DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONS HRVAnOK l^-_T\\ rUlTm,H*liTg. COVUhJQri lUH ElEVENTH ^VVMUF STATE Of N/OMTANA mmm TBLETaX h-l/biiBt:i i«iiiMi-3iM' rdicri toui] □kpirtrmnt at Niidunl ftavAjrcH md Cmtfvilloil Rm Eiiita ManiQuncni Bur«4iu Nov«fTit»r 15, 20M Doar IntPfB&lad PArty: Th9 UdndBTB Dipartminc of F^iuni i^«bciuit£i« indi Comarvattan {Dfincii hoa [clBBsad ihd FiniT nam Ettali UuMt^MwiE Proarar^ninniic EiwIi^nrriBintai Impact ^A^iBm^rt (FEIS) Th4 J^Ei5 idanUfifiJ 4 mugc «r ahnmitrrtl, incudiiv 9 prvT^rrBd a!iAnwt.MD. I»9l waulfi ptovde ir» OH^li«nj Rflai Eatata MtdBgwrifnt Bi^'sau wltti cortHiMnrt policy dirticbcxi And gLiiMrm in JU. mamgwTHnl of nul aiW^ ic:)ivitiBfl on the staco'fe 5 J mi:l'cn Bcrei Of 101111 LandC Btiia an somnnnlli ftdSr^K on iha Drat El^, t^B FEJ5 FKQpOJfrB eno HOiHor-.ir illarrattV4 lAlt^KnotV* D^}. 9!V '-he pi^armd Bl1»-natn*, thnt •MfWi ciwraetiri«B» egmrman bo AllvmM^t S wid -C. In [MMilior 'J3 ±(i BtlBchHt ham copy, ItiB FEI5 may M M!«Mr*d ll Eh* CMRC WOb IJv wvnM df^ (trtlu trt u*-' Ttw Lind Burd wfll veM* to app(DW«lDpljQn of tni Real Estata hlmioMMnt Plan al ons pf ttv ragulaty Kfiedi^Bd rmssingt in udy ^tOE I MolmorHi' TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary How To Read This Document Preface Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 1.1 Purpceeof Prog-ammSic Environmertal 1 mpact St-ftement 1.1.1 Who H as 1 nitiated this Prorpss? 1.1.2 What is the Proposed Action? 1.1.3 To What Areas will thePlan Apply? 1.1.4 What will thePlan not AddrFss? 1.1.5 What TimePeriod will be Addressed by the Plan? 1- 2 1- 2 1- 2 1- 2 1- 3 1- 3 1.2 NHHfi For the Action 1-3 1.3 The Opportunities 1.3.1 The School Funding Opportunity 1.3.2 The E cononic Opportunit/ 1-3 1-3 1-4 1.4 TheObjPTtives 1-5 1.5 The Public 1 nvolvaiHit Process 1.5.1 1 nitial Proposal Process 1.5.2 Issues Identified 1.5.3 Issued Eliminated from DHdiled Study 1.5.4 DEISRelff^ 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-7 1-8 1.6 TheDedsion That Must beMade 1-9 Chapter 2: Real Estate Management Plan Alternatives 2.1 1 ntroduction 2.1.1 Explanation of Funnel FilUdlion Process 2-3 2- 3 2.2 H istory and Process Ubed to Formulate the Alternatives 2- 5 2.3 Alternative Design, Evaluation and Sel«tion Criteria 2.3.1 Technical Alternative Design Elements 2. 3. 2 0 utcome Requi rements 2- 5 2- 5 2-30 2.4 1 mplementation of Prd'erred Alternative 2-30 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Ddldi led Study 2.5.1 Minimal/ PaRsive 2.5.2 Agg-essive Management 2.5.3 LongTerrn Resource Management and Conservation 2-31 2-31 2-32 2-32 Table of Contents TOC-1 N ovember 19, 2004 2,6 D escri ption of Proposed Alternatives 2-33 2,6,1 AlternativeA - Current Program 2-33 2,6,2 Alternative B - Diversification of Portfolio 2-40 2,6,3 Alternative B-1: Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority 2-48 2,6,4 AlternativeC - Focused Portfolio 2-48 2,6,5 AlternativeC-1: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority 2-56 2,6,6 A Iternati ve D : F ocused E ntitlements 2-56 2,7 D escri ption of reasonably foreseeable future actions not part of the proposed programmatic plan but related to cumulative effects 2-65 2,7,1 Agricultural Land Leasing 2-65 2,7,2 Grazing Land Leasing 2-65 2,7,3 Forest Product Sales 2-66 2,7,4 Mineral, Oil, Gas Leasing 2-66 2,7,5 Recreation 2-66 2,8 Summary Comparison of the Effects of All Alternatives on the Project Objectives and on the Relevant Environmental Factors 2-67 2,9 Predicted Attainment of Project Objectives byAlternative 2-69 2,9,1 0 bjective 1 - G enerate increased revenue for Trust Beneficiaries greater than current level 2-69 2,9,2 Objective 2- Comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (M E PA) requirement for developing a programmatic plan, D N PC's Administrative Procedures Regarding ME PA (ARM 36,2 537) and the Montana Antiquities Act (MCA 22-3-424), in their most current form 2-70 2,9,3 Objective 3- Provide a more effective and efficient decision-making framework for real estate management that includes a strategic vision and philosophy for future management 2-72 2,9,4 Objective 4- Simplify the project level evaluation process 2-73 2,9,5 0 bjective 5 - Protect the long-term viability of Trust Land for uses other than agriculture, grazing and timber 2-74 2,9,6 0 bjective 6 - Provide an opportunity for public involvement in decisions affecting residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses 2-76 2,9,7 0 bjective 7 - 1 dentify ways to work more closely with local government processes and policies 2-77 2,9,8 SummaryTable of Predicted Attainment of Objectives 2-78 2,10 Relationship of A Iternatives to Issues raised in the Scoping Process 2-78 2,11 Identification of the Preferred Alternative 2-85 2,11,1 Reasons for Selecting A Iternative D 2-85 Chapter 3: The Affected Environ men t 3.1 1 ntroduction 3- 2 32 Description of Rela/art Resources Related to theTrust Land M anagement D 1 vi si on 3- 2 1 Table of Contents TOC-2 N ovember 19, 2004 3,2,1 Statewide Relationships 3- 2 3,2,2 Trust Land Acreage 3-18 3,2,3 Trust Lands Administration 3-21 3,2,4 Real E state M anagement B ureau (R E M B ) 3-22 3,2,5 Trust Land Economics 3-42 3,2,6 Existing Planning an Regulatory Programs Within (which the RE MB Operates) 3-43 3,3 D escri Dtion of Relevant Resources Related to the Physical and Biological Environment 3-48 3,3,1 Geology and Soil 3-48 3,3,2 Water Resources 3-52 3,3,3 Fisheries 3-67 3,3,4 Wildlife 3-76 3,3,5 Vegetation 3-94 3,3,6 Air Quality 3-102 3,4 D escri Dtion of Relevant Resources Related to the Cultural Aesthetic and Social Environment 3-106 3,4,1 Noise 3-106 3,4,2 Aesthetics 3-107 3,4,3 Cultural Resources 3-112 3,4,4 Community 1 nfrastructure 3-115 3,4,5 Taxation 3-116 Chapter 4: En viron mental Consequences 4.1 InUoduction 43 41.1 Land Base and Filtration Methodology 43 41.2 Grovvth Indices 43 41.3 Summary Description of Alternatives 49 41.4 Regulatory Requi remets 413 41.5 ProjeJ. Selection and Prioritization 413 42 Predicted Effects on all Affected Environmental Resources 413 42.1 Statawi de D emoy aphi c Rel ati onshi ps 413 42.2 Real Estate Management Bureau 417 42.3 Economics 421 42.4 Real EstateTransartionsandAutiiorizations 423 42.5 Geology and Soil 426 42.6 water Resources 429 42.7 Fisheries 432 42.8 Wildlife 436 42.9 Reptiles and Amphibians 439 42.10 Vegdtabon 442 42.11 Air Quality 446 42.12 Noise 449 42.13 Aesttidics 452 42.14 Cultural Resources 455 42.15 Community 1 nf rashxicture 459 Table of Contents TOC-3 N ovember 19, 2004 4,2,16 Taxation - PropertyTax 4-62 4,2,17 State Equalization Payments to Counties 4-65 4,3 JVIonitoring and Accounting 4-66 4,3,1 JVIonitoring 4-66 4,3,2 Accounting 4-67 Chapter 5: Qtegorical Exclusions 5,1 Overview 5-2 5,1,1 Emergency Situations (ARM 35,2,539) 5-2 5,1,2 E xtraordinary Circumstances 5-2 5,1,3 Categorical E xclusions from MEPA Documentation 5-3 5,2 Proposed Local Regulatory Compliance U nder T his PE IS 5-4 5,2,1 D escrlptlon of Local G overn men t Policies, Processes and Regulations 5-4 5,3 Relationship of Local G overn men t Processes to M EPA A nalysis 5-10 List OF Preparers List of Agencies Acronyms Glossary Bibliographical References LisTOF Figures E-1 DNRC Laid Offices E- 3 2-1 DNRCAdministrativeLandOfficeRegons 2- 4 2-2 Methods of 1 ncomeGenadLion on TriBt Lands with Residential Value 2-12 2-3 1 niti al Steps to F unnel F i Iter Process 2-17 2-4 Funnel Filter Process 2-18 2-5 ProjecL Selection Process 2-24 3-1 Percent of Federal Ownership Within Each Land Office 3-15 3-2 Trust Land Managtment Division Organization 3-22 3-3 Organizational Chart for tiie Real Estate Management Bureau 3-27 3-4 Existing Projwf 1 dentification Process 3-31 3-5 Real E state M anagement Bureau Ra/enue 4 43 3-6 M aj or Watersheds and Rivers i n M ontana 3-58 3-7 Assumed Ranges of Cold and Warm Water Fisheries in Montana 3-70 List of Map Exhibits 3-1 Land Ownership Map of Montana 3- 4 3-2 Land Ownasliip Relationship by Land Office 3-16 3-3 General Locationsof ExistingReal Estate Leases on Trust Lands -Residential 3-35 3-4 General Locationsof ExistingReal Estate Leases on Trust Lands 1 Table of Contents TOC-4 N ovember 19, 2004 -Commercial 3-36 3-5 General Locations of Existing Real Estate Leases on Trust Lands -1 ndustrial 3-37 3-6 General Locations of ExistingReal Estate Leases on Trust Lands -Conservation 3-38 4-1 Lands with H igher Potential for Rural Residential D evelopment 4- 7 4-2 Growth Estimates for Commercial/ Industrial Acreages on all Land Ownerships 4- 8 ListofTables ExeaiiveSurTrnary E-1 Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acrfflgps on all Land Ownerships E- 9 E-2 Growth Estimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustnal AcrfiRgf=s on all Land Ownerships E- 9 E-3 AltemativeA: Growth Estimates for Rural Residertial AcrmjHs on Trust Lands E-10 E-4 AltemativeA: Growth Estimates for Commercial / 1 ndustrial Acreages on Trust Lands E- 10 E-5 AltemativeB: Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands E-U E-6 AltemativeB: Growth Estimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial AcrmjHs on Trust Lands E-U E-7 AltemativeC: Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands E-12 E-8 AltemativeC: Growth Estimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial AcrmjHs on Trust Lands E-13 E-9 Summary Comparison of Effects E-16 E-10 Summary of Predicted Attainment of Objectives E-17 E-U 1 ssues As Addressed by Alternatives E-19 E-12 MEPA Exdusiong' Exemptions- When Considered/ Applied E-22 Chapter 1 1-1 Trust Land N dt Ra/enue pa- Surface Acre for 2CD3 1- 4 1-2 Public Scoping 1- 6 Chapter 2 2-1 State Land Ownership Mix 2- 7 2-2 Land Ownership by Land Office 2- 8 2-3 Proportion of Trust Land Eligiblefor Development by Land Office 2- 9 2-4 Relationship of Trust Lands to Existing Conservation 2-14 2-5 Potentially D evelopable Lands (acres) 2-19 2-6 Lands Acreages for Rural Residential Uses by Suitability Ran king 2-20 2-7 Lands Potentially Suitable for Commercial or Industrial Uses (acres) 2-21 2-8 AltemativeA: Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands 2-34 2-9 A Iternative A : G rowth E stimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on Trust Lands 2-34 2-10 Potential Conservation Acreage Under AltemativeA 2-36 1 Table of Contents TOC-5 N ovember 19, 2004 2-11 A Itemative B : G rowth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands 2-41 2-12 A Itemative B : G rowth E stimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on Trust Lands 2-41 2-13 Potential Conservation A creage Under A Itemative B 2-42 2-14 AltemativeC: G rowth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands 2-49 2-15 Alternative C: G rowth E stimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on Trust Lands 2-49 2-16 Potential Conservation A creage Under AltemativeC 2-50 2-17 Alternative D : D evelopment Caps on Trust Lands Through 2025 2-59 2-18 Summary Comparison of Effects 2-67 2-19 Summary of Predicted Attainment of Objectives 2-78 2-20 1 ssues A s A ddressed by A Itematives 2-80 2-20 Issues Chapter 3 3-1 M ontana Stdte Wi de E cononi c 1 nf orrr idU on 3- 6 3-2 Residential and Comma-cial Building Activity in Montana (2001- 20C4) 3- 7 3-3^ Selected Economic 1 ndicrtors 3- 8 3-3B Selected Economic 1 ndicrtors 3- 9 3-X Selerted Economic 1 ndicdLors 3-10 3-3D Selerted Economic 1 ndicdLors 3-11 3-3E Seled:ed Economic 1 ndirftors 3-12 3-3F Seleled Economic 1 ndioiors 3-13 3-3G Selerted Economic 1 ndicdLors 3-14 3-4 Trust Land AcreRge by Land G rant 3-19 3-5 Trust Land Aaeaye by Land Office and Classification 3-19 3-6 Percentageof Trust Land Managed by the REMB 3-20 3-7 Conservation Lands by Land Office (acres) 3-20 3-8 Relationship of Trust Lands to Existing Consevati on Are* 3-21 3-9 H istory of N on-Resource Babed Uses on Trust Lands - A Chronolog/ 3-23 3-10 Land Office Staffing 3-27 3-11 Tn jst N et Ra/enue by Source 3-42 3-12 Real E state Managernent Bureau - Current (2003) Annual Leasel ncome 3-42 3-13 Hypothetical Balance SheH - Proportionality 3-43 3-14 water Related Regulations 3-52 3-15 Surface Water Body 1 mpa rments by Watershed 3-59 3-16 Sb-eam 1 mparment Status 3-60 3-17 Lako' wdjand/ resRvoir imparment status 3-60 3-18 1 mpaired Water Bodies under DN RC Trust Land Management by Land Office 3-61 3-19 Acres CatHjorized as Other by Land Office 3-64 3-20 PresHiceof Speaes of Special Concern by Land Office 3-75 3-21 Number of wildlife spades that ha/e been observed in M ontana summan zed by taxononi c d ass 3-77 3-22 Stahjs and distribution of speaes of spedal concern by land office area (after State Forest Land Management Plan [updated], Find El S, Montaia DN RC 1996) 3-86 1 Table of Contents TOC-6 N ovember 19, 2004 3-23 Acreages in Land Use/ Land Cover classes for D N RC Trust Lands by Land Office and percentage of that land use/ land cover type within the land office boundary represented on state Trust Lands, D ata derived from early 1990's Landsat TM imagery (N ational Land Cover Data for Montana-USGS) 3- 88 3-24 Number of Montana wildlife species (omitting accidental bird species) using each of nine general habitats for at least a portion of their seasonal habitat needs within the boundaries of each D N RC land office area( after M ontana State Forest Land Management Plan, Final E I S, Montana DNRC 1996) 3-89 3-25 ForestAreabyForestTypeand Land Office(thousandsof acres) 3-95 3-26 CountiesReceivingtheHighest Equalization Payments 3-118 Chapter 4 41 Population and Income Projections by Land Office Reg on 4 4 42 G rowth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on all Land Ownerships 4 5 43 G rowth E sti mates for Commerd al/ 1 ndustri al Acreages on al I Land Ownerships 4 6 44 AltemativeA: Estimated Number of New Da/eloped and Conservation Acres on Trust Landsthrou^ the Year 2025 4 9 45 Alternative B: Estimated N umber of N ew Da/eloped and Conservation Acres on Trust Landsthrou^ the Year 2025 4 10 46 AltemativeC: Estimated Number of NawDa/eloped and Conservation Acres on Trust Landsthrou^ the Year 2025 4 11 Chapter 5 5-1 MEPAExdusiong' Exemptions- When Considered/ Applied 5-3 5-2 Project Da/dopment 5- 10 5-3 I mpacts on the Phvsi cal E nvi ronment 5- 11 5-4 I mpacts on the H uman Popul ati on 5-13 APPE N D I CI E S (a/ai I able as a separate document) Appendix A: A-1: Public Comments and TLMD St^ Comments Foil owing Issuance of Initial Scoping Document and Prior to Rdeaseof FPEI S A-2: DEISPublicNoticelnformation A- 3: DEIS Comments and Responses AppendixB: Population and Economic Conditions of DNRC Land OfficeRegons Appendix C: GIS Data Report Appendix D : Land Use Forecasts Finandal Rdtums and Economic I mpacts AppendixE: A CoarseFilta'Processto Classify Land Appendix F : Sensitive Plant Sped es Occurring on State School Trust Lands Appendix G: Reiationshipof Growth to Trust Lands (series of maps) Appendix H: Funnd Filter Process Map Examples Table of Contents TOC-7 N ovember 19, 2004 F inal Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Trust Land Management Division (TLJVID) of the |V| ontana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC or the Department) has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement (FPE IS or PE IS) to analyze and disclose impacts, and compare alternative management strategies for real estate management on state Trust Lands. The preferred alternative will become the Real Estate Management Plan (Plan). The Plan will provide the Division's Real Estate Management Bureau (RE MB) with consistent policy, direction and guidance in its management of real estate activities on the state's 5.2 million acres of Trust Lands. THE PROPOSED PLAN TheMontana Environmental PolicyAct(MEPA) requires the evaluation and disclosure of various management alternatives, from which the preferred alternative (the Plan) would be chosen. This process includes release of a D raft Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement (D PE IS) for public review and comment. T he F inal E nvironmental I mpact Statement (F E I S) identifies the Preferred Alternative. The Director of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has decision- making authority for the Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement. All state trust lands are under the direction and control of the State Board of Land Commissioners which includes the Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Auditor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General (A rticleX, section 4, 1972 Montana Constitution). The Land Board will have ultimate authority to implement the Real Estate Management Plan. The mission of theTLMD is to "manage the State of Montana's Trust Land resources to produce revenues for the Trust beneficiaries while considering environmental factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the land." Revenue is generated on behalf of the Trust Land beneficiaries, including public schools, K -12'^ g'adeand universities> and other public institutions and facilities. This is accomplished throu^ tine management of alnx)st 5.2 million acres (plus subsurface rights) of Trust Lands granted to tine State of Montana at statehood bythefederal government. More particularly, the RE M B is responsible for generating ra/enuefrom real estate activities on Trust Lands related to residential, commercial, and industrial and conservation land uses. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Executive Summary PageE-1 N ovember 19, 2004 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK. Aesra/fAa/weivoAit-Trust Lands were granted to the state by the Federal Government when Montana was admitted into the Union. Currently, Montana's Trust Land acreage totals more than 5.1 million surface and 6.2 million mineral acres. Montana's Constitution and Enabling Act (1889) expressly require that Trust Lands be managed to provide revenue in support of the beneficiaries of the T rust Lands. T he courts have consistently upheld this mandate. Administrative Fmmewofk- Pursuant to 77-1-301, M CA, the D N RC manages the surface and mineral resources for the benefit of the common schools and other endowed institutions in the State of M ontana, within six administrative land offices, under the direction of the State Board of Land Commissioners. The Department's obligation for management and administration of Trust Land is to obtain the greatest benefit for the beneficiaries. T he greatest monetary return must be weighed against the long-term productivity of the land to ensure continued future returns to the trusts. The division is divided into four bureaus: Forest Management, Mineral Management, Agriculture and Grazing Management, and Real Estate Management (RE MB). The plan would only address management activities of the RE M B. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -2 N ovember 19, 2004 1 Figiffie2-1 DNRCAckrinistrative Land Office Regions DNRC Administrative Land Office Regrons E xezuti ve Surrmary Final Real E state Managerrent Progammatic Environnnertal I mpact Staterrent Pa^ E -3 N overrba- 19, 2004 The Current RE MB Program- The RE M B manages residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses on Trust Lands and secondary uses on lands classified for timber, agriculture and grazing uses. Additionally, the RE MB manages programs and processes for the issuance and acquisition of easements, the exchange of Trust Lands for private and federal lands, and the sales and purchases of Trust Lands. U nder the current program, the RE M B makes use of two categories of management tools - land use authorizations and land transactions in its management of residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation uses as outlined below: • Land Use Authorizations- Theseprovidefor uses on Trust Lands for which the state is reimbursed but do not include the transfer of ownership. A uthorizations include leases, licenses, and easements. A uthority for the issuance and approval of land use authorizations rests with the DNRC. • Land Transactions - M ontana statute provides for the sale, purchase or exchange of Trust Lands. A uthority for the issuance and approval of land use transactions rests with the State Board of Land Commissioners. NEED FORTHE ACTION The RE M B is facing critical challenges in fulfilling its land management responsibilities. These challenges include: • To undertake real estate management activities in a changing economic environment. Certain areas of M ontana are enduring economic decline, others are experiencing rapid growth. I n areas of high growth, opportunities exist to garner greater income on behalf of the Trust Land beneficiaries. • To provide personnel with consistent policy, direction and guidance for the RE M B in the management of state Trust Lands. What Area will the Plan Address? The Real Estate Management Plan will have application to the entire surface holdings of the TLMD, approximately 5.2 million acres statewide. The lands are, and will continue to be managed by six land offices, geographically distributed across the state. What will the Plan not Address? It will not determine any specific real estate program or project. It will not address site specific issues nor will it make specific land use allocations. What Time Period would be Addressed by the Plan? The selected Real EstateManagementPlan will continue through the year 2025. However, the Plan will contain provisions for updates and revisions over time to reflect changing conditions. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -4 N ovember 19, 2004 OBJECTIVESOFTHE PLAN The objectives of the plan are to identify a land management philosophy for the RE MB and to: • G enerate increased revenue for T rust Land beneficiaries greater than current levels • Comply with the Montana Environmental PolicyAct(MEPA) requirements for developing a programmatic plan, D N RC's administrative procedures regarding M E PA (ARM 36.2 et. Seq.) and the Montana Antiquities Act (22-3-424, MCA), in their most current form • Provide a more effective and efficient decision-making framework for residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses • Simplify the project level evaluation process • Protect the long-term viability of Trust Land for residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses • Provide an opportunity for public involvement in decisions affecting land uses on Trust Lands • D evelop ways to work more closely with local government processes and policies PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PEIS) The purpose of this PEIS is to identify and evaluatealternativestrategiesfor performing the program responsibilities of the RE M B. In keeping with this purpose, essential components of this PEIS are to: • Identifytheroles, duties, and purpose of the RE MB. • Identify a systematic process for proposing and evaluating land use proposals on school Trust Lands; • Evaluate the social, economic, and environmental effects of alternative plan philosophies; and • Select a preferred plan to guide the decisions of the RE M B. THE SCOPE OFTHISPEIS This PEIS presents a series of alternative programmatic management approaches and evaluates their potential environmental effects. It does not address any specific real estate program or project. It does not address site specific issues nor does it make specific land use allocations. I ndividual activities of the RE M B will be subject to the provisions set forth in M E PA . AREASOF CONTROVERSY AND CONCLUSIONS Issues that were identified through the initial public scoping process and byaDNRC staff areas follows: Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -5 N ovember 19, 2004 1. I n order to meet its fiduciary responsibilities to the beneficiaries, the D N RC must increase revenue associated with the management of commercial, industrial, residential and conservation uses on Trust Lands. 2. The RE M B is managing land uses in a reactive manner without the benefit of well- defined planning process or decision making framework. 3. The RE MB currently lacks a methodology for determining the suitability of land for the development of the various uses under its jurisdiction. 4. A successful real estate program will rely on a close association with local land use planning and regulatory processes. 5. The relationship of the statutory requirements under M E PA to the selection and development of projects on Trust Lands is unclear. 6. There is a need to identify opportunities for Categorical Exclusions(CE's), as provided under ME PA, consistent with the purpose for development of a programmatic plan (ARM 36.2.522(5) 7. The RE MB requires guidance in addressing the growth inducing impacts of development of commercial, residential and industrial uses on Trust Land 8. The RE M B requires guidance in addressing the impacts of growth with respect to transportation, air quality noise, and other environmental concerns. 9. The RE MB requires guidance in addressing open space and wildlife habitat needs while providing income for trust beneficiaries. 10. The filter process should include biological filters and clearly define relationships to local land use regulations. 11. D N RC needs to track costs of the program, not just revenue. 12. The Plan should identify lands that would be developed. 13. The RE M B should be proactive in project identification and project involvement to ensure desired land uses outcomes. I n recent years, the people of the State of M ontana have become increasingly concerned about the level of funding for public education. This concern came to light in a recent Montana District Court decision (A pril, 2004), that found M ontana is violating its own Constitution by failing to adequately fund public education and must have a new financing plan in place by 0 ctober of 2005. A Ithough the final disposition of the case is not clear, the contribution that Trust Lands can make to the school funding base, will become increasingly important as the state struggles with finding sources of revenue to address school funding needs. At the same time, the Montana economy is becoming increasingly dependent on non-resource based industries. According the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the largest industries in M ontana in 2001 were services, constituting 27.7 percent of earnings; state and local government, 14.9 percent; and retail trade, 11.3 percent. The majority of T rust Lands will continue to be managed for their resource values under any of the alternatives presented in this PE IS. G razing lands comprise almost 80 percent of the total surface acres managed bytheTLMD. Agricultural (farming) land comprises about 11 percent of the total surface acres and forested acres comprise about 9 percent of the total land base. N on-resource Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -6 N ovember 19, 2004 based activities including commercial, industrial and, residential uses comprise less than one percent of the Trust Land base. I n many cases, the Trust Lands that offer the greatest opportunity for non-resource based development are those that are in growing communities where land use activities often have a high level of public interest. E ach of the six alternatives adhere to a close association with the local project review processes to maximize public involvement and participation in the land use decision- making process. THE ALTERNATIVES AltBrnatives Considered but E liminatied From Detailed Study D N RC is required to consider only alternatives that are realistic, technologically available, and that represent a course of action that bears a logical relationship to the proposal being evaluated (36.2.5552.b ARM; 75-1-201 (2) (iv) (C ) (I ), M C A ). Minimal/ Passive Some commentators suggested that the D N RC consider a passive alternative, where the RE M B would defer new residential, commercial and industrial uses and allow existing land use authorizations to expire. The only uses allowed would have to be non-consumptive, non-extractive, and reversible. Land use activities involving commercial, industrial and residential development would not be authorized. Sales, exchanges and easements would be minimal. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it conflicts with the M ission of the Trust Lands M anagement D ivision and first objective of the proposed action: G enerate increased revenue for trust beneficiaries. Aggressive M anagement Some commented that the RE M B should aggressively market residential, commercial and industrial uses wherever possible and use all exemptions available to maximize income to the beneficiaries. The D N RC should accept some adverse environmental effects and adverse public comment in order to earn greater revenue for the trust beneficiaries. This alternative was eliminated because it conflicts with the following objectives listed in Section 1.3: • It would be in direct conflict with theTLMD's mission to manage Trust Land resources to produce revenues for the trust beneficiaries while considering environmental factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the land. • It would de-emphasize opportunities for public involvement in decisions affecting real estate management. • It would not simplify the project level evaluation process Long Term Resource Management and Conservation Some suggested RE M B emphasize the protection of wildlife habitat, open space and public recreation opportunity, and the placement of public facilities on Trust Lands. Residential, Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -7 N ovember 19, 2004 commercial and industrial uses would be considered only to the degree that such uses enhanced or did not conflict with these primary resource values. The primary focus would be placed on using lease and easement agreements and other conservation strategies for the preservation of wildlife habitat, open space, and other natural and cultural resources. This approach would be primarily taken in rural areas, although in certain circumstances it may be appropriate in urban areas with unique natural resource values. If there were conflicts, wildlife and natural resource values would take precedence over all other uses, including public access and recreation. This alternative was eliminated because it did not address the TLMD's mission related to the generation of revenue for the beneficiaries. I n addition, conservation would be a possible land use under any of the alternatives being considered in this E I S, provided the T rusts were fully compensated for the foregone development rights. Finally, current legislation (77-2- 101, MCA) limits the use of conservation easements on Trust Lands. Under this statute, conservation easements may only be granted to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) for parcels that are surrounded by or adjacent to land owned by FWP asof January 1, 2001. E asements may be awarded to a nonprofit corporation only for parcels that are surrounded by or adjacent to land owned by that same nonprofit corporation as of January 1, 2001. However, Alternatives B-1 and C-1 were influenced by these concepts. AltBrnatives Presented This PE I S presents six alternative approaches to real estate management developed in response to and driven by the issues, including a no-action alternative. U nder all the alternatives: • Trust Lands would share proportionately in varying degrees to the future growth of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses within the six land office regions of the state. • Thesuitabilityof Trust Lands for developed and conservation uses would be determined with respect to the physical and natural environment as well as to the proximity to community services and other considerations as described by a funnel filter approach. • The RE MB would utilize Real Estate Identification Team (REIT) approach to prioritize project opportunities on a state-wide basis • All land use proposalson Trust Lands would be subject to local land use regulatory processes as appropriate. • All alternatives would permit for unlimited conservation uses. Evaluation measures for each alternative primarily pertain to acres of new developed or conservation uses and how those uses on Trust Lands would affect the natural and social environment and the revenue return to the beneficiaries. The acreage estimates of increased revenue-generating uses of Trust Lands are not goals or targets. The levels (acres) of development provide a measurement for monitoring the progress of the RE M B in achieving its desired share of the anticipated growth in land use. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -8 N ovember 19, 2004 The Real E state M anagement Program alternatives described in this Programmatic E IS depict varying levels of participation by D N RC in the growth market in M ontana. Tables E -1 and E -2 present estimates of total anticipated rural residential and commercial/ industrial growth measured in acres on all lands in each D N RC land office region. A proportion of this total expected growth that could occur on state trust lands is identified by alternative. Table E-L Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on all Land Ownerships Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) by Time Period 2003-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Totals NWLO 10,776 - 17,960 7,016 - 11,694 7,181 - 11,968 7,474 - 12,456 32,446-54,078 SWLO 8,575 - 14,291 5,918 - 9,863 6,122 - 10,203 6,344 - 10,574 26,959-44,931 CLO 2,739 - 4,565 5,293 - 8,821 5,570 - 9,283 5,818 - 9,696 19,420-32,365 NELO (225) -(135) 46-76 67-111 96 - 160 (16) -212 SLO 3,270 - 5,450 2,197 - 3,661 2,289 - 3,815 2,405 - 4,008 10,161-16,934 ELO (213) - (128) 31-51 72 - 120 49-81 (61) - 124 Grand Total 24,922 - 42,003 20,501 - 34,166 21,301 - 35,400 22,186 - 36,975 88,909-148,644 Jackson, 200 4 Table E -2. Growth Estimates for Commercial/ Industrial Acreages on all Land Ownerships Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) by Time Period 2002-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Totals NWLO 2,540 - 4,234 1,678- 2,796 1,854- 3,090 2,051 - 3,418 8,123-13,538 SWLO 3,157 - 5,261 2,090 - 3,483 2,344 - 3,906 2,615 - 4,358 10,206-17,008 CLO 3,784 - 6,306 2,379 - 3,965 2,685 - 4,475 2,977 - 4,961 11,825-19,707 NELO 777 - 1,295 615 - 1,025 668 - 1,114 736 - 1,226 2,796-4,660 SLO 2,606 - 4,344 1,725 - 2,875 1,935 - 3,225 2,159 - 3,598 8,425-14,042 ELO 320 - 533 132 - 220 155 - 258 170 - 283 777-1,294 Grand Total 13,184-21,973 8,619 - 14,364 9,641 - 16,068 10,708 - 17,844 42,152-70,249 Jackson, 200 Alt&-native Under this a in a fashion and prioritiz land plannin a proportion commercial. 4 A - The Current Program ternative, RE M B would move the existing real estate program forward into the future that remains cognizant of current market conditions. N ew projects would be identified ed primarily based upon outside inquiries and/ or proposals from D N RC personnel with g expertise. U nder this alternative, it is expected that Trust Lands would realize less, on al basis, than a fair share of the regional market growth. E stimated residential, and industrial growth under Alternative A assumes Trust Lands share 2-5% of the new Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -9 N ovember 19, 2004 anticipated growth, depending on location. The projected range of annual growth of "rural residential" and "commercial/ industrial" on Trust Lands is presented in Tables E-3 and E-4. Table E -3. Alternative A: Growtii E stimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Tin St Lands Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) by Time Period 2003-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 NWLO 539 - 898 351 - 585 395 - 599 374 - 623 SWLO 300 - 500 207 - 345 215 - 358 222 - 370 CLO 110 - 183 212 - 353 223-371 233 - 358 NELO (10) - (6) 2- 4 3- 5 5-8 SLO 65 - 109 44- 74 46- 76 48-80 ELO (5) - (9) 2-3 3-5 2-4 Total Ranges 999-1675 818-1364 885-1414 884-1443 Table E-4. Alternative A: Growth Estimatesfor Commercial/ Industrial Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region Growtii E stimates (acres) by Time Period 2002-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 NWLO 127- 212 84 - 140 103 - 171 102 - 171 SWLO 111 - 184 73 - 122 92 - 153 92 - 153 CLO 151 - 252 95 - 159 119 - 199 119 - 199 NELO 35- 58 28-46 33- 55 33- 55 SLO 52-87 35- 58 43- 72 43- 72 ELO 13-21 5-9 7- 11 7-11 Total Ranges 489-814 320-534 397-661 396-661 U nder A Iternative A, the current program, the RE M B considers conservation opportunities as a priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands lying adjacent to existing conservation type lands. These would include federally designated areas such as National Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wildlife and G ame Refuges and Public/ Private Conservation Easements (hereinafter referred to as conservation type lands). Staffing and staffing expertise would remain unchanged. There may be some limited sharing of personnel among Land Offices where certain expertise may be brought to a specific project on an as needed basis. The projected rate of return on equity for A Iternative A would be approximately 2.76%. Alternative B - Diversified Portfolio Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -10 N ovember 19, 2004 Alternative B seeks to secure a broad based portfolio of income producing properties. This would be accomplished through proactive strategies intended to keep pace with regional market growth and by capturing opportunities identified by others. The RE MB would make use of a funnel filtration process and assume a more active role [as compared to A Iternative A ] in creating new revenue opportunities for the trusts. This would include the identification of lands suitable for development and the active pursuit of the entitlements that would help position the lands in the market place. I n addition, more staff resources would be directed towards selecting and ranking projects for more specific project level review. The range of projected annual growth of "rural residential" and "commercial/ industrial" on Trust Lands under A Iternative B is presented in Tables E -5 and E-6. These values represent a direct proportion of shared growth based upon the proportion of Trust Lands to other land ownerships (minus "federal" and "water") within a specific land office region Table E -5. Alternative B : Growth E stimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region G rowth E stimates (acres) by T ime Period 2003-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 NWLO 1077 - 1795 702 - 1170 718 - 1196 747 - 1245 SWLO 600 - 1000 414 - 690 428 - 714 444 - 740 CLO 219 - 365 424 - 706 446 - 743 467 - 776 NELO (12) - (20) 5-8 6-10 8- 14 SLO 131 - 218 88 - 146 92 - 153 96 - 160 ELO (11) - (18) 2- 4 6-10 4-6 Total Ranges 2004-3340 1635-2724 1696-2826 1766-2165 T able E -6. Alternative B : G rowth E stimates for C ommercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on T rust L ands Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) by Time Period 2002-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 NWLO 254 - 423 168 - 280 185 - 309 205 - 342 SWLO 221 - 368 146 - 244 164 - 274 183 - 305 CLO 303 - 505 190 - 317 215 - 358 238 - 397 NELO 70 - 117 55-92 60 - 100 66 - 110 SLO 104 - 174 69 - 115 77 - 129 86 - 144 ELO 26-43 11-18 12-21 14-23 Total Ranges 978-1630 639-1066 713-1191 792-1321 U nder A Iternative B, the RE MB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands lying within one half mile of land with existing conservation type lands. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale or lease of development rights on lands with residential values. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -11 N ovember 19, 2004 AlternativeB would require the allocation of additional financial resources to the RE MB. Additional funding would be necessary for increased staffing and project support, including costs to improve land entitlements. Additional funding sources may be sought to achieve program objectives through a development improvement fund (revolving) and a percentage share of lease and sale revenue. The projected rate of return on equity for Alternative B would be approximately 4.66% with the latter value reflecting the added benefit of improved land entitlements. 5.13%, Alternative B-1- Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority Alternative B-1 incorporates all of the elements of AlternativeB with the exception of Conservation useson Trust Lands. As under AlternativeB, the RE MB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentageof those Trust Lands lying within one half mile of lands with existing conservation authorizations. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale of development rights on lands with residential values. H alf of the estimated rural residential development on T rust Lands anticipated under A Iternative B would be set aside for additional conservation opportunities. The projected rate of return on equity for A Iternative B-1 would be approximately 4.46% . Alternative C - Focused Portfolio U nder this alternative, the RE M B would actively evaluate the Trust Land revenue opportunities on a continual basis to determine a full range of project opportunities. The RE MB would react quickly to market opportunities and attempt to realize a higher proportion of the anticipated growth in regional markets. Projects that return the highest net revenue to the trusts would be given higher priority under this alternative. The projected range of annual growth of "rural residential" and "commercial/ industrial" on Trust Lands under A Iternative C is presented in Tables E -7 and E -8. D epending on the land office region, growth of residential, commercial, and industrial uses on Trust Land would range between 8 and 20% of the anticipated growth of those sectors. These percentages assume that Trust Lands will experience a higher proportion (on a per acre ratio with other lands) of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Table E -7. Alternative C : Growtii E stimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) b^ ^ Time Period 2003-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 2156 - 3592 1403 - 2339 1436 - 2394 1495 - 2491 6490-10816 SWLO 1200 - 2000 829 - 1381 857 - 1429 888 - 1480 3774-6290 CLO 438 - 730 847 - 1411 891 - 1485 931 - 1551 3107-5177 NELO (24) - (40) 8- 14 12- 20 17- 29 13-23 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -12 N ovember 19, 2004 Table E -7. Alternative C : Growtii E stimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office 1 Region Growtii E stimates (acres) by Time Period 2003-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total SLO 289 - 481 176 - 293 183 - 305 193 - 321 841-1400 ELO (20) - (34) 5-9 12-20 8-13 5-8 Total Ranges 4039-6729 3268-5447 3391-5653 3532-5885 14230-23714 T able E -8. Alternative C : G rowth E stimates for C ommerclal/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office , Region Growtii E stimates (acres) b^ ^ Time Period 2002-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 508 - 847 336 - 559 371 - 618 410 - 683 1625-2707 SWLO 442 - 737 293 - 488 328 - 547 366 - 610 1429-2382 CLO 605 - 1009 381 - 634 430 - 716 476 - 793 1892-3152 NELO 140 - 233 111 - 185 120 - 200 133- 221 504-839 SLO 208 - 347 138 - 230 155 - 258 173 - 288 674-1123 ELO 51-85 21-35 25-41 27-45 124-206 Total Ranges 1954-3258 1280-2131 1429-2380 1585-2640 6248-10409 Under Alternative C, the Bureau would consider conservation opportunities as a high priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands that lie within one mile of lands with existing conservation authorizations. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale or lease of development rights on lands with residential values. Alternative C would require a more specialized staff. While the Bureau would still try to share expertise among Land Offices, the level of activity would require a larger staff over all. As under Alternative B, expertise would be needed in planning, real estate, appraisal, marketing and finance. It is estimated that four additional staff would be required as compared to A Iternative A . The projected rate of return on equity for Alternative C would be approximately 5.48% - 6.35%, with the latter value reflecting the added benefit of improved land entitlements. Altsmative CI - Focused Portfolio - Cons&vation Priority Alternative C-1 incorporates all of the elements of A Iternative C with the exception of Conservation useson Trust Lands. As under A Iternative C, the RE MB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands lying within one mile of lands with existing conservation authorizations. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale of development rights on lands with residential values. H alf of the estimated rural residential development on Trust Lands anticipated under A Iternative C would be set aside for additional Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -13 N ovember 19, 2004 conservation opportunities. The projected rate of return on equity for Alternative B would be approximately 5.14%. A/temativeD - Focused Entitiements Alternative D is a blending of alternatives A, B, B-1, C,and C-lidentified in the DEIS. The goal of "D" is to share proportionately with anticipated community growth (as proposed under "B") but the philosophy of " D " is to focus more on improving land entitlements to maximize income to the trusts and comply with local, state, and federal regulations. Proactive land use planning, as particularly emphasized in A Iternative C , is a central theme to achieving desired land entitlements with outcome objectives that promote good community planning. The level at which this alternative may be implemented will be dependent on the vigor of the real estate market, the position of trust lands in those growing markets, and level of staffing and associated budgets. Tables E -5 and E-6 identify the acres of "rural residential" and "industrial/ commercial" that might develop on trust lands through the life of the plan with implementation of A Iternative D . T hese estimates are not intended to be targets that must be achieved by each of the area land offices. The actual outcome of developed acreages is dependent on the position of state trust lands in growing markets, staffing (type and number), and budgets. Successful implementation could achieve acreage numbers in the range of A Iternative C in areas where trust lands are well positioned in growing markets with adequate staffing and budgets. The status-quo situation could result (with numbers similar to those identified for A Iternative A) if the philosophy of D (staffing, funding, markets and position of trust lands, etc) is not accomplished. The status-quo situation may reflect low entitlements and the former (successful implementation) high entitlements, which also correspond to low and high number of acres, projects, and rates of return, respectfully. I n all cases, D N RC would seek to increase the entitlements to properties that are included in the project list. The preferred goal is to match the market (as further defined in the Physical Suitability F liter) of a given land office region (philosophy of B), regardless of whether those resulting numbers may be high or low to the acreage estimates identified by alternative. A n acreage "cap" is defined to trigger mandatory reevaluation of the plan if the "caps' are exceeded. The conservation and staffing requirements are as described for A Iternative B . ALTERNATIVES- COMPARISONSAND TRADE-OFFS The main difference between the alternatives is the relative degree to which the RE M B will participate in and benefit from the expected increase of demand in land uses in M ontana. D ifferences among alternatives relate to the philosophical approaches (emphases) to land management in responding to growth in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of the economy. The main tradeoffs between the alternatives include: • Level of staffing and expertise available - A greater level of staffing would enable the RE M B to engage in more real estate activities and therefore realize a higher benefit to the Trust. • Amounts of revenue generated on behalf of the T rust L and beneficiaries -The amount of revenue would vary by alternative, with A Iternative A - the Current Program Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -14 N ovember 19, 2004 generating the least and A Iternative C - Focused Portfolio generating the most. I ncreased initial investments in personnel and land entitlements result in a greater return on investment. • Theextentto which various real estate tools are employed - Alternatives B, B-1, C,C- 1, and D would require greater employment of real estate tools including both land transactions and authorizations. • Theamountof money directed to the improvement of entitlements. - Expenditures made to improve entitlements would increase under Alternatives B, B-1, C,C-1 and D and would result in a higher return on investment. (E ntitlements are land use authorizations such as those provided through local zoning ordinances and physical improvements that facilitate growth such as roads and sewer systems.) SELECTION OF A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The preferred alternative is A Iternative D . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A systematic land suitability and project identification process would guide all project level decisions under the proposed plan alternatives. A funnel filter process defines an approach that begins with a land suitability analysis at a landscape level and moves through a series of economic and site evaluation processes to help identify lands that may have some suitability for future development or conservation opportunities. Lands generally unsuitable for developed uses would fall out early in the process. All aspects of the physical, biological, and social environment are considered. A basic assumption is that all land use proposals would ultimately be reviewed, as appropriate, under local land use regulations. Project impacts and project mitigation measures would be identified through these series of processes. M E PA compliance would also be considered for all project actions. SUMMARY COMPARISON OFTHE EFFECTSOF ALL ALTERNATIVESON THE PROJECT OBJECTIVESAND ON THE RELEVANT ENVIRONMMENTAL FACTORS The alternatives consider growth options for "commercial", "conservation", "industrial", and "residential" on school Trust Lands. In each alternative, an assumption is madethatTrust Lands would share (not create) expected future growth. It is assumed that the expected growth would occur regardless; and that certain Trust Lands may actually be suitable and capable of capturing some of that expected growth. I n certain situations, it could be argued that development of some Trust Lands may be more environmentally appropriate than development of non-Trust Lands. This would be the situation if development activities were forced to "leap" beyond Trust Lands to meet local development demands or if T rust Lands were better positioned for development due to favorable topography, location, and access to infrastructure. The only clear distinction of impacts relates to the management objectives of theTLM D and revenue parameters. For example, it can be assumed that increased development (including conservation) on Trust Lands would generate more revenue to the trust beneficiaries and more taxes (property and personal) to local and state agencies. U nder each of the alternatives, new development potential on Trust Lands never exceeds 1% of the total Trust Land acreage through the year 2025. The percentage share of development is even less Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -15 N ovember 19, 2004 significant when considered in the context of the entire acreage (all landowners). Table E -9 attempts to summarize the management and environmental distinctions between alternatives without consideration of the broader context of land use development on non-Trust Lands. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -16 N ovember 19, 2004 T able E -9. Summary C omparison of E ffects Alternatives A B B-1 c C-1 D Growth By Land Use Type Residential + ++ + +++ ++ ++ Commercial + ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ Industrial 0 + + + + + Conservation + + ++ + +++ ++ Growth By Location Urban 0 + + ++ ++ ++ Suburban 0 + + ++ ++ + Rural 0 + 0 ++ + + Project Selection by D N RC Reactive 0 + + + + + Proactive 0 + + ++ ++ ++ Real Estate Tools Leases 0 + + ++ ++ ++ Licenses 0 + + + + + E asements 0 + + + + + Land Banking 0 + + ++ ++ + Land Exchanges 0 + + ++ ++ + Land Sales 0 + + + + + Joint Ventures 0 + + ++ ++ ++ Marketing 0 + + ++ ++ + Property Purchases 0 + + ++ ++ + Project M anagement Roles DNRC 0 + + ++ ++ ++ Developer 0 + + + + + Local Government 0 + + + + + Partnerships 0 + + ++ ++ ++ Administrative Support Staffing 0 + + ++ ++ + Funding 0 + + ++ ++ + Statutory Authorizations 0 + + + + + Financial Revenue to Trust + ++ + +++ ++ ++ Tax Revenue + ++ + +++ ++ ++ PILT 0 0 0 0 0 0 Job Creation 0 + 0 ++ + + Asset Management 0 + + ++ ++ + Environmental Review Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Imf Executive Summary Page E -17 )act Statement 1 TableE-9. Summary Comparison of Effects Alternatives A B B-1 c C-1 D Local Land Use Regulations + + + + + + ME PA + + + + + + Environmental Affects Geology & Soil 0 + + + + + Water Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 F isheries 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildlife 0 + + + + + Vegetation 0 + + + + + Air Quality 0 + + + + + Noise 0 + + + + + Aesthetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxes 0 + + ++ ++ + N ote: 0 = current condition; + = e evated and reiative impactfrom current condition DNRC has used availableenvironmental data concerning the odsting Real Estabe Management Prog"am to predict environmental effects assodcted with each alternative The affected environment is described in Chapter 3 of the PE I S and the prediction of effects on environmental resources is described in Chapter 4. Summary T able of Predicted Attainment of 0 bjectives Table E -10 depicts the degree to which each Alternative M eets Project 0 bjectives T able E -10. Summary of Predicted Attainment of 0 bjectives Objective A B Bl C CI D 0 bjective 1 + + + + ++ + ++ ++ 0 bjective 2 + + + + + + 0 bjective 3 0 + + + + ++ 0 bjective 4 0 + + + + + 0 bjective 5 0 + + + + + 0 bjective 6 0 + + + + ++ 0 bjective 7 0 + + ++ ++ ++ N ote: "0 " indicates a status quo relationship and + indicates a strong relationship Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -18 N ovember 19, 2004 RELATIONSHIPOF ALTERNATIVESTO ISSUESRAISED IN THE SCOPING PROCESS Based on comments received and on prior experience with the administration of the Real Estate jvianagement Bureau, the DN RC staff identified the following issues for evaluation in this PE IS: 1. I n order to meet its fiduciary responsibilities to the beneficiaries, the D N RC must increase revenue associated with the management of commercial, industrial, residential and conservation uses on Trust Lands. 2. The RE M B is managing land uses in a reactive manner without the benefit of well-defined planning process or decision making framework. 3. The RE MB currently lacks a methodology for determining the suitability of land for the development of the various uses under its jurisdiction. 4. A successful real estate program will rely on a close association with local land use planning and regulatory processes. 5. The relationship of the statutory requirements under M E PA to the selection and development of projects on Trust Lands is unclear. 6. There is a need to identify opportunities for Categorical Exclusions(CE's), as provided under M E PA , consistent with the purpose for development of a programmatic plan (ARM 36.2.522(5) 7. The RE MB requires guidance in addressing the growth inducing impacts of development of commercial, residential and industrial uses on Trust Land 8. The RE M B requires guidance in addressing the impacts of growth with respect to transportation, air quality noise, and other environmental concerns. 9. The RE MB requires guidance in addressing open space and wildlife habitat needs while providing income for trust beneficiaries. 10. The filter process should include biological filters and clearly define relationships to local land use regulations. 11. D N RC needs to track costs of the program, not just revenue. 12. The Plan should identify lands that would be developed. 13. The RE M B should be proactive in project identification and project involvement to ensure desired land uses outcomes. 14. D evelopment on trust lands should not be subsidized by the state or by local jurisdictions. Table E -11 summarizes how these issues are reflected in the design of the alternatives presented in this chapter. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -19 N ovember 19, 2004 Table E -11 1 ssues As Addressed by A tematives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 C C-1 D 1 0 ++ + +++ ++ ++ 2,3, 2,6,2, 2,6,3, 2,6,4, 2,6,5, 2,9,1, 3,2,3, 3,2,4, 3,2,5, 4,1,3, 4,2,3, 4,2,4 All action alternatives provide for increased revenue to the beneficiaries, 1 ncreased revenue is linked to market share of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 2 0 + + + + ++ 2, 1, 2,3,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,3, 2,6,4, 2,6,5, 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2 The funnel filter analysis and project selection process provide a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives. All alternatives require compliance with local land use regulatory processes. 3 0 + + + + + 2, 1, 2,3,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,3, 2,6,4, 2,6,5, 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2 The funnel filter process includes a landscape assessment of general land suitability and a demographic and market analysis to link growth objectives to regional market conditions. Other layers of the filter process are project level evaluations that help to further narrow land use options. 4 0 + + ++ ++ ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 4,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,5, 4,2,6, 4,2,7, 4,2,7, 4,2,10, 4,2,12, 4,2,13, 4,2,15, 4,3, 5,2, 5,3 An underlying premise of all alternatives, including the current program is that the REMB would work with local government land planning and regulatory processes. 5 0 + + + + ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3, 5,3 Under all the action alternatives, potential and proposed projects will be subject to a well-defined funnel filtration process that will address a variety of site suitability issues. Through local land use regulatory processes, the RE M B will meet a substantial portion of its responsibility underMEPA, ME PA remains the final check before D N RC approves a project. 6 0 + + + + + 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 4,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,5, 4,2,6, 4,2,7, 4,2,7, 4,2,10, 4,2,12, 4,2,13, 4,2,15, 4,3, 5,1 Compliance with local land use regulatory processes will, in certain cases, address most of the D epartment's responsibilities under M E PA and support rationale for a more simplified ME PA document. Chapter 5 provides good documentation of this relationship. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -20 N ovember 19, 2004 Table E -11 1 ssues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 C C-1 D 7 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3 An underlying assumption is that Trust Lands will share in expected community growth. The funnel filter analysis provides a framework for decision- making for all action alternatives regarding growth inducing impacts, such as sprawl. Local regulatory review of D N RC projects would address many of the growth inducing issues of development within the broader community. 8 0 + + + + + 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3 Thefunne filter analysis provides a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives with respect to overall environmental concerns. The funnel process includes both physical and biological filters plus site review criteria and market analysis. Review and approval of projects at the local government level would, in many instances, address these and other issues. 9 0 + + + + ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3 The funnel filter analysis provides a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives with respect to wildlife and habitat protection. Coordination between the HCP and the SFLM P is also anticipated, N one of the 6 alternatives limit opportunities for securing conservation rights on trust lands. 10 + + + + + + 2,3,1, 3,2,6, 4,1, 4,14, 4,1,5, 4,2,8, 5,2, 5,3 T he funnel filter is a performance based filter wherein certain lands are initially identified as being generally unsuitable for development, such as steep slopes and flood plains, TheFinal EIS includes 2 additional biological filters that would generally preclude most developed activities within the grizzly bear recovery areas of H CP lands and portions of lands adjacent to core bull trout streams. Local land use regulations and other state and federal regulations would recognize other biological filters. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -21 N ovember 19, 2004 Table E -11 1 ssues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 c C-1 D 11 + + + + + + 2,6,6, 2,9,1, 3,2,5, 4,2,3, 4,3 The selected plan would include a monitoring program that tracks revenues and costs. The rates of return analyses consider both "costs" and "revenues". 12 + + + + + + 1,1,2, 1,1,4, 1,5,3, 2,3,1, 2,6,6, 2,9,3, 2,9,5,3,1,4,1,5 T he plan is programmatic; not an analysis of specific parcels or specific projects. The Plan provides a systematic approach for identifying project level opportunities. The plan selection process establishes a 1, 3, and 5 year project lists. 13 + ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ 2,6,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,6, 2,8, 2,9,4, 4,1,4, 4,2,4, 5,2 M ost of the alternatives and A Iternative D , in particular, attempt to offer a proactive strategy for identifying project level opportunities, 0 utco me objectives are generally defined by local project review and approval, through the establishment of land entitlements, and through RFP and joint venture processes. 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3.1, 2,6,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,4, 2,6,6, 2,8, 2.9.2, 2,9,4, 2,9,7, 4,1,4, 4,2,4, 4,2,15, 4,2,16, 4,2,17, 5,2 The RE MB intends to adhere to all local land use regulations including those that require development standards, impact fees, and such. Commercial and industrial uses would pay beneficial use taxes at the same rate as private lands. CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS(CE's) DESCRIPTIONSOF ACTIONSWHERE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONSWOULD BE CONSIDERED As described in Chapter 5, C E 's are appropriate in those situations where no significant impact will occur as a result of the exemption and as provided for in MCA 77-1-121. The level of ME PA review will be commensurate with D N RC's obligations under M CA 77-1-121 recognizing local governmental actions and associated analysis when appropriate. Chapter 5 also details local government regulations and resulting actions, the level of analysis associated with those actions, and how they interrelate to satisfy M E PA requirements. Table E -12 lists those situations when categorical exclusions from M E PA documentation would be pursued under all alternatives. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -22 N ovember 19, 2004 Table E -12. M E PA E xclusions/ E xemptions - When Considered/ Applied E xempt per 36.2.523(5) A.R.M Lease and License administration including assignments, renewals and enforcement of terms and conditions Lease/ License modifications consistent with local regulations or M E PA document Project Design RE MB Project List M arketing Administrative actions: routine, clerical or similar functions of a department, including but not limited to administrative procurement, contracts for consulting services, and personnel actions M inor repairs, operations, or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities I nvestigation and enforcement: data collection, inspection of facilities or enforcement of environmental standards M inisterial actions: actions in which the agency exercises no discretion, but rather acts upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner Actions that are primarily social or economic in nature and that do not otherwise affect the human environment E xempt per 77-1-121, M .C -A. D evelopment or adoption of a growth policy or a neighborhood plan pursuant to T itie 76, chapter 1 D evelopment or adoption of zoning regulations Review of a proposed subdivision pursuant to Title 76, chapter 3 Actions related to annexation D evelopment or adoption of plans or reports on extension of services; and 0 ther actions that are related to local planning Property Purchase Short-term land use license (less than 7 days) involving no resource extraction or developed uses and conformity with applicable local permitting or land use regulations. E xamples would include weddings, dog shows, photography shoots, charity fund raising events, etc. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Page E -23 N ovember 19, 2004 Preface WhileservingasGovernorof Virginia, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Bill for the General D iffusion of K nowledge, which stated, "... those persons whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth, or other accidental condition or circumstance... ." The U.S. Congress, following Thomas Jefferson's vision for a publicly- educated society, which was deemed necessary for a republican form of government, established the policy of granting land for the support of schools in new states with the General Land Ordinance of 1785. Land grants to states originally only included section 16 within each township, but were later expanded to sections 16 and 36 in 1848, and sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 in 1896. Additionally, some states were granted lands "in lieu of" sections 16 or 36 when those sections were already occupied or privately owned. The Enabling Act of 1889, under which Washington, N orth D akota. South D akota, and M ontana were admitted to the U nion, states, "That upon admission of each of said states into the U nion, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of said proposed states ... are hereby granted to said states for the support of common schools... ." When Montana became a state through the Enabling Act, the U.S. Congress granted to the State of M ontana sections sixteen and thirty-six in every township within the state for common school support. Some of these sections had been homesteaded, some were within the boundaries of I ndian reservations, and yet others were otherwise disposed of prior to the passage of the E nabling Act. To make up for the loss and in lieu thereof, other land was selected by the state. In addition to the common school grant, the Enabling Act and subsequent acts granted acreage for other education and state institutions. The Constitution of the State of M ontana states in A rticle X that "All lands of the state ... granted by congress ...shall be public Idnds of the stdte. They shall be /lefd In trust for t/ie people... for the respective purposes for which they have been or may be granted." Section 4 of A rticle 10 establishes the Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board) to oversee the management of Trust Land (MCA 77-1, Part 2). The Land Board consists of the statewide elected officials: Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Instruction. The original common school grant totaled 5,188,000 acres. The additional acreage provided for other endowed institutions included 668,720 acres, for a total of 5,856,720. T hese acreage figures have fluctuated throughout the years due to land sales and acquisitions. Surface acreage in F iscal Year (FY ) 2003 totals approximately 5.2 million acres. T he Enabling Act provided that the proceeds from the sale and management of any Trust Land constitute permanent funds for the support and maintenance of the public schools and various state institutions. Rentals received on leased land, interest earned on the permanent fund, and all other income is distributed annually to the schools and institutions. In the state of Montana, Trust Lands are managed by the Trust Land M anagement D ivision (TMLD) of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. The mission of theTMLD is to "manage the State of Montana's Trust Land resources to produce revenues for the Trust beneficiaries while considering environmental factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the land." Both the E nabling Act and M ontana Constitution require compensation at "full market value" for disposition of Trust Lands. The Division manages these lands through a variety of mechanisms including leases for grazing, agriculture, mineral development, oil and gas development, timber harvest, and "other uses". Other uses include lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation purposes. Approximately 90 percentof the Trust Land surface ownership is dedicated to the Common Schools (K -12), with the remaining 10% shared by nine other trust beneficiaries. Revenue generated from land management activities and interest earned from the Permanent Fund and distributed to the Common Schools totaled $43.6 million, representing about 10 percent of the FY 2003 state-funded school budget. Within theTrust Land M anagement D ivision, the Real Estate Management Bureau (RE MB) is responsible for residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation uses on Trust Lands. The RE M B is also responsible for the management of secondary uses (licenses) on agricultural, timber and grazing lands and for transactions involving land exchanges, land sales, and land acquisitions. Applicable Regulatory Requirements T he RE M B program is subject to a vast array of laws and rules at the federal, state, and local levels. The purpose of this section is not to be encyclopedic by describing all possible law scenarios but, instead, to highlight the major category of laws that would apply to real estate actions. I n a general sense, the real estate management program would operate in the same legal context as the private sector with additional compliance to M E PA . Federal Laws- Most of the applicable federal laws have state laws as counterparts, including laws related to air and water quality. A nother category of federal law with some applicability to Trust Lands would betheFederal Endangered SpeciesAct. The State Forest Management Plan (SFLM P 1996) has previously summarized these and other laws. State laws - T itie 75 of the M ontana Code A nnotated is a compilation of the laws that have applicability to environmental protection. Other land resource laws, including planning, zoning, and subdivision laws, are included in Title 76 of the Montana Code. Laws specific to state-owned lands are included in Title 77 of the M ontana Code. Local governments, such as counties and cities, implement state laws through local ordinances and are the principal entities that regulate local land use proposals through regulations related to growth policies, zoning, subdivision review, and extension of utility services. Programmatic review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act is guided by 36.2.537, Administrative Rules of Montana. o Trust Land Development Authority- As a statement of policy under M ontana law: "I t is in the best interest and to the great advantage of the state of M ontana to seek the highest development of state-owned lands in order that they might be placed to their highest and best use and thereby derive greater revenue for the support of the common schools, the university system, and other institutions benefiting tlierefrom, and that in so doing the economy of the local community as well as the state is benefited as a result of such development" (77-l-601,MCA). o Montana Environmental PolicyAct (ME PA) Analysis- In most situations, a M E PA analysis (75-1-101 et seq) is required whenever D N RC is proposing to issue a sale, exchange, right-of-way, easement, placement of improvement, lease, license, or permit or is acting in response to an application for authorization for such a proposal (77-1-121, MCA). As applicable to land use proposals, in particular, the M E PA analysis would begin following local review of the proposal and prior to final approval and authorization by D N RC . Local governments consider multiple environmental factors when developing land use regulations or reviewing land use proposals. M any of the public involvement and environmental review processes common to local government review are similar to those required under M E PA . U nder all alternatives of this E I S, it is assumed that D N RC would follow local land use regulatory processes. By so doing, local governments become the initial decision-maker on most project proposals on Trust Lands. The local land use review processes would evaluate projects in relationship to uses, local policies, and environmental suitability. M E PA analysis would benefit from tiering to the local review process. Local Land Use Policies and Regulations- Growth in theprivatesector is largely regulated by local land use regulatory processes that reflect local community values, design guidelines, and infrastructure capacities. Growth of commercial, industrial, and residential uses on Trust Lands would be subject to local review as applicable. Local government processes may include: o D eveloping or amending growth plans; o Participating in or initiating zoning and/ or subdivision review; o Pursuing annexation and development agreements; and, o Participating in other processes where there is the possibility of increasing revenue for the trust beneficiaries. o Projects proposed on state Trust Lands would be reviewed in accordance to all applicable regulatory processes. T he appropriate M E PA analysis would follow the local land use approval process or prior to issuance by D N RC of any land use authority. Administrative Framework The management of T rust Lands for the benefit of M ontana's schools is the responsibility of the M ontana D epartment of N atural Resources and Conservation under the general authority of the Board of Land Commissioners. o The Board of Land Commissioners -The Board of Land Commissioners has general authority, direction, and control over the management, and disposition of state lands... (77-l-202,MCA). This is includes the III authorization to lease Trust Lands for uses otiier than agriculture, grazing, timber harvest, or mineral production... or sell, exchange, or lease lands... . when, in the Board's judgment, it is advantageous to the state to do so in the highest orderly development and management of state Trust Land (77-1-204, MCA). o DNRC - Themanagementagencyfor Montana'sTrust LandsistheTrust Land Management Division (TMLD or Division) of the DN RC. TheTLMD was established in J une 30'\ 1995 throu^ a legidctive reorganizction of Montanafs natural resource agencies. The Division wasfurtherdividedintD four management bureaus- Ag'icultural and Grazing, Forest, Minerals, and Special Uses. The Special Uses Management Bureau, established in 1996, addressed those land uses on stateTrust Lands classified as "other". I n 2004, the Special Uses Management Bureau became the Real Estate Management Bureau (RE MB). Theroleof the RE MB within the Division is to seek re/enue opportunities on lands that are principally valuable for uses other than g'azing, crop production, timber production, or watershed protection. By authority of statute and rules> theTM LD generates ro/enue from commercial, conservation, industrial, and residential uses by land use authorizations using leases and licenses and throu^ property transactions involving sales> occhanges^ and eBsements Commercial leasing of state land is specifically provided by 77-1-901 dt seq, MCA. Other laws^ rules establish specific processes for each of these land use authorizctions> such as easements (77-2-101, MCA), occhaiges (77-2-201, MCA), sales (77-2-301, MCA). TheTLMD managesapproximately5.2 million acres of surface land in addition to nx)rethan 6 million acres of sub surface ri^ts Four bureaus coordinate activities to mange a portfolio consisting of income from (1) g'azing, (2) ag'iculture (3) minerals> and (4) real estate The Real Estate Management Bureau would follow guidance offered by the plan selected throu^ this E I S process. The Agriculture and G razing Bureau and M inerals Bureau are guided by administrative rules. The Forest Management Bureau is guided by the rules adopted from the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP). Other rde/ant documents to the real estate program include local government land use policies and regulations. Judicial Rulings- There are numerous judicial rulingsthat help to clarify the intent and purposeof Trust Lands. Notable cases include: o Toomey v. State Board of Land Com'rs (1938), 106 M ont. 547, 559, 81 P.2d 407, 414; State v. Stewart (1913), 48 M ont. 347, 349, 137 P . 854, 855. T he M ontana Supreme Court has declared that: The state board of land commissioners, as the instrumentality created to administer that trust, is bound, upon principles that are elementary, to so administer it as to secure the largest measure of legitimate advantage to the IV beneficiary of it." StdMart, 48 |V| ont. at 349-50, 137 P. at 855. The State Board of Land Commissioners (hereafter, the Board) "owe[s] a higher duty to the public than does an ordinary businessman. o State V. Babcock (1966), 147 M ont. 46, 54, 409 P. 2d 808, 812. Asa trust, the management of State trust lands is subject to several common law fiduciary trust duties. 0 ne fiduciary duty is to make trust property productive. See "Restatement of Law, Trusts 2"^" at §181 at p. 391: "A trustse of land is normal ly under a duty to leBse it or to manage it so that it will produce incomef'. This general trust duty is further reflected in the provisions of numerous state statutes applic^le to the management of state trust lands See^ Sections 77-1-202; 77-1-204(2); 77-1-209; 77-1-216; 77-1- 601; and 77-5-116, MCA. Consequently, it is improper to consider a program alternative that conflicts with the Statefs fundamental fiduciary duty to prudently produce a constant stream of re/enuef rom trust assets. Cha|±erll fA P urpose and N ead f a the P roposad Adi on Irtrodudtion and Purpose of tJ^ Chapter TheTrust Land Management Division (TLMD) of tine Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (D N RC or the Department) lias de/doped a Programrrictic E nvironmental I rrpact Statement (PE I S or E I S) to analyze and disclose impacts^ and compare alternative management strateges of real estate uses and activities on state trust lands The preferred altemativefrom the PE I Swill becorre the Real EstateManagement Plan (Plan). The Plan will providethe Division's Real EstateManagement Bureau (REMB) with consistent policy, direction and guidance in its management of real estate activities on thestatefs 5.2 nrillion acres of Trust Lands The Division is divided into four bureaus Forest Management, M ineral Management, Agriculture and Grazing Management, and Real Estate Management. The Agriculture and Grazing Bureau and Minerals Bureau are guided by administrative rules The Forest M anagement Bureau is guided by the rules adopted from the State Forest Land Management Plan (SFLMP). ThisPlanwill only address managerrent activities of the RE MB. Chapter O ne of this PE I S descri bes the scopes purpose and need for the Real E state Management Plan. It sdsforth the objectives of the Plan as well as the associated issues that in turn form the basis for decision rreking and for the de/dopment of various alternative planni ng approaches presented in Chapter 2 of the PE I S. Chapter Corterts 1.1 PURPOSE OFTHE PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PEIS). 1 .1 .2 1.1.1 Who Has Initiated this Process?. 1.1.2 What is the Proposed Action?. 1.1.3 To What Areas will the Plan Apply? .1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 ■1 A •1 ■1 •1 .]_ .]_ •1 .9 1.1.4 Whatwill the Plan not Address?. 1.1.5 What Time Period will be Addressed by the Plan; 1.2 NEED FORTHE ACTION 1.3 THE OPPORTUNITIES. [1.3.1 T he School F unding 0 pportunity [1.3.2 The E conomic 0 pportunity . 1.4 OBJECTIVES. 1.5 THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND E IS PROCESS. 1.5.1 Initial Proposal Process. 1.5.2 Issues Identified. 1.5.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study. 1.5.4 DEIS Release. 1.6 THE DECISION THAT MUST BE MADE Final Real EstateManagement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Page 1-1 N ovember 19, 2004 1. 