Environmental Assessment

Forest Health and Vegetation Management
for the Judith and IVIoccasin IVIountains

EA # MT-060-02-01
March 2006

m

ilamiAiMA

f/3^

Public Lands USA: Use, Share, Appreciate

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed
to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for
all times. Management is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's
resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources
include recreation; rangelands; timber; minerals; watershed; fish and wildlife; wilderness; air; and scenic,
scientific, and cultural values.

The mission of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation is to ensure Montana's
land and water resources provide benefits for present and future generations. The DNRC is responsible
for the management of state school trust lands and the promotion of healthy forests.

BLM/MT/PL-06/007+2824

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms Used v

1.0 Background, Location and Purpose i

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Project Area Location and Description 1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 2

1.3.1 Forest Health 2

1.3.2 Fire Management 3

1.3.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat 4

1.3.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC 4

1.3.5 Range 5

1.3.6 Noxious Weeds 6

1.3.7 Visual Resources 6

1.3.8 Management of School Trust Lands 6

1.4 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans 7

2.0 Alternatives 8

2.1 Proposed Action

2.1.1 Forest Health 8

2.1.2 Fire Management 14

2.1.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat 15

2.1.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC 16

2.1.5 Range 20

2.1.6 Noxious Weeds 23

2.1.7 Visual Resources 23

2.1.8 Management of School Trust Lands 23

2.2 Continuation of Current Management

2.2.1 Forest Health 23

2.2.2 Fire Management 24

2.2.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat 24

2.2.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC 24

2.2.5 Range 24

2.2.6 Noxious Weeds 24

2.2.7 Visual Resources 25

2.2.8 Management of School Trust Lands 25

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail 25

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 26

3.1 Forest Health

3.1.1 Affected Environment 26

3.1.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 28

3.1.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 33

3.2 Fire Management

3.2.1 Affected Environment 35

3.2.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 38

3.2.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 43

3.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat

3.3.1 Affected Environment 44

3.3.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 46

3.3.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 47

3.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC

3.4.1 Affected Environment 48

3.4.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 52

3.4.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 57

3.5 Range

3.5.1 Affected Environment 60

3.5.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 61

3.5.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 63

3.6 Noxious Weeds

3.6.1 Affected Environment 64

3.6.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 64

3. 6. 3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 64

3.7 Visual Resources

3.7.1 Affected Environment 64

3.7.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 65

3.7.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 66

3.8 Recreation

3.8.1 Affected Environment 67

3.8.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 67

3.8.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 68

3.9 Cultural Resources

3.9.1 Affected Environment 68

3.9.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 69

3.9.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 70

3.10 Economics

3.10.1 Affected Environment 70

3.10.2 Proposed Action Environmental Consequences 71

3.10.3 Current Management Environmental Consequences 72

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

4.0 Consultation and Coordination 74

4.1 Public Involvement Process 74

4.2 List of Contributors 74

4.3 Persons and Agencies Consulted 75

5.0 References 76

List of Tables

2.1 Forest health and thinning treatment areas 9

2.2 Miles of proposed new road construction by treatment area 12

2.3 Proposed riparian and aquatic habitat restoration projects 17

2.4 Cumulative stream miles of proposed stream restoration 18

2.5 Allotments currently unallotted 21

2.6 Allotments not meeting Rangeland Health Standards due to livestock 22

3.1 Forest structure attributes on BLM land 27

3.2 Total insect and disease infestation levels on forested BLM land 27

3.3 Target percent canopy composition and basal area by tree species 28

3.4 Acres of conifer treatments, total conifers, total acres and percents by
fifth order watersheds 32

3.5 Acres of machine harvest treatment and percent of total fifth order
watershed acres 32

3.6 Fire record for federal lands in the analysis area, 1980-2005 35

3.7 Acres of predicted natural vegetation modeled by SIMPPLLE 36

3.8 Distances and directions of areas of potential concern for air quality 39

3.9 Estimated particulate matter emissions by acres for proposed vegetation
management actions 40

3.10 Acres and percent converted to Condition Class 1 by fifth order
watershed 42

3.11 Impaired streams and probable sources according to MDEQ 50

3.12 Allotments affected by proposed vegetation treatments 62

List of Figures (located at back of document)

1.1 Location map

2.1 Proposed Action: vegetation treatments and new roads

2.2 Proposed Action: allotments; riparian and stream channel treatments

3.1 Fire Regime Condition Class for forested areas by watershed

3.2 Current vegetation in the analysis area

3.3 Predicted natural vegetation as modeled by SIMPPLLE

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendices 8i

Appendix A The National Fire Plan

Appendix B Healthy Forests Restoration Act and HFRA Analysis and Authority

Appendix C Standards for Rangeland Health

Appendix D Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

Appendix E Range Upland Health Assessment Data

Appendix F Riparian Health Assessment Data

Appendix G The SIMPPLLE Modeling Process

Appendix H Monitoring Plan

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 iv

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

List of Acronyms Used

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

AUM Animal Unit Month

Bl Burning Index

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

CFS Cubic Feet per Second

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan

DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

EA Environmental Assessment

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAR Functioning At Risk

FOFEM First Order Fire Effects Model

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

FWP Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act

JVP RMP Judith-Valley-Phillips Resource Management Plan

LWM Large Woody Material

MBF Thousand Board Feet

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MEPA Montana Environmental Protection Act

MMBF Million Board Feet

MPIF Montana Partners In Flight

MSU Montana State University

MT NRIS Montana Natural Resource Information Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF Non-functioning

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

List of Acronyms Used (cont'd)

ORV

PFC

PM

SFLMP

SHPO

SMZ

T&E

USGS

WCT

VCR

VRM

Off-Road Vehicle

Proper Functioning Condition

Particulate Matter

State Forest Land Management Plan

State Historic Preservation Office

Streamside Management Zone

Threatened and Endangered (Species)

United States Geological Survey

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

Visual Contrast Rating

Visual Resource Management

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

VI

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

1.0 Background, Location, and Purpose

1.1 Background

The National Fire Plan (Appendix A) and The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
(HFRA) (Appendix B) direct the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reduce the risk
of large-scale wildland fires, protect human developments intermixed within or adjacent
to wildlands, and to protect and improve the health of forests, rangelands, and
watersheds.

In response to this direction, the Lewistown Field Office of the Bureau of Land
Management is proposing a variety of activities in the Judith-Moccasin Landscape
Analysis area.

The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC),
Northeastern Land Office, is responsible for the management of school trust land within
the Judith Moccasin Landscape analysis area. DNRC is also proposing a variety of
activities in concert with BLM in the project area.

The BLM and DNRC decided that a joint environmental assessment (EA), including the
analysis of both agencies' proposed actions, would provide better information for
decision makers and the public. This approach allows for a more consistent analysis of
the driving issues and the potential effects of the proposed action at a landscape level.
This joint document was prepared in accordance with the Montana Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) procedural rules (ARM 36.2.521 through 36.2.543). In addition, for
the federal lands this project qualifies as an authorized and covered project under
HFRA. See Appendix B for documentation. Guidance for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) follows the Healthy Forests Restoration Act interim
guidance (BLM 2004).

The BLM and DNRC will issue separate decisions on their respective proposed actions.
Goals, objectives, and proposed actions apply to both BLM and DNRC lands,
unless specifically stated otherwise.

1.2 Project Area Location and Description

The analysis area encompasses the Judith, North Moccasin, and South Moccasin
Mountains, located north and northeast of Lewistown in Fergus County, Montana. The
area includes approximately 224,957 acres of federal, state and private lands, of which
32,439 acres are managed by the BLM and 8,459 acres are managed by the DNRC.
Private land encompasses 184,059 acres. . Private, state, and federal lands are highly
interspersed. Patented mining claims make up inclusions of private land within even the
larger parcels of public ownership. The proposed action applies only to federal and
state lands within the analysis area See Figure 1.1.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

The North and South Moccasin Mountains extend 12 miles south to north from
Lewistown and are divided east to west by Warm Spring Creel<. The Judith Mountains
extend northeast from Lewistown approximately 25 miles. Elevations range from 3,693
ft. in Lewistown to 6,427 ft. in the Judiths, 5,402 ft. in the North Moccasin Mountains,
and 5,798 ft. in the South Moccasin Mountains. Topography in the region ranges from
flat to rolling foothills and prairies to steep mountain slopes greater than 60%. Dense
conifer forests cover much of the mountains, with occasional openings of meadows or
rock cliffs. All streams in the area eventually drain into the Missouri River.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

The proposed action and analysis are based on the following purpose and needs.
Needs are expressed as problems under specific resource headings, and the purpose
for the proposed action is to meet the desired outcomes.

Information regarding current conditions is based on extensive forest, range, wildlife,
riparian and water quality inventories completed during 2002 by personnel from North
Wind Environmental under a contract with BLM. All data and reports resulting from
these inventories are on file at the Lewistown Field Office. Data from the inventories
was also used as input to the SIMPPLLE model (Appendix G) to determine the risk of
disturbance from fire, insect and disease, and the range of natural vegetation. Model
input data for non-federal land was derived from aerial photo interpretation. Forest
inventory data for deriving forest prescriptions for DNRC land was derived from existent
information on file at DNRC.

1.3.1 Forest Health

Past timber harvesting, fire suppression, and natural succession have promoted the
development of dense forest stands throughout most of these mountains. Currently,
Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests are unnaturally dense and dominated by a
single canopy layer of mid-aged trees (approximately 80-100 years old). Consequently,
competition between trees for water, light, and nutrients is pronounced. Stressed trees
have poor resistance to drought and disease and are vulnerable to attack by insects
such as mountain pine beetle, pine engraver beetle, and Douglas-fir beetle. Some
areas that are capable of supporting Douglas-fir contain dense stands of small-diameter
lodgepole pine. Many such lodgepole stands are reaching the limit of their natural
lifespan and are subject to high mortality.

These stand conditions are the result of natural seeding after disturbances such as
logging, mining, or wildfire combined with a change from the natural regime of relatively
frequent, low to mixed severity fires (North Wind Environmental 2003, Fire History
Report). In many areas forest productivity is relatively low and tree mortality abnormally
high. These stands are at increased risk for large, stand-replacing fires, as opposed to
smaller, low to mixed severity fires expected under a natural fire regime. The potential
exists for epidemic insect infestations resulting in widespread mortality across the
landscape. In some places, such infestations have already begun. Deciduous trees

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

such as aspen, shrubs, grasses, and forbs have decreased in abundance as the forest
canopy has closed, blocking out sunlight and decreasing forest openings.

Desired Outcome : A healthy forest that is biologically and structurally diverse,
relatively fire tolerant, and dominated by vigorous individual trees. Encourage
establishment of long-lived, fire-resistant Douglas-fir in those areas that can support
its growth that are now occupied by lodgepole pine.

Objective : Maintain or encourage the development of multi-layered stands and
complex forest structure. Retain a mix of conifer species, size- and age-classes
and large standing dead trees. Retain the large, healthy, genetically superior
trees, and thin out smaller or diseased trees. Reduce tree stress by decreasing
the number of trees per acre where the canopy cover and density is too high.
Enhance or establish forest openings. Increase the structural and species
diversity within forest stands, including deciduous trees, shrubs, and herbaceous
understory. Limit new road construction. Endeavor to utilize the material that is
removed through the sale of saw logs, pulpwood, biomass, and other products to
reduce the overall costs of treatment. These objectives are consistent with
DNRC's objectives for the management of School Trust Lands (section 1.3.8).

1.3.2 Fire lyianagement

General Fire Hazard Dense thickets of sapling and pole-size trees have established
beneath the upper forest canopy layers. Dense forest canopies can easily carry a
crown fire. These conditions make the existing forest extremely vulnerable to a high
intensity, stand-replacing wildfire. Controlling such fires in conditions of high to extreme
wildfire danger will be costly, and the risk to firefighters is potentially great. The
potential for large, high-intensity wildfires poses a threat to soil productivity and
watershed integrity, as well as to the forest stands. Especially threatened by the
existing fire hazard are remnant large, old Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine trees
exceeding 200 years of age. Historically, large-scale, stand replacing fires rarely
occurred in Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forest types. Instead, more frequent low
and mixed severity fires were the natural regimen before European settlement (North
Wind Environmental 2003, Fire History Report).

Desired Outcome : Reduce the likelihood of large, stand-replacing wildfires and
increase the likelihood of low or mixed severity wildfires. Increase the probability of
controlling wildfires during initial attack. Reduce the expected cost of controlling
escaped fires. Improve firefighter and public safety.

Objective : Reduce surface and ladder fuels, increase tree crown spacing and
reduce forest density in areas at moderate to high fire risk. Retain the largest
healthy, fire resistant trees and thin out smaller or diseased trees. Endeavor to
utilize the material that is removed through the sale of saw logs, pulpwood and
other products to reduce the overall costs of treatment. Reintroduce fire to the
landscape, mimicking a more natural fire regime that will promote an open, multi-
aged forest structure with good understory species diversity.

Wildland-Rural Interface Fire Hazard Under current forest conditions, expected
wildfire behavior poses a great risk to life, safety, and property for the many private

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

residences in tine Juditli and Moccasin Mountains. Hazardous fuels and otiier risl<s
from wildfire on private and public land threaten homes and communities where rural
development is intermixed with wildlands. Dense forests adjacent to some major roads
could result in the roads being blocked by fire, thus preventing safe evacuations.

Desired Outcome : Homes, communities, recreational sites and access routes are
relatively safe from wildfire, and can generally be defended directly with hand or
engine crews. Major roads are safe for evacuations and can serve as defensible fire
breaks for indirect fire suppression operations (e.g., burn out or back burn).

Objective : Thin forest stands and reduce ladder and surface fuels within the
defined wildland-rural interface boundary so that expected fire behavior under
extreme fire weather conditions (95"^ percentile Burning Index) produces flame
lengths of 4 feet or less, based on fire behavior models.

1.3.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat

Vegetative diversity across the landscape and within stands has decreased as a result
of a) conifer encroachment into meadows, aspen stands, and other non-conifer types;
and b) increased tree density within stands which shades out understory species. Both
of these changes have greatly diminished forage for deer and elk, nesting habitat for
migratory songbirds, and general habitat conditions for species dependent on forest-
meadow edges and open woodland stands. DNRC is not proposing any specific
treatment areas for the specific purpose of vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat
enhancement. However, the wildlife objectives are consistent with the management of
School Trust Lands, and DNRC will consider effects on wildlife in making a decision on
the proposed action.

Desired Outcome : Improve vegetative diversity, both within stands and across the
landscape. Open up the forest canopy to create more forage and improve habitat
for a variety of game and non-game species and to increase the distribution of deer
and elk on public lands. Increase the abundance of deciduous trees, shrubs and
herbaceous understory plants over current conditions. Reintroduce the natural role
of fire.

Objective : Use prescribed fire to maintain and enhance historical meadows and
forest openings. Remove understory conifers from aspen groves. Where
understory trees are currently too dense to safely use prescribed fire as a first
entry, use manual thinning, followed by prescribed fire. In forest or woodland
areas retain the largest healthy trees.

1.3.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC

General Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat restoration projects are needed
to improve existing conditions, based on proximity to fish habitat and the information
found in riparian assessments and stream surveys completed in 2002.

Desired Outcome : Protect aquatic habitat by reducing the risk of high intensity,
stand-replacing wildfires. Improve instream aquatic habitat and existing conditions
for headwater streams that impact downstream fisheries. In areas where riparian
health assessments are rated as non-functioning or functioning at risk, make

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

progress toward proper functioning condition. Maintain riparian lieaitli in areas

currently rated as properly functioning.

Objective : Improve vegetative species diversity and riparian forest stand
structure, simultaneously reducing potential direct wildfire impacts to riparian
areas. Improve instream habitat structure through riparian plantings and
placement of large woody material. Reduce impacts to riparian areas by removal
or reconstruction of selected riparian area roads and construction of livestock
exclosures.

Collar Gulch ACEC Collar Gulch supports an isolated population of westslope cutthroat
trout, a sensitive species. The area has been designated as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) in order to protect this special status species. Forests
in the Collar Gulch drainage are over-stocked and at risk of large-scale crown fires. In
the event of wildfire, the population of westslope cutthroat would be severely impacted
by ash and sediment, high stream temperatures, and could potentially be extirpated. In
addition, vegetation diversity within the riparian area has decreased as a result of
conifer encroachment into birch stands and increased tree density within stands which
shades out understory species. Instream fish habitat is lacking deep pools, and a dam
from historic mining operations partially limits fish passage.

Desired Outcome : Reduce the risk of extirpation of westslope cutthroat in the Judith
Mountains by minimizing the risk of catastrophic fire and improving available habitat
in Collar Gulch, and by expanding the range of westslope cutthroat to another
drainage within the Judiths.

Objective : Thin forest stands in Collar and Chicago Gulch drainages to reduce
the risk of high intensity, stand-replacing wildfires. Remove encroaching conifers
from riparian forests in these drainages. Improve instream fisheries habitat and
genetic crossing of currently isolated subpopulations. Cooperate with Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks to expand the westslope cutthroat population into
Chicago Gulch.

1.3.5 Range

Upland and Riparian Health Standards Grazing management for allotments in the
Judith and Moccasin Mountains has changed little over the past 20 years. Some
allotments are not meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health (see Appendices C and
E). Livestock grazing is a significant factor for three of those allotments that are not
meeting the standards.

Desired Outcome : Grazing management is appropriate to current conditions,
meeting or making progress toward upland and riparian health standards.

Obiective : Reissue ten-year term grazing permits, incorporating management
changes where appropriate. Add the Guidelines for Livestock Grazing
Management (Appendix D) as well as allotment specific conditions to each
grazing permit, to ensure that standards for rangeland health are met.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Base Property Changes Base property ownership for some allotments has changed or
been split, making use of those allotments unfeasible or undesirable.
Desired Outcome : All permitted allotments can be feasibly grazed.

Objective : Allotments that cannot be feasibly grazed will remain unallotted.

DNRC will not be making any decisions regarding grazing management from this
analysis, and therefore, for the purposes of the decision to be made, does not share the
objectives outlined here for range.

1.3.6 Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds are present in the Judiths and Moccasins, both within active grazing
allotments (see Appendix E) and in non-active allotments or unallocated areas.

Desired Outcome : Native plant populations are not threatened by noxious weeds.

Objective : Reduce or contain known populations of noxious weeds and prevent

establishment of new populations.

1.3.7 Visual Resources

The outstanding scenic quality of the Judith and Moccasin Mountains is known
throughout Central Montana. In recognition of this fact, BLM designated the Judith
Scenic Area at the southwest end of the range. Increasingly, tourism has become an
economic benefit for Lewistown and the smaller communities around the
Judith/Moccasin Mountains. Scenic quality is an important contributor to tourism.

Desired Outcome : Maintain or improve the visual quality of the Judith and Moccasin
Mountain ranges.

Objective : Ensure forest health is improved, but scenic quality is not
compromised by vegetative management practices.

1.3.8 lyianapemen t of School Trust Lands

The 8,459 acres managed by the DNRC in the Judith-Moccasin area are held by the
State of Montana in trust for the support of specific beneficiary institutions such as
public schools, state colleges and universities, and other specific state institutions such
as the school for the deaf and blind (Enabling Act of February 22, 1889; 1972 Montana
Constitution, Article X, Section 11).

The Board of Land Commissioners and the DNRC are required by law to administer
these trust lands to produce the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate return
over the long run for these beneficiary institutions (Section 77-1-202, MCA). These
lands are managed under the programmatic guidance of DNRC's State Forest Land
Management Plan (DNRC 1996) and the 2003 Administrative Rules for Forest
Management (ARM 36.11.401 through 36.11.450, DNRC 2003).

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Desired Outcome : A long-term sustainable forest system to provide income for tine
Trust.

Objectives :

1) To promote a diversity of stand structures and patterns for a long-term
sustainable forest system.

2) To produce revenue for the Trust by harvesting up to 6 million board feet
(MMBF) of timber.

1.4 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans

Management actions in the Lewistown Field Office area must conform to the Record of
Decision for the Judith-Valley-Phillips Resource Management Plan decision (JVP RMP),
signed in 1994. This land use plan has since been amended by the following decisions:
Standards for Rangeland Health in 1997, which established national and local
standards for rangeland health and guidelines for grazing management (Appendices C
and D); Montana/Dakotas Fire and Fuels Management Plan in 2003, which incorporated
direction from the National Fire Plan. Full references to each of these documents can
be found in Chapter 5, listed under Bureau of Land Management.

DNRC's State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP) provides the overall philosophy
for management of forested school trust lands: Our premise is that the best way to
produce long-term income for the trust is to manage intensively for healthy and
biologically diverse forests. Our understanding is that a diverse forest is a stable forest
that will produce the most reliable and highest long-term revenue stream.

In the foreseeable future, timber management will continue to be DNRC's primary
source of revenue and our primary tool for achieving biodiversity objectives (DNRC,
1996). The 2003 Administrative Rules for Forest Management (ARM 36.11.401 through
36.11.450, DNRC 2003) provide specific policy and direction for the implementation of
forest management activities under the philosophy of the SFLMP. Timber harvest and
associated activities proposed by the DNRC will be planned and completed in
accordance with these Administrative Rules.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action

For maps of the Proposed Action, refer to Figures 2.1 and 2.2 directly following the
appendices at the back of the document.

2.1.1 Forest Health

The overall goal for forest health treatment areas of the Judith and Moccasin Mountains
(see Figure 2.1) is to develop a mosaic of stands with varying ages and densities, to
increase overall vegetative diversity, to modify fire behavior, and to limit the expected
size of escaped wildfires. Forest health issues of insects and disease, stand density
and structure, fuel loading, and stage of succession will be addressed by treatments in
forested areas. The intent is to retain large trees of fire resistant species and reduce
stand densities across much of the landscape.

Treatments will occur within the identified forest stands (polygons), but will often not
cover the entire polygon based on limitations of topography, slope, streamside
management zones, cultural resources, and the desire to retain some patches of denser
forest. All treatments are intended to avoid homogeneity on the landscape. Within a
given stand, tree density and grouping will vary within the parameters specified for the
appropriate habitat type. Also, in some cases, more than one habitat type is present
within a polygon. Environmental site factors (slope, exposure, soils, etc.) will determine
the prescription applied at any given point in a stand.

Eight areas under BLM management and five areas under DNRC management were
identified for forest health and thinning treatment. The analysis for identifying treatment
areas was based on the following factors:

• canopy density;

• current and predicted insect and disease occurrence;

• current and predicted fire risk;

• access, adjacency and topographic continuity.

The designated treatment areas are listed in Table 2.1 with acreage given by treatment
area and habitat type, along with the priority for treatment. See Figure 2.1 for locations
of treatment areas.

Harvesting will occur in the designated forest health treatment areas over approximately
10 years to reduce tree density and remove diseased or insect-infested trees, followed
later by underburning. Harvesting operations will include both overstory and understory
material to achieve the desired stand structure, target species mix, stocking level,
canopy density and fuel profile. The actual schedule for implementing treatments will
depend on available budget, access, and market conditions. In some cases treatment

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 2.1 Forest health and thinning treatment areas: acres by habitat type.

Agency/
Priority

Treatment
Area

Douglas-fir Habitat

Lodgepole
Habitat

Total
Acres

Warm-Dry

Moderate

Cool-Moist

BLM-1

Camp Maiden

198

512

46

756

BLM -2

Limekiln

228

1134

1362

BLM -3

Chicago Gulch

293

472

100

865

BLM -4

Collar Gulch

102

322

56

480

BLM -5

North End

257

828

180

88

1354

BLM -6

Pyramid Peak

791

1187

24

2003

BLM -7

Southeast

69

766

83

918

BLM -8

North Moccasin

269

165

434

DNRC - 1

Maiden Peak

89

96

80

266

DNRC - 2

Iron Gulch

260

260

DNRC - 3

Burnett Peak

255

255

DNRC -4

East Armells

34

82

116

DNRC - 5

Log Tree Gulch

153

153

Grand Total

2331

6200

389

268

9221

will depend on negotiating access tlirougli private land. Insofar as possible, the cost of
forest health and fuel reduction treatments will be offset by the commercial sale of wood
products, including saw logs, posts and poles, firewood, pulp, biomass, and any other
product which may be economically viable at the time of treatment. Treatments on BLM
lands may be accomplished under Stewardship Contracting authorities, which allow the
value of material removed to be used to offset the cost of non-income generating
treatments, such as construction of recreational trails, wildlife habitat improvement
projects, and removal of non-merchantable or net cost woody material.

DNRC has no authorization for Stewardship Contracting and is tasked with providing
revenue for schools. Therefore, DNRC would maximize long-term revenue through
treatments that consider the forest health issues described above and are consistent
with the State Forest Land Management Plan and administrative rules.

Prescriptions were designed for each forest habitat type (Pfister et al 1977)
encountered, and are generally based on desired stand structure, species composition
and stocking level as measured by basal area. Basal area is the sum of the area of
individual tree boles measured at breast height (4.5 feet). Specific descriptions are
given below.

