furrowing (2,253 acres) or
plowing and seeding (10,850 acres) as the plant
species that would be seeded have not yet been
determined. If seedings were conducted with native
species, the treated areas would be classified as
good and excellent for the future projection. But if
exotics such as crested wheatgrass were used, the
treated areas could not be included in the range
condition analysis because range condition is de-
fined as the percentage of the present vegetation
which is original vegetation for the site. Differences
in range condition are recognized by comparing
present vegetation with climax vegetation (Dykster-
huis 1949, page 106). Therefore, as most acreage
would undoubtedly be seeded with native species,
range condition future projections are conservative.
Poisonous and Noxious Plants
A beneficial impact of improved range condition
is that though the number of poisonous and nox-
ious plants may go up or down, depending upon
the grazing cycle and location, the opportunity for
animal selection of poisonous plants may be re-
duced because of a greater abundance of forage
species from which to select.
With the implementation of the proposed graz-
ing systems, some toxic and noxious plants could
decrease due to competition that would result be-
cause of the increase in plant density and ground
cover of the more desirable forage species.
At sites temporarily disturbed by new project
construction, noxious species such as Canada this-
tle, leafy spurge, dalmation toad flax, field bind-
weed, Russian knapweed, and many of the poison-
ous plants listed in Table 2-11 would tend to
become established if these sites are not promptly
rehabilitated. New water developments in areas
that are presently only lightly grazed, if at all, could
also be invaded by these undesirable species as
cattle tend to congregate at these sites, grazing
and trampling out the desirable forage species.
A more specific impact assessment of the poi-
sonous and noxious plants cannot be made as spe-
cific densities and distributions are not known.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
As discussed in Chapter 2, only four species are
recognized as potentially endangered in Montana,
and they are all on the western side of the state.
The species Rorippa calycena, which could possi-
bly be found within the ES area and is considered
potentially threatened, could be impacted by the
proposed action. However, the likelihood of this
occurring from the proposed action is slight as live-
stock have historically grazed this area, and no
3-15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
areas previously physically inaccessible will be
opened to livestock by the proposal.
There are, however, areas that are presently
only lightly grazed where new water developments
are proposed. As livestock will tend to concentrate
around these areas Rorippa calycena, if located in
the area, could be adversely affected.
The likelihood of adversely impacting any offi-
cially recognized threatened or endangered plant
species is remote.
WILDLIFE
Summary of Impacts to Vegetation
Continuous spring and summer livestock use of
the seasonal and non-AMP allotments and unallot-
ted lands in fair or poor range condition could po-
tentially cause decreases in key species vigor, re-
production, litter accumulation, and seedling estab-
lishment. Fall and winter grazing only would have
the least impact on vegetation and, with the possi-
ble exception of no livestock grazing, would en-
hance range condition the quickest.
The allotments having proposed or existing rest,
deferred, or fall-winter grazing systems would en-
hance range condition and productivity the most
expeditiously as each pasture in an allotment would
not be grazed at the same time each year, or, in
the case of fall-winter grazing, would never be
grazed during the critical growing period. By the
year 2000, there is a projected 7 percent increase
of forage produced on those allotments that either
are presently covered by a management plan or
are a part of this proposal. By the year 2020, it is
estimated that there would be a 51 percent in-
crease (603,000 acres) of rangeland in excellent
condition, with a 16 percent reduction (6,000 acres)
of rangeland in poor condition (see Appendix 10).
Construction of the proposed range improve-
ments would remove about 17,319 acres from pro-
duction in the short term. In the long term, about
1,980 of these acres would permanently be re-
moved for the life of the projects. The proposed
contour furrowing, sagebrush spraying, and plowing
and seeding projects would reduce many of the
poisonous and noxious plant species densities and
would increase productivity.
With implementation of the proposed action, a
reduction of poisonous and noxious plants through-
out the ES area is anticipated because of increased
desirable forage species plant density. However,
there would most likely be an increase in undesira-
ble species at some new water development sites
as livestock concentrations would graze and tram-
ple the present cover, with varying amounts of rest
prescribed for vegetation recovery.
The overall impact of the proposed action on
the wild life resources of the ES area would gener-
ally be favorable but, with possible local exceptions,
too small to be measured by available census tech-
niques. A major part of the benefits to wildlife
would derive from the wildlife considerations (fence
and reservoir locations, number of pastures, etc.)
built into each AMP. Additional benefits would
result from increased forage production.
There is some indication that increasingly uni-
form grazing pressure made possible by water de-
velopments and fencing would have an impact on
many species of wildlife analogous to the impact of
intensive farming on many small game populations.
Data at present are insignificant to conclude, how-
ever, that this problem would outweigh the benefits
to wildlife of the proposed action.
By the year 2000, it is anticipated that forage
available for livestock on public lands in the ES
area would increase from 294,000 AUMs to
316,400 AUMs or about 7 percent above current
licensed use (Table 1-2). Since it is assumed that
available livestock forage would decrease 5 percent
by the year 2000 without the proposed action (see
Chapter 3, Procedures and Assumptions), the live-
stock AUM increase attributable to the proposed
action is actually about 12 percent. Forage availa-
ble for wildlife and other uses-60 to 70 percent of
total available forage (Table 1-1)~would also be
increased about 1 2 percent by the proposed action
during this period. Depending upon the extent to
which a lack of forage or vegetation is a limiting
factor for wildlife, some wildlife populations would
increase as a result of this improvement. However,
it would be unlikely that any given wildlife species
would increase as much as 12 percent in response
to a 12 percent increase in available forage. A 6
percent increase, or even less, would be more
likely. Since annual fluctuations of wildlife popula-
tions are often much greater than 6 percent (more
like 10 to 50 percent), and given the difficulty of
estimating wildlife populations accurately, any long
term areawide increase from forage increases and
built-in wildlife considerations would be undetecta-
ble.
Available forage is not the only consideration,
however. Some wildlife species would be locally
reduced and others increased by successional
3-16
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
changes as range condition improves. For example,
the successional advancement of grassland types
generally leads to an increase in grasses and a
reduction in shrubs--a situation that could be detri-
mental to big game (Wagner 1976). However, other
species would benefit from these changes, and to
the extent the proposed action helps to solve envi-
ronmental problems such as erosion and siltation,
wildlife populations would generally benefit.
Some of the proposed range improvements
(Table 1-5 in Chapter 1) as contrasted with the
overall impact of the proposed action, would gener-
ally have a negative impact on wildlife. An addition-
al 551 miles of fence within the ES area would
have a minor negative impact on big game popula-
tions, particularly mule deer. This fencing would be
distributed among more than half of the 277 pro-
posed and revised AMPs (Appendix 2) and would
cross representative portions of all the habitat
types delineated on Maps 2-6 to 2-11. All fences
impede the natural movements of big game to a
degree, and injury or death can occur if they
become entangled in fence wire. Entanglement
often occurs when animals are weak due to stress-
es such as winter starvation and are unable to jump
high enough. Although data are not available, esti-
mates for other areas (U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior, Bureau of Land Management 1977b and
1977c) indicate that 10 to 30 big game animals
would die annually from entanglement with these
proposed fences. This would not significantly
impact any big game population.
The 436 reservoirs that are proposed would
benefit aquatic wildlife, including ducks and geese,
particularly where islands are included in the reser-
voir design. However, biologists who have per-
formed research within the ES area are of the opin-
ion that big game populations (elk, mule deer, and
antelope) and their distribution are not influenced
by the availability of artificial water sources (Mackie
1970; Jones 1978, personal communication; and
Pyrah 1978, personal communication). In some
cases, the redistribution of cattle may benefit ter-
restrial wildlife by relieving cattle grazing pressure
on important habitats. However, water development
can be quite detrimental particularly to mule deer
when it occurs in coulees near the terminal portions
of larger ridges or near smaller ridges where the
area available for cattle dispersal on primary range
types is limited (Mackie 1970 and 1978). Many of
the 206 reservoirs planned for the riverbreaks por-
tion of the ES area fall in this category. It has also
been shown that sharp-tailed grouse may be ad-
versely affected by grazing redistributions achieved
through reservoir development (Brown, undated).
At least some of the proposed vegetation treat-
ments (Table 1-5 and Appendix 2) would have sig-
nificant local negative impacts on sage grouse,
mule deer, and probably antelope. All of the sage-
brush spraying (2,236 acres) would take place in
the Hay Coulee Allotment (#6182) and almost all of
the area scheduled for spraying is either crucial
winter habitat for sage grouse or high value year
round habitat for mule deer or both (Maps 2-6 and
2-11). A reduction of the present sagebrush crown
density would be particularly detrimental to sage
grouse reproductive and winter requirements (Wal-
lestad 1975). Mule deer would be impacted by the
reduction of an important forage source.
About 90 percent of the scheduled 10,850 acres
of plowing and seeding would take place in the
east pasture of the East Indian Butte Allotment
(#2001)--an important sage grouse area (Map 2-
11). Impacts would be similar to those described for
Hay Coulee (above).
In some areas, the proposed vegetation treat-
ments would be beneficial to wildlife. For example,
contour furrowing proposed for sparsely vegetated
areas along Sage Creek in the Shotgun Coulee
Allotment (#5434) would improve habitat conditions
generally. However, if treatments occur in important
habitats for sage grouse or antelope, local popula-
tions can be severely reduced by the loss of
needed shrub species (Wallestad 1975, Martinka
1967, and Bayless 1969). There is evidence that in
some cases antelope avoid areas that have been
contour furrowed because the ground disturbance
makes it difficult for them to use their primary
escape mechanism, running (Pyrah 1978, personal
communication). However, antelope and other
game species have been observed to use treated
areas, particularly where forbs have been en-
hanced, and species such as horned larks that
prefer grass habitats over shrub habitats will benefit
from shrub control. Of the 13,000 acres proposed
for contour furrowing or plowing and seeding, 350
acres are on sites identified as being high value
antelope habitat.
Mule Deer
The impacts of the proposed action on mule
deer would depend mostly on any changes in graz-
ing intensity on critical mule deer winter or year
long ranges. Increased forage production would
benefit mule deer by reducing livestock pressure on
mule deer food sources particularly browse species
such as sagebrush and snowberry. As mentioned
above, water developments could be detrimental to
mule deer if they attracted livestock into mule deer
habitats that were previously unused or lightly used
by livestock. Although sufficient information to pre-
3-17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
diet mule deer impacts is not available, there could
be significant local reductions.
White-tailed Deer
White-tailed deer would benefit slightly from the
proposed action compared to a continuation of the
present situation. However, the white-tailed deer is
often dependent on riparian habitats. Because the
existing and proposed grazing systems generally do
not provide full protection of riparian areas, and
because of the tendancy of livestock to use these
areas heavily despite stocking reductions (Hormay
1976), many of these areas would improve only
slightly and most, if not all, would remain far below
their potential for white-tailed deer and other wild-
life. Nevertheless, the whitetail will probably, at
least in the short term (1 to 4 years), continue to
expand its range gradually due to its exceptional
adaptability to man's agricultural and other activities
(Walcheck 1978).
Antelope
Antelope populations would probably remain
about stable as a result of the proposed action
(Figure 3-1). Improved forage conditions, and slight-
ly reduced stocking rates, would have a favorable
impact on antelope but as mentioned above, the
contour furrowing, plowing and seeding, and sage-
brush spraying could be detrimental locally. There
have been observations that indicate that livestock
can be detrimental to antelope through behavioral
disturbance and utilization of preferred forage, par-
ticularly forbs (Pyrah 1978, personal communica-
tion). If, because of system failure or other reasons,
the proposed action led to increased livestock use
of antelope ranges, reductions in antelope popula-
tions would occur. The 551 miles of fence pro-
posed would have a negative but probably not sig-
nificant impact on antelope.
Nevertheless, the mobility and larger home ranges
of elk compared to mule deer and antelope enable
elk to seek out areas where forage conditions are
optimum and take advantage of improved forage
conditions that result from deferred and rest rota-
tion grazing systems. However, as explained in
Chapter 2, habitat condition is generally not a limit-
ing factor for elk in the ES area. Thus, elk popula-
tions would not be expected to increase.
Bighorn Sheep
The current population of less than 10 bighorn
sheep at the west end of the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge (Map 2-9) does not extend
out of the Wildlife Refuge (Eichhorn 1978, personal
communication). If the population were to expand
into adjacent allotments, it could be impacted by
the proposed action. Bighorn sheep and cattle
compete heavily because of similar food habitats.
Although they would benefit somewhat from in-
creased available forage, these bighorns would not
be apt to expand significantly under the proposed
grazing program because of the apparent difficulty
of producing bighorn sheep and cattle on the same
land. There are no AMPs near the bighorn sheep in
the Little Rocky Mountains.
Wild Horses
Although no forage has been specifically allo-
cated to the small wild or semi-wild horse popula-
tion delineated on Map 2-9, they would receive
some benefit from improved vegetation conditions if
the grazing plans for the allotments in that area
were successful. The 15 miles of fence proposed
for the Ervin Ridge and Black Butte Allotments (#'s
6212 and 6211) would restrict the movement of the
horses. However, the number of horses in this band
(about 30) is not expected to be affected.
Elk
Some of the allotments where elk occur, par-
ticularly in the Willow Creek Planning Unit, are
grazed in the fall and winter and are already in
excellent condition. Others are expected to experi-
ence forage increases from proposed rest rotation
grazing systems. Several authors (Knowles 1975
and Mackie 1970) have noted that elk seldom
occupy a pasture simultaneously with livestock.
Mountain Lions and Furbearers
The impact on mountain lions and furbearers
such as coyotes, weasels, and skunks would vary
depending on the response of small mammals to
changes in vegetation conditions (see below). Any
changes in the populations of these predators
would be small. Beavers and muskrats would gen-
erally be unaffected by the proposed action al-
though improved watershed conditions would mar-
ginally improve habitat conditions for these species,
3-18
■J*
'4
H^^w;
S&£tk$L:^*¥**
f * •
■I
Figure
3-1 Antelope. These important big game animals would benefit slightly from improved forage
conditions and reduced stocking rates. However, because of local vegetative impacts from land
treatments and fences, populations are expected to remain aboufstable.
3-19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
and some muskrats would be expected to inhabit
the new reservoirs which are planned.
Small Mammals
The response of small mammals to increased
amounts of cover and available forage as a result
of the proposed action would be varied. Voles and
pocket mice which rely heavily on plant material for
food would be expected to increase while deer
mice and harvest mice which use less plant food
and are more adapted to sparsely vegetated areas
would probably decrease (Black 1968 and Moore
1978, personal communication). Other rodents such
as pocket gophers and Richardson ground squirrels
seem to favor heavily grazed sites and may also
decrease.
Small mammal populations would be locally de-
stroyed by the construction of reservoirs and other
range improvements, but the overall impact on this
group within the ES area would be insignificant.
Although Tschache (1970) was unable to demon-
strate changes in small mammal populations one
year following sagebrush spraying, it is likely that
this and other land treatments (contour furrowing,
plowing and seeding) would cause some small
mammal populations to increase and others to de-
crease. Reestablishment of existing populations
would be expected as habitats changed through
succession back to their pre-treatment condition.
This could take several decades.
Sharp-tailed Grouse
The proposed action would probably result in at
least local reductions of sharp-tailed grouse (Figure
3-2). It has been well established that residual
vegetation is an important limiting factor for sharp-
tail (Brown 1978). Rest and deferred rotation graz-
ing systems increase residual vegetation. It is con-
tended (Brown undated) that over the centuries
sharptails have evolved the trait of moving to favor-
able areas created by revegetation following distur-
bances, such as fire, and that this trait may enable
them to utilize temporary sources of residual vege-
tation. However, recent studies in Phillips County
indicate that sharptails do not move into rest pas-
tures where nesting conditions presumably would
be better (Nielsen 1978). Also, the 391 reservoirs
proposed would tend to even out the distribution of
grazing pressure within the ES area. Overall, this is
likely to be detrimental to sharptails as studies
(Brown undated) have indicated that conditions for
sharptails are most favorable in the dry ends of
pastures where there is more residual vegetation.
These new reservoirs would generally bring cattle
into areas where they would reduce this residual
vegetation.
Sage Grouse
The proposed action would have local negative
impacts on sage grouse (as explained above) but
they would not be significantly reduced throughout
the ES area. Improvements in forage conditions
produced by the proposed action could be of some
benefit.
Pheasants and Hungarian Partridge
The proposed action may benefit pheasants and
Hungarian partridge but the impacts would be very
small. Pheasants depend heavily upon riparian
habitats but only minor improvements in riparian
habitats are anticipated. Hungarian partridge would
benefit some by increased residual cover, particu-
larly in rest pastures adjacent to agricultural land.
Merriam's Turkey and Mountain
Grouse
These species would also benefit slightly from
the proposed action, but no increases large enough
to be measured by available techniques are antici-
pated. Mussehl (1963) demonstrated that blue
grouse require residual grass cover for nesting.
Ruffed grouse and turkey would also benefit from
generally improved vegetation conditions. The
spruce grouse would not be affected by the AMPs
in the ES area.
Waterfowl
Waterfowl would probably be benefited more
than any other species group by implementation of
the proposed action. The construction of 436 new
reservoirs would provide additional breeding and
migration stopover habitat. Increases in waterfowl
habitat are important because of the continuing
drainage of wetland habitats throughout North
America.
Gjersing (1975) observed a maximum produc-
tion of nine birds to flight stage per acre of surface
water on stockwater ponds within rest rotation graz-
3-20
Figure 3-2 At least local reductions in sharp-tailed grouse populations are likely because of this bird's apparent
inability to take advantage of temporary increases in residual vegetation produced through rest and
deferred rotation grazing.
3-21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ing systems in the vicinity of Malta north of the ES
area. Because most of the ES area, particularly the
riverbreaks portion where 206 of the reservoirs
would be located, is not as productive for waterfowl
as Gjersing's study area and because only 83 of
the AMPs would be under rest rotation grazing sys-
tems (which Gjersing found to benefit waterfowl
production due to increased residual nesting cover),
production on the ES area would be about two
birds per surface acre. Assuming an average reser-
voir size of 3 acres, about 2,600 ducks would be
produced annually by the reservoirs.
If islands are constructed on the larger reser-
voirs (3 acres or more), some geese would also be
produced. It has been demonstrated that after four
years, about 57 percent of the waterfowl islands
constructed in this area (excluding the timbered
breaks) are used by nesting geese (Eng, Jones,
and Gjersing 1978, in press). Shorebirds would also
benefit from the new reservoirs. Rundquist (1973)
observed the use of reservoirs by 28 species of
shorebirds (several of which were nesting) along
the northern edge of the ES area.
Raptors and Other Non-Game Birds
ES areawide populations of raptors and other
non-game birds would not likely be impacted signifi-
cantly by the proposed action. Any raptor response
will be primarily due to population changes of small
mammals and other prey species (see section on
small mammals).
Local changes in vegetation would benefit some
non-game bird populations and reduce others. For
example, land treatments that involve sagebrush
removal would reduce Brewer's sparrows and
vesper sparrows (Best 1972), while horned larks,
which prefer open habitats, would probably in-
crease.
Reptiles and Amphibians
No significant impacts on reptiles and amphib-
ians are anticipated. Amphibians and aquatic rep-
tiles such as the snapping turtle would benefit from
the construction of 436 reservoirs. To the extent
that the proposed action improved watershed con-
ditions, siltation and resulting problems such as suf-
focation of amphibian eggs would be reduced.
Fish
It is not anticipated that the proposed action
would significantly change conditions for fish. Im-
pacts that are presently occurring would continue.
Platts (1977) says, "Rest rotation grazing without
special protective measures for the stream and
streambanks will not maintain or restore a healthy
productive riparian-aquatic zone." The proposed
action does not include special protective measures
for riparian habitat.
Some of the reservoirs constructed would un-
doubtedly be suitable for the stocking of fish. How-
ever, many reservoirs already on public lands could-
be stocked (Elser 1977). Thus, these 436 new res-
ervoirs are not likely to affect sport fish populations
within the ES area significantly since there is al-
ready a surplus of reservoirs available for stocking.
Improved vegetation conditions in the water-
sheds that include fisheries reservoirs would benefit
fish populations in several ways. The water would
be clearer, allowing for better light penetration and
food production. The reduced siltation would in-
crease the life of the reservoirs which in some
areas, notably south Valley County, can be as short
as 15 years (Willow Creek Planning Unit, Unit Re-
source Analysis).
Invertebrates
Although the relationship between grasshoppers
and livestock grazing is not completely understood,
it appears that grasshoppers prefer areas with low
growing weeds and grasses and relatively sparse
vegetation cover (Nerney 1957 and Anderson
1964). Thus, grazing influences grasshopper distri-
bution. Pastures grazed heavily during the rest rota-
tion cycle may attract grasshoppers which could
then put excessive demands on the vegetation.
However, entomologists believe that although such
conditions attract grasshoppers, they do not them-
selves cause increases in grasshoppers, so there is
at present no basis for saying that intensive grazing
directly influences grasshopper populations over a
large area such as the ES area.
Threatened or Endangered Species
No impact on the northern Rocky Mountain wolf
is anticipated from the proposed action because (1)
it is extremely unlikely that this species occurs in
the ES area, and (2) as with other predators, the
3-22
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
proposed action would only have a minor indirect
effect on this species through its prey base.
It is also unlikely that the proposed action would
impact any black-footed ferret that might occur in
the ES area since the proposed action does not
involve the disturbance of any known prairie dog
towns. As mentioned in Chapter 2, a complete
survey of black-footed ferret habitat in eastern
Montana will be initiated in the fall of 1978. If the
presence of ferrets within the ES area is confirmed,
appropriate actions to protect them and their habi-
tat will be taken. However, the secretive nature of
ferrets is such that even the intensive survey
planned will not be sufficient to prove the absence
of ferrets (Under and Hillmand 1973). This fact will
have to be weighed in related management deci-
sions. If after the survey the BLM determines that
any of its actions may affect ferret populations or
their habitat, formal consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service will be initiated.
No impact on whooping cranes is anticipated
because utilization of any part of the ES area by
whooping cranes is extremely unlikely.
The only impact to the endangered peregrine
falcon would be the possible disturbance of nesting
areas during fence construction or fence removal
along the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River.
However, the Rocky Mountain/Southwestern Per-
egrine Falcon Recovery Team has no evidence of
current nesting activity by peregrines in the ES area
(Craig 1978, personal communication). If peregrines
are observed to nest in the area, all necessary
steps to protect them, including consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be taken.
There could be a slight benefit to the northern
bald eagle if the proposed action eventually leads
to increased livestock numbers within the ES area.
With greater livestock numbers there would be
more livestock carrion available for the eagles.
That, plus carrion from any big game animals en-
tangled in the proposed fences, could be of margin-
al benefit to the eagles.
Summary of Impacts to Wildlife
Based on anticipated forage increases, an over-
all increase of 6 percent in wildlife populations is
predicted. There would be large variations from
species to species and area to area. Overall
changes would be too small to measure with availa-
ble census techniques.
About 2,600 ducks would be produced annually
by the proposed reservoirs and geese and other
water birds would also benefit. However, many of
the new reservoirs would reduce mule deer and
sharp-tailed grouse populations by increasing live-
stock use of shrubs and residual cover in areas
that were previously ungrazed or lightly grazed. At
least some of the proposed vegetation treatments
would have significant local negative impacts on
sage grouse, mule deer, and probably antelope.
The 551 miles of new fence would probably lead to
the entanglement and death of 10 to 30 big game
animals annually. No significant impacts on wild or
semi-wild horses or threatened or endangered spe-
cies are anticipated. Riparian habitats would im-
prove only slightly.
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC
FEATURES
Prehistoric Features
Several components of the proposed action
would impact prehistoric features, if the locations of
range management actions and prehistoric sites co-
incide. The exact number of prehistoric sites which
would be impacted is not known because the total
area of each allotment has not been inventoried for
such sites. However, the systematically done
sample inventory discussed in Chapter 2 does
allow some prediction of expected frequency of site
occurrence per 640 acres in each planning unit
(Table 2-14, Chapter 2), and, therefore, some idea
of how many sites could be impacted. Given an
optimistic estimate of overall site density amounting
to two sites per 640 acres, the number of sites
impacted by range improvements (which would dis-
turb 17,244 acres) would be approximately 54.
Other aspects of range management would affect
an additional unknown number of sites. Livestock
congregate near water, thus creating a greater
trampling effect near reservoirs and in riparian habi-
tats. Some sites inventoried and discussed in Chap-
ter 2 showed damage from livestock trampling.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to generalize
these potential impacts. The effects of livestock
grazing and of the various types of range improve-
ments on prehistoric sites would be different. Some
sites would be completely destroyed, while only
minimal damage to others would occur. A further
complicating factor in this analysis is that with the
exception of the South Bearpaw Planning Unit in
Blaine and Chouteau Counties, the site density esti-
mations were generalized over the whole planning
unit. Based on the South Bearpaw sampling which
shows site density to be relatively high in grass-
lands and river/creek bottom areas and much
3-23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
lower in broken country, it is highly probable that
site densities differ in different ecozones throughout
the ES area.
The three major categories of range improve-
ments are water developments, fences, and vege-
tation manipulation (Table 1-5, Chapter I). The first
category, water developments, would cause major
impacts to prehistoric sites. With the exception of
pipelines, each type would necessitate the removal
and redistribution of significant amounts of soil. Be-
cause the integrity of prehistoric sites depends on
the preservation of prehistoric objects used by man
and the preservation of their context (position rela-
tive to one another), any soil disturbance could
destroy this arrangement and make the site essen-
tially meaningless. Only water pipelines would
cause limited impacts. In this case, a very restricted
amount of soil is disturbed during construction.
Construction of a water pipeline could cause some
destruction of prehistoric features, but would prob-
ably not destroy a complete site.
Vegetation manipulation includes contour fur-
rowing, sagebrush spraying, and plowing and seed-
ing. Contour furrowing and plowing and seeding
both would require widespread ground alteration,
and, therefore, for the same reasons discussed
above under water developments, would be very
destructive to prehistoric sites. Sagebrush spraying
would have no direct effect on prehistoric sites. All
vegetation manipulation sites would be rested from
grazing until revegetation occurs. The impacts from
livestock trampling in these areas should be re-
duced by the resulting improved range condition.
The category of range improvement with least
impact on prehistoric sites would be fencing and
associated construction of cattleguards. Only a
small amount of ground should be disturbed by
post hole digging, unless dirt work is needed to
clear the fenceline. Cattleguard construction could
be more destructive because more ground disturb-
ance would be required.
The impacts from livestock trampling would be
highly variable. Buried deposits of prehistoric age
may be uncovered by stream erosion, erosion
along the shores of stockwater reservoirs, and are
likely in the vicinity of springs. Livestock trampling
around riparian habitats and reservoirs could de-
stroy large areas containing prehistoric evidence.
Where no active erosion is occurring, only surface
exposed artifacts and features would be disturbed.
The exact sites which could be disturbed or
destroyed by construction of range improvements
or cattle trampling are not yet known. Each site
eventually located and facing disturbance should
be evaluated for significance of the information it
contains. It can be assumed that most prehistoric
sites will contain some information of value. The
significance of the impact then will depend on how
much destruction would result from the type of
range improvement.
Except for construction crews during a short
period of time when a range improvement is being
implemented, no new population should be expect-
ed on each allotment as a result of the proposed
action. Therefore, impacts to prehistoric sites from
amateur artifact collecting and vandalism should
not increase over present levels.
To summarize, about 54 prehistoric sites may
experience impacts. That figure could be low or
high, however, because base data from which the
prediction was made consists of an extremely small
sample generalized to planning unit boundaries. Be-
cause the sites are not actually known at the pres-
ent, significance of potential information loss
cannot be measured. Water development, except-
ing pipelines, and vegetation manipulation, except-
ing sagebrush spraying, could completely destroy
any prehistoric site which coincides with those pro-
jects. Fence building would have a minor impact on
prehistoric sites. Little increase in impacts from
amateur collecting or vandalism would be expected.
Historic Features
Historic features would face many of the same
impacts as the prehistoric features. No sampling
has been conducted to evaluate historic sites, how-
ever, and the number of sites which might be im-
pacted is not known.
Sites from the earlier historic periods: explora-
tion, fur trade, and military (see Chapter 2) would
be essentially similar to prehistoric archaeological
sites, in that structures would probably be gone and
archaeological techniques would be required to in-
terpret artifacts and such features as fire hearths
and building foundations. These sites would then
depend on preservation of artifacts and their con-
text (similar to prehistoric sites) to maintain their
integrity. Therefore, water developments and vege-
tation manipulation could be very destructive to
such sites (except as for prehistoric sites, water
pipelines and sagebrush spraying).
The main features associated with later historic
episodes, for example, ranching and homesteading,
probably still exist as ruins or standing structures.
These features are easily recognizable, but could
be impacted if range improvements were built in
such a way to cause their destruction.
The areas of probable impacts to historic fea-
tures can be localized for most historic eras.
3-24
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Known early exploration of the ES area is associat-
ed mainly with campsites along the Missouri River
(Lewis and Clark Expedition). Major posts and other
features associated with the fur trade should also
be located along the Missouri River. Steamboat
landings, steamboat wrecks, and woodhawkers' lo-
cations would be in or near the Missouri River.
Most military posts are similarly located along the
river, with the exception of Fort Maginnis near
Lewistown, and two sites of conflict with Chief
Joseph and the Nez Perce Indians north of the
Missouri. Because this portion of the Missouri has
been classified wild, scenic, or recreational, and
has as a major mandate the protection of cultural
resources, it is doubtful that planning would allow
the impact of these historic features by range man-
agement practices.
Other historic eras had features located away
from the river and these could be impacted as
outlined above. The possible impacted areas would
include gold mining camps and features; aban-
doned transportation features, such as railroad
grades and facilities, stage stations, and freighting
trails; buffalo hunting and bone collecting; ranch
features, such as line camps, corrals, and shee-
pherder monuments; and homestead features, in-
cluding homes, outbuildings, and other traces of
agriculture.
National Register of Historic Places
None of the sites listed in the Federal Register
of February 7, 1978, would be affected by pro-
posed range improvements. Thus, no impacts as a
result of this federal undertaking would occur to
these properties.
Summary of Impacts to Prehistoric
and Historic Features
Minimal disturbance of prehistoric and historic
features would occur due to the construction of
range improvements and livestock trampling. Based
on a sample inventory for prehistoric sites in the ES
area, it is estimated that 54 sites would be dis-
turbed by range improvements. An additional un-
known number of prehistoric sites would be affect-
ed by livestock trampling. No sampling has been
conducted to evaluate historic sites and the number
of sites impacted is not known. Detailed site inven-
tories are required prior to initiation of ground dis-
turbance; therefore, most sites would be avoided or
the information contained in the sites salvaged. No
known prehistoric or historic sites on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places are affect-
ed by the proposed action.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The Visual Resource Management (VRM)
classes discussed in Chapter 2 and visual resource
contrast ratings (Manual 6320) were used to pro-
vide a basis for measuring impacts of the proposed
action on the visual resources of the ES area.
Most adverse visual impacts are associated with
the range improvement projects proposed for im-
plementation of the AMPs. These improvements
could impact all four VRM classes present in the
ES area. The severity of the impact would be di-
rectly related to the VRM class in which the im-
provement would occur (see Map 2-13, Chapter 2).
Visual impact levels were derived for all range
projects based on visual resource contrast ratings
and corresponding VRM classes (see Table 3-7).
The proximity of the viewer to the improvement
influences the impact level or contrast. All pro-
posed improvements were evaluated from a fore-
ground view (0-I mile). The further a subject is from
the viewer, the less the impact/contrast.
The proposed range improvement projects are
evaluated in the following discussion based on their
potential adverse impacts on each of the four VRM
classes that exist in the ES area. These impacts
include:
1. Disturbances to ground cover associated with
construction of range improvement projects
and vegetation manipulation.
2. Construction of additional access roads to facili-
tate construction and maintenance of proposed
range improvement projects.
3. Creation of unnatural color contrasts with the
surrounding area on both above-ground struc-
tures and the vegetation.
4. Placement of unnatural appearing structures on
the landscape.
5. Production of unnatural vegetative complexes as-
sociated with vegetative manipulation projects.
6. Increases in livestock-associated visual impacts
resulting from livestock concentrations around
water sources and along fences (loss of vege-
tation, increased erosion, etc.).
7. Contrast created between grazed and ungrazed
pastures.
3-25
H|
co
•H
in
>i
rH
fd
i
r^
I
+j
co
o
flj
CU
&
•H
B
45
H
fd
H
rH
>
H
CO
CO CO
CU (0
CO r-H
co u
fd
rH
<J H
H
H
CD
>
0)
-P
o
fd
»
H
P
cu co
g to
CU fd
tT> rH
rd O
Id
s
H
<u
(H
u
M
CO
d
CO
0
rd
CO
rH
0
u
cr;
■P
CO
rd
rH
P
c
o
CD U
u
3
P
rci
CU
fa
c
•H
p
CO
R)
M
P
c
o
u
-p
u
CU
■n
o
CM
as
5 S 5
0 0 O -H o
pi pi pi a J
^
43
43
X!
43
Cn
Cn
Cn
cn
cn
•rH
■H
-H
-H
•H
a
33
33
33
33
43 43
£3
43
^3
Cn Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
•H -H
•H
•H
•H
33 33
33
33
33
s
3
5
3
s
3
5 S
33
43
Cn
•H
33
O
PI
5 &
o o
PI J
•H O
33 a
o
PI
5
O
43 _
43 43
Cn S
Cn Cn
■H 0
■H -H
33 J
33 33
S
£
s
3
a
CU
P
RJ
U
<U
3
£
T3
&
0
0
o
rH"
a
J
45
43
43
43
43
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
•H
•H
■H
■H
•H
33
33
33
3!
33
43 43
43 43
43
43
43
43
43
Cn Cn
Cn Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
•H -H
•H -H
■H
•H
•H
•H
-H
33 33
33 33
33
33
33
33
33
s
a
o
PI
5
,3
-P
fd
rH
cu
O
>i
T3
0
pq
in
G
C3
C
C3
G
G
G
cu cu.
cu
cu
cu
0
<u
cu
CU
cu
0
0
0
0
0
0
P -P*
SH
rH
M
-H
u
rH
rH
rH
•H
•H
•H
■H
■H
•H
d rd
3
3
d
-P
d
d
d
CJ
+J
+J
-P
-P
■P
P
p &
p
-P
P
rd
p
-p
-p
-p
(d
fd
fd
fd
fd
id
o \
o
u
O
•p
o
o
o
o
-P
-p
P
-p
P
p
d T3
d
d
3
cu
d
d
2
C3
CU
cu
CU
cu
CU
CD
rH G
rH
rH
rH
Cn
SH
rH
M
rH
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
CT
P fd
-P
-P
P
cu
p
-p
P
P
CU
cu
CU
cu
CU
CU
CO J
CO
P
CO
rH
0
rH
0
u
CO
rH
>
CO
rH
CO
CO
CO
M
0
rH
O
U
>
CU
rH
d
>
u
0
rH
0
u
CU
u
d
>
rH
0
rH
0
U
CD
u
d
>
>
u
o
rH
0
u
>
CU cu
o
g
0
cu
0
g
cu
<u
CU
P
CU
p
cu
P
cu
CU
0
G G
rH
rH
rH
G
rH
u
C3
C3
C3
X
C3
X
C3
X
C3
a
rH
■H -H
0
0
0
•H
0
0
-H
-H
■H
CU
•H
CD
•H
cu
•H
•H
0
PI J
U
fa
u
PI
u
fa
J
PI
a
Eh
pj
rH
J
Eh
PI
pi
CO
g
cu
u
CO
cu
rH
p
o
•H
CO
u
13
C3
fd
>1
CU
0)
U
■P
CU
Cn
M
CO
M
G
Cm
^-»
P
rd
p
C3
fa
C
ca
43
Cn
EH
CO
•H
<TJ
s
0)
T3
rd
d
CD
CU
Cn
•H
Cn
CO
C3
cu
CD
Cn
G
0
•H
•p
c
cu
s
Cn
p
g
>
C3
to
S
Cn
C3
d
•H
iZ
rH
S
G
Cn
0
>
CO
1
Cn
■rH
•H
cu
re
rj
H
•H
3
0
C
•H
H
>i
Cm
•H
G
•H
CU U
cu
Cm
G
rH
rH
M
X
rH
S
O
CO
0
Sh
•H
t3
X!
fd
CO
•H
■P
N
■H
P
U CU
rH
p
g
-H
CU
3
o
G
■P
G
P
CU
CO
P
rH
3
CU
CU
u
T)
P
CO
fd
P
rd
G CO
rH
u
3
P
CM 43
0
rd
-P
■H
<d
Cm
0
C
d
0
CU
Cn
Cm
fd
rH
fd
U
rH
P
cu cu
0)
<
CU
CM
•H
— '
p
p
fd
rrj
CJ
>i
U
0
fa
rH
CO
05
CO
S
d
CM
O
rd
CO
fa &3
S
CO
CM
CO
U
pg
EH
u
u
Cm
CO
03
g
CO
CU
>
cu
PI
p
CJ
ft
fd
d
co
-H
>
lp
0
G
O
•H
■P
fd
G
fd
H
cu
G
fd
u
o
UH
co
X
•H
T3
G
I
9
M
(1)
s
3-26
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Within a VRM Class, only those projects with a
low visual impact level would meet the visual re-
source management objectives for that class. No
mitigation would be necessary. Projects with a
moderate or high impact level would not meet the
VRM objectives for that class without mitigation
(see Table 3-7).
Class I
This class provides primarily for natural ecologi-
cal changes only. In the ES area, Class I includes
only specially designated areas ("Wild" segment of
the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River and the
Square Butte Natural Area). With the exception of
buried pipelines and salting stations, all proposed
range improvement projects would create high
visual impact levels in Class I areas. This implies
that these projects would not meet the visual re-
source management objectives defined in a Class I
area and would therefore require mitigative meas-
ures to meet those objectives. Because Class I
areas are considered extremely sensitive to ad-
verse visual impacts; fenceline contrasts between
grazed and ungrazed pastures, above-ground struc-
tures, access roads, reservoirs, and vegetation ma-
nipulation areas would produce high visual impact
levels.
Buried pipelines would produce a low visual
impact level and therefore would meet the VRM
objectives of a Class I area without mitigation.
Class II
Changes in any of the basic elements (form,
line, color, texture) caused by a range management
activity should not be evident in the characteristic
landscape of a Class II area. In the ES area, Class
II landscapes are generally found in the mountain-
ous or forested regions and along the "scenic" and
"recreational" segments of the Missouri River. With
the exception of cattleguards, which would produce
a low impact level in a Class II area, the visual
impact levels of the remaining projects in Class I
and II areas would appear to be the same. Scenery
quality in a Class II area could be equal to that in a
Class I area. Generally, this is the case in the ES
area (see Map 2-12, Chapter 2); therefore, the ad-
verse visual impacts created by the proposed range
improvement project would be similar in both
classes.
Class III
In a Class III area, changes in the basic ele-
ments (form, line, color, texture) caused by a range
management activity may be evident in the charac-
teristic landscape. However, the changes should
remain subordinate to the existing visual quality.
Most Class III areas occur along the major trans-
portation corridors in the ES area. Scenic quality in
these areas is normally lower than that found in
Class I or II areas and would be less sensitive to
adverse visual impacts. With the exception of
pump-type wells, rainwater catchments, and roads
and trails which would produce significant adverse
visual impacts to form and line elements, the pro-
posed range improvement projects would meet the
Class III VRM objectives.
Class IV
Changes in a Class IV area may subordinate the
original composition and character of the landscape
but must reflect what could be a natural occurrence
within the landscape. Most Class IV areas are lo-
cated in seldom seen areas or areas of average
scenery quality. Because of this, only those range
improvements which would create high levels of
visual contrast would fail to meet the management
objectives of a Class IV area. Only rainwater catch-
ments fall within this category. Form and color con-
trasts associated with the collection area, the stor-
age bag and earthen embankments, and the stock
water tank are responsible for this high contrast. All
remaining range impovement projects would fall
within a low visual impact level and would require
no mitigation to meet visual objectives for a Class
IV area.
With a few exceptions, range improvement pro-
jects proposed in the ES area would not meet the
visual resource management (VRM) objectives of a
Class I or II area. However, only a small number of
the proposed and existing AMPs are located within
these management classes. A majority of the AMPs
are situated in Class III and IV areas where VRM
objectives could be met.
Summary of Impacts to Visual
Resources
Development of range improvements and estab-
lishment of grazing systems would have a slight
adverse effect on visual resources. Because the
majority of the ES area lies within areas identified
3-27
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
as visual resource management classes III and IV,
most range improvements would have a minor
impact or low contrast with the existing landscape
character. In areas designated as visual resource
management classes I and II, impacts to visual
resources would be more significant; however,
these areas are generally small and the range im-
provements proposed are minimal.
RECREATION
hunting opportunities to any great extent, it would
reduce the quality of the hunting experience.
Short term impacts to hunting opportunities re-
sulting from the proposed action would be negligi-
ble as several seasons of hunting use would be
required to influence past hunting use patterns. As
anticipated long term (15 years) small increases in
populations of most huntable wildlife species occur
both locally and throughout the ES area, some
slight long term increases in hunting opportunities
would result.
The following analysis discusses the impacts of
the proposed action on the various recreational ac-
tivities and special management areas present in
the ES area. Special attention was given to specific
management areas such as Square Butte and the
Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River because im-
pacts in these areas may have a more pronounced
effect on recreational opportunities due to concen-
trated recreational use in these areas.
Hunting
Implementation of the proposed action is ex-
pected to have an overall slight beneficial impact
on hunting opportunities by improving wildlife habi-
tat and potentially increasing wildlife numbers.
Quantification of increased hunting opportunities
due to an anticipated increase in wildlife numbers is
not possible at this time.
The major factor influencing hunting opportuni-
ties in the ES area is number of harvestable ani-
mals. Increases or decreases in wildlife numbers
resulting from implementation of the proposed
action are discussed in Chapter 3, Wildlife. The
following discussion relates the findings of the wild-
life section to impacts on hunting opportunities in
the ES area.
Another factor influencing hunting opportunities
is access. New roads, trails, and cattleguards
needed for project construction and maintenance of
proposed grazing systems in the ES area would
improve access and provide additional opportunities
for hunters to utilize the public lands. Although im-
proving access implies no increase or decrease in
wildlife numbers, a localized increase in hunting
opportunities could result.
Construction of new fences, although not exten-
sive, would create additional barriers to unrestricted
movement of hunters desiring cross-country travel.
Although it is unlikely that this impact would reduce
Big Game
According to the wildlife impact analysis (Chap-
ter 3), mule deer and white-tailed deer would in-
crease slightly as a result of the proposed action,
due generally to improvements in the habitat of
these animals. It can be assumed that an increase
in animal numbers would increase hunting opportu-
nities. In this instance, however, the increase in
hunting opportunities is expected to be slight.
As a result of the proposed action, antelope
populations in the ES area are expected to remain
essentially the same. Because of this, antelope
hunting opportunities in the ES area would likely
remain unchanged.
Range improvement projects could produce lo-
calized increases or decreases in big game hunting
opportunities depending on the specific manage-
ment activity and the impact of that activity on each
big game species. In general, range improvement
projects such as fences, vegetation manipulation,
and new water sources in crucial wildlife habitat
areas would have adverse impacts on game spe-
cies utilizing these areas (see Wildlife, Chapter 3).
However, the intensities of these impacts and the
effect on hunting opportunities are not quantifiable
at this time.
Upland Game
Upland game bird populations would increase
slightly in the ES area as a result of implementing
the proposed action due to overall improvements in
upland game habitat. This increase in bird popula-
tions would result in a probable slight increase in
hunting opportunities. Localized increases or de-
creases in upland bird populations could result from
implementation of certain site-oriented range man-
agement activities such as vegetation manipula-
tions and rest or deferred grazing systems.
3-28
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Merriam's Turkey
A slight increase is expected in turkey popula-
tions as a result of the proposed action due to
anticipated improvements in turkey habitat. Turkey
hunting opportunities in AMP areas likely would
similarly be increased slightly.
Waterfowl
The proposed construction of 436 new reser-
voirs would provide additional waterfowl habitat and
produce increases in waterfowl numbers. This in-
crease would likely improve waterfowl hunting op-
portunities. The reservoirs would also provide sites
for hunters in locating waterfowl. The overall in-
creases in waterfowl hunting opportunities in the
ES area are expected to be slight, but localized
increases could be substantial.
Fishing
Implementation of the proposed action is ex-
pected to produce little change in present fishing
opportunities in the ES area because (1) most of
the adverse impacts to riparian areas along fisher-
ies created by present livestock grazing would con-
tinue (see Wildlife, Chapter 3), (2) most stream
bank acreage is in private ownership and outside
the control of the Bureau, and (3) most fishery
reservoirs on public lands are continually stocked
to maintain catchable fish populations.
Therefore, the major benefit to fishing derived
from the proposed action would be better water-
shed management, which would reduce siltation,
increase shoreline vegetation (reduced siltation
would provide clearer water and increase the life of
the reservoir extending fishing opoprtunities), and
provide some additional local fishing opportunities
(some of the 436 proposed reservoirs would be
suitable for stocking, providing fish are available).
ing opportunities even though these roads and
trails are visual intrusions in themselves.
If objectives are met in the proposed action, an
overall improvement in range condition should
occur giving the public lands a "healthier" more
aesthetic appearance. Probable concentrations of
wildlife in rest pastures would improve wildlife view-
ing opportunities.
Impacts to sightseeing caused by the proposed
action will have little effect on participation but will
affect the quality of the recreational sightseeing ex-
perience.
Off-Road Vehicle Use
The proposed action includes construction of
new fences. Fences are barriers to cross-country
off-road vehicles and when nearly buried by snow,
are hazards to snowmobile users.
New roads required for construction of range
improvements and maintenance of grazing systems
would provide additional opportunities for off-road
vehicle use.
Implementation of the proposed action would
produce only minor impacts to off-road vehicle use
and would have little net effect on projected off-
road vehicle use in the region.
Sightseeing
Floatboating
Floatboating is expected to increase over the
next few years. Implementation of the proposed
action would improve vegetation along streams and
rivers where AMPs are located and result in a long
term increase in scenic quality. Associated fishing
and camping activities would also benefit and pro-
vide a higher quality floatboating experience.
Range improvements placed near a stream or
river where they could be viewed by the floatboater
would distract from the scenic quality and reduce
the quality of the recreational experience.
The major adverse impacts to sightseeing op-
portunities are associated with proposed range im-
provements that would produce visual intrusions on
the landscape and decrease scenic values (Chap-
ter 3, Visual Resources).
Roads and trails required for project construc-
tion and grazing system maintenance would provide
additional access and potentially increase sightsee-
Sport Shooting
Implementation of the proposed action would
benefit sport shooting activities by providing addi-
tional access roads associated with project con-
struction and maintenance. Rested or deferred pas-
tures would provide no conflict shooting areas.
3-29
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sport shooting near livestock would endanger
the stock. New fences may present barriers to
movement of sport shooting enthusiasts.
Overall, implementation of the proposed action
would create only minor impacts to sport shooting
and would have little net effect on projected in-
creases in sport shooting activities.
Other Activities
Camping, picnicking, hiking, collecting (rocks,
minerals, plants, fossils), and other recreational ac-
tivities which occur at undeveloped sites on the
public lands in the ES area would be only slightly
impacted by the proposed action because of the
very dispersed nature of the use. Participants
choose where they wish to participate on the public
lands and can avoid areas with high livestock/re-
creationist conflicts.
The removal of vegetation by grazing livestock
and soil disturbances associated with the proposed
range improvements could improve conditions for
collecting by exposing specimens to rockhounds.
Additional fences needed to implement the pro-
posed action would create barriers to free move-
ment of recreationists adversely impacting recre-
ational access. However, gates placed in these
fences would reduce these impacts creating little
net adverse effect.
Special Management Areas
Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River
Livestock grazing has been a historic use of the
rangelands bordering the Upper Missouri Wild and
Scenic River. In places, past grazing has damaged
streambank vegetation and produced related prob-
lems such as erosion, reduction of scenic values,
and loss of wildlife habitat. Part of the objectives of
the proposed action are to improve the condition of
the rangelands along the Upper Missouri Wild and
Scenic River and reduce these problems. However,
under the proposed action, livestock would contin-
ue to congregate in the river bottoms and would
continue to utilize river bank vegetation, trample
river banks (encouraging bank caving and slough-
ing), and decrease watershed stability. Additional
water sources and implementation of deferred and
rest rotation grazing systems would help reduce the
intensities of these impacts on recreation.
The proposed action would increase recreation-
al opportunities in the ES area by improving hunt-
ing, fishing, and sightseeing opportunities along the
river. However, as recreational use increases on
the river (yearly increases have been substantial,
35 percent increase 1975 to 1976), conflicts be-
tween livestock grazing and recreation such as
camping and sightseeing would become more
common. The presence of livestock along the river
corridor is considered to be unnatural to some rec-
reational users, especially along the "wild" seg-
ments of the river. Livestock represent human pres-
ence and could detract from the expected experi-
ence associated with the definition of wild, ". . .
with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive. .
." To some, livestock do not enhance a primitive
setting. Visible signs of livestock grazing-fences,
trails, absence of tall grasses, livestock waste-all
could detract from a primitive experience because
of their association with man.
The numerous cottonwood groves scattered
along the river banks are preferred campsites.
These groves mean shade from the sun, shelter
from the wind, and an aesthetic setting for a camp.
The groves are also used by livestock. They pro-
vide shade from the hot summer sun, unlimited
supplies of drinking water, and trees for rubbing.
The presence of livestock in these camping areas
creates problems. Concentrated livestock waste in
a small area creates unpleasant odors and draws
flies and other insects which are pests to campers.
Several cottonwood groves are being adversely im-
pacted through soil compaction, depletion of under-
story vegetation, and loss of seedlings. Over a long
period of time, with continual grazing, existing
groves will become mature and die out and, be-
cause no new seedlings were established, recre-
ational activities enhanced by these groves would
be lost (no shade or shelter). Even though the
proposed action would improve these conditions
through better livestock management, these im-
pacts would nonetheless exist.
Recreational use of the Upper Missouri Wild and
Scenic River would increase regardless of whether
the proposed action was implemented. The pro-
posed action would not have any significant effect
on visitor use on the river, but, the quality of the
recreational experience should be somewhat im-
proved through better livestock management.
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
Implementing the proposed action should im-
prove the condition of the rangelands bordering the
Refuge by providing additional forage for wildlife.
Because wildlife do not respect political boundaries,
animals on the Refuge should benefit from the ad-
ditional forage. Increased wildlife populations and
3-30
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
better hunting opportunities could result within the
Refuge and on adjacent public lands.
Square Butte Natural Area
One proposed AMP falls within the Square Butte
Natural Area designation (Arrow Creek - 9783). This
AMP has a grazing season from 9/23-5/30, which
is past the summer recreation use season. No im-
provements are proposed and no adverse impacts
to recreation are anticipated.
Nez Perce Trail
Because this trail is presently only a historic
location and not a developed trail, no grazing con-
flicts with recreation opportunities have been identi-
fied.
Summary of Impacts to Recreation
Implementation of the proposed action would
have a slightly beneficial impact on hunting oppor-
tunities by improving wildlife habitat and potentially
increasing wildlife numbers. Changes in the quantity
or quality of opportunities for fishing, sightseeing,
off-road vehicle use, floatboating, sport shooting,
and other recreational activities would be minor.
The proposed action would improve the quality of
recreational opportunities along the Upper Missouri
Wild and Scenic River by more effectively manag-
ing livestock grazing within the river corridor. No
other special management areas for recreation
would be significantly affected by the proposed
action.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONDITIONS
Economic Conditions
This section analyzes those sectors of the
economy that would be affected by the proposed
action, including livestock, contract construction,
government, and hunting recreation. Except for
hunting (where the data had limitations) these sec-
tors were analyzed using the computerized BLM
DYRAM (Dynamic Regional Analysis Model) which
uses historic socio-economic data to generate an-
ticipated changes in earnings and employment.
(Appendix 9 presents a schematic of the DYRAM
process.) Those economic sectors not affected by
grazing management were not further analyzed
beyond the basic data presentation in Chapter 2,
Economic and Social Conditions.
Income
Range-related income in the ES area would
drop following the implementation of the proposed
action by approximately $39,000 annually in 1980
dollars. That figure, measured against a I980 base
of $94 million in personal income from livestock
operations in the nine-county area, and spread
among almost 400 operators who are to some
extent dependent on BLM AUMs, is insignificant to
the nine county economy. However, some opera-
tors would experience economic difficulties during
the years 1980-1985, the period when the cutback
in income would occur. The annual loss of $39,000
in income results from a reduction of approximately
3,000 AUMs across the ES area. The loss would
not be spread evenly among all operators (in fact,
27 allotments would receive an increase), and
some operators would experience a substantial de-
crease. While 69 of the 318 allotments have a
reduction in BLM AUMs, only 10 allotments (12
operators) would have a reduction of 25 percent or
greater. Table 3-8 provides data on those 10 allot-
ments. Total operator AUM needs as shown in the
table are a general indicator of an operator's
annual need for AUMs (both BLM and private)
based on herd size. In many instances, this figure
does not include the total ranch operation, i.e., an
operator may farm a substantial portion of his pri-
vate acreage in addition to raising cattle. Thus, the
use of total operator AUM needs as a measure of
dependency on BLM AUMs presents a "worst
case" analysis of adverse impacts to an individual
operator.
Assuming an estimated market value of $10.04
per AUM in the nine county ES area, it appears that
the value of livestock production foregone by the
12 operators included in Table 3-8 as a result of
the reduction in BLM AUMs would total approxi-
mately $18,213 ($10.04 x 1,814 AUMs). Using a
county specific market value per AUM (see Table
2-24), it is possible to determine the dollar value of
livestock production foregone by each operator at
implementation. The relationship of the following
dollar losses to total ranch revenues has not been
determined because no data are available on total
individual ranch income. Operators for allotments
0095 and 6214 (operator A) (see Table 3-8) would
experience an annual loss of livestock income in
excess of $3,000, but less than $4,000. Operators
on allotments 0009, 0036, 5663, and 6217 (opera-
tors A and B) would experience an annual loss of
3-31
5 3_
S8 «nS
CM
I
dP
dP
CN
dP OP
dp dp
dp
dP dp
cn r-
CO H
00
n **
<-\
I I
ro ro
1 1
ro
1
i i
■Sis
5
*°
0\°
c(P
dP
*>
o\o dP
o\° o\°
dP
dP dp
00
*tf
00
in
ro
•& 00
CT\ ro
00
ro ^
1
1
1
1
rH
1
rH
ro ro
1 1
ro
1
1 1
00
O
00
00
o
o o
o o
CN
o "=r
<£>
00
^r
00
00
•^J" IT)
o in
U\
o o
CN
r~
in
ca
<£>
ro (Ti
vo in
H
oo ro
00
iH
o\ 00
<0 CN
ro
in in
in
1
CN
1
00 l£>
CN
1 1
cn r-~
CN r-l
1 1
1
*3< 00
I i
o
H
rH
I
CN -d
00 o
CN
I I
CN
I
<£> CO
rH r—
I I
CN ^
ro oo
CN rH
I I
D m
o
00
ro
00
r^
00 CN
CTi CN
1^-
•^r
00 rH
cn r-^
CN
r~
CO ro
rH r-i
O
CN
(N
CN
in
r-i r^
ro O
O
r-
VO
1-
in
i£> o
CN <D
ro
CN
CN
m
00 ro
•-\ rH
CO CN
O T
r- cn
O 00
"* -H
in
oo
r- o
r~ oo
r-\ CO
in -a1
m ^
ro ro
ro r-
in cn
<-\ CN
■s
Jj1
■5
cn
$
!
"§ <c m
a < m
0
u
o
■3
i
s
S-i
s
S-I
§ Sh Sh
0 O 0
U 4-> 4-1
>1
g
o
CJ
m
id
(0 ca
<D
o
u
tu
M
Sh
-P ffl Cl)
8£&
C/]
■H
1
1
ft
cn
+J
t/)
Sh
rH
-P
4->
I
§
S
g
2
rd
O
•H
•H
CT\
<o
in
VD
ro
"3"
r~
o
ro
O-i
•^
^D
rH
■H
o
O
o
rH
kO
CN
CN
o
o
o
CN
in
VO
^O
gj
0)
o
0
•B
•H
PQ
1
^ ^
H
U
££
3-32
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
between $1,000 and $3,000. Operators for allot-
ments 2146, 6214 (operator B), 9755, 9761, and
9783 would all lose less than $1,000 per year.
Assuming that AMP objectives are met and addi-
tional AUMs become available within 15 years, only
one operator would experience a long-term loss of
over $3,000 per year, two operators would experi-
ence a loss of between $1,000 and $3,000, and
nine operators would have a loss of less than
$1,000.
These loss values are an estimate of the
income lost as a result of the reduction in BLM
AUMs. The basic assumptions in this analysis are:
(1) the market value of an AUM by county is accu-
rately reflected by a 6-year average of the quotient
of livestock receipts by county and livestock num-
bers (adjusted appropriately by type of animal), and
(2) losses are "potential" in the same sense that if
an operator's AUM level is reduced, he will lose the
opportunity to realize income from livestock produc-
tion on that parcel of land.
Additional analysis of the 10 allotments and 12
operators with a 25 percent or greater reduction
based on BLM grazing records, contacts with sev-
eral of the affected operators, the professional
judgment of BLM personnel familiar with the allot-
ments, and the dependency relationship shown in
Table 3-8 indicate that eight operators would most
likely be able to continue their livestock operations
with minimal disruptions. Several factors temper the
impact of the BLM AUM reductions for these oper-
ators. Many operators have not been actively using
all AUMs currently available through BLM license or
lease, and therefore the proposed reductions are
consistent with existing operator herd sizes. In
other cases, the reduction in AUMs on public lands
is not significant in terms of an individual's total
ranch operation. However, four operators may ex-
perience difficulty in maintaining an economically
viable livestock operation during initial phases of
implementation of the proposed action. These four
operators would be faced with the choices of sig-
nificantly reducing herd size, buying or leasing re-
placement AUMs in the form of land or supplemen-
tal feed, or stopping livestock operations and find-
ing alternate means of employment.
The expected 22,004 new AUMs of livestock
forage eventually generated through management
of the allotments would, however, be adding addi-
tional yearly income of $284,000 adjusted to 1980
dollars after the AMPs become fully operational.
This sum is still small, but would add 0.3 percent to
livestock personal income in the ES area counties
annually. This stimulus to the economy would add
$45,000 in secondary effects to total annual per-
sonal income in the ES area. Total measurable
economic growth from increased livestock income
would, in other words, amount to an annual in-
crease of 0.09 percent in the nine counties. The
improved range condition resulting from allotment
management would increase the amount of forage
available, and improve livestock health and condi-
tion. An additional unquantifiable amount of income
would be realized through higher fertility, lessened
mortality, and higher calf weights.
The construction expenditures created by gov-
ernment-sponsored range improvements would,
however, generate a more significant impact on
income. The construction of improvements would
inject additional personal income into the nine-
county area, amounting to $1,532,000 or a tempo-
rary increase of 14.3 percent of 1980 construction
income. Because the construction of range im-
provements is essentially a one-time expenditure
(although spread over four years) and much of the
new income would be spent outside the nine
county area, the secondary effect on the economy
of the ES area would be negligible, amounting to
only about $.01 for each dollar of construction
income.
The present value of the investment in improve-
ments has been measured against the present
value of the annual income increase, computed in
1980 dollars to the year 2000. When amortized out
to 2000, using a seven percent interest rate, the
investment outlay would equal $3.07 million, while
the total increase in income based on AUMs only,
would amount to $3.01 million. Thus, using only the
one measure of benefit, there would be about one
dollar return for each dollar invested. The applica-
tion of range improvements to improve the range-
lands in the ES area certainly has better investment
return than this figure (which was the only portion
that could be accurately quantified), because the
management program would also improve herd
health, resulting in lower mortality, higher fertility,
and increased calf weights for marketing; improve
watershed; and increase wildlife numbers.
Federal government-related income would also
increase. The 30 new employees that would be
required to implement the AMPs are expected to
continue to be employed into the future to help
carry the increased administrative load this man-
agement will require. In I980 dollars, this would be
an annual personal income for the ES area of
$357,000 (employee salaries), or an increase over
present levels of 2.3 percent. The total direct and
indirect effect on the economy would be a change
in personal income of $431,000 annually, or an
increase of 0.01 percent to the total nine county
economy.
Hunter/fisher days would probably not be great-
ly affected by AMP implementation. New forage
would be allocated to wildlife, but the increase in
3-33
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
wildlife is expected to be about eight percent
across the ES area (see Wildlife, Chapter 3). Rec-
reation projections do show a significant increase in
hunting pressure on the ES area, but these in-
creases would be a result of an increased hunting
population in areas outside the ES area, and would
not be attributable to changes in habitat condition.
The slight increases in game populations might be
a factor in attraction of hunters to the area, but is
not quantifiable because of the overwhelming influ-
ence of other factors, particularly population in-
crease outside of the ES area.
Employment
In 1980, total nine county area employment is
projected to be 31,443 without implementation of
the proposed action. This figure would rise to
31,558 under the proposed action, but the con-
struction portion of that employment increase would
be temporary.
There would be an employment increase of 30
in the livestock industry, and the federal govern-
ment also would employ an additional 30 people.
Because the livestock increases and additional gov-
ernmental administrative responsibilities would con-
tinue into the foreseeable future, these 60 additions
to the work force would be permanent.
The construction industry would support an ad-
ditional 48 workers. However, because this is a
one-time occurrence, this employment sector could
be expected to drop back to pre-implementation
levels following construction of the range improve-
ments. Construction is projected to occur over a
four-year period.
In addition, secondary effects of these primary
additions to income and employment would gener-
ate employment for 7 persons.
Employment related to recreation is difficult to
measure because little employment is directly relat-
ed to recreation activities such as hunting (i.e.,
guides and outfitters are a small portion of total
employment). Most recreation employment is in the
retail trade and service sectors, and as such is not
totally dependent on recreation. The increase in
such employment, due to potentially increased
hunting, would not be likely to exceed the small
increases in employment in other sectors.
The total employment effect of implementation
of the 3I8 AMPs would be small. The measurable
increase of 115 positions, including the temporary
construction employment, amounts to 0.3 percent
of projected total employment in I980. This effect is
particularly small when considering the large geo-
graphic area and many communities over which the
increase would be spread.
Social Conditions
Factors measuring social well-being include per-
sons per physician, education, population change,
change in number of farms, age distribution of the
population, unemployment, and family income (see
Chapter 2, Economic and Social Conditions, Table
2-26). Because only small changes in income and
employment are anticipated, the grazing manage-
ment program should have no measurable effect
on social well-being.
Equally, there should be little impact on public
finance and infrastructure. Implementation of the
AMPs will cause a very small initial drop in the
number of livestock supported by BLM land. The
amount (2,921 AUMs representing 243 animal
units) spread over nine counties, should cause no
significant loss of ranch value and, therefore, of tax
base. The eventual increase of livestock (22,004
AUMs representing 1,834 animal units) is also small
relative to total BLM AUMs (374,301), producing
little increase in taxable value of ES area ranches.
These small changes should have little effect on
county services, presented in Chapter 2, Social and
Economic Conditions, Table 2-29.
Socio-cultural attitudes can be expected to be
little affected by the proposed action. Because the
proposal projects both an increase in the amount of
livestock supported by the area and the amount of
wildlife habitat, it appears to be in agreement with
the prevailing local attitudes which show that
people support agricultural development and pres-
ervation of wildlife when it also permits livestock
grazing. There is some support for land use plan-
ning which is an element of the proposed action.
Some specific parts of the proposed action
appear to be counter to expressed attitudes. A
growing federal presence occasioned by the in-
creased grazing administration is counter to the at-
titude that government influence and planning
should be at the local government level, although
this increased federal action calls for range im-
provements, which most ranchers see as beneficial
to their grazing operations. Wildlife organizations
may be resistant to the amount and location of
some range improvements and vegetative manipu-
lation.
3-34
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Summary of Impacts to Economic and
Social Conditions
The short-term range related income loss from
the proposed program, an estimated $39,000, is
insigificant on a regional basis. Of the 400 opera-
tors dependent upon BLM AUMs, four of those with
significant reductions in AUMs are likely to experi-
ence difficulty maintaining an economic operation.
In these few cases, herd reductions or obtaining
supplemental grazing privileges or feed could be
required. Increased forage production when AMP
objectives are met would result in personal income
increases of $284,000. A 14 percent increase
($1,532,000) in short-term construction expendi-
tures would occur during development of the range
improvements. Increased government employment
of 30 people would add $431,000 annually to per-
sonal income in the ES area. There may be some
resistance to increased government involvement in
grazing on public lands; however, social conditions
would generally be unaffected.
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE
The proposed action would have no significant
adverse impact on land ownership. However, im-
pacts would occur to livestock grazing and wilder-
ness resources.
Livestock Grazing
The proposed action would initially adjust the
AUMs of licensed use on 96 allotments for a net
decrease of 2,921 AUMs. This adjustment would
result from an increase of 1,942 AUMs on 27 allot-
ments, a decrease of 4,863 AUMs on 69 allot-
ments, and no change on 222 allotments. Appendix
4 shows these initial adjustments, and Table 3-9
gives a summary of these adjustments by landform
and total ES area. This reduction would be short-
term, while the 15 year projection or long-term
would result in an increase of 22,004 AUMs.
The proposed action would change 66 allot-
ments covering 303,004 acres from yearlong graz-
ing to periodic grazing seasons with grazing sys-
tems. Present licensed use on these allotments
would be reduced by 369 AUMs for a short-term
impact. The projected 15 year or long-term in-
crease for these 66 allotments is 4,690 AUMs over
present licensed use.
There are 19 allotments covering 47,847 acres
which would remain under a yearlong operation, but
would have a deferred rotation or rest rotation graz-
ing system. The initial or short-term reduction would
be 55 AUMs while the long-term or 15 year project-
ed increase for these 19 allotments amounts to
2,371 AUMs.
There are nine allotments covering 23,957 acres
remaining under a yearlong grazing season. Imple-
mentation of the proposed action would reduce
these allotments by 18 AUMs for the short term.
The long-term projection within 15 years shows an
increase of 62 AUMs over present licensed use.
Table 3-10summahzes these changes on yearlong
operations by landform and the ES area.
Other major changes in use tend to occur in
spring and early summer use (3/1 to 6/30), and fall
and winter use (9/1 to 2/28). Table 3-11 shows
these changes by landform and ES area. The pro-
posed action would reduce spring and early
summer grazing by a net total of 28 allotments, for
99 weeks, on 96,522 acres for 938 AUMs. Fall and
winter use shows a net reduction of two allotments
for 31 weeks, but a net increase on 143,467 acres
for 2,089 AUMs. These reductions and increases
are not total losses or gains, but mostly shifting of
AUMs within time frames, on allotments and within
allotments, and on total acreages. While these
changes in use will adversely impact some live-
stock operations in the short-term, most of these
impacts will benefit these livestock operations over
the long-term of 1 5 years.
Livestock concentration will occur in use pas-
tures thus causing more competition and use of
palatable species and forced consumption of less
palatable species. Therefore, weight gains would be
lower in the short term. However, as palatable
forage production increases throughout the 15 year
long term, this impact would be reversed and
weight gains increased for a beneficial impact to
livestock. Deferral and rest of pastures at periodic
intervals would improve vegetation vigor and repro-
duction over the long term.
Improved forage production and conditions
when the proposed AMP objectives are met would
increase calf-lamb crop percentages, weight gains,
and weaning/selling weights. These increases
would vary from allotment to allotment.
The proposed increase of 22,004 AUMs within
15 years amounts to 1,834 animal units, or about 1
percent of the present animal units of the ES area.
Annual fluctuations in livestock numbers could
easily exceed this projected increase for the ES
area. These annual fluctuations could be caused by
prices of livestock, hay, grain crops, or by severe
climatic conditions.
3-35
TABLE 3-9
INITIAL ADJUSTMENTS IN LIVESTOCK AUMS
ROLLING
RIVER
ES
PLAINS
MOUNTAINS
BREAKS
TOTAL
No change
No. of allotments
Acres—''
139
4
79
222
773,164
8,073
527,476
1,308,713
Reductions
No. of allotments
32
1
36
69
AUMs
Acres—'
2,675
200,534
110
1,272
2,078
241,018
4,863
442,824
Increases
No. of allotments
11
2
14
27
AUMs
Acres—/
1,164
155,211
70
1,659
708
63,328
1,942
220,198
Net change (reduction or
increase)
No. of allotments
-21
+1
-22
-42
AUMs
-1,511
-40
-1,370
-2,921
Acres —'
-45,323
+387
-177,690
-222,626
— BLM acreage only
3-36
TABLE 3-10
CHANGES IN YEARLONG OPERATIONS
ROLLING
PLAINS
MOUNTAINS
RIVER
BREAKS
ES
TOTAL
Reduced season of use
Deferred Rotation System
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Seasonal System
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Rest Rotation System
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Total Reduced Season of Use
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Remaining yearlong operations
with grazing systems
20
0
7
27
27
0
+7
20
2,103
0
1,370
3,473
88,087
0
49,360
137,447
17
1
13
31
102
0
+25
77
262
0
477
739
40,951
716
44,949
86,616
5
0
3
8
+8
+8
288
272
316
8
154
478
26,259
0
52,682
78,941
42
1
23
66
121
+8
-256
369
2,681
8
2,001
4,690
155,297
716
146,991
303,004
Deferred Rotation System
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Seasonal System
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Rest Rotation System
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
Total remaining yearlong
operations
No. of allotments
Licensed use AUMs
Potential AUMs
Acres
13
0
4
17
10
0
45
55
1,769
0
487
2,256
9,563
0
29,872
39,435
4
0
5
9
0
0
18
18
61
0
1
62
14,276
0
9,681
23,957
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
115
0
0
115
8,412
0
0
8,412
19
0
9
10
0
63
1,945
0
488
32,251
0
39,553
28
73
2,433
71,804
3-37
TABLE 3-11
CHANGES IN SEASON OF USE
ROLLING
PLAINS
MOUNTAINS
RIVER
BREAKS
ES
TOTAL
SPRING AND EARLY SUMMER USE
Decrease in use from
3/1 to 6/30
No. of allotments
No. of weeks
Acres
Licensed AUMs
24
4
20
48
94
11
76
181
131,128
6,798
133,088
271,014
2,708
127
1,635
4,470
Increase in use from
3/1 to 6/30
No. of allotments
No. of weeks
Acres
Licensed AUMs
11
0
9
20
32
0
50
82
118,351
0
56,141
174,492
2,042
0
1,490
3,532
Net change in use from
3/1 to 6/30
No. of allotments
No. of weeks
Acres
Licensed AUMs
13
4
11
28
62
11
26
99
2,777
6,798
76,947
96,522
666
127
145
938
FALL AND WINTER USE
Decrease in use from
9/1 to 2/28
No. of allotments
18
2
16
36
No. of weeks
95
5
87
187
Acres
86,894
3,653
67,605
158,152
Licensed AUMs
3,011
42
1,297
4,350
Increase in use from
9/1 to 2/28
No. of allotments
No. of weeks
Acres
Licensed AUMs
23
0
11
34
82
0
74
156
216,612
0
85,007
301,619
4,013
0
2,426
6,439
Net change in use from
9/1 to 2/28
No. of allotments
No. of weeks
Acres
Licensed AUMs
5
2
5
2
13
5
13
31
+129,718
-3,653
+17,402
+143,467
+1,002
-42
+1,129
+2,089
3-38
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Wilderness
A 5,000 acre roadless area inventory and sub-
sequent identification of wilderness study areas has
not been completed. Without this information, an
identification of site-specific impacts to wilderness
values cannot be made. Prior to implementation of
any actions, the area would be inventoried and
impacts on potential or existing wilderness areas
would be assessed.