1 PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAMMA TIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PEIS) The purpose of this PEIS is to identify and e/aluate alternative strategies for performing the program responsibilities of the RE M B. The Bureau is charged with the management of CDmmercial, conservation, industrial and residential uses on Trust Lands for the benefit of the public schools Kindergarten through 12'^ gradeand the Montana University ^em. A preferred alternative will be selected through the E nvironmental I mpact Statement process of the Montana E nvironmental Policy Act (M E PA) and the selected alternative will become the Real E state M anagement Plan, the guidi ng f ramavork for real estate decisions on state trust lands I n keepi ng with this purpose essential components of this PE I S are to: • I dentify the roles, duties, and purpose of the RE M B. • I dentify a systematic process for proposing and evaluating land use proposals on school trust lands; • E valuate the social, economic, and environmental effects of alternative plan philosophies; and • Select a preferred plan to guide the decisions of the RE M B. 1.1.1 Who Has Initiated tliis Process? The D N RC has initiated the PEIS process in order to select a "plan" to clarify the future management philosophy of the RE M B and to provide a framework for future decision-making. T he RE M B is one of four B ureaus within the D ivision, which is guided by a mission and fiduciary responsibility to generate revenue on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Trust Lands including public schools, K -12'* gadeand thestatefs universities. This is accomplished through the management of almost 5.2 million surface acres (pi us subsurface ri^ts) of Trust Lands granted to the State of M ontana at statehood l^thefederal government. More particularly, the RE M B is responsible for generating ro/enuefrom real estate activities on Trust Lands related to commercial, conservation, indusb-ial, and residential land uses. 1.1.2 Wliat is tlie Proposed Action? TheTLMD intends to develop a programmatic Real Estate Management Plan (Plan) that will enable the RE M B to implement consistent policy, direction and guidance in its management of real estateactivitieson Trust Lands. It will provide the general philosophy and approach to real estate management, which will in turn serve as the framework for project-level decision making. I ndividual activities of the RE M B would be subject to the provisions set forth in the M ontana E nvironmental PolicyAct(MEPA). 1.1.3 To Wliat Areas will the Plan Apply? The Real Estate Management Plan will have application to the entire surface holdingsof the TLMD, approximately 5.2 million acres statewide. The lands are. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter 1 Page 1-2 November 19, 2004 and will continue to be managed by six land offices^ geographically distributed across the state 1.1.4 What will the Plan not Address? The Plan will not determine any specific real estate program or project. It will not address site-specific issues nor will it make specific land use allocations. 1 .1 .5 What Time Period will be Addressed by the Plan? The selected Real Estate Management Plan will apply through the year 2025. H owever, the Plan will contain provisions for updates and revisions over time to reflect changing conditions. 1.2 NEED FOR THE ACTION The RE M B manages programs and processes for the issuance of leases, licenses, and easements, the exchange of Trust Lands for private and federal lands, and the sales and purchases of Trust Lands. The RE M B is facing critical challenges in fulfilling these land management responsibilities. In particular, these challenges can be expressed in the following two problem statements: • The face of Montana is changing. While certain areas of the state are enduring economic decline, other are experiencing rapid growth. For those State Trust Lands located in areas of high growth, opportunities exist to garner greater income on behalf of the Trust Land beneficiaries. To ignore these opportunities would be contrary to the T M L D 's mandate and fiduciary responsibilities to produce revenue for the school trusts. • As a newly created Bureau, the RE MB iscurrently without clear policies and guidelines for decision-making. Residential, commercial, industrial and conservation activities on Trust Lands have occurred under a process that has evolved since the inception of the B ureau (1996) and the addition of planning staff to the Land 0 ffices. I n recent years, most development opportunities on Trust Lands have been focused in urban locations. 1.3 THE OPPORTUNITIES 1.3.1 The School Funding Opportunity I n recent years, the people of the State of M ontana have become increasingly concerned about the level of funding for public education. This concern came to light in a recent Montana District Court decision (April, 2004), that found Montana Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Page 1-3 November 19, 2004 is violating its own Constitution by failing to adequctElyfund public education and nxBt ha/e a now financing plan in place by October of 2005. Although thefinal disposition of the case is not dear, the contribution that Trust Lands can make to the school f undi ng base^ wi 1 1 become i ncreasi ngly i mportant as the state struggles with finding sources of re/enueto address school funding needs 1.3.2 The Economic Opportunity The M ontana economy is becoming increasingly dependent on non-resource based industries. According the U .S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the largest industries in M ontana in 2001 were services, constituting 27.7 percent of earnings; state and local government, 14.9 percent; and retail trade, 11.3 percent. Of the industries that accounted for at least 5 percent of earnings in 2001, the slowest growing from 2000 to 2001 was federal civilian government (5.7 percent of earnings in 2001), which increased 0.6 percent; the fastest was state and local government, which increased 11.0 percent (Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 2003). G razing lands comprise almost 80 percent of the total surface acres managed by the TLMD. Agricultural (farming) land comprises about 11 percent of the total surface acres, forested acres comprise about 9 percent of the total land base, with other uses (cabin sites, residential housing, commercial and industrial leases, and conservation) comprising less than one percent of the land base. While the greatest amount of revenue generated from M ontana's Trust Lands is from agriculture and grazing, the net return per acre on grazing lands is the lowest. Conversely, while less than one percent of the land base is in classified "other" uses, the return per acre is the highest. Table 1-1 summarizes the net revenue per acre for each of the various surface uses. Table tl Tmst Land Net Rewenue per Surface Acre for 2003 B ureau Acres Managed 2003 Revenue Net Revenue Per Acre Grazing 4,062,911 $5,036,377 $1,25 Agriculture 569,657 $8,036,597 $14,00 Forest 480,368 $3,138,699 $6,53 Other (Real Estate) 22,071 $1,206,388 $54,83 TOTAL *5,161,513 $17,418,061 $3,37 *Rounding errors affect Total Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 1-4 November 19, 2004 Chapter 1 Trust lands that are in dose proximity to areas of hi^ g'owtli are well positioned to take advantage of opportunities in the commercial service and residential sectors of the economy. 1.4 OBJECTIVES The Division used the following objectives to develop this plan. These objectives were used throughout the PE IS process to design alternatives, to eliminate unreasonable alternatives, and will be used to select a preferred alternative. • G enerate increased revenue for trust beneficiaries greater than current levels • Comply with the Montana Environmental PolicyAct (MEPA) requirements for developing a programmatic plan, D N RC's administrative procedures regarding MEPA (ARM 36.2et.Seq.) and the Montana Antiquities Act (MCA 22-3-424), in their most current form • Provide a more effective and efficient decision-making framework for real estate management that includes a strategic vision and philosophy for future management. • Simplify the project level evaluation process • Protect the long-term viability of Trust Land for uses other than agriculture, grazing and timber. • Provide an opportunity for public involvement in decisions affecting residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses • D evelop ways to work more closely with local government processes and policies. 1.5 THE PUBLIC INVOL VEMENT AND EIS PROCESS The programmatic planning process was initiated with a public release of an initial proposal in 2001. Issues identified through this external process and an internal evaluation (scoping) process were used to help develop a D E IS, which included five plan alternatives. The D E IS was released for a 60 day public review process in J une 2004. Comments received through the D E IS process were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the release of this Final EIS. 1.5.1 Initial Proposal Process A PEIS planning team, consisting of Staff members of theTLMD prepared an Initial Proposal for the scoping process (see the List of Preparers). The I nitial Proposal described the purpose and need for the PEIS and listed issues for possible consideration. This document also described current processes of the RE MB and two initial alternatives - the no-action or status quo alternative and a proposed alternative. D uring the development of the initial proposal, the D ivision compiled several mailing lists, including a general mailing list of persons, agencies and interest groups Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Page 1-5 November 19, 2004 who commentBd on pre/ious DN RC statavide issues^ a mailing list of the fifty-six (56) Montana County Conrrissionersy Montana planning off ices> Montana Association of Planners (MAP), county and district school superintendents and the Land Board and Land Board stsff. These initial mailing lists totaled approximately one thousand (1,000) entries. The Division mailed a nowsldtter announcing the a/ailabilityof the initial proposal to o/eryoneon this mailing list in January, 2001, i nd udi ng a return addressed request form to mai I if th^^ wanted to receive a copy of the initial proposal. TheTLMD also published displ^ads in Montana neiwspapers (the Montana g'oup), and an electronic version was also posted on the D N RC website The Division opened the public comment period for the initial proposal on Mond^, Januarys, 2001. The public comment period lasted 109 days arid closed on Frida/, April 27, 2001. TheTLMD also held thesa/eral public scoping meSingsto present the I nitial Proposal and ask for publ ic comment. Press releases were issued the week prior to the meSings The meSings consisted of a one- half hour PowerPoint© presentation, fol lowed by a question and anaAAer session. Comments were not recorded at these me^ ngs; attendees were asked to submit thd r comments i n writing. These public scoping meSings were held at the following locations and dates: TabletZPiMic Scoping DATE LOCATION 5 M arch 2001 Billings 6 March 2001 Miles City 7 M arch 2001 Lewistown 8 M arch 2001 Bozeman 27 March 2001 Kali spell 28 M arch 2001 Missoula 29 M arch 2001 H elena 19 April 2001 Great Falls The same PowerPoint© presentation was provided to the Land Board in H dena on April 16, 2001. Asa result of the newsletter, 161 persons requested copies of the 65- page I nitial Proposal by mail, phone, fax, or e-mail. Comments on the I nitial Proposal were recdved from 83 persons. A total of 65 persons attended the public scoping meetings. All comments recdved were from within the state of M ontana, except for one from Racine, Wisconsin. Responses came from the following counties: Cascade (10), Flathead (16), Gallatin (4), Jefferson (1), Lake (5), Lewis and Clark (7), M adison (3), M eagher (1), M issoula (16), Phillips (1), Ravalli (6), Sanders (2), Silver Bow (4), Stillwater (1), Teton (1), Ydlowstone(5). The E IS planning team then carefully reviewed all comments and grouped them into rdevant major issue categories. These issue categories were used to devdop the alternatives described in the following sections of this draft PE I S. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 1-6 November 19, 2004 Chapter 1 TheTLM D stcff was offered an opportunity to identify issues related to tlie de/dopment of tlie PE I S in a session conducted for tJTat purpose in October 2003. An additional opportunity for comment byTLMD personnel was offered in the spring of 2004 prior to the release of the D E I S A follow-up nowsldter was sent to a mailing list of 600 individuals^ agencies in February 2004 to inform the interested public of prog'ess being made towards preparation of the Draft E nvironmental I mpact Statement. The nowsldter included atimdineforcompldtingtheEIS process and general assumptions for identifying alternative plan scenarios Comments identified throu^ this initial proposal process are summarized in Appendix A-1 1.5.2 Issues Identified Based on comments received and on prior experience with the administration of the Real E state M anagement Bureau, the D N RC staff identified the following issues for evaluation in the DEIS: I n order to meet its fiduciary responsibilities to the beneficiaries, the D N RC must increase revenue associated with the management of commercial, industrial, residential and conservation uses on Trust Lands. The RE M B is managing land uses in a reactive manner without the benefit of well-defined planning process or decision making framework. The RE M B currently lacks a methodology for determining the suitability of land for the development of the various uses under its jurisdiction. A successful real estate program will rely on a close association with local land use planning and regulatory processes. The relationship of the statutory requirements under M E PA to the selection and development of projects on Trust Lands is unclear. There is a need to identify opportunities for Categorical Exclusions (CE's), as provided under ME PA, consistent with the purpose for development of a programmatic plan (ARM 36.2.522(5) The RE MB requires guidance in addressing the growth inducing impacts of development of commercial, residential and industrial uses on Trust Land The RE M B requires guidance in addressing the impacts of growth with respect to transportation, air quality noise, and other environmental concerns. The RE MB requires guidance in addressing open space and wildlife habitat needs while providing income for trust beneficiaries. 1.5.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study The Division staff eliminated some issues from detailed study in the DEIS because they were outside the scope of the plan. 0 ther issues were eliminated because other Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Page 1-7 November 19, 2004 Chapter 1 statutESy administrative rulesy plans> or policies address tliem, or tliQ^ are legally CDnsb'ained. TheoqDlariction for the el i mi nation of these issues from detailed study are I isted below: • The plan would not address all management activities occurring on Trust Land, such as agricultural or grazing leases, mineral leases, timber management activities, or other uses, including issuance of utility or driveway easements, general recreation licenses, and miscellaneous permits. T hese activities are addressed by other statutes, administrative rules, plans, and policies, and are outside the scope of the plan. • A Iternatives considered must be within the authority of the D N RC to implement. The plan would not evaluate alternatives that require changes in the E nabling Act or M ontana Constitution. Such changes are beyond the authority of D N RC to implement and therefore beyond the scope of the plan. • The plan would not address site-specific uses or activity locations. Rather, it would contain the general management philosophy that guides project-level decisions. • The plan would not consider several types of actions as specified in ARM 36.2.523(5), such as administrative actions, routine or clerical activities, minor repairs, operations or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities, investigation, enforcement and data collection, ministerial actions, etc. • The plan would not address the general recreational use program, as described in MCA 77-1-801 et.seq. and ARM 36.25.143- 167. • The process to reclassify Trust Land, as described in M CA 77-1-401 - 404, would not be addressed by the plan. I ssues identified by the public that were related to the above were also eliminated from detailed study and not analyzed further. 1.5.4 DEIS Release The Land Board was notified of the pending releaseof the DEIS during their regularly scheduled meeting of J une 2004. T he D raft E I S was released for a 60 day public comment period on J une 21, 2004. T he general public and specific interest groups were notified of the release through a variety of strategies including personal notification by letter, direct mailings of the D E I S to specific individuals/ organizations, press releases to local and statewide media, posting of the D E I S on the D N RC web site, public open houses at five locations throughout the state, and legal notices. Appendix A -2 includes information concerning the public notice process, including names of those individuals/ agencies receiving direct notice of the D E I S and those receiving hard copies of the D E I S. Written comments were received from 15 individuals and/ or interest groups. Follow-up meetings were held with representatives of the Montana Environmental I nformation Center, M ontana Smart G rowth Coalition, and the Sonoran I nstitute to clarify comments received by those organizations. The specific letters and responses Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Page 1-8 November 19, 2004 tD grouped categories of CDrrmon comments are included in Appendix A- 3. Tlie responses are intended to provide clarification to the E I S and are incorporated by reference into the Final EIS. TheFinal El Salso ref lects specific edits fromthe DEIS where appropriate^ i n response to the comments 1.6 THE DECISION THA T MUST BE MADE The EIS offers alternative real estate management "plans" for the RE MB. The decision to be made is choosing the alternative that best satisfies the needs and objectives described in Sections 1.2 and 1.4. The Director of DNRC is the decision-maker for this programmatic plan. The D irector will evaluate the alternatives to determine which alternative generated from the programmatic E I S process best meets the D ivision's mission statement and objectives of the plan. The Director of DNRC has decision-making authority for the PE IS. The Land Board will have ultimate authority to implement the Real E state M anagement Plan. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Page 1-9 November 19, 2004 Chapter 1 ' Real E state M anagement Plan Alternatives Introduction and Purpose of tlie Chapter Chapter 2 presents alternative approaches to real estate management on Montana's Trust Lands. The selected alternative will become the Real Estate Management Plan for the TLM D . Six alternatives are proposed including the no-action alternative, which reflects the existing or status quo program of the RE MB. Information presented includes a comparative analysis of the alternatives and a summary of the anticipated effects. T he alternatives have been developed in response to and are driven by the issues raised by the public and the D N RC staff. Chapter 2 includes a summary of how the issues are reflected in each of the alternatives. Chapter Contents 2.1 INTRODUCTION 3 2.1.1 Explanation of Funnel Filtration Process 3 2.2 HISTORY AND PROCESS USED TO FORMULATE THE ALTERNATIVES ...5 2.3ALTERNATIVE DESIGN , EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA 5 2.3.1 Technical Alternative Design Elements 5 2.3.2 Outcome Requirements 30 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 30 2.5 ALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 31 2.5.1 Minimal/ Passive 31 2.5.2 Aggressive Management 32 2.5.3 Long Term Resource M anagement and Conservation 32 2.6DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 33 2.6.1 Alternative A - Current Program 33 2.6.2 Alternative B - Diversification of Portfolio 40 2.6.3 Alternative B-1: Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority 48 2.6.4AlternativeC - Focused Portfolio 48 2.6.5AlternativeC-l: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority 56 2.6.6 AlternativeD: Focused Entitlements 56 2.7 DESCRIPTION OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS NOT PART OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMMATIC PLAN BUT RELATED TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 65 2.7.1 Agricultural Land Leasing 65 2.7.2 Grazing Land Leasing 65 2.7.3 Forest Product Sales 66 2.7.4 M ineral, Oil, Gas Leasing 66 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-1 N ovember 19, 2004 2.7.5 Recreation 66 2.8 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ALL ALTERNATIVES ON THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE SAND ON THE RELEVANT ENVIRON M MENTAL FACTORS 67 2.9 PREDICTED ATTAINMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES BY ALTERNATIVE 69 2.9.1 Objective 1- Generate increased revenue for Trust beneficiaries greater than current levels 69 2.9.2 Objective 2 - Comply with the Montana Environmental PolicyAct(MEPA) requirement for developing a programmatic plan, DN RC's administrative procedures regarding M E PA (A RM 36.2 537) and the M ontana A ntiquities Act (M CA 22-3-424), in their most current form 70 2.9.3 Objective 3- Provide a mo re effective and efficient decision-making framework for real estate management that includes a strategic vision and philosophy for future management 71 2.9.4 0 bjective 4 - Simplify the project level evaluation process 73 2.9.5 Objective 5- Protect the long-term viabilityof Trust Land for uses other than agriculture, grazing and timber 74 2.9.6 0 bjective 6 - Provide an opportunity for public involvement in decisions affecting residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses 76 2.9.7 0 bjective 7 - I dentify ways to work more closely with local government processes and policies 76 2.9.8 Summary Table of Predicted Attainment of Objectives 77 2.10 RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVES TO ISSUES RAISED IN TH E SCOPING PROCESS 78 2.11 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 85 2.11.1 Reasons for Selecting Alternative D 85 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-2 N ovember 19, 2004 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes six alternative philosophic, strategic approaches to the management of real estate activities on trust lands by the RE MB of theTLMD of DN RC. The analysis focuses on land use activities related to residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation uses. The underlying premise of each alternative is that growth (increased demand of residential, commercial, and industrial uses) on Trust Lands would correspond in varying degrees to anticipated growth in each of the six D N RC land office regions of the state (See Figure 2-1). Conservation opportunities on Trust Lands would be encouraged under all alternatives. 2.1.1 Explanation of Funnel Filtration Process A decision-making framework, referred to as a funnel filtration process, provides a systematic approach to identify project level opportunities. This funnel filter approach begins with a physical environment filter followed by a transitional filter and a market filter that combine to generally define lands that might have some potential for future project opportunities. F ive project level filters follow these three initial landscape filters. K ey elements of the project-level filters include use of local land use review processes for impact analysis and mitigation and appropriate M E PA compliance. This plan is intended to offer guidance to the RE MB through the year 2025. E ach alternative has varying degrees of accomplishing the necessary specific objectives outlined in Chapter 1, Section 1.4. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-3 N ovember 19, 2004 Figure 2-1 DNRC Administrative Land Office Regions idney Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-4 N ovember 19, 2004 2.2 HISTORY AND PROCESS USED TO FORMULATE THE ALTERNATIVES The ranges of alternatives presented in this chapter were developed from the objectives and relevant issues identified through the I nitial Proposal and D E IS processes (see Chapter 1). A summary of comments received, that in turn provided the basis for the issues and development of alternatives, is included in A ppendix A . 2.3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA The design of the alternatives is based on four critical assumptions: • The alternatives must correlate to the stated objectives of the PE I Sand be responsive to the relevant issues. • The existing Real Estate Management program constitutes the base line from which comparisons of alternatives are made. • Growth (residential, commercial, industrial) on Trust Lands would correspond in varying degrees to anticipated growth within each of the six D N RC land office regions of the state. • E ach alternative would incorporate conservation opportunities. Assumptions were necessary to fully describe how the existing program (No Action) and the five action alternatives would move forward into the future. The fundamental comparisons between alternatives primarily pertain to "management philosophies" or "response strategies" to projected estimates of growth. The basic three measures of comparing alternatives are: 1) quantity of acres of newly developed or conservation uses and 2) how those uses on Trust Lands would affect the natural and social environment and 3) the revenue return to the beneficiaries. The following narrative identifies the fundamental components or baseline assumptions of each alternative so comparisons between alternatives can be narrowed to only those management strategies capable of achieving the respective land use philosophies of each alternative. A II alternatives share a fundamental decision-making process but it is assumed that the no-action alternative is less structured than the action alternatives. D istinctions between the management elements of the existing program to the action alternatives are identified as appropriate and relevant. 2.3.1 Technical Alternative Design Elements Each alternative can be described and evaluated relative to the existing program of the RE MB. Alternative A (No Action or Status Quo) would maintain the existing Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-5 N ovember 19, 2004 program into the future. Alternatives B, B-1, C, C-1, and D are compared to this baseline. U nder the existing program, D N RC employs a number of real estate tools to achieve desired outcomes. The application of these tools would differ between alternatives. The following management considerations (or elements) will be addressed by each alternative to provide comparative analysis: Relationship to Community G rowth Land Use Categories Location Descriptors Project Selection and Prioritization (Relationship to the Funnel Process) I mplementation Strategies Project M anagement Roles Administration Financial Considerations E nvironmental Review and Public I nvolvement The following is a description of each of the management considerations to be addressed. 2.3.L1 Relationship to Community Growth A second tier of baseline comparisons shows how each alternative relates to community growth. An assumption is made that Trust Lands would share to some degree, in anticipated community growth. Trust Lands in Alternative B, B-1 and D would share proportionally to predicted community (regional) growth. G rowth on Trust Lands in A Iternative C and C-1 would constitute a proportionally higher share of the anticipated regional growth. UnderAlternativeA, theREMB would continue to pursue revenue opportunities for all land use types but the share of development on Trust Lands would likely be less than proportional to market conditions. T he acres of " new" growth presented in the E I S are not targets. Rather, they are estimates of new growth used for the purpose of drawing comparisons among the alternatives. The actual opportunities for sharing in the market on Trust Lands would be realized through filtration methodology and project identification processes, which will help determine the suitability of development. • Regional Growth Indices- Population and income projections serve as reliable indicators for the location and scale of future development potential. Polzin (2004) describes economic trend analyses for each land office region and is the basis for identifying future growth potential by land office (See A ppendixB). By 2025, it is estimated that approximately 1.16 million people will live in Montana. The fastest Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-6 N ovember 19, 2004 growing region of the state will be northwest Montana (Whitefish, Kalispell, Bigfork, Poison Libby, Plains) followed by southwest Montana (Missoula, Hamilton, Anaconda, Lincoln), central Montana (Shelby, G reat Falls, H elena, Bozeman, D illon), and southern M ontana (Billings, Red Lodge, Big Timber). Refer to the population and growth estimates presented in Chapter 4 (Table 4-1) • State Ownership Mix- Trust Lands represent a percentage ownership of all lands in the state of Montana. This ownership relationship is shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 State Land Ownership M ix Ownership Acres Percentage Federal 27,192,268 28,9 DNRC Trust Land 5,153,551 5,4 Other Government Land 366,520 0,4 Tribal 5,395,454 5,7 Private 55,071,623 58,6 Water 844,425 0,9 Total 94,023,843 100 Trust Lands represent approximately 5.5% of the land area in M ontana. The land ownership proportions vary by land office as described on the next page in Table 2- 2. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-7 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-2. Land Ownership by Land Office Ownership NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Federal 5,691,828 62,7 4,223,416 56,8 7,912,595 34,6 5,456,705 19,0 1,288,960 12,4 2,618,766 16,9 Trust Land 314,396 3,5 233,569 3,1 1,254,486 5,5 2,003,245 7,0 382,115 3,7 965,740 6,2 Other Government 16,940 0,2 160,642 2,2 135,535 0,6 27,400 0,1 10,953 0,1 15,052 0,1 Tribal 620,173 6,8 93,692 1,3 939,384 4,1 1,734,022 6,0 1,765,005 17,0 243,179 1,6 Private 2,187,120 24,1 2,703,027 36,4 12,484,101 54,5 19,188,447 66,7 6,903,489 66,4 11,605,440 75,0 Water 253,913 2,8 16,328 0,2 164,021 0,7 338,154 1,2 41,219 0,4 30,789 0,2 Total 9,084,369 7,430,674 22,890,121 28,747,973 10,391,740 15,478,966 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-8 N ovember 19, 2004 Each land office region is comprised of multiple ownersliips as shown in Table 2-2. A general assumption is that developed uses (residential, commercial, industrial) could normally occur on all categories of land ownership, except for "federal" and "water". All lands would be considered eligible for conservation purposes. The proportion (percentage) of Trust Lands to lands eligible for general development opportunities (total regional acreage less "federal" and "water") is shown in Table 2- 3. Table 2-3 Proportion ofTrust Land Eligible for Development by Land Office NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO 10% 7% 8% 9% 4% 8% The percentages listed in the above table indicate the annual percentage of projected development that could occur on Trust Lands if they shared equal opportunities with other land ownerships. As an example, Trust Lands in the N WLO represent 10% of the total regional acreage (less "federal" and "water") so could be expected to attain 10% of the estimated regional growth of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. It is understood that these proportionality percentages do not necessarily reflect the key element of location or trust land positioning within a particular community. 1 1 is for this reason, that the trust lands are further evaluated by a transitional model that considers proximity variables and by the funnel filter and project selection processes to key in on those properties that are suitable for development based upon such considerations as location, market, and entitlements (see Section 2.3.1.7). These proportion percentages would not apply to conservation strategies since all land ownerships and land categories, including "federal" and "water" could be suitable for conservation purposes. 2.3.L2 L and U se C ategories TheTLM D generates revenue to the trust beneficiaries from five general land use activities - agricultural leasing, grazing leasing, mineral leasing, timber harvesting, and real estate management. The RE M B would generate revenue from activities on Trust Lands related to four land use categories. A general description of each of these categories is presented below. • Residential - The greatest potential for new growth on Trust Lands is "residential". Residential uses include single-family dwellings, duplexes, condominiums, townhouses, cabins, apartments, mobile-home parks, associated ancillary uses, and other residential uses normally recognized by local zoning regulations. The assumptions used to develop the growth and economic models are analogous to the methodology used by the D epartment of Revenue in that multifamily residential properties are typically classified as commercial for taxation purposes. As such, commercial forecasts included in this PE IS include some components of residential and, for accounting and implementation purposes, residential uses considered as commercial uses by the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-9 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 Department of Revenue would be considered "commercial". "Raw" or undeveloped properties might also be identified for residential potential through a highest and best use analysis, growth policy or zoning designation,or identified as "High Suitability" in the PE IS. For example, some forested lands may reflect a higher value if appraised as residential land, as compared to their value for timber management purposes. Rural residential forecasts in this PE IS define how much residential development might occur on lot sizes between 1 and 25 acres. N o estimates were made for larger residential tracts (greater than 25 acres in size) or for single-family lots less than 1 acre in size but, for accounting purposes, it is assumed that the acreage forecasts for rural residential would include the small lot acreages. 1 1 is expected that the valueof Trust Land properties having "single family" as the highest and best use would be realized in most situations, by sale [of the property] as opposed to leasing. Existing leased properties would not be sold in most circumstances. As noted above, a basic assumption is that Trust Lands would share in expected community growth. I n other words, market factors would determine how much of the new growth would occuronTrust Lands versus other lands. In Western M ontana, most of the large lot residential growth is expected to occur in rural locations, including forested lands. As residential opportunities are identified for Trust Lands, the RE M B could obtain the residential values of the land in a number of ways, including: o Land Leasing: D N RC would maintain the existing residential leased properties. Lands with water frontage, scenic and recreation amenities, good access, etc., would be good candidates for expanding the residential lease program. o Land Sales: Lands identified for projects that have a highest and best use as "residential" could be sold at appraised value or higher with an auction process. Revenue would be placed in the permanent fund. o Land Banking: This is a land sale where the revenue may be pooled with other sold properties to purchase other desirable income properties for the various trusts. Lands sold for land banking to support agriculture, timber, or grazing would not be a RE M B project as defined by the real E state M anagement Programmatic Plan. Further, lands sold in conjunction with the land banking process that have limited entitlements (agriculture or timber land use designations that permit large lot development only; < 1 dwelling unit per 25 acres) would not qualify as residential, commercial, or industrial lands by definition of the Real E state Management Plan. o Land Exchange: This process would permit an applicant to exchange other lands for Trust Lands with the assumption that the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-10 N ovember 19, 2004 lands DN RC receives in excliangefortlieTrustLandsarein the better interests of the trust for reasons of income potential, asset management, or other reasons. o Land Development: This process assumes DNRC would retain some ownership interest in the land as it is being developed for residential purposes. T he RE M B could either lease lots or sale lots under this scenario and could include partnerships with the private or public entities to accomplish development objectives. o Transfer Of Development Rights (TDR)*: Land rights associated with a certain parcel, such as land use density, could be transferred to another Trust Land parcel within the same land office region to accomplish avarietyof objectives. An example of TDR could include moving development away from a sensitive area (transfer) to an area more suitable for development (receiving area) A TDR program could also be set up with a local or county government to help achieve local objectives related to establishment of open space and higher density within urban areas.. A n example would be to identify certain rural trust lands as sending zones and certain urban lands as receiving zones, wherein high density bonuses could only be achieved on the urban lands through the transfer of development rights from the trust lands. o Purchase/ Lease of Development Rights (PDR or LDR)*:The RE M B could sell the development rights through a lease or license (LD R), or easement (PD R) in lieu of selling, exchanging, or developing the land for residential uses. This strategy would allow the RE M B to realize the value of the development rights while maintaining D N RC ownership and historical use of the land. *TheuseofTDRs is typically undertaken in the context of local land use planning regulatory processes. H owever, the sale of development rights (PD R/ LD R) could, in most cases, occur outside the scope of local land use regulations. These methods all assume that the RE MB would attain thefair market value of the land on behalf of the beneficiaries of the T rust Lands. T he first five options also assume that the land would be developed for residential uses, constituting a portion of the Trust Land share of residential growth in the entire land office area in which it is located. The last option (PDR), however, would have the effect of moving any expected residential development elsewhere in the community. Asa result, the particular parcel of Trust Land would not share in the expected residential growth. In other words, eliminating the development potential on theTrust Lands would do nothing to eliminate the need or demand for additional residential development in the community. The need would simply be met elsewhere. The use of a PDR would help achieve conservation objectives but would not count towards the share of anticipated growth of residential uses (see estimates by alternative) on Trust Lands. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-11 N ovember 19, 2004 The options for attaining value on residential lands are generally depicted in Figure 2-2. Figure2-2. Methodsof Income Generation on Trust Lands with Residential Value Sale Exchange Develop Development Rights T Land for Land Improved Property C Lease ) \ C Sell ^ Sell • Commercial - Commercial uses include retail businesses, offices (private and public), service establishments, motels, resort recreation, RV Parks, communication sites, and other similar uses that may be recognized as "commercial" in local zoning regulations. Commercial uses might also include some residential uses if certain residential uses are considered commercial by the DOR. Public buildings, schools, religious structures and developed commercial recreational facilities are also included in the commercial land use category. In addition, "raw" or undeveloped properties might also be identified for their potential commercial use through a highest and best use analysis, growth policy or zoning designation, market analysis, or identified as " H igh Suitability" in the PEIS. Typically, DN RC would retain ownership of its commercial properties (land and/ or buildings) and lease them to private entities rather than sell properties. As under residential, the RE M B could sell the development rights through a lease, license, or easement (if applicable) in lieu of developing the land for commercial purposes. This strategy (PDR/LDR) would allow DN RC to realize the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-12 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 value of the development rights while maintaining land ownership and historical use of the land. As noted under residential uses, the use of PD Rs would have the effect of moving any expected commercial development elsewhere in the community and the specific parcel of Trust Land would not share in the expected commercial growth. The expected need or demand for commercial development would be met elsewhere. The use of a PD R strategy would help achieve conservation objectives but would not count towards the share of anticipated growth of commercial uses (see estimates by alternative) on Trust Lands. For purpose of tracking growth estimates, it is assumed that the acreage forecasts for commercial would include certain residential uses, such as multi-family, considered as "commercial" by the D epartment of Revenue. I ndustrial - I ndustrial uses include manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing, utilities, heavy transportation, sanitary landfills, wind farms, sewage treatment facilities, feedlots, grain storage bins, irrigation facilities, reclamation projects, electrical substations, intermodal shipping facilities, and similar uses. In addition, "raw" or undeveloped properties might also be identified for their potential industrial use through a highest and best use analysis, growth policy or zoning designation, market analysis, or identified as "H igh Suitability" in the PEIS. Typically, DN RC would retain ownership of its industrial properties (land and/ or buildings) and lease them to private entities rather than sell properties. As under residential and commercial, the development rights could be sold through a lease, license, or easement (if applicable) in lieu of developing the land for industrial purposes. This strategy (PDR) would allow DNRC to realize the value of the development rights while maintaining land ownership and historical use of the land. The use of PDRs would have the effect of moving any expected industrial development elsewhere in the community and the specific parcel of Trust Land would not share in the expected industrial growth. The expected need or demand for industrial development would be met elsewhere. The use of a PD R strategy would help achieve conservation objectives but would not count towards the share of anticipated growth of industrial uses (see estimates by alternative) on Trust Lands. Conservation - Conservation lands are generally lands for which certain real property rights have been "removed" to maintain long- term rights for open space, preservation of habitat, natural areas, parks, or other such purposes. Conservation objectives can be secured on Trust Lands through the issuance of conservation easements, leases, and licenses. Another method is to sell, lease, or license development rights on T rust lands. U nder this method, the development potential Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-13 N ovember 19, 2004 • on a particular land parcel for residential, commercial, or industrial uses (as determined by a highest and best use analysis) would be purchased to remove these property "rights" and thereby prevent development of these type of uses on the property. The ownership of the land would remain with the "state" and, in most situations, the underlying historical use of the property, such as agriculture, grazing, and forest management, could continue. I n all situations, the RE M B would seek financial compensation for "lost" rights. An appraisal process would be used to assign a value to the property rights to be purchased through a conservation strategy. Current legislation limits the authority to sell permanent conservation easements on Trust Lands. Legislative authority may also be necessary to sell development rights. E asements would provide a one-time purchase of certain identified development rights based upon the market value of those rights. N on-permanent options for securing certain rights to Trust Lands would be accomplished by license or lease. While there is no known strategy for identifying trend patterns or expected growth rates for conservation easements, leases, or licenses on private and public lands, the RE M B has evaluated the potential for the transfer of certain of its lands to conservation use. A G I S process was used to identify the physical relationship of Trust Lands to significant natural features across the state and within land office regions. (This information is presented in Chapter 3.) The assumption isthatsomeTrust Lands in close proximity to other conservation areas might share similar conservation attributes and may, therefore, be suitable for conservation strategies. E xisting conservation areas were identified as including the following groups of lands: o National Parks o National Monuments o Wilderness Areas o Wild & Scenic Rivers o Wildlife Refuges o Game Ranges o Public/ Private Conservation E asements Trust Lands (acres) were then identified according to whether they were located (1) adjacent; (2) within 0.5 miles; or (3) 1 mile of these land categories. The results are shown in Table 2-4. Table 2-4. Relationship of Trust Lands to Existing Conservation Land Office Adjacent Within 0.5 Miles Within IJVIile NWLO 22,233 38,502 50,867 SWLO 12,093 26,233 38,968 CLO 72,276 130,831 176,376 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-14 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 NELO 68,689 101,303 134,822 SLO 3,522 12,319 19,957 ELO 10,464 20,947 25,058 Total 189,277 330,136 446,049 These lands may or may not have any particular value for conservation, nor is it known whether these lands have a market for this purpose. H owever, each plan alternative would consider this as a "pool" of potentially suitable lands for conservation. H owever, none of the alternatives would specifically limit options to purchase/ lease development rights on any Trust Lands. A II of the alternatives presented in this PE I S provide opportunity for conservation uses on Trust Lands through the purchase of development rights. Conservation acreages have been calculated based on the proximity of Trust Lands to existing areas with attributes associated with conservation lands. H owever, these acreages are projections only and are not intended to limit the number of conservation uses that may occur on Trust Lands. There are a variety of reasons for creating or desiring a particular conservation strategy and all might reflect different priorities based upon the particular mission of an agency or special interest group and/ or available funding. M any conservation strategies are intended to protect wildlife habitat. H owever, the RE M B recognizes that not all conservation strategies are intended to protect a natural resource per se. I n some situations, the purchase of development rights could be proposed to maintain the status quo of an area. G iven this understanding, it would be reasonable to conclude that purchase of development rights might be proposed [by others] as an alternative to the potential sale or development of certain Trust Lands. As indicated in Chapters, the TLMD is currently preparing a voluntary H abitat Conservation Plan (H CP) for forest- management activities on Trust Lands. TheHCP will address those lands that provide habitat for species currently listed or those that could be listed under the Endangered SpeciesAct(ESA). TheHCP offsets harm caused by lawful activities, such as forest management practices, by promoting conservation strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species. The conservation objectives for the H CP process could be achieved in concert with the RE M B program for conservation under all six of the proposed alternatives including the current condition (Alternative A). Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-15 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 2.3.L3 Location Descriptors Land use activities can be described as occurring in three general locations: • Uitan defines a named location (latest state highway map) where a mix of different developed uses occurs in close proximity to each other. All incorporated cities would be included in this category plus unincorporated communities that typically have public water or sewer facilities. Urban would include the customary extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of a city. • Subuitan defines a transition area between urban and rural. This would normally define a mostly residential area where land use densities generally range between 1 to 20 acres per dwelling unit. • Rural defines lands not considered to be urban or suburban. These lands are typically distant from developed centers but may have some concentration of residential, commercial, or industrial uses associated with certain amenities or resource ties, such as saw mills in the forest, resorts near a lake, or a ski area on steep slopes. 2.3.L4 Project Selection & Prioritization This section describes a programmatic approach to the identification and selection of real estate opportunities on Trust Lands under each of the action alternatives. The approach is a systematic process that offers a filtration methodology for identifying lands that may ultimately be suitable (as determined by subsequent project level analyses) for residential, conservation, commercial and/ or industrial purposes. Figure 2-3 represents the initial filtration process. The entire funnel filtration process is depicted in Figure 2-4. All Trust Lands can be "filtered" through a series of eight (8) processes to determine project level opportunities. A G eographical I nformation System (G IS) analysis was used to generally identify lands that might be unsuitable for development (physical filter) and to identify lands that may have some level of development potential (transitional lands). T he methodology and results of this G IS study (Geodata Services 2004) is presented in Appendix C. A demographic and economic process was used to model projected growth in the six land office regions of the state (Jackson 2004). The methodology and results of that study are presented in Appendix D and represent the "M arket" filter of the funnel process. The remaining five filters of the process are project level analyses used to identify and select appropriate development opportunities. The RE MB would use a Real Estate Identification Team (REIT) approach to develop 1, 3, and 5 year project lists (Figure 2-5). Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-16 N ovember 19, 2004 Figure 2-3. I nitial Steps to Funnel Filter Process Total Acreage (all ownerships) Within Land Office Boundaries ^ Total Acreage Less Water and Federal Lands (defines land area that might be eligible for real estate options) Continue Funnel Process Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-17 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 Figure 2-4. Funnel Filter Process School Trust Lands 5.2 million Acres Land Use Selection Filter Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-18 N ovember 19, 2004 The Funnel Filter Process- The funnel filter process would be common to all action alternatives and would be a desirable process for the no-action alternative, as well. • The Physical Environment Filter - A large percentage of the 5.2 million acres of Trust Lands may not be suitable for residential, commercial, or industrial uses due to physical constraints. For the purpose of this initial review, developable land b generally characterized as lands with slopes less than 25% slope and lands located outside a designated 100 year flood plain. In general, development would not be appropriate on those lands with slopes in excess of 25% or within floodplain areas. However, lands with these characteristics may be suitable for conservation strategies. Development potential on these physically constrained lands would be strictly limited to unusual or unique situations. Based on this initial coarse filter analysis, approximately 86% of Trust Lands would be physically suitable for some level of residential, commercial, or industrial development. A break-out of developable lands by land office is shown in Table 2-5. N otice that in mountainous areas like the N orthwestern Land Office, almost 50% of the total Trust acreage of 314,396 is considered unsuitable for development due to these 2 identified physical constraints. While all of the "developable" land is considered generally suitable for residential (without consideration of "market"), only a portion of the entire developable acreage would be appropriate for commercial or industrial uses. Table 2-5. Potentially Developable Lands (acres) NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO TOTAL Total Trust Acres 314,396 233,569 1,254,486 2,003,245 382,115 965,740 5,153,551 Developable Acres* 152,858 142,377 1,001,742 1,853,106 354,845 909,878 4,414,806 * lands on slopes less than 25% and out :side 100 year flood plain Two biological filters would also be applied to this stage of the funnel filter. Lands located within the grizzly bear recovery area or portions of lands immediately adjacent to a core bull trout stream of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) would be generally excluded from most development options. Removal of lands from the HCP to accommodate certain types of land use would be accomplished under the Transitional lands strategy in the H CP. A series of maps are included in Appendix H to visually describe how lands are filtered using these physical and biological components. (Lands affected by bull trout streams are not shown due to scale limitations.) Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-19 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 The Transitional Filter - This second level filter evaluates geo-spatial variables to identifyfavorablelocational attributes of Trust Lands. A GIS model was used to establish proximity relationships of Trust Lands to existing land uses. This data identified lands that are "transitional", meaning that the lands have some development potential for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Subsequent filters would be used to determine project level opportunities from this pool of potentially developable lands. Table 2-6 is a summary of lands that may have development potential (measured in acres) within each land office area for rural residential uses, with "H igh" indicating those lands most suitable for developed uses. The methodology and detailed results of the GIS study is presented inAppendixC. A more detailed explanation of the reliability of the assumptions used in the model is found in the response to comments Appendix A 1-3 of this EIS. A Course Filter Analysis technique (Appendix E) is currently performed by the RE MB to accomplish similar objectives but mostly on a project- by- project basis. Land Office Table 2-6. Lands Acreages for Rural Residential U ses by Suitability Ranking High Medium Low NWLO 28,268 82,074 42,516 SWLO 19,027 72,017 51,333 CLO 16,773 506,089 327,880 NELO 284,097 995,784 573,225 SLO 53,959 195,160 105,726 ELO 114,261 534,260 261,357 Total 516,385 2,385,384 1,362,037 Table 2-7 reflects lands that have close association to existing commercial cores and highway corridors. The acreage estimates are gross to the extent that additional filters would be necessary to determine project level suitability. Please refer to the report by GeoData Services (2004) in Appendix C. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-20 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 Table 2-7. Lands Potentially Suitable for Commercial or Industrial Uses (acres) NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO TOTAL Acres* 6,940 6,082 16,330 17,220 9,104 9,336 65,012 *Excludes lands with slopes>25% and located within 100 year floodplain There is no known process to identify tine full range of conservation opportunities on lands since there is no known direct correlation between conservation demand and real estate market factors. Because of this, the plan alternatives attempt to define conservation opportunities based upon the proximity of trust lands to existing conservation-type lands. Please refer to Table 24 and related discussion in Chapter 3. N one of the alternatives attempt to discourage conservation strategies on Trust Lands, provided the beneficiaries are fully compensated for the rights foregone by conservation leases, licenses, and easements. The Market/ Demographic Filter - The lands filtered through the first two processes may be physically or biologically suitable [on a gross or landscape scale] for the identified land uses but may not be suitable from a demographic perspective. A demographic/ economic model was used to identify future regional growth in the categories of "rural residential" and "Commercial/ Industrial". Growth, in acres, was identified by defined periods of time extending out to year 2025 by Jackson (2004) with the study included in Appendix D. Estimates of total anticipated rural residential and commercial/ industrial growth measured in acres by land office region is summarized in Chapter 4. These estimates were derived by averaging growth estimates over several counties to determine a regional estimate of growth based on land office boundaries. [In most situations, no or low growth counties lower the growth averages for a land office region.] An assumption is that development on trust lands would occur on some subset of the identified transition lands. The projected market share of developed uses on trust lands under all alternatives is less than 3% of the total area of identified transitional lands. The purpose of subsequent filters is to identify, through a project evaluation process, the specific lands that would be eligible for developed uses. The ratios of Trust Land ownership (Table 2-3) to all developable land ownerships (all lands less federal and water) would be used to assign the share of the expected residential, commercial, and industrial growth on Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-21 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 Trust Lands by multiplying the percentage ownership values in Table 2-3 by the corresponding growth estimates depicted in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 of C hapter 4. T here is no known method of accurately predicting market or growth demand for future conservation strategies. As stated in the previous section, all plan alternatives would support "conservation" strategies on all Trust Lands. The Physical Suitability Filter - The general purpose of this filter is to perform site evaluations to confirm the physical and location suitability of land for development opportunities. Essential elements of this filter would be to examine property relationships to infrastructure (roads, electricity, telephone, water, sewer, natural gas, fiber, etc) and the physical suitability of the property for development. The coarse filter analysis (Appendix E) would be used for analysis purposes. This field analysis would also consider the presence of any unique aesthetic values (ridgelines, water features, views, vegetation), historical features, and relative location to municipalities or other development. The land use options for the property would be considered using a coarse market analysis that considers an assessment of the local markets and how the state trust lands are positioned to accommodate growth locally. The coarse market analysis will take into consideration historical and recent trends in population and income growth, demand and supply assessment, absorption rates, interviews with realtors, bankers, appraisers and city and county planning officials, and other acceptable approaches. Each land/ unit office staff, under the supervision of a land use planner, would help prioritize project potential opportunities for a particular land office area. Urban development opportunities, if any, would generally receive first priority followed by suburban, then rural (see Section 2.3.1.6). This process would identify the relationship of the markets within land office regions and the position of state trust lands to private lands in growing markets. The course filter and market filters provide the finer filter analyses for determining the suitability and feasibility of particular properties for project consideration. The Regulation Filter - After specific property is identified as having potential for development through the Physical Suitability Filter, the area field staff would complete a regulatory analysis. [Developed uses on trust lands would adhere to local land use regulatory processes and to all applicable state and federal regulations.] A regulatory assessment would be performed to identify all existing land use entitlements and those that might be desired to achieve the best use for the property and best return to the applicable trust. T his would be accomplished in consultation with the local land use regulatory office. Each area office could coordinate at any time with other strategic efforts of others within the TLM B to help position property for future opportunities. This may include matters Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-22 N ovember 19, 2004 • concerning the granting of easements, alignment of roads, etc. 0 ngoing efforts by DNRC planner(s) would include participation in all local regulatory process that may have some influence on trust lands. The Selection Filter - The selection filter is explained graphically in Figure 2-5. The purpose of this filter is to consider all the project proposals of the area land offices. Each land office would prepare a written proposal for each project that summarizes the findings of the previous filters. A Real E state Identification Team (RE IT) comprised of Bureau and field personnel would evaluate the projects, giving consideration to the complexity, cost, revenue, and staffing needs of the projects. The result of this evaluation would be a real estate management project list with a time schedule. The list would be 1, 3 and 5 year "target" objectives for the RE M B and would be available for review by the general public. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-23 N ovember 19, 2004 Figure 2-5. Project Selection Process Unit Staff Concept Idea Site Suitability j Socio Economic Conditions Marl(et Analysis j Budget Regulatory Assessment Market Response Priorities Sale Chaf Public Infrastructure ID Team Project Feasibility Trust Objectives Project Complexity Budgetary \ Requirements / Special Needs j Real Estate Mangement List Staff .Responsibilities Location Timelines Project Lease • The Project Filter- Once a property is identified as a proposed project tlirougli theRE IT process, the following would likely occur: o Determine method of income generation; land exchange, sale, lease, or license; o I dentif ication of staffing and budgetary needs; o Forecasts related to marketing and project completion; o The project may be submitted as an application (asapplicable) to the local regulatory review processes for approval of a growth policy amendment, zone change, or subdivision. o I n some situations, D N RC would be the applicant to secure the highest level of land entitlements or when a land division, in particular, is necessary to create lease lots. o A developer may be the applicant in some cases as a tool to pass costs onto the developer. o Zoning, if applicable, would help define the appropriate use, scale, and density of development and subdivision review would require adherence to local design standards. Projects denied through the local regulatory process would not proceed. ME PA - The last filter is the Montana Environmental Policy Act (ME PA). Prior to the issuance of a lease, sale, land exchange, or easement, DNRC would prepare a MEPA analysis of the proposed project. M E PA review would tier whenever practical to local review so as to avoid redundancy of process. Local review in most instances involving subdivision review and conformance to local zoning regulations provides a built-in impact assessment and mitigation process as applicable to new development. Refer to related discussion in Chapter 5. 2.3.L5 I mplementation Strategies The RE MB would employ a number of private and public sector real estate strategies to achieve development and conservation objectives under each of the alternatives. For example, real estate projects may require the formation of a joint venture between the DNRC and private or public interests in order to finance needed infrastructure. The RE M B could use innovative real estate planning tools such as transfers of development rights to help target development in areas that are in close proximity to existing infrastructure or in areas of high growth. Density bonuses could be sought from local planning authorities to offer incentives for the provision of open space, for example. State law provides for specific land use authorizations and transactions associated with the management of Trust Lands as outlined below. I mplementation strategies described under each alternative are not meant to be exclusive between alternatives. Alternatives B, B-1, C, C-1, and D require additional staffing and budget to implement, providing more creative implementation tools Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-25 N ovember 19, 2004 available by alternative. H owever, D N RC would utilize land management and implementation tools under each alternative as staffing and budget allow. • Land Use Authorizations - Authorizations include leases, licenses, and easements wherein the trust beneficiaries are financially compensated for temporary use of the land. A uthority for the issuance and approval of land use authorizations is the responsibility of the Department. M ore descriptions of authorizations are included in C hapter 3. • Land Transactions- Montana statute provides for the sale, purchase or exchange of Trust Lands. Furthermore, the state may also engage in land banking which enables the state to use proceeds from sold lands to purchase other lands, easements, or improvements for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the respective trusts. Authority for the issuance and approval of land use transactions rests with the State Board of Land Commissioners. More descriptions of transactions are included in Chapters. Marketing - Marketing is a necessary and appropriate tool to manage the trust portfolio. Integral components of marketing are described below. o Advertising -- T he RE M B can promote the availability of Trust properties through a variety of means including paid advertising in various local, state and national publications, direct contact with businesses and organizations, I nternet postings, and informational signs on the available properties. The RE MB may also choose to prepare brochures in both electronic and hard copy formats for targeted mailings. oReal Estate Professional Affiliations- RE MB staff may join professional real estate and development organizations and societies to derive a number of benefits. These include joint advertising opportunities, continuing education in the real estate development field to enhance RE M B staff expertise, and the ability to engage a larger number of people in promoting T rust Lands. oThe Request for Proposal (RFP) process --T he TLMD is required to solicit competitive proposals in identifying prospective users of Trust Lands. This process requires the preparation of development packages that include the types of project proposals being solicited and associated bidding requirements. The RFP is typically placed in a number of publications and on the I nternet. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-26 N ovember 19, 2004 2.3.L6 Project M anagement Roles • The State Board Of Land Commissioners - Tlie State Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board) has general authority and control over the management of Trust Lands (77-1-202, MCA; ArticleX, Section 4, Montana Constitution). The DN RC, under the direction of the Land Board, "has charge of the selecting, exchange, classification, appraisal, leasing, management, sale, or other disposition of state lands", 77-1- 301, M CA . H owever, as stated above, while the D N RC generally is responsible for reviewing and approving authorizations (leases, licenses and easements), the Land Board is responsible for the review and approval of land transactions (sales, exchanges and purchases of lands). • The Real E state Management Bureau - All land use proposals on Trust Lands for uses other than agriculture, grazing, and forestry would be evaluated by the RE M B and field staff. H owever, the role of RE M B in initiating and processing opportunities may vary by alternative. The level of involvement by RE M B would depend, somewhat, on adequacy and expertise of staff, type of project, complexity of project, and a number of other considerations. Depending on each situation, the RE MB could share or assign certain project responsibilities to the developer or other affected parties. Relationships with other entities might include partnerships, joint ventures or cooperative agreements and would provide unique opportunities to team-up with other entities to pursue a particular land use objective on Trust Lands. • The Developer - "Developer" is a broad-use term that generally applies to anyone seeking use of Trust Land for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Under most situations, the RE MB would transfer most of the project approval costs onto the Developer. This could include the costs associated with local government application fees, infrastructure, environmental studies, and other related costs or needs. • City/ County Local Governments - I n some circumstances, the RE M B may coordinate certain land use objectives with local jurisdictions to satisfy mutual interests and opportunities. This could, for example, include local objectives related to the expansion/ extension of infrastructure or providing certain opportunities to achieve local economic or housing objectives. 2.3.L7 Administration • Staffing and Staffing Expertise - The ability of DNRC to react, promote, or engage in certain land use opportunities could be affected by the number, type, and expertise of staff within the RE M B. Staffing Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-27 N ovember 19, 2004 needs would vary by plan alternative and would be linked to revenue objectives. • Funding and Land E ntitlements - There are a number of strategies to achieve revenue objectives for Trust Lands under each of the action alternatives. One strategy would include increasing the number of leases on Trust Lands and prioritizing projects that would typically generate the most income on a per acre basis. Another strategy could include improving the entitlements to trust properties for the purpose of increasing the underlying land values. Such "entitlements" might include improving access, extending water, sewer, or roads, and other similar infrastructure improvements. Entitlements could also include zoning and growth policy designations favorable to development, as well as annexation of land into city limits or into water and sewer districts. T he amount of operation dollars to improve land entitlements would vary by alternative. • Statutory Authority - The Enabling Act (1889), the Montana Constitution, statutes, and court decisions define the purpose and revenue-generating objectives of Trust Lands. However, legislation may be necessary to authorize or clarify certain actions anticipated by the various alternatives. A n example would be legislative authority to establish "seed" money for a revolving fund intended to finance certain land improvements intended to improve the underlying value and marketability of Trust Lands. Also, it may be necessary to provide statutory authority for the sale of development rights on Trust Lands and conservation objectives may benefit from broadened authority. 2.3.L8 Financial Considerations • Revenue to the Trust Beneficiaries - Each of the action alternatives provides additional revenue to the Trust. Further, regardless of the alternative, the rate of return for each of the types of "other" use - commercial, conservation, residential or industrial - would remain the same (e.g., annual lease payments for residential uses would be equal to 5% of appraised value under all alternatives). Conservation, residential, commercial, and industrial uses on Trust Lands would generate revenue for the beneficiaries in a number of ways, including: o Providing revenue to directly to the beneficiaries of the State Trust o Providing property tax revenue to local school districts o I ncreasing the local bonding capacity to finance infrastructure improvements including those for schools • Benefit to the Local Property Tax base- Trust Lands are generally tax- exempt. However, it is assumed that Trust Lands sold or leased for commercial or industrial uses would pay both real and personal Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-28 N ovember 19, 2004 property taxes. Residential improvements on leased land would pay taxes on the improvements. State Equalization Funds - In 1965, legislation was adopted providing for reimbursement to counties for loss of revenue because of the tax- exempt status of state-owned land in excess of 6% of total land area, 77-1-594, MCA. In 2002, the state compensated counties a total of $647,754. Job Creation- As suggested previously, the RE MB would be sharing in growth that is already expected to occur in the community. Accordingly, use of Trust Lands for residential, commercial, or industrial uses would not create any new jobs, per se. H owever, of the new jobs created by projected community growth, it can be expected that Trust Lands would account for 2-20% of the total new community jobs, depending on alternative. Jackson (2004) provides more detail concerning the creation of jobs with development of Trust Lands (Appendix D). • A sset M anagement - TheTLMD is responsible for the management of trust lands for a variety of purposes on lands classified as "grazing", "timber", "agriculture", and "other" (77-1-401, MCA). The amount of acreages associated with each use classification is presented in Chapter 3. The RE M B is responsible for managing all land transactions (sales, exchanges, transfers) and "other" uses of the land related to residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation. The number of real estate transactions would vary by alternative. 2.3.L9 E nvironmental Review and Public I nvolvement The RE MB, would, in many cases, accomplish public involvement and environmental effects disclosure responsibilities anticipated under the M ontana Environmental PolicyAct (ME PA) through adherence to local land use policy and regulatory processes. (See related discussion in Chapter 5) • Relationship to Local Land Use Regulations - At the local level, land development is subject to various land use policies and/ or regulations. These include subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances, annexation requirements, and growth policies. Montana statutes set forth the items that must be addressed under each, although local jurisdictions may incorporate additional elements. A complete discussion of local land use planning provisions is found in C hapter 5. • Relationship to ME PA - In complying with local land use regulatory processes, many of the public involvement and environmental disclosure requirements would be similar to those required under Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-29 N ovember 19, 2004 ME PA (75-1-103, MCA and subsequent sections). In those cases where local land use regulations and policies do not address all the necessary M E PA elements, the RE M B would undertake the additional review necessary to comply with those M E PA requirements that fall outside of local planning authority. The RE M B would, under M E PA and the Montana Antiquities Act, undertake an analysis of its proposed activities with regard to cultural resources. In some situations, the local regulatory review and compliance processes may exceed the review requirements of ME PA. 2.3.2 Outcome Requirements The alternatives are structured to address the objectives of the PE I S while considering the external and internal issues identified through the scoping process. E ach alternative is designed to present a management philosophy and decision making framework for the RE M B . T here are a number of common elements shared between alternatives to ensure maximum public involvement in the decision-making process, protection of the environment, and consideration of local community values, among others. D istinct differences between alternatives are primarily related to the extentTrust Lands share in local growth and how market opportunities are achieved through the use of various real estate tools, project management, personnel, and financial resources. 2.4 IMPLEMENT A TION OF PREFERRED ALTERNA TIVE The acreage estimates of increased revenue-generating uses of Trust Lands, for each alternative, are not goals or targets [absolute or otherwise]. Rather, they illustrate the variety in outcomes of implementing six underlying management philosophies, one of which will be selected to be the management philosophy, the Plan. The main difference between the six management philosophies is the relative degree to which the RE MB will participate in and benefit from the expected increase of demand in land uses in M ontana. Those six philosophies of RE M B participation in the increased utilization of land uses are: less than proportionate, proportionate, and more than proportionate (to the residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses of other lands in the same region). The underlying expectation inherent in the design of every alternative is that the residential, commercial, and industrial usesof Trust Lands will increase in some corresponding fashion to increased growth in the state of Montana. The growth (or increased use) estimates for new development on all lands, measured in acres, is calculated utilizing population and economic projections. Corresponding increased growth on Trust Lands will obviously depend on characteristics conducive to that growth (proximity of roads, services, etc.) Presently, there is no known similar correlation (or model) between economic/ population growth and the increase (or decline) in the number of conservation easements or purchases. H owever, a proximity model to other existing conservation-type lands is described to help Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-30 N ovember 19, 2004 identify and prioritize conservation opportunities (easements, development riglits purcliases) under all alternatives, to provide a measure of comparison of alternatives (strategies). The selection and implementation of a preferred alternative will define how future land use opportunities will be addressed, given the level of staffing, funding, legislative priorities and authorization, and implementation of real estate tools associated with that alternative. The proportional share of the residential, commercial and industrial markets that the RE M B is able to realize will be based on how well the RE M B is able to respond to market conditions. The analyzed alternatives represent a sliding scale from "reactive" (AltA, no-action, continued current program) to "highly responsive" (AltC and C-1 - Focused Portfolio), each with a corresponding, relative increase in the share of the residential, commercial and industrial uses occurring on Trust Lands (displayed in acres). The selected alternative will provide the overall management philosophy for the RE MB that will determine the emphasis that will be employed in specific land management decisions. The resulting levels of development on Trust Lands will provide a monitoring indicator and will not be the critical test of success or failure. T his is not to suggest that tracking development growth (in acres) on Trust Lands has no value towards assessing implementation of the philosophy of a particular alternative, but only that it is one element of monitoring progress towards successful implementation of the selected alternative, the Plan. Tracking (accounting, counting) the number of new acres developed for residential, commercial, or industrial uses, or the number of new acres associated with "conservation" is described under Section 4.3, Monitoring and Accounting. Rural tract lands (density of less than 1 dwelling unit per 25 acres), public easements, parks, schools, public facilities such as recreation fields (or similar uses), and wind mills, were not included in the rural residential or commercial/ industrial forecast models. The associated land areas would be tracked for monitoring purposes but would have no direct relationship, from an accounting perspective, to the modeled acreage estimates. 