Douglas-fir represents the broadest forest type within the analysis area. These forests
occupy a range of sites from warm-dry to cool-moist. A wide range of silvicultural
prescriptions is thus necessary to fit the variable environment. Target conditions for this
forest type are a canopy cover of 40-60% with a basal area of 40-140 square feet per
acre, depending on site productivity. Stand structure will ideally be multi-storied with
Douglas-fir composition ranging from 25 to 75 percent. Treatment methods include a
combination of overstory density management and thinning from below. Small patch

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

cuts (up to several acres) within stands will occur, and small uncut patches of dense
trees will be interspersed within stands.

Where stands are currently a dense single layer of mature trees, heavier cuts will be
employed to move towards an open multi-layered stand. In such cases stocking may
need to be reduced below the target basal area during the initial treatment entry in order
to achieve the desired diverse, multi-layer stand in the future. Recently disturbed areas,
such as bark beetle infestation or heavy wind damage will be salvaged to limit
infestation mortality and to reduce fire danger.

Prescriptions applied will vary by the environment on each site according to the
following:

Warm-Dn/ Douglas-fir Habitat Types :

Thin to 40-100 square feet of basal area per acre;

Leave the largest, healthy, fire resistant trees;

Insofar as possible, the residual stand will have a mix of size and age classes

to achieve a multi-layered, multi-aged stand with high structural diversity;

Spacing between trees will be clumped and uneven, leaving small forest

openings, as well as groups of more tightly spaced trees for wildlife hiding

and thermal cover;

Target species mix is 65-75% ponderosa pine, 25-35% Douglas-fir;

Depending on slash tonnage resulting from thinning operations, slash may be

piled and burned or may be utilized for biomass products;

Underburn roughly two seasons after initial thinning to stimulate understory

shrubs and herbaceous vegetation;

Maintain with prescribed fire every 10-20 years after the initial underburn.

Moderate Douglas-fir Habitat Types :

Thin to 60-120 square feet of basal area per acre;

Leave the largest, healthy, fire resistant trees;

Insofar as possible, the residual stand will have a mix of size and age classes

to achieve an open multi-layered, multi-aged stand with high structural

diversity;

Spacing between trees will be clumped and uneven, leaving small forest

openings, as well as groups of more tightly spaced trees for wildlife hiding

and thermal cover;

Target species mix is 50-70% ponderosa pine, 30-40% Douglas-fir, 5-10%

lodgepole pine;

Depending on slash tonnage resulting from thinning operations, slash may be

piled and burned or may be utilized for biomass products;

Underburn roughly two seasons after initial thinning to stimulate understory

shrubs and herbaceous vegetation;

Maintain with prescribed fire every 15-25 years after the initial underburn.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 10

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Cool-Moist Douglas-fir Habitat types :

Thin to 80-140 square feet of basal area per acre;

Leave the largest, healthy, fire resistant trees;

Insofar as possible, the residual stand will have a mix of size and age classes

to achieve a multi-layered, multi-aged stand with high structural diversity;

Spacing between trees will be clumped and uneven, leaving small forest

openings, as well as groups of more tightly spaced trees for wildlife hiding

and thermal cover;

Target species mix is 50-70% Douglas-fir, 25-35% ponderosa pine, 10-15%

lodgepole pine;

Depending on slash tonnage resulting from thinning operations, slash may be

piled and burned or may be utilized for biomass products;

Underburn roughly two seasons after initial thinning to stimulate understory

shrubs and herbaceous vegetation;

Maintain with prescribed fire every 20-30 years after the initial underburn.

Douglas-fir Habitat Currently Dominated by Lodgepole Pine:

Target basal areas and species mix follow the same prescriptions as above,

according to habitat type of the site;

Remove overstory lodgepole to open the stand for Douglas-fir and ponderosa

pine and to approach the target species mix. Retain only lodgepole that are

healthy and robust, or that may serve as future snags for wildlife;

Retain all mature Douglas-fir and ponderosa pines that are healthy or that

may serve as future snags for wildlife;

Retain immature and understory Douglas-fir and ponderosa pines that have

the potential for robust growth resulting from the thinning, up to the limits of

the desired understory density;

Depending on slash tonnage resulting from thinning operations, slash may be

piled and burned or may be utilized for biomass products if market conditions

are favorable;

Underburn roughly two seasons after initial thinning to stimulate understory

shrubs and herbaceous vegetation;

Maintain with prescribed fire according to the specifications for the habitat

type of the site;

Replant harvested areas with the desired mix of Douglas-fir and ponderosa

pine if an insufficient number of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine are present

on the site to achieve the desired stand regeneration.

Lodgepole Pine will be managed as a patchwork of even-aged groups within the
overall stand. The resulting landscape will be a mosaic of even-aged stands of different
age classes. The most common silvicultural prescription to meet the stand target will be
small, scattered, patch clearcuts that vary in size and shape to mimic natural openings.
The size of individual clearcuts will not exceed the limitations specified below.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 11

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Productive Lodgepole Pine Habitat Type:

Clearcut in irregular sliapes tliat follow natural topography;

Cut no more than 50 percent of the lodgepole habitat in designated treatment

areas over a ten-year period;

Limit the size of clearcuts according to the Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP

(currently 10 acres) for BLM land and to 15 acres for DNRC land;

Arrange clearcuts to increase patch iness and diversity in age between

adjacent stands on the landscape;

Depending on slash tonnage resulting from harvesting operations, slash may

be piled and burned or may be utilized for biomass products;

Broadcast burn roughly two seasons after initial harvest to stimulate

lodgepole regeneration, understory shrubs and herbaceous vegetation;;

Allow harvested areas to be restocked through natural regeneration from

residual seed.

Use prescribed fire as needed after stand reestablishment to control tree

density.

Marginal Lodgepole Pine Habitat Type:

No harvesting will occur, with the exception of the defined wildland-rural
interface area (see below);

Use prescribed fire to break up extensive stands and increase patchiness on
the landscape where it can be accomplished within prescription as part of
larger planned burns.

Road Construction will occur in several of the forest health treatment areas to provide
access for harvest and treatment activities. Miles of road permanent planned in each
treatment area are given in Table 2.2. In addition to the road segments listed,
temporary spurs will be created to access areas for harvest and treatment. All
temporary spurs will be reclaimed by reshaping (breaking down the cutwall and pulling
in the outside berm), ripping and seeding after treatment activities are completed. For
locations of the proposed roads see Figure 2.1 directly following the appendices at the
back of the document.

Table 2.2 Miles of proposed new road construction by treatment area.

BLM

North Moccasin

2.4

Pyramid Pk - Lower

1.3

Pyramid Pk - Upper

1.9

DNRC

Burnett Peak

1.7

East Armells

0.7

Iron Gulch

1.5

Log Tree Gulch

0.9

Maiden Peak

2.8

Total

13.2

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

12

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

New roads on BLM may or may not be closed to motorized access, pending results
from the transportation plan in progress. All new roads on DNRC treatment areas will
be closed to motorized access. To prevent unauthorized access, DNRC will obliterate
the first 500 to 1000 feet of treatment roads adjacent to other public access roads and
place slash or other debris to act as a barrier and reduce road visibility after harvest
activities are completed.

Mitigations Applied to All Harvest Areas:

• Implement applicable Best Management Practices, as recommended by
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MSU
Extension Service 2001).

• Establish Streamside Management Zones according to Montana state law
(Montana Department of Natural Resources 2002). Maintain enough forest
cover to provide hiding and thermal cover for wildlife around drainages,
wetlands and riparian areas.

• Tractor logging will not occur where the average slope is greater than 40
percent. In such areas limit operations to helicopter, cable logging, other
systems that minimize ground disturbance, or use manual thinning to prevent
erosion on steep slopes.

• No machine operations will occur during wet periods when excessive soil
compaction is likely to occur. Machine operations will only occur when soils
are dry, frozen, or snow-covered so that rutting is generally limited to less
than 4 inches in depth.

• As a preventative weed control measure, require harvesting contractors to
pressure wash or otherwise thoroughly clean all equipment and vehicles at an
approved wash station prior to entering public land.

• To limit weed infestations seed all log landings, skid roads and temporary
spurs with a mixture of native grasses and forbs upon the completion of
harvest activities. Seed all burn pile areas upon completion of burning.

• Retain a minimum average of one large snag (> 10 inches DBH) per acre; if
an adequate number of snags do not currently exist then retain the best snag
"recruits"(i-e., nearly dead trees). Recently killed snags which still actively
harbor mountain pine beetles or other insects that pose a risk of infection to
healthy trees will be removed.

• To encourage the regeneration and expansion of aspen, remove all conifers
from within aspen stands and from a 50-foot buffer around the stands. An
exception will be any "old growth" Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine and any
large conifer snags that occur within aspen stands. "Old growth" trees are
those that are at least 15" in diameter with thick bark and crowns that are
generally flat (when not broken). Mature aspen trees will be cut only when
the clone appears decadent, and cutting large trees is needed to induce
sprouting.

• Survey for northern goshawk nest sites before harvest begins in any stand.
Nest trees will be left undisturbed. During brooding and fledgling use (roughly

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 13

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

April 15^^ to August 15"^) maintain a buffer of V2 mile radius around active nest
sites (less if topograpliic breal<s are present). Seasonal buffers will also apply
to prescribed fire activities.

• On the ground cultural surveys will be completed prior to the layout of harvest
units. Layouts will be designed and modified, based on consultation with an
archeologist. Impacts to all cultural sites with potential for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places will be avoided.

• A VRM contrast rating (BLM Form 8431-1) analysis will be conducted for
each area to be thinned and visual contrasts will be minimized, consistent
with achievement of the forest health and wildfire objectives.

2.1.2 Fire Manapement

General Fire Management The objectives of fire management in the Judith and
Moccasin Mountains are:

1) reducing the fire risk posed by the excessive buildup of hazardous fuels;

2) improving the ecological health of forests and meadows by restoring a more
natural fire function.

Historically, wildfires in the analysis area burned primarily with low or mixed severity
(North Wind Environmental 2003, Fire History Report), and acted to mitigate the effects
of insect and disease infestations, maintain soil productivity, improve watershed
integrity, and create a mosaic of wildlife habitats.

These objectives for general fire management have been incorporated into the
prescriptions for the forest health treatment areas and the vegetative diversity treatment
areas. Thinning of the understory trees will occur in the forest health areas to reduce
ladder fuels and the probability that crown fires will develop under extreme weather
conditions. Forest health areas also emphasize density management of the overstory
to reduce the potential to support a crown fire and to allow the safe and effective use of
prescribed fire for ecological function and hazardous fuel reduction. Vegetative diversity
areas have more emphasis on restoring meadows, forest openings, aspen stands and
deciduous shrubs (see below under Wildlife). Prescribed fire will be used as a first entry
in vegetative diversity areas where it can be carried out safely and effectively. Where
this is not possible, thick stands of small conifers will be manually removed, followed by
broadcast burning.

Wildland-Rural Interface Fire Management The wildland-rural interface definition was
based on CIS analysis to include defined units around residences or other structures
and the roads that provide ingress and egress for those structures (See Figure 1.1). In
general, these areas are delimited by topographic barriers, such as a ridgeline or rock
face that may function as a natural fire break or control line. Thus the lines are irregular
and the width around developed areas varies with topography. The wildland-rural
interface along the major access roads was defined as a buffer occupying 100 feet on
each side of the road. Much of the area thus defined as wildland-rural interface on
federal land is already covered in the forest health treatment areas. Net additional

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 14

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

interface treatment area totals 1,165 acres on federal land. See Figure 2.1 for federal
interface treatments.

The objective of treatments in this zone is to create and maintain fuel conditions that will
result in predicted flame lengths of no more than four feet under extreme fire weather
(95th percentile Burning Index). Burning Index (Bl) is a measure of the difficulty of
controlling a fire, and is a combination of how fast the fire will spread and how much
heat is being produced. When flame lengths are no greater than four feet, such
conditions allow direct attack on the flaming front during wildfire suppression and
greater probability of control at initial attack.

Overstory thinning, understory thinning, and pruning using manual and mechanical
methods will reduce surface and ladder fuels and will increase tree crown spacing. Fuel
loads will be reduced to less than 10 tons per acre.

Slash disposal at a first entry in the wildland-rural interface will be accomplished as pile
or underburning. Where pile or underburning cannot be safely implemented, slash may
be disposed of by grinding or chipping. Chips may be sold or given away, depending on
markets, for use as biomass fuels. Insofar as market conditions are such that disposal
as biomass fuels is no more expensive than pile or underburning, the preference will be
to dispose of slash as biomass material.

Underburning without thinning will be employed as a first entry in those areas where
surface and ladder fuel loads are currently low enough to insure a scorch height of not
more than 10 feet. Underburning will be used as a second or third entry after
mechanical thinning to achieve final objectives or to maintain the desired fuel
conditions.

In general, interface treatments will fit within the lower end of the basal area
specifications given for Douglas-fir in the forest health treatments. Where marginal site
lodgepole pine occupies the wildland-rural interface, patch clearcutting will be used,
followed by slash disposal and fuels treatments as specified for the productive
lodgepole pine habitat, to create a discontinuous fuel bed.

2.1.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat

Vegetative diversity treatments will be implemented outside forest health compartments
to increase and maintain meadows and forest openings, and to increase deciduous
trees and shrubs across the landscape for the purpose of improving wildlife habitat and
distribution on the public lands. This treatment category includes areas with key
deciduous or herbaceous species with the potential for increasing after prescribed fire
and for improving wildlife habitat and overall vegetative diversity throughout the
mountain ranges.

All vegetative diversity treatment areas fall outside forest health treatment areas (see
Figure 2.1). Total acreage to be treated for vegetative diversity is 4,943.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 15

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Objectives include:

1) restoring aspen stands and increasing tlieir extent;

2) restoring meadows by removing conifer encroacliment;

3) rejuvenating and expanding decadent stands of deciduous slirubs;

4) encouraging growtli of lierbaceous species.

Prescribed fire will be the primary treatment method. Manual thinning, followed by
prescribed fire, will be employed where conifer density is so great as to make an initial
entry with prescribed fire either unsafe or ineffective, and within aspen stands where the
conifers cannot be adequately controlled by prescribed fire alone.

Vegetative diversity and forest health treatments are likely to open up new areas to
livestock grazing and provide more and improved herbaceous forage. Alteration of
current grazing management may be necessary in order to meet the vegetative and
wildlife objectives on the treatment areas. Vegetative response to mechanical and
prescribed fire treatments is best when the area is rested from livestock grazing for up
to two growing seasons. Rest will be accomplished through installation of temporary or
permanent fencing, alteration of the grazing rotation, or voluntary non use on the
treatment area.

DNRC is proposing no specific wildlife treatments.

2.1.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC

General Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Major streams and draws in the analysis area
were surveyed for riparian health assessments (North Wind Environmental 2002,
Riparian Health Assessment Report). Results of the surveys are summarized in
Appendix F. Deficiencies in riparian health and opportunities for improvement are
specified by stream reach in the report.

The objectives for restoration are to:

1) protect the area's fish and other aquatic species habitat by minimizing the risk of
catastrophic fire in the watersheds;

2) improve available aquatic species habitat;

3) improve existing conditions for headwater streams and downstream fisheries.

Habitat restoration projects and associated priorities are proposed for specific reaches
based on these objectives, existing conditions documented in the above surveys, and
proximity to fish habitat (see Table 2.3 and Figure 2.2). These projects involve various
combinations of riparian planting, placement of large woody material (LWM), riparian
thinning, dam removal and livestock exclosure construction. Projects may be
completed by Stewardship Contracts, or as appropriated funds become available.
Implementation will be based on priority, combined with logistical efficiencies that may
result from other projects being scheduled in an area. Thus, some lower priority
projects may be completed before all high priority projects. All stream and riparian work
will be conducted under the supervision of a fisheries biologist or hydrologist.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 16

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 2.3 Proposed

riparian and aquati

c habitat restoration projects.

stream Name

Polygon
Number

Miles of
Stream

Prescription

Priority

Alpine Gulch

8-1

.63

LWM placement; riparian planting

High

8-2

.68

LWM placement

High

Armells Creek

15-1,
15-3

15-2,

.17, .13,
.18

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

15-4

.70

LWM placement to reduce livestock
pressure

High

15-5

.20

LWM placement

High

Plum Creek

1-1

.10

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

1-2

.55

Remove old dam; LWM placement

High

Black Butte

33-1

.30

Construct exclosure on spring

Moderate

Box Elder Trib

28-1

.28

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

Brickyard Creek

29-1

.33

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Moderate

Chicago Gulch

17-1,
17-3,
18-2,

17-2,
18-1,
20-1

2.63

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

High

Collar Gulch

16-1,
16-3,
24-1,

16-2,
16-4,
24-2

2.30

Riparian thinning; LWM placement;
fish passage

High

East Fork
(Chicago Gulch -
Fords Creek)

19-1

.31

Riparian planting; LWM placement

High

Dexter Gulch

9-1

.10

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

Lincoln Gulch

7-1, 21-1,
22-1, 22-2,
22-3, 23-1,
23-2, 23-3

.42, .23,
.09, .09
.20, .11,
.12, .10

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Moderate

7-2, 21-2

.10, .28

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

High

Limekiln Canyon

13-1,

14-1

.35, .25

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

High

Maiden Canyon

26-1,

26-2

.48, .77

Machine placement of LWM

High

2a-l,

2b-l

.62, .52

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

3-1

.12

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

High

North Moccasin

3-2

.30

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Moderate

2a-2

.25

Remove old dam and culvert;
Riparian thinning; LWM placement

High

Pyramid Gulch

10-1,

11-1

.42, .16

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

10-2,

11-2

.29, .16

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Moderate

Ruby Gulch

12-1

.28

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

12-2

.12

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

High

South
Moccasin

4-1, 4-2

.38, .25

Riparian thinning only

Low

5-1

.20

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Low

6-1, 6-2

.30, .28

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Moderate

Whiskey Gulch

7-1

.25

Riparian thinning; LWM placement

Moderate

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

17

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

For riparian thinning projects, conifers of varying size will be thinned within 100 to 150
feet of the high water mark (slope distance) on both sides of the stream segments listed
in Table 2.3. All activities will be in accordance with the Streamside Management Zone,
(SMZ) law and the "Water Quality BMP's (Best Management Practices) for Montana
Forests." Specific treatment areas will be broken up by non-treatment areas within the
reach. If suitable markets exist cut material may be hauled off-site for utilization.
Deciduous trees and shrubs may be removed only where individuals are extremely
decadent and cutting is expected to stimulate resprouting. Some of the largest, fire-
resistant conifers may be retained in the riparian treatment areas, as long as they do not
pose an intense fire threat. Prescribed burning within these areas will be limited to pile
burning or a cool backing fire.

A summary of the cumulative stream miles of each type of habitat restoration by priority
level is given in Table 2.4. The table displays all proposed riparian and stream
restoration activities, including those on Collar and Chicago Gulch (see below).

Table 2.4 Cumulative stream miles of proposed stream restoration.

Restoration Activity

Priority

Cumulative
Stream Miles

Riparian planting

High

0.94

LWM - manual placement

High

Moderate

Low

9.47
3.27
3.16

LWM - machine placement

High

1.25

Riparian thinning

High

Moderate

Low

6.40
3.27
3.79

Dam removal or fish passage

High

3 sites

Exclosure construction

Moderate

0.30

DNRC is proposing no specific stream restoration activities.

Collar Gulch ACEC The primary management objective is to protect the area's
westslope cutthroat trout habitat by minimizing the risk of high intensity, stand-replacing
fire, to improve available habitat, and to expand the range of westslope cutthroat
habitat. This objective will be met by the following:

Conifers of varying size will be thinned within 100 to 150 feet of the high water mark
(slope distance) on both sides of Collar Gulch for 2.3 miles of stream and Chicago
Gulch plus associated tributaries for 2.63 miles. All activities will be in accordance with
the Streamside Management Zone, (SMZ) law and the "Water Quality BMP's (Best

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

18

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Management Practices) for Montana Forests." Specific treatment areas will be brol<en
up by non-treatment areas witliin eacli reacli. If suitable markets exist cut material may
be hauled off-site for utilization. Deciduous trees and shrubs may be removed only
where individuals are extremely decadent and cutting is expected to stimulate
resprouting. Some of the largest, fire-resistant conifers may be retained in the riparian
treatment areas, as long as they do not pose an intense fire threat. Prescribed burning
within these areas will be limited to pile burning or a cool backing fire.

The historic mining dam in Collar Gulch serves as a partial fish barrier, even though the
stream has cut around the side of the dam. Because of the barrier, the lower westslope
cutthroat trout population cannot interbreed with the upper population in most years.
This is a problem, given the small amount of habitat available for westslope cutthroat in
Collar Gulch (1.5 to 2 miles). In addition, there are erosion concerns with the dam. To
provide passage and reduce potential erosion concerns, the BLM proposes either to:

1) Remove the dam and construct log or boulder low-stage check dams within the
channel, or

2) Leave the dam in place and construct log/boulder, low-stage check dams around
the historic dam.

The low-stage check dams are rated as excellent structures for B4 Rosgen channel
types (Rosgen 1996). Collar Gulch is most likely a B4a Rosgen channel type (BLM
preliminary survey data 2005).

The low stage check dams will require the use of a small tracked excavator with a
thumb. Some excavation in the stream channel and bank will occur to secure the
structures and create passable structures. It is estimated that little riparian vegetation
will be removed, due to the presence of an old trail adjacent to the stream. The project
will take proper precautions to avoid riparian damage. Three series of certified weed-
free straw bales will be placed with rebar directly downstream of the site to catch
sediment produced from construction. Prior to straw bale removal, the fine sediment
caught behind the structures will be removed and placed out of the flood plain.

Cultural resource clearance of the dam and the nearby mill foundation will be
completed, and the site recorded before any ground-disturbing activity takes place in
Collar Gulch. If cultural investigations indicate a need, the design for the fish passage
will be modified to insure that the integrity of the historic structures is maintained or
enhanced.

Large woody material will be placed in Collar Gulch (2.3 miles) and Chicago Gulch (2.63
miles) to create deep pools and increase invertebrate populations that provide forage
for fish. This work will be accomplished in accordance with the SMZ law and under the
supervision of a fisheries biologist or hydrologist. Treatment areas within each reach
will be interspersed by non-treatment areas in a mosaic pattern.

Hazardous fuels in the upper slopes of Collar Gulch will be reduced through vegetative
diversity and forest health treatments (see Figure 2.1). Crown spacing in Douglas-fir
forests will be increased and breaks in continuous stands of lodgepole will be created in

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 19

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

the upper reaches of Collar Gulch. Prescribed fire will be used to stimulate growth of
birch and aspen, other deciduous trees and shrubs, and herbaceous understory plants.
The objective will be to obtain a mosaic of burned and unburned areas in the overall
treatment area.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has proposed expanding the current westslope
cutthroat population into Chicago Gulch to reduce the likelihood of extirpation. In order
to accomplish this objective, all of the brook trout that currently inhabit Chicago Gulch
would first need to be removed. The stream would then be restocked with native
westslope cutthroat trout. FWP will conduct the environmental analysis and complete
the documentation. If their decision is to proceed with the project, BLM will cooperate
and is committed to maintaining high quality westslope cutthroat habitat in Chicago
Gulch. The owner of the private land in Chicago Gulch has already expressed support
for the project and a willingness to cooperate with FWP.

2.1.5 Range

Ongoing Grazing Management Maintain or make significant progress towards meeting
Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix C) by implementing Guidelines for Livestock
Grazing (Appendix D) or other allotment specific terms and conditions. A variety of
management techniques will be used, including water developments, prescribed fire,
riding, salt and mineral placement, implementation of a rotational grazing system and/or
adjusting season of use. Issue grazing permits for all allotments with terms matching
the status of base property control (i.e., deeded lands will be issued ten year permits,
and leased lands will be issued permits with terms coinciding with the expiration of the
lease). Permittees will be responsible for ensuring that livestock are managed
according to the guidelines beginning with the 2007 grazing season.

Monitor for increased livestock impacts following vegetation treatments of thinning
and/or prescribed burning. Implement adaptive management if monitoring indicates
gains in forage and wildlife habitat are being negatively affected by livestock.
Management methods that may be implemented to mitigate potential livestock impacts
may include up to two growing seasons of rest following prescribed burning, deferral of
grazing, implementation of a rotational grazing system, installation of temporary or
permanent fences, changes in season of use, and/or other methods designed to limit
the impact of livestock on wildlife habitat and distribution.

No changes in grazing management on DNRC lands are proposed.

Unallocated Allotments The allotments listed in Table 2.5 will are not currently allotted
due to changes in ownership or grazing viability.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 20

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 2.5 Allotments not currently allotted.

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

Acres

AUMs

Limekiln

20076

600

30

Maginnis Mountain

02603

963

48

East Fork Ford's Creek

02681

836

10

The base property for the Limekiln allotment has been split several times, and none of
the current owners have made application to graze the allotment, so this allotment is
currently unallotted. The latter two allotments are small meadows of grass surrounded
by steep terrain and heavy timber, are largely inaccessible to livestock and provide
limited amounts of forage. Furthermore, the management of the ranch to which the
allotments are tied has changed, and the limited amounts of forage that are available no
longer fit with their current operations. For these reasons, to continue to authorize
grazing use and administer these allotments is no longer in the best interest of the
public.