As an interim step, an impact analysis has been
made to determine which range management ac-
tions would impair an area's potential suitability for
wilderness consideration. For the most part, these
management actions involve range improvement
projects. In analyzing the potential impacts of these
projects, the key factor would not be the presence
of man-made features, but rather the extent of their
effect on the landscape. Range improvement pro-
jects would not automatically exclude an area from
wilderness consideration. Proposed projects would
be evaluated to determine their degree of contrast
with the existing environment and their impact on
the potential wilderness integrity of the area.
In general, the major impacts to wilderness
values created by the proposed action include (1)
visual impacts produced by surface structures, and
(2) a loss of wilderness integrity created by
changes in natural ecological processes (vegetation
manipulations, additional water sources, fencelines,
presence of livestock). Wilderness values would not
be permanently lost if a proposed range improve-
ment could be removed or a site rehabilitated.
Table 3-12 lists the proposed range improve-
ment projects and their Visual Resource Contrast
Ratings or Feature Scores (see Appendix 8 for a
description of the Visual Resource Contrast Rating
or Features Scores). Low, moderate, or high visual
impacts in wilderness study areas were determined
based on the feature score of each proposed proj-
ect (composite contrast rating). A feature score of
1-10 was given a low visual impact level and indi-
cates the contrast can be seen, but does not at-
tract attention. A moderate impact level, feature
score 11-20, indicates the contrast attracts atten-
tion~the contrast begins to dominate the character-
istic landscape. A feature score of 21-30, high
visual impact level, indicates the contrast demands
attention and will not be overlooked.
The other component used in the analysis of
impacts to wilderness values is a change in the
"wilderness integrity" of an area. A change in wil-
derness integrity refers to the extent to which
human influences have (1) altered natural ecologi-
cal processes away from conditions one might
expect had these influences not occurred, (2) ad-
versely affected opportunities for solitude, (3) ad-
versely impacted opportunities for primitive recrea-
tion, and (4) adversely influenced significant geo-
logical, scientific, educational, scenic, or historical
values. In determining what the impacts to wilder-
ness integrity would be, several components were
considered. These components include: (1) present
condition or status of the wilderness integrity in the
area, (2) evaluation of the impact of the proposal
on natural ecological processes, (3) the potential
for separating the impacted portion from the rest of
the area, (4) duration of the impact, (5) feasibility of
correcting or mitigating the impact, and (6) the ra-
tionale behind proposing the action.
The adverse impacts to wilderness integrity
were rated as low, moderate, or high (see Table 3-
13). For a "low" adverse impact, a range improve-
ment must leave the ecosystem operating in an
essentially natural manner. A range management
practice with a low impact must not adversely
impact the primitive recreational experience sub-
stantially. In addition, it must not increase the
chance of a person seeing another (a loss of soli-
tude). The range management must not be visible
from an area of geological or cultural interest. Once
placed in a wilderness study area, the improvement
would not require removal or separation of the im-
pacted area from the wilderness study area.
A "moderate" rating would be characterized by
alteration of the natural ecological processes to
some degree, but would basically leave the ecosys-
tem in a natural condition. Such range improve-
ments are artificial but could be easily removed or
possibly placed on or near the wilderness study
area boundary. The improvement might decrease
the quality of a primitive recreation experience or
degrade the opportunities for solitude. A moderate
impact range improvement could be visible from a
geological or cultural site, but would not significant-
ly impact the site or degrade recreational opportuni-
ties associated with the site.
The "high" adverse impact level would be unac-
ceptable in an area designated as a wilderness
study area. High adverse impacts would occur
when the natural processes are modified, resulting
in an unnatural condition. The presence of the im-
provement would be obvious to most and would not
be removable or separable from the rest of the
study area. The improvement could substantially
impact opportunities for solitude and could degrade
the primitive recreational experience. If the im-
provement were placed near or in view of an impor-
tant geologic or cultural site, the recreational values
of the site would be adversely impacted.
Generally, range management practices with
low adverse impacts to wilderness integrity would
be acceptable, practices with high ratings would be
3-39
TABLE 3-12
Visual Impact —
Wilderness Study Areas
Feature Score
Project
2/
Contrast Rating—
Visual
Impact Level
3/
Fence
10
Reservoir
13
Well
Artesian
10
Pump Type
14
Spring
10
Pipeline
9
Stock Water Tank
10
Cattleguard
10
Rainwater Catchment
10
Type IV Fence Crossing
10
Contour Furrowing
13
Plowing and Seeding
15
Sagebrush Spraying
13
Roads and Trails
11
Multiple Pasture Grazing Systems
15
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
1_/ See Appendix 8 for a discussion of the methodology used to determine
visual impacts.
2/ Maximum contrast rating = 30 (contrast rating after mitigation for
visual impacts).
3/ A contrast rating score of 1-10 represents a low visual impact level,
11-20 moderate visual impact level, and 21-30 high visual impact
level.
Source: Based on BLM Manual 6320.
3-40
TABLE 3-13
Wilderness Integrity Impact Levels
Project Impact Level
Fence Moderate
Reservoir Moderate
Well
Artesian Moderate
Pump-Type Moderate
Spring Moderate
Pipeline (buried) Low
Stock Water Tank Moderate
Cattleguard Low
Rainwater Catchment Moderate
Type IV Fence Crossing Low
Contour Furrowing High
Plowing and Seeding High
Sagebrush Spraying High
Roads and Trails
"Roads" High
Other (unbladed) Moderate
Multiple Pasture Grazing Systems Moderate
SOURCE: Recreation Specialist, ES Te
am
3-41
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
unacceptable, while those with moderate impacts
would require case-by-case evaluation.
Any range improvement projects found suitable
for placement in a wilderness study area or allowed
to remain in an area after wilderness designation
would result in a short term loss of wilderness
values in that area. This impact would be the most
severe at the time of construction and would con-
tinue for the life of the project.
The following discussion describes the potential
impacts to wilderness values resulting from imple-
mentation of the range management projects pro-
posed within the ES area.
Fences
If properly designed, fences would create mini-
mal visual impacts to the landscape. However, if
heavy machinery were used to clear a right-of-way
for the fenceline, wilderness values would be ad-
versely impacted both on a short term and long
term basis. Fences would be easily removable at a
reasonable cost if rehabilitation of the area was
required. Fences would fall within a low visual
impact level. A secondary impact of fence con-
struction would involve the potential production of
contrasts between the pastures on either side of
the fence. These contrasts would vary over time
depending on the grazing system used. Fences
would produce a moderate adverse impact to wil-
derness integrity because they would present haz-
ards and barriers to movement of wildlife, would be
normally quite visible due to fenceline contrasts,
and would be obviously man-made in origin.
Reservoirs
The major adverse impacts to wilderness values
would result from unnatural looking dams and
borrow pit areas at the reservoir site. Reservoirs
would be costly to rehabilitate and would require
the use of heavy machinery. Even with mitigation
for visual impacts, reservoirs would create a moder-
ate visual impact level. Reservoirs would also pro-
duce a moderate adverse impact to wilderness in-
tegrity because the improvement would not be
readily removable and would tend to encourage
livestock concentrations in previously unused
areas, which in turn would create impacts to natural
processes in the area.
structures, except the platform, could be easily re-
moved if required. Flowing artesian wells would pro-
duce a low visual impact level, but would create a
moderate impact level to wilderness integrity. Pump
type wells would require a larger above-ground
structure and would have a greater adverse impact
on wilderness values in an area. However, the
structures would be easily removed if required.
Pump type wells would produce a moderate visual
impact level in the rolling plains and riverbreaks
landforms and a low visual impact level in the
mountain landform areas. Wells would produce
moderate adverse impacts to wilderness integrity
because additional water sources would affect nat-
ural ecological processes.
Springs
Adverse impacts to wilderness values caused by
spring development would be minimal as the visual
impact level would be low and all above-ground
structures could be easily removed. Developed
springs would also produce moderate adverse im-
pacts to wilderness integrity by possibly redistribu-
tion of livestock resulting from placement of an
additional water source on the range.
Pipelines
If no leveling of the ground or clearing of vege-
tation for the pipeline right-of-way was needed to
facilitate the use of the mechanical trenching ma-
chine, the adverse impacts to wilderness values
would be minimal. If clearing must be done, ad-
verse visual impacts would be increased by the
unnatural line on the landscape. The wilderness
integrity of the area would be reduced. If the pipe-
line were placed on the surface, the short term
adverse visual impacts would be greater, but could
be easily mitigated, if needed, by removing the
pipe. Buried pipelines with no cleared right-of-way
would create a low visual impact level and a low
impact on wilderness integrity.
Cattleguards
Cattleguards would produce little adverse
impact to wilderness values. The visual impact level
would be low and the project could be easily re-
moved. Impacts to wilderness integrity would also
be low.
Wells
Flowing artesian wells would have little adverse
impact on wilderness values. All above ground
Rainwater Catchments
Although catchments would produce a moderate
visual impact, the project sites would be reasonably
3-42
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
easy to rehabilitate and the above ground struc-
tures could be easily removed. During the interim
management phase, rainwater catchments would
have a significant adverse impact on wilderness
values by producing a substantially noticeable intru-
sion on the landscape. A moderate impact on wil-
derness integrity would result from changes in the
natural ecological processes as a result of placing
an additional water source on the range, affecting
livestock distribution.
Type IV Fence Crossings
These projects would produce low visual impact
levels and would be easily removed; therefore, the
adverse impacts to wilderness values would be
minimal. Impacts to wilderness integrity would also
be low.
Contour Furrowing
Contour furrowing would create unnatural
ground features and would produce an unnatural
vegetation complex. Several years would be re-
quired for a contour furrowing project site to reha-
bilitate itself naturally. Because of this, short term
adverse impacts to wilderness values would be
substantial. Contour furrowing would produce a
moderate visual impact level and would not easily
lend itself to artificial rehabilitation. A high adverse
impact to wilderness integrity would result from im-
plementation of this action.
Plowing and Seeding
This vegetation manipulation practice would
substantially change the appearance of the treated
area by altering its natural vegetation complex.
Several years would be required for a plowing and
seeding project to rehabilitate itself naturally. Short
term adverse impacts to visual quality would be
substantial as illustrated by a moderate impact
level. Plowing and seeding would not easily lend
itself to artificial rehabilitation. A high adverse
impact to wilderness integrity would result from im-
plementation of this action.
Sagebrush Spraying
Sagebrush spraying would involve no ground
disturbance, but the appearance of the treated area
would be substantially changed as a result of re-
ducing the number of broadleaf plants (sagebrush,
forbs, etc.) and increasing growth of grasses. This
would produce short term adverse impacts to wil-
derness values as several years are required for a
sprayed area to rehabilitate itself naturally. The
treatment would create a moderate visual impact
level and would not easily lend itself to artificial
rehabilitation. A high adverse impact to wilderness
integrity would result from implementation to this
action.
Roads and Trails
Roads and trails would adversely impact wilder-
ness values in an area by producing unnatural lines
on the landscape. Development of a "road" would
disqualify an area from wilderness consideration
unless the new segments created by the road were
over 5,000 acres each. A high adverse impact to
wilderness integrity would result from construction
of a "road." Unbladed roads and trails would lend
themselves to both natural and artificial rehabilita-
tion. The visual impact level would be moderate for
roads and trails. A moderate adverse impact to
wilderness integrity would result from construction
of an unbladed road or trail.
Multiple Pasture Grazing Systems
The use of multiple pasture grazing systems
would adversely impact wilderness values by pro-
ducing unnatural lines on the landscape along fen-
celines between pastures as they are grazed. The
most obvious contrasts would develop between
rest and use pastures, and would be most evident
at the end of the grazing season. The use of multi-
ple pasture grazing systems would produce a mod-
erate visual impact level. The presence of livestock
would also adversely impact the wilderness integrity
of the area if domestic animals are considered un-
natural to the viewer. A moderate impact to wilder-
ness integrity would result from implementation of
these grazing systems.
Summary of Impacts to Land Use
Implementation of the proposed action would
increase stocking levels on 27 AMP allotments, de-
crease levels on 69 AMP allotments, and cause no
change on 222 AMP allotments. The overall initial
reduction from existing licensed use would be one
percent. Within 15 years, increased forage produc-
tion would result in a seven percent increase from
existing licensed livestock use. Sixty-six AMP allot-
ments would be converted from yearlong grazing to
periodic grazing seasons with grazing systems.
Nineteen AMP allotments would remain under year-
long operation but would implement deferred rest
or rest rotation grazing systems. Forty-eight AMP
3-43
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
allotments would have a reduction in livestock use
from 3/1 to 6/30 with 28 AMP allotments having an
increase in use during that time period. Although
some adjustments would be necessary for individu-
al livestock operators, these effects are not consid-
ered significant in the long term.
A 5,000 acre roadless area inventory and sub-
sequent identification of wilderness study areas has
not been completed. Without this information an
identification of site-specific impacts to wilderness
values cannot be made. Prior to implementation of
any actions which might affect wilderness values,
the ES area would be inventoried and impacts on
wilderness study areas would be assessed.
3-44
CHAPTER 4
MITIGATING MEASURES
CHAPTER 4
MITIGATING MEASURES
Mitigating measures presented in this chapter
would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts identi-
fied in Chapter 3. Mitigating measures are present-
ed by environmental component. If an environmen-
tal component does not appear, no mitigating
measures were considered necessary. All meas-
ures are considered feasible under existing technol-
ogy and are committed to by the Bureau of Land
Management if the proposed action is implement-
ed. A brief evaluation of the effectiveness and re-
sulting reduction in impacts follows each measure.
Mitigating measures included as an integral part of
the proposed action or which BLM must adhere to
due to law, regulation, or agency policy are includ-
ed in Chapter 1 and Appendix 3. A separate discus-
sion of appropriate monitoring programs is also in-
cluded in Chapter 4.
MITIGATING MEASURES
Water Resources
1. The soil characteristics and geologic setting of
reservoir sites would be evaluated to determine the
possibility of leakage that could produce saline
seeps below dams. Such evaluation could include
test drilling in shale formations to determine if
sandy beds would be exposed in the sides or bot-
toms of the reservoirs. If sandy beds are found,
relocation or sealing of the reservoir with bentonite
or other suitable material would be considered by
the District Manager or his authorized representa-
tive. This would reduce the occurrence of saline
seeps and a subsequent loss of productive range-
land.
2. Where shown to be necessary by hydrologic
investigation on a case-by-case basis, spring sites
would be protected through the use of manual
labor instead of a backhoe during construction or
the development of horizontal wells. This would sig-
nificantly reduce the possibility of loss of the spring.
Vegetation
3. Livestock would be restricted from vegetation
treatment sites (spraying, furrowing, plowing and
seeding) a minimum of one full growing season and
after seeds ripen the second growing season. This
would allow seedlings to become firmly established
prior to receiving grazing pressure and would pre-
vent the disturbance of bare soil. This measure
would reduce substantially the possibility of soil
loss prior to revegetation.
4. For ten allotments involving 80,053 acres and
including 46,388 acres of public land, long term
livestock forage projections included in proposed
AMPs exceed average potential forage productiv-
ity-based upon detailed soil inventory data-by
1,661 AUMs, or 18 percent. Before implementation,
these AMPs should be reevaluated and, where nec-
essary, adjustments made in livestock use levels.
This would insure that livestock stocking rates are
accurate.
5. Sixteen allotments which involve 112,148 acres
(57,874 acres of which are public land) have long
term livestock forage projections in the proposed
AMPs larger than potential forage productivity by
3,210 AUMs or 39 percent. Potential productivity
estimates for these allotments were based upon
general soil association data, with low reliability.
Detailed soil inventories for these areas should be
undertaken, and the subject AMPs then reevaluat-
ed. Such a reevaluation would insure proper live-
stock stocking rates.
6. Five additional allotments involving 38,114 acres,
including 18,845 acres of public land, have poten-
tial livestock forage productivity estimates based
upon general soil association data which are less
than the livestock forage projections included in the
AMPs. These, however, include greater than 10
percent of the AMP area in critical to severe ero-
sion condition. Before AMP implementation, de-
tailed soil inventories should be undertaken and the
AMPs reevaluated, with appropriate adjustments
made in livestock use levels. This would insure the
establishment of proper livestock stocking rates.
Wildlife
7. An interdisciplinary team including a wildlife bi-
ologist and soil scientist would be involved in deter-
mining the location, time of construction, and con-
struction stipulations for all proposed projects. This
would reduce the potential for negative impacts on
wildlife from these projects and increase the oppor-
tunity for wildlife habitat enhancement. For exam-
ple, such a team could relocate a reservoir from an
area where it would bring cattle into critical mule
deer habitat to an area not critical to mule deer and
4-1
MITIGATING MEASURES
where waterfowl islands could be economically
constructed.
8. Islands and/or waterfowl rafts would be con-
structed on new reservoirs and existing reservoirs
(where possible) on which the BLM resource area
wildlife biologist determines such structures would
lead to greater reproductive success for ducks or
geese. While water developments associated with
grazing systems generally benefit waterfowl, the re-
moval of residual vegetation by grazing and the
trampling of nests often reduce those benefits. This
measure would allow waterfowl to better take ad-
vantage of the benefits of reservoir construction.
Prehistoric and Historic Features
9. Prehistoric and historic sites would be avoided in
most cases because of four factors: (1) the project
areas probably have low site densities (less than
two sites per section), (2) most projects would dis-
turb relatively small acreages (no more than three
acres), (3) cultural site sizes are also relatively
small, averaging about one acre, and (4) the range
improvement projects normally could be relocated.
Exceptions to these cases are vegetation manipula-
tion projects where large areas would be disturbed
and relocation may not be possible.
1 0. Sites which cannot be avoided would be treated
in the following way. If the site contained significant
remains, it would be assumed that the site would
be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places. This would require consultation with
the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine
eligibility for the National Register, and would re-
quire comment from the President's Advisory Coun-
cil on Historic Preservation when the effect of the
project on the site is determined. If an adverse
effect on the site is determined, it may still be
recommended that the site be avoided and pre-
served. Nonavoidance would necesitate information
recovery, probably by excavation, at the site. A
finding of no adverse effect may still be made,
contingent upon complete excavation or other infor-
mation recovery techniques (Figure 4-.1). If "no ad-
verse effect" cannot be agreed upon, a memoran-
dum of understanding would be written with the
Advisory Council, to establish an acceptable level
of mitigation. These mitigating measures should
bring impacts to cultural features within an accept-
able level.
11. When no sites are found during inventory, but
prehistoric or historic material is encountered during
construction, operations would cease while the
BLM evaluates the material. If the material repre-
sents a significant site, it would be salvaged. Nor-
mally, an emergency excavation would occur to re-
cover as much cultural material as reasonably pos-
sible.
Visual Resources
12. Existing vegetation, draws, and other natural
screening would be used to reduce the visual im-
pacts of range improvement projects. Such screen-
ing would reduce the contrast between the project
and the surrounding landscape significantly.
13. All borrow material for construction of new
dams would be taken from below the high water
line. When the reservoir is full, this measure would
eliminate the unnatural appearing borrow site and
help reduce the overall visual impact of the project.
Recreation
14. Livestock grazing in specified high-use recrea-
tion sites along the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic
River would be controlled through fencing and/or
selective grazing. An intensive inventory of these
sites is underway. When these sites are identified,
the affected AMPs may require revision. This action
would eliminate many recreationist-livestock con-
flicts.
Wilderness
15. Only those range improvement projects or
range management practices with a low visual
impact level would be considered for implementa-
tion in a wilderness study area. Other projects or
practices with moderate or high levels would be
evaluated on their permanence, ease of removal or
rehabilitation, and the ability of the site to absorb
the impact. This would insure retention of wilder-
ness values in wilderness study areas.
16. Only those range improvement projects or
range management practices with a low or moder-
ate wilderness integrity impact level would be con-
sidered for implementation in a wilderness study
area. Moderate impact level projects would be eval-
uated on their permanance, ease of removal or
rehabilitation, and the ability of the site to absorb
the impact. This would insure that wilderness
values would be protected and the integrity of the
area maintained.
17. Contour furrowing, plowing and seeding, and
sagebrush spraying would not be allowed in a wil-
4-2
* •«*»
-ij&fo
f**.4k-
**9$
«RfsiN*.
(a) crew performing inventory on potentially impacted site
(b) excavation of an archaeological site
4 I
Figure 4-1 Mitigating measures applied in archaeology
SOURCE:
Leslie B. Davis, Department of Sociology, Montana State University.
4-3
MITIGATING MEASURES
derness study area based on the definition of "wil-
derness" in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of
1964. This would prevent the loss of wilderness
integrity and visual values which would exclude the
area from wilderness consideration.
18. Construction of new roads requiring scraping,
blading, or clearing of vegetation would not be al-
lowed in a wilderness study area. A "road" would
disqualify that area for possible "wilderness" desig-
nation.
STUDIES AND MONITORING
PROGRAMS
1. Erosion condition would be monitored. Mainte-
nance of lands presently in stable and slight ero-
sion condition (1,657,327 acres or 55 percent of
the AMP acreage), and progress of improvement in
erosion condition within the remaining acreage
would be measured. Measurement of improvement
in areas presently in critical to severe erosion con-
dition (56,767 acres) is particularly important. De-
pending upon demonstrated results, AMPs would
be revised to implement additional grazing manage-
ment and range improvements. Consideration of in-
dividual soil capabilities and limitations as deter-
mined from updated soil surveys would be essen-
tial.
2. Those allotments grazed at the same time each
year would be closely monitored to assure that the
range condition is not deteriorating.
3. On the 95 allotments where seasonal grazing is
prescribed, the range condition and trend will re-
quire diligent monitoring. If any of the seasonal
allotments are found to be deteriorating, an inten-
sive management system would need to be imple-
mented immediately. Further, any increase or de-
crease in AUMs from the current licensed use must
be accompanied with an EAR with current condition
and trend data.
4. Riparian habitats would be inventoried and their
importance to wildlife evaluated in each resource
area within two years following issuance of the doc-
ument in final form. Through the MFP process the
more important of such habitats would be identified
and recommendations made. AMP revisions would
then be made to protect those areas from grazing
in accordance with the MFP. This protection would
significantly benefit many wildlife species, particu-
larly non-game birds and white-tailed deer, that
depend on riparian habitats. According to Hormay
(1976), "Vegetation in certain areas such as mead-
ows and drainageways are invariably closely utilized
under any stocking rate or system of grazing. Such
use may be detrimental to wildlife, aesthetic or rec-
reational, or other values. Where this is the case,
about the only way to preserve values is to fence
the area off from grazing; reducing livestock or ad-
justing the grazing season will not solve such a
problem."
5. Where significant prehistoric or historic sites are
known to be impacted by livestock trampling, those
sites would be monitored on at least an annual
basis to measure the amount of destruction occur-
ring. If sites are being destroyed, measures (such
as fencing) would be implemented to halt the
impact.
6. Construction of range improvement projects al-
lowed within a wilderness study area should be
monitored to insure compliance with the previously
described mitigating measures and give on-site as-
sistance in insuring the least amount of adverse
impact to potential wilderness values in the area.
4-4
CHAPTER 5
RESIDUAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
CHAPTER 5
RESIDUAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
This chapter addresses those impacts that
would remain after application of the mitigating
measures from Chapter 4.
SOILS
Because grazing management provisions in the
proposed action would reduce livestock grazing im-
pacts on soils and watershed in the long term by
an average 7 percent, no residual adverse impacts
would be anticipated from these measures.
Erosion losses from land disturbance due to
construction of range improvements and water de-
velopments total 38,086 tons. Contour furrows
would reduce existing erosion losses by 1,690 tons,
resulting in a net residual adverse watershed
impact of erosion losses amounting to 36,396 tons
of soil.
Lands disturbed for water developments (1,352
acres) would be permanently removed from forage
production. Additional lands surrounding these de-
velopments, but not presently quantified, would ex-
perience accelerated erosion due to increased live-
stock grazing and trampling. These latter adverse
impacts should be outweighed by the reduction in
such watershed damage along present drainage
bottoms and adjacent to other present water
sources (approximately 543,300 acres for the total
ES area allotment acreage).
WATER RESOURCES
Withdrawal of water from new wells and devel-
opment of springs would remove an insignificant
amount of water from the aquifers. Wells that would
tap artesian aquifers, if controlled, would not lower
the artesian pressure surface noticeably, and re-
charge to water-table aquifers would normally
exceed potential withdrawals. Interception of pre-
cipitation by rainfall catchment basins would have
no measurable effect on ground water. Surface ma-
nipulation, by increasing potential infiltration, would
increase potential recharge for a short time. After
new vegetation became established, however, re-
charge to the aquifers would be almost the same
as it is at present.
Peak discharge could be reduced if the flood
events that produce them would occur when receiv-
ing reservoirs were empty or only partly full. A pos-
sible unavoidable impact of peak discharge would
be the washing out of the dam or spillway when
reservoirs are full. Localized flooding, whose magni-
tude would depend on the shape and vegetal cover
of the stream valley below the dam, would be a
possible consequence. The valley would be sub-
jected to rapid short-lived erosion, and the acquired
sediment would be deposited over an indeterminate
distance downstream.
If reservoirs would be built in sandy shale, leak-
age may carry soluble material from the shale and
form new saline seeps downstream from the reser-
voir.
The proposed reservoirs would each accumu-
late silt and (or) clay; eventually, they could
become filled to the extent that they would no
longer be effective water retention facilities. Reser-
voirs below easily eroded barren shale beds could
become useless in 1 5 to 20 years; reservoirs below
thickly grassed sandy slopes may contain water for
scores of years.
VEGETATION
Short-term unavoidable impacts from the loss of
forage production on 15,339 acres of sprayed, con-
tour furrowed, and plowed and seeded lands would
occur. Within two to three years, these lands would
be producing more forage than before treatment,
and in several additional years would have more
than compensated for the lost productivity.
Long-term unavoidable impacts would occur on
about 1,900 acres. These acres would be perma-
nently removed for the life of the project where
range improvements such as wells, reservoirs,
stock tanks, and other water developments are pro-
posed.
There are 72 AMPs, constituting approximately
604,000 acres, in which seasonal grazing would be
continued. There are also about 30,000 acres of
unallotted lands, and 251,000 acres of public lands
within allotments where no AMPs are proposed. As
no change in current grazing practices is projected
on this acreage, it will continue to be grazed as it is
now. This in most cases involves season-long or
continuous spring use which would adversely affect
5-1
RESIDUAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
plant vigor, reproduction, seedling establishment,
litter accumulation, and soil stability.
Vegetation would be destroyed by construction
equipment working on the range improvements.
This short-term loss would be on equipment stor-
age sites, temporary access roads, and the immedi-
ate area around the construction sites.
WILDLIFE
The more uniform grazing pressure that would
be made possible by the water developments and
fencing that are part of the proposed action would
cause reductions in sharp-tailed grouse and mule
deer populations by removing residual cover and
browse species that otherwise would not be grazed
by livestock. These reductions cannot be quanti-
fied, but would be significant locally.
Successional advancement (i.e., from fair to
good range condition class) would cause declines
in some species of small mammals and non-game
birds which prefer early successional stages. For
example, changes that involve increased vegetation
cover would reduce deer mouse populations.
Approximately 10 to 30 big game animals
(mostly mule deer) would die annually from entan-
glement with the proposed 551 miles of additional
fences.
Over 90 percent of the proposed sagebrush
spraying and plowing and seeding would have sig-
nificant local negative impacts on sage grouse and
mule deer. Some negative impacts to antelope from
these treatments and contour furrowing are also
possible.
Unavoidable adverse impacts to riparian habi-
tats would continue for at least two years until
inventory and protection can be initiated.
No negative impacts on endangered species are
anticipated. If any endangered species such as per-
egrine falcons or black-footed ferrets are observed
in the ES area, all necessary steps to protect them
including consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service would be taken.
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC
FEATURES
The application of mitigating measures in the
form of thorough inventory and avoidance of sites
which would be affected by range improvement
projects would eliminate many impacts to prehistor-
ic or historic sites.
Where avoidance of sites is not possible, some
residual adverse impacts would occur. The advance
planning and careful excavation of sites that would
otherwise be destroyed would contribute informa-
tion to the archaeological or historical record. How-
ever, archaeological methods are constantly being
improved, and those excavated sites would repre-
sent an irretrievable resource commitment in that
the opportunity would be lost to study the sites with
any newly developed archaeological techniques.
All allotments are not likely to be inventoried for
prehistoric and historic sites within the next five or
ten years. The impacts from livestock trampling
therefore could not be mitigated until those sites
were actually located. This could cause loss of val-
uable cultural information.
Any buried cultural material found in the course
of construction work would probably be adversely
impacted. The nature of archaeological excavation
is such that slow, painstaking work is required to
recover all possible information. Emergency exca-
vation in a short timeframe, necessitated to mini-
mize construction delays, would probably mean that
all information would not be recovered to the extent
possible with present archaeological knowledge.
Also, these sites could not be restudied with im-
proved methods. It is not known, however, if any
prehistoric or historic sites would be affected in this
way.
VISUAL RESOURCES
Residual adverse impacts were identified by in-
corporating the mitigating measures developed in
Chapter 4 into the proposed action and then
making another contrast rating on the proposed
range improvement projects similar to that done in
Chapter 3. Table 5-1 displays a summary of this
rating. The contrast ratings are indicative of the
intensity of the residual impacts and will define in
which VRM classes the proposed range improve-
ment projects meet VRM objectives.
Regardless of how successful the mitigating
measures are, there would still be some modifica-
tions to the basic elements resulting in unavoidable
visual impacts to the ES area as a result of imple-
menting the proposed action. These adverse im-
pacts are a direct result of constructing additional
range improvements and implementing multiple
pasture grazing systems.
5-2
I
m
W
XI
cn
•P
u
n)
0-
e
H
0)
P.
<u
>
(0
•H
w
<u
en
cu
u
n
o
en
(0
W
•H
>
>
H
cn en
cu en
en to
en rH
rtj CJ
rH
u
rH H
QJ P H
> C H
<D cu
J 6 en
eu en
U 05 rH
nJ c u
H
eu h
t? O H
C P
•H 3 W
P O en
rH en iC
3 C rH
en tf u
eu
Pi rH
«J
G H
en
•h en
> en
u
5 2
3 3
CD
G
•H
cn P
c fd
•H (25
+J
rH P
3 en
en nJ
P
-P
c
o
u
in
QJ
p
CO
g
Cn
C
•H
P
03
CP
•H
P
•H
2
O
•H
IW
-H
U
eu
ft
w
o
5
o
PI
X
5
3
£
5
X
Cn
-H
X
•H
en
en
O
a,
eu
p
eu
Xi
eu
O
u
4-1
C
eu
eu
p
ej
co
eu
u
G
eu
i
rH P
■H (0
X P
a3 eu
X Cn
eu eu
P >
eu
E P
O
P rH
C
eu eu
a; c
03 -H
P rH
eu P
XI eu
p
T3 03
H
eu o X
X X Cn TS
n-i -h en en -n 3
x to
p
cn a
c 3
•H
N en
(0 03
P eu
Cn P
03
X (0 eu H
nj h £
eu
3
c
o
-H
ej P
X o3
W P
p p p
en eu
eu P 5
m o
C E -H
eu eu
cu S X
XI o
p
p
o
en
en
03
rH
u
E >
en p o
aj O P G
x m »p -h
p
-H
O
>
P
0)
en
eu
? S ? |
3 3 5 3
o o
PI PI
O <tf
3 3
X!
S Cn 5
O -H O
hi K J
3
Q
PI
cn
eu eu
XI
•H
en
en
O
ft
eu
p
cu
3
(U
E
o
p
14-1
G
CU
CU
p
CJ
in
eu
c ft
03 >i
-H P
cn i
eu ft
cn P g
rH p 3
rH < CM
cn
cn
O
ft
eu
p
eu
X!
cu
•H
>
E
o
p
lp
a
cu
eu
p
u
co
X!
-H
en
en
O
ft
eu
p
cu
X
cu
-H
>
E
O
P
4-1
G
CD
eu
p
CJ
3
5
3
X! X
X
.
X
Cn Cn
Cn
T3
Cn
■p -P
■H
O
-H
PC ffi
53
g
X
0)
rH
X!
•H
en
en
O
ft
cu
p
cu
X
QJ
•H
>
o
p
4-1
G
CU
cu
p
CJ
to
eu
Cn
c
•H
P
ft
CO
CU T3
a cu
-P -H
rH P
CU 3
ft X
•H — '
CM
P
cu
P
03
X
CJ
3 3
2 5
3 3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
o
i-5
5
O
PI
o
pi
X!
X
X
X
0
PI
5
3
Cn
•H
5
O
XI
0
pi
Cn
•H
cn
■H
cn
•H
X X
Cn Cn
•h -H
m
CU
c
o
2
X
•H
en
cn
O
ft
eu
P
cu
I
cu
■H
>
E
O
P
4-1
c
<U
cu
p
CJ
CO
X
cn
-H
X
Cn
-H
X
Cn
X
Cn
•H
X
Cn
•H
in
cu
c
o
2
c
o
2
CU
C
o
2
0)
G
O
2
CU
G
O
2
O 03
P Eh
CO
en
TS
p
ro
3
Cn
cu
■H
p
P
03
CJ
p
P C
CD CU
P E
03 X
S ej
G P
•H 03
03 U
K
O
G
CU
IP Cn
G
>
H
cu
•H
CO
CO
O
ft P
>i u
Eh
Cn
d
•H
o
p
p
3
(P
c3
Cn
Cn c
C
•P
o
rH
a.
T3
cu
cu
co
X
IS)
p
p
X
cu
Cn ft
03 co
co
cn
c
•H
P
I
N
03
P E
O eu
p
cu en
rH p >.
ft d w
•H P
P en cn
H U C
3 ft H
CU
>1
Cn
O
rH
O
T3
O
X
P
cu
E
P
O
4-1
00
■s
(U
ft
<
cu
cu
CO
o
n
cn
G
•H
P
03
Pi
P
en
tO
P
P
c
o
u
E
a
E
■H
X
03
S
5-3
RESIDUAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
RECREATION
In riparian areas and along shoreline areas
where livestock grazing is allowed, impacts to hunt-
ing and fishing opportunities associated with ad-
verse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat would con-
tinue.
Conflicts between sport shooting enthusiasts
and livestock would continue on the public lands
within grazing allotments, presenting shooting haz-
ards to livestock.
Any fencing done along the Upper Missouri Wild
and Scenic River to reduce recreationist/livestock
conflicts would present visual intrusions adversely
impacting the visual resource, reducing scenic
values.
Vegetation manipulation practices would have
residual adverse impacts on scenic values by creat-
ing unnatural contrasts on the landscape.
Any range improvements placed on the public
lands where they can be viewed by recreationists
would produce visual intrusions adversely impacting
the visual resource, reducing scenic values.
In areas along the Upper Missouri Wild and
Scenic River where livestock grazing is allowed,
potential livestock/recreationist conflicts would
exist or continue.
Fence construction would create residual ad-
verse impacts to cross-country travel by off-road
vehicles and snowmobiles by producing hazards
and barriers to movement.
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONDITIONS
Impacts were determined to be so small that no
mitigating measures were suggested. Many of the
impacts would be beneficial. However, at least two
areas show slight adverse impacts that would not
be mitigated.
First, licensed livestock grazing levels would be
reduced slightly following implementation of the
proposed action. The personal income loss of
$39,000 would not be spread evenly among the
nearly 400 operators, and could cause economic
hardship to the operators of as many as 10 AMPs
(3.1 percent). However, the full implementation of
AMPs would increase licensed use to above pres-
ent levels.
Second, socio-cultural attitudes show that impo-
sition of federal government regulations is met with
some resentment. Although government interfer-
ence would be somewhat mitigated by the pro-
posed action's effects not being outside the prevail-
ing local attitudes, some resentment of the govern-
ment's imposed management regulation would
probably be present.
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE
No significant residual adverse impacts would
occur to land ownership.
Livestock Grazing
Net reduction of about 3,000 AUMs would be
imposed upon implementation of the proposal.
Sixty-nine allotments are scheduled for AUM cuts,
while 27 allotments would receive increases.
Wilderness
Residual adverse impacts to wilderness values
would result from the implementation of any pro-
posed range improvement project found acceptable
for placement in a wilderness study area. The mag-
nitude and significance of these impacts is un-
known because a wilderness inventory has not
been completed on the ES area. Visual contrasts
would be increased or changed and wilderness in-
tegrity in an area could be lost. Table 5-2 displays
possible residual impacts to wilderness values in
the ES area. If a project is removed after a wilder-
ness study area is designated as "wilderness," the
residual adverse impact becomes zero. Projects ac-
ceptable within a designated "wilderness" would
continue to display those residual impacts shown in
Table 5-2. Range improvement projects not allowed
in a wilderness study area would also have a resid-
ual adverse impact of zero.
Intensities of the residual impacts in a specific
wilderness study area would depend on the charac-
teristics of the site. Determinations must be done
on a case-by-case basis to avoid problems with
over-generalizations.
5-4
TABLE 5-2
Residual Adverse Impacts to Wilderness Values
(Within Wilderness Study Areas)
Project
Fence
Reservoir
Well
Flowing
Pumped
Spring Development
Pipeline (buried)
Stock Water Tank
Cattleguard (project not allowed)
Rainwater Catchment
Type IV Fence Crossing
Contour Furrowing (project not
allowed)
Plowing and Seeding (project not
allowed)
Sagebrush Spraying (project not
allowed)
Roads and Trails
"Roads" (project not allowed)
Other (unbladed) roads and trails
Multiple Pasture Grazing Systems
Wilderness
Project-
Visual
Integrity
Potentially
Impact Level
Impact Level
Removable
Low
Moderate
Yes
Moderate
Moderate
No
Low
Moderate
Yes
Moderate
Moderate
Yes
Low
Moderate
Yes
Low
Low
No
Low
Moderate
Yes
Low
Low
Yes
Moderate
Moderate
Yes
Low
Low
Yes
Moderate
High
No
Moderate
High
NO
Moderate
High
No
Moderate
High
Yes
; Moderate
Moderate
Yes
Moderate
Moderate
Yes
1/ Refers to those projects economically and technically feasible to
remove. After removal, resulting residual impact would be zero.
Source: Recreation Specialist, ES Team
5-5
CHAPTER 6
SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
CHAPTER 6
SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
This chapter analyzes the trade-offs between
short-term use and long-term productivity of individ-
ual resources involved in the proposal. For this
purpose, the short term is the four-year implemen-
tation time period, which is required to put the graz-
ing management program into full operation. All
scheduled activities would be in progress and phys-
ical range improvements would be in place. Long
term refers to the year 2000, by which time the 15
year objectives of the AMPs would be achieved.
Saline seeps could develop below reservoirs placed
in sandy shale beds. The seeps would produce a
long-term loss of productivity in localized areas,
generally not exceeding .1 acre per reservoir, or 44
acres for the ES area.
VEGETATION
SOILS
Short-term land disturbance involving 17,244
acres in range improvements and water develop-
ments would remove this acreage for the projected
four years of implementation and result in a net
erosion loss of 36,396 tons of soil.
Long-term watershed improvement is estimated
at an average of 7 percent, i.e., 7 percent of the
present acreage within each erosion class (slight,
moderate, critical, and severe) is projected to im-
prove to the next better condition class. Erosion
condition improvement would reduce land area
presently in critical or severe erosion condition by
18,245 acres. Sedimentation for the total ES area
allotment acreage would be reduced by 185,729
tons annually.
Although areas surrounding the 1,352 acres of
water developments would experience increased
livestock trampling damage and acceleration of
geologic erosion by amounts not presently quanti-
fied, a total reduction in such livestock impacts on
soils and watershed would be experienced on
543,300 acres surrounding present drainage bot-
toms and other present water sources.
WATER RESOURCES
Impacts of the proposed action on the long-term
productivity of water resources would be minor.
Added use of ground water would not be notice-
able. Storage from peak flows and annual runoff in
reservoirs would scarcely be measurable. Evapora-
tion from the 436 new reservoirs and the stock
tanks would account for about 5,300 acre-feet of
water per year throughout the life of the structures.
Short-term adverse impacts which may result in
a decline in vegetation condition over part of an
allotment each year due to critical period grazing
would be more than offset by the beneficial short-
term impacts resulting from periods of rest. Long-
term beneficial impacts would occur from the cumu-
lative effects of the proposed grazing systems.
The vegetation resource would improve in the
long term. The proposed grazing systems would
improve range condition and productivity with a pro-
jected increase of about 617,000 acres of excellent
condition range by the year 2020, and a decrease
of about 6,000 acres of poor condition range. Also,
by the year 2000 there is an anticipated increase of
about 24,000 additional AUMs of forage. Construc-
tion of the proposed range improvements would
remove about 17,300 acres from production in the
short term, while in the long term approximately
2,000 acres of forage would be permanently re-
moved for the life of the project.
WILDLIFE
The short-term use of forage and other re-
sources as dictated by the proposed action would
increase slightly the long-term overall wildlife pro-
ductivity of the public lands within the ES area.
Anticipated forage increases could increase general
wildlife populations as much as 6 percent. In addi-
tion, the 436 new reservoirs would benefit many
species of wildlife, particularly waterfowl and other
species dependent on aquatic habitats. However,
local productivity losses would occur, for example,
in areas where water developments bring livestock
into important wildlife habitats that previously were
ungrazed or lightly grazed. Some of the proposed
contour furrowing and plowing and seeding would
result in long-term productivity losses for antelope,
sage grouse, and other species. In other areas
6-1
SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
these treatments would increase overall wildlife
productivity.
would benefit most recreational activities in the ES
area over the long term.
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC
FEATURES
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
If 54 archaeological sites or an unknown
number of historical sites are impacted, only short-
term use could be made of the sites. Long-term
productivity would be limited because the sites
would be excavated and then destroyed by con-
struction of the range improvement. The informa-
tion contained in the sites would not be completely
lost, because records of the excavation would be
preserved. However, the sites could not be restu-
died, using later advances in archaeological or his-
torical methodology. On the other hand, most im-
pacts could be avoided by relocating range im-
provements (see Chapter 4, Mitigating Measures).
In this case, no long term productivity would be
lost.
Overall impacts to economic and social condi-
tions by the proposed action would be negligible.
Increases in personal income would amount to 0.6
percent as measured from the 1980 base in the
short term. This percentage reflects the immediate
reduction in livestock expenditures offset by the
increases in construction expenditures to imple-
ment the proposed AMPs. Over the long term,
income changes from the 1980 base would total
0.3 percent annually. Employment would increase
0.5 percent during the period 1980 to 1983, but
would average only 0.2 percent the long run.
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE
VISUAL RESOURCES
Livestock Grazing
Implementation of the proposed action would
create short-term disruptions to visual quality in the
ES area due to soil and vegetation disturbances
and visual contrasts created between rest and use
pastures.
Over the long term, soil and vegetation condi-
tions would improve and diminish short-term im-
pacts. Extensive scarring of soil and rock caused
by range management activities would be difficult to
rehabilitate and would be visible for several years.
Any range improvement projects which would pro-
duce significant visual contrasts with the natural
landscape would present long-term adverse im-
pacts to the visual resource throughout the life of
the project.
RECREATION
Implementation of the proposed action would
create short-term impacts to recreational sightsee-
ing activities by placing intrusions on the landscape
(range improvement projects). These impacts would
be most severe during the construction phases.
Improvements in soil and vegetation conditions
In the short term, livestock grazing use will be
reduced by 2,899 AUMs or less than 1 percent of
the current licensed use. Long-term productivity will
increase by 22,004 AUMs or 7 percent of the cur-
rent licensed use. Numbers of allotments and live-
stock operators are expected to remain relatively
stable during the short term as well as the long
term.
Wilderness
Short-term adverse impacts to wilderness integ-
rity and wilderness scenic values would result from
placement of range improvement projects and im-
plementation of the proposed grazing systems in
the ES area. Over the long term, expected improve-
ments in soil and vegetation resulting from imple-
mentation of the proposed action would enhance
wilderness values by somewhat decreasing short-
term adverse impacts. Those short-term adverse
impacts to wilderness values associated with range
improvement projects would continue into the long
term, decreasing slightly over time.
6-2
CHAPTER 7
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
CHAPTER 7
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES
This chapter identifies the extent to which the
proposed action would irreversibly curtail the poten-
tial uses of the land and resources. In this context
the term irreversible is defined as incapable of
being reversed. Once initiated, use would continue.
The term irretrievable means irrecoverable; not rea-
sonably retrievable; once used, it is not replace-
able.
SOILS
Disturbance of 17,244 acres in range improve-
ments would result in the net irretrievable erosion
loss of 36,396 tons of soil. Lands permanently
committed to water developments (1,352 acres)
would also be irretrievable.
gained if the management decision were made to
allow restoration of the original environmental con-
ditions. Local and/or temporary losses to wildlife
populations, for example, from reservoir construc-
tion or sagebrush spraying would be irretrievable.
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC
FEATURES
Excavation or destruction of prehistoric sites
would be irretrievable resource commitments. No
further information beyond what was collected
before destruction or during excavation could be
obtained in the future. Historic sites would be simi-
larly affected.
WATER RESOURCES
VISUAL RESOURCES
Consumptive use of water by livestock, transpir-
ation of water by plants, and evaporation of water
from reservoir surfaces would be irretrievable and
essentially irreversible losses.
VEGETATION
Any permanent scarring of surface soil, rock,
erosional patterns, or geologic features as a result
of implementation of the proposed action would
create irretrievable losses in the visual quality of
the ES area. Any range improvement projects
which intrude on the natural landscape would pro-
duce irretrievable commitments of the visual re-
source during the life of the project.
Irreversible commitments of the vegetation re-
source as a result of the proposed action would
include that land removed from productivity by the
installation of various projects, such as wells and
stock tanks, while irretrievable commitments of the
vegetation resource would be limited to those indi-
vidual plants lost during construction of the various
projects.
RECREATION
Any displacement of wildlife, increased live-
stock/ recreationist conflicts, or restriction of move-
ment for recreationists would result in an irretriev-
able loss of opportunities.
WILDLIFE
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
The proposed action would not result in any
long-term irreversible commitments of wildlife re-
sources. The basic productivity of the soil would
generally be retained and local losses, for example,
to antelope from sagebrush spraying could be re-
Over a short time period, the capital and labor
invested in construction of range improvements
would be irretrievably committed. Also the fossil
fuels used by construction equipment, and materi-
als such as well casing that cannot be salvaged,
7-1
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
represent an irretrievable resource commitment.
The amount of labor, materials, and capital involved
would be small, relative to the total for the counties
in which the work would be done.
LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE
Livestock Grazing
The proposed action does not totally commit
the grazing resource. All AMPs do have provisions
for revision and updating. Monitoring of AMPs will
provide a basis for revisions and/or adjustments.
Wilderness
Each range improvement project and range
management activity would be analyzed for adverse
impacts to wilderness values, and only those activi-
ties which would not result in a permanent loss of
these values which would be allowed in a wilder-
ness study area. No irretrievable losses of wilder-
ness values are anticipated in the ES area as a
result of the proposed action. A temporary irretriev-
able commitment of wilderness values would occur
as a result of implementation of any range improve-
ment project found acceptable in a wilderness
study area or in a designated wilderness area
during the life of that project.
7-2
CHAPTER 8
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
CHAPTER 8
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter presents four alternatives to the
proposed action. These alternatives include (a)
continuation of the Bureau of Land Management's
present grazing program (no action), (b) elimination
of livestock on public lands, (c) reduced levels of
livestock use, and (d) livestock forage maximiza-
tion. A summary of major comparison factors for
each alternative is presented in Table 8-1. Compari-
son factors have been quantified when practical.
Where change is discussed in narrative form, the
reference point for determining change is the exist-
ing situation. Implementation phase refers to the
period 1980-1984 when the proposed grazing man-
agement program would be initiated. Table 8-1 dis-
plays comparative changes so the reader and the
decisionmaker can determine the relative impact of
each alternative compared to the existing situation
and the proposed action.
The following discussion provides a more de-
tailed impact analysis for each alternative.
ALTERNATIVE A:
CONTINUATION OF THE
PRESENT GRAZING
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: (NO
ACTION)
Description
This is the "no action" alternative and proposes
continuation of the present grazing management
program. The existing level of livestock use would
remain unchanged (294,401 AUMs for AMP areas
and 57,896 AUMs for non-AMP areas). No new
range improvements would be constructed; howev-
er, existing range improvements would be main-
tained. This alternative assumes continued oper-
ation of the 52 existing AMPs within the ES area.
No revisions would be made to existing AMPs. Al-
though the BLM had initiated approximately five
AMPs per year in the ES area from 1965 through
1975, this trend would not continue. Additional
maintenance dollars and manpower for range use
studies and supervision would be necessary before
additional AMPs could be implemented and moni-
tored efficiently. Therefore, this alternative assumes
implementation of no new AMPs. This alternative
assumes continued licensing of livestock use at
present levels on all non-AMP allotments. In addi-
tion, unallotted status on approximately 30,612
acres of public land would continue. Trespass con-
trol through range use supervision would continue.
Present levels of manpower and funding would
remain unchanged.
Soils
With continuation of the Bureau of Land Man-
agement's present grazing program, watershed
conditions would decline. Livestock trampling in-
duced compaction conditions with decreases in
water infiltration and available water capacity -
presently rated as fair overall, and poor in major
drainage bottoms and near present water develop-
ments-would deteriorate slightly over the long
term.
Five percent downward shifts from present ero-
sion condition class acreages also would be reflect-
ed (see Table 8-1). Lands in critical to severe con-
dition, presently estimated at 278,487 acres, would
increase to approximately 329,779 acres.
Sedimentation in ES area streams also would
experience an average increase of five percent, up
132,6673 tons from the present 2,653,259 tons.
Arrow Creek, especially, would continue to contrib-
ute significant sediment loads to the Missouri River
drainage into Fort Peck Reservoir.
Trail incision would continue, at rates not pres-
ently quantified by monitoring.
Of all alternatives considered, continuation of
the present grazing program is the least beneficial
in long-term consideration of watershed values.
Water Resources
Maintaining present patterns of livestock use
would have slight impacts on water resources. Infil-
tration rates would decrease slightly from present,
unquantified levels due to compaction by livestock
trampling and vegetation cover reduction due to
livestock grazing. Aquifer recharge or depletion
would experience no significant change.
Average annual runoff-associated with de-
creased infiltration rates-would experience a slight
average increase overall. No significant change in
peak discharge would be expected, however.
Chemical quality of surface water would not change
8-1
u
[VED
ORAG
TION
H * <
< m a
Z U 5
as O g
H H X
f- W 5
J H S
<< > s
J
2
?■*
O
ij2
<
ALTERNAT
REDUCED
STOCK L
H
Z
Ed
s
u
j
a.
S
as
Ed
H
05 fe
&.
H o
<
>z^
to
Cog
OS
t, a p
<
ALTERNA
ELIMINAT
LIVEST
a.
2
s
<
as
w
1%
CO
H
O
o
Ed O
<
z
ft.
o
S
J
•-"
H Z
u.
J
o
<
z
_ o
T cc
00 —
o> as
3 <
« a.
o
o
Q
S z
32
ft. H
>>
o o
as
as <
<
ft.
■?.
S
3
03
z
o
H
Ed *
3
ft.
s
z
o
H
<
3
H
ce
a
z
i-
OB
X
Ed
H
Z
Ed
Z
O
ft.
s
o
o
J
<
H
z
Ed
s
Z
o
BS
g
Ed
■"J- t-l
CD — <
E >» *°
*~ "*> ,S
t? 2 -a
-= -ft >
-? o I
c/5 £ a
ft f- .-i
— . r- —i
CO -H
si
•-< r-
TT >-H
ffi E
a. co
U3 <-■
d £
=9 _
£ « n .3>
8-2
w
w S o
> O H
F_ fc <
< * £
Z O 5
BJ o s
U H x
j w S
< > s
j
b
<
B.
s
u.
O
z
as CL
f- s
o
o
,*
<
s
s
D
Z
O
H
<
z
w
s
u
a.
s
as
w
H
h
<
(/J
H
>
S jS5
Ms
< H H
5 •< «B
si"
w s -
< w
<
C. O
U
<
o
z
5 =
z
BJ
w
fe 6 «
£ Eosb
o -- " ffl S
~ S c
■ ■
a»
f1-
c
"3
bi
u
1
03
>
0
O
M
01
J= — S ■s
09
£
c
o
01
a
E
C
0
n
ej
a>
11
.r
V
7.
o
"U
>— '
>
—
~
a
CO
rrJ
a-
in
en
0
■a
*-«
a
w z
a. h
2 2
0.
z
o
J
a.
S
H
Z
H
Z
o
a,
S
03
o
CJ
u
B3
J
S
<
O
H
CO
z
u
K
ti
§
«
Z
w
o
f-
5
<
O j,
*-• CO
53
E
o cu
*J CO
.5P S
173 o
.3> &
co c
O J
Z cj
2 J S -5
■- o o
55 E .E
° 3 s
C CJ o 3
Z O CO CJ CM CO
« §
CO T3 O C
-a o « o
E T3
S ° 3 S
-■ c o C ~
o « u **-
1 o I
.1 m|
M So E CN
"> C'x N
o 5 « -
bi
*J ~ cj co u
C C8 <u P D
1 I 3 S 3
.5P So E tN c
° ? 2
EC i—
o o
> en ig
CD CO
5- "•
< T3
8-3
H « 2
> o h
H fc <
< * E3
Z O 3
«os
W H x
f* & 5
j w 2
< > s
<
S
&.
o
z
_ o
« cs
a o.
H S
O
O
>•
<
s
s
3
CO
z
o
<
H
Z
W
S
w
-
a.
s
OS
w
<
<
w
P
< a
z w
< «
»c5
£z*
- o "
H — O
< H H
5 < CO
lie
W 5 £
hi J
< U
V <4H »3
- E != £ 'S o 2
— cb - h tB _ **-
= ? «
a. i- - —
> Q. HI J,
o E 2 -
Si, "" '3 o>
c j= ±; -,
BM
« rl Tf CO
^ CD M- O
cq — i oa c-_
V <-« c^ co"
© oa no
3 ~ °-
» S a
£ 3 S
n t~ ffi co
in t- h n
CT> CN CD
<
£ o
U O
H Z
J
•<
Q
W Z
CO o
si
z
o
H
z °S
«x
j
Bu
s
CO CM CO ©
CD o — i r-
"* °°. *"! *°-
i-I cd" ■-* r-"
— CO O CO
O CM CO
<a bb
r-
r-
_
CO
rn
uo
CO
05
o
CO
CO
o
T
Of)
CO
lO
T
LO
4/3
t-
5 E « 5
i -5 = '" £ -s
MO73
S ■ -g g 2
u =2 o o o
£ «. Z S rr
ffl CM O *C "*
Si I I 1
w c
W3 o
IM
,_l
TT
T
nr
CO
03
lO
<C
r-
t-
I—
r-
CO
CO
T
co
CO
CO
'X'
V. ° 2
c « > £
B »• o 3
3 <d j- £ *J
c > 2- -o Si
? ° £ c !S u
■ili- :«
|ii||3
£ . O (/; C CO C-J
t- <* CO CM
O O O CO
OJ o> C- f
o ^* oi r-*
oi co o> co
o CO iO
*S .S
o O O CO
a> o^ t— ""^
o* r-i os r-*
CD CO CD CO
lO CO irt
0 O n r-t
o S S" Si 5 S
J; > a> * > aj
E 5
O c
R "m —
c C w g -h o
ffl U X O as o
Bi 5 W U t- Oh
8-4
F
o
<
EL.
s
o
z
„ o
3 a
« a:
2 <
CO CL
H S
O
U
;*
es
•<
2
s
a
a
°<?
K k C
pfa<
< m g
z y s
es O 5
w ^ X
fr" X 2
J W <
j
z
° w
o
<
s 5 o
So*"
5«
fr"
z
u
s
u
0.
s
OS
u
fr"
« fe
Eb
o
<
>z^
X
CoS
OS
h r °
<
p
•5 < efl
H 5 S
h - -1
e»
fr-
< w
<
CL.
s
s
<
es
w
u z
> £
H
- o
O
z
o
11
1-)
u o
fr- Z
-J
<
a
w z
eg o
o -
EL. fr-
o y
OS <
a.
z
o
fr-
-i
EL.
s
Z
o
H
<
3
fr-
ee
a
Z
fr-
ee
X
w
fr-
z
H
z
o
CL.
S
o
u
_1
<
fr-
z
w
1
z
o
es
>
z
w
.2 « E
«; £
S £
55 E
S £
53 E
53 £
S E
? e
=3 E
en E
S E
S E
S E
55
•~ E
.SP o
en a
E-|3
I II
71 c D *»
Qo o> 9
bo j_ a
» £
« -3
3^ S "5
5 56 s
8-5
E-
O
<
ft.
S
u.
o
z
_ o
00 ■—
0> ft.
3 <
■ a.
f- S
o
o
as
<
S
s
u
U K o
>Oh
f- fc <
< * H
Z O 5
OS O £
J W S
< > s
_)
z
g K
o
Ell
<
Is-
o- 3 o
< «
E-
Z
w
S
w
-1
ft.
2
OS
W
H
CO fe
fc.
o
«<
>*£
03
to"
OS
H B O
•<
U
< E- E-
3? < (»
*££
K = i
f>2j
< w
E-
<
ft.
s
s
<
as
w
M z
> s
E-
- o
o
z
o
i-9
u o
E- Z
-1
<
Q
W Z
W O
O »-
ft. E-
o y
K <
&.
z
o
E-
25w
J
ft.
S
z
o
E-
<
3
H
Cfl
O
Z
E-
ce
x
w
E-
Z
w
z
o
ft.
S
o
o
J
3
H
z
u
s
z
o
as
1
Ed
j e
J1
> XI
— 3
be <n
■S £
> a 2 E
s £
if
£ E
.5P £
55 E
55 E
M E
£ E
* .3
ca
x:
E
a>
>
0
> "
0)
—
>,
-J a. IS ca -a
o 2 "3
J E ju
a os
Z D
< E-
o <
- W
OS b.
CO OS
E- <
S! CO
TJ
E
as
OJ
*
EU
u
T1
o
c
-o
0
Eh
a.
c
3
G
c
ai
O
a
.£i
Uj
c
£j
8-6
CO
E-
O
<
ft.
S
El.
O
z
_, o
3 2
00 —
a. K
2 <
,■ a.
f" S
O
u
ft?
<
S
s
Ed
°<£
Ed o; O
h fc <:
< «! g
Z O 5
OS O 5
Ed H x
H X v
J Ed 5
< > S
2
z
°Ed
o
£> Ed
<
S°5
K 3 o
Z
Ed
S
Ed
0.
S
a:
Ed
H
so g
u.
>ZS
<*
m
- o "
K
h-p
<
>>
3 ■< CB
age
Ed ~ i
f- S -3
tn
so
< Ed
<
a.
2
S
<
S3
U Z
> 5
Ed
H
— o
o
11
z
o
J
Ed O
f- Z
J
■<
a
Ed Z
SE o
o -
a. H
o u
OS <
0.
z
o
H
s £
Ed ""
J
CU
s
z
o
H
<
3
H
X
O
z
H
as
X
Ed
H
Z
Ed
Z
o
ft.
S
o
u
J
<
f-
z
Ed
S
z
o
«
i
Ed
> E i
o. -c ^, ai .a
55 S
53 £
» c .■a o
•o -g c So
'II
;7 3
•j a
-c a
u o
>
c O
< E £
E CO U ' ^ c
5 i 1 £ 2 I
§15 *1 | *
— t. e 3 o ®
■1 E
Q -a
< o
3 £
E-
<
Ed 1
5 §
Ed j=
8-7
Ed
IVED
ORAG
TION
H fc <
<k;n
as o S
W H x
2 a s
< > 2
■J
Z
°cd
o
IVE
LIVl
SE
<;
ALTERNAT
REDUCED
STOCK L
E-
z
u
S
Ed
-J
a.
S
OS
a
H
OS fe
Eh
o
<
>*B
cfl
-o"
03
E- ~ O
<
Ed
< (- fr
TERN
MINA
LIVES
CO
H
3^
<
ft.
s
s
<
as
>5
C/3
h
- o
o
11
_ o
<
z
ft.
o
S
J
**
H Z
u.
J
o
<
z
o
3 C/3
X —
» M
3 <
a a.
O
O
Q
Ed Z
c/3 o
O -
ft. E-
>
o o
at
OS <
<
ft.
s
s
3
C/5
z
o
H
2"
-1
ft.
S
z
o
f-
<
3
E-
c/3
O
z
E-
ce
X
Ed
E-
z
Ed
z
o
ft.
s
o
o
-
<
E-
z
Ed
s
Z
o
as
>
z
Ed
i3 r- a»
— CN)
s % a
3 a
e c ii o
be >
^3 o
^ —
§•1
9- S
a> o> 0) a>
I 8-S-S
Q
Z
< so
z c
o z
o o
Ed U
w I - .g
a 8 "2
U Q
en —
u«
J o c
EC fr <
£ 3
S c
5 <
B - °>
— C — C
oo »
0 » Ex.
c 3 » •■ K o
< ~ SoWS
4/ C/3
Z Ed
8-8
a
Q<£
w 2 °
H Ex <
< * S
z o 5
as o S
HH X
f- ^ <
< > 2
J
z
^Ed
o
5 3 5?
p
<
ALTERNAT
REDUCED
STOCK I
H
Z
a
s
a
0.
S
*■•
c
a
a
O
<
> Z «
</)
X
H - P
TERNA
MINAT
LIVEST
m
Cfl
< a
<<
0.
S
S
<
«
s o
CO
O
a
z§
<
0.
z
o
S
i-9
a o
**
E- Z
ft.
J
O
<
z
_ o
2 </3
00 —
0) Pi
3 <
a q.
o
u
Q
Ed Z
CO o
o s
0. H
5n
o u
«
OS <
<
0.
S
s
03
z
o
E-
e5«
a *
-3
ft,
s
z
o
H
<
P
E-
09
o
z
H
CO
X
H
H
Z
a
z
o
b.
S
o
o
J
<
E-
Z
a
s
z
o
as
g
a
■a
-U O)
co as
5) — &
5 -a
O
o -a
O
<
oj
BS
-D
i2
be
(/>
C
c/i
o
c
E-
>
0}
6
0
z
0=
=
ea
D
<
a>
at
_o
Q
W
>
3
o
i
^
aj
5
■-3
>
<
C
C
CO
d
2
*"
—
W
&
8-9
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
significantly. Biological quality, reflected by present-
ly unquantified fecal coliform bacteria levels, would
decrease slightly, especially in drainages where
livestock presently congregate.
Vegetation
There would be no short-term impacts as there
is no term, range condition would continue to im-
prove on the 17 AMP allotments indicating an
upward trend. Those 22 allotments presently deter-
mined to be static could potentially either improve
or decline. The following acreage by condition class
includes those AMPs that have gone through at
least one grazing cycle:
Range Condition Class
Trend Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Upward 70,479 159,652 43,860 1,195 825,558
Static 20,286 165,476 80,417 3,035 841,056
Non-AMP allotments that are presently in poor
to fair condition would remain so, and those allot-
ments that are declining in range condition would
continue to deteriorate without a change in grazing
management. Those allotments that are presently
in good to excellent condition or are improving
would remain the same or continue to improve.
Adverse impacts on vegetation in the non-AMP
areas which are slated for AMP implementation
under the proposed action would result from the
decrease in production, lowered plant vigor, de-
creased ground cover, and a change in composi-
tion to less desirable species. The more palatable
plant species and livestock concentration areas
would continue to receive heavy, continuous graz-
ing pressure and would be the most severely im-
pacted. Less desirable plant species would in-
crease within most of the non-AMP allotments.
Overall, long-term range condition would gener-
ally be expected to decline in those allotments not
already under a grazing system and which are not
presently in an upward or stable trend. Range con-
dition problems will intensify through time if the
present grazing management program is continued.
This alternative is one of the least beneficial of the
options available for vegetation as it would not sub-
stantially change the identified problem areas (see
Appendix 10). Ranges presently in good to excel-
lent range condition, but in a downward trend,
would continue to deteriorate. This deterioration
process would continue primarily on the selectively
grazed sites, such as watering areas, coulee bot-
toms, and other readily accessible sites.
Because no threatened or endangered plant
species are known to exist within the ES area, the
possibility of impacting any officially recognized
species by any of the alternatives is remote.
Wildlife
Most wildlife populations would suffer slight de-
clines under this alternative. As explained in the
introduction to Chapter 3, it is anticipated that there
would be a decrease of approximately five percent
in available forage if no changes in the current
grazing system are implemented. This general dete-
rioration of range conditions would negatively
impact most wildlife populations; however, most of
these declines would be undetectable with currently
available wildlife census techniques. No impact on
the endangered black-footed ferret or peregrine
falcon would be anticipated under this alternative.
The wild or semi-wild horses in southern Blaine
County would not be affected.
Prehistoric and Historic Features
Under this alternative, livestock trampling of pre-
historic and historic features would continue occur-
ring. No new range improvements would be con-
structed, so impacts would not increase. Chapter 2,
Prehistoric and Historic Features, noted that 60
percent of recorded sites are in a deteriorating con-
dition. Although studied have not quantified the
numbers involved, livestock trampling and resultant
erosion were factors listed in the site deterioration.
This type of impact would continue to affec some
prehistoric and historic sites under this alternative,
particularly over the long term.
In most respects, conditions under this alterna-
tive would be similar to those described in Chapter
2. Sixty percent of the sites, which probably number
between 3,400 and 5,000, would continue in a de-
teriorating trend.
Visual Resources
Implementation of this alternative would require
placement of no new range improvement projects
on the range, thus no additional adverse impacts to
the visual resource would result. Areas currently
being adversely impacted due to livestock manage-
ment practices would continue to deteriorate, de-
creasing the visual quality in these areas. Livestock
would continue to concentrate in riparian areas and
along shorelines regardless of the grazing manage-
ment system, unless they were fenced out. In the
short term, this alternative would be less detrimen-
tal to the visual resource then the proposed action
because no new visual contrasts in form, line,
color, or texture would be created through con-
8-10
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
struction of additional range improvement projects.
In the long term (15 years), adverse visual impacts
resulting from continuation of existing grazing prac-
tices would gradually increase.
Recreation
The major adverse impacts to hunting would be
a continued decrease in wildlife habitat in areas
where livestock tend to congregate-in riparian
zones and near water sources. This could decrease
game populations and reduce hunting opportunities.
Currently, livestock concentrate near water
sources where they damage shoreline vegetation. If
that water source supports a fishery, increased
sedimentation and loss of shoreline vegetation re-
sulting from present grazing practices could pro-
duce a loss in cover, food, and spawning areas for
fish, and could decrease fishing opportunities.
Because this alternative would require no new
range improvements which would be additional haz-
ards or restrictions to movement, adverse impacts
to off-road vehicle use would not be increased.
At the present time, a majority of the floatboat-
ing use in the ES area occurs on the Upper Mis-
souri Wild and Scenic River. The major impacts to
floatboating would be focused on the other recre-
ational activities normally done in conjuction with
floatboating-fishing, picnicking, camping, and sight-
seeing. The major adverse impacts to these associ-
ated activities would result from livestock concen-
trations near water sources and floatboating areas.
Overgrazing and trampling in this areas would pro-
duce increased sedimentation and erosion, and
loss of cover, food, and spawning areas for fish.
The presence of livestock along floatboating areas
would also increase livestock/recreationist con-
flicts, especially in picnicking and overnight camp-
ing areas. Because the continuation alternative
makes no provisions to reduce these impacts, it
would be the most detrimental alternative to float-
boating activities.
Ease of movement, shooting hazards, and avail-
ability of sport shooting opportunities would be im-
pacted by this alternative. In most cases, this alter-
native has slightly higher stocking rates than the
proposed action, which would slightly increase
shooting hazards. Because no additional fences
would be required in this alternative, no additional
adverse impacts to ease of movement of sport
shooters would occur.
Economic and Social Conditions
This alternative would cause no changes in pre-
vent livestock management, and would require no
additional construction or employment. It would,
however, have a long term effect on economic and
social factors. The changes in the economy would
result from degradation of grazing conditions where
allotment management plans projected for the pro-
posed action predict a long term decrease if man-
agement is not implemented. An eventual loss of
about 13,300 AUMs is predicted, which in 1980
dollars amounts to an annual loss of income to ES
area ranchers of $203,000.