2.5 ALTERNA TIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINA TED FROM DETAILED STUDY D N RC is required to consider only alternatives that are realistic, technologically available, and that represent a course of action that bears a logical relationship to the proposal being evaluated (36.2.5552.b ARM ; 75-1-201 (2)(iv)(C)(l ), M CA). 2.5.1 Minimal/Passive Some commentators suggested that the D N RC consider a passive alternative, where the RE M B would defer new residential, commercial and industrial uses and allow existing land use authorizations to expire. The only uses allowed would have to be non-consumptive, non-extractive, and reversible. Land use activities involving Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-31 N ovember 19, 2004 commercial, industrial and residential development would not be authorized. Sales, exchanges and easements would be minimal. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it conflicts with the M ission of the T rust Lands M anagement D ivision and the first objective of the proposed action: G enerate increased revenue for trust beneficiaries. 2.5.2 Aggressive Management Some commented that the RE M B should aggressively market residential, commercial and industrial uses wherever possible and use all exemptions available to maximize income to the beneficiaries. TheDN RC should accept some adverse environmental effects and adverse public comment in order to earn greater revenue for the trust beneficiaries. T his alternative was eliminated because it conflicts with the following objectives listed in Section 1.3: • It would be in direct conflict with the TLMD's mission to manage Trust Land resources to produce revenues for the trust beneficiaries while considering environmental factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity of the land. • It would de-emphasize opportunities for public involvement in decisions affecting real estate management. • 1 1 would not simplify the project level evaluation process 2.5.3 Long Term Resource Management and Conservation Some suggested RE M B emphasize the protection of wildlife habitat, open space and public recreation opportunity, and the placement of public facilities on Trust Lands. Residential, commercial and industrial uses would be considered only to the degree that such uses enhanced or did not conflict with these primary resource values. The primary focus would be placed on using lease and easement agreements and other conservation strategies for the preservation of wildlife habitat, open space, and other natural and cultural resources. This approach would be primarily taken in rural areas, although in certain circumstances it may be appropriate in urban areas with unique natural resource values. If there were conflicts, wildlife and natural resource values would take precedence over all other uses, including public access and recreation. This alternative was eliminated because it did not address theT L M D 's mission related to the generation of revenue for the beneficiaries. I n addition, conservation would be a possible land use under any of the alternatives being considered in this E I S, provided the T rusts were fully compensated for the foregone development rights. F inally, current legislation (77-2-101, M C A ) limits the use of conservation easements on Trust Lands. U nder this statute, conservation easements may only be granted to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) for parcels that are surrounded by or adjacent to land owned by FWP as of January 1, 2001. They may be awarded to a to a nonprofit corporation only for parcels that are Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-32 N ovember 19, 2004 surrounded by or adjacent to land owned by that same nonprofit corporation as of January 1, 2001. However, Alternatives B-1 and C-1 were influenced by these concepts. 2.6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Six program alternatives are proposed. G uidance to the development of alternatives and authority to prepare a programmatic E I S are set forth by M E PA rules including 36.2.537 and 36.2.529, ARM .Alternative A is the No Action alternative, representing a status-quo approach to real estate management on Trust Lands reflecting the on-going program of the Real E state management B ureau of the T L M D . A Iternative B assumes that development on Trust Lands would keep pace with regional rates of growth related to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. A Iternative C assumes thatTrust Lands would also share in the expected growth of a region but that share would represent a higher proportion of the expected growth [as compared to A Iternative B ]. A Iternative D is a market driven alternative similar to A Iternative B . Two of the alternatives also contain a "sub-alternative" related to conservation. AlternativesBl and CI provide a stronger emphasis for conservation strategies. I n all cases conservation uses must compensate the Trust based on the market value of the "purchased" development rights. 2.6.1 Alternative A - Current Program The RE M B currently generates income from leases, licenses, sales, and easements related to a wide range of land use activities. T he B ureau may also use a variety of real estate tools, such as land exchanges and land banking, to position property for future income generating potential. Leasing of land for commercial and industrial uses is an emerging source of increased revenue to the trust and residential leasing remains a viable portion of the leasing portfolio. Trust Lands have been developed and managed historically for residential, commercial and industrial uses since statehood. The majority of residential leases were established in the late 1940's and early 1950's. T he A merican T imber L umber Mill, an industrial use located in the Northwest Land Office region, was developed in 1947 and portions of that operation are still active today. Since 1996, when the Department created a separate bureau to address commercial, industrial and residential uses, the management of these uses has become more proactive. A commercial Development Working Group meets annually to allocate budgets and prioritize projects in the U nit/ Land offices. U nder A Iternative A , the no-action alternative, the RE M B would continue to share in the local real estate market on Trust Lands but to a lesser extent than what might otherwise be expected by local market conditions. U nder this alternative, the B ureau would remain receptive to new income opportunities in all land use categories. 0 pportunities to expand the existing portfolio and keep pace with community rates Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-33 N ovember 19, 2004 of growth would remain somewhat constrained under this alternative by funding and staffing limited to the current levels. 2.6.L1 Relationship to C ommunity G rowth U nder this alternative, RE M B would move the existing real estate program forward into the future in a fashion that remains cognizant of current market conditions. N ew projects would be identified and prioritized primarily based upon outside inquiries and/ or proposals from D N RC personnel with land planning expertise. Under this alternative, it is expected that Trust Lands would realize less, on a proportional basis, than a fair share of the regional market growth. E stimated residential, commercial, and industrial growth under this Alternative assumes Trust Lands share of new growth would be no more than 50% of the market share expected on a land proportion basis. The projected ranges of annual growth of "rural residential" and "commercial/ industrial" on Trust Lands under Alternative A through the year 20025 is estimated in Table 2-8 and Table 2-9, respectfully. Table 2-8. Alternative A: Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region G rowth E stimates (acres) by T ime Period 2003-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 539 - 898 351 - 585 395 - 599 374 - 623 1659-2705 SWLO 300 - 500 207 - 345 215 - 358 222 - 370 944-1573 CLO 110-183 212 - 353 223 - 371 233 - 358 778-1265 NELO (10) - (6) 2-4 3-5 5-8 0-11 SLO 65 - 109 44-74 46-76 48-80 203-339 ELO (5) - (9) 2-3 3-5 2-4 2-3 Total Ranges 999-1675 818-1364 885-1414 884-1443 3586-5896 Table 2-9l Alternative A: Growtii Estimates for Commercial/ Industrial Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region Growth Estimates (acres) by Time Period 2002-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 127-212 84 - 140 103 - 171 102 - 171 416-694 SWLO 111 - 184 73 - 122 92 - 153 92 - 153 368-612 CLO 151 - 252 95 - 159 119- 199 119 - 199 484-809 NELO 35-58 28-46 33-55 33-55 129-214 SLO 52-87 35-58 43-72 43-72 173-289 ELO 13-21 5-9 7-11 7-11 32-52 Total Ranges 489-814 320-534 397-661 396-661 1602-2670 2.6.L2 Land Use Categories The RE M B would be open to all land use inquiries under this alternative and in some circumstances would take the lead in identifying new land use opportunities. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-34 N ovember 19, 2004 Some opportunities for new revenue sources may be lost due to limitations of regional staffing or expertise. • Residential - I n the last 3 years, 11 new residential leases have been created through state and local subdivision regulations. Managing the existing residential lease properties would continue to have higher priority than establishing new residential leases. New leasing opportunities would probably be associated with high value properties where leasing may remain a viable option to the lessee. Other viable approaches to residential leasing may involve apartment or manufactured home developments. Properties identified as "residential" from a highest and best use analysis could also be sold or exchanged to realize the market value of the property. • • Commercial - New commercial opportunities would continue to be identified through Department initiated projects and unsolicited inquiries. Under the current program, Trust Lands dedicated to commercial uses under lease agreements generate a state wide average of $130 per acre over 1,812 acres dedicated to commercial uses. Recent projects are Lewis and Clark Subdivision in Bozeman, H ampton I nn in G reat Falls, and Lowe's H ome I mprovement Center in Kalispell. Industrial - New industrial opportunities would continue to be identified through department initiated projects and unsolicited inquiries. Under the current program. Trust Lands dedicated to industrial uses through lease agreements generate a state wide average of $ 241 per acre over 872 acres dedicated to industrial uses. • Conservation - Several major conservation projects that have occurred since 1996 including the issuance of a lease agreement for the development rights on property acquired through a land exchange from Ted Turner. In March 2004, the Land Board approved a conservation easement to the Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks on Trust Land in and adjacent to the Blackfoot Clearwater Wildlife M anagement A rea. Under Alternative A, the existing program, the RE MB considers conservation opportunities as a priority on a percentage of thoseTrust Lands lying adjacent to existing conservation lands. These would include federally designated areas such as National Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wildlife and G ame Refuges and Public/ Private Conservation E asements. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-35 N ovember 19, 2004 The percentage would correspond to the percentage share that Trust Lands have to the entire land base of the land office. Table 2-10 identifies the number of acres per land office area that could be considered for conservation based on the current approach, over the life of the Real E state M anagement Plan. T able 2-10. Potential C onsen/ation Acreage U nder Alternative A Land Office Trust Acres Adjacent to Conservation Areas Percentage of Land Base Acres times Percentage* (acres) NWLO 22,233,3 3,5% 778 SWLO 12,093,2 3,1% 375 CLO 72,276,3 5,5% 3,975 NELO 66,688,7 7% 4,668 SLO 3,522,0 3,7% 130 ELO 10,464,1 6,2% 649 Total 187,277,6 10,575 *This column reflects the total estimated acres of conservation through the year 2025 The estimated "acres" is a guide but not a cap. The success at achieving these conservation acres largely depends on general public interest and available funding by conservation groups and other interested parties. 2.6.L3 Location Descriptors • Urban - New retail and office commercial, industrial, and high density residential uses would continue to be primarily concentrated in urban locations. • Suburban - Under the current program, low to medium residential density uses are considered appropriate in suburban locations as are some types of neighborhood commercial. • Rural - Low density residential uses, recreation resorts, and resource based industrial uses are considered appropriate in rural locations under the current program. Other types of commercial are appropriate, such as communication towers and wind farms. 2.6.L4 Project Selection & Prioritization - (Relationship to the Funnel Process) Under the existing program of the RE MB, the project selection and prioritization methodology is less structured than would be the case under the five actions alternatives. Project opportunities are more often reactive than proactive and project priorities are identified from annual meetings of a Commercial Development Final Real E state |V| anagement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-36 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 Working G roup. Projects are typically considered under a coarse filter analysis that addresses general site suitability with respect to the physical and natural environment as well as to the proximity to infrastructure. Consideration is also given to the availability of departmental resources that can be devoted to project development. U nder A Iternative A , the RE M B would continue to strive for a more comprehensive approach to the project filtration process such as set forth under the "Funnel Process" in the action alternatives. 2.6.L5 I mplementation Strategies • Land Use Authorizations o Leases - Under Alternative A, the RE MB would continue to maintain and manage existing leases and respond to requests for new leases as resources and staff time allow. The Bureau would continue to place greater emphasis on seeking new commercial and industrial lessees rather than increasing the number of residential leases. Conservation leases would be considered on a request basis. o Licenses - The RE MB would continue to issue licenses only in response to demand. The Bureau would not seek to increase the number of licenses it issues under Alternative A. Conservation licenses would be considered on a request basis. o Easements- The RE MB would continue work with adjacent land owners and local government officials in response to proposed easements for a variety of public and private purposes on a case by case basis. Expanded opportunities for conservation easements would be limited under current law. • Land Transactions o Land Banking - Under Alternative A, the RE MB would design a land banking pilot program that would address agriculture, grazing, minerals and timber holdings. For example, the RE M B might sell lower income producing grazing lands in order to purchase more lucrative agricultural lands. However, commercial, industrial and residential uses would be a limited part of this initial land banking program. o Land Exchanges - Under the existing program, land exchanges would occur primarily in response to inquiries. However if the staff is able to identify a clear advantage in pursuing a land exchange, the RE M B may initiate a transaction within the limits of existing resources. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-37 N ovember 19, 2004 o Land Sales - Land sales would not be a high priority. H owever, objectives related to new residential opportunities would likely be achieved through "sale" as opposed to leasing. The Department would continue the existing residential leasing program. • M arketing o Advertising - Advertising would be accomplished with generally "passive" information through web sites and RFP processes mostly related to commercial and industrial inquiries. o Real Estate Affiliations- While RE MB staff might work with individual real estate professionals in managing its commercial, industrial and residential properties, it is unlikely that any resources would be committed to affiliating with real estate or development organizations or in preparing real estate marketing materials for widespread distribution. o RFP Process- UnderAlternativeA, the RE MB would initiate an RF P process when there is a demonstrated interest in a particular property. 2.6.L6 Project M anagement Roles • The Real Estate Management Bureau - Under Alternative A, the Bureau would maintain its current real estate management approach. Largely, projects would be identified by outside interests. Little time would be spent working with local government or with potential developers to address necessary entitlements for the development of transitional lands. Efforts would generally be spent developing those projects that would provide the highest return for the least amount of effort. • The Developer - The Developer, under this alternative, would provide the primary impetus for concept development and project design. The Bureau would bemorelikely to entertain proposals where the potential private user of Trust Land would be responsible for installing needed infrastructure, seeking appropriate land use regulatory designations and obtaining required approvals • City/ County Local Governments - Under Alternative A, the Bureau would coordinate with City and County on limited basis. All local regulatory processes related to the development of Trust Lands would be addressed. H owever, while the Bureau may participate in expressing its opinions regarding city planning and the availability of infrastructure, it would not consistently engage in efforts to coordinate Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-38 N ovember 19, 2004 with the local government to achieve entitlement objectives. Current efforts of this form of coordination include a neighborhood planning effort h the area of Whitefish, involving the city of Whitefish and Flathead County. The city of Kalispell is also discussing options for locating a water tower and fire station on Trust Land in Kalispell. 2.6.L7 Administration • Staffing and Staffing Expertise - Under Alternative A, staffing and staffing expertise would remain unchanged. There may be some limited sharing of personnel among Land Offices where certain expertise may be brought to a specific project on an as needed basis. • Funding- The RE MB would not require additional funding allocations under this alternative. Funding to seek improved entitlements to property would not generally be available. • Statutory Authority - It may be necessary to expand the authority to create conservation easements under this Alternative. Otherwise, legislative actions would probably be limited to issues of clarification and authority related to existing statutes. 2.6.L8 Financial Considerations • Revenue to Trust - Revenues to the Trust would increase to some extent under Alternative A. Revenue would be from existing licenses and leases and from residential land sales and expanded ground leases for commercial and industrial uses. Revenue would not be proportional to the projected market growth. • Property Tax Benefit - U nder Alternative A, the property tax benefit would be attributable to beneficial use taxes associated with industrial and commercial leases and personal property taxes paid on residential improvements. The conversion of lands to the private sector through sale and exchanges would be limited. Lands held for conservation purposes would likely be exempt from ad valorem taxes, but may pay for services or infrastructure improvements. • Equalization Taxes - The allocation of money to counties in lieu of taxes would not be substantially affected under this alternative. • Job Creation - Trust lands would be sharing in expected community growth, so to that extent, development on trust lands would not actually be creating any new jobs. Under this alternative, it could be assumed that Trust Lands would share in 2-5% of new development. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-39 N ovember 19, 2004 Therefore, it could be concluded that Trust Lands would be responsible for 2-5 % of the new jobs. • Asset Management- Lands classified as "other" would not appreciably reduce the number of acres associated with the other TLM D Bureaus. Within the RE MB, development would occur largely in response to unsolicited proposals for commercial, industrial and conservation purposes. Maintaining existing residential leases would have priority over new leases. N ew residential objectives would be achieved largely through "sales". 2.6.L9 E nvironmental Review and Public I nvolvement • Local Land Use Regulations - The RE MB would keep the local governing bodies and associated planning staff informed of their activities and would follow the local regulatory process for permitting various land uses as needed. The Bureau staff would work to remain informed of local land use policy development and its potential impact on state lands. H owever, D N RC would not, for the most part, actively engage in the formulation of policies and regulations related to land use. • In those cases where specific land use opportunities present themselves, the RE MB may, from time to time, approach the local governing bodies to learn of any potential conflicts with local land use policies and what actions should be taken to mitigate any anticipated impacts. • ME PA - In most cases, the Bureau would continue to strive to address all M E PA requirements and would not seek any exclusions or exemptions. The Bureau would work to coordinate public involvement requirements under M E PA with local public hearing schedules to help streamline the review process and reduce costs. 2.6.2 Alternative B - Diversification of Portfolio AlternativeB seeks to secure a broad based portfolio of income producing properties. This would be accomplished through proactive strategies intended to keep pace with regional market growth and by capturing opportunities identified by others. 2.6.2.1 Relationship to Community Growth The range of projected annual growth of "rural residential" and "commercial/ industrial" on Trust Lands under AlternativeB is shown in Tables 2-11 and 2-12, respectfully. These values represent a direct proportion of shared growth Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-40 N ovember 19, 2004 based upon the proportion of Trust Lands to other land ownerships (minus "federal" and "water") within a specific land office region. T able 2-11 Alternative B : G rowtii E stimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region Growth Estimates (acres) by Time Period 2003-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 1077 - 1795 702 - 1170 718-1196 747 - 1245 3244-5406 SWLO 600 - 1000 414 - 690 428 - 714 444 - 740 1886-3144 CLO 219 - 365 424 - 706 446 - 743 467 - 776 1556-2590 NELO (12) - (20) 5-8 6- 10 8- 14 7-12 SLO 131-218 88 - 146 92 - 153 96 - 160 407-677 ELO (11) -(18) 2- 4 6-10 4-6 1-2 Total 2004-3340 1635-2724 1696-2826 1766-2165 7101-11055 T able 2-12. Alternative B : G rowth E stimates for C ommercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on T rust L ands Land Office Region G rowth E stimates (acres) by T ime Period 2002-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 254 - 423 168 - 280 185 - 309 205 - 342 812-1354 SWLO 221 - 368 146 - 244 164 - 274 183 - 305 714-1191 CLO 303 - 505 190 - 317 215 - 358 238 - 397 946-1577 NELO 70- 117 55-92 60 - 100 66- 110 251-419 SLO 104 - 174 69 - 115 77 - 129 86 - 144 336-562 ELO 26-43 11-18 12-21 14-23 63-105 Total 978-1630 639-1066 713-1191 792-1321 3122-5208 2.6.2.2 L and U se C ategories Under this alternative, the Bureau would attempt to balance the real estate portfolio with uses associated with each of the land use categories. Projects would be prioritized on a statewide basis to benefit from shared expertise and available funding. • Residential - Income from lands with residential values would be realized primarily through land sales and land banking. Some leasing of land for residential uses may be pursued in urban locations and in high value amenity locations. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-41 N ovember 19, 2004 • Commercial - Commercial leasing opportunities would be pursued primarily in urban and highway locations. Suburban and rural opportunities would primarily be identified by outside interests. • Industrial - Industrial opportunities would be prioritized in identified growth areas where adequate infrastructure is available to serve the intended uses. Public requests for industrial uses on Trust Lands, such as sewage treatment facilities, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. • Conservation - Under Alternative B, the RE MB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands lying within one half mile of land with existing conservation designations. These would include federally designated areas such as National Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wildlife and Game Refuges and Public/ Private Conservation Easements. The percentage of conservation uses on Trust Lands would correspond to the percentage share that Trust Lands have of the entire land base. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale of development rights on lands with residential values. Table 2-13 identifies the number of acres per land office area that could be considered for conservation based on this approach, over the life of the Real Estate Management Plan. The acreages presented are an estimate only and do not intend to suggest a limit or cap to the acres that could be placed in conservation use. Likewise, the purchasing of development or conservation rights is not in fact a utilization of those development rights, and therefore, those acres would not be calculated in the assessment of growth of residential development. T able 2-13. Potential C onservation Acreage U nder Alternative B Land Office Trust Acres within 0.5 miles of Conservation Lands Percentage of Land Base Acres times Percentage (Acres)* NWLO 38,501.9 3.5% 1,348 SWLO 26,223.7 3.1% 813 CLO 130,830.8 5.5% 7,196 NELO 101,302.7 7% 7,091 SLO 12,319.2 3.7% 456 ELO 20,947.3 6.2% 1,299 Total 330,125.6 18,203 *Column represents total conservation acres through the year 2025 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-42 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 2.6.2.3 Location Descriptors New revenue generating projects would be linked closely to regional market conditions. U nder this alternative, the RE M B would attempt to attain a proportional share of the anticipated market growth of a region. I n general, projects would be located on sites with high suitability ranking (see Table 2-6). • Urban - New retail and office commercial opportunities and high density residential uses would primarily be located on Trust Lands located in close proximity to urban locations. • Suburban - Low to medium residential density uses would be appropriate in suburban locations as would some types of neighborhood commercial developments. • Rural - Low density residential uses, recreation resorts, and resource based industrial uses would be appropriate to rural locations. Other types of commercial may also be appropriate, such as communication towers. 2.6.2.4 Project Selection & Prioritization - (Relationship to the Funnel Process) The Bureau would make use of the funnel process as described in Section 2.3.1 and assume a more active role [as compared to A Iternative A ] in creating new revenue opportunities for the trusts. T his would include the identification of lands suitable for development and the active pursuit of the entitlements that would help position the lands in the market place. I n addition, more staff resources would be directed towards selecting and ranking projects for more specific project level review. 2.6.2.5 Implementation Strategies Under A Iternative B, the RE MB would make use of a variety of real estate tools to meet its objectives to keep pace with community growth. I n higher growth areas, the RE MB is likely to engage in various transactions in order to position itself to take advantage of the available market. I n areas where there is little or no growth, the RE M B may chose to sell properties and buy lands or existing improvements that can provide a greater return elsewhere. Where opportunities for joint ventures present themselves, the B ureau may forge relationships with private and/ or public developers in order to bring more resources to site and project development. • Land Use Authorizations o Leases- The RE MB would continue to maintain and manage existing leases and respond to requests for new leases under A Iternative B . While some residential leases would be considered. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-43 N ovember 19, 2004 overall, greater emphasis would be placed on seeking new commercial and industrial lessees. o Licenses- UnderAlternativeB, the Bureau would continue to respond to individual license requests, but generally licensing would have a lower priority than under A Iternative A . G reater emphasis, however, would be placed on proposals from potential lessees that offer a higher projected rate of return to the trust. o E asements - T he RE M B would work with adjacent land owners and local government officials in response to proposed easements for a variety of public and private purposes on a case by case basis. E asement opportunities on lands that have conservation values would be limited pending changes to existing laws. • Land Transactions o Land Banking - UnderAlternativeB, the RE MB would use land exchanges to acquire lands with higher revenue generating potential and improved public access. In addition, the Bureau would also, to some extent, use land banking to acquire lands that are well positioned to take advantage of future revenue generation and lands that have an existing revenue stream (existing revenue producing activities on the land). U nder current rules, the role of land banking may not be an effective tool for repositioning land values into existing developed properties. o Land Exchanges- UnderAlternativeB, the RE MB would respond to inquiries related to land exchanges. I n addition, the Bureau would seek land exchange opportunities that would result in better present and future income. The RE MB would also consider land exchanges that would result in a mixed acquisition wherein equal acres would be achieved in addition to other property that would have immediate income potential. o Land Sales - Land sales and land banking would be the primary tools to achieve the residential objectives. H owever, leasing of land for residential uses would be considered if land sales or land banking could not be accomplished. T he D epartment would continue the existing residential leasing program. • Marketing o Advertising - The RE MB would make use of a number of lower cost advertising strategies to promote land use objectives on state Trust Lands. These would include both print and electronic media and the target markets would generally be regional. Location signs. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-44 N ovember 19, 2004 and advertisements in real estate circulars would also be utilized. The Bureau would initiate a specific marketing strategy to promote conservation objectives. o Real Estate Affiliations- The RE MB would work with real estate development organizations in order to promote Trust Land properties more widely. The Bureau staff would contact real estate professionals to assist in marketing lands and join real estate professional organizations in order to achieve greater visibility in the community. o RFP Process- Generally, the RFP Process would be initiated in response to specific inquiries. H owever, in some cases the RE M B might work to enhance a property's market position. This would include the improvements of various entitlements associated with the land including physical infrastructure and land use designations prior to the issuance of an RFP. 2.6.2.6 Project M anagement Roles • The Real Estate Management Bureau - The RE MB would take a more active role in the identification, development, and management of residential, industrial, and commercial uses. In addition to responding to unsolicited proposals, the Bureau would identify potential projects and undertake preliminary concept development and feasibility analyses in preparation for solicitation of project proposals. • The Developer - The RE M B would work with potential developers to secure necessary entitlements including infrastructure and land use designations as needed. This might be accomplished through partnership agreements and other cooperative arrangements. W hile the RE MB would take a greater role in project development than under A Iternative A , the private (or public) developer would typically bear the majority of the costs associated with site preparation and with meeting any associated regulatory requirements. • City/ County Local Governments - The RE MB would work closely with local governing bodies to assure a well-planned program of development. The relationship would include participation in local land planning decision making, which could affect the future potential of Trust Lands. The Bureau would also work closely with city and county governments as they plan for infrastructure development. At the project level, the RE M B would coordinate with local governments to comply with land use regulatory processes including public Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-45 N ovember 19, 2004 involvement requirements and to coordinate tliose processes with D N RC responsibilities under M E PA . 2.6.2.7 Administration • Staffing and Staffing Expertise - Alternative B may require additional staff. Current staff levels may not be adequate to develop and evaluate project proposals or to work with developers and government officials. Specific expertise in planning, real estate appraisal, marketing, engineering, and finance would be particularly important. Three additional employees over the existing staffing (Alternative A) may be necessary. The Bureau would emphasize shared expertise and establish teams of project planning and development personnel that could be assigned based on state-wide priorities. Whenever possible, staffing needs would be achieved through reassignment of vacant FTEs (Full Time E quivalent E mployees). • Funding - Alternative B may require the allocation of additional financial resources to the RE M B. Additional funding may be necessary for increased staffing and project support, including costs to improve land entitlements. Additional funding sources may be sought to achieve program objectives through a development improvement fund (revolving) and a percentage share of lease and sale revenue. Up to $500,000 per year would be sought to improve land entitlements. • Statutory Authority - Legislation would be necessary to authorize a special development revolving fund and any other special funding requests. A change in the law pertaining to conservation easements would also be necessary to achieve conservation objectives. 2.6.2.8 Financial Considerations • Revenue to Trust - N ew revenue sources would primarily be from (1) land sales of unimproved residential valued properties, (2) commercial leases, (3) industrial leases, and (4) conservation licenses, leases, and easements. Residential properties (unimproved) provide the largest opportunity for new income. • Property Tax - The property tax benefit would be attributable to beneficial use taxes associated with industrial and commercial leases and personal property taxes paid on residential improvements. In addition, it is anticipated that unimproved residential -valued properties would be converted to private ownership through sales and land banking, creating additional property tax revenue for the community. Lands held for conservation purposes would likely be exempt from ad Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-46 N ovember 19, 2004 valorem taxes, but may pay for services or infrastructure improvements. • Equalization Payments - Under this Alternative, the amount of land converted to "other" remains well under 1% (0. 3) of the total Trust Land area. As such, there would be no appreciable change expected to county equalization receipts. However, tax revenue from leased and sold properties would increase for most of the central and western counties. • Job Creation - Since Trust Lands would only be sharing in the expected growth of a community; no new jobs would actually be created. However, under this alternative, it could be assumed that Trust Lands would experience 4-10% of new development and so it could be concluded that Trust Lands would be responsible for 4-10 % of the new jobs. • Asset M anagement - The RE M B would expand its current role relative to the other Trust Land portfolios (timber, agriculture, grazing and minerals). Within the RE MB, development would occur both in response to unsolicited proposals and through Bureau initiated activities. Management would emphasize development of those properties and uses that would provide the greatest return relative to any investment required. 2.6.2.9 E nvironmental Review and Public I nvolvement • Local Land Use Regulations - The REMB would work with local governing bodies to identify ways to engage in development activities within the framework of local land use policies and regulatory processes. From time to time, the REMB would participate in discussions at the local level regarding policy formulation and work to coordinate its planning processes with those of the local governments, particularly when such activities would enhance revenue opportunities. The REMB would also engage in neighborhood planning processes that serve to provide necessary entitlements for development with respect to local land use policies and regulations. Projects would meet or exceed land use development standards as set forth in local, state and federal regulations and policies. In those cases where local jurisdictions do not have land use regulations and policies in place or in those cases where local policies and regulations are limited, the D N RC would follow model regulations formulated at the state level, if available, or work with local officials to identify preferred development standards. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-47 N ovember 19, 2004 • M E PA - A II projects would be developed in compliance with M E PA . For those projects approved through the local regulatory processes, ME PA and associated analyses would largely be achieved by adhering to the local review processes. 2.6.3 Alternative B-1: Diversified Portfolio -Conservation Priority Alternative B-1 incorporates all of the elements of A Iternative B with the exception of Conservation uses on Trust Lands. AsunderAlternativeB, the RE MB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands lying within one half mile of land with such existing conservation lands N ational Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wildlife and G ame Refuges and Public/ Private Conservation Easements. The RE MB would strive to achieve a percentage of conservation uses on Trust Lands that would correspond to thepercentagesharethatTrust Lands have of the entire land base. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale of development rights on lands with residential values. U nder A Iternative B no development rights purchases would apply towards the total estimated share (acreage) of residential development on trust lands. U nder A Iternative B-1, the purchase of residential rights, up to one-half of the 11,055 acres estimated for rural residential growth, could be counted towards the trust lands projected share of "residential' development. 2.6.4 Alternative C - Focused Portfolio Under this alternative, the RE MB would actively evaluate the Trust Land revenue opportunities on a continual basis to determine a full range of project opportunities. The Bureau would react quickly to market opportunities and attempt to realize a higher proportion of the anticipated growth in regional markets. 2.6.4.1 Relationship to Community Growth The projected ranges of annual growth of "rural residential" and "commercial/ industrial" on Trust Lands under A Iternative C are shown in Tables 2- 14 and 2-15. Depending on the land office region, growth of residential, commercial, and industrial uses on Trust Land would range between 8 and 20% of the anticipated growth of those regions. T hese percentages are double the values reflected under A Iternative B and assume that Trust Lands would experiencea higher proportion (on a per acre ratio with other lands) of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-48 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-14. Alternative C: Growth Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on Trust Lands Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) by T ime Period 2003-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 2156 - 3592 1403 - 2339 1436 - 2394 1495 - 2491 6490-10816 SWLO 1200 - 2000 829 - 1381 857 - 1429 888 - 1480 3774-6290 CLO 438 - 730 847 - 1411 891 - 1485 931 - 1551 3107-5177 NELO (24) - (40) 8- 14 12- 20 17- 29 13-23 SLO 289 - 481 176 - 293 183 - 305 193 - 321 841-1400 ELO (20) - (34) 5-9 12-20 8-13 5-8 Total 4039-6729 3268-5447 3391-5653 3532-5885 14230- 23714 T able 2-15. Alternative C : Growtii E stimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on T rust Lands Land Office Region Growth E stimates (acres) b^ /Time Period 2002-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total NWLO 508 - 847 336 - 559 371 - 618 410 - 683 1625-2707 SWLO 442 - 737 293 - 488 328 - 547 366 - 610 1429-2382 CLO 605 - 1009 381 - 634 430 - 716 476 - 793 1892-3152 NELO 140 - 233 111 - 185 120 - 200 133 - 221 504-839 SLO 208 - 347 138 - 230 155 - 258 173 - 288 674-1123 ELO 51-85 21-35 25-41 27-45 124-206 Total 1954-3258 1280-2131 1429-2380 1585-2640 6248-10409 2.6.4.2 L and U se C ategories Projects that return the highest net revenue to the trusts would be given higher priority under this alternative. • Residential - A high proportion of Trust Lands suitable for development are considered to have residential land values. The RE M B would attempt to realize a proportionally higher share of the residential market in growth regions of the State. Revenue would be generated by land sales, land banking, and through some cooperative development agreements with the private sector. Additional leasing opportunities would be sought through programs offered by local governments and such agencies as F annie M ae. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-49 N ovember 19, 2004 • Commercial - Commercial uses on Trust Lands would be a priority objective under this alternative. Revenue opportunities would be sought through leases for new development and acquisition of existing commercial uses. • I ndustrial - U nder this alternative, the RE M B would attempt to secure long-term leases with industries, including high-tech firms. This would require improving entitlements on certain urban lands and lands associated with extensive infrastructure systems. 0 pportunities would also be actively pursued on rural lands that may be suitable for resource- based industries. Conservation - UnderAlternativeC, the Bureau would consider conservation opportunities as a high priority on a percentage of those T rust Lands that lie within one mile of lands with conservation values. T he percentage of conservation uses on Trust Lands would correspond to the percentage share that T rust Lands have of the entire land base. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale of development rights on lands with residential values. However, Trust Land Acres that are placed in conservation use through the purchase of development rights would not be "counted" in the calculation of developed residential acreage for accounting purposes under A Iternative C (see C hapter 4). Table 2-16 identifies the number of acres per land office area that could be considered for conservation based on this approach, over the life of the Real E state M anagement Plan. The acreages presented are estimates only and do not intend to suggest a limit to the acres that could be placed in conservation use. T able 2-16. Potential C onservation Acreage U nder Alternative C Land Office Trust Acres Within One Mile of Conservation Areas Percentage of Land Base Acres times Percentage (acres)* NWLO 50,866.8 3.5% 1,780 SWLO 38,968.3 3.1% 1,208 CLO 176,376.3 5.5% 9,701 NELO 134,821.7 7% 9,438 SLO 19,956.5 3.7% 738 ELO 25,057.8 6.2% 1,554 Total 446,047.4 24,419 *Columii represents total conservation acres through year 2025 2.6.4.3 Location Descriptors U nder this alternative, the B ureau would explore all opportunities for increased revenue to the trusts. Target areas of opportunity would generally be associated with Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-50 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 identified growth regions of the state and lands with medium to high suitability (see Table2-6). • U rban - U rban locations within growing communities would be given high priority for new income opportunities. Commercial, industrial, and residential developments would be pursued in the form of new leases on raw land or through acquisition of existing developed properties. • Suburban - Revenue for residentially valued land would be realized through land sales, land banking, joint ventures, and other real estate practices. Most of the new revenue opportunities would be "residential". Rural - Low density residential uses, recreation resorts, and resource based industrial uses would be appropriate to rural locations. Industrial uses may also be appropriate to rural locations having convenient access to travel corridors and other necessary infrastructure. Other types of commercial may also be appropriate, such as communication towers. 2.6.4.4 Project Selection & Prioritization - (Relationship to Funnel Process) The RE MB would be fully involved in project development at all levels of analysis - from the identification of lands suitable for development to project level design and evaluation. The project selection and development process would also include, in certain circumstances, the active pursuit of entitlements that would make T rust Lands more marketable including, for example, the installation of infrastructure. 2.6.4.5 Implementation Strategies The RE MB would makeuseof a widerangeof real estate development tools in order to meet land use and revenue objectives. Bureau staff would both initiate and respond to land use proposals for a variety of uses. When appropriate, the RE M B would form partnerships with other public and/ or private entities to enhance those financial and human resources that may be brought to a project. For example, the RE M B might work with a private developer to provide infrastructure to prepare a commercial or industrial site for leasing. • Land Use Authorizations o Leases- The RE MB would actively pursue additional commercial and industrial leases in areas where market conditions warrant this type of development. Leases would also be considered for high value residential properties with scenic and recreational amenities. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-51 N ovember 19, 2004 I n urban areas, the RE M B would consider single family, multi- family, pre-fabricated, and mobile home residential leases. o Licenses- The RE MB would emphasize long-term licenses with a high rate of return over short-term leases. "Walk in" requests for individual short-term leases would generally be discouraged. o Easements- The RE MB would continue to respond to requests for easements on state lands for both private and public purposes. H owever, those proposals that provide greater income to the T rust would be favored. Conservation easements would be difficult to convey under current legal constraints. • Land Transactions o Land Banking - The RE M B would use Land Banking to acquire existing properties with high revenue streams and to provide increased public access to Trust Lands. The Bureau would also use Land Banking (with proper legislative authorization) to position itself in areas of high growth, including purchasing existing developed uses in areaswhereTrust Lands are not well positioned to capture revenue opportunities. o Land Exchanges- The RE MB would consider those land exchanges that would result in the acquisition of both undeveloped land and land with improvements that provide an existing income stream. o Land Sales- Land sales under A IternativeC would be considered in conjunction with joint ventures and partnerships between the D N RC and private and/ or public entities. U nder this approach, thejointventure/ partnerships would make physical improvements to the land and seek those land use designations that would improve overall marketability. 0 nee the maximum entitlements are achieved, the land would be sold and the partners would share in the profits associated with the improvements. M ost of the residential objectives for new residential growth would be accomplished through land sales. The Department would continue the existing residential leasing program. • M arketing o Advertising - A IternativeC would involve a very active marketing component. I n addition to print and electronic advertising strategies, the RE M B would engage in a wide-reaching aggressive campaign that might include an interactive web page to respond to inquiries and the preparation of highly produced development Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-52 N ovember 19, 2004 packets and brochures with information on available lands and leases. The RE MB might also consider working with a professional marketing firm in advertising its properties through brochures, video presentations and various computer and I nternet strategies. o Real Estate Affiliations- The RE MB would work closely with local, state and national real estate and development organizations. Affiliations with these professional groups would be key in promoting state Trust Land properties. Bureau staff would be active members of local organizations and attend regional and national real estate conferences and meetings in order to promote its programs and offerings. o RFP Process- UnderAlternativeC, theREMB would engage in an aggressive effort to market its lands through the RF P Process. Prior to issuance of an RFP, however, work would be done to improve land entitlements through a number of mechanisms including, but not limited to: ■ seeking appropriate zoning designations ■ annexation ■ growth policy amendments ■ arranging for and installing necessary infrastructure ■ adding amenities and enhancements ■ identifying potential public and private partners The RFP process would include not only traditional legal notices but targeted solicitations as well. 2.6.4.6 Project Management Roles • T he Real E state M anagement B ureau - A Iternative C would expect the RE MB to actively manage residential, conservation, industrial, and commercial uses on Trust Lands. While the RE MB would continue to respond to unsolicited proposals, greater emphasis would be placed on Department initiated project development to assure the greatest revenue return. • The Developer - The RE MB would work closely with potential developers to establish project feasibility in the market place. Partnership agreements with private entities would be pursued, as appropriate, in preparing market studies, developing infrastructure and in preparing sites for construction. Under Alternative C, the Bureau would also focus on the acquisition of existing buildings. The RE M B could then enter into an agreement with a project manager to expand, rehabilitate, and/ or manage these properties. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-53 N ovember 19, 2004 • City/ County Local Governments - Bureau staff would work closely with local jurisdictions in land planning and infrastructure development. Whenever possible, the RE MB would seek the most advantageous policy decisions in light of revenue objectives. RE M B would work cooperatively with local governments to provide infrastructure and services to Trust properties as resources and opportunities permit. 2.6.4.7 Administration • Staffing and Staffing Expertise - Alternative C may require a substantial commitment of staff. While the Bureau would still try to share expertise among Land Offices, the level of activity may require a larger special resources staff over all. As under A Iternative B, expertise would be needed in planning, real estate, appraisal, engineering, marketing, and finance. 1 1 is estimated that four additional staff may be required as compared to A Iternative A . • Funding - Additional funding may be necessary for increased staffing and project support, including costs to improve land entitlements. Additional funding sources would be sought to achieve program objectives through a development improvement fund (revolving) and a percentage share of lease and sale revenue. Up to $1 million per year would be sought to improve land entitlements. The economic analysis by Jackson (2004) included in Appendix D suggests that increased funding to improve land entitlements would generate a greater return to the Trust. To the extent possible, increased staffing needs would be accomplished with reassignment of vacant FT Es. • Statutory Authority - Legislation would also be necessary to authorize a special development revolving fund and any other special funding requests. A change in the law pertaining to conservation easements would also be necessary to achieve conservation objectives. 2.6.4.8 Financial Considerations • Revenue to the Trust - N ew revenue sources would primarily be from (1) land sales of unimproved residential valued properties, (2) commercial leases, (3) industrial leases, and (4) conservation licenses, leases, and easements. Residential properties with improved entitlements provide the largest opportunity for new income. Leasing of residential properties following land development would be pursued to a greater extent than anticipated by the other alternatives. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-54 N ovember 19, 2004 • PropertyTax- Under Alternative C, the property tax benefit would be attributable to beneficial use taxes associated with industrial and commercial leases and personal property taxes paid on residential improvements. In addition, it is anticipated that some residential properties would be converted to private ownership, creating additional property tax revenue for the community. Purchase of existing buildings and infrastructure for lease would have no immediate affect on the tax base. Lessees would continue to pay all real and personal property taxes. Over time, improvements made to facilities could increase the property tax benefit to the community • Equalization Payments - There would be no appreciable change expected to county equalization receipts since lands converted to "other" remains a small percentage of the total Trust Land area. H owever, property tax revenue from leased and sold properties would increase for most of the central and western counties. • Job Creation - Since Trust Lands would only be sharing in the expected growth of a community, no new jobs would actually be created. However, under this alternative, it could be assumed that Trust Lands would realize 8-20% of new development and so it could be concluded that Trust Lands would be responsible for 8-20% of the new jobs. • Asset Management- Lands classified as "other" would not appreciably reduce the number of acres associated with the other TLM D Bureaus. Within the RE M B, emphasis would be placed on those properties that are positioned well to take advantage of market growth over time. This might include properties that are not currently in close proximity to infrastructure or that may not be appropriately zoned but would ultimately provide a favorable return. Management emphasis would shift slightly in favor of long term leases on commercial and industrial properties, management of existing developed properties acquired through land banking, and joint ventures/ partnerships to develop residential lands. 2.6.4.9 E nvironmental Review and Public Comment • Local Land Use Regulations - Under Alternative C, the RE MB would have an ongoing, active role in local land use planning activities. Participation in local planning processes would focus on improving entitlements to raw land. Bureau staff would actively participate in local government processes to develop, amend or apply growth plans, zoning designations, subdivision, annexation and development agreements or other policies or regulations where there is the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-55 N ovember 19, 2004 • possibility of increasing revenue for tlie trust beneficiaries. TJieREJVIB would focus its neighborhood planning processes on maximizing revenue. Local land use policies and regulatory processes would be followed. M E PA - A II projects would be developed in compliance with M E PA . For those projects approved through the local regulatory processes, M EPA and associated analyses would largely be achieved by adhering to the local review processes. 2.6.5 Alternative C-1 : Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority Alternative C-1 incorporates all of the elements of A Iternative C with the exception of Conservation useson Trust Lands. AsunderAlternativeC, theREMB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentage of those Trust Lands lying within one mile of lands with existing conservation objectives, such as lands located within National Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wildlife and G ame Refuges, and Public/ Private Conservation Easements. The RE M B would strive to achieve a percentage of conservation uses on Trust Lands that would correspond to the percentage share that T rust Lands have of the entire land base. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale or leasing of development rights on lands with residential values. H owever, unlike A Iternative C where no development rights purchases would apply towards the total estimated share of residential development on trust lands, (again as in A Iternative B- 1) up to one-half of the total estimated rural residential estimated share of 23,7114 acres could be achieved through purchase of development rights on rural lands having "residential" as the highest and best use. 2.6.6 Alternative D: Focused Entitlements Alternative D is a blending of alternatives A, B, B-1, C,and C-lidentified in the DEIS. The goal of "D" is to share proportionately with anticipated community growth (as proposed under "B") but the philosophy of "D" is to focus more on improving land entitlements to maximize income to the trusts and comply with local, state, and federal regulations. Proactive land use planning, as particularly emphasized in A Iternative C, is a central theme to achieving desired land entitlements with outcome objectives that promote good community planning. The level at which this alternative may be implemented will be dependent on the vigor of the real estate market, the position of trust lands in those growing markets, and level of staffing and associated budgets. 2.6.6.1 Relationship to Community Growth Tables 2-11 and 2-12 identify the acres of "rural residential" and "industrial/ commercial" that might develop on trust lands through the life of the plan and would be generally applicable to A Iternative D . T hese estimates are not intended to be targets that must be achieved by each of the area land offices. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-56 N ovember 19, 2004 (Targets are the list of projects identified tin rough the Project Selection Process.) The actual outcome of developed acreages is dependent on the position of state trust lands in growing markets, staffing (type and number), and budgets. Successful implementation could achieve acreage numbers in the range of A Iternative C in areas where trust lands are well positioned in growing markets with adequate staffing and budgets. The status- quo situation could result (with numbers similar to those identified for A Iternative A ) if the philosophy of D (staffing, funding, markets and position of trust lands, etc) is not accomplished. The status-quo situation may reflect low entitlements and the former (successful implementation) high entitlements, which also correspond to low and high number of acres, projects, and rates of return, respectfully. I n all cases, D N RC would seek to increase the entitlements to properties that are included in the project list. The preferred goal is to match the market (as further defined in the Physical Suitability Filter) of a given land office region (philosophy of B), regardless of whether those resulting numbers may be high or low to the acreage estimates identified by alternative. For monitoring purposes, the table of acreages shown in Tables 2-11 and 2-12 might be useful as "goals" or guidelines in helping to define progress towards achieving the selected management philosophy of the Plan. H owever, an acreage "cap" is proposed that would trigger a mandatory reevaluation of the plan if a certain level of developed acreages were exceeded. This is discussed further in Section 2.6.6.4 and in the monitoring portion of Chapter 4. 2.6.6.2 L and U se C ategories U nder this alternative, the Bureau would attempt to balance the real estate portfolio with uses associated with each of the land use categories. Projects would be prioritized on a statewide basis, including those identified by outside sources. Residential - Income from lands with residential values would be realized primarily through land sales and land banking. Some leasing of land for residential uses may be pursued in urban locations and in high value amenity locations. Commercial - Commercial leasing opportunities would be pursued primarily in urban and highway locations. Suburban and rural opportunities would primarily be identified by outside interests. Industrial - Industrial opportunities would be prioritized in identified growth areas where adequate infrastructure is available to serve the intended uses. Public requests for industrial uses on Trust Lands, such as sewage treatment facilities, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Conservation -The open space or parklands designated through zoning or subdivision regulations would also achieve conservation strategies under this alternative. The RE MB would consider conservation opportunities a priority on a percentage of those T rust Lands lying within one half mile of land with existing Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-57 N ovember 19, 2004 conservation designations. Tliese would include federally designated areas such as National Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife and G ame Refuges, and Public/ Private Conservation E asements. The percentage of conservation uses on Trust Lands would correspond to the percentage share that Trust Lands have of the entire land base. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the sale of development rights on lands with residential values. Table 2-13 identifiesthenumberof acres per land office area that could be considered for conservation based on this approach, over the life of the Real E state M anagement Plan. The acreages presented are an estimate only and do not intend to suggest a limit or cap to the acres that could be placed in conservation use. N or would conservation opportunities be limited to a half-mile radius of existing conservation-type lands. The purchasing of development or conservation rights is not in fact a utilization of those development rights, and therefore, those acres would not be calculated in the assessment of growth of residential development. 2.6.6.3 Location Descriptors New revenue generating projects would be linked closely to regional market conditions. U nder this alternative, the RE M B would attempt to attain a proportional share of the anticipated market growth of a region. I n general, projects would be located on sites with high suitability rankings (see Table 2-6). U rban - N ew retail and office commercial opportunities and high density residential uses would primarily be located on Trust Lands located in close proximity to urban locations. Suburban - Low to medium residential density uses would be appropriate in suburban locations as would some types of neighborhood commercial developments. Rural - Low density residential uses, recreation resorts, conservation lands, and resource based industrial uses would be appropriate to rural locations. Other types of commercial may also be appropriate, such as communication towers. 2.6.6.4 Project Selection & Prioritization - (Relationship to Funnel Process) U nder alternative D , the projected growth estimates for developed uses on trust lands would be guided by the philosophy of the Plan and not solely on achieving a particular acreage target. As previously suggested, the outcome for trying to implementthe philosophy of "D" could result in a rangeof outcomes from A -C, depending on such uncertainties as funding, staffing, and market conditions. N otwithstanding the above caveats, A Iternative D is suggesting that a development cap be identified to provide a defined event that would trigger reevaluation of the Plan (Table 2-17). The identified limits are within the range of the D E I S alternatives and attempt to provide some flexibility for reacting to changing market conditions that may occur over the next 21 years. These 'end" caps could also be linked to Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-58 N ovember 19, 2004 interim time period assessments (see monitoring section) to determine wliether in- course corrections may be necessary before year 20025. Table 2-17. AlternativeD: DevelopmentCapsonTrust Lands Through 2025 Land Office Region Growth Estimates (acres) Residential Commercial/ Industrial NWLO 10,816 1,354 SWLO 6,290 1,191 CLO 5,177 1,577 NELO 23 419 SLO 1,400 562 ELO 8 105 U nder A Iternative D , conservation strategies would follow those outlined for Alternative B (See Section 2.6.2.2). General outcome objectives for developed or sold properties would be as follows: U rban: 0 n properties located within or adjacent to cities, the proposed project would be expected to tie into city infrastructure whenever possible and be designed to city standards, including alignment to adjoining city streets. Urban densities would be expected. Suburban: Suburban properties would be built to complement the land use of adjoining properties and reflect local street patterns and design standards. Rural: In rural locations with residential land values, entitlements would be sought, whenever feasible, to promote clustering and the provision of contiguous open space. Lot density allowance would be determined to achieve maximum open space; i.e., as density increases through clustering, the developer can purchase more open space. Whenever practical, the open space would continue to be managed by DNRC for its historical use. Joint ventures with developers could also be used to promote clustering and open space objectives. 2.6.6.5 Implementation Strategies The philosophy of AlternativeD for implementation strategies is similar to that described by Section 2.6.4.5 with minor amendments. • Land Use Authorizations o Leases - The RE M B would actively pursue additional commercial and industrial leases in areas where market conditions warrant this type of development. Leases would also be considered for high value residential properties with scenic and recreational amenities. N ew cabin site leases would generally be low-priority. I n urban areas, the RE MB would consider single family, multi-family, pre- Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-59 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 fabricated, and mobile home residential leases. The RFP process would be used to help establish desired outcome objectives. o Licenses- The RE MB would emphasize long-term licenses with a high rate of return over short-term leases. "Walk in" requests for individual short-term leases would generally be discouraged. o Easements- The RE MB would continue to respond to requests for easements on state lands for both private and public purposes per Land Board policies. H owever, those proposals that provide greater income to the Trust would be favored. Conservation easements would be difficult to convey under current legal constraints. • Land Transactions o Land Banking - The RE M B would use Land Banking, if legally authorized, to acquire existing properties with high revenue streams and to provide increased public access to T rust Lands. The Bureau would also use Land Banking (with proper legislative authorization) to position itself in areas of high growth, including purchasing existing developed uses in areas where Trust Lands are not well positioned to capture revenue opportunities. Land banking would apply whenever practical to the sale of lots created through joint venture partnerships. I n the near term, higher value lands located in the western part of the state may be sold (with or without entitlements) to help achieve strategic objectives to increase the agricultural land base of trust lands (as compared to grazing lands). o Land Exchanges- The RE MB would consider those land exchanges that would result in the acquisition of both undeveloped land and land with improvements that provide an existing income stream. Land exchanges would continue to occur outside the initiative of the RE M B to achieve other objectives of the T L M D . o Land Sales - Land sales would be considered in conjunction with joint ventures and partnerships between the D N RC and private and/ or public entities. U nder this approach, the joint venture/ partnerships would make physical improvements to the land and seek those land use designations that would improve overall marketability. 0 nee the maximum entitlements are achieved, the land would be sold and the partners would share in the profits associated with the improvements. Sale of rural land (withoutjoint venture) would be accomplished with some certainty as to future desired outcomes through the establishment of land Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-60 N ovember 19, 2004 entitlements, whenever possible. This is not to say that land sales may not occur outside the concept of joint ventures or without maximum entitlements, especially in such situations as land banking or where improved land entitlements may not be in the interests of local regulatoryjurisdictions. T he D epartment would continue the existing residential leasing program. M arketing o Advertising - The RE MB would engage in a very active marketing component. I n addition to print and electronic advertising strategies, the RE M B would engage in a wide-reaching aggressive campaign that might include an interactive web page to respond to inquiries and the preparation of highly produced development packets and brochures with information on available lands and leases. The RE MB might also consider working with a professional marketing firm in advertising its properties through brochures, video presentations and various computer and I nternet strategies. o Real Estate Affiliations- The RE MB would work closely with local, state and national real estate and development organizations. Affiliations with these professional groups would be key in promoting state Trust Land properties. Bureau staff would be active members of local organizations and attend regional and national real estate conferences and meetings in order to promote its programs and offerings. o RF P Process -The RE M B would engage in an aggressive effort to market its lands through the RFP Process. Prior to issuance of an RF P, however, work would be done to improve land entitlements through a number of mechanisms including, but not limited to: improving access; neighborhood planning; amendment to growth policies; seeking appropriate zoning designations; arranging for and installing necessary infrastructure; adding amenities and enhancements; or identifying potential public and private partners. The RFP process would include not only traditional legal notices but targeted solicitations as well. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-61 N ovember 19, 2004 2.6.6.6 Project M anagement Roles The approach to project management is similar to that described in Section 2.6.4.6. This section emphasizes the proactive role by the RE JVIB to identify and implement project opportunities. K ey emphasis under A Iternative D would be to achieve desired land use outcomes by using such tools as "joint ventures" and RFPsthat identify outcome objectives for specific properties as project opportunities are identified through the funnel filter process. The joint venture process would allow D N RC to stay involved as an equity partner in a development project, allowing greater control in achieving [project] outcome objectives. • The Real Estate Management Bureau - The RE MB would actively manage and promote residential, conservation, industrial, and commercial uses on Trust Lands. The RE M B would prioritize project opportunities as described by the funnel and project selection processes. DN RC would seek to improve land entitlements and stay connected to project opportunities to the extent possible through the RFP or joint venture processes. • The Developer - The RE MB would work closely with potential developers to establish project feasibility in the market place. Partnership agreements with private entities would be pursued, as appropriate, in preparing market studies, developing infrastructure and in preparing sites for construction. The Bureau would also focus on the acquisition of existing buildings. The RE M B could then enter into an agreement with a project manager to expand, rehabilitate, and/ or manage these properties. • City/ County Local Governments - DNRC staff would work closely with local jurisdictions in land planning and infrastructure development. Whenever possible, the RE MB would seek the most advantageous policy decisions in light of revenue objectives. RE M B would work cooperatively with local governments to provide infrastructure and services to Trust properties as resources and opportunities permit. Other avenues of cooperation may include coordinating land use objectives related to affordable housing and redevelopment. 2.6.6.7 Administration The administrative approach to Alternative D would be as generally described for Alternative B in Section 2.6.2.7. Critical to implementation is a need to improve staff expertise in the areas of real estate management, land use planning, real estate appraisal, marketing, engineering, and finance. In addition to the Department staff appraiser, the RE M B has added staff with expertise in land use planning to most of the regional offices. However, to achieve the proactive philosophy of this Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-62 N ovember 19, 2004 Alternative, three additional staff with expertise in the latter three disciplines together with the base knowledge and training of the existing staff would be appropriate. Additional funding of approximately $500,000 per year would also be necessary to achieve the higher rates of return associated with improved land entitlements, such as capital investments in infrastructure. Failure to achieve full staffing and funding objectives could limit DNRC's ability to seek land entitlements that require significant funding and or react to the market and develop properties in growing communities. Asa consequence, desired land use outcome objectives would be less certain and developed acres would be less than anticipated, as would rates of return and increased revenues. $ Staffing and Staffing Expertise - The level at which Alternative D could be implemented to achieve the predicted rates of return, revenues, and acreages would depend on the level of staffing and associated budget. Current staff levels may limit the number of projects, the degree of participation by DNRC in joint venture opportunities, and the type and complexity of entitlements brought to projects. Specific expertise in planning, real estate appraisal, marketing, engineering, and finance would be particularly important. Three additional employees over the existing staffing may be necessary. The Bureau would emphasize shared expertise and establish teams of project planning and development personnel that could be assigned based on state-wide priorities. Whenever possible, staffing needs would be achieved through reassignment of vacant FTEs (Full Time Equivalent Employees). $ Funding - Alternative D would require the allocation of additional financial resources to the RE M B. Additional funding may be necessary for increased staffing and project support, including costs to improve land entitlements. Additional funding sources may be sought to achieve program objectives through a development improvement fund (revolving) using initial seed money to start the fund plus a share of lease, license, easement, and sale revenue on an annual basis to perpetuate the fund. The study by Jackson (Appendix D) clearly demonstrated that as land entitlements/ improvements were made to trust land, the rates of return to the trusts increased. U p to $500,000 per year would be sought to improve land entitlements. $ Statutory Authority - Legislation would be necessary to authorize a special development revolving fund and any other special funding requests. A specific grant of authority in the law pertaining to selling development rights would also be advantageous to achieve conservation objectives. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-63 N ovember 19, 2004 2.6.6.8 Financial Considerations Revenue to the trusts and other financial relationships associated with development of trust lands under A Iternative D is generally applicable to that described in Section 2.6.2.8 and 2.9.1.2, with some exceptions. • Revenue to Trust- Revenue sources would be from commercial leases, Industrial leases, conservation leases, licenses, and easements, and land sales. As suggested under "Philosophy", Alternative D would attempt to achieve revenue from rural land sales under a different approach by attempting to improve land entitlements whenever feasible. The study by Jackson (Appendix D) found that the rates of return to the trusts would increase with land improvements/ entitlements. The RE MB would identify specific properties for project consideration as described in the funnel process (Figure 2.4) and project selection process (Figure 2.5). The funnel process would require the DNRC to consider outcome objectives for specific properties and, in most situations, this would include some level of a community planning process to establish land use entitlements (use, density, performance standards, infrastructure extension, etc). Lands identified for project opportunities would, in most situations, be sold or developed with identified land use objectives. Other strategic objectives of the DNRC, such as land portfolio diversification through land banking, would likely require the disposition of raw lands. If funding and staffing objectives are not achieved, then land disposition may reflect more of the expectations of A Iternative A, where rural lands may be sold with few entitlements. • Asset Management - Implementation of Alternative D would likely occur on lands actively managed for agricultural, grazing, or forestry. Management would emphasize development of those properties and uses that would provide the greatest return relative to any investment required. The key emphasis of asset management would be "proactive"; meaning that all project opportunities would be identified through the funnel filter approach and be selected through the project selection process. 