Any land acquired in the area by the BLM in the future will initially be unallocated for
grazing. An environmental assessment will be completed before grazing is authorized
on any newly acquired land.

Qualified applicants could apply for permits to graze these allotments. In addition,
unallocated or non-use allotments could be grazed by livestock through a temporary,
non-renewable permit if grazing would improve resource conditions, or they could serve
as grass banks when temporary livestock displacement occurs on other allotments
within the analysis area due to the implementation of proposed vegetation management
actions. Permittees would be required to apply for this use in accordance with 43 CFR
4130.2(g).

Allotments Not Meeting Rangeland Health Standards Grazing allotments that are
not meeting the standards for rangeland health due to livestock grazing are listed in
Table 2.6. Alpine Gulch JR and Judith Peak allotments are not meeting the riparian
health standard in part due to utilization and damage (trampling, mechanical breakage)
of desired woody vegetation and stream bank damage (hummocking and plugging).

Shelternook allotment has changed ownership since the inventory in 2002 due to the
sale of the base property. The current permittee has made several management
changes that will be incorporated into the permit that will be offered upon approval of
this document.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

21

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 2.6 Allotments not meeting Rangeland Health Standards due to livestock.

Allotment
Number

Allotment
Name

Grazing
Authorization

Type Use

BLM
Acres

BLM
AUMs

standard
Not Met

02525

Alpine Gulch JR

5C 5/1 - 9/1

Custodial

440

28

Riparian

02627

Judith Peak

4C 3/1 - 2/28

Custodial

1016

49

Riparian

02667

Shelternook

2C 3/1 - 2/28

Custodial

180

16

Upland

4C 3/1 - 2/28

Custodial

1020

51

The grazing permits for the above allotments will be offered incorporating the following
management changes:

Alpine Gulch:

• Large woody material (LWM) will be placed along 1.31 miles of the Alpine Gulch
stream channel to reduce impacts of livestock trailing and allow these areas to
become revegetated;

• One or more photo points will be established and read every three years;

• The Proper Functioning Condition checklist will be completed every three years
to determine if the allotment is moving towards meeting the riparian standard;

• Adaptive management will be implemented if monitoring indicates that the
allotment is not progressing towards meeting the riparian health standard.

Judith Peak:

• Large woody material (LWM) will be placed along 0.7 miles of the Armells Creek
stream channel to reduce impacts of livestock trailing and allow these areas to
become revegetated;

• One or more photo points will be established and read every three years;

• The Proper Functioning Condition checklist will be completed every three years
to determine if the allotment is moving towards meeting the riparian standard;

• Adaptive management will be implemented if monitoring indicates that the
allotment is not progressing towards meeting the riparian health standard.

Shelternook:

• Salt, mineral and protein supplements must be placed at higher elevations to
improve livestock distribution and reduce utilization levels at lower elevations of
the allotment;

• Herding will be used to improve livestock distribution;

• Seasons of use will vary to minimize repeated impacts to plants;

• Compliance checks and/or utilization mapping will be conducted to monitor
impacts on the lower portion of the allotment;

• Adaptive management will be implemented if monitoring indicates that the
allotment is not progressing towards meeting the upland health standard.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

22

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

2.1.6 Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds were identified in numerous grazing allotments and in areas of
unallocated public land. Guideline #11 (see Appendix D) makes weed control a
condition of the grazing permit through a signed cooperative weed control agreement.
Houndstongue, Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, and Dalmatian toadflax are weeds
that should be controlled on a site-by-site basis. BLM will provide guidance and control
agents (chemical or biological), and the permittee will provide labor and application
equipment.

Noxious weeds on all unallocated areas of federal and state land will continue to be
treated by the BLM and DNRC, respectively, using various methods included in an
Integrated Weed Management approach.

2.1.7 Visual Resources

Vegetative thinning creates the potential for altering the viewshed. Visual Resource
Management (VRM) provides a process to mitigate the impacts of thinning on the
viewshed. The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality of a
landscape depends on the visual contrast created between a project and the existing
landscape.

A VRM contrast rating (BLM Form 8431-1) analysis will be conducted for each thinning
project identified under the proposed action, and visual contrasts minimized, consistent
with achievement of the forest health objectives.

2.1.8 lyianapement of Sctiool Trust Lands

On School Trust Lands within the project area, the proposed action includes timber
harvest on approximately 1050 acres and 7.5 miles of road construction. Specific
prescriptions and mitigation measures fall within those described under 2.2.1, Forest
Health. Table 2.1, Forest Health Treatment Areas, includes acreage treated on school
trust lands. All activities proposed by the DNRC will be planned and completed in
accordance with the Administrative Rules (DNRC 2003).

2.2 Continuation of Current Management

Continuation of current management represents the "no action" alternative for both BLM
and DNRC.

2.2.1 Forest Health

Current management of forest resources will continue as specified by the 1992 JVP
RMP and amended by the 2003 Montana/Dakotas Fire and Fuels Management Plan.

The BLM will continue to allow the harvest of forest products within the average
allowable cut of 650 thousand board feet (MBF) per year and will meet the demand for

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 23

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

minor forest products as feasible. No coordinated effort to address forest lieaitli on a
landscape basis will occur. No density management to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire will occur.

Forest products will be sold at fair market value, and harvesting operations will be
coordinated with adjacent landowners when possible. Timber sales will generally be
opportunistic and designed with wildlife habitat objectives in mind.

No harvest activity will occur on DNRC land.

2.2.2 Fire Management

The BLM will continue to use fire suppression tactics as specified in the 1992 JVP RMP
and amended by the 2003 Montana/Dakotas Fire and Fuels Management Plan.

Prescribed fire will be used on a site-by-site basis in grassland, sagebrush, and/or
conifer types only to improve wildlife habitat and vegetation production. No mechanical
thinning or fuels treatments will be applied in the wildland-rural interface areas.

2.2.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat

No specific actions to improve wildlife habitat, such as manual thinning or prescribed
burning, will be implemented. Natural succession in wildlife habitat will be allowed to
continue.

2.2.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC

Management in Collar and Chicago Gulches and other streams and draws in the project
area will continue unchanged. No specific actions to improve fish and aquatic species
habitat and populations will occur.

Vegetation diversity within the riparian area will continue to undergo changes due to
ecological succession. No hazardous fuel reduction will occur in the upper slopes of
Collar Gulch.

2.2.5 Range

The management of rangeland resources and its associated impacts will proceed as
specified by the 1992 JVP RMP. All grazing will remain consistent with existing permits.

Guidelines for Grazing Management will not be incorporated into the grazing permits.

2.2.6 Noxious Weeds

The BLM will continue to contain or reduce the populations of noxious weeds on BLM
land in the Judith-Moccasin analysis area; however cooperative weed control
agreements will not be incorporated into grazing permits.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 24

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

2.2.7 Visual Resources

Visual resource management objectives will continue as specified in the JVP RMP.

2.2.8 Manapement of School Trust Lands

The continuation of current management on DNRC lands will defer treatment on these
sections within the Judith-Moccasin Landscape. No timber harvest or roadwork will
occur on these parcels at this time.

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail

A "No Grazing" alternative was considered and found not to be a viable option.
Precluding grazing is logistically and economically unfeasible. Most of the allotments
occur in a patchwork with private rangeland, small private holdings, and old mining
claims. In most cases public land is not fenced off from private land. To eliminate
grazing, public lands would need to be fenced off from any private lands grazed by
livestock. The rugged terrain and extensive boundary perimeters associated with
patchwork ownership make such a prospect logistically unfeasible, economically
unviable, and ecologically and aesthetically undesirable.

Currently, many grazing allotments are not utilized to their full permitted capacity.
Nonetheless, the existence of the grazing permits authorizes the occasional livestock
use which occurs on public land. A continual problem of livestock trespass would result
if grazing was precluded and fences were not built.

The "No Grazing" alternative was analyzed in detail in the national Rangeland Reform
Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1994). Implementation of a no grazing
alternative is considered unfeasible or unnecessary except in specific, localized
situations where livestock use may be incompatible with attainment of proposed
standards, or with other management objectives. The conditions within the Judith-
Moccasin analysis area do not meet these criteria.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 25

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

General information about the planning area can be found within the JVP RMP which is
available for review at the Lewistown Field Office.

The following critical elements of the human environment were considered and found
not to be affected by any of the alternatives. These elements will not be discussed
further:

Farmlands (Prime/Unique)

Floodplains

Native American Religious Concerns

Wastes (Hazardous/Solid)

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wilderness

No environmental justice issues were identified.

This chapter describes the environmental consequences of implementing each of the
alternatives. For each resource, the affected environment is described, followed by the
consequences for each alternative. Aspects of the environment with little to no affect
are not covered, so as to focus the discussion on the most pertinent information.

3.1 Forest Health

3.1.1 Affected Environment

In 2002, the BLM Lewistown Field Office conducted an extensive forest inventory in the
Judith and Moccasin Mountains. The purpose of this assessment was to collect data on
forest stand composition and structure, fuel loadings, and insect and disease infestation
(North Wind Environmental 2002, Forestry Report). The complete report and data
sheets are on file at the Lewistown Field Office. DNRC forest inventories are on file at
DNRC Forest Management Bureau in Missoula.

Douglas-fir is the dominant tree species on BLM and State land in the Judith and
Moccasin Mountains, with lesser amounts of ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and
engelmann spruce. Ponderosa pine is dominant on private land at lower elevations.
Lodgepole pine is found at mid to high elevations, and small amounts of limber pine are
found on shallow soils of high, exposed ridge tops. Engelmann spruce is confined to
drainages and a few moist areas at mid and upper elevations in both mountain ranges.
Aspen trees can be found where soils retain surface moisture in meadows, seeps, and
in the drainages. Horizontal juniper is common in the understory; common deciduous
shrubs are chokecherry, snowberry, rose, Oregon grape, hawthorn and buffaloberry.
Forest structure data for BLM land is presented in table 3.1 below.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 26

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 3.1 Forest structure attributes on BLM land.*

Age Structure

Acres

Percent

Canopy Cover

Acres

Percent

Grass/shrub
Seedling/sapling
Young forest
Mid-aged forest
Mature forest
Old growth forest

765

648

2239

14783

5810

46

3.1
2.7
9.2
60.9
23.9
0.2

0-39%

40-59%

60% +

3369

13089

7068

14.3
55.6
30.0

Single Layer 6886 30.1
Multi Layer 15992 69.9

* Specific inventory data of this nature is not available for DNRC lands in the study area; however
professional opinion indicates these data reflect conditions on DNRC land, as well (Buck 2005).

Many areas show signs of decadence and mortality due to overstocking, the absence of
fire and/or forest management, and insects and disease. New stands of ponderosa
pine, Douglas-fir, and juniper are encroaching into areas which historically were natural
openings and meadows. Resulting fuel loads far exceed the normal range of variability
(Keane et al. 2002).

Table 3.2 Total insect and disease infestation levels on forested BLM land.*

Infestation Level

Score

Acres

Percent

None

20319

74.3

Light

<2

0.0

Moderate

2-5

4696

17.2

High

6+

2349

8.6

* Specific inventory data of this nature is not available for DNRC lands in the study area; however
professional opinion indicates these data reflect conditions on DNRC land, as well (Buck 2005).

The results of this inventory suggest that insect and disease agents are widespread
throughout the Judith and Moccasin Mountains. The analysis area contains a variety of
insects which can be classified under the following categories: bark beetles, defoliators,
chewing insects, sucking insects, mining insects, boring insects, and seed and cone
insects. Common disease pathogens include root diseases, dwarf mistletoe, decays,
stem diseases, and foliage diseases. Bark beetles, comandra blister rust, dwarf
mistletoe, needle miners, pine engraver beetles, various root diseases, stalactiform
blister rust, stem cankers, stem rusts, and western gall rust have the highest level of
occurrence (North Wind Environmental 2002, Forestry Report). Common physiological
effects caused by these agents include stem decays, cankers, and tree mortality. Other
tree deformities caused by physical factors such as fire, animals such as porcupine and
beaver, wind, and lightning include general bole deformities, bark damage, broken and
missing tops, forks, crooks, and sweeps.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

27

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

3.1.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Forest Health

Direct Effects

All treatments in forested areas will address forest lieaitli issues sucli as fuel loading,
stand density, stand structure, stage of succession, insects and disease, etc. The focus
will be on improving forest health through a variety of silvicultural options designed to
open up stands while still maintaining forest canopies, reducing competition between
trees and increasing understory grasses, forbs and deciduous shrubs. Logging
activities may cause damage to unharvested trees of all species, though contract
specifications and sale administration activities should limit such damage, especially to
larger trees which are most critical for retention.

Effects for specific forest types are presented below.

Douglas-fir Direct effects of harvest activities involved in thinning operations are
expected to include a strong reduction in the number of trees per acre in treatment
areas and an increase in the average tree size due to the retention of larger trees and
removal of dense understory trees. The resulting degree of openness in treated areas
varies with the habitat type (see Table 3.3). Forests on warm-dry sites will be most
open while those on cool-moist sites will have the highest amount of cover after
treatment. All habitat types will have much more open understories and a reduction in
ladder fuels. In areas where the upper canopy layer is currently dominated by Douglas-
fir and ponderosa pine, the upper canopy will remain largely intact, with an increase in
openings. Douglas-fir habitat that is currently dominated by lodgepole pine will have
much greater density reductions and increased openings that will resemble a
shelterwood harvest.

Thinning activities will change the species mix in many forest stands. Depending on the
target composition (see Table 3.3) more ponderosa pine will be retained and more
Douglas-fir removed, except on cool-moist sites, where more Douglas-fir will be
retained. The actual canopy species composition will correspond more or less to the
target composition depending on the existing species mix. For instance, some warm-
dry sites currently lack enough ponderosa pine to fully meet species targets while
retaining the prescribed basal area of trees per acre. In such cases basal area targets
take precedence over species composition targets, and immediately after treatment

Table 3.3 Target percent canopy composition and basal area by tree species for
habitat types in the treatment area.

Target

Warm- Dry

Moderate

Cool-Moist

Lodgepole

Ponderosa Pine %

65-75

50-70

25-35

Douglas-fir %

25-35

30-40

50-70

Lodgepole Pine %

5-10

10-15

100

Basal Area

60-100 ft""

80-120 ft'

100-140 ft'

N/A

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

28

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

these stands will have excess composition of Douglas-fir. (More than one treatment
entry may be needed to eventually reach the target species composition on such
stands, but additional entries are anticipated to occur 15 or more years out and are not
analyzed in this document.)

Lodgepole Pine Small, irregularly-shaped clearcuts will occur on productive lodgepole
pine sites, resulting in forest canopy openings of up to 10 acres in size directly after
treatment. Such openings will disrupt areas of continuous lodgepole cover and their
potential to support a running crown fire. Of the total 268 acres of lodgepole pine habitat
that are designated for treatment, only 50 percent, or up to 134 acres will actually be
harvested. The remaining acres will constitute patches of older age-class stands on the
landscape, spread among the designated treatment polygons.

Aspen Wherever feasible, all conifers will be removed from within aspen stands that
occur in any treatment area, plus a 50-foot buffer around the stands. Harvest activities
will disturb the soil surface and surface roots prompting aspen clones to send up new
sprouts within stands and extending the area occupied by the clone, thus resulting in an
overall increase in aspen in treatment areas. Prescribed fire occurring approximately
two seasons after harvest will further stimulate sprouting of aspen clones.

Road Construction Skid trails and temporary roads associated with thinning and
harvest activities will result in temporary soil compaction and baring of mineral soil. All
skid trails and temporary roads will be reclaimed by reshaping (breaking down the
cutwall and pulling in the outside berm), ripping and seeding after treatment activities
are completed.

New permanent roads on BLM land may or may not have continued public access,
depending on decisions made in the Judith-Moccasin Transportation Plan EA that is
currently underway. However, irrespective of BLM decisions, new roads in the Pyramid
Peak area will be accessible to the public only if the private landowner who controls
adjacent land allows public access across his property. All new roads on DNRC land
will be closed to public access.

Harvesting Methods A maximum of 9,221 acres will be available for forest health
treatments. Steep areas (defined as extended slopes greater than 40 percent or small
areas greater than 49 percent) occur on 2,236 of these acres (24%). An additional
1,165 acres will be treated for interface treatments, and steep slopes occupy 24% of
these acres as well (280 acres). On these steep acres ground-based machine
harvesting is prohibited. Only aerial operations, such as helicopter or cable logging
systems, or manual thinning will be used. Thus the area of forest health and interface
treatments that will be subjected to impacts from logging machinery is a maximum of
7,870 acres. Actual acreage will, in fact, be less, as streamside management zones
and locally inaccessible or otherwise infeasible acres are included in the total treatment
area "footprint," but will not be harvested.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 29

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Indirect Effects

Forest Health In treated areas retained trees will experience reduced competition for
water, nutrients and iiglit. Relieving sucli competition will make trees less vulnerable to
the effects of drought, insects and disease and will increase tree growth rates (Sala et al
2005). With increased resistance, insects such as mountain pine beetle will be more
likely to maintain endemic levels and less likely to increase to epidemic populations.

Fire Hazard The presence of slash in treated areas, whether piled or scattered, will
temporarily increase the hazard for intense fires, should a wildfire occur before the slash
is treated. The effects of such a wildfire would be generally greater surface fire
intensities and greater soil heating than either before treatment or after slash disposal.
During this period, crown fires will be less likely than prior to treatment, as treatment will
remove ladder fuels and increase spacing between canopy trees. Insofar as markets for
pulp or biomass fuel are available at the time of treatment, this hazard will not be as
great, as slash treatment will occur at the same time as harvest.

Once treatments have been completed through slash disposal and underburning, both
fire intensity and the likelihood of developing a crown fire will be greatly reduced. The
ability to control any wildfires that start will increase in treated areas, and these areas
are more likely to serve as control points from which back burns or burnouts can be
successfully executed. Maintenance of treated areas with prescribed fire at 10 to 30
year intervals, depending on the site, will be important to maintaining these benefits.

In lodgepole sites, where patch clearcuts are interspersed with older stands, crown fires
may still occur in the untreated areas. However, breaking up the stand will reduce the
chance that such fires will develop enough heat and energy to become a running crown
fire, burning across many stands, independently of surface fuel conditions.

Vegetative Diversity Opening forest canopies and removing dense conifer
undergrowth is expected to stimulate deciduous shrubs, grasses and forbs in the
understory of treated stands. Currently many stands have little to no understory in
terms of both species diversity and abundance. Removing conifers from aspen stands,
opening forest canopies in adjacent stands, and stimulating sprouting of aspen through
controlled root disturbance and prescribed fire will result in rejuvenation of existing
stands and the expansion of those stands into the surrounding forest. Thus, forest
treatments will increase the overall vegetative diversity in the Judith and Moccasin
Mountains.

Cumulative Effects

Forest Health and Fire Hazard Cumulative forest health will improve as a result of
proposed vegetation management. Because of reduced competition, remaining trees
will grow faster and thus more quickly attain a large size. The oldest and largest trees
will persist longer in the landscape as a result of decreased competition, improved water
and nutrient balance (Sala et al 2005) and increased resistance to insects and disease.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 30

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

as well as a reduced likelihood of fire mortality. Overall these factors will increase the
resiliency of stands to disturbance, and by treating areas connected over the landscape,
the range as a whole will be less susceptible to large-scale disturbance.

This same concept applies to fire hazard. In general, the ranges will be more resilient to
wildfire, even under extreme weather conditions, and fire effects are expected to be less
severe, showing less tree mortality and erosion than would be expected from a wildfire
under current conditions.

Vegetative Diversity By thinning smaller trees and ladder fuels, retaining large trees
and opening forest canopies to more light, structural diversity in forest areas will
increase in the long term. This effect will be most pronounced when looking at larger,
landscape scales, though an increase in structural diversity is also expected at smaller
scales within stands.

By removing conifers from aspen stands and stimulating aspen root sprouting, the total
acreage of pure aspen stands is expected to increase several fold over the current
level. Over the long term, aspen will persist in the landscape.

Watershed Impacts The combined cumulative effects for forest health, interface
treatments and vegetative diversity treatments that occur in currently forested areas are
displayed in this section. Combining these treatment categories allows cumulative
effects analysis of all areas that will be subject to tree removal.

Reduction in the density of the tree canopy increases the amount of precipitation (both
rain and snow) that reaches the ground. Trees intercept rain and snow in their
branches where it may evaporate or sublimate before reaching the ground. These
effects are most common for storms of short duration which do not last long enough for
canopy saturation to occur. Reduction of tree canopy thus tends to increase both runoff
and water percolation into the soil. Runoff increases when precipitation hits ground that
is frozen, highly compacted, or exposed to bare mineral soil. The presence of rooted
herbaceous vegetation, organic duff and large woody debris decreases water runoff and
increases soil moisture recharge. Removal of the entire tree canopy by clearcutting
results in the greatest increases in runoff and erosion, while thinning the canopy greatly
lessens these impacts.

The acres of conifer treatments, along with the percent of conifers and percent of the
total area by fifth order watershed divisions are presented in Table 3.4. The percentage
of conifer acres to be treated within each watershed ranges between 5 and 27 percent.
Of the 14,552 conifer acres scheduled for treatment, 268 acres are lodgepole that will
be treated with patch clearcuts. Harvested patches will not exceed 10 acres in size and
are limited to no more than fifty percent of this area, or 134 acres. Therefore, less than
one percent of the treated area will be subject to clearcut harvesting. The cumulative
effect of these treatments is therefore expected to result in some increase in runoff and
soil water recharge, with minimal increase overall in erosion.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 31

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 3.4 Acres of conifer treatments, total conifers, total acres and percents by
fifth order watersheds within the analysis area.

Fourth Order
Watershed Name

5th Order
Number

Conifer
Trtmts

Total
Conifers

%
Conifers
Treated

Total
Acres

%of

Total

Treated

BOX ELDER

01
02
03

934

280

3,630

8,274

5,468

14,230

11

5

26

16,036
34,818
31,128

6

1
12

BULLWHACKER-DOG

05

171

1,656

10

6,974

2

FORT PECK RESERVOIR

06

1,767

8,044

22

12,781

14

JUDITH

05
06
09
13

2,792
126

4,291
561

16,415
2,029

25,559
2,063

17

6

17

27

29,467

10,393

75,047

8,142

9

1
6

7

Grand Total

14,552

83,737

17

224,787

6

Machine harvest will be used on forest health and interface treatments where slopes
average less than 41 percent. Aerial systems will be used where slopes are steeper
and manual harvest will be used in the vegetative diversity area. Machine harvest
generally has more potential for soil disturbance and compaction than aerial or manual
methods. Table 3.5 displays the maximum total acres that will be subject to machine
harvest within each fifth order watershed. The maximum acreage in any one watershed
is 2,948. The maximum percentage of watershed area within the analysis area subject
to machine harvest is just over 6 percent.

No reliable estimate of timber harvest activities that may occur on private land within the
analysis area is available as they tend to vary with the market price of timber. Thinning

Table 3.5 Acres of machine harvest treatment and percent of total fifth order
watershed acres within the analysis area.

Fourth Order
Watershed Name

5th Order
Number

Machine
Acres

Total
Acres

Machine
% of Total

BOX ELDER

01
02
03

677

1,781

16,036
34,818
31,128

4.2

5.7

BULLWHACKER-DOG

05

30

6,974

0.4

FORT PECK RESERVOIR

06

619

12,781

4.8

JUDITH

05
06
09
13

1,792

2,948

96

29,467

10,393

75,047

8,142

6.1

3.9

1.2

Grand Total

7,850

224,787

3.5

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

32

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

to create defensible space around structures or to reduce ladder fuels is expected to
occur on some private lands through a program with the Fergus County Conservation
District. Since 2001 this program has provided technical and cost-share assistance for
such thinning on just over 600 acres spread throughout Fergus County on parcels
ranging in size from 1.5 to 39 acres (Fergus County Conservation District 2005).
Approximately 25 percent of those acres have been located within the analysis area.

3.1.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Consequences for Forest Health

Direct Effects

Current management on BLM lands will continue as specified by the 1992 JVP RMP.
The BLM will continue to allow the incidental harvest of forest products on a limited
basis under existing RMP forestry guidelines. Under the current program, harvest
activities over the next decade will likely be less than 500 acres on BLM land in the
Judith and Moccasin Mountains.

Douglas-fir No density management of forest stands will occur, and ladder fuels will
remain in place and continue to grow. The mix of dominant tree species in existing
stands will not be changed, thus leaving more of the forest dominated by less fire-
resistant species. In stands where decadent lodgepole is a significant part of the
canopy, mortality in lodgepole will accelerate over the next decade, leaving increasing
numbers of standing snags and contributing to increasing dead fuel on the forest floor
as dead trees fall over.

Lodgepole Pine No patch clearcuts will occur, and the continuous even-aged canopy
that currently exists will be retained.