This decrease only reflects a portion of the im-
pacts that might occur if this alternative is chosen
instead of the proposed action. All ranchers must
have private base property to lease grazing rights
on BLM land. The allotment management plans
assume joint management of private and public
land to guide grazing practices and schedules. Ad-
ditional income (which is not quantifiable due to
lack of data on private lands) would also be lost
from reductions in AUMs on private land. Also, the
proposed action projects additional annual income
in 1980 dollars of $284,000. Therefore from public
land alone the actual loss in income plus missed
opportunity from not instituting allotment manage-
ment plans would be $487,000 annually.
In addition, employment opportunities would be
lost. The proposed action carries with it a projection
of 30 new employees within the livestock sector.
This alternative would instead cause 21 jobs to be
lost, for a difference between actual loss and
missed opportunity of 51 jobs.
Land Ownership and Use
Livestock Grazing
Under this alternative, there would not be any
significant changes in the livestock operations of
the ES area. Current trends as discussed in Chap-
ter 2 would prevail and the limiting factors on live-
stock grazing would result from supply and demand
situation as related to current and future market
prices. Numbers of livestock would not change sig-
nificantly. Changes from sheep to cattle would
probably continue at the present rate for the next
four to five years.
8-11
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Wilderness
The major adverse impacts to wilderness values
associated with the continuation of the present
grazing management program alternative would in-
clude visual impacts and degradation of wilderness
integrity created by the presence of range improve-
ments and livestock management activities. Howev-
er, this alternative would be more desirable from a
wilderness standpoint than would the proposed
action, the reduction alternative, or the forage maxi-
mization alternative, which would all require addi-
tional range improvement projects.
ALTERNATIVE B: ELIMINATION
OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON
PUBLIC LANDS
Description
This alternative assumes elimination of domestic
livestock grazing on approximately 2,169,000 acres
of public lands including 350,452 AUMs. No new
AMPs would be implemented, and all existing
AMPs would be terminated. Because private and
public lands are mixed throughout large portions of
the ES area (only 26 percent of the ES area is
public land), extensive fencing would be necessary
to control livestock trespass on public lands. On
private land in Montana, livestock must be fenced
"out" in order to sustain a trespass charge. But,
because the federal government is the landowner
in this case, BLM could not be legally compelled to
fence. However, as a practical matter, an extensive
amount of fencing by BLM would be necessary to
prevent livestock use of public lands. The amount
of fencing necessary has not been quantified; how-
ever, it can be assumed that many thousands of
miles of fence would be needed. The large magni-
tude of a public land fencing effort can be roughly
envisioned by review of Map 2-22, Land Ownership.
A major BLM workload would become the monitor-
ing of public land use. No range improvements
would be maintained or constructed unless neces-
sary for other resource programs such as wildlife or
watershed.
Soils
Elimination of livestock from public lands would
eliminate degradation of drainage bottoms and
areas around water sources from compaction ef-
fects, accelerated erosion, and sedimentation in-
creases due to livestock grazing.
Incised trails in most areas where slopes do not
exceed 20 percent would improve moderately.
Without livestock grazing, plants would initially
respond with increased vigor, with resulting in-
creased ground cover and litter formation, thus re-
ducing bare ground and erosion potential. However,
grass species would stagnate eventually at less
than full growth potential without the growth stimu-
lation offered by grazing.
Watershed consequences of stagnated vegeta-
tion growth are not well documented. Elimination of
grazing, while better for watershed values than con-
tinuation of the present grazing program, would not
have the vegetation stimulation effects of alterna-
tives involving reduced livestock use, or proposed
rest rotations and grazing deferral.
Rapid short-term responses would be observed
in major drainages where present erosion condition
is classified as critical to severe. Long-term im-
provement in erosion condition class acreages, and
in sedimentation reductions, is estimated at an
average of 10 percent, with the most significant
gains occurring in major drainages where livestock
presently tend to congregate. Lands in critical to
severe erosion condition should decrease 27,849
acres from the present estimate of 278,487 acres.
Sedimentation should be reduced 265,326 tons,
from the present 2,653,259 tons (see Table 8-1).
The most significant reduction in sedimentation
would occur in the Arrow Creek drainage where
soils with high clay content have very severe water
erosion hazard.
Estimates of 10 percent average watershed im-
provement over 1 5 years are based upon expected
increases in litter and vegetation cover, and de-
creases in percent bare ground, as correlated with
ES area study plot findings of Willard and Herman
1977. These changes parallel those expected for
range condition shifts, with added watershed values
derived from litter accumulation (see Vegetation
section, Chapter 8).
Silty range sites which have blue grama and
clubmoss as dominant species-less than 20 per-
cent of the total AMP area -would not be expected
to change appreciably with removal of livestock.
Clubmoss vegetation growth has extremely high
percent ground cover, nearly eliminating surface
soil movement. These areas are in stable to slight
erosion condition classes, and would remain so in
the long term.
8-12
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Water Resources
Elimination of livestock grazing would have no
significant impact on water resources in the short
term. Slight water resource improvement in the long
term would occur. Infiltration rates would increase
as freeze/thaw soil action eliminates compaction
effects of livestock trampling. This infiltration in-
crease, while slightly significant overall, would be of
moderate significance in drainages where livestock
presently congregate. Aquifers, as a result, would
be recharged slightly.
Average annual runoff would be slightly reduced
overall, with the increased infiltration due to elimi-
nated livestock trampling. Increased vegetation
cover, another result of livestock elimination, also
would slightly reduce runoff, overall.
Chemical quality of surface waters would not be
expected to change overall. Biological quality would
improve slightly overall, and improve moderately in
drainages where livestock presently congregate.
Vegetation
In southern British Columbia, McLean and Tis-
dale (1972) indicated relatively little stand improve-
ment will occur on depleted ranges during the first
10 years under complete protection from livestock.
However, after 25 years of protection, they found
that total forage yields increased by about 1 00 per-
cent, primarily due to increases in abundance of
climax perennial grasses. But when comparing a
protected area with areas subjected to grazing,
Reardon and Merrill (1976) found that, at the end
of 20 years, decreaser plant forage yields and litter
accumulations were lower on ungrazed natural
areas than under deferred rotation and light graz-
ing. They suggested that decreaser plants need
some type of grazing in order to remain vigorous
and productive. Further, long periods of complete
rest are not usually an economical form of range
rehabilitation (McLean and Tisdale 1972).
The greatest range condition improvement
would occur with total elimination of livestock on
those areas presently grazed annually during the
spring and early summer months. Range in poor
(37,462 acres) or fair (599,708 acres) condition
takes longer to show an improvement than range in
good condition (1,661,904 acres) (see Table 3-5);
therefore, the worst condition range is not likely to
increase more than one condition class by the year
2000, especially where significant soil erosion has
occurred and where average annual precipitation is
10 to 14 inches.
Silty range sites dominated by blue grama and
clubmoss, which accounts for less than 20 percent
of the ES area, would not be expected to change
appreciably in 35 to 50 years. However, with the
complete elimination of livestock grazing, perennial
grasses would be favored on most other silty range
sites.
Plant vigor would be enhanced initially, but by
removing the plant growth stimulus provided by
moderate grazing, vigor would eventually decline
(Weaver and Rowland 1952). Decadent stands of
grasses and shrubs that would develop are essen-
tially unusable, or at least less desirable to wildlife
herbivores.
Therefore, although this alternative would initial-
ly be extremely beneficial to both range condition
and productivity over the first 20 to 35 years, it
would be one of the least desirable beyond that
time period (see Appendix 10).
Riparian vegetation in areas such as along
meadows, drainageways, and rivers will continue to
be closely utilized by livestock regardless of grazing
system or stocking level. Therefore, about the only
way to preserve riparian sites is to fence these
areas off from grazing (Hormay 1976). These sites
could then be grazed periodically at the discretion
of the land manager depending on management
objectives. This alternative, eliminating livestock
from public lands, is the only other means of pro-
viding protection for these critical range sites.
Wildlife
In the short term following implementation of
this alternative, many species of wildlife would
benefit from increased vegetation diversity and
available forage. In areas such as portions of the
southern part of the Musselshell Planning Unit
where public land is scattered in parcels of a sec-
tion or less, the areas of ungrazed public land
would contrast sharply with adjacent grazed private
land and would provide a unique and diverse
mosaic of habitats that would provide long-term
benefits to most wildlife species. However, much of
the public land within the ES area, particularly in
the areas of the AMPs, consists of relatively large
blocks of public land. If cattle were removed from
these areas, vegetational succession would pro-
ceed toward climax types that are suboptimal for
many wildlife species (although optimal for others).
Historic disturbances such as fire and bison grazing
which produce favorable subclimax communities for
many species of wildlife would be less frequent
than they were prior to the introduction of livestock
(McHugh 1972). The net result would be population
8-13
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
levels for most species slightly or moderately above
current levels, but considerably below the levels
possible when grazing is designed to meet wildlife
needs (see Alternative C - Reduced Levels of Live-
stock Use).
The extensive fencing that this alternative would
require would be detrimental to big game move-
ments. Although data are not available, estimates
for other areas (U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management 1977b and 1977c)
indicate that probably a hundred or more deer and/
or antelope would be killed annually through entan-
glements with fences.
Because of the well-blocked federal ownership
in the vicinity of Ervin Ridge in southern Blaine
County, there would be little fencing in that area.
Thus, the wild or semi-wild horses, if permitted to
roam, would increase several fold due to the in-
creased available forage.
Mule deer would increase slightly under this al-
ternative due to the elimination of grazing in impor-
tant winter and year-round habitat. White-tailed
deer would experience a larger increase than mule
deer because of their greater dependence on ripar-
ian areas and the very large improvement in ripar-
ian habitat anticipated under this alternative. The
carrying capacity for elk would increase due to in-
creased available forage, particularly grasses. How-
ever, the ability of elk to respond to this change
would depend upon hunting pressure as influenced
by landowner attitudes toward increased elk popu-
lations. Antelope populations would show a slight
increase due to reduced competition with livestock;
however, the increase would be minimized by the
impact of greatly increased fencing and succession-
al changes that would reduce the availability of
forbs which are an important part of their diet.
Sharp-tailed grouse would show moderate im-
provements due mainly to greatly improved residual
cover for nesting. Sage grouse would show some
improvement, but less than sharp-tailed grouse be-
cause they are more dependent upon sagebrush
(which would decrease slightly because of succes-
sion toward grass) and less dependent on residual
grass cover. Waterfowl would benefit considerably
from increased residual vegetation for nesting
cover (Kirsch 1969). There would be some water-
fowl losses as water sources were lost through lack
of maintenance, but in balance this alternative
would benefit waterfowl even more than the pro-
posed action.
Since the amount of forage available for live-
stock would no longer be an important concern on
public lands, attempts to control prairie dogs (the
primary prey species of the endangered black-
footed ferret) would be reduced. However, since
increased average grass height would reduce op-
portunities for prairie dog expansion (U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service 1978), the net
impact of this alternative on the ferret would be
only slightly beneficial. Generally improved condi-
tions for small non-game birds, particularly in ripar-
ian areas, would result in a slight improvement of
overall conditions for the endangered peregrine
falcon.
Prehistoric and Historic Features
All impacts to both historic and prehistoric fea-
tures directly relating to grazing management would
be eliminated, both in the short and long term. No
impacts would result from construction or imple-
mentation of range improvements except from addi-
tional fencing. Ground disturbance from fencing is
minimal except where grading is necessary to con-
struct fencelines. Any impacts caused by cattle di-
rectly -such as trampling-would cease. Cultural re-
sources would probably remain in better condition
than they would under either the proposed action
or continuation of the present program.
Some natural degradation of prehistoric and his-
toric resources would continue to occur. The princi-
pal causes of these impacts would be wind and
water erosion.
Visual Resources
Due to the scattered ownership of most of the
public lands in the ES area, implementation of this
alternative would require construction of numerous
new fences to keep livestock from trespassing on
public lands. The fenceline contrasts between un-
grazed BLM land and grazed private lands would
be detrimental to the visual quality of the area.
Because the proposed action would require less
fence construction, even though additional range
improvement projects were required, it would be
more desirable from a scenic standpoint than a no
grazing situation, primarily because fenceline con-
trasts would be, in most cases, more apparent to
the viewer than would individual range improvement
projects.
Recreation
This alternative would be very favorable from a
recreational standpoint because all adverse im-
pacts directly related to livestock grazing would be
8-14
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
eliminated. The additional fencing required to imple-
ment this alternative would create barriers to move-
ment and increase fenceline contrasts between un-
grazed BLM lands and grazed private lands. Clos-
ing the public lands to livestock grazing could
cause livestock operators to deny access across
their private lands to isolated public land segments.
This would essentially eliminate any recreational
opportunities that may exist on these lands.
The adverse impacts to hunting opportunities
described for the proposed action and the other
alternatives would not occur for the elimination of
livestock grazing alternative with the sole exception
of restrictions to ease of movement resulting from
construction of additional fences. Because gates
would likely be placed in these fences on most
access roads on public lands, this adverse impact
would be minimal. An immediate short-term in-
crease in vegetation growth in the absence of live-
stock grazing would benefit most huntable game
species and would likely increase hunting opportu-
nities. As ungrazed areas would approach climax
vegetation, huntable species which would rely on
grasses for food would benefit, while those depend-
ent on forbs and shrubs for food would be adverse-
ly impacted. A potential decrease in numbers of
forb and shrub dependent species would create a
loss of hunting opportunities for those species. The
overall long term impact to hunting opportunities
would vary with the game species.
A reduction in sedimentation and erosion and
an increase in shoreline vegetation should improve
habitat and could potentially increase both fish
numbers and fishing opportunities in waters on
public land.
Because fences would be required to implement
this alternative, movement of off-road vehicles
would be restricted. Gates would be placed on
most roads and trails and would not prohibit off-
road vehicle (ORV) road use. Increased vegetation
growth within ungrazed pastures could hide hazards
such as large rocks, holes, and ditches which could
be dangerous to the ORV users.
This alternative would benefit fisheries and other
floatboating associated activities by eliminating ad-
verse impacts to shoreline areas caused by live-
stock concentrations. Opportunities to view wildlife
on public lands could also increase. Although fen-
celine contrasts would increase due to implementa-
tion of this alternative, scenic values would in-
crease along the shoreline areas due to substantial
improvements in vegetation growth.
Eliminating livestock grazing would benefit sport
shooting by reducing shooting hazards. Additional
fencing could restrict movement of shooters to
some degree, but because gates would be con-
structed on most roads, this adverse impact would
be minimal.
Economic and Social Conditions
Elimination of grazing would have a moderate
impact on the total nine-county area economy, and
a major impact within the ES area. Using a 1980
base, as projected by BLM's DYRAM model (see
Chapter 3 and Appendix 9 for Economic and Social
Conditions for a discussion of DYRAM), the elimina-
tion of grazing would cause a permanent loss of
$5,413,000 in annual personal income in the nine-
county area.
Total personal income in 1980 from livestock
operations is estimated at $94,309,000 in the nine
county area. The loss in income from elimination of
grazing constitutes 5.7 percent of this total. This
reduction would have a moderately negative effect
on the remainder of the economy. Secondary ef-
fects of this cut in grazing would amount to
$811,000 annually. This would lead to a loss in
personal income of $6,224,000, or 1.5 percent of
total annual income.
The impact on individual ranch operations would
be much more severe. Within the ES area 400
operators depend in part upon BLM land for graz-
ing. This is 10 percent of the total ranches with
range pastureland in the nine ES area counties.
Within the ES boundaries, the percentage of ranch-
ers using BLM grazing lands is much higher, al-
though the exact number is not available. It is prob-
able that the operations of most of the 400 opera-
tors would not be viable without some grazing on
BLM lands. The effect of this alternative could be
to force many ranchers in the ES area out of busi-
ness. The probable long-term effect would be to
force consolidation of existing ranches, thus in-
creasing the trend to smaller numbers of family-
owned ranches and loss of population in this rural
area. With existing land prices, a large amount of
capital would be necessary to consolidate, even
further jeopardizing the ability of family-owned oper-
ations to be able to continue in business.
In most cases, the alternative for small ranchers
to supplement their income by taking outside work
does not exist in this area. Most of the ranches are
in remote areas that have poor transportation sys-
tems (dirt or gravel secondary roads) and are often
40 to 60 miles from the nearest towns. Thus, alter-
nate employment opportunities would be severely
limited.
Another effect of elimination of grazing would be
the reduction in the supply of beef cattle and
sheep. This could raise the price of beef and lamb
8-15
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
to consumers, although the exact amount is not
available and would probably be very small to negli-
gible.
Compared to the proposed action and other al-
ternatives, other sectors would lose the opportunity
for personal income gain. There would be no range
improvements constructed, and therefore no addi-
tional construction personal income. However,
much additional fencing would be required, generat-
ing a presently unquantifiable amount of personal
income. Government employment would probably
not change, and no additional personal income
from that sector would be realized.
It is not possible to quantify changes in recrea-
tion income. On one hand, elimination of grazing
would probably increase wildlife numbers. However,
imposing this alternative on the local ranchers may
well result in closure of much private land which
provides access to federal lands. Therefore, it is
not possible to quantify the changes in hunting ex-
penditures.
Agricultural employment would drop by 564 an-
nually and 65 additional jobs that are dependent on
the agricultural sector would be lost. This does not
take into account the probability of many ranch
closures.
The effect on social well-being and public fi-
nance is not quantifiable, but would also be nega-
tive. There would probably be some loss in popula-
tion resulting from reduced employment opportuni-
ties and a loss in taxable value. This would reduce
the ability of counties and states to provide serv-
ices, and could adversely affect most of the factors
of social well-being discussed in Chapter 2, Eco-
nomic and Social Conditions (i.e., persons per phy-
sician, family income, employment).
Socio-cultural attitudes could be expected to be
almost uniformly against elimination of grazing. The
attitudes expressed in favor of agriculture and the
general conservative pattern that includes resis-
tance to major governmental interference would be
outraged. Within the local region, federal policy and
actions would be expected to lose much support.
ods within each operation to the extent that many
operators could be forced to sell out or convert to
cropland farming.
In the short term, the public lands would have a
large increase in forage production. Wildlife popula-
tions such as elk, deer, and antelope would be
expected to increase rapidly and create additional
impacts upon private lands, especially in areas of
critical winter range.
Trespass (unauthorized livestock use) would be
another serious problem and would create a need
to fence all public lands. While fencing would aid in
controlling trespass, a BLM workload would be to
insure that gates were closed at all times and to
ride or fly public lands to detect trespass.
This alternative would undoubtedly cause a sig-
nificant number of legal actions due to the long
standing grazing privileges authorized by the Taylor
Grazing Act of 1934, and economic disruptions to
the 400 affected operators. The policy stated in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
that public lands will be managed in a manner
which recognizes the nation's need for food and
fiber, among other resources, may make the action
of eliminating grazing difficult to sustain.
Wilderness
This alternative would be the most desirable
from a wilderness standpoint because no additional
range improvement projects would be required.
Also, all existing range improvements, with the ex-
ception of those essential to other resource pro-
grams (wildlife, watershed, soils, etc.) could be re-
moved which would further enhance wilderness
values. Because a wilderness study area must con-
tain at least 5,000 acres of contiguous public land,
no fencing would be required within the area to
control livestock trespass. In the long term wilder-
ness values would increase as the ES area would
slowly revert to a more natural condition in the
absence of grazing.
Land Ownership and Use
ALTERNATIVE C: REDUCED
LEVELS OF LIVESTOCK USE
Livestock Grazing
This alternative would adversely impact about
400 livestock operations directly and would indirect-
ly adversely affect the entire livestock industry in
the ES area. Livestock numbers would decrease by
an estimated 14 percent. Although dependency
varies among operators, it would create critical peri-
Description
This alternative postulates a level of livestock
use approximately 40 percent (115,457 AUMs) less
than the level included in the proposed action and
also 40 percent (118,356 AUMs) less than existing
8-16
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
licensed use. Lower stocking levels for 308 of the
318 AMPs included in this alternative were based
on four major factors: (a) elimination of grazing use
between March 1 and May 31, (b) reduction of
stocking levels for rest rotation grazing systems to
the amount of forage in only the pastures used
each year (i.e., the capacity of the rested pasture is
not included when establishing allowable yearly
grazing levels), (c) reduction of stocking levels
based on the amount of acreage each allotment
has in fair and poor range condition and/or severe
and critical erosion condition, and (d) a reduction of
stocking levels based on the amount and type of
wildlife habitat in each allotment. Grazing manage-
ment on non-AMP areas would remain unchanged.
Range improvements would be the same as those
included in the proposed action. Approximately
30,612 acres of public land would continue in unal-
lotted status. Table 8-2 shows reductions by land-
form. Reductions for individual AMPs range from 0
to 80 percent. The reductions by specific AMPs are
available for review at the Montana State Office of
the BLM. The following rationale was used in the
development of the AUM reductions in this alterna-
tive.
Trampling damage by livestock during wet
months from March through May is of primary con-
cern in watershed management. Trampling causes
soil compaction with resulting increased surface
runoff and sedimentation hazard. These potential
erosion losses would be avoided by changing the
season of use by livestock to avoid the March
through May period. In addition, because adequate
grass is often not available in the ES area before
May 15, grazing would be deferred until warm
season plant species are making some new growth.
Excessive grazing during the rapid growth stage,
year after year, decreases plant vigor and stands of
desirable plant species. For each allotment grazed
in March, April, and May, AUMs per day were cal-
culated and the March through May period was
eliminated. A total of approximately 33,350 AUMs
would be eliminated by removal of livestock be-
tween March 1 and May 31. This is 29 percent of
the total reduction included in this alternative.
Eighty-three of the AMPs included in the pro-
posed action stipulate a rest rotation grazing
system. One criticism of rest rotation grazing is
that, even though one pasture is rested each year,
the level of livestock use is based on all pastures in
the system. The pastures being used are therefore
stocked at a maximum level. A more conservative
approach would be to stock only at the level of the
pastures being used. For purposes of this analysis,
it was assumed that all pastures in an allotment
had equal livestock carrying capacity and that the
licensed livestock use would not exceed the capac-
ity of the pastures being used. Therefore, in a four
pasture rest rotation system, the number of AUMs
was reduced by 25 percent, a three pasture rest
rotation system by 33 percent, a six pasture rest
rotation system by 16 percent, etc. In order to pre-
clude double counting of AUM reductions where
spring grazing had been eliminated, and pasture
level stocking assumed, only the larger of the two
reduction figures was used. A total reduction of
approximately 26,300 AUMs resulted from this pro-
cedure (23 percent of the total reduction for this
alternative).
The third factor used in the development of re-
duced level of livestock use was the amount of
acreage each allotment had in a fair or poor range
condition class and/or a severe or critical erosion
condition class. If 20 to 50 percent of the allotment
acreage was in fair and/or poor range condition, a
20 percent AUM reduction (based on the AUMs
remaining after the spring use and pasture stocking
reductions were made) was stipulated; if over 50
percent of the allotment acreage was in fair and/or
poor range condition, a 30 percent reduction was
assumed. In allotments with 20 to 50 percent of the
total acreage in a severe and/or critical erosion
condition class, an additional AUM reduction of 20
percent was postulated; if over 50 percent of the
allotment was in such condition, an additional 30
percent reduction in AUMs was assumed. A reduc-
tion of approximately 24,250 AUMs resulted from
the foregoing procedure (21 percent of the total
reduction included in this alternative).
The final reduction factor in this alternative was
based on the amount and type of wildlife habitat
within each allotment. If a significant portion of the
allotment (25 percent or more of the total acres)
contains specified wildlife habitat types, a reduction
in livestock use levels was made. A 20 percent
reduction in AUMs was postulated for each of the
following habitat types:
Antelope
(a) Concentration areas during severe winters
(b) High value habitat
Mule Deer
(a) Concentration areas during severe winters
(b) High value habitat
White-tailed Deer
(a) Winter habitat
(b) Summer habitat
(c) Year-long habitat
Elk
(a) Concentration areas during severe winters
(b) Year-long habitat
8-17
CN
I
00
w
CQ
<
E
>h
O
m
C
rd
CQ
CD
W
o
o
o
p
cn
0)
>
•H
O
CO
H
0)
>
QJ
O
CD
C<
MH U
O TJ
•H
0)
P
en
O
O
d
a
n
o
cu
n
cc;
Cm
a
c
0
■H
•H
P
CQ
O
a
<
p
<
Tf
CD
4-1
CO
0
O
a,
•
0
0
n
B
Pm
e
0
n
a;
HH
w
D
c
0
en
■H
C
P
•H
u
+)
d
cn
T3
•H
CD
X
cd
W
i
•H
J
CD
cn
&
o
C
•rH
T)
-P
CD
CO
cn
H
fi
X
a>
w
o
E
u
o
4-1
T3
G
(d
J
CN
<*
m
o
CM
03
o
in
<n
o\°
cn
00
o
un
c£>
CN
CN
ro
cn
in
in
o
o
cn
o\°
O
CO
vD
CN
O
m
en
CN
6\°
n
o
cn
^
CO
, — .
rH
r^
O
cn
O
m
CO
2
-
»
D
rH
(N
<
CD
rH
o
CT>
CN
CO
c
•H
rcj
^^
cn
,— *
H
en
,*
cn
CM
Cm
m
CM
cn
^^
tji
^
u
§
-rl
cn
Cm
C
Si
crj
*p
•H
CN
rl
CTi
p
<C
H
CO
CD
CN
c
rH
rH
>
rH
d
r-
o
"*— "'
•H
>"~*'
o
g
CO
<
Eh
O
Eh
8-18
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Bighorn Sheep
(a) General habitat
Sharp-tailed Grouse
(a) High value habitat
Sage Grouse
(a) Crucial winter and high value habitat
This alternative assumes that a total livestock
reduction of 60 percent or more would result in the
development of a wildlife habitat management plan
in lieu of a livestock allotment management plan
and/or a major revision of the allotment manage-
ment plan to more fully meet wildlife objectives
through, for example, protection of riparian areas.
Based on the foregoing methodology, 35 AMPs
would have 60 percent or larger reductions due
only to wildlife considerations. To avoid double
counting of AUM reductions on allotments where
reductions have been made for elimination of
spring grazing, pasture level stocking or poor and
fair range condition and/or severe and critical ero-
sion condition, an additional AUM reduction was
assumed only if the wildlife percentage was larger
than the total reduction for the other factors. Ap-
proximately 31,500 AUMs or 27 percent of the total
reduction for this alternative is based on the type
and amount of wildlife habitat contained in each
allotment.
Soils
As observed by Willard and Herman 1977, prog-
ress in watershed improvements through implemen-
tation of livestock grazing systems is slow. The
combined long term (15 years) watershed benefits
of reduced compaction, shifts in erosion condition
class acreages, and drops in sedimentation rates
would parallel those expected from elimination of
livestock grazing.
Short term disturbance of 1 7,244 acres involved
in range improvements would result in a net loss of
36,396 tons of soil.
Long term improvements in compaction would
be slight overall, and moderate in drainages and
near present water developments.
Incised trails in most areas where slopes do not
exceed 20 percent would improve moderately.
Long term improvement in erosion condition
class acreages, and in sedimentation reductions, is
estimated at an average of 10 percent, with the
most significant gains occurring in major drainages.
Lands in critical to severe erosion condition should
decrease 27,849 acres, from the present 278,487
acres. Sedimentation should be reduced 256,326
tons, from the present 2,653,259 tons (see Table 8-
1). The most significant sedimentation improve-
ments would be observed on the Arrow Creek
drainage.
Water Resources
To reduce the stocking rate of the various exist-
ing and proposed AMP areas would reduce total
water consumption by livestock. The amount of re-
duction, however, would be insignificant overall. In-
filtration rates would experience slight to moderate
increases comparable to those projected for elimi-
nation of grazing. Slight additional aquifer recharge
also would occur.
Average annual runoff would be slightly reduced
overall. Peak discharge also would be slightly re-
duced. No significant changes in chemical quality of
surface water would be expected. Biological quality
would be slightly improved overall.
Vegetation
By reducing livestock stocking levels by an aver-
age of 40 percent from existing licensed use, graz-
ing pressure would be significantly reduced, which
would allow plant vigor and reproduction to in-
crease. Establishing proper stocking rates which
will maximize meat, wool, and wildlife yields and yet
not endanger soil, water, and vegetation stability,
nor unduly interfere with other land uses is a diffi-
cult task. Range production varies each year in
response to precipitation and temperature.
Vegetation recovery and stability would be en-
hanced by reducing the stocking rates as outlined.
This would occur primarily because less area would
be needed to sustain fewer livestock. The result
would be less total area grazed; however, this alter-
native would provide little if any relief to the heavy
use areas which have historically been selectively
grazed. The safest policy and one of the most
expeditious means of enhancing the rangeland re-
source would be to stock the range initially with the
number of animals that can safely graze under sub-
normal conditions. The proposed livestock reduc-
tions would be expected to provide a very conser-
vative initial stocking rate from which adjustments
could be made upward as range conditions im-
prove.
The findings of Smith (1940) in Oklahoma indi-
cated that when spring grazing is eliminated, later
grazing has little more effect upon the composition
8-19
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
of the vegetation than does mowing for hay in the
summer. Conversely, early and continuous spring
grazing depletes the reserves of perennial plants
and eventually kills them.
Mackie (1970) reported on the precipitation pat-
tern within the ES area from 1943 through 1973.
During 10 of the 31 years, spring (April-June) pre-
cipitation was less than 5 inches. This is the critical
period for plants and would indicate drought with
respect to forage plant growth and production. In
other words, according to Mackie, drought condi-
tions can be expected in the ES area once every
three to four years.
With reduced grazing, opportunity for range con-
dition improvement during average or above aver-
age rainfall years would be enhanced. Projected
shifts (acres) in range condition class resulting from
this alternative are shown in Table 8-1. See Appen-
dix 10 for methodology used to predict shifts.
Those allotments showing the greatest need for
improvement would have the largest reductions.
This lower level of stocking would have a lesser
impact upon the rangeland resource during dry
years and provide the means to make the greatest
improvement during above average years.
Wildlife
A 40 percent reduction in grazing from existing
licensed use would benefit virtually all wildlife sig-
nificantly because of increased amounts of forage
available for wildlife and increased residual cover
for nesting and protection during winter. The extent
to which wildlife would benefit due to the reductions
proposed under this alternative would depend on
local conditions. An average increase of 10 to 20
percent is probably reasonable, but is unsubstanti-
ated by data.
The elimination of spring grazing would be par-
ticularly beneficial. This would allow forage plants
to maintain carbohydrate reserves and thus their
vigor (Smith 1940), but it would also provide valua-
ble protection for riparian habitats during a major
part of the wet season when trampling by livestock
can cause considerable physical damage to soil
and vegetation. Although livestock may concentrate
in riparian areas more in the warm summer months
than they do in the spring, protection of these habi-
tats in the spring and no compensatory increases in
summer stocking rates would greatly increase the
abilities of riparian habitats to withstand summer
livestock use.
In the Ervin Ridge area where the wild or semi-
wild horses are, there would be a 60 percent reduc-
tion in stocking under this alternative. As explained
earlier, a habitat management plan would be devel-
oped on this area. If the horses were determined to
be truly wild, management would probably be
aimed at fulfilling their needs and result in a several
fold increase. If they were determined not to be
wild, they would be removed from the federal
range.
Benefits to wildlife on the 35 AMPs where habi-
tat management plans (HMPs) would be developed
or where the AMP would be revised to more fully
meet wildlife objectives would be substantial. There
is no evidence that many existing wildlife popula-
tions could be at least doubled if management
were directed toward their benefit. This would not
mean the elimination of livestock grazing, but rather
a substantial reduction in livestock use with inten-
sive grazing permitted for short periods to prevent
the vegetation from becoming too rank and to
create successional diversity. Examples from litera-
ture illustrating the potential of this concept are
discussed below.
Anderson and Scherzinger (1975) were able to
increase elk populations on a state game manage-
ment area in northeastern Oregon almost ten-fold
by first removing cattle and then allowing sufficient
grazing to prevent the formation of wolf plants.
Gjersing (1975) and Mundinger (1975) demonstrat-
ed that waterfowl nesting near stockwater reser-
voirs is benefitted by the residual vegetation pro-
duced in the rest pasture of rest rotation grazing
systems, but a number of other studies notably
Sayler (1 962 - cited by Gjersing (1 975)) and Kirsch
(1969) have found that waterfowl production on un-
grazed lands is often more than 100 percent higher
than on grazed lands. Under an HMP, carefully
controlled grazing at reduced stocking levels would
achieve probably double the waterfowl production
possible under normal rest rotation grazing condi-
tions.
Numerous studies indicate that the number and
variety of non-game birds using a given habitat de-
pends on the structural variety and species diversity
of the vegetation (Balda 1975). Since the vegeta-
tion of areas intensively grazed has less variety
than nongrazed or occasionally grazed areas, bird
populations on grazed areas can be expected to be
less diverse and generally lower than on ungrazed
areas. Walcheck (1970) made similar observations
within the ES area. HMPs with reduced stocking
levels would provide much more diverse habitat
and, therefore, more diverse non-game bird popula-
tions than would be possible under conventional
management conditions.
Considerable concern has developed over the
impact of grazing on riparian habitat (Johnson and
Jones 1977). Riparian habitat includes habitats im-
mediately adjacent to lakes, ponds, reservoirs,
8-20
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
rivers, and streams (including intermittent streams
and coulees with deciduous shrub vegetation). (Ri-
parian habitats have yet to be defined or inventor-
ied within the ES area.)
Studies in the southwest (Carothers 1977) indi-
cate that riparian habitats often support wildlife
population densities many times that of adjacent
habitats. In the Willow Creek Planning Unit, decidu-
ous shrub coulees have been found to be important
mule deer and elk habitat and often support con-
centrations of shart-tailed grouse. Creek bottoms/
sagebrush riparian habitats provide year-long sage
grouse and mule deer habitat, and creek bottoms/
agricultural/sagebrush mixtures are important for
many species, particularly white-tailed deer and
pheasants. The variety of micro-climates, thermal
cover, escape cover, forage, and water make ripar-
ian areas valuable to many animals. The values of
these areas are related to the relatively greater
horizontal and vertical stratification of the vegeta-
tion (Thomas, Maser, and Rodek 1976 as cited in
the Willow Creek URA).
Livestock damage to riparian habitats is severe
because livestock are attracted to the water, succu-
lent vegetation, and relatively level terrain in these
areas. Although there is some indication that rest
rotation and other intensive grazing management
systems can benefit riparian habitats, the precent
of potential wildlife productivity that can be
achieved through normal livestock management of
riparian areas is small (Hormay 1976). Significant
local increases in white-tailed deer, pheasant, and
other game and non-game populations could be
realized through HMPs with riparian habitat en-
hancement objectives.
Prehistoric and Historic Features
water developments. Because most intensive use
of an allotment would still center around access to
water, only marginal reduction of this type of impact
is anticipated from lowered levels of livestock use.
Visual Resources
Because the same range improvement projects
recommended in the proposed action would be im-
plemented in this alternative, changes in visual
quality created by these intrusions would be the
same as for the proposed action. Some improve-
ments in visual quality could result in localized
areas where substantial reductions in livestock use
were recommended. A gradual improvement in
vegetation ground cover, which could improve
scenic quality, should occur in the long term.
Recreation
Any reductions in livestock use would benefit
most recreation activities by reducing adverse im-
pacts associated with livestock grazing. Significant
increases in wildlife numbers would lead to a corre-
sponding increase in hunting opportunities. Fishing
opportunities would increase slightly due to an im-
provement in riparian vegetation and a reduction in
sediment in streams and reservoirs. Additional haz-
ards or restrictions to movement of off-road vehi-
cles would result from implementation of this alter-
native to the same degree as the proposed action.
A reduction in livestock numbers or no grazing in
the spring would reduce shooting hazards caused
by the presence of livestock. This alternative would
produce little change in ease of movement of sport
shooting enthusiasts.
Implementation of this alternative would have
little different effect than the proposed action on
the cultural resources. There would be no reduction
in construction of range improvements. In Chapter
3, it was predicted that as many as 54 prehistoric
sites and additional historic sites could be impacted
by construction. The same level of construction of
range improvements would maintain that number of
impacted prehistoric sites at 54. It was not possible
to quantify historic site impacts in Chapter 3, but no
reduction in impacts would occur on historic sites
either. These impacts would apply to both the short
and long term.
In Chapter 3, it was suggested that most im-
pacts related to cattle trampling and other direct
effects of grazing would be concentrated in riparian
habitat, and around reservoirs, springs, and other
Economic and Social Conditions
This alternative would not affect the ES area as
severely as elimination of grazing. It would have
positive effects on construction, government, and
recreation sectors, but would negatively impact the
livestock industry.
The overall reduction in grazing would be 40
percent for an annual loss of 115,450 AUMs from
proposed action levels. This reduction would not,
however, be applied equally across all allotments.
Reductions on single allotments would range from
0 to 80 percent. These reductions would cause a
loss in annual income of $1,435,000 in 1980 dol-
lars. The annual loss in livestock income over the
8-21
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
nine county region would be 0.3 percent. That loss
of income would not be spread evenly over the
entire ES area. Those allotments facing over a 40
percent reduction (176 of 318 allotments) would
probably be reduced enough so that they no longer
would be viable operations. In that case, over half
of the operators could be forced out of business,
which would contribute to the long term trend of
fewer family-owned ranches. Other operators who
are highly dependent upon BLM land for grazing
(no statistics are available concering operator de-
pendency) could be forced out of business with a
less than 40 percent reduction.
Livestock employment would drop by 155. This
would be a decrease of 2.0 percent of 1 975 agricul-
tural (livestock and farming) employment levels in
the nine county area.
Construction income and employment would in-
crease at the same level and over the same imple-
mentation period as under the proposed action.
Consequently, these related impacts would be iden-
tical. Government-related income and employment
would decrease slightly from the proposed action,
but would be higher than at present. Government
generated income would be down $12,000, and
one job would be lost. Construction would have a
short term beneficial effect, while government
income and employment increases would continue
for the foreseeable future.
Hunter days might increase by an additional 5
percent over those figures predicted under the pro-
posed action. In 1976 dollars, the reduction alterna-
tive potentially would increase hunting expenditures
by $46,000.
The 0.3 percent reduction of income from live-
stock predicted by this alternative would be more
than cancelled by increases in the construction,
government, and recreation sectors. Therefore, re-
duction of grazing should have no measurable
effect on overall economic and social well-being.
The principal impact to social conditions would
be on socio-cultural attitudes. The reductions in
livestock grazing require specific monitoring and de-
tailed management. The level of government in-
volvement required for this is counter to the individ-
ualistic attitudes expressed in the area. The entire
reduction alternative would be resisted by local
ranchers.
Land Ownership and Use
Livestock Grazing
This alternative would create significant detri-
mental impacts on about 296 of the 318 AMPs
included in the proposed action. The degree of
these impacts would be in direct proportion to the
percentage of reduction and dependency of the
individual operators on public lands (see Table 8-3).
In many cases, operators could be forced out of
the livestock business. Specific figures on individual
operations and their dependency are not available.
Some operators could be forced to buy out smaller
operations or utilize available croplands or im-
proved pastures more heavily. This alternative
would likely divert environmental impacts from
public lands to private and state lands. These ad-
verse impacts would be most severe in the short
term and would probably become non-existent in
the long term.
Wilderness
Adverse impacts caused by livestock use
(trampling, riparian damage, trailing, etc.) would be
reduced. Eliminating spring grazing, reducing AUMs
in areas of fair or poor range condition, and reduc-
ing stocking rates in rest rotation grazing systems
and areas with high value wildlife habitats should
help improve visual quality and enhance the wilder-
ness integrity in a potential wilderness study area.
Because this alternative would require the same
number of range improvement projects as the pro-
posed action, adverse impacts to wilderness values
resulting from these actions would occur at approxi-
mately the same level as in the proposed action
(Chapter 3, Wilderness). Short-term and long-term
adverse impacts would be essentially the same.
ALTERNATIVE D: LIVESTOCK
FORAGE MAXIMIZATION
This alternative would provide for the develop-
ment of livestock forage to its maximum potential
by using vegetation manipulation practices (sage-
brush spraying, mechanical treatment, and pre-
scribed burning). The primary objectives of sage-
brush spraying, mechanical treatment (contour fur-
rowing, ripping, chiseling, plowing and seeding) and
prescribed burning would be to remove or suppress
undesirable plant species and increase forage pro-
duction and thus grazing capacity. All of the above
actions would be in addition to those specified in
8-22
TABLE 8-3
Livestock Reduction (%) by No. of Allotments
Percent Reduction No. of Allotments
0 10
1-19 12
20-39 120
40-59 129
60-Over 47
318
8-23
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
the proposed action. Note that 15,339 acres of
vegetation manipulation are included in the pro-
posed action. Approximately 367,774 additional
acres would be involved in vegetation manipulation
with a potential increase of 55,252 additional AUMs
(19 percent higher than the proposed action). The
vegetation manipulation stipulated in this alternative
would cost an additional $3,258,751. Table 8-4 pre-
sents alternative data assumptions for vegetation
manipulation practices by landform.
Soils
Forage maximization activities would lead to a
short-term degradation of watershed values within
the 175 AMPs involved. Sedimentation from range
disturbances, involving about 160,000 acres, would
approach 120,000 tons annually, until vegetation
establishment is completed in two to five years.
Prescribed burning of about 93,000 additional
acres, and sagebrush spraying of about 116,000
acres, would have no measurable watershed im-
pacts.
Once a diverse plant community with perennial
grass species was established, this area (367,774
acres) would approach a stabilized water erosion
condition. Over the 15 year long-term projection, a
shift from an average moderate to slight erosion
condition has been estimated (see Table 8-1). The
remaining ES area and AMP acreage values would
remain as estimated for the proposed action projec-
tions (also given in Table 8-1).
Incised trails in most areas where slopes do not
exceed 20 percent would improve moderately.
Water Resources
Mechanical treatment of 159,130 acres would
increase potential infiltration rates both in the short
and long terms. Associated changes would include
slight aquifer recharge and reduced surface runoff
over the affected acreage. Peak discharges in
these areas also would be reduced.
Overall water resource impacts would not differ
significantly from those projected for the proposed
action.
Vegetation
The rangeland improvements proposd in this al-
ternative would, in the short term, reduce vegeta-
tion productivity for two to five years until desirable
forage species had become established.
In the long term, this alternative would increase
forage productivity within 175 allotments by from 3
percent to 1 75 percent more than that projected by
implementation of the proposed action. When
added to the proposed action, forage maximization
would increase livestock carrying capacity more
rapidly than any other alternative. Adverse impacts
would initially be greater than the other alternatives,
but in two to five years treated range sites would
support firmly established vegetation and be pro-
ducing more pounds of forage per acre than under
the proposed action.
During the vegetation manipulation and recovery
period, the treated area would be rested from live-
stock grazing. This would require ranchers finding
another place for their cattle during the recovery
period if the treated area could not be scheduled to
coincide with normal rest or if the rest period is not
long enough to cover the entire recovery period.
After several years of management under this
system, grazing capacity could be increased on an
allotment by allotment basis commensurate with im-
proved range conditions.
Undesirable and poisonous plants tend to
become established on poor and fair range sites;
therefore, the reduction of these plants would be
high under this alternative because of the revegeta-
tion projects, lower stocking level during the recov-
ery period, and intensively managed grazing sys-
tems. Considering that this alternative presents the
most rapid means of improving range condition, the
incidence of livestock poisoning should decrease
accordingly.
This alternative would rehabilitate rangeland
presently in unsatisfactory condition more rapidly
than any other alternative analyzed. Table 8-1 pro-
vides projected shifts (acres) in range condition
classes resulting from this alternative. Ecologically,
this alternative would achieve more in the shortest
period of time, and in the long term provide for
better range condition than any other alternative,
and for productivity as good as the reduced live-
stock use alternative.
Spraying about 116,000 acres having a big sa-
gebrush aspect would convert these acres to a
grassland dominated aspect interspersed with rem-
nant stands of big sagebrush. Mechanical treat-
ment would be conducted primarily on about
159,000 acres of panspot range sites dominated by
sod bound species such as blue grama and club-
moss. Midgrasses such as western wheatgrass and
needlegrass would prevail after treatment. Alfalfa
would also be seeded on those sites requiring im-
mediate protection from possible erosion. Pre-
8-24
I
oo
W
PQ
<
Eh
Hi
C
O
•H
-P
td
H
a
•H
rd
g
o
-H
4-»
rd
•p
qj
QJ
>
X3
Cn
O
u
x:
C
O
•H
-P
td
N
•H
g
•H
X
rd
g
QJ
tn
fd
5^
O
fa
^
o
o
-p
CO
QJ
>
•H
CO
g
H
D
rd
<
C
0 03
o
CTi
CO
CM
■H g
•^
C*">
00
<D
-P D
^
V£>
H
CM
■H <C
**
*»
•*
TJ
CM
CM
LD
n3
m
CM
LD
rtj
CO
CO
QJ
CD
5-1
73 5-1
U
CD U
rd
x> fd
•H —
o
O
O
o
H
.H
r^
IT)
M
o tn
CM
LD
H
<?\
to c
**
^
*»
*
d) -H
<y\
rH
CM
CM
n c
00
G\
fa 5-1
3
fa
^_^
CO
10
QJ
QJ
5h
U
CJ
H U
rd
fd rd
o *-*
o
O
O
o
•H
<x>
<J\
LD
m
C -P
o
00
rH
H
fd c
*»
V.
H
X! QJ
r-
rH
<y>
U g
H
-^
LO
QJ -P
H
H
g fd
QJ
5-1
Eh
^m^
CO
CO
OJ
QJ
5-1
U
U
x; u
rd
co rd
3 >-
O
^r
•^
5-1
rH
o
H
X} tr>
00
CTi
1
r^
QJ C
•l.
*k
1
■k
tri-H
rH
en
1
LD
fd >i
r^
■^
H
co fd
H
5-1
D.
c/>
CO
fa
QJ
^
CO >
fa H
^r
^r
r-»
T)
g 0
< >
00
00
H
a
M
|
CO
fd
C
QJ
•H
5-1
fd
CO
<
rH
M
fa
fd
CO
g
QJ
a
u
tn
5-1
•H
o
G
XI
fd
C/l
m
•H
U
-P
J
tj
H
QJ
C
<
G
rH
>
3
Eh
fd
0
•H
0
O
hi
fa
fa
g
Eh
CO
QJ
U
o
fd
IS
v.
en
rd
-P
0
Eh
C
0
■H
-P
O
fd
QJ
CO
0
a
o
5-1
Qa
QJ
XI
-P
c
•H
OJ
TS
3
r-i
U
C
■H
CO
•P
C
QJ
g
QJ
>
0
5-t
a
g
•H
QJ
C
rd
5-1
T5
C
fd
co
fa
OJ
X!
-P
O
-P
c
o
■H
-P
•H
fd
8-25
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
scribed burning would be conducted within conifer
types with some sagebrush burning when it would
not conflict with identified wildlife needs. All three
vegetation manipulations are proposed in areas
where the greatest amount of livestock forage
would be realized through the removal or thinning
of less palatable species.
The soil types for those sites where treatments
are prescribed are capable of supporting greater
amounts of livestock forage than is presently being
produced. Rainfall within the ES area averages be-
tween 10-14 inches per year, which is adequate for
the establishment and maintenance of higher pro-
ducing forage species.
Based on previous range rehabilitation work
conducted by the BLM and others within or near
the ES area, there is a high probability of success
for the proposed treatments. For example, recent
studies conducted by the Agricultural Research
Service (now Science and Education Administra-
tion) in southeast Montana (Wight et al. 1978)
found that over an eight year period, contour fur-
rowing on a panspot range site increased average
annual herbage production 165 percent, while in-
creasing plant available soil water 107 percent.
Thickspike and western wheatgrass accounted for
most of the increased yields. The average annual
rainfall is about 12 inches where the study was
conducted.
Wildlife
Of all the alternatives, this one would be the
least favorable for wildlife. Although the data are
not entirely conclusive, studies on and near the ES
area indicate that mechanical and chemical manip-
ulations of vegetation are detrimental to game pop-
ulations, although certain small mammals and other
species might benefit (Wallestad 1975, Martinka
1967, and Bayless 1969). While number estimates
are not possible, losses of antelope, mule deer,
and sage grouse, in particular, would be significant
at least locally because the loss of essential shrub
species on winter habitat would outweigh benefits
to wildlife from grass and forb production increases
under this alternative.
Elk habitat conditions would improve slightly be-
cause of the importance to them of the increased
forage that would be produced. Whether elk popu-
lations would respond would depend on hunting
pressure as influenced by landowner attitudes
toward increased elk populations.
The wild or semi-wild horses in southern Blaine
County would show a moderate population increase
under this alternative due to increased available
forage, assuming no change in the management of
these horses.
Sedimentation from the 160,000 acres of me-
chanical treatment of vegetation would have a
slight adverse impact on fish populations in new
and existing reservoirs for 2 to 5 years. No signifi-
cant impact on Fort Peck Reservoir would be antici-
pated from sedimentation since the increase would
be very small compared to the total sediment load
received by the reservoir.
Although the herbicide 2,4-D is relatively short-
lived, the potential for impacts on fish in stockwater
ponds exists when it is sprayed on 116,000 acres
of sagebrush. However, standard precautions would
prevent significant impacts.
No impact on any endangered species is antici-
pated under this alternative. If future studies identi-
fied an endangered species within areas scheduled
for vegetation treatment, no treatment would be
undertaken until consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service confirmed that such treatment
could be implemented without negatively affecting
the species concerned.
Prehistoric and Historic Features
Forage maximization would have the greatest
adverse effect on prehistoric and historic features.
More ground disturbance than in any other form of
proposed management, and greater numbers of
livestock are called for in this alternative. Both
short-term and long-term impacts would be expect-
ed. Mechanical treatment would cause short-term
impact through ground disturbance, while livestock
increase would have a long-term effect.
Under the proposed action or grazing reduction
alternative, about 17,000 acres of ground would be
disturbed by vegetation manipulation or construc-
tion of range improvements. This would increase by
367,774 acres under this alternative. As shown in
Chapter 3, ground disturbance is potentially the
most destructive impact to cultural resources. While
approximately 54 sites were predicted to suffer im-
pacts under the proposed action or grazing reduc-
tion alternative, it is possible that over 1,100 prehis-
toric sites could be impacted by the vegetation ma-
nipulation in this alternative. However, sagebrush
spraying would not be a major impact and 360 of
the affected sites could be in lands which would be
sprayed. In addition, an increased number of histor-
ic sites would be impacted, but the number is not
known. It is probable that most impacts to historic
sites from vegetation manipulation would be to
ranching or homestead features.
8-26
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The above impacts are only those to be expect-
ed from vegetation manipulation. The increased
AUMs resulting from this alternative could increase
the grazing use by approximately 19 percent. This
would probably put more grazing pressure on ripar-
ian and water development areas, and cause a
corresponding increase in impacts from livestock
trampling, mitigated by increased livestock use of
mechanically treated areas. This impact would be
variable because vegetation manipulation would not
occur on all AMPs.
Visual Resources
Implementation of numerous additional vegeta-
tion manipulations would (1) change the natural
conditions of the landscape, and (2) create addi-
tional form, line, color, and texture contrasts. Short-
term adverse impacts to visual resources would be
more severe than long-term impacts due to immedi-
ate losses in ground cover, and changes in form,
line, color, and texture of the landscape. Long-term
adverse impacts would gradually be reduced as
existing vegetation recovered or new seedings
were established.
Recreation
Hunting opportunities would decrease slightly
due to changes in wildlife habitat caused by the
individual vegetation manipulations. Individual game
species would react in different ways to these prac-
tices (refer to wildlife discussion for this alternative).
Increased livestock numbers or lengthened of sea-
sons of use resulting in increased AUMs could pro-
duce increased wildlife/livestock competition for
food, especially on grass dependent species such
as elk. Because livestock numbers could increase
as a result of implementation of this alternative,
more adverse impacts associated with livestock
concentrations near water sources and fisheries
could result. Some improvements in nearby water-
sheds would occur as a result of these practices,
but would not likely offset the increased adverse
impacts to fisheries caused by additional livestock
numbers.
Because some vegetation manipulations such
as contour furrowing create rough ground surfaces,
cross-country off-road vehicle travel would be ad-
versely impacted in the treated areas. No additional
fences would be required so no additional adverse
impacts to ease of movement would be expected.
Additional AUMs produced through implementation
of this alternative could result in increased livestock
numbers or longer seasons of use. Either result
would produce additional shooting hazards to live-
stock, adversely impacting sport shooting opportu-
nities.
Economic and Social Conditions
Livestock forage maximization is based on addi-
tions to the proposed action. All changes to live-
stock, construction, and government income and
employment as shown in Chapter 3, Social and
Economic Conditions, are included in this alterna-
tive.
The increased level of vegetation manipulation
would add income and employment to the contract
construction sector. Additional personal income
would be generated during the 1980-83 implemen-
tation phase amounting to a total of $3,596,000
during this four-year period. Secondary effects
would generate another $25,000 in personal
income. The total change in income in the con-
struction sector from the combination of both the
proposed action and the alternative amounts to a
33.6 percent increase. However, this is a one-time
expenditure (spread over four years), and would not
be continually added to the economy beyond 1984.
Vegetation manipulation for 175 allotments (55
percent of the total 318 allotments) would mean
that AUMs would be added and additional income
would be earned for the foreseeable future. In 1980
dollars, annual personal income would rise by
$1,186,000. The 175 allotments would generate ad-
ditional annual income of approximately $5,685
each.
Vegetation manipulation and increased numbers
of cattle would be harmful to some wildlife habitat.
It is possible that hunter days would drop as much
as 5 percent from levels expected with the pro-
posed action. In 1976 dollars, hunter day expendi-
tures might decrease about $46,000.
The forage maximization alternative would not
have a long-term effect on social well-being, public
finance, or infrastructure, because it would not
measurably change these areas. The one-time in-
jection of construction income would temporarily
increase such social well-being factors as family
income and decrease unemployment (this alterna-
tive would add 112 jobs. The influence would last
only during the AMP implementation period, 1980-
84. However, 124 jobs would be added in the agri-
cultural sector, and 30 in government, so some
slight effect may be felt in population and ability to
provide services.
8-27
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Although no adverse public opinion would prob-
ably meet this alternative from most of the area
population (with exceptions noted in Chapter 3 for
the proposed action), resistance from wildlife inter-
est groups who have expressed strong opposition
to range improvements that would have an adverse
effect on wildlife habitat would be expected.
Land Ownership and Use
Livestock Grazing
Forage maximization would result in an initial
increase of 55,262 AUMs (19 percent) or an equiv-
alent of 4,605 animal units. This increase would
begin to occur during the short term. In the long
term, if properly managed under the AMP systems,
this increase could possibly exceed the initial in-
crease of 55,262 AUMs plus the proposed 21,904
AUM increase from the proposed action. The po-
tential would then be more than 77,166 AUMs over
the present licensed use, or a total licensed use
exceeding 371,667 AUMs in the long term. This
estimate represents about 40 percent of vegetative
climax potential for livetock in favorable years and
78 percent of climax potential for livestock in unfa-
vorable years.
Wilderness
The term "wilderness," as defined in the Wilder-
ness Act of 1964, requires that an area appear to
have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with man's work substantially unnoticeable.
An area of wilderness is further defined to mean,
"an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its
primeval character and influence, without perma-
nent improvements, which is protected and man-
aged so as to preserve its natural conditions."
Vegetation manipulations do not preserve natural
conditions. The vegetation manipulation postulated
would be a major adverse impact in any wilderness
study area and could preclude wilderness consider-
ation of any area so impacted.
8-28
CHAPTER 9
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
CHAPTER 9
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
The Missouri Breaks Draft Environmental State-
ment was prepared by BLM District and State
Office specialists with expertise in range manage-
ment, wildlife, recreation, landscape architecture,
archaeology and history, soils, watershed manage-
ment, hydrology, geology, and economics. Writing
of the ES began in January 1978; however, a com-
plex process over a two and one-half year period
preceded the writing phase. This process included
resource inventory, land use planning, public and
other agency coordination, and preparation of allot-
ment management plans. Consultation and coordi-
nation with agencies, organizations, and individuals
occurred in a variety of ways throughout this prepa-
ration process.
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION
Update and revision of the existing land use
plans for the ES area (ten Management Framework
Plans, or MFPs) began in 1975. Resource data
gathered in the concurrent development of allot-
ment management plans was recycled into the re-
source data base used in the land use planning
process. During this update process, federal, state,
and local organizations were contacted for assist-
ance. All public land users and other interested
groups and individuals were notified through letters
and news releases of the initiation of the planning
system updates. In late 1977 and early 1978, public
information meetings or open houses were held to
present the multiple-use recommendations from the
MFPs. Open houses were held in Havre, Malta,
Glasgow, Lewistown, and Jordan. Discussions of
the Missouri Breaks ES with interested parties oc-
curred throughout the update process.
Preparation of allotment management plans for
the ES area began in 1975. Nearly all livestock
operators were contacted during preparation of
draft allotment management plans and most were
contacted after the drafts were complete. All AMPs
were available for review by livestock operators and
public interest groups. All livestock operators in the
Lewistown District were advised by letter of the
effect, if any, of the proposed AMP on their oper-
ation. The AMPs will remain in draft form until a
decision is made on the content and adequacy of
the Missouri Breaks ES. Prior to implementation of
the AMPs, close coordination and cooperation with
the affected livestock operators will be necessary.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND
CONSULTATION DURING
DEVELOPMENT OF THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
A news release was distributed in October 1975
discussing initiation of the planning process which
would lead to preparation of grazing ESs on all
public lands in Montana. This news release indicat-
ed that the Missouri Breaks ES would be the first of
eight such studies to be completed in Montana by
1988.
Public involvement throughout the integrated
process of planning system updates and allotment
management plan development stressed the close
ties with the upcoming ES. Numerous meetings
were held over the two and one-half year period
with public agencies, service organizations, special
interest groups, and private individuals to explain
and solicit comments on the entire process. These
meetings included entities such as the various co-
operative state grazing districts, Montana Public
Lands Council, Montana Stockgrowers Association,
several chambers of commerce, and local rod and
gun clubs.
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed
draft material regarding prehistoric and historic
sites. His comments noted that any affected site on
or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places must be reviewed by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. Because no such sites
were within proposed project areas, the Advisory
Council has not been contacted but will be pro-
vided an opportunity to review the draft environ-
mental statement.
Informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding threatened and endangered spe-
cies took place throughout the ES preparation proc-
ess. The Billings Area Office informally reviewed all
draft sections pertaining to threatened and endan-
gered species and indicated that consideration of
such species was adequate.
In addition, the ES team consulted with and/or
received input from the following organizations
during the writing phase of the draft ES:
Federal Agencies
Farmers Home Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
9-1
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Forest Service
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Soil Conservation Service
State Apencies and Organizations
Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
Montana Department of Community Affairs
Montana Department of Fish and Game
Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
Montana Highway Department
Montana Historical Society
Montana State University
University of Montana
Special Interest Groups
Montana Council of the Boy Scouts of America
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Further comments are expected from public
meetings scheduled for late January and early Feb-
ruary, 1979.
Copies of the draft environmental statement are
available for public review at BLM offices in Miles
City, Glasgow, Malta, Havre, Lewistown, and Bill-
ings. In addition, copies of the draft are available at
public libraries in all communities in the ES area.
Comments on the draft environmental statement
have been requested from the following agencies
and interest groups:
Federal Apencies
Army Corps of Engineers
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Mines
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Serv-
ice
National Park Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Congressional
Office of Congressman Marlenee
Office of Congressman Williams
Office of Senator Baucus
Office of Senator Melcher
Montana - State Agencies
Association of State Grazing Districts
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Natural Resources and Conser-
vation
Department of State Lands
Governor's Office
Historical Society
Old West Regional Commission
County Commissioners
Blaine County
Chouteau County
Fergus County
Garfield County
Judith Basin County
McCone County
Musselshell County
Petroleum County
Phillips County
Valley County
Local Government
Fort Benton Mayor
Glasgow Mayor
Jordan Mayor
Lewistown Mayor
Malta Mayor
Miles City Mayor
Roundup Mayor
Stanford Mayor
Winnett Mayor
Wolf Point Mayor
Other Organizations
Ada County Fish and Game League (Idaho)
9-2
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
American Fisheries Society Wildlife Society
American Horse Protective Association Williams Coulee CSGD
Audubon Society Winnett CSGD
Badlands County Cooperative State Grazing Individuals
District (CSGD) James Morgan (plaintiff in Natural Resources
Chain Buttes CSGD Defense Council, Inc. et al., vs. Rogers C.B.
~ , ~ ~«~r^ Morton et al.)
Crooked Creek CSGD
Defenders of Wildlife
Flatwillow CSGD
Friends of the Earth
Grassrange CSGD
Indian Butte CSGD
Izaak Walton League of America
Montana Farm Bureau
Montana Farmers Union
Montana Historical Society
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Montana Wilderness Association
Montana Wildlife Federation
Montana Woolgrowers Association
National Council of Public Land Users
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association, Inc.
Northern Plains Resource Council
Oregon Environmental Council
Pacific Legal Foundation
Phillips County Cowbelles
Phillips County Livestock Association
Phillips County Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict
Public Lands Council
Sierra Club
Society for Range Management
South Phillips County CSGD
The Humane Society of the United States
Valley County Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict
Weede CSGD
Wild Horse Organized Assistance
Wilderness Society
9-3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING LIVESTOCK FORAGE
ALLOCATION AND STOCKING RATES
A-1
APPENDIX 1
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING LIVESTOCK
FORAGE ALLOCATION AND STOCKING RATES
Introduction
Field data from the MRB Rangeland Inventory
have been utilized during the past 10-25 years,
depending upon the specific area. Some of the
range site names used 10-20 years ago have been
changed. Also, potential plant communities have
been better defined in more recent published soil
surveys. The MRB data have been the basis for
setting grazing capacity on most allotments, includ-
ing the 52 operational AMPs which have been mon-
itored for utilization, trend, actual use, and climate.
Based on our past experience in using the MRB
data, we find that it is generally good usable infor-
mation. The primary steps involved in the MRB
Rangeland Inventory included the following:
1 . Range sites were first delineated as the mapping
unit base. A range site is a distinctive kind of
rangeland that differs from other kinds of ran-
geland in its ability to produce a characteristic
natural plant community (SCS, National Range
Handbook, 302.1).
2. Ecological condition class determinations were
made on the basis of departures of present
species composition (by weight) from climax or
potential species composition.
3. SCS Technicians' Guides were used to establish
initial stocking rates.
Gross allocation levels were estimated by com-
paring recommended stocking rates for excellent
condition range with potential mean annual produc-
tion (per soil survey information) for the same range
site. Where existing range condition is good to ex-
cellent, this relationship appears to be realistic in
determining present allocation levels for livestock
and other uses. Where range condition is poor to
fair, livestock allocation levels would generally drop
because the more desirable livestock forage plant
species would be replaced with less desirable and
unpalatable plants.
Determination of Present Ecological
Condition
cent. This was compared with the climax plant
community of the same range site by using Techni-
cians' Guides (see Example #1) developed by the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The climax plant
community for a range site is found by searching
for protected or relatively undisturbed rangeland.
The plant community of the least disturbed range
sites is regarded as representing the vegetative po-
tential. The degree to which the present plant com-
munity varies from the climax plant community is
described by four classes: "excellent, good, fair,
and poor." Example #2 shows how the Techni-
cians' Guides were used to develop range condition
classes.
An ecological site field inventory was conducted
for the entire ES area in the 1950s and 1960s,
except in the Fergus and Petroleum Planning Units.
Realizing the desirability of showing ecological
range condition for the entire ES area, ocular re-
connaissance field data were converted to weight-
based species composition, the range site estimat-
ed, and condition class determined from departures
from climax as shown in the SCS Technicians'
Guides.
An approach was suggested by Dr. John Taylor,
Montana State University, where ocular reconnais-
sance of ground cover could be correlated with
annual production or yield, in a relative manner.
Relative yield factors were obtained from research
conducted at the Animal and Pasture Science Ex-
perimental Farm, Swift Current, Saskatchewan.
Ocular reconnaissance composition estimates
were weighted by relative yield factors to develop
estimates of present composition by weight. Those
values were then considered equivalent to direct
weight estimates and compared with Ecological
Site allowances to calculate Range Condition. Ap-
plication of this conversion methodology is shown
in Example #3.
Use of Both MRB and Soil Survey
Stocking Guides to Establish
Livestock Stocking Levels
Range condition was determined by first map-
ping the various range sites and then listing the
relative quantities of plants within each range site.
Annual production, the relative amount produced by
each species, was estimated to the nearest 5 per-
The following discussion is an attempt to recon-
struct total annual vegetation production and major
allocation levels. The basic concern is how much of
the vegetation production is being allocated to live-
stock grazing, wildlife, watershed, and other uses.
A-2
EXAMPLE #1
Early Technicians' Guide
TECHNICIANS' GUIDE TO RANGE SITES, CONDITION CUSSES, AND RECOMMENDED STOCKING RATES
Utilized by the Missouri River Basin Investigation Field Group of the Bureau of Land Management for the inventory
studies of the Milk River Area, 1952-54. Compiled from the Technicians' Guide for the Glaciated Plains
of Montana, produced by the Soil Conservation Service, U. 3. D. A.
Part Is Key species and their response to grazing as judged from climax:
DECREASERS
INCREASERS
(By range sites*)
Maximum % in climax - 10"-14" precipitation
INVADERS
WL Sb Ld SL 3v Sa Sy OU CI DC Sw Sc TB Gr VS SU Sh Bl
Giant wildrye
Cordgrasses
Big bluestem
Canada wildrye
Rough fescue
Prarie sandreed
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Slender wheatgrass
Bearded wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Shortawn
porcupine grass
Tall reedgrasses
Indian ricegrass
Sand dropseed
Little bluestem
Sideoats grama
Canby bluegrass
Alkali sacaton
Nuttall alkaligrass
Forb decreasers
Wetland sedges
Foxtails
Western wheatgrass
Needleandthread
Prarie Junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Squlrreltail
Red Threeawn
Stonyhills muhly
Mat muhly
Saltgrass
Threadleaf sedge
Dryland sedges
Phlox
Pricklypear
Fringed sagewort
Winterfat
Gardners saltbush
Big sagebrush
Silver sagebrush
Snowberry
Greasewood
Conifers
Other woody plants
25
40
5
5
5
20 15 25 35 50 d
10 JO 40 35 d d
- 5
to
d
5 10 15 10
10 15 15 15
10 10 15 15
5 5 5 5
- - 5 5
d d d d
d d d d
15 15 15 d
d 20 - d
10 10 20 30 30
5 5 10 10 15 10 10
5 - 5 5 10 5 5
- 5
5 10
- 15
- 5 -
5 -
- 5
5 -
- 5
- 5
- 5
5 5 10
10 10 15
5 -
d
5 -
5 -
5 -
- 10
5
5 -
- 5
10 -
5 5
5
5 -
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 -
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
d
d
20
10 10 15
5 5 5
5 5
10 10
5 5
All annuals
All exotics
Canada bluegrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Curlycup gumweed
Broom snakeweed
Tumblegrass
Dandelion
Foxtail barley
Rabbi tbrush
Western ragweed
Bun thistle
- 5
d d
40 40
5 -
10 -
- 5
5 10
15 10
- 5
5 5
5
* The symbol "-" means the species ha3 less than 2\% coverage or is not present in the climax vegetation on this site. The symbol "dn
means the species is a decreaser on this site. Range soil groups are described with determinant features (See Standard Symbols for Con-
servation Surveys, SCS, 1951). WL - Wetland is W3 (Subirrigated land with water over the surface during part of the growing season); Sb
Subirrigated is W1-W2 (Subirrigated land with water rarely over the surface during the grcwing season); Ld - Lowland is f2-f3 overflowed
(Use the Overflow guide to determine condition and stocking of native pasture areas with waterspreading systems. Map separately and
label separately as "Water Spreading System"); SL - Saline Lowland is S3-S4 with w; 3v - Savannah is land on which grass cover with iso-
lated trees is climax. In this pcpt. belt usually 1-3 depth; r, v, c, or e; various textures; 4-7 surface permeability and 1-4 lowerj
Sa - Sands is L to C texture, 1-3 depth; Sy - Sandy is 3 texture, 1-3 depth; OU - Ordinary Upland is M texture, 1-3 depth; CI - Clay is
F to H textures, 1-3 depth, normal permeability; DC - Dense Clay is V texture and lighter textures with 1 subsoil permeability; SW -
Shallow is 4 depth; Sc - Scabland is a complex of 20-50$ Solonetz soil (slick spots with very thin surface, F to H texture, 1 permeabil-
ity) and 50-30$ other soils; TB - Thin Breaks is various depths and textures on slopes over 20$ with al surface; Gr - Gravel is less
than 25$ fines, 6 to 7 permeability; VS - Very Shallow is 5 depth, except shale site; SU - Saline Upland is S3 to S4; Sh - Shale is 5
depth, V or H Textures over K; Bl - Badlands is rough broken upland with intermingled small grazable areas; clay, shales and sandstones;
undeveloped soils.
Part II: Recommended stocking rates are based on precipitation belt, site and range condition in percent. For Savannah, Sands,
Sandy, Ordinary Upland and Clay sites use the values in line with the precipitation belt of the site. For Wet Lands
triple these values. For Subirrigated site double t^ese values. For Lowland and Saline Lowland use values one-half to
one belt higher. For Dense Clay, Shallow and Scabland use values one-half to one belt down. For Thin Breaks and Gravel
use values of the next lower belt. For Very Shallow, Saline Upland, Shale and Badlands U3e values one and one-half belts
down.