2.6.6.9 E nvironmental Review and Public Comment • Local Land Use Regulations - Under Alternative D, the RE MB would have an ongoing, active role in local land use planning activities. Participation in local planning processes would focus on improving entitlements to lands that may have some suitability for development. DNRC staff would actively participate in local government processes to develop, amend or apply growth plans, zoning designations, subdivision, annexation and development agreements or other policies or regulations where there is the possibility of increasing revenue for the trust beneficiaries. Local land use policies and regulatory processes would be followed. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-64 N ovember 19, 2004 • ME PA - An appropriate level ME PA analysis would be completed prior to final approval of a D N RC project. To the extent feasible, the application and approval processes associated with local government approval of D N RC projects would satisfy many of the review elements of M E PA. The goal of the environmental analysis is to recognize the value of the local regulatory review process in identifying community impacts and associated mitigation strategies. 2. 7 DESCRIPTION OF REASONABL Y FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS NOT PART OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMMA TIC PLAN BUT RELA TED TO CUMULA TIVE EFFECTS The scope of a cumulative impacts analysis is guided by 75-1-208 (11), M CA . T his plan would have no direct or indirect influence on growth and development of other agency lands. Cumulative effects on other revenue-generating bureaus of the Trust Land M anagement D ivision are expected to be complementary to the overall revenue objectives for the trusts. To the extent practical, development on trust lands would be in response to market conditions that reflect demand and locational considerations. Accordingly, trust lands would be sharing in the expected growth of a community and impacts to the community would be considered through local regulatory review processes, as applicable, and M E PA. The total land area dedicated to new residential, commercial, and industrial land uses through the year 2025 is expected to be less than 1% of the total T rust Land area. 2.7.1 Agricultural Land Leasing Revenue form agricultural leasing on Trust Lands averages around $8 million dollars per year. Average revenue per acre for agricultural uses is approximately $14.00. 0 ver a period of decades, the acreage available for agricultural leasing may increase through conservation agreements and asset shifting between programs. The RE M B may have an indirect influence on the amount of land available for agricultural practices through actions related to land banking and land exchanges. In some situations, residential valued lands may be exchanged or land banked to increase agricultural acreages. 2.7.2 Grazing Land Leasing Revenue form grazing activities on Trust Lands fluctuates between $4.5 and $6 million dollars per year. Average revenue per acre for grazing is approximately $1.25. The Bureau may have an indirect influence on the amount of land available for grazing through actions related to land banking and land exchanges. I n some situations, grazing lands may be exchanged or land banked to increase acreage for higher income property. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-65 N ovember 19, 2004 2.7.3 Forest Product Sales Revenues form timber sales on Trust Lands fluctuate significantly between years, ranging $6 to $10 million per year. Average revenue per acre of total forest classified lands is approximately $7.00. 0 ver a period of decades, the acreage available for timber sales may increase through asset shifting between programs. Bureau activities may have an indirect influence on the amount of land available for timber management through actions related to land banking and land exchanges. I n some situations, grazing lands may be exchanged or land banked to increase acreage for forested lands. I n other situations, forested lands may have a higher and better use for residential purposes so land available for timber sales may slightly decrease. As suggested in each of the six alternatives, the option to purchase residential development rights on forested lands would secure long-term opportunities for forest management. 2.7.4 Mineral, Oil, Gas Leasing N 0 significant cumulative impacts to the M inerals M an agement Bureau are expected with implementation of the real estate management program. The potential impacts to the subsurface mineral rights are evaluated in all situations involving decisions that might affect the long-term disposition of T rust Lands through sale, exchange, or easement. Subsurface rights can be protected, when desirable, by partial conveyance of only the surface rights. Lands considered to be valuable for mineral deposits cannot be sold (77-2-303, MCA). 2.7.5 Recreation Legally accessible Trust Lands areopen to recreational use. This use has been authorized under a general recreational use license since 1990. Since the inception of the program, the revenues have increased from less than $50,000 annually to $405,700 in fiscal year 1998 and $558,000 in fiscal year 2003. In the 2003 legislative session. Senate Bill 130 passed authorizing compensation for hunting, fishing and trapping through an agreement with the D epartment of F ish Wildlife and Parks whereby F W& P compensates the trust for each conservation license sold, beginning M arch 2004. Revenues are expected to increase to over $900,000 as a result of this agreement. A II other recreational use activities will continue to be authorized under the general recreational use license. Over the next several decades, some land asset shifting would occur as a result of land sales, land exchanges, and land banking. Through this process, it is expected that the acreages for classified "forest", "other", and "agriculture" would increase with a decrease in classified grazing lands. The public may notice that access to some well-known "neighborhood" Trust Lands may be lost with changeof ownership but on an overall basis, total acreage of T rust Lands available for casual recreation is either not expected to decrease or decrease only slightly. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-66 N ovember 19, 2004 2.8 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF ALL ALTERNA TIVES ON THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND ON THE RELEVANT ENVIRONMMENTAL FACTORS The alternatives consider growth options for "commercial", "conservation", "industrial", and "residential" on school Trust Lands. In each alternative, an assumption is made that Trust Lands would share (not create) expected future growth. It is assumed that the expected growth would occur regardless; and that certain Trust Lands may actually be suitable and capable of capturing some of that expected growth. 1 n certain situations, it could be argued that development of some T rust Lands may be more environmentally appropriate than development of non-Trust Lands. This would be the situation if development activities were forced to "leap" beyond Trust Lands to meet local development demands or if T rust Lands were better positioned for development due to favorable topography, location, and access to infrastructure. The only clear distinction of impacts relates to the management objectives of theTLM D and revenue parameters. For example, it can be assumed that increased development (including conservation) on Trust Lands would generate more revenue to the trust beneficiaries and more taxes (property and personal) to local and state agencies. H owever, development on Trust Lands does not necessarily create new jobs since the development would occur anyway. U nder each of the alternatives, new development potential on Trust Lands never exceeds 1% of the total Trust Land acreage through the year 2025. T he percentage share of development is even less significant when considered in the context of the entire acreage (all landowners). Table 2-18 attempts to summarize the management and environmental distinctions between alternatives without consideration of the broader context of land use development on non-Trust Lands. T able 2-18. Summary C omparison of E ffects Alternatives A B B-1 c C-1 D Growth By Land Use Type Residential + + + + +++ ++ + + Commercial + + + + + +++ +++ + + Industrial 0 + + + + + Conservation + + + + + +++ + + Growth By Location Urban 0 + + ++ ++ + + Suburban 0 + + ++ ++ + Rural 0 + 0 ++ + + Project Selection byDNRC Reactive 0 + + + + + Proactive 0 + + ++ ++ + + Real EstateTools Leases 0 + + ++ ++ + + Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-67 N ovember 19, 2004 T able 2-18. Summary C omparisor 1 of Effects Alternatives A B B-1 c C-1 D Licenses 0 + + + + + E asements 0 + + + + + Land Banking 0 + + ++ ++ + Land Exchanges 0 + + ++ ++ + Land Sales 0 + + + + + Joint Ventures 0 + + ++ ++ + + M arketing 0 + + ++ ++ + Property Purchases 0 + + ++ ++ + Project M anagement Roles DNRC 0 + + ++ ++ + + Developer 0 + + + + + Local Government 0 + + + + + Partnerships 0 + + ++ ++ + + Administrative Support Staffing 0 + + ++ ++ + Funding 0 + + ++ ++ + Statutory A uthorizations 0 + + + + + Financial Revenue to Trust + + + + +++ ++ + + Tax Revenue + + + + +++ ++ + + PILT 0 0 0 0 0 0 Job Creation 0 + 0 ++ + + Asset Management 0 + + ++ ++ + Environmental Review Local Land Use Regulations + + + + + + ME PA + + + + + + Environmental Affects Geology & Soil 0 + + + + + Water Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fisheries 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wildlife 0 + + + + + Vegetation 0 + + + + + Air Quality 0 + + + + + Noise 0 + + + + + Aesthetics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxes 0 + + ++ ++ + Final Real E state M anagement Chapter 2 Programmatic E nvlronmen Page 2-68 tal Impact; statement N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-18. Summary Comparison of Effects || Alternatives 1 A B B-1 C C-1 D 1 N ote: 0 = current condition; + = elevated and relative impact from current 11 condition | 2.9 PREDICTED A TTAINMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES BY ALTERNATIVE 2.9.1 Objective 1 -Generate increased revenue for Trust beneficiaries greater than current levels Revenue generation associated with each alternative is expressed relative to the status quo (A Iternative A ). U nder all six alternatives, however revenue to the T rust is expected to grow. 2.9.L1 Alternative A: C urrent Program U nder A Iternative A , the B ureau would continue to manage its lands at the current level of activity, or at a rate that is less than market share. The study by Jackson (2004) included in Appendix D suggests that A Iternative A would generate an annual rate of return of approximately 2.13%. 2.9.L2 Alternative B: Diversified Portfolio U nder A Iternative B , the Real E state M anagement B ureau would develop trust lands in direct proportion to the percentage that state lands have of the entire developable land base within each land office region. The study by Jackson (2004) included in Appendix D suggests that A Iternative B would generate an annual rate of return of approximately 4.66-5.13%, with the higher rate of return resulting from improved land entitlements achieved through the expenditure of up to $500,000 per year for those purposes. 2.9.L3 Alternative B-1: Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority Under A Iternative B-1, the Real EstateManagement Bureau would develop commercial and industrial uses on trust lands in direct proportion to the regional market. H owever, residential development on trust lands would be comparable to A Iternative A and the replacement income would be less from the substituted conservation "sales". The expected rate of return on equity should be approximately 4.46%. Final Real EstateManagement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-69 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 2.9.L4 Alternative C: Focused Portfolio U nder A Iternative C, the B ureau would develop trust lands at a rate proportional higher than other lands in the region. The study by Jackson (2004) included in A ppendix D suggests that A Iternative C would generate an annual rate of return of approximately 5.48-6.35%, with the higher rate of return resulting from improved land entitlements achieved through the expenditure of up to $1 million per year for those purposes 2.9.L5 Alternative C-1: Focused Portfolio- Conservation Priority U nder A Iternative C-1, the Real EstateManagement Bureau would develop commercial and industrial uses on trust lands at a rate proportionally higher than other lands in the area. H owever, residential development on trust lands would be comparable to A Iternative B and the replacement income would be less from the substituted conservation "sales". The expected rate of return on equity should be approximately 5.14%. 2.9.L6 Alternative D : Focused E ntitlements T he focus of A Iternative D is to increase revenue to the trusts by improving entitlements to lands identified for project opportunities. T he entitlements would provide more certainty to the project approval process and improve lease or sale values as compared to lands with no or few entitlements. I ncome to the trusts and rates of return would depend on the success of implementing A Iternative D. With adequate staffing and funding, rates of return could range from 5 to 6% . 2.9.2 Objective 2 - Comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirement for developing a programmatic plan, DNRC's administrative procedures regarding l\/IEPA (ARM 36.2 537) and the Montana Antiquities Act (MCA 22-3-424), in their most current form. Environmental impacts associated with residential, commercial and industrial development in communities are cumulative. D evelopments on school T rust Lands would contribute to those cumulative impacts. H owever, the purpose of the funnel filter process is, in part, to identify a subset of transitional lands that are suitably located for development, adhere to local regulatory processes, and consider other regulatory and environmental issues. The RE MB would seek to minimize any adverse and cumulative impacts through the identified internal and external review processes. In addition, unlike developments on private lands, real estate activities on trust lands are subject to review under MEPA and the Montana Antiquities Act. The RE MB would comply with MEPA and Montana Antiquities Act responsibilities under all six alternatives. H owever, the manner in which requirements are addressed does vary by alternative, reflecting the associated management approach. Refer to relevant discussions in Chapter 5. Final Real EstateManagement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-70 N ovember 19, 2004 2.9.2.1 Alternative A: Current Program UnderAlternativeA, theREMB would continue to comply with ME PA requirements using the Act as the principal framework for environmental review. I n addition, projects would be reviewed with respect to their impact on historic and cultural resources. The lessee would be responsible for compliance with all applicable regulations. In addition, the Bureau would work to coordinate public involvement requirements under M E PA with local public processes. H owever, the M E PA analysis, in large measure, would be undertaken at a Bureau rather than community level. 2.9.2.2 Alternatives B : Diversified Portfolio and B-1: D iversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder A Iternatives B and B-1 theREMB would meet the D epartment's responsibilities under M E PA through its adherence to local land use regulation wherever possible. Any requirements not met through local land use policy and regulatory processes would be fulfilled directly through ME PA compliance. For example, site-specific socio-economic studies and cultural impact assessments required under the Montana Antiquities Act, would be undertaken for every qualifying project, regardless of whether the assessments are required locally. 2.9.2.3 Alternatives C : Focused Portfolio and C-1: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder A Iternatives C and C-1 the Bureau would evaluate the Department's compliance responsibilities with respect to both ME PA (and the Antiquities Act) and local land use policy and regulation. U nder this alternative, the B ureau would utilize the local regulatory process to improve land entitlements and would "tier" to those processes to satisfy many of the review elements of M E PA . 2.9.2.4 Alternative D : Focused E ntitiements The emphasis of A Iternative D is to work closely with the community planning process to improve entitlements and to identify preferred outcomes to properties identified for project opportunities. T his would involve considerable public involvement and participation in the project review and land entitlement processes. E nvironmental issues would be identified through those processes and through the internal processes leading to project selection. The complexity of environmental review through M E PA would consider the type and complexity of environmental review accomplished through the local review processes. 2.9.3 Objective 3 - Provide a more effective and efficient decision- making framework for real estate management that includes a strategic vision and philosophy for future management. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-71 N ovember 19, 2004 2.9.3.1 Alternative A: Current Program A Iternative A , the status quo, would continue a program that responds to opportunities as time, funding, and expertise permit. T he ability to respond to opportunities in a timely manner would be severely limited. Further, given the limits of interaction with local governments due to limited staff and level of project development under this alternative, project outcomes may be less certain than under the action alternatives. Also, under A Iternative A, it would be difficult to predict a revenue stream overtime. The ability to generate revenue for the trust would be dependent on available resources and often would be driven by outside interest rather than Departmental priorities. 2.9.3.2 Alternatives B : Diversified Portfolio and B-1: D i versified Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder A Iternatives B and B-1, the RE MB would be directly involved with community planning efforts and therefore able to coordinate its project development and review processes with those of local planning and development authorities. This would help to streamline project approval processes through the establishments of well-defined land entitlements. This alternative would also enable the Bureau to be more active in defining and implementing priority real estate projects over a period of time, which in turn would allow for allocations of resources as needed to meet revenue objectives. 2.9.3.3 Alternatives C : Focused Portfolio and C-1: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority A Iternatives C and C-1 offer an efficient framework for real estate management through improved staffing and funding of entitlements. Coordination with local land use processes would be a priority task. Project development would be expedited through collaborations and partnerships with other private and public interests. 2.9.3.4 Alternative D : Focused E ntitiements A Iternative D provides a clear vision to the decision-making framework for the RE MB. The essence of all alternatives is reliance on a funnel system that filters out lands that may not be suitable for development while providing a finer screening system to identify lands that might be suitable for development. Project possibilities are then filtered through the RE IT process to create project lists. All projects selected in this manner would then be subject to local regulatory review and approval as applicable. A Iternative D provides an added emphasis on securing land entitlements whenever practical and identifying desired project outcomes. I mplementation of desired outcomes would be achieved through the RF P process or through joint ventures with developers whenever practical. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-72 N ovember 19, 2004 2.9.4 Objective 4 - Simplify tlie project level evaluation process. The establishment of the funnel filter approach in identifying lands suitable for development would simplify the project evaluation process, to some extent, under all the action alternatives. H owever, the funnel approach still emphasizes compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, including adherence to local land use regulations. Thefunnel and project selection processes described earlier in this chapter provide a more structured and predictable methodology for guiding decisions of the RE MB. 2.9.4.1 Alternative A: Current Program U nder the current program, the RE M B would strive to improve its evaluation process, but would continue to use a course filter analysis in the near term. U Itimately, a funnel filter analysis would enable the B ureau to identify, at a gross level, the lands which would be suitable for development. H owever, since the management of real estate would be largely driven by inquiries and proposals from outside the D epartment, it is unlikely that more site specific analyses could be undertaken in advance of project proposals. Projects would be evaluated on a more "ad hoc" basis rather than being derived from a more formal decision-making process. 2.9.4.2 Alternatives B : Diversified Portfolio and B-1: D iversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority Alternatives B and B-lwould enable the RE M B to undertake a more systematic approach to determining those lands that would be suitable for development. It would allow the Bureau to focus on those lands that are identified as "transitional" and determine their potential for residential, commercial and industrial development. U nder A Iternatives B and B-1, the D epartment would work closely with local government regulatory processes to improve land entitlements. F urther, a number of local and state compliance related activities could be conducted simultaneously to save time and resources. 2.9.4.3 Alternatives C : Focused Portfolio and C-1: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder A Iternatives C and C-1 the RE M B would actively make use of those strategies that simplified project level review in order to take advantage of timely opportunities in the market place. I n addition to striving for simultaneous and expedited review procedures (M E PA and local regulatory review), the Bureau would be more proactive in seeking favorable land use entitlements for trust lands. 2.9.4.4 Alternative D : Focused E ntitlements The project evaluation process under A Iternative D is similar amongst all alternatives. Thefunnel filter process leads to a project identification process. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-73 N ovember 19, 2004 Combined, the two processes narrow project opportunities to a small subset of trust lands based on evaluation tools that consider such factors as environmental effects, market, costs, revenue, staffing needs, and others. 1 1 is assumed that working with local planning offices to improve land entitlements will be beneficial to the project review process and increase revenue to the trusts. 2.9.5 Objective 5 - Protect the long-term viability of Trust Land for uses other than agriculture, grazing and timber. Astrust managers, the Trust Land M anagement D ivision of DNRC is first and foremost an asset management organization. Whereas the division has historically managed for natural resource extraction, the data supports broadening those land- use activities to include uses that generate greater revenue per acre. I nvariably, that means rearranging the asset portfolio from one that is overly reliant on grazing and acquiring or developing lands that have the potential for commercial, residential, and conservation opportunities. Thevastmajorityof Trust Lands will continue to be managed for historical uses well into the future and only those lands that are positioned well for real estate opportunities will be reclassified to "other" and only as market conditions permit. 2.9.5.1 Alternative A - C urrent Program This alternative does not anticipate full participation in market forces related to future growth and development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. H owever, internal processes are in-place (project selection process) to ensure proper identification and selection of properties suitable for these purposes. The majority of Trust Lands would remain suitable for natural resource management and some portion thereof would be available in the future for additional land use opportunities. N 0 acreage restrictions are proposed for lands with conservation values. 2.9.5.2 Alternative B : D iversified Portfolio This alternative anticipates that T rust Lands would receive a pro-rata share of future growth within a particular region of the state. The proportion of expected growth would remain insignificant (<1%) on Trust Lands through the year 2025. Internal and external project review processes would ensure that only those lands suitable for the intended purposes would be developed. The majority of Trust Lands would remain suitable for natural resource management and some portion thereof would be available in the future for additional land use opportunities. 2.9.5.3 Alternative B-1: Diversified Portfolio- Conservation Priority The purchase of development rights on Trust Land for conservation purposes will typically include a provision that will enable the ongoing management of natural resources. Conservation objectives would also be achieved through project design that encourages clustering of uses to provide common area and open spaces. The Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-74 N ovember 19, 2004 management of timber and agricultural resources are quite compatible with conservation objectives related to open space and habitat and watershed protection. 2.9.5.4 Alternative C: Focused Portfolio This alternative anticipates that T rust Lands would receive a proportionally higher share (as compared to other land ownership categories) of future growth within a particular region of the state. The proportion of expected growth would remain insignificant (<1%) on Trust Lands through the year 2025. Internal and external project review processes would ensure that only those lands suitable for the intended purposes would be developed. The majority of Trust Lands would remain suitable for natural resource management and some portion thereof would be available in the future for additional land use opportunities. 2.9.5.5 Alternative C -1: Focused Portfolio- Conservation Priority As noted under Alternative B-1, the purchase of residential development rights on Trust Land for conservation purposes will typically include a provision that will enable the ongoing management of natural resources. T he management of timber and agricultural resources are quite compatible with conservation objectives related to open space and habitat and watershed protection. Project design that encourages clustering of uses to provide contiguous areas of open space would also be an objective of this alternative. 2.9.5.6 Alternative D : Focused E ntitiements A s with the other alternatives, A Iternative D prioritizes lands for development through an identified 1, Sand 5 year project list. These lists are prepared through the consideration of a wide variety of information sources and site review. The area and unit office staff of theTLM D is integral to the identification of project opportunities. As such, the relationship of proposed projects to other TLMD objectives are considered. E ssential properties to other bureau functions would, in all likelihood, not achieve project level status. Based on the scale of "other" lands as compared to agriculture, grazing, and forested lands, real estate development will have a minimal impact on those classified lands and their ability to manage the related natural resources. A nother aspect of A Iternative D is to prioritize lands for development with "urban" lands having the highest preference. I n addition, outcome objectives for rural residential properties promote clustering and the provision of contiguous open space, allowing historical uses of the land to continue under certain circumstances. D eveloped uses tend to occupy smaller subsets of trust lands and achieve a higher rate of return on a per acre basis. U nder this alternative, the RE M B will monitor the market and the relationship of trust lands to market demand and react to capture the increased revenue opportunities associated with developed uses and do so with consideration of community values as defined through land entitlements. 0 pportunities to secure conservation objectives are not Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-75 N ovember 19, 2004 limited by tin is alternative. Lands with defined development entitlements would be eligible for purchasers seeking conservation easements or development rights. 2.9.6 Objective 6 - Provide an opportunity for public involvement in decisions affecting residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses. The Bureau would, in some cases, address a substantial portion of its public involvement responsibilities normally expected under the M ontana E nvironmental PolicyAct (ME PA) through adherence to local land use policy and regulatory process under all six alternatives. Local growth polices (comprehensive plans) and their associated neighborhood plans require an extensive public involvement process under 76-1-602, MCA. The creation of a zoning district requires public involvement both in the initiation and approval processes. A local public hearing is also required for the review of a major subdivision under the M ontana Subdivision Act (76-3-605, MCA). Refer to related discussions in Chapter 5. 2.9.6.1 Alternative A: Current Program While the RE MB would comply with all land use regulatory process at the local level under A Iternative A , efforts to involve the public more extensively would be minimal. I nvolvement in local land use policy decision making would be confined to particular regulatory approvals required at the project level. 2.9.6.2 Alternatives B : Diversified Portfolio and B-1: D iversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority A Iternatives B and B-1 would provide for the most extensive opportunities for public involvement in decisions affecting the management of special uses, through its ongoing involvement with local government planning activities and its adherence to local land use regulatory processes well as M E PA . 2.9.6.3 Alternative C: Focused Portfolio and C-1: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder A Iternatives C and C-1, public involvement would be similar to A Iternatives B and B-1. 2.9.6.4 Alternative D : Focused E ntitlements Public involvement would be achieved through active roles by D N RC in local land use processes involving the establishment of land entitlements and through local project review processes. 2.9.7 Objective 7 - Identify ways to work more closely with local government processes and policies Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-76 N ovember 19, 2004 2.9.7.1 Alternative A: Current Program U nder A Iternative A , the RE M B would generally not be an active participant in the local government process. A ny relationships to these processes would be largely project driven. Little effort would be spent in participating in comprehensive community planning processes or in the preparation of neighborhood plans. The Bureau would work to remain informed of local policy development and its potential impact on state lands. H owever, they would not, for the most part, actively engage in the formulation of policies and regulations related to land use. 2.9.7.2 Alternatives B : Diversified Portfolio and B-1: D iversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder these alternatives, the RE M B would work with local governing bodies to identify ways to promote real estate development within the framework of local policies and regulatory processes. From time to time. Bureau staff would participate in discussions at the local level regarding policy formulation and work to coordinate its planning processes with those of the local governments, particularly when such activities would enhance revenue opportunities. The Bureau would work with local officials in order to make sure the necessary entitlements were in place in order to realize the development potential of those lands identified through the filtration process as described in this chapter. H owever, in general, the RE M B would make every attempt to follow existing policies and regulatory processes. 2.9.7.3 Alternatives C : Focused Portfolio and C-1: Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority U nder these alternatives, the RE M B would have an ongoing, active role in local government activities. Participation would focus on achieving increased certainty of future land use options through improved land entitlements. RE M B staff would actively participate in local government processes to develop, amend or apply growth plans, zoning designations, subdivision, annexation and development agreements or other policies or regulations where there is the possibility of increasing revenue for the trust beneficiaries. 2.9.7.4 Alternative D : Focused E ntitiements D N RC would be active participants in local community planning processes and as applicants to secure various entitlements to trust properties. Local issues and values would be reflected in many of these processes. 2.9.8 Summary Table of Predicted Attainment of Objectives Table 2-19 depicts the degree to which each A Iternative M eets Project 0 bjectives T able 2-39. Summary of Predicted Attainment of 0 bjectives 1 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-77 N ovember 19, 2004 Objective A B Bl C CI D 0 bjective 1 + + + + + + + ++ + + 0 bjective 2 + + + + + + 0 bjective 3 0 + + + + + + 0 bjective 4 0 + + + + + 0 bjective 5 0 + + + + + 0 bjective 6 0 + + + + + + 0 bjective 7 0 + + + + ++ + + N ote: "0 " indicates a status quo reiationstiip and + indicates a strong reiationstiip 2.10 RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVES TO ISSUES RAISED IN THE SCOPING PROCESS Based on comments received and on prior experience with the administration of the Real E state JVIanagement Bureau, theDN RC staff identified the following issues for evaluation in this PE IS: 1. In order to meet its fiduciary responsibilities to the beneficiaries, the D N RC must increase revenue associated with the management of commercial, industrial, residential and conservation uses on Trust Lands. 2. The RE M B is managing land uses in a reactive manner without the benefit of well-defined planning process or decision making framework. 3. The RE M B currently lacks a methodology for determining the suitability of land for the development of the various uses under its jurisdiction. 4. A successful real estate program will rely on a close association with local land use planning and regulatory processes. 5. The relationship of the statutory requirements under M E PA to the selection and development of projects on Trust Lands is unclear. 6. There isa need to identify opportunities for Categorical Exclusions(CE's), as provided under M E PA , consistent with the purpose for development of a programmatic plan (ARM 36.2.522(5) 7. The RE M B requires guidance in addressing the growth inducing impacts of development of commercial, residential and industrial uses on Trust Land 8. The RE M B requires guidance in addressing the impacts of growth with respect to transportation, air quality, noise, and other environmental concerns. 9. The RE MB requires guidance in addressing open space and wildlife habitat needs while providing income for trust beneficiaries. 10. The filter process should include biological filters and clearly define relationships to local land use regulations. 11. D N RC needs to track costs of the program, not just revenue. 12. The Plan should identify lands that would be developed. 13. The RE M B should be proactive in project identification and project involvement to ensure desired land uses outcomes. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 2-78 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 2 14. Development on trust lands should not be subsidized by the state or by local jurisdictions. Table 2-20 summarizes how these issues are reflected in the design of the alternatives presented in this chapter. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-79 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-20. Issues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 C C-1 D 1 0 ++ + +++ ++ ++ 2,3, 2,6,2, 2,6,3, 2,6,4, 2,6,5, 2,9,1, 3,2,3, 3,2,4, 3,2,5, 4,1,3, 4,2,3, 4,2,4 All action alternatives provide for increased revenue to the beneficiaries, 1 ncreased revenue is linked to market share of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 2 0 + + + + ++ 2, 1, 2,3,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,3, 2,6,4, 2,6,5, 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2 The funnel filter analysis and project selection process provide a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives. All alternatives require compliance with local land use regulatory processes. 3 0 + + + + + 2, 1, 2,3,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,3, 2,6,4, 2,6,5, 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2 The funnel filter process includes a landscape assessment of general land suitability and a demographic and market analysis to link growth objectives to regional market conditions. Other layers of the filter process are project le\/el evaluations that help to further narrow land use options. 4 0 + + ++ ++ ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 4,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,5, 4,2,6, 4,2,7, 4,2,7, 4,2,10, 4,2,12, 4,2,13, 4,2,15, 4,3, 5,2, 5,3 An underlying premise of all alternatives, including the current program is that the RE M B would work with local government land planning and regulatory processes. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-80 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-20. Issues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 C C-1 D 5 0 + + + + ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3, 5,3 U nder all the action alternatives, potential and proposed projects will be subject to a well-defined funnel filtration process that will address a variety of site suitability issues. Through local land use regulatory processes, the RE M B will meet a substantial portion of its responsibility under ME PA, ME PA remains the final check before D N RC approves a project. 6 0 + + + + + 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 4,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,5, 4,2,6, 4,2,7, 4,2,7, 4,2,10, 4,2,12, 4,2,13, 4,2,15, 4,3, 5,1 Compliance with local land use regulatory processes will, in certain cases, address most of the D epartment's responsibilities under M E PA and support rationale for a more simplified M E PA document. Chapter 5 provides good documentation of this relationship. 7 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3 An underlying assumption is that Trust Lands will share in expected community growth. The funnel filter analysis provides a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives regarding growth inducing impacts, such as sprawl. Local regulatory review of D N RC projects would address many of the growth inducing issues of development within the broader community. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Page 2-81 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-20. Issues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 C C-1 D 8 0 + + + + + 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3 The funnel filter analysis provides a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives with respect to overall environmental concerns, Thefunnel process includes both physical and biological filters plus site review criteria and market analysis. Review and approval of projects at the local government level would, in many instances, address these and other issues. 9 0 + + + + ++ 2,3,1, 2,6 (all subsections), 2,9,3, 2,9,4, 3,2,4, 3,2,6, 3,4,4, 4,1,1, 4,1,3, 4,2,2, 5,2, 5,3 Thefunnel filter analysis provides a framework for decision-making for all action alternatives with respect to wildlife and habitat protection. Coordination between the HCP andtheSFLMP is also anticipated, N one of the 6 alternatives limit opportunities for securing conservation rights on trust lands. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-82 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-20. Issues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 C C-1 D 10 + + + + + + 2,3,1, 3,2,6, 4,1, 4,14, 4,1,5, 4,2,8, 5,2, 5,3 The funnel filter is a performance based filter wherein certain lands are initially identified as being generally unsuitable for development, such as steep slopes and flood plains. The Final EIS includes 2 additional biological filters that would generally preclude most developed activities within the grizzly bear recovery areas of H CP lands and portions of lands adjacent to core bull trout streams. Local land use regulations and other state and federal regulations would recognize other biological filters. 11 + + + + + + 2,6,6, 2,9,1, 3,2,5, 4,2,3, 4,3 The selected plan would include a monitoring program that tracks revenues and costs. The rates of return analyses consider both "costs" and "revenues". 12 + + + + + + 1,1,2, 1,1,4, 1,5,3, 2,3,1, 2,6,6, 2,9,3, 2,9,5, 3,1, 4,1,5 The plan is programmatic; not an analysis of specific parcels or specific projects. The Plan provides a systematic approach for identifying project level opportunities. The plan selection process establishes a 1, 3, and 5 year project lists. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-83 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 2-20. Issues As Addressed by Alternatives Issue # Alternatives Document Reference by Section Supportive Statement A B B-1 c C-1 D 13 + ++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ++ 2,6,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,6, 2,8, 2,9,4, 4,1,4, 4,2,4, 5,2 M ost of the alternatives and Alternative D , in particular, attempt to offer a proactive strategy for identifying project level opportunities, 0 utcome objectives are generally defined by local project review and approval, through the establishment of land entitlements, and through RFP and joint venture processes. 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3.1, 2,6,1, 2,6,2, 2,6,4, 2,6,6, 2,8, 2.9.2, 2,9,4, 2,9,7, 4,1,4, 4,2,4, 4,2,15, 4,2,16, 4,2,17, 5,2 The RE MB intends to adhere to all local land use regulations including those that require development standards, impact fees, and such. Commercial and industrial uses would pay beneficial use taxes at the same rate as private lands. N ote: "0" indicates a status quo reiationslnip and + indicates a stronger reiationslnip. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter2 Page2-84 N ovember 19, 2004 2. 1 1 IDENTIFICA TION OF THE PREFERRED A L TERN A TIVE The preferred alternative is A Iternative D . The rationale and final decision will be published in a separate Record of D ecision (RO D ) no sooner than 15 days following the release of this F inal E nvironmental I mpact Statement. 0 utiined below are some of the initial reasons for identifying A Iternative D as the preferred alternative. 2.11.1 Reasons for Selecting Alternative D Alternative D reflects a management philosophy that provides a systematic and thoughtful approach to the identification, selection, and management of real estate activities on state trust lands. A Iternative D provides a balance of concepts identified by the five alternatives of the D E I S while providing improved clarity on how projects would be identified (listed) and implemented. The alternative promotes a strong tie to the regulatory process of local jurisdictions and enhances project certainty, environmental protection, and revenue generation through improved land entitlements and defined outcome objectives. A Iternative D provides a responsible approach to securing increased revenue to the trusts consistent with the purposes of the Enabling Act, Constitution, and Montana statutes and with other environmental and regulatory laws related to uses of land. A Iternative D will provide the necessary guidance and impetus to improve the position of real estate uses in the broader trust land portfolio. A Iternative D provides the necessary flexibility to react to changing market conditions while still providing checks and balances through a monitoring program that includes a mandatory reevaluation of the Plan if development caps are exceeded. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter2 Page2-85 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 3 The Affected Environment Irtroduction and Purpose of ti^ Chapter Chapter 3 describes the environment that would be affected by each of the alternatives. The Chapter places the project area within the context of statewide conditions related to the physical, social, and natural environments. A description of Trust Lands includes topics related to acreage, location, purpose, management objectives, and physical and biological features. Chapter Corterts 3.1 INTRODUCTION 2 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT RESOURCES RELATED TO THE TRUST LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISON . 3.2. 1 Statewide Relationships . 3.2.2 Trust Land Acreage. _21 _22 42 3.2.3 Trust Lands Administration . 3.2.4 Real Estate Management Bureau (REMB) . 3.2.5 Trust Land Economics . 3.2.6 Existing Planning and Regulatory Programs Within, Which the REMB 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT RESOURCES RELATED TO THE Operates 43 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 48 3.3.1 Geology and Soil 48 3.3.2 Water Resources 52 3.3.3 Fisheries 67 3.3.4 Wildlife 76 3.3.5 Vegetation. 94 3.3.6 Air Quality. 102 3 .4 DESCRIPITON OF RELEVANT RESOURCES RELATED TO THE CULTURAL AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 106 3.4.1 Noise 106 3.4.2 Aesthetics 107 3.4.3 Cultural Resources 112 3.4.4 Community Infrastructure 115 3.4.5 Taxation 116 Final Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Page3-1 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapters 3.1 INTRODUCTION TheTLMD of DNRC is charged with the administration of JVlontana's nearly 5.2 million surface and 6.2 million mineral acres of Trust Land on behalf of various beneficiaries including public schools and universities and other state institutions. Six land office regions across the state facilitate local management of the Trust Lands. TheTLMD is comprised of four bureaus that manage agriculture and grazing, forest resources, minerals, and real estate. The RE M B is responsible for the development and management of residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses and for the real estate management functions associated with land transactions on behalf of the entire D ivision. The RE MB currently operates and will continue to operate in the context of state and regional growth and with consideration to the natural environment. This E IS is intended to identify alternative approaches to the management of the RE M B by providing programmatic guidance to decision-making for real estate activities on Trust Lands. Understanding the status quo - the current level of operations and the current environmental conditions- will help determine how the RE M B would make real estate decisions into the future. This chapter describes the existing environment under the following categories: • The Trust Land Management Division • The Physical and Biological Environment • The Cultural, Social and Aesthetic Environment This information provides a baseline to compare environmental changes that might occur under each alternative. E nvironmental impacts associated with residential, commercial and industrial development in communities are cumulative and correspond to economic growth over time. D evelopments occurring on T rust Lands will represent a share of overall community growth and therefore will contribute to those cumulative impacts. These impacts will occur regardless of whether the development occurs on state lands or elsewhere in the community. U nlike developments on private lands, however, proposed uses on Trust Lands are subject to M E PA review. Asa result, in some cases, the state may be required to mitigate certain impacts to a greater degree than would a private property owner. 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF RELEVANT RESOURCES RELA TED TO THE TRUST LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISON 3.2.1 Statewide Relationships This section presents information regarding Trust Lands and their relationship to the state of M ontana as a whole. G iven that the D epartment intends to share in statewide economic growth (to the extent determined by the chosen alternative), it is important to understand the nature of the existing RE M B program in the context of statewide demographic and economic information. A generalized ownership map of M ontana (M ap E xhibit 3-1) is shown on the following page. Secondly, the alternatives presented in C hapter 2 have been developed with respect to the T rust Land's share of the entire Final Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 3 Page3-2 N ovember 19, 2004 land base. Therefore, this section includes an analysis of land ownership and land coverage characteristics statewide. A ppendix G displays a series of maps depicting the relationship of existing developed uses to trust lands. Final Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 3 Page3-3 N ovember 19, 2004 MapExhit3it3-3. Land Ovvnership Map oF Montana Montana Land Ownership Chapter 3 Page 3-5 Nova-rberl9, 20M 3.2.L1 D emographics and E conomics M ontana is a large, sparsely populated state of 917,621 (2003 estimate). 0 f the total population, 23.8% are under age 18 and 13.5% are over age 65. There are 237,407 housing units in the state (2002 data). M ontana's economy has historically depended on natural resource-linked industries. The open plains of central and eastern M ontana provide land for grain farming, grazing for large herds of beef cattle, oil and gas fields and rich coal deposits. The mountainous regions of western Montana yield timber for wood products manufacturing and minerals for mining. H owever, in recent years the state has relied less on its natural resources, and more on its service-producing jobs (consisting of both high and low wage employment). Tourism (with predominantly low- wage jobs) is becoming more important to the state's economy. Small businesses are very important to Montana's economy. Recent M ontana Department of Labor and I ndustry employment data shows that about 41 percent of the state's wage and salary jobs are with firms employing fewer than 20 people— and about 75 percent are with businesses employing fewer than 100 people. Table 3-1 provides summary information regarding M ontana's economy. Table 3-L M ontana State-Wide E conomic 1 nformation Total Personal Income (2002) $22,650,394,000 Total Farm Income $255,816,000 Total Non-Farm Income $22,394,578,000 Per Capita Personal income (2002) $24,906 M edian H ousehold 1 ncome (2002) $33,900 M edian family income in 1999 (2000) $40,487 Private nonfarm establishments (2001) 32,294 Private nonfarm employment (2001) 301,460 N on-employer establishments (2001) 71,298 Source: M ontana Census and Economic Information Center, Bureau of Business & Economic Research N 9w construction I n the state has been pri marl ly concentrated I n the residential market. Residential construction in tiiestate IncreBsed b/ 32.8% bdween 2001 and 2003 while tiie number of commercial and industrial properties constructed declined by about 7%. The total number of now residential and commercial/ industrial properties built across tiiestate between 2001 and the present is shown in Table 3-2. During the same time period, now dB/dopment of Trust lands included 40 residential lots and 3 commercial leases. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-6 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 3-2. Residential and Commercial Building Activity in M ontana (2001-2004) Year Total Residential Units built Total Commercial/ Industrial Permits 1 ssued 2001 2,446 1,184 2002 3,618 1,119 2003 3,645 1,103 2004 to date 187 (January) 151 (March) Source: M ontana D epartment of Labor and I ndustry, U .S. Census Existing economic and demograpliic information and trends for eacli of tine six D N RC land offices lias been prepared by tine by Polzin (2004) and is included in Appendix B. I n summary, economic conditions in the land office regions were measured using three indicators; population, per capita income^ and nonfarm labor income These variables reflect different aspects of the local economy and togdher provide a comprehensive oven/iow of general conditions The Regional Economic I nformetion System of the U .S. Bureau of E cononic Analysis provided most of the data provided. Tables 3-3 (A-G ) provide a summary of the i nformation by land office and ststeiwide F inal Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapters Page 3-7 N ovember 19, 2004 Tala\e3-3A SelectBd Economic I ndicators Northwestern Land Office 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 Population 79,485 97,653 106,772 123,080 130,439 Per Capita Income (2000$) 13,100 16,795 18,554 18,763 20,732 Percent of MT as^ s, , s< , as a as y Nonfarm Labor Income (thous. of 2000$) 765,602 ■ 1,068,923 1,204,892 1,412,535 1,672,155 Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture 34,318 17,881 14,848 4,217 4,064 Ag. Serv. And Forestry 6,476 7,230 13,165 13,158 20,036 Mining 12,992 16,038 28,986 7,891 8,503 Manufacturing 196,520 268,720 255,288 229,490 250,455 Transportation 42,955 58,056 56,202 53,383 59,689 Nonresident Travel 16,851 40,589 34,149 40,964 61,509 Federal Gov't 55,248 89,554 91,231 95,293 104,525 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 2.5 1.0 1.1 2.0 -6.3 -1.8 -12.2 -0.7 y . * ^s ^^ ^ » 2.1 6.1 -11.5 1.5 ^.s -<=>. ^ -o..^ , » 3.1 -0.3 0.6 2.3 4.9 0.2 1.4 1.9 Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Final Real E state Managsrrent Progarrmatlc Environmental I rrpact Statement Page 3-8 N ovennber 19, 2004 Chapter 3 TdDle3-3B SelectBd Economic I ndicabors Southwestern Land Office 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 Population 143,204 162,511 160,893 180,759 190,162 Per Capita Income (2000$) 13,529 17,655 19,152 19,960 22,109 Percent of MT 91.8 95.8 97.1 97.9 98.2 Nonfarm Labor Income (thous. of 2000$) 1,463,833 2,006,534 1,960,435 2,360,286 2,823,375 Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture 27,808 12,578 13,173 168 5,193 Ag. Serv. And Forestry 7,963 6,657 16,052 14,896 24,898 Mining 160,476 111,560 42,163 55,805 25,372 Manufacturing 216,951 277,946 224,579 199,482 217,423 Transportation 87,114 106,579 94,152 1 1 1 ,728 116,256 Nonresident Travel 31,873 53,419 34,829 58,188 48,244 Federal Gov't 110,659 150,722 141,860 147,061 173,118 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 2.7 3.2 -1.8 2.5 5.3 0.8 -0.2 9.2 -2.1 -4.2 1.4 3.7 2.1 3.6 4.5 10.8 -0.3 3.3 1.7 -3.7 Sources: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Final Real E state Managsrrent Progammatlc Environmental I mpact Statement Page 3-9 N ovennber 19, 2004 Chapter 3 Table 3- 3C Selected Economic I ndicabons Central Land Office 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 Population 214,890 238,074 250,584 275,944 285,863 Per Capita Income (2000$) 15,468 19,049 20,424 21,200 23,351 Percent of MT 105.0 103.3 103.6 104.0 103.7 Nonfarm Labor Income (thous. of 2000$) 2,232,40 2 3,110,647 3,131,671 3,726,427 4,356,531 Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture 329,474 98,344 206,293 139,077 105,790 Ag. Serv. And Forestry 9,171 11,907 20,234 23,950 34,902 Mining 22,581 79,647 66,126 76,090 55,358 Manufacturing 142,337 161,270 107,924 142,133 171,067 Transportation 116,252 152,050 85,741 93,034 103,875 Nonresident Travel 65,474 118,101 117,653 161,868 183,275 Federal Gov't 367,549 406,083 452,003 456,238 482,758 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 2.1 3.4 2.6 6.1 0.7 0.1 5.4 1.3 -3.9 0.0 1.3 3.4 5.6 4.7 4.5 2.0 3.2 7.8 3.8 2.5 Sources: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Chapter 3 Final Real E state Managsrrent Progammatic Environmental I mpact Statement Page 3-10 N ovennber 19, 2004 TdDle3-3D Selected Economic I ndicatons Population Per Capita Income (2000$) Percent of MT Nonfarm Labor Income (thous. of 2000$) Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture Ag. Serv. And Forestry Mining Manufacturing Transportation Nonresident Travel Federal Gov't Northeastern Land Office 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 90,855 89,581 82,917 83,463 79,706 15,707 16,305 18,642 19,028 20,365 635,569 845,835 735,902 743,815 780,866 395,819 72,354 199,634 151,084 138,525 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 6,939 6,538 10,775 12,809 16,684 6,329 39,595 35,221 22,007 1 1 ,993 30,524 23,089 23,140 15,786 14,741 56,069 90,548 67,490 53,171 54,291 11,086 18,571 13,679 15,751 16,486 64,207 58,218 64,078 65,328 71,079 0.4 -15.6 20.1 4.9 -1.0 1.3 10.7 -1.2 -2.9 1.0 0.9 -3.6 -10.2 -2.2 1.0 1.4 -1.7 -11.4 0.4 1.7 Sources: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Final Real E state Managsrrent Progammatic Environmental I mpact Statement Page 3-11 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 3 TdDle3-3E Selected Economic I ndicatons Southern Land Office 1970 1980 1990 Population 117,436 142,056 147,638 162,490 168,992 Per Capita Income (2000$) 15,344 20,460 21,007 21,876 24,405 Percent of MT -/ t=>^. r r r r _£? ,^„^ ,„^^ ,„^^ Nonfarm Labor Income (thous. of 2000$) 1,230,581 2,100,952 2,019,201 2,386,938 2,805,903 Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture 163,177 40,730 62,943 33,911 30,621 Ag. Serv. And Forestry 8,077 10,026 22,914 20,242 29,414 Mining 28,154 128,673 85,197 101,561 139,836 Manufacturing 127,508 170,464 110,001 132,952 144,438 Transportation 28,093 47,601 30,445 27,111 30,976 Nonresident Travel 31,707 54,132 28,115 45,873 46,358 Federal Gov't 79,951 111,726 141,324 154,898 175,075 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 2.9 -13.0 16.4 5.4 3.4 0.3 4.4 -4.0 -4.4 2.4 1.5 -7.0 5.1 0.2 2.2 2.2 -2.0 6.6 2.7 2.5 Sources: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Final Real E state Managsrrent Progarmnatic Environmental I rrpact Statement Page 3-12 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 3 Population Per Capita Income (2000$) Percent of MT Nonfarm Labor Income (Thous. of 2000$) Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture Ag. Serv. And Forestry Mining Manufacturing Transportation Nonresident Travel Federal Gov't Table 3-3F Selected Economic I ndicabons Eastern Land Office 1970 1980 1990 51,302 58,877 51,400 14,467 19,155 18,465 1995 2000 50,817 47,995 18,848 20,951 423,264 787,202 568,752 600,116 613,974 142,576 46,893 56,115 33,150 36,235 5,996 4,022 6,938 7,445 7,725 28,931 132,609 59,569 57,552 56,167 17,504 17,129 16,133 19,901 18,018 42,878 68,522 41,760 45,117 49,353 10,708 18,009 7,915 11,896 9,829 26,841 41,732 43,695 44,612 40,832 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 2.8 -10.5 16.4 4.8 4.5 -0.4 1.8 -7.7 -4.8 0.5 1.3 -4.3 -0.6 1.7 -0.7 2.1 1.8 -0.5 1.8 -1.8 Sources: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Final Real E state Managsrrent Prog-ammatic Environmental I mpact Statement Page 3-13 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 3 Table 3-3G Selected Economic I ndicabors Population Per Capita Income (2000$) Montana 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 697,172 788,752 800,204 876,553 903,157 14,737 18,433 19,716 20,386 22,518 Annual Percent Change 1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 1995-00 2.3 0.7 1.3 2.0 Nonfarm Labor Income (thous. of 2000$) 6,751,252 9,920,093 9,620,853 11,230,117 13,052,804 Basic Industry Labor Income Agriculture Ag. Serv. And Forestry Mining Manufacturing Transportation Nonresident Travel Federal Gov't 1,093,173 288,781 553,007 361,607 320,429 44,622 46,381 90,078 92,500 133,659 259,463 508,123 317,262 320,906 297,229 731,346 918,617 737,066 739,745 816,142 373,362 523,357 375,790 383,544 414,440 167,699 302,822 236,341 334,539 365,700 704,455 858,034 934,191 963,430 1,047,387 3.9 0.4 2.3 6.1 -0.3 6.9 -2.2 -2.4 3.1 4.0 1.0 4.5 3.1 7.6 2.0 1.8 Sources: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, The University of Montana-Missoula. Final Real E state Managsrrent Progammatic Environmental I mpact Statement Page 3-14 N ovennber 19, 2004 Chapter 3 3.2.L2 Land Ownership The state of M ontana covers a total of 147,046 square miles or 94,109,440 acres. There are 145,552 square miles of land area and 1,490 square miles of water. I n 2004, Montana's Trust Land total more than 5.2 million surface and 6.2 million mineral acres. The surface land holdings represent approximately 5.5% of the entire land area in Montana. The proportion of Trust Lands to other land ownership categories varies by land office region as previously described in Chapter 2, Table 2-1. Federal lands make up a significant share of the total land area within each area land office. This is graphically presented in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1. Percent of Federal Ownership Within Each Land Office DNWLO ■ SWLO ■ CLO HNELO ■ SLO DELO The general land ownership relationships by land office are also visually represented in M ap Exhibit 3-2. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-15 N ovember 19, 2004 MapExhil3it3-Z Land Ovunership Relationships by Land Office Land Ownership by Land Offtce 3.2.2 Trust Land Acreage 3.2.2.1 TrustLand Acreage by Land Grant TheDNRC administers approximately 5.2 million surfaceacresof Trust Land. The total acreage figure fluctuates through the years due to land sales and exchanges. Trust Lands are widely distributed across M ontana. The dominant pattern is scattered sections, many of which are the original Sections 16 and 36 designated in Montana's Enabling Act. There are also significant blocks of contiguous ownership, including seven designated State Forests in the western third of the state. I n 1785, the Continental Congress, in the N orthwestern 0 rdinance of M ay 20'\ provided that section 16 of e/ery township shall beset asidefor the support the public schools A subsequent provision set aside section 36. Whai M ontana became a state i n 1889, Section 10 of the E nabling Act provided that sectionsl6 and 36 be granted to the state for the support of the common schools I f any land i n these sections were sold or otherwise disposed of prior to statehood, states were allowed to make"in lieu" selections I n Montana, desirablefarmland was homesbeaded, so in lieu selections were made in the mountains in tiie southwestern and marginal farming land in tiie north central and octreme southeast corner of thestabe Thefinal selection of "in lieu" lands was made in 1983. The scattered section pattern (16 and 36) remains predominant in the eastern half of tiie state i n the N ortheastern, E astern and Soutiiem Land Offices Theorignal common school g'ant in Montana wasfor 5,188,000 acres with an additional 668,720 acres ganted for otiier endowed i nstitutions Tod^, ro/enue on 90 % of the HDrethan 5.2 million surface and 6.2 million mineral acres of Trust Lands is dedicated to tiie common schools (K-12). The remaining 10% is directed to nine other beneficiaries Acreages by beneficiary are presented i n Table 3-4. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-18 N ovember 19, 2004 T able 3-4. T nist L and Acreage by L and G rant Beneficiary Surface Acres Mineral Acres Total Acres Common Schools 4,633,474 5,601,046 10234520 University of Montana 18,556 33,754 52310 jvi ontana State U niversity - JVl orrill Grant 63,456 76,960 140416 JVl ontana State U niversity - Second Grant 31,424 47,077 78501 |V| ontana Tech of the U niversity of |V| T 59,440 86,267 145707 State Normal School 63,455 83,737 147192 School for the Deaf and Blind 36,461 41,171 77632 State Reform School 68,271 78,125 146396 Veterans Home 1,276 1,276 2552 Public Buildings 186,976 228,270 415246 J otal Acreage 5162789 6277683 11440472 Source: 2003 DN RC Annual Report 3.2.2.2 Trust Land Acreage by Category Trust Lands are divided into four surface classifications (77-1-401, MCA) including "forest", "other" (residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses), "agriculture", and "grazing". Table 3-5 summarizes classified land acreages by land office. T able 3-5. T rust L and Acreage by L and 0 ffice and C lassification Classification NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Total Forest 296401 150094 31028 800 0 0 478323 Other 2159 750 15000 1547 2072 200 21728 Agriculture 822 1074 123098 364443 18669 59937 568043 Grazing 13876 79957 1075216 1632708 359460 901214 4062431 TOTALS 313258 231875 1244342 1999498 380201 961351 5130525 Source: DNRC 2004 Forest daEsified lands domincteinthewestErn part of thestste while agricultural and g'azing lands doninabe in theeastErn half of thestabe. 3.2.2.3 Percentage ofTrust Land Acreage in Real Estate Uses The total relationship ofTrust Land acreage leased for commercial, industrial, and residential uses to the greater regional acreages is summarized below in Table 3-6. The Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-19 N ovember 19, 2004 percentage of trust lands leased for developed uses ranges from a low of 0.02% in the Eastern Land Office to a high of 0.58% in the Northwestern Land Office. T able 3-6. Percentage of T rust L and M anaged by the R E M B Land Office Region Developed Lease Acres On Trust Lands Percent of Total Trust Acreage* Percent of Total Land Acreage in R^ion* NWLO 1,815 0.58 0.02 SWLO 1,114 0.48 0.02 CLO 1,320 0.10 0.01 NELO 684 0.03 0.00 SLO 329 0.09 0.00 ELO 158 0.02 0.00 Total 5,420 0.10 0.01 *Refer to Table 2-2 for total trust acres by Land Office and for total ownership acres by Land Office region 3.2.2.4 Conservation Lands Located Within LO Regions Within each D N RC land office area, there are land areas managed for conservation purposes by both public and private entities. I nformation regarding conservation managed by land office is presented in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Conservation Lands by Land Office (Acres] 1 Natural Feature NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Total National Parks 619,590 1,594 520,3&^ 235 29,2&^ 0 1,171,086 USFWS 34,829 7,144 59,544 792,655 16,004 742 910,917 Wilderness Areas 1,242,868 628,236 1,187,946 0 402,901 0 3,461,951 FWP Ownership 16,302 104,154 130,225 18,801 8,013 15,273 292,768 FWP Easements 67,167 20,305 85,285 51,539 48 64,092 288,436 Private Conservation Ownership 1,436 12,615 23,765 32,391 0 10 70,217 Wild and Scenic Rivers 6,146 0 0 12,317 0 0 18,463 Total 1,988,338 774,047 2,007,148 907,939 456,250 80, U7 6,213,839 Trust Land acreage has been measured with respect to how much Trust Land is currently adjacent to, within a half a mile of, or within a mile of the conservation lands shown above. This information is presented in Table 3-8. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-20 N ovember 19, 2004 T able 3-8. Relationship of T rust L ands to E xisting C onservation Areas Land Office Acres Adjacent Acres WItiiln 0.5 Miles Acres Within IMIle NWLO 22,233 38,502 50,867 SWLO 12,093 26,233 38,968 CLO 72,276 130,831 176,376 NELO 68,689 101,303 134,822 SLO 3,522 12,319 19,957 ELO 10,464 20,947 25,058 3.2.3 Trust Lands Administration 3.2.3.1 T rust L and 1^ anagement D Ivlslon TheTMLD is one of seven Divisions within theDN RC and is responsible for the management of state Trust Lands. Astrust managers, the TLJVID is first and foremost and asset management organization. The mission of theTLJVlD is to manage the State of JVlontana's Trust Land resources to produce revenues for the trust beneficiaries while considering environmental factors and protecting the future income-generating capacity oftheland. TheTMLD managesTrust Lands under four bureaus as follows: • F orest M anagement - T he F orest M anagement B ureau manages timber resources on Trust Lands to provide income to the various trusts. Income is derived from the sale of forest products. The six area land offices have primary responsibility for on-the-ground management activities. With assistance from the Forest Management Bureau, the land offices conduct environmental reviews of proposed management activities, prepare contracts for those activities, and complete the necessary field work. • Agriculture and Grazing Management- The Agriculture and Grazing Management Bureau is responsible for leasing and managing approximately 10,000 agreements for crop and rangeland uses on Trust Lands throughout the state. These duties are accomplished by administrative staff and specialists located in the department's H elena office, and by staff located in field offices statewide. • M inerals M anagement - T he M inerals M anagement B ureau is responsible for leasing, permitting, and managing oil and gas, metalliferous and non- metalliferous, coal, and sand and gravel agreements on 6.2 million acres of Trust Lands and more than 100,000 acres of other state-owned land throughout Montana. • Real E state M anagement - The Real Estate Management Bureau (RE MB) administers all activities on lands that do not have a primary surface use for Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-21 N ovember 19, 2004 Agricultural, Grazing, or Timber Management, including residential, commercial, industrial and/ or conservation uses. RE M B also manages all secondary activities on lands classified as grazing, agriculture, or timber. Secondary uses, for State purposes, are characterized as "licenses." A license may be issued for temporary storage of gravel, construction materials, or equipment, for a group activity, for research, for outfitting and other forms of recreation, and for short-term agricultural uses such as grain bins, stockwater reservoirs, or pipelines. Fees for these uses are determined on a case-by-case basis or by using standard fees for more common licensed uses. The organizational structure of the TLMD is presented in Figure 3-2. F igure 3-2. T rust L and M anagement D ivision -- 0 rganization 3.2.4 Real Estate Management Bureau (REMB) The RE M B manages residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses on Trust Lands and secondary uses on lands classified for timber, agriculture and grazing uses. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-22 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapters Additionally, the RE M B manages programs and processes for the issuance and acquisition of easements, the exchange of Trust Lands for private and federal lands, and the sales and purchases of T rust Lands to enable the management of state T rust Lands. 3.2.4.1 H istory of the Real E state M anagement B ureau The following is a brief chronology of events in the history of residential, commercial, industrial and conservation uses on Trust Land in Montana. Several non-resource based uses occurred early in this history and since 1984 the Land Board has become even more involved with these uses. Since the 1980s, the Bureau has also assumed a more active role in the development of non-resource based uses. Table 3-9 presents a summary history of the management of real estate activity on Trust Lands. ' Table3-9. Historyof Non-Resource Based Uses on Trust Lands- A Chronology * DATE EVENT 1889 M ontana statehood and the E nabling Act granted Sections 16 and 36 of every township for support and maintenance of the common schools, and specific acreage amounts for other grants (common schools, state normal school, school for the deaf and blind, state reform school, veterans home and public buildings). The selection of land for the other grants was usually done by blocking sections of land. 1890 State Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board) began meeting. 1890s Land Board authorized first platting of town sites and school sites. 0 ver the next few decades, such plats were filed for A ugusta, Aldridge, Columbus, Cut Bank, Bozeman, Geraldine,Glendive, Great Falls, Havre, Helena, Kalispell, Lewistown, Nashua, M issoula, Perma, Shelby, Sheridan, Terry, Malta, Billings. Some land was sold, some was leased. 1890s- 1950s The process of selecting lands for the common schools (in-lieu selections) began. I n-lieu selections were used where there was an existing claim on the land, such as I ndian reservation, homestead or mineral claim or patent, railroad grant, forest reserve, fractional township (that is, less than 640 acres), or reclamation withdrawal. This process continued for several decades as national forests were established and in-lieu selections were used to create the state forests in the 1920s and other blocks of land. 1890s - early 1900s 0 ther blocks of T rust Land were created when the state selected land for the other grants provided for in the enabling act. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-23 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 3-9. History of Non-Resource Based Uses on Trust Lands- A Chronology DATE EVENT 1900 Land sales occurred in response to requests from railroads and private individuals. 1910 Farm Loan Program begins. The State Board of Land Commissioners loaned Trust Land funds to private parties for purchase of private land. The state began adding to the land base because many persons defaulted on these loans during the 1930s due to drought, weather and unfavorable economic conditions. A pproximately 500,000 acres were acquired through such foreclosures. Several home sites were created in eastern M ontana during this time. 1910 Large blocks of Trust Land were created in western D aniels and central Valley Counties in exchange for land in Glacier National Park. 1923 The Stillwater State Forest was created through in-lieu selections for land in national forest. 1924 E arly cabin sites were leased on F lathead lake. 1926 Land Board began process of in-lieu selections for Trust Land located on Fort Belknap Reservation and continued in-lieu selections for Trust Land now located in national forest. 1927 The Swan River State Forest was created through in-lieu selections for land in national forest. 1930s Applications for a variety of new uses for Trust Land were received, including airfields, dude ranches, fur animal farms, automobile service stations, fish hatcheries, Christmas tree farms and cabin and home sites. Prior to this time, there were very few cabin and home site leases. 1940s Cabin sites were created on western M ontana lakes. Cabin site leases more than double in western M ontana during the past five years and total 238. 1954 Substantial increase in applications for home and cabin sites in western Montana occurred. The Land Board approved the first rules and regulations specifically for cabin and home site leases. 1954 The Montana Department of Fish and Game leases Trust Land for winter range. Chapters Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-24 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 3-9. Histpry of Non-Resource Based Uses on Trust Lands- A Chronology DATE EVENT 1984 The Land Board initiated changes to state law in response to increasing requests for commercial leases for Trust Land, that is, to clearly allow leasing for commercial development, to allow commercial leases of up to 40 years, and to allow renewal of commercial leases. The Land Board, in response to demand from growing cities and towns, considered the need to manage Trust Land in urban areas for other than traditional resource based uses. 1987 The Land Board notes that the state is still owed about 1,000 acres from in-lieu selections. 1996 E stablishment of the Special U ses M anagement B ureau 2000 Special Uses Management Bureau staff proposed a Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement (PE IS) for special uses on Trust Land. 2001 Crow Tribe Exchange completed. Trust Land inside the boundaries of the Crow Tribe Reservation is exchanged for land outside the reservation. 2004 T he Special U ses M anagement B ureau becomes the Real E state Management Bureau U ntil 1996, the residential, commercial and industrial programs of the T M L D were managed under the Agriculture and Grazing and Forest Bureaus. Program activities were limited to property management and maintenance. The first recreational residential leases were issued in western M ontana in the 1940s and 50s. Commercial and industrial leases were issued primarily in rural areas to support timber management. Overall, given limited staff resources, residential, commercial, and industrial uses were typically developed in response to project proponents. H owever, as demand increased for residential, commercial and industrial lands in and around the state's urban areas, theTM LD experienced increased demand for non-extractive related uses on adjacent Trust Lands. I n response to this increased demand and the potential to derive greater revenue from these "transitional" lands, the D epartment created the Special Uses Bureau (the present Real E state M anagement Bureau) in 1996. 1 nitially, staff efforts were directed to maintaining the existing program, primarily reacting to proposals initiated outside the D epartment. Since 1996, the B ureau has added one full time equivalent (FT E ) employee at the Bureau Level and reorganized the field staff at its N orthwestern. Southwestern and Central Land Offices to support both internal and external project initiation. Whereas the D ivision has historically managed for natural resource extraction, the data supports Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-25 N ovember 19, 2004 broadening those land-use activities to include uses that generate greater revenue per acre. I nvariably, that means rearranging the asset portfolio from one that is overly reliant on grazing and acquiring or developing lands that have the potential for commercial, industrial, residential, and conservation leasing opportunities. This shift has already begun, albeit on a small scale. The Department has begun increasing its commercial activity and continues to commit additional staff to the RE MB. 3.2.4.2 Administrative Structure State Trust Lands are managed and administered under the direction, goals, and objectives of the Land and U nit offices through policy and procedures developed by the Bureau. • Staffing- The Bureau Chief oversees the RE MB and is responsible for four primary functions: Real E state Services, Property Management, Rights-of-Ways, and Recreational Use. The Bureau staff includes the equivalent of 3.55 FT E 's (F ull T ime E quivalents). T he Property M anager, A ppraiser. Real E state Services Supervisor, and State-Wide Planner are Bureau personnel responsible for the management and administration of the programs under the RE MB. The Bureau organizational structure is shown in Figure 3-3. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-26 N ovember 19, 2004 F igure 3-3. 0 rganizational C hart for the Real E state M anagement B ureau Real Estate Mangemert Bureau Pcpt Of Narjurari Rqj gurnet D£id Q^^Si^vai\an ' 1 Pti^ivtTl^rTt ^^fd PtaFiv ITkllUA t--^ 1 mmim^t 1 I i 1 ni^ii'^^nfeT t-tfpiiMi Nan-TriM The Bureau Staff is supported by an additional 9.55 FTE's, representing an aggregate of 28 full time employees across six land offices. Land U se Planners are being staffed in the Southern, Central, Southwestern, and N orthwestern Land Offices. Land office staffing allocations are presented in Table 3-10. Table 3-10. L.O. Staffing | Land Office Number of Full Time Equivalents NWLO 2.8 SWLO 1.65 CLO 0.75 NELO 0.35 SLO 0.3 ELO 0.2 Total 9.55 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-27 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapters • 0 perations - Currently, real estate project development opportunities are identified by a Commercial D evelopment Working G roup with input from unit and area offices of the DNRC. The RE MB and associated field staff personal services budget is $565,044 plus $221,337 that supports the operations of the programs including implementation of the project list. 3.2.4.3 Real Estate Activities The RE M B can employ a number of private and public sector real estate strategies to achieve desired outcomes for projects related to residential, commercial, industrial uses. For example, real estate projects may require the formation of a joint venture between the D epartment and private interests in order to finance needed infrastructure. The D epartment could use innovative real estate planning tools such as transfers of development rights to help target development in areas that are in close proximity to existing infrastructure or in areas of high growth. Density bonuses could be sought from local planning authorities to help promote affordable housing or clustering of development. State law provides for specific land use authorizations and transactions associated with the management of Trust Lands as outlined below. • Land Use Authorizations o Leases- Under 77-1-204, MCA, the state is authorized to lease Trust Lands for uses other than agriculture, grazing, timber harvest, or mineral production. Leases are generally issued for a term not to exceed 99 years. 