Aspen Conifers currently present in aspen stands will not be removed, and will
increasingly compete with aspen for light, water and nutrients. No stimulation of root
sprouting will occur as the result of harvest activities and prescribed fire. The extent of
existing stands will not increase, and is expected to continue to slowly decrease. A
direct result of the continuation of current management will be the continued decline in
the health of aspen stands.

Road Construction No skid trails, temporary roads or permanent new roads will be
constructed under current management.

Indirect Effects

Forest Health Forests will continue to grow unnaturally dense, resulting in increasing
competition for water and nutrients. As a result of this competition, trees will become
increasingly susceptible to insect infestations and disease, and increasing mortality from
such agents is expected to occur. The older, larger trees that are targeted for retention
under the proposed action are the ones most likely to succumb as competition
increases. Bark beetles, in particular, preferentially attack larger trees, and especially in

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 33

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

drought conditions, larger trees sliow greater increases in water stress, resulting in
decreased capacity to repel bark beetles and thus increased mortality over younger,
smaller trees.

Under current management, project design and assessment will be limited to single
stands associated with incidental harvest. Thus, treatments will not be designed with
the intent of reducing the risk of wide-spread insect and disease or large-scale stand
replacing fires, and no treatments will be designed with overall landscape patterns in
mind.

Fire Hazard Under current management, little slash will be generated, and so no
temporary increased risk for a more intense surface fire will occur. Because ladder
fuels will not be removed and forest canopies will remain dense, stand-replacing wildfire
will be much more likely to occur. Conditions to support a running crown fire will persist
and escaped wildfires will be harder to control under current management. Thus,
chances are great that an escaped wildfire will be much larger, more intense, and with
more severe fire effects than would occur with the proposed treatments.

Vegetative Diversity Given that forest canopies will remain dense and will slowly
increase over time, vegetative diversity and abundance of deciduous shrubs, grasses
and forbs in the understory will continue to decline.

Cumulative Effects

Forest Health and Fire Hazard Under current management, forest health will continue
to decline. The rate of decline will be dependent on weather and climate factors. If the
current drought persists, increasing mortality from bark beetle infestations is expected
and could reach epidemic proportions. The oldest cohort of lodgepole pine (those
approximately 100 years old) will show accelerated mortality rates and will begin to fall
over, greatly increasing large dead fuel loading in affected stands.

These conditions will contribute to an increasing probability of a large, stand-replacing
wildfire. In the long term the only question about such a fire is not if it will occur, but
when. Weather patterns and the availability of initial attack resources are the greatest
influences from a timing standpoint, given sustained and increasing forest densities and
tree mortality. Prediction of the timeframe for such an event is not possible: it might
occur next year, or not for several decades.

Vegetative Diversity on a large scale across the ranges will continue to decline under
current management. In particular, the loss of meadows and aspen stands will continue
unimpeded from increasing encroachment and over-topping by conifers. Eventually,
aspen, deciduous shrubs and herbaceous species will be eliminated from affected
stands, making their recovery in the event of harvest or fire much delayed. Elimination
of remnants and propagules of native understory and meadow species also increases
the likelihood of weed infestation after a disturbance occurs.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 34

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Watershed Impacts Under current management no increases in erosion and soil
compaction will occur as a result of management activities, and no new roads will be
constructed. However, in the event of a large, stand-replacing wildfire, soil erosion and
stream sedimentation is likely to increase dramatically.

Increases in runoff, soil water recharge and water yield will not occur. As the forests
continue to develop and mature, increasing amounts of precipitation will be intercepted
by tree canopies and evaporate before reaching the soil. Thus water yield is expected
to decline from its present level.

3.2 Fire Management

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Fire History and Fire Regime Condition Class From 1980 to 2005 the record shows
86 fires on BLM land within the Judith-Moccasin analysis area. (A geospatial record of
fires on state and private land is not currently available.) These fires burned a total of
6,754 acres (NWCG 2006). Average fire size was 79 acres, however this average is
made up of numerous small fires under 100 acres, one fire of 150 acres, and one fire
over 5,000 acres (see Table 3.6). Thus, the fire record shows that ignitions are
common and initial attack is generally successful at keeping fires small, but that fuel and
weather conditions exist to generate large fires when initial attack is unsuccessful.

Table 3.6 Fire record for federal lands in the analysis area, 1980-2005.

Size Class

# of Fires

Average Acres

Total Acres

A .1-.25

39

0.1

3.1

B .26-9.9

35

1.5

52.3

C 10-99

10

24.9

249.0

D 100-299

1

150.0

150.0

E 300-999

F 1,000-4,999

G 5,000+

1

6,300.0

6,300.0

Total

86

79

6,754.4

Fire scars collected from the Judith and Moccasin Mountains suggest that these forests
are representative of ecosystems historically characterized by mixed severity fires
(North Wind Environmental 2003, Fire History Report). At middle elevations, evidence
of mixed-severity fire regimes exists, in which relatively small patches may burn as a
crown fire, killing all trees, while nearby the fire only consumes surface vegetation,
leaving the canopy fairly intact. Many of the "doghair," even-aged lodgepole pine forests
in the Judith Mountains likely resulted from stand-replacing fires approximately 100
years ago. In other areas lodgepole came in after a fire under very open canopies of
remnant Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

35

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

The current Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is presented in Figure 3.1 (directly
following the appendices at the back of the document) showing divisions between the
fifth order watersheds. This parameter is an assessment of how much the existing
vegetation differs from the vegetation that would be expected under the natural, pre-
European settlement fire regime. FRCC 1 areas are within the expected natural
vegetation, FRCC 2 areas show moderate divergence, and FRCC 3 areas diverge
strongly from expected natural vegetation. Percentage of forest in the analysis area in
each of these classes is FRCC 1: 26.3%; FRCC 2: 13.6; FRCC 3: 60.1%.

The vegetation composition that would result from the absence of fire suppression was
modeled using SIMPPLLE (see Appendix G). This predicted vegetation is derived by
applying an ignition rate based on documented recent fire history to the current
vegetation and removing the effect of initial attack and fire suppression. The model is
then run for a period simulating 500 years. After several hundred years, the resulting
vegetation reaches equilibrium with the natural fire occurrence in terms of the number of
acres in each vegetation type. Because the model is based on random probability, the
prediction encompasses a range of acres resulting from 30 simulations (see Table 3.7).

Table 3.7 Acres of predicted natural vegetation modeled by SIMPPLLE with
minimum and maximum vs. acres of current vegetation types.

Vegetation Type*

Predicted Natural

Current

acres

percent

minimum

maximum

acres

percent

Aspen

1,772

0.80

123

1,923

85

0.04

Aspen-Mixed Conifer

0.00

121

518

0.23

Conifers

6,356

2.87

791

7,034

90,622

40.87

Native Forbs

4,721

2.13

5,261

27,554

0.00

Grasslands

90,041

40.60

80,676

115,387

67,299

30.35

Riparian Shrubs

14,341

6.47

12,367

16,678

14,165

6.39

Upland Shrubs

86,956

39.21

40,127

86,956

31,498

14.20

Grand Total

204,187

100.00

204,187

100.00

* Acres of agriculture, rock and scree are not reported, as they are not modeled for succession and
disturbance and thus do not vary.

Current vegetation in the analysis area is displayed in Figure 3.2, and predicted natural
vegetation, as modeled by SIMPPLLE is presented in Figure 3.3. The figures are
directly following the appendices at the back of the document. The predicted natural
vegetation resulting from such modeling is designed to approximate pre-settlement
conditions; the maps present a graphic contrast between current and pre-settlement
vegetation.

Another graphic example of the difference between current and pre-European
settlement vegetation can be seen from comparing current with historical photographs.
The back cover shows comparisons of the Judith Mountains paired to 2002
photographs of the same area. The front cover shows an 1886 photograph of the area
around Fort McGinnis on the east side of the Judith Mountains (no paired retake).

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

36

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Both historic photographs and vegetation modeling based on the l<nown fire occurrence,
current vegetation types and prevailing weather pattern confirm that "natural" (i.e., pre-
settlement) vegetation in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains had substantially less area
of continuous forest cover than currently exists. A number of Plains Indians tribes were
known to frequent Central Montana (Howard 1943) and used fire in hunting, warfare,
and other activities (Williams 2002). Lack of modern fire suppression technology in
response to spring and summer lightning fires when combined with Indian burning
would be expected to greatly increase both the extent of fires and the frequency of
ignition, as fires set in the grasslands and foothills could move upslope into forested
areas.

The historical fire regime of the Judith and Moccasin Mountains created shifting,
heterogeneous mosaics of habitats, cover classes, and tree densities. These attributes
have become more homogenous as fire frequency was diminished, first by removing
Indians from the land who used fire extensively and, second, by deliberate fire
suppression. Pre-settlement fire regimes likely produced highly diverse forest
communities that contained abundant fire-dependent species, including multi-aged
stands with old, large fire-resistant trees.

Interface Treatments The analysis area contains many small communities and
ranches that are built adjacent to BLM lands containing timber and steep slopes. The
potential exists for future fire-related incidents. In the Judith Mountains, communities
susceptible to fire include Maiden and Gilt Edge and scattered homes in Limekiln
Canyon, New Years, Alpine, Lincoln, Ruby, and Whiskey Gulch. In the Moccasin
Mountains, the Kendall community and various ranches on all sides of the mountains
are interspersed with heavily forested BLM land.

The defined wildland-rural interface area within the analysis area is identified in Figure
1.1. This definition varies from the wildland-urban interface delineated on a county-wide
basis in the Fergus County Wildfire Mitigation Plan (Schlosser 2004). In the county-
wide plan the entire area of the Judith and Moccasin Mountains is included in the
defined wildland-urban interface. At the scale of a county-wide assessment (over 3
million acres), this definition is appropriate. However, when looking at the smaller scale
of the analysis area (225,000 acres) for specific project implementation purposes, it is
appropriate to identify areas which are most critical for treatment and will result in the
greatest protective benefit. Treating the entire area with one blanket prescription based
on wildland interface concerns would be ecologically undesirable, financially prohibitive
and inefficient.

Air Quality and airshed characteristics are based on climate, prevailing winds,
inversions, and local weather patterns influenced by topography and air pollution
sources. All of the JMLA analysis area is designated as a Class II airshed. Air quality in
this airshed has not been monitored and therefore threshold measurements or current
conditions are not available. Visibility is generally good.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 37

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

The general airflow in the Judith and Moccasin Mountain Ranges are from the west to
the east, although local winds are altered by topography and can come from any
direction. The town of Lewistown, Montana lies 15 miles (all distances are approximate
and Judith Peak was used as a location to measure distance from) to the southwest of
the project area. The town of Roy is located 15 miles to the northeast, Winnett is 45
miles to the southeast. Grass Range is located 25 miles to the southeast and Winifred
lies 25 miles to the north. The Judith and Moccasin Mountains are known for their
winds, which allows for good smoke dispersion.

Air pollution sources in the analysis area includes wildfires, timber harvest activities,
prescribed burning, mining, dust transported from fallow fields, and vehicle travel on
unpaved roads during dry periods. Air quality can also be affected by wildfires and
prescribed burning activities and from dust transported from fallow fields outside of the
immediate area.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the document. Interim Air Quality
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (EPA 1998), supports increasing the
reintroduction of fire into Federal land management programs to allow fire to play its
natural role and provide resource benefits, consistent with public health and
environmental quality considerations. All prescribed burning planned in this project area
will be in line with the certified Smoke Management Program (i.e., Montana/Idaho
Airshed Group).

3.2.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Fire Manapement

The environmental effects of all uses of prescribed fire in the proposed action will be
displayed in this section. Vegetative effects of harvest for forest health, interface
protection and vegetative diversity will generally be displayed in those respective
sections.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Interface Treatments A total of 1,165 acres scattered across the Judith and North
Moccasin Mountains are proposed for treatment with the sole purpose of improving life-
safety and property protection in the event of wildfire. Additional areas were classified
as interface, but are included in forest health treatment areas. The acreage figure
presented here is the net additional acres, above that which is covered in forest health
treatments. See Figure 2.1.

Forests adjacent to existing structures and key travel ways will be thinned to limit
expected fire behavior in these areas to 4-foot flames lengths. This level of fire intensity
allows for direct attack by hand and engine crews and the safe passage for vehicles
evacuating from a burning area. These actions will result in substantially greater
likelihood that residents will be able to evacuate safely during a wildfire, even if the fire
is burning adjacent to evacuation routes. Fuel reduction adjacent to roads will also
provide the opportunity to use roads as fuel breaks from which back burn or burn out

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 38

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

operations could be initiated wlien indirect attacl< is indicated during wildfire suppression
operations. These conditions will greatly increase firefighter safety and reduce the risk
of property and resource damage during wildfire.

Forests will be thinned for 100 feet on each side of a key road or to a topographic break,
whichever is less. Areas adjacent to structures will be thinned to the nearest identified
topographic break. Thinning prescriptions given for the different habitat types in the
forest health treatments will be used according to the habitat type of a given site. For
the interface treatment areas, the lower end of the target basal area will be used in
thinnings adjacent to roads and within 150 feet of private land. For interface treatment
areas that extend further than 150 feet from private land, the target basal area may
gradually increase as distance from the private land increases, to the maximum given in
the prescription.

Environmental effects for specific forest types, general forest health, and vegetation
diversity from the interface treatments are identical to those identified for forest health
treatments, except that effects are marginally increased because thinning will be
relatively heavier in the interface treatment areas.

Air Quality Prescribed fires are ignited under fuel moisture conditions that reduce total
fuel consumption and when mixing height and winds are favorable for dispersion of
smoke away from populated areas. They are not conducted during inversions or when
smoke would be expected to pool in populated areas. Weather forecasts, smoke
management forecasts, atmospheric stability, fuel loadings, fuel moisture, amounts of
fuel consumed, and local and upper winds will be evaluated prior to ignition to mitigate
effects of smoke from any planned prescribed fire under this project.

The closest Class I airshed is the U.L. Bend Wilderness Area on the Charles M. Russell
National Wildlife Refuge. This area should not be affected due to direction and/or
distance from the project.

This analysis used the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM), a computer model that
predicts the amount of particulate matter produced by prescribed burning. PM2.5 is
particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller, and PMIO is particulate matter 10

Table 3.8 Distances and directions of areas of potential concern for air quality.

Area of Potential Concern

Airshed
Class

Distance in Miles
from Judith Peak

Direction from
Project Area

U.L. Bend Wilderness Area

1

65 miles

Northeast

Roy, MT

15 miles

Northeast

Winnett, MT

45 miles

Southeast

Grass Range, MT

25 miles

Southeast

Winifred, MT

25 miles

North

Lewistown, MT

15 miles

Southwest

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

39

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

microns in diameter or smaller. Particulate matter emission from fires has a great
potential for causing air pollution because of: 1) the amount of particulate matter
produced, 2) the effect on visibility due to the amounts of sub-micrometer sized
particles, and 3) the high organic content. Particulate matter less than or equal to 10
micrometers in diameter (PMIO) is the size of material which can penetrate the inner
recesses of the human lung potentially causing health problems.

Currently five primary air toxins are being assessed relative to the exposure of humans
to smoke from both prescribed fire and wildfires. These toxins are: acrolein,
formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, particulates, and benzene. Currently, little is known of
the long-term health factors these toxins have on humans as they are found in smoke
from vegetation, and modeling to predict concentrations of air toxins downwind from a
prescribed burn or wildfire does not exist. Due to dilution of these toxins with fresh air,
exposure is less harmful the further away an individual is from the source of the smoke.
The people that will be impacted the most by the effects of prescribed burning will be
those personnel directly involved with the project.

The areas surrounding the project area (especially areas downwind) may be impacted
when some of these burns are implemented. These impacts will likely occur mainly from
evening through the next morning, due to the tendency that as the sun sets cooler air
usually flows downhill into drainages. These smoke impacts will be relatively short term;
normally as the next day heats up the local winds become uphill and these lower areas
clear out. This cycle may continue for a few days with the biggest impact being the day
and evening of ignition.

Particulate matter emissions (both PM2.5 and PMIO) have been calculated for each
prescribed burning activity under the proposed action (see Table 3.9). These figures
include all proposed treatments, and will occur over a period of 10 years or more. Thus,
the average yearly acres and emissions will be one tenth of the figures cited. The
actual acres, and thus the particulate emissions, will likely be less than presented in the
table, as not every acre within identified treatment polygons will actually be treated. The
figures presented are thus a worst-case scenario.

Table 3.9 Estimated particulate matter emissions by acres for proposed vegetation
management actions.

BLM Forest
Treatments

DNRC Forest
Treatments

Interface
Treatments

Vegetative

Diversity

Treatments

Average
per Year

Total
(10 years)

Acres of

Prescribed

Fire

8,176 ac.

1,050 ac.

1,165 ac.

4,943 ac.

153 ac.

15,333 ac.

Tons of
PM2.5

3,860 tons

476 tons

534 tons

1,591 tons

646 tons

6,461 tons

Tons of
PMIO

4,556 tons

562 tons

631 tons

1,878 tons

763 tons

7,627 tons

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

40

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Prescribed fires will be conducted at times when there is both good predicted ventilation
and mixing height (the height above the surface through which relatively strong vertical
mixing occurs). During these times, smoke and smoke particles will be dispersed in a
manner that would be tolerable to healthy people living downwind. The general airflow
in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains should carry smoke from the southwest to the
northeast. The smoke may be quite noticeable by local inhabitants for a few days
following ignition, but by the time it reaches an incorporated town located downwind it
should not be noticeable. There are a few valleys which may trap smoke.

Prescribed burning operations are conducted within the Central Montana Fire Zone
under a Montana Air Quality Open Burning permit issued from the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality with support of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. The
meteorologist for the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group monitors National Weather Service
weather forecasts, predicts daily smoke dispersion conditions and issues daily
advisories. These advisories are issued 24 hours in advance when conditions are not
favorable for good smoke dispersion.

Prescribed Fire managers will also utilize local techniques for limiting the amount of
smoke production, such as:

• scheduling burning when weather conditions are favorable;

• limiting the amount of burning in adjacent areas;

• using higher fuel moisture and/or relative humidity levels to limit the amount of
duff and fine fuel consumption, and thus limiting smoldering.

The smoldering phase of a prescribed fire can contribute greatly to the duration and
amount of smoke produced.

Burning could start in the fall of 2008 and continue for approximately 10 years. Although
difficult to quantify, a temporary degradation of downwind air quality may occur as an
irretrievable and unavoidable adverse effect. Substantial deterioration should be
avoided by following established guidelines and procedures.

Cumulative Effects

Fire Regime Condition Class Thinning and vegetative diversity treatments are
designed to move the vegetation closer to reference (i.e., pre-European settlement)
conditions. Over the long-term these actions will result in moving the Fire Regime
Condition Class from 2 or 3 closer to Condition Class 1. For each fifth order watershed
Table 3.10 shows the forested acres that will be converted to Condition Class 1, the
percent converted, percent existing and the percent of the watershed in Condition Class
1 resulting after all treatments are completed.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 41

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 3.10 Acres and percent converted to Condition Class 1 by fifth order
watershed.

Watersheds

Fire Regime Condition Class One

Fourth Order Name

Fifth Order
Number

Acres

Converted

toCCl

Percent

Converted

toCCl

Percent
Existing

Percent
Resulting

BOX ELDER

01
02
03

638

111

2,071

7.7

2.0

14.6

36.1
45.1
41.8

43.8
47.1
56.4

BULLWHACKER-DOG

05

224

13.5

1.9

15.4

FORT PECK RESERVOIR

06

1,344

16.7

0.5

17.2

JUDITH

05
06
09
13

2,236
134

2,912
407

13.6

6.6

11.4

19.7

21.7
2.0
0.0

26.7

35.3

8.6

11.4

46.4

Grand Total

10,078

12.0

26.3

38.3

Overall, the percentage of Condition Class 1 increases by 12 percent for the entire
analysis area. Individual watersheds range from just under 10 to over 50 percent after
treatment. The greatest improvement comes in Fort Peck Reservoir 06, which moves
from less than 1 percent to over 17 percent Condition Class 1. Additionally, 4,474 acres
that are currently in Condition Class 1 will be treated with thinning and prescribed fire to
maintain their current state.

Interface Areas Safety for residents, members of the public and firefighters will
increase as a result of interface treatments. The probability of property damage will
decrease. Escaped wildland fires will likely be smaller in size and less damaging to
natural resources than if no treatments occurred. In the event of an escaped wildfire,
negative impacts to private property values would likely be reduced over the existing
condition.

The aesthetic value of private properties is likely to improve from the increase in wildlife
use expected from treatments, especially big game animals. Wildlife will also be
somewhat more easily viewed in thinned areas. Restoration and maintenance of
meadows and aspen stands will also contribute to a higher aesthetic value for the area
as a whole. Such changes may contribute to increased economic property values.

Air Quality The air quality cumulative effects analysis area included the entire JMLA
project area and other locations downwind of the project area. In addition to the
particulate emissions presented in Table 3.9, vehicle traffic, agricultural dust, wildfires,
and prescribed burning not related to the proposed vegetation management could
temporarily reduce air quality in the area. All prescribed burns will be scheduled so that
no one area or drainage will exceed Air Quality Standards or be impacted by smoke for
a prolonged period of time.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

42

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

3.2.3 Current Manapement- Environmental Consequences for Fire Manapement

The BLM will continue to use fire suppression tactics as specified in tine 1992 JVP RMP
and amended by tine 2003 Montana/Dal<otas Fire and Fuels Management Plan.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Interface Areas No thinning treatments will occur adjacent to existing structures and
key roads. In the event of an escaped wildfire, evacuation routes could easily be
blocked by high intensity flaming fronts adjacent to roads and entrapment could easily
occur. Firefighter response for protecting houses will be limited by safety concerns: if
safe egress cannot be guaranteed, crews and engines will not be sent in to protect
structures from an approaching wildfire.

Unplanned fires, especially those ignited during hot, dry conditions or during high winds,
will be more difficult to control without any thinning treatments, because there will be
few areas to function as defensible fuel breaks.

Air Quality Continuation of current management will result in no increase in particulate
matter (PM) emissions resulting from management activities. However, under current
management there is an increased chance of large, stand-replacing wildland fires.
Such fires would result in much larger inputs of particulate matter than those modeled
for prescribed fire. In addition to the health effects, visibility, especially during the
summer months, would be expected to be severely impacted by these potential fires, as
well.

Cumulative Effects

Interface Areas In the long-term, continuation of current management is expected to
result in marginally increasing conflicts with social and economic private property values
until such time as a stand-replacing fire occurs. Once a large stand-replacing fire
occurs that involves private residences, or even undeveloped private property, tort
claims and lawsuits would likely result.

In the event of a large, stand-replacing fire private property values within the fire
perimeter will decline drastically, and values in the general area may also be negatively
affected.

Air Quality The long-term effects of continued current management will result in an
eventual increase in PM emissions resulting from wildland fire events. Wildfires typically
produce more PM than do prescribed burns on those same acres because wildfires
typically consume more fuel per acre. Escaped wildfires usually consume more fuel per
acre because they burn when fuel moistures are low and winds are sometimes strong.
Prescribed fires are generally conducted during the spring and/or fall, or in the case of
slash pile burning, during the winter when escape is highly unlikely.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 43

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

In addition to the difference between fire beliavior parameters in prescribed vs. wildfire,
the absence of thinning treatments and ladder fuel reduction will leave more fuel
available to burn, thus further contributing to PM emissions and impacts to visibility.

3.3 Wildlife Species and Habitat

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk is a forest-dwelling raptor preferring habitat
with dense canopy cover and mature trees (MPIF 2000). Within the Judith-Moccasin
analysis area, all forested landscapes may contain potentially suitable habitat for some
portion of the northern goshawk's life cycle.

In 2002, five goshawk sightings and seven goshawk habitat locations were recorded by
the BLM. All sightings and habitats were in mid-aged to mature forests. Canopy cover
varied from open to closed. Sightings and habitat observations occurred in stands
dominated by Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine.

Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Townsend's big-eared bat is a USFWS species of
concern. It is also a BLM Special Status species in Montana. From 1997 to 1999,
Hendricks (2000) surveyed several areas on BLM lands in the Judith Mountains. He
documented one cave inhabited by Townsend's big-eared bat within the current
analysis area.

An additional survey was conducted in 2002 to identify additional sites used by bats and
supplement the previously gathered information. The following four sites were visited in
2002: Unnamed Maiden Canyon Adit, Unnamed Mason Canyon Adit, Abby Mine, and
cliff sites in the South Moccasin Mountains. At the Abby Mine a bat of unidentified
species was seen flying in the riparian area below the mine entrance. No Townsend's
bat activity or evidence of occupation was confirmed at any of the above sites.

Rocky Mountain Elk Rocky Mountain elk habitat covers the vast majority of the Judith-
Moccasin Analysis Area. Elk occupy most range with suitable forage, from prairie to
montane forest, migrating with the seasonal availability of food. Elk summer range
occupies most of the forested and higher elevation grassland and sagebrush areas of
the North and South Moccasins, the Judiths, and the Black Butte areas (Lackey 1999).
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation defines summer range as the area in which 90
percent of individuals are historically located between the appearance of spring greens
and the first heavy snowfall (Lackey 1999). The crucial elk summer range is
concentrated in the North Moccasins. Crucial summer range is the area supporting the
heaviest elk densities between mid-June and mid-August. In these areas that provide
high quality forage and habitat for rearing of new calves, the elk density may reach 200
percent of that in surrounding areas (Lackey 1999).