Precipitation
Range condition
percentages
Belt
100
75
50 25
(Inches)
(Animal
unit
months per acre)
25 - 29
1.0
.7^
.5 .25
20-24
.8
.6
.4 .2
15 - 19
.6
.45
.3 .15
10-14
.4
.3
.2 „1
5-9
.2
.15
.1 .05
A-3
EXAMPLE #2
Range Site and Condition Write-Up
(Using 1952-54 Technicians Guide)
Glaciated Plains of Montana
10-14 inch Precipitation Zone
Clay Range Site
Plant Species
Current
Percent
Composition
Allowable
(Dry Wt. )
In Climax
30%
30%
15
15
20
10
10
5
25
5
Western wheatgrass
(Agropyron smithii)
Green needlegrass
(Stipa viridula)
Blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis)
Sandberg bluegrass
(Poa sandbergii)
Big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata)
100%
65%
Range Condition Classes
Score
Rating
76-100
Excellent
51-75J
^Good
26-50
Fair
0-25
Poor
A-4
EXAMPLE #3
Ocular Reconnaissance and Relative Yield
Species
% Compo-
sition
(cover)
Relative
Yield
Factor-
Weighted
Factor
% Compo-
sition
(weight)
Range
Condition—
a x
fa
c -r 104
d
e
Western wheatgrass
(Agropyron
smithii)
30
1.40
42
40
40
Green needlegrass
(Stipa viridula)
15
1.60
24
23
23
Blue grama
(Bouteloua
20
0.33
7
7
5
gracilis)
Sandberg bluegrass
(Poa sandbergii)
10
0.60
6
6
5
Big sagebrush
(Artemisia
tridentata)
25
1.00
25
24
5
100%
104
100%
78%
1/ Factors derived by using Stipa comata as a base (1.0) with the other
plants shown as departures. ("The Point Method and Forage Yield
Tables for Determining Carrying Capacity," lodge and Campbell 1965)
2/ Ecological condition based on percent composition by weight allowable
in climaxes according to April 1977 SCS Technicians' Guides
. Eastern Glaciated Plains of Montana
. 10-14 inch precipitation zone
. Clayey Range Site
(78% would indicate excellent ecological condition)
A-5
1 . Potential Mean Annual Production. This was esti-
mated by using SCS soil survey information. When
these production estimates are multiplied by the
areas represented in each range site, an estimate
of potential mean annual production is obtained.
2. Livestock Forage Production Potential. This was
estimated by using two different data sources: pub-
lished soil survey information and the MRB Range-
land Inventory. Both data sources were used for
this analytical process since they were available
and could be compared.
A. Soil survey information for the ES area
provides an estimation of the percent of
usable livestock forage for each range site.
Total annual production potential for each
range site is multiplied by the percent of
usable livestock forage and then multiplied
by 50 percent (assuming this is an average
livestock utilization level).
B. MRB Stocking Guides provide the other
data source for estimating livestock forage
production potential. Recommended stocking
rates for excellent condition range sites were
obtained directly from the Stocking Guides
and multiplied by the acres represented in
each range site to get total AUMs per site.
3. Present Livestock Forage Production. This was
also determined from MRB Stocking Guides. Rec-
ommended stocking rates for each range site by
present condition class (ranging from excellent to
poor) were obtained directly from the Stocking
Guides, again multiplied by the acres represented
in each range site.
Stocking rate guides were developed on the
basis of actual use, utilization, and trend data
where available through rancher experience or re-
search. In the absence of recorded stocking rate
data, estimates were made for some range sites by
interpolating data from similar sites. These stocking
rate guides were developed by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service and have been used for several dec-
ades.
4. Data Relationships. Table A1-1 summarizes the
production data as described in 1 , 2, and 3 above.
Representative data for two allotments in the river-
breaks landform area and two allotments in the
rolling plains landform area are shown.
Vegetation allocation levels were determined on
the basis of the proportion of estimated livestock
forage production potential as compared to the es-
timated potential mean annual production. The allo-
cation percentages show this relationship for excel-
lent condition ranges which is also assumed to be
comparable for existing production levels. There
are some problems associated with this assumption
as species composition and livestock forage pro-
duction would be different between present and
potential vegetation. However, existing range condi-
tions are generally good throughout the ES area, so
these potential allocation percentages may be quite
comparable for most allotments today.
In summary, Table A1-1 shows an estimated
average livestock forage allocation level of 30 per-
cent and 70 percent for wildlife, watershed, and
other uses within the riverbreaks landform area. A
40 percent livestock forage allocation level and 60
percent for wildlife, watershed, and other uses was
estimated for the rolling plains landform area. The
primary reason for the 10 percent difference is in
the amount of unsuitable range. With little or no
livestock capacity allowed on the steep slopes of
Little Bullwhacker and Barnard Ridge Allotments
(riverbreaks), overall livestock grazing allocation of
total allotment production would be lower than an
allotment characterized by more gently rolling to-
pography, such as Upper Beauchamp and McQuin
Allotments (rolling plains).
Adjustments to Stocking Levels
Subsequent to the MRB Rangeland Inventory,
grazing adjustments were made and more adjust-
ments are proposed as a result of (1) more refined
delineation of allotment boundaries, (2) better char-
acterization of wildlife requirements, (3) comparing
actual grazing use with forage utilization, (4) suit-
ability determination, and (5) recognition of errors in
administrative records.
Areas that have been classified as unsuitable
for livestock grazing are generally the steep slopes
which exceed 50 percent.
The MRB Rangeland Inventory, which was con-
ducted in the 1950s and 1960s, will be updated in
the future by integrating the more recent soil survey
information. Bureau Manuals now prescribe an inte-
grated soil and vegetation inventory method which
will be utilized in future rangeland inventories. As
this information becomes available, it will more ac-
curately define range sites and current ecological
condition and will provide guidance for adjusting
stocking rates. The primary monitoring techniques
(for vegetation trend, utilization, actual use, and cli-
mate) will complement the basic inventory and pro-
vide a more sensitive indication of soil-vegetation
changes and any necessary management adjust-
ments.
A-6
? 6
cu —
U Cu
fa .£ fa 2 <
°8
o
<
o
J
Q
<
fa 3
JQ
PQ O
<cn
h a,
H
a
OS
o
fa
o
o
H
05
W
>
a a
-3 >
o -a
fa P
.3 § .2 -So
o g
o <
E
CO
u «
CO
o «
Ih
23 a;
X?
TJ h
Ih
S«
cu
>
J
£
X
o
T
o
o
CO
oo !2 -i T
IN T NN
g^
CO
^ OJ ^ Tf
CO "^ CN "^
CO © CN -
lO
■a ^
t—
CO
■*
CO
? K
co
t~
O
cn
o
CN
CT>
CO
fa "-'
c
^H O
0 -S
>>
>>
X CO
CD
0)
'5 E
>
»m
>
1m
co "rt
3
3
CQ «
CO
PQ
GO
fa
—
PS
S
o
CO
s
O
CO
CO
-o
-C
fc-
.2 S
.-a a
CO cu
C M
JPQ
pa pd
X
CN
o
CO
o
#co j£ ^r
o ^ o ^
"^f t~- "^ CO
CO CN
{£ Js? ^ 5
rr t ■* m
co
CO
CO
>>
>»
CU
cu
>
>
1m
>-
3
3
CQ
CO
PQ
CO
PQ
PS
'3
CO
PS
'3
CO
PS
CO
-C
lM o
« 3
P. CO
D. CU
DCQ
3
t>0
S
a
o
PS
c
CU
o
ft
-o
CO
CU -m>
CO CU
Cu
CO
— cu
■g a
.a c
3 cu
co cu
S ^
3 ■»->
cu
MX!
B ^
3 -B
— co
CJ C
x 3
cu ■ -
co" «
cu cu
*S >M
'55 co
cu *B
a-"
§ o
"- E
T3 O
• '-3
"O co
2, b
U CO
.B ft
c cu
? 3
s>
co 2
> lM
t- CO
co e
co M
X O
o *»
II CO
— CO
_PS
A-7
Allotment Example (Data Collection)
Little Bullwhacker Allotment (#6214) is located
in the riverbreaks landform area which is character-
ized by a significant amount of unsuitable range
due to very steep slopes. Table A1-2 shows the
data calculations which were applied in an attempt
to rationalize vegetation allocation levels.
A-8
M
4-> • 0 CQ
01 T) 0 K
4-1 01
(N
CO
r~
ro
l-t
•-{
CN
oi s
x-v"3.
t-i
\D
<s>
n
in
l
1
r^
> 0 4-1 £ —
> D
^
CN
€-t
■*
■tf
i
1
ro
J SH C/l >i
r4 <
Vzb'
*
CM M S-4
r—{
4-> coo
c <u o a -p
0
<1J (T> c
0 c
01 (0 T3 01 01
O 0 •
01 U <U 01 >
•rl U
un
in
CN
in
\o
o
fc 0 0) Tf C
>i 4-1 (0
■-{
CN
CN
rH
r-{
r-\
i
1
CM tu <0 -rl H
rH -H \
•
i
1
CQ 3
4-1 "O 01
— C5
01 c S
0 O D
S O <
©
a
>1
o
*>
n
•rl
CO
m
f"
r~
ID
CN
l
VD
rH
0
rH 4-1
CM
■=?/
m
n
CN
CN
i
m
CN
en 4-i
U « D
c c
0 4-i 3
■H 01
0 T)
X >
o c
O H
4-1
<*» Eh 0
U
Cm
(3)
w§
4-1 01
rH
in
r-~
en
in
o
cn.
<D
C S
01 g
•-vun
CM
o
r-
00
in
i
CO
en
0
> D
(^
VD
ro
t
T
i
o
r-l
u
J <
w
*
ra
0! ft
CM
*H
4->
01
4-1 C
c
(0 01
C O •
<D
pa -o
0) -H O
4J
■H
rH 4-> <0
CO
in
O
in
CO
o
O
0
3
rH -rl \
rH
ro
in
n
rH
<-\
i
in
0.
o
01 T3 01
•
•
•
i
c
o
O C g
x o 3
a u <
©
■r|
4->
o
3
T3
0
u
Cm
c
01
0
Di
•H
<*>
id
rH 4->
in
rH
CO
ro
CO
o
i
r~
CO
u
Mh nj o
■^
1
n
■3"
CO
•*
i
n
CM
o
0 4-13
rH
o
01
0 T)
c(P Eh O
^
01
u
/r~\
o
0
4->
oi
0) >
Cm
fe)
,
01
4-) Jh
4-> 0)
CM
■<*
in
CO
t>
•-i
o
r»
0)
■H 3
oi S
03
CN
,-i
n
o
■-t
i
•*
rH
>
01 01
> D
(S)
<&
■=T
r-
CO
i
r~
•rl
01 H
J <
CM
tj) *H
C 0
(0 01
•
n
<*» 4-1 01
t*>
h
O 01 01
O
C 01
0 ft
T3
LT) > D
r4
a"
.
0)
)H
01
01 o
(0
rH &M
o
CN
in
in
in
o
i
m
05
m •
01 4->
D 01
>
r4
CT>
©
CD
r~
CO
r-
CO
i
r~-
rH *
m
00
CTl
o
in
CO
CN
r~
CM
10 01 O
00
in
en
C]
CO
CN
in
o
CO
-U £ O
rH
>43
o
CO
o
00
rH
r~
0 D O
^
«
»
■k
»■
*
c
cn
Eh < rH
rH
rH
•->
CN
CN
CTi
0
CO 4-1
0)
> frt
0)
X >
©
^
Q) o
o
o
O
O
o
o
O
O
£ 3
<G Sm
in
o
o
o
o
in
o
m
TJ
S 3
•-I
ID
<&
o
CO
rH
rH
o
l£>
rH O
•rl (d
<fl 01
«
*
•-
*.
k.
«
*.
*
* S-l
rH
4-> -
cm
r-
CO
<y\
in
CO
CN
ID
-H Cm
O H
0 *
©s
m
m
CN
00
CN
m
O
4J
■rl
Eh
id
o
CO
o
CO
rH
C -H
C 0
*
-
fc
*
it
01 id
4-1 3
O oi
i-i
r-i
•~\
CM
CN
O c
T3 U
O
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
Cm C
0) 0)
• O
in
o
in
m
O
in
in
m
<
oi Cm
cd
m
tJi <d
> \
< *
©
CO
rH
en
[-■
<*
CN
01
rH
CN
'd1
<*
m
r-
CO
CJl
CO
01
CO
r-
rH
CO
<y\
o
o
r>
en
u
CM
CN
o
kD
in
^f
m
o
<
6
^-i
i-i
CN
•ST
1— 1
rJ
rH
CM
1
0) OO ~
01
4-1
■H
tr> oi
s.
•H 01
U 01
C 4-1
H| S
D
J
■-\
03
en
3 rH
•h en
(0 -rH
^w
O
CO
u
Em
>
01 X!
(0 0
OS W
O
C CO
D
Cm
©
oo
CM
X
<crT\in
©J
Cn)m
II
II
©S
X
/Os CO
II II
©s
©s
©s
©s
©r
©s
II II
o
o o
o o
O rH
rH )•
O
in
©2
o
in
ID
©CN
CO
II I
©[
X
©s
II II
A-9
APPENDIX 2
RANGE IMPROVEMENTS BY AMP
A-11
Ml
Q
W
<
o
M-l
T3
a
U)
G
■H
(0
Oi
c
•H
>
o
u
I
M
o
0)
ft
>1
En
US
Cn
^^
Cn
C
ra
G
■H
0)
■H
TJ
M
3
01
u
0
01
Id
rH
CO
— •
ft
x;
n
Oi
^^
3
c
CO
>-i
•H
0)
-Q
>,
r4
0)
id
u
Oi
u
as
id
ft
»-*
CO
CO
Oi
H
c
^-^
3
■H
CO
O
3
0>
4->
o
H
C
M
U
0
H
10
u
=>
"-'
rC
CO
^
o
*J
•
-M
c
0
id
0>
c
u
e
*-~
M
CO
^
u
M
•
0
c
0
4J
IT)
c
CO
+J
"-'
1
01
4-1
01
0)
01
ft
c
0)
H
•H
tM
ft
H
~-
0)
g •
•H O
U C
ft —
CO
.h
o
01
c
S
u
to
^
<D
u
•
m
•H
o
0)
o
c
«
>
*■*
1
w --»
r-l
-a •
4-1
n o
4-1
<d a
rd
3 -'
U
o>
CO
o>
01
c
.. — 1
o
-H
•
c
w
o
01
CO
c
ft
0
U
u
rH
^^
0)
n)
CO
o
>
01
c
0
rH
01
E
•H
ft
01
£
K
0)
CO
u
Q)
c
rH
01
•H
fu
e
'
o
o
o
o
w
-H
CO
01
.c
+j
c
a>
u
(d
ft
c
-H
c
o
CO
01
u
m
o
■p
<o
n
0)
ft
o
0)
4J
>i
-o
0)
4J
o
3
M
4->
CO
c
0
o
0)
XI
o
4->
•
vO
m
in
<T>
v£
CD
CN
0>
rH
CO
r>
CO
^r
0
rH
r\i
o
O
rH
rH
CN
CN
ro
in
vD
\0
r^
z
O
o
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
o
4J
C
o
o
CN
CM
CM
r-l
CN
CN
CN
CN
C4
<N
CN
Ql
id
0)
M
4J
CO
1-1
0
rH
c
•H
a;
.H
JJ
03
O
0
c
-H
•H
0
rH
4->
Oi
>1
0)
0
CO
PS
0
C
>
<
M
n
CO
c
id
01
c
M
0
X
CO
0)
M
i-i
^
Cu
0
1-1
Oi
0)
-H
3
id
rH
X
rH
0
01
M
CO
M
01
■H
0
r.
0)
0)
0)
p
0>
c
0)
iw
QJ
4-1
r-l
&
•H
u
rH
3
CO
0)
rH
CO
0)
01
rH
13
4->
CO
fl
0)
lu
£
c
01
■H
g
rH
r-l
co
A
U
S-t
u
0)
0
rH
w
■H
id
a
>-i
rH
rH
3
u
kl
rH
0
-H
0)
>-
nj
O
O
id
U
01
H
id
0
U
0)
O
43
ft
ft
u
■H
ft
0
U
•H
u
0
u
g
«
rH
2
s
u
fc
CQ
CQ
z
U
D
2
CO
H
3
b
rH >
0)
tjl
c
A-12
>
>i
^-^
XI
•c
-p
0)
a
+J
0
c
o
CU
CN
>
o
X
^
H
ft
Q
e
Z
H
W
ft
0)
ft
&
<
c
03
ft
M-i
O
CD
L3
Di
^^
Cn
c
cn
C
•H
01
■H
T)
U
S
01
o
0
0)
■d
rH
to
**-*
ft
x
to
Cn
^■^
3
C
co
^
•H
Q)
A
>i
U
(1)
(0
u
cn
i-l
<d
(d
ft
^^
co
co
cn
n
c
*-^
3
•H
tn
o
2=
<D
+J
0
H
c
n
0
0
in
<d
U 3 —
x
CO
^
o
P
•
+J
C
0
id
cu
c
u
e
"-^
I
a; w —
o ^j •
o c o
p cd c
to p -—
1
to
-P
<D
CD
CD
ft
c
0)
H
•H
Mh
ft
■H
*""
(0
tn~
C •
■H O
U C
ft «-'
co
CO
<-*
f-\
CD
S
u
CO
<a
u
to
•H
CD
o
ft
>
CD
to ^-.
.H
■a •
P
n o
P
ns c
rt)
3 ~
U
tn
tn
CD
CD
C ~
O
-H •
c
M O
CD
to C
ft
O «-'
n
u
.H
,_^
CU
m
CO
o
>
CD
c
o
.H
(D
e
•H
ft
CU
_e
ft
CD
to
0
<D
c
.H
CD
■H
ft
e
*~'
o
o
o
o
o
o
r-~
LTl
CM
•
<n
CN CTl
°l
r-
cn cri
K\
0
0 0
CM
CN CN
•— in
CD
ID
O
in
ro cn
T
<n
r» iH
CN
CN
rH CN
CN
CN
(N CN
CN
CN
n CN ^f CN V£)
in 00 co i-h m
cn cn cn n m
CN CN CN CN CN
X!
o
C
tn fd
O
ft -H
ft
P
XI 4J
_ cn c
tn -h -h
w
ft ft
cu
M CD
CD <H
ft 3
to o
id u
u
M T3 ^
cu c cd
CD 0 CU
co n u ^
I U Q) U
J CO
to
u
CU TS
x id
P (D
0 K
s
cu a
cu 0
>lH H
C 3 CU
COP
0 U C
co <!
x: x
o o
c o
0)
C CO
-H CO
rd o
ft ft
-a
c
id
co
x
c P
id V4
>i o
ft 2
o cu
0 S-4
H Cd
ft
to
•H
(0
ai
X!
p
a
<u
id
ft
c
•rH
c
o
X!
tn
cu
U
id
to
U
o
p
cd
u
cu
ft
o
cu
X
p
>1
XI
-a
CD
-p
o
3
u
-p
01
c
o
u
CU
X!
o
p
tn
■p
c
cu
>
o
u
I
•H
CU
tn
c
id
ft
H|
A-13
•a
p
c,
o
0
H
a
W
a.
3
o
T)
G
rC
cn
c
■H
fd
Cn
C
•H
P
c
at
i
CU
>
O
h
H
13
Cn
^-,
Cn
c
w
G
•rl
cd
•H
TJ
r4
2
CD
o
o
0)
id
rH
W
— •
ft
X
CO
Cn
^-^
3
c
cn
s
■H
<D
X)
>!
U
a)
m
u
Cr>
u
(0
(0
ft
—
w
to
C"
rl
c
^-n
3
•rH
co
0
3
a>
p
o
M
c
SH
u
0
u
<TJ
u
3
cn
1
CO
u
-p
•
4J
C
o
«! D C
u e —
M cn —
u a; •
o c o
p id c
1
cn
■P
CD
cu
CU
ft
c
CD
■H
•H
CM
CU
rH
*■*
to
Cn~
C •
•H O
H C
ft-3
co
cw
(0
^-v
O
rH
•
iH
o
CD
(U
c
ft
s
^-r
K
Eh
1
> «-
0) cn
rH T3
U O
id c
3 "3
U cn
cn
Cn
0)
C
^-^
o
•H
•
c
CO
o
0)
CO
£
Cn
o
u
u
•H
^^
01
<d
CO
o
>
a)
c
o
rH
0)
6
•H
Cn
CD
£
K
0)
CO
o
as
c
^H
CU
•H
Cn
e
^*
o
o
in
O
o
00
VD
in
in
in
IT)
n
ifl
o
o
o
o
O
CN
O
t"«
r~-
r-
r-
CO
oo
00
CO
ro
m
in
m
in
VO
VO
r^
in
un
in
in
in
in
in
CM
CN
2
0)
o
0
CN
CM
cu
(1)
rH
3
TS
CU
M
0
o
ri
u
CN
0)
c
CN
(N
CM
c
cu
^r
•3-
■P
CO
cu
2
13
<tf
cu
<*
S
cu X
c cu
o cu
J rt
u
CO
A
u
M
O
X.
0
0
a>
CD
0
rH
cu
M
c
>'
cu
A!
rl
rd
a
ri
cu
u
fi
cu
rH
rH
CO
Cn
>.
p
id
.h
0)
•H
■H
H
X)
Cn rH
in cu
cu cu
§
c
rd
-p
cu
-p
cu
CD
£
-P
£
CO
C
Cn
£
u
0
cu
3
TJ
cu
M
•r|
2
CU CU
IS
0
id
03
CO
U
>i
r<
M
-p
0
P
1
rd
id
rj
o
u
0
TJ
Sh
U
G
ft
rd
id
0
ft rl
JZ
&
a)
U
id
O
u
5
u
•r|
a
U
S
0
a
o
u
3
O
U
H
ft l-H
u
o
ft U
•H H
H
S
3
re
z
J
O
Cn
u
g
s
D
o
D
Eh
cn
•H
01
cu
r3
+J
c
CU
u
id
ft
a
■H
C
o
si
(0
n
id
in
U
o
4->
id
u
cu
&
<u
5
J?
•a
<u
■p
u
■p
w
c
o
o
<u
X)
o
■M
tn
p
c
CU
g
<u
>
o
n
Cn
C
id
A-14
>l
-P
1
C
0
>1
u
XI
0)
CN
+J
£
X
o>
H
Q
2
>
W
o
eu
n
•^
ft
3
W
H
0)
tn
c
Id
&
£
ta
en
,— *
Cn
c
W
c
•H
01
H
T!
m
s
0>
u
o
<D
Id
rH
CO
' —
eu
CQ (Ji — .
3 C CO
H -H 0)
<1) id O
(d ft ~
CO CO
^ c ~
3 -H M
O S 0)
4-> O U
3 fc O
o h n
u 3 —
Cm
I
.C co "■*
O +J •
+J c o
m at c
U E —
^
w —
u
A4 •
0
C O
p
(0 c
en
4J —
1
CO P
0)
0) 0)
a
C <D
•H
•H M-l
0-
rH —
CO
cn
,-*.
C
•
■rH
o
H
c
ft
» —
CO
01
~
rH
0
01
c
S
**"
to ^
k •
H o
o c
> «-
1
0)
CO --.
rH
-a •
4-1
U 0
+J
id C
id
3 —
u
tP
CO
&>
0)
C — .
u
•H •
G
0) O
<D
CO C
fc
o *-
<M
o
rH
^
0)
<d
(0
u
>
0)
c
o
rH
01
e
•H
lu
0)
_e
«
0)
(0
U
0
a
rH
0)
■H
En
3
" —
o
r>
to
cm
IT) rH CN rH CO (N CM -^
rH rH
m
~~-*
in
in
in
CN
m
ro
n
01
rH
rH
CN
>*
rH
rH
rH
^r
<*
>*
r^
01
"»
IT)
to
o
•*
CM
<£>
r-
CO
^
\o
i>»
m
r>
o
00
01
(T>
B1
o
CN
■^
in
in
in
vD
^D
CD
r^
t-
CO
in
in
LO
in
t£)
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
<*
<^
"*
<*
<*
**
^r
^r
»*
t
^r
^r
^r
^r
■*
^r
^
3
3
O
0)
a
^
0
X
rH
01
01
01
rH
o
rH
U
1
OJ
p
M
0)
rH
p
m
>1
CO
0)
•H
u
0)
c
^
0
0)
•H
r*
rH
X
+J
H
^
£
0)
C
0)
OJ
s
a;
u
rH
0)
0)
T3
c
rH
s
d)
0)
0)
0)
x;
0)
CO
0
4->
(0
rH
m
£
p
0)
s
c
3
ft
Q)
rtJ
■H
3
0>
3
01
01
in
+j
T3
c
c
4->
£
3
m
*j
m
0)
01
o
0)
0
u
H
+J
•9
O
■
M
a
Cn
u
CO
u
rH
Cn
id
■H
3
H
O
u
0
V4
rH
A!
M
rH
V)
U
rd
o
id
CJ
0
U
id
id
o
(0
0
PJ
•H
K
g
CQ
o
u
tO
w
0
fc
•H
U
b
U
g
o
B
s
CO
B
■z
CQ
3
s
s
CU
CO
■H
CO
0)
p
c
01
n
nj
ft
c
•H
J3
01
0)
H
id
CO
n
o
p
id
n
0)
&
0)
P
-a
0)
p
o
3
H
-P
CQ
C
o
CJ
a>
O
P
CO
■p
c
a)
>
o
to
I
01
Cn
C
id
K
\,
A-15
~ 0.
T>
2
•P
rij
C
O
>i
u
ja
10
r\i
•P
c
X
<u
M
£
Q
<D
Z
>
U
o
eu
M
cu
ft
<
e
H
0)
0>
c
<fl
«
•p
c
0)
a)
>
o
M
o
oi
us
0!
, — ,
Cn
c
n
c
•H
m
■H
T>
M
2
0)
o
0
u
d
H
Cfl
— '
a
A
in 0"i ~
3 C CO
H -H (U
XI >i K
OJ in u
en u <o
« a-
CO CO
Cn
c
^^
•H
in
2
qj
0
M
u
u
u
(0
3
—
6-,
I
£ in —
o +J •
+J C o
m o> c
u e —
i
X to -—
u .* •
o c o
•p nj c
CO -P "*
1
en
•p
a)
QJ
QJ
ft
C
qj
■H
•H
tp.
Cu
rH
"■*
n
Cn ^
C •
•h o
H c
ft —
CO
rH O
0) c
2 —
>H
m
^
0>
u
•
Ul
•H
o
U
o
c
a
>
*-*
I
o> to *~*
rH TJ •
■P u o
■P IT) C
(0 3 —
U Cn
Ul
Cn
a)
C
,— >
u
•H
•
c
m
o
01
n
c
Cu
o
U
.H
„
<D
IT!
n
U
>
0)
c
0
rH
QJ
E
•H
Eu
0)
_£
Cu
ID
in
O
<D
c
H
OJ
■H
Cu
e
—
o
o
o
io
CM
CM
in in ^r
on
CN
in
CN —
CN
in rH
m <3>
in <-^
in
.
rH
fN
on
<*
O
m
m
CO
ai
o
in
CO
^r
n
<J
rH
0
cn
cn
<n
01
o
rH
rH
rH
rH
<3-
T
^r
U3
O
ro
m
2
CO
CO
CO
CO
cn
o
O
o
o
O
o
o
O
rH
^r
■*
c
"5f
■"3-
^r
■sr
M1
m
m
in
m
m
m
in
in
in
m
m
01
cn
0
H
rH
>,
■p
<o
u
i0
3
>i
c
0)
a
0
►-) QJ
<
u
X
IT
M
m
0)
(1)
w
0)
^:
s
M
X.
0)
c
QJ
3
QJ
aj
0)
QJ
a
QJ
CD
c
M
0i
c
X
X.
rH
1-4
rj
aj
0
QJ
01
QJ
s:
Ul
ft
0
M
Dl rH
U rH
<D
T3
0
•H
OJ
0)
in
3
QJ
T>
E
0
m
4J
rO
0)
QJ
rH
P
X)
0)
■p
Sh
aj
Cn
if)
-P
D
QJ 3
C
SH
u
h
M
l-l
u
A
C
■H
•H
0
0)
-p
0)
ft
rJ
rH
fO
u
!h
a
0
QJ
d
rH
0
0
ft O
rd"
0)
u
ft u
rH
a
<0
X
•H
K
x:
g
u
■H
m
ft
O
0)
3
0
U
0
n:
rC
3
■H
-C
O
ft U
Z
pq
CO
U
2
Cu
u
ca
J
D
>1
fn
CO
CO
O
CO
D
cn
•H
CO
0)
rC
JJ
c
01
M
(0
ft
c
•H
C
o
rC
CO
0)
M
it!
to
u
o
-p
n3
M
0)
ft
0
0)
•p
0)
-p
o
3
u
■p
CO
c
o
o
0)
rQ
0
-P
CO
-p
c
0)
e
>
o
u
0)
Cn
C
tO
K
A-16
>
o
MH
T)
C
id
co
C
■H
id
Cn
G
•H
0) Di^
' C CO
•h a)
. >1 Sh
0) rd o
rd ft «
co co
S
<3
en
^^
Cn
c
co
c
•H
01
H
T3
u
s
<D
u
o
o>
rd
rH
CO
— '
(h
Cn
.c
CO ^
o
+J •
p
c o
td
o> c
u
g —
I
.* CO ^
U AS •
O C O
■p (d c
CO 4-> *-*
1
CO
-P
0)
0)
01
ft
c
0)
H
•H
14-1
fa
rH
*-'
CO
Cn~
C •
■H O
^ C
ft--
CO
rH
0
01
c
s
*~^
1
CO
^^
0)
u
•
CO
•H
o
0)
0
c
K
>
^^
0)
CO ^
rH
■o •
p
Sh 0
p
« c
(d
3 *-
U
Cn
CO
Cn
0)
C ~
o
■H •
c
CO O
01
CO c
fa
o ~
u
u
rH
,_^
01
(d
CO
o
>
0)
c
o
rH
0)
e
■H
fa
1
.g
fa
0)
CO
o
0)
c
rH
01
•H
fa
g
v"'
o
rH
CM
in
CN
en
CN
— in
CN CM
CO
in
r-
CM
co
m
CN
I
CN
in
r~
CO
in
r-
CO
o
v£>
O
rH
CO
'tf
in
0
m
in
in
in
rH
rH
r-<
CN
CM
in
in
in
in
in
2
•3"
^
'tf
■*
KD
vO
<£>
^)
v£>
^>
^>
^£>
^0
^D
in
Cn
O
in
in
Cn
o
0)
m
>1
in
>i
in
in
>1
u
rd
in
QJ
P
P
in
•H
m
in
Oi
p
P
0)
Sh
■r|
in
Si
ft
in
in
<U
Q
Q
•rl
QJ
u
!h
CJ 01
0)
H
x:
B
rd
0>
X
X
s
0)
a
Q
0)
-C
^
X
o
X
!h
a;
u
r-i
rl
01
U 01
r-{
X
X
rl H
U
o
0)
rl
01
s:
Sh
Sh
o>
Cn
0)
01
01
Cn
3
0)
Oi
0) 0)
rH
o
P
U
P
Sh
0) 3
0)
Sh
X
QJ
01
01
p
3
0)
0)
0)
QJ
T3
e
C
0
s
M
ft r)
rd
0
CO
0
(/)
0
ft 0
ft
0
0
!H
ft
u
Sh
0
S
!h
rH
Sh
X
rH
rd
O
u
o
CJ
ft u
0
o
QJ
fa
rd
fa
ft O
ft fa
0
u
ft u
O
fa
0
U
01
U
0
fa
•z
a
J
D
U
3
fa
D
O
fa
D
z
J
H
cn
CO
•H
CO
0
SZ
P
C
0)
M
<d
ft
o
CO
0)
rl
rd
CO
rl
O
P
(0
rl
0)
ft
o
0)
p
>1
XI
0)
P
0
3
rl
P
CO
c
o
o
QJ
a
o
p
CO
p
c
<D
g
>
o
u
I
•H
QJ
Cn
C
id
«
\,
A-17
T3
-U
a
o
0
o
•d
CO
c
•H
ID
a
>
o
M
m
o
0)
|
13
Oi
, — .
Cr
c
w
c
•H
a;
•H
T3
>h
s
d>
o
o
d>
ia
.H
CO
cm
U)
en
_
3
c
W
u
•rH
01
-Q
>.
>H
<D
(0
u
tn
jh
(C
m
a
* —
co
co
n
c
^-*
3
•H
w
0
s
a;
■p
o
u
c
u
o
0
u
nS
u
3
fa
1
to
u
-p
•
p
c
o
(0
<u
c
u
e
""""
X
W
^
o
a;
■
0
c
o
p
nl
c
co
P
"""
1
w
p
(D
d)
d)
ft
C
0)
-H
■H
14-1
Cu
r-H
""*
(0
c •
•H O
M C
ft~
en
w
—
rH
d)
s
6
c
(0 -~
fc •
•H O
o c
> —
d)
M -^
.H
T) •
-P
U O
■P
flj C
«3
3 «
u
0>
(0
CT>
0)
c -*
u
•H •
c
0) O
<u
10 C
fc
o •—
H
u
.H
^_^
d)
m
w
u
>
d)
c
0
.-h
(1)
£
•H
fc.
d)
£
K
0)
U)
o
d)
a
.H
a)
-H
iu
£
o
m
n
o
o
oi
en
o r-
<N
en o
00
00
in
VD
IT)
0)
d)
H ,*
3 U
o o
U d) £
(1) d) -p
ft Sh 3
ft Eh O
D CO
ft U
<a o
U fm
0) £
H +J
d) M
En O
2
U3
in
£ d)
ft -P
id -P
H <D
tn ,C
d) u
d) 3
E-i O
In
CO
in
0)
d) t> ^;
CP O -H 4-1
in
<yi
CO
n
CO
en
in
00
in in
CO CN
r-~ cn
cn ^r
CN [^
m n
dj
cn
d) ^
EH^UdJOflO-HO
•Hctjnjpicudjoixict;
Eh fc W i-q S
T3
d)
W 0)
0)
ft iH
d) 3
<D O
£ U
CO
CO
•H
CO
(1)
X.
■P
c
a)
M
10
ft
c
•H
c
o
CO
d)
u
V)
u
o
■p
(0
<D
ft
o
d)
£
+J
>1
T3
d)
4J
CJ
3
U
+J
CO
c
o
o
d)
w
■p
c
<u
g
iu
>
o
u
%
•H
(U
c
<d
oi
A-18
LB
0>
,-*
CP
c
CO
c
•rl
V
H
TJ
u
?
(1)
u
o
CO
«
.H
cn
>— '
a.
£
0)
^
o
p
•
p
c
o
10
co
c
u
e
^"
I
>J CO —
o X •
o c o
4J (0 C
MP*-'
&
1
0)
4->
<D
<u
CO
CU
c
0)
H
-rH
<«H
&<
^H
"""
CO
Di
, — .
C
*
•rl
O
H
c
a,
* — '
cn
tn
^_^
r-\
•
•-{
o
CO
c
s
*"*
01 —
u •
■H O
O C
> —
CO
to ^
.H
■a •
P
H o
P
n> C
(0
3 —
o
tr>
to
tn
CO
c
*-^
CJ
•rl
•
C
CO
o
01
cn
c
fr
o
sh
u
M
^^
0)
ro
to
o
>
cu
c
O
rH
a)
B
•H
&4
(I)
_e
«
o o
o oo
o o
<N CM
to Di
^^
3 C
to
k -H
0)
.Q >i
u
0> <0
o
CP r)
(0
io a,
—
to cn
cn
n c
«-^
^~.
3 -H
to
o
ro
in
O »
CO
CO
r^
cn
P O
p.
CN
ID
CN
c u
o
— •
O M
<o
U 3
■— ^
Cu
o
CD
CO
0) 10
in
u cu
r~
ro
CO
<tf
in
C rH
•
•
•
•
•
CD -H
iH
iH
H
CN CN
fc e
cd
cn
O
in
r^
ro
r>
cO
m
CO
in
o
in
o
rH
d
o
rH
rH
CM
n
ro
in
r^
r~
CO
<T>
cn
o
o
rH
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
O
O
o
P
o
o
o>
TJ
C
■H
i3
o
o
o
CN
c
rfl
■H
>i TJ
CN
CN
c
(0
■H
TJ
>i
c
CO
o
01
cn
•H TJ
CO
■H
<0
CO
a)
>H C
C
a> cu
o
co
CO
CO
-V
<-K
CJ C
tP
CO
tf
O
rH
CO
CO
IH H
CO
H 0)
M CP TJ
>1
c
rH
u
<-{
CO
r-\
ft)
c
.h
T!
•H
CO
r-i
rH
0)
-p
■P
10 TJ
c
c
5
a
CO
3
CO
CO
C rH
■H
3
X rfl
W
rtJ
TS
3
TJ
3
ja +j
+J
P -P
■iH -H
•H
rO
0
0
TJ
o
Cn
r(
£
0 CO
rl
o
0 O
CO
JH
-H
0
CO
o
>, to
3
W 3
£ «
rH
U
to
u
5
CJ
0
CJ
y\
U H
Ol U
5"
CO
B
rH
CJ
CO
u
ctf <0
m
0) CO
3
03
DQ
a
<
H
cn
2
cn
cc
s w
3
(0
•H
D)
0)
.c
■p
c
Q)
SH
(0
a.
c
•H
O
to
0)
u
(0
to
!H
s
<a
u
0)
o
0)
p
>1
XI
Tl
0)
P
u
3
u
p
CO
c
o
CJ
0)
ja
o
p
CO
p
c
<D
B
55
>
o
Jh
&
•r|
0)
&>
c
(0
A-19
H|
e
u
o
<H
T)
C
co-
rn-
tn
id
0)
u
0)
>
•rl
fa
>
o
u
H
M-l
O
0)
s
c^
cn
^■^
Cn
c
01
C
-H
0
•H
•o
1-1
£
d>
0
O
d>
id
rH
CO
—
fa
jd
m
Cn
> — i
3
C
05
U
•rl
0)
-Q
>1
n
0>
(0
o
Cn
n
13
<B
ft
—
C/5
U
C
, — ,
3
■H
n
0
2
<u
•P
0
u
c
u
0
o
H
<0
U 3 —
-C
05
^
o
+J
•
-p
c
0
CO
OJ
c
O
e
y-'
^
05 --»
o
.V •
o
C O
-p
(0 C
U5
4J —
I
0)
■P
0)
<1)
<D
ft
c
0)
•H
-H
44
fa
H
""■'
05
Cn ~
C •
■H O
H C
ft —
w
0)
S
1
05
0)
U
oi
•rH
0)
O
«
>
<D
05 --^
H
-O •
*J
U O
-P
0) C
(0
3 ~
u
Cn
05
Cn
0)
C ~
o
■H •
c
05 0
<u
05 C
fa
O -'
u
(_>
rH
^
<D
<fl
05
0
>
0)
c
o
rH
CD
E
-rl
fa
0>
£
fa
o>
w
o
01
c
H
OJ
•H
fa
e
•-^
o
00
o
CX5
rH
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
<£
o
o
in
CM
o
o
in
CN
o
o
in
m
rH rH in
.
^r
rH
^r
m
r~
10
rH
o
m
m
F>
rH
•*
CM
■3-
CN
o
rH
CN
CM
CN
ro
m
r-
in
LD
\o
O
•H
•-I
ro
^
VD
Z
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
rH
rH
rH
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
+J
c
0)
cn
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
OJ
CN
(N
CN
CM
CM
CN
CM
M
fl
O
Cn
c
,
4J
Ti
0)
0
0
rl
(0
05
01
■H
01
0
-P
0
a
C
CD
05
TS
Sh
ccj
0)
^;
M
U
rH
fa
0)
^
0
^-1
Cn
-p
H
E
<D
0)
0
rH
d)
+J
u
a
<
0)
rH
0)
CD
rH
C
X!
rl
M
c
£
P
C"
QJ
ft M
(B
>
01
q
0)
01
o
rl
rH
u
0)
Cn
o
<y
-H
u
0)
<u
0
0
•
0
ca
rH
0) 0)
C
0)
0)
fa
-p
X
rH
g
0)
0)
3
d)
£
rl
rd
1
<+H
a
X)
<D
•
■P
c
fa
^
T3
3
Cn d)
0
(1)
E
-p
-P
0
•r|
E
3
0
s
c
3
rH
>1
u
l|H
3
rH
M
W
05
cd
r-\
c
0
-O H
Q
«
0
ft
3
M
cu
>
0
(0
0
U
0
<
0
fa
M
<
3
•r|
O
3
fa
•
<
rd
u
0 U
0
0
ac
rO
fa
0
fa
OJ
U
2
J
J
m
a
m
U
Q
SB
J
CO
r3
s
g
U
fa
Q
05
•H
05
0)
A
-P
C
0)
rl
re-
ft
C
•rt
0
A
05
d)
H
fO
05
U
o
+J
nj
U
05
C^
05
£
•P
0)
-p
o
3
rl
■P
05
c
o
u
01
XI
05
4J
a
<u
e
>
o
rl
E4
■rl
d)
Cn
C
ffl
fa
A-20
Hi
O
<4H
TO"
c
<d
CD
ja
m
<u
>
•rl
L3
Dl
^~,
01
c
to
c
■H
0)
H
■a
n
3
CD
u
O
CD
id
H
co
*— '
Cm
x:
w
Dl
*— .
d
c
to
fi
■H
<D
.Q
>^
u
a)
<a
o
Cn
^
rd
<a
a
—
to
CO
m
C
^^
2
■H
W
0
3
0J
-P
0
M
C
r<
u
0
u
id
.c
w
„
u
-p
•
-p
c
0
rfl
(U
c
U
6
v>
I
o a; •
o c o
4J B) C
10 -P -^
1
10
-P
0)
9
0)
a
C
CD
•H
■H
U-(
fc
iH
■^
10
01
^-,
C
•
•H
o
M
c
ft
— '
CO
^H
o
QJ
5
£
!h
CO
^_^
CD
M
•
w
•rl
o
0)
O
c
«
>
*■*
I
0) CO —
r-t 13 •
-P u o
•p id c
ft) 3 —
CO
Di
0)
C
^^
o
■H
•
c
CO
o
0)
CO
£
En
0
u
u
<d fd
u >
c _
0) g
fc 0)
CO
0)
O rH
o
CN
(N CN CN
CM rH rH ID
O rH CO CD O
<N rH rH
0)
CO
f-i
o
(1)
^-*
c
rH
0)
■H
^r
Cn
B
CN
6
o
S
ro
-p
CN
c
0)
fl
o
rH
rH
<
CO
5
I
z
f*
in
o
IT)
(N
r-
(N
O
CN
in
n cri
h n
LT) oo
(N ^
o
•^,
CD
(N
iH
oo
in
CN
<tf CN
<* in
co co
o
co
tn
CN
CO
oo
CO
in in
cr> en
— oo
in
r~ «-'
<-\ in
— ' r-
cri o in in
in >s> ^o CN
en en en o
<* ■* ^f in
CO CO
0
O
<D
>i 0)
0) r-i
r-< 3
•rl O
(d U
SG
CD
0) w
■P M K
rd U Q
o
H hH
a; (d
co u
CD
u c
En
0)
C 0)
rH O rH
rH -C 3
•H rl O
K O U
CD
.C
to
•~\ rl
CD CD
CO >
tO -H
3 « cn
S r-
to
■rl
to
CD
■P
C
CD
u
cd
c
•H
O
A
to
CD
rl
<d
to
u
o
•p
fd
u
CD
a
o
CD
X!
-P
CD
-p
u
3
u
+J
(0
c
o
u
CD
&
O
-P
to
■p
c
CD
B
CD
>
O
u
I
•H
CD
Cr>
C
cd
«
A-21
X
H
Q
Z
w
ft
ft
<
>1
0)
+J
c
0)
e
Q)
>
O
&
CU
CT>
C
id
ft
o
14-1
■o
G
(0
Hi
en
a;
CU
u
xt
u
CU
>
-H
ft
OH
o
ai
a
13
IT.
, — ,
tn
C
09
C
-H
0)
■H
T)
Sh
£
(1)
u
()
01
id
rH
(/I
^^
a
£
W
Cn
^^
fl
a
en
u
■H
01
X!
>1
M
0)
(0
o
tn
S^
m
(0
ft
^*
CO
co
u
C
^^
D
■H
en
O
2=
0)
4->
0
n
c
h
u
o
H
fd
CJ
3
ft
1
XI
09
u
-M
•
-P
c
0
03
(1)
c
U
e
*-*
^ co ~
u a; •
o c o
4-> id c
CO -P *—
1
09
4->
<D
0
0)
a
c
0)
■H
•H
M-l
ft
H
—'
&■
■H
o
Sh
c
a
-— '
CO
to
rH
*
rH
0
0
c
3
'
h
CO
^ k
0
u
-
Ul
■H
o
0)
0
c
ft
>
'-'
a)
CO ^
.-h
T) •
4->
r4 O
4->
id C
■a
3 ■—
u
in
(/I
&1
cu
c
,~^
o
-H
•
a
01
o
CO
tn
c
ft
O
o
rH
^_^
<]>
m
en
e)
>
a)
c
o
^H
CU
§
-H
ft
a)
B
a
CD
09
O
a)
c
H
111
■rl
ft
E
o
o
o
CD
CO
n
CN
o
CN
^ m r>
■-I
CN
<9
O
IT)
O
in
CO
o
rH
CD
in
CD
H
00
(N
in ^
CO
(N
VO
in
in
y£>
vO
in
a
o cu
CO cu
6H h
g 3 01
O O >
X U -H
B ft
0)
ft
<D O
CT> iH
CO 1)
C -H -P
3 ft C
Q <C
x .*
o cu
P cu
id n
0> CJ
ft
^>
CD
in
CO
10
cu
CO cu
- u
i-\ CJ
CT*
o
CN
CO
CD
o
CN
VD
X
u
id
8
u u
cu cu
O Oi^
C T) O
0) -H (0
ft ft rH
CO PQ
H rH
CU 3
ft O
ft O
D
CO
■H
CO
CU
X
4-1
c
CU
u
ft
c
•H
o
CO
cu
r4
(d
CO
r4
o
4J
id
u
cu
ft
o
cu
4-1
>1
cu
4->
u
3
u
4-1
CO
c
o
u
cu
XI
o
4-1
CO
4-1
c
01
E
cu
>
o
u
.!
cu
CJ.
c
id
ft
H|
A-22
p
§
c
0
>i
o
x>
M
CM
+J
G
X
CD
H
p
Q
CtJ
ss
>
w
o
ft
u
cu
ft
<
e
H
CD
Cn
c
(0
OS
en ~
131
c
cn
fi
•H
<u
■H
T3
p
3
01
o
O
0)
rd
H
CO
—
ft
£
01
Cn
^
3
c
cn
P.
■H
0)
.Q
>,
vi
0)
rd
o
en
P
rd
m
ft
—
co
co
en
P.
c
^^
3
•H
to
O
3=
Q)
-P
O
P
c
U
O
0
p
id
o
3
x:
w
u
P
•
p
c
O
(0 0) c
o e —
X
w
^
o
x
•
0
c
O
p
rd
c
to
P
■**
w
P
d)
(1)
G
<U
H
in
rH
— '
to
en — .
c •
■H O
u a
ft •—
w
w
—
rH
0
0)
a
s
-^
in ^~
M •
H O
o c
> —
0)
to ^
rH
XI •
P
P. o
P
rd c
rd
3 —
U
Cn
w
C"
o>
c
^— ,
o
•H
•
c
in
o
01
in
c
fa
o
p
u
rH
^^
Oi
id
in
o
>
0)
c
o
•H
d)
e
•H
fa
0)
e.
«
o
IM
o
ID
ro
<x>
<7i
CM
tTi
o
CO
CM
CD
in
_
O
CD
a
H
<*
ro
10
"*
in
m
<D
■H
•
■
•
•
•
fa
B
CO
H
^r
CM
<*
CM
CN
CD
rH
CO
m
rH
cD
6
o
H
rH
rH
CN
CN
r~-
H
r^
00
CM
a
CN
CM
CM
CM
CM
CN
ro
■a1
r->
r-
CO
P
c
CD
CD
CD
cD
ID
CD
\D
CD
CD
CTi
cn
01
u
B
d)
CD
CD
o
0
rH
o
rd
c
1
CD
rH
c
rd
rH
£
•H
m
c
in
in
rC
rH
0)
c
<D
x:
<
CD
01
CD
01
3
P
<a
•H
■a
3
rd
•H
CD
rd
0)
u
G
^
Cn y.
p
c
Cn rH
rH
rd
•H
x:
•H
0
TS
rd
H
rH
0
CD
cu
p
TS
u
p
•H
T)
p
rH
rH
ft
ft
ft -C
in
P
3
rQ
3
p
c
+J
CD
£
in
•H
rd
3
>
■H
p
3
rH
rd
3
rd
3
0
Cn
o
rd
o
in
ID
cd
rH
rd
o
K
H
Da
P.
&
•H
CQ
rd
K
rd
fa
<D
S3
•H
u
0)
rj
rd
CQ
rH
U
s
P!
CQ
w
J
C3
Q
Z
Cm
Q
HH
Cu
o o
O CM
in ro
VD O
CN CD
ro in
in <n
O CM
CN 00
"J1 *-
o o
in cd
in cn
cTi ro
rH *-*
CM
CD CD
O ^
CN r»
H ■«
CO rH
tn
•rH
to
tD
rC
P
C
CU
U
rd
ft
C
-H
0
rC
W
CD
SH
rd
in
u
o
•p
rd
U
CD
ft
0
CD
rC
P
5>i
XI
T)
tD
4-1
O
P
U
4-1
to
c
o
rj
CD
rQ
0
P
in
■P
c
CD
S3
CD
>
O
u
I
•H
CD
Cn
c
rd
\.
A-23
■o
2
■p
rt]
c
o
>.
£
o
ja
o
0]
M-l
CN
4->
T3
c
C
X
<D
c0
H
g
J
Q
0)
ss
>
01
w
o
c
ft
u
■H
ft
ft
«
-=c
g
4J
H
C
3
CD
0
tr>
s
G
c0
«
Cn
c
w
C
•H
CD
■H
TJ
!-(
2
0)
U
O
0)
CO
rH
W
—
ft
x:
CO
Cn
, — .
3
c
W
n
•H
0)
X!
>,
u
CD
CO
u
Cn
H
cO
c0
ft
—
to
CO
&1
S4
c
, — ,
3
•H
co
0
S
<d
-P
0
u
a
>4
o
0
h
CO
u
3
ft
i
x:
cn
u
-p
•
■p
c
0
<d <o c
u g —
,*
CO
_^
u
M
•
o
c
O
-p
cO
c
CO
4->
^
I (0 4-1
0) <D (U
ft G <D
•H IH
V)
Cn
^^
C
•
•H
o
M
c
ft
—
CO
w
_
rH
•
rH
o
CD
a
s
■^
1
u
cn
„
CD
n
•
0)
■H
o
CD
o
£
«
>
0)
01 ^
rH
T3 •
-P
U 0
-P
■o c
cO
3 ~
u
Cn
w
Cn
CD
C
^-s.
o
•H
•
c
cn
o
0)
CO
J~
fc
O
u
u
rH
^-^
0)
m
w
u
>
tt)
c
o
rH
CD
g
•H
fe
0)
^
a:
0
CO
U
CD
a
rH
a)
•H
Pn
g
'
Of
CN
•
oo
r^
rH
CD
0
00
rH
^D
o
z
o
>£>
CJD
00
+J
o
CM
CM
CN
c
CD
S
o
c
rH
•H
rH
TS
rO
>1
<;
•H
-P
(1)
X
<D
p
X
ft
C
^4
0
4-1
CD
CO
cO
CD
3
w
rH
TD
4-1
g
S-i
QJ
CD
0
•H
3
rH
3
cfl
>i
ft
Xi
s
r]
o
CO
pa
2;
ft
CO
3
ca
cn
-h
to
CD
£
■p
G
<D
(0
ft
c
•H
O
cn
^
cn
U
o
■P
(0
CD
ft
O
(U
XI
-a
4J
o
3
4J
01
G
O
o
0)
XI
o
4->
cn
+j
G
§
CD
>
O
I
•H
CD
Cn
G
c0
ft
A-24
APPENDIX 3
DESIGN FEATURES FOR GRAZING SYSTEMS AND RANGE
IMPROVEMENTS
A-25
APPENDIX 3
DESIGN FEATURES FOR GRAZING SYSTEMS AND
RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
GRAZING SYSTEMS
Numerous measures, procedures, or design fea-
tures are an integral part of grazing system imple-
mentation and administration. Many of these items
reduce the potential adverse environmental impacts
which could result from the proposed action. Some
of the more significant items of this kind are pre-
sented in the following discussion.
1. All AMPs would receive necessary supervision to
insure that the grazing formula is followed and
timely remedial action is taken to protect the re-
source base if the grazing formula needs modifica-
tion.
2. Each AMP allotment would be evaluated at least
once during each grazing cycle to determine any
changes in plant and soil conditions. Grazing sys-
tems would be adjusted when it has been deter-
mined that objectives are not being met.
3. Permittees would keep records of actual live-
stock use on forms furnished by the BLM and
would submit these forms to the Area Manager 15
days after termination of the grazing season. Spot
checks would periodically be made on the stocking
rate by BLM employees to insure the range is not
stocked beyond the carrying capacity.
4. Permanent range trend plots would be estab-
lished on all AMP allotments in each pasture prior
to implementation of the grazing system. Photos
would be used to document changes in ground
cover, plant vigor, and species composition. Trend
plots are essential in determining the workability of
a grazing system, and they provide documented
evidence on which to base future adjustments.
5. Maximum livestock numbers allowed and period
of use would be specified in all AMPs, i.e., AUMs
allowed in any given year would not exceed the
specified flexibility. Total allowable flexibility would
not exceed 15 percent of the recognized carrying
capacity. Accurate livestock numbers and period of
use are essential, along with range trend study
plots, to determine if objectives are being met or
what changes may be necessary.
6. Temporary livestock reductions would be made
when forage conditions are below average produc-
tivity. Temporary non-renewable licenses would be
issued, not to exceed 15 percent of the allowable
stocking rate, on better than average years of
forage productivity. This would insure that over-
stocking would not occur during years of poor pro-
duction and would allow reasonable increases in
use for better than average years.
7. During the first cycle of the grazing system, the
average actual grazing use would not exceed the
recognized carrying capacity. Any use above the
flexibility provision (not in excess of 15 percent)
would be through a temporary non-renewable li-
cense with a supporting Environmental Assessment
Record (EAR). Grazing systems cannot be properly
evaluated if not run in conformation with the de-
signed system.
RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
A series of range improvements would be nec-
essary to implement the proposed grazing manage-
ment program. The types of projects proposed in-
clude fences (including new fence, fence removal,
and fence crossings), cattleguards, stockwater res-
ervoirs, wells, spring developments, water pipelines,
stock tanks, rainwater catchments, contour furrow-
ing, sagebrush spraying, and plowing and seeding.
No developments are currently planned for non-
AMP allotments or unallotted areas. Only those de-
velopments considered absolutely necessary are
proposed for the initial implementation of the re-
vised and proposed AMPs. Range improvements
are designed to provide water for livestock, control
movement of livestock, provide additional forage
where needed, encourage livestock distribution,
and enhance use of available forage.
Range improvements are normally constructed
by private contractors to BLM's specifications. In
addition to detailed engineering specifications for
each type of range improvement, the following gen-
eral procedures apply to all projects.
1. No ground disturbance (excavation, road con-
struction, vegetation removal) would be allowed
without approval by the District Manager or his au-
thorized representative.
2. For range improvement projects that require soil
disturbance such as reservoirs, topsoil would be
stockpiled and replaced when the project is com-
pleted. Revegetation of all disturbed areas is done
with native grasses or as otherwise specified by the
District Manager.
3. Public and private roads damaged by the con-
tractor would be restored at his expense.
A-26
4. All access construction would be accomplished
with due regard for environmental considerations.
Cut slopes and fill slopes would be no steeper than
3:1 in all soils other than rock unless otherwise
specified. After designated sections of the access
or haul roads are no longer needed for construction
or traffic purposes, the ditches would be filled and
the roadway rough graded to restore approximately
the original contour of the ground, or to produce a
pleasing appearance by forming natural, rounded
slopes. After the rough grading is completed, the
access road would be scarified or plowed and then
harrowed. The cut and fill slopes and roadbed
would be smoothed and seeded with a cover of
grasses native to the area or known to grow in the
area or as otherwise specified.
5. The contractor would be responsible for comply-
ing with all applicable state air pollution control
rules and regulations.
6. The contractor would take sufficient precautions
to prevent pollution of already existing streams,
lakes, or reservoirs encountered during the project
development.
7. Erosion control features would be constructed
concurrently with other work. The District Manager
maintains the authority to limit the surface area of
erodible earth material exposed by clearing and
grubbing, excavation, borrow, and embankment op-
erations in progress commensurate with the con-
tractor's capability and progress in completing the
finish grading, mulching, seeding, and other such
permanent erosion control measures.
8. The areas where ground is disturbed by range
improvements would be inventoried to locate pre-
historic and historic features before construction of
that improvement. Any significant cultural resources
found would be mitigated before the project begins.
If buried cultural remains were encountered during
construction, the operator would temporarily discon-
tinue construction and notify the BLM. These meas-
ures are required to comply with the Antiquities Act
of 1906, the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1 969, and Ex-
ecutive Order 11593 (1971). In summary, the meas-
ures require identification of prehistoric and historic
sites, the nomination of eligible sites to the National
Register of Historic Places, and consideration of
those sites in the planning process.
9. No action would be taken by BLM that would
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally
listed threatened or endangered plant or animal
species. A survey of potential habitats for the en-
dangered black-footed ferret must be made prior to
making a decision to take any action described in
this document that could affect this species. Should
this survey, which will be called the Prairie Dog/
Black-Footed Ferret Habitat Management Plan, -de-
termine that the proposed action may affect the
ferret, formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service would be initiated. BLM would also comply
with any state laws applying to animal or plant
species identified by the state as being threatened
or endangered (in addition to the federally listed
species). If the potentially threatened plant species
Rorippa calycera is found in the area, all range
improvement projects would be designed to avoid
them. Further, grazing systems would be adjusted
to fit the needs of this species.
10. A reconnaissance survey of proposed range
improvement sites for the likelihood of uncovering
scientifically significant fossils would be made only
under the following conditions: (1) the proposed
improvement site is located in a known scientifically
significant fossils collecting area, (2) the proposed
improvement site is located in a rock formation
known to contain abundant numbers of scientifically
significant fossils, and (3) the proposed improve-
ment is located in an area known to contain prehis-
toric kill sites.
11. The 1971 Memorandum of Understanding (Sup-
plement No. 1) between BLM and the Montana
Fish and Game Commission concerning the me-
chanical and chemical alteration of vegetation
would be adhered to. This agreement calls for
formal planning and coordination for any such treat-
ment to begin at least two years before implemen-
tation. It also stipulates the procedures for resolu-
tion of disagreements over the size, location, and
timing of vegetation treatments.
12. An adequate buffer strip would be left untreated
on both sides of all drainages containing live water
in or adjacent to vegetation manipulation projects.
13. Spray operations would not be conducted in
winds over seven miles per hour to insure proper
placement and to avoid spraying non-target areas.
14. Vegetation manipulation sites would be carefully
selected with regard to topography and soil type to
minimize soil compaction, reduced infiltration, and
soil loss.
15. Reseeding would be done by drilling wherever
feasible.
Additional design features, specifically applica-
ble to proposed individual range developments, are
provided in the following discussions.
A-27
Fences
Approximately 551 miles of new fencing and 42
miles of fence removal are included in the pro-
posed grazing management program. Fence con-
struction involves several separate steps. Fence
lines would be surveyed and staked. Stretch panels
(2 to 3 wooden posts approximately 6 feet apart
with wooden braces between each post) would be
constructed at each quarter mile point along the
fence lines. The top wire would be unrolled and
stretched between the panels. Steel fence posts
would be driven approximately 16 feet apart. The
remaining wires would then be unrolled and
stretched between the panels. Where called for,
steel wire stays would be placed between each
post. Each of these operations would normally re-
quire off-road vehicular traffic along the fence
route. Where fences cross existing roads, either
gates or cattleguards would be installed. Placement
of cattleguards would be determined by traffic vol-
umes. All new fences would have at least one gate
every mile and gates in every right angle corner.
Pasture and boundary division fences would be
built with barbed wire except on antelope ranges
where the bottom strand would be smooth wire to
allow for antelope movement. Most fences would
be four-strand "Type D" antelope fences; however,
three-strand fences may occasionally be used. For
three-wire fences, the following spacing would be
used for the fence wires: bottom wire 16 inches
above the ground, top wire 38 inches above the
ground. For four-strand fences, the following spac-
ing would be used: bottom wire 16 inches above
the ground; second wire 22 inches; third wire 30
inches; and top wire 42 inches. Over 17 miles of
fencing is proposed in allotments with sheep use.
These fences would be woven wire fences with two
strands of barbed wire along the top, having a total
height of 4 feet, six inches.
Twenty-three specialized fence sections for
drainage crossings are proposed. These fence
crossings are composed of wood swing panels sus-
pended from wire rope over deeply incised drain-
ages. Such specialized fence crossings are neces-
sary to prevent cattle movement within drainage-
ways.
Cattleguards
Cattleguard construction would involve the exca-
vation of a trench approximately 8 feet wide, 11
feet long, and 2 feet deep. A concrete base or
treated timber base would be set into the excava-
tion and earth would be backfilled and compacted
around it so that a pit would remain in the middle of
the base. A metal grid with openings large enough
to deter animals from walking across but close
enough to allow vehicles to drive over would be set
onto the base. It would be held in place by a lip of
the base or bolted to the base. The cattleguard
would be installed in a fence at a road intersection
and would be square with the road in those cases
where the fence crosses the road at an angle. A
gate would be placed to one side of the cattleguard
to allow movement of livestock through the fence.
In addition, extremely heavy loads or wide loads
could be taken through the gate rather than over
the cattleguard which would be built with a 15 to 20
ton limit. All cattleguards would be placed level with
the existing or proposed roadbed to eliminate
safety hazards. Forty-one new cattleguards are in-
cluded in the proposed grazing management pro-
gram.
Stockwater Reservoirs
Stockwater reservoirs would impound water
throughout the year for livestock use. Four hundred
and thirty-six reservoirs are included in the revised
or proposed allotment management plans. Water
storage capacity would average 12 acre feet. Con-
struction is usually done on a contract and con-
struction time normally does not exceed two weeks
depending on weather conditions and the extent of
excavation.
Reservoir development involves core drilling,
surveying of the site, establishment of access
roads where necessary, site preparation, construc-
tion, and rehabilitation. Surveying and staking of the
project site involves some off-road vehicular travel
by survey crews. In most cases, there would be no
need for construction of access roads because
equipment would be able to drive across country to
the construction site. Site preparation includes
clearing of the project site with heavy equipment
and removal and stockpiling of topsoil. After the
excavation and embankment area have been pre-
pared, a core trench is cut down the axis of the
dam. This trench is at least three feet deep. Borrow
areas are established using a draw scraper or self-
propelled rubber-tired scraper which places dirt
from the designated borrow area onto the embank-
ment area in successive lifts until the required res-
ervoir size is reached. A spillway is included in the
design of all reservoirs. In some cases, a culvert is
installed. This corrugated metal pipe, generally 18
inches in diameter, is placed in the fill area to allow
for minor flows. The stockpiled topsoil is replaced
A-28
Figure A3-1 Approximately 550 miles of new fencing is proposed in the ES area.
n j
00
Figure A3-2 Typical three-strand barbed wire fence. The bottom strand is smooth to allow wildlife to pass under
1 J
"oo
4-
w
«^a
Figure A3-3 Typical four-strand barbed wire fence. The bottom strand is smooth to allow wildlife to pass under
the fence.
A-29
/'
Figure A3-4 Forty-one new cattleguards are included in the proposed grazing management program.
Figure A3-5 Typical cattleguard with associated gate for livestock movement.
A-30
with a crawler type tractor or scraper. After the
topsoil has been replaced, the reservoir site and
access road bed are seeded with grasses native to
the area, or as otherwise specified in construction
specifications.
Wells
Development of 34 wells is included in the pro-
posed action. Well development begins with loca-
tion and staking of the well site. In most cases,
there would be no need for construction of access
roads because equipment would be able to drive
across country to the construction site. Well drilling
begins with placement of a drill rig, usually mounted
on a truck on a leveled site. Wells are drilled with a
cable tool or rotary drill with a diameter ranging
from two to eight inches and to depths ranging
from 50 to 1,200 feet. Casing the drilled hole is
done by lowering steel pipe down the hole and
welding or coupling the successive pieces of pipe
together. A perforated casing is used in the water-
bearing zones. After the well is drilled, a concrete
platform is poured around the well opening to pro-
vide a platform for a pumping station and a sanitary
seal around the well casing. Except where flowing
artesian water is found, various types of pumps
would be used to bring water to the surface: wind-
mills, electric pumps, or gas engine pumps. The
pumps are installed directly over the well hole or in
a small pump house, within a fenced enclosure, to
protect it from weather and other damage. If an
electric motor is used to power the pump, an over-
head power line is normally built to the well site
from the nearest power source. A tank to hold
water for livestock would be installed near the well
site. This tank would be constructed of wood or
metal and would vary in size according to the uses
or needs proposed. Also, a pad may be construct-
ed of either gravel or concrete for the tank to sit
on.
pipe from the box to a watering trough or tank. For
sites where the water seeps from a larger area, the
gathering devices would be perforated pipes placed
horizontally into the seep area. Water would be
moved by pipe from the gathering device to a verti-
cal head box from which it would be piped into a
watering trough or tank.
Most springs would at least yield one gallon per
minute. Spring developments would be fenced. The
collection box would not be located over the spring.
An overflow drain pipe would be installed in the
stock tank or watering trough to conduct the
excess water away from the drinking area. All dis-
turbed areas would be seeded with native grass
species. Stockwater tanks would be located well
away from the collection system and spring box.
Pipelines
Nearly 60 miles of water pipelines are proposed.
The pipelines would carry water from a source (well
or spring) to an area where water is not now availa-
ble. After the pipeline route is surveyed and staked,
a pipeline trench is dug with a trenching machine
no deeper than six feet and no greater than 12
inches in width. The plastic pipe used for the pipe-
line is generally no greater than two inches in diam-
eter. After the pipeline is placed in the trench, the
trench is refilled and a berm is mounded over the
trench to prevent depressions caused by settle-
ment of the backfill material. After the trench has
been filled, the pipeline site is seeded to grasses
native to the area or as otherwise specified in the
construction specifications. Livestock watering facil-
ities are established at predetermined points along
the pipeline. Approximately 7.2 acres would be dis-
turbed by pipeline construction.
Stock Tanks
Springs
Development of 25 springs is included in the
proposed action. In most cases, there would be no
need for construction of access roads because
equipment would be able to drive across country to
the spring development site. A hole of approximate-
ly five cubic feet is excavated at the spring site. A
vertical pipe with horizontal collector lines would be
inserted and would function as a collection box.
Water would be piped in a small diameter plastic
Seventy-four new stockwater tanks are pro-
posed. Stockwater tanks are livestock watering
facilities, or troughs, and would be round tanks or
rectangular metal boxes of varying sizes. The size
of each watering facility would be determined by
the number of animals expected to use the facility.
Generally wooden posts partially buried in the
ground and a wooden frame around the trough
would be used to steady the structure. All stock
tanks would be equipped with bird ramps or other
devices to prevent the drowning of birds and mam-
A-31
c
<D
E
Q.
o
>
T3
to
o
Q.
>^
I-
CO
<
a>
1-
3
A-32
:«# -
(a) trenching machine
<*%>**' ' <****'
&**.
-■' .**"'T/V* Ti^**
^ 5 i
(b) resulting trench
Figure A3-7 Nearly 60 miles of water pipelines are proposed in the ES area.
Figure A3-8 Seventy-four new stockwater tanks are proposed in the ES area.
A-33
mals. Approximately one-tenth of an acre would be
disturbed with each watering tank.
Rainwater Catchments
Where development of other sources of water
such as springs, wells, or reservoirs is not feasible,
rainwater collections devices known as catchments
or artificial watersheds would be used. A catchment
is basically an area that has been scraped out and
lined with butyl rubber, asphalt, or some other wa-
terproof material to collect water. The water is then
run into a storage system, usually large rubber
bags, and made available for use. The water is
piped through a watering device, which automatical-
ly regulates the water dispersed based on the
amount consumed. Twenty-five rainwater catch-
ments are included in the proposed AMPs.
The size of the collection area and the storage
facility will be determined by the average annual
rainfall and water needed in the area. The water
would be stored in a pit excavated with a track-type
tractor. Lined with butyl rubber, a pit measuring 28
feet by 39 feet and six feet deep would hold ap-
proximately 50,000 gallons of water. The pit or
50,000 gallon storage bag would be surrounded by
a three foot high earthen embankment to support
and contain the bag. A watering facility would be
located downhill from the storage tank, allowing for
filling by gravity flow. The trench for the pipeline
from the storage bag to the watering facility would
normally be dug by backhoe and then backfilled
after the pipe was emplaced.
A fence would be constructed around the water
collection area and the storage bag to exclude live-
stock and big game. The fenced area would gener-
ally enclose one acre or less, and total disturbance
would be approximately one acre per catchment.
After construction, the site would be reseeded with
grass native to the area or as otherwise specified in
the construction specifications.
Contour Furrowing
the discs fracture the soil to a depth of 10 to 15
inches. This implement forms small dams every 15
to 25 feet by dragging and dumping loose soil
within the furrows. An effective furrowing implement
of a little different design has been constructed by
Mr. Frank Sparks, a rancher near Plevna, Montana.
It consists of two moldboard plows butted together
to form a large lister-furrower. This implement
makes furrows about 24 inches wide and 3 to 6
inches deep. Interfurrowed dams, which are neces-
sary to obtain good water distribution within fur-
rows, are created by raising and lowering lister
shovels at intervals of 20 to 30 feet. Longevity of
furrows largely depends on the effectiveness of the
interfurrow dams (Neff I973), and the undisturbed
sod dams created by the lister-furrower are much
more durable than the loosely consolidated dams
formed by the Arcadia Model B furrower. The con-
tour furrowing recommended would utilize the lister-
furrower type of equipment to the fullest extent
possible. Contour furrowing is proposed for 2,253
acres.
Sagebrush Spraying
Within areas of dense stands of sagebrush
where competition with sagebrush is limiting or re-
ducing the understory species of grasses and forbs,
chemical spraying would be implemented, usually in
late May or early June. Normally, spraying would
occur by utilizing a low volatile ester form of 2,4-D.