77-1-904, M CA specifically allows for leasing of Trust Lands for commercial purposes. Leases may also be used for recreational, residential and industrial purposes. Lease rates are based on a percentage of land value. G eneralized annual lease rates at the current time for various categories of use are as follows: ■ Commercial: 5%-10% ■ Conservation: 5% ■Industrial: 5% -10% ■ Residential: 5% T he above percentages are calculated against the full market value of the property. o Licenses- The Department issues licenses for a variety of purposes on all classes of state lands under a multiple use management concept (77- 1-203, M CA). Typically licenses are issued for a shorter period than leases, 10 years or less. o E asements - E asements may be granted on state lands under 77-2-101, M CA for schools and other community buildings, parks, cemeteries, right of ways for various purposes and private encroachments. T hey may be granted for conservation purposes to the D epartment of F ish Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-28 N ovember 19, 2004 Wildlife and parks or to a nonprofit corporation that owns adjacent parcels that are surrounded by or adjacent to land owned by that same nonprofit. F rom the perspective of a conservation easement, the "cost" of an easement is based upon the full market value of the purchased "rights" associated with the property. In most situations, the "cost" of conservation easements would be approximately 50% of the appraised value of the property. The "cost" of permanent easements for schools, roads, and other such facilities would be the full market value of the property. Land Transactions - As provide by the M ontana State Constitution (A rticle X , Section 11, (1) & (2)) and by 77-1-204, M CA the state can sell, purchase, lease or exchangeTrust Lands when, in the State Board of Land Commissioner's judgment, it is advantageous to do so. These activities are further subject to the following provisions: o Land Banking- The purpose of Land Banking as provided for under 77-2-361 and 77-2-362, M CA is to sell various parcels of state lands and use the proceeds from the sales to purchase other land, easements, or improvements for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the respective trusts and improved publicaccess. The department may hold proceeds from the sale of state land in the state land bank fund for a period not to exceed 10 years after the effective date of each sale. If, by the end of the 10th year, the proceeds from the subject land sale have not been encumbered to purchase other lands, easements, or improvements within the state, the proceeds from that sale must be deposited in the public school fund or in the permanent fund of the respective trust as required by law, along with any earnings on the proceeds from the land sale, unless the time period is extended by the legislature. o Land Exchanges- StateTrust Lands may be exchanged with lands owned by other public or private entities. Land exchanges are provided for in the State Constitution (A rticle X , Sec 11(4) and statute (77-2-203, M CA) and are evaluated with respect to the following seven base criteria. Lands may be exchanged for other properties that offer: E qual or greater land value Similar navigable lake or stream values E qual or greater income to the trust Equal or greater acreage Opportunities for consolidation of StateTrust Lands Potential for long-term appreciation I mproved or equal access to state or public lands Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-29 N ovember 19, 2004 Land exchanges are typically a multi-year process and have not been a priority land use tool in recent years. H owever, land exchanges can be useful to diversify Trust Land ownership. Land exchanges with the Montana Department of Transportation have resulted in new trust ownerships in the commercial areas of M issoula and Belgrade. Land exchanges can be useful for accomplishing these types of objectives, where low revenue generating properties can be exchanged to acquire properties in growth areas. The Board of Land Commissioners has approved six land exchanges in the last six years. o Land Sales - U nder the provisions of the M ontana State Constitution (A rticle X , Section 11 (1& )) and state statute (77-2-323, M CA ), state lands may be sold to the highest qualified bidder, but not for less than its appraised value. While land banking enables the Department to sell lands and reinvest the proceeds in other lands, the proceeds from traditional land sales must be placed in the permanent trust. Over the past 12 years, the Board of Land Commissioners has discouraged the sale of Trust Lands. At the request of the Board, the D N RC initiated legislation that provided for banking of funds from sales for the acquisition of replacement T rust Lands that would have greater revenue potential. Land sales over the past 6 years have been primarily limited to 28 single family lots located in Billings. 77-2-318, MCA, guides the sale of leased cabin or home sites. 3.2.4.4 Coarse Filter Process The D epartment created a coarse filter process (A ppendix E )to evaluate and identify trust lands suitable for project development. The course filter analysis rates land in relation to the (1) legally permissible, (2) physically possible, and (3) financially feasible. The analysis places property in one of three Tiers. Tier I would suggest that the property has the amenities and capabilities for development. Tierl would be analogous to the properties identified as "High" inTable2-6. Tierll indicates that the property may need some infrastructure, access, or is of a distance from an urban area that would not lend itself to development in the near future. T ier 1 1 would be analogous to the properties identified under Table 2-6 as "Medium". Tier III indicates that the property would not be suitable for development or has several limiting factors to overcome before project consideration. Tierlll would be analogous to the properties identified in Table 2-6 as "Low". The Land and Unit Offices utilize this analysis to evaluate land for consideration by the Commercial Development Working Group. The Working Group consists of Area planners. Land Use Specialist, Bureau Chief, Property Manager, and State Wide Planner. The working group considers and evaluates projects, timing, and budgets necessary to proceed with project under a 1-3-5 year plan. A diagram of the existing project identification is shown in F igure 3-4. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-30 N ovember 19, 2004 Figure 3-4 Existing Project Identification Process Coarse Filter Pbbblbta to, An^tysis LDonllf PtmisalUti -\ t^\r\cU^ \ -CcindttiDfi I . -^ Commensal TfUBI f 1 — ■ I BcDnonilc CiMMimaM Sb^ tutlBT I / \ *- Pnojecl Liels r n Lrxatn^Ti > V / ~ A ki ProJeclK 4 ^ Exchang* Ea3*in«it TlmiMiriv \; Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-31 N ovember 19, 2004 The coarse filter process is also used for the evaluation of land exchanges and the issuance of easements. T he analysis is only applied on a project basis. A n inventory using the coarse filter approach is not conducted on a landscape basis. The coarse filter process is modified under Alternatives B, B-1, C,C-1, and D to create the Funnel Filter Process (Figure 2-4). The Commercial Working Group is analogous to the ID Team of the Project Selection Process (Figure 2-5) associated with Alternatives B, B-1, C,C-1, and D. The 1-3-5 year Project List created by the Commercial Development Workgroup is also analogous to the Real E state M anagement project list of that process. 3.2.4.5 CurrentTrends in Development The RE MB is currently involved with a number of commercial, residential. Industrial and conservation land use projects. Overall, the D epartment is responding to market demands in high growth areas of the state. Thefollowing sampling of projects from around the state provides an overview of the RE M B's current activities. • N orthwestern Land Office o Spring Prairie - I n K alispell, a neighborhood plan and zoning was prepared for Section 36, also known as Spring Prairie. The plan identifies land use opportunities for retail commercial, professional offices, and residential, among others. A 60-acre lease has been authorized for a commercial center, with Lowes H ome I mprovement Center and Costco as anchor tenants. The sale of an easement is pending to allow future construction of a high school. A n easement purchase of land to accommodate the H ighway 93 By-Pass through Section 36 is also pending. U p to 160 acres of residential property within the section may be offered for sale in 2005. o Whitefish Neighborhood Plan - In the vicinity of Whitefish, a neighborhood plan is underwayfor 13,000 acres of Trust Lands within the Whitefish and Flathead County planning jurisdictions. The plan would identify land use objectives for commercial, conservation, industrial, and residential uses on lands currently classified as "forest". • Southwestern Land Office o Seeley Lake - A pproximately 18 acres of frontage on Seeley Lake have residential potential. An unrecorded plat identifies 12 lots. Local review and approval of lots at this location is desirable. o Seeley Lake Airport- Section 36 near the Seeley Lake Airport would be suitable for a variety of uses. The property is bounded on 3 sides by Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-32 N ovember 19, 2004 existing development and inquiries have been made for residential uses, sewer system, and developed recreation facilities. o Reserve Street - T he RE M B received 2 commercial lots on Reserve Street in Missoula from a land exchange with MDT. The property is being marketed for commercial leasing. Central Land Office o Lewis and Clark Commerce Center- SW Vi Section 36, TIS, R5E (approximately 33 acres): The final Plat is recorded and Lotl, Block 1 lease is completed and a office building has been constructed and other lease proposals are being considered. M arketing of available lease lots to prospective tenants continues. o M andeville Property - Section 36, TIS, R5E (216.73 acres): RE M B submitted a preliminary development plan of the property to the city in 1998. The City of Bozeman is currently applying for an easement for a new transfer station and city shops. The RE MB and the city will make a joint annexation proposal. The area will be zoned M-1 in accordance with the Bozeman 20/ 20 Community Plan. o Alaska Road Commercial Site- NW y4 Sec. 12, TIS, R4E (3 acres): Located adjacent to Belgrade interchange (SE corner), this is a parcel recently acquired in an exchange with MDT. Currently the Bureau is waiting for the City of Belgrade to complete their extension of public services and annexation plan. Project will require annexation into City of Belgrade and participation in an SI D for the extension of services in the area. o Amsterdam Road - Section 11, TIS, R4E (436 acres): This property is located immediately southwestern of Belgrade 1-90 interchange. Currently under agricultural use, this parcel is targeted in the Belgrade area master plan for commercial/ business/ residential use. Annexation, rezoning, and development of a neighborhood plan is pending. o Fox Farm Residential - SW ^a Sec. 23, T20N , R3E (90 acres): This property is located immediately adjacent to south boundary of G reat Falls City Limits. Existing housing development lies along the north boundary of property. River frontage and level topography give this site high potential for development. Potential uses are: open space/ recreation fields, condominiums, residential housing, and a retirement complex. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-33 N ovember 19, 2004 o 1-15 10'^ AveSCorrmerdd Subdivision- NWy4SE y4 Sec.l5, T20N , R3E (4acres): Currentiy Hampton I nn JeBsestlie entire parcel. I nquiries are being ©(plored for sub-ieaBe possibilities • Southern Land Office o Continental D ivide/ Skyview Ridge- N ^i Section 20, TIN, R26E (approximately 238 acres undeveloped): This property is located immediately adjacent to the Billings Heights. All but three lots have been sold from the first subdivision; remainder of property is grazing land and is targeted for conversion to commercial/ business/ residential use. A contract is in place for a Master Plan amendment and a second contract is for a Minor Subdivision. A proposed Aquatics Center on the Trust Land is dependent on passage of June bond. o North Billings Properties- TIN, R25E (9 sections -approximately 4610 acres): This property is located north of the city of Billings adjacent to a residential subdivision with a proposed equestrian center and golf course. A proposal by M ontana D epartment of Transportation will look at an inner belt loop road that would provide increased access for development of these properties for residential and business development. There is also a strong interest for recreational use and open space. These projects indicate that the B ureau is currently moving towards a development program, generally defined under Alternative A in Chapter 2 of this El S. RE MB staffs are responding to new opportunities in growing market areas. M ap E xhibits 3-3 to 3-6 display the general location of leases associated with residential, commercial, industrial and conservation land uses on trust lands. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-34 N ovember 19, 2004 Map Exhibit 3-3L General Locations of Existing Real Estate Leases on Trust Lands - Residential — i «r^ V:' * ." 'TT-L Legend SOUJOt: DMRCifDCH A Each ipuiiit icpfo^itb a 9eE4k)ri wan OH V [FiQrs IcBJifl Map Exhibit 3-4 General Locatioris of Existing Rea^ Estate Leases on Trust Lands - CommerGial rcio V, \ r \j-V \ ELO SLD t. 1 Legend I EaiJi pnnl reprEinirfi a SieSlariuifltl arte DrmofB leases 80Un» DNR^ 20H Map Exhibit 3-5l GniTieral Locations of Existing Real Estate Leases on Trust Lands - Industrial hELO \s sues 1 Legend sauroe. dnrc2iio< A Eafjh pokil FBprwefHB a 6w4ion wHh one or muie teens MapExNt)it3-& General Locations of Existing Real Estate Leases on Trust Lands - Conservation hELO k^ r^ \xi Legend 5DU[iC4: DHRCZIKH ^ !?<;() p(H4 Jfptwfnt* 4 iKtHjn ^4«n gn« crmon hHO 3.2.5 Trust Land Economics D N RC releases an annual report that provides an accurate description of bureau activities and revenue. In addition, an annual report is issued on the Return on the Asset Value by Trust and Land Office for State Trust Lands. Both of these annual reports are posted on theDNRC web site and are available in hard copy upon request. The reader is encouraged to examine these reports for more detailed information on Trust Land economics. Trust Lands are affected by local growth indices (population and economics) and the proposed alternatives presented in Chapter 2 suggest that Trust Lands will share in the expected growth of communities. 1 nformation on population and economic growth trends in Montana are presented in Section 3.2.1 of this Chapter and in Appendix B. The following two tables provide summary information on Trust revenue. The first table (Table 3-11) presents a summary of annual net revenue generated by each Bureau of the TLMD. The second table (Table 3-12) is a summary of lease revenue generated by activities managed by the RE MB. Not included is revenue from licenses or land sales. Table 3-11 Trust Net Revenue by Source Source FY 1999 FY2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY2003 Agand Grazing $12,567,944 $12,972,307 $13,127,720 $12,097,023 $13,072,974 Forest Mgmt. $2,894,527 $7,486,558 $3,531,233 $4,996,012 $3,138,699 Minerals Mgmt $6,340,023 $10,899,180 $20,147,435 $8,745,150 $11,310,736 Real E state $798,840 $1,157,842 $982,423 $1,097,211 $1,206,388 Total $22,601,334 $32,515,887 $37,788,811 $26,935,396 $28,728,797 Source: Montana DN RC T able 3-12. Real E state M anagement B ureau - C urrent (2003) Annual L ease 1 ncome Land Office Res. Acres Res. Revenue Com. Acres Com. Revenue 1 ndustrl al Acres 1 ndustrial Revenue Cons. Acres Cons. Revenue NWLO 824 $391,985 859 $123,963 132 $16,400 0 0 SWLO 826 $421,070 208 $43,050 80 $16,686 0 0 CLO 298 $34,830 365 $52,169 657 $3,110 13,714 $82,757 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-42 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 3-12. Real Estate Management Bureau - Current (2003) Annual Lease 1 ncome Land Office Res. Acres Res. Revenue Com. Acres Com. Revenue 1 ndustri al Acres 1 ndustrial Revenue Cons. Acres Cons. Revenue NELO 574 $18,978 107 $6,364 3 $1,154 760 $2,392 SLO 100 $8,900 227 $17,105 2 $1,056 160 $720 ELO 148 $5,687 10 $1,560 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2,770 $881,449 1,775 $244,210 874 $38,405 14,634 $85,869 While the current program continues to be largely reactive rather than proactive regarding market conditions, revenue to the Department from associated commercial, industrial and residential uses continues to grow. Figure 3-5 shows RE MB Bureau revenue for the past five years. Figure 3-5. REIVIB Revenue - 1999-2003 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 D Revenue in Dollars 1999 2001 2003 Source- M anaging M ontana's Trust Lands, M ontana Business Q uarterly, Return on Asset Report Winter, 2003, DNRC 3.2.6 Existing Planning and Regulatory Programs Within, Which the REMB Operates 3.2.6.1 Local Land Use Regulations At the local io/d, land de/dopmert is subject to three primary types of land use policy and/ or regulation. These indude subdivision regulations^ zoning ordinances and growth pol ides. M ontana statute sds forth the items that must be addressed under each, Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-43 N ovember 19, 2004 although local jurisdictions may incorporate additional elements. Refer to Chapter 5 for details on these regulatory processes and relationship to M E PA analyses. Currently, the RE M B follows land use regulatory processes that are required in the development of residential, commercial, and industrial uses at the local level. 3.2.6.2 H abitat Conservation Plan (H CP) TheTrust Lands Division of DN RC iscurrently preparing a voluntary Habitat Conservation Plan for forest-management activities on State Trust Lands. The HCP will address those lands that provide habitat for species currently listed or those that could be listed under the E ndangered Species A ct(ESA). The HCP offsets harm caused by lawful activities, such as forest management practices, by promoting conservation measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species. The HCP is part of the application for obtaining an "Incidental Take Permit" from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). An Incidental Take Permit authorizes the holder to "take" listed species, including the disturbance of habitat (as defined by the ESA), provided that that species' existence is not 'jeopardized' and the disturbance is within limits defined in the permit. TheDN RC HCP would cover forested areas of concentrated and scattered Trust Lands in portions of the NWLO,SWLO, and CLO. The initial proposed duration period for the Incidental Take Permit, and the associated HCP is 50 years, with the opportunity for the State to remove itself from the agreement at any point during the development or implementation of the H CP. • HCP Relationship to Transitional Lands- TheboundariesoftheHCP and includedlands are still being negotiated atthetimeof this El S. It is likely thcttiieHCP will occlude and include lands tiict might besuitablefor da/doped uses. Excluded lands would include those already committed to da/doped uses and other lands that may not be necessary to the success of the H CP. I ncl uded lands would probably recognize those lands that m^ or may not besuitablefor do/dopment but havehi^ resource values for g'izzly bears (recovery area) or tiie bull trout (core sb-eam locations), for 0 ponds> reservoi rs and wedands assessed duri ng tlie 2002 SCD assessment process. Tlie causes of impairment tliat affect the largest acreage of lakes> reservoirs and wedandsare(l) mSals> (2) mercury, (3) noxious aquatic plants and (4) lead. The largest sources of i mpai rment, which m^ not be di rectly related to the causes of impairment, include atrnospheric deposition, ag'iculture resource ocb'action and abandoned mining. T able 3-17. L ake/ wetland/ reservoir impairment status Applicable Assessed Fully Supporting Not Supporting Partial Support Threatened 1 nsuff icient Data Aquatic Life Support 604,760 80,861 6,733 188,019 7,550 321,597 Cold Water Fishery 547,296 202,547 6,971 40,611 7,550 289,617 Warm Water 61,366 3,040 300 13,180 0 44,846 F inal Real E state M anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-60 N ovember 19, 2004 Fishery Drinking Water Supply 591,761 172,012 301,809 953 0 116,988 Primary Contact (Recreation) 604,760 205,107 38,512 270,803 0 90,338 Agriculture use 591,761 233,157 3,628 48,753 0 306,224 Industrial Supply 591,761 286,757 3,628 3,778 0 297,599 From Montana §305(b) Report (2002) TheTLMD manages trust lands surrounding sa/eral streams considered to be impaired for one ornDrebaTefidal uses. Table 3-18 displ^ the miles of streams and acres of iakes^ wetlands' resen/oirs within these managed lands Table 3- IS: Impaired Water Bodies under DNRC Trust Land Management by Land Office Land Office Miles of Impaired Streams Acres of 1 mpaired Lakes, Wetlands and Reservoirs* Central Land Office 120 21.6 Eastern Land Office 6 0 Northeastern Land Office 128 0 Northwestern Land Office 48 1.9 Southern Land Office 7 23.6 Southwestern Land Office 50 0 Total 359 47.1 *A dditional im paired lakes m ay be found w ith in T rust Land section, however these lakes are considered navigable and are not considered to be Trust lands. • G round Water Resources - Statewide -- G roundwater occurrence, distribution, quantity, and quality depends on many site-specific factors, including climate, geology, and topography. There are two broad classifications of water-bearing formations in M ontana: consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers (MdoA 1992). Both classifications occur across Montana. Consolidated aquifers are found in rock formations dating from Pre- Cambrian to Tertiary age, and may be in sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rocks. Water may be found in interstices of the original rock, or in fractures, fissures, and cavities that have formed in the original rock formation. Water movement in these formations is highly variable. 1 1 is often less than in unconsolidated formations, but may be relatively fast in well-connected fracture systems. The volume of water is usually less than Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-61 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapters in unconsolidated aquifers because of tlie relatively small spaces in bedrock systems (MdoA 1992). Unconsolidated aquifers are generally found in alluvial deposits, glacial deposits, or from mass-wasting processes. They are formed of gravel, sand, silt, clay, and boulders, and reach their greatest development in montane valleys, where they may reach several hundred feet thick (M doA 1992). I n other areas, they range from 10 to 100 feet thick. Coarse grained, well-sorted deposits usually have high rates of water movement (dozens of feet per day) whereas small grained or poorly sorted deposits have low rates of water movement (a few feet or less per day)(M doA 1991). The majority of groundwater obtained in Montana is from alluvial (stream- deposited) aquifers. I n eastern and north-central M ontana, water movement is considerably slower in these aquifers than in western and south-central Montana. This is partly due to the precipitation differences in these locations. Water quality in both consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers is generally good throughout the state, though contamination is present in some locations. Sources of local contamination may include septic systems, underground storage tanks, injection wells, mineral processing, agricultural wastes, miscellaneous spills, and uncontrolled releases of hazardous wastes. The severity of impacts to groundwater depends upon a number of factors, including type and volume of contaminant, hydrogeologic setting, and existing uses of groundwater (M doA 1992). Riparian Areas and Wetlands - Statewide - A large portion of this section has been adapted or reprinted from the State Forest Land M anagement Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (1996). Additional information on riparian and wetland areas can be obtained from this source. Riparian areas have been described as zones of transition between upland and aquatic environments in which vegetation and microclimate are strongly influenced by the aquatic system (G regory et al 1991). A more visually descriptive definition would be that riparian areas are green zones associated with lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, potholes, springs, bogs, fens, wet meadows, and ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams. H all (1988) reported that riparian ecosystems can be changed by management activities such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, road building, or through natural factors such as fire, stream energy and beaver activity. 0 ther wildlife activities that affect riparian conditions are known to occur, at least locally. H owever, since wildlife species are not concentrated or restricted by fences, as are livestock, it is generally felt that impacts from wildlife are negligible when considered statewide. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-62 N ovember 19, 2004 A nalysis of historical conditions suggests that the integrity of riparian areas has been compromised by the often-combined effects of beaver removal, large organic debris removal, logging, livestock grazing, and road construction. The impact of these activities on plant communities, stream morphology, and water quality and quantity depends on the care taken to minimize and mitigate damage from such activities. Mountain riparian ecosystems probably have not changed as much as more accessible lowland floodplain areas. M eehan (1991) provides a good summary of the effects of physical disturbances and forest and rangeland management activities on the water resource. Significant degradation of M ontana wetlands began with beaver trapping in the early 1800's. I n the last 100 years the rate of change in riparian areas has increased significantly due to ever growing human pressures. A s land values and product demands increased, there was great economic pressure to plant, graze, harvest, and build as much as feasible. Some of these sites were associated with wetland or riparian areas and were significantly affected by these human activities. • Status of Riparian A reas and Wetlands - Statewide -- A broad scale description of the condition of the state's wetland and riparian conditions can be made. The M ontana Riparian and Wetland Association characterizes wetlands and riparian areas as either F unctional, F unctional- At-Risk, or N on-Functional. F undiondl i/i/et/ands or riparian areas are capable of filtering sediment, maintaining stream bank stability, building banks, dissipating water energy, storing water and aquifer recharge, among others. F unctiondl-A t-R Isle connotes wetlands or riparian areas that are presently capable of functioning properly but are in danger of decline through natural or human activity. W on-F unct'mdl, as the name indicates, are those wetlands or riparian areas that are not functioning properly. Functioning wetland and riparian areas can be found throughout Montana, but they are usually small and isolated. Glacier National Park and Jewel Basin in the Flathead National Forest, two large functioning riparian areas, are exceptions to this rule. Throughout the state, however, most wetlands are classified as Functional-At-Risk or Non-Functional. The riparian areas in the eastern part of the state are the most strongly affected, primarily along smaller streams. M any stream riparian areas are significantly degraded. I n fact, very few prairie streams have not been altered in terms of riparian vegetation, riparian function, stream stability, or wildlife habitat (H ansen, personal communication as cited in D N RC, Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-63 N ovember 19, 2004 1996). The vast majority of east-side riparian areas are classified as N on- Functional to marginally Functional-At-Risl<. Scattered small mountain ranges (e.g., Snowy, J udith, and Belt M ountains) show signs of significant riparian impacts but are still functional. The majority of these riparian areas are F unctional-A t-Risk; some are N on-F unctional. T he impact on the east side of M ontana may be directly related to the ease of human and animal access to wetlands and riparian areas. The rugged mountains and broad intermontane valleys in Western M ontana can be divided into two areas: N orthwest and Southwest. The Southwest shows some fairly significant riparian degradation from livestock grazing. The impact of silviculture is not nearly as severe as that of grazing, but is nonetheless important (H ansen, personal communication as cited in D N RC, 1996). Riparian function in Southwest M ontana seems to be between F unctional-A t-Risk and Non-Functional. I n the N orthwest portion of M ontana, livestock grazing is not as prevalent as in the Southwest, but silvicultural impacts are most widespread there. 0 verall, riparian function is higher than in the Southwest but is still only F unctional-A t-Risk in the majority of reaches. I n general, the lower the elevation in mountainous regions, the greater the degradation of wetland and riparian resources due to their accessibility and the human desire to build homes and other structures in these areas. Characterizing a statewide trend in riparian condition would be a tenuous effort at best. H owever, considering the amount of publicity and time devoted to educating landowners about the inherent worth and productivity of riparian areas in combination with state and federal legislative efforts aimed at protecting them, we may assume that the steep downward trend in riparian condition has leveled a bit in recent years. Certainly areas do exist where riparian condition has improved or degraded measurably, but as a whole the trend is probably toward less degradation. 3.3.2.5 Regional Overview This section gives a brief overview of the water resources and Other U ses in each land office. I n general terms, uses are consistent across the state within each of the four use categories except for residential. Table 3-19 exhibits other use acreages in each category by land office. Table 3-19. Acres Categorized as Other b^ /Land Office Area Office Commercial 1 ndustrial Residential Conservation Total NWLO 859 132 824 0 1,815 SWLO 208 80 826 0 1,114 CLO 365 657 298 13,713 15,033 NELO 107 3 574 760 1,444 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-64 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapters SLO 227 2 100 160 489 ELO 10 0 148 0 158 Total 1776 874 2,770 H633 20,053 • Northwestern Land Office --The Clark Fork River is the largest river flowing within the boundaries of the N orthwestern Land Office(N WLO). The Flathead River is the major tributary to the Clark Fork River in the NWLO boundary. The Kootenai River is the other major river system in the N WLO. TheFlathead River watershed drains the north portion of theClark Fork basin. H eadwaters for this system originate in G lacier N ational Park, the Bob Marshall Wilderness and Canada. Flathead Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the U nited States west of the M ississippi River, is positioned in the middle of the Flathead River system. The Kootenai River originates in Canada, flows through the northwest corner of M ontana into I daho and back into Canada before discharging into the Columbia River. A Ithough the K ootenai River drains only about three percent of Montana, it discharges more water than the Yellowstone or M issouri Rivers. Lake Koocanusa reservoir— created by Libby Dam- is the second largest reservoir in M ontana for capacity and impounds approximately 48 miles of the K ootenai River. Trust Lands within the Northwestern Land Office area are randomly located across the landscape except for the Stillwater, Swan River, Coal Creek and Thompson River State Forests. The state forests are blocked or checkerboard ownership and represent approximately 165,700 acres of the 314,400 acres in the N orthwestern Land Office jurisdiction. Current residential uses are generally recreational cabins and many are located on area lakes and streams. • Southwestern Land Office -The Clark Fork River basin is the largest basin in the Southwestern Land Office (SWLO) boundary. Major tributaries to theClark Fork that originate in the SWLO include Blackfoot and Bitterroot Rivers. Elevations range within the basin from the headwaters within the SWLO including the Pintlar Wilderness (10,700 feet) near Anaconda and the Bitterroot mountains (10,000 feet) to the Cabinet Gorge Reservoir (2,175 feet) where the Clark Fork River leaves Montana. Average discharge of the Clark Fork near the I daho border is 17,620 cubic feet per second (cfs). E xtreme recorded flow ranges from a low of 60 cfs in 1989 to a high of 124,900 cfs in 1964 (USGS 1989). TheClark Fork River Basin includes Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-65 N ovember 19, 2004 more than twenty large reservoirs and natural lakes each exceeding 5,000 acre-feet of storage. Trust Lands within the Southwestern Land Office area are randomly located across the landscape except for the Su la, Clearwater State Forest, and Lincoln State Forests. The state forests are blocked and checkerboard ownership and represent approximately 22,000 acres of the 233,500 acres in the Southwestern Land Office jurisdiction. Current residential uses are generally recreational cabins and many are located on area lakes and streams. Central Land Office --The Missouri River is formed by the convergence of thejefferson, Gallatin, and Madison rivers near Three Forks, Montana within the Central Land Office (CLO) boundary. Other tributaries to the Missouri within the CLO area include the Sun River, the Dearborn River and majority of the M arias River. Canyon Ferry Lake, Holter Lake, Clark Canyon Reservoir, Lake Frances, Tiber Reservoir and H auser Lake are a few of the large bodies of water within the CLO area that are available for a variety of uses. Trust Lands within the Central Land Office area are randomly located across the landscape. Current residential uses are generally recreational cabins and many are located on area lakes and streams. Northeastern, Eastern, Southern Land Offices- The Missouri River flows north and east to the confluence with theYellowstone River near the M ontana - N orth D akota border in the W ort/iesstern L dnd 0 ffice. T ributaries include the lower M arias, M usselshell, and M ilk rivers. Average discharge near the N orth D akota border is 10,660 cfs. E xtreme recorded flow ranges from a low of 575 cfs in 1941 to a high of 78,200 cfs in 1943 (U SG S 1989). Fort Peck Reservoir is the largest man-made body of water in the state. TheYellowstone River originates in Yellowstone Park and flows north and east into eastern M ontana through the Southern and E dst^n L dnd 0 ffices, joining the M issouri River in western N orth D akota. M ajor tributaries include the Stillwater, C lark's F ork of the Y ellowstone, B ighorn. Tongue, and Powder rivers. E xtreme flows recorded near Sidney, M ontana, range from a low of 470 cfs in 1971 to a high of 159,000 cfs recorded in 1921 (U SG S 1989). N 0 dams have been built on the Y ellowstone, though there are a number of irrigation diversions along its course. T he river's water is primarily used for irrigation and domestic purposes (M doA 1992). Trust Lands within the N ortheastern. Eastern and Southern Land Office areas are located across the landscape in a general pattern of Section 16 and Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-66 N ovember 19, 2004 • Section 36 for each township. Current residential uses are generally associated with older homesteads for year round residents but some recreational summer cabins also exist. 3.3.3 Fisheries 3.3.3.1 Introduction I n the simplest terms, the fishery resource is comprised of the physicochemical properties of water and the surrounding environment and the biological components that support the 85 recognized species of fish found in M ontana. M ost of the trust land management activities affect fish populations only indirectly, through impacts on the aquatic environment in which they live. Consequently, this assessment focuses on the aquatic environment. I n the remainder of this section, we describe the current condition of fisheries resources using representative species as indicators. We discuss species in terms of their historical and current distribution in M ontana lakes, rivers, and streams. 3.3.3.2 Regulatory Framework Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) is the state agency charged with managing M ontana's fisheries resources. While fisheries population management is a large part of their objectives, habitat management, both directly and indirectly, is undertaken by MFWP. 0 ther agencies within M ontana maintain and/ or improve habitat a variety ways on lands under their jurisdiction. Maintaining riparian areas, wetland and implementing forestry best management practices are a few of the methods employed. Laws and regulations that pertain to fisheries are also those that relate to water quality. A table of applicable laws can be found in section 3.3.2 of this document. 3.3.3.3 Assumptions The wide dispersal of state lands throughout M ontana, with the aquatic environment running through many different ownerships, makes describing the aquatic environment on state lands difficult. We do not have extensive, quantitative data for state lands alone; however, since fish habitat is intrinsically related to overall water quality, for the level of evaluation appropriate for a state-wide programmatic plan, we assume: • F ish habitat quality is directly correlated with water quality. • Water quality on state lands is directly correlated with water quality on adjoining lands. The rationale for accepting overall water quality conditions as representative of fish habitat quality on state land is as follows. The water quality assessment was based on "source" parameters such as agriculture, silviculture, resource extraction, and Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-67 N ovember 19, 2004 hydromodification; and "cause" parameters such as nutrients, siltation, thermal modification, and suspended solids. These same parameters directly affect fish habitat. A Iso, the same authorities legally responsible for water quality protection promote fisheries habitat protection. Water quality standards stipulate "water quality must be suitable for propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life" (ARM 16.20.618). Water quality protection through proper watershed management is an important component of maintaining fish habitat. H ealthy aquatic systems are important to ecosystem integrity and the fisheries resource. Wildlife is recognized as an important resource to many people, and fisheries are an important part of M ontana's wildlife resource. Fisheries concerns relate to all these issues. The following are among the most important ways that human activities affect fisheries in M ontana. • Habitat A Iteration: Aquatic habitat can be adversely affected by a variety of land and water uses including timber harvest, mining, livestock grazing, road construction, subdivision development, and point sources of water pollution such as sewage treatment plants. • Water Management: Reservoir operations, downstream flow fluctuations, and de-watering affect fish abundance and distribution. • Introduced Species: I ntroduced species impact native species due to hybridization, predation, and competition for forage, habitat and spawning sites. • Angler Demands: The estimated total angler use in M ontana in 2001 was 2,748,106 angler days (Scott Rumsey, personal communication, 2003). 3.3.3.4 General Statewide Overview M ontana has a diverse fishery due to its geologic history and geographic setting. M ontana contains headwaters of three major drainage basins (Columbia, M issouri/ M ississippi, and Saskatchewan) and contains numerous low to high elevation streams and lakes. The state contains both warm water and cold-water fisheries. There are 2,000 natural lakes, 50 reservoirs of 500 acres or larger, 15,000 miles of cold water streams, and 1,300 miles of warm water streams. I n addition, there are thousands of smaller reservoirs and thousands of miles of intermittent streams, many of which support some fish populations. A pproximately 1% of M ontana's surface area is covered by water. There are 85 fish species present in M ontana with about 50 of these believed to be native to the state. The cold-water fishery is dominated by three introduced trout species (rainbow, brown, and brook trout). N ative trout (cutthroat trout, bull trout, and arctic grayling) have incurred local as well as widespread population declines. D iversion of water for irrigation purposes and dams on major drainages has contributed to the decline of native trout, as have introductions of non-native species. A Ithough native to the Saskatchewan River drainage system, the lake trout has been introduced to F lathead Lake west of the Continental Divide. Two species of salmon have also been introduced into larger reservoirs. Cold-water fish species are very sensitive to dewatering of streams and rivers Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-68 N ovember 19, 2004 during summer. M aximum water temperature becomes a critical factor in dewatered streams (Brown 1971). jvi ontana has several unique warm water fish species including the paddlefish, three species of sturgeon, and burbot. M any of the native fish species on major drainages are migratory and dam construction on these drainages has impacted several of these species. Warm water fish species tend to be more tolerant of heavy sediment loads and warm water than cold-water fish. The walleye and northern pike are two warm water fish species that have been extensively introduced into M ontana and continue to thrive (Brown 1971). Of the 85 species of fish found in M ontana, 55 species are native, 30 are introduced. Some of these species are declining, with 18 native species presently listed as species of special concern. While the Pallid Sturgeon and White Sturgeon (Kootenai River population) are the only fish listed as endangered in M ontana, the bull trout is listed as threatened and the fluvial arctic grayling is considered as a candidate species for listing. A cdndiddte species is defined as a species for which the U SF WS has sufficient information on biological status and threats to propose to list them as threatened or endangered. M ontana's aquatic environments represent a wide range of conditions, from alpine lakes and snow-fed streams in the West to large, turbid rivers in the E ast. A correspondingly wide variety of fish species occupy this aquatic habitat. We do not have population inventories or research data to tell us all species that are present in all waters of the state, nor does DNRC have full information on the habitat needs of every species. Therefore, the focus of this assessment is on certain species whose habitat needs are better known, and which probably share habitat associations with many other fish species. The state is divided into two broad habitats: those that support cold water species, and those that support warm water species (Figure 3-7). The warm water type includes transitional, or cool water species. Because the Mountain Whitefish is very abundant and requires cold, clear water in order to thrive, it can be assumed that waters holding healthy, viable populations of Whitefish indicate the extent of cold water fisheries in the state. H eadwaters areas are classified as coldwater if a viable population of mountain whitefish exist in the tail waters of that river system. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-69 N ovember 19, 2004 Figure 3-7. Assumed Ranges of Cold and Warm Water Fisheries in l\/lontana Moun1;ain Whitefish D N RC chose bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout to represent the habitat needs of cold water species because these fish are very susceptible to human-induced environmental changes such as decreases in stream flow; increases in temperature, pollution, or siltation; and competition with introduced exotic species. I n consultation with other fisheries biologists, the goldeye and largemouth bass have been chosen as representative of warm water species because their habitat requirements are thought to reflect the needs of many other warm water fish. • Westslope Cutthroat Trout" Westslope cutthroat trout are not as abundant as they once were, and many of those that remain are not genetically pure. The historic range of westslope cutthroat trout in M ontana included all drainages west of the Continental D ivide; those portions of the Missouri River drainage upstream from Fort Benton; and the headwaters of the M arias, J udith, M usselshell, and Milk Rivers. T he distribution and abundance of westslope cutthroat trout has declined in the last 100 years (Liknes 1984). G enetically pure strains are estimated to exist on up to 9% of the historic range in M ontana (Shepard et al. 2003). The M F WP lists westslope cutthroat trout as a "species of special concern." They are also on theUSFS Region One Sensitive Species list. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-70 N ovember 19, 2004 Westslope cutthroat trout prefer the cold temperatures typically found in headwaters areas. I n large bodies of water their preferred habitat includes rocks, sandy or rocky shores, and deep waters. I n small streams they favor rocky areas, riffles, deep pools, logs and overhanging banks (E verhart and Seaman, 1971; Sigler and M iller, 1963; Brown, 1971). West of the Continental D ivide, the upper Flathead River drainage basin contains the largest population of westslope cutthroat trout in M ontana. The area currently occupied corresponds to about 85 percent of the historic range in that drainage, and about 58 percent of the known pure strains statewide are located there. The Clark Fork River drainage (below the mouth of the Bitterroot River) may have the second largest population. E ast of the Continental D ivide, the Smith River drainage holds the largest population of native westslope cutthroat trout (Liknes, 1984). Westslope cutthroat trout also populate M ontana lakes. Liknes reported that 259 lakes actually do, or are thought to, contain westslope cutthroat trout populations. About six percent of the lakes are known to contain genetically pure strains. Roughly 94 percent of the lakes with pure strains are found within the confines of G lacier N ational Park. T he remaining six percent are found on the F lathead I ndian Reservation. 0 nly four lakes or reservoirs east of the Continental D ivide were reported to contain populations of westslope cutthroat trout. • Bull Trout- Thomas (1992) estimated that bull trout currently occupy 42 percent of their native range in M ontana. Rothschild and D IN ardo (1987) concluded that species such as bull trout with specific requirements are likely to be more sensitive to habitat change and less able to persist in times of change. The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team has published Bull Trout Status Reports for the following drainages: Bitterroot River, Blackfoot River, Upper Clark Fork River, Flathead River, and South Fork Flathead River. Additionally, draft documents are available for the following watersheds: Middle Clark Fork, Lower Clark Fork, Upper Kootenai, Middle Kootenai, Lower K ootenai. Swan, and 0 Idman. Riemanand Mclntyre (1993) state that although bull trout are found throughout larger river systems, spawning and rearing fish are often found only in a small portion of the available stream reaches. Rearing and resident fish often use tributaries of larger river systems, while migratory fish use much more of the entire river drainage. Bull trout are listed as "threatened" by the USFWS and as a Species of Special Concern by MFWP and the Natural Heritage Program. With the "threatened" listing, the USFWS has separate responsibility under the Endangered Species Act for development of a federal recovery plan and Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-71 N ovember 19, 2004 designation of critical liabitat. A draft Recovery Plan built on the foundation of state restoration plans and proposed critical habitat were released in N ovember 2002. Approximately 3,319 miles of stream and 217,577 acres of lake/ reservoir are proposed as critical habitat, of which 60% is in federal ownership, 1% tribal, 5% state/ local and 34% private. M eehan (1991) gives a complete description of the habitat requirements of the above Salmonids. For an in-depth analysis of the correlation between land management activities and fisheries, see M eehan (1991) and Salo and Cundy(1988). Goldeyeand Largemouth Bass -The distribution of thegoldeyeis limited to locations east of the Continental Divide. They normally prefer large river systems, but they are also found in large lakes (Paetz and N elson,1970; Trautman, 1980; Brown, 1971). G oldeyes seem to prefer highly turbid waters and do not seem to invade colder water environments. Largemouth bass are typically found in the southeastern portions of the state. Their preference for warmer water likely precludes movement westward. H owever, all but the deepest lakes are typically warm enough to support viable populations of largemouth bass. N either goldeye nor largemouth bass are considered threatened or sensitive. Their historical range has probably not diminished or changed in Montana. Fish Species of Concern -- Unless otherwise cited, Montana fishes of special concern were adapted from the M ontana American Fisheries Society website located at http://www.fisheries.org/AFSmontana/index.htm, oTorrentSculpin ■■ This native fish inhabits rubble and gravel riffles of rivers and, to a lesser extent, rocky lake shores. According to the M ontana Fisheries Information system, this species is found only in the Northwestern Land Office boundary (Page and Burr, 1991). o Spoonhe^d Sailpin - The spoonhead sculpin is listed as a species of special concern due to its limited distribution in Montana. This species is reported to be found in and around G lacier N ational Park inhabiting swift creeks and rivers as well as lakes (Page and Burr, 1991). o 1/1/ /i/te Sturgeon- In Montana the white sturgeon is found exclusively in the lower reaches of the K ootenai River. This species was listed in 1994 as endangered bytheUSFWS. This fish is a bottom feeder and will eat almost any available organism, dead or alive, including plant material, crustaceans, worms, insect larvae, and detritus. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-72 N ovember 19, 2004 o Pa///d sturgeon "The pallid sturgeon was listed bytheUSFWSas endangered in 1990. It is restricted to the M issouri and M ississippi Rivers and their large tributaries (Lee etal. 1980; Ashton and Dowd 1991). They were once found from the headwaters of the M issouri River in western M ontana to N ew 0 rieans, Louisiana, some 3,400 river miles, but only small portions of this historic range now provide suitable habitat. o Pdddl^ish ■■ The paddlefish is an ancient, mostly cartilaginous fish with smooth skin and is a close relative of sturgeons. Paddlefish are found in Montana in theMissouri Yellowstone River basins. Montana is the most westerly state with paddlefish. o ShoftmseGsf ■■ Shortnose gar distribution in Montana is limited to primarily theMissouri River below Fort Peck dam. Typical habitat for the gar is large rivers, quiet pools, backwaters and oxbow lakes. D ue to the limited distribution, little is known about this species within Montana. o y ef/oi/i/stoneC utt/iroat Trout - This subspecies was petitioned for listing as a threatened species under the E ndangered Species Act in 1998. The petition was rejected by the USFWS in 2001, however the Yellowstone cutthroat trout is considered as a species of special concern by several state and federal agencies in M ontana. D istribution in M ontana includes the Yellowstone, Bighorn and Tongue River basins. o 1/1/ e^slope C uWowstl rout ■■ T his subspecies of cutthroat trout is native to M ontana on both sides of the Continental D ivide with populations in the Kootenai and Clark Fork River basins as well as the headwaters of the M issouri and Saskatchewan Rivers. The USFWS has been petitioned to protect the Westslope Cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act. In 2000, the USFWS determined that the listing was not warranted due to the species wide distribution, available habitat in public lands and conservation efforts underway by state and federal agencies. o Columbia R /Ver fi ec/band Trout- The Columbia River redband trout is considered a subspecies of the rainbow trout. TheKootenai River drainage population of redband trout is M ontana's only native rainbow trout and represents the furthest inland penetration of redband trout in the Columbia River basin. o Bull Trout ■■ Bull trout, a threatened species, are native to M ontana and are found in many lakes, rivers, and streams in northwestern Montana in theFlathead and Clark Fork river drainages. They generally migrate Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-73 N ovember 19, 2004 upstream into smaller streams to spawn. Their populations have declined due to a number of reasons, including habitat degradation and competition with other trout species. The St. Mary's River in the Saskatchewan basin, draining north into Canada contains the only bull trout population east of the Continental D ivide in the U nited States. o FluvidlA rct/cGray/Ing- The arctic grayling, a candidate species, is a native fish with relict populations surviving in the upper M issouri River drainage, 1 1 has also been introduced into a number of high elevation lakes with tributaries suitable for spawning, Its distribution is now in northwestern, southwestern, and south-central M ontana, o Sturgeon C/iub" The Sturgeon chub is widespread and commonly found in eastern M ontana. M ore recent collections have found this species is widely distributed in the Missouri, Yellowstone and Powder rivers in Montana. o S/dc/ef/nC/iub-Thesicklefin chub is currently listed as a species of special concern by the State of Montana. The first observation of the species was in 1979 in the middle Missouri River upstream of Fort Peck Reservoir. Current distribution includes the Missouri River above Fork Peck Reservoir, the lower Missouri River above the Yellowstone River confluence and the lower Y ellowstone River. o Peer/ Dace- The Pearl Dace inhabits pools of creeks and small rivers as well as ponds and lakes. M ontana is considered to be on the periphery of the species range. o B/ueSudcer- The Blue Sucker is found in the Missouri River as far up as G reat Falls, and in the Yellowstone River upstream of Forsyth, M ontana. This species prefers swift current areas of large rivers and feeds on insects in cobble areas. Spawning occurs in tributaries to the larger rivers. The Tongue, Marias, Milk and Teton rivers are the most heavily used for spawning. o Tfout-perd) - I n M ontana, the trout-perch occurs in the South Saskatchewan River Basin, which drains northeastern G lacier N ational Park and the northwestern portion of the Blackfeet I ndian Reservation. o Sduger ■■ The sauger inhabits sand and gravel runs, sandy and muddy pools and backwaters of small to large rivers; less often uses lakes. o W ort/iern fiec/M/yX F/nesca/e Dace Hybrid -This hybrid is fairly widespread east of the continental divide. The hybrid was placed on the species of concern list due to its rarity and unusual form of genetic reproduction. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-74 N ovember 19, 2004 3.3.3.5 Regional Overview This section briefly describes tlie general habitats in each land office. Table 3-20 displays the presence of Species of Special Concern in each land office boundary. T able 3-20. Presence of Species of Special C oncem by L and 0 ffice Species CLO ELO NELO NWLO SLO SWLO Torrent Sculpin - - - + - - Spoonhead Sculpin + - - - - - White Sturgeon (Kootenai River Population) - - - + - - Pal id Sturgeon + + + - + - Paddlefish + + + - - - ShortnoseGar - - + - - - Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout + + - - + - Westslope Cutthroat Trout + - - + - + Columbia River Redband Trout - - - + - - Bull Trout + - - + - + Fluvial Arctic Grayling + - - - - - Sturgeon Chub - + + - - - Sicklefin Chub - - + - - - Pearl Dace - - + - - - Blue Sucker - + + - - - Trout- perch + - - - - - Sauger + + + - + - Northern RedbellyX FinescaleDace + + + - + - + Present in Land Office boundary - Not present in Land Office Boundary • N orthwestern Land Office - The fisheries located in the N orthwestern Land Office boundary are primarily cold-water fisheries although warm water species such as largemouth bass can be found. F isheries vary greatly from small, forested headwater streams to large lakes and reservoirs. 1 n many of the streams, introduced species such as brook trout compete with native species. Lakes in the N orthwestern Land Office area also have introduced species such as the lake trout, which competes with native species. A result of the competition is hybrid fishes and reduced native species densities. • Southwestern Land Office -Much liketheNorthwestern Area, the fisheries located in the Southwestern Land Office boundary are primarily Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-75 N ovember 19, 2004 • cold-water fisheries although warm water species such as largemouth bass can be found. All of the potential impacts associated with introduced species exist in the Southwestern Land Office. Central Land Office --The fisheries in theCentral Land Office represent both warm and cold water species. D ue the transitional nature of the Central Land Office boundary, fish habitat diversity is greater than in the other land office boundaries. The headwater streams contain cold water species while the lakes and larger rivers are within the range of warm water fishes. • N ortheastern, E astern, Southern Land Offices - Warm water fisheries are primarily found in these land offices although cold-water species are present. Large bodies of water such as Fort Peck reservoir contain a wide variety of fish species. 3.3.4 Wildlife M ontana is a state with a great diversity and abundance of wildlife. Over 650 vertebrate wildlife species have been recorded in M ontana, many of which may, at least in part, rely on Trust Landsfortheir habitat needs. With the exception of most of the species of concern and big game animals, reliable population data is lacking for most species of wildlife in Montana. Additionally, widely accepted research data is lacking on the precise relationships between individual species and their habitat needs. The purpose of this overview is to provide baseline data from which inferences in Chapter IV can be drawn concerning which wild life species may be adversely and favorably affected. G eneral Statewide 0 verview The majority of mammals that were present at the time of E uropean settlement likely still occur in the state. With nearly 11,000 feet between the lowest and highest points in the state, there is considerable variation in elevation, and concomitantly, habitats. H igh plains influenced by a continental climate, with mild summers and harsh winters, dominate the eastern 2/ 3 of Montana. As indicated in the vegetation section, this portion of the state is dominated by grassland and shrub steppe habitats with lush riparian habitats along the major drainages. Isolated mountain ranges support ponderosa pine and D ouglas-fir forests. M ountains and valleys that experience a maritime- influenced climate with more precipitation and moderate temperatures characterize the western 1/ 3 of M ontana. H abitats are largely coniferous forests dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, subalpinefir, western larch, and grand fir. I ntermountain valleys are dominated by grassland and sagebrush steppe habitats. Riparian habitats are common along bodies of water and numerous wetlands occur. Over 94 million acres of wildlife habitat exists within the state. Foresman (2001) identified 108 mammal species known to occupy the state of M ontana. Lenard et al. (2003) identified 409 bird species (of which 259 are known to breed in the state), while M axell et al. (2003) reported 13 amphibians and 17 species of reptiles that occupy the varied habitats within the state. If you exclude the 106 irregular or accidental bird Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-76 N ovember 19, 2004 species from this number you are left with a total of 441 wildlife species that could occur on state lands affected by this document. Table 3-21 displays the distribution of species by taxonomic class. T able 3-2L N umber of wildlife species that have been observed in M ontana summarized by taxonomic class. Seasonal/ M igratory Status Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Total 1 Seasonal or Year-long Resident 13 17 259 108 397 Migrates Through State - - 44 - 44 Accidental or Vagrant - - 106 - 106 Total 13 17 409 108 547 • Mammals o U ngulates - M ule deer and white-tailed deer are the most abundant and widely distributed big game species in the state, and along with elk are the most commonly pursued big game species. Both deer species are distributed statewide. M ule deer prefer open montane habitats and sagebrush slopes, but will also use coniferous and hardwood forests. White-tailed deer tend to be more ubiquitous, using a wide variety of habitats from forested habitats to open, semi-arid plains. E Ik are associated with coniferous mountain habitats in western and central M ontana and in coniferous habitats along major drainages in eastern Montana. If not disturbed, elk will also use riparian habitats along major drainages. Although elk utilized open grassland habitats in eastern M ontana prior to settlement of the prairies, current elk populations use extensive areas of conifer forests for security cover. Consequently, elk are sensitive to cover loss in forested areas. E Ik will often avoid areas intensively grazed by cattle, especially during the growing season. Pronghorn antelope are currently found in most large blocks of shrub/ grassland habitat east of the Continental D ivide in Montana. H unting opportunities for moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats are more limited. M oose are restricted to the forested, mountainous western one-third of M ontana both east and west of the Continental D ivide. Riparian communities are common foraging habitats for moose. M ajor moose populations are located in the N orthwestern and Southwestern Land Offices. Bighorn sheep originally occurred throughout much of M ontana wherever suitable habitat was found; in areas of excellent habitat they were often abundant. I n M ontana they are restricted to semi-open habitats comprised of precipitous terrain with rocky slopes, ridges and cliffs, or rugged river breaks and badlands. Bighorn sheep in mountainous areas are migratory, moving to lower elevations or windblown ridges during winter to avoid deep Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-77 N ovember 19, 2004 snow. M ountain goats were originally restricted to mountain ranges in northwestern M ontana, but they have been introduced to many other mountain ranges east and west of the Continental D ivide. Like bighorn sheep, mountain goats makealtitudinal migrations, seeking windblown ridges or low elevation cliffs during winter and high elevation cliffs during summer. There are probably less than 2,000 mountain goats in Montana. Bison were historically the dominant ungulate in Montana occupying the short-grass prairies, but were nearly extirpated by 1886. 0 ne wild herd resides seasonally in M ontana and is associated with Yellowstone National Park. Carnivores - G rizzly bears, gray wolves, and lynx are further discussed as threatened, endangered, or species of concern in succeeding sections of this sub chapter. Black bears are distributed throughout coniferous forests within the N orthwestern. Southwestern and Central Land Offices and are generally restricted to mountainous terrain. Although black bears are omnivorous, plants tend to comprise most of their diet. The mountain lion was only recently removed from the predator list and classified as big game to provide the species with greater protection and to carefully regulate its harvest. M ountain lions have expanded their range considerably in recent years and now occupy a variety of habitats throughout the State; mountain lions are largely restricted to more wooded habitats that provide cover for hunting. T he swift fox is a grassland fox that was extirpated from M ontana early in the 20th century, but now has established populations near Browning, Chinook, Malta, and Glasgow within the Eastern Land Office. The river otter and mink are associated with riparian habitats. Wolverine, marten, and fisher are associated with mountainous coniferous habitats in western M ontana. The bobcat is widely distributed in M ontana both east and west of the Continental D ivide and uses any habitat that provides dense hiding cover. Several species, including red fox, striped skunk, several weasels, coyotes, and raccoons, are habitat generalists, using a wide range of habitat conditions. Badgers are largely dependent upon grasslands, particularly open plains and shrub-steppe habitats. Small mammals - Several groups of species, including rodents, hares and rabbits, bats, and shrews are large, diverse groups of species that use most if not all habitats within the state, and therefore will be dealt with as a group. Some inhabit waterways and associated wetland and riparian habitats (e.g. beaver and northern bog lemming), where both water-based activities and shoreline activities influence available habitat. Several species are associated with forested habitats (e.g. northern flying squirrels, snowshoe hares, and hoary bats) while others are tied Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-78 N ovember 19, 2004 to alpine and subalpine habitats (e.g. Iioary marmots and Columbian ground squirrels). Several rely upon open grassland plains (e.g. northern grasshopper mouse and white-tailed jackrabbit) and semi-arid areas dominated by sagebrush (e.g. desert cottontail and M erriam's shrew). Some bats rely on altered habitats such as mine shafts and bridges for roosting locations. M eanwhile a large number of these species are habitat generalists that use a variety of habitats within the state (e.g. big brown bat and deer mice). Black-footed ferrets and black-tailed prairie dogs are discussed in succeeding sections of this sub-chapter as threatened, endangered, or species of concern. Birds- Thediversegeography, ecology, and climate contribute to the variety of birds found within the state. There have been 409 bird species recorded in M ontana, though 106 are considered rare (less than 20 sightings). There are 259 species that are confirmed breeders in the state (Lenard etal. 2003). Within Montana, many species reach the edges of their geographic ranges, adding to the state's avian diversity. Bird species that may be of special importance to management activities occurring on state lands include a number of federally listed threatened and endangered species (discussed elsewhere), state species of special concern (discussed elsewhere), raptors, upland game birds, waterfowl and shorebirds, woodpeckers, and migrant songbirds. There are 12 species designated as upland game birds, butonly nine of these have hunted populations. There are also 23 species designated as migratory game birds; most of these are waterfowl but also included are mourning dove, sandhill crane, and common snipe. Bald eagles, whooping cranes, interior least terns, piping plovers, and yellow-billed cuckoos are discussed in succeeding sections of this sub-chapter as threatened, endangered, or species of concern. o U pland game birds - U pland game bird species include forest grouse (blue grouse, spruce grouse, ruffed grouse), shrubland grouse (sharp- tailed grouse and sage grouse), white-tailed ptarmigan, and introduced species such as wild turkey, ring-necked pheasant, gray (H ungarian) partridge, and chukar. The forest grouse tend to be found within the western portions of the state. Sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, and gray partridge tend to inhabit a mixture of grasslands, frequently interspersed with agricultural fields and/ or shrubby habitats. Sage grouse also utilize open spaces, but tend to rely more on the semi- arid sagebrush plains in the eastern portion of the state. Chukar are a rare bird, which is also found in semi-arid, open areas, notably steep, rocky, areas in south-central M ontana. Wild turkeys are locally abundant where they inhabit open forests intermixed with grasslands and agricultural areas. Within M ontana, turkeys have expanded their range to include more of eastern M ontana as well. Shrubland species are known to be sensitive to habitat changes and have concentrated Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-79 N ovember 19, 2004 breeding sites (lel o !5 I b X O ^ X i CL ^ § a: s w ^ o 7C ^ T^r ■D I 8 in in ^ PO in H in H ^ in in Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-88 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapters T able 3-24. N umber of M ontana wildlife species (omitting accidental bird species) using each of nine general habitats for at least a portion of their seasonal habitat needs within the boundaries of each D N RC land office area (after M ontana State Forest Land Management Plan, Final E IS, Montana DN RC 19%). G eneral H abitat NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Statewide Rivers 91 81 81 82 78 70 98 Lakes 100 90 94 96 92 85 113 Wetland or Riparian 280 274 286 279 276 252 318 Alpine 72 73 77 10 9 8 74 Forest 157 158 165 146 151 127 180 Savannah 77 76 79 83 77 79 93 Woodland 194 191 207 199 198 180 232 Shrubland 141 142 157 153 159 144 182 G rassland 205 212 225 223 223 211 256 Regional Totals 398 398 434 405 404 366 441 H abitats missing from this table are not represented on D N RC lands in that land office area. N ote that because many species use more than one habitat, regional totals are less than simple sums. • Locally Important Habitats- Although the TLMD manages a relatively small component within the landscape of M ontana, a portion of these lands occur within locally important wildlife habitats and are affected by trust management activities. For example, grizzly bear recovery in the N orthern Continental D ivide ecosystem is dependent upon maintenance of female grizzly bears producing cubs in each of 23 bear management units (USF WS 1993). The Department manages 69 percent of the Stillwater Bear M anagement U nit. G rizzly bears could not be sustained in the Stillwater U nit without maintaining suitable habitat on these state forestlands. Wildlife habitat on state lands may also be critical for populations that range over much larger areas. For example, the white-tailed deer herd in the Salish M ountains of N orthwestern M ontana summers on N ational Forest lands, but winters on approximately two thousand acres of state forest land west of K alispell (C. Sime, M ontana FWP, unpublished data). T he survival of this herd of 3,000 deer may depend on suitable habitat being maintained on that parcel of state land. G rassland and shrubland habitats may support breeding habitats for several grassland bird species. G rassland birds in N orth America have been exhibiting the most consistent decline of any group of birds monitored by the Breeding Bird Survey since established in 1966 (Sauer et al. 1995, Sauer etal.2003). This decline nationally can be attributed to loss of habitat as Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-89 N ovember 19, 2004 well as an increase in mowing grasslands for hay production (M ontana Partners in Flight 2000). Although no comprehensive survey exists linking populations of any of these species to state lands, grasslands on state lands likely provide habitat for some of these bird species. Economic Contributions- Wildlife on state lands also makes important contributions to the state's local and regional economy. M ontana F ish, Wildlife, and Parks regulates harvest of 55 species of wildlife that are hunted or trapped. Recreation opportunities associated with hunting and trapping these game and furbearer species represent a substantial annual economic contribution. I n 2001, 229 thousand hunters spent $238 million in the state while spending 2.4 million days hunting (US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Census Bureau 2003). Revenue from trapping is additive to this value. M ontana's diverse and abundant wildlife populations also attract large numbers of resident and nonresident visitors to wildlife-related activities. I n 2001, 687 thousand people spent time in M ontana viewing wildlife while spending $350 million in the state (US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Census Bureau 2003). Viewing wildlife is projected to be the fastest growing wildlife-related activity in the U nited States (Bowker et al. 1999). The number of persons participating in wildlife viewing is expected to increase by 61% and the number of days devoted to wildlife observation is projected to increase by 97% (Bowker et al. 1999). Revenue from recreation use permits on school trust lands exceed $400,000 on an annual basis. Regulatory Framework for Wildlife Resources- In addition to license, easement, and lease requirements imposed by the RE M B, a variety of jurisdictional responsibilities pertaining to wildlife resources exist. Additional considerations for wildlife and their habitats are covered by overlapping federal and state authorities. W ithin the context of the proposed plan, authorities that have potential jurisdiction over activities are, but are not limited to, those that are included herein. E ndangered and Threatened species are protected under the E ndangered Species Act which is enforced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. TheUSFWS is also charged with protecting migratory birds as included in the M igratory Bird Treaty Act. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks oversees much of the remaining wildlife species, including game animals, game birds, waterfowl, fur-bearing animals, as well as most nongame species. 0 n all state lands, including those lands managed under this plan, the state Land Board is directed to manage the lands under the multiple- use management concept (77-1-203, M C A ), which includes considerations for wildlife species and their habitats. U nder concurrent consideration within D N RC is the H abitat Conservation Plan being prepared by the Forest M anagement B ureau. T he objective of this plan was described earlier in this C hapter. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-90 N ovember 19, 2004 3.3.4.2 Wildlife by L and 0 ffice • Northwestern Land Office- Dominant vegetation communities are alpine, spruce-fir forest, cedar- liemlocl< forest, montane serai forest, grasslands, and riparian communities. The largest habitat type in the northwestern land office is coniferous forest. As such, many of the species relying on forested environments are found within this land office. Someshrubland and grassland habitats also exist within this land office, and those species using some of these habitats are also represented, but to likely a lesser degree than those using the forested environments. Riparian habitats are also present within the land office and, despite the relatively small acreage both at the land office and state levels, play an important role in maintaining those species that use these habitats. • T he northwestern land office manages appreciable amounts of land within the North Continental Divide and Cabinet/YaakGrizzly Bear Ecosystems. Extensive Canada lynx habitat exists in the higher areas and many pairs of bald eagles nest in the land office area. The land office also contains the N orthwestern M ontana gray wolf recovery area, where in 2002 at least 62 adult and 43 pups formed at least 11 breeding packs. Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat also exists within the land office area, though no recent observations have been documented. H abitat for most of the big game and carnivore species also exists, along with habitat for many of the small mammals associated with forests, riparian and wetland habitats, and subalpine habitats. H abitat also exists for a forested grouse, turkeys, pheasants, sharp-tailed grouse, several species of raptors and owls, waterfowl, many of the woodpeckers, resident and migratory songbirds, plus several amphibians and reptiles. • Southwestern Land Office- Within the boundaries of the southwestern land office is a mixture of montane forest, grasslands, and shrub habitats. G rasslands and shrub lands are increasingly more common within this land office. The four unique vegetation communities in this province include coniferous forests, sagebrush steppe, grasslands, and riparian areas. Canada lynx habitat exists within this land office, along with many nesting pairs of bald eagles. Packs of gray wolves are also expanding their ranges within this land office. Portions of this land office also fall within the North Continental Divide and BitterrootGrizzly Bear Recovery Zones. H abitat for yellow-billed cuckoos occurs along riparian features within this land office area. H abitat for all the big game species, except bison, exists within this land office area. H abitat for many of the carnivores also exists along with habitat for the small mammals associated with forests, riparian and wetland habitats, subalpine habitats, as well as the species that use grassland plains and shrub steppe habitats. H abitat also exists for forested and shrubland grouse, turkeys, several species of raptors and owls. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-91 N ovember 19, 2004 waterfowl, many of the woodpeckers, resident and migratory songbirds, plus several amphibians and reptiles. With a greater representation of open, grassland and shrubland types, increases in those species utilizing these habitats are seen within this land office area. Central Land Office- The central land officeissimilar in vegetation composition to the southwestern land office and contains a mixture of montane forest, grasslands, and shrub habitats. G rasslands, shrub lands, and agricultural uses are increasingly more common within this land office area. The four unique vegetation communities in this province include coniferous forests, sagebrush steppe, grasslands, and riparian area. A Iso like the southwestern land office, this land office area supports habitat for Canada lynx and gray wolves. Bald eagles are also present, commonly nesting along major drainages within the boundaries of this land office area. G rizzly bear habitat within the Yellowstone G rizzly Bear Recovery Zone exists within this land office area. Habitat for whooping cranes and black-tailed prairie dogs are found within this land office area. M ost species of big game and carnivores can be found within this land office area. As indicated earlier, this land office blends western, coniferous forests with eastern plains habitats, and as such you start seeing species reaching the edges of their state ranges within this land office. M any of the forested species covered in the northwestern and southwestern land offices also exists within this land office, with several disappearing as to the east, within the administrative boundaries. Likewise species associated with the open grassland plains and shrub steppe habitats become more numerous with the greater representation of these habitats in the more eastern portions of this land office. T he diversity of habitats within the land office caused by the juxtaposition of these major habitat groups probably supports the greatest diversity of animal species, including the broad groups of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. N ortheastern Land Office - The grasslands of central and eastern M ontana comprise the largest vegetation province in Montana. The major vegetation community type in this area is mixed-grass prairie. Vast areas within this land office area are in grassland, shrubland, and agricultural uses. M eanwhile forested environments are relatively limited in comparison to the other land offices. With the increased representation of open grassland and shrub steppe habitats within this land office, species associated with these habitat types are more common while those associated with forested habitats are less common than in other land office areas. Bald eagles nest within this land office area, mainly along the M issouri River, its tributaries, and around major water bodies. Limited Canada lynx habitat exists within the bounds of this land office at some of the higher elevations. Black-footed ferrets and piping plovers are only found within the boundaries of this land office. Riparian areas within the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-92 N ovember 19, 2004 land office provides liabitat for least terns. H abitat for whooping cranes and black-tailed prairie dogs also exists within this land office area. Big game species that are found within the boundaries of this land office include both deer species, elk (within coniferous habitats along major drainages), bighorn sheep, antelope, mountain lions, and in limited numbers along the western edges, moose, black bears, and mountain goats. Several carnivores and small mammals associated with riparian habitats exist within this land office area, but those species associated with coniferous habitats are largely absent from the land office area except for portions of the westernmost edge of the land office. Forested upland game birds are also largely absent from this land office area, while habitat for shrubland grouse is more widespread. I n general, the transition towards increasingly open habitats with less forested types carries over to a myriad of wildlife species, including nongame mammals, resident and migrant songbirds, raptors, and owls. Several reptiles and amphibians (namely lizards and toads) are found in this land office. Southern Land Office- The grasslands of central and eastern Montana comprise the largest vegetation province in Montana. Additionally, the Temperate Desert occupies a small area in south-central Montana. The four vegetation community types in this area include coniferous forests, semi-arid grasslands, shrub lands, and riparian communities. Vast areas within this land office are in grassland types with smaller components of shrubland and forests. With the increased representation of open grassland and shrub steppe habitats within this land office area, there are more species that use these open habitats and fewer of the species that rely on the forested habitats of western M ontana. Bald eagles nest within the land office boundaries, mainly along the Y ellowstone River and around major water bodies. Limited Canada lynx habitat exists at some of the higher elevations. Some grizzly bear and gray wolf habitat exists, mostly within the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Habitat for whooping cranes and black-tailed prairie dogs exists within this land office area. B ig game species that are found in this land office area include both deer species, elk (within coniferous habitats along major drainages), bighorn sheep, antelope, mountain lions, black bears, and in limited numbers along the western edge of the land office, moose and mountain goats. Several carnivores associated with riparian habitats exist within this land office area, but habitat for those carnivores associated with coniferous habitats is starting yield to more open types, thereby reducing the presence of these forested species. Likewise, habitat for forested upland game birds are also being replaced by habitat for open grassland types, which is habitat for the shrubland grouse species. I n general, the transition towards increasingly open habitats with less forested types carries over to a myriad of wildlife species, including nongame mammals, resident and migrant songbirds. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-93 N ovember 19, 2004 raptors, and owls. Several reptiles and amphibians (namely lizards and toads) are found in this land office. • Eastern Land Office- The grasslands of eastern Montana comprise the largest vegetation province in Montana. The major vegetation community type in this area is mixed-grass prairie with a component of shrub lands. Vast areas within this land office are in grassland, shrubland, and agricultural uses. M eanwhile forested environments are relatively limited in comparison to the other land offices. Species that use open habitats are more widespread with the increased representation of open grassland and shrub steppe habitats within this land office, and species that rely on the forested habitats of western M ontana are less common. Bald eagles nest within this land office area, mainly along the Yellowstone River, its tributaries, and around major water bodies. Riparian areas within the land office area provides habitat for least terns. H abitat for whooping cranes and black-tailed prairie dogs exists within the land office area. Big game species that are found in this land office area include both deer species, elk (within coniferous habitats along major drainages), bighorn sheep, antelope, and mountain lions. Several carnivores and small mammals associated with riparian habitats exist within this land office area. The swift fox is only found within the eastern land office. Forested upland game birds are also largely absent from this land office, while habitat for shrubland grouse is more widespread. I n general, the species that rely upon forested environments are largely limited within this land office while those species using open habitats are more abundant. 3.3.5 Vegetation 3.3.5.1 General Statewide Overview Vegetation communities of M ontana are diverse due to the state's wide variety of climatic and geomorphic influences. M uch of western M ontana is strongly characterized by forest vegetation and grassland or sagebrush steppe in many intermontane basins. Six distinct ecological forest type groups have been identified for western M ontana. These include: ponderosa pine forests western larch/ D ouglas fir forests western larch/ Douglas fir, western white pine, and mixed conifer forests lodgepole pine forests Douglas fir forests spruce, spruce/ fir, and western red-cedar/ grand fir forests. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Page 3-94 N ovember 19, 2004 Forest types by land office are summarized in Table 3-25. Table 3-25. Forest Area by Forest Type and Land Office (thousands of acres) Land Office NELO/ TYPE NWLO SWLO CLO SLO/ELO TOTAL M Acres M Acres M Acres M Acres M Acres Douglas-Fir 54.1 63.0 72.8 7.3 197.2 Douglas-Fir/ Larch 85.7 23.9 - - 109.6 Western Hemlock 0.3 - - - 0.3 PonderosaPine 20.4 34.5 14.6 149.6 219.1 Western White Pine 0.1 - - - 0.1 LodgepolePine 25.3 15.2 10.9 2.4 53.9 Larch 22.7 2.7 - - 25.4 Western Red Cedar 3.8 0.1 - - 3.9 Limber Pine - - 1.2 0.2 L4 Grand Fir 9.8 0.1 - - 9.9 Spruce/ Subalpine Fir 21.2 1.0 6.6 0.0 28.8 Spruce 22.8 1.4 0.1 - 24.2 WhitebarkPine 0.2 - 1.0 0.0 13 Mixed Conifer 11.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 13.7 Non-Commercial 2.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 4.2 Nonstocked 6.1 10.1 5.6 2.4 24.2 0 ther H ardwoods 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 Aspen 0.2 0.4 2.5 1.6 4.6 Cottonwood 0.7 0.8 0.4 2.8 4.7 TOTALS 228.2 154.6 116.9 167.1 726.8 Estimates based on D N RC Stand I nventory, 2003. In contrast, much of eastern Montana is characterized by open grasslands. These grasslands include mixed-grass prairie dominated by wheatgrasses, needlegrasses, and grama species intermixed with a variety of forbs and pricklypear cactus and varying densities of sagebrush. They also include foothills-prairie ecological groups where grasses such as bluebunch and needle-and-thread are the dominate grasses and sagebrush is a common component. Not all of eastern Montana is open prairie, however, and in areas such as the Missouri and Powder River breaks, and the Wolf Mountains, eastern ponderosa pine forests are prevalent. More specific descriptions of vegetation types common to lands administered by the individual Land Offices are presented below. Issues regarding noxious weed occurrences follow. Chapters Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 3-95 N ovember 19, 2004 3.3.5.2 Regional Overview N orthwestern Land Office - Land administered by the N ortliwestern Land Office lies within JVl ontana's N orthern Rocl and parts of Glader National Park, and Bob Marshall Wilderness. Additionally, the Flathead Reservation has been declared a Class I area The Northwestern Land Office regon contains two major odsting sources of air pollution. TheColumbia FallsAluninum plant in Flathead County is a major source of carbon nDnoxid^ PM^, and sulfur dioxide. Stimson Lumber in Libby, Lincoln County, is a major source of carbon monoxide. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-104 N ovember 19, 2004 • Southwestern Land Office- Regions in and around JVlissoulaand Butte are State PIV| 10 non-attainment regions. |V| issoula is also a State carbon monoxide non-attainment area. Tlie Soutliwestern Land Office region contains several Class I areas: Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness, Scapegoat Wilderness, and parts of Bob M arshall Wilderness. The Stone Container paperboard mill in Missoula (Missoula County) is a source of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. • Central Land Office- The region in and around Great Falls was a State carbon monoxide non-attainment area, and is currently a maintenance area. E ast H elena is a State lead non-attainment area and a State sulfur dioxide non-attainment area. The CLO contains several Class I areas: Parts of G lacier N ational Park, and Bob Marshall Wilderness, as well as Gates of the Mountains Wilderness, Red Rock Lakes Wilderness, and Yellowstone National Park. TheAsarco smelter in East Helena (Lewis and Clark County) was the State's largest source of airborne sulfur dioxide. Plant operations were temporarily suspended in April 2001, but the plant may start up again. Montana Refining, a petroleum refinery in Great Falls in Cascade County, is a source of sulfur dioxide. • N ortheastern, E astern and Southern Land Offices - The region in and around Lame Deer in the Southern Land Office is a Federal PMIO non- attainment area. Billings was a State carbon monoxide non-attainment area, and is currently a maintenance area. Billings and Laurel are also State sulfur dioxide non-attainment areas. The Northeastern Land Office region contains the UL Bend Wilderness Class I area, as well as Medicine Lake Wilderness Class I area. Additionally, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in the Eastern Land Office and the Fort Peck Reservation in the N ortheastern Land Office have been classified as a Class I area. The Eastern Land Office region contains several existing point sources of air pollution. In Richland County, MDU operates the Lewis & Clark station, a source of sulfur dioxide and a moderate source of nitrogen dioxide. I n Rosebud County, there are four existing point sources. Western E nergy's Rosebud mine is a source of PM ^o- Colstrip Energy operafces their Rosebud plant, a source of sulfur dioxide Ttwo plants in Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-105 N ovember 19, 2004 Colstrip are sources of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide (the State's largest), and sulfur dioxide. In Yellowstone County in the Southern Land Office region, there are four existing point sources. Conoco, Cenex and Exxon each have refineries that are sources of sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. M ontana Sulfur & C hemical operates a plant in B illings that is a source of sulfur dioxide. 3.4 DESCRIPITON OF RELEVANT RESOURCES RELA TED TO THE CULTURAL AESTHETIC AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 3.4.1 Noise 3.4.L1 Introduction Noise is typically defined as "unwanted sound". The noise levels heard by a human or an animal are dependent on several variables including distance between the source and receiver, altitude, temperature, humidity, wind speed, terrain, and vegetation. I n the context of protecting the public health and welfare, noise can have adverse effects on people and the environment. For discussion purposes, noise effects are disclosed and compared on a rural verses urban basis in this section. A Ithough M ontana is predominantly rural, urban noise environments in larger cities and towns exist in each of the six land office areas across the state. H uman and animal perception of noise is affected by intensity, pitch, and duration, as well as the auditory system and physiology of the animal. N oise levels are measured in decibels (dB). 0 n this scale, human perception of sound is linear. The sound spectrum (the plot of amplitude vs. frequency) of a sound must be weighted by the auditory function of an animal to characterize its audibility (Bowles 1995). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends the A-weighted scale (dBA) to describe environmental noise because it emphasizes frequencies that humans hear best (typically between 1,000 and 6,000 Hertz (cycles per second)), is accurate, convenient, and used internationally (EPA 1979). [Terry: UsetheMBOCG discussion/ definition of day-night noise (Ldn) level.] EPA has extended this method to describe the average sound in a 24-hour period. The Loudness-Day-N ight (Ldn) method incorporates a 10- dBA -quietness correction for sound levels between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. The nighttime dBA adjustment accounts for quieter time background noise levels and human expectations regarding interference with sleep (BOGC 1989). Based on this correction, nighttime noise should be half as loud as daytime noise. As a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA developed acceptable noise levels under various conditions that would protect public health and welfare with an adequate Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-106 N ovember 19, 2004 margin of safety. EPA's "Levels Document" indicates tliat outdoor day-night noise levels less than or equal to 55 dBA are sufficient to protect public health and welfare in residential areas and other places where quiet is a basis for use (E PA 1979). The E PA guidelines are not enforceable regulations, and where applicable, local city or county ordinances may use different noise level criteria. 3.4.L2 State Wide Overview Noise levels on Montana's Trust Land tracts are variable. Because of the variety of changes in the acoustical environment, it is not possible to describe noise levels associated with a particular source. Tracts located in or near wilderness areas experience day-night noise levels as low as 30 to 40 dBA (E PA 1979). N oise contributors in the forest or wilderness setting typically include wind, wildlife, flowing water, overhead aircraft, and the occasional human visitor. Montana's rural residents and occasional visitors commonly experience background (ambient) noise generated by wind, agricultural activity, recreation (primarily hunting), and vehicles traveling on nearby roads and highways. General noise level data from the E PA and the N ational Transit I nstitute were used to provide a typical sound level range for rural residential and agricultural cropland areas. Typical baseline noise levels on Trust Land tracts located in the rural, agricultural setting range from approximately 38- dBA to 48-dBA day-night with average noise levels seldom exceeding 50 dBA (EPA 1979). Primary contributors to background noise in M ontana's larger towns and cities are urban traffic, freeway traffic, manufacturing facilities, and aircraft. Day-night noise levels on Trust Land tracts located in these urban/ suburban settings typically average between 50 dBA and 80 dBA with some situations resulting in even higher average noise levels (e.g., near airports or freeways; E PA 1979). 3.4.L3 Land Offices Ambient noise conditions in Montana are not distinguishable between the six DNRC land offices (Northwestern, Central, Southwestern, Northeastern, Eastern, and Southern land offices). Various levels of ambient noise are present in each of the land office areas and include natural and man-made sources as described in the Stdtmde 0 verv'm section above. 3.4.2 Aesthetics 3.4.2.1 Introduction Aesthetics and visual quality are an important part of the landscape. Although assessing scenic values is generally subjective, scenic quality is typically determined by evaluating the overall character and diversity of landform, vegetation, color, water, and manmade features in a landscape. Typically, more complex or diverse natural landscapes have Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-107 N ovember 19, 2004 higher scenic quality than those landscapes with less complex landscape features. Visual impacts of man's activities are commonly assessed on the basis of contrast (e.g., form, line, color, and texture) to the surrounding landscape. 3.4.2.2 State-Wide Overview As described in the Geology and So/7 section, Montana's diverse topography is dominated by the Rocky M ountains in the western one-third of the state, and the G reat Plains and badlands in the eastern two-thirds of the state. Asa result, Montana's Trust Land tracts, including those under lease by the RE M B, are located in dramatically different landscapes that present widely varying aesthetics to the viewer. The ensuing discussion of aesthetics is organized by land offices with similar topographical areas. 3.4.2.3 Regional Overview N orthwestern Land Office - Land administered by the N orthwestern Land 0 ff ice lies within M ontana's N orthern Rocky M ountain province. M uch of this region is classified as open mountains, a distinctive setting with high, detached mountain ranges separated by broad, smooth-floored valleys. The primary valley in this region is the Flathead Valley. The mountains in this region are composed of M ontana's Columbia Rockies, classic mountain landscapes of individual ranges closely spaced with narrow and restricted valleys. The Cabinet Mountains, Purcell Mountains, Whitefish, Flathead, and Swan ranges are some of the landmark highlands within M ontana's rugged N orthern Rockies. The state's lowest elevation of 1,800 feet above sea level occurs within this region where the K ootenai River flows into Idaho. E levations range from approximately 2,000 feet to over 10,000 feet above sea level, and different aspects, result in varying climates, and environments. Trust Land tracts are interspersed amongst viewsheds that range from high alpine wilderness landscapes to that dominated by urban development in the valley bottoms. M anmade features are readily observable on many of the surrounding mountains. These include roads and clearcuts resulting from logging operations, areas of historic mining activity, transmission lines and other utility corridors, scattered rural residences, and the effects of grazing. Landforms in the N orthwestern Land Office area is characterized by the following: o M ixed, relatively dense conifer forests are found on north-facing slopes and floodplain terraces along most rivers. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-108 N ovember 19, 2004 o South-facing floodplain terraces, benches, and slopes are characterized by open forests dominated by ponderosa pine with D ouglas fir comprising up to one-third of the trees. Trees dominate the vegetation. o |V| ajor river systems occupying broad valleys are dominant landscape features throughout western M ontana. U nique landforms associated with the Clark Fork, Flathead, Swan, and other rivers include floodplains, river terraces, bench lands, and water-cut cliffs. o I n addition to river systems, sizeable lakes are landscape features of western M ontana. These include Flathead, Swan, Whitefish, and numerous smaller lakes. o U rban and suburban areas occupy large portions of M ontana's western valleys. The primary center of commerce and urban growth in this region is K alispell. 0 utiying, smaller communities dot the landscape within the F lathead Valley. Residences, roads and highways, businesses, industries, and community centers such as schools and churches dominate these urban landscapes. The structures and colors of manmade features are dominant and deciduous trees and conifers lining city streets, residences, businesses, and parks add to the urban landscape. Southwestern Land Office - Similar to the Northwestern Land Office, the Southwestern Land Office also lies within Montana' s Northern Rocky Mountain province. The landscape is dominated by detached mountain ranges separated by numerous broad valleys. Primary valleys in this region include the Clark Fork, Bitterroot, Flint Creek, and Deer Lodge. The mountains in this region include the Bitterroot Range, Flint Creek Range, Sapphire Mountains, and Garnet Range. M anmade features are readily observable on many of the surrounding mountains. Roads and clearcuts resulting from logging operations, areas of historic mining activity, transmission lines, utility corridors, scattered rural residences, and agricultural practices affect the visual characteristics in the region. Landforms in the Southwestern Land Office area is characterized by the following: o M ixed, relatively dense conifer forests are found on north-facing slopes and floodplain terraces along most rivers. o South-facing floodplain terraces, benches, and slopes are characterized by open forests dominated by ponderosa pine with D ouglas fir Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-109 N ovember 19, 2004 • comprising up to one-third of tlie trees. Trees dominate tlie vegetation. o |V| ajor river systems occupying broad valleys are dominant landscape features in the Southwestern Land Office area. U nique landforms associated with the Clark Fork, Bitterroot, and other rivers include floodplains, river terraces, and bench lands. o U rban and suburban areas occupy large portions of the valleys. T he primary center of commerce and urban growth in this region is M issoula. 0 utiying, smaller communities dot the landscape within the various valleys. Residences, roads and highways, businesses, industries, and community centers dominate these urban landscapes. The structures and colors of manmade features are dominant and deciduous trees and conifers lining city streets, residences, businesses, and parks add to the urban landscape. Central Land Office- Land administered by the Central Land Office is considered Montana's Rocky Mountain Front extending from the Canadian border south to Idaho and Wyoming. The Front is comprised of several individual mountain ranges, foothills, and adjacent prairie that forms the westernmost extension of the G reat Plains. Landscape character types, and associated structure and color features within the area administered by the Central Land Office include: o T he ragged peaks of the Sawtooth Range, the overthrust belt that forms the western skyline of M ontana's northern Rocky M ountain Front. Limestone outcrops several thousand feet in height rise abruptly from prairie grasslands along many stretches of the front. A long others, the disturbed belt, heavily eroded hills and buttes formed from volcanic rock and thrust folds, buffer the front from the prairie. Barren sedimentary and volcanic rock outcrops, prairie grassland, scattered conifer forests, and scattered aspen groves and shrubs provide the landscape colors of the front. o Several isolated mountain ranges lie to the east of the Rocky M ountain Front within the area administered by the Central Land Office. These ranges dissect the surrounding plains, and are composed of mountains, hills, slopes, terraces, and fans. Coniferous forests of these ranges provide the dominant colors with shrubs, grasses, and deciduous trees providing seasonal variations. o The Missouri River and its tributaries dissect foothills, benchlands, and prairie located within the Central Land Office area. These drainages provide corridors of riparian vegetation within a generally dry Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-110 N ovember 19, 2004 landscape. D eciduous trees, shrubs, and grasses provide a seasonal color contrast in comparison to the surrounding foothill or prairie landscape. o Cities within the Central Land Office area that typify urban growth in Montana include Great Falls, Helena, and Butte. Great Falls is set against the backdrop of the G reat Plains to the east, the prominent presence of the M issouri River, and the Rocky M ountain F ront visible on the Western horizon. H elena, located in a broad, open valley, is surrounded by low-rising foothills and mountain ranges, with three large reservoirs of the M issouri nearby. Butte is also located in an open valley that exhibits landscape features associated with historic mining activity in almost every direction. • Northeastern, Southern and Eastern Land Offices - The Great Plains, punctuated by isolated "island" mountain ranges dominate the eastern two-thirds of Montana. Major drainages including those of the Missouri, Milk, Yellowstone, and Powder rivers dissect the prairie. Prairie pothole wetlands, remnants of the last glacial episode in Montana, are numerous north of the Missouri River to the Canadian border in the northeastern portion of the state. Erosional forces of wind and water have created badlands that characterize the landscape of the southeastern portion of the state. Throughout the eastern two-thirds of Montana, cultivated fields, occupied and abandoned farmsteads, rail lines, highways, county roads, and existing transmission lines are prevalent manmade landscape features. Landscape character types, and associated structure and color features include: o I solated mountain ranges that dissect the surrounding plains, and are composed of hills, slopes, terraces, and fans. Coniferous forests of these ranges provide the dominant colors with shrubs, grasses, and deciduous trees providing seasonal variations. o Lowlands along major drainages, tributary drainages, and prairie potholes that include riparian, wetland, native grassland, and cultivated areas. Various shades of green dominate the colors provided to the viewer of these lowlands during the spring and summer. Fall colors provided by deciduous plants are typical, and fade to brown during the late fall through the winter months. o U pland areas where vegetation diversity is limited to dryland farming and pasture. Colors vary seasonally from green to brown crops and pasture during summer and fall, brown and black associated with fallow Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-111 N ovember 19, 2004 farm fields year round, and white and brown associated mth late fall and winter periods. o A reas within lowlands or uplands that have been modified by manmade features (homes, barns, silos). Colors in and around the predominantly rural residences and communities in eastern M ontana are typically dominated by surrounding agricultural land, shelterbelts, and the structures themselves. o Badlands composed of flat-topped buttes, sandstone pillars, gullies and rills, steep erosional slopes, and dramatic "fairyland" shapes. The badlands are sparsely vegetated with scattered pines, junipers, sage, and grasses although drainages may occasionally host riparian areas. Colors of the badlands are most commonly dominated by the pastels of the exposed sedimentary rocks. 3.4.3 Cultural Resources 3.4.3.1 Introduction Cultural resources are generally recognized as tangible products of human behavior that are more than 50 years old. They include archaeological sites, historic sites, architectural properties, districts. Traditional Cultural Properties, and man-made/ man-caused landscapes, structures, objects or features. P aleontologc resources are fossilized plant and animal remains which are rare and critical to scientific research. T he value of non- renewable cultural and paleontologic resources lies in their ability to provide credible and meaningful kinds of information about past animal and human populations and the environments within which they existed. D iscovery and evaluation of these resources before they are impacted by ground disturbing activities, or removed from state ownership, is required by law. 3.4.3.2 Regulatory and G uidance F ramework Legislation that mandates state management of cultural and paleontologic resources consist of the M ontana State A ntiquities A ct (22-3-4 M .C .A .), T he M ontana H uman Skeletal Remains and Burial Site protection Act (22-3-802 et. seq. M .C.A.), and relevant portions of the M ontana E nvironmental Policy Act (75-l-103-2e M .C.A .). The procedures that RE M B follows to implement the mandates of the M ontana State A ntiquities Act can be found at A.R.M. 36-2-801 et. seq. I n order to establish a basic historical context within which cultural resources are organized, the culture history model found at Brumleyand Rennie(1993) will be referenced. After a cultural resource and it's historical context is identified, that resource will be evaluated to determine if it is a H eritage Property- a property determined potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (N RHP). The Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-112 N ovember 19, 2004 N RH P is the official list of the N ation's cultural resources worthy of preservation. Evaluating a cultural resource's N RH P listing eligibility is accomplished by following the procedures outlined in National Register Bulletin #15. 3.4.3.3 Statewide Overview The synthesis of data derived from more than three decades of systematic cultural and paleontologic inventory in M ontana suggests that cultural resources, and to a lesser extent paleontologic resources, can be expected to occur across the landscape with varying densities. H owever, some landforms and environments have a higher potential than others for containing these resources. As will be outlined in the following subsections, areas west of the Continental D ivide have a lower probability of containing paleontologic resources than do areas east of the Continental D ivide. F urther, the Northeastern and Eastern Land Officeshavealower probability of containing cultural resources associated with cambium harvest and hard rock mining than do areas in the Central, Southwestern, and N orthwestern Land Offices. Because a number of environmental and geologic factors must betaken into consideration when attempting any kind of predictive modeling, topography alone should never be the deciding factor as to whether or not an inventory of cultural and paleontologic resources is warranted. The synthesis of data derived from more than three decades of systematic cultural and paleontologic inventory in M ontana suggests that cultural resources, and to a lesser extent paleontologic resources, can be expected to occur across the landscape with varying densities. H owever, some landforms and environments have a higher potential than others for containing these resources. As will be outlined in the following subsections, areas west of the Continental D ivide have a lower probability of containing paleontologic resources than do areas east of the Continental D ivide. F urther, the Northeastern and Eastern Land Officeshavealower probability of containing cultural resources associated with cambium harvest and hard rock mining than do areas in the Central, Southwestern, and N orthwestern Land Offices. Because a number of environmental and geologic factors must betaken into consideration when attempting any kind of predictive modeling, topography alone should never be the deciding factor as to whether or not an inventory of cultural and paleontologic resources is warranted. 3.4.3.4 Regional Overview • Northwestern Land Office- Paleontologic resources are rare within the N orthwestern Land Office area and prehistoric/ protohistoric cultural resources tend to be concentrated in the major drainage bottoms. Campsite remnants, mature ponderosa pine trees which exhibit cambium extraction scars, white pine nut collection sites, short term stone tool manufacturing/ maintenance sites (lithic scatters), vision quest sites, rock art sites, and trails/ travel corridors are the kinds of prehistoric and protohistoric cultural resources typically encountered within the area. Typical cultural resources within the area of historic age include evidences of past coal, hard rock and placer mining activities, features associated with Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-113 N ovember 19, 2004 timber harvesting/ lumber production activities, liomesteads, sheep/ cattle ranches, railroads, abandoned town sites, fire towers/ lookouts, and historic travel routes. Southwestern Land Office- Paleontologic resources are rare within the Southwestern Land Office area and prehistoric/ protohistoric cultural resources tend to be concentrated in the major drainage bottoms. Campsite remnants, mature ponderosa pine trees which exhibit cambium extraction scars, white pine nut collection sites, short term stone tool manufacturing/ maintenance sites (lithic scatters), tool stone quarry sites, vision quest sites, rock art sites, stone circles (tipi rings), trails/ travel corridors and to a limited extent, bison kill sites and cairn alignments associated with bison hunting activities are the kinds of prehistoric and protohistoric cultural resources typically encountered within the area. Typical cultural resources within the area of historic age include evidences of past hard rock and placer mining activities, features associated with timber harvesting/ lumber production activities, homesteads, sheep/ cattle ranches, railroads, abandoned town sites, fire towers/ lookouts, and historic travel routes. Central Land Office- Paleontologic resources occur with moderate frequency in the northern ^i of the area, but are less common in the southern ^i of the area. Because of the greater variability in topography and ecotones, prehistoric/ protohistoric cultural resources can be expected to occur on all landforms except the steepest slopes. Campsite remnants, white pine nut collection sites, short term stone tool manufacturing/ maintenance sites (lithic scatters), tool stone quarry sites, vision quest sites, rock art sites, stone circles (tipi rings), isolated cairns, bison kill sites and cairn alignments associated with bison hunting activities, and to a limited extent, trails/ travel corridors are the kinds of prehistoric and protohistoric cultural resources typically encountered within the area. Typical cultural resources within the area of historic age include evidences of past coal, hard rock and placer mining activities, features associated with timber harvesting/ lumber production activities, homesteads, farms, sheep/ cattle ranches, railroads, abandoned town sites, fire towers/ lookouts, and historic travel routes. N ortheastern Land Office - Paleontologic resources occur with moderate to high frequency throughout the Northeastern Land Office area. With the exception of the M issouri River Breaks, topography in the N ortheastern Land Office area exhibits less relief overall than any of the previously described areas and cultural resources can be expected to occur on all landforms in the area. Campsite remnants, short term stone tool manufacturing/ maintenance sites (lithic scatters), tool stone quarry/ collection sites, vision quest sites, stone circles (tipi rings), isolated Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapters Page 3-114 N ovember 19, 2004 cairns, bison llacre <26 acres) and commercial/ industrial land uses within land office regions for all land ownerships is described in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 and in M ap E xhibits 4-1 and 4-2 1 1 is anticipated that most of the new single-family residential opportunities would be achieved through sale, while most of the industrial and commercial (including multi- family residential) opportunities would be achieved through lease. Conservation opportunities are not necessarily restricted by alternative but the growth in conservation acres is less predictable since this type of land use is not necessarily linked to market (growth) conditions. M ost of the conservation objectives would be achieved through the lease or sale of development rights or purchase of conservation easements. Table 4^2. Growtii Estimates for Rural Residential Acreages on all Land Ownerships Land Office Region G rowtti E stimates (acres) by T ime Period | 2003-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Totals NWLO 10,776 - 17,960 7,016 - 11,694 7,181 - 11,968 7,474 - 12,456 32,446-54,071 SWLO 8,575 - 14,291 5,918 - 9,863 6,122 - 10,203 6,344 - 10,574 26,959-44,93 CLO 2,739 - 4,565 5,293 - 8,821 5,570 - 9,283 5,818 - 9,696 19,420-32,36! NELO (225) - (135) 46-76 67-111 96 - 160 (16) -2i: SLO 3,270 - 5,450 2,197-3,661 2,289 - 3,815 2,405 - 4,008 10,161-16,93. ELO (213) - (128) 31-51 72 - 120 49-81 (61) - 12. Grand Total 24,922 - 42,003 20,501 - 34,166 21,301 - 35,400 22,186 - 36,975 88,909-148,64 Source: Jackson 2004 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-5 N ovember 19, 2004 Table 4^3. Growth E stimates for Commercial/ 1 ndustrial Acreages on all Ownerships Land Land Office Region G rowth E stimates (acres) by T ime Period 2002-2010 20U-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Totals NWLO 2,540 - 4,234 1,678 - 2,796 1,854 - 3,090 2,051 - 3,418 8,123-13,531 SWLO 3,157 - 5,261 2,090 - 3,483 2,344 - 3,906 2,615 - 4,358 10,206-17,001 CLO 3,784 - 6,306 2,379 - 3,965 2,685 - 4,475 2,977 - 4,961 11,825-19,70' ELO 777 - 1,295 615 - 1,025 668- 1,114 736 - 1,226 2,796-4,661 SLO 2,606 - 4,344 1,725 - 2,875 1,935 - 3,225 2,159 - 3,598 8,425-14,04: ELO 320 - 533 132 - 220 155 - 258 170 - 283 777-1,29. Grand Total 13,184- 21,973 8,619 - 14,364 9,641 - 16,068 10,708 - 17,844 42,152-70,24' Source: Jackson 2004 The Trust Land share of growth in each of these land office regions varies by alternative as described in Chapter 2, Section 5. Chapter 4 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 4-6 N ovember 19, 2004 v^-' \ ■ ■ J ■ 1 ^k^^ ' ~ % -J ^ •> It, 1 ■ ' ■ . '^^■^ r - ■■ b. I J o Ei m s: ft f H r ^n _r r' a pd 4n ll h^ X ^ o e o h-j O 3 m m C3-. CD t0 O CD ^. o ID 3 sz SI > n fU to 13 I" D) O Z] ■D m i! ft Chapter 4 Hage4-« N ovember 4.1.3 Summary Description of Alternatives This secbon provides a summary of the estimated number of acres of trust lands that would be reclassified to "other", including conservation, or de/doped for residential, commercial, or industrial uses under each alternabve through the year 2025. Detailed descriptions of each alternative are included in Chapter 2. 4.L3.1 Alternative A - Current Program 1 mplementation of A Iternative A would result in D N RC continuing the current administration of the Real E state M anagement Program. The number of new acres estimated for residential, commercial, and industrial uses on trust lands under the current program, for each land office, is displayed in Table 4.4. TABLE 4^4. ALTE RN ATIVE A - E stimated N umber of N ew Developed and Conservation Acres on Trust Lands Through the Year 2025* LAND OFFICE REGION Land Use Designation NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Totals Residential 2,163 1,258 1,036 4 271 1 4,733 Commercial/ Industrial 555 489 647 172 231 42 2,136 Conservation 778 375 3,975 4,668 130 649 10,575 Total 3,496 2,122 5,658 4,844 632 692 17,444 * T hese are mid range values and the actua acreages could vary by plus or minus 25% Source: Jackson 2004 Under A Iternative A, the estimated acres of new industrial and/ or commercial use ranges from 42 in the E astern Land Office to 647 in the Central Land Office and 2,136 acres for all Land Office areas. The total commercial/ industrial acreage estimate would represent approximately 0.04 percent of the total Trust Land in Montana. The estimated number of new residential acres under A Iternative A ranges from 1 in theEdsLern Land Office to 2,163 in the N orth western Land Office. The total developed residential acreage of 4,733 would represent 0.09 percent of the total Trust Land in Montana. The RE M B would try to secure approximately 10,575 acres of conservation lands (including purchased development rights) during the life of the Plan. 4.L3.2 Alternative B - Diversified Portfolio U nder this alternative, the RE M B would actively participate in the regional market economy by trying to keep pace competitively with the development growth related to residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The RE MB would need additional staff and funding to proportionally share in the anticipated growth of those 3 land Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-9 N ovember 19, 2004 use sectors (refer to Chapter 2. The number of now de/doped and conservation acres is estimated Table 45. TABLE 4^5. ALTERNATIVE B - Estimated Number of New Developed and Conservation Acres on Trust Lands Through the Year 2025* LAND OFFICE REGION Land Use Designation NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Totals Residential 4,325 2,515 2,072 9 541 3 9,465 Commercial/ Industrial 1,083 953 1,262 335 449 83 4,165 Conservation 1,348 813 7,196 7,091 456 1,299 18,203 Total 6,756 4,281 10,530 7,435 1,446 1,385 31,833 * T hese are mid range values and the actua acreages could vary by plus or minus 25% Now commercial and/ or industrial uses under Alternative B would total approximately 4,165 acres or about 2,029 acres nx)rethan anticipated byAlternative A. Do/dopment of 3,298 acres of commerdal/ industrial uses in western Montana Land Office areas (Northwestern, Soutiiwestem, and Central Land Office areas) would represent about O.IS percent of the total trust land area in those Land Office areas. Overall, now commerdal and indusb'ial acres would total less than 0.01% of the total trust land area. N ew residential acres would total approxi matdy 9,465 acres> with nx)st of the rdated de/dopment occurring in the western land offices. Residential do/dopment in the 3 westerly land offices would occeed that of easterly land offices by over d^t ti mes (4,587 acres versus 553 acres, respectivdy). Conversion of 4,587 acres to residential use in the 3 most western Land Office areas would represent about 0.25 percent of the total Trust Lands in those Land Office areas. Overall, new residential acres would total less than 0.1% of the total trust land area. The RE MB would try to secureapproximately 18,203 acres of conservation lands (including purchased devdopment rights) during the life of the Plan. 4.L3.3 Alternative B-1- Diversified Portfolio, Conservation Priority U nder this A Iternative, the RE M B would strive to achieve the conservation acres shown in Table 4-5. U nder B-1, the total estimate of 9,465 acres for new residential acres (Table 4-5) would be reduced to 4,732 acres to encourage additional opportunities for conservation uses on residential ly valued properties. 4.L3.4 Alternative C - Focused Portfolio I mplementation of A Iternative C would result in the expansion of the Real E state M anagement Program to secure more of the projected growth market in the state compared to Alternatives A and B, thereby increasing the revenue return to the state Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 4-10 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 4 from selected lands The number of now de/doped and conservation acres under Alternative C is estimated inTable4.6. TABLE 4-6. ALTERNATIVE C - Estimated Number of New Developed and C onsen/ation Acres on T rust L ands T hrough tiie Year 2025* LAND OFFICE REGION Land Use Designation NWLO SWLO CLO NELO SLO ELO Totals Residential 8,652 5,032 4,143 18 1,084 5 18,934 Commercial/ Industrial 2,166 1,905 2,523 671 899 165 8,329 Conservation 1,780 1,208 9,701 9,438 738 1,554 24,419 Total 12,598 8,145 16,367 10,127 2,721 1,724 51,682 * T hese are mid range values and the actual acreages could vary by plus or minus 25% N ew commercial/ industrial acres range from 165 in the E astern Land Office area to 2,523 in the Central Land Office area. M ost of the new industrial and commercial uses would occur in the high growth areas of western and central M ontana. The total estimated acres of 8,329 represents approximately 0.1% of the total trust land area. Estimates of new residential acres range from 5 in the E astern Land Office area to 8,652 acres in the N orthwestern Land Office area under A Iternative C . E astern M ontana Land Office areas (N ortheastern. Southern, and E astern) would see a combined total of 1,107 acres of residential acres versus 17,827 acres in the western Montana Land Office areas (Northwestern, Southwestern, and Central). The total residential estimate of 18,934 represents approximately 0.3% of the total trust land area. Under A Iternative C, the RE MB would try to secure approximately 24,419 acres of conservation lands (including purchased development rights) during the life of the Plan. 4.L3.5 AltemativeC-1- Focused Portfolio, Conservation Priority U nder this A Iternative, the RE M B would strive to achieve the conservation acres as shown in Table 4-6. Conservation use would generally be achieved through the lease or sale of development rights on lands with residential values. U nder C-1, the total estimate of 18,934 acres for new residential acres (Table 4-6) would be reduced to 9,467 acres to encourage additional opportunities for conservation uses on residentially valued properties. 4.L3.6 Alternative D - Focused Entitiements Alternative D is a blending of the five alternatives (A, B, B-1, C, C-1) identified in the DEIS. The goal of "D" is to share proportionately with anticipated community Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Page 4-11 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 4 g-owth (as proposed under "B") but the philosophy of "D" is to focus more on improving land entitlements to maximize income to the trusts and comply with local, states and federal regulations Proactive land use planni ng, as particularly emphasized in Alternative C, isacentral theme to achio/ing desired land entitlements with outcome objectives that pronDte good community planni ng. The le/d at which this alternative m^ be implemented will bedependentonthevigorof the real estate market, the position of trust lands in those g'owing markets, and le/d of staffing and associated budgets To that ©dent, the acreage goals or guidelines that might be anticipated for do/doped and conservation uses are as generally shown in Table4.5. HowB/er, if land entitiements and land do/dopment outcome objectives can be achio/ed to a g'eeter ©dent with the staffing and funding consb-ai nts of A Iternati ve B, then the acreage esti mates m^ approach those ©(pected forAlternativeC (Table4.6). Alternativdy, the do/dopment outcomes (acreages) m^ be closer to the ©(pectations of Alternative A if the desired staffing and funding objectives are not achio/ed. A d©/dopment cap with a link to a defined nx)nitoring tiniefrarne (see Section 2.6.6.4) would hdp to define the upward limits of g"owtii under this alternative 4.1.4 Regulatory Requirements Commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in M ontana are subject to three principle types of local land use policy and/ or regulations. T hese include growth policies (formerly comprehensive or master plans), zoning regulations and subdivision regulations. Descriptions of local land use policy and regulatory processes are located in Chapter 5. In addition to local land use policy and regulatory requirements, activities conducted on T rust Lands would require compliance with a variety of other state and federal regulations. Principle regulations include the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Montana Antiquities Act. DN RC staff administers the Montana Antiquities Act as it applies to land use decisions. D N RC consults with M ontana D epartment of Environmental Quality for administration and compliance with the Clean Air and Water Acts. All activities must comply with water quality standards and air quality standards as adopted by the State of M ontana. Proposed projects are reviewed to determine whether compliance with these standards will be achieved. Projects authorized by D N RC may require monitoring (air and/ or water) to ensure that the developer or the agency is meeting applicable standards. Compliance with the State A ntiquities Act requires DN RC to identify cultural or paleontological resources on Trust Lands, evaluate the significance of those resources, and determine feasibility of limiting, avoiding, or mitigating impacts to these resources. I n circumstances where local land use policies do not address the breadth of public involvement or environmental analysis that D N RC must adhere to in making project level decisions under the Montana Environmental PolicyAct (MEPA), DN RC "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-12 N ovember 19, 2004 would re/ieiw the project to address those elements Ddai led descri ptions of site CDnditionsand potential impacts would be completed on a project lo/el basisfor each land use proposal, whether generated by outside parties or D N RC throu^ the funnel filtration process as descri bed in Chapter 2. 4.1.5 Project Selection & Prioritization Chapter 2, Section 3 describes a programmatic approach to the identification and selection of real estate opportunities on Trust Lands under each of the action alternatives. T he approach is a systematic process that offers a filtration methodology for identifying lands that may ultimately be suitable for residential, conservation, commercial and/ or industrial purposes. All Trust Lands would be "filtered" through a series of eight (8) processes to determine project level opportunities. The RE MB would use an ID (Identification) Team approach to develop 1, 3, and 5 year project lists (refer to F igure 2.5). U nder the existing program of the RE M B (represented by Alternative A), the project selection and prioritization methodology is less structured. Project opportunities are more often reactive than proactive and project priorities are identified from annual meetings of a Commercial D evelopment Working G roup. A series of maps are included in Appendix H that displays how a subset of lands is identified through the initial steps of the funnel filter analysis. I n the N WLO, for example, there are 5 consecutive maps that demonstrate the filtering process. The first map displays all the trust lands in the N WLO . The second map displays only that subset of trust lands that have slopes less than 25% and outside the f loodplain. The third map further removes trust land located within the grizzly bear recovery area. The forth map looks at the remaining trust lands (after the initial filters described above) and then removes all but the lands identified as being "highest quantile" (see Table 2.6). The resulting map provides a visual indication of the general suitability of trust lands for development potential. The fifth map displays the location of existing residential uses in proximity to the remaining trust lands. This five map display is also shown for the SWLO . Single maps are included for the CLO and SLO to display the effects of steep slopes and floodplains. N o maps are included for the E LO and N E LO due to the low likelihood of development potential in those locations. 4.2 PREDICTED EFFECTS ON ALL AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4.2.1 Statewide Demograpliic Relationsliips 4.2.L1 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts • A Iternative A - Current Program Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-13 N ovember 19, 2004 o I ndustrial and Commercial Uses- Thecurrert program is primarily reactive to commercial and industrial opportunities Current prog"am operations (stcffing and funding) would probably limit the ability of theREMB to fully participate in market forces It is assumed that commercial and industrial uses on Trust Lands would be less than proportional (land ratios) to similar de/dopment on other lands Do/dopment on Trust Lands would not be growth (population) inducing si nee the same le/d of de/dopment and population growth would occur whdiier or not Trust Lands share inthctg'owth. o Residential U ses - T he current program is primarily reactive to residential opportunities. Current program operations (staffing and funding) would probably limit the ability of the RE M B to fully participate in market forces. 1 1 is assumed that rural residential uses on Trust Lands would be less than proportional (land ratios) to similar development on other lands. D evelopment on Trust Lands would not be growth (population) inducing since the same level of development and population growth would occur whether or not Trust Lands shared in that growth. o Conservation - The current program is primarily reactive to conservation opportunities on Trust Lands. The lease and sale of development rights and conservation leases, licenses, and easements would continue and would likely increase somewhat, based upon market demand and interest. Some marketing could be used to help identify parties that might have some interest in purchasing conservation rights. Additional conservation lands may encourage, but would not directly contribute to, new growth in the State. • A Iternative B - D iversified Portfolio o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The operation of theREMB under A Iternative B would be more proactive than reactive to commercial and industrial opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. 1 1 is assumed that commercial and industrial uses on Trust Lands would be proportional (land ratios) to similar development on other lands. Development on Trust Lands would not be growth (population) inducing since all alternatives assume that trust lands will be sharing in expected growth; not creating growth beyond what the market will absorb. o Residential Uses- The operation of theREMB under A Iternative B would be more proactive than reactive to residential opportunities. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-14 N ovember 19, 2004 • Program operations (stcffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. 1 1 is assumed that residential opportunities on Trust Lands would be proportional (land ratios) to tiiose on otiier lands Do/dopment on Trust Lands would not beg'owtii (population) inducing sincethis alternative and others assume that trust lands will be sharing, to varying degrees in ©(pected community growtii. o Conservation Uses - Conservation opportunities would be pursued under this alternative. Land acreages with leased or purchased development rights would increase based upon market demand and interest. M arketing towards targeted organizations would be used to help focus interest on conservation opportunities. Additional conservation lands may encourage, but would not directly contribute to, new growth in the State. Alternatives B-1 - Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority- The program under Alternative B-1 would not differ from B with regard to the level of activity in the pursuit of residential, industrial/ commercial, or conservation uses for Trust Lands. H owever, conservation uses (which would occur primarily on lands that have rural residential values) would reduce the number of acres placed in residential use. This would have the effect of directing rural residential development elsewhere in the market area. Additional conservation lands may encourage but would not directly contribute to new growth to the State. • AlternativeC - Focused Portfolio o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The operation of the RE MB under AlternativeC would be reactive and proactive to commercial and industrial opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. It is assumed that commercial and industrial uses on Trust Lands would be proportionally higher (land ratios) than what would occur on other lands. Development on Trust Lands would not be growth (population) inducing since the same level of development and population growth would occurwhetheror not Trust Lands shared in that growth. o Residential Uses- The operation of the RE MB under A Iternative C would be reactive and proactive to residential opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. 1 1 is assumed that residential opportunities on Trust Lands would be proportionally higher (land ratios) than what would occur on other lands. D evelopment on "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-15 N ovember 19, 2004 • Trust Lands would not be growth (population) inducing since the same lo/el of do/dopment and population growth would occur whdher or not Trust Lands shared i n that growth. o Conservation Uses - Conservation opportunities would be pursued under tliis alternative. Land acreages with leased or purchased development rights would increase based upon market demand and interest. M arketing towards targeted organizations would be used to help focus interest on conservation opportunities. Additional conservation lands may encourage, but would not directly contribute to, new growth in the State. AlternativeC-1 - Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority The program under A lternativeC-1 would not differ from C with regard to the level of activity in the pursuit of residential, industrial/ commercial, or conservation uses for T rust Lands. H owever, conservation uses (which would occur primarily on lands that have rural residential values) would reduce the number of acres placed in residential use. This would have the effect of directing rural residential development elsewhere in the market area. Additional conservation lands may encourage but would not directly contribute to new growth to the State. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements The emphasis of Alternative D is to match or keep pace with local market conditions and to share proportionally in the expected growth as generally described for A Iternative B . The added emphasis of this alternative on achieving improved land entitlements and outcome objectives is intended to minimize adverse environmental impacts through increased coordination with local regulatory review authorities and clear definition of lands that might be selected for developed uses. Through these processes, trust lands would be sharing in expected community growth on lands that are suitable and desirable for developed uses. 4.2.L2 Cumulative Effects The proposed alternatives would not create a demand for additional commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E IS would allow the RE M B to participate in the existing growth market in the state. Development of commercial, residential, or industrial uses on Trust Lands would not necessarily stimulate or promote growth on other publically-owned (non Trust) lands. N o population increase would occur beyond what is projected for general community growth. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-16 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.L3 Residual Adverse E ffects No residual adverse effects would result with "g'owth" (residential, commercial, industrial) on Trust Lands associated with any of the alternatives presented in this EIS. Growth would occur in accordance with land use policy and regulatory processes and M E PA analysis, as appropriate An assumption is made that the same le/d of growth would occur, regardless (of whether it occurred on Trust Lands), since g'owth is a product of need and demand. I n some situations it could be demonstrated that Trust Lands m^ be bdter suited for g'owth and do/dopment than some non-Trust Lands Population and economic conditions would not change under any of the alternatives 4.2.L4 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitment of Resources I mplementation of the alternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations and regulatory review processes would minimize the adverse effects of growth. There would be no additional demand on resources beyond what is projected for new growth in a particular land office region. 4.2.L5 Short-T erm Versus L ong-T erm Productivity Trust Lands suitable in the near term for residential, commercial, conservation, and industrial uses would be suitable for similar uses in the long term. M arket cycles provide for redevelopment or adaptive reuse of existing structures. 4.2.2 Real Estate Management Bureau 4.2.2.1 State-Wide Overview The RE MB of theTLMD would manage lands suitable for commercial, industrial, residential and conservation uses as described in Chapter 2 under all alternatives. This would include leasing and licensing lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation uses. The RE M B would also administer land sales, land exchanges, and land easements. C hapter 2 describes the current process for selecting projects that would continue under A Iternative A , as well as the F unnel approach that would be used to select projects under all of the action alternatives (see F igure 2-4 in Chapter 2). Program emphasis, staffing, and funding resources would vary by alternative. M ap E xhibits 4-1 and 4-2 display the general locations of trust lands that have been initially screened as having higher potential for rural residential and commercial/ industrial uses (See Appendix C). 4.2.2.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The current program is primarily reactive to commercial and industrial opportunities. Current program operations (staffing and funding) would probably limit the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-17 N ovember 19, 2004 ability of tlie RE M B to fully partidpabe in markd: forces. Steffi ng iQ/ds and stcffing ©(pertise would not appreciably change under this alternative Thea/ailability of fundingfor improving land entitlements would probably remai n constant to the current situation. o Residential U ses - T he current program is primarily reactive to residential opportunities. Current program operations (staffing and funding) would probably limit the ability of the RE M B to fully participate in market forces. Staffing levels and staffing expertise would not appreciably change under this alternative. The availability of funding for improving land entitlements would probably remain constant to the current situation. o Conservation Uses- The current program is primarily reactive to conservation opportunities on Trust Lands. The lease, license or sale of development rights would be an option if properly authorized by legislation. Conservation leases and licenses would be other mechanisms to accommodate conservation objectives. • A Iternative B - D iversified Portfolio o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The operation of the RE MB under A Iternative B would be more proactive than reactive to commercial and industrial opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. Staffing levels would increase by three FTE s (Professional E ngineer, Lease Administrator, Surveyor) to help respond more quickly to market opportunities. Staffing expertise would be expanded to consider greater involvement with land use planning and commercial and industrial leasing. Additional funding beyond current levels would be necessary to improve entitlements to property. Approximately $500,000 annually would be authorized as new expenditures for land entitlement improvements (infrastructure, zoning, annexation, etc). o Residential Uses- The operation of the RE MB under A Iternative B would be more proactive than reactive to residential opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. Staffing levels would increase (see above) to help respond more quickly to market opportunities. Staffing expertise would be expanded to consider greater involvement with land sales. Additional funding beyond current levels would be necessary to improve entitlements to property. F unding for improved land entitlements would not be in addition to the funding identified above. "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-18 N ovember 19, 2004 • o Conservation Uses - Conservation opportunities would be pursued under this alternative. Conservation lands would be in addition to the number of acres placed in developed use. Land acreages with leased or purchased development rights or conservation rights would increase based upon market demand and interest. Efforts to market, promote, and implement conservation opportunities would benefit from the increased staffing identified above. Alternative B-1 - Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority The program underAlternative B-1 would not differ from B with regard to the level of activity in the pursuit of residential, industrial/ commercial, or conservation uses for Trust Lands. Funding and staff requirements under A Iternative B-1 would be similar to those required under A Iternative B. • A Iternative C - Focused Portfolio o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The operation of the RE MB under A Iternative C would be proactive to commercial and industrial opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. Staffing levels would increase by one FT E (land Use Planner) over A Iternative B to help respond more quickly to market opportunities. Staffing expertise would be expanded to consider greater involvement with land use planning and commercial and industrial leasing. Approximately $1 million annually would be authorized as new expenditures for land entitlement improvements (infrastructure, zoning, annexation, etc). o Residential Uses- The operation of the RE MB underAlternative C would be proactive to residential opportunities. Program operations (staffing and funding) would be improved to fully participate in market forces. Staffing levels would increase (see above) to help respond more quickly to market opportunities and staffing expertise would be expanded to consider greater involvement with land sales. Additional funding (see above) would be necessary to improve entitlements to property. o Conservation Uses - Conservation opportunities would be pursued under this alternative. Conservation lands would be in addition to the number of acres placed in developed use. Land acreages with leased or purchased development rights or conservation rights would increase based upon market demand and interest. Land acreages with leased or "purchased development rights" would increase based upon market demand and interest. Efforts to "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-19 N ovember 19, 2004 market, promote and implement conservation opportunities would benefit from the increased stcffing identified above • AlternativeC-1 - Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority The program under A lternativeC-1 would not differ from C with regard to the level of activity in the pursuit of residential, industrial/ commercial, or conservation uses for Trust Lands. Funding and staff requirements under Alternative C-1 would be similar to those required underAlternativeC. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements T he effect that A Iternative D might have on the Real E state Management Bureau is as generally described for Alternative B. Staffing and funding needs are identical as is the desire to be proactive in the community planning process. This alternative would place additional emphasis on community planning and achieving improved entitlements on land before or concurrent with project initiation. To accomplish these objectives, staffing assignments and financial support would correspond to project priorities identified through the project selection process. 4.2.2.3 Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects to other state agencies from the proposed administration of the RE M B under any of the alternatives. To the extent possible, new staff for the RE MB would be achieved without additional FT Es through adjustment of existing staff assignments within theTLM D . 4.2.2.4 Residual Adverse E ffects There would be no residual adverse effects from the proposed administration of the RE MB. The program would be operated to serve the financial interest of the Trusts while considering environmental resources under any of the alternatives 4.2.2.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinent of Resources There would be no irretrievable and irreversible effects from the proposed administration of the RE M B under any of the alternatives. 4.2.2.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity TheTLM D is a first and foremost an asset management organization. Under all alternatives, as resources allow, it would evaluate the entire land base of Trust Lands and choose those portfolio and fiscal options that serve the long-term interests of the trusts. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-20 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.3 Economics 4.2.3.1 Statewide Overview TheTLMD manages lands under four broad cabegories of use including forest management, ag'iculture^ grazing and real estate The largest share of income is from agriculture and grazing due to the vast acreages involved in those uses. I ncome form uses managed by the RE M B contri butes approxi metely 4 percent to the total annual trust re/enue HowB/er, on re/enue per acre basis> commercial, industrial, residential and conservation uses generate over $54 per acre dwarfing agriculture and g'azing at $2.80 per acre Althou^ the acreage of now real estate lands is ©(pected to remain under 1 percent of the total Trust Land acreage the percentage of ro/enuefrom commercial, residential, industrial and conservation uses is expected to increase under all alternatives An economic analysis of each proposed alternative was prepared byj ackson (2004) and is included in Appendix D . I nformation in the report includes statistics related to ro/enue 0q3enses> rates of return, taxes, jobs> and personal income 4.2.3.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts • A Iternative A - Current Program G ross annual revenue under this alternative would be approximately $3.8 million. This reflects income from leases and interest from the permanent trust fund. E stimated average rates of return for A Iternative A would be approximately 2.76%. • A Iternative B - D iversified Portfolio G ross annual revenue under this alternative would be approximately $4.7 - $5.3 million. Estimated average rates of return from Alternative B would be 4.66- 5.13 percent. Thelatter higher rate of return would be achieved by funding improvements to enhance land entitlements. • Alternative B-1 - Diversified Portfolio - Conservation Priority G ross revenue under this alternative would be less than under A Iternative B . While the RE MB would seek to obtain residential value through the sale or lease of development and conservation rights, the value of those rights would vary somewhat depending on associated entitlements. The conservation market and legislative authorizations would ultimately decide the amount and mix of conservation strategies. I n a general sense, annual rent (lease or license) for development or conservation rights would generate a higher rate of return as compared to permanent disposition of rights through a single purchase. I f leasing were the predominant tool for securing the rights, the rate of return under B-1 would beslightly less than that of A Iternative B. The rate of return could be substantially less than A Iternative B if the predominant Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-21 N ovember 19, 2004 tool for securing de/dopment and conservation ri^ts is accomplished with permanent disposition. • AlternativeC - Focused Portfolio G ross annual revenue under this alternative would be approximately $6.4 - 7.8 million. E stimated average rates of return from A Iternative C would be 5.48 - 6.27 percent. The latter higher rate of return would be achieved by funding improvements to enhance land entitlements. • Alternative C-1 - Focused Portfolio - Conservation Priority G ross revenue under this alternative would be slightly less than under A Iternative C . Calculation of the rate of return for conservation emphasis depends on the method of disposition as per the logic discussed in B-1, above. I n general, costs of A Iternative C-1 remain fixed so if the income were reduced from the loss of residential revenue (9,467 acres less than A Iternative C) then the rate of return would be correspondingly reduced. • A Iternative D - Focused Entitlements The revenue and rates of return that might be applicable to A Iternative D would reflect the range of values between those of A Iternative B and A Iternative C . I m proved entitlements on land would achieve these higher values. 4.2.3.3 Cumulative Effect Increasing commercial, industrial and residential uses would create additional tax benefits to local communities and increase revenue to the schools of M ontana under all alternatives. 4.2.3.4 Residual Adverse E ffects There would be no residual adverse effects from increased revenue to the Trusts under any of the alternatives. 4.2.3.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinent of Resources There would be no irretrievable and irreversible effects under any of the alternatives. 4.2.3.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Increased revenue would be from annual lease payments and interest from the permanent fund. Revenue objectives are intended to promote the long-term interests of the various Trusts through a combination of income strategies and general portfolio management within all the bureaus of the T L M D . All permanent dispositions of land are subject to a project level M E PA analysis that would help evaluate short versus long-term "productivity". Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-22 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.4 Real Estate Transactions and Authorizations 4.2.4.1 Statewide Overview Under 77-1-204, MCA theststecan sell, partidpabein land banking purchase lease or occhangeTrust Lands when, in the State Board of Land Commissioner's judgment, it is advantageous to do so. These transactions and authorizations are detailed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4. 4.2.4.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Under A Iternative A, commercial and industrial development would generally not make use of the RE M B land banking program. Land exchanges would occur primarily in response to inquiries. H owever, if the staff is able to identify a clear advantage in pursuing a land exchange, the Bureau may initiate a transaction as resources allow. I n most cases the RE M B would lease rather than sell land associated with industrial and commercial developments. o Residential U ses - U nder A Iternative A , residential development would generally not make use of the RE M B land banking program. Land exchanges would occur primarily in response to inquiries. H owever, if the staff is able to identify a clear advantage in pursuing a land exchange, the Bureau may initiate a transaction as resources allow. Land sales would not be a high priority. H owever, objectives related to new residential opportunities would mostly be achieved through "sale" as opposed to leasing. o Conservation Uses- Under A Iternative A, conservation uses would be achieved primarily through conservation leases, licenses, and easements or through the lease, license, or sale of development rights if properly authorized by legislation. • A Iternatives B - D iversif led Portfolio and A Iternative B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- U nder A Iternative B, the RE MB would use land exchanges on a limited basis to acquire lands with higher commercial and industrial revenue generating potential. In addition, the Bureau would also, to some extent, use land banking to acquire lands that are well positioned to take advantage of future revenue generation and lands that have an existing revenue stream (existing revenue producing activities on the land). These might include active commercial and industrial enterprises. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-23 N ovember 19, 2004 Under Alternative B, the RE MB would respond to inquiries related to land ©(Changes. I n addition, the Bureau would seek land ©(Change opportunities that would result i n better present and future income. The RE M B would also consider land ©(changes that would result in a mixed acquisition wherein equal acres would beachio/ed in addition to other property that would ha/e i mmediate i ncome potential . o Residential Uses- UnderAlternativeB, land sales and land banking would be the primary tool to achieve the residential objectives. For example, if 40 acres of Trust Lands are sold at residential land values, then that 40 acres would be credited towards the share of residential growth on Trust Lands. o Conservation Uses- U nder A Iternatives B and B-1, conservation uses would be achieved primarily through conservation leases, licenses, and easements or through the lease, license, or sale of development rights if properly authorized by legislation. • Alternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The RE MB would use Land Banking to capture existing properties with high revenue streams. The Bureau would also use Land Banking to position itself in areas of high growth so that it can easily respond to opportunities in the market to maximize its revenue. The RE M B would consider those land exchanges that would result in the acquisition of both undeveloped land and land with improvements that provide an existing income stream. o Residential Uses - M ost of the residential objectives for new residential growth would be accomplished through land sales. Land sales under Alternative C would be considered in conjunction with joint ventures and partnerships between the RE M B and private and/ or public entities. U nder this approach, the joint venture/ partnerships would make physical improvements to the land and seek those land use designations that would improve overall marketability. 0 nee the maximum entitlements are achieved, the land would be sold and the partners would share in the profits associated with the improvements. o Conservation Uses-- Under A Iternatives C and C-1, conservation uses would be achieved primarily through conservation leases, licenses, and easements or through the lease, license, or sale of development rights if properly authorized by legislation. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-24 N ovember 19, 2004 • Alternative D - Focused E rtitlemerts o I ndustrial and Commercial Uses - To the extent possible, based in part on the position of lands within a particular land office, leasing of commercial and industrial uses would be a priority over other land use transactions. G enerally, these types of uses would occur in the urban locations although some industrial uses, in particular, may be resource dependent and be suitable for rural locations. For leasing situations, outcome objectives would be achieved through theRFP process. o Residential Uses - In general, urban opportunities for residential uses would be prioritized over rural opportunities. This would not necessarily be the case if a rural project complied with the underlying entitlements that promoted desired community outcomes, such as clustering of development. 0 utcome objectives for residential projects would largely be achieved through joint venturing with a developer partner or with an RFP process applicable to leased lands. o Conservation Uses - Clustering of developed uses to promote contiguous areas of open space would serve as a mechanism to promote conservation objectives under A Iternative D . 0 ther means for securing conservation areas are as described under A Iternative B of this section. 4.2.4.3 Cumulative Effects U nder all alternatives, land transactions would be used to increase revenue potential and/ or to position T rust Lands to take advantage of opportunities in the residential, industrial and commercial sectors. The exchange, sale and banking of lands will, over time, provide the T L M D with better asset base. 4.2.4.4 Residual Adverse E ffects M ontana statutes governing land sales, exchanges and land banking require that the transactions produce a result that is equal to or exceeds the pre- transaction condition. N o residual adverse effects are expected to occur as a result of these activities. 4.2.4.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Sales or exchanges of land are irretrievable and irreversible in most cases. The RE M B will consider each land transaction on a project level basis using a M E PA analysis to carefully assure that land transactions meet the mission of the T L M D - to provide revenue to the Trust and to protect the long term revenue capacity of the land. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-25 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.4.