In the Moccasin Mountains, elk summer, crucial elk summer, and elk winter ranges
overlap significantly. In the Judiths, elk winter range is concentrated between the north

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 44

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Judiths and Black Butte in tine Lewis Peal< area, also overlapping summer range. Elk
crucial winter range is concentrated in the Lewis Peak area (Lackey 1999). Elk also
require migratory corridors to travel between their summer and winter ranges. In the
Judith-Moccasin analysis area, these regions are in between the North and South
Moccasins, north of the North Moccasins and north of Porphyry Peak in the North
Judiths (Lackey 1999).

Due to the potentially vast area containing suitable calving habitat and the dispersed
distribution of cow elk, the BLM conducted fixed-wing aerial surveys during the peak
calving period, on June 5 and 13, 2002. Sixty-nine cow elk and six calves were spotted
on the June 5 survey. The elk were concentrated in the north and northeast sections of
the Judith Mountains. Five bull elk were spotted along the eastern side of the mountain
range. No elk were observed in the southern portion of the Judith Mountains. During
the June 13 survey, twelve cow elk and no calves were spotted in the North Moccasin
Mountains. All elk were located on the eastern side of the mountain range at low
elevations. One bull was spotted with a herd of three cows. Eleven bulls and no cows
were observed in the South Moccasin Mountains. Four cow elk and one calf were
spotted in the western-central area of the Judith range (North Wind Environmental
2002, Wildlife Report).

Winter surveys were also conducted for elk in February 2002 (North Wind
Environmental 2002, Wildlife Report). A total of 457 elk were observed, of which 123
were bulls. The vast majority of elk (291) were concentrated around Black Butte. Other
parts of the Judiths held 85 elk. Sixty-six animals were spotted in the North Moccasins
and 15 in the South Moccasins. The target elk population for the Judith and Moccasin
Mountains (Hunting District 412) is 300 animals total with 45 bulls (FWP 2004).

Big Game Winter Range Mule deer and whitetail deer habitat covers the majority of the
Judith-Moccasin analysis area. During aerial surveys in February 2002, mule deer and
whitetail deer populations were abundant within the entire analysis area, and so
numerous that an accurate count could not be made. A large number of antelope (746)
occured in the sagebrush-grasslands around Black Butte, and a few individuals (12)
were seen in the South Moccasin Mountains (North Wind Environmental 2002, Wildlife
Report).

Bald Eagle The bald eagle is the only endangered species that routinely uses lands
within the analysis area. No breeding pairs nest in the planning area. Bald eagles
migrate through the region more or less concurrently with the waterfowl spring and fall
migrations.

Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons were surveyed in the Judith-Moccasin analysis
area in 2002. The scope of the survey was based on historical falcon nesting and
release records and information from local biologists. Since 1991 more than 60
peregrine falcons have been released on or within 100 air miles of the analysis area.
No evidence of nesting peregrine falcons was discovered, and it is clear that either
prairie falcons or golden eagles occupy virtually all appropriate nesting habitat within the

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 45

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

landscape area. Nine active eyries from tliose two species were discovered during tine
2002 survey. Four cliffs were occupied by golden eagles and five were occupied by
prairie falcons. The occupation of such a large percentage of the appropriate habitat by
these competing species may delay the re-establishment of peregrine falcons in this
region.

Ferruginous Hawk Six active ferruginous hawk nests were discovered during a 2002
helicopter survey of the Judith-Moccasin analysis area. The survey concentrated on
areas with high forage value: short, uncultivated native prairie, hayland, and pastureland
in association with shrub steppe vegetation; and likely nesting sites: rock outcrops,
steep low cliffs, ledges on hills, isolated trees, or artificial nesting platforms. Sites with
known or observed high rodent densities were also surveyed (Rogers and Rogers
1995).

3.3.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Wildlife

Direct Effects

There will be several direct effects to wildlife and their habitat through the
implementation of the proposed action. Big game species will benefit from the renewed
source of herbaceous and deciduous forage plants that the forest treatments will
promote. The vegetation treatments will impact the wildlife if they are accomplished
during parturition or winter concentration. The treatments are designed to avoid crucial
periods and locations and possibly expand the area of these important habitats.

Managing livestock to meet standards for rangeland health will have direct effects on
many wildlife species. Herbaceous vegetation will become more abundant and
vigorous. Grazing wildlife, such as elk, will benefit immediately just by having more
available forage. Neotropical birds and other wildlife that inhabit riparian communities
will benefit from an increase in structural diversity in the riparian vegetation.

Migratory birds, small game and other small mammals and birds will be temporarily
displaced during treatment periods. The disturbance to these species will be minimal
and the spring parturition period will be avoided whenever possible. The new openings
created by the treatments will provide additional foraging areas for many of the species
that inhabit the area.

There will be virtually no direct effects to any threatened and endangered or special
status species that inhabit this area. There are no known special status species that
nest in or inhabit the immediate area of any proposed forest treatment areas. An
inventory will be made for Northern Goshawk nests and other area raptors during the
nesting season before the treatment is to occur. Direct effects to nesting raptors will be
kept to a minimum by avoiding the nest site and nesting period of the particular species.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 46

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Indirect Effects

The proposed treatments will minimize the chance for stand-replacing fires and
subsequently maintain a more stable environment for all of the wildlife in the area.
Treatments done in various locations across the landscape area will encourage elk and
deer to expand their distribution and more thoroughly utilize the available habitat.
These treatments will also encourage elk and deer to spend more time on the public
land and make them more accessible to the public land hunter and wildlife enthusiast.
Species, such as Merriam's turkey, that prefer meadows and open forest floors will
likely increase in distribution and numbers.

Harvest activities may reduce wildlife cover, and may cause wildlife to temporarily
relocate to other areas.

The proposed action will have no negative affects on any threatened or endangered
(T&E) species or their associated habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Under the proposed action, forested and non-forested polygons containing BLM
sensitive species or having the potential to provide critical habitat for sensitive species,
will be managed to maximize wildlife habitat. Forest health treatments in these areas
will consider the needs of key wildlife species or features that provide or have the
potential to provide wildlife habitat. Thinning operations will be designed to protect
northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, migratory birds, and Townsend's big-eared bat
habitat.

Rangeland management actions will allow all allotments to meet standards for
rangeland health. During implementation of forest health treatments, impacts to wildlife
may occur resulting in short-term displacement. However, the long-term improvements
to wildlife habitat will be compensatory as a result of these projects.

The proposed action will have no negative affects on any threatened or endangered
(T&E) species or their associated habitat.

3.3.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Consequences for Wildlife

Direct Effects

The BLM will continue to manage wildlife resources according to the 1992 JVP RMP as
amended by the 2003 Montana/Dakotas Fire and Fuels Management Plan. The BLM
will maintain wildlife habitat within the Judith and Moccasin Mountains. None of the
forest health and vegetative diversity treatments will be accomplished, so forest health
will remain generally poor and declining. Most wildlife populations will generally remain
static while some populations may even decline with increased tree mortality, and the
dead trees accumulate on the forest floor.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 47

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Indirect Effects

The long term benefits of improved and expanded liabitats will not occur. No changes
to big game distribution will occur, and hunting opportunities will not improve.
Continued conifer encroachment will lead to reduced amounts of available forage and
the open forest habitats preferred by many wildlife species.

Current management will have no negative effects on any threatened or endangered
(T&E) species or their associated habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Forests will continue to grow unnaturally dense as a result of continued wildfire
suppression. The growth of forage species will be suppressed and vegetation diversity
will be reduced. Aspen habitat will decline as a result of fire suppression. Conifers will
continue to encroach into open rangeland and deciduous stands thereby reducing
meadow and deciduous habitat.

The risk of a stand-replacing fire will increase, which once it has occurred, would
directly impact wildlife habitat. An intense fire will remove cover and foraging habitat for
all wildlife species.

Current management will have no negative effects on any threatened or endangered
(T&E) species or their associated habitat.

3.4 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Collar Gulch ACEC

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Aquatic Species Westslope cutthroat trout and sauger are the only fish species in the
Judith-Moccasin analysis area listed as sensitive by the BLM. The westslope cutthroat
trout requires clean, cold water conditions for survival, adequate habitat connectivity
(tributaries and main stems), protection from introduced non-native fish, and is sensitive
to over-harvesting. The sauger are located within the lower 29.7 miles of Warm Springs
Creek, which is located in the analysis area. However, its habitat ranges from
approximately 3 to 20 miles downstream of treatment and project areas.

In addition to westslope cutthroat trout and sauger, other fish species present in the
Judith-Moccasin analysis area include rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, brook
stickleback, mottled sculpin, northern redbelly dace, white sucker, channel catfish,
common carp, fathead minnow, goldeye, longnose dace, longnose sucker, mountain
sucker, northern pike, sauger, shorthead redhorse, smallmouth bass, stonecat, and
yellow perch. Most of the non-salmonid fish species occupy the lower portions of the
analysis area in the larger streams.

Aquatic macro-invertebrates were surveyed on Chicago, Lincoln, Armells and Alpine
Gulches by North Wind Environmental (2002). The surveys found several species of

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 48

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

aquatic insects (stoneflies, mayflies, etc.) and mollusl<s, worms, etc. Tine complete
report for macro-invertebrate surveys (North Wind Environmental 2002, Water Quality
Sampling Report) is available in the project file located at the BLM Lewistown Field
Office.

The following amphibians and aquatic-dependent reptiles may exist in the area:
boreal/chorus frog, tiger salamander, woodhouse toad, painted turtle. Great Plains toad.
Northern leopard frog, and Plains spadefoot. The Great Plains toad. Northern leopard
frog, and Plains spade foot are BLM sensitive species.

Riparian Health A riparian health inventory conducted in 2002 assessed 67 separate
polygons, covering a total of 20.48 miles and 55.40 acres. Of these polygons, 34 were
rated as Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), 19 were rated as Functioning At Risk
(FAR), eight were rated as Non-functioning (NF), and six were determined to be
uplands (North Wind Environmental 2002, Riparian Health Assessment Report). See
Appendix F for riparian assessment data.

Many of the drainages within the above polygons indicated vegetation diversity has
decreased within the riparian areas as a result of conifer encroachment and increased
tree density within stands which shades out understory species. Many of these areas
are also at risk of large-scale crown fires.

Stream reaches rated as NF were generally found to be impacted by mining, road
construction, and/or fire suppression activities. Mining, road construction, and
subsequent noxious plant invasions, and historic livestock use were the major factors
that resulted in many of the FAR scores. Many of the polygons that had historic
disturbance contained many increaser plant species, such as Kentucky bluegrass,
dandelion, clover, pussytoes, and invaders, such as houndstongue and thistle.
Polygons that had historic mining usually scored low due to bare ground and altered
stream bank morphology.

Livestock grazing was not a significant factor preventing riparian areas from achieving
the riparian health standard. Only six polygons had livestock use in the current year
prior to when the assessments were conducted. The majority of the polygons have not
had livestock use for several years as a result of the current drought, ownership
changes, and the generally low level of allowable stocking and livestock ownership in
the area. Portions of Alpine Gulch JR, Judith Peak and Armells Creek allotments
showed livestock impacts to woody utilization and trailing within the riparian zone.
Reaches classified as uplands were usually the very dry portions of ephemeral streams
and lacked hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology.

Water Quality Three streams within the analysis area are listed as water quality
impaired by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality in the 303(d) list (MDEQ
2004). They include: Armells Creek, Chicago Gulch, and Collar Gulch (Table 3.11).

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 49

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 3.11 Impaired streams and probable sources according to MDEQ.

stream Segment

Beneficial Use Support Status

Probable
Causes

Probable Sources

Armells Creek
(headwaters to
Deer Creek)

Aquatic Life Support (Partial)
Warm Water Fishery (Partial)
Primary Contact - Recreation
(Not Assessed)

Lead
Zinc
Metals
pH

Resource Extraction
Acid Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mining

Chicago Gulch
(headwaters to mouth
(Fords Creek))

Aquatic Life Support (Partial)
Warm Water Fishery (Partial)
Primary Contact - Recreation
(Not Assessed)

Lead
Zinc
Metals
pH

Resource Extraction
Acid Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mining

Collar Gulch
(headwaters to mouth
(Fords Creek))

Aquatic Life Support (Partial)
Warm Water Fishery (Partial)
Primary Contact - Recreation
(Not Assessed)

Lead
Zinc
Metals
pH

Resource Extraction
Acid Mine Drainage
Abandoned Mining

With regard to the elevated heavy metals concentrations and low pH in the above listed
streams, the federal Bureau of Mines started a water quality study in Collar Gulch and
Armells Creek to find the potential source of the pollutants. The agency was disbanded
before the study could be completed. However, the sampling that was conducted
suggested that the source of the metals and low pH is natural.

The headwaters of Armells, Chicago, and Collar Gulch are located on a large sulfide
deposit. Oxidation of the sulphur associated with arsenopyrite mineralization in the ore
body causes a decrease in pH thereby increasing the concentration of heavy metals in
solution. The metals and low pH in Armells, Chicago, and Collar Gulch are more than
likely associated with acid rock drainage as opposed to acid mine drainage. Land
management activities on BLM lands are probably not contributing pollutants to the
impaired reaches mentioned above.

The BLM tested the water quality of Armells Creek, Alpine Creek, Collar Gulch, Chicago
Gulch, and Lincoln Gulch 2002. Samples were collected during high water and low
water conditions. The water quality of the five drainages sampled was relatively good.
The complete report for these water quality analyses (North Wind Environmental 2002,
Water Quality Sampling Report) is available in the project file located at the BLM
Lewistown Field Office.

Hydrology Major drainages in the North Moccasins include Dog Creek, Little Dog
Creek, Duck Creek, and Meadow Creek. The South Moccasins contain only minor
ephemeral drainages which flow north into Warm Spring Creek or south into Big Spring
Creek. Notable watersheds in the Judith Mountains include Alpine Creek, Armells
Creek, Boyd Creek, Box Elder Creek, Burnette Creek (Limekiln Canyon), Chippewa

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

50

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Creek (Whiskey Gulch), Fords Creek (Chicago and Collar Gulch), Muscrat Creek,
Pyramid Creek, and Warm Spring Creek (Lincoln Gulch).

The current vegetative condition in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains can be
characterized by denser canopy cover and larger patch size of Douglas-fir and
lodgepole pine than would have been found historically. The increased canopy cover is
affecting the peak, timing, and annual water yield of runoff. Dense forest canopies have
resulted in increased evapotranspiration rates, faster snow melting rates, and lower
snow accumulation than open forest canopies. Compared to natural conditions, runoff
likely occurs earlier and has a higher peak flow. Annual water yield has almost certainly
decreased.

Channel modifications and flow diversions associated with historic mining activity or
road crossings may also be affecting the timing and peak of runoff. Bare ground near
the stream bank related to the aforementioned features increases velocity of overland
flow and decreases infiltration rates before water enters the stream channel. Therefore,
the peak flows have more than likely increased, and the lag time to the peak flows has
decreased.

Collar Gulch supports an isolated population of westslope cutthroat trout, a BLM
sensitive species. This population is a pure strain of westlope cutthroat and is in
marginal condition due to the persistence of drought conditions which have limited
streamflow in several reaches of the creek.

Forests in the Collar Gulch drainage are over-stocked and at risk of large-scale stand-
replacing fires. In addition, vegetative within the riparian area has decreased as a result
of conifer encroachment into birch stands and increased tree density within stands that
shade out understory species. The stream is lacking deep pool fish habitat and has
been impacted by mining.

An old check dam is located within the westslope cutthroat habitat of Collar Gulch. It is
acting as a partial fish barrier and limits spawning gravels entering the reach of stream
downstream of the dam. During base flow conditions (about 1 cfs). Collar Gulch flows
go subsurface, providing less than two miles of habitat and Shepard (1996) found the
majority of the fish in one mile of stream. To date, no habitat improvements have been
implemented to improve the viability of westslope cutthroat trout in Collar Gulch.

A population estimate was completed on September 9, 2004 by Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks and BLM. Survey results indicated 54 westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) over
4 inches per 1000 feet and 181 WCT over 3 inches per 1000 feet.

Chicago Gulch originates on the east side of the Judith Mountains and flows
approximately 2.5 miles to its confluence with Fords Creek. Sampling was conducted
along a 300 foot reach in Section 28 (T17N, R20E). Species captured were all brook
trout ranging in size from 1.5 inches to 9 inches and averaging just less than 5 inches.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 51

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Population numbers were calculated to be 84 fish per 300 feet (North Wind
Environmental 2002, Fisheries Report).

The brook trout population in Chicago Gulch was sampled by Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks (FWP) and BLM on September 10, 2004. The brook trout population was
estimated at about 477 fish per 1000 feet for fish exceeding 4 inches (total length) The
estimate is almost ten times higher than WCT in nearby Collar Gulch (Tews 2005).

Chicago Gulch has the greatest potential for reintroduction of westslope cutthroat trout.
Montana FWP has expressed interest in establishing a second population of westslope
cutthroat in the Judith Mountains, and will be conducting an environmental assessment
for such reintroduction. BLM has agreed to cooperate with FWP on the project, should
FWP's decision be to proceed with it.

Fisheries habitat is similar to Collar Gulch, but appears to have more habitat available.
In addition, there are fewer overstocked stands within the riparian area and the risk of
stand-replacing wildfire is less. However, deep pool habitat is still lacking and there are
areas within the drainage that exhibit overstocked stands with high intensity wildfire
concerns.

Fish sampling at Alpine Gulch and Armells Creek failed to produce any fish. Habitat is
marginal, but private landowners state that they have seen fish in Alpine Gulch. During
high flows, brook trout may move upstream into Alpine Gulch from beaver ponds on
Warm Springs Creek. Initial appearance of the aquatic fauna appears normal for a
mountain stream. Fish sampling along Lincoln Gulch yielded many brook trout at one
location and one sculpin plus several brook trout at another. The complete report for
fish sampling surveys (North Wind Environmental 2002, Fisheries Report) is available in
the project file located at the BLM Lewistown Field Office.

3.4.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Riparian and Aquatics

Direct Effects

Aquatic Species Beneficial direct effects are expected for westslope cutthroat
populations, due to the removal of brook trout from Chicago Gulch and the transplant of
westslope cutthroat from Collar Gulch if the analysis and decision by MT FWP is to
proceed with the transplant. The proposed actions will increase the habitat available,
making it possible to expand the range for westslope cutthroat populations.

Direct effects that could cause mortality to aquatic species will be negligible to the
populations. Potential direct mortality could be caused by a tree or log felled or placed
in the stream, dam removal in Collar Gulch, an oil spill from harvest equipment that
drifts downstream into fish habitat, or livestock stepping on fish redds (this will not occur
in Collar Gulch). The potential direct mortality associated with these actions will be of
such low occurrence that it will have negligible effects on aquatic species populations.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 52

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

The potential for oil spills will be mitigated by Montana Streamside Management Zone
Law and Rules (DNRC 2002).

Riparian Health The LWM placement and riparian planting will benefit riparian health
by improving stream function, dissipating energy associated with high flows, and
developing diverse channel characteristics that are necessary for aquatic species and
wildlife. During LWM placement, care will be used to not disturb any more riparian
vegetation than necessary.

LWM will also help mitigate the impacts from livestock on Armells Creek and Alpine
Gulch. Trailing within the riparian zone and utilization of woody species will be limited
by LWM, and progress will be made toward reaching PFC. Mitigation techniques
associated with livestock grazing include the Standards and Guidelines that are
integrated into the grazing permit.

The vegetation treatments in the proposed action will provide a direct beneficial effect to
riparian health by making the riparian vegetation less vulnerable to high intensity
wildfire. In order to minimize riparian disturbance, SMZ laws and Water Quality BMPs
will be utilized to protect the riparian zone.

Water Quality The LWM will help improve stream shading, thus decreasing water
temperature. It will also dissipate stream energy, stabilizing stream banks against
cutting action and reducing sediment delivery. During LWM placement, minor amounts
of sediment will enter the stream. In order to minimize sediment delivery, instream work
will be performed during low-flow periods.

Water quality impacts associated with livestock grazing will be minimized by the LWM.
Livestock will be forced to trail outside the riparian zone and will be limited to watering at
specific locations. Sediment related to livestock crossings and bank erosion is expected
to decrease. Riparian vegetation will improve, aiding in flood-plain development and
sediment retention. Livestock grazing management will be required to follow the
Standards and Guidelines in the grazing permit.

SMZ laws and Water Quality BMPs limit direct water quality effects from the vegetation
treatments in the proposed action.

Hydrology Placement of LWM will not directly affect quantity or timing of runoff from the
Judith and Moccasin Mountains. Livestock grazing may cause localized, site-specific
increases in runoff and erosion on cattle trails. However, cumulative hydrologic effects
will be minimal.

The vegetation treatments in the proposed action will have a direct effect on hydrology.
Decreased canopy density and smaller patch size will decrease the evapotranspiration
rate, increase snow accumulation, and decrease melting rates. Annually, marginally
larger quantities of water will be available for runoff in the treated areas.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 53

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects involve the following parameters identified within the project area:
erosion and sedimentation, temperature, stream and canopy cover, large woody
material, pool habitat, streamflows, and bank stability. These parameters are important
for westslope cutthroat trout habitat, and other aquatic-dependent species.

Erosion and Sedimentation Potential effects from increased erosion and
sedimentation on fish and aquatic habitat and populations within the project area could
occur. However, it will only be short-term, and no adverse effects are expected. In the
long-term, beneficial effects will result from reducing the risk of high intensity fire to fish
and aquatic habitat. The westslope cutthroat population is currently in danger from the
negative effects from a high intensity fire, due to overstocked stands that are at risk of
large-scale crown fires.

The risk of erosion and sedimentation reaching a stream from this project increases with
the amount of bare ground or mineral soil exposed and the degree of soil compaction.
This could occur from logging, road construction, prescribed burning, and livestock
grazing. However, the following measures reduce the amount of compaction and bare
soil associated with the project:

1) Best Management Practices, as espoused by Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation will be implemented (MSU Extension Service 2001).

2) Streamside Management Zones following Montana state law (DNRC 2002) will
be implemented.

3) Tractor logging will not occur where the average slope is greater than 40
percent. In such areas, operations will be limited to helicopter, cable logging, and
other aerial systems that minimize ground disturbance or manual thinning to
prevent erosion on steep slopes.

4) No machine operations will occur during wet periods when excessive soil
compaction is likely to occur.

5) Within 100 ft. of the high water mark (slope distance) on both sides of Collar
and Chicago Gulches, ground-based machinery will be limited and prescribed
burning will be limited to hand/jack pot piles.

6) Riparian thinning treatments will occur in a mosaic pattern.

7) Livestock management practices designed to reduce impacts to streams will
occur.

8) Upland treatments will occur over a ten-year period of time and will result in a
mosaic pattern over the project area.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 54

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Temperature, Stream Shade and Canopy Cover Changes in stream temperatures are
expected to be negligible from this project, due to the small amount of riparian
vegetation removed. Stream shade and canopy cover could be affected in the short-
term, however, adverse effects are not expected. In the long-term, this project will have
no negative effects, and will reduce the risk of high intensity fire to fish and aquatic
habitat.

Thinning of conifers within the riparian area will increase shading from deciduous
species, improve vegetative diversity and increase nutrient input to streams. This
thinning will not involve the removal of any deciduous shrubs or trees, unless they are
extremely decadent and cutting is expected to stimulate sprouting. The thinning will
create a mosaic pattern, with the objective of improving fisheries and aquatic habitat.
Planting, fencing, and/or other livestock management practices will occur on those
streams lacking stream/canopy cover and riparian vegetation. In addition, all stream
habitat work will be conducted under the supervision of a fisheries biologist or
hydrologist.

Large Woody Material (LWM) and Pool Habitat LWM, ideally sized 9 inches or
greater at the butt end, will be added to fish-bearing streams to improve the quantity
and quality of pools. Currently, instream fish habitat is typically lacking deep pool
habitat. In the nonfishbearing streams, LWM additions will help reduce erosion and
facilitate the capture, storage and safe release of water.

The quality of future LWM recruitment should also improve from riparian thinning.
Fewer trees will be available for future LWM recruitment due to thinning, but the size of
trees available will increase. Larger trees are better able to provide the deep pool
habitat needs of fish and the capture, storage and safe release of water. As a result,
fish habitat will improve in the short and long term.

Streamflows The potential effects to fish and aquatic habitat from changes in
streamflows will be minimal. Accelerated peak flows are typically associated with
clearcuts more than basal area thinning. Basal area thinning occurs in 97 percent of the
forest health treatment areas, whereas clearcut prescriptions only occur on 3 percent of
the treatments. In addition, no clearcuts over ten acres will occur and no more than 50
percent of the areas proposed for this treatment will be cut in a ten year period. These
measures will significantly reduce the possibility for accelerated peak flows. Prescribed
burning will have similar results as basal thinning.