The rate of application would range from one to
two pounds of 2,4-D per acre, using about three to
five gallons of diesel oil-water emulsion per acre.
Spraying is usually applied by either fixed-wing air-
craft or helicopter. Flagging would be installed
throughout the sprayed area to provide for non-
spraying of irregular strips or patches. Each spray-
ing project would be evaluated for environmental
considerations and cleared through the Washington
Office on a site-specific basis in accordance with
BLM Manuals 7331 and 7411 and applicable coop-
erative agreements with other federal and state
agencies. Sagebrush spraying is proposed for
2,236 acres.
Contour furrowing is used primarily on sites
where infiltration is very slow or clubmoss stands
are most dense. Most furrowing has been done
with an implement similar to the Arcadia Model B
contour furrower developed by the U.S. Forest
Service. This implement uses offset discs to create
furrows approximately 20 inches wide and 6 to 10
inches deep on 5-foot centers. Rippers ahead of
Plowing and Seeding
Where insufficient desirable forage plants exist,
and natural revegetation and intensive grazing man-
agement cannot raise or restore range condition to
satisfactory levels, artificial seeding may be neces-
sary. The object of the 10,850 acres of plowing and
A-34
seeding included in the proposed action is to
reduce or eliminate less desirable plant species
and increase available forage through replacement
with more desirable species. In order to remove or
reduce the existing vegetation, the identified sites
would be plowed or pitted with various types of
mechanical equipment and then reseeded to a
more desirable species or mixture of species. De-
pending on the manner in which the seedbed is
prepared, seeding may be done by drilling or broad-
cast seeding. Plowed and seeded land would be
limited to the land with the gentlest slopes, to pre-
vent erosion by surface runoff. Where the land to
be plowed is not flat, plowing would be done on the
contour (BLM Manual 7312).
Maintenance
Policy and guidelines for maintenance of range
improvements constructed on lands administered
by the BLM are found in Section 7I20 of the BLM
Manual (Watershed Management). Existing and
new fences built primarily for livestock management
would be covered by maintenance agreements with
a group or single licensee. Improvements would be
maintained under BLM guidelines. Routine day-to-
day repairs would be the responsibility of the licens-
ee.
Most BLM-owned improvements, including
fences, wells, pipelines, catchments, reservoirs, and
springs, would be maintained by BLM. Maintenance
agreements for these improvements generally
would limit the permittee, licensee, or group to peri-
odic inspection and reporting damage or malfunc-
tion.
A-35
APPENDIX 4
DATA ON INDIVIDUAL AMPs
A-37
APPENDIX 4
DATA ON INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS
Users Key For Appendix 4
LANDFORM - Identifies AMPs in the riverbreaks , rolling plains, or
mountains landform areas
VEG - The range site in which the majority of the AMP lies. The numbers
correspond to Map 2-4 in Chapter 2 of the Vegetation section.
MAI - Notes AMPs with maintenance or minor improvement objectives
IMP - Notes AMPs with substantial improvement objectives
MGT - Notes AMPs which are proposed (P) , existing (E) , or revised (R)
ALLOTMENT NAME - BLM name used for AMP identification
ALLOT NO - The AMP identification number used in BLM's Range Management
Automated System
ACRES - The three entries under ACRES provide the acres of BLM or public
land, acres of non-public land, and total acres within each AMP
GS - The grazing system in the AMP including seasonal (S) , rest rotation
(RR) , and deferred rotation (DR) . Where two grazing systems are shown,
such as RR-S, a combination of the two types of systems is used.
PAS - Number of pastures in the AMP. Where two numbers are shown, such
as 2-1, this indicates a combination grazing system with a different
number of pastures for each type of system. For example, an entry of
RR-S and 2-1 indicates a two-pasture rest-rotation system with seasonal
grazing on one pasture.
CL - Class of livestock, with cattle (C) , sheep (S) , yearlings (Y) ,
horses (H) , and bison (B)
SEASON OF USE - Dates when livestock grazing is licensed or permitted
BLM ONLY, LIVESTOCK FORAGE PRODUCTION (AUMs) - The number of animal unit
months (AUMs) as follows:
Range Surv - The number of AUMs identified by the most recent
complete range survey. In most cases, these surveys were done
in the late 1950' s or 1960's.
Lie Use - Current number of AUMs licensed
Init. - Level of use suggested for the proposed, revised, or
existing AMPs
15 yr. pro j . - The number of AUMs available, assuming that
15-year objectives are met
POTENTIAL: Favorable years and unfavorable years - an estimate in
AUMs of the potential forage available in that allotment
A-38
05 N h
i-» t- CO
r- u) eo
Ocoo*ncocoio«-ieMco
CO ff> CM* CM*
oor-tot-ncoh'Oao^ftoviNOcDNN'^
uOt~t-CO'-'mr-0',<I'COOCM.-<.-*CDCM--HCM
cm" co p-I p-J cm* -«* r«
£ 9
cm" r-" --" iH
CDOliTJiO'-'CnCOCMCOt-CDOCPO
n a> u) r- o
CO CM '*J'CJ>t-'^'t-CM*»,COt— O
CD O TNHQOOCftODOOCft^
ao-*,cM'""'"-oicao,<ri-'<<j,coco
HOOOt'l-CCT'TNtOCONOnaimXH
t-a)iaHf-o)innhvnooNNNHaiH
n co 'f O) r-_ n h co v 10 h to oq « m to ^r h ^r
CM V .-" CM i-T CO" »H »-« i-"
s
a
<
*"*
— ' »-
0 0-
O
2 ■
I S
CD u.
2 S-
■— "10101— O^H^'cocMcotoOt-'m
oicoHiflcooiOiDinNnTfcncn
ccnw»-"CNioio*tono3HCi>N
ttinwnh^t-HNiflcoiOHf.
lOG0H^C6H^>flACOlQVPh
N « M h CN lO O V lO N lO o» » CN
r-T co" r> i-H
WCCh^CDCCOJNOCOiO^N
NCCNHNrtCD^lONiOCDO)
i-'coo'V'VCMcof-oit-r-coo— i to to co h h n ^
■^•CO^tOCOCOt-O'-'CMeOOOOlO^'J'tDiCOCO
OCOCOCOr-i-"'^'tOiiO,^,^J,COOit— iT^Hm<-iCMCJ>CM_
40 CM CM* >-* «-f *H
C0tDTP'Vi0CMC0CMCM^HCDOtDC0a>C0OiOa0«-<O
OOOCNfllCOnt-int*COHODC-«CDmCNVCNCNCN
ificowHtrHTio^nTfCNinconHmocNcocN
■** CM* CM* ■-" ■-" M
COCDVVt-CNCONhHCOOCOCOOinOiOaiHO
QOONOhnt-iOCNCOHCOt-CpCOnN^tNCNCN
O CO CO •— i iO i— • ^
tj" CM* CM*
n-riNmcocoHio
oi>oio"3t-oio>occHcciflot'
lOCOH^CDiOCOCTlONiOtOh-
N W N H N lO N ^ CO CN W fl) C31 CN
bh co" r-~ fh
ncDi'vntNncNiOHCOHCoot-nincoccHO
OCOCNO»Onhiflt-CCHCJ)NiOCNnHCOCNN!N
mCOCO'-HCM^^iOTfCO^CMC*— t-COr-HinOCMCOCM
- 8 g
O»OlCiOHO»00HfflOHaifl»O00a)Hfl«liOHHHOQ0H
OOOOO — ^hOOOO-<-'000000-i — o« — o — o .-<-,© ©
O O tt o M
rt — . O -■ O
■a ^
V _
z
<!
J
E
II
21
z i
s ■
all
§2 •
o- -j 2
<<< J,
< >>
£ ■"
9 *
► s
o o o o o o o
uuuuunuoooouuu 000000000000000000000
0- < Cfi
O cfl
HHCOCNrtCNVCNCNNCNCNNCN
QQQQQQQQQQQQ
COOOOO^TCOCJSOCM^H'VOO
Noconnmi'^^t-ainaico
iflOioicocNooai'-'t-ccconf-cji
to cm" .-* ■* cm" t-" co* co* -h i-I o" o> cm"
C£)HHCJ)TfrtNnNOrtNiflrHCNHrHCN-HincD
£ CO CO
a: ds
Q Q
OS tf tf
a q a
K CC
Q Q
HCNco^mncDlNO)0)OOJcocoool■ffOlft^
t-Hcofiftconnaic3)cDNNN^c*i'coooD
O »o ■-; ^ -h CM O* P5 10 10 h cq q <* CM CO_ CO t-_ cq CO
CM* CM* CO* t-* CO* V CM* CO* CO* V CM* CO* iC Cm" ~h* CO* CO* r-J f- "*»■"
CM —" *-* -h
OOOOOOCOOt-
t- r- O CO
m •-+ *■+
0000
CO O CM O
O^COO)NN^iOCN
COHCOCOiOnHCDCN
OCMCOCO-VCMOiiOr-
COOOCOOt-COOT-TiOOCMiftOOOOOOCO
OTfWCNCNCOCDNCDOCOCOHNinOI'COCOOO)
CDCDCOCOTf'«TCMCOCOCOCOCD<-«'-iOiCO-<rCT)CDa>CO
HHCNCNhcoococoini'oc-ncooai'Vomco
'^■C0CTJ'^'CMC0CM^-<C001^HC0--'Or--VC0C0C0OC0
n^HCOOCOOtOOlhlNVr-COI'CDlNCCO^V
CM CM CM <— ( CM
lO OS ifl h
H H W CO iO
CO H (N H CD CO H
CO IS i-h CO CO
cDOico©ifiiO>iocor-aoocMO>'-«
^-Ii-hCMCOOOi-Hi-h<-"^hCMCMCMCO
00000000000000
OOOOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
COCOOiOCOO'rh-K^COCOCIliflHN^OiCNTl'CD
n^miftiflcDcocDcDt-t-c-t*coa>c»OiOiooo
000O0OOOOOOOOO0OO0>-«r^-H
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
c *j «-
c
g
CO
_
2
DD
CD
1 ■""»
0
c
"3 «
c
V
!r 3
Oj
c
0) —
1-
c a
■fS
<u
a> >
a
bC 4>
-5
0
0)
5.
c 4
jo S -
I E
£ 6
■fl
3
O
-C
Ǥ
en
C
1
.2
a
4j
03
a>
«
3 E
S -
< -3
0) c
2= E-
60 P
c 5c 1
« CO)
£ •< 1
S *
B" J J
S (3
Illili &■
5 oj a;
a. K
a > o
•= c "2 S3 c
0 -M 0)
M <
> Mi s
2 -a
jcoii"
C .-B
o c
« _
o "2 "2
■o iffl
SSwwci.Bj(oajjZffioDS mono
^1 O 0)
3.5oI
Mj j-
fcj > _U ^,- w <*■ 14* .~ ^ ^3 u jj ^
S O H
-SB,
S < -
0,0.(1,(1.11.0.0.0,0.0.0.0.0,0. W0.O.0.0.0.O.O.O.0.O.O.Q.0.O.O.0.O.O.UJO.
X XXXXXXXX XX
^vvvvtcaaoo^ooajr-^
X X xxxxxx
XX XX X XX
aococoaor-tocot"-tDoccr-cocoaoc.<Daoao<oao
3 E
K
•o be a —
■2 *>
it
O o
S
•M « ?. •*
m y1 4) (J
x O *° 3
* i- *^ »
? s g s:
saga
^ 8 » ^
< 3 £ 2
S o 5c "U
^ -D O O
tu c ta .8,
o a
^ a
S "5 c
« ^ ^ <i>
O C OJ c
a o u c
» - S o
%° SI
« c o *J
x -o
0) ^
bD S
2 41
0 -a
1 I
s ?■>
S £
o -
ffl 73
>> S
01 -3 -3
a- ■§ S
g > .2 be J o.
5 3 C O
d B5 aj r?
5 |(2 <
2 B;
B. 3
S 73
< g
J3 — _C — l.
*j UO *j CD CD
A-39
3 fc
a a.
O •
s 9
CO u.
2 3.
- i
s =
tT OJ «-i ^
—< CD OI Tf
O O OI CN
OCOOCNCOinaOCN— <CT>
oi©mTro—«r— coco*n
o
CO
CO
o
CO
T
o
00
EC
CM
CN
O
CO
CO CN
I- ^-
.-H t-H
—< CO
CM
i-H
t-H
0. < CO
O co
> i
s o H
- S Bu
s < -
> w o
■a a
COOCDCOCOOJOOiincD
lOioionionnOitocc
O N CO iO O iO <-h (D CO
T 00 O CO
2 ">
o> ^
9° » — r
O O ^ CN
^ ^ CO ^
H ifi ID f
O CJ> O CN
— < m CD ■**■
Tf i-h i-h
moicNcoaoeot— r— m
rH m cjj oi v d t*
moicDaocooicooao — i
ift ifl V CD N CO * ^ »-4
^ CN t-H .-H
■<rOOCN^-<CT>CO-*
COCD—tCOCNOlcNrH
nr-OHioconn
CN — " of t-H
co t- o t-
coott Ot-H^fi-Hioo^'^'aj
rt -T f- VCDCOt-CSiOCONlD
—< t- r- f- « CO CO CO CN Oi t-
CO CN — "
— < TT Ol N if)
00 <* C- CO
i.O X O m
Ol-HiocO'Hr-cOHi.-iO
oomcor-t-fniOTfco
OCOCOCNcNCOCOt-CO
ooocNTinaoinino
oi— 'in^r-— «c-oocnco
cnconiNOiniaffico
ooocDTincomm©
aiHionr-Hr-ooNtD
OiOOCOCOCTlCOiOCDCO
m co en cn
^f CO CD COOllDCOt-OCN^CM 10 O O
NiOO-N»OCOO)*VNOt--NCNCD
OCNCD^iCJlOlCOCNCD'-H'^'r-cDMtNoCN'^'
N -h tn of — " CO* iH CO* ■-* CN
fmTrcoo(Dnn^nvHaoinoiio>oo)
cd— <coor-co— <^rincDcot~r-cNcocNor-
■^■(--'^■lOiOCD'^'t-HCNOcOOlCOOcOCOCO— I
CN t-H i-h
co v co ai
CO OI © CN
f N t- H
f-H co cn o r-
CO — < CN t- CN
co t- t co -*r
rococo— < in -v in co — ' co ifl t- o>
i>a>«nta,coNr-aioacot>
iflCOHCNCOnOCOCOiONhH
CN — « —i
co ^ n oi
oo o> o cn
■v cn r— m
— i CO t> o
CO *•* CN t-
co r— m co
t-nnHio^ioxHcomocD
r-o>"*rcot--aocMr-ajmo>cor—
mcoHNccnaincoiflNt-H
t— CDCOCOCNt-CO— iC©C0C0t-r-0>
cNaoaj^TCNOimr-coinocDt-
Tj-mco— <cnoico— icoaome4t><-i
oocoooqo©'-hO— •— <co©oao©-H.-H©©©©o>©oao—icom»naoo
NONtONO^O"- tWWMcNOcD^OOcN^^CN^So^^^H^Ho"^
^^OOO^O^OOOO©^^^^.-^©^©©^©^^-*,-.— .— .
^^^H^H^^in^H^OJfH^H^Hr^r^^rH^H^H
o o o o o o o
OOCMOOOOOOOOO
6owu
ouuwmoouuu
NhCNhcDNWCOhN
o
MOOT
co o m ■**■
CO t— o> T
o i-* r- o>
(O O Oi h-
—
CTj
01
CD
cn
CM
-T
CO
x
O
o
5
X
X
c-
kO
CO
■H-
^r
-T
—
VV^COQOCOhcOhiO
ntcftO^'-'iNO)- < co
t-_ 0_ h oi © in in cc — < cn
to" co" t-" —<" co" m* co" co" tt" cn
©t-"*r©co©cooocot—
COtDiOOI'tDCOt'ViO
cococji cot— inocnai
i— i oo *n o> co •—< m — < — <
-•rt-ococNaoaooinao
int-T—fOOincNcDt-
CDCOCNoqcDt-OJCO— <CN
iO V it* h" V i-J tf CO cn"
PS
a a
co^rmmcom'^'inr-i-Hiocomcoinr-co'T
oooooooooooooooooo
CO ffl a c/3
r-HCN^CONCOHNCOHiOHNCMNNCO
05
Q
* o- co 05
a a o5
a a a a
05 05 05 05
Q Q Q Q
NNNNNNNNNN
V h O U5
CD CN ao t-
t*- CO OI OI
cn r- c- co"
O — I O CO
cn in o oo
co in oo q
in* co co
■«r o o cn
cn in co ^r
H H H CN
CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN CN
oiciioiDooHHOcoHoiconcooxmo
r-OOCOHt-CNh^OtOCOiOOCOOOCOCOO
tDCOHt-fONCCHCCCCNNr-hNCO*
m* of co* t- ~h* m* co* —* co" o" cn" o" a>" co" cn" co" — " in"
CD©t-0>—<©0- '
lOCNCO^O^^N
q co cn h ^ t- cn ao_
oo* — " V cn" co* — * — * cn" — * m*
■*rcofO>©©m©
r-coo^rcNt— cnco
HCDOl-'fCDCO'f
mcomoioio— <©cn— <m<NO>o>©co©o
COCOVt-CNCNCOOCOfllfllOlCjlCCCOOI'CN
cocjsao-vcocomcocNcoTincNmeoinocj)
m* co* cn* co" t-" cn* of — " oo* — " V t-" co cn* —* V
oicDoocNcoincDOcocNco^rcNcoaom— «co
CNCOCOfiniflifit-C-CCCCOOHHp-CNCOCO
CNCNCNCNCNNMCNMMMCgcOCOCOCOCOCO
NNNNNNCNNCNNNNNINNINMIN
i j
a
JS IT1 O
^ O B £
O OS X oi
r- o (£> to
3jo
d3
o6 |0| 8."o*o
CuCuCuCuCUCUCUCUCUCU
XXXXXXXXX
t— oocooococooocococo
2
"ca
c
o
Q
u
s
%
a^
3
o
X
<a
<
a
V
J3
a
s
o
>>
c
c
o
CO
,2
Z
a.
o
e
<
05
"a"
ej
o « _
&< -o PS
o
c s
B XI
PS CO
-is
— ra i- ,tj w_ -^ , r ~
S^ocbS^S
SbSZcopScoH-J
a.a.o.wa.a,a.CL.o.a.ii.&.ft.ci!ci;a.
X XX
X XX X
XXX
ao co CO r-
X XXXXX X X XXX
COt-CDCDr-r-COCDt— CDOCOr- coot-cor-
A-40
•3 i
1;?
1
a.
«3
a
rH
fH
rH
S
5
<
<
-a
o>
o
CO
O
1
CO
CM
t>
CO
01
CO
*1
i
00
l>
IQ
CN
0)
CO
m
a a.
O .
O)
o
CO
o
*
CO
CN
t»
M
o>
CO
CO u.
■J
■**■
00
r~
1Q
CM
0>
CO
in
J*
J
%
•-5
1-4
%
P
00
V
>
o>
T
00
IO
CO
J
CO
r~
00
CD
03
O0
t»
00
r-
IQ
■n
O^
CO
lO
S s
S .2
31
il
s ■
ill
a. j 3
< >>
5 ■
> s
ft. < (/>
SOH
- S ft-
s « ~
> w o
CO CO
CO t-
iH O
r-1" cn*
r-oiO)<-<Oi-imaoinin.ncocNco
coco©co©r-CNt-co©0)coaoao
HNCOOOH^hN«)NffiO>H
t— ©»n,<rco<-''*rcor-co»n.-iio©o
0010)t-COt~t*»0 * N t^ * t- ^
00 CO O CO O 00
co oo m oo cn O)
*n ao © in co a>
tt -t r-
-<t o> „
CN ^ CO CN CM CM tf>
■h r- ■*• •*<
00 00 CM CO
io r- O CO N CD
to CO -^ co CO O
W CO t- O H
-* 00 CO CM CO
co h ^ to q
t-H »fl H H
co cn t— r-< o o o
m o> o t— co co t
O) t*- oo co o r- co
iCiCOOCNCNOlCNO^OJCNCOCOiO
n^vionKioxcoHooaciOiOH
Vt-OiflinOO«inncOH^O>1lio
lOiOtOCOCNt-OOOCNCOCO^rOCO
n^*COOHO)CDCOCCt-hH(DO)
vt-O'fioooiOionNHnnnn
iOiOmCOCNt-©©©CNCDCO-*rCNCD
COVVQOOHOitCncDft'rHtOCTi
^t-OJfiocccDiowNHnncoeo
ooioNiocN^ot^ONconn^ifl
coTrcoao©'-<o>iOcocot-t-c-t-<-«
^■r-ai'J'incocDionNHcotDcoiO
oo^* aoioio t* it) co «-«
CJ) O) N N CN CO 00 ^f CO
<C W N CN CM f* t*. O. CN f" "^ W N h
CO* ©* COCO CD* •-" CN
NNNNCDCOClOOt'fl'nt-US
©©t-CM*OCO©COCOI>COCMI>
n. ^. ^ W. H. N *°. ^ *0 ^ ^ ID t>
H OJ <N CN CN* i-i" «-" ■* lO of
HCONNNN^CO^NCOinNin
M01t*CNO)COO)COn*COOOt*
H * t- CO OS N H H lO CN V (0 H CO
—* 00* CN* CN* i-h" f-1" r-" V »0* CM*
OlCNCNOCNC-CON't-COCDCNt-
vhCNanNconvnooco
^I^OOlCN^r-iiflCNTrcDHCO
H 00 CN N h i-4 iH
CO00CNCNa0t-CD00^T'-«C0iOr-C7>
iflflit-NrttvconmcocNCNO
HHt-naocN*HinCNncotooi
.-< O CN CN .-« —«
CO CN _
^05--«CNOO»CN010
^-©.-h©.-h©.-h©<-h
O O O O O O
©©©©©©©©O— <000
^io»oeoipincNioiocoi>o»ioio^i0^iou3iO*r3iO'^,i-icocD*oio,*toto»0'^,o*i--«ou5io
OOOOOO^hOOOO^hOOOOOOOOOOO^hOOOOOOOOO-h^^OO
ouoouou oooooouu><ouuooo
NcocNHCNnncN'incNCNi'^H
p-t p* p-t
CO CO CO CO CD CM CO
o h n h n cn
OS K
ce ix a; cc cc cc
QDQDfiD
CN t- n m O T CO
t> IO t- t- H It) O
C3 CO > i-h .-H CO_ CO_ CO_
lO CD* 00* CN* ^J* lO* CO*
iO t- O CN t> O
CM©0)CM©©©©©m©©m.— :-V
COCOCC^^CJlCOOiOOCNCNCOCNCNO
iO O) •*)• i-h »-h O) ^ 00_ O) O) iO t- l> GO 0)
>-* Oi 00* in" <-t* CD* O) IO V p-4 i-J CM*
a: cc oi ex x od ex cc jx rr r/1 r/1 cc: cr;
txa;ctioio;Qtf««wv-w-ct;Q
lOHOO^iOt-HNCOCOHTTO
I00io*t-O5t*i0t-COCD01COIO
coooco^hcon^ooo-^coococo
!-» O IO Tf ^ ■^,
^-« O) 'V OI o»
(OOt-NOliOfllh
H H CD IO ^
, 1
t- o
CM CO
r- co
ac in
o
CO
CM
Tf CO
t- O)
f
TT
OQ
-^ CD O) CM m t> ^"
CO CO CO V 'I' t ifi
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
CM CM 04 CM CN CM CM
i t
ex Ed M cc
°3 3 S 3
o X A X
cooor-ooooom
^fCOOCO^tt-OOOcOCM
COCOCNCOCDCOOVCOCD
00* CD* CO* i-I oo" co" CO* V CO*
co to n n in co co ^ co n in ^ cr co O)
O* CN* IO* CO* CM* CO* CD* -h r-~ i-T r-4 <-* CO* •-"
iOOOiaOTiOCDOOO)— i CO O C4 h- CO
i0CDCDc~-OOOO0)OCMOt-t~-t^
COCOCOCOiOiOiOiOiOCOCOt-ifiiOiO
CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN-fftf^
OJcoint^ocMr-oin^rinooio
^cocococoioco^oooioocpi'ai
OJTfCD^COHMOlfCOQOCnCNCN
N U) CO h
O *■* *f CO
commcMTrcoo— «t-cNoo— itno
COCOHHHtHHCOOJt-COoOCO
hiOVCNCOMCDHCOt-f-HOCO
t-" OS* O* CO* co" CM* V 0> O •-" 00* CO* lO* V
CO ^f CN CN H CO CO ^h
OlOHCOiOCOCCOJOI'iaCOCOO
^000000000000000)0)0)0)0)0
inmmtninininintnmmminx>
-t -T -T TT TT T
J S E E -S a 5
H tt. E- H CO 03 Z
U10.UUU0.
X X X X X X
CC U 00 to ts X (O
< CO
.- s o o 3 3
J O b o S S
a » ii 8 j-
1 1 lalll
■ Oft; •'o ■* k
« od u fc .2 £ ^
a 2 o o 5 a .£
D o J J J D H
S o
§ 3
co &
^5
o CX, o
o.ft.tt,ft,o.tt,tt.a,tt.a,a,tt,tt.a,Q. a.tt.tt.utttt.a.tt.ci;tt.tt.tt.M
xxxx xxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxx
tOfOr-T^Ti'irij'tNinCNcccccN
xxx x
aoaoo)0)oocoaoaoaocococococo
£ 1 °
3fcO
o "" —
A-41
.2 •
3*
S
<
= D.
o
n u.
3 *
a !
s =
00
z
<
a
H
I"
S .2
w S
2*
•< J
5 -S
3 -2
S "
*h ;
Q S I
Z H g
a. J 3
§•2
0. <C CO
O ce
> |
s a h
- S fc
s < ~
> w o
CO OO f f N t-
tt a* i-H t- co co
-V f r- ao f- •^,
© © © cm
© ao © •*»■
CO fl) Q0 h
CO CO CO CM
00 CO —i
co as oo
-h co CO
-h CM T — •
.-h 1-1 CM CM —<
oo © © © © © -*r
CM CM CO CO CM iC CM
oo n ^r v n co t
ri h n
v h » a) in a> oi
CO ©
O CO
<-» Q0
CM O
CO
© .-< t-
CM © ©
CM CN
© -^
CO i-t
CM CM
CO 00 CM ^h
co o © co
N H f CD
•H
^h CM
t- . r-0 .-1 —1
CO CO CO ©
iC CO CD CM
O 00 OS CM
CN fl> OJ
ao 00 t-
CO CO t-
co t- ^ n
^r cm © ©
£J oo
^ [^ CO * H lO CD
t- H 1- iC CD iO N
h V f CO iO N CO
•4 i-T cm
Tf © t- ©
r- t- t> -v os t- os
00 H M if) K) O CD
O ^ CO 00 © CM CO
c- .-» as © t- t—
CD t- © CD CD CM
r- © © co © ©
t— © © r- © r—
co n o» h t* fli
t- f C> CD D V
t~- © © t- ©
co co © ■-( r-
r- -*r © co ©
t- co © t- o
to « © h t-
t^- ^ © CO ©
00 "*T co £i CO CO
CO ^r © CD © CM
CM O lO CO CO -^
CD CO CM © « CD
CO CO O CO O CD
CM t- © © © ©
CD CN CN Oi h CD
CO CO © CO O CO
CM t> CO CO CD ©
CO CN CM © — < CO
CO CO © CD O CO
CM t— CO CO CD ©
CD CM CM © t-t CD
^* © OS © ^H CJS l-H
CD— 'CO©— N O CN -
^rcN©©2i^j'©cD£2-
cm" cm* cm CM — 1 CO*
t-COtfSCOC-CMTCOr-
HCOCNTHtOI'OI1
HCDCOHCDifiCOOirt
.-* i-J 1-" i-i" cm" — "
— « CD CO ©
r-cDiocoonTj-Ht*
HCDPsomi'tocon
t-tOionTfnvHh
HccNVHai^oot
-HtDnH^ftDcon
i-J — * i-J f4 CM* r4
© © © CM ©
© t— Ti" •— I — — i-» • —
^©^CO£i£i©CM
•-"<-* CO* CN*
©CO©CNQ0^CM00
— ' CO t* r» - «©CMCM
r— t n ^ cn n cn r-
OOCNt-hl'HV
05CN05^Ht-r-O)
COTfO— I N CO H H
©©cMr-r~©—«Tr
aicNoi^Hcot-o
© ^ o — i CN CN r- « — i
© © CM t-
h CM © ^T
c- -*r © — <
CD ^ CN CO
©©©©(—©■— icNNcoioiflHOiOinvr- <©■— i o h co h co h - < © — i m r- ■!— <
nrHr^rHO'-inMOMHHCNrHnHOcono'jnnowcNnnnnHnn
©r^©^©CM>^CO©^r-.^— (CO©©©CM^CD©CO^©^r^©CM©
-H^^-H©rH^©©rHr^rHrH©^©©^^©OOr^r^r^©©-^©-^^©^-^
piicoububfHHMioui^cDOcD^HfHnubHOOuoiowrtcoHrHco
io^io^u;inu)Niou}'^ioinu:cocDcDO>OHu:u)(niou)iAcoiAco>niocDiOioiD>oioiAioin
© © © o
©©©©©©©©©©00©0©©©0©0©©
UUUUUUU UUUUUO OOOOOCJ CJOOOOOUUO cjocjooooo
© © cm cm co co -v
03 X X
Q Q P
a- x x
X Q X
© © © © CM © ©
© O © r- r- © — i
tq i- « ©_ © © ©_ tt
CO* ©* CM* 00* ©* t-H 00*
© © © O
© cm r- © ©
a: x x x x x
x x x x a x
co co cn p; h m
© t- © © © CM
© © © © © CO
© © CM © © CM
©©©©CMTWCM
03
os
OS
D
as
Q
03
OS
GO
os
a
OS
OS
03
OS
tn
OS
OS
OS
a
OS
OS
03
a
os
a
03
o
00
CO
in
CO
C4
CO
CO
00
00
3
o
CO
CM
00
to
ao
SB
CO
CN
CO
uo
T
00
CO
CO
CM
o
c-
Oi
© © O CM
^ H CO fll H PJ
© CM © ©
O (— CM © © .— i
CM © © © O CM
© ©^ CO CN rH ©
CM* CM* ©* CM* ©" ©" -h
© © © © CM ©
Tf tJ- f- "^ © ©
© © CM ©_ CM ^*
CM* CO" i-J — h*
©
©
o
CO
©
©
a^>
©
©
CN
in
©
CO
o
X
CM
o
IO
CN
X.
X
©
IO
O
©
©
©
©
CO
in
O
T
o
CM
CM ©
© ©
iO
fH
—
t
CO
iO
o
©
CO
©
©
T
CM
©
<-H
1-t
©
CM
T CM © C- Q0 © ^J1
CM •*»■ © © © © ©
CO © © © © © ©
© t- © t- o •-«
© © r~ r- © ©
X X X X X X
CM © "V © ©
© © © © © _
X X X X X ©
© ->r •- " © ©
cm— ioo©©co©©
©©©©■— ir— ©■— "^
t-t^-CMCMCM.— ©©t-
Tj* iO ph' tt" CM* CM" ©" ©"
ascM©oo©t-©-*r©
©©©,_(.- <©©©©
cM^r©Tti©©CMt-Tr
^r* ©* © ** in" cm" cm" ©" ©"
© m © ©
^ ^r ^ ©
©©©©©©©©©
Tf ©©©©©©©©
e
o
Z
a
i
I
1
s
o
3
3
Box Elder
ood
y Ranch
ttes
Coulee
se
atwillow
;k
)reek
reek
k
awk
eek
Coulee
ge
1
OS
o
g
E
^J
m a i jb rj s
S I ^ 5 a "2
U {1(5-2
0) m
<
J=
3
3
a
CO
o
0j
•5 m to
|«s1-gi'2
1 -S
O
fi
en
fe £•.»
E- O S 2 a. ffl
co u S co 5 £
■£ £
z s
Tj
03
z q n
o «
o
d Hi J
.ti "i -5 cu o o •-
j D Cl > fc co «
CMrt««©'^■©'«■
OS
Q
xxxxxxxx
QQXQPXXttt
©©©<-"©©©©
©©^J'O'^'t^©©
H (D r* ^ CD 0) O) M
TT* CM" ©* — " — * i-" CM ©"
TP©«^H©©©©
ao^r©©CM©©©
t^©CM©©CM©>-<
■^r h © © ©
© © ^r © cm
©©©©—•
tT©tT©©— "CM©
©O©-^©©©©
©fhtT"^'-^'-^''*'^
©©©©©©©©
. cj
; I 3
M
a J1 3>
J3 2 J3
co O co
o 2
3 J
Qh CU CU Cu CU Oh Dh
a. Oh o. o- os ft.
CU ft. Oh til 0- 0-
Q.0.Ch(1.UChC.P.Ii]
ft,ft,ft.ft.[i)aSft.bH
XXX XXX XXX XX XX X X XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
•"T Tf "<?• -V >— ' r* T
*r t ^
^-. ^ ^ tj- "<r
°o .5 c
C aj o
3 S 9
X
A-42
O ■* CO ifl N
ft -h IC CO ft
O O) iA » OO
t* N ^ ft h
N (C > t- N
* * (O O h
tO CO N <C lO
.-h cm ft •-•
cd i— co m m r—
ft CD O O TT O
i« ft CO ft <* ©_
h* U3 H
ftOCOOCOCOCDft©
t-Naooococo'TO)'*
n h N lO Ol
m t- cd o ~*
CD CD CO CD m
■^ O r^ co cd
rl C> t- a
Tfoi-rrcococDOico
JiO'-tOO)^'^'^'
OOC-CMCOCOCOt-t-
ncDconoooDnoo
COOOcOfftCO^cN
ft" ft* <N
10 n ^ ^ (o oiin—to
ft^aioocom**
O ftCDCNCD OOlONt-COXiOt*
— co — cm co co © — cocMO©cj><oeOft — ; * fl) o o oo n h « n n
w O) cn uj ^. m © ?£* © cn r- ^ o n n cq 2 2 o 10 to q -
fH --" CO* CM* CM ft* t-" ft* t-" CM ft CO* ft
v m eo co
a Cl
O
commoicocoaocococDfi'VftftO'^'to
t-(DNOHO)HNfOONtHCOHNOl
iococovcoiovcovcocot*r-r*(ococj>cot-t'CJi
t— mt— mcoinair--
co t- co ■*■ r- ■*
■■F m m
* o in o
_ ^ o> ^* t- _
mcococooicoco^aOft
oo>o^aitonno«DNO*fl>ioot-
I'O^QOOHCJlNiOai^N^OOXHOV^V
^^io^(OioOJr-eotooot-mt-»^o>x®
ft CM ft* V f*
o> m o © ao t"
"~ ^ t- © © ©
■** CO ft ■* t-
inftOcomftomoscNaOf t
"inftfifiOCJiftftOftco
ft C- T CO CO f tCOftftftft^ft
coMcomcooinoicM^f"
tflOPSHNHHiH CO ft
oooor-fttNaooiinomcMcO'^'ft
NCOt-OtDO)VH|>t-HO)00(OlO
Ht-H00t>OaH«HHiH COft
T
©
CO
CO
09
n
03
00
o
03
in
09
lO
t-
o
iO
O
<X>
QQ
LO
-r
CO
TT
00
t-
OS
t-
n
.r,
fl
f*
"
—•
"
CO
OJ
0^0)(DP5t-rt«iOM
OlflOlO^HH^OH(DOO>HOOiBwnlOnOrt01©<H
t-^'^.-HCOa0©U3<D<-<'-<<-'<Ot-t-r-coaii-'©a0t-^'-<a0tD(O
GO
z
<
-J
a.
H
i -s
£ s
S .2
2 "5
< V
5 I
fiftCNOojcOftftftOin
fiftftftftOftftftft
in^^^ti.OOft
ftOOOftftftO
OOOOOftOO
OHHaHHHHHt-HnHrHOOAOODflOHHIONAASI
OfiftftOftftftftftOftftftftftfiOft
^^^^^^^^^AwftftftiOfiftftcocOftcOftcOfifififtftin
OOOOOOftOOOOOOOftOOOftftOftOftOOOOOft
cocooSin^SinSS^SiSco^ScoSSSS^cococOftotocoin
OOftOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOftftOOO
3
OS J ?
B.Z S
< 2 S. I
•c 'S •»
g M rt a d b. <
CL. < 03
0006030600066006000600000600000000000000
MC^N^H^H^HCOP3*-tP3t-»^H'^'CO^'C^^'^^,-^*^'^Hmd01^H^HiOW»OC^NCD«CJ'-<^-<mC^
as!
sPl
u o -s
a. j 5
< •< J.
j -2
< >>
Q .
> s
pstfososososesesos
OSOSOSQQQOSOSQ
oS
os os
a os os Q
BiQQco
pCj OS PS 05 05 05 Oh
« os os a a a a
a a
©aOftaOftco©r^©coco©cMcoaoccinficocMco'*'©r--*,t--_1cocM^'inc--aocMco©ococN
ftoOHOO)fl>^nHnncoot»i,NiocoHcooNiovcR*(D(D(OOcj>io»OiK-«)r'<o
h n us n t^ oi io n co a o cm aq o « aq eo_ <o_ co i -^ -h to *n o f ;_ oc ^ * ^ t^ © »> h in cm ft ft_ oo t-1 ©
V m* co* m* r-* cm* co" co* ff in" in" co" ©* t- t-* ft* m" o" m* •-* ao" co" ©" o" m" ~r co" co" to" to" co* co" co" co" ft" ao* in"
inmiot— ftinmm
HOJNIOCO^HO
t-n c© h h © •> cm
t>E^cOficoot~inot--
COCNCOftCOaitNt^'VM
n et q h to t> n h to n
CN* ft* CM* f" f* 0>
ocomcOftlntDft<NcJJCom•^■ » o> t-
NNCjlNHCOt-iflf-MOJiDr- CN CM CD
maoOftcooaocMincoaoaOft ftom
CM ft
ft M ft
ft CM CN
incOCOftOft^CMftO^C^COftOCKiftOfiCDCMCT3Tj'O^C?>ftOaOcOCOCOCOOr-OJCJl-^,(>-in
t-c^co^ftinincooicooincnf(t^c^OfiOftftinocoN*r^i^cNcococoocOftCMr--in^rc7i
^i1^"*. ^ooaqoTOC^aOftcoinococMOft^coinocMOt^ao^aor~ftcoco^rc7>ftt--fico
co" co" co" cm" co* co* V co" ft* co* co" V c^ in" co* ft* in* o in* ft* in* cm* V cjT co* cm" ft" co" V cm in* <-* fT f" •* cm
ao ao r-
CM t>- O
ft in r-
J2 ?
"cz
ini>oOfico^int-aooOT^incor^Of«cNco^incot>aocMcococMcDCMincot--cocoinaooift
inioinOftftftfiftCMCMcNCMCMCMinininininioininincotococ^ir-ajftfifiininincococD
^^^CDCOCDcOcOcococDCOCOCOCDCDCOCOCOCDCOCDCOCOCDCDCOftftftCMCMCMCDt^t-aoaoaO
minminininininininmmmininminmminininminininmcDcDcotDcococTiOJOJCDOicji
b fc- 3
OO o
0 o S
GO J
1 8. -a
-S J!J
Is IS
js c o
b Id 5
kc ». Ci
S. 5. m
$ S $
% o S
tS J §
►JDOCOODSwDDDWJ
O |
j: "2 o
la-s
a, fe) 5i .
r h e- i
S k. u
_ S ►"' fa *<
Z3Zt.Jh«3inZ
! M f I
lean
!■ h-fi
, fe ^ £
1 S- s »
i D E-> w
z Q a.
PS ^
•a T8 "S
lis
OS 03 O
I * >
S 03 Q
s Si
BOO
SOH
so.o.tio.D.a:a,ii,ti.CLa.iia.ao.a.a.a.Mo,o.D.a.a.a.CLii.uu£La.CLa.iio.iLo.a.
-So.
XXX
XX XX XXXXXXXXX X XX xxxx
X X
s < -
X X X X X
>• H O
f-h(Dt-t'ht't-t-t-t-|s|^ft*t*t-t»Wht-t-h<Ot'kfWnnTVVft»
-r -r t-
3 £ o
os
A-43
3 R
a Cl
O *
£ •
CO (k
2 &
3 *
0»
2
j
CL.
Z TS
W °
S .2
w 3
3 -s
H q -i
ft. j 3
•< < s
j -2
< >>
i -
> s
D s
ij
Z
o
<
<
a
£ O H
~ £ ft.
£ < ~
16
-1 b.
CO ^ h- *
CO
O N h
m O
CO
n n n
o> ©
^r to co
t—
■*r Tf m
lO CO
N 00 N
lO CO O CO N
00 CO ^" CO ^h
f N iO t- ^J«
rHco-.chr-cC'-«r.v
COO)COt-iOC-NV(D
rtCOCOCDOOCOOrtrt
CD* 1-1 ^
OlHiOHHCSCOOlN
lOCOOiOHfllHCON
CD H ^r h N CO Tf —.
•h t- oo o> o co
^r c- «-< co co o
t- CO -h ^ i-H cm
CO l/j
CO t-
cn
■-H t-
CO t-
a>
co co -«r
lO CM
rt-
CO rt
N N CO Ol i-H h 00 O)
cdttoo — -<r— ot-o
NcO^'^'^O^COcOt^
t»oouoiOHN»coa
r-oo-^iOc-oau^cocooi
COCOCO^CONCONiflCO
OiOrtOlCMCO-VCO
CJiiOiOOCJlCJ^COCJS
CM-^COCMrtrtiOCO
cn co ■** o a
CM iT5 CJ> iO O rt COO lO CO h O N CO
COCOipcO'^,'fl,t^'^'C7>;--Ort — t t^ f O t- CC
■^rSir-Trfj.aiTrr-iOrtO*
00 rt rt
rtO<fl01,CDNHOCflOOOJ(OOrtiOOHtDNOrt(DC-OliDffiCD
rtTTC^OCNaiCOkOiOCOiOrtOrtOiOOOaOOOCOCNCOWOO^OaOCO
IBiOHHHHCOOOiONtOiOV^eOiOt'.H^ioCOClHCCHiOCft CM
CN rt rt ^T ,_" ,_* CO* CM*
t-^"iOCNrttOCMt-OCOCOCMCO»OOrtiOr-C001C-rtCOrtCMOCO*OCO
C5P)0»0>W01lOrtOCOO>COfl)Ot" lOifllOOOCCCOHr-COOtDNQOifl
'COOINiOCOhCOCOiONQO^hNCC CM
a> — * co co m cm <*
CO ^ CM ^
io rt co n c» a oo
iO *0 ""J" Oi CJi CD C7>
CO CM rt rt »ft CO
^■lOrt^CMrtCOiO
OliOmCDOiTCOCl
CNVCONrtNiOCO
t»*K5NHCCNO)Or-COVlOiOO'- iiOr-COCDC-rtCOrtNCOCOiOCO
COCOOCT)COC7>CDrtOCMO,i'^,C710f-*0»OCOCOCOCOrtt-aOOCOCMCOiO
C-UDCM OlrtCOCOiONViOCOCnNiflCOrtCOCOiniNCC'VrtNM tN
■^•■^•u3CMrtcocoOiOr-iO,vco*oOrt»ot^coo>t^rtaoooaoocj>ioco
C0C0O0>C001iOHONN^C6rtt-iOh(DQ0CCC£)rtt.OC0COV00iO
t- UO N airtCOCDiONCOiOCOQONiOiOrtCOcOiOMCOCDrtlNrt CM
rtiOtDrtrtrtrtiflrtrtrtrtCOrtiOOmOCOrtrtrtrtiOCCCOCDrtCOCDinrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtO
Sc!C!*?SSScSSSS^Srt^^c!^SSSSc!C!C!C!Sc!C!C!S5S*?S"5*?S*2
ccioiBcocioioif)£3rtciIococcIoiocoiflii5x£
OOOOOrtOOOOrtOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrtOOrtrtOOOOrtOOOrtO
oocjoo-joocjcj oo-joo-joooooooooooooooooooooajo
H^wnonwnwH
vonnujrHHiriflHNNncD
OS Q
of rn tf tf ti
Q M Q q a
OS
a
as a: as as oi
OS Q Q Q OS
tS E
U « *J
i OS OS r/i OS OS OS
Q« DQQ
I g 73 CO
i OS OS
1 QQ
, OS OS
'QQ
OOr^^oOOc^oocOco
lor-wt-NcocoocoH
OHOHVIflCONlflt*
rt" ^' ■*' t-' U5 lO* ^* co" V* co'
ootN^co^rcooioco
r-cot~-cortOor-coot-ooa>coocMOOTroo
OOH*(C(OOCONOtOON(OiOCR^OCOC01,C'
CO^fCRNOI'COCCI'HuOOiOt-COiO^COCOVin
CT* 00* •-* ^ G> CO CM* CM* id CM* U5 V r-" r-" CO* TT* CO* CM* co" CO* lO 00* CM id
CO rt CM iC rt rt CM
CO CO CO 00 CD 0> f
*o t- t- o oo ■** 00
CO rt CO 00 00 V CO
^r" CO* © ^
mmO<-«t-t-rtCMOO^'OOCMOO^rOOCMC710CO'^■
r-rtOcoco,v^rcoiOt-ioo^'iOcoaocj>CMCMcoooo^rco
rt^N^O^rt^COC>0100NOVN^»Ot-(NCCqOOO
,_" ■*." ^." ,-J _" ,_" _,* ,_" CO* CM* rt" rt* IT? rt* rt CM* ^ -*f CO" rt" CM id id
ooioOOcooiaOrtio
fllCRQON^^iONOlin
Ot^'fl'VCONCONOai
rt CM CM •-« •*■ CM
CM CO rt
CMt-r-cocoocjioo^a>iOOOiocoooooooort-«rcoiO'voor-
OONrtCO^COCOt-^incOiOiflrtiflinfllC)>UDCJ3(NiOCNlcCt-tDONOO
*>"*>■**- oo co co cn rt n v oq q co cn rt v os 09 aq q cq •-<_ -<* eo « q io co
(D* CD* rt" V CO* rt" rt" V "
CO CM CO -V rt eo rt
co co co co cm --1 m
1!
3 £
11
£ 6
© o © o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o ©
QS
$
F -o
3 c
§1
Anderson Cou
Woodhawk
Dog Creek
1
1
3
co o
■° *
.5 5
i
E
a;
£
3
BS
B
>
3
0
>
CJ ^
> c
"3 £
z
o
o
o
c
n m
a
<
W
^
2
o 5
ft.
H
CO
m^^-i(Or~0^5oo>-<.oOino--'CO(0«^l,^HCO'S,^or-c^cO'-«^-.c^
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOC^WWWIMCJC^CSIN(Ncg(N(NC»c>4CMCSI
H "3
H 3 O
I to ° 5
CQ
Be .5 *i S-gOSu5^
"O -°33rfc'^30ajT3'Bk .2
g^i B u-o-Su &« -S S! g « t:
°^9i"Ofl&i'"iT*JS^St-3
c3JSS*J5«3c«6ooo
«coSaiosSweE.<?jjZoo
c
ton Rar
t Clark
Creek
c.
3 u
S 9
T3 o
m
c fi 5 S
U c
3 E := *
60 t
F 5
OUOQ
aS J
s
a
o
<
(D
M
1
c
1
i
0
>
^3
x>
"3
S1 > 2
CuQ-ClQ-,WCl.WQ-.iXCl,
XXXXXXXX
ffi (Jj Oi 3l 31 Jl Ji ffi CT' CTi
Hun.o.uD.o,o,ao.a.o,a.o.D.a,o.o.o.t;a.a.un.o.iii.a.c
XXXXX XX XXXX XX X XXX XX
E .2
bo H
8*
a) 5
« >
S3 .2 M
« . -o c
XX XX
X XX
a< oi O) ctj oi a ex oi a <ji 31 c^ ai os !Jj o> c7> c7i >tj cn cj) c^ x oc1 * * x * *
c
>-
o
i
X
«
0)
So
a
Etc
c
1
0
U
■1
a>
QO
h
"3
GD
*
o
1
JO
tic
C
1
a
CU
c
O
Q
1
o
o
o
a
c
fj
cu
>
X
0)
cu
DO
03
•S
■d
9
CO
O
a
0)
-o
03
>
3
cu
a
o
c
a.
s
S
3
1
CO
>
CO
CJ
O
o
E
to
<
j;
<L>
id
4^
I
a>
>
>
a>
£
*
g
|
n
2
>
J3
O
S
g
c
be
o
8
D.
CO
a
>.
in
2
o
J3
CO
0)
>>
12
|
0
JZ
£
c
0
a
cu
"a
■s
£
T3
CO
£
"i
-a
c
a;
c
3
O
u
s
S
O
u
a
5
-C
"o
<
'o
<
cu
jq
c
o
CJ
5P Dl.
-I"
G-
£
DO
h
a)
*
~
—
-_-
rn
co "<r *-» m
A-44
s
5
<
a ft,
O
s
so u.
£ I
s *
09
z
•<
J
a.
I •«
w S
S .2
< V
5 *
a -s
s ■
ail
9 s 1
Z H S
ft, j S
< < J.
< >>
3 0)
_ -»
> I
S O H
- S ft,
s < -
> u u
t-O O CD CO O
n h oi ^r cc
05 CO h O h
CT> O CO © CO
<— " O Ol O U5
n v n co to
*« O ©_ CO_ fH
cn .-h ,-h cn
r- in ■* eo co
CT> O *C ift -V
i-H TT © t- i-H
(N CN t— O CO
© CO CO t* ^-
o n oo co h
CN CN t— CO CO
O) 00 CO ■* 'I"
O CO CO CN — i
cn o r- •-« ■*)■
Cfi h CO 'V o
O CO CO t- i-t
CN ^f Tl* O CO CO
^ Oi W t- CO N
ifl N ifl h 0 CO
h CR N h 00 « CN .-h
© O) © —« I- i-H i-h CN
CN H tt CC K) CO CNCN
H Oi h t 'J' CO t-
00COONlJ)^-N
oocor-iocooiit-
lO »H CN i-* f-H
Tf©COOaOCNCNCN©
OOiOOO^COtXCO
oonmcnoococDOco
OJHiNCOiOOI'lNO)
COCDCO-HNNCOCOT
ONinoor-coiflOm
ncONoomo^N
COOiCO-HCNCNCOCO
ocMinoo^iowo
CNnOCNt-CN^"©CN©
H^iOCOOlCJlCOCOP)
t-N^HCOCOCOOCO
r- co © co
*H t- CO a>
•-H CO iO r-
O it) N
O 00 h
*o m io
t-QOCOOlOOCOOCNOO
©omco— <ou->cNi-H'<r
m-*rio©coot—i-Ht— us
pH CO* i-I r-4
t-iiOCOCOiOtflCJIO'- ir- 1
iccor-,vcocT>'-(COOTr
n^co-HcoiotrcO'-'n
CO CO ^ CO
O CO fH
^HNOiteuir-flif^ to
_ — ^OOCOOOOOOOOhNiO — — t-
i w 5 g coca n t- ob e^ q ifl co n g g w
] CN —T lO —" CN CO"
cooooOiomcocococOTj'
WCONNUiCOOlCOOliflH
HcoNr-cDiooomcoco
H CO r-J
Trmt-oicoi'coio
ONO01N00Q0--"
coiJiOiom^iflco
tD00OhOHfO(0C000(0VOh(0O>0i0O
■VCOCNCOiftiftCOCOOliOOr-OCOOinOOCOCN
HtOO^'COI'OOiOCDiOiOtOOOOlOiOCOiON
COCOOt-O— ■^'OCOQOCOCO'^'OCNCOOiCtnO
^■cocNoomincococTiiOOc-ocooiirtOOcocN
HCOOT(OtCOiO(Omil!OCOCOOifl»WN
QCOOlOaHftOCDnoDtDVOt-VNiOlOO
(J)CONOHiOCON05ifiOt»OCOOiOOO(ON
HcocomcotOJiocoinvcDoooioiocoiON
COCO^^^^^'^i^i^'^'^i^^<^^^i^'^i^FHi^^COU^^i^'^^COOOU5^Hf-«COlO<-Hf--<
^^ooooooooooooooooo
H^co^u3?^iocoiS^5co^Sioccii5nco^5^io5I5
■-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
o o o o c_>
co >< > X
uouoouuog
CO CN ^ r^ Ift
X
uouooouoouoooouoouuu
— — ' — ' T r- CN
CNCOfCOCOCOCNCNHCOCOCO
OQ
CO CO w 5
Oh
PH CN H rl CO
co m o> co m
O lO lO CO o
V ifl ft h CN
cn ^ r-
CO N 1(5 CO H
x x x x x x x
QtfDQQQD
COOIDCOCOTCOOlO
cN^moj-^ooi-H-*
t-H CO CO_ CN «J lO ^_ l> lO
co" co" id co" 1-4 ^>* r-* co" co"
COOO-VCO © CN t-
h O CN tt CN r-i^-iC
h q cq cn cn cn o co
o" cn" cn" co" ■*" co" <-h" co"
CO
X x
Q Q
CO <-H
CN i-H
CO ^H
xxxxxxxxxx
XXaQOOOQoiX
X X
Q OS
OS Oh Oh
cn x x
t-©ocoocNmcocoa>©'-Hco,-Hco©^H
COOOif'H'fl'N'Cnt-COt-COMCOt-iOCNCN
«3 i-H lO CN C0_ CN <* Ol CO CD «-h 00 CO_ ©_ t-^ rH CN
co* r-" m" irt ©* oo* co* co* co V --" CJ* O* m* O* t-* co*
CN i-H
CN rH
iflHCNOOOOHircONCNOLOCOiON'COOJ
cochO)u:HincNOiOCNCNcDco>acor*CDkAco
■^Tt^CN©CO'»rCOC0050iCNt~-CO©©COCJ>CNCO
N iH N CO* N CN C-* V H CO* CO* i-H 00 CN if" CN ©" CO* CN
t- i-h m
© to CO
o oo •* oo
W —»
CD CN CO V t- iO CO
CO O h o CO t* 00
OCO©CO'VU">i-Ht-CO
co" i-I co* ■*" r-* N* if N* co"
t-i-HTfCN-^CN^fi-HCN
©•-"•-HCO'**CDt-COO
CNeNCNCNCNCNCNCNCO
CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN
© CN
~H ©
CN i-h
m .-h
O ^H
CO CO
CN CN
tocoico©coo^H»-H©'^'r~©cotoco,v^-ao
COCOCONfCOiOCOHiOCNOlOOlCDiO
o> »o q h oj oo a t* h r- b co
CO* CN* CN* t— " m" CN CJ> CO* ©*
CD B O) CO h CN
OiCDCNH^HCOCOCRO>H^CNHOB^t^B01
HttohfOOHn^TrTrmcot'Comiflujm
COCOCOCOCOiniflUJBBBBBBBBOlOJOlffi
CNMCNCNCNCNCNCN'*')l^TrN,'1,'rfVTrrr^
s e
i U I
a; o S OS °> ^
«f Q « „. - =5 .
•"= -S -W
^i .- ^ 6
cd o 4* •— 4)
jSSud,a£a
0.0.0,0,0, a.a.a.a.D.a.Htt.0.
X X X X X X x
XXX X
u«
ig Coul
ert Tw
even B
Blackfi
* *
a .3
B
C
CO CO
CD CQ CO t-
Oh
^ >, a
.5 i
o oa
^s -2 s j°
* « 5 c e
2 I I £<3
00 00 00 00 00
. a c
i » o
aoooooooaoaooooooo
o,o,o,o,uo.Lija,a,a,o,o,a,o,o,a,o.uua.
XX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXX
aoaoaoaoao<j>oio>aicT><3>o>a>o>ooaia>0}o}
A-45
s
<
a a.
O .
s V
5 a
z
<
-J
0.
H
I a
w S
a J
w 3
ii
ail
Q S ■
Z g g
111
< ■< s
1*
> s
S S
tf «
flu < 00
C 03
5 O H
« S cu
S < -
> W O
cMnaonoioicDmN
.-" .-* cm cm* ■* i-~
CM CD CO m CO CO t-
O) t- CM CO CO CM ^»
q co 'f h n n O)
rt* ,4 M' ,h' N"
•-i CO CO
t- O CO CO
cd m h co
co --< r- o
co co •«■ o
CO >o O 00
■^r co co co
CO CD CM T
r- co in o
00 CO CO lO
co O) -t — •
a r- n r-
CO CM CM CO
CD m CO CO t- t—
oo i1 m oi x h
q n uj co oi ao
i-4 »H --" CM~
o t— co cm r- co
o co •— en co --»
co -h n co m ^
r-4 ^h* CM
nHt-cj>Oifl«ocoN cnm io
ajcoor-TTco^cMCM co —< co
iflOWf?3NC3>P3P5tA)^H>NNH.
CM- CM" Co" CO CD* r-J <-" O i-H i-4
■-< CO CO
CM t- -h
m --< o
CO CM CT> CO
■»!■ TT CM OS
oj co t — • ^r
m CM
CO iC
CM CM CM O O
,-. i-l
■-h CM --i
H CM*
co o Tf en co « v
CO t- © O) O O CO
cocMWcoce«^in
_" _* „" cm" tyi
COCONrtiOCMCOCDr-TT
O O I— X lO X X X' lO J)
NiO00fCN01CO£OCN>H
.-T i-T cm Tf <-"
r- to o r- co
co •-< TJ- m — '
CD iH co t- r-
tJ" tT iO CD CO
OQ0O)0)t— OCOt—
OhCOHtOH^O
r-TpcM-vt-^Hf-H^t
^" H r4 i-<
o O) o t-
t- co m ©
cocoHHinoocococofTO^rr-ai
O'OCJiaOiO^COCOI'COCOCOCOHN
CMinr-'^'CMOlCOCOCMOCMCDOCOCO
.-. iH CM -V
coT.-<^ir)CMco-*J,cocor-©'*rr-'-<
©4noscoincococo'<J,inmcoco.-«co
NiOf-fNOCDCONHVCOOCOCO
•-* h ei V i-I •* i-l" f-1"
COCM»-i^HinCMCOCOCOCOCO©CMin>-i
omoicomcoooooi'^^cDHCoco
cMinr-^rcMcncococMCMt-co— <coco
rt h CM T* r-J V i-J i-7
CO V f o
©TtfsoooiftcocMCMmr-imco
O) >— i co >- 1 co i- <^,aor~aocor-t— t
in tt a> ■* co - < .— < o) co v co t- qo
OOCOHhONOJHVfNrtN
OlON^COH^QOiflOcOCOCOH
iOiflfl51lir!HH05COH'ff^f05
O^rOOOOmCDCMCMQO^HiftCO
OjHOHcoH^oo^QOcot-r-'i1
COVf-"TTCOf-.--iCCiCO f CO t^ h
o6o666oouo6o6uo
NNt-HCNCOCNCOCNCOrHHCOH
o o 6 0 <->
Tf pH in CO CM
as a; en: en x a:
Q (X Q en: Q os
Cfl K 5
tf
OltDOCDOO'l'COCDTNOlHiflcO
CMCOCDCMCO^-'r^COCO-HiO*O^Hi-tO
t*iOCOCOir)00HCHffiu:C31(OHCJ)CO
d Tf oj co" co" co" t-" cm" cm" cm" co" m" cm" cm* co"
int~r~co©cococoiOCM*-icoccoco
cot-mcomo)©0)CMinao©t~coco
(OHHt-Hcn^^aooiOcDcoov
N H O N O CN CM* 1-4 l>" lO H N CM
TfCDCOCOOCMCOin--'CM— i CO CO ifl o
V»fJCOO)»r((DXHCDc*iOCOiOf
cocoNiflcoaor-HHVcoor-Oico
V)
V)
a
CO
tf
7)
tf
OS
tf
Q
X
co
X
o
CO
O)
O)
CO
CO
ED
CD
OJ
X
*n
CO
<o
CO
o
CM
CD
CO
•H
Si Sj *rj
tf
00 cyj Q
tftftftftftftftftftftftftftf
tftftfQtfQQtfQQQtftftf
o o co o r-
r-ioaicococNiocom
iCCMTfCMOlOCMOCO
°i. "^ "*i *°. "~1 "^ °i °l "^
CO" CO" CO* CO* O* CM* CM* CD* Qk
C005CDCDCO!D'-Oh
t-ln',*t-"a'^-<lO^-^'^,
t^^omcDOcor-'--'
CO CD H t-
co O CO h
CN CO CN Ol
h" V o* m*
h N CO
^h co in
Oi ■"-" m i-h
X
l>
01
CM
CO
CO
CO
16
T
X
t-
CM
o
T
GO
-r
X
CO
CO
o
o
o
X
o
o
o
CO
X
^
-T
CO
o
tN
w
CD
m
■^"
CO
CJ
CO
-*"
"-1
O t- O CO o
CJ5 f O h CO lO CO
omcoino-Hi^-oit^OJO'-HCMcoo
COCDCDCMCOint-aOOO'-«-H--«CMCO
OJOJOJOOOOOCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
^^■^■lOlOiQiOlOiOIOIOIOIOIOlO
^h m t—
CO CO CO
CD CD CD
in in in
CO CO CO CO CD
HCNfCOTOlNCOTCOCOaiHiN
XXCOOJOlOJOOOOOO--''-'
HHHHHrtNININCNCNNNN
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCDCO
^ 8
ffiOk^^X'-3C«Can<oo
— E s Jf* CD
2 a
I =
B o
o o
S a
a.a.a.a.a.a,a.a,cuaia.o.a:ucL.
x xxxxxxxx xx
■ 2 j o
co h < U [0
OHfXfi. [i] a. a. a. a.
6
E
a*
0) 0J S
5 J n
5 a a oo
B |
O o
I £ r3 cu 3 -o
BKOJBlOOOBDJB
u
uas«a.o.Q.CL£r;a.cL0.CL,a.a.
X X
C)C7>C7)CTlcnO)0)CT)C71OlG)O)O>O)CO
XXX X XX xxxxx xxxxxxxx
00 CO CO 0)0)0)0)0) 0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)9)
A-46
s ■
m u.
CO
2
<
-I
a.
H
g g
S .2
2*
z i
3 ■S
^r H °
*§.!
Q S ■
ssi
§:^ 8
< < tt
j ^
< i>
3 0)
_ J<
Q x
> g
5 |
— _a
z ~
o
<
<
a
s a e-
- S a.
S « -
"2 6
OOCO^-TCNCOin-— "OCOCOO'—O©
HV01COO)tDNtNV- < CO O T T O O
id f CD CN
irt as r- cm
<-< a> »n r-
c-TO-<rocOrHCNin
oo— i h o 10 n n h
O) (D ^ ID in « CN CO
(Do^Htcotoo^rt^'-HiO'-itMiocoao
(Nt'COCN'J'QOaaiNnHOlCO'J'i-.H
OiO^COCO<NCO«naOOCNa)<'),.-'Oin
OOCOCNfCOCO'*J,OCO-*rcO'-tCD'-'CN
(Nr-'IN-.OO-in'fl'rHPJr-.rlCNrHlNfN
NtcoomooncNXinQooiNr-cNhOin
to(CO)NOifin<cfl,oooi'ffflnHO
— < CNrHr--HTOTfpHNrtrHrHI-<(NW
I'^cjiaiHaiinumtooit-t'tHiNio
NincDCNOtOINlO^incCCNHHtDiNO
(DcDCTiCMoa>co-HTrmaoTpTrcn«>c«Jo
—4 Mr-t--HTfTT--{NM^-H^(NCN
—
■^
CO
_l
lO
CN
CO
-r
t-
CO
CO
r—
r-
lO
<N
■**«
CN
OS
O
03
CN
o
CN
CO
CO
"
£j
£j
CM
00
CO
CN
m
GCJ
m
CN
CN
m
ift o
.-» CN
o
CN
03
X
CN
TO
o
CO
in
m m
OO
eN
«
00
C
CN
00
a
O
O
rH O
^
O
CN
O
C
c
CO
O
CO -H
O rH
CN
c
r-i
CO^-OO— 'in— 'O— ■— '— 'C0miCU0'-«— «
CO^miCCOTt— CDiOCOCOCli— < O m CO m
©0©0000©0000<-<*-'000
uooooooooooooaouo
HinCNCNWn-COT-.r-CCINHr-(NHM
Ml M - ■« C
«H * ffi
c • "71 c ^ z S
ra .^ r "" ^ o
ti J 5 cu
ps Q co Q Q Q Q
■"HCOC-COt-OCOmcoOiOCDCTi'-'O'-HCD
COOOCOCNCDCOiCCOa^OCNr-COtOCNiO— •
COCOCT)(Nm — CNCftCNCTi'^rcOCOCO— 'Oi-—
r-4 .-.* rH CO* CN CO* CN CN ■*f CO* CD* CD* rH <N* rH tj" CO*
CTit^tOaOOOaoCNJ
(CU)OONO>0>0- •
COCOCNOCDCDOCO
o o
o>
m
CO
r- —.
■<r co
Oi
a
TJ-
co a>
t CO
-r
—
m
CO CN
CN — <
in n n — i
r- T oo o -t in
cnco— 'inr^ooococoom
COTCD-'CO'tCNCDiM'^t-
00* r-I lO ■-" CO* rH CO* Tf -"" CN*
n tt - cNTTCNcococo'-'OOcomcxicor-co
ri^HCN<NCNr-r-'inoocor-aooootNcgco
cNCNCNCNCNco^cocor-r-r-r-ooaocooo
(OtotocDtococojioic^aioiciaioiaioi
S * os
= Z OS os
E 3
O *>
o m
be bO
pa
m
J3
a
0
J*
u.
<D
( )
a>
U
c
cd
U
a
3
3
•e
c
5
u
0)
•S o "2 o "
16"
5 1
Q0Q20.BO<0<J016.UQ
i^i^i^^L^ic^^a.11^
X X X X X X X
X X X X
E-
OOO
XXX X X X
O^C^C^O^O^aOCJ^CT)CT>CT>C71CJ^CJ^CXCJ>C7)Cri
> CQ ^
A-47
h (C tO ifl v «) N
00 --h CO CO CO O O
<-« CM CM t~< CO CO .-i
s
a
<
e a.
o „
09 u.
2 3.
<-■ tD ao iO V CO N
X h ^ n (O O O
--< CM CM .— i CO CO f-t
co ""> oo m t— cd r-
h t* 00 N Tf Q> CO
O — • CO CO t-
00 — • O CO CO
— < i-h CM
00 C- 00 -f
ai co co a
" o to iO
<-< CN
O CO CO CO o
CO CO O CO iO
©
s
_
03
09
z
J
ft.
W a
S .2
w U
< *>
z i
< -2
S ■
*£i
Q S «
Z H g
W O -s
o. j S
^1
§^
o „
> $
5 3
z «
z ~
o
<
Ei
<
a
ft. < c©
O co
^* 4/3 us m io .- ./} J5
oooaiooasai U
irt m us tn co ^h .-.
^ S C S C £! 9 "3
t— us ao r~ co co r- -*i
ooooooo ,°
St5H
- S <v
s < -
■2 E
ooooooo
^h CJ -h ^h eg co ^-i
« m OS Pi pj
Q 0J Q Q
o o^ co co t- o
co co n -^ a> r~
to ^ rt tj) oj •->
•-" CN CN CO" iC
CO Ol CN
CN CO CO CO Ol O
t— •-» t- -fl" "<r ■**•
N U5 CO O) m >h
■"-" — i i-i" cm" cm*
co co r— t— .— i co io
CO 00 rH CM CD O CD
O O CD CO CO 00 CO
O O CM CM CM CM CT1
E/3 <D
0- >.
8 < -S
e ,; " .5
■C C rt
£ E
2 > 2
x — o
c o
0J
O 2 3 <
s s
s
&5
Z 0. CO >? ? CQ Z
ft. ft. Oh 0, ft. ft.
X X
5 5c
CQ O O
S -a 3
3 S
,2 qc
bfi O
a o o
— D. *
O o
~ -3 «
« « be •
c ¥ ■ V-,
5 a
D £
< -53
o> qj > *
on - £ a. ^h -C
o x — x: T3 "
C CD w Qfl Oi - ;
O qj
£ 3 ^ -c •- 5
•*- m ^e ^ o <
2 -c ft. .2
2 £ < ^
o < i c
s
— < * eg co "<t
3" *5 !£E 'S
A-48
APPENDIX 5
THE EFFECTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON SOILS
A-49
APPENDIX 5
THE EFFECTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON SOILS
Livestock grazing can bring about changes both
in vegetation and soil. According to Smeins (1975),
"Regardless of kind, class, or number, the overall
influence of grazing animals is some combination of
vegetation defoliation, trampling of vegetation and
soil, and deposition of excreta. These influences
may have beneficial and detrimental, as well as
short-term and long-term, impacts."
Soil influences on watershed condition also re-
flect the importance of vegetation. Properties such
as particle aggregation, soil depth, organic matter,
and compactibility are directly related to vegetative
cover and plant litter.
Animal hooves with sharp edges and small sur-
face area bear proportionately extreme weight, ex-
erting downward pressures exceeding 1,400 grams
per square meter (Spedding 1971). Trampling can
destroy plant tissue both above and below the
ground. Detrimental soil impacts include soil sur-
face disturbance and soil compaction with resultant
reduced water infiltration. Less water is then availa-
ble for plant growth. These problems are especially
critical in the fine textured clay soils with moderate
to very steep slopes as are prevalent in the ES
area, and riverbreaks landform in particular. Tramp-
ling effects are especially detrimental under moist
soil conditions such as occur in the spring. Particu-
larly in the high clay content soils the counteracting
forces of temperature and moisture action, such as
frost heave, will reduce compaction with eliminated
or minimal trampling (Rauzi and Hanson 1966).
Beneficial effects of trampling include planting
of seeds into the soil, as well as mixing of green
herbage, litter, and excreta into the surface soil
(Hormay 1956).
Vegetation removal, if periodic, short-term, and
partial, can increase plant tillering (shoot formation),
generate a higher proportion of new tissue to old,
stimulate an overall increase in vegetation cover,
and enhance nutrient cycling. Harper (1969) found
judiciously grazed vegetation to be more vigorous
than comparable areas excluded from grazing, re-
sulting in an overall increase in vegetation cover.