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Under all alternativesy theREMB would o/aluabe the entire land base of Trust Lands and would utilize those land transactions that serve the long-term interests of the Trusts The RE M B is only one Bureau with re/enue-generati ng objectives for the trust. A highest and best use analysis would determine project lo/el opportunities for the RE MB. 4.2.5 Geology and Soil 4.2.5.1 Statewide Overview Geological resources would not be affected by the Alternatives being evaluated in this Programmatic E I S and therefore, geological resources are not evaluated further in this section. Soil resources on Trust Lands vary according to setting and parent material. Potential impactsfrom implementation of the Alternatives to soil resources would be similar for all land office geographic areas. Descriptions of existing geological and soil resources on Trust Land is included in Chapters- Affected Environment. Descriptions of the Alternatives are included in Chapter 2. 4.2.5.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would have no negative affect on soil resources. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of the current land use on selected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. Potential effects on the soil resource include compaction, stockpiling (loss of biological activity, reduction in soil fertility), and soil loss due to handling and soil salvage. D epending on the vegetative condition, existing erosion, or general soil condition on specific lands, conversion to industrial and/ or commercial uses may or may not result in an increase in sediment and soil loss during construction activity and subsequent operations of facilities. For lands where soil compaction, loss, and reduction in fertility or sediment contribution to waterways is occurring, conversion of use to industrial and/ or commercial could result in a reduction in sediment loss as a consequence of paving or covering disturbance areas. For other lands, conversion could result in construction activities that would increase land disturbance on a Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-26 N ovember 19, 2004 • specific tract, tliereby increBsing ©(posure of bare- mineral soil to wind and water erosion. Commercial and industrial de/dopment would likely occur within areas where specific sediment control, best management practices^ and construction management controls must be complied with by the do/eloper in accordance to dty, county, states and/ or federal permit requirements Short-term soil losses would occur during construction. HowB/er, compliance with local regulatory requirements would reduce losses to permissible lo/els o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to Residential uses. D evelopers of specific lands would be required to comply with applicable regulations and requirements pertaining to control of sediment and soil loss during construction of residential properties. A Iternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternative A . Potential impacts to soil resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A. o Residential Uses- A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to Residential use under the RE MB Leasing program as compared to A Iternative A. (Under B-1, the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount.) I mpacts to T rust Land as a result of conversion to Residential under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of T rust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternatives A, B and B-1. Potential impacts to soil resources would be similar to those described under A Iternatives A, B and B- 1. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-27 N ovember 19, 2004 • o Residential Uses - AltErnstives C and C-lwould result in an i ncrease i n the number of acres converted to Residential use under theREMB Leasing prog'am as compared to Alternatives A, B and B-1. (U nder C-1, the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as nxch as half of the projected amount.) I mpacts to Trust Land as a result of conversion to Residential under this altemative would be similar to impacts described under AltemativesA, B and B-1. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements The effects on "geology" with implementation of A Iternative D areas generally described for Alternative C in this section. Developed uses would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and compliance with local and state regulations would minimize the occurrence of developed uses in sensitive locations. Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local and state permits/ regulations. 0 utcome requirements for new uses would seek to achieve desired land use and environmental objectives, such as clustering of residential uses in rural locations. 4.2.5.3 Cumulative Effects Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to soil resources for any of the RE M B Lease designated land uses described above. The Alternatives would not create a demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, conservation or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E I S would allow the RE M B to participate in the existing growth market in the state. 4.2.5.4 Residual Adverse E ffects N 0 residual adverse effects to soil resources are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the Alternatives evaluated in this E IS. Compliance with local zoning and subdivision laws and state and federal laws for controlling soil loss and sedimentation of waterways would reduce impacts to permissible levels. 4.2.5.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinent of Resources Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of soil resources. Compliance with local, state, and federal requirements would limit soil losses associated with the RE M B Leasing program. 4.2.5.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to the soil resource include impacts described above. These short-term impacts to soil are not expected to impact long-term productivity of the soil resource on Trust Lands included in the program. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-28 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.6 Water Resources 4.2.6.1 Statewide Overview Surface water resources in M ontana range from streams originating in the mountains in western JVl ontana to lal and reduction in fertility or sediment contribution to waterw^ isoccurring conversion of use to industrial and/ or commercial could result in a reduction in sediment loss as a consequence of pa/ing or covering disturbance areas. For other lands> conversion could result in construction activities that would increase land disturbance on the specific tract, thereby increasing ©(posure of bare- mineral soil to wind and water erosion. Commercial and industrial do/dopment of these lands would likely occur within locally regulated areas where specific sediment control, design standards^ and construction management controls must be complied with by the do/eloper. Short-term impacts to water quality could occur during construction; howB/er, compliance with stomwater regulations and state water quality standards would reduce impacts to permissible lo/ds o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to residential uses. Potential effects to water resources from residential development include changes in surface water flow; changes in groundwater quality from septic systems (i.e., increased nitrate concentration) where municipal sewage treatment is not available; increase in withdrawal of groundwater for domestic use possibly resulting in lowering water tables locally (in locations where a municipal water source is not available); increase in suspended sediment in surface water (unpaved roads and during construction activities); fertilizer from increased lawn areas; and an increase in surface water runoff from roads and developed areas. D evelopers of residential properties are required to comply with applicable subdivision and sanitation regulations, which often include compliance with certain design guidelines and mitigation requirements. "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-30 N ovember 19, 2004 • • A Iternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in doubling the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternative A. Potential impacts to water resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A . o Residential U ses - A Iternative B would result in doubling the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state Management Program as compared to A Iternative A. Under A Iternative B-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. I mpacts to water resources on Trust Land as a result of conversion to Residential under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives C and C-1 would result in doubling the number of acres of Trust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternatives B and B-1. Potential impacts to water resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A . o Residential Uses- A Iternative C would result in doubling the number of acres converted to Residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative B . U nder A Iternative C-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. I mpacts to water resources on Trust Land as a result of conversion to Residential under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. • A Iternative D - Focused Entitlements The effects on "water resources" with implementation of A Iternative D are as generally described for A Iternative C in this section. D eveloped uses would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and compliance with local and state regulations would minimize the occurrence of developed uses in sensitive locations. Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local and state permits/ regulations. 0 utcome requirements for new uses would seek to achieve desired land use and environmental objectives, such as Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-31 N ovember 19, 2004 clustering of residential uses in rural locations Wddandsand floodplain areas would generally be off-limits to nx)st types of do/doped uses. 4.2.6.3 Cumulative Effects Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to water resources for any of the designated land uses described above. Continuation of theCurrent Program (Alternative A) or implementation of any of the action A Iternatives would not create additional demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E I S would allow M ontana's T rust Lands to participate in the existing growth market in the state. 4.2.6.4 Residual Adverse E ffects N 0 residual adverse effects to water resources are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the A Iternatives evaluated in this E IS. Compliance with local zoning and subdivision and state and federal laws for controlling soil loss and sedimentation of waterways would reduce impacts to water resources to permissible levels. Compliance with water quality standards associated with commercial, industrial, and residential use of land would result in activities meeting applicable effluent limitations. 4.2.6.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of water resources. Compliance with local, state, and federal requirements would limit water impacts associated with the RE M B program. 4.2.6.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to water resource include impacts described above. These short- term impacts to water resources are not expected to impact long-term productivity of the water resources on Trust Lands included in the program. 4.2.7 Fisheries 4.2.7.1 Statewide Overview F isheries on T rust Lands vary according to quantity and quality of water resources available to a particular species. Cold-water fisheries are dominant in the N orthwest. Southwest, and Central Land Office areas; warm water fisheries are primarily found in the N ortheast. East, and South Land Office areas. Potential impacts from implementation of any of the Alternatives to fisheries resources would likely result from increased sediment contribution to surface water from activity on selected lands. Potential effects of this sediment load are expected to be greater in the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-32 N ovember 19, 2004 Northwest, Southwest, and Central Land Offices than in the Northeast, East, and South Land Office areas si nee these areas liave a lii^er percentage of do/dopabie land in proximity surface water. I n addition, cold water fisheries are also less tolerant to sedi ment load i ncreases than warm water species. Special status fish species including bull trout, Yellowstone and westslope cutthroat trout, arctic gr^ing and white sturgeon occur in the N orthwest. Southwest, and Central Land Office areas. Potential sediment load increases resulting from de/dopment in these areas could ha/e impacts to these spedes. Pallid sturgeon are found in the Missouri River and larger tributaries of the Northeast and East Land Office areasy which ha/efoAAerdo/dopable lands and therefore would likdy ©(perience less de/dopment activity (sediment loading) affecting this species. Descriptions of odsting fisheries resources on Montana and Trust Land is included in ChaiDter 3 - Affected E nvironment. Descriptions of theAlternatives are included in ChaiDter 2. 4.2.7.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would have no negative affect on fisheries resources. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of current land uses on selected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. Potential effects on fisheries resources include a threat to spawning from increased sediment and contaminant loads and increased nutrients and reduced oxygen levels in surface water. Contaminant loading could increase potential for analyte concentrations to exceed water quality standards. D epending on the vegetative or general surface condition on specific lands, conversion to industrial and/ or commercial uses may or may not result in an increase in sediment load to surface water during construction activity and subsequent operations of facilities. For lands where sediment contribution to surface waterways is occurring, conversion to industrial and/ or commercial use could result in a reduction in sediment load as a consequence of paving or covering disturbance areas. Conversely, storm water runoff from engineered landscapes, and areas covered with asphalt or concrete paving could increase concentrations of contaminants from oil and grease, antifreeze, and fertilizers. Potential impacts to fisheries resources could also occur from increased sediment. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-33 N ovember 19, 2004 nutriertSy fertilizers> and other contaminants in return flow from irrigctBcl crops and runoff fromfeedlots Wliere commercial and industrial do/dopment occurs within the jurisdiction of local nxinicipalities> specific best management practices for construction management, sediment, and storm water runoff controls would be required of a de/doper. Runoff from the tract would report to storm water treatment facilities and as such, would be treated to meS eff I uent standards. I n locations where storm water treatment is not availably infiltration into subsurface would reduce sediment loading to surface water. Short-term sediment losses would occur during construction; howB/er, compliance with local zoning requirements would reduce losses to permissible le/ds o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to residential uses. Potential effects to fisheries from residential development include changes in surface water flow; increase in suspended sediment in surface water (unpaved roads and construction activities); and an increase in surface water runoff from roads and developed areas. D evelopers of residential lands would be required to comply with applicable regulations and requirements pertaining to control of sediment, storm water runoff control during construction of residential properties, and use of best management practices. A Iternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternative A . Potential impacts to fisheries would be similar to those described under A Iternative A. o Residential Uses- A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative A . A Iternative B-1 would reduce the number of acres converted to residential use by up to one half. I mpacts to fisheries resources as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A . H owever, increased sediment and soil loss could result from development of Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-34 N ovember 19, 2004 • residential properties st lo/els associabed with Altemctive B as compared to A Itemati ves B- 1 or A . • AlternativeC - Focused Portfolio o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative C would result in an increase in the number of acres of Trust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternatives B and B-1. Potential impacts to fisheries would be similar to those described under A Iternative A. o Residential Uses- A Iternatives C would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state Management Program as compared to A Iternatives A, B and B-1. (Under A Iternative C-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount.) I mpacts to fisheries as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. • A Iternative D - Focused Entitlements The effects on "fisheries" with implementation of A Iternative D areas generally described for AlternativeC in this section. Developed uses would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and compliance with local and state regulations would minimize the occurrence of developed uses in sensitive locations. T he funnel filter process would specifically exclude projects in close association with core bull trout streams. Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local and state permits/ regulations. 0 utcome requirements for new uses would seek to achieve desired land use and environmental objectives, such as clustering of residential uses in rural locations. 4.2.7.3 C umulative I mpacts Assuming that development is conducted in accordance with applicable storm water regulations and Best M anagement Practices are implemented to control sediment loss, implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to fisheries resources for any of the Real E state M anagement Program designated land uses described above. N one of the Alternatives would create a demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the Programmatic E IS would allow Montana to participate in the existing real estate growth market in the state. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-35 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.7.4 Residual Adverse I mpacts No residual adverse effects to fisheries are antidpated to result from implementation of any of the Alternatives B/alucfced in this El S. Compliance with local zoning and subdivision Icwvs and state and federal lawvsfor controlling sedimentation and contamination of \N3term/s and storm water runoff would reduce impacts to meS applicable standards that protect fish and aquatic resources. 4.2.7.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitment of Resources Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of fisheries resources. Compliance with local, state, and federal requirements would limit impacts to fisheries associated with the Real E state Management Program. 4.2.7.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to the fisheries resource include impacts described above. These short-term impacts to fish are not expected to impact long-term productivity of fisheries resources on Trust Lands included in the program. 4.2.8 Wildlife 4.2.8.1 Statewide Overview Over 650 vertebrate wildlife and 390 bird species have been recorded in M ontana. Wildlife occurring on T rust Lands vary according to density and type of vegetation, quantity and quality of water, climatic, and geomorphic conditions. E ach Land Office area supports diverse populations of game animals, furbearers, rodents, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl, and migratory birds. The M ontana N atural H eritage Program lists 161 species of special concern including federally listed threatened and endangered species. E ach Land Office area is home to various numbers of special status species. Potential impacts from implementation of the any of the Alternatives to wildlife resources could include displacement of individuals to adjoining undeveloped areas; loss of certain individuals; increase in urban/ suburban wildlife populations; increased wildlife/ human interaction; direct loss of wildlife habitat due to land disturbance/ construction activity; elimination of cover (nesting, hiding, thermal), breeding sites and forage; and a potential increase in wildlife mortality due to vehicle and powerline (birds) collisions. Potential land development under all alternatives is projected to affect more land in western M ontana (N orthwest. Southwest, and Central Land Office areas [30,524 acres total]) than eastern M ontana (N ortheast, E ast, and South Land 0 ffice areas [3,747 acres total]). Potential impacts to wildlife and two endangered species (grizzly bear and gray wolf) occurring in western Montana Land Office areas would be Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-36 N ovember 19, 2004 rritigsted by theg'eEter arrount of federal land a/ailableto provide respective species habitat that cannot be do/doped. Federal land in western Montana Land Office areas totals approximately 17.8 million acres versus 9.3 million acres in eastem Montana Land Office areas. Thefunnd filter process generally occludes most de/dopment activities withi n the grizzly bear recovery area of a H abitat Consen/ction Plan. Descriptions of odsting wildlife resources on Montana and Trust Land is induded in Chapter 3 - Affected E nvironment. Descriptions of the Altematives are included in Chapter 2. 4.2.8.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would have no negative affect on wildlife resources. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of current land uses on sdected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. Potential effects on wildlife resources include displacement to adjoining undevdoped lands; loss of certain individuals; increase in urban/ suburban wildlife populations and increased wildlife/ human interaction; direct loss of wildlife habitat due to land disturbance/ construction activity could diminate cover (nesting, hiding, thermal), breeding sites and forage; and potential increase in wildlife mortality due to vehicle and power line (birds) collisions. o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of sdected Trust Lands to Residential uses. Potential effects to wildlife from residential devdopment would be similar to those described for commercial/ industrial use. H owever, residential devdopment would likely occur on the urban fringe where some wildlife species (deer, bears, and mountain lions) are becoming habituated to human activity and would continue to inhabit suburban residential areas. Devdopersof residential lands would be required to comply with applicable regulations and requirements pertaining to special status species prior to devdopment of residential properties. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-37 N ovember 19, 2004 • Alternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternative A . Potential impacts to wildlife from implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would be similar to those described under A Iternative A. o Residential Uses - Alternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to Residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative A. Alternative B-1 would reduce the number of acres placed in residential use by up to one half. I mpacts to wildlife resources as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. However, the increased number of residential areas would increase the amount of urban-wildland interface. Increased amount of urban fringe development would likely increase the number of encounters between humans and wildlife. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of T rust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternatives B and B-1. Potential impacts to wildlife resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A . o Residential Uses - Alternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to Residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to Alternatives A,B and B-1. A Iternative C-1 would reduce the number of acres placed in residential use by up to one half. I mpacts to wildlife resources as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be a function of the increased number of acres of urban-wildland interface that would result. Any increase in the urban-wildland areas could increase the contact between humans and wildlife. Potential impacts to wildlife resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A . • A Iternative D - Focused Entitlements The effects on "wildlife" with implementation of A Iternative D areas generally described for A Iternative C in this section. Developed uses Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-38 N ovember 19, 2004 would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and compliance with local and state regulations would minimize the occurrence of do/doped uses in sensitive locations Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local aixl state permits^ regulations Outcome requirements for now uses would seek to achie/e desired land use and environmental objectives such as clustering of residential uses in rural locations 4.2.8.3 Cumulative Effects Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to wildlife resources for any of the Real E state Management Program designated land uses described above. The Alternatives would not create a demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses; rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E IS would allow the RE M B to participate in the existing real estate growth market in the state. To the extent that eligible Trust Lands are located in areas where wildlife use is high, conversion of these lands may result in creating an additive impact associated with human-wildlife contacts. 4.2.8.4 Residual Adverse E ffects No residual adverse effects to wildlife are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the Alternatives evaluated in this E IS. Compliance with state and federal laws concerning special status species would reduce impacts to permissible levels. 4.2.8.5 I rrebievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of wildlife resources. Compliance with state and federal requirements would limit impacts to special status species associated with the Real E state M anagement Program. 4.2.8.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to wildlife resources include impacts described under Alternative A above. These short-term impacts to wildlife are not expected to impact long-term productivity of wildlife resources on Trust Lands included in the program. 4.2.9 Reptiles and Amphibians 4.2.9.1 Statewide Overview The M ontana N atural H eritage Program lists 16 species of amphibians and 17 species of reptiles that occur in M ontana. A mphibians and reptiles do not produce enough metabolic heat to maintain body temperature higher than their environment Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-39 N ovember 19, 2004 ("CDld-blooded"). Their dependence on the temperature of the environment pre/ents them from using some habitats and necessitates hibernation throu^ winter months Amphibians are usually associated with moist habitats (wSlands), many are aquatic or semi-aquatic, and all breed in water. Amphibians are common and widely distributed across Montana There are five amphibian species of concern of which, some or all occur in each land office area. Reptiles include turtles snakes and lizards Reptiles are widely distributed and occur innearlyall habitat types across Montana. The Montana Natural Heritage Prog'am lists two turtles three lizards and four snakes as species of special concern of which, some or all occur in each land office area. Potential impactsfrom implementation of any of theAlternatives to amphibians and reptiles include displacement to adjoining undo/doped areas loss of certain individuals and direct loss of suit^le habitat due to land disturbance^ construction activity that el i mi nates cover, breedi ng areas and forage Potential i mpacts to amphibians and reptiles are not distinguishable by geographic land office area Descriptions of odsting amphibians and reptiles on Montana and Trust Land are included in Chapter 3 - Affected E nvironment. Descriptions of theAlternatives are included in ChaiDter 2. 4.2.9.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would have no negative affect on reptiles and amphibians. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of current land uses on selected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. Amphibian and reptile species with low mobility would likely die during initial land disturbance activities (construction). Species with greater mobility would be displaced to adjacent habitat, if available. Some species may reestablish on the tract after habitat is restored or suitable habitat created. o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to Residential uses. Potential effects to amphibians and reptiles from residential development would be similar to those "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-40 N ovember 19, 2004 • described for CDmmerdal/ industrial use De/dopers of residential lands would be required to comply with applicable regulations and requirements pertaining to species of special concern prior to do/dopment of residential properties. Alternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternative A . Potential impacts to amphibians and reptiles would be similar to those described under A Iternative A. o Residential Uses - Alternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to Residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative A. Alternative B-1 could reduce the number of residential acres developed by as much as one half. For those species that are sufficiently mobile, movement to adjacent undeveloped land would reduce impacts associated with increased residential development. I mpacts to amphibians and reptiles as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative C and C-1 would result in an increase in thenumberof acres of Trust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternative B . Potential impacts to amphibians and reptiles would be similar to those described under A Iternative A . o Residential Uses - Alternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to Residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative B. For those species that are able to move to adjacent, undeveloped areas, potential impacts would be minimal. Impacts to amphibians and reptiles as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. • A Iternative D - Focused Entitlements The effects on "reptiles and amphibians" with implementation of A Iternative D are as generally described for A Iternative C in this Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-41 N ovember 19, 2004 • section. D e/doped uses would remai n a rri nor component of the trust land portfolio and compliance with local and state regulations would minimize the occurrence of de/doped uses in sensitive locations. Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local and state permits^ regulations. Outcome requirements for now uses would seek to achie/e desired land use and environmental objectives^ such as dustering of residential uses in rural locations and avoidance of wdiland locations 4.2.9.3 Cumulative Effects Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to amphibians and reptiles for any of the Real Estate M anagement Program designated land uses described above. The Alternatives would not create a demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E IS would allow the RE M B to participate in the existing real estate growth market in the state. 4.2.9.4 Residual Adverse E ffects N 0 residual adverse effects to amphibians and reptiles are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the Alternatives evaluated in this E IS. Compliance with state and federal laws concerning species of special concern would reduce impacts to permissible levds. 4.2.9.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinent of Resources I mplementation of the any of the A Iternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of amphibians and reptiles. Compliance with state and federal requirements would limit impacts to species of special concern associated with the Real E state M anagement Program. 4.2.9.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to amphibians and reptiles include impacts described above. These short-term impacts to amphibians and reptiles are not expected to impact long-term productivity of amphibians and reptiles on Trust Lands included in the program. 4.2.10 Vegetation 4.2.10.1 Statewide Overview Vegetation communities in M ontana are diverse due to the range of climatic conditions, geology, and topographic settings. These communities range from spruce-fir and cedar-hemlock forests in the N orthwest Land Office to grasslands and juniper woodland in the Southeast Land Office. Private and Trust Land that can Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-42 N ovember 19, 2004 support ag-icultural and grazing practices lias been converted from its natural state to enable tliese activities to occur. Other areas have been sSt-aside in their natural state as wilderness areas or parklands Noxious weeds are present in all counties in Montana The estimated weed infestation rate in Montana is 9 percent per year. N 0 endangered plant species are known to occur i n M ontana; howB/er, two tiireatened species occur in the state and on Trust Land in the N ortiiwest Land Office and i n tiie Southwest and Central Land Office areas. E ach land office area contai ns rare plant species unique to tiist regon and some species occupy more tiian one region. Descriptions of vegetation resources in Montana and on Trust Land are included in Chapter 3 - Affected E nvironment. Descriptions of the Alternatives are included in Chapter 2. 4.2.10.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The di rect and i ndi rect i mpacts are addressed under each alternative 1 1 is assumed tiict conservation uses under all alternatives would have no affect on vegetation. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of the current land use on selected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. Potential effects on vegetation resources on Trust Lands from conversion to commercial and industrial land uses include: ■ Removal of vegetative cover during construction activities ■ D ecrease in vegetative cover in areas where pavement or road building occurs ■ D ecrease in diversity in vegetation on lands where primary use was timber or grazing ■ C hange in species to engineered or designed landscape species. Commercial and industrial development of these lands would likely occur within locally regulated areas where specific landscaping requirements may apply. Subdivision requirements, in particular, would address issues of vegetative removal and landscaping. D evelopers would also be required to avoid impacting threatened, endangered, and special status species under local regulatory processes. o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to residential uses. Trust Lands in the N orthwest. Central, "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-43 N ovember 19, 2004 • and Southwest Land Office areas nx)st attractive for residential do/dopment are typically timbered lands As such, conversion of timber lands to residential would likely result in a decrease in forest canopy and i ncrease the amount of suni ight reachi ng the forest floor. This change could result in a change in snow depth, runoff characteristics and understory growth locally. I ncreased emphasis on fire suppression on former timber lands converted to residential could result in reduction in the effects of fire on control ling forest health, understory g'owth, and fuel load. The potential to impact special status species would odst though mitigation and/ or a/oidance measures would be implemented to reduce or eliminate potential effects D ependi ng on the status of weed i nfestati on on Trust Lands selected for conversion to residential use^ noxious weed infestations could increase in response to land disturbance^ construction, and vehicle nDvement within specific lands Use of noxious treatment mShods to control or eradicate infestations would be the responsibility of individual homeowners within a tract unless organized weed control efforts are do/doped. Alternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in doubling the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternative A. Potential impacts to vegetation resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. o Residential U ses - A Iternative B would result in doubling the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state Management Program as compared to A Iternative A. Alternative B-1 would reduce the number of acres converted to residential use by up to one half. I mpacts to vegetation resources on Trust Land as a result of conversion to residential under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives C and C-1 would result in doubling the number of acres of Trust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternatives B and B-1. Potential impacts to vegetation resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-44 N ovember 19, 2004 • o Residential Uses- AltErnstiveC would result in doublingthe number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state Management Prog"am as compared to Alternative B. Alternative C-1 would reduce the number of acres converted to residential use by up to one half. I mpacts to vegetation resources on Trust Land as a result of conversion to residential use under this altemative would be similar to impacts described under AlternativeA. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements Theeffectson "vegetation" with implementation of A Iternative D are as generally described for Alternative C in this section. Developed uses would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and compliance with local and state regulations would minimize the occurrence of developed uses in sensitive locations. Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local and state permits/ regulations. 0 utcome requirements for new uses would seek to achieve desired land use and environmental objectives, such as clustering of residential uses in rural locations. 4.2.10.3 Cumulative Effects Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to vegetation for any of the "other" designated land uses described above. Continuation of the Current Program (AlternativeA) or implementation of any of the action A Iternatives would not create additional demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E IS would allow the RE M B to participate in the existing growth market in the state. 4.2.10.4 Residual Adverse E ffects N 0 residual adverse effects to vegetation resources are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the alternatives evaluated in this Programmatic EIS. 4.2.10.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of vegetation resources. 4.2.10.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to vegetation include impacts described under AlternativeA above. These impacts would impact vegetative productivity associated with the prior land use. D epending on the length of time that selected lands are used for commercial, industrial, or residential uses, the potential for returning the land to productive vegetative use may be possible. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-45 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.11 Air Quality 4.2.111 State Wide Overview Potential effects on ai r qual ity i n M ontana are more dependent on the amount of gDwth and restrictions placed on that g'owth, rather than on the 0 the type of activity m^ result in an increase in noise lo/ds over prior land uses. So/eral Montana communities have adopted noise ordinances that apply to commerdal and indusb'ial sites within city limits Compliance with noise ordinances would limit noise emissions from now sources. o Residential Uses - Continuation of the current Real E state M anagement Program would result in conversion of sdected Trust Lands to residential uses. M ost activity would occur in the western portion of Montana. N oise sources associated with residential property typically include loud stereo or audio equipment, vehicles, and emergency response vehicles. D epending on the location of the sdected trust tract, conversion to residential use may or may not result in noticeable change in noise levds. For lands that are presently surrounded or are within existing residential areas, conversion of the trust tract would likdy not result in noise levds in excess of adjacent areas. A Iternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in approximatdy twice the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to AlternativeA. Potential impacts to sensitive receptors from noise levds associated with implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would be similar to those described under Alternative A. o Residential U ses - A Iternative B would result in doubling the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state Management Program as compared to AlternativeA. Under A Iternative B-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. Impacts from noise emissions associated with residential uses under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A . A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-50 N ovember 19, 2004 • o I ndustrial and Commercial Uses - I mplementction of Alternatives C and C-1 would result in doubling the number of acres of Trust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternative B. Potential i mpacts to sensitive receptors from noise lo/els associated with i mplementction of AltemativeC would be similar to those described under AlternativeA. o Residential Uses- AlternativeC would result in doubling the number of acres of eligible Trust Land converted to residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative B . U nder A Iternative C-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. I mpacts from noise emissions associated with residential uses under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under Alternatives A, B and B-1. • A Iternative D - Focused Entitlements The effects on "noise" with implementation of A Iternative D areas generally described for AlternativeC in this section. Developed uses would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and to the make-up of the local community. Specific projects would comply with mitigation requirements of local and state permits/ regulations as applicable. 4.2.12.3 Cumulative Effects Implementation of any of the Alternatives would not result in an increased or additive impact (cumulative impact) to sensitive receptors as a result of changes in noise levels associated with designated land uses described above. The program alternatives analyzed in the E IS would allow The RE M B to participate in the existing real estate growth market in the state. G rowth on trust lands is sharing the same market as the broader community so is not additive or excess to what would otherwise occur in the community. 4.2.12.4 Residual Adverse E ffects N 0 residual adverse effects from noise levels are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the alternatives evaluated in thisP EIS. Compliance with local zoning and subdivision regulations for controlling noise levels would result in activities on Trust Land being compatible with surrounding areas. 4.2.12.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Not applicable Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-51 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.12.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Not applicable 4.2.13 Aesthetics 4.2.13.1 Statewide Overview M ontana's landscape is comprised of diverse topography including the Rocky M ountains in the western one-third of the state and the G reat Plains in the eastern two-thirds of the state broken by various island mountain ranges and badlands. The variety of landscapes across the state results in widely differing aesthetics to the viewer. Descriptions of aesthetic resources in Montana and Trust Land are included in Chapters- Affected Environment. Descriptions of the Alternatives are included in Chapter 2. 4.2.13.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would not impact aesthetic resources. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Commercial and Industrial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of current land uses on selected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. Because most of the projected use of Trust Land for commercial and industrial uses is expected to occur within urban areas, the potential effects on aesthetic resources would be limited. E xisting infrastructure of municipalities has modified the landscape and established an urban - suburban visual characteristic. Addition of commercial or industrial facilities to the existing setting would not result in modifications to the natural landscape. H owever, views from urban areas or within urban areas may also be influenced by new growth. Conformance to community design guidelines, where applicable, and to local zoning regulations, as applicable, would help to minimize adverse impacts. o Residential Uses- Continuation of the current Real Estate M anagement Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to residential uses. Potential effects on aesthetic resources from residential development include increased urban sprawl comprised of housing, roads, and utility corridors. These landscape Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-52 N ovember 19, 2004 • modifications would include changes inform color, tocture and I i ne of the natural landscape I n some ci rcumstances> de/dopment of Trust Lands m^ a/oid situations where do/dopment would occur around or bi-passing the trust tract; therdoy increasing sprawl. De/dopers of residential lands ma/ be required to design subdivisions or housing de/dopment with the natural landscape reed ving consideration. Rdaining the natural landscape as nuchas practicable would reduce impacts to aesthd:ic resources. Alternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increaseof Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternative A. Potential impacts to aesthetic resources would be similar to those described under Alternative A. o Residential Uses - Alternative B would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state Management Program as compared to Alternative A. Under A Iternative B-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. I mpacts to aesthetic resources as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under A Iternative A. However, increased acreage conversion to residential in certain areas could result in greater modification to the landscape as compared to A Iternative A . A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of T rust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternatives B and B-1. Potential impacts to aesthetic resources would be similar to those described under A Iternative A because development would largely occur within areas where the landscape has already been modified by urban development. o Residential Uses - Alternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to Alternatives B and B-1. U nder A Iternative C-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-53 N ovember 19, 2004 • projectBd arrDurt. I mpacts to aesthetic resources as a result of conversion to residential use under this alternative would be similar to impacts described under Alternatives B and B-1. HowB/er, increased acreage conversion to residential in certain areas could result in greater nx)dif ication to the landscape as compared to Alternative A. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements The effects on "aesthetics" with implementation of Alternative D are as generally described for Alternative C in this section. Developed uses would remain a minor component of the trust land portfolio and to the general mix of the community. 0 utcome objectives for new uses would seek to achieve desired land use and environmental objectives, such as clustering of residential uses in rural locations and design standards. 4.2.13.3 Cumulative Effects Commercial and industrial development is expected to occur primarily within urban areas where municipal infrastructure has already modified the natural landscape; therefore, addition of commercial and industrial development on Trust Lands is not expected to add measurably to existing landscape characteristics. D evelopment of residential uses on Trust Lands in rural areas may add to the visual changes evolving from urban - suburban interface. N one of the A Iternatives would create a demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the E IS would allow The RE MB to participate in the existing real estate growth market in the state. The RE M B would rely on the identification of community values through growth policies, subdivision regulations, and zoning regulations to identify aesthetic issues and to mitigate appropriately. 4.2.13.4 Residual Adverse E ffects Residual adverse effects on aesthetic resources are anticipated to result from implementation of any of the A Iternatives evaluated in this E IS. Compliance with local zoning (where applicable) and subdivision regulations and incorporation of natural landscape retention in residential development design where required, would reduce residual effects from development. 4.2.13.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources I mplementation of the any of the A Iternatives would not result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of aesthetic resources. 4.2.13.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Short-term impacts to aesthetic resources include impacts described above. Long- term productivity of the landscape, although modified by development, would not be affected. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-54 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.14 Cultural Resources 4.2.14.1 Statewide Overview C ultural and/ or paleontologic resources exist on many T rust Lands throughout M ontana. Potential impacts to these resources are not distinguishable by geographic land office area. State agencies are responsible for stewardship of significant historic and prehistoric resources on state-owned land in accordance with the M ontana State AntiquitiesAct(§ 22-3-421—22-3-442, MCA). Stewardship requires systematic identification and evaluation of sites, buildings, and districts (groups of related buildings or sites) within a potential impact area, and considering the possibility and feasibility of preserving, avoiding, and/ or mitigating potential adverse effects to those sites or resources. U nder all alternatives, information would be gathered by qualified persons regarding the presence of cultural and paleontologic resources as Trust Lands are developed as part of the current Real E state M anagement Program for commercial, industrial, or residential lands. General descriptions of cultural resources in Montana are included in Chapter 3- Affected Environment. Descriptions of the Alternatives are included in Chapter 2. 4.2.14.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would not impact aesthetic resources. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternative A would result in conversion of current land uses on selected Trust Lands (agriculture, grazing, or timber) to industrial and/ or commercial uses. The estimated number of acres to be converted to industrial and/ or commercial use under A Iternative A ranges from 52 in the Eastern Land Office area to 809 in the Central Land Office area. Q ualified D N RC personnel will conduct cultural/ paleontologic resource surveys of Trust Lands selected for commercial and/ or industrial development in accordance with the M ontana State AntiquitiesAct prior to any groundbreaking activities. These surveys are required to identify cultural and paleontologic resources within a proposed project area, and to gather sufficient data to generate informed recommendations directed toward limiting, avoiding, or otherwise mitigating impacts to state owned H eritage Properties and scientifically significant paleontologic resources. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-55 N ovember 19, 2004 • o Residential Uses - Conti nuation of the current Reel E state Management Program would result in conversion of selected Trust Lands to residential uses. The estimated number of acres to be converted to residential use under Alternative A ranges from 21 in the E astern Land Office to 2,705 i n tiie N ortiiwest Land Office I n some circumstances> do/dopment of Trust Lands where cultural or paleontologic resources ha/e not been identified ma/a/oid situations where de/dopment would otherwise occur outsideTrust Lands where cultural/ paleontologic resource survQ/s are not required. Alternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of Trust Land that would be reclassified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to A Iternative A . Potential impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources will be similar under all Alternatives. However, the M ontana State Antiquities Act directs state land managing agencies to consider the consequences of proposed impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources through a three step process. The first step is on the ground identification of cultural and paleontologic resources in a project area. The second step is to evaluate the historical, cultural and scientific significance of those resources following a standardized set of criteria. The third step is to consider the feasibility of designing steps to limit, avoid, or otherwise mitigate impacts to those state owned resources determined to be historically, culturally, or scientifically significant cultural resources (H eritage Properties), or scientifically significant paleontologic resources. o Residential Uses- A Iternatives B and B-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to A Iternative A . U nder A Iternative B-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. Potential impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources will be similar under all A lternatives;however, the M ontana State AntiquitiesAct directs state land managing agencies to consider the consequences of proposed impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources through a three step process. T he first step is on the ground identification of cultural and paleontologic resources in a project area. The second step is to evaluate the historical, cultural and scientific significance of those resources following a "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-56 N ovember 19, 2004 • standardized set of criteria. Tlie third step is to consider the feesibiiity of designing steps to limit, a/oid, or otherwise mitigate i mpacts to those state owned resources ddtermi ned to be historically, culturally, or scientifically significant cultural resources (Heritage Properties), or scientifically sigiif leant paleontologc resources. AlternativesC - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Implementation of A Iternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres of T rust Land that would be modified from current land use and converted to industrial and/ or commercial uses as compared to Alternatives B and B-1. Development under Alternative C over A Iternatives B and B-1 by land office area is generally by a factor of two. Potential impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources will be similar under all A Iternatives, however, the M ontana State AntiquitiesAct directs state land managing agencies to consider the consequences of proposed impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources through a three step process. T he first step is on the ground identification of cultural and paleontologic resources in a project area. The second step is to evaluate the historical, cultural and scientific significance of those resources following a standardized set of criteria. The third step is to consider the feasibility of designing steps to limit, avoid, or otherwise mitigate impacts to those state owned resources determined to be historically, culturally, or scientifically significant cultural resources (H eritage Properties), or scientifically significant paleontologic resources. o Residential Uses - Alternatives C and C-1 would result in an increase in the number of acres converted to residential use under the Real E state M anagement Program as compared to Alternatives B and B-1. U nder A Iternative C-1 the number of acres converted to residential use could be reduced by as much as half of the projected amount. Conversion to residential use would range from 38 acres in the E astern Land Office area to 5,410 acres in the N orthwest Land 0 ffice area under A Iternative C . E astern Montana Land Office areas would see a combined total of 812 acres of conversion versus 11,143 acres in the western area. Reclassification of 11,143 acres to residential use in the western M ontana Land Office areas would represent 0.9 percent of the total developable Trust Lands in those Land Office areas. Potential impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources will be similar under all A Iternatives, however, the M ontana State A ntiquities Act directs state land managing agencies to consider the consequences "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-57 N ovember 19, 2004 of proposed impacts to cultural and paleontologc resources through a three step process. Thefirststep ison theg'ound identification of cultural and paleontologc resources in a project area Thesecond step is to o/aluate the historical, cultural and scientific significance of those resources fol lowi ng a standardized set of criteria Thethird step isto consider thefeesibility of designing steps to limit, a/oid, or otherwise mitigate impacts to those state owned resources determined to be historically, culturally, or scientifically significant cultural resources (Heritage Properties), or scientifically significant paleontologc resources. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements The effects on "cultural resources" with implementation of Alternative D are as generally described for Alternative C in this section. 4.2.14.3 Cumulative Effects Commercial and industrial development is expected to occur within urban areas where municipal infrastructure has already modified the natural landscape; therefore, addition of commercial and industrial development on Trust Lands is not expected to measurably increase impacts to cultural or paleontologic resources. D evelopment of residential uses on Trust Lands may increase potential impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources on previously undisturbed land. H owever, required cultural and paleontologic resource surveys are required to identify cultural and paleontologic resources within a proposed project area, and to gather sufficient data to generate informed recommendations directed toward limiting, avoiding, or otherwise mitigating impacts to state owned H eritage Properties and scientifically significant paleontologic resources. Because of the nonrenewable nature of cultural and paleontologic resources, most disruptive impacts will be permanent and irreversible. N one of the A Iternatives would create a demand for conversion of current land use to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Rather, the program alternatives analyzed in the Programmatic E IS would allow the RE M B to participate in the existing real estate growth market in the state. 4.2.14.4 Residual Adverse E ffects Because of the nonrenewable nature of cultural and paleontologic resources, most disruptive impacts will be permanent and irreversible. Residual adverse effects thus could result from implementation of any of the A Iternatives evaluated in this E IS. U Itimately, however, compliance with the M ontana State A ntiquities A ct would reduce any potential residual effects from development. 4.2.14.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Because of the nonrenewable nature of cultural and paleontologic resources, most disruptive impacts will be permanent and irreversible. I mplementation of any of the Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-58 N ovember 19, 2004 AltErnatives could result in irre/ersibleor irrdrie/ablecommitments of cultural or paleontologic resources. Ultimately, howB/er, compliance with the Montana State Antiquities Act would reduce irro/ersible or irretrie/able commitments of significant cultural or paleontologic resources. 4.2.14.6 Short T erm U ses versus L ong T erm Productivity Because of the nonrenewable nature of cultural and paleontologic resources, most disruptive impacts will be permanent and irreversible. Short-term impacts to cultural and paleontologic resources include impacts described above. Long-term productivity of the landscape, although modified by development, would not be affected. Ultimately, however, compliance with the Montana State Antiquities Act would reduce adverse effects to H eritage Properties and scientifically significant paleontologic resources. 4.2.15 Community Infrastructure 4.2.15.1 Statewide Overview The condition of community infrastructure varies across the state. Transportation systems, sewer and water facilities, public facilities and services generally reflect local economic conditions and the ability of the tax base to support construction and maintenance. Typically communities prepare capital improvement plans to address overall community infrastructure and services needs, based on need and the availability of financing. Projects are typically financed through a combination of state and federal funding and local mechanisms including special improvement districts, general obligation and revenue bonds, and direct appropriation. Montana's land use statutes, particularly the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and the Montana Sanitation in Subdivions Act and Annexation statutes require the provision of necessary infrastructure, which may include the extension of city utilities, if properly authorized.. The costs associated with the provision of streets, sidewalks, lighting, sewer, and water are typically paid by the developer and/ or the ultimate owners of the property involved. 4.2.15.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would not impact community infrastructure and services. • A Iternative A - Current Program o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The RE MB would rely on the developer to build and finance the infrastructure necessary to support any new activity or to participate fully in community-wide efforts to make infrastructure improvements. The RE M B, through Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-59 N ovember 19, 2004 • its industrial and commercial lessees would participate in Special I mprovement District prog'amsto finance capital improvements and to p^ any user fees associated with the provision of services such as sower, water and garbage disposal. o Residential U ses - U nder A Iternative A , proposals for residential development would be largely developer initiated and identified as a project through the project selection process. Adherence to local land use regulatory processes, particularly subdivision requirements would ensure that community infrastructure and services needs would be addressed. A Iternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- The RE MB would rely largely on developers and lessees to address infrastructure requirements associated with particular projects. H owever, under A Iternative B, the RE M B will be more active in assisting developers in identifying infrastructure needs and in locating potential resources for implementing projects. U p to $500,000 per year would be available to improve land entitlements, including extension of infrastructure facilities. The economic analysis (Appendix D) suggests that up- front expenditures to improve entitlements to raw land would increase the average rate of return to the T rusts. o Residential Uses- Proposals for residential development under Alternatives B and B-1 would be largely developer initiated but be subject to project "approval" through the project selection process. Adherence to local land use regulatory processes, particularly subdivision requirements would help assure that community infrastructure and services needs would be addressed. H owever, in addition, the RE M B would direct some of its staff resources to in overall community improvements planning in order to better position its land with respect to existing and planned community infrastructure development. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority o Industrial and Commercial Uses- Greater emphasis would be given to the acquisition of existing commercial (including multi- family residential properties) and industrial facilities. I n most cases, these facilities would already have the necessary community infrastructure and services in place. Also under A Iternatives C and C-1, the RE M B would work with potential lessees and the local government to identify appropriate strategies for addressing infrastructure requirements for new development. Up to $1 million per year would be available to improve land entitlements, such as "Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-60 N ovember 19, 2004 • ocbension of irfrastructurefacilities. Theeconomic analysis (Appendix D) suggests tliat up-front ©(pendituresto improve entitlements to raw land would increase the a/erage rate of rdtum to theTrusts o Residential Uses- As under Alternatives A, B and B-1, developers of residential properties would largely be responsible for addressing community infrastructure and services needs. Some infrastructure improvements to raw land could be initiated by the RE M B to improve land entitlements. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements The effects on "community infrastructure" with implementation of A Iternative D are as generally described for A Iternative C in this section. D evelopment on trust lands would be consistent with local policies concerning developer impact assessments. G enerally, D N RC would pass on all application fees, infrastructure costs, and impact fees to the developer. I n some situations, it may be advantageous for D N RC to improve land entitlements to a particular parcel to improve the revenue generating capacity of the property. I n any event, D N RC would not expect the local jurisdictions to subsidize development on trust lands beyond what is normally permitted by local policy. 4.2.15.3 Cumulative Effects Under all the Alternatives the RE MB would share in community growth. While the percentage of development on Trust Land would vary by alternative, demand on overall community infrastructure would remain a constant. What distinguishes the alternatives from each other is the degree to which the RE MB would engage in addressing infrastructure requirements associated with its residential, commercial and industrial programs. I n addition, under all A Iternatives, the RE M B would follow land use regulatory processes, and work with the local governing bodies and project developers to assure that impacts on community infrastructure and services were appropriately addressed. F inally, as part of the site selection process presented in Chapter 2, the proximity and availability of infrastructure to T rust Lands would serve as an indicator to the suitability of land for future use and development (see Figure 2-4 and associated narrative). 4.2.15.4 Residual Adverse E ffects There will be no residual adverse effects. 4.2.15.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Not Applicable Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-61 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.15.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Not Applicable 4.2.16 Taxation - Property Tax 4.2.16.1 Statewide Overview Property in JVl ontana is subject to advalorem taxes levied on the basis of property type and value. The M ontana legislature has determined that different types of property and property used for different purposes should be taxed at different rates and bear a different proportion of the overall tax burden. Under 15-6-lOlMCA, the state has identified a variety of property classifications. A mong these are C lass 3 - Agriculture, Class 4 - residential and commercial real estate, Class 10 - Forested Lands, and eight other classifications. (I ndustrial properties are classified under a variety of categories depending on the specific type of industry). The classification rates for residential, commercial and industrial properties are generally higher than those for timber and agricultural properties. Property tax rates are calculated in the following manner: The assessed valuation of the property is multiplied by the classification rate to obtain the taxable value. Taxable values are then multiplied by the local mill levy to derive the actual tax. A mill is equal to 1/ 1000 of the entire taxable value of the jurisdiction of the county and municipality within which the property is located. The number of mills levied varies by jurisdiction and is dependent on the overall tax base. Property taxes are levied on both the value of the land and on any improvements. G enerally, approximately two thirds of the property taxes collected help fund the local public system, K -12. Seven mills are directed to the state university system and the remaining one third supports local government services and infrastructure. N on- permanent residential improvements such as trailers and recreational cabins located on leased properties are taxed under M ontana's personal property statutes. • Special Fees and Assessments - I n addition to property taxation, land and improvements are subject to a variety of special fees for services (garbage, fire and ambulance) and capital improvements (streets, sidewalks, sewers, lighting). Payments for these services are often paid through special improvement districts (SI D 's) or Rural I mprovement D istricts (Rl D 's). Properties exempt from advalorem taxes are not necessarily exempt from special fees. • E xemptions - Lands and improvements owned by local, state and federal government agencies are exempt from property taxes as are properties owned by certain non-profit organizations. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-62 N ovember 19, 2004 • Beneficial UseTaxes- Exempt land and improvementsthct are leased to a private entity engaged i n a busi ness activity are subject to taxation. Under 15-24-1203, MCA atax is imposed and nxist be collected tax "upon the possession or other beneficial use for industrial, trade or other business purposes enjoyed by any private individual, association or corporation of any property, real or personal, that for any reason is ocempt from taxation." The tax is calculated in the same manner as for non-ocempt properties. 4.2.16.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The direct and indirect impacts are addressed under each alternative. It is assumed that conservation uses under all alternatives would not affect property tax levels. • Alternative A - Current Program - Under Alternative A, residential, industrial and commercial growth on Trust Lands would be less [based on a proportional share of land base] than the rate of growth expected on other lands within the region. Asa result, the development of residential, commercial and industrial uses on Trust Lands would contribute a corresponding amount to the tax base. This would occur through the payment of beneficial use taxes by lessees of commercial and industrial properties, the payment of personal property tax on residential improvements (cabins and trailers) located on leased residential lands, and the payment of property taxes on residential properties acquired through purchaseof former Trust Lands. • A Iternatives B - Diversified Portfolio and B-1 - Conservation Priority - U nder A Iternatives B and B-1, the RE MB would expect to share in direct proportion [proportionate share of land ownership] to the rate of growth in the region. Asa result, the development of residential, commercial and industrial uses on Trust Lands would contribute a corresponding amount to the tax base. This would occur through the payment of beneficial use taxes by lessees of commercial and industrial properties, the payment of personal property tax on residential improvements (cabins and trailers) located on leased residential lands, and the payment of property taxes on residential properties acquired through purchaseof former Trust Lands. A Iternatives C - Focused Portfolio and C-1 - Conservation Priority - U nder A Iternatives C and C-1, the RE MB would expect to share in a proportionately larger share (based on proportion of land ownership) of the expected growth in a region. As a result, the development of residential, commercial and industrial uses on Trust Lands would contribute a corresponding amount to the tax base. This would occur through the payment of beneficial use taxes by lessees of commercial Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-63 N ovember 19, 2004 • and industrial properties> the p^dnent of personal property tax on residential improvements (cabins and trailers) located on leased residential lands, and the p^dnent of property taxes on residential properties acquired tiirough purchase of former Trust Lands. • AlternativeD - Focused Entitlements The effects on "taxation" with implementation of A Iternative D areas generally described for Alternative C in this section. 4.2.16.3 Cumulative Effects Commercial and Residential properties- land and improvements- are taxed at the same rate under M ontana's property tax statutes. I ndustrial development is taxed at various rates depending on the type of industry. Asa general rule, property taxes are equal to approximately 2% of the market value of land and improvements for commercial and residential properties. The percentage rate for industrial properties varies. Regardless of the A Iternative, the development of commercial, residential and industrial uses, will add to the local property tax base. The issue of taxes is often dealt with during subdivision review and, in most instances, it would be appropriate for the local jurisdiction to determine the tax benefits that might be associated with a particular project and how the project fits in with the broader community mix. 1 1 is also important to note that the development of commercial, residential and industrial uses provides would revenue to the beneficiaries of the Trust in three ways: • Providing direct revenue to the State Trust • Providing property tax revenue to local school districts • I ncreasing the local bonding capacity to finance infrastructure improvements including those for schools. 4.2.16.4 Residual Adverse E ffects Not Applicable 4.2.16.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitinents of Resources Not Applicable 4.2.16.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity As property values increase over time, the development of commercial, residential and industrial uses on Trust Lands will increasingly contribute to the local tax base through property tax payments. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-64 N ovember 19, 2004 4.2.17 State Equalization Payments to Counties 4.2.17.1 Statewide Overview I n 1965, legslction was adopted providing for reimbursement to CDuntiesfor loss of ra/enuewlieretEP(-0(empt state land constituted inoccessof 6%of total land area. Funds were paid to counties and distributed to the elementary districts (6CP/o of the p^/ment) and to the county road funds (4CP/o). Subsequent changes in Montana statute ha/e addressed the incorporation of theTrust Land Management prog'am into the Montana Department of N atural Resources and Conservation and associated adni nistrative changes. I n 2001, the state overhauled its enti re ^/stem of shared ro/enues. HowB/er, counties continue to be reimbursed for thetax-ocempt state land i n occess of 6% of the total land area pursuant to the origi nal i ntent of the 1965 legislation. Over the past four years the total amount paid to counties has a/eraged $550,000 annually. 4.2.17.2 D irect and I ndirect I mpacts The purpose of state the state equalization program is to compensate counties for lost tax revenue from tax-exempt state lands. U nder all A Iternatives, when T rust Lands are sold or leased for residential, commercial, or industrial uses, the resulting beneficial tax or direct property tax payments would more than compensate the counties for any lost equalization payments. 4.2.17.3 C umulative E ffects Overall, counties will continue to benefit from Trust Lands located within their jurisdictions under all A Iternatives. I n areas where the development of residential, commercial and industrial uses is less likely to occur, equalization payments will continue to provide county governments with needed funds. I n areas where the RE M B is more active, the local jurisdictions will benefit from increased property taxes associated with economic activity on Trust Lands as well as from equalization payments. 4.2.17.4 Residual Adverse E ffects Not Applicable 4.2.17.5 I rretrievable and I rreversible C ommitments of Resources Not Applicable 4.2.17.6 Short T erm versus L ong T erm Productivity Not Applicable Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-65 N ovember 19, 2004 4.3 MONITORING AND ACCOUNTING 4.3.1 Monitoring A monitoring program would follow the "lifef' of the plan. First the nx)nitoring program would provide an ongoing o/aluation of how the selected plan is being implemented in rdstionshipto k^/' growth indices used in the DPE IS. This would be primarily accomplished by comparing actual community g'owth (population and economy) in a land office regon to actual g'owth and activities (leesesy licenses^ sales> easementSy ©(changes) on Trust lands G rowth is a trend measurement so HDnitoring checks would be in ^^ar 2010, initially, and at 5 year intervals thereefter. Secondly, the original assumptions of the plan would be monitored to detect any effects of unforeseen changes in the physical, social, political, or economic conditions This DE I S attempts to look almost 21 years into the future and unanticipated circumstancescan beoqDected that cannot be reasonably anticipated at this time Monitoring reports would include summary information as listed below: • Actual population and economic growth in land office regions and the state using the same methodology used in the DPE IS. • Comparison of growth on trust lands (commercial, conservation, industrial, residential) to projections of Plan by Land office and state regions. • Location and types of projects on trust lands reviewed by local regulatory processes (zoning, subdivision, annexation, extension of services, building permits, growth policy including neighborhood plans). • Revenue return to the trusts from residential, commercial, industrial, and conservation uses by transaction category (lease, license, easement, sale). • RE M B staff (numbers & type) and program funding. • Acres of land sales, leases, easements, exchanges, and associated entitlements added. • Acres of lands purchased by land use type. • Lands removed or added to an HC P. • N umber of acres of lands reclassified to "other" (77-1-401-403, M C A ) by location and original land classification with description of major affected natural and physical features of the project area. A report to theTLMD and Board of Land Commissioners would be made at the 5 year intervals identified above. The reports would serve as a basis to test conformity to the assumptions of the selected plan and to identify processes to modify the plan as appropriate and necessary to make mid-course adjustments. The RE MB plan needs to be dynamic in the sense that this is a land use plan and implementation is affected by outside market forces, local, and state regulations and internally by legislation. Land Board policies, and funding, among others. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-66 N ovember 19, 2004 I dertificction and implementction of projects (yd: to be identified) is typically a nxilti-year process. Land use projects could occur gadually or in "spurts" or a combination of both. Years of trend information are necessary to fully assess the effectiveness of the assumptions For this same rationale^ local communities in M ontana typical lyha/e a 20 year horizon for growth policies with interim updates as needed. TheREMB plan should beallowed to "maturef' over a period of years to a/oid premahjre adj ustments before accurate and sufficient trend data can be compiled and properly assessed. More immedicte reasons to amend the Plan could include the following critical situations • A creage caps have been exceeded; • Required legislative remedies to achieve the selected management philosophy are not accomplished or other legislation is enacted contrary to the selected plan; • Certain critical elements of the plan are either not supported or implemented by the Board of Land Commissioners; or • The Trust Land Management Division A dministrator judges that the original assumptions supporting the Plan no longer apply. M inor changes or additions that do not conflict with the overall management philosophyof the select Plan would not require programmatic review. This could include short-term fluctuations (5 year average) in project implementation (acres of new development or conservation lands), staffing changes, or funding allocations. The Real Estate Management Bureau Chief could change the management of the plan i.e. modification to the implementation and or filter processes without changing the Plan if the proposed change(s) did not violate the fundamental intent as reflected in the Plan and EIS. The Department does not have immediate plans to request additional FTE or budget. This is to allow us to gain experience in implementing the Plan and to determine, through the experience, if additional personnel and budget are needed to fully implement the plan. Program goals and objectives would be established and revised as necessary to remain in compliance with the Plan and followed by D N RC staff and field personnel. 4.3.2 Accounting Tracking the acres of projects completed would be accomplished as described below. Conservation lands are achieved by: Conservation lease or license; Securing of development rights through lease, license or permanent disposition; • Conservation easement; Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-67 N ovember 19, 2004 • • • O pen space or conrnon area achie/ed throu^ d usteri ng or other regulatory processes generally associabed with zoning or subdivision requirements; • Areas leased to FW&Ps or other public agencies where the permitted uses generally restrict the ability to develop residential, commercial, or industrial uses. • Land designated as "N atural A rea"; • Sale of land for conservation use; and • Purchased property or property received in exchange that is already dedicated or deed restricted for conservation purposes. Residential lands are recognized whenever a land use density greater than one unit per 25 acres is achieved through one or more of the following situations: • That portion of trust lands leased for residential use other than those residential-type uses classified by the D 0 R as "commercial". Common areas and or open space associated with development that exceed statutory requirements would be counted as achieving the goals toward conservation; • Trust land acreages sold under land banking for residential purposes to support the objectives of the plan. [Trust land acreages not tracked under this plan would be those sold that support the objectives of other B ureau programs (agriculture, timber, or grazing)]. • Trust lands sold with entitlements that permit a density of at least 1 unit per 25 acres. Those acres dedicated as open space and or common areas as a result of improved entitlements would be counted as achieving the goals toward conservation; • Trust lands exchanged to accomplish the objectives of a project under the Real E state M anagement plan where the exchanged trust land is identified in the local growth policy and or local zoning for residential uses; and • Purchased property or property received in exchange that is already developed and operating for residential uses. Commercial or industrial lands are recognized whenever one or more of the following situations applies to a particular property: • That portion of trust lands leased for commercial or industrial uses or residential uses classified by the DOR as "commercial". Common areas and or open space associated with development that exceed statutory requirements would be counted as achieving the goals toward conservation; • Trust lands sold at commercial/ industrial values for commercial/ industrial uses with no diminished property rights. • Trust lands sold with entitlements that would authorize commercial or industrial uses. Those acres dedicated as open space and or common areas as a result of improved entitlements would be counted as achieving the goals toward conservation; Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-68 N ovember 19, 2004 Trust lands ©(changed to accomplish the objectives of a project under the Real Estate Management plan where the ©(changed trust land is identified in the local growth policy and or local zoning for commercial or industrial purposes; and Purchased property or property received in exchange that is already developed and operating for commercial or industrial uses. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Page 4-69 N ovember 19, 2004 Chapter 5 Categorical Exclusions IrtrodLction and Purpose of tJ^ Chapter Chapters identifies those actions proposed for consideration as categorically excluded from ME PA documentation under any of the Alternatives as described in Chapter 2 of this PE IS. Categorical exclusions are types (or categories) of actions that normally do not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects. They do not require an EA orEIS, unless extraordinary circumstances occur. The following definition of categorical exclusion is from ARM (Administrative Rules of Montana) 36.2.522 (5)): 'Categorical exclusion refers to a type of action that does not individually, collectively, or cumulatively require an EA or El S, as determined by rulemaking or programmatic review adopted by the agency, unless extraordinary circumstances, as defined by rulemaking or programmatic review, occur.' Chapter Corterts OVERVIEW. ... .. 5.1.1 Emergency Situations (ARM 3b.T5W- 5.1.2 Extraordinary Circumstances, 5.1.3 Categorical Exclusions from ME PA Documentation 3 ^.2 PROPOSED LOCAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE UNDERTHISPEIS..4 5.2.1 Description of Local Government Policies, Processes and Regulations 4 5.3 RELATIONSHIP OF LOCAL GOVERN ME NT PROCESSES TO ME PA ^NALYSIS 10 Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-1 N ovember 19, 2004 5.1 OVERVIEW U nder this PE I S, C E 's are appropriate in those situations where no significant impact wil occur as a result of the exemption and as provided for in JVICA 77-1-121. The level of ME PA review will be commensurate with DN RC's obligations under MCA 77-1-121 recognizing local governmental actions and associated analysis when appropriate. This chapter also details local government regulations and resulting actions, the level of analysis associated with those actions, and how they interrelate to satisfy M E PA requirements. CE 's are addressed further in the following Administrative Rules references: 5.1.1 Emergency Situations (ARI\/I 36.2.539): A n agency may take or permit action having a significant impact on the quality of the human environment in an emergency situation without preparing an EIS. Within 30 days following the initiation of the action, the agency shall notify the governor and the M ontana D epartment of E nvironmental Q uality (D E Q ) as to the need for the action and associated impacts and results. E mergency actions must be limited to those actions immediately necessary to control the impacts of the emergency. "Emergency actions" include, but are not limited to (ARM 36.2.522): • Projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by the agency to repair or restore property or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster when a disaster has been declared by the governor or other appropriate government entity • E mergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service • Projects, whether public or private, undertaken to prevent or mitigate immediate threats to public health, safety, welfare, or the environment 5.1.2 Extraordinary Circumstances Any additional Categorical Exclusions would apply where there were no extraordinary circumstances. E xtraordinary circumstances are situations that may create a potential for significant impacts and would trigger anEAorEISMEPA analysis. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-2 N ovember 19, 2004 5.1.3 Categorical Exclusions from MEPA Documentation Cabegorical occlusions from ME PA documentation would be pursued under all alternatives under scenarios presented in table 5-1. Table 5-L MEPA Exclusions/ Exemptions- When Considered/ Applied E xempt per 36.2.523(5) A.R.M . Lease and License administration including assignments, renewals and enforcement of terms and conditions Lease/ License modifications consistent with local regulations or MEPA document Project Design RE MB Project List Marketing Administrative actions: routine, clerical or similar functions of a department, including but not limited to administrative procurement, contracts for consulting services, and personnel actions M inor repairs, operations, or maintenance of existing equipment or facilities I nvestigation and enforcement: data collection, inspection of facilities or enforcement of environmental standards M inisterial actions: actions in which the agency exercises no discretion, but rather acts upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner Actions that are primarily social or economic in nature and that do not otherwise affect the human environment E xempt per 77-1-121, M.C .A. Development or adoption of a growth policy or a neighborhood plan pursuant to Title 76, chapter 1 D evelopment or adoption of zoning regulations Review of a proposed subdivision pursuant to Title 76, chapter 3 Actions related to annexation D evelopment or adoption of plans or reports on extension of services; and 0 ther actions that are related to local planning Property Purchase Short-term land use license (less than 7 days) involving no resource extraction or developed uses and conformity with applicable local permitting or land use regulations. Examples would include weddings, dog shows, photography shoots, charity fund raising events, etc. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-3 N ovember 19, 2004 5.2 PROPOSED LOCAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE UNDER THIS PEIS The RE M B of DN RC would comply with all applicable city, county, state and federal Isws These include local land use regulctions> air and water quality \am, theAntiquities Act, and the E ndangered Species Act. Additionally, requirements of other agency prog'ammatic Plansand policieswill apply. There are sa/eral state law occeptions that apply to state land including: (1) MCA 76-2-402, which applies when an agency proposes to use public land contrary to local zoning regulations; and (2) MCA 76-3-205(2), which ocempts state land from subdivision requirements unless the division creates a second parcel for sale rent, or lease for residential purposes. H owB/er, it should be noted the RE M B, under this PE I S, i ntends to waive these ri^ts of ocemption. When Q/aluating a project proposed for Trust Lands under any of theAltematives> the REMB would analyzeall issues^ polidesand rde/ant regulations Theitemsto beaddressed and the lo/el of analysis would vary, depending on the nature of the project, its geog'aphic location and the particular economic, social and environmental contoct in which it occurs. I n general, howB/er, the RE M B would: • D evelop programs and actions in consideration of the goals and policies of the local growth policy (comprehensive or master plan), as applicable. • Evaluate each proposed action using the funnel filtration process as described in Chapter 2 of the PEIS. The filtration process provides a framework for decision- making that follows the intent of M E PA with respect to the evaluation of potential impacts of a proposed action on the natural/ physical and socio-economic environments. This would determine if the proposal should move forward. • E ngage in public involvement as provided for in local land use regulatory processes. • The RE M B and its lessees, licensees and permit holders would follow all local land use regulatory processes (zoning and/ or subdivision ordinances) as applicable. 5.2.1 Description of Local Government Policies, Processes and Regulations At the local level, land development is subject to the following statutes: 5.2.11 Growth Policies (76- 1-60],MC A) A growth policy may cover all or part of the jurisdictional area and must include the elements listed in subsection (3) of the Statute by 0 ctober 1, 2006. T he extent to which a growth policy addresses the elements of a growth policy that are listed in subsection (3) is at the full discretion of the governing body. A growth policy must include community goals and objectives, maps and text describing an inventory of the existing characteristics and features of the jurisdictional area, including land uses, population, housing needs, economic Tinal Real E"state Management Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-4 N ovember 19, 2004 CDnditionSy local services> public facilities> natural resources and other characteristics and features as proposed by the planni ng board and adopted by the governi ng bodies. The g'owth policy nxist also include projected trends for the life of the g-owth policyfor land use^ population, housing needs, economic conditions, local services^ natural resources snd other dements proposed. I n addition, a growth policy must include a description of policies^ regulations, and other measures to be implemented in order to achio/e the goals and objectives and • a strategy for development, maintenance, and replacement of public infrastructure, including drinking water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, sewer systems, solid waste facilities, fire protection facilities, roads, and bridges • an implementation strategy that includes o a timetable for implementing the growth policy o a list of conditions that would lead to a revision of the growth policy o a timetable for reviewing the growth policy at least once every 5 years and revising the policy if necessary • a statement of how the governing bodies would coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions that explains: o if a governing body is a city or town, how the governing body would coordinate and cooperate with the county in which the city or town is located on matters related to the growth policy o if a governing body is a county, how the governing body would coordinate and cooperate with cities and towns located within the county's boundaries on matters related to the growth policy • a statement explaining how the governing bodies would: define the criteria in [76-3-608p)(a) M CA o o evaluate and make decisions regarding proposed subdivisions with respect to the criteria in 76-3-608(3)(a) M CA • a statement explaining how public hearings regarding proposed subdivisions would be conducted A growth policy may also: • include one or more neighborhood plans. A neighborhood plan must be consistent with the growth policy • establish minimum criteria defining the jurisdictional area for a neighborhood plan • address the criteria in ^-3-608ll3)(a), M CA • evaluate the effect of subdivision on the criteria in 76-3-608(3)(a) M CA describe zoning regulations that would be implemented to address the criteria in76-3-608(3)(a)MCA Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-5 N ovember 19, 2004 identify geographic areas where the governing body i ntends to authorize an ecemption from ro/ioA/ of the criteria in [76-3-6^3)(a) MCA for proposed subdivisions pursuant to 76-3-608 M CA T lie planning board may propose and the governing bodies may adopt additional elements of a growth policy in order to fulfill the purpose of this chapter. After adoption of a growth policy, the governing body within the area covered by the growth policy pursuant to |76- 1-601 |M CA must be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set out in the growth policy in the: • authorization, construction, alteration, or abandonment of public ways, public places, public structures, or public utilities • authorization, acceptance, or construction of water mains, sewers, connections, facilities, or utilities • adoption of zoning ordinances or resolutions. 5.2.L2 Zoning • County Zoning- Zoning in unincorporated areas can occur by two methods: (1) the creation of a planning and zoning district, which must be a minimum of 40 acres, known as "Part 1 zoning"; or (2) the establishment of county zoning, which can apply to all or part of the unincorporated area, known as "Part 2 zoning," but which requires the adoption of a growth policy. Public notification and a public hearing must be held prior to the adoption of either type of zoning. 1. U nder Part 1 zoning, the board of county commissioners may create a planning and zoning district upon petition of 60 percent of the freeholders in the affected area. H owever, if freeholders representing 50 percent of the titled property ownership in the district protest the establishment of the district within 30 days of its creation, the board of county commissioners may not create the district. An area included in a district that is the subject of a protest may not be included in a zoning district petition for a period of one year. 2. U nder Part 2 zoning, a board of county commissioners that has adopted a growth policy for the entire jurisdictional area may adopt zoning regulations for all or part of the jurisdictional area 76-2-203, M CA sets forth criteria and guidelines for zoning regulations as follows Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-6 N ovember 19, 2004 (1) Zoning regulations must be (a) made in accordance with tlie g'owtli policy or a master plan, as provided for in 76-2-201112) MCA; and (b) designed to: (1) lessen congestion in the streets; (ii) secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; (iii) promote public health and general welfare; (iv) provide adequate light and air; (v) prevent the overcrowding of land; (vi) avoid undue concentration of population; and (vii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. (2) Zoning regulations must be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. (3) Zoning regulations must, as nearly as possible, be made compatible with the zoning ordinances of the municipality within the jurisdictional area. • Municipal Zoning- The municipal zoning enabling legislation is similar to that for counties. For example, zoning must also be "made in accordance with a growth policy," interim zoning is authorized, a board of adjustment must be established, and the city or town council may provide for enforcement. Public notification and a public hearing must beheld prior to the adoption of municipal zoning. M unicipalities have, under certain conditions, the ability to extend the application of their zoning and subdivision regulations beyond their corporate limits in any direction, up to three miles for a city of the first class, up to two miles for a city of the second class, and up to one mile for a city or town of the third class. This authority is only conferred on municipalities that have adopted a growth policy, but does not apply in locations where a county has adopted a growth policy and accompanying zoning or subdivision regulations. U nder these provisions, a municipality may enforce zoning or subdivision regulations as if the affected property were in its corporate limits. 76-2-304, M CA sets forth the purposes of municipal zoning as follows: (1) Zoning regulations must be: (a) except as provided in subsection (3), made in accordance Tinal Real E"state jvianagement Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-7 N ovember 19, 2004 with a g'owth policy; and (b) designed to: (i) lessen congestion in the stress; (ii) secure Scfdy from fire panic, and other dangers; (iii) pronDte health and the general welfare; (iv) provide adequate light and air; (v) pro/ent the overcrowding of land; (vi) a/oid undue concentration of population; and (vii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage^ schools^ parks^ and other public requirements. (2) Zoning regulations nxBt be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with aviowto conservi ng the val ue of bui Idi ngs and encourag ng the nx)st appropriate use of land throu^out the municipality. (3) Until October 1, 2006, zoning regulations mey be adopted or ra/ised in accordance with a master plan that was adopted pursuant to Title 76, chapter 1, before October 1, 1999. 5.2.L3 Subdivision and Platting Title 76, Chapter 3, of the M ontana Code governs subdivision and platting (the Subdivision and Platting Act). Montana law requires the governing body of every county, city, or town to adopt and provide for the enforcement and administration of subdivisions. T hus, in contrast with zoning, which is optional, subdivision regulation is mandatory in Montana. The statutes require that subdivision regulations be adopted by the governing body only after a hearing. Subdivision review is a two-part process, review of a preliminary plat and a final plat, which is recorded. There is also an abbreviated process for review of minor subdivisions. M ajor subdivisions are subject to a public hearing, with published notice and notice to adjoining property owners. The statutes specify minimum content requirements for subdivision regulations, which include: • provisions for an environmental assessment (exempt under limited circumstances, such as first minor subdivision) • procedures for the submission and review of subdivision plats Final Real Estate Management Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-8 N ovember 19, 2004 • theformand CDntEnt of preliminary plsts and documentsto accompanytlie final picts • identification of areas unsuitable for subdivision due to natural or human- caused hazards • prohibition of subdivisions for building purposes for areas within the 100- year f loodway • standards for the design and arrangement of lots, streets and roads, grading and drainage, water supply, sewage, and solid waste disposal that meet regulations adopted by the department of environmental quality, and the location and installation of utilities • procedures for review of preliminary plats by affected public utilities and agencies of local, state, and federal government having a "substantial interest" in a proposed subdivision • procedures for the administration of park and open-space dedication requirements provisions for the establishment and recording of ditch easements. 5.2.L4 Sanitations in Subdivisions Act Title 76, Chapter 4 of the MCA is the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, which is intended to protect the quality and potability of water for public water supplies and individual wells. The act charges the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) with adopting rules, including sanitary standards, necessary for administration and enforcement of the act. T he rules must provide the basis for approving subdivision plats for various types of water (including stormwater drainage), sewage facilities, and solid waste disposal, both public and private, and must be related to the size of lots; contour of land; porosity of soil; groundwater level; distance from lakes, streams, and wells; type and construction of private water and sewage facilities, and other facts affecting public health and quality of water for uses relating to agriculture, industry, recreation, and wildlife. 5.2.L5 F loodplain and F loodway M anagement Montana has a F loodplain and F loodway Management Act, MCA, Title 76, Chapter 5, and the lead state agency for administering it is the D N RC . U nder M CA 76-5- 301, local governments must adopt land-use regulations that meet or exceed minimum standards of the department in regards to controlling development in the designated f loodplain or f loodway. T he department must enforce its own minimum Tinal Real E"state jvi anagement Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-9 N ovember 19, 2004 standards through a state permit ^em when the local government has failed to adopt such land- use regulations after receiving state notice Annexation - T itie 7, C hapter 2, Parts 42-47 I n ai! cases of annexation, services must be provided according to a plan provided by tfie municipality, except for: (1) garbage services if they are already provided; and (2) in first class cities when otherwise mutually agreed upon by the municipality and the real property owners to be annexed. 5.3 RELATIONSHIP OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROCESSES TOMEPA ANALYSIS Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 use a checklist to show how local government processes may be analogous to and address the various elements in aMEPA analysis. The left side of the table lists elements typically addressed in the M E PA process, and the right side cites how the local government process(es) address these elements. Comments and information from the public and appropriate local, state and federal agencies are sought to enable an analysis of the impacts on the physical, biological, social and economic environment during these local government processes. It is understood that local regulations vary between jurisdictions and, as such, the complexity of the M E PA analysis would correspond to the complexity of local review. I n some situations, many elements of M E PA review could be redundant to local review. I n other situations, such as minor subdivisions in rural locations, additional M E PA analysis would be expected and necessary. Table5-2. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ISSUE LOCAL LAND USE POLICY/ REGULATION 1, PUBLICINVOLVEMENT, AGENCIES,GROUPSOR INDIVIDUALSCONTACTED: Provide a brief chronology of the scoping and ongoing involvement for this project, GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION -Each of these regulations require public notification and involvement prior to adoption of local regulations, Project proposals that would amend existing regulations or involve major subdivisions would also require various levels of public notification and public hearings. Public involvement could include legal ads, letters to adjacent and affected property owners, posting signs on affected property, and public hearings before planning boards and elected officials. Additionally, Title 76-6-206, M CA, also requires that all conservation easements shall be subject to review prior to recording by the appropriate local planning authority for the county within which the land lies in order to minimize conflict with local comprehensive planning. This review is advisory in nature. 2, OTHERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIESWITH JURISDICTION, LI ST OF PERMITSNEEDED: GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - Other agencies with jurisdiction are notified during the review processes and provided with an opportunity to comment on draft growth policies or proposed zoning and subdivisions. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement P age 5- 10 N o vem ber 19, 2004 Chapters 3, ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - Alternatives are considered as part of developing growth policies by planning staff, the public and elected officials, A Iternative zoning designations are also considered during the zoning process, and alternative subdivision features, such as design and density are considered during the subdivision review process, Table 5-3. IMPACTS ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE POTENTIAL IMPACTSAND MITIGATION MEASURES 4, GEOLOGY AND SOIL QUALITY, STABILITY AND MOISTURE: A re fragile, compactableor unstable soils present? Arethere unusual geologic features? A re there special reclamation considerations? A re cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, SUBDIVISION - G eneral geological and soil information is gathered during the development of growth policies, M ore specific information is gathered for the environmental assessment portion of subdivision review as applicable to major subdivisions 5, WATER QUALITY, QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION: Are important surface or groundwater resources present? 1 s there potential for violation of ambient water quality standards, drinking water maximum contaminant levels, or degradation of water quality? A re cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION, FLOOD PLAIN AND FLOOD WAY MANAGEMENT - 1 nformation on water bodies, aquifers and floodplains is generally included within most growth policies. Site-specific information is more often required during the zoning and subdivision review processes. Any project proposed in a floodplain also requires detailed information. 6, AIR QUALITY: would pollutants or particulate be produced? Is the project influenced by air quality regulations or zones (Class 1 airshed)? Are cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - Regional air quality is generally identified during growth policy development. The transportation plan, a component of the growth plan in larger urban areas, must contain an air quality model to estimate transportation impacts. Site- specific air quality impacts are identified during zoning and subdivision review. 7, VEGETATION COVER, QUANTITY AND QUALITY: Would vegetative communities be permanently altered? A re any rare plants or cover types present? A re cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - "Vegetation" is often a major element of most adopted growth policies. Important plant communities are generally recognized, including riparian and wetland vegetation. Site specific information on vegetation is normally considered during zoning and subdivision review processes. Final Real Estate Management Programmatic E nvironmental I mpact Statement Chapter 5 Page 5-11 N ovember 19, 2004 8, TERRESTRIAL, AVIAN AND AQUATICLIFE AND HABITATS: Is there substantial use of the area by important wildlife, birds or fish? A re cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - Habitat information is normally gathered from appropriate agencies for the growth policy and resource agencies are generally asked to review and comment on potential impacts of site- specific zoning and subdivision proposals, 9, UNIQUE, ENDANGERED, FRAGILE ORLIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL RE SO U RCE S: A re any federally listed threatened or endangered species or identified habitat present? Any wetland? Sensitive Species or Species of special concern? A re cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZOI # 8 above, G, SUBDIVISION -Same as 10, HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES:Are any historical, archaeological or paleontological resources present? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - H istorical and cultural information is sought from local historic districts and the State H istoric Preservation Office (SH PO ) during growth policy development and zoning and subdivision review. 11, AESTHETICS: Is the project on a prominent topographic feature? Would it be visible from populated or scenic areas? Would there be excessive noise or light? Are cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION -Some general information on prominent features is collected for growth policies, but more detailed information, including mitigation measures, are generally identified through the subdivision review process. Zoning considers the mix, location, and density of uses within a community, which has some relationship to aesthetic values. Some communities have design review ordinances that consider architecture and other aesthetic considerations. n. DEMANDSON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESOF LAND, WATER, AIROR ENERGY: Would the project use resources that are limited in the area? Are there other activities nearby that would affect the project? A re cumulative impacts likely to occur as a result of this proposed action? GROWTH POLICY, ZONING, SUBDIVISION - E nvironmental resource demands are addressed during growth policy development, G rowth policies and transportation plans typically use a 20- year timeframe, but are updated more frequently (every 5-10 years, depending on the rate of change in an area). Final Real Estate Management Programmatic Environmental I mpact Statement Page 5-12 November 19, 2004 Chapters 13, OTHERENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTSPERTINENTTO THE AREA: Are there other studies, plans or projects on this tract? Are cumulative impacts lil M onta na Depa rtment of Fish, W ild life & Pa rks FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographical Information System hCP Habitat Conservation Plan ICC Interstate Commerce Commission ID Identification FTP Incidental Take Permit MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Q uality Standards MAP Montana Association of Planners MCA Montana CodesAnnotated IVDBQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality IVDRAP M onta na Depa rtment of Fish, W ild life a nd Pa rks IVDHES Montana Department of Health and Environmental Services IVDPhHS Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services IVDOA Montana Department of Administration IVDOC Montana Department of Commerce IVDT Montana Department of Transportation IVBVV Montana Environmental Policy Act |V|Slhf> Montana Natural Heritage Program IVFDES Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MSS Montana Sanitation in Subdivision Act MSRV Montana Subdivision and Platting Act MJ\PCA Montana W ater Pollution Control Act NAAQS N a tiona 1 A mb lent A ir Q ua lity Sta nd a rd s NHO Northeastern Land Office, DNRC NB^ National Environmental Policy Act NIVFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NP5 National Park Service NFV Net Present Value NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRhf> National Register of Historic Places ISnAiD Northwestern Land Office, DNRC Q3 Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Agency Pb Lead PCI Per Capita Income pck: Plum Creek Timber Company PDR Purchase of Development Rights PBS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement RLT Payment in Lieu of Taxes PM-2.5 Particulate Matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PM-IO Particulate Matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality RBT Real Estate Identification Team RBVB Real Estate Management Bureau RFP Request for Proposal RID Rural Improvement District RMS Resource Management Standards ROD Record of Decision ROI Return on Investment RUL Recreational Use License «D Sufficient Credible Data SFUVP State Forest Land Management Plan ShPO State Historic Preservation Office SD Special Improvement District gp State Implementation Plan (for air quality) 9D Southern Land Office, DNRC SMZ Streamside Management Zone SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOSC Species of Special Concern SRUL Special Recreational Use License 3I\ID Southwestern Land Office, DNRC TCE Threatened and Endangered Species TOR Transfer of Development Rights TOVD Trust Land Management Division, DNRC USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of Interior USPS United States Forest Service USRA6 United States Fish and W ildlife Service GLOSSARY Air Q uality Related Value (AQ RV)- a feature or property of a class I , class 1 1 , or class 1 1 1 PSD area other than visibility that a state or I ndian tribe finds may be affected by air pollution. G eneral categories of air quality related values include odor, flora, fauna, soil, water, geologic features, and cultural resources. Alkaline: A measure of carbonate accumulation indicated by a high pH . Alluvium: Sediment deposited by running water. Andesite: A volcanic rock composed of andesine. Animal U nit M onth (AU M ): T he number of animals times the number of months they graze. A n "animal unit" is a cow with calf; other animals count as different numbers of animal units, e.g., five sheep with lambs' count as an animal unit. N umber of A U M s is stipulated in grazing leases. Argillite: A rock that is slightly harder than claystone and softer than shale. Asset M anagement: T he active management of the trust's assets under a portfolio management mandate for the purpose of increasing the portfolio's value. Synonymous with portfolio management. Badlands: A region nearly devoid of vegetation where erosion has cut the land into an intricate maze of narrow ravines, sharp crests and pinnacles. Bedrock: Solid rock exposed at the surface or covered with unconsolidated materials. Best M anagement Practices (BMP): Voluntary guidelines prescribed as minimum water quality protection standards for forestry operations. BM Ps, if properly designed and applied, can limit non-point pollution. Biodiversity or Biological D iversity: T he variety of life and its processes. It includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur (From K eystone Center 1991). Cadastral: A graphic representation of land ownership and or title and associated attributes Calcareous: Containing calcium carbonate. CAM A: Computer Assisted M ass A ppraisal - database maintained by the Montana Department of Revenue with residential and commercial property tax information Categorical E xclusion: Categorical exclusion refers to a type of action that does not individually, collectively, or cumulative require an E nvironmental Assessment (E A) or E nvironmental I mpact Statement (E I S), as determined by rulemaking or programmatic review. Cirquelands: A deep, steep-walled recess in a mountain, caused by glacial erosion. ClaystDne: Clay hardened into rock. Climax Community: That point in the development of a biotic community when the changes that normally occur in ecological succession cease. T he main biotic components are not overthrown by new invaders. N o new species become dominant in the biotic community. The environmental conditions of the habitat are relatively stabilized. (After Woodbury 1954. In: Schwarz etal. 1976) Coarse woody debris, down woody material: D ead woody material such as stems or limbs, generally lager than 3 inches diameter. Commercial: A proposed land use category that includes retail businesses, offices (private and public), service establishments, resort recreation, communication sites, and other similar uses that may be recognized a "commercial" in local zoning regulations. In additions, "raw" or undeveloped properties might also be identified for their potential commercial use through a highest and best use analysis. Conservation: A proposed land use category that generally includes lands that have been purchased or leased to secure long-term rights for open space, preservation of habitat, natural areas, or other conservation purposes. Conservation Land: I ncludes Federally designated areas such as N ational Parks and Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wildlife and Game Refuges, and lands protected by either Public/ Private Conservation Easements. Crustose lichen: A non vascular plant appearing like a crust. Developer: A private or public entity that assembles the necessary resources and conducts activities to facilitate changing uses on a particular tract or tract of land. Digital Elevation Model: A digital representation of a continuous variable over a two- dimensional surface by a regular array of z values referenced to a common datum. D igital elevation models are typically used to represent terrain relief. A Iso referred to as 'digital terrain model' (DTM). 2. A n elevation database for elevation data by map sheet from the N ational M apping D ivision of the U .S. G eological Survey (U SG S). 3. The format of the USGS digital elevation data sets. Dolomite: A common rock-forming mineral. Drainage Basin: the land drained by a river system. See watershed. E arly-successional species (Serai, or E arly-seral, species): A plant species associated primarily with an early stage in the successional development of a biotic community. E asement: A right created by grant, reservation, agreement, prescription, or necessary implication, which one has in the land of another. E conomic Analysis: A process by which an activity is evaluated in terms of its effects on the market in which it is located, typically measured in terms of jobs created, services required and financial impacts on the community E conomic I mpacts: the effects that result from an economic activity including but limited to the creation of jobs, the derivation of tax revenue, the cost of providing services and infrastructure, and the impacts to the natural and socio-economic environment Ecotone: A transition zone between two habitats or communities. E nabling Act: The act by which land was granted by congress to the state and held in trust for the support of common schools. E ndangered Species: A plant or animal species whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. Its peril may result from one or many changes: loss of habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or even unknown reasons. An endangered species must have help, or extinction may follow. It must be designated in the Federal Register by the appropriate Secretary as an "endangered species." (Schwarz et al. 1976) Endangered SpeciesAct(ESA): the Act that required consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (Interior) if practices on National Forest System lands may impact a threatened or endangered species (plant or animal). Direction is found in FSM 2670. Environmental I mpact Statement (E IS): A document in which anticipated environmental effects of a planned course or action or development are evaluated. The M ontana Environmental PolicyAct(MEPA) requires that such statements be prepared first in draft and then in a final form. An EIS includes the following points: (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (2) any adverse impacts which cannot be avoided by the action, (3) the alternative courses of action, (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, (5) a description of the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would occur if the action were accomplished. (After Schwarz et al. 1976) Environmental Quality Council (EQC): A 13 member legislative council that coordinates and monitors State policies and activities that affect the quality of the environment. Entitlement: An improvement or action that increases the underlying value of the land to which it is applied. E ntitlements may include the addition of physical infrastructure, land use designations, and land use authorizations such as zoning Forb: 1. A ny herbaceous plant other than those in the G ramineae (true grasses), Cyperaceae (sedges) and J uncaceae (rushes) families— i.e., any non-grass-like plant having little or no woody material on it. (After Amer. Soc. Range Manage. 1964) 2. A palatable, broad-leaved, flowering herb whose stem, above ground, does not become woody and persistent. (G rim and H ill 19740 (Schwarz et al. 1976) Forecasts: Predictions of future economic activity Full-time Equivalents (FT E): A measure of number of personnel employed. OneFTE is equal to one person working a 40-hour week. Funnel Filter: A process to identify specific land tracts that may be suitable for residential, commercial, industrial, or conservation uses. Geocode: The traditional definition is the process of identifying the coordinates of a location given its address. For example, an address can be matched against a Tl G E R street network to determine the location of a home. A Iso referred to as address geocoding. I n the context of our use in this process it refers to the theoretically unique identifier for each parcel in the M ontana Cadastral database. Geographic data: T he locations and descriptions of geographic features. The composite of spatial data and descriptive data. Geographic database: A collection of spatial data and related descriptive data organized for efficient storage and retrieval by many users. Geomorphic: Pertaining to the general configuration of the earth's surface. GIS: Geographic information system. An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display all forms of geographically referenced information. Glacial till: U nstratified glacial drift of clay, sand, and gravel, forming poor subsoil impervious to water. Glacier, glacial, glaciated: A mass of ice that moves in a definite direction and formed by the compression of ice; features created by a glacier; terrain molded by a glacier. Gneiss: A coarse grained rock in which bands of granular material alternate with bands of mica. Grid: A geographiTdata model representing information as an array of equally sized square cells arranged in rows and columns. E ach grid cell is referenced by its geographic x,y location. See also bsterland ^rid_ceii, Grid cell: A discretely uniform unit that represents a portion of the E arth, such as a square meter or square mile. E ach grid cell has a value that corresponds to the feature or characteristic at that site, such as a soil type, census tract, or vegetation class. Growth Policy: G rowth policies (formerly known as comprehensive or master plans) provide overall guidance to local governments in the growth and development of their communities. The primary focus of growth policies is on land uses, both existing and projected. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): TheHCP will address those lands that provide habitat for species currently listed or those that could be listed under the E ndangered Species Act (E SA). The H CP offsets harm caused by lawful activities, such as forest management practices, by promoting conservation measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species. H ydrogeomorphology: The science relating to the geographical, geological and hydrological aspects of water bodies and changes to these in response to flow variations and to natural and human-caused events such as heavy rainfall or channel straightening. H ydrology: A science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water, specifically the study of water on the surface of land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, with respect to evaporation and precipitation. (After Webster 1963 I n: Schwarz etal. 1976) Igneous rocks: Formed by the solidification of molten or partially molten rock. Incidental Take Permit: ???? D o we need this??? Industrial: A proposed land usecategorythat includes manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing, utilities, heavy transportation, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment facilities, wind farms, feedlots, grain storage bins, irrigation facilities, reclamation projects, electrical substations, intermodal shipping facilities, and similar uses. In addition, "raw" or undeveloped properties might also be identified for their potential industrial use through a highest and best use analysis. Intermontane: Among or between mountains. I ntrusions: A body of molten rock that penetrates older rock. Krumholtz: A vegetation type occurring at alpine timberlines that is composed of tree species but in this environment are strongly dwarfed and misshapen. Lacustrine: Pertaining to, formed in a lake or lakes. Land Banking: The purpose of Land Banking as provided for under 77-2-361 and 77-2-362, M CA is to sell various parcels of state lands and use the proceeds from the sales to purchase other land, easements, or improvements for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the respective trusts. Land Development: Adding improvements and/ or entitlements to land in anticipation of a change in its use.. Land E xchange: T he exchange of trust lands owned by other public or private entities for non-trust lands that better serve the interest of the trust. Land Sale: The act of selling; the transfer of property, or a contract to transfer the ownership of property, from one person to another for a valuable consideration, or for a price in money. Late-successional species: A plant species associated primarily with a later stage in the successional development of a biotic community. Lease: A n agreement by which an owner of real property (lessor) gives the right of possession to another (lessee), for a specified period of time (term) and for a specified consideration (rent). Lease of Development Rights: The temporary conveyance of development rights on a parcel of property that result in the limitation of the types of development that can occur on the land for a set period of time. License: A special permission to do something on, or with, somebody else's property which, were it not for the license, could be legally prevented or give rise to legal action in tort or trespass. Limestone: A sedimentary rock composed primarily of calcium carbonate. Market Filter: The process of selecting physically suitable land for development based on favorable demographic and economic characteristics. T he function of the M arket F liter is to determine the demand for specific tracts within a certain geographic, demographic or socio- economic context. ME PA: The Montana Environmental Protection Act (ME PA), which requires the evaluation of potential impacts that occur as the result of an action undertaken or licensed by the State of Montana Mesic temperature regime: M ean annual soil temperature between 46.5 and 59.0 °F and the difference between summer and winter temperatures is greater than 41 °F . Metamorphic rock: Rocks which have formed in the solid state in response to pronounced changes in temperature, chemical and pressure environment. Metalliferous: containing or yielding metal Metasedimentary rock: Partially metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. Montana Antiquities Act: The act addressing the responsibilities of the State H istoric Preservation Office and other state agencies regarding historic and prehistoric sites including buildings, structures, paleontological sites, archaeological sites on state owned lands. Montana Environmental PolicyAct (ME PA): Adopted during the 1971 session of tine State legislature, M E PA is patterned after the N E PA . M E PA establishes M ontana's environmental policy, processes and theEQC (MCA 75-1-101 - 324). Moraine: A drift of glacial till deposited by a glacier, independent of underlying topography. M udstone: a rock formed from an indefinite mixture of clay, silt, claystone, siltstone, shale and argillite. National Environmental PolicyAct(N EPA): The basic national charter for environmental protection. N E PA became law in 1969 and establishes policy, sets goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy (40 C F R 1500.1). N eighborhood Plan: A set of goals, policies and recommended action measures for a specific area within a larger planning jurisdiction that become part of the G rowth Policy. 1 1 is more specific than the G rowth Policy, but it reinforces and complies with growth plan policies. T hese goals and policies will provide overall guidance to the development of new regulations that will be binding on future development in the neighborhood. N et Present Value (N PV): Today's dollar equivalent of accumulated future revenues, over the analysis period, less accumulated future costs. N on-metalliferous: does not contain or yield metal N on-point pollution source: Pollution without a single, identifiable source, such as that from road construction, cattle grazing, or agricultural practices, (see Point pollution source) Noxious Weed: Plants that conflict with, interfere with, or otherwise restrict land management are commonly referred to as weeds. A plant that has been classified as a weed attains "noxious" status by an act of State legislation. Other: Land not characterized as M ineral. Timber, and Agriculture and G razing. Outwash:A plain composed of water washed out from under a glacier or ice sheet. Physical E nvironmental Filter: The process of selecting developable land with slopes less than 25% and located outside a designated 100-year flood plain. Physical Suitability Filter: The process of selective developable lands based on the proximity and availability of infrastructure. Physiography: The study of the genesis and evolution of landforms. Plan: The real estate management plan to guide decisions affecting real estate actions on state trust lands. Plan is also synonymous to the Real Estate Programmatic Plan and to the selected alternative of the Programmatic E IS. Plant Species Names alkali bluegrass Poa juncifolia American ash Fraxinus pennsylvannia American vetch Vicia americana arrowleaf balsam root Balsamorhiza saggitata bearded wheatgrass Agropyron caninum beardtounge Penstemon spp. beargrass Xerophyllum tenax big bluestem Andropogon gerardii big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata birdfoot sagebrush Artemisia pedatifida black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera ssp. tricliocarpa black greasewood Atriplex gardneri black sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula blue gramma Bouteloua gracilis bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudorogneria spicata bluejoint reedgrass Calamogrostis canadensis bog birch Betula glandulosa boxelder Acer negundo broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarotlirae bud sagebrush Artemisia spinescens Canada buffaloberry Sheperdia canadensis Cascade mountain ash Sorbus scopulina cheatgrass Br cm us tectorum chokecherry Prunus virginiana common snowberry Symphoriocarpos albus common yarrow Acliillea millefolium creeping juniper Juniperus horizontalis curl-leaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius 1 devil's club Opiopanax horridum dotted gayfeather Liatris punctata Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii dryland bluegrass Poa arida dwarf billberry Vaccinium caespitosum elk sedge Carex geyeri Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii false indigo Amorpha canescens foamflower Tiarella unifoliata fool's huckleberry Menziesia ferruginea fringed sage Artemisia frigida golden current Ribes odoratum grand fir Abies grandis Great Basin wildrye Elymus cinereus Great Plains cottonwood Populus deltoides green needlegrass Stipa viridula green rabbitbrush Ctirysotliamnus viscidiflorus ground dogwood Comus unalaskense grouse whortleberry Vaccinium scopulorum hawthorne Crataegus spp. heart-leaved arnica Arnica cordifolia Hood's phlox Plilox hoodii Hooker's fairybell Disporum liookerii Hooker's sandwort Arenaria liookerii Idaho fescue Festuca idalioensis Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis liymenoides Japanese brome Bromus japonicus Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis kinnikinnik Arctostaphylos uva-ursi limber pine Pinus flexilis little bluestem Scliizaclirium scoparium lodgepole pine Pinus contorta lungwort Mertensia spp. lupine Lupinus spp. Ly all's larch Larix lyallii many-flowered phlox Phlox multiflora mock orange Philadelphus lewsii moss campion Silene acaulis mountain avens Dryas octopetala mountain balm Ceanothus velutinus mountain hemlock Tsuga mertensiana mountain lover Pachistima myrsinites narrow-flowered brome Bromus vulgaris narrow-leaved sedge Carex filifolia needle and thread grass Stipa comata Pacific yew Taxus brevifolia paper birch Betula papyrifera patata Monolepis nuttalliana pathfinder Adenocaulon bicolor pinegrass Calamogrosits rubsens plains Cottonwood Populus deltoides plum Prunus spp ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa porcupine grass Stipa spartea prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera prairie junegrass Koeleria pyramidata prairie sandgrass Calamovilfa longifolia prickly pear cactus Opuntia polycantlia purple meadowrue Tlialictrum dasycarpum pussy toes Antennaria spp. queens cup Clintonia unifoliata rattlegrass Bromus brizaeformis red threeawn Aristida purpurea redstem ceanothus Ceanotlius sanguineus redtop bentgrass Arostis stolonifera Rocky Mountain helianthella l-leliantliella uniflora Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain maple Acer glabrum Ross's sedge Carex Rossii rosy pussytoes Antennaria micropliylla rough fescue Festuca scabrella rubber rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolium saltsage Atriplex nuttalli sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Sandberg's bluegrass Poa sandbergii scarlet globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana scurf pea Psoralea tenuifolia sedge Carex spp. serviceberry Amalanchier ainifolia sheepfat Atriplex confertifolia shiny-leaved spiraea Spiraea betulifolia shreddy ninebark Pliysocarpus malvaceus shrubby cinquefoil Potentilla fruiticosa (=Pentafloides floribunda) silver sagebrush Artemisia carta sticky geranium Geranium viscosissimum Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum textile onion Allium textile thickspike wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachum thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus thin-leaved blueberry Vaccinium membranaceum three-leaved sage Artemisia tripartita tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa twinflower Linnaea borealis Utah juniper Juniperus osteosperma water birch Betula occidentalis Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Western larch Larix occidentalis Western redcedar Thuja plicata Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii Western white pine Pinus monticola white spruce Picea engelmannii x glauca whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis willow Salix spp. wingscale Atriplex canescens winterfat Eurotia lanata wolfberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis Wood's rose Rosa woodsii yucca Yucca glauca Polygon: A coverage feature class used to represeiitlareasl A polygon is defined by the arcs that make up its boundary and alpointlinside its boundary for identification. Polygons have attributes (IpatI that describe the geographic feature they represent. Potholes: A hole generally deeper than wide. Point Pollution Source: Pollution with a single, identifiable source, such as a sewage pipe or factory waste system, (see N on-point pollution source). Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD)- with theClean Air Act amendments of 1977, Congress mandated that states and I ndian tribes would establish preconstruction permitting programs designed to ensure that the N ational A mbient A ir Q uality Standards are maintained as economic development occurs. Standards for measurement of PSD values typically follow a standardized three-part classification system. Project Filter: The process of obtaining project approval through local government review. Purchase/ Sale of Development Rights: The permanent conveyance of development rights on a parcel of property that result in a covenant on the land limiting the types of development that can occur. Quantile: Quantiles are essentially points taken at regular vertical intervals from the cumulative distribution function, dividing ordered data into groups of essentially equal-sized data subsets. I n the context of this report quartiles(4 equal size groups) were used, and the results were combined as follows: 1 = <25%, 2 = 25%-75%, 3 = >75% Quartzite: A granular metamorphic rock composed primarily of quartz. Raster: A cellular data structure composed of rows and columns for storing images. G roups of cells with the same value represent features. Rate of Return on E quity: the percentage of income received from an investment Regulatory Filter: The process of determining the "how" land use regulations and environmental laws would affect land use. Residential: A proposed land usecategorythat includes single-family dwellings, duplexes, condominiums, townhouses, cabins, apartments, associated ancillary uses, and other residential uses normally recognized by local zoning regulations. I n addition, "raw" or undeveloped properties might also be identified for residential potential. Analyses in this PEIS included multi-family units in the commercial category, in some cases. Resource M anagement Standard (RMS): A specific level of performance that characterizes how various issues and resources will be addressed. I n this document, each alternative has its own set of RM Ss consistent with its management philosophy. Rhyolite: A granitic rock with crystals too small to be seen by the unaided eye. Riparian area: G reen zones associated with lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, potholes, springs, bogs, fens, wet meadows, and ephemeral, intermittent or perennial streams. The riparian / wetland zone occurs between the upland or terrestrial zone and the aquatic or deep-water zone. Rural: Concerning the country, lands not considered to be urban or suburban. Saline, salinity: A measure of soluble salt accumulation. Sandstone: Cemented sediment composed primarily from quartz. Schist: A medium or coarse-grained metamorphic rock where mica minerals form parallel bands. Scoping: A n integral part of the environmental analysis. Scoping requires examining a proposed action and its possible effects; establishing the depth of the environmental analysis needed; determining analysis procedures, data needed and task assignments. Selection Filter: The process of prioritizing project opportunities based upon fiscal and staffing considerations in addition to perceived market demand for the proposed project. Sensitive species: A U .S. Forest Service designation for plant or animal species that are vulnerable to declines in population or habitat capability which could be accelerated by land management activities. Serai: A community susceptible to replacement by another community. Serotinous: Conifer cones that do not open after the seeds are matured unless heated by fire. Shale: A sedimentary rock formed from fine textured layered soils. Siltite:A metamorphosed siltstone. Special Uses: Commercial, residential, industrial, and conservation use of state lands. Speciesof Special Concern: A Montana Natural Heritage Program designation for species wliicli may be very rate or locally abundant but occupying a very restricted range. I n either case, they are especially vulnerable to extinction. Subdivision: A division of a single parcel of land into smaller parcels (lots) by filing a map describing the division, and obtaining approval by a governmental commission (city or county). Substrata: An underlayer. Suburban: The area around a city, a transition area between urban and rural, usually residential with small businesses, although modernly an attraction for large industrial and commercial complexes. Sustained Yield: M anagement of timber resources to provide sustainable, consistent yields of timber and/ or other resources. Thiessen Polygons: Polygons whose boundaries define the area that is closest to each point relative to all other points. Thiessen polygons are generated from a set of points. They are mathematically defined by the perpendicular bisectors of the lines between all points. A tin structure is used to create Thiessen polygons. Threatened Species: Species which are likely to become "endangered species" within the foreseeable future through all or a significant portion of their range are designated threatened species in the Federal Register by appropriate D epartment Secretaries. (Schwarz et al. 1976) Thrust and block faulted: A reverse fault characterized by a low angle of inclination. Transfer of Developmental Rights: Land rights associated with a certain parcel, such as land use density, could be transferred to another parcel to accomplish a variety of objectives. Transitional Filter: The process of selecting lands that have some development potential for residential, commercial, and industrial uses based on proximity to existing land uses. T rust M andate: T he requirement that State trust lands be managed to provide income for the beneficiaries of the income derived from those lands, including public schools and universities. Urban: Pertaining to a city or town, a named location where a mix of different developed uses occurs in close proximity to each other. Ustic soil moisture regime: A condition where moisture is limited but present when condition are suitable for plant growth. Watershed: The area drained by a river or river system. Wetlands: A reas that are permanently wet, or intermittently water covered, such as swamps, marshes, bogs, muskegs, potholes, swales, glades, and overflow land of river valleys. Large, open lakes are commonly excluded, but many kinds of ponds, pools, sloughs, holes, and bayous may be included. (Veatch and H umphrys 1966 I n: Schwarz et al. 1796) Xeric temperature regime: Climatic conditions typical of M editerranean areas where winters are moist and summers are warm and dry. Zoning: A regulatory tool that enables local government to locate compatible and/ or complimentary land uses within specific geographic areas while addressing a number of design, safety and infrastructure issues. It also can be used to achieve other community goals such as the provision of affordable housing, the preservation of significant cultural and historic resources and the efficient provision of community services and infrastructure. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ABI (Association for Biodiversity Information), 2001 International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation. Natural Heritage Central Databases. The Association for Biodiversity I nformation, A rlington, VA . Adair, Ann L.and Cheryl Heath. 2002. The Economic Impact of Home Construction on M ontana Counties. Center for A pplied E conomic Research. M ontana State U niversity-Billings. Aller, A., 1960, The composition of the Lake McDonald Forest, G lacier N ational Park. Eco/og/ 41:29-33. Alwin,J.A., 1983 Western Montana: A Portrait of its Land and Its People. Montana Geographic Series, M ontdnd M d^zine. H elena, M T . "An Asset Management Primer for the Western States Land Commissioners Association." Paper prepared byjohn Lilly, Assistant Director, Oregon Division of State Lands. Januarys, 2001. A ntos, A . and J . Habeck, 1981 Successional Development in /I b/esgrand/s (Dougl.) Forbes Forests in the Swan Valley, Western M ontana. W orthwest Sd&ice 55(1) 26-39. A rno, S., D . Simmerman, and R . K eene, 1985 F orest Succession on F our H dbitdt Types in 1/1/ estern M ontdnd. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. General Technical Report I NT-177. The Association for Biodiversity Information, 2001 International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation. Natural Heritage Central Databases. The Association of Biodiversity I nformation, A rlington, VA . Bailey, R.,1998 E coRegions: T he E cosystem G eography of the 0 ceans and Continents. available online at < ittp:/ / www.environmental-center.com:> BLM,ca. 1980s U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Visual Resource M anagement System, reference to H andbook H -8410-1, V isual Resource I nventory, and Handbook H -8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating. http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html Board of 0 il and G as Conservation ,1989, 0 il and G as Production in M ontana - Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix 7- Technical Appendix: Noise. Bowles, A .E .,1995, Responses of Wildlife to N oise. I n 1/1/ iidiifednd R ea&tionists, edited by R.L. K night and K .J G utzwiller, pp. 372. Island Press, Washington, D .C. BowkerJ.M .; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H .K. 1999. Projections of outdoor recreation participation to 2050. 1 n: Cordell, H .K ., principal investigator. 0 utdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 323-350. Brown, C.J.D, 1971, Fishes of Montana, Montana State University, Bozeman, Caprio, J .M ., and G .A. N ielsen, 1992, ClimdteA tids ofM ontdnd. M ontana State U niversity Extension Service, Bozeman. Carlson,]. 2003. Coordinator, Montana Animal Species of Concern Committee. Montana Animal Species of Concern. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, H elena, M ontana. 14pp. Congdon, W.E.; Madden, J. M .; N ugent,J. "Montana Land Use: Current Issues in Subdivision Annexation and Zoning Law." N Bl 04S2609. 2001. Daubenmire, R., 1943, Vegetation Zonation in theRocky Mountains. Botanical Rev/a/i/ 9:325-393. 1968 Soil M oisture in Relation to Vegetation D istribution in the M ountains of N orthern Idaho. E colog/ (49) 431-438. 1978 Plant Geography, with Special Reference to North America, pp.338. Academic press. New York, NY. D espain, D ., 1973,Vegetation of the Bighorn M ountains. E cologcal M onogrdphs 43(3) 329-353. DeVelice, R., and P. Lessica, 1993, Plant Community Classification for the Vegetation on BLM Lands, Pryor M ountains. Carbon County, M ontana. M ontana N atural H eritage Program. Helena, MT. 78 pp. Duncan C. L., 200, The Montana Weed Management Plan. Weed Summit Steering Committee and Weed Management Task Force. Entwistle, P., A. DeBolt,J. Kaltenecker, and K. Steenholf, (compilers) 2000 Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystem Symposium. Bureau of land Management Publication No. BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150. Boise, ID.54pp. Everhart, W. H .;W.R. Seaman. 1971. Fishes of Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish, and Parks D ivision, D enver Colorado. Foresman, K. R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special Publication No. 12. The A merican Society of M ammalogists. Lawrence, K ansas. 278pp. Gaines, E.P., and M.R. Ryan. 1988. Piping Plover habitat use and reproductive success in North D akota. J ournal W ildlife M anagement 52:266-273. 11 Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, K.W. Cummins. 1997. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience. 41:540-551. Habecl<,J., 1967, JVlountain Hemlocl< Communities in Western JVlontana. W ofthwestSdence^l(^): 169-177. Hall, F.C. 1988. Characterization of riparian systems IN : Riparian wildlife and forestry interactions, K .J . Raedeke ed., pp. 7-12. U niversity of Washington I nstitute of Forest Resources, Seattle. Hansen, P. L., R. D . Pfister, K . Boggs, B.J. Cook,J.Jay, and D . K . H inckley, 1995 Classification and Management of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry. Missoula, Montana. M/scef/aneousPuW/at/on No. 54. Henderson, Larry L. "History of the Montana Land Grant Funds for the Schools of Montana, 1938 - 1982." U npublished thesis for D octor of E ducation, the U niversity of M ontana, 1985. H unter, M . L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests and Forestry: Principlesof Managing Forests for Biological D iversity. Prentice-H all I nc. E nglewood Cliffs, N ew Jersey. 369 pp. Iverson, C. 2001. Coarse filter/ fine filter: Planning approaches to the conservation of biological diversity. D iscussion paper presented at D iversity 0 ptions Workshop-N ational Forest Management Act. U SD A Forest Service. Lansdowne, Virginia. 4pp. Jackson, David H . 2004. Land Use Forecasts, Financial Returns and Economic Impacts. Jackson and Jackson, LLP. Missoula MT. Keystone Center. 1991. Biological diversity on federal lands: report of Keystone policy dialogue. K eystone, CO : T he K eystone Center. Kuchler, A., 19641/ eg^dtion oftheContffminousU nitedStdtes, pp. 472. Kluwer Academic Press. Boston, MA Lenard,S.,J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C.Jones, and C.Tilly. 2003. P. D. Skaar's M ontana bird distribution. Sixth edition. Montana Audubon, Helena MT. 144 pp. Liknes, G .A . 1984. The present status and distribution of the west slope cutthroat trout (Sdlmo ddfki Imsi) east and west of the Continental D ivide in M ontana. M ontana D epartment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. Mace, R. D.,J.S. Waller, T. L. Manley, L.J. Lyon, and H .Zuuring. 1996. Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and habitat in the Swan M ountains, M ontana. J . A ppl. E col. 33:1395-1404. Ill M ace, R. D . and J . S. Waller. 1997. F inal Report: G rizzly bear ecology in the Swan M ountains. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 1920 6*. Ave East. P.O. Box 200701, Hden^ Montana 59620-0701. Malone M., 2000, Montana Weed Control Associstion. Web site contains the following articles SJieJQ^, R. L., Manoukian, M., Marks^ G., "Pro/enting Noxious Weed Invasion"; Shel^^R. L., ^qcar,T.J., Maxwell, B. D.,Jacobs>J. S., "Heathy Plant CommunitieSy Ecologcally- based Rangdand Weed Management'; Shd^, R. L., "Combining Weed Management Efforts^' . Maxell, B. A.,J.K Werner, P. Hendricks, D.L. F lath. 2003. H erptetology in Montana: a history, status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentially native, and exotic species, and indexed bibliography. N orthwest Fauna N umber 5. Society for N orthwestern Vertebrate Biology. Olympia, Washington. 138pp. M cN ab, H ., and P. Avers, 1994, E cological Subregions of the U nited States. Web site available at ittp:/ / www.fs.fed.us/ land/ pubs/ ecoreqions M D oA , 1992, F ml N oxious W eed Tfu^ F und PfogrdmmdticE nvifonmsitdl Impdd Stdtement. MontanaDepartmentof Agriculture, Agricultural and Biological Services D ivision, H elena, M ontana. M eehan, W .R . (ed). 1991. I nf luences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American F isheries Society Special Publication 19. Meine, Curt D. and George W.Archibald (Eds). 1996. The cranes:- Status survey and conservation action plan. lUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. 294pp. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ resource/ distr/ birds/ cranes/ cranes.htm (Version 02M AR98). "Montana's Annexation and Planning Statutes." Thirteenth Edition. MontanaDepartmentof Commerce, Community Technical Assistance Program. September 1999. M ontana D E Q . 2002. 2002 M ontana 305(b) Report. M ontana D epartment of E nvironmental Quality, Helena Montana. 17pp. M ontana D epartment of N atural Resources and Conservation, Trust Land M anagement Division. "Report on Return on Asset Value by Trust and Land OfficeforStateTrust Lands"- Fiscal Year 2003, 12/ 2003. Montana DN RC. 1996. State Forest Land Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. M ontana D epartment of N atural Resources and Conservation, M issoula M ontana. Montana FWP. 2003. MontanaGray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, Montana. 420pp. IV "Montana Index of Environmental Permits." Twelfth Edition. Montana Environmental Quality Council. 2004. Montana Partners in Flight. 2000. Draft Bird Conservation Plan-Montana. Version 1.0. American Bird Conservancy, Kalispell, Montana. 281pp. "Montana's Subdivision and Surveying Laws and Regulations." Eighteenth Edition. Montana Department of Commerce, CommunityTechnical Assistance Program. March 2000. Mortimer,]. Michael. "Condemnation Without Compensation: How Environmental Eminent Domain Diminishes the Value of Montana's School Trust Lands." Dickinson Journal of E nvironmental Law & Policy, Volume 8, N umber 2, pages 243 - 271. Fall 1999. Mueggler, W., and W. Handl, 1974 Mountain and Grassland Habitat Types of Western Montana, pp.88. USD A Forest Service Region One Interim Report. Mundinger,John and Everts, Todd. "A Guide to the Montana Environmental Policy Act." Legislative Environmental Policy Office, Environmental Quality Council. Second Printing, October 2000. M urray, H elen. I nterview with M aurice Cusick regarding the history of the Stillwater State Forest. September 21, 1981. N essler, J . A., G . L. Ford, C. L. M aynard, and D . S. Page-D umrose, 1997 E coiogcdl U nits of the M ofthernRegon: Subsedion. US Department of Agriculture, F orest Service I ntermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-GTR-369. Ogden, UT. 0 akiy, A .L ., J .A . Collins, L .B .E verson, D .A . H eller, J .C . H owerton, R.E . V incent. 1985. Riparian zones and freshwater wetlands. In M anagement of wildlife and fish habitats in forest in western Oregon and Washington, Part I. E .R. Brown, ed., p. 58-79. USD A Forest Service, Pacific N orthwest Region. "Our Montana Environment: Where Do We Stand?" Montana Environmental Quality Council. 1996. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr, 1 991 . A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 432 p. Peet, R., 1993 Forests of the Rocky M ountains. I n W orth A mericdn Terrestridl V egddtion, pp. 434. Edited by M. Barbour and W. Billings. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press. Pfister, R., B. Kovalchik, F. Arno, and R. Presby, 1911 Forest H dbitdt Types of M ontdnd, pp. 174. USDA Forest Service general technical report. INT-34. Pfister, R.D. and R.F. Batchelor. 1984. Montana riparian vegetation types. Western Wild lands 9(4): 19-23. School of Forestry, U niversity of M ontana, M issoula M ontana. Poison, Paul. 2004. I don't have the formal title of his report but I do reference it in my Economic Appendix as I had his tables before the formal report was submitted to theDN R. Polzin, Paul E., "Montana A voids Recession and Terrorist Attack Impacts; The Montana 0 utiook," M ontdnd Business Qudftefly, Vol. 41, N o 1 (Spring 2003), pp 8-21. Potter, L., and D. Green, 1964 Ecology of PonderosaPinein Western North D akota. E dog/ 45(1) 10-22. Redmond, R.L ., M .M . H art, J .C. Winne, W.A . Williams, P.C . Thornton, Z . M a, C .M . Tobalske, M.M.Thornton, K. P. McLaughlin, T. P. Tady, F.B.Fisher, S.W. Running. 1998. The Montana Gap Analysis Project: final report. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, The University of Montana, Missoula, xiii -I- 136 pp. -I- appendices. Rieman, B .E .: J .D . M cl ntyre. 1993. D emographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bulltrout. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report IN T-302. I ntermountain Research Station, Ogden Utah. Roedel,M.D. "Montana animal species of special concern." (Unpublished list.) Montana N atural H eritage Program, H elena. 1999. Root, R., and J. Habeck, 1972, A Study of High Elevation Grassland Communities in Western M ontana. -4 merican M idland M aturaM 87:109-121. Rothschiled, B.J.: G.T. DiNardo. 1987. Comparison of recruitment variability and life history data among marine and anadromous fishes. I n: A merican F isheries Society Symposium 1, pp. 531-546. Ruediger, B.,J.CIaar, S. Mighton, B. Nanaey, T.Tinaldi, F. Wahl, N .Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton,J.Trick, A. Vandehey, S. Gniadek, 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment (2nd Edition). USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USD I Bureau of Land Management, and USDI N ational Park Service. Missoula, Montana. 122 pp. Salo, E.O.and T. W. Cundy, eds. 1987. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. I nstitute of Forest Resources. U niversity of Washington, Seattle Washington. Sauer,J. R., B. G. Peterjohn, S. Schwartz, and J . E. Hines. 1995. The Grassland Bird Home Page. Version 95.0. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, M D VI SauerJ. R.,J. E . H ines, and J. Fallon. 2003. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and A nalysis 1966 - 2002. Version 2003.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schwarz, C. F.; E.C.Thor; G. H . Eisner 1976. Wildland planning glossary. USD A Forest Service G eneral Technical Report PSW-13. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Berkeley CA. Schultz,Tom and Tommy Butler, 2003, Managing Montana's trust lands. Montana Business Quarterly. 41(4):8-14. SiglenW.F.; R.R.Miller. 1963. Fishesof Utah. Utah State Department of Fish and Game, Salt Lake City Utah. Souder,Jon A and Farfax, SallyK. StdteTrustL dnds: H istory, M dndgement dnd SustdindbleU se. U niversity Press of K ansas. 1996. Swanson, Larry D., "The Flathead's Changing Economy," Prepared for the National Parks Conservation Association, October 2002. http:/ / www.npca.org/ across_the_ nation/ npca_in_the_field/ northern_rockies/ gateway/ swanso n.pdf TheA ppfdisdl ofRealE stdte. Eleventh Edition. Appraisal Institute. 1999. TheDidiondfyofRedl E stdteA ppfdisdi. Third Edition. Appraisal Institute. 1998. "The Federally Granted Trusts: What Makes Them Unique, January 5, 1999." Paper prepared by the Washington State D epartment of N atural Resources for the Western States Land Commissioners Association. "The State of Growth in Montana 2001: Biennial report on growth and land-use planning." M ontana Smart G rowth Coalition. Thomas, G. 1992. Status of bull trout in Montana. Report prepared for Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. Thomas, J. W,C. Maser,J.E. Rodeik. 1979. Riparian Zones. In Wildlife habitats in managed forest: TheBlueMountainsof Oregon and Washington, J.W.Thomas, ed. P. 40-47. USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 553. Washington, D.C. Trautman, M.B. 1980. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio Sea Grant Program, Columbus Ohio. "Trust Performance M easurement: A Report to the Western States Land Commissioners Association, December 15, 2000." Prepared by A gland I nvestment Services, Inc. vu U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2003, Regional Economic Information System, Unpublished Data. U .S. E nvironmental Protection Agency, 1979 Protective N oise Levels (Condensed Version of EPS Levels Document). Supplement of "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," EPA/ ON AC 550/9-74-004.