Road construction on BLM lands will occur in the Pyramid Peak area and the North
Moccasin Mountains for a total of 3.20 and 2.4 miles in length, respectively. Road
construction on state lands will occur within the Burnett Peak, East Armells, Iron Gulch,
Log Tree Gulch, and Maiden Peak areas for a total of 1.7, .7, 1.5, .9 and 2.8 miles in
length, respectively. These roads are not located within the watershed associated with
westslope cutthroat trout. No known fish habitat exists where road construction
activities will occur, although, some aquatic invertebrate and amphibian habitat may
exist. These roads will be constructed following the Montana Streamside Management

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 55

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Zone law (DNRC 2002) and Best Management Practices (MSU Extension Service
2001). Tliese laws and practices are designed to protect water quality and stream
functionality by not allowing road construction to occur in perennial streams, except at
designated crossings. In areas outside the SMZ, Best Management Practices will
require proper road placement and drainage.

Skid trails will be limited to slopes less than 40 percent and will be limited to forest
health and interface treatment areas only. Again, adherence to BMPs and SMZ laws
will limit the amount of soil compaction and disturbance.

Bank Stability Effects to bank stability are considered to be negligible. Bank stability
problems can occur from increased peak flows, when logging and yarding systems are
located adjacent to the stream, and heavy grazing within the riparian zone. Accelerated
peak flows are expected to be minimal from this project. Use of ground-based
equipment will be limited within Collar and Chicago Gulches. In other streamside areas,
adherence to the Montana Streamside Management Zone law will mitigate effects.
Livestock grazing concerns are limited in this area due to inaccessibility. In those areas
where grazing concerns exist, measures will be taken to improve riparian conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects could occur from the relevant past, present, and
foreseeable future actions. These actions include: mining, logging, fire suppression,
livestock grazing, residential areas, recreation, existing roads, agriculture/irrigation, road
reconstruction and maintenance, in addition to the activities associated with the
proposed action.

The cumulative effects associated with the proposed action are similar to the effects
identified in indirect effects. The primary potential effects associated with this project
are erosion, sedimentation, and changes in stream flows. The effects will be short-term
and not detrimental to westslope cutthroat trout and other aquatic species. Beneficial
effects from the proposed action will result from increases in LWM, pools, riparian
diversity, and a decrease in the risk of high intensity wildfire.

Riparian Health The placement of LWM and the implementation of grazing Standards
and Guidelines will continue to improve the riparian health. LWM will dissipate stream
energy and protect riparian vegetation and stream banks from livestock impacts.
Riparian vegetation will be enhanced, thereby capturing sediment and improving water
quality. Vegetation treatments will protect the riparian area from high intensity wildfire.

Water Quality Cumulatively, the proposed action will lead to a small improvement in
water quality. Better stream shading associated with functioning riparian areas and
increased volumes of water available for runoff from the vegetation treatment areas will
result in cooler water temperatures and improved sediment retention.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 56

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Hydrology The placement of LWM will have little cumulative effect on watershed
hydrology in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains. Livestock grazing will also alter runoff
on a small scale relative to the size of the analysis area. Although the timing and
quantity of runoff will trend towards more natural conditions in the vegetation treatment
areas, cumulative improvement for the mountain ranges as a whole will be minimal
because treatment areas are only a small percentage of the area.

A short-term increase exists in the potential for cumulative effects from this project in
combination with past and present activities. However, beneficial effects will occur for
other parameters (identified above) and an overall positive effect will occur, due to the
habitat improvement projects and the reduction in risk of stand-replacing wildfire.

3.4.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Effects for Riparian and Aquatics

Management in Collar and Chicago Gulches and other streams and draws in the project
area will continue unchanged. No specific actions to improve fish and aquatic species
habitat and populations will occur. Vegetative diversity within the riparian area will
remain unchanged. No hazardous fuel reduction will occur in the upper slopes of Collar
Gulch. Instream habitat improvement projects will not occur.

Direct Effects

In the event of high-intensity wildfire, the population of westslope cutthroat could be
severely impacted by ash and sediment, high stream temperatures, and could
potentially be extirpated. In addition, direct mortality from high intensity wildfire to other
fish and aquatic species could occur.

Riparian Health Riparian areas that are in PFC or FAR in an upward trend will continue
to improve under current management. Riparian areas that are NF in a static trend will
remain in the degraded condition. The riparian zone will also be vulnerable to high
intensity wildfire, which could alter water quantity, water quality, timing and aquatic life.

Water Quality Riparian areas and aquatic habitat will not be improved by LWM or
riparian planting. Stream temperature and sediment yield will remain the same.
Watersheds in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains will remain vulnerable to high
intensity wildfire. The water quality impacts from a stand-replacing wildfire under
current forest conditions would be greater than the impacts that would have occurred
under historic conditions.

Hydrology The watersheds in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains will continue to yield
small runoff volumes relative to historic conditions. Furthermore, the timing and quantity
of peak flows will remain altered. High intensity wildfire would affect watershed
hydrology by increasing the frequency and magnitude of peak flows.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 57

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Indirect Effects

Riparian Health Degraded riparian areas will continue to contribute waters witli higher
temperatures and sediment to downstream water users.

Water Quality Altered watershed hydrology and erosion following a high intensity
wildfire would increase the water temperature and siltation in downstream waterways
significantly more than what would have occurred under historic vegetation and fire
regimes.

Hydrology A stand-replacing wildfire would change the timing and peak of runoff in the
watersheds. Peak flows would occur with greater frequency, have higher peaks, and
runoff faster than runoff following a fire under historic conditions. The altered timing and
peak of runoff would increase erosion and morphologically adjust stream channels
causing water quality problems downstream.

Large woody material levels and deep pool habitat will not be improved. Vegetation
diversity, species diversity and stand structure within the riparian areas will not be
improved and will continue to decline. The likelihood of high intensity, stand-replacing
fires will increase over time. The available fish habitat in Collar and Chicago Gulches
and other streams will not be improved. The existing condition of headwater streams
and fish habitat in downstream fisheries will not be improved.

Cumulative Effects

The human-caused effects from past and present activities on private and public lands
in the analysis area includes mining, logging, fire suppression, livestock grazing,
residential areas, recreation, existing roads, agriculture/irrigation, road reconstruction
and maintenance. Natural conditions and these actions have shaped the existing
condition of aquatic species habitat and populations.

Mining causes many changes to fish habitat. In the past some streams were dammed
in the analysis area; harmful minerals and chemicals were deposited in streams; roads
and cabins have been built in riparian areas; riparian vegetation has been removed.
Cumulative effects are possible.

Logging and Fire Suppression Potential impacts from past/current logging and fire
suppression is primarily associated with erosion and the development of unnaturally
dense stands. Erosion from these two activities is limited to the amount of marketable
timber available and the limited amount of acres and timing associated with fire
suppression. However both of these activities have contributed to the development of
unnaturally dense stands. Therefore, logging and timber related activities could have
potential effects to aquatic habitat and populations. Cumulative effects are possible.

Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing occurs within the analysis area. Potential impacts
are increased erosion and higher stream temperatures caused from reduced riparian

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 58

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

vegetation through livestock browse, livestocl< reservoirs that breach, and livestocl<
trailing and loafing. The degree of effect varies throughout the drainage and depends
on the vegetation types, grazing system, topography, fencing, water, forage availability,
and natural conditions. Livestock grazing could have potential effects on aquatic habitat
or populations. Cumulative effects are possible.

Residential Areas Effects from residential areas include erosion and changes in water
quality and streamflows. There are no major residential areas within the analysis area,
although Lewistown is in close proximity. The residential areas primarily consist of
ranches and ranchettes spread across the analysis area on private land. Generally, the
analysis area could be described as sparsely populated, reducing the potential for
effects on habitat or populations. However, cumulative effects are possible as
residences are concentrated in the areas of Maiden, Gilt Edge and Kendall.

Recreation Recreational activities in the analysis area include hunting, camping, hiking,
fishing, ORV use, etc. The main effects from recreational activities are related to ORV
use on unauthorized roads and trails. This damage can cause increased erosion,
changes in water quality, and direct take of aquatic species. The formation of
unauthorized roads and trails is an ongoing problem in the Judith and Moccasin
Mountains. Therefore, cumulative effects are possible.

Existing Roads Roads have the potential to increase erosion, block fish passage
(where culverts are installed) and remove riparian and upland vegetation. It is likely that
past road construction activities and current road locations are having some effect on
aquatic life. Therefore, cumulative effects are possible.

Agriculture and Irrigation Potential impacts from agriculture and irrigation are
decreased streamflows, changes in water quality and erosion. Agriculture is primarily
limited to dry land farming or irrigated farmland adjacent to large perennial streams in
the analysis area, potentially affecting fish and aquatic habitat and populations.
Cumulative effects are possible.

Road Reconstruction and Maintenance Road reconstruction and maintenance occurs
at some level on all of the BLM, state, county roads within the analysis area. The main
effects from road (re)construction and maintenance are associated with erosion and, in
some cases, decreased vegetation adjacent to the river and streams. However, in
many cases road maintenance and reconstruction reduces the risk of erosion by
preventing failures during high flood events. Therefore, road (re)construction and
maintenance activities have questionable adverse effects on aquatic habitat or
populations. Cumulative effects from this activity are expected to be minor and not
detrimental.

Determination The degree of cumulative effects from the combination of the above
current and past activities within the analysis area depends on a variety of factors, some
of which are natural. Drought conditions have affected aquatic habitat and populations

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 59

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

within the drainage for the past several years. Local geology, severe wildfire, and soil
composition also influence water quality, streamflows, and erosion.

Of the above activities, mining, logging, fire suppression, livestock grazing, residential
areas, recreation, existing roads, and agriculture/irrigation indicate potential cumulative
effects to aquatic habitat and populations. The other activity, road reconstruction and
maintenance, has a minor potential for cumulative effects and is determined not to be
detrimental. Although difficult to quantify in numerical terms, it is reasonable to assume
that, with the magnitude of cumulative activities there will be some impacts to most
aquatic species residing in the area that cannot be avoided.

3.5 Range

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Upland range health assessments were conducted in 2002. Current ecological
condition was assessed for 46 grazing allotments on public land managed by the BLM.
Most of the allotments occur in a patchwork with private rangeland. Many lack fences
and rely on the local topography to provide natural barriers. Logging activity and
wildfires have occurred in some areas, but most of the sites are densely wooded with
undergrowth limiting forage production. The allotments on the upper mountain slopes
have steep slopes, scree fields, limestone outcroppings, and limited access to water.
These factors have contributed to limited forage use for many of the allotments. Plant
communities on BLM allotments reflect conditions influenced by natural factors and
other management activities as well as grazing pressure.

Lack of water plays a principal role in the distribution of livestock on certain allotments.
Some of the allotments are surrounded by or adjacent to private lands, and the
developed water sources on these private lands support grazing on the public lands.
Most of the allotments consist of steep, forested land, with some area conducive to
livestock grazing. Although maps of the area show creeks or springs, these may be
located in areas inaccessible to livestock or only provide water on a seasonal basis.

The plant communities found within the Judith-Moccasin analysis area are indicative of
the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain ecosystem types. The herbaceous
vegetation is dominated by cool season grass and forb species. Dominant native grass
vegetation includes bluebunch wheatgrass, needle and thread, green needlegrass,
rough fescue, prairie junegrass and numerous native forbs and shrubs.

Only one special status vascular plant species, little Indian breadroot, is reportedly
found in the analysis area (NRIS 2003). The distribution of this species is relatively
secure, though it is rare in parts of its range, especially at its periphery. This species
does not require special management. To date, no other special status or plant species
of special concern are found in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 60

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

3.5.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Range

Direct Effects

Implementation of the proposed action will result in several direct effects to livestock
grazing, vegetation and grazing administration. In the short term the prescribed burns
will result in decreased amounts of herbaceous forage. Forest thinning may result in a
temporary reduction in forage, but by the first growing season after thinning in the
foothills of the Snowy Mountains, herbaceous vegetation increased above the untreated
condition (Ellingson 2005). Treatments within the Judith and Moccasin mountains are
expected to respond in a similar fashion.

Due to this temporary loss of forage and ground cover, portions of several grazing
allotments may need to be rested from grazing for up to two full growing seasons to
allow for the regrowth and establishment of desired herbaceous vegetation and
deciduous shrubs. Table 3.12 lists the total number of acres and AUMs of the
allotments to be treated as well as the number of acres and AUMs that will be impacted
by the proposed treatments. If monitoring data suggests that affected allotments will
support livestock grazing while continuing to meet or make significant progress towards
meeting standards for rangeland health, livestock will be authorized to graze the
allotments according to the authorized permits. In the long term, herbaceous vegetation
should respond favorably to the proposed treatments. Treatments will be spread over a
period of approximately ten years, so impacts to the allotments will be staggered over
time.

The placement of large woody material in selected riparian areas will have limited
impacts to livestock grazing within the allotments affected. Many of the drainages
where the material will be placed provide limited access to livestock, and several of the
affected allotments are currently unallocated. Potential impacts include reduced access
to portions of the streams, and cattle may have to trail higher up the slopes out of the
riparian zones.

The manner in which the potential two growing seasons of rest is managed will be
based on consultation and coordination with the affected permittees on an individual
allotment basis. Adaptive management will be used in order to allow livestock grazing
in portions of allotments that are not going to be treated. Management options could
include, but are not limited to the following options: temporary electric fence, permanent
fence, water and/or mineral placement, changes in authorized season of use, etc.

Three grazing allotments will be retired, once an appropriate resource management
plan amendment or revision authorizing this action has been completed. Grazing will no
longer be authorized on the public lands associated with Limekiln (20076), Maginnis
Mountain (02603) and East Fork Fords Creek (02681) allotments (see Table 2.5).

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 61

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Table 3.12 Allotments affected by proposed vegetation treatments.

Allotment
ID

Allotment Name

Total
Acres

Total
AUMs

Treated
Acres

Treated
AUMs

% of

AUMS

Affected

02524

Whiskey Gulch G.R.

721

22

294

9

41%

02525

Alpine Gulch J. R.

450

28

211

13

47%

02600

Pekay Peak

635

143

una lotted

02603

Maginnis Mountain

954

48

635

32

67%

02615

Ross Pass

705

62

101

9

14%

02617

Sheep Mountain

1729

984

unallotted

02627

Judith Peak

802

49

702

43

88%

02644

Three Links

904

193

19

4

2%

02649

Lookout Peak

304

24

80

6

26%

02660

Flat Mountain East

40

4

40

4

100%

02661

Alpine Gulch G.R.

590

8

214

4

36%

02667

Shelternook

1387

67

155

8

11%

02674

Box Elder Ranch

955

65

122

9

13%

02681

East Fork Fords Creek

757

10

381

5

50%

10036

North Moccasin

1873

122

1039

67

55%

10042

Judith Mountain Common

790

54

251

18

32%

10053

Deer Creek

280

40

86

13

31%

10058

Spear T Ranch

297

24

12

1

4%

10059

Spear T Common

442

25

366

21

83%

10060

Milburn Place

628

42

540

37

86%

10073

Whiskey Gulch J.R.

838

45

564

31

67%

12610

Elk Peak

202

21

8

1

4%

19741

South Moccasin

1316

27

415

9

32%

20032

Jackson Coulee

235

24

82

9

35%

20056

North Fork Warm Spring

191

24

33

4

17%

20068

Ruby Gulch

272

6

165

4

61%

20069

Mason Canyon

799

88

446

50

56%

20076

RD Roehl

597

30

596

30

100%

20077

Shammel

149

53

90

32

60%

20082

Devils Canyon

545

20

107

4

20%

20083

Pyramid Peak

2278

72

1589

51

70%

Total:

22665

1297

10470

528

46%

Indirect Effects

The thinning of the existing timber stands through mechanical means and prescribed
fire will allow livestock access to forage that may have previously had limited
accessibility. The amount of herbaceous forage production will increase due to
decreased competition for light, nutrients and water resulting from conifer removal. This
increased amount of forage may reduce livestock grazing impacts to areas closer to

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

62

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

existing water sources and may improve livestocl< distribution as areas become more
accessible through reduced forest densities.

Cumulative Effects

New term grazing permits will incorporate Standards for Rangeland Health and
Guidelines for Grazing Management. Specific terms and conditions will be incorporated
for the allotments identified as not meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health due to
livestock concerns (see Table 2.6).

The overall impacts of the proposed action to existing vegetation will be positive.
Prescribed fire will generally benefit desired woody vegetation that sprouts after
burning, and will also result in different age classes of desired deciduous shrubs, which
helps to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Herbaceous vegetation will increase as a result
of forest thinning and prescribed fire. The areas impacted by the proposed treatments
within individual allotments will vary in size, when compared to the entire allotment,
which will create a landscape with a diversity of vegetative conditions and age classes.

3.5.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Consequences for Range

Direct Effects

The management of rangeland resources will proceed as specified by the 1992 JVP
RMP and amended by the 2003 Montana/Dakotas Fire and Fuels Management Plan.
Grazing of the allotments potentially affected by the proposed action will continue in
accordance with their existing grazing permits using current terms and conditions.

Indirect Effects

The encroachment of conifers into areas currently dominated by herbaceous vegetation
will continue to occur, leading to reduced amounts of available forage for livestock and
wildlife. Poor livestock distribution will cause their use to become concentrated on areas
with lower densities of trees. These factors could lead to an increased number of
grazing allotments not meeting the standards for rangeland health, which will decrease
the resource value of public lands and increase conflicts with other resources.

Cumulative Effects

Continuation of current management within the Judith and Moccasin Mountains analysis
area will lead to decreasing forest health and increasing encroachment of conifers into
areas that have been historically dominated by herbaceous vegetation. These factors
will in turn lead to increased potential for high intensity wildfires and decreased range
conditions. The potential for riparian degradation and poor water quality will also
increase along with the potential for the loss of wildlife habitat if the current
management is continued. These cumulative affects will lead to greater demands on

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 63

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

the forage that is available and may lead to more allotments failing to meet the
standards for rangeland health.

3.6 Noxious Weeds

3.6.1 Affected Environment

Scattered infestations of leafy spurge, Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed,
houndstongue, Canada thistle, dalmatian toadflax, yellow toadflax, and whitetop occur
throughout the analysis area. Noxious weed locations were surveyed concurrent with
the 2002 upland range health assessment. Numerous allotments were identified as
having weed infestations. Weeds are controlled by both the BLM and grazing
permittees on a site by site basis. A combination of weed control techniques have been
used in the past, including herbicide, insects, grazing, mechanical treatments and
prescribed fire.

3.6.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Noxious Weeds

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Weed infestations on allotments will be controlled by the permittee as a condition of the
grazing permit. All weed infestations on unallocated public land will be treated by the
BLM. Weeds will be controlled immediately upon discovery by both the permittee and
the BLM. Since weed control will be immediate and site-specific, weeds will be
controlled more quickly with fewer resources than under current management. More
effective noxious weed control will increase native species composition and improve
rangeland health.

3.6.3 Current Management - Environmental Consequences for Noxious Weeds

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The control of noxious weeds will proceed as specified by the 1992 JVP RMP and
amended by the 2003 Montana/Dakotas Fire and Fuels Management Plan. Known and
existing infestations of weeds will continue to be controlled on BLM lands. The potential
for spread would exist.

3.7 Visual Resources

3.7.1 Affected Environment

A VRM inventory was completed in the JVP RMP EIS. The Judith and Moccasin
Mountains area is identified in the JVP EIS, Map 1, Side A.

A VRM inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a
delineation of distance zones. Based on these factors, BLM-administered lands are
placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. These inventory classes

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 64

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

represent the relative value of the visual resources. Classes I and II are the most
valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV has least value (BLM
1992).

In the analysis area there are two classes: Class II and III. For Class II VRM
management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual
observer; changes must conform with the predominant natural features of the
landscape. Class III VRM allows for evident contrasts or changes to the basic elements
of the landscape, but recommends the change not dominate the attention of the viewer
(BLM 1992).

In the Judith Mountains all BLM lands are designated as Class II VRM. A 3,702 acre
Scenic Area of Critical Environment Concern was designated in the JVP RMP (see
Figure 1.1). In the South Moccasin Mountains all BLM lands were designated as Class
II VRM. Only the North Moccasin Mountains is designated as Class III within the
analysis area.

Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC The Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC was
designated in the JVP RMP with the intent of protecting scenic, wildlife, and recreation
values located in portions of the Judith Mountains that form the backdrop for the town of
Lewistown. The ACEC includes approximately 3,700 acres in the southwest end of the
mountain range. Sightseeing, scenic driving, hiking, mountain biking, and hunting are
considered as main recreational activities in this area. Some ORV use occurs mainly
on unimproved roads and trails in the upper end of Limekiln Canyon.

3.7.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Conseouences for Visual Resources

Direct Effects

Thinning operations will cause some visual effects in the analysis area. During thinning
operations, people who live or travel to the area will see freshly cut trees, landing piles
and fresh slash. Slash piles and scattered slash will persist for one to two years after
thinning before it can be burned, except where slash is chipped or ground and possibly
utilized for biomass fuels. Temporary logging trails and skid roads will persist until they
are reclaimed anywhere from two to five years after being established.

Visual Contrast Rating (VCR) analyses will be required to mitigate visual impacts from
all proposed vegetation thinning projects. The contrast ratings will be conducted from at
least two and possibly three or more Key Observation Points (KOP) per treatment, due
to the scenic visual quality of the area and public sensitivity to changes in the
landscape.

The need for visual mitigation measures will be determined through the VCR. Mitigation
may include: non-linear or curved alignment of the main proposed access roads to
better blend into the contours of the landscape, mosaic thinning patterns that resemble
natural land patterns, and avoidance of ridge top timber removal. The existing thinning

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 65

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

prescriptions already incorporate many of tliese measures tlirougli tine empliasis on
uneven grouping and variation witliin a stand for tree spacing, basal area retention and
large tree retention. Visual mitigation measures are generally not expected to be at
odds with the fuels and forest health objectives.

Indirect Effects

Thinning operations, once completed, will generally be visible from afar due to the
protrusive nature of the island mountain ranges in the plains landscape. Treatments in
the Limekiln area will be visible directly from Lewistown and will appear as a more open,
rough-textured forest in contrast to the solid forest canopy that now occupies the view.

At a closer scale, large trees that are retained during thinning treatments will be more
visible than currently, and they will persist longer in the landscape.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, the forest health and vegetative diversity treatments will add visual
diversity to the landscape. Where forest canopies are open and less dense, more
herbaceous and deciduous vegetation will grow, and this will be visible through the
trees from afar. More snow will accumulate on the ground beneath an open canopy,
and this too will be visible through the trees. With the increase in deciduous shrubs and
aspen stands the ranges will show more color in the fall.

Fuels treatments will help protect the visual resources of the analysis area by reducing
the likelihood of a large, stand-replacing fire and, in the long run, retaining a more
constant level of forest cover. Vegetation treatments will also reduce the risk of
developing insect epidemics in the mountain ranges, further contributing to the
protection of visual resources.

3.7.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Consequences for Visual Resources

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

No forest thinning or vegetative diversity treatments will occur, so there will be no
temporary landing piles, slash piles, logging trails or skid roads. The direct effect of
continuing current management will be to keep the visual resources in their current
state. Large old trees will continue to be obscured by dense, younger trees.

Cumulative Effects

No increases in open forest canopies, aspen stands and herbaceous vegetation will
occur. Over time, meadows and aspen stands will decrease, and the visual aspect from
afar will become more homogenous.

An example of the expected long term effects of current management on visual
resources can be seen in the 6300 acre Burnett Peak Fire that burned in 1991. With

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 66

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

continuation of current management, increasing portions of tine range will suffer stand-
replacing fires, tine visual and ecological effects of which are expected to persist for
decades after the event.

3.8 Recreation

3.8.1 Affected Environment

The analysis area includes the Judith Mountain Special Recreation Management Area
(SRMA), which includes most types of dispersed recreation. Some designated hiking
trails are maintained in the Judith Mountains, including Collar Peak Trail and Limekiln
Trail. The Judith Peak area and the Maiden Canyon area have numerous two-track
trails on which people hike and use motorized equipment such as ATV's and mountain
bicycles. A small picnic area is located in the lower end of Limekiln Canyon.
Recreation access has been limited throughout the analysis area due to large tracts of
private land which generally require landowner permission to access BLM lands.

No developed recreational sites are located in the North and South Moccasins although
access can be gained to BLM lands in the North Moccasins through roads near Kendall.

3.8.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Recreation

Direct Effects

Recreation in the Limekiln Canyon area could be reduced in the short term by the
timber and vegetative thinning operations because of conflicts and/or safety concerns.
Recreational use is expected to continue on existing BLM trails used by the public, but
when operations occur in Limekiln Canyon and Collar Gulch areas, vegetative
treatments have the potential to disrupt activities associated with the hiking trails.
Careful consideration of when thinning operations occur is needed to minimize these
conflicts. However, the potential exists for there to be temporary recreational use
restrictions on non-motorized and motorized uses when logging or vegetative
treatments are occurring nearby. If public recreational use is allowed when operations
are being conducted, noise levels in treatment areas and near to adjacent hiking trails
could disrupt or preclude recreational activities in the short term regardless of the
decision to allow public use to continue during vegetation treatments.