Over-utilization of the vegetation resource leads
to degradation of the watershed. Systems which
incorporate deferral of grazing based upon seed
ripening for plant regeneration, and those which
incorporate a cyclic rest period, are designed to
increase vegetation cover and thereby reduce
water erosion susceptibility (Hormay 1956).
Vegetation greatly influences precipitation inter-
ception, water infiltration, percolation, evaporation
and transpiration, water storage by soils, surface
runoff, and erosion and deposition of soil (Smeins
1975). Vegetation ground cover and size of ex-
posed bare ground areas most greatly influence
surface runoff and sediment yield on watersheds
typical of the ES area (Branson and Owen 1970).
Surface water runoff is directly proportional to
grazing intensity (Rauzi and Hanson 1966). In stud-
ies conducted in Colorado by Lusby (1970), grazed
watersheds had 40 percent more runoff than un-
grazed lands. Leithead (1959) further found that
rangeland in good condition absorbed water five to
six times faster than range in poor condition. This
direct influence of grazing upon runoff is not exhib-
ited on areas with fall-winter utilization, however
(Rich and Reynolds 1963).
Smeins (1975) concluded that "moderate graz-
ing may maintain a favorable forage resource,
would tend not to increase erosion hazard, and
would possibly release good quality runoff water for
use off the watershed," and that "grazing can be
an integral part of most watershed systems if
proper grazing systems are developed for the pecu-
liarities of each particular watershed." Moderate
forage utilization has been defined as 35 to 55
percent utilization of the forage resource (Hanson
etal. 1970).
Willard and Herman (1977) studied the influence
of grazing systems on revegetation and soils in the
ES area. The study indicates that "rest rotation
grazing in eastern Montana is generally better than
season-long grazing. Generally, rest rotation graz-
ing allowed for better vigor on key forage species,
faster soil water infiltration, more litter on the
ground surface, reduced amounts of Opuntia poly-
cantha (prickly pear cactus), and greater production
of desirable grasses for forage. Conversely,
season-long grazing resulted in lower plant vigor,
slower soil water infiltration, less litter, less produc-
tion of desirable grasses, and more Opuntia poly-
cantha."
"Of all the grazing regimes included in our
study, only winter grazing allowed for better soil
and plant conditions than did rest rotation grazing.
However, this is to be expected. Plants are dor-
mant during winter, so that adverse effects of graz-
ing would be minimal. Soils are frozen during this
time and would be relatively free from compaction
by trampling."
A-50
"Only two sites grazed under a deferred rotation
system were sampled. The system had been in use
for six years, a period which is too short to allow
the plants and soil to fully respond. No definite
conclusions were drawn about the usefulness of
this system."
"It is apparent from our study that range im-
provement in the northern Great Plains is slow.
Even though range improvement is occurring on a
site, a long period of time is required before sub-
stantial improvement in range condition will occur."
A-51
APPENDIX 6
EXISTING AND PROJECTED RANGE CONDITION AND
VEGETATION TYPES - BY AMP
A-53
u
T3 cfl
O 2
u 5
a. <
OJ
oo
C
(2
>-i 3
I
4-1
03 00
•H C
w
<r (ni oo
ON CN CN
cn cn r-.
vl- H-ct
r-~ r-~ on
cn iH iH
CO
00
LO
rH
o
•H
H
rH
O
ON
CM
CM
H
cn
H
-H iH
CN CM
QJ
CD
>
XI
a
i-i
o
cn in
•a -a
<u c
cd ca
! 4-1 (-1
c o
a) -P-,
B n)
at B
>
o T3
^ a
a co
6
•H <U
■H -H
C
CO
4-1
to
,o
3
O T3
2 o
W M
< T3
a
cd
e
o
|J 4-1
O -H
o 6
■H 4J
S cn
!^
^ to
oo
c
T3
OJ
P. N
3 CO
o u
U 00
00
>N
aj xi
ij
CO 13
O
a)
T-:
o
u ■
Pu
c
CO
00
c
•H
■l-l
01
•H
w
01
4-1 0)
C -H
a> i-i
B
4-> C
o OJ
13
C
CO
O •
H O
•H Z
1—1
■H vO
CO
<o m
in
^H <f
vJD
lO
in
vO
CTn
i£>
CO
o
lO
CN
00
o o
CTn
in
cn
<r
CN
CN CN
yD
CO
^H
H
cn
co|oo
r- <r on o
N -rt O to
vO rH O iH
cn 00 ■*
o o
CN CN
00 00
ooominomcNinin
oitjinHvDtot-.<tin
nioHvosr i in «* r—
cn ,H OC1HH
o co aim o cn o m
i— i m on m in -cr on cn
cn cn i-i on cn i-i co
cm *x> r» i— i
o- o
o
r-~
cn oo o oo
O
vD
in vo
VD
in vO O
cn oo
-3"
co
HCCHH
in
cn
t~~ <r
r~
rH -tf <*
vo m
CN
H
i— i cn oo r^
^o
r^
in cn
r^
vO cn CN
00 CN
rH
CN rH iH CN
H
sr m
r^
ON U~|
H)<t (N O
MtO OsT
yo oo cn cn
O CN
CN ON
in cn
-* cn
cn on
c
T3
-a
TJ
o
4=:
O
fl
J= o
4=
x:
o
•H
to
O
0)
01 o
to
to
o
x! x;
x:
4-1
OJ
3
U
3
3
3 S
P
>J
3
Sj
&
01 01
01
CO
CH
>j
01
QJ
>-i
M CD
I-i
CD
%4
OJ
OJ
3 3
3
4J
>,
0)
Xl
14-1
to
to
CO
to
XI
to
X) 01
to
XI
14-1
CO
x>
H-l
01
^l S-i
1-1
01
H
to
a)
•H
CO
to
to
to
CD
to
CD CO
to
CD
•H
J
CO
CD
■H
cd
01
CO
XI Xl
CO
X
oo
cfl
00
c
CD
CO
CO
CO
M
CO
00 OJ
n)
00
C
<;
CO
00
C
CD
01 J
to
oj aj
CO
CD
CD
1-j
CO
o
U
1-4
I-I
u
CO
u
CO U
>j
CO
O
H
h
CO
o
M
co <C
CO
00 00
cd
00
>
o
cn
U
O
a
o
rj
cn
O
CO O
O
CO
C_>
o
H
rj
CO
o
o
o o
a
CO CO
CO CO
u
o
CO
CO
-cr
i— i cn cn
cn
in in m
<t
<t -<r -ci-
m
in m in
OJ
^,
CD
1)
H
CD
0)
CD
OJ
3
CD
u
§
0)
o
H
u
CO
■H
CJ>
3
CD
z
3
CD
O
T3
00
O
00
CD
O
l-l
TJ
u
CJ
c
.-H
■H
■H
c
o
3
c
ja
Pi
CD
c
ij
O
o
H
B
3
U
4-1
Ij
4J
00
(J
4-)
Vj
CD
O
4-1
CD
CXj
CO
OJ
XI
•H
o
a
a
>J
s
B
^H
xl
a
0
4J
o
■H
<
CO
13
ij
CO
hJ
H
o
o
X
CO
a
CO
O J4
^i
T3
B o
CD
■i-l
B o
CD
a
O Pi
l-i
CO
o
C_>
04
CD
x; oo
4-1
o
4-1 l-l
co
rH
cfl CO
l-l
Xl
CD Xl
•H
CO
C CD
fe
Pi
CO ,-4
00
C B
•H 0)
N 4-1
Pi
CO 0)
Pi
U >
O CO
01 QJ
00 4J
CN
C -H
o
CO c/>
Pi
B
Ph
U
u o
00
O Fn
c
•i-i
•H
CO T3
H
s c
.H
CO
O
J
Pi
A-54
3 <->
-a cn
o a
u 5
Ph <
cu
oo
c
cfl
Pi
>< 3
W 60
•H C
CN 00
O H
<N O
<N
tOOvT-J
On CO
CM
(SOvCUD
r-. o
00
CI W N •*
CO rH LO
ro
O r-» cn
n
OCUD
m
CN rH
00
o
o
O
in
^D
St
cs
CN
co
LO
oo
rs
sf
CM
r^
a\
VD
CM
in
CM
St
invtxf
CM
r^ St 00
O
oo cm m
vC
O
o
o
o
<r
<t
o
o
o
ro
lo
oo
O
sr
sr
<r
kD
o
o
<o
r^
<r
rH
lO
O CO 00
\£> O CT\
H mcM
o>
O
CM
O
in
\D
co
1T|
LO rH
O O
rH lO
O rH
r-- st
CO CM
O CM
CO
o m
in
CM vD
oo
CT\ r- 1
o
rH
CN
ON St
r-~ cn
l— 1 LO VO
CN CN
CM Cti
CO o
CO uo st
CT> O
oo o>
lo O
00 CM CO
t-~ o
CO st
CM rH
O O CO
LO rH
H
Q
s
w
CM
51
a
o
■H
■U
m
id
a
4J
>,
0)
H
60
ai
>
J3
rJ3
43
•G
rG
cn
cn
01
cn
cn
3
3
3
3
3
H
>-i
l-i
Vl
t-l
cn
to
J3
a
^3
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
&
01
0]
^3
cn
0)
cn
01
43
eg
01
0)
J
cn
cu
cn
cn iJ
cn
cn
cn
cn
QJ
0)
0)
ai
cn
cn
cn ,-j
0)
QJ
cd
cfl
60 <
d
60
cfl
n) <!
CO
CO
n)
cfl
oo
CO
cfl
60
CO
cfl
co <:
cfl
bB
H
M
CO
H
M
CO
(-1
u H
M
M
(J
U
cfl
S-i
>J
CO
u
U
S-I H
S-i
CO
u
O
m
O
H
e>
CO
a
cj o
H
O
O
O
o
CO
o
O
co
o
CJ
O O
H
CJ
CO
o
00
On
H
o
CO
CO
rH
B
00
oo
"-\
<d
ct.
CTn
■u
o
0)
o
QJ
QJ
3
cn
S
o
t-1
cfl
o
c
25
cn
oj
4>5 TJ
B
JJ
O CD
01
C
O 4=
>
a)
pi <ji
O
e
U
4J
ai a
a.
o
4-1 (!)
e
rH
•h cu
H
rH
<
43 42
3 c/i
r-l
cfl
■H
60
•P
s
0
C
•H
QJ
CO
N
■U
■u
CO
CO
01
u
*
43
O
CO
3
00
&0
m
CD
c
60
4-1
st st
•H
c
•H
o o
u
cfl
CO
•H
K
3
cH
cn
qj
c
etf
•H
CO
01
rH
*J
£
Hi
C
u
01
u
o
60
e
o
Cn
C
u
■r-l
•H
o
CO
-a
rH
rH
2
c
rH
rH
cfl
O
<
rJ
pei
ro
ro
r-i
CM
a:
CU
0)
(-1
CJ
>>
4<i
u
rH
60
W
0
3
a)
EC
•H
u
4=
•H
4-1
cfl
3
t-l
0
S3
erf
oo on cr. oo
rH 1^ CM CO
O O rH CM
CM CN CM CM
rH
0)
cfl
QJ
>
rH
0)
3
rH
4=
EG
3
QJ
o
rH
O
■-a
C
O
H
•H
c
^
O
O
3
4>i
33
cfl
4=
o
CO
O
rC
OJ
Prf
CJ
o
cu
O
CJ
OJ
0)
C
JJ
^a
c
C
rJ
P.
cn
cfl
01
■H
C
cfl
o
O
rH
c<
cu
o
2
0
Oi
rH
0)
>
43
cn
£
0)
A!
cn
■H
E
rH
rH
60
o
4-1
CJ
cn
rJ
3
CO
01
o
c
f3
•H
o
i-l
O
B
30-
CO
•S3
z
CU
H
u
vO O
cD \D HO cO
U3
o
\D \D
O O
o o o o
o
o
O O
A-55
3 «-,
TJ 0)
O 2
>-< 5
Pj <
>- 3
*— '
i
\DCOO
0)
U
O CO N
60
co
00
co vO in
C
•H
B
to
X
•H
pi
W
o
m
m
in
on m on
r^ o\ cm
en co cm
O MiO
vo rs n
O vO O
CTn co o O
OOOHiO
CM 00 rH rH
oo
CM
o>
O
cr.
rH
l~s
On
00
^D
o
f^
H
•*
-3-
CM
CO
vO
co nis
N M H
CO in o\
oo co r^
CM CM iH
CO in On
r~ oo
O 00
cm m
ooom^tminin
lONMSUlffiHO
CM l~~ tH i-H r^ 00
OOMflO
ON (M vO -J
\0 O CM v£>
cm in
a
w
Oh
c
o
■H
4J
0)
ca
CX
4-1
>
0)
H
00
0)
>
o •
H 0
3*
TJ
TJ
TJ
TJ
XI
o
42
O
X
4=
o
X
o
CD
o
CO
o
CO
CO
o
CO
o
o
3
3
3
3
3
3
S-i
3
3
>-i
u
01
^
01
P
1-1
0)
0)
P
<D
0)
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
J3
CO
CO
-O
CO
CO
XI
CO
XI
CO
IH
CO
,0
CO
U-l
CO
CO
to
►J
CO
CO
0)
ca
CO
0)
CO
CO
0)
CO
0)
ca
•H
J
CO
0)
ca
•H
tfl
cfl
tfl
<
n)
ca
oo
0)
cfl
OO
01
m
00
ca
00
0)
e
<
cfl
oo
0)
C
Vj
h
u
H
h
M
CD
U
U
cfl
U
M
CO
S-i
ca
h
0
H
H
ca
H
o
SO
ca
Ln
~3-
O
H
O
in
CO
o
CO
o
CD
CO
o
CM
co
O
u
O
H
O
CO
o
C_5
<r
oo
CT\
m
in
m
\D
o
o
O
<r
^D
vO
vO
rj
cs
CM
m
m
in
m
CO
■u
C
CU
I
>
o
I
0)
o
E
^
ca
o
»
u
CU
^!
u
4-1
C
0)
<
C
•H
0)
01
.H
Ij
TJ
a
W
CJ
c
4-1
0)
nj
o
4-1
i-H
w
H
CO
rH
iH
ca
01
o
«!
o
ac
CO
0)
0)
H
o
00
o
Q
u
OJ
3
o
■J
(U
cu
u
o
oO
0)
X!
a
ca
^i
Vj
OJ
00
0)
cu
u
1-1
u
0)
H
OJ
4-1
,M
4J
H
CU
o
Xi
Pm
u
u
a
O
o
CO
Cu
a
ca
4J
CO
■S
co
oc
c
3
cu
00
c
B
■H
0)
N
4J
CO
CO
u
>,
O
CO
cu
01
OTj
4-J
c
•H
ca
CO
OS
1-1
(J o
O fa
•I—)
ca tj
2 C
ca
oo
A-56
u
3 >-<
ts en
o 2
u 5
Ph <
CU
00
c
CO
pi
i
4-1
tn oo
•H C
W
H <r r-» on cm
on co o oo r-»
0> N vO O H
i— I u-i cm O
O CO Ulffi
(ji st in o\
NO
<r no
<r
r^
oo
CM ON
<t
O
NO
CO On
oo
ON
in r^
iH NO
co on
C
o
3
m on
-* o
on r-»
en
NO
ON
rH
00
00
rH in
rH
m co
H
m rH
ON
<r
NO
CM
00
IT)
in
CM
co
on
NO
tn
m
NO
en
1 —
CO
m
cm
CM
on
H
r-*
r-»
<r
r^
ON
tn
oo
co
CI
oo
NO
o
m
rH
-cr
on
CO
CN
rH
rH
cm
cm
rH
rH
H
co
H
rH
rH
NO
^f
nD
co
ON
in
O
m
m
m
oo
oo
rH
<r
ON
in
CO
r^
CN
o
NO
<r
en
oo
<r
O
C>)
CM
CO
rH
ON
r^
CO
CM
o
NO
r~-
m
<r
m
m
CO
Cxi
CO
CN
NO
rH
H
<r
en
CM
rH
CM
rH
CM
m
CM
CM
r^
ON
CO
<r
<r
r^
CO
OO
CM
rH
CM
O
CM
rH
CO 00
o o
CM CM
oo oo
on ON
o
o o
m
NO NO
NO
cm|cm
oo oo
CM CM
-a- \<t
o o
CM CM
in in
n
P-
P-
<
c
o
-H
«J
CU
ccj
a
u
>
CU
H
oo
cu
>
-a
T3
o
£
£
J3
r=
XI
o
4=
o
CO
CO
en
en
en
o
CO
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
eu
U
(H
U
M
J-i
cu
M
en
CO
en
CO
en
CO
en
JO
en
rO
en
en
A
en
-O
en
rO
en
en
rO
co
en
en
en
in
cfl
en
CO
en
eu
en
en
a>
en
CU
en
eu
en
CO
01 1-J
CO
CO
ctj
d
03
eu
efl
00
eD
00
CO
CO
oo
co
00
cfl
oo
co
0)
00 <;
rJ
M
u
rJ
U
M
Vj
ed
r4
co
rJ
u
CO
Vj
CO
rJ
co
>-i
rJ
CO H
o
o
O
cs
o
O
C9
CO
CJ
CO
O
o
CO
C5
CO
O
CO
O
O
CO O
co i_l
CO hJ
cfl <
cfl <;
U H
U H
o o
o o
H
H
o
on oo r-»
o
CO
rH
o
cm m no
CO
•st
rH
2
O o o
rH
<r
<
CM CM CM
CM
m
O rH
m in
NO NO
m in
ON
o
CM
CO
4-1
c
CD
>
o
u
H
r*
^!
<U A!
CU
a)
cu eu
^
CU
cu
4-1
rJ a)
CU
4J
u
4J
U rJ
CU
4J
CJ
cu
o
r*
M
cu
jr;
cu
cu
cu
^
CU
CJ>
*
■a
CJ
^!
<u
-a ^
eu
eu
CU
o
rJ
V4
CU
rH
Cfl CJ
i-i
CU
rH
00
u
•H
3
CU
rJ
3
X. 0
U
M
3
o
o
^3
o
u
CU
o
CO OS
u
o
0
a
fe
H
Pn
u
TJ
rH
CJ
u js
eu
eu
u
M
!-J
x:
XI
w
4-)
CU tJ
rO
13
to
cu
CU
cu
4-1
h
CO
a 3
B
cfl
M
a
P.
a
U
•H
><!
rJ
a. o
•H
X
cfl
a
a
0.
0
jB
O
•r4
PD CO
H
M
O
£>
p
O
z
H
pa
Ptl
o
>N
o
n
rJ
<
4-1
J2
T3
00
c
•H
cfl
W
CO
CU
.G
rJ
4J
3
r4
00
o
•H
a
Pm
rO
3
to
00
c
3
cr
cu
cd
en
CJ
0)
E
00
c
e
H
0)
N
4-1
CO
en
M
to
O
en
CD
CU
oo
4-1
c
•H
CO
CO
ctf
s
u
u o
o Cu
■l~3
Cfl T3
2 C
Cfl
rJ
CO
c
•H
cfl
rH
p-
00
c
•H
A-57
o
3
-a
o
u
P4 <!
-d- is
o o
O ON
oo on
m
.H .-1
co
o
—
i
co m
CU
4-J
00 CM
60
cfl 60
in on
C
•H C
-d-
(0
X -H
a
w
ON
o
CN CN
o m
oo no
m
m
-d-
no no m co
n h is <•
ON ON I— I H
in NO O ON nO i— c
no co on oo in in
cm -d- vo csi rs
•J CNI vO
inorsinNOoOiHONinmrsrsirtinNO
cocMinoomoomooooinoomcMc-jcM
mONOHnn<tmH<MONNH
-* H N <t cni cn| i-l CM -d- rHi-l
CO
in no
no r>
NO oo
NO CM
no oo cm cm rs no
■-i oo cm -3- oo oo
-} CO OMOH
.H co in on r--.
CM .H
o o
On O
co m
NO 00 o
Is 00 vO
is 00
cm in
O rs Is 00 00 CN is
CM ON O CO On on On
o <r co on on oo
CM CM CO ■ — I i — I
o
O
NO
X
H
a
2
w
SI
c
o
•H
4-1
a>
CO
a
4-1
^
CD
H
oo
QJ
>
u
CO W-4
CO T-t
CO C
u o
43
en
3
u
J2 CO
<D CO
60 CO
CO U
co
3
tJ
43
CU
00 CO
CO M
43 o
co o
3 5
>j cu
XI CO
cu co
00 0)
CO u
CO
3
&
CU
00 CO
CO u
T3
X o
CO o
3 5
>-l CU
,£> CD
<U CO
oo cu
CO
43
CO
3
u
X)
CU
00
cO cfl
OOUwoOc^Oc/)OW<Oc/3Oc/iOc^OW01<OOc/2O<;c_)C)c/)Oc^)Oc/i
T3
o
o
CO
CO
0)
CO u
H CU
CO 14-1
3 -H
c a
c o
•a
43 o
co o
3 5
Sj 0)
CO 43 CO
CO CU CO
CO OO CU
VJ CO M
4-1
e
o
03
4-1
^
oo -d-
ON CN
is
CO 00
CO ts
is
O CM
CO in
in
CM CM
CM -d-
-d-
aj
e
43
cfl
CJ
B
(3
CO
4J
Pi-
c
a>
co
S
CO
4-J
CU
O
00
c
rH
u
cfl
rH
3
>-.
m cu
CU
43
CU
o
.-1
c
3
cfl
o
4«S
ed
o
CU
CU
CO
iH
u
cfl
CO
O
e
M
o
n
T3
43
o
3
H
CJ>
2
o
00
43
V4
CO
►J
4J
CU
CO
CU
CU
■H
3
3
O
«5
o
U
00
CU
•H
a
CO
a
M
&
CJ
u
(U
43
0
o
co-
co
00
in
u
o
cu
cu
u
H
cu
C
o
hJ
^4
CU
■i
in
in
-d-
~d-
^
CJ
S
o
.H
iH
4*!
-H
CU
3
CU
(J
4»i
o
U
o
S
Pn
o
4-1
c
CO
4-1
0)
■S
60
c
3
cr
cu
pc4
CO
4->
e
CU
60
•H §
N 4-1
CO CO
d
U >,
O c/1
CU cu
60 4-1
00 00
e -h
o o
CO CO
cd
CO
c
•H
CO
i-l
S
Ph
u
u o
60
O ft,
c
•I-)
•H
CO T3
.H
S C
■H
CO
O
hJ
Pi
oo oo
o o
00
O
CO
o
00
o
00
o
CO
o
A-58
o
3 -—.
T> CO
o a
vj 5
a. <;
<u
00
e
a)
us
t- 3
l
4J
cn oo
•H C
X -H
W
tH •*
co cm
On O
no m
in in
<r no
in -a-
NO
en vo
in
m -a-
ON
-a- r~
cm on
-a- in
m on
~a mo
On co
oo <-t
CO CO
C
O
u
a*.
CO
c
CD
CM CM 00 O
i-H O ON CM
i—i in no no
oo cm m co
o no on oo
no -* no r-~
o
CO
CJ
r-t
CO
O
-a-
o
CO
CO
CN|
CO
m
CM
00
rH
NO
m
-a-
NO
r--
CO
ON
ON
vt
NO
co
<r
CM
H
o
H
r-»
CM
CM
H
ON
H
CM
ON
m
o
ON
m
o
o
(T^
o
CM
r-»
m
NO
CM
NO
CO
r^
o
CM
H
m
CO
CM
CM
H
m
UO
O
O
<r
m
r^
r~
H
H
NO
r-\
CM
r~»
CO
r^
O
CO
00
in
00
CO
CM
00
<t
CM
ON
NO
rH
CM
CM
r^s
CM
oo
m
r^
00
CM
CM
cm <r r>. -a-
o
o
o
r~ <r o r- oo <r
in i— i oo cm on -a-
in co i— i i— I oo no
cm in r-~ -a-
oo no co
m no iH
no r-^ o
r-CO N
O CM
m o
no -a-
.h o
CO CM
co o r-» o r>. <r
~a- oo cm oo oo -a-
o co ■a' cm o CM
-a- -4- f-i O
c~ o m o
no oo -a- o
iO CM iH NO
x
M
o
Z
w
ex
c
o
■H
u
cu
cfl
a
4-J
>
<u
H
00
tU
>
XI o
to o
3 3 t-i
tJ D HI
£ in m
CU tfl iH
00 0) C
>-i cfl M O
O CO O C_)
CO
13
x: O
CO O
U 3 U
tU l-i tu
CO "4-1 J3 CO
CO
oo tu
to u
DUtnOin
3
H
to CO J3
toxicocoxitoxicocoxico
tocotucocotucocotucotucocotuco
tOlOOOtOtOOOtOtOOOtOOOtOtOOOtO
hhd'tJhd^hdhdhViiilh
OOcooOcoOOcoOcoOOcoO
rH O
■H Z
ON
m
NO
r~
CM
.H
ON
CM
ON
o
■H
1-1
■H
CM
ON
ON
.H
CM
o
o
o
O
O
o
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
c
<u
e
0)
>
o
IJ
a
E
o
Pu
C
tu
>
tu
W
3
tl)
CO
a)
00
tu
tu
to
^!
tu
C
.H
4-J
Ph
tl)
iH
<
3
4-1
tl)
3
o
3
4-1
t-i
T3
O
►> >N
o
pq
o
u
H
U
to )-i
o
tfl
u
•h a
M
to
X
>>
4J
c
>,
o
O
i-l
XI
•H
H
c
o
c
■H
Ij 00
a)
E
•H
.-{
•H
a
c
>.
CO 1-1
o
to
X!
ti)
■H
CJ
0
tfl
m «
M
►J
o
«
ft,
s
CO
H
e
tfl
i-i
m
XI
3
00
e
E
•H
CD
N
u
10
to
Vj
>
O
CT;
3
C
il
Oi
tu
CU
60
4J
C
iH
tfl
CO
oc
oo oo
o o
oo co oo oo oo
o o o o o
00 00
o o
A-59
3 /-s
XI co
o a
1-1 5
Oh <
CU
60
C
I
■M
co at
Tj C
X -H
W
On
O
m
Q
a
w
%
c
O
0)
00
c
c
O
•H
4J CU
a a
■U >!
CU H
00
ai
>
o
On
en
.-H
m
on
r-~
u-|
CM
co
o
CO
O
vO
co
00
vO
m
H
\D
CM
CM
H
o
CO
LO
tH
o
LO
CM
O
in co
cm in co
o
vo i-»
a> O r-
<f
H <r
CM vO --3-
O N >£> N
ON CO N
NI^Hcn
O
O
O
CM
CM
r~-
in
<r
m
CO
CO
CM
r-^
o
-3-
CO
CM
<r
CM
<■
r^
o
-J-
.-H
00
on
CM
vO
CM
vO
o
vO
00
in
m
<r
m
00
on
CO
vo
<T
<r
-J
r-~
•<r
vO
On
<t
CM
C\J
co
-d-
ON
<■
O
o
r-»
<t
-H
rn
^H
<r
<r
vO
r^
m
CM
vO
r~-
o o o
CM O -<f
rH O vO
O O O O O 00
M <r H N lO o
f~» <i" O m r-~ vo
cm .h on co cm in
o o
CM O
■H O
m oo o
cm on r~-
r-~ i-H ~3-
in
CO
o
CO
H
CO
p>
r^
CM
ON
O
CO
o o o o
00 vO vO O
-* r^ m -3-
o m co tH
O vO
00 VO
O VO O O
vO CM vO O
ov i-H m <■
O 00 CO i-l
o
vO
o o
VO vO
en
3
U
co Xi co
co cu w
CO 60 CO
U CO M
CO .C
3
X>
CU 4-J
60 iH
CO CO
3
Oinocnco
CO o
3 S
M CU
.O CO
0) CO
60 CU
CO U
CO
X>
x: o
CO o
3 S
>-i CU
.O CO
CU CO
60 CU
CO
UcoOco<lUcoUcn
ct)
3 hJ
J3 O
CO o
3 S
u <u
J3 CO
0) CO
60 CU
CO U
as
U w O in
o •
r-~.
vO
.H O
-*
oo
■H 23
co
m
<
CM
-*
00
m
CO
00
in
>
o
M
a
e
^s
<D
CU
i
CU
CO
tJ
•z.
^5
u
4-1
CU
TJ
e
CU
3
01
U
g
E
o
j-i
M
o
a
CD
■H
CO
<x
r-t
c
a.
<
CO
n
^!
OJ
CU
u
U
CU
(U
u
H
CU
c
o
CU
CO
0)
CU
o
c
CO
4-1
CO
.o
3
50
C
B
•H
CU
N
4->
CO
en
U
>-,
O
en
3
cr
CU
CU
cu
oo
4-1
c
■H
CO
c2
CO
E
J-i
h
o
o
Pu
•r- ]
CO
T3
s
c
CO
J
co
o
C
•H
CO
.H
PL.
60
c
•H
oo
O
O
O
A-60
3 /-n
-O CD
o s
Ph <j
<u
4J
00
CO 00
■H
-a- vo
H
c
•H C
00
m m
cn
cO
tt -H
oo
cr. in
oo
Pi
W
rH
00
CM
w
pv
SI
rg
O
-jinm-* h
0"\ rH oo CM 00
CM 0\
oo r-
VDO\0»0'}
CO CM CO N 0>
-a- in ro
o cr< m o m
cn -a- -a- eg oo
O rH o o o o -*
o o r*> oo o*> «X) cj\
a> -* r>. oo
VD CM CM
o m o o o
v£> cr» r^ 00 CT»
vD r-.
00 00
o
O00OOO O00OOO
-a- cj\ <r r~~ o -j cfi cn <■ r-~
cm cm r- cm cm r-»
00
-a-
3
3
!-i
u
co
XI
CO
(0
CO
x>
(0
<U
n
co J
CO
0)
to
00
a)
co <
nj
oo
u
co
M
U H
U
CO
o
cn
O
a o
H
o
CO
13
XI
XI
X)
T3 XI
X
O
3
X! 3
O
X
O 3
CO
O
u
CO u
O
CO
O l-l
3
3
X
>J
3 XI
>-l
3
3
s x;
ij
M
01
cn
CD
M cn
<D
0)
^
cu cn
01
CO
XI
CO
cw
CO
X)
14-1
CO
CO
X
CO
<4-l
CO
a
cO
•
•H
CO
CD •
•H
CO
H
CO
a)
n) •
•H
CO
00
<U
C
C
CO
00 C
c
01
<t!
CO
00
cu c
c
M
CO
l-i
4-1
o
u
n) 4J
o
Vj
H
M
CO
u 4-1
o
a
cn
o
s
CJ
o
co S
u
a
O
H
O
C/1
O S
CJ
o •
<-l o
rH S3
O
00
00
sr
OO
O
m
C
<u
>
o
u
0-
ct)
•H
4-1
a
CO
4-1
CO
XI
3
CO
0£
C
3
CT
CU
OS
cu
U
X
S
•H
CU o
CO
O
CU C
Z
>
■H CO
U
3 Pi
4-1
CU
o
c
CO
CJ CO
0)
CU
e
a:
CU u
4-1
C CU
o
a
•H U
.-H
•H
B CH
.H
5
O CO
<
ttJ Pi
00
e
e
•H
01
N
4-J
CO
CO
l-l
>•
o
cn
cu
0)
00
4-1
a
•H
CO
cn
oi
s
l-l
)-i o
o fo
•n
nj -a
S c
cfl
►J
00
c
CU
CU
U
CJ
CU
a
A-61
00
c
CO
OS
o s
o <
o
CM .C
I
4-)
CO oc
•H C
w
<r CM c£>
■— I 00 ON
M <r r--.
cm en m
vO r^ en
cni n k)
i-H
■-I 00
rv
c£>
vD CM
vO
O
in CO
r~~
O Oc On
CO lo VO
o m en
O
Z
w
fa
fa
<
c
o
■H
4J
cu
CO
a
4-1
>
0)
H
00
0)
>
o
en
u-i
00
CM
n£>
CN
o
i-H
O
<r
CO
<r
^H
m
o o
NO NO
eg cm
u~)
SO
■H
in
m
e>
H
iH
00
oj
r>
CM
O
H
r-»
i-H
^H
en
H
O
olo
o
r^
O
o
CO
cm m
NO
rH
O
o
i-H
c\i|en
■H
<r
o
ON
m
CN
H
o
r»~
o
NO
^H
o
^H
<r
c^
lO
H
.ce
3
3 Vj
a m
u
Vj CU
m a)
CO
CO
en
^
.O U-l
CO
XI <H
CO
CO
hJ
CO
cu
HIH fj
CO
CU 1-4
id
CO
<
ct)
00
oo c <
CO
00 c
s-l
u
H
M
M
CO O H
tJ
CO o
CJ
O
O
H
O
en
c/1 CJ O
H
O
CO o
cMO<rOOoor^r~-
i— li-lcMOcMinr~.cn
cocoioN-cr-jNN
cm en i—i cm en
NO
•J-
o
co
o o
oo <r
o CM
OS c^>
en CM
NO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
3 3 M 3 3
M M CU M Vj
J2 CO fl CO cu X) CO XI CO 01 X
cucocucn-Hcucocucdcocu
OOcd&OcOC&DctlOOeUcOOO
cOPcOMOcOMcO
CO
couoiootoucooao)
o •
M o
i-l z
oc
c
B
■H
cu
N
*j
CO
CO
M
>N
CJ
W
a)
cu
oc
4-1
c
•H
CO
en
OS
.-I O
O O
co r~»
CM CM
C
o
0 §
CO E
Q O
O
cu
■-I >N
4J 00
4-1 IJ
•H O
h4 fa
0)
fa
C
•H
CO
CO
.-1
4J
a
fa
c
M
cu
u o
00
e
O fa
c
4-1
•1— 1
•H
o
CO T3
H
— 1
S C
■H
— 1
CO
O
<
iJ
fa
QJ
CU
iH
3
O
cj
c
o
oo <r
vO
r-~
m vo
NO
vO
00 00
00
00
-* <r
-3-
<r
u
cu
■3 X!
cu
rH CJ
CU
W C
CD
i-4
CO
CU
3
X fa
u
o
CU
o
4-1
u
CO
M >n
3
u
At
pq
c
o
•C CO
CO
3C
■u
c
E
U 60
■H
u
)-l
0 -H
S
o
CO
Z PQ
H
o
3
fa-
s
A-62
3 <->
t3 CO
O £
u 5
ph <;
ai
00
fl
TO-
PS
4-1
CO
oo
■H
c
X
•H
w
^£3
00
Q
25
w
p*
SI
O CO o
n- en m
<o en o o
rH ON iH l-H
rH CO rH rH
cn cn
rH
vO
cn
in r-~
Cn
CM
St
O -*
O
cn
a>
cn iH
^r
CN
^o
u-l rH
r-^
o
O
cn
cn
00
00
(j
rH
o
o
o
o
00
o
o
o
00
00
O
o
^D
■H
cn
00
00
-<r
rH
00
CN
CXI
r^
o
c^
rH
o
<t
M
CO
a>
H
r^
00
rH
00
~cr
i-H
00
00
rH
^o
<r
C
Fn
r^.
rH
o
■H
CO
rH
•H
*TJ
LO
cn
o
m
O
o
o
CN
o
CTn
o
rH
o
cn
cn
o
CN
cn
O
O
o
O <f
*4D
<r
o
<r
X
0
r~-
<*
o
cn
Cn
r».
^0
vO
u-i
m
CO
CO
CN
cn
Cn
\D
rH
<r
rH
CO
r-
-* CN
CN
r>
~J
^D
W
O
00
co
cn
CO
cn
d
rH
V4t>
Cn
in
CN
rH
rH
u3
cn
cn
H
c*~>
00
rH
rH
o
rH
O
rH
CN
rH
rH
in
CN
O
O
rH
o
o
m
o
o
o
o
O
rH
O0
Ol
H
o
cn
cn
00
o
tC
r~>
U
^o
<r
o>
T-t
CN
H
H
cn
m
r^
<t
m
CN
co
in
r^
rH
<r
cn
X
H
<*
CN
in
CN
on
rs
<r>
CN
r^
cn
m
CN
cn
00
w
cn
n
CN
CN
H
cn
ON
00
r-4
rH
CN
m
c
T3
TJ
T3
T3
o
-C
O
42
J3
x:
x:
XI
x;
o
X
O X.
O
•H
CO
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
O CO
O
4-> a)
3
w
3
3
h
3
u
3
U
3
U
3
3
3
3
U
S 3
W
3
id a
|H
a)
QJ
h
CD
w
<D
l-i
0)
h
OJ
H
u
0)
N
a
OJ M
CD
OJ
4-> >>
CO
XI
U-4
CO
CO
XI
U-l
CO
XI
IH
CO
XI
CH
XI
CM
CO
XI
CO
XI
CO
CO
XI
IH
(0 XI
CO
CH
co
OJ H
co
QJ
•H
CO
co
QJ
■H
CO
QJ
•H
co
CU
•H
0)
•H
CO
OJ
co
0)
CO
CO
OJ
•H
CO eJ OJ
CO
•H
crj
00
ctj
00
c
OJ
CO
00
C
CO
oo
C
CO
00
c
oo
3
cfl
00
CO
oo
a)
CO
oo
c
OJ < 60
cfl
C
0J
cu
r-J
CO
o
M
u
CO
o
u
CO
o
M
CO
O
CO
O
H
CO
U
CO
H
M
CO
o
U H CO
u
o
U
>
o
00
u
o
o
CO
CJ
o
CO
u
a
CO
u
CO
u
O
CO
o
CO
O
o
CO
u
O O CO
H
O
o
O
o •
rH 0
rH 3
v_^
A!
OJ
OJ
CO
B
OJ
4-1
CO
A!
^.
^!
H
H
e
25
0)
OJ
*.
o
c_>
OJ
CU
OJ
OJ
OJ
0
4-1
i
4J
H
r-l
QJ
P5
4-1
CO
0)
c
U
u
u
CO
3
>
OJ
o
>.
u
o
e
w
00
OJ
CO
3
H
4-1
OJ
c
■a
c
Ai
H
O
Cb
o
•3
•H
o
0
CO
OJ
rH
00
S
rH
C
(-1
o
•H
OJ
o.
rH
c
H
rH
OJ
a
rH
rC
u
D.
OJ
•H
<
M
00
P9
o
«
23
>*
W
rH
CO
•H
00
4-1
c
B
C
•H
01
CO
N
4-1
4->
CO
CO
CO
U
^
XI
O
CO
3
CO
00
OJ
OJ
c
00
4-1
«*
<r
<r
<■
<r
o-
<t
-»
■H
c
•H
rH
rH
rH
■H
rH
rH
rH
rH
W
CO
CO
•H
Pi
3
CT
CO
OJ
c
OS
•H
CO
CO
rH
4-1
a
Ph
C
u
a)
M
o
00
E
O
Pn
a
4-1
T- )
•H
O
CO
-a
rH
rH
S
c
rH
rH
CO
O
<
J
Pi
A-63
u
3 *-*
"3 CO
o a
a. <:
cu
60
c
OS
I
4J
CO 6C
•H C
w
in CO
r^-
CM
l-l •*
vO
o
CM rH
CM
m
CO
o
X
HI
o
W
Pn
3
<t o
rH ON
o
O
CO -*
\D
r^
CM vO
CO
o>
r-^ m
ooooooooo
CMCocoocor^cj\rHr^
cMCM^or^aou-imcor^-
C3S CO rH
CO
CO
o o
rH in
rH CO
CO vO
r^ co O O cm co
O m m -J N <f
O CO CO
o
CO
CT\
CO
co en co co co co a\
is n tv h co H oo
HN H i/l miOOi
■h <f in m
a
o
43
/i
43
£ 43
4=:
4=
43
4=
43
-a
o
43
43
43
1-1
en
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
4-1
CD
3
n
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
u
3
V4
3
3
3
u
3 M
3
u
d
Ck
)-i
0)
fcj
u
^ U
M
M
>-i
cu
M
0)
)-i
a)
Ij
CU
U CU
u
CO
44
>N
CO
43
(0
M-l
CO
43
in
XI
00
CO
43 43
CO
CO
43
CO
43
43
14-1
CO
43
<4-J
CO
43
CO
CO
43
14-1
4-1 M-l
CO
43
H-i
a)
H
CO
tu
OS
•H
en
cu
01
aj
CO
01
CU CU
CO
CO
0)
CO
oj
aj
•H
CO
0)
•H
CO
01
cd
CO
CU
•H
d) -H
CO
a)
■rH
00
cd
00
a
c
cd
60
cd
60
cd
cd
BO 00
n)
cd
00
cd
oo
00
c
cd
oo
a
cd
00
0)
cd
00
c
60 C
cd
oo
C
0)
Vj
TO
u
o
!j
cd
u
cd
u
H
CO <d
U
M
cd
u
<d
cfl
o
Vj
id
0
u
cd
S-J
U
cd
o
cd o
u
cd
o
>
o
CO
o
u
u
00
o
CO
CJ
CD
en co
o
O
c/>
O
CO
00
u
o
CO
o
o
CO
O
a
CO
CJ
oo CJ
u
00
CJ
c
cu
S
cu
>
o
p.
B
o •
rH O
<:
CO o
in
<r
in
MO
CO
<t
CM
vO
o
CO
o
in
CO
CM CO
O
o
o
o
o
CM
<r
m
o
CT.
o
sT
<r
o o
o
m
in
m
m
co
00
00
co
oo
CTi
o
o
o o
CM
cu
CM
4*i
CU
CU
CM
CM
M
cu
cu
CM
c
4>i
CU
sr
«*
-d-
<r
vd-
m
m
cd
rH
CJ
1-1
o
CU
c
60
CJ
g
U
cu
•rl
c
13
g
CJ
CO
44
cd
a>
T3
o
4«J
u
CO
•H
^
CU
CU
CJ
5
4<i
CU
cu
o
•H
V4
o
CU
M
o
CU
TJ
r«
00
CU
PS
)-l
H
o
rH
O
cu
rH
CU
o
CU
-a
u
43
u
3
o
a
rH
u
O
cu
•H
CJ
h
CJ
CO
CJ
o
^4
o
•H
rH
CJ
rH
u
Od
cd
3
CJ
CJ
rH
5
0)
CQ
CJ
CO
&
4J CU
60
4J
CU
3
cu
OJ
T-1
CO -H
tJ
co
r^
•
44
•
C
60
>.
4«!
c
V4
•
n) u
CU
OJ
cd
o
a
O
cd
cfl
U
rH
•H
o
o
W W
PM
2
■x,
z
<
S3
£
00
P
W
Ch
fe
00
c
cd
44
CO
43
3
oo
c
e
•H
CJ
N
4J
cd
CO
u
>•
O
w
00
a
CU
os
0)
0)
60
44
c
■H
cd
oo
C£
rJ
o
o
fn
•r-i
Cd
■a
S3
c
cd
J
-d--*-*<r~3-<r-3-<r<r-a--*
A-64
3
X)
O
O
i-l
SO
CU
60
c
cfl
I
4-1
co oo
C
w
as
O
sD
CO
CO
c
o
•H
4-J
01
cfl
a
4-J
>-.
a)
H
oo
CU
>
o o o
o -* ha-
ul oo CO
r^ in N H
os m os co
oo so o- tH
00 O
CN SO
O rH
<a- iH
OnIon
rH|rH
m
sO
ON iH
r-H
m
en
co CO
-d-
LO
m
st r-l
so
o\
en
CN
rH
H
co
SO
d\ N O
oo os o
\D O
u-1 rs
cm m on h
is 0\ H H
os -a- in cn
CO CN H vO
mooo-ct
IS -J (3> N
m m
o
00 CO O
rH
o o
o
o>
OS O Cs|
CN
o <r
sr
os
cn so m
m in
i-H
m oo
CO
rH
CS!
cr,
in
o
-I Ol ON
Ol
-a-
00 o
CO
is
o
M
co oo fs
SO
sD
CN SO
co
SO
<r
SO
rs r-H 00
CM
o
O rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
SO CN <t
<r
<T rH
m
CN CO
SO
rH
rH
o o
m in
CN CS)
OS O CO rH OS IS rH
O OS rH UO O rH VO
co rs 00 rH CN so rs
-J- CN CO CN
rH O CN in OS O sT
CO SO O CO CN -* 00 vO
SO 00 O O CN -* HO
CO CN rH CO CO
CS1 00
IS OS CO rH
o o oo m
<f CN 00 rH
SO is
o o
ts cH rs
m so
CO -* CO
00 00
m <s-| so
is
O OS
m
rH
SO
CO
CS!
T3
SO
ON
CN
T)
tH
ID
rH
T3
43
43
O
43
O 43
43
O
42
O
43
en
cn
o
co
O CO
cn
O
cn
O
CO
3
3
!-i
3
3
D5 3
3 M
3
3
3
3 rl
u
Vj
0)
0)
tH
CD M
rl CU
0)
V4
OJ
>J CU
CO
X)
00
cn
x>
14-1
cn
CO
43
CO
co
CD 43
CO
43 M-l
cn
CO
XI
CO
CD
43 <4H
CO
0)
en
J
en
CU
•H
cfl
CO
CU nJ
CO
►J
Cfl
cd CU
cn
CU -H
CO
en
01
rJ
en
CO
CU iH
cfl
00
co
<
CO
oo
C
0)
0)
60 <
cfl
<
CO
CU 60
CO
60 C
<D
co
60 <;
cfl
CD
60 C
U
CO
u
H
U
cfl
o
u
M
CO H
u
H
rl
M cfl
u
CO O
|H
u
CO
H
rl
M
CO O
O
CO
a
O
H
o
cn
u
o
U
o
O
H
O
O t/2
o
00 C_)
o
O
CO
O
H
o
rj
CO U
o •
rH O
rH Z
<:
-*
CO
SO
o
o
rH
m
m
c
CU
e
CU
>
o
l-l
o.
e
a
o
60
CO
s
>s
CU
o.
M
CU
Cfl
CU
rH
43
•rH
CU
4<1
CU
CU
r-t
CU
CU
3
4ti
60
u
4^
o
CU
e
o
CU
CJ
CU
CO
CU
u
p2
CU
u
Cfl
o
rH
u
rH
CO
•-<
0
MH
Cfl
CU
4<!
43
rH
n)
>
O
a
o
U
CO
o
•H
C5
rj
rJ
P4
Z
oo
c
s
■H
0)
N
4J
cfl
en
IH
►i
U
CO
60
c
3
OJ
0)
OO
4J
a
•H
CO
CO
cc;
E
a,
fi
rl
o
60
0
b.
c
•r-)
•rl
CO
-o
rH
s
c
rH
(0
0
►J
as
A-65
>N
•u
•H
Bj
>
•H
o
o
§j
4-1
O
CJ
<n
*
3 /-.
4J
■O 0]
u
■H
o s
M 5
(H
3
p-. <;
1
CD
4-1
60
01
M
c
•H
c
cd
X
•H
Di
w
n
w
p-
c
o
u
<u
M
c
rt
r-~
CTn
o
00
cjn
SJ
co
<r
C-]
Ol
rH
cm
H
NO
rH
co
ON
cn
r^
o-n
-cr
CI
en
rH
r-» cm
on
O oo
00
m i^
ve
m
m
o
o
co
o Ninmooo
n oo kO r-. -J «t
On CI rH CO CN -*
o
o
n
00 o
-*
rH 00
r~-
vO -*
oo
in
00
ON CN
CO
-*
ON CM
rH
cn
CM NO
nO
m
CO r-l
CO
00
rH
rH
CM O
CM
CM <"
nO
ON 00
r-.
CM <H
CO
-d- -3-
on
CM 00
o
~d"
-3-
<J
in
iH
iH
CO O O
in CO CN
r^ vo N
no
O m on cm
O -» co cn
cn m in cm
CO On
-3- CM O
CM CO m
<r co i-i
NO CM
CO CN
T3
T3
X)
4=
o
43-
o
42
o
CO
o
01
o
CD
o
3
s
3
s
3
3
u
0)
u
CD
M
01
CO
43
01
CO
XI
CO
0)
43
O]
cn
CD
Cd
CO
CD
CO
r-l
01
0)
cd
CO
CO
a)
0)
00
CD
<;
CO
DO
cu
J-4
cd
u
u
cd
r-l
H
»J
CO
(j
o
cn
a
a
w
o
o
H
O
CO
o
0)
3
M
CO
43
01
CD iJ
CO
00 <
u
n) H
o
CO O
H
m cn
o
m cn
in
oo co
rH
CO
rH
rH
4=
4=
01
0]
3
)-i
3
u
l-i
CI)
r-l
CD
CO
01
CO
43
<H
CO
01
43
M-l
CO
01
01
0)
■H
01
J
01
<D
•rH
oj
cd
cd
00
C
cd
<
cd
00
C
u
rJ
u
cd
O
M
H
M
cd
o
U
o
a
CO
o
O
O
H
O
CO
CJ
o •
rH O
in CN rH
no o r—
iH co co
CM CN CN
01
CO
e
^!
4«!
4-1
cd
i-i
U
C
S3
o
O
CD
Hj
Pn
B
4-)
CD
c
>N
>.
>
CD
r-l
r-l
O
B
Q
n
u
4-J
(H
o
4-1
4-1
0
rH
0]
CO
rH
rH
<D
cd
<
S
W
rH
cd
■H
00
4-1
c
6
c
•H
CD
cd
N
4-1
Pi
4-1
a]
0]
Q
01
r-l
>N
43
o
CO
3
03
OO
01
CD
c1
60
44
r-~
r^-
•H
a
•H
rH
rH
M
cd
CO
•H
Pi
3
cH
01
CD
C
Pi
•H
cd
01
rH
4-1
a
P-.
C
>-i
CD
M
o
00
e
o
Pn
c
4-J
•I- )
•H
o
CO
•o
rH
rH
rH
<
s
c
cd
r-l
rH
O
Pi
c
(D
>
c/i
r-l
CD
P.
P.
£3
CU
CD
rH
3
4-1
o
O
o
O
<4-l
CD
X
60
CJ
Cd
CO
0)
T3
rH
CO
C 3
03
c
cd 1
1
0)
c/> r^
r--
p-i
Pi
Pi
cn
cd
CD
U
»j
0)
>
•H
Pi
A-66
o a
u 5
pli <:
CU
00
c
OS
4-1
co
0£
•H
c
X
•H
w
o
en
o
00
CM
o
O-v
00
OS
00
vO
o
oo
a
H
Cu
<
LTl in
^d 00
<r o o
CN \0 (N
r~ i-H i-H -*
a< vo \o
o- r^ \0
H <f M vD ff>
H H-JCOOO
O t-H <r CM
i-l CM
0>ff U1 o
rj co r^ o\
CO 00 CM -3-
■h m cm
a\ o\ r^ on uo to
N Ji CA H O-J
O CM r^ CN \D
i-< <■ cm ro o>
CU
to <4-l
CO -H
ct) C
o
CU
co u-i
CO -H
CO c
o
3
X> CO
CU CO
oo cd
CO u
0)
CO
3
l-l
XI
a)
00 C
cd o
CU
CO M-l
•H CO CO -H CO
CO
3
u
CU CO
00 CO
CO u
CO
co <r
CO
<r o
t~~.
r-~ ao
CO
r-. .-I
00 CM
MO
ex.
o
m vo
ON
o
o-
CM
a>
vO VD
MD
o
o
vo
in <r
<r
l-l
CN
i-H
CM
oo
CO
CO
O
t^ r-
<r
-*
CM u-1
co
<3"
m r-~
CM
vD
-3- .H
00 CM
o
OOOOOOUOOCOOOOOC/^Oc/jCJOCJOOCJOc/^O
3
u
<u
00
CO
o •
•-I o
o
CO
o
IT! iH
O -H
CO CO
CM CM
c
CU
o
e
to
ctj
Z
^)
i->
p
c
3
V
0
E
l-l
a
•a
o
CO
cd
s
«
CU
g
.H
^i
4-1
o
43
CU
CO
CU
o
a)
CO
^
cu
CU
4-1
cu
T3
CU
u
e
4-1
^
.H
l-l
CU
o
o
3
CU
^i X,
D
o
u
a:
CQ
CU
CU o
0
z;
o
CU
^
u
CU c
CJ
1
•
.H
u
.*
CJ
cj
l-l CO
CU
u
O
o
CU
u
CU
CJ cd
c
CO
l-l
c
o.
>
o
&4
CO
CU
D
CU
1— 1
CU
CU
os
i-H
3 X
4-1
o
J3
00
CU
4->
•H
J=
CO
co
X.
i-H
i4
13
a
a
l-l
>
o
3 X
u
s
•H
o
CJ
co
o
CU
•H
cr -H
CO
CU
CJ
Q
►J
a
CJ
(n
Q
Pi
CO C/)
u,
z
c
cfl
4J
co
-Q
3
CO
OC
c
3
cr
CU
u
c
£
•r-l
cu
N
u
CO
W
1-4
>■
o
m
cu
CU
u.
o
c
-r-l
CO
OS
C/1
A-67
o a
p-. <;
<D
60
c
Pi
t- 3
CO oc
•H C
w
X
M
Q
cd
Ph
-J N H N C\
in r-i -o- colco
co <t \o rH O
(N n H 00
mm-* o n
i— I CTi -* <* iH
r> H o>
o co
<T
r- oo
CO
ON CM
cm
.-I
CM
m
o
CM
O
v£>
O
rH
-*
CM
rH
r-j
m
m
m
o>
m
OO
■*
m
rH
<r
CO
cn
r^-
m
^£>
y3
oo
<r
^D
rH
CM
CM
i-l
CM
CO
rH
o
m
-tf
m
<r
m
m
\D
ON
CO
m
CO
rH
o
VH
rH
m
rH
rH
rH
O".
O
<r
m
O0
co
ON
CM
CM
H
CM
o o
o -a-
VD O
G\ O
CO lo
CO
o o
O O O O VO
CO vO O O CO
CT\ CM .H CO C40
c
TO
TJ
•a
o
•H
42
CO
O
o
43 O
CO o
4=
co
o
o
4=
CO
43 4=
CO CO
4-1
OJ
a in
3
3 3
i-<
3 H
IS
3
u
!j
)H
3 3
u
a)
D.
t-1 0)
0)
Vj cu
cu
^i CU
cu
rJ
cu
01
cu
»H >H
cu
4J
►>
01
40 MH
CO
CO
40 CO
UH
CO
.jo m
CO
CO
40
UH
co
UH
UH
CO
CO
JO 40
CO
UH
<1)
H
CO
CD lH
cfl
CO
CU CO
•H
J
CO
CU -H
cO
CO
cu
•H _1
CO
•H
■H
CO
CO
CU CU
CO
•H
00
(4
60 3
CU
CO
oo cu
C
<
(0
60 C
CU
CO
00
a <
(1)
c
C
CO
rt
00 60
CO
c
0)
M
CO O
>H
u
CO u
o
H
H
CO o
u
u
cfl
O H
u
0
0
u
(H
CO CO
u
o
>
o
00 CJ
o
o
CO o
u
o
H
o
CO CJ
o
o
LO
c_> O
H
o
o
CJ
CJ
o
CO CO
o
CJ
CO
o
CTi
m
r^
rH
O
<r
^o
00
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
01
6
CO
C
13
CO
CU
E
60
4J
o
•a
a
3
o
CU
rJ
0
ID
4-1
CU
4-)
O
rH
C
H
rH
u
rH
•H
3
<U
w
PQ
■H
60
4-1
a e
C
•H 0)
CO
N 4-1
4H
CO co
CO
r4 >,
40
CJ CO
3
CO
OO
CU cu
C
60 4-1
•H
C -H
u
co CO
■H
Pi
3
cH
e
cd
c
0)
rJ O
In
O PL,
40
*ro
IH
CO 13
CU
2 d
>
CO
•H
►J
Prf
43
O
I
C
o
4-1
60
a
3
P3
0)
00
T3
4>!
•H
CJ
(US
CU
42
>.
O
0)
CO
r*
3
CO
4-1
•H
4-1
g
CO
2
Pm
A-68
3 •-s
•3 CO
O S
Pi <c
CU
60
c
CO
4-1
CO
DC
•H
c
X
■H
w
o
o
CO
\0
g
w
a-
53
e
o
■H
4JJ
0)
crj
a
4J
h
01
H
cc
0)
>
OOcMu-ir-.r^oooo OOO
iAHoMnfOi£Oioco»o u-> in <r
coocN<-r->cor~-.oor-.r-~ ai ts n
<T N H i-H -tf N H
u-i
O
O M MB N
CO CM vD <Xi IO
.— I >X> u-> u-i
CO CO u-l
OCOrHvOOvOOLO-0-CMOr^.
or-.aocMCMu-ioor^mvOvO'Xi
>o>ococo<f-3-<rHinMOO
,— I CM t-l H N CM m CO t-H CM
CM
O O O <f
vO H CM O
iH CO
o m co -* o -* co
NCOO
CM
CM o •* ■* CTv r-» o
r-- CM \D
.H
0> CO O l*» <■ vO H
<t CO m
ex.
i-( <T 0> CM CM CO
CM 00
CM
CO M-l
a) C
u o
(0 M-l
CO -H
to c
u o
cu
CO
3
)-i
XI
CU
60 C
cfl o
cu
CO
3
u
X>
cu
60 C
n) O
CO
3 Vj
u <0
X) M-l
CU -H
60 C
CO O
3
Vj
X>
0)
60
CO
u
<U
01 4-1
CO -H
CO C
O
CO
3
u
Xi
CU
60 a
CO o
at
CD M-l
CO -rl
B) C
O
OUUOOOc/3UOOOc/}UOc/5OOc0UOc/3OOU0c/3UOOC_>UC/2
o •
>H O
00
r-.
00
as
00
U"!
en
u-i
00
o>
o>
as
<r
<t
^r
-*
o
SO
o
M
X
CJ
cu
CU
>
•H
CU
CU
u
^
4<i
cu
CO
§
Pi
o
CU
cu
4-1
cfl
iH
cu
u
C
z
rH
■H
x:
c
M
o
CU
•H
iH
o
•H
o
i
4-1
A!
a
<U
c
x>
p.
cu
c
CU
X!
CO
Cfl
cu
E
>
<u
60
CU
c
C
c
CO
e<
C_>
a.
cfl
o
e
o
s-<
CO
o
o
iH
o
x:
h
4-)
^
o
CJ
CO
CO
CU
u
x:
^H
o
Q.
o
en
CU
u
^
CO
CU
4-1
ai
3
E
H
m
4-1
x;
c
cu
o
co
>
u
4-1
CO
H
H
o
CO
T3
•H
>
CO
3
•H
0
C
cu
<
z
U
M
H
M
1-0
s
Pi
SZ3
<
«
iH
CO
•H
60
4-1
c
E
n
•H
01
CO
N
4-1
4-1
CO
05
CO
H
>,
x>
O
LO
3
CO
60
CU
CU
a
60
4-1
OS
as
as
o\
as
OS
cr\
OS
C7N
o\
a.
■H
C
•H
t-H
T-t
iH
H
■H
iH
i-H
r-i
rH
iH
iH
)-i
CO
CO
•H
Pi
3
cr*
cu
pri
CO
CO
.y
4-)
E
CO
c
E
CU
cu
S-i
o
h
0
o
Fn
XI
4-J
■1-1
M
o
CO
-3
CU
1-4.
s
C
>
rH
ca
•H
<
kJ
Pi
A-69
o
3 /->
•a co
o 2
cm <;
00
c
ca
CO oc
•H C
W
O
o
c
o
•H
4-1
CU
id
a
■u
>
cu
H
60
CU
>
o vO
o
in
CM
^o
v£>
^£>
LO
CO
u-i
CM
O
o
CM
rH
o
o
MO
rH
U3
\o
O
o
<r
l>s
O
O
v£5
rH
r--
o>
r-~.
co
m
\D
oo
rH
CO
o-.
rH
rH
o
O
o
m
CO
m
rH
rH
co
oo
<r
m
o>
r—
oo
CM
rH
CM
rH
rH
co
rH
cm
CM
rH
CM
rH
u~>
O
u">
00
r-s
LO
CO
in
O
-3"
CO
>x>
cm
^r
<r
o
oo
m
o
CM
o
m
o
CO
<r
in
^D
-»
o
m
CM
o
m
vO
rH
o
<r
-*
.»
rH
<r
rH
Xi
r-~
CO
o
o
rs
vfi
CM
co
CO
CM
CM
VO
vD
CO
CM
\o
in
0>
rH
n
rH
\0
o
00
CM
o
o
m
r>.
cm
H
rH
rH
en
r-l
!-H
d
rs
rH
rH
CO
en
r^ •£> r-s r->
m a> cr> co
o rH o r>
rH cm co
<t
00
CM
CO
M3
o
CM
CM
T3
X)
-o
13
-a
JC
o
x:
o
J=
o
x
o
X
X
X
o
X
rd
X
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
O
CO
CO
CO
o
in
CO
CO
3
S-l
3
3
rJ
5
3
u
3
3
rJ
3
S-i
3
3
J-1
3
U
3
3
u
3 H
3
u
rJ
cu
01
l-i
01
ai
u
cu
cu
rJ
cu
cu
cu
u
>-l
cu
)-c
cu
cu
IH
CU
rJ CU
U
01
X>
14H
CO
en
CO
X
U-I
CO
en
X
MH
CO
CO
X
MH
CO
14H
Xl
CO
CO
x
>4H
X
UH
CO
CO
X
MH
JD "JH
XI
MH
QJ
■H
co
0)
CO
cu
•H
cO
CO
0)
•H
CO
CO
cu
■H
CO
•H
cu
CO
CO
0)
•H
CU
•H
CO
CO
CU
•H
CU -H
0)
•H
OO
c
cu
CO
CO
oo
c
cu
co
00
c
cu
cfl
00
c
CU
d
00
CO
CO
oo
c
00
a
cu
cfl
oo
d
60 d
oo
d
03
o
rJ
M
(J
co
O
u
rJ
CO
O
u
1-1
CO
o
u
o
CO
u
1-1
CO
o
CO
o
u
>H
Cfl
o
CO O
CO
o
cyjUOUOc/jOOOc/jOOOc/jUOOc/jOUC/jOcyjUOOc/luwOc/iO
o •
rH O
■H Z
rH
vD
rH
rH
co
rH
CO
CO
o
>
o
u
a
e
3
00
d
•H
3
cr
CU
Pi
CU
e
to
0)
53
00
-a
4-J
•H
C
«
CU
B
ai
«J
rH
o
•H
rH
S
rH
<:
CO
00
d B
•H CU
N 4-1
CO CO
>-< >\
e> oo
CU CU
00 4J
o>
d -h
rH
Ct) C/l
Pi
CO
X
£3
«
H
a)
iH O
u
O Cu
XI
•I-)
rJ
cfl T3
CU
S d
>
rt
•H
rJ
Pi
cu
0)
M
3
P9
t^
CU
d
B
•H
XI
c_>
0)
a
cfl
x;
3
O
3
o
o
r^
CO
u
a
cu
«
cu
00
r-l
ai
o
C
cu
a.
d
cu
m
cu
00
T>
CU
•H
■U
Pi
4-1
3
T3
M
r4
CO
r^i
d
a
M
CO
CO
rH
pa
pq
A-70
u
a
•o 01
o
u _
p* <;
a)
oo
c
cd
Pi
01 6£
•H C
W
O
rH
in
O
CO
NO
M
O
w
Ph
2a
u
co oo o c-i co r^
•rl
m co co r-x. o xj-
0 CO
r-x oo on on
P*
-* iH
o o on on
O in r-» no
NO o
rH
H
<r
CO
OX
1/1
LO
00
OJ
o
X>
CXI
CO
m
CO
rH
CO
u~>
M
O
CM
nd
ox
CN
rH
xO
in
-d-
X>
CM
r*»
ox
LO
xT
LO
X
CXI
OX
rH
H
CXI
u-l
CXI
VD
CO
in
ND
rx
CM
^H
<r
u-1
r-j
H
LO
\D
LO
rH
ox
iri
<r
o
<r
<r
CO
CO
CM rH -* rx
CXI r-l CXJ r-i
CO CO O O
x» U-l O CXJ
m u-i co
in <t rx en
o in cr> -*
r~ co cxi co
m
o
rH
CXJ
X>
m
ox
m
r-x
CO
r-x
CXI
m
VO
rx.
xT
rH
rH
CXJ
in o xr in io o cm id
in cm rH cm cocoooo
ococxico vOCXIOOO
rH CO rH <f MO-J
ic rx in
ON
O
CO
rH
CO
CO CO O
as
rx
o
in
rH
xd" CO rH
oo
Cx|
m
ox
o
rH
in
x
rH
X> 00 ON
^-{ CX|
O
o
x>
o
OX
o
in
<r
CO
CO
r-l
x3-
<f
r-x
CM
o
CO
1-x,
u-i
CXJ
o
O
o o o
oo a* r-x
u-i v£> cx|
CO
o
o
<•
CO
o
OX
ON
X>
X)
OX
X)
~cr
•-t
13
|x-
OX
CM
OX
m
cxi
m
ox
rH
T3
x
x
o
X
x;
o
en
en
o
en
en
o
JH
3
3
u
3
3
u
3
3
0)
U
)H
01
01
Vj
0)
U
a)
en
<4H
x
01
XI
MH
en
XI
en
UH
Xi
en
CO
-H
0>
01
oj
•rl
CO
0>
rJ
en
•H
01
co
ccj
a
60
ccj
OO
C
CD
oo <;
co
a
OO
0)
u
o
CO
>H
CO
O
U
CO
H
u
O
CO
IH
a
a
CO
O
en
O
O
C/l
O
H
o
u
CO
o
00 o
U-l ON
O rH
O NO o
rH O O
r-t CO m
0x1 0X1
O
x:
o
en
X!
u
S v
IH
>H
u
1h 3
01
01
OJ cu
<u
0)
0)
CU >H
3
01 UH
en
en uh
en uh
en
UH
en
UH
en
u-i xi
0] XI
en -H
en
ccj -h
en -H
en
•rl
en
•H
en
•H cu
en -u
ctj C
co
cu C
cd C
CO
a
CO
c
co
C 00
Cd rH
(HOM(HOVjOrlO>HOlHOC0rJC0
OUOOUOUOOOOOUC/jOoo
o •
rH O
rH 23
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
01
b
0)
>
o
a
e
rl
01
en
.*
T3
o
•H
cd
a.
0)
x:
<d
60
s
ai
T3
rH
•H
rH
c
0£i
3
•H
PQ
4-1
c
cd
•H
•
T-i
>
4-1
rH
M
•H
CO
w
rJ
O
c
o
>N
c
«
c_>
tn
■O
Sh
c
co
•H
B
rH
0)
PQ
o
^
^
01
s
0)
01
cd
)J
rH
XI
CJ
rH
u
T3
01
01
o
00
B
>
o
o
c
■H
3
a
<;
Pi
I
u
o
o
o
u
X
3
00
d
e
•H
0)
N
«J
efl
en
Jh
>x
o
en
6£
C
3
cr
0)
OS
01
QJ
00
4H
c
•H
CO
cn
a
B
M
)H O
O Cu
•r-l
co -a
X c
CO
rJ
CO
0)
)H
X
u
OJ
>
A-71
>
o
•H
o
IJ
o
O
CM
3
* — ,
TJ
01
u
O
g
>H
PL,
<
1
<U
u
QC
0)
c
■H
CO oc
H
w
O
o
o
in
X
h
n
z
w
P-I
■3
r-l
LO
■H r--
o
o
r~
r-. oo
o o
CT.
o
<f \D
in
m
m
■H vo
■H iH
Ol
00
m ,-h
rH
ro
-a-
vo ~a-
m m
00
r-j
o m
■-t
j-t
m
co cm
CM CM
o
O
o o
O
O
o o
O O
^
in
CO
-3- 00
CO
-*
CO o
ON CM
•st
^D
CO O
CN
c-j
O
co oo
m i-i
CO CTv
o
ooooomoocMcri
Or^cocMCMr^oovDOvo
inmini— ivo<rmcMCMco
rs H H rH rH CO
o o o o
m
co in cr> -a-
o>
H NO
vO
CO
COCO CO C0CQC0OC0C0C0C0 CO
3 i< 3 1h HDS-i Vi 3 U 3 3 &33 3 >h 3 M Vj 3
M HI rl <U CU M CU CO U 0) 'H 'H 0) )-i Vj M0) J-i OJ V U
CO .O HH CO ,Q >4H CO COlH^lH CO <4H CO .O MH .O CO .O CO CO (0,0.0 CO CO .O MH CO .O <+-! COM-IJD
COCU^COCUvHCOCOvHCUvHCOMHCOCU-HCUCflCUCflCOcOCUCUCOCflCU-HCOCU-HCO-iHCU
«oOCrtMCn)(flCoOCn)dcaoOCMd60n)cBa)M60ca(floOCcfl60CcclC6£
w«o^cc)OM(-iOcdOMO)-icaonjMcotjvivican)M>-icooj-injo(-ioco
Oc/300c/}OOOOc/}UUOOc/30COOc/3000c/3c/300c/300c/iCJUC_)c/j
o ■
H O
^>
oo
o m
o
vO
r^
CTi CT\
o
o
O
o o
o
o
O
o o
<N
o
in
O
in
o>
o
CO
<r
00
00
<r
«*
c
CU
§
>
o
U
%
u
C
to
•u
CD
3
c/i
9
3
cr
CU
0*
DO
c
B
•H
OJ
N
4-1
a)
CO
IH
>
O
w
cu
OJ
oo
4J
c
■H
nj
GO
OS
•3
u
oo
^!
C
XI
■u
c
CU
co
CO
3
■H
CU
H
O
pq
CO
CU
u
cu
co
Pi
0)
CO
a
CJ
cu
M
o cu
d
CO
o
o
!-)
0)
■-I cu
cO
rH
u
H
XI
3
>*
60
3 rH
•H
rH
u
^d
cu
o
o
4-1
■a
O 3
>s
XI
CU
iJ
u
o
o
•H
•H
u o
Vj
C
e
^
CO
c
5
c_>
OS
o
Vj
M
ij
CU
.O
■5
3
3
>>
OJ
CU
<c
C
C
o
o
CU
3
X
T3 XI
,o
4-1
e
CU
»j
4J
4-1
rH
o
o
•H 0)
>.
CO
t^
•H
CO
co
■U
J-)
•H
(J
c
H OJ
co
CU
m
A3
3
cfl
3
0
cd
M
y;
w cd
S
3
Q
O
pq
W
Q
u
X
^»J
6
CO
C
CU
u
o
u
o
FN
Xi
•rn
u
CO
T3
(U
a
C
>
CU
•H
J
Cd
A-72
3 /-n
t3 en
O S
M 5
P-i «J
CU
60
c
cd
Pi
I
4J
CO 60
•H G
X -H
W
O
ON
o
in co
m
O CM
o-
.H iH
CO
00 00
cr> o
NO
W
SI
c
o
-H
4J
01
CO
&
•u
h
CU
H
60
CU
>
o
NO
(M
00 vO H O0
CO CO O NO
P1\OChiOOCOOiiriO
i/inmNi'iinioiriH
NO^MnHrHOtN
O o O on O
ON ON in in CO
-a- on oo co m
OooocoincMOONOoomi-ioo
vooovooNCNioNcoooooo-d-mo
rv 1A N -J <t 00 H (O h- H o n
i-( rH CN CM HH rH
rH 00 O CM i-H O
NO CM ON NO CM nO
CO <T O -* !">. in
OrHrHNOOOOOCO
-*rHrHNOOOOOCMO
-JHCIOO-JiONOvcO
O- CO CM m rH
CO
3 V4
Vj CU
CO X nh
to 0) -H
cd 60 C
M cd o
u
tO MH
CO
CO
U 3
M 0) t-i CU
en xi CM j3 u-j
CO CU -H CU -H
cd 60 G 60 C
r4 CO O cd O
•a
X OX
CO o to
3 W S 3 U
U 0) 01 Vj 0>
10 XI OJ C0 XI 1-1
CO CU iH CO CU -H
CO 60 C <D 60 C
)-l CO O U CO O
CO
CO
CO
3 3 1j 3 s-i
>-< M a) u cu
xi to xi «-< x n
CU tO CU -H CU -H
CO 60 CO 60 C 60 C
(J n) M co O to o
X X! X!
CO CO CO
3 U 3 3 l-i
m a> h h a)
to X 1-1 X X ih
CO CU -H tU tU -H
CO 00 C 60 60 C
U CO O cd CO O
X
CO
3
Ij
CO X
to CU
tO 60
>-! «
Uc/3O0o0t^Oc/)O0c/)OOCrtOUC/30c/3Oc/3OOC/)UC/3c/3Ueic/>
c
CU
0
CU
>
o
u
Q.
e
c
CO
u
CO
X
3
6£
c
3
cr
tu
Pi
A!
CU
CU
01
M
i
O
CO
z
XJ
0
4-1
O
c
rH
CU
pq
i
4J
>-i
O
cu
rH
&
rH
o
<
►J
60
a e
•H CU
N 4-1
to CO
O CO
CU 01
60 4-1
as
C T-I
■H
CO CO
a:
J<i
e
CO
M
CU
l-i
o
h
0
|k<
X
■r-)
h
CO
■a
CU
S
c
>
CO
•H
X
pej
rH
OS
ON
U~l
00
o
O
O
NO
LO
in
m
a
S
o
x
H
^
tu
CU
60
CU
T)
l-l
•H
c_>
Pi
c
c
•H
d
X
3
to
a
c_>
CO
CM
-3-
ON
O
O
rH
CM
CM
NO
NO
NO
c
o
o
X
o
CJ
C
CU
CU
CU
0)
CU
PQ
rH
i-H
3
3
co
o
O
60
o
u
c
•H
^
c
6
o
o
g
CO
•H
3
1-1
X
u
oa
CM CM
CM CM
NO NO
3
o
o
^
a
CU
CO
60
rH
•o
PQ
•H
PS
u
0)
4-1
a
CO
a
0
D
X
CO
to
CU
-o
-a
CU
•H
•r4
rH
a
o.
3
CO
CO
0
Pi
PS
c_>
C
c
C
CO
T-l
CO
e
X
i
-a
a
•o
CO
3
CO
0)
tO
CU
a
a
a
A-73
o s
CU
*-j
60
0)
00
c
■H
c
ed
X
-H
pi
w
ST
sr
o
m
in
VO
in
oo
vO
CM
o
st
t-H
w
CTi vO
■H
o\ st
00
IS
00 co
c
Ph
CM
e
O
■H
4-1
0)
CO
a
-u
£
<U
H
OO
a)
>
<r
r--.
r-t
<r
o-
On
CM
CM
st
m
co
sT
CM
Ov
r^
vO
CO
CTN
\D
.-1
CO
CO
H
CM
r^
m
CM
iH
00
cm
ro
vo
00
CM
H
m
ro
<r
m
O
en
CM
co
CO
av
CM
o
uO
CO
r-i
co
-J
CM
CO
tH
CO
co
r>
H
o
00
OA
cm
vO
CM
VO
VO
CO
rs,
O
CM
st
in
CM
00
<r
u~i
o
CM
CO
H
00
r>
O
t>
in
vO
H
CM
CM
in
00 00
vO CM
in cm
•-> o m -a- o
oo on on cm r^
oo m r-s -3- cm
ov on
cm -*
CM
O
O
CO CA N •*
in vo r^ in
CM vo r-> co
m m co on
CM
m
o
o o
-tf vO
vo in
on o o
co on o
CM ON .H
CO st
CM
CO O CM
CO On »H
oo in m
st
o o av co oo o
mx) a) on h
cm in co o vO st
CM CM 00 r- 1 O
CM
CM
O O CM r-. r- O
vO vO ON st CM i-l
cm .-I in in cm oo
m H Cl H
01 01 X>
01 01 0) hJ
nj co oo <;
U U n) H
O O oi O
H
0) 14-1
01 -H
H O
3 01
U 3
X> 43
01 4J
00 r-(
cfl co
O u O c/i c/l
CTN
On
O
o
m
MD
vO
«*
co
.-1
O
o
4=
m
4=
CM
4=
co
.-H
4=
T3
O
4=
CO
CO
CO
01
o
CO
3
M
a
w
m
a
w
3
u
s
3
u
>-i
cu
u
OJ
cu
w
CU
!-i
<0
OJ
M
OJ
XI
01
CM
0)
43
CM
CO
CM
43
CD
CM
CO
XI
CM
CO
CO
43
CM
0)
CO
■ri
CO
CU
•H
0)
•H
CU
CO
•H
CO
cu
•H
a)
CO
OJ
•H.
00
CO
d
CD
oo
c
CO
c
00
CO
c
CO
00
C
a)
CO
00
C
CO
H
o
H
CO
0
M
o
CO
H
o
w
CO
o
M
U
CO
O
coouocoooocoocjocaiooococj
o •
>h o
<!
vO CO
CM vO
00 CO
av on
o
o
o
CO
o
c
OJ
S
OJ
>
o
M
p.
B
OJ
E
CO
z
4<i
4-1
0)
a
OJ
cu
M
S
u
fe o
4-1
•H
4-1
«
3
M
«
H
OJ
cu
OJ
C
^H
4-1
r-i
«
^H
4J
OJ
3
•H
OJ
3
a
O
•a
42
s
pq
rt
c_>
c
CO
o
■H
M
tH
M
OJ
P*
3
OJ
o
U
[j
4-1
01
cd
CU
O
01
CO
o
3
B
»-i
CO
3
s
CJ*
o
PQ
W
s
H
c/l
K
CO
43
3
OO
c
E
•H
OJ
N
4-1
CO
CO
M
>!
CJ
in
0°
3
rj-
cu
Pi
cu OJ
00 4J
G -rl
co c/l
Pi
4<!
B
cfl
OJ
M O
H
O li,
43
•i—)
>-l
CO 13
OJ
s c
>
CO
•H
^J
Pi
A-74
3 ^
T3 CD
O 2
M 5
Ph <;
60
c
3
pi
x
H
SI
I
4-1
0) 60
•H CI
X -H
W
c
o
■H
■u
01
cfl
a
■u
h
0)
H
oo
gj
>
o •
rH O
H Z
<
o
CO
r^. m vO
o
oo o oo
rH
* N H
CO
ifl 00 •*
ci <n
a> a\
■H O
<f CN
eg m
CN rH
in m
O O
O cn
o -a-
oo cn
o>
o
rH
o
<r
CN
CM
in
CM
rH
X)
-C
X
O
co
CO
O
a
3
U
S
u
^
01
01
CO
-Q
43
co
MH
CO
w
01
J
0)
CO
•H
CO
CO
60 <
60
co
C
OJ
l-i
cfl
H
CO
u
o
)-i
O
CO
O
H
co
a
u
a
o
en
<r
CO
m
c^
o
s£>
^D
m
<r
O
rH
CN
o
<r
o\
CO
rH
CO
rH
^0
<r
^T>
in
m
rH
rH
CO
H
oo
co
r^
O
^o
v£>
m
<r
<r
<f
co
rH
.H
CO
r^
rH
CO
rH
o
o
O
<r
CM
I~N
CM
r-~.
co
-cr
-cr
vO
m
in
<r
m
CM
O
CO
r>
m
^
O
00
rH
in
in
o
CO
co
CO
rH
■H
O
r-
CO
^D
\0
CM
.H
CO
o%
oo
m
crs
CO
in
co
CO
CM
oo
VO
CM
rH
rH
^ CO
o o
CO
rH
o
o
r-«
CM
rH
rH
in
rH m
in
O CO
CO
00 ON
ON
CM CM
J=
A
4=
CO
CO
co
a
u
M
3
3
u
u
0)
0)
H
U
0)
x>
CO
cm
MH
CO
CO
43
x>
CO
IH
01
CO
•H
•H
CO
CO
OJ hJ
0)
CO
•H
60
cfl
C
C
CO
CO
60 <J
00
CO
c
cd
u
O
0
U
u
CO H
Cfl
u
o
CO
o
U
o
a
u
CO o
H
CO
o
o
r-
<T
m
CM
rH
oo
IvO
\9i
in
r-~ vO
oo
co vO
in
rH r-~
CO
m oo a\ cm
Ol CO rH 1/1
rH <J" KO
o m in
m r^ oo
VO CN rH
M
3
0)
CO
o
UH
CO
T3
•H
rJ
CO
cfl
c
<
M
0)
O
H
O
S
u
O
H
«0
o
oo
at
OJ
CO
H
CU
44
CO
y-H
C
z
3
01
O
e
44
C_>
0)
c
>
01
rH
o
e
iH
u
44
CO
a
O
44
e
■H
60
M
rH
•H
<:
Ph
r^
Cfl
•H
60
■u
c e
C
•H OJ
cfl
N 4->
4-1
CO CO
CO
M >*
42
O co
3
CO
00
01 01
c
60 44
C^
•H
C -H
rH
Sh
CO CO
•H
oc!
3
a*
OJ
Pi
CO
CO
4«i
4-1
B
CO
c
p
OJ
01
r4 O
U
e
O Fu
43
4-1
•r-i
w
o
CO T3
OJ
rH
S C
>
rH
CO
•rl
<
rJ
as,
OJ
OJ
42
rH
o
OJ
3
c
OJ
o
OJ
T~\
c_>
PQ
3
o
o
OJ
o
60
o
u
C
C
cfl
CO
o
Ph
4=
CO
CJ
V4
U
OJ
01
44
•o
s
CO
c
0
n)
<:
rJ
rJ
s
Pm
3
T3
rH
CO
m
CN
§
o
A-75
o
3 -~N
X) CD
O 2
U 5
CU
u
60
to oc
a
•H C
ca
X -H
en
w
CM O
r~~ oo
Q
W
5J
c
o
•H
4J
CU
CO
a
4-)
h
CU
H
00
0)
>
o
m co oo
oo o oo
H H (N
CN vO 00
u-1 iH vD
VJ3
O
CO
CM CM
00 00
CM CM
CO
o
I/O CO 00
00 O 00
oo
vO O
0> CT>
\o
vO
mvoH
00
00
-a- r-» vO
ON
CT>
<fr iH
3
3
CO
CO
o
CO
o
co
CO
13 hJ
CO
T3
CO
cfl
tu <:
a)
a)
l-i
u
01 H
>j
cu
O
O
*g
O
S
o
CM
Vj
i-i
0)
0)
co
CO
CM
co
M-l
CO
CO
•H ,J
co
•H
cfl
co
C <
co
c
U
1-j
O H
h
o
a
O
CJ O
u
o
l-i
o •
CO iH
.H O
00 vO
H Z
O vO
<
O CM
co .-I
O M3
O CM
l-l
a
S
Xi
.* O
tu rH
0) 3
Or O
•O ^
•H <U
i *
co co
Jj -H
CO
CO
CO
4-J
u
0
o
3
o
o
s
S3
J=
Q.
4J
CU
iJ
CU
o
43
z
c/j
c
id
4-1
CO
■§
50
C
e
•H
cu
N
4->
co
CO
>j
>i
O
C/J
6£
c
•H
M
•H
3
cr
cu
Pi
CU
cu
60
4-J
d
•H
ca
c/j
Pi
e
CO
U
a
M
o
•H
O
■i—i
ft
4-J
CO
•a
c
S3
c
3
co
O
-J
S
A-76
CJ
3 /-n
13 CO
O S
(J 5
p-i <
cu
*-i
00
CO
Oil
c
■H
d
tO
X
•H
Pi
W
in in
rHiH
in in
ON ON
co co
v£> KD
i-H iH
CO CI
CO CO
I-H i-H
CO CO
coomi—ir-~inininON
Or^oor— -3-cmocoo
ON i— I n n n o eo <t a
I-l CO rH
r-icoo<rinr-Hr--.min
eg \D in r^ r- I on no co r~~
ooocoONcocor-~vj-oo
n£>
Si
c
o
iH
4-1
0)
nj
a
4->
>
a)
H
50
0)
>
o o
ON ON
00 00
CM CM
NO NO
oo|oo
CO
ON
no
CO
ro
o
r>
H
o
ai
ON
CO
no
CO
<r
<r
r~
CO
ro
-J-
ro
<r
<r
<r
ON
rH
ON
on
CM
UO
<r
CM
<r
CO
ro
rH
co
CM
H
LTl
lO
o o
T3
•o-
O
o
0
ON
O
rH
CO
co _l
CO <
U H
O O
H
cm|cm
to
a
u
xi
<u r-)
oo <:
to H
00 O
H
O CM ON
O
■-I
on
on
O
m
m
CO
m
m
<r
oo
O
m
CM iH NO rH
CO
CO
00
oo
no
r>
o
oo
ON
<r
CO
NO
CM CO CM -*
rH
■H
in
ro
on
NO
NO
o
H
nD
ro
m CO ~3-
■H
H
i-l
i-i
IS
ON
is
ro
H
hn r-»
ro
.-I
CO
CO
r-~
<■
co
co
CO
CO
iH
rH
ro
CO
ON
ON
nO
O
-3-
r—
NO
NO
CO
CM
m
N0
rH CO
co
t-^ r-~
ON
CM NO
NO
u-i
00
CO vj-
ON iH
r» O
in cm
to co to
to to to
oo co co co
(D U Vj U
co en
co to
co co
u u
to CO
co co
CO CO
u
Oc/iOOOOOOOOOCJOO
J3
CO
3 >-i
U CU
CO XI U-I
co <u in
co 60 c
U cfl o
O co O
o •
rH O
■h z
<
oo ^^cMNMOHino oo
vo ocMcomuoi— iromo m
O rHrHrHtHiHCOCOCOvD NO
CM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM-d" in
c
cu
e
>
o
>-i
a
E
oo
C
e
■H
CD
N
4-1
ra
CO
kJ
>■
CJ
IS)
X!
3
•
a
o
4-1
o
u
3
u
60
•
o
•H
^i
cu
>
.*.
CJ
3
CO
CJ
cu
iH
•H
01
CU
&
3
o
c
cu
CU
X)
cu
CU
CU
4-1
X.
O
4-1
o
■H
H
c
4-1
1-1
u
c
XI cu ^
CO
CO
4-J
3
M
4-1
3
c_>
•H
u x: OJ cu
CU
cu
i-H
O
J^
3
o
O
U 60 (J CU
a. <#
>
ro
O
J-.
c
pa
o
•3
P-i
CO 3 C_> Vj
o
-H
S
o
•H
c
60 CO U
rH rH
hJ
3
Pm
3
^
X>
o
iw
>j x> cu
CU i-l
C
•H
C_>
u
JJ
o
rH
O I-i H CO
4-> CU
en
x:
XI
•
U
CO
•H
CU
O
x; co o i
3 3
1
o
CO
o
S
Q
OS
P3
3
l
CO
erf
3
Pi
H B P4hI
■< C/3
H
>-j
O
z
CO
Q
P*
erf
Q
6C
c
3
C7
CU
a:
cu
cu
00
4-1
c
tH
a)
CO
OS
NO
o
vO nO nO nO nD v£> nD NO vO
OOOOOOOOO
O
u
o
60
0
u.
C
-1—1
■H
ro
XI
i-H
£
c
rH
ro
o
-J
ac
A-77
o
3 •-.
-O 03
O ±
u 5
p* <
01
00
C
co
PS
4-1
CO
M
-H
c
X
•H
w
ro r> fO vf
rH -* -d" CO
o cr* m co crv co
vo o -h <r -a- co
u-|
h < <f n n n h in -t
uO
O
CM
in C\
o->
r-
rH
o
m
c-j
CM
oo
CM
<r
O
vo
CM
rH
co
vO
CM 1^
VO O
u-i t-^
rH lO
vo r^
m CT>
cr.
rH
in
rH
.-1
vD
o
r-^
rH
o
rH
CTN
rH
co
rH
r^.
O
en
CM
cm
CO
-3-
00
O
CM
CO
CM
CO
cm
<r
o
vO
CO
m
<r
cm
vO
vD
co
CO
CM
rH
CO
<T
o
o
CM
r^
o
rH
in
O
o\ r-~
rH
o
in cm
CM
oo
cm -*
O
vo
CM .-1
co
vO
oo r-~
a\ m
cm r-»
vO O
in r>
co co
co co
CO CO
o
CO
VD
O
in
CM
H
m
CM
CO
CM
m
VO
CO
CO
CM O
-* CO
CM OO
CM ST
CO
o
w
SI
c
o
■H
4-1
OJ
CO
a
4J
F
cu
H
00
CU
>
cocncocotocococnco
cocococncococococo
CO
<0
co
cd co
OUOOOOOOOUcoOOCJCOOOcocJO
H
x
in
3 U
u 0)
X M-l
cu -h
00 c
CO O
43
CO
3
u
X
<U XI
oo<:
CO
3 M
u <0
CO ,□ U-|
CO CU iH
co 00 C
co O
0-vTvOinvOinvDO~3-in
vOvOlsNCOHlONinO\
OOOHHNNNClin
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM-*
X
10
3
M
CO
en
43
CO
$
CO
CU XI
CO
a)
oo <;
M
H
M
« H
o
O
o
CO o
H
H
o
o-
in
O
CM
CM
es
CM
>
o
a
OC
C
3
cr
CO
4->
§
XI
•H
XI
T3
Ai
M
•H
M
CO
0)
M
cu
-J
CO
u
3
a)
CU
6
X
o
co
0)
o
U
M
cu
CO
CJ
c
OO
cu
>
rH
CU
o
M
z
C
cd
c
rH
cu
OJ
3
4-1
CJ
cO
rH
3
a)
rH
a)
CO
c
>.
4-1
ps
0)
a
•r— )
3
-X
P-i
•H
u
u
Ci
3
M
O
a
0
oo
Q)
cu
u
z
CO
CJ
S
rH
Ph
c
4-1
B
CU
CU
T3
rH
3
c
4J
4-J
CO
rH
rH
3
•
CU
CU
34
cu
O
tH
c
-J
o
o
CO
-a
>
a
.H
3
X
CO
V4
TJ
a
•H
•
u
rH
O
o
X
CO
•H
cu
.H
O
CO
<:
CJ
•->
CJ
X
s
fn
3
o
S
CJ
OO
c e
•H CU
M 4-1
co co
CO
u >■
O C0
CO cu
OO 4-1
vO
vO
VD
SO
SO
SO
vD
>X>
VO
so
C i-l
O
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
o
o
CO CO
Pi
CO
c
•H
CO
B
P-.
(J o
00
O [14
B
•r-i
•H
CO TD
rH
S C
rH
CO
O
X
PS
cu
cu
u
CJ
V4
o
13
CO
4-1
CO
S3
O
X!
a
o
O
•O
CO
CU
X
CO
Jj
0)
X
JJ
o
S3
A-78
u
3 X-N
T3 CO
O 2
u 5
ft <;
<u
4-)
00
05
00
d
•H
c
co
X
•H
Pi
w
00
O vo
<r
in
o
r-» co
m
CM
CO
m vo
CM
co
noMnm
rH r- -a rH
O r-. i~-
rH in
oo cm r-~
CO o\
cm -a- m
CM CM
o
-3-
CO CJs
m on
rH
i-l
■H r-»
<f O
CO
O
r-~ i-l
r— i-l
CM
■H
O
VO
vO
co
00
00
On
"*
<f
VO
rH
O
O
CM
CM
CM
CM
<T rH
CO O
<t O
r-» co
NO
00
vO
o
no
CM
NO
CO
H
O
o
CM
CM
o
o
-*
-3"
o
o
.-1
rH
1^
r^
m
in
~* o
O rH
r-~ oo
00 O
<■ NO
i-t
CO CM
CM
O rH O CO O
O O CM O ON
<r co
o oo
r^ o
i-l o
CO rH
rH O
-a- -a-
-a- -a-
on oo
in o
<r o
oo o m o r» -a- o
CM 00 rH cm o o m
iH o -a- r-~ CO CM CO
CM iH CT> CM rH
o
o
o
o
o
CM
CO
o
o
<f
-a-
o
o
rH
rH
l-~
r-~
m
in
p
■z
w
ft
SI
e
0)
1
01
>
O
u
(X
B
c
o
•H
■u
01
CO
a
■u
>
o>
H
oo
QJ
>
o •
rH O
00
a
B
•H
a)
N
•u
CO
co
u
^
o
CO
3
U
x
0)
CO CO CO
CO CO
CQ Cfj 00 cd crj cd
r-l r-l CO r-f J-l r-l
OOc0OOUc/3OOc/5
H
CO
3
M
XI
01 r-l
oo<;
CO H
oo co in
r^ in m
o CM CM
CM CM CM
00
C 0)
•H C
r*N -H
rH Cd
ft ft
PC
a
u
O
1*
co m
r- cm
cm co
CM CM
U
O
a
•a
co
co js
0) en
0)
Pi M-l
rH 42
X
rC
4=
X
CO
CO
CO
CO
3
3
3
3
>J
>-i
u
>-i
en
X
CO
CO
CO
CO
43
CO
X
co
43
CO
0>
CO
CO
CO
CO
0)
CO
0)
r-l
co
0)
a)
oo
CO
CO
CO
CO
oo
CO
oo <!
CO
00
U
CO
U
U
u
U
cfl
u
CO
H
u
CO
rH
rH
CO
o
nO
CO
o
CO
CO
a
o
NO
a
NO
m
CO
Cfl
NO
CO
O
H
a
CO
rH
CM
CM
CM
c
o
CO
rH
CO
CM
u
o
rH
CO
CM
vO
m
rH
3
O
U
<D
CD
U
H
0)
c
o
nO
m
r-l
■d
rH
Cd
X
o
0)
>>z
►J
03
S3
CO
CO
H
Sj
rJ
>-i
rP
43
0)
rH
O
CO
PQ
01
P.
01
ft
•H
^
0)
a.
a.
a
rH
rJ
3
p
P
CO CO
CO iJ CO
co <; cd
u H rJ
O O O
H
o
c
M
43
O
c
5
s
•H
ft
3
I
01
01
00
■u
c
•H
CO
CO
ft
s
u
u o
O ft
•r~l
CO *0
S d
cd
►J
o
ft
A-79
a
3
-a to
o s
u 5
P4 <!
N_^
1
00 •»
00 co
CU
u
m on
r>- o
60
TO
00
m rH
in r-~
c
■H
c
r-. CM
CM
n)
X
■H
a!
W
<r m oo in
00 CM cm oo
co iH
co
O
o
CM
CM
rH
CM
CM
H
00
oo
FU
5|
T3
C
O
u
cu
60
C
CO
[2
«3
o
■H
co a
•u >-
CU H
60
a)
>
o •
rH O
32
co
O
in
m
CM o\ oo
ro r- o
H CM H
O
ON
o
ON
a
H no o in in
O
CM O
on co m r-~ \o
00
cm m
vO CO -J H N
on
pi <r
rH -tf rH
r-»
no
o
NO
o o s
o m
cm m
o o
CM CM
TO TO
(0 cfl
u u
CJ) CJ>
c
o
u
NO NO
NO rH
rH CM
CM CM
I NO
o
<r
o-
o
oo
■*
oo
oo
o
-*
en
H
H
on cm i-H
r-~ oo
ON ON
ON o>
ro co
O 00
O 00
00
NO -*
VO -*
o
ON ON
ON ON
ON
-C
js
.c
(A
CO
TO
3
3
3
U
t-i
u
TO
W
TO
TO
x>
TO
43
TO
X
CO
TO
TO
1-J
TO
<D
TO
CU hJ
TO
cu
CO
CO
CO
<
cfl
60
CO
60 «JJ
CO
00
u
U
u
H
U
CO
(-1
CO H
(J
CO
a
o
o
O
H
o
U1
o
c/i O
H
o
CO
CM
NO
in
NO
<r
o
O
CO
s»
ON
rH
H
rH
rH
m
CM
CM
CM
CM
<r
c
o
o
N_>
5
6C
U
•H
3
cr
0)
06
TO
CU
e
S
o
CO
CO
Z
"3
-u
01
C
o
rH
0)
43
rH
s
0)
CU
4-1
<u
3
o
CO
T3
rH
u
rH
rH
o
O
<
a
o
60
•H S
N -M
06
CO TO
a
M P-n
O V)
CU CU
60 4J
00 00
a -h
o o
CO c/3
pi
M
cu
0)
u
u e
>><;
O >N
O rJ
5 Q
oo oo
o o
CU
<u
rH
CU
3
a
c
CU
O
o
o
rH
CJ
60
g
3
cfl 13
£
o
C
O <1)
O
U
CU
OP
CJ
e
T3
>-i
X\
U U
a
CU
a
CO CO
i
a
C
3 T3
tn
TO
cu
T3 CU
1
CO
K
W CJ
M
CJ
3
fn
en
fc
00 00 00
o o o
00
o
e
Ph
c
1-1
o
60
o
p^
c
•1—1
•H
cfl
T3
rH
S
c
rH
cfl
O
t-J
06
A-80
o
3 .->
X) CO
o a
m 5
Ph <
<r o
oo <f
CO O
N^
i
-3- m
ON
CU
4J
oo ~3
CM
60
CD 0£
oo o\
m
c
•H (3
rH
a)
X -H
a
w
in
in
Q
z
u
-a-
CO
o
CN
m
rH
rH
CM
o
o
VO
OA
<r
o
-a-
o
■*
CO
CN
rH
CM
rH
H
CO
a\
m
00
00
m
00
-3
00
CO
CO
oo
00
o
m
-3
m
H
rH
H
U0
vO
00
CO
o
rH
m
m
p^
CT>
«*
00
<T
r^
oo
CM
rH
rH
<r
vO
VO
■*
CI
<r
rH
M3
rH
rH
T3
<r
<■
rH
O
o
o
o
rH
O
o
o
m
o
O
m o
o
CN
CM
rH
co
in
00
m
CM
oo
rH
CO
O
CM
rH
iH CM
0
-3"
<3-
O
•£•
CM
m
■<r
o\
vO
co
o
rH
O
O H
o
CM
CM
<J-
<T
rH
O
CM
CN
CO
CN
rH
rH
a\
CTi
r->.
m
o
CM
O
O
o
co
00
CM
VO
r-*
vO
\C
vO
X
■*
-3"
m
vO
CM
-*
oo
00
w
00
00
VO
r>
-Q
T3
X.
a
O
rC
rC
*
TO
M
O
CO
CO
CO
0)
a
rC
u
S
3
3
u
3 M
a
u
to
a)
CU
Vj
r-i
<D
M <U
>.
co
CO
co
x>
IH
CO
co
-O
TO
,o
<4-4
TO
,£> M-l
H
CO
CO rJ
CO
CU
•H
cd >-J
CO
CU
TO
01
•H
kJ
TO
(11 -H
cd
cd <
cd
00
C
C
<u <:
at
oo
CO
00
c
<
«
60 C
u
U H
U
CO
4->
o
>H H
u
ca
r-1
CO
O
H
u
Cd O
O
CS O
H
o
co
a
c_>
o o
H
o
CO
u
en
CJ
O
H
O
CO CJ
CO
ON
r^
rH
<r
O
00
VO
r~-
CO
CTl
2:
CM
CO
00
O
oo
CM
CM
~3
CM
■*f
T3
s
<~v
C
o
<U
rt
rH
4-1
e
rH
rH
c
cd
CU
■H
o
S3
CO
s
CJ
co
4J
^
4J
o
cd
e
Pi
rH
TO
0)
Pm
4-1
e
a
CU
c
4-J
o
•a
x:
01
O
4-1
•H
4-1
§
rH
rH
>
r-l
QJ
rH
•H
•H
o
>
o
u
<
a
o
a
a
60
s
c e
M
•H CU
N 4-1
PS
U
id co
CO
Pi
o
IH >v
c
O C/2
•H
a
00
CU CU
c
60 4-1
o
o
rH
-H
C -H
rH
rH
rH
u
cd c/i
•H
Pi
3
cn
co
QJ
0
ai
•H
Cd
TO
rH
4->
S
Pm
c
H
CU
M O
60
0
O Cn
C
4->
TO
•H
o
11
rH
rH
rH
rH
cd
O
<
►J
pej
A-81
■H
>
CJ
3 •->
T3 CO
O S
M 5
P-4 <!
CU
00
c
cfl
Pi
(J
en
oo
■H
a
X
•H
w
in
o
~*
oo
en
m
en
en
oo
o <r
en m
en oo
o
c
o
•H
w
01
nj
&
4->
t*
<U
H
00
QJ
>
o •
r-l O
^2
oh
mien
H CM
en
o
CO
O
-cr
en
o
^r
00
en
<T
CN
eM
CM
CN
rH u-l KD
CM ON
cm cm -a-
O CM
en en
en o o O o oo o
<f NCOO H(M-^
00 I — CA 1^ \D rs cvj
H -* vo O
m
O 00 o
<t
en o -a-
oo
m ~* cm
cm eM
CM
rn rH -tf
00 CM ©
oo oo r~-
cm o o o O
oo -* cm cm en
o en cm cm
O rH o rH
» o <r w
m oo n
CM CM t-t
m
u-l
vO
vO
<r
-a
>*
■a
4=
j=
43
o
4=
o
CO
co
CO
o
CO
o
u
a
3
>-i
3
3
l-i
3
3
cu
u
>-i
a)
Vj
cu
cu
Ij
cu
CO
IH
43
43
M-l
43
CO
CO
CH
43
CO
CO
•H
cu
CU
•H
0)
cfl
►J
CO
■H
CU
cfl
cfl
C
00
oo
C
00
0)
<
cfl
a
00
cu
l-i
O
cfl
a)
o
cfl
1-1
H
1-1
o
cfl
1-1
CJ
CJ
cfl
en
o
CO
o
o
H
cj
u
CO
u
o> OS l-s 00
rH Cjv m rH
o m oo o
o cm <d- m
J2
43
o
43
CO
CO
o
CO
D
3
3
3
M
l-i
CU
M
CO
42
CO
43
CO
CO
43 CO
CO
CU ,-J
CO
CU
cfl
CO
CU CO
cfl
oo<:
cfl
00
cu
Cfl
60 cfl
1-1
tfl H
u
cfl
U
1-1
cfl U
o
to o
H
o
CO
CJ
CJ
CO CJ
<J>
rH
en
00
c^
o
H
r-l
00
vO
CD
CD
<r
lO
en
IT)
CU
4-1
e
cu
C
cfl
cu
OJ
o
z
rH
4-1
u
CJ
3
4-1
rd
^^
4-1
o
3
0)
c
CJ
PQ
m
CO
cu
4-1
4-1
i
>>
C
4J
cu
c
4-1
43
o
CU
rH
cu
O
D-
4-1
CO
4->
§
rH
l-l
4-1
CO
44
rH
3
3
CO
•H
>
<
s
03
«
rJ
o
H
&
60
B
C
e
r-l
•H
N
cu
4-1
1-1
Cfl
CO
CO
o
1-1
>r
B
cj
CO
•H
s
00
OJ
cu
c
60
4-1
<r
-*
<r
<r
•H
c
■H
rH
rH
rH
rH
l-l
•H
cfl
tin
3
a"
CO
0)
c
pg
•H
cd
CO
rH
c
B
P-.
cu
u
o
60
e
o
fc
c
■u
■n
•H
o
cd
13
rH
r-1
S
C
rH
rH
cfl
O
<
hJ
os
cu
cu
rH
OJ
3
0)
o
rH
CJ
3
CU
o
cu
4>i
>%
cj
rH
CU
h
3
CU
cfl
4J
O
l-i
CJ
4-1
CJ
CJ
OJ
u
c
44
a
<u
G
CO
a
(X
•H
CU
cfl
o.
ts
«
c_>
p
S
Pm
CO
A-82
o
3 /-*
■3 0]
O S
i-i 5
a, <;
01
4J
00
CO OC
C
•H C
«
X -H
Pi
W
\0
w
P-i
SI
c
o
tH
4-1
a)
a)
a
U
^
H)
H
00
a)
>
o>
o o
*£>
r-~ cm
o
CM CO
C*l
CM
^O
o
r^
CO
«tf
o
<r
CO
en
o
es
H
H
<T> O O
<y>
co
VO l-» CM
uo
o
O CM oo
VD
u">
co cm
m
CM
vO CM
CO CM
CO i-H
v£>
o
r-»
CO
<*
O
St
CO
ro
o
CM
H
i-H
x>
-a
o
J=
o
o
CO
o
3
3
3
01
M
<u
01
CO
CO
JO
CO
to
a)
J
CO
CO
id
cti
co
<
cO
60
0)
Ij
u
H
M
co
V4
a
o
O
o
CO
U
rH O
a. cm
■H CM
co <r <r -a- a\
CM CM CM CM U0
cm r-~ co oo
00 1/0 CM
v£>
<f
OS
P>
CM
HO
r»
CO
VO
rH
J=
4=
CO
CO
3
>j
3
u
P
0)
l-i
<D
co
CO
J3
CO
m
co
.£>
U-l
co
CO
CU
CO
•H
J
CO
0)
■H
03
a)
oo
CO
a
<
n)
00
C
u
>j
id
Vj
O
H
M
CO
o
o
O
CO
cs
u
o
O
en
u
o
o
1°
CM
MOO
CM
lOKJO
rH
cm <r
CJN
CM
CO
CM
00
r~~
r^
m
iH
M
vO
00
CO
as
as
m
o
<r
r-i
as
w
o
vO
o
tH
<r
vD
as
CM
CM
CM
i-H
J5
CO
3
h
l-i
cu
CO
-o
M-4
CO
aj
•H hJ
0)
00
C <J
h
a)
O H
O
CO
C_> O
H
o •
rH O
<
.
CU
4-1
a
c
CO
o
z
,Sd
u
cu
s^1
4J
CU
c
M
CO
CU
o
4-J
g
c
4-1
01
QJ
o
•H
B
1-H
>
cu
tH
CO
>
<
O
0
U
Ch
oo
E
c
e
H
•H
cu
N
4-1
M
CO
CO
o
U
S*
e
O
CO
•H
s
00
CU
0)
c
00
4-1
r-^
■H
c
•r-l
iH
l-i
CO
CO
•H
Pi
3
cr
co
QJ
C
£*
•H
CO
CO
■H
4J
e
Ph
C
U
CD
u
o
00
e
o
F*
c
4-1
1"J
•H
O
CO
•a
■H
^H
S
C
iH
■H
CO
O
<
hJ
Pi
a^!
e <u
CO CU
J3 l-i
O U
3
CO ^!
QJ O
pa o
pi
^
u
«
CU 4-1
i
Ou CO
a n)
o
Z3 w
P-.
tf
[X4
CO
ci
o
Q
CO
CU
Vj
pd
A-83
o
3 <-v
TJ 0)
O 2
u 5
p-. <
CU
00
C
co
OS
Oh
o s
o <
o
cm J2
4J
>- 3
r^ \£ r^ cm
CM CO CM CM
O IT] ON 00
H n o tn
cn m oo o
oo in co cm
o iH cn
CT\ <t CM
oo in <f
0\ oo
in
CO
CO
CM
vO
00
o
CO
<f
CO
CM
o
rH
co
a
o
•H
4->
CD
CO
a
4-1
*
0)
H
00
CD
>
o
r*
CO
M0
ro
O
u-1
o>
r>
r~.
CO
rH
cn
rH
m u-i
tdO
oo r-«.
co
r~~ r^
r-\
r-~ o
r-. oo
vo oo
CO
Ol
m
CO
O
kO
o
m
co
rH
rH
rH
m
o
CM
in co cm
CO 00 rH
-d- co
cm cj\ cm r-~ m
in h j) id h
oo cm -d- in r-^
■hh a\
O CM CO rH
00 CO vD <-
cm o <r cm
CO rH CO
r-» m in
o m
in o
CO O CO
o-> 00
00 ^o
CT> rH in
CM
CM CM
o
m
O r-. co
>opio
in o> k
r^- oo co
r^ O
r-~ oo
vo oo
o
O <f
CO
o
o
-<r co
CN
<r
CM
<t in
CO
H
o
H rH
CO
-*
CO
43
x
x
X
x
CO
cn
cn
cn
cn
3
3
>-i
a
u
u
3
1-1
3
1-1
>-i
M
a)
u
CD
<D
^J
CD
l-i
CD
43
,a
cn
cn
IH
x
cn
U-l
cn
cn
M-l
cn
cn
X
H-l
XI
cn
in
ai
0)
cn
cn
•H
0)
cn
•H
cn
cn
■r-l
cn
cn
<1>
•H
J
CD
CO
•H
00
oo
co
<fl
1=
oo
co
c
cfl
cfl
C
co
co
00
c
<
00
CO
C
rd
CO
>-i
H
O
CO
U
O
M
U
o
u
i-i
CO
O
H
CO
1-1
o
CO
go
O
CJ
u
to
cj
u
O
a
cj
cj
o
CO
u
o
H
CO
CJ
cj
o>
r-~ O
<r
in -3-
•*
CO T-\
H
in -a-
cn
cn
3
l-i
3
l-i
u
CD
l-i
CD
X
cn
CO
in
X
CO
14-1
<D
cn
Cfl
■H
J
CD
cn
•H
00
CO
CO
C
<
00
co
a
co
l-i
M
o
H
CO
l-i
0
CO
CJ
CJ
o
O
H
CO
O
c_>
oo
a
s
■H
CD
N
4-1
Cfl
cn
t-l
>.
Cj
CO
CM CM
CO
o
a\
!-H
a\
VO CM
m oo
CO
in
as
00
^H
<r o
o o
H
rH
rH
CM
CO
CO CO
CM CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM CM
e
C
o
o
c
CJ
co cn
o
TJ
g
4-4
■J3 U
g
rH O
CO
c
o
rH O
*. 5
rH
43
o
CJ
CD 14H
u -a
rH
o
g
X, M
CO W
•H
c
jjj;
^
CD
CJ O
rH
02
CO
O
<0
CD
4-> CO
CJ CD
erf
CJ
CD
rH
•H rH
CJ
O
>-i
3
EhW
4-> C
H
c
CO
CJ
O
4-1 CD
CO
o
•H
CJ
a
CD M
14-1
4-1
s
1-1
V CD
i 5
14-|
CO
o
CO
00
r4 >
E co
3
3
o
0)
•H
CD CD
W i-J
CO
EC
J
W
PQ
05 CO
rH CO O
co in \d
OHcD
cm cm m
CO
c
-a
CD
u
S
cn
cfl
4-1
^H
3
o
rH
-a
rH
•H
u
rH
<
cr
00
X
c
02
u
■H
cfl
oc
c
3
CJ
CD
a)
CD
60
4-J
C
•H
CO
CO
Crf
oo oo oo oo
cn
J<!
g
CO
CD
>-i o
U
O Pm
X
T-J
1-1
cd T)
CD
S C
>
cd
■H
►J
OS
A-84
o
3 ^
TJ 0)
O S
CU
00
c
PS
I
4-1
co M
•h d
W
O i-H
O P-.
co oo
00 vD
CM r-l
ON ON
vJ3 in
CO iH
ro m
vO co CN
CM O r-
m cm oo
0O vO
CSJ iH
ON ON
vo m
CO i-l
co in
o
O CO
VO
o o
00
m cm
n
z
w
Pm
5!
a
o
•H
4->
0)
cd
a
4-1
^
0)
H
00
QJ
>
<T
«*
ro
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
co
oo
H
r^
CO
H
CO
o
<r
CN
-cr
vO
CN
r-«
r-
149
ro
MN
CN
CO
^o
oo
<T
m
CN
<■
CO
CO
CN
ON
^o
in
on
r^
m
r>
on
co
on
co
^£>
m
m
<T
CO
r>
co
o-
r^
<r
o
O
^40
o
ON
m
CO
r*.
r>
r>
CO
CO
CN
o
O
o
oo
o
O
00
CO
CN
CN
ON
CN
o
00
rH
ON
rN
in
CM
I-H
CN
^£>
in
o
m
OOOOOr~-or-^co
HONM3\0>0<JNvO
mcor^iHONincMCM
HClHHONNHOl
X!
CO
3
u
to co X)
CO CO 4)
<« H M 60<
U U co n) H
CJ CJ co co O
H
x:
10
3
u
X)
0) hJ
CO
3
h
0)
oo
a)
■st
o
o
<r
on
UD
00
in
CO
CO
m
<r
CM
co
x:
X.
x:
£■
CO
co
CO
CO
1-1
u
3
1>4
3
3
l-l
3
1-1
1-1
0)
OJ
u
OJ
i-i
1-1
cu
l-i
cu
01
14-1
CO
CO
CO
14-1
x>
CO
14-4
CO
X>
Xi
CO
M-4
CO
XI
14-1
CO
CO
CO
U-l
H
CO
CO
CO
•H
0)
CO
•H
co
01
a)
CO
•H
CO
0)
•H
CO
CO
CO
•H
c
CO
CO
a)
C
00
cO
c
cd
00
00
CO
t3
CO
00
a
CO
CO
cfl
C
o
M
u
S-J
o
CO
U
o
u
CO
CO
u
o
1-1
CO
o
1-1
s-l
1-1
o
u
O
CJ
CJ
u
CO
CJ
CJ
a
CO
CO
CJ
U
CJ
CO
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
cj
co co
O r-»
O rH
CM \D
<r
o
o
o
o o
o o
in vo
r-« o
o o
O CM
vf OiO
ulvOiO
ON ON ON
<f ■* <f
•
cu
4J
s
01
c
CO
cu
01
o
25
01
^H
CJ
r-t
^!
3
\_/
4-1
3
01
O
c
o
OJ
CJ
CO
<u
o
u
u
a
CJ
CO
c
4-1
o
c
OJ
O
OO T3
CU
e
■-4
1-1
c
cu
OJ
i-l
CO
rt
u
<
cu
CO
CJ
a
00
5
c e
•H CU
N 4-1
p£i
i-i
CO to
Q
o
K >N
c
CJ CO
•H
s
oo
0) 01
c
00 4-1
ON
ON
ON
•H
tJ -H
7-1
r-\
■H
li
cd co
•H
Pi
3
CT<
OJ
Pi
CO
co
.*
4-1
c
g
ca
0)
OJ
M O
u
e
O PM
XI
4-1
•n
h
O
!*§
01
H
>
iH
(0
•H
■4
►J
ed
CU
01
(-1
0)
o
•H
01 ^H
cfl
0)
O
01 3
I-l
0)
>
x:
.-1 o
Ph
0)
I-l
u
o
3 CJ
oo
3 X
0)
c
O
CO
-d
o cu
CO
cfl
14-1
CJ CU
•H
•H
CJ i-H CU
01
«
■H
a
o
oi
•H M
PS
cfl
00 o
Ol
C Cfl CJ
co
CJ
C H
00
>N
CU M
a
u
•H CU
V4
4J
TJ H 00
01
01
o
U 4-1
3
1-1
M Cfl
01
>
5
a c
o
CO
O ON M
Q
w
H
co <;
pa
S3
CJ r^ Q
A-85
o
3
O
u
o. <:
0-1
o s
o <2
o
CM XT
U -H
>- 3
•^
1
NO lo 00
0)
1-1
ic<ro
60
01
BO
CO -3" rH
a
■H
c
cd
X
•H
05
w
CN CM
-3- ON
O
a
z
w
Pm
51
0C cr)
c
o
■H
4-1
0)
fl
a
4J
>
(1)
H
00
01
>
co
o
r^
IT]
CO
oo
vO
H
H
CO 00 O
rH ro ON
r- m rH
o
-3-
CM
CO
00
O
00
O
in
CM
O
r^
CN
H
O oo
ON o
00 CO
co -3-
-3- rH
-3-
CO
O
r^
m
CO
oo
to
H
rH
03
UO O
CO
CN O
NO
O O
CM
rH H
CO
r-.
ri
in
r-H
in
m
rH
CO
r~s
CO
CO
ON
NO
co
-cr no m cm o co
t~> oo on r-~ oo no
CO -3- r> v£> rH
-tfvooooomomoooor^oo
cMr^cMr^sj-r^oooNONr-mmm
OOmOrH-3-COOr-ICOO-CNvOCO
X>
in
CO
CM
co
ON
no
no
rH
rH
<r
<f
CO
r^
st
o
r^
o
o
ON
<r
CO
O -3 CN
NO CO CN
cn <r on
o
-*
CM
co
CO
o
CO
o
m
CM
o
r^
CN
rH
43
j=
01
01
3
H
3
U
0)
n
0)
DO
rO
01
CO
IH
01
X>
ag
00
a)
0)
0)
rJ
•H
01
0)
W
CO
oo
CO
CO
<
c
co
00
u
U
CO
u
!-i
H
o
U
CD
a
O
CO
a
O
O
H
o
a
CO
!-i
M
3
3
1-1
3
1-1
3
l-i
3
Ql
01
l-i
M
01
l-i
01
^
01
rJ
CO
H-l
14H
01
XI
0)
x>
MH
01
XI
■4-1
01
(0
XI
01
IH
XI
01
•H
-H
01
01
0)
0)
•H
01
01
■H
01
CO
Q) rJ
01
•H
01
cfl
c
C
CO
00
CO
oo
c
CO
00
a
cfl
CO
OO <
co
C
00
r-l
O
0
U
cfl
|4
CO
o
1-1
CO
o
J-l
u
CO H
rJ
o
CO
rj
cj
o
a
CO
o
CO
u
CJ
CO
o
O
o
co o
O
u
CO
d
01
6
a)
>
o
u
a
or.
c
•H
U
•H
3
cr
0)
03
•
CO
4-1
00
o •
NO
nO
rH
r->
rH O
to
ON
VO
CM
rH 2
NO
r-^
oo
<C
ON
3
0
u
e
o
4-1
on
ON
<u
rH
o
S
0)
C!
01
CO
s
0)
rH
S
01
1
M
0)
01
4-1
01
u
4-)
B
rH
c_>
l-i
CO
01
3
u
e
o
01
>.
4-)
o
01
S
o
O
4-4
o
Xi
rH
00 U-4
1-1
s
rH
•H
O
tJ
0
<
M
o
<:
o
60
c e
•H 0)
N 4.)
CO CO
h >,
O co
o) a)
00 4-1
ON
ON
ON
ON
C -H
rH
rH
rH
rH
co co
(2
^
B
ccj
ij
01
1-1
o
M
o
I*
XI
■r->
1-1
CO
T3
0)
S
c
>
CO
•H
rJ
03
00 CM
O O
O CM
co oo
00 O
CO
cd
U
01
C
rH
H
rH
CO
fH
rH
•H
x:
-*
C
Ol
U
a
01 4-1
•H
B
O.
c
01 3
XI
u
>>
0)
u o
CO
<
o
03
CJ
CJ
0>
u
1-1
•
s >
01
0)
0)
b
o u
01
s
D.
U CO
01
o
P.
U 4-1
£
rJ
P
H
< co
3
(I
A-86
0
3 .
XI 03
O '
u
cm <;
CU
60
c
OS
I
u
CO 6T
•H C
X -H
w
X
rH
<y>
o
vo
X
CN
w
c
o
•H
4J <X>
4-> >,
60
0)
>
o
rH 00 \0\
lO N N
f^J -* VO
o
m
O
h
V
CO
CO
>4-l
CO
CO
•H J
fl
nl
C <
p
M
O H
O
O
U O
H
4->
o •
rH O
3*
•
CU
•u
6
fi
n)
cu
o
S3
CU
o
rH
^^
4-1
3
C
O
CO
CU
U
4-J
e
-C
c
4-1
4-1
rH
0)
O
•H
CU
I
rH
TJ
£>
rH
3
CU
>
o
u
<
>-)
SS
a.
60
S
c e
M
•H CU
N 4J
Prf
U
« co
Pi
C/}
O
U >y
CI
O co
•H
S
60
CU cu
c
60 4J
vO
r^
■rH
C -H
CM
CN
M
nj c/3
■H
Pi
3
ct1
cu
Pi
CO
u
B
CO
d
u
c
0)
u o
•H
E
O P-,
«
4->
•i-i
4-1
o
m t)
C
rH
IS c
3
i-H
n)
O
<
rJ
S
A-87
APPENDIX 7
RANGE SITES
A-89
CLIMAX VEGETATION OF MONTANA
BASED ON SOILS AND CLIMATE
Site descriptions
in the publication
and Climate" (Ross
taken from county
graphic maps, Soil
Site Descriptions,
productivity and 1
from SCS Technical
For several range
from similar sites
are based primarily in information provided
"Climax Vegetation of Montana Based on Soils
and Hunter 1976) , with supplemental data
soil surveys, U.S. Geological Survey topo-
Conservation Service (SCS) Technical Range
and BLM administrative records. Range site
ivestock carrying capacity data was obtained
Range Site Descriptions where available.
sites, this information had to be extrapolated
Rolling Plains Landform
1. Silty Range Site, 10-14" Precipitation Zone (P.Z.)
Total acres within ES area - 47,604
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation*
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Little bluestem
Prairie junegrass
Porcupine grass
Blue grama
Native legumes
Silver sagebrush
Western snowberry
Winterf at
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure**
Blue grama
Needleand thread
Sandberg bluegrass
Prairie junegrass
Threadleaf sedge
Silver sagebrush
Clubmoss
Fringed sagewort
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
Plains pricklypear
2. Silty-Clayey Range Site Complex, 10-14" P.Z
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 2
Proposed AMPs 5
Revised AMPs 1
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
area - 148,239
54,578
13,013
67,591
This site occurs on undulating to rolling uplands, low
terraces, fans, and flood plains. Slopes range from 0-15%
but generally are 4-8%. This site occurs on all exposures
Elevation ranges from 2,000 to 3,500 feet.
*Listed in approximate order of dominance
**Based primarily on response to grazing pressure by cattle
A-90
Relative composition by weight of the climax vegetation on
this site is approximately 85% grass, 10% f orbs , and 5%
shrubs. Total annual production for excellent condition
range averages 1,400 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity varies from 2.5 a/AUM (acres per animal unit month)
on excellent condition range to 10 a/AUM on poor condition
range
Silty: Same as Site No. 1
Clayey;
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Little bluestem
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Biscuitroot
Milkvetch
American vetch
Silver sagebrush
Winterf at
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Sandberg bluegrass
Blue grama
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Silver sagebrush
Fringed sagewort
Curlycup gumweed
Eriogonum
Biscuitroot
Onion
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
Plains pricklypear
3. Silty Range Site, 10-14" P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 58,619
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Needleandthread
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Basin wildrye
Prairie junegrass
Native legumes
Silver sagebrush
Blue grama
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Needleandthread
Threadleaf sedge
Hairy goldenaster
Golden pea
Fringed sagewort
Other weedy forbs
Big sagebrush
Rabbitbrush
Broom snakeweed
Plains pricklypear
Clubmoss
A-91
4. Silty-Clayey Range Site Complex, 10-14" P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 206,931
Public lands within AMPs 19,897
Other lands within AMPs 10, 379
Total 30,276
This site occurs on terraces and nearly level to moderately
steep fans and footslopes, and ranges in elevation from
2,500 to 5,000 feet.
Relative composition by weight of the climax vegetation on
this site is approximately 85% grass, 10% forbs, and 5%
shrubs. Total annual production of excellent condition
range averages 1,200 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity varies from 2.5 a/AUM on excellent condition range
to 13 a/AUM on range in poor condition.
Silty : Same as Site No. 3
Clayey : Same as Site No. 5
5. Clayey and Shallow Clay Range Site Association, 10-14" P.Z
Total acres within ES area - 394,898
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Green needlegrass
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Need leand thread
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Milkvetch
Scarlet globemallow
Winterfat
Prairie sandreed*
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Prairie junegrass
Sandberg bluegrass
Plains reedgrass
Blue grama
Eriogonum
Western yarrow
Fringed sagewort
Curlycup gumweed
Biscuitroot
Onion
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
Broom snakeweed
Rabbitbrush
*Growing on fractured shale outcrops
A-92
6. Silty Range Site, 10-14" P.Z.
(Includes thin breaks too small or irregular to delineate)
Total acres within ES area - 408,564
Existing AMPs 6
Proposed AMPs 3 0
Public lands within AMPs
Otner lands within AMPs
Total
165,504
137,549
303,053
This site occurs on undulating to rolling uplands, low
terraces, fans and flood plains. Slopes range from 0-15%
but are generally 4-8%. This site occurs on all exposures,
and elevation ranges from 2,000 to 3,500 feet.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this
site is approximately 85% grass, 10% f orbs , and 5% shrubs.
Total annual production for excellent condition ranee
averages about 1,500 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity varies from 2-8 a/AUM on excellent condition range
to 11.1 a/AUM on range in poor condition.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Need leand thread
Green needlegrass
Blue grama
Little bluestem
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Big bluestem
Threadleaf sedge
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Native legumes
Big sagebrush
Silver sagebrush
Skunkbush sumac
Winterf at
Western snowberry
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Blue grama
Need leand thread
Threadleaf sedge
Sandberg bluegrass
Prairie junegrass
Silver sagebrush
Fringed sagewort
Hairy goldenaster
Western yarrow
Pussytoes
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
Western snowberry
Broom snakeweed
Plains pricklypear
7.
Silty-Clayey Range Site Complex, 10-14" P.Z
area - 326,104
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 1
Proposed AMPs 2 9
Revised AMPs 1
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
142,473
80,881
223,354
Physiographic features are similar to site number 6.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this
range site is also the same.
A-93
Total annual production for rangeland in excellent condition
averages 1,400 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying capacity
varies from 2-8 a/AUM on excellent condition range to 11.1
a/AUM on poor condition range.
(Includes thin breaks too small or irregular to delineate)
Silty : Same as Site No. 6
Clayey: Same as Site No. 8
Clayey and Shallow Clay Range Site Association, 10-14'
area - 620,532
8.
P.Z
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 4
Proposed AMPs 2 7
Revised AMPs 2
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
380,040
108,933
488,973
This site occurs on undulating to rolling or strongly
dissected uplands. Slopes range from 0-35%, and elevation
ranges from 2,000 to 3,500 feet.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this
site is approximately 85% grass, 10% f orbs , and 5% shrubs.
Total annual production for range in excellent condition
averages about 1,200 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity varies from 2.5 a/AUM on excellent condition range
to 11.1 a/AUM on poor range.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Little bludstem
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Prairie sandreed*
Native legumes
Big sagebrush
Nuttall saltbush
Winterf at
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Buf f alograss
Curlycup gumweed
Golden pea
Biscuitroot
Onion
Other weedy forbs
Big sagebrush
Broom snakeweed
Annuals
*Growing on fractured shale outcrops
A-94
9. Dense Clay-Clayey-Saline Upland Range Site Complex,
10- IV P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 160,321
Existing AMPs 2
Public lands within AMPs 63,627
Other lands within AMPs 5, 072
Total 68,699
The topography of this range site varies from undulating
to rolling uplands, low terraces, fans, and flood plains on
the clayey and dense clay soil types, to nearly level to
gently shoping foot slopes of shale beds. Slopes are generally
about 4 to 8%. This site occurs on all exposures, and elevation
ranges from 2,000 to 3,500 feet.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this
site is about 65% grass, 5% forbs, and 30% shrubs on the
saline uplands soils, and approximately 85% grass, 10% forbs,
and 5% shrubs on the dense clay and clayey soils. Total annual
average production ranges from 500 pounds per acre on saline
upland soils to 1,300 pounds per acre on dense clay soils.
Livestock carrying capacity ranges from 2.5 a/AUM on
excellent condition clayey soils to 100 a/AUM on poor
condition saline upland soils.
Dense Clay:
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Prairie junegrass
Big sagebrush
Nuttall saltbush
Greasewood
Basin wildrye
Clayey: Same as Site No. 8
Saline' Upland:
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Alkali sacaton
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Greasewood
Basin wildrye
Nuttall saltbush
Inland saltgrass
Bottlebrush squirreltail
Sandberg biuegrass
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Big sagebrush
Prairie junegrass
Sandberg biuegrass
Golden pea
Curlycup gumweed
Eriogonum
Annuals
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Inland saltgrass
Greasewood
Foxtail barley
Bottlebrush squirreltail
Poverty weed
Belvedere summercypress
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
Rabbitbrush
A-95
10. Badlands, 10-14" P.Z.
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 1
Proposed ZvMPs 4
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
area - 50,375
15,848
9,499
25,347
This site consists of severely wooded, steep to very steep,
nearly barren lands. Deep ravines are formed by geological
erosion of the soft sedimentary beds. Elevation ranges from
2,000 to 3,500 feet.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this site
is approximately 80% grass, 5% forbs, and 15% shrubs. Total
annual production in excellent condition averages about 400
pounds per acre. Livestock carrying capacity varies from
20 a/AUM on range in excellent condition to 100 a/AUM on
poor condition range.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Little bluestem
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Prairie sandreed
Alkali sacaton
Prairie junegrass
Nuttall saltbush
Big sagebrush
American vetch
Plains muhly
Sideoats grama
Greasewood
Juniper
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Need leand thread
Threadleaf sedge
Blue grama
Plains reedgrass
Big sagebrush
Silver sagebrush
Juniper
Rabbitbrush
Broom snakeweed
Eriogonum
Phlox
Pussytoes
Hairy goldenaster
Golden pea
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
A-96
11. Silty Range Site, 10-14" P.Z.
Tot a], acres within ES
area - 112,673
Existing AMPs 1
Proposed AMPs 1
Revised AMPs 1
Public lands within AMP 20,203
Other lands within AMPs 2 0_i7_38
Total "40,941
This site occurs on undulating to rolling uplands, low
terraces, fans and flood plains. Slopes range from 0 to
15%, but generally are about 4 to 8%. This site occurs on
all exposures, and ranges in elevation from 2,500 to 5,000
feet.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this
site is about 85% grass, 10% forbs, and 5% shrubs. Total-
annual production on rangeiand in excellent condition
averages about 1,500 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity varies from 2.8 a/AUM on excellent condition range
to 11.1 a/AUM on poor condition range.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Nee ldeand thread
Threadleaf sedge
Prairie junegrass
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Native legumes
Big and silver sagebrush
Skunkbush sumac
Winterf at
Plants that Increase
w i th Grazing Pressure
Blue grama
Need leand thread
Sandberg bluegrass
Threadleaf sedge
Prairie junegrass
Big sagebrush
Western snowberry
Rabbitbrush
Broom snakeweed
Fringed sagewort
Hairy goldenaster
Western yarrow
Pussytoes
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
12. Silty Range Site, 15-19" P.Z.
Total acres within ES
Proposed AMPs 2
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
area - 16,259
3,030
625
3,655
This site is found in only one small area in Fergus County
within the ES area. Total annual production for this
site in excellent condition averages about 2,200 pounds
per acre. Livestock carrying capacity for this site varies
from 2.1 a/AUM on excellent condition range to 10.0 a/AUM
on range in poor condition.
A-97
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Iadho fescue
Green needlegrass
Basin wildrye
Need leand thread
Native legumes
Big sagebrush
Sticky geranium
Prairiesmoke
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Need leand thread
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Prairie junegrass
Sandberg bluegrass
Biq sagebrush
Western snowberry
Fringed sagewort
Golden pea
Scurfpea
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
13. Silty-Clayey Range Site Complex, 10-14" P.Z.
area - 25,519
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 2
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
5,669
4,127
9,796
The general topography, slope, exposure, relative vegetative
composition, and elevation are similar to Range Site Number
11.
Total annual production for this site in excellent condition
averages about 1,400 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity varies from 2.5 a/AUM on range in excellent condition
to 11.1 a/AUM on range in poor condition.
Silty ; Same as Site No. 11
Clayey: Same as Site No. 14.
14. Clayey and Shallow Clay Range Site Association,
10-14" P.Z.
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 3
Proposed AMPs 35
Public lands within AMPs
Other land within AMPs
Total
area - 1,377,548
134,375
143,292
277,667
This site occurs on rolling uplands, low terraces, fans,
flood plains, or strongly dissected uplands. Slopes range
from about 4 to 8% on clayey soils to 15 to 35% on shallow
clay soils. Elevation ranges from 2,500 to 5,000 feet.
Relative composition by weight of the vegetation on this
site is approximately 85% grass, 10% forbs, and 5% shrubs.
Total annual production for this site in excellent condition
is about 1,200 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying capacity
ranges from 2.5 a/AUM on excellent condition range to 11.1
a/AUM on range in poor condition.
A-98
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Western and thickspike
whcatgrass
Green neecllegrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Cusick bluegrass
Big sagebrush
Winterf at
Prairie sandreed*
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Big sagebrush
Blue grama
Prairie junegrass
Needl candthread
Sandberg bluegrass
Rabbi thrush
Broom snakeweed
Eriogonum
Annuals
White pointloco
Onion
Other weedy forbs
15. Clayey and Shallow Clay Range Site Association, 15-19" P.Z
area - 636,418
Total acres within ES
Proposed AMPs 1
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
520
_0
520
This site occurs in the uplands on slopes from nearly level
to moderately steep. Estimated total average yield of
forage per acre produced annually on climax excellent
condition range is 2,000 pounds per acre. Livestock carrying
capacity ranges from about 2.2 a/AUM to 11.1 a/AUM.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Columbia and green
needlegrass
Idaho fescue
Basin wildrye
Big sagebrush
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Prairie junegrass
Prairie sandreed*
Lupine
Other native legumes
Sticky geranium
Prairiesmoke
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Prairie junegrass
Idaho fescue
Cusick bluegrass
Big sagebrush
Western snowberry
Shrubby cinquefoil
Fringed sagewort
Milkvetch
Golden pea
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
:Growing on fractured shale outcrops
A-99
16. Forest-Grassland Complex, 12-14" P.Z., on very shallow
to deep soils with a frigid temperature regime. These
soils have light brown, loamy surfaces and occur on
rolling to steep terrain.
Total acres within ES area - 2,721
Forest: (50%)
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Ponderosa pine
Rocky Mountain juniper
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Western wheatgrass
Skunkbush sumac
Snowberry
Needle and thread
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Need leand thread
Western wheatgrass
Prairie junegrass
Snowberry
Rose
Fringed sagewort
Other weedy forbs
Rocky Mountain juniper will increase in areas where
ponderosa pine has been removed by fire, logging, insects,
or disease.
Grassland: (50%)
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Need leand thread
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Big sagebrush
Prairie sandreed
Native legumes
Prairie junegrass
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Need leand thread
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Big sagebrush
Broom snakeweed
Rabbitbrush
Fringed sagewort
Hairy goldenaster
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
17. Clayey and Shallow Clay Range Site Association, 10-14" P.Z
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 2
Proposed AMPs 10
Revised AMPs 1
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
area - 144,647
95,652
40,138
135,790
A-100
This is a common upland range site throughout the 10-14"
precipitation zone. It can occur at all elevations in the
landscape except those recicving more moisture.
Estimated total annual production for this site in excellent
condition is approximately 1,3 00 pounds per acre. Livestocy
carrying capacity on excellent condition range varies from
2.5 to 11 a/AUM on range in poor condition.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Basin wildrye
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Big sagebrush
Milkvetch
American vetch
Biscuitroot
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Big sagebrush
Prairie junegrass
Plains reedgrass
Cusick bluegrass
Rabbitbrush
Biscuitroot
Onion
White pointloco
Curlycup gumweed
Other weedy forbs
Plains pricklypear
Annuals
Riverbreaks Landform
18. Riverbreaks, 10-14" P.Z.
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 3
Proposed AMPs 30
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
area - 407,828
194,757
111,539
306,296
The riverbreaks range site is a composite of a variety of
soils, topography, and vegetative types. Narrow bands of
bottomlands are located adjacent to the river, hillsides are
steep, and tributary streams are steep walled. The land is
intricately dissected, particularly near the Missouri River.
Productivity is also quite variable, ranging from about 250
pounds per acre on shale outcrops to 1,300 pounds per acre
on the silty soil types. Livestock carrying capacity would
also vary from about 2 . 6 to 100 a/AUM.
A-101
Dominants in the
Climax Vcgotat ion
Ponderosa pine
Rocky Mountain juniper
Limber pine
Douglas-fir
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Prairie sandreed
Little bluestem
Greasewood
Big sagebrush
Need leand thread
Nuttall saltbush
Basin wildrye
Native legumes
Shadscaie saltbush
Creeping juniper
19. Riverbreaks, 10-14" P.Z
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Blue grama
Need leand thread
Big sagebrush
Sandberg oluegrass
Plains muhly
Prairie junegrass
Rabbitbrush
Broom snakeweed
Hairy goldenaster
Pussy toes
Fringed sagewort
Phlox
Other weedy forbs
Creeping juniper
Annuals
Total acres within ES
Existing AMPs 14
Proposed AMPs 7 8
Revised AMPs 5
Public lands within AMPs
Other lands within AMPs
Total
area - 1,075,107
627,039
340,421
967,460
This range site is the same as Number 18 except the order
of plant dominance.
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Ponderosa pine
Rocky Mountain juniper
Limber pine
Douglas-fir (north slopes)
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Green needlegrass
Prairie sandreed
Basin wildrye
Need leand thread
Greasewood
Big sagebrush
Creeping juniper
Native legumes
Prairie junegrass
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Need leand thread
Blue grama
Sandberg bluegrass
Prairie junegrass
Threadleaf sedge
Big sagebrush
Rabbitbrush
Creeping juniper
Fringed sagewort
Pussytoes
Hairy goldenaster
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
A-102
High PJains Land form
20. Silty Range Site, 15-19" P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 1,039,622
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Rough fescue
Idaho fescue
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Columbia needlegrass
Basin wildrye
Spike fescue
Parry danthonia
Slender wheatgrass
Lupine
Sticky geranium
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Prairiesmoke
Big sagebrush
Tall larkspur
Prairie junegrass
Timber danthonia
Big bluegrass
21. Silty Range Site, 20-24" P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 25,323
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Rough fescue
Columbia needlegrass
Richardson needlegrass
Mountain brome
Bearded wheatgrass
Slender wheatgrass
Basin wildrye
Idaho fescue
Lupine
Sticky geranium
Prairiesmoke
Tall larkspur
Big sagebrush
Spike fescue
Spike trisetum
Purple oniongrass
Nodding brome
Quaking aspen
American bistort
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Idaho fescue
Prairie junegrass
Timber danthonia
Big sagebrush
Kentucky bluegrass
Timothy
Shrubby cinquefoil
Lupine
Cinquefoil forbs
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Pussytoes
Western yarrow
Other weedy forbs
Threadleaf sedge
Sandberg bluegrass
Onespike danthonia
Annuals
Snowberry
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Idaho fescue
Canby bluegrass
Danthonia
Timothy
Kentucky bluegrass
Big sagebrush
Shrubby cinquefoil
Prairiesmoke
Cinquefoil forbs
Lupine
Mulesear wyethia
Tall larkspur
Other weedy forbs
Snowberry
Annuals
A-103
22. Silty-Clayey Range Site Complex, 15-19" P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 205,544
Silty : Same as Site No. 20
Clayey : Same as Site No. 23
23. Clayey and Shallow Clay Range Site Association, 15-19" P.Z
Total acres within ES area - 337,709
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Rough fescue
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Columbia needlegrass
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Idaho fescue
Basin wildrye
Lupine
Sticky geranium
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Big sagebrush
Prairfesmoke
Prairie junegrass
Deathcamas
Mountains Landform
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Idaho fescue
Western and thickspike
wheatgrass
Big sagebrush
Kentucky bluegrass
Timothy
Danthonia
Snowberry
Lupine
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Cinquefoil forbs
White pointloco
Other weedy forbs
Shrubby cinquefoil
Annuals
24. Alpine grassland on deep to moderately deep, well drained
to poorly drained soils with cryic temperature regimes.
These soils have dark brown and very dark brown surfaces
and occur on sloping to steep windswept mountain tops
above timberline. Soil parent materials variable.
40-70" P.Z.
White dryad is most commonly associated with well to
excessively drained soils derived from limestone. The
willows are confined to somewhat poorly drained soils.
Total acres within ES area - 1,793
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Tufted hairgrass
Sedge
Sheep fescue
Alpine bluegrass
Alpine timothy
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Sedge
Phlox
Pussytoes
Forgetmenot
Cinquefoil forbs
A- 104
25.
Native legumes Creeping silene
Wolf willow Eriogonum
Red mountainheath Shrubby cinquefoil
White dryad
Alpine bluebell
Blue joint
Purple reedgrass
Moss silene
Yellow avsns
Tufted Phlox
Eriogonum
American bistort
Shrubby cinquefoil
Forest-Grassland Complex, 15-19" P.Z., on shallow to
moderately deep soils with a frigid temperature regime
These soils have brown to dark brown surfaces under
grassland, and brown to gray surfaces under forest and
occur on sloping to steep terrain.