Use of the trails by work crews could also impact hiker solitude, and perhaps damage
the trails if mechanized equipment or transportation of personnel with ATVs is
authorized. A wide, hiking-horseback-mountain bike trail has recently been created
along the west side of Limekiln Canyon where ATVs can negotiate passage to some of
the proposed treatment areas. The use of ATVs during implementation of vegetation
treatments would cause damage to the trail that would need to be repaired prior to
operations exiting the area.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 67

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Temporary closures of hiking or legal ATV routes due to safety concerns for the general
public will be posted in the local newspaper and signing placed at appropriate locations
prior to beginning any actual work. The public will also be notified as to when slash
burning will occur. Smoke has the potential to displace recreational users in the short
term independent of safety concerns. Overall, the most appropriate times to conduct
these vegetative treatment operations to reduce conflicts with recreation would be
during the week and in the early spring or fall seasons, when use levels are lowest.

Indirect Effects

Vegetative treatments will improve wildlife habitat on public land and are expected to
increase the number of wildlife and the time spent on public land. This effect may
increase opportunities for hunting and viewing wildlife in treated areas, thus enhancing
recreation.

Cumulative Effects

OHV use could expand in treated areas due to the creation of new roads and temporary
skid trails. Opening up the forest and reducing dense understories may also result in
more illegal OHV use where slopes are gentle.

3.8.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Consequences for Recreation

Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation will not be directly affected by continued current management. Indirect
effects will result from a continued decline in wildlife habitat and viewing opportunities
on public land.

Cumulative Effects

The continued and increasing risk of stand-replacing wildfires will, in the long term, have
negative impacts for recreation in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains. In the event of a
high intensity fire, recreation values will be greatly reduced.

3.9 Cultural Resources

3.9.1 Affected Environment

Cultural resources are definite locations of past human activity, occupation, or use.
Traditional values are the traditional systems of religious belief, cultural practice, or
social interaction that are not closely identified with the definite locations (BLM 1992).

The prehistoric period began around 14,000 years ago and ended around 1855, with
the signing of the Blackfeet Stevens Treaty. Miners began working the Judith
Mountains for gold and silver in 1880, and towns like Maiden and Gilt Edge sprang up
near the mines. Joe Anderson and David Jones made the first discovery in May 1880

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 68

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

(Leeson 1885). Somewhat later, the mining spread to the nearby Moccasin Mountains
and the town of Kendall was created.

Collar Mine was discovered in August 1880, and the associated 20-stamp mill was
constructed in 1880 as well. Even though the Collar Mine was not the first mine
discovered in the district (that happened four months earlier) it was the first mine to be
developed.

In 1885 the Fergus County sheriff sold the mine and mill to Eugene Smith for $7,550.
The mill equipment ended up at the Spotted Horse Mine, about two miles away. The
Spotted Horse Mine did not produce enough water for industrial use, so a pumping plant
was placed in Collar Gulch. The dams currently identified in Collar Gulch may be
associated with that mining and milling activity at Spotted Gulch.

In the early part of the twentieth century, thousands of homesteaders arrived and the
area was quickly settled.

The BLM conducted a search of all documented cultural sites in 2002. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) provided a detailed list of all documented sites to
the BLM. A total of 27 sites have been recorded in the project area and 11 cultural
resource-specific projects have been conducted within the project area. Seventeen of
the sites are classified as historical, one is prehistoric, one is multi-component
(containing both a historical and prehistoric component), and the remaining eight have
no classification because the data collected was insufficient to ascertain site type. Of
the recorded sites, one is recommended as eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 15 are recommended as ineligible for inclusion on
the NRHP, and 14 have unknown, or undetermined, eligibility recommendations.

3.9.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Cultural Resources

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Cultural resources will continue to be managed under the guidance of the 1992 JVP
RMP. Prior to the implementation of any ground-disturbing activity, cultural resource
inventories shall be conducted. Any historic properties that are identified shall be
evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Fuels reduction treatments may reduce the threat of wildfire to cultural sites, particularly
wooden historic properties, within the planning area. Historically much of the area in the
mining districts was denuded of timber suitable for use as mine stulls, fuel, and
construction. Areas especially hard hit were concentrated around mines, mills, and
habitation sites. Therefore fuel treatment projects that remove trees generally return the
area to a landscape more compatible with a historic mining setting.

Field Research Services, Inc. completed inventories in 2004 and 2005 for fuels
reduction projects proposed in association with this analysis. Inventories are on file at

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 69

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

the BLM Lewistown Field Office. Their work identified no eligible historic properties that
could be affected by proposed fuels reduction activities.

The dam removal project slated for Collar Gulch has the potential to adversely affect the
historic cribbed log dam situated in the stream. The dam is a contributing site within the
historic Cone Butte Mining District, which is a sub-district of the Warm Springs Mining
District. The dam and the mining district have yet to be recorded or evaluated to
determine their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

As a result of this project we are increasing our surveyed area and knowledge of historic
properties within the analysis area.

3.9.3 Current Manapement - Environmental Consequences for Cultural Resources

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Cultural resources will continue to be managed by the 1992 JVP RMP. Possible effects
of any planned actions will be considered prior to initiation. Excessive fuel buildup and
the resultant risk of wildfire will remain a threat to cultural sites and other resources.

Since the stream in Collar Gulch has already eroded a channel around the cribbed log
dam no further effects to the existing structure are anticipated. Without an action driving
it, it is unlikely that we would document the historic sites in the Judith Mountains at the
same level that we would if there were an action that could affect the integrity of existing
historic properties.

3.10 Economics

3.10.1 Affected Environment

The forest products industry in the planning area is relatively small. This industry
generates income from outside the area into the local economy with timber processed
at sawmills in Roundup, Hobson, Seeley Lake, Livingston and Townsend, plus a pulp
mill in Frenchtown (BLM 1992). Most harvested timber comes from private land and is
processed outside of Fergus County.

The current gross value for the potential wood products that may come off forest health
and interface treatments is $317-456 per thousand board feet for saw logs (Bureau of
Business and Economic Research 2005), $45 per ton of pulpwood and $35 per ton of
wood biomass fuel (Atwood 2006). These figures represent the delivered price and do
not include the cost of harvesting the material and transporting to the mill or other user.

Recreation is valuable to the local economy in that there are a growing number of
seasonal homes in the analysis area that bring extra income to the county in the form of
property taxes and expenditures at local businesses. As there are no public
campgrounds in the analysis area, this form of recreation is not economically valuable.
However, many non-residents come to the area during hunting season for the excellent

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 70

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

opportunities to hunt elk, deer, antelope, and upland game birds. In addition. Big Spring
Creek is a renowned trout stream, drawing anglers to the area.

3.10.2 Proposed Action - Environmental Consequences for Economics

Direct Effects

Forest Industry The forest health and interface treatments are expected to yield a
combination of saw logs, pulpwood and biomass fuel that may be marketable. Some
treatment areas will yield a net positive economic value (when the value of wood
products exceeds the cost of removal and disposal) and some areas will result in a net
cost.

When considered statewide, the average net value of treatments for fire hazard
reduction is $624 per acre (Keegan et al 2004). Because this is a statewide average,
the figure for the Judith Moccasin analysis area would be expected to be lower, as trees
are smaller and markets farther away, than in the western part of the state. However,
this average figure does not attribute any value to pulpwood or biomass products.
Currently demand is increasing for pulpwood (Atwood 2006), and the hospital in
Lewistown has obtained funding to install a biomass incinerator heating system, which
may create a local demand for biomass fuel. Therefore the average net value for
treatments in the analysis area could be as high as the average figure for the state.

Using these figures, a rough estimate of the potential net value of the forest health
(state and federal) and interface treatments would be over six million dollars. The
vegetative diversity treatments are expected to result in a net cost. Depending on the
demand for biomass fuels (no pulpwood or saw logs are expected from these acres),
the net cost may vary between zero and $500 per acre. Thus the net economic value of
the project is expected to vary between four and six million dollars.

Recreation The vegetation treatments are designed to improve wildlife habitat on public
land and to draw more game animals to public land. Insofar as the public lands are
accessible to hunters and the general public, these actions will improve hunting and
wildlife viewing opportunities, and will marginally improve the hunting and recreational
economy of the area.

Grazing Permits The reissue of term grazing permits will increase the economic
stability of the ranches to which the term permits are tied through continued
authorization of livestock grazing.

Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Forest Industry Under the proposed action, an average of approximately 1,500 acres
per year will be treated for the next ten years. These activities will undoubtedly
generate jobs in the local area, and will also generate revenues for local trucking
businesses and local and regional mills. Given an expected steady supply of wood

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 71

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

products, the existing timber industry is more lil<ely to invest in capital expenditures for
utilizing biomass products (Chandler 2006), which will further contribute to jobs in the
area and local business revenue, as well as income and business taxes to the state.

The proposed action will contribute incrementally to the continued viability of the forest
products industry in the region and will marginally reduce the likelihood of additional mill
closures.

Recreation The vegetation management treatments are designed to maintain the
aesthetic character of the landscape, and thus are not expected to reduce recreational
or seasonal home values of the area. By reducing the risk of stand-replacing fire and
improving firefighter and public safety, the vegetation treatments are expected to
marginally increase recreational and seasonal home values of the area.

3.10.3 Current Management - Environmental Consequences for Economics

Direct Effects

Forest Industry No additional wood products will be made available and no additional
net revenues would accrue beyond current background levels.

Recreation Hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities will not be enhanced on public
lands, and will continue to slowly degrade with tree encroachment and loss of
deciduous trees, shrubs, and herbaceous understory.

Grazing Permits Continuation of current management could create negative economic
impacts to permittees with allotments not meeting health standards in a downward
trend. Continued degradation of public rangelands could eventually lead to lower
capacities and reduced livestock numbers. Allotments meeting health standards would
not be impacted by this alternative.

Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Forest Industry No additional jobs will be created under continued current
management, and on a regional level this "no action" alternative will contribute to further
mill closures.

Recreation Continued current management is expected to have no substantial
cumulative effect on the recreational economy of the area until another large, stand-
replacing wildfire occurs. Then the cumulative effect on economic values for recreation
and real estate would be negative.

Fire Suppression Costs Continued current management is expected to eventually
result in a large-scale, stand replacing fire in the Judith and Moccasin Mountains. Even
if the projected economic value of the proposed vegetation treatments is wrong and the
true value is negative, any costs would be expected to be substantially lower than the
potential costs of fire suppression and rehabilitation.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 72

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

The Cave Fire on the Helena National Forest in 2000 serves as a pertinent example of
this phenomenon. An environmental assessment was completed for forest health and
hazardous fuel reduction treatments in a 90,000 acre watershed. The most expensive
alternative that would best remedy the forest health and fuels problems was projected to
cost 10 million dollars. Three days after the assessment was completed and the
decision record was signed, a wildfire started in the watershed. Much of the watershed
burned at high intensity resulting in extensive tree mortality, consumption of duff layers,
and extensive soil heating. The resulting costs for fire suppression and watershed
rehabilitation were over 17 million dollars (Larsen 2006).

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 73

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

4.0 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Public Involvement Process

A scoping letter was mailed to landowners, grazing permittees, interested agencies and
organizations, and local governments on January 17, 2003.

A meeting for the purpose of presenting inventory information and conducting public
scoping was held at the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks building in Lewistown on
January 29, 2003.

4.2 List of Contributors

4.2.1 Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown Field Office

Shannon Downey Fire Mitigation Specialist and Team Leader

Gail Plovanic Writer/Editor

Kaylene Patten Facilitator & GIS Technician

Bruce Reid Forester

Brad Eckert Forester

Gary Kirpach Fire Management Officer

Cindy Wilson Fuels Specialist

Steve Knox Fuels Specialist

Jennifer Walker Fire Ecologist

Adam Carr Rangeland Management Specialist

Vinita Shea Rangeland Management Specialist

Terry Hoist Rangeland Management Specialist (ret)

Lowell Hassler Natural Resource Specialist - Weeds

Chad Krause Hydrologist

Joe Frazier Hydrologist (ret)

Joe Platz Fisheries Biologist

Fred Roberts Wildlife Biologist

Rod Sanders Recreation and Visual Specialist

Zane Fulbright Archeologist

Stanley Jaynes Archeologist

Jim Mitchell Geologist

Gail Storfa Realty Specialist (ret)

4.2.2 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Nortfieastern Land
Office

Clive Rooney Area Manager

Ron Buck Forester

Jerry Buhre Fire Management Officer

Jeff Collins Hydrologist

Sarah Pierce Forest Planner

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 74

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

4.3 Persons and Agencies Consulted

Gayle Sitter Montana/Dakotas BLM, State Wildlife Biologist

Tom Stivers Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Wildlife Biologist

Ann Tews Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Fisheries Biologist

Tom Killham Fergus County Sheriff/Fire Warden

Carl Seilstad Fergus County Commissioner

John Jensen Fergus County Commissioner

Ken Ronish Fergus County Commissioner

Linda Gillette Fergus County Planner

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 75

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

5.0 References

Atwood, M. 2006. Personal communication. Procurement Forester, Smurfit-Stone
Container. Bozeman, Montana.

Bucl<, R.O. 2005. Personal communication. Forester, DNRC Northeastern Land Office.
Lewistown, Montana.

Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 2005. Montana Saw Log and Veneer Log
Price Report, July - September 2005. The University of Montana, Missoula,
Montana [February 22, 2006] http://www.bber.umt.edu/forest/pdf/sawloq2005q3.pdf

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1992. Judith Valley Phillips Resource

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Lewistown, Montana.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Rangeland Reform '94 Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Prepared by USDI Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with
USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines
for Livestock Grazing Management Environmental Impact Statement. Billings,
Montana: Montana State Office.

Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Fire Management Plan/Plan Amendment
Environmental Assessment for Montana and the Dakotas. Billings, Montana:
Montana State Office.

Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests
Restoration Act Interim Field Guide. In cooperation with USDA Forest Service.
Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Collar Gulch Preliminary Stream Survey Data, on
file at BLM Lewistown Field Office, Lewistown, Montana.

Chandler, W. 2006. Forester, Smurfit-Stone Container. Remarks to the Montana
Communities and Wildfire Conference. March 1, 2006. Helena, Montana.

Ellingson, G. 2005. Personal communication. Forester, Northwest Management, Inc.
Helena, Montana.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires. Washington, D.C.

Fergus County Conservation District. 2005. Annual report on Fire Mitigation Community
Assistance Agreement, on file at BLM Lewistown Field Office, Lewistown, Montana.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 76

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Hendricks, P. 2000. Preliminary Bat Inventory of Caves and Abandoned Mines on BLM
Lands, Judith Mountains, Montana. Helena, Montana: Montana Natural Heritage
Program.

Howard, J.K. 1943. Montana: High, Wide and Handsome. New Haven, Connecticut:
Yale University Press.

Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, CD. Allen, J. Logan, and B. Hawkes. 2002.
Cascading effects of fire exclusion In Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature
review. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-91. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RMRS. 24 p.

Keegan, C.E., C.E. Fiedler, and T.A. Morgan. 2004. Wildfire in Montana: Potential
hazard reduction and economic effects of a strategic treatment program. Forest
Products Journal 54(7/8):21-24.

Lackey, Kevin. 1999. M.A.P. Elk Habitat Project. Missoula, Montana: Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation.

Larsen, D. 2006. Personal communication. Fire Management Officer, Helena Ranger
District, Helena National Forest, Helena, Montana.

Leeson, M. A. 1885. History of Montana, 1739-1885. Chicago: Warner, Beers & Co.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004. Montana 303(d) List.
Helena, Montana.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). 1996. Final
environmental Impact statement. State Forest Land Management Plan. DNRC,
Helena, Montana: 2 vols.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). 2002. Montana
Guide to the Streamslde Management Zone Law and Rules. DNRC Trust Land
Management Division, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). 2003. Montana
Administrative Rules for Forest Management. DNRC Trust Land Management
Division, Forest Management Bureau, Missoula, Montana.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) 2004. Montana Statewide Elk Management
Plan, pg 346-353. Wildlife Division, Helena, Montana.

Montana Natural Resource Information System (MT NRIS). 2003. Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, Montana, http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 77

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Montana Partners In Flight (MPIF). 2000. Northern Goshawk /n; Montana Bird
Conservation Plan - Version 1.0.
http://bioloqv.umt.eclu/lanclbircl/mbcp/mtpif/mtnoqo.htm

Montana State University Extension Service. 2001. Water Quality Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for Montana Forests. In cooperation with Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), Geospatial Task Group. David
O'Rourke, Contractor- GIS Specialist, Burean of Land Management National
Science and Technology Center. BLM Fire Data, 1980 to 2004. [February 22, 2006]
http://qis.nwcq.qov/paqes/data.html

North Wind Environmental. 2002. Reports of inventories and field assessments

(Forestry, Range, Riparian, Water Quality, Wildlife) on file at BLM Lewistown Field
Office.

North Wind Environmental. 2003. Fire History Report on file at BLM Lewistown Field
Office.

Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest Habitat Types of
Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Repot INT-34. Ogden, Utah:
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Rogers, R. and A. Rogers. 1995. A Survey of Nesting Ferruginous Hawks (Buteo
regalis) on Public Lands in Petroleum and Fergus Counties, Montana. Lewistown,
Montana: Bureau of Land Management Judith Resource Area.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado: Wildland
Hydrology.

Sala, A., G.D. Peters, L.R. Mclntyre and M.G. Harrington. 2005. Physiological

responses of ponderosa pine in western Montana to thinning, prescribed fire and
burning season. Tree Physiology 25, 339-348.

Schlosser, W.E. Lead Auth. 2004. Fergus Country, Montana, Wildland-Urban Interface
Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Northwest Management, Inc., Helena, Montana.

Shepard, Brad. 1996. Final Report: Collar Creek Fish Survey- 1993 to 1995.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

Tews, Anne. 2005. Draft Summary of Fish Sampling in Collar and Chicago Gulches.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

United States Geological Service (USGS). 2003. Digital Raster Graphic Images.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 78

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Williams, G.W. 2002. References on the American Indian Use of Fire in Ecosystems.
USDA Forest Service, Wasliington, D.C.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 79

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 80

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

APPENDICES

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 81

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix A: The National Fire Plan

1. ASSURING THAT NECESSARY FIREFIGHTING RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL
ARE AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO WILDLAND FIRES THAT THREATEN LIVES
AND PROPERTY: An ongoing priority of tine National Fire Plan is ensuring that the
agencies of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior maintain a world-class
firefighting organization. The Departments will continue to provide all necessary
resources to ensure that the fire suppression workforce is at the highest efficiency
possible in order to protect life and property in as safe a manner as possible. During the
life of the National Fire Plan, major efforts to address the shrinking firefighting workforce
have been undertaken, including hiring of additional permanent and seasonal
firefighters and permanent fire management staff.

Enhanced training and leadership development opportunities for firefighters and fire
managers continue to be delivered through the Wildland Firefighter Apprenticeship
Program, the Fire Use Training Academy, and the Prescribed Fire Training Academy.
Through these academies, more than 500 people have been trained yearly since the
inception of the National Fire Plan.

2. CONDUCTING EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION
ACTIVITIES ON LANDSCAPES AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY WILDLAND
FIRE: In the aftermath of catastrophic wildland fires, emergency stabilization and post-
fire rehabilitation work improves lands that are unlikely to recover naturally from the
effects of wildfires. Emergency stabilization treatments are essential to protecting lives
and properties downstream of burned areas. This work, often implemented over the
course of several years following a wildfire, includes reforestation, road and trail
rehabilitation, fence replacement, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, invasive plant
treatments, and replanting and reseeding with native or other desirable vegetation.

3. REDUCING HAZARDOUS FUELS (DRY BRUSH AND TREES THAT HAVE
ACCUMULATED AND INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF UNUSUALLY LARGE
FIRES) IN THE COUNTRY'S FORESTS AND RANGELANDS: In response to the risks
posed by heavy fuels loads ~ the result of decades of fire suppression activities,
sustained drought, and increasing insect, disease, and invasive plant infestations ~ the
National Fire Plan established an intensive, long-term hazardous fuels reduction
program. Hazardous fuels reduction treatments are designed to reduce the risks of
catastrophic wildland fire to people, communities, and natural resources while restoring
forest and rangeland ecosystems to closely match their historical structure, function,
diversity, and dynamics. Such treatments accomplish these goals by removing or
modifying wildland fuels to reduce the potential for severe wildland fire behavior, lessen
the post-fire damage, and limit the spread or proliferation of invasive species and
diseases. Treatments are accomplished using prescribed fire, mechanical thinning,
herbicides, grazing, or combinations of these and other methods. Treatments are being
increasingly focused on the expanding wildland/urban interface areas.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 A-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

The Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act have equipped
land managers with additional tools to achieve long-term objectives in reducing
hazardous fuels and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.

4. PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE
THREATENED BY WILDLAND FIRE: Communities need many types of assistance,
and community participation is at the core of carrying out citizen-driven solutions to
reduce the risks of fire in the wildland/urban interface. Agencies provide support for
educating citizens on the effects of fire, community fire protection planning, and training
and equipping rural and volunteer firefighters. Through a variety of grant programs
including Rural, State, and Volunteer Fire Assistance and Economic Action Programs,
delivered by the Agencies and the State Foresters, communities can take action to live
safely in fire-prone areas.

5. COMMITTING TO THE WILDLAND FIRE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, AN
INTERAGENCY TEAM CREATED TO SET AND MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS FOR
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS: Oversight, coordination,
program development, integration, and monitoring are critical to successful
implementation of the National Fire Plan. Well-articulated, consistent policies and
procedures provide for better oversight and review, and lead to greater accountability.
To this end, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council is committed to ensuring the highest
level of accountability.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 A-2

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix B: The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 contains a variety of provisions to expedite
hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific types of Federal
land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The act helps rural
communities, States, Tribes, and landowners restore healthy forest and rangeland
conditions on State, Tribal, and private lands. It also:

• Encourages biomass removal from public and private lands.

• Provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to improve water quality
and address watershed issues on non-Federal lands.

• Authorizes large-scale silvicultural research.

• Authorizes acquisition of Healthy Forest Reserves on private land to promote
recovery of threatened and endangered species, and improve biodiversity and
carbon sequestration.

• Directs the establishment of monitoring and early warning systems for insect or
disease outbreaks.

Title I provides authorities for expedited vegetation treatments on certain types of NFS
and BLM lands that are at risk of wildland fire; have experienced wind throw, blowdown,
or ice-storm damage; are currently experiencing disease or insect epidemics; or are at
imminent risk of such epidemics because of conditions on adjacent land. This title:

• Provides expedited environmental analysis of HFRA projects.

• Provides administrative review before decisions are issued on proposed HFRA
projects on NFS lands.

• Contains requirements governing the maintenance and restoration of old-growth
forest stands when the USDA Forest Service and DO! BLM carry out HFRA projects
in such stands.

• Requires HFRA projects on NFS and BLM land to maximize retention of larger trees
in areas other than old-growth stands, consistent with the objective of restoring fire-
resilient stands and protecting at-risk communities and Federal lands.

• Requires collaboration between Federal agencies and local communities,
particularly when Community Wildfire Protection Plans are prepared.

• Requires using at least 50 percent of the dollars allocated to HFRA projects to
protect communities at risk of wildland fire.

• Requires performance to be monitored when agencies conduct hazardous-fuel
reduction projects and encourages multiparty monitoring that includes communities
and other diverse stakeholders (including interested citizens and Tribes).

• Encourages courts to expedite judicial review of legal challenges to HFRA projects.

• Directs courts that consider a request for an injunction on an HFRA-authorized
project to balance the short- and long-term environmental effects of undertaking the
project against the effects of taking no action.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 B-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

HFRA Analysis and Documentation of Authority

Judith and Moccasin Mountains
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Decision Diagram 1:

Is project outside wilderness areas AND collaboratively developed (based on a
CWPP)? ^ YES

Is the project designed to protect communities, municipal watersheds, T&E
species or natural resources by treating hazardous fuels? ^YES: communities
identified in CWPP and natural resources

Is project consistent with RMP? -^ YES

Is project less than 1000 acres for mechanical and 4500 for Rx fire? -> NO

Is project on BLM land? ^ YES

RESULT: Go to Diagram 2.

Decision Diagram 2:

WUI Test: Is the project within or adjacent to an at-risk community covered by a
CWPP? ^ YES

RESULT: Qualifies as an authorized and covered project under
HFRA. Go to Diagram 3.

Decision Diagram 3:

Does the RMP contain old-growth management direction? -> NO

RESULT: Apply large-tree retention requirements (see Sec. 102(f)
from HFRA and pages 27-29 of Interim Guidance) and proceed with
project.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 B-2

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix C: Standards for Rangeland Health

standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function
required for health sustainable rangelands. Achieving or making significant and
measurable progress towards these functions and conditions is required of all uses of
public rangelands. Historical data, when available, should be used when assessing
progress towards these standards.