Total acres within ES area - 158,084
Estimated annual production for this site in excellent
condition averages about 1,300 pounds per acre. The live-
stock carrying capacity would be similar to range site 26
for the forest, and site 13 for the grassland.
Forest :
(60%)
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Common snowberry
Woods rose
Timber danthonia
Kentucky bluegrass
Lupine
Other weedy forbs
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Douglas-fir
Common snowberry
White spiraea
Oregongrape
Heartleaf arnica
Columbia needlegrass
Idaho fescue
Bearded wheatgrass
Kinnikinnick
Woods rose
Utah honeysuckle
Common juniper
Lupine
Wood lily
With a loss of the climax forest overstory, ponderosa
pine and occasionally lodgepole pine can occupy the
Douglas-fir climax forest sites.
A-105
Grassland: (40%)
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Idaho fescue
Columbia needlegrass
Basin wildrye
Rough fescue
Spike fescue
Parry danthonia
Slender wheatgrass
Lupine
Sticky geranium
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Prairiesmoke
Big sagebrush
Tall larkspur
Prairie junegrass
Timber danthonia
Big bluegrass
Plants that Increase
With Grazing Pressu r e
Idaho fescue
Prairie junegrass
Timber danthonia
Big sagebrush
Kentucky bluegrass
Timothy
Shrubby cinquefoil
Lupine
Cinquefoil forbs
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Pussytoes
Western yarrow
Other weedy forbs
Threadleaf sedge
Sandberg bluegrass
Onespike danthonia
Annuals
Common snowberry
26. Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine climax forests on deep
soils. Terrain is steep to very steep mountain slopes,
Parent materials are generally colluvium from igneous
intrusive or limestone sources, 16-22" P.Z.
Ponderosa pine climax forests occur on strongly sloping
to very steep south and west facing slopes at elevations of
4,000-6,000 feet and east aspects to about 5,000 feet.
Associated soils have a frigid temperature regime and light
brownish gray surfaces. Douglas-fir climax forests occur
above the ponderosa pine forests on east, west, and south
aspects and on steep to very steep north facing slopes from
about 4,000-7,000 feet. Soils associated with the Douglas-
fir climax forests have frigid or cyric temperature regimes
and light gray or dark yellowish brown surfaces. The cryic
soils occur only on north facing slopes within the cooler
and more moist portions of the Douglas-fir climax forest.
Where the Douglas-fir climax forest occurs to 7,000 feet on
north facing slopes, the soils are developed in parent
materials derived from limestone sources, have a cryic
temperature regime, and dark yellowish brown surfaces.
Elevational limits of this unit are 4,000-7,000 feet.
Total acres within ES area - 140,526
Public lands within AMPs 6,275
Other lands within AMPs 3,037
Total 9,312
A-106
Livestock carrying capacity on sites in excellent condition
vary from 2.0 a/AUM on soils that are deep to moderately
deep with a crown cover of about 10%, to 10.0 a/AUM on
shallow soils with 60% crown cover. Sites in poor condition
vary from 6.7 a/AUM on deep to moderately deep soils with a
20% crown cover, to 20 a/AUM on moderately deep soils with
a 60% crown cover.
Typical overstory composition is:
Douglas-fir
Ponderosa pine
60%
40%
Dominants in the
Climax Veaetation
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Douglas-fir
Ponderosa pine
Rocky Mountain juniper
Pinegrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Common snowberry
Idaho fescue
White spirea
Elk sedge
Mallow ninebark
Oregongrape
Heartleaf arnica
Columbia needlegrass
Bearded wheatgrass
Mountain brome
Richardson needlegrass
Twinf lower
Kinnikinnick
Woods rose
Utah honeysuckle
Common juniper
Lupine
Pinegrass
Danthonia
Common snowberry
Kentucky bluegrass
Prairie junegrass
Other weedy forbs
Woods rose
Mallow ninebark
In this forest complex, with a loss of the climax
forest overstory, ponderosa pine can occupy the Douglas-
fir climax forest sites on frigid soils. Lodgepole
pine frequently occupies the Douglas-fir sites on soils
with a cryic temperature regime. Rocky Mountain juniper
may increase on ponderosa pine climax forest sites.
A-107
27. Subalpine Fir, Douglas-fir, and Ponderosa Pine Climax
Forests. Parent materials of these soils are derived
from quartzites, argillites, and limestones of the Belt
Series and igneous intrusive rocks, 16-35" P.Z.
Ponderosa pine climax forests occur on moderately steep to
very steep south and west facing slopes at elevations below
about 5,000 feet. Associated soils have a frigid temperature
regime and grayish brown surfaces. Douglas-fir climax
forests occur on strongly sloping to very steep south and
west facing mountain slopes at elevations of 5,000-7,500
feet, with north and east aspects below 5,000-5,500 feet in
elevation. Associated soils have frigid temperature regimes
and light browish gray surfaces. In areas where the soils
are derived from limestone or dolomite slopewash and are
calcareous to with 24 inches or less of the soil surface,
the upper boundary of the Douglas-fir zone may be 1,000 feet
higher. Here soil surfaces are commonly brown to dark brown
and may have a cryic temperature regime. The subalpine fir
climax forest occurs above the upper limits of the Douglas-
fir climax forest zone and is associated with soils having a
cryic temperature regine and light yellowish brown to pale
brown surfaces, occasionally light gray surfaces where the
subsoils are moderately fine in texture or finer. Englemann
spruce occasionally is the climax forest overstory component
along the lower portion of the subalpine fir zone on soils
with favorable moisture-holding capacity or where extra
moisture is available. Elevational limits of the unit are
3,000-8,000 feet.
Total acres within the ES area - 270,684
Proposed AMPs 1
Public lands within AMPs 716
Other lands within AMPs _8
Total 724
Livestock carrying capacity on this site will vary depending
on overstory composition, crown cover, and soils. On
excellent condition sites with subalpine fir the dominant
species, crown cover about 20% of deep or moderately deep
soils, carrying capacity would be about 2.2 a/AUM. On
poor condition sites with 20% crown cover the carrying
capacity would be about 20 a/AUM.
Typical overstory composition is:
Subalpine fir 50%
Douglas-fir 35%
Ponderosa pine 10%
Engelmann spruce 5%
A-108
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Subalpine fir
Douglas-fir
Ponderosa pine
Engelmann spruce
Pinegrass
Grouse whortleberry
Dwarf huckleberry
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Mountain brome
Columbia needlegrass
Elk sedge
Heartleaf arnica
Common snowberry
Mallow ninebark
Blue wildrye
Richardson needlegrass
Bearded wheatgrass
Idaho fescue
Beargrass
Pough fescue
Oregongrape
Twinf lower
Plants that Increase
with Grazing Pressure
Pinegrass
Danthonia
Prairie junegrass
Kentucky bluegrass
Other weedy forbs
Annuals
Snowberry
Rose
Mallow ninebark
28. Subalpine Fir and Douglas-fir Climax Forests. Soil
parent materials are high variable and include sedimentary,
igneous, and metamorphic rock sources, 20-45" P.Z.
Douglas-fir climax forests occur on foot slopes to the
valleys, strongly sloping to very steep south and west
facing slopes to elevations of 6,500-7,000 feet, and
north and east aspects below elevations of 5,500-6,000
feet. Associated soils generally have light brownish gray
surfaces. In areas where the soils are derived from lime-
stone or dolomite slopewash and are calcareous to within 24"
or less of the soil surface, the upper boundary of the
Douglas-fir zone may be 1,000 feet higher. Here soil surfaces
are commonly brown to dark grayish brown. The subalpine fir
climax forest zone occurs above the Douglas-fir zone and is
associated with soils having light yellowish brown to pale
brown surfaces, occasionally light gray surfaces where the
subsoils are moderately fine or finer in texture. Engelmann
spruce occasionally is the climax forest overstory component
along the lower portion of the subalpine fir zone on soils
with favorable moisture-holding capacity or where extra
moisture is available. Elevational limits of this unit are
5,000-9,000 feet.
Total acres within ES area - 87,973
A-109
Typical overstory composition is
Subalpine fir 65%
Douglas-fir 25%
Engelmann spruce 10%
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
Subalpine fir
Douglas-fir
Engelmann spruce
Pinegrass
Grouse whortleberry
Heartleaf arnica
Blue huckleberry
Common beargrass
Elk sedge
Dwarf huckleberry
Bearded wheatgrass
Mallow ninebark
Oregon grape
Saskatoon serviceberry
Richardson needlegrass
Columbia needlegrass
Spike * trisetum
Blue wildrye
Idaho fescue
Plants that Increase
With Grazing Pressure
Pinegrass
Danthonia
Kentucky bluegrass
Weedy forbs
Annuals
Common snowberry
Rose
29. Spruce and Douglas-fir Climax Forests. Parent materials
are derived from limestones of the Big Snowy Group of
Mississippian age, 20-45" P.Z.
Douglas-fir climax forests occur on strongly sloping to very
steep south and west facing slopes to elevations of 6,000-
6,500 feet. Associated soils have a frigid temperature
regime and grayish brown surfaces. Spruce and subalpine fir
occur on strongly sloping to steep north and east facing
slopes, and above the Douglas-fir climax forests on south
and west slopes. Associated soils have a cyric temperature
regime. The spruce occurs predominantly on soils with brown
surface layers and calcareous; layers within about 24 inches
or less of the soil surface. The subalpine fir occurs above
the spruce where the calcareous layers are deeper in the
soil or on soils within the spruce zone derived from non-
calcareous parent materials. Elevational range of this unit
is 5,500-8,000 feet.
Total acres within ES area - 120,354
A-110
Typical overstory composition is
Spruce 50%
Douglas-fir 40%
Subalpine fir 10%
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation
White spruce
Douglas-fir
Subalpine fir
Heartleaf arnica
Elk sedge
Common snowberry
Pinegrass
Common juniper
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Idaho fescue
Twinf lower
Grouse whortleberry
Columbia needlegrass
Mountain brome
Richardson needlegrass
Blue %wildrye
Bearded wheatgrass
Mallow ninebark
Plants that Increase
w i th Grazing Pressure
Pinegrass
Danthonia
Kentucky bluegrass
Weedy forbs
Annuals
Common snowberry
Rose
Mallow ninebark
30. Rockland and Mixed High Elevation Vegetation. Eleva-
tional limits are 5,000-11,000 feet, 40-110" P.Z.
Total acres within ES area - 11,673
Typical composition is:
Rockland
Vegetation
70%
30%
Well formed forest vegetation occurs on deep soils in
glacial cirque basins included within the unit. Alpine
vegetation can be found on sloping to steep windswept
mountains above timberline on deep to moderately deep soils.
The krummholz occurs in between the forest and alpine on
windswept areas where trees become stunted and deformed.
Soils are shallow to deep. Occasionally, this unit includes
rock outcrop areas well within the general forest zone.
A-111
Dominants in the
Climax Vegetation*
Subalpine fir
Whitebark pine
Limber pine
Mountain hemlock
Alpine larch
Sheep fescue
Slender wheatgrass
Bluebunch wheatgrass**
Alpine bluegrass
Red mountainheath
Phlox
Pussytoes
Forgetmenot
Stonecrop
Groundsel
Gordon ivesia
Elphanthead pedicularis
Moss silene
White dryad
*Plants are not listed in order of dominance
**Below 6,000 feet
A-112
APPENDIX 8
VISUAL RESOURCES
A-113
APPENDIX 8
VISUAL RESOURCES
The analysis of the visual resources follows the
guidelines set out by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment Visual Resource Management Manual 6310
and 6320. The inventory methodology can be found
in Manual 6310 and the analysis of the visual im-
pacts or contrast can be found in Manual 6320.
The inventory of the visual resource values is
composed of four parts: scenery quality, visual sen-
sitivity, visual zones, and visual resource manage-
ment classes. Scenery quality, visual sensitivity,
and visual zones are three components which
make up the visual resource management classes.
The Scenery Quality Inventory Chart (Figure 1)
includes the following key factors which are used to
determine scenery quality: landform, vegetation,
color, water, uniqueness, and intrusions. Numerical
values are assigned for each key factor. These
values are added and each rating area is placed
into Scenery Quality Class A, B, or C, in accord-
ance with the categories shown in the chart.
A second measurement of the visual resource is
found in the human or social response values.
These values are divided into a measurement of
visual sensitivity and visual zones.
The visual sensitivity level is an index to the
relative importance of the social response to the
visual environment within the area. Areas are rated
as high, medium, or low. The visual sensitivity level
analysis was determined by the procedure de-
scribed in Bureau of Land Management Manual
6310. These areas were mapped based upon var-
ious major roadway corridors.
Each sensitivity criterion was measured against
all others to determine the relative weighting of the
criteria (Figure 2). The resultant weighting and sig-
nificance of each criterion is shown on the Format
for Determining Sensitivity Levels (Figure 3). The
sensitivity level is determined by placing the weight-
ing in the appropriate criteria box and adding the
numbers in each level. The highest score deter-
mines the level.
The first three measurements of visual values
(scenery quality, visual sensitivity, and visual zones
as explained in the main text) were converted into
visual resource management classes by use of the
matrix shown in the Chart for Determining Visual
Resource Management Class (Figure 4).
In the visual impact level determination stage,
the visual contrast rating is the means used to
determine the visual impact of the project. It is also
used to determine if the proposed project meets
the visual resource management (VRM) objectives
for its corresponding VRM class.
The visual contrast created by the proposed
project can be measured by determining the con-
trast caused by that activity in each of the basic
elements composing a landscape (form, line, color,
texture). The ease of detecting contrast varies on a
scale from 4 for form; 3 for line; 2 for color; and 1
for texture. Based on a comparison of the project
with the existing landscape, numbers are assigned
that indicate the degree of contrast; 3 for strong, 2
for moderate, and 1 for weak. A direct multiplier is
used for an indication of the strength of the con-
trast.
The contrast rating is used as a measure of
whether or not a proposed project meets the objec-
tives of the appropriate VRM class. The following
standards were applied to determine if the pro-
posed projects would meet the VRM objectives as-
signed to the area.
Class I. The contrast rating for any one element
may not exceed 1 (weak), and the total contrast
rating must be less than 10.
Class II. The contrast rating for any one element
should not exceed 2 (moderate), and the total con-
trast rating may not exceed 1 0.
Class III. The contrast rating for any one element
should not exceed 2 (moderate), and the total con-
trast rating may not exceed 16.
Class IV. The total contrast rating should not
exceed 20.
The criteria used to determine the proposed
project's visual impact level (see Figure 5) were as
follows:
1. If the contrast rating scores met the above re-
quirement, the visual impact level would be "low."
2. If the contrast exceeds the requirements for one
or more element (form, line, color, texture), but not
for the feature, the visual impact level would be
"moderate."
3. If the contrast exceeds both the element and
feature requirements, the visual impact level would
be "high."
The contrast rating can be used in mitigating the
visual impact, it quickly points out the elements and
the features that will cause the greatest visual
impact. This provides a guide to the most effective
method of reducing the visual impact of the pro-
posed project. By stipulating mitigating measures
which will reduce the degree of contrast in the
elements with the highest contrast rating, the visual
impact can be lowered most effectively.
A-114
Figure 1
Scenery Quality Inventory Chart
KEY FACTORS
RATING CRITERIA AND SCORE
1 LAND FORM
Vertical or near vert.
cal cliffs, spires, highly
eroded formations,
massive rock outcrops.
Steep canyon walls,
mesas, interesting
erosional patterns.
variety in size & shape
of land forms 2
Rolling hills, foothills,
flat valley bottoms
1
2 COLOR
Rich color combina-
tions variety or vivid
contrasts in the color
of soil, rocks, vege-
Some variety in colors
and contrast of the
soil, rocks & vegeta-
tion, but not dominant
2
Subtle color variations,
little contrast,
generally muted tones
Nothing really eye
catching 1
3 WATER
Still, chance for
reflections or cascad-
ing white water a
dominant factor in the
landscape 4
Moving and in view or
Still but not dominant
2
Absent, or present but
1
4 VEGETATION
tion in form, texture,
pattern, and type 4
Some variation in
pattern and texture,
but only one or two
major types 2
Little or no variation,
contrast lacking
1
5 UNIQUENESS
One of a kind or very
rare within region
6
Unusual but similar to
others within the
region
2
interesting tn its
setting, but fairly
common within the
region
1
6 INTRUSIONS
Free from aesthetically
undesirable or dis-
cordant sights and
influences
2
Scenic quality is some-
what depreciated by
inharmonious intru-
sions but no so exten-
sive that the scenic
qualities are entirely
negated 1
Intrusions are so
extensive that scenic
qualities are for the
most part nullified
4
Scenery A = 15-24
Scenery B = 10-14
Scenery C = 1-9
SOURCE BLM Manual 6310,1975
EXPLANATION OF RATING CRITERIA
Land Form or topography becomes more interesting
as it gets steeper and more massive Examples of out-
standing land forms are found in the Grand Canyon,
the Sawtooth Mountain Range in Idaho, the Wrangle
Mountain Range in Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain
National Park
Color Consider the overall color of the basic
components of the landscape (ie. soil, rocks, vege-
2 tatton, etc ) as they appear during the high-use season
Key factors to consider in rating "color" are variety,
contrast, and harmony
Water is the ingredient which adds movement or
serenity to a scene The degree to which water
dominates the scene is the primary consideration in
selecting the rating score
Vegetation Give primary consideration to the variety
4 of patterns, forms, and texture created by the vege-
tation
Uniqueness This factor provides an opportunity to
give added importance to one or all of the scenic
features that appear to be relatively unique within
any one physiographic region There may also be
cases where a separate evaluation of each of the key
factors does not give a true picture of the overall
scenic quality of an area Often it is a number of not
so spectacular elements in the proper combination
that produces the most pleasing scenery — the
uniqueness factor can be used to recognize this type
of area and give it the added emphasis it needs
Intrusions Consider the impact of man-made
improvements on the aesthetic quality These
intrusions can have a positive or negative aesthetic
impact
A-115
Figure 2
Format For Sensitivity Level
Criteria Weighting 1/
</>
c
o
w
h-
■o
c
o
V)
w
o
o
0)
6
3
O
>
m
o
0
«/T
w
>
E
"o
w
<u
E
3
o
>
4>
M
3
Use Association (Wild and Scenic
River) (Wildlife Refuge)
CO
0)
■o
3
<
>.
'c
3
E
E
o
o
Agricultural / Grazing
Land Use (Non- BLM)
Other Agency Use
and Attitudes
</>
Q.
3
O
O
o
c
0>
E
c
o
w
'>
C
Ul
Weight
a
Adjusted^
Use Volume
Cars and Trains
^
*
*
^
^
*
0
I
Use Volume
Trails, Rivers, etc.
-r
<r
*
<r
<r
4
5
Use Association
(Wild and Scenic River
(Wildlife Refuge)
)
<-
<r
<r
<-
6
7
Community
Attitudes
<r
<r
<-
4
5
Agricultural/
Grazing Land Use
(Non-BLM)
t
<-
3
4
Other Agency Use
and Attitudes
<-
3
4
Environmental
Groups
I
2
■ Arrows indicate which of the two values being compared (such as the use
volume of cars and trains versus the use volume of trails, rivers, etc ) is
considered more sensitive in the area being rated Based on a comparison
of each sensitivity criterion against all others, a ranking of the importance
of all values is obtained
2|f one or more elements should end up 0, add 1 to all weightings to prevent
elimination of the criteria
SOURCE: BLM Manual 6310, 1975
A-116
FIGURE 3
FORMAT FOR DETERMINING SENSITIVITY LEVEL
CRITERIA&
WEIGHT
SENSITIVITY LEVEL
HIGH USE
MEDIUM USE
LOW USE
Use volume (total use, no
distinction between types)
cars and trains
Segments of travel routes,
use sites or population
centers which receive 200,000
or more visits/yr. or more
than 200 vehicles/day (ADT
year round) or comparable
degree of use on a seasonal
basis.
Segments of travel routes,
use sites or population
centers which receive 20,000
to 200,000 visits/yr. or 20 to
200 vehicles/day (ADT year
round), or comparable degree
of use on a seasonal basis.
Travel route segments with
less than 20,000 visit/yr. or
less than 20 vehicle/day. (ADT
year round)
Weight
1
(2)
Use volume - trails, rivers,
water bodies
20,000 or more visits/yr
2,000-20,000 visits/yr.
Less than 2,000 visits/yr.
Weight
5
(3).
Use association - Upper
Missouri Wild & Scenic River
Major
secondary
Minor
Weight
7
(4)
Rural community
relationships & attitudes
Protection of the visual
resource is important
Protection of the visual
resource is not important.
Weight
5
(5)
Agricultural/grazing
land use (non-BLM)
Critical
Not important
Weight
4
(6)
Other agency use and
planning attitudes
Major, national or regional in
scope
Secondary sub-region or state
Minor local
Weight
4
(7)
Environmental groups
Weight
2
TOTAL
HIGH USE
11
MEDIUM USE
9
LOW USE
8
INSTRUCTION Check the column that most nearly applies, then add the weight to the column checked The
column with the highest weighted score indicates the sensitivity level that should be used
SOURCE BLM MANUAL 6(10 1975
A-117
Figure 4
Chart for Determining Visual Resource
Management Class
2VISUAL SENSITIVITY LEVEL
HIGH MEDIUM
LOW
SPECIAL AREAS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SCENERY A
II
II
II
II
1 .1
II
II
CLASS B
II
III
IV
III
IV
IV
IV
C
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
FG
BG
SS
FG
BG
SS
SS
3 VISUALZONES
1 SCENERY QUALITY INVENTORY
A, B,C
2VISUAL SENSITIVITY LEVEL
High
Medium
Low
3VISUAL ZONES
FG — Foreground-Middleground
BG — Background
SS — Seldom Seen
NOTE: Class I applies only to classified special areas, e.g.,
Wilderness, Primitive, Natural Areas, etc. This quality
standard is established through legislation or policy.
Class V applies to areas identified in the scenery quality
inventory where the quality class has been reduced
because of unacceptable intrusions.
SOURCE: BLM Manual 6310, 1975
A-118
Figure 5
DETERMINATION OF VISUAL IMPACT LEVEL
PART I
VRM Management Classes
PART 2
Visual Resource Contrast Rating
IMPACT LEVEL
o
I
n
nr
EC
ELEMENT
< 2x
< 3x
< 3x
—
FEATURE
< 10
< II
< 17
< 21
UJ
1-
<
or
UJ
Q
O
2
ELEMENT
> 2x
3x
3x
FEATURE
< 10
< II
< 17
X
o
I
ELEMENT
> 2x
3x
3x
FEATURE
> 10
> II
> 17
> 21
PROJECT
Fence
Reservoir
Well -
Artesian
Pump-type (rolling
plains nverbreaks)
Pump-type (mountains)
Spring
Pipeline (Buried)
(1/- Maximum Contrast Rating =30)
CONTRAST
CONTRAST
RATING 1/
PROJECT
RATING
SCORE
SCORE
13
Stock Water Tank
12
13
Cattleguard
10
12
Rainwater Catchment
22
Type I3T Fence Crossing
13
17
Contour Furrowing
16
16
Plowing and Seeding
16
13
Sagebrush Spraying
16
9
Roads and Trails - (rollinc
1 plains
and river
breaks)
14
(mountains)
II
Multiple Pasture Grazing
Systems
5
)
Salting Stations
9
A-119
APPENDIX 9
DYNAMIC REGIONAL ANALYSIS MODEL (DYRAM)
A-121
DYNAMIC REGIONAL ANALYSIS MODEL (DYRAM)
DYRAM is an economic model which traces impacts from initial changes in
income and/or employment for a given industrial sector throughout the
economy of the study area. More specifically, DYRAM defines the level
of growth resulting from a change in income and/or employment and
allocates that growth among sectors and over time periods. It is
designed to run in conjunction with other components of the socio-
economic data system (SEDS).
Following is an abbreviated schematic diagram of DYRAM and other
related SEDS components.
MASTER TAPES
(BASE DATA FOR
ALL COUNTIES)
SUBMODEL SORTS
AND GROUPS BASE
DATA FOR DESIRED
COUNTY GROUPING
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY MODEL
DEVELOPS INDUSTRIAL
EARNINGS, IMPORT AND
EXPORT RELATED EARNINGS
AND INCOME MULTIPLIERS
PRINTOUT OF
DESCRIPTIVE
STATISTICS
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE MODEL
DEVELOPS INDUSTRIAL
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE
INDEXES
DYRAM
Aylj
APj I M
ANCJ X Ml
INPUT
4y< and/orANi.
WHERE
y =
N =
P =
x =
M =
M =
I =
J =
income
employment
population
export related earnings
import related earnings
income multipliers
1 ,. ... ,16 industries
1 , ,5 periods
A-122
APPENDIX 10
METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING RANGE CONDITION
A-123
APPENDIX 10
METHODOLOGY FOR PROJECTING RANGE CONDITION
Range condition projections in the ES area for
the proposed action and alternatives (Table 8-1) by
the year 2000 were computed by applying the rela-
tionship shown in Figure 1 to projections for the
year 2020. The condition class shifts for the years
2020 and 2000 for the proposed action are shown
in Table A10-1. Figure 1 gives the projected per-
centages of rangeland that would be in excellent
condition by the years 2000 and 2020 for the pro-
posed action and alternatives. Figure 1 is based on
the research cited in Chapter 3, Vegetation, past
experiences with grazing systems, range rehabilita-
tion projects, familiarity with the ES area, and pro-
fessional opinion.
The acreage distribution among the four range
condition classes by the year 2000 was obtained
for the proposed action, for example, by first deter-
mining the number of acres in excellent condition
by multiplying the total acreage (2,889,981) by 30
percent as this is the percent of excellent condition
projected for the year 2000 (Figure 1). Then, by
assuming the relative percentage distribution of the
condition class acreage would be the same at the
year 2000 as it was projected to be by 2020, the
remaining acreage in the proposed action was dis-
tributed on the same basis as the 2020 projection.
The other alternatives were computed in the same
way.
A-124
inoo
gi n u5
_■
OS CM T
O CM O
T
— ift
CO OS T
*-"
co m
— in
'X' CO
00 O in OS int^no iftCO
on t* v to t o - « coco
cm -<r co os on (D r- CO CM
N © »n (O — ' T t- CM **■ CM
in CO CO m N n CO CO CNOO
r-eoT co co co oo r~ co
00* — " OS* CO* o" CO* O* — * r-€
OS in CM CO — t—
CO 00 CO m
t O'r r*
*>}■ CO
CO t-
CO CO
— in
CM -V
CM
os o
iC OS
N WO t
— CN
CO
CO lO
CM
CM CM
CM O © <-< TOhh
T CO 'VO CO — •*»• ■***
r- co os — m tn ^ co
m* m* V co* r-" co* cm*
oi t- os
00 OS CD in
cn r- os co
^ tO CD —
CD* — '
CO CM
CO —
Q0 co r-
T U0 T
OS CO CO
os* 00*
CO t-
CM —
tT — OS 00
I— cm m CM
00 — T CO
CO CO
r- CD
in cm
JS
X
CO
CO
CO
CO
X
Tl
0)
w
O
CO
CO
o
OS
CO
CM
CO
o
m
00 >-H
CO CO
co
O;
to
CO
CO
CO
CN
r-
o
'X
CN
CD
co
CO
CO
CO
CD
CD
T
~>
X
X
s
<
-C
CQ
00
co
o
fcu
C
a
c
o
O
a>
c*
c
CO
'e?
a.
c
CS
60
B
O CO CO CN ifl -OO)
CM T OS O 00 t^ t- O
cm © co t— i— i a* oo co
m" i-I co" cm" m" m" t>
r- OS — CO CS Tf
in m
TJ- O
CO CO
*J >
5 "-S
8 8
tt r-i cfi r-
t™
oo m
■v 00
CO CM
— co m cm
CM ^r
CO ^
— CD
>>'£
CD CM — -fr
CO
in oq
CM
00 ^r
B °
CO* CM* p4 CO*
CO*
CO* CD*
CD* tJ*
i-H CM
CM
t- t-
S 1
co to cm os — • m os os coco
CO CO N T OS OS 00 T 00CO
os os co mcMooco — —
-1 — t-
^r co e- os
in os co
O T 00
CM —
CM —
— CD OS CM CO OS OS T CM— 3) m
oo os t— oo •-. n n co coco © t~-
cm_ r- co tj>_ (£> _ ^h ^ — oo co in
t-" co" o* os" os* oo* r- o* — "
CM — — OS CM
— CM — Tf Tf
CM CO CO
oo >n o
to t- in
00 00 !
00 00
t o co t—
co r- o co
CO OS o o
os m m
os cm o
oscmcoco r-mTO co
i- os in — t— co^r— ■ os
r- t r— o c- os co co —
CD CO
OS CO
m o
os" os*
co in
CM 00
OincMos f como moo
to to co t OS CO O -h osoo
CM — CMOS CM — • CN t- COCM
OOCMCMCO COCMOCM COCM
CMinc-in t — co co ■^■oo
t n in Tf t— ^ © co o co
CO
a
O
m
tf
T
CO
o
in
tf
X
c
cn
in
X
o
r-
00
o
t-
CO
T
t-
o
u
CO
~r
°l
in
t-
*r
'■£
co"
CM*
CO*
co*
tf?
in"
OJ
c
CM
CM
t-
G-.
OS
•a
S3
in
£
CO O CM O
in -*r r^
CM --«
CM — —
00 CO — —
co in co o
CM OS CM —
C-COOh
CO t- oo -v
r- — ■ o co
00 OS
in r-
CO CD
os o
CM OS
CO OS O CO
cm — < r- r-
r- CM CM
CM — OS
O —
CM CO
in co
1 S
Occ
I'
.3
o o m
cm — r-
m co —
— -v m co
^ PS tf
fcBlQc/)
CO V CM CO O
CM — CO CM CM
in oo co co i-»
T CM 00 OS
in co co co ^* -«r
T OS OS 00 CD CD
m cm co co i-h to
O* CD* OS* CO* 00* CM*
cm — < m co
CO o
OS OS
^ 0J PS
U. OS Q CV3
PS
Q w
^ PS PS
U. OS Q cx
OS — COCO — — Tf 00
CM O —
— CO
PS
OS CO
CO H
3
E<
5 6
a S
-n
0
c
8
>
m
C
(V
CO
cv
M
o
c 2
2 c
CD CU
"O
•2 E
■
C
3 ~
0) ^o
1
** "ffl
Q
a
u v
■0
o S
c
ii
.5 xi
S
X
E -
o
E
Q
0)
" 3
c
t*73
c
c c
c
■a _
j=
i- TJ
o
Sg
i
M
si
6
to
T3 in
OJ
0)
01 4->
X
a c
3 J!
>
II
S E
pc!
fej
c
CC
— . c
CD t
3
in cs $
I « §
° .5 k.
< S5
A-125
Figure I
The projected percentage of range in excellent condition by the years
2000 and 2020 for the proposed action and alternatives.
V^
\o2
?OiC
atf
VM*
M
vt
j£*&
*"j£.
^wtfjj*^ o
}£>rr public
ands
A95
V,
vi
e^
?<•-
V3
eW
^©iv
iram
1985
2000
2020
A-126
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY
Alluvial. Pertaining to or composed of any sediment deposited by
flowing water (alluvium), as in a river bed.
Alluvium. Soil and rock debris deposited by streams.
Aquifer. A formation, group of formations, or part of a formation
that contains enough saturated permeable material to yield
significant quantities of water to wells and springs.
Artifact. An object made or modified by man, normally for his
use as tools, shelter, ritual, or defense.
Aspect. The visual first impression of vegetation at a particular
time or as seen from a specific point.
Basin. A closed geologic structure in which the beds dip toward
a center; the youngest rocks are at the center of a basin
and are partly or completely ringed by progressively older
rocks.
Bedrock. The relatively solid rock that underlies unconsolidated
sediments or surface materials.
Bentonite. A clay mineral that possesses the capacity to absorb
several times its own volume of water; bentonite is used as
a lining for canals and as a thickening fluid in well drilling,
among many other things.
Business Activity. Includes all receipts for a particular economic
sector (such as the livestock industry).
Catchment Basin. An artificial water-tight depression that traps
rain and snowmelt and conveys it by a pipeline to a buried
storage bag, from which it can be drained through valved
pipe to stock tanks.
Compaction. The process of packing firmly and closely together;
the state of being so packed.
Contour Furrow. A level furrow cut into a slope to trap rain,
snow, and surface ruonff to increase soil moisture and
thereby enhance possible vegetation growth.
Dendritic. A branching treelike form.
Direct Business Activity. Receipts, generated only by the eco-
nomic sector (such as the livestock industry) being referred
to.
Drawdown. Lowering of the water table by pumping water from
wells.
Edge Effect. Refers to the fact that wildlife populations are
generally highest in the areas where a variety of habitats
are available in a relatively small area, that is, where there
is much edge.
Ephemeral Stream. A stream that flows only after rains or during
snowmelt.
Erosion. The group of natural processes including weathering,
dissolution, abrasion, corrosion, and transportation by which
earthy or rocky material is removed from any part of the
earth's surface. (See Pedestalling, Rill Erosion, and Sheet
Erosion.)
Erosion Condition Classes. Expression of current erosion activity
using the following ratings (Soil Surface Factor): stable, 0-
20; slight, 21-40; moderate, 41-60; critical, 61-80; severe,
81-100.
Evaporation. Loss of water directly from the land surface (or
water surface) to the atmosphere.
Evapotranspiration. Loss of water from the soil both by evapora-
tion and by transpiration from plants during the growing
season.
Fault. A fracture surface in rocks, along which movement of rock
on one side has occurred with reference to rock on the
other side.
Food Chain. Refers to the fact that while a given species may
prey upon a species below it in the "food chain," it in turn
may be preyed upon by species above it in the food chain.
Thus, a grasshopper that eats grass may be eaten by a
masked shrew, that in turn is eaten by a red-tailed hawk.
Forb. An herb other than grass.
Formation. A rock unit whose characteristics of grain size, fossil
content, or other features are relatively uniform and which
can be mapped.
Geologic Erosion. Wearing away of the earth's surface by water,
ice, or other natural elements under natural environmental
conditions of climate and vegetation.
Gross Output Multiplier. The ratio which expresses amount of
dollars generated in indirect business activity for each dollar
of direct business activity. In this statement, the effect is
localized to region or state.
Ground Moraine. Rock material deposited from melting glacial
ice as an unsorted blanket of debris on the land surface.
Ground Water. Subsurface water in the saturated zone in rocks.
Headcutting. The action of surface water undercutting soft sub-
strata at the head of a gully. The material above falls into
the gully and is washed away. In this manner, the headcut
moves upstream.
Herbicide. An agent (chemical) used to destroy or inhibit plant
growth.
Hunting Demand. Demand is the quantity of wildlife that was, or
is expected to be, harvested by specific numbers of hunters
under the management in effect. Demand is expressed
either in quantities of harvestable animals and/or in terms
of recreation days that would be provided.
Hunting Supply. The estimated quantity of harvestable wildlife
that can annually be cropped from a population or unit of
area under the management in effect. Supply is expressed
either in quantities of harvestable animals and/or in terms
of recreation days that would be provided.
Igneous Rocks. Rocks formed by solidification of molten or fluid
earth material. Intrusive igneous rocks solidified beneath the
surface of the earth; extrusive igneous rocks emerged at the
surface as molten material (e.g., lava) before solidifying.
Indirect Business Activity. The total income produced in other
economic sectors (such as retail trade) by the receipt of
income in one sector (such as the livestock industry).
Infiltration. The flow of a liquid into a substance through pores or
other openings; connotes flow into a soil, in contrast with
percolation, which connotes flow through a porous sub-
stance. See also Moisture Infiltration.
Insecticide. A chemical agent used to destroy or control insects.
Instant Study Area. One of the primitive or natural areas formally
identified by BLM prior to November 1, 1975.
Intermittent Stream. A stream which flows most of the time but
occasionally is dry or reduced to pool stage.
Intrusive. An igneous rock that formed beneath the earth's sur-
face.
Key Species. (1) Forage species whose use serves as an indica-
tor to the degree of use of associated species. (2) Those
species which must, because of their importance, be con-
sidered in the management program.
Limiting Factor. An environmental condition such as food supply
or nesting cover which is in short supply. In order for a
wildlife population to increase, its limiting factor must be
changed.
Litter. The uppermost layer of organic debris. It is composed of
freshly fallen or slightly decomposed organic materials.
Man Day. One person using the resource for some portion of a
24-hour day.
Microclimate. Climatic conditions characteristic of a small area.
Microclimates are influenced by local geography and vege-
tation and may be significantly different from regional cli-
G-1
mate in temperature, wind, length of growing season, or
precipitation patterns.
Mitigation. A method or process by which impacts from actions
may become less injurious to the environment or the ecol-
ogy of an area.
Moisture Infiltration. Water penetration into the soil through
pores of the soil. Rate and amount of infiltration is limited by
size and abundance of pores and water absorption capacity
of the soil. See also Infiltration.
Off-Road Vehicle. Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed
for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other
natural terrain.
Outstanding Natural Area. These are established to preserve
scenic values and areas of natural wonder. The preserva-
tion of these resources in their natural condition is the
primary management objective.
Outwash. Debris carried from a glacier by running water and
deposited as a partly to well sorted formation.
Parent Material. The unconsolidated and more or less chemical-
ly weathered mineral or organic matter from which soil de-
velops.
Peak Discharge. The annual maximum discharge of a stream.
Percolation, Soil-Water. The downward movement of water
through soil, especially the downward flow of water in satu-
rated or nearly saturated soil at hydraulic gradients of the
order of 1 .0 or less.
Pedestalling. A phenomenon of erosion where plants or rocks
are left standing on pedestals of soil. Pedestals are formed
because a rock or plant has held the soil underneath in
place.
Perennial Stream. A stream that flows throughout the year.
Permeability. Capacity for transmitting a fluid. It is measured by
the rate at which a fluid of standard viscosity can move
through material in a given interval of time under a given
hydraulic gradient.
Personal Income. The amount of wages paid to a person. This
does not include profit for those persons who are self-
employed, only the salaries paid to themselves before profit
and/or loss is calculated.
Recharge. In ground water, the process of replenishing the
water in the zone of saturation or the amount of water that
percolates to the zone of saturation.
Relief. The variations in elevation of any area of the earth's
surface.
Rill Erosion. Erosion in which numerous small channels of only
several inches in depth are formed.
Riparian. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream,
or other body of water. Normally used to refer to the plants
of all types that grow along streams, around springs, etc.
Road. An access route which has been improved and main-
tained by using hand or power machinery or tools to insure
relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained
solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a
road.
Runoff. Water that flows on the land surface from an area in
response to rainall or snowmelt. As used in this study,
runoff from an area becomes streamflow when it reaches
an intermittent or perennial watercourse.
Sediment. Soil, rock particles, and organic or other debris car-
ried from one place to another by wind, water, or gravity;
also, the material that settles to the bottom of a water body.
Sedimentary Rock. A more or less compacted and coherent
rock composed of sedimentary particles. Shale, sandstone,
and limestone are sedimentary rocks derived respectively
from mud, sand, and lime sediment.
Sedimentation. The action or process of deposition of material
borne by water, wind, or glacier.
Sediment Yield. The average amount of soil moved from a given
point to another point as a result of runoff.
Seepage Loss. Water that moves laterally or downward from a
stream or pond and may become recharge to soil moisture
or to ground water.
Sheet Erosion. The removal of rock or soil from land surface by
water flowing across the surface.
Shrub. A low woody plant, usually with several stems; may
provide food and/or cover for animals.
Site (Prehistoric or Historic). A place where humans carried on
some sort of living activity, such as hunting, warfare, or
residence.
Soil. The unconsolidated mineral matter on the surface of the
earth that has been subjected to and influenced by genetic
and environmental factors of parent material, climate (in-
cluding moisture and temperature effects), macro-and
micro-organisms, and topography, all acting over a period of
time and producing a product that differs from the material
from which it is derived in many physical, chemical, biologi-
cal, and morphological properties and characteristics. The
immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural
medium for the growth of land plants.
Soil Association. A group of defined and named taxonomic soil
units occurring together in individual and characteristic pat-
terns over a geographic region.
Soil Classification. The systematic arrangements of soils into
classes in one or more categories or levels of classification
for a specific objective. Broad groupings are made on the
basis of general characteristics and subdivisions on the
basis of more detailed differences in specific properties.
Soil Moisture. Water held in the root zone by capillary action;
part of the soil moisture is available to plants, part is held
too tightly by capillary or molecular forces to be removed by
plants.
Soil Surface Factor (SSF). The SSF is an expression of current
erosion activity. Seven categories of surface features are
considered in the examination of the area. Both wind and
water are considered for each category. The categories are:
soil movement, surface litter, surface rock, pedestalling, rills,
flow patterns, and gullies. Numerical values are assigned to
each category and are totaled to determine the SSF. This
value determines the erosion condition class of the area.
(See also Erosion Condition Classes.)
Spreader Dike. A low berm or earthen dam on a flood plain,
designed to convey water back and forth across the flood
plain and thereby increase soil moisture and reduce flood-
ing.
Streamflow. Water moving in stream channels.
Sublimation. Conversion of snow or ice to water vapor without
passing through liquid stage.
Surface Water. Water standing on or moving across the land
surface; includes streamflow, runoff, and ponded water.
Syncline. A geologic structure in which formations dip downward
toward a center line; a down-folded area as contrasted with
a basin.
Terrace. A relatively flat surface. In much of the ES area, ter-
races are underlain by poorly consolidated and permeable
flood plain deposits.
Texture. The visual result of the tactile surface characteristics of
an object(s).
Till. Glacial debris, either sorted (outwash) or unsorted (ground
moraine).
Transpiration. Process by which plants discharge water vapor to
the atmosphere.
Watershed. The region draining into a river, river system, or
body of water.
Well cuttings. Rock material broken up in well drilling and
brought to the surface.
Wilderness Study Area. A roadless area which has been found
to have wilderness characteristics and which will be subject-
ed to intensive analysis in the Bureau's planning system
and public review to determine wilderness suitability, and is
not yet the subject of a Congressional decision regarding its
designation as wilderness.
Winterkill. Refers to the death of fish in small lakes and reser-
voirs due to oxygen depletion caused by excessive ice and
snow cover that blocks sunlight and prevents photosynthe-
sis in aquatic plants.
Wolf Plant. A plant that, though of a species considered palat-
able, is not grazed by livestock or wildlife; normally it has
become rank and excessively fibrous because of a lack of
previous grazing.
G-2
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Allen, Eugene O. 1968. Range use, food condition, and produc-
tivity of white-tailed deer in Montana: Journal of Wildlife
Management, v. 32, no. 1, pp. 130-141.
Anderson, William E., and Richard J. Scherzinger 1975. Improv-
ing quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing: Journal
of Range Management, v. 28, no. 2, pp. 120-125.
Anderson, Norman L. 1964. Some relationships between grass-
hoppers and vegetation: Annals of the Entomological Soci-
ety of America, v. 57, pp. 736-742.
1970. Assessment of range losses caused by grasshoppers:
International Study Conference, Current and Future Prob-
lems of Acridology, London, Proceedings, pp. 173-9.
Balda, Russell P. 1975. Vegetation structure and breeding bird
diversity: Proceedings, Management of Forest and Range
Habitats for Non-Game Birds Symposium, Tucson, Arizona,
May 6-7, 1975, pp. 59-80.
Barnes, O.K., and A.L. Nelson 1945. Mechanical treatment for
increasing grazing capacity: Wyoming Experiment Station,
Bulletin 273, 23 pp.
Bayless, Stephen R. 1969. Winter food habits, range use and
home range of antelope in Montana: Journal of Wildlife
Management, v. 33, no. 3, pp. 538-551.
Becker, Bruce Wilber 1972. Pronghorn-cattle use and food
habits relationships in an enclosed sagebrush control area:
MS thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, 57 pp.
Best, Louis B. 1972. First year effects of sagebrush control on
two sparrows: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 36, no. 2,
pp. 534-544.
Black, Hal Lunt 1 968. Populations of small rodents in relation to
grazing by cattle on foothill rangelands. MS thesis, Universi-
ty of Utah, Salt Lake City, 56 pp.
Branson, R.A., R.F. Miller, and I.S. McQueen 1962. Effects of
contour furrowing, grazing intensities, and soils on infiltration
rates, soil moisture, and vegetation near Fort Peck, Mon-
tana: Journal of Range Management, v. 15, pp. 151-158.
1966. Contour furrowing, pitting, and ripping on rangelands of
the western United States: Journal of Range Management,
v. 19, no. 4, pp. 182-190.
Branson, R.A. and J.R. Owen 1970. Plant cover, runoff, and
sediment yield relationships on Mancos shale in western
Colorado. Water Resources Research 6:783-790.
Brown, A.L., and A.C. Everson 1952. Longevity of ripped furrows
in southern Arizona desert grassland: Journal of Range
Management, v. 5, pp. 415-419.
Brown, David E. 1978. Grazing, grassland cover, and game
birds: 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, March 18-22, 1978, 17 pp.
Brown, Robert L. (undated). Response of sharptail breeding pop-
ulations to annual changes in residual grassland cover: A
contribution from Federal Aid Project W-91-R, Montana Fish
and Game Department, pp. 219-222.
Buckhouse, John C, and Gerald Gifford 1976. Grazing and
debris burning on pinyon-juniper sites and some chemical
water quality implications: Journal of Range Management, v.
29, no. 4.
Burlingame, Merrill G. 1942. The Montana Frontier: State Pub-
lishing Company, Helena, Montana.
Burlingame, Merrill G., and K. Ross Toole (eds.) 1957. A history
of Montana (three volumes): Lewis Historical Publishing
Company, New York.
Canan, Jim 1977. A statistical analysis of the archaeological
data from the 1977 South Missouri Breaks-Musselshell
Range EIS Class II Inventory: Manuscript, BLM, Lewistown
District Office, Lewistown, Montana, or Montana State
Office, Billings.
Carothers, Steven W. 1977. Importance, preservation, and man-
agement of riparian habitats, an overview. In Importance of
Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat Sympoi-
sum, R. Roy Johnson and Dale A. Jones, Technical Coor-
dinators: U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report,
RM-43 (217 pp.), pp. 2-4.
Cook, Wayne C. 1971. Effects of season and intensity of use on
desert vegetation: Utah State University Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Bulletin 483.
Couey, F., and A. Schallenberger 1971. Bighorn sheep. In
Thomas W. Mussehl and F.W. Howell, eds., Game Manage-
ment in Montana: Montana Department of Fish and Game,
Helena, Montana (238 pp.), pp. 97-106.
Craig, Gerald R. 1978. Personal communication (Colorado Divi-
sion of Wildlife and Team Leader, Rocky Mountain/South-
western Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team).
Dally, W.C. 1952. Archaeological finds around Denton, Fergus
County, Montana: Montana State University, Anthropology
and Sociology Papers, No. 9, Missoula (now University of
Montana, Missoula).
Davis, Leslie B. 1975. Missouri River Breaks area archaeological
and historical values, Montana: Manuscript on file, BLM,
Montana State Office, Billings.
Davis, Leslie B., and Stephen A. Aaberg 1976. Reserved natural
and cultural heritage resources in the Brazil/Little Beaver
Creeks bentonite mining claim area, southwest Valley
County, Montana: Manuscript, Montana State University,
Bozeman.
Davis, Leslie B., and Emmett Stallcop 1965. The Keaster Site: A
stratified bison kill occupation in the Missouri Breaks area of
north-central Montana: Montana Archaeological Society,
Memoir No. 2, Missoula.
Dendy, F.E., and G.C. Bolton 1976. Sediment yield-runoff-drain-
age area relationships in the United States: Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, v. 31, no. 6.
Dickson, R.E., B.C. Langley, and E.C. Fisher 1940. Water and
soil conservation experiments at Spur, Texas: Texas Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, Bulletin 587, 6600.
Dixon, Robert M. 1975. Infiltration control through soil surface
management: Irrigation and Drainage Division, American So-
ciety of Civil Engineers Symposium, Logan, Utah, August
1975, proceedings.
Dodge, Richard 1977. Montana population projections, 1975-
2000. Montana Department of Community Affairs, Division
of Research and Information Systems, Helena, Montana.
Dyksterhuis, E.T. 1949. Condition and management of range
land based on quantitative ecology: Journal of Range Man-
agement, v. 2, pp. 104-115.
Eichhorn, L.C. 1978. Personal communication. (Biologist, Bureau
of Land Management, Lewistown).
Eichhorn, L.C., and C.R. Watts 1976. Two calf bighorn sheep
progress report. 18 page report on file at BLM Lewistown
District Office.
Elser, Al 1977. The fishery potential of stockwater reservoirs on
Bureau of Land Management lands in Garfield and McCone
Counties: Montana Department of Fish and Game, Miles
City, 13 pp. plus appendices.
Eng, R.L., J.D. Jones, and F.M. Gjersing 1978. Construction and
management of stock ponds for waterfowl: BLM Technical
Bulletin (in press).
Fisher, Herbert G. 1975. Study of rangeland soil movement
characteristics: Irrigation and Drainage Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers symposium, Logan, Utah, August
1975, proceedings.
Flath, Dennis L. 1978. Personal communication. (Non-game Bi-
ologist, Montana Department of Fish and Game).
R-1
1978. Non-game species of special interest or concern: Mon-
tana Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Division, 71 pp.
Frickel, Donald G. 1972. Hydrology and effects of conservation
structures, Willow Creek Basin, Valley County, Montana
1954-68. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1532-G.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.
Garrison, George A. 1972. Carbohydrate reserves and response
to use, in Wild shrubs - their biology and utilization. CM.
McKell, et al., eds.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, General Technical Report INT-1, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
Gates, Paul W. 1968. History of public land law development:
Public Land Law Review Commission, Washington, D.C.
Gifford, Gerald F. 1972. Infiltration rate and sediment production
trends on a plowed big sagebrush site: Journal of Range
Management, v. 25, pp. 53-55.
1975a. Beneficial and detrimental effects of range improve-
ment practices on runoff and erosion: Irrigation and Drain-
age Division, American Society of Civil Engineers sympo-
sium, Logan, Utah, August 1975, proceedings.
1975b. Impacts on pinyon-juniper manipulation on watershed
values, in The pinyon-juniper ecosystem symposium, pro-
ceedings: Utah State University, Logan, Utah, May 1-2,
1975.
Gifford, Gerald F. and F.E. Busby 1974. Intensive infiltrometer
studies on a plowed big sagebrush site: Journal of Hydrol-
ogy, v. 21, pp. 81-90.
Gifford, Gerald F. and CM. Skau 1976. Influence of various
rangeland cultural treatments on runoff and sediment pro-
duction from the big sagebrush type, Eastgate. Basin,
Nevada: Proceedings, Third American Water Resource Con-
ference (San Francisco), November 8-10, 1967, pp. 137-
148.
Gifford, Gerald F., Gerald Williams, and George B. Coltharp
1970. Infiltration and erosion studies on pinyon-juniper con-
version sites in southern Utah: Journal of Range Manage-
ment, v. 23, no. 6.
Gjersing, Frank M. 1975. Waterfowl production in relation to rest
rotation grazing: Journal of Range Management, v. 28, no.
1 , pp. 37-42.
Greene, R. and R. Ellis 1971. Merriam's turkey. In Thomas W.
Mussehl and F.W. Howell, eds., Game management in Mon-
tana: Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena, Mon-
tana (238 pp.), pp. 167-173.
Gregg, Michael 1978. Cultural resource inventory and evaluation
in the South Bearpaw Planning Unit, Montana: Manuscript
BLM, Montana State Office, Billings.
Grensten, John and D.E. Ryerson 1973. Impacts of induced
rainfall on the Great Plains of Montana: Section 2, ecologi-
cal, wildlife, and biocommunities: Montana Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, Montana State University, Bozeman, Re-
search Report 42, 285 pp.
Hadley, R.F. 1971. Runoff and sediment yield from Willow Creek
Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Memorandum. Denver, Colo-
rado, April 6, 1971.
Hanson, Clayton L., et al. 1970. Grazing effects on runoff and
vegetation on western South Dakota rangeland: Journal of
Range Management, v. 23, no. 6.
1973. Sediment yields from small rangeland watersheds in
western South Dakota. Journal of Range Management, v.
26, no. 3.
Harper, J.L. 1969. The role of predation in vegetational diversity,
in Diversity and stability in ecological systems: Brookhaven
Symposium in Biology, no. 22, pp. 48-62.
Hormay, A.L. 1956. How livestock grazing habits and growth
requirements of range plants determine sound grazing man-
agement: Journal of Range Management, v. 9, pp. 161-164.
1970. Principles of rest rotation grazing and multiple-use land
management: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serv-
ice.
1976. Memorandum to Manager, Rock Springs District, dated
September 1, 1976. Subject: Telephone Conversation with
Bruce Smith, Fisheries Biologist, on Rest Rotation Grazing
Management, August 11, 1976.
Hubbard, W.A. and S. Smoliak 1953. Effect on contour dikes
and furrows on short grass prairie: Journal of Range Man-
agement, v. 6, pp. 55-62.
Hurst, W.D. 1976. Management strategies within the pinyon-
juniper ecosystem: Rangeman's Journal, v. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-7.
Hyder, Donald N. and W.A. Sawyer 1951. Rotation deferred
grazing as compared to season-long grazing on sagebrush-
bunchgrass ranges in Oregon: Journal of Range Manage-
ment, v. 4, pp. 30-34.
Jonhson, Murray L. and Leo K. Couch 1954. Determination of
the abundance of cougar: Journal of Mammalogy, v. 35, no.
2, pp. 255-256.
Johnson R. Roy and Dale A. Jones 1977. Importance of preser-
vation and management of riparian habitat, a symposium.
U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report, RM-43, 216
PP-
Johnson, W.M. 1965. Rotation, rest rotation, and season-long
grazing on a mountain range in Wyoming. Research Paper
RM-14, USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station.
Jones, Jack 1978. Personal communication. (Biologist, BLM
Butte District Office).
Kirsch, Leo M. 1969. Waterfowl production in relation to grazing:
Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 33, no. 4, pp. 821-828.
Knowles, Craig J. 1975. Range relationships of mule deer, elk,
and cattle in a rest rotation grazing system during summer
and fall: Montana Department of Fish and Game, Final Job
Report, 111 pp.
Kohn, S.O 1 976. Sharp-tailed grouse nesting and brooding habi-
tat in southwest North Dakota: MS thesis, South Dakota
State University, Brookings, 66 pp. plus appendices.
Laycock, William A. and Paul W. Conrad 1967. Effect of grazing
on soil compaction as measured by Bulk Density on a high
elevation cattle range: Journal of Range Management, v.
20, no. 3.
Leithead, H.L. 1959. Runoff in relation to range condition in the
Big Bend-David Mountain section of Texas: Journal of
Range Management, v. 12, pp. 83-87.
Under, R.L. and C.N. Hillman 1973. Proceedings of the Black-
footed Ferret and Prairie Dog workshop: South Dakota
State University, Brookings, September 4-6, 1973, 208 pp.
Lusby, Gregg C. 1970. Hydrologic and biotic effects of grazing
vs. non-grazing near Grand Junction, Colorado: Journal of
Range Management, v. 23, no. 4.
Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range, ecology, and relations of mule
deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana,
Wildlife Monographs, No. 20, 79 pp.
1978. Impacts of livestock grazing on wild ungulates: 43rd
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,
Phoenix, Arizona, March 18-22, 1978.
Mallory, Oscar L. 1963. An archaeological appraisal of the Mis-
souri Breaks region in Montana: Missouri Basin Project,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Malone, Michael P. and Richard B. Roeder 1976. Montana: a
history of two centuries: University of Washington Press,
Seattle.
Martin, N. and D. Pyrah 1971. Sage grouse. In Thomas W.
Mussehl and F.W. Howell, eds., Game management in Mon-
tana: Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena, Mon-
tana (238 pp.), pp. 135-141.
Martin, S. Clark 1973. Responses of semi-desert grasses to
seasonal rest: Journal of Range Management, v. 26, no. 3,
pp. 165-170.
1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semi-desert
grass-shrub ranges: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service Research Paper, RM 156.
Martinka, C.J. 1967. Mortality of northern Montana pronghorns in
a severe winter: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 31, no.
1, pp. 159-164.
R-2
McHugh, Tom 1972. The time of the buffalo: Alfred A. Knopf:
New York, pp. 69-71.
McLean, W.T. and E.W. Tisdale 1 972. Recovery rate of depleted
range sites under protection from grazing: Journal of Range
Management, v. 25, no. 3, pp. 178-184.
Meenwig, Richard O. 1970. Infiltration and soil erosion as influ-
enced by vegetation and soil in northern Utah: Journal of
Range Management, v. 23, no. 3.
Meyer, M.P. 1976. Remote sensing applications in agriculture
and forestry. Research Report 76-6, Institute of Agriculture,
Forestry, and Home Economics, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul, 22 pp.
Montana Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Statistical Reporting Service 1971. Montana agricul-
tural statistics, v. XIV, 1970 and 1971: Helena, Montana.
1973. Montana agricultural statistics, v. XV, 1972 and 1973:
Helena, Montana.
1976. Montana agricultural statistics, v. XVI, 1974 and 1975:
Helena, Montana.
Montana Department of Fish and Game 1965. Waterfowl breed-
ing grounds survey: May 1, 1965 through July 25, 1965: Job
Completion Report.
1978. 1978 Montana statewide comprehensive outdoor recre-
ation plan: March 1 , 2 volumes.
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Environmental Sciences Division, Water Quality Bureau,
1975. Water quality inventory and management plan, middle
Missouri River Basin, Montana. Helena, Montana, March
1975.
Montana Department of Labor and Industry 1976-77. Montana
employment and labor force, monthly issues: Employment
and Security Division, Research and Analysis Section,
Helena, Montana.
Montana Fish and Game Commission 1975. Montana statewide
outdoor recreation plan, an information base, v. 2.
Montana State University, Statistical Center 1977. Montana fu-
tures: a survey of citizen choices, Bozeman, Montana, 65
PP-
Moore, Robert 1978. Telephone conversation October 12, 1978
(Biology Department, Montana State University, Bozeman).
Mulloy, William 1958. A preliminary historical outline for the
northwestern plains: University of Wyoming Publications in
Science, v. 22, no. 1 , Laramie.
Mundinger, John Gerhard 1975. The influence of rest rotation
management on waterfowl production on stock water reser-
voirs in Phillips County, Montana: MS thesis, Montana State
University, Bozeman, 100 pp.
Mussehl, T.W. 1963. Blue grouse brood cover selection and land
use implications: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 27, No.
4, pp. 547-555.
Mussehl, T.W., P. Schladweiler, and R. Weckwerth 1971. Forest
grouse. In T.W. Mussehl and F.W. Howell, eds., Game man-
agement in Montana: Montana Department of Fish and
Game, Helena, Montana (238 pp.), pp. 143-151.
Neff, E.L. 1973. Water storage capacity of contour furrows in
Montana: Journal of Range Management, v. 26, pp. 298-
301.
Nerney, N.J. 1957. Grasshopper infestations in relation to range
condition: Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Re-
search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tempe, Ari-
zona.
Nielsen, Lyndon Sidney 1978. The effects of rest rotation graz-
ing on the distribution of sharp-tailed grouse: MS thesis,
Montana State University, Bozeman, 52 pp.
Omang, R.J. and J.A. Hull 1978. Annual peak discharges from
small drainage areas in Montana through September 1977:
U.S. Geological Survey open-file report 78-219, 202 pp.
Owensby, Glenton E., Ed F. Smith, and Kling L. Anderson 1973.
Deferred rotation grazing with steers in the Kansas Flint
Hills: Journal of Range Management, v. 26, no. 6, pp 393-
395.
Pengelly, W. Leslie 1976. Probable causes of the recent decline
of mule deer in western U.S.: a summary. Pp. 129-134 In
Workman, Gar W. and Jessop B. Low, eds. Mule deer
decline in the west, a symposium. Utah State University,
Logan, April 1976, 134 pp.
Platts, William S. 1977. Livestock interactions with fish and their
environments, a symposium summary: Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Odgen, Utah, Memorandum,
14 pp.
Pyrah, Duane 1978. Personal communication (Biologist, Montana
Department of Fish and Game).
Ratliff, Raymond D. and Jack N. Reppert 1974. Vigor of Idaho
fescue grazed under rest rotation and continuous grazing.
Journal of Range Management, v. 27, no. 6, pp. 447-449.
Ratliff, Raymond D., J.N. Reppert, and Richard J. McConnell
1972. Rest rotation grazing at Harvey Valley, range health,
cattle grains, cost. Research Paper PSW-77, USDA, Forest
Service, Pacific SW Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Rauzi, Frank and Clayton L. Hanson 1966. Water intake and
runoff as affected by intensity of grazing: Journal of Range
Management, v. 19, no. 6, 00. 351-356.
Rauzi, Frank and Freeman M. Smith 1973. Infiltration rates:
three soils with three grazing levels in northeastern Colora-
do: Journal of Range Management, v. 26, no. 2.
Reardon, Patrick O. and Leo B. Merrill 1976. Vegetative re-
sponse under various grazing management systems in the
Edwards Plateau of Texas: Journal of Range Management,
v. 29, no. 3, pp. 195-198.
Rich, L.R. and H.G. Reynolds 1963. Grazing in relation to runoff
and erosion on some chaparral watersheds in central Arizo-
na. Journal of Range Management, v. 16, pp. 322-326.
Rogler, George S. 1951. A twenty-five year comparison of con-
tinuous and rotation grazing in the Northern Plains: Journal
of Range Management, v. 4, pp. 35-41.
Ross, R.L. and H.E. Hunter 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana
based on soils and climate: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, Bozeman, Montana, 64 pp.
Rundquist, V.M. 1973. Avian ecology on stock ponds in two
vegetational types in northcentral Montana: PhD thesis,
Montana State University, Bozeman, 116 pp.
Salyer, J.W. 1962. Effects of drought and land use on prairie
nesting ducks: Transactions North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, v. 27, pp. 69-79.
Secrist, Kenneth G. 1960. Pictographs in central Montana: part I
- Fergus County: Montana State University Anthropology
and Sociology Papers, no. 20, Missoula (Now University of
Montana, Missoula).
Siegel, Dave 1977. Class I and II studies: 1976 North Missouri
Breaks range EIS cultural resources reconnaissance/
survey, 2 volumes: Manuscript, BLM, Montana State Office,
Billings.
1978. Class II studies: South Missouri Breaks cultural resource
reconnaissance: field notes, BLM, Montana State Office,
Billings.
Smeins, Fred E. 1975. Effects of livestock grazing on runoff and
erosion: Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers symposium, Logan, Utah, August 1975,
Proceedings.
Smith, Charles C. 1940. The effect of over-grazing and erosion
upon the biota of the mixed-grass prairie of Oklahoma:
Ecology, v. 21, no. 3, pp. 381-397.
Smith, Richard, C.G. and William A. Williams 1973. Model devel-
opment for a deferred-grazing system: Journal of Range
Management, v. 26, no. 6.
Snow, Carol 1 972a. American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus
anatum, and Arctic peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus tun-
drius: Habitat management series for endangered species,
Report no. 1: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Technical Note, 35 pp.
1972b. Black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes: Habitat manage-
ment series for endangered species, Report no. 2, U.S.
R-3
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tech-
nical Note, 23 pp.
Society for Range Management 1974. Glossary of terms used in
range management, 2nd edition: Compiled and edited by
Range Term Glossary Committee, published by Society for
Range Management, Denver, Colorado, 36 pp.
Soiseth, R.J. and J.K. Aase 1974. Improvement of Panspot (so-
lonetzic) range sites by contour furrowing: Journal of Range
Management, v. 27, pp. 107-110.
Sorenson, Stephen F. 1975. 1975 archaeological survey in Phil-
lips and Valley Counties, northcentral Montana: Manuscript,
BLM, Phillips Resource Area Office, Malta, Montana.
Spedding, C.R.W. 1971. Grassland ecology. Oxford at the Clar-
endon Press. 221 p.
Stoddart, Lawrence A. and Arthur D. Smith 1955. Range man-
agement: McGraw-Hill. New York.
Sundstrom, C. 1968. Water consumption by pronghorn antelope
and distribution related to water in Wyoming's Red Desert:
Proceedings Antelope States Workshop, pp. 39-46.
Sturges, David L. 1973. Soil moisture response to spraying big
sagebrush the year of treatment: Journal of Range Manage-
ment, v. 26, no. 6, pp. 444-447.
1975. Sediment transport from big sagebrush watersheds: Irri-
gation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil En-
gineers symposium, Logan, Utah, August 1975, proceed-
ings.
Sundstrom, C. 1968. Water consumption by pronghorn antelope
and distribution related to water in Wyoming's Red Desert:
Proceedings Antelope States Workshop, pp. 39-46.
Taylor, John E. 1977. Baseline vegetational studies near Col-
strip, Montana. Department of Animal and Range Sciences,
Montana State University, Bozeman.
Thatcher, Albert P. 1 966. Range production improved by renova-
tion and protection: Journal of Range Management, v. 19,
no. 6, pp. 382-383.
Toole, K. Ross 1959. Montana: an uncommon land: University of
Oklahom Press, Norman.
1972. Twentieth Century Montana: a state of extremes: Uni-
versity of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Trueblood, R. and J. Weigand 1971. Hungarian partridge. In
Thomas W. Mussehl and F.W. Howell, eds., Game manage-
ment in Montana: Montana Department of Fish and Game,
Helena, Montana (238 pp.), pp. 161-165.
Tschache, Ottley Paul 1970. Effects of ecological changes in-
duced by various sagebrush control techniques on small
mammal populations: MS thesis, Montana State University,
Bozeman, 51 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Reseach Service
1978. Sediment deposition in U.S. reservoirs, summary of
data reported through 1975. USDA, Washington, D.C., Feb-
ruary 1978.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1977. National
forest landscape management, range: v. 2, ch. 3.
1978. Prairie dog management, final environmental statement.
Nebraska National Forest, Chadron, Nebraska, 1 87 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1973.
Habitat management for white-tailed deer. SCS, Bozeman,
Montana 4 pp.
1976. National range handbook, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
1977a. Personal income by major sources, 1970-75: Re-
gional Economics Information System, University of Mon-
tana, Missoula.
1977b. Employment by type and broad industrial sources,
1971-75: Regional Economics Information Systems, Univer-
sity of Montana, Missoula.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1960.
1 960 census of the population.
1970. 1970 census of the population.
1972. 1972 census of retail trade, vol. II, area statistics.
1 974. 1 974 census of agriculture.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
1971. Musselshell River area classification of public domain.
Missouri River Basin Studies. Denver, Colorado.
1972. The Big Dry Creek Montana pumping area. Classifica-
tion of public domain. Missouri River Basin Studies, Denver,
Colorado.
1974. Programmatic environmental analysis record, range de-
velopment facilities, Malta District.
1975. Environmental analysis record, water development pro-
gram, Miles City District.
1977b. Final San Luis Resource Area grazing management
environmental statement, variously paged.
1 977c. Draft Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area grazing envi-
ronmental statement, variously paged.
1978. Wilderness inventory handbook, 30 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1974.
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range Wilderness Pro-
posal: preliminary map.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey 1977. Water
resources data for Montana, water year 1976, prepared in
cooperation with the state of Montana and with other agen-
cies: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report MT-76-1,
766 pp.
Valentine, K. A. 1 947. Effect of water-retaining and water-spread-
ing structures in revegetating semi-desert rangeland: New
Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 341, 22 pp.
Wagner, Frederic H. 1976. Effects of livestock grazing and the
livestock industry: Wildlife and America symposium, Council
on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C, September 30-
October 2, 1 976, 62 pp.
Walcheck, Ken 1978. Whitetail: the common deer of our country:
Montana Outdoors, v. 9, no. 4, pp. 1 5-22.
1970. Nesting bird ecology of four plant communities in the
Missouri River Breaks, Montana: Wilson Bulletin, v. 82, no.
1, pp. 370-382.
Wallestad, Richard 1975. Life history and habitat requirements of
sage grouse in central Montana: Montana Department of
Fish and Game in cooperation with U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 66 pp.
Watson, T.J., Jr. 1976. An evaluation of potentially threatened or
endangered species from the Montana flora: Consultant
report, available for inspection at U.S. Forest Service Re-
gional Office, Missoula, Montana, 23 pp.
Weaver, H.E. and H.W. Rowland 1952. Effects of excessive
natural mulch on development, yield, and structure of native
grassland: Botanical Gazette, v. 144, pp. 1-19.
Wedel, Waldo R. 1961. Prehistoric man on the Great Plains:
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Weigand, John P. and Reuel G. Janson 1976. Montana's ring-
necked pheasant: history, ecology, and management: Mon-
tana Department of Fish and Game, Helena, 178 pp.
Whitfield, C.J. and C.L. Fly 1939. Vegetational changes as a
result of furrowing pasture and rangelands: Journal of
American Society Agronomists, v. 31, pp. 413-417.
Wight, J. Ross and F.H. Siddoway 1972. Improving precipitation-
use efficiency on rangeland by surface modification: Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, v. 27, no. 4.
Wight, J. Ross, E.L. Neff and R.J. Soiseth 1978. Vegetation
response to contour furrowing. Journal of Range Manage-
ment, v. 31, no. 2, pp. 97-101.
Willard E. Earl and Lynn Herman 1977. Influence of grazing by
various systems on vegetation and soils in the Missouri
River Breaks area, Montana: University of Montana, Mis-
soula, unpublished.
Wormington, H.M. and Richard G. Forbis 1965. An introduction
to the archaeology of Alberta, Canada: Proceedings no. 11,
Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado.
Yoakum, James D. 1 977. Managing rangelands for the American
pronghorn antelope: Interstate antelope conference transac-
tions, 14 pp.
<t U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979—697-450
R-4
. &*
S5P
58 ' ^
4841 — Allotment Management Plan Identification Number
ALLOTMENT
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Bureau of Land Management
Library
Denver Service Center
*=p
LANDFORMS
I I Mountains
High Plains
Riverbreaks
I J Rolling Plains
LANDFORM AREAS
Library
Denver Serv.ce Center
V
.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11