Standard #1: Uplands Are In Proper Functioning Condition

This means that soils are stable and provide for capture, storage and safe release of
water appropriate to soil type, climate and landform. The amount and distribution of
ground cover (i.e., litter, live and standing dead vegetation, microbiotic crusts, and
rock/gravel) for identified ecological site(s) or soil-plant associations are appropriate for
soil stability.

Evidence of accelerated erosion in the form of rills and/or gullies, erosional pedestals,
flow patterns, physical soil crusts/surface scaling and compaction layers below the soil
surface is minimal. Ecological processes including hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and
energy flow are maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are vigorous,
biomass production is near potential and there is a diversity of species characteristic of
and appropriate to the site. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of
historical data.

As indicated by:

Physical Environment Biotic Environment

erosional flow patterns

surface litter

soil movement by water and wind

soil crusting and surface sealing

compaction layer

rills

gullies

cover distribution
community richness
community structure
exotic plants
plant status
seed production
recruitment
nutrient cycle

Standard #2: Riparian and Wetland Areas Are In Proper Functioning Condition

This means that the functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of the
interaction among geology, soil, water and vegetation.

Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform or
large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 C-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture
bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve flood water retention and
groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting
action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and
the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for native fish production,
waterfowl breeding, and other uses appropriate for the area that will support greater
species richness.

The riparian-wetland vegetation is a mosaic of species richness and community
structure serving to control erosion, shade water, provide thermal protection, filter
sediment, aid floodplain development, dissipate energy, delay flood water, and increase
recharge of groundwater where appropriate to landform.

The stream channels and flood plain dissipate energy of high water flows and transport
sediment appropriate for the geomorphology (e.g., gradient, size, shape, roughness,
confinement, and sinuosity), climate, and landform.

Soils support appropriate riparian-wetland vegetation, allowing water movement,
filtering sediment, and slowing ground water movement for later release. Stream
channels are not entrenching beyond natural climatic variations and water levels
maintain appropriate riparian-wetland species.

Riparian areas are defined as land directly influenced by permanent water. It has
visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence.
Lake shores and streambanks are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as
ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent
upon free water in the soil. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of
historical data.

As indicated by:

Hydrologic

• floodplain inundated in relatively frequent events (1-3 years)

• amount of altered streambanks

• sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the landscape
setting (i.e., landform, geology, and bioclimatic region); and upland watershed
not contributing to riparian degradation.

Erosion/Deposition

• plain and channel characteristics; i.e., rocks, coarse and/or woody debris
adequate to dissipate energy

• point bars are being created and older point bars are being vegetated

• lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity

• system is vertically stable

• stream is in balance with water and sediment being supplied by the watershed
(i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition)

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 C-2

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Vegetation

reproductive and diverse age class of vegetation
diverse composition of vegetation

species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture characteristics
streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that
have deep binding root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events
utilization of trees and shrubs
riparian plants exhibit high vigor

adequate vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during
high flows
• where appropriate, plant communities in the riparian area are an adequate
source of woody debris

Standard #3: Water Quality Meets Montana State Standards

This means that surface and ground water on public lands fully support designated
beneficial uses described in the Montana Water Quality Standards. Assessing proper
functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

dissolved oxygen concentration

PH

turbidity

temperature

fecal conform

sediment

color

toxins

others: ammonia, barium, boron, chlorides, chromium, cyanide, endosulfan,

lindane, nitrates, phenols, phosphorus, sodium, sulfates, etc.

Standard #4: Air Quality Meets Montana State Standards

This means that air quality on public lands helps meet the goals set out in the State of
Montana Air Quality Implementation Plan. Efforts will be made to limit unnecessary
emissions from existing and new point or non-point sources.

The BLM management actions or use authorizations do not contribute to air pollution
that violates the quantitative or narrative Montana Air Quality Standards or contributes
to deterioration of air quality in selected class area.

As indicated by:

Section 176(c) Clean Air Act which states that activities of all federal agencies must
conform to the intent of the appropriate State Air Quality Implementation Plan and not:

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 C-3

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

• cause or contribute to any violations of ambient air quality standards

• increase the frequency of any existing violations

• impede the State's progress in meeting their air quality goals

Standard #5: Habitats are provided to maintain healthy, productive and diverse
populations of native plant and animal species, including special status species
(federally threatened, endangered, candidate or Montana species of special
concern as defined in BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management)

This means that native plant and animal communities will be maintained or improved to
ensure the proper functioning of ecological processes and continued productivity and
diversity of native plant lifeforms. Where native communities exist, the conversion to
exotic communities after disturbance will be minimized. Management for indigenous
vegetation and animals is a priority. Ecological processes including hydrologic cycle,
and energy flow, and plant succession are maintained and support healthy biotic
populations. Plants are vigorous, biomass production is near potential, and there is a
diversity of plant and animal species characteristic of and appropriate to the site. The
environment contains components necessary to support viable populations of a
sensitive/threatened and endangered species in a given area relative to site potential.
Viable populations are wildlife or plant populations that contain an adequate number of
reproductive individuals distributed on the landscape to ensure the long-term existence
of the species. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical
data.

As indicated by:

• plants and animals are diverse, vigorous and reproducing satisfactorily noxious
weeds are absent or insignificant in the overall plant community

• spatial distribution of species is suitable to ensure reproductive capability and
recovery

• a variety of age classes are present

• connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors prevents habitat fragmentation

• species richness (including plants, animals, insects and microbes) are
represented

• plant communities in a variety of successional stages are represented across the
landscape.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 C-4

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix D: Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

Guideline #1: Salting and supplemental feeding

If salt and/or mineral are provided to livestock, they will be placed a minimum of 1/4 mile
from riparian areas (including both reservoirs and creeks) and stock water tanks. Salt
and/or mineral placement locations will be rotated periodically (once each grazing
season at a minimum). Supplemental feeding will not be allowed except to accomplish
resource objectives.

Guideline #2: Riparian stubble height

Adequate vegetative stubble heights will remain on plants identified as having deep
binding root mass at the end of the grazing season to provide streambank stability, trap
and filter sediment, improve water quality, and to facilitate meeting site-specific
objectives. Average vegetative stubble heights will be four inches for grasses and
forbs. Utilization of trees and shrubs will not exceed 25% of the 2"^ year and older
available leaders. Plants with a deep binding root mass include trees (cottonwood,
green ash, box elder, and peachleaf willow), shrubs (sandbar and yellow willow,
dogwood, chokecherry, buffaloberry, golden and buffalo currents), forbs (cattail and
American licorice), and grasses (western wheatgrass, slough grass, cord grasses,
sedges and rushes).

Guideline #3: Utilization of upland grasses

Utilization on key grass species in upland areas will not exceed 50% by weight or 4 inch
stubble height at the end of the grazing season.

Guideline #4: Grazing systems

When practical, rotational or rest rotation type grazing systems will be used to maximize
the amount of rest on the allotment during the growing season and/or break up the cycle
of continuous hot season use on riparian areas. At a minimum, portions of an allotment
under rotational grazing should receive periodic rest during the growing season and hot
season grazing should not occur each year on any given pasture. Season-long or year-
round grazing will be discontinued if standards for rangeland health are not met.

Guideline #5: Surface disturbance and seeding

Permittee must notify the BLM prior to conducting any surface disturbing activities on
public land. Areas that are disturbed by fire or mechanical means will be rested two
growing seasons. Native plant species will be used for reclamation of all disturbed
areas. The only time non-native seed should be used is when there is a lack of native
seed availability following large scale fires or the use of sterile non-native annual

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 D-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

grasses is necessary to achieve rapid site stability and/or reduce the threat of noxious
weeds.

Guideline #6: Pasture moves

Pasture move dates as shown in this watershed plan are an estimate, actual move
dates should be based on resource conditions and forage utilization. Any pasture
moves exceeding five days past the scheduled move date will be made with
concurrence of the BLM. Earlier or later move dates could be required or permitted
based on resource or livestock conditions or if the guidelines for upland utilization or
riparian stubble heights are exceeded or are yet to be reached.

Guideline #7: Changes in scheduled use

Any deviation from scheduled use must be applied for by the permittee and approved by
the BLM manager prior to any changes taking place. The guidelines for upland
utilization, riparian stubble heights and progress toward meeting site-specific objectives
will be evaluated when reviewing requests for deviation from scheduled use. Requests
to change use will not be granted unless it has been demonstrated to be consistent with
achieving healthy, properly functioning ecosystems and site-specific objectives.

Guideline #8: Drought

During periods of drought, or at the earliest possible time when it becomes apparent
that drought conditions are likely, the BLM and permittees will meet to discuss and
arrange management changes needed to reduce resource impacts and continue
progress toward meeting specific objectives (Refer to BLM Montana, North Dakota and
South Dakota drought policy).

Guideline #9: Terms and conditions/management prescriptions

Management prescriptions are identified on a site-specific basis and will be
implemented as terms and conditions of the grazing permit/lease. Permittees should
provide periodic input to BLM on needed adjustments to grazing plans so that
refinements can be made to improve resource conditions.

Guideline #10: Water developments

Locate facilities (water developments, etc) away from riparian-wetland areas. Water
tanks must have an escape ramp, float valve and overflow pipe to eliminate over flow
around tank.

Guideline #11: Weeds

Noxious weed control is essential and should include: cooperative agreements, public
education, and integrated pest management (mechanical, biological, chemical).

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 D-2

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Guideline #12: Water quality

Livestock management should utilize practices such as those referenced by the
published Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) prescribed grazing
technical guide to maintain, restore or enhance water quality.

Guideline #13: Threatened, endangered and sensitive species

Grazing management should maintain or improve habitat for federally listed threatened
or endangered species and any state listed sensitive species. BLM will keep permittees
informed of changes in listing status of any species known to exist on their allotment.

Guideline #14: Native plants

Grazing management should maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions
to sustain native populations and communities.

Guideline #15: Control of livestock

Control of livestock is the permittee's responsibility. Monitoring should be conducted by
permittee to insure livestock are in proper locations. Livestock that are allowed to roam
onto public lands without a permit will be treated as trespass livestock. Additional
monitoring will be conducted by the BLM to insure this guideline is met.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 D-3

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix E: Standards of Rangeland Health Assessments

Allotment
Number

Allotment
Name

#1
Upland

#2

Riparian

#3

Water
Quality*

#4

Air
Quality

#5

Habitat

0092O

East Pasture

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

02524

Whiskey Gulch GR

No(l)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (1)

02525

Alpine Gulch JR

No (1)

No (4)

Yes

Yes

No(l)

02603

Maginnis Mountain

No(l)

Yes

No**

Yes

No(l)

02615

Ross Pass

No(l)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No(l)

02617

Sheep Mountain

Yes

No (5)

No**

Yes

Yes

02624

Black Butte Ranch

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

02627

Judith Peak

No(l)

No (4)

No**

Yes

No(l)

02635

South Black Butte

No (2)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

02639

Brasier Place

No (2)

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

02640

Flat Mountain

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

02644

Three Links

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

02649

Lookout Peak

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

02660

Flat Mountain East

No(l)

NA

NA

Yes

No (1)

02661

Alpine Gulch GR

No (1)

No (5, 6)

Yes

Yes

No(l)

02667

Shelternook

No (7)

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

02674

Box Elder Ranch

No(l)

NA

NA

Yes

No(l)

02680

Black Butte

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

02681

East Fork
Fords Creek

No (3)

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

09796

Phillips School

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

09848

Big Spring Creek

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

10036

North Moccasin

No (1)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (1)

10042

Judith Mountain
Common

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

10043

Boyd Creek

No(l)

NA

NA

Yes

No(l)

10053

Deer Creek

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10058

Spear T Ranch

No (3)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10059

Spear T Common

No (3)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10060

Milburn Place

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

10073

Whiskey Gulch JR

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

10092

Sennett Canyon

No (1)

NA

NA

Yes

No(l)

12602

Rattlesnake Butte

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

12610

Elk Peak

No(l)

NA

NA

Yes

No(l)

19741

South Moccasin

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

E-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Allotment
Number

Allotment
Name

#1
Upland

#2

Riparian

#3

Water
Quality

#4

Air
Quality

#5

Habitat

20032

Jackson Coulee

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

20056

North Fork
Warm Springs

No (1)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (1)

20068

Ruby Gulch

No (6)

Yes

Yes

20069

Mason Canyon

No(l)

No (5)

Yes

Yes

No(l)

20077

Shammel

No(l)

NA

NA

Yes

No(l)

20082

Devils Canyon

Yes

NA

NA

Yes

Yes

20083

Pryamid Canyon

No (1)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (1)

Unallocated

Limekiln

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes = meeting the standard; No = not meeting the standard; NA = not applicable; the allotment includes
no streams or riparian areas.

*For allotments meeting the water quality standard: MDEQ has not designated beneficial uses for waters
on the allotment. Water quality will be considered to be meeting standards until designated use support
determinations are made and then will be reassessed.

** MDEQ has determined that waters in Armells Creek, Chicago Gulch, and Collar Gulch are not fully
supporting designated uses. The allotment lies within one of the impaired reaches. Causes for lack of
support may be chemistry of the native substrate or impacts from historic mining.

(1) Non-native species are dominant. Noxious weeds are present. Livestock are not a significant factor
for not meeting the upland or habitat standard.

(2) Crested wheatgrass seeding is present. Livestock are not a significant factor for not meeting the
standard.

(3) Non-native species are dominant. Livestock are not a significant factor for not meeting the standard.

(4) Livestock are a significant factor preventing the allotment from meeting riparian standards.

(5) Mining activities (past and/or present) are preventing the allotment from meeting riparian standards.

(6) Road construction (past and/or present) is preventing the allotment from meeting the riparian
standard.

(7) Livestock are a significant factor preventing the allotment from meeting the upland standard.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

E-2

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix F: Riparian Health Assessments

stream Name

Reach
Number

Miles

Acres

Riparian Health

PFC%

FAR%

NF%

Upland

Alpine Gulch

8-1

0.63

0.84

56

Armells Creek

8-2

0.68

0.49

72

15-1

0.17

0.28

93

Black Butte

15-2

0.13

0.10

95

Tributaries

15-3

0.18

0.37

86

15-4

0.70

2.97

63

15-5

0.20

0.24

63

31-1

0.42

1.27

X

32-1

0.57

1.38

75

32-2

0.33

2.00

X

33-1

0.30

0.36

75

33-2

0.10

0.24

69

34-1

0.24

1.16

X

34-2

0.14

0.44

X

34-3

0.04

0.01

73

34-5

0.15

0.36

69

Boxelder Tributary

28-1

0.28

0.34

83

Brickyard Creek

29-1

0.33

0.80

77

Chicago Gulch

17-1

0.25

4.60

83

17-2

0.52

0.63

84

17-3

0.34

1.03

81

18-1

0.79

0.77

81

18-2

0.17

0.31

82

20-1

0.56

1.22

81

Chicago East Fork

19-1

0.31

0.30

54

Collar Gulch
Tributary

25-1

0.11

0.20

61

Collar Gulch

16-1

0.38

0.69

46

16-2

0.34

0.49

91

16-3

0.33

0.40

88

16-4

0.74

1.79

89

24-1

0.18

0.37

80

24-2

0.33

0.32

91

Dexter Gulch

9-1

0.10

0.09

81

Limekiln Canyon

13-1

0.35

0.43

81

14-1

0.25

0.45

79

Lincoln Gulch

7-1

0.42

1.52

82

7-2

0.10

0.36

58

21-1

0.23

8.40

98

21-2

0.28

0.51

75

22-2

0.09

0.13

82

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

F-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Stream Name

Reach

Miles

Acres

Riparian Health

Number

PFC%

FAR % NF %

Upland

Lincoln Gulch cont'd

22-3

0.09

0.13

82

22-4

0.20

0.48

77

23-1

0.11

0.66

91

23-2

0.12

0.15

93

23-3

0.10

0.24

88

Log Gulch

30-1

0.30

0.72

X

Maiden Canyon

26-1

0.48

0.70

56

26-2

0.77

1.30

56

North Moccasin

2a-l

0.62

0.60

87

2a-2

0.25

0.55

77

2b-l

0.52

0.63

94

3-1

0.12

0.32

44

3-2

0.30

0.65

74

Plum Creek

1-1

0.10

0.11

84

1-2

0.55

1.06

61

Pyramid Gulch

10-1

0.42

0.61

87

10-2

0.29

0.63

72

11-1

0.16

0.27

89

11-2

0.16

0.58

74

Ruby Gulch

12-1

0.28

0.31

86

12-2

0.12

0.26

32

South Moccasin

4-1

0.38

1.80

92

4-2

0.25

0.76

81

5-1

0.20

0.29

X

6-1

0.30

0.44

82

6-2

0.28

1.70

81

Whisky Gulch

27-1

0.25

0.75

74

TOTALS

35

20.5

55.4

34

19

8

6

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01

F-2

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix G: The SIMPPLLE Modeling Process

SIMPPLLE, (Simulating Patterns and Processes at Landscape scales), is tine acronym
for a computer simulation modeling system that simulates vegetation patterns and
disturbances emphasizing the dynamics of landscape level change. It was developed
for the USDA Forest Service, Region One as a management tool. In general, its
purpose is to help provide an understanding of the dynamics of where disturbances will
occur across a landscape.

SIMPPLLE generates a range of possible outcomes for landscapes that can be
quantified through multiple simulations. Multiple simulations can provide a prediction of
general trends for the disturbances on a specific landscape. Results from multiple
simulations can be expressed as a probability of occurrence for the disturbance
processes as well as the at-tributes by which plant communities are described.

Individual simulations can be used as an example of one possible outcome of a given
landscape. Individual simulations can be selected from a set of multiple simulations to
represent worst-case scenarios for specific disturbance processes, a most likely
scenario, or a most optimistic scenario.

Specifically SIMPPLLE's purpose is to provide a user with the ability to:

1. Simulate future vegetation changes caused by disturbance processes at multiple
landscape scales.

2. Simulate ranges of conditions of plant communities and processes at multiple
landscape scales.

3. Simulate how changes in vegetation patterns influence the activity of fire, insect
and disease processes.

4. Simulate management treatment alternatives for their impact on disturbance
processes and the attainment of desired conditions defined at landscape scales.

5. Help identify areas that have a high priority for treatments that can help achieve
and sustain desired conditions at landscape scales.

6. Simulate impacts over time on a variety of resource objectives that can be defined
by a combination of vegetation conditions and spatial attributes.

7. Provide a basis for identifying the probability of disturbance processes and the
historical range of vegetation conditions.

Environmental Assessment MT-060-02-01 G-1

BLM Lewistown Field Office
Judith and Moccasin Mountains

Environmental Assessment
Forest Health and Vegetation Management

Appendix H: Monitoring Plan

Treated Acres: Track the cumulative number of acres treated by prescription over tine
life of this project. The treatment acres will be counted as the actual "footprint" (i.e., the
unit boundaries) where thinning and prescribed burning occurs, as opposed to the
polygon which includes a mosaic of treated and untreated areas. Total treated acres for
each prescription may not exceed the amounts given in the Table 1 below, which are
taken from the analysis. Total acres harvested by ground-based machinery may not
exceed the amounts given in Table 2 for each fifth order watershed. Coordination must
occur between BLM and DNRC, and cumulative figures for each agency will be
exchanged at least once each year on or before April 1^^

Table 2: Maximum treatment acres by prescription for each agency.

Douglas-fir Habitat

Lodgepole

Interface

Vegetative

Agency

Warm-Dry

Habitat

Cool-Moist

Habitat

Areas

Diversity

BLM

2208

5354

309

134^^

1165*

4943

DNRC

123

847

80

TOTAL

2331

6200

389

134

1165

4943

^ This is the total cut area (half of 268 treatment acres).

* This is the additional area that does not overlap forest health treatment areas.

Table 2: Maximum machine harvest acres by watershed

Fourth Order
Watershed Name

5th Order
Number

Machine
Acres

BOX ELDER

01
03

677
1781

BULLWHACKER<DOG

05

30

FORT PECK RESERVOIR

06

619

JUDITH

05
09
13

1792

2948

2

Grand Total

7850

Photo Plots: Establish permanent photo points before treatments begin, then repeat
the photo points each year for 2 years, then every 5 years.

BLM Lewistown Field Office Environmental Assessment

Judith and Moccasin Mountains Forest Health and Vegetation Management

First Order Fire Effects: Measure first order fire effects after prescribed burning
according to currently accepted protocol (e.g., FIREMON inventory system). First order
fire effects are those that occur within the first year after fire.

Noxious Weeds: Monitor for noxious weed infestations for two years following thinning
and/or prescribed fire. Treat weeds that occur following the advice of the Weeds
Specialist.

Livestock impacts: Monitor livestock impacts on vegetation after logging, prescribed
fire, and/or riparian treatment occurs. If impacts and/or competition with wildlife are
unacceptable, use adaptive management to reduce such impacts. For allotments not
meeting Standards for Rangeland Health, establish one or more photo points and read
them every three years. Survey as needed for actual use of forage.

Front cover: Photograph of Fort Maginnis on the east side of the Judith Mountains in 1886.
Back cover: Historical photographs paired with recent photographs.

Lewistown ca 1900 (above) and 2002 (below)

Judith Mountains from the west 1907 (above) and 2002 (below). Burnett Peak fire scar visible below, left.

R16E

R17E

R18E

R19E

R20E

R21E

R22E

R23E

T
18

N

T

17

N

T
16

N

T
15

N

T
18

N

T

17

N

T
16

N

T
15

N

R16E

R17E

R18E

R19E

R20E

R21E

R22E

R23E

1:150,000

1.25

2.5

7.5
HI Miles

Judith-Moccasin Landscape Analysis

Figure 1.1
Location IVIap

Disclaimer

Base data derived from USGS
digital and mylar 1:100,000 scale
maps. No warranty is made by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
for use of the data for purposes
not intended by BLM.

Generated by the Lewistown Field Office
March 17, 2006.

Judith-Moccasin Landscape Analysis

Figure 2.1
Proposed Action: vegetation treatments and new roads

r , : - 1

■"^■^^■^ J

V ' f . ^ ,

y^^'^%--K_l>^.^<'V''''~^

v^'-- ■• /

*r-=: /

Y ^

)ntaria_y

L- "^J

r'^^V/^

v"i

{-:■'/■ <

i

1:150,000

Disclaimer

Base data derived from USGS
digital and mylar 1:100,000 scale
maps. No warranty is made by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
for use of the data for purposes
not intended by BLM.

Generated by the Lewistown Field Office
March 17, 2006.

D

/

Legend

Public Domain Land Administered by BLIVI

State Land

Fifth Order Watershed Boundaries

ACEC Boundaries

BLIVI Forest Health Treatments

DNRC Forest Treatments

BLM Interface

Health/Interface Treatments Overlap

Vegetative Diversity Treatments

Existing Roads
New Roads

1.25 2.5

10

■ Miles

Judith-Moccasin Landscape Analysis

Figure 2.2
Proposed Action: allotments; riparian and
stream channel treatments

^12602

1^02680 [|

016

Legend

Public Domain Land Administered by BLIVI

State Land

Grazing Allotments

Stream Restoration Segments

Existing Roads

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

1:150,000

1.25 2.5

7.5

10

■ Miles

Disclaimer

Base data derived from USGS
digital and mylar 1:100,000 scale
maps. No warranty is made by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
for use of the data for purposes
not intended by BLM.

Generated by the Lewistown Field Office
March 17, 2006.

Judith-Moccasin Landscape Analysis

Figure 3.1
Fire Regime Condition Class for forested areas by watershed

Legend

Fifth Order Watershed Boundaries

Fire Regime Condition Class

1 Minimal Departure from Reference Conditions

2 Moderate Departure from Reference Conditions

3 Extreme Departure from Reference Conditions

Miles

Judith-Moccasin Landscape Analysis

Figure 3.2
Current vegetation in the analysis area

1:150,000

1.25 2.5

7.5

10
■ Miles

Disclaimer

Base data derived from USGS
digitai and myiar 1:100,000 scaie
maps. No warranty is made by thie
Bureau of Land Ivlanagement (BLIvl)
for use of thie data for purposes
not intended by BLIvl.

Generated by thie Lewistown Fieid Office
Ivlarch 20, 2006.

Legend

Conifers

Qual<ing Aspen

Qual<ing Aspen-IVIixed Conifer

Non-stocl<ed Forest

Upland Shrubs

Riparian Shrubs

Native Forbs

Grasslands

Agriculture

Rock and Scree

Judith-Moccasin Landscape Analysis

Figure 3.3
Predicted natural vegetation as modeled by SIMMPPLE

1:150,000

1.25 2.5

7.5

10
■ Miles

Disclaimer

Base data derived from USGS
digitai and myiar 1:100,000 scaie
maps. No warranty is made by thie
Bureau of Land Ivlanagement (BLIvl)
for use of thie data for purposes
not intended by BLIvl.

Generated by thie Lewistown Fieid Office
Ivlarch 20, 2006.

Legend

Conifers

Qual<ing Aspen

Qual<ing Aspen-IVIixed Conifer

Non-stocl<ed Forest

Upland Shrubs

Riparian Shrubs

Native Forbs

Grasslands

Agriculture

Rock and Scree