south fork and watkins creek allotment management plan update

SOUTH FORK AND WATKINS CREEK ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Gallatin County, Montana December 2011 USDA - Forest Service Northern Region – Gallatin National Forest Hebgen Lake Ranger District

SOUTH FORK AND WATKINS CREEK ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Gallatin County, Montana December 2011 UDSA - Forest Service Northern Region – Gallatin National Forest Hebgen Lake Ranger District

Responsible Official: Cavan Fitzsimmons District Ranger Hebgen Lake Ranger District PO Box 520 West Yellowstone, MT 59758 For Further Information: Susan LaMont Project Coordinator Hebgen Lake Ranger District PO Box 520 West Yellowstone, MT 59758 (406) 823-6961 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 7953272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – Purpose and Need 1.1 Background ……………………………………………………………………………….…………………….. 1-1 1.2 Purpose for Action ………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 1-1 1.3 Allotment Description and History of Use ………….…………………………………….……… 1-1 1.4 Need for Change……………………………………………………………………………………………..… 1-3 1.5 Proposed Action …………………………………………………………………………………………….… 1-3 1.6 Decision Framework …………………………………………………………………………………………. 1-4 1.7 Management Direction ………………………………………………………………………………….... 1-4 1.8 Other Laws, Regulations and Decisions Applicable to this Proposal ………………….. 1-5

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES 2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.2 Public Involvement …………………………………………………………………………………..………. 2.3 Issue Identification ………………………………………………………..………………………………….. 2.3.1 Issues not Analyzed in Detail …………………………………………………..…………….. 2.3.1 Issues Analyzed in Detail ……………………………………………….…….………………… 2.4 Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail ………………………….…………….….…. 2.4.1 Alternative 1 - No Livestock Grazing ……………………………….……………….….… 2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Current Management…………………………….………….…..……….. 2.4.3 Alternative 3 - Proposed Action ………………………………….……………..…….……. 2.4.4 Alternative 4 – Modified Proposed Action ………………….……….……………….... 2.5 Alternatives Considered but not Given Detailed Study ………………………..…………... 2.6 Monitoring and Mitigation Measures ………………………………………….……….……........ 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives Considered in Detail …………………………..……………….…

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-6 2-6 2-6 2-7 2-9 2-10 2-10 2-11

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….………………………………. 3.2 Activities That May Contribute to Cumulative Effects …………………………………….… 3.3 Steam Channel Form and Function ………………………………………………………..….…….. 3.3.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact ……………………………..……..…….. 3.3.2 Analysis Method ……………………………………………………………………….…………… 3.3.3 Affected Environment …………………………………………………………………………... 3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ……………………………………………………………………… 3.3.5 Cumulative Effects ………………………………………………………………….……………… 3.3.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy ……………………….……………. 3.4 Riparian Dependent Species …………………………………………………………………….……….. 3.4.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact ………………………..………………… 3.4.2 Analysis Method ……………………………………………………….…………………………… 3.4.3 Affected Environment ……………….…………………………………………………………… 3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ……………………………………………………………………….

3-1 3-1 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-5 3-10 3-13 3-16 3-16 3-16 3-16 3-17 3-18

3.4.5 Cumulative Effects ………………………………………………………………….………………. 3.4.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy ….……………………………….… 3.5 Upland and Riparian Vegetation ……………………………………………………...………………. 3.5.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact …….………………………………….… 3.5.2 Analysis Method …………………………………………..………………………………………… 3.5.3 Affected Environment ……………………………………….…………………………………... 3.5.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ………………………………….………………………….………. 3.5.5 Cumulative Effect …………………………………………….…………………………………….. 3.5.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy …….…………………….………… 3.6 Noxious and Invasive Weeds …………………………………………………………….………………. 3.6.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact ….……………………………………….. 3.6.2 Analysis Method …………………………………………………….……………………………... 3.6.3 Affected Environment ………………………………………….…………………………………. 3.6.4 Direct and Indirect Effects …………………………………….………………………………… 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects ………………………………………………….………………….…………… 3.6.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy ………….…………..……………… 3.7 Soils …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.7.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact …………….…………..…………………. 3.7.2 Analysis Method ………………………………………………………..…………………………… 3.7.3 Affected Environment ……………………………………………..……………………………… 3.7.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ………………………………………..…….………………………. 3.7.5 Cumulative Effects ……………………………………………………….…..……………………. 3.7.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy ……………………………………… 3.8 Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered Species…………………………………………………. 3.8.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Canada Lynx……………..…….. 3.8.2 Analysis Method - Canada Lynx ………………………………………………….…….……. 3.8.3 Affected Environment - Canada Lynx ……………………………………………………... 3.8.4 Direct and Indirect Effects - Canada Lynx ……….……………………………………… 3.8.5 Cumulative Effects - Canada Lynx ……………….……………………………….…………. 3.8.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy - Canada Lynx …….……..…. 3.8.7 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Grizzly Bear.……………………… 3.8.8 Analysis Method - Grizzly Bear .…………………………………………………………...…. 3.8.9 Affected Environment - Grizzly Bear .……………………..……………………………... 3.8.10 Direct and Indirect Effects - Grizzly Bear………………………………………………… 3.8.11 Cumulative Effects - Grizzly Bear .…………………………………………………………. 3.8.12 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy - Grizzly Bear.…………..…. 3.9 Wildlife - Sensitive Terrestrial Species ……………………………………………………………… 3.9.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Gray Wolf……………………….. 3.9.2 Analysis Method – Gray Wolf ………………………………………………………………… 3.9.3 Affected Environment – Gray Wolf ………………………………………………………… 3.9.4 Direct and Indirect Effects – Gray Wolf ………………………………………………….. 3.9.5 Cumulative Effects– Gray Wolf………………………………………………………………..

3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-20 3-25 3-31 3-32 3-34 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-35 3-36 3-38 3-39 3-39 3-39 3-40 3-41 3-42 3-44 3-45 3-47 3-47 3-47 3-47 3-48 3-49 3-49 3-50 3-50 3-51 3-52 3-52 3-52 3-55 3-55 3-56 3-56 3-57 3-57

3.9.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy – Gray Wolf……………………. 3.9.7 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Bald Eagle…………………………. 3.9.8 Affected Environment – Bald Eagle ………………………………………………………… 3.9.9 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Trumpeter Swan………………. 3.9.10 Analysis Method -– Trumpeter Swan ………………………………………….……….. 3.9.11 Affected Environment – Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan ……………….……. 3.9.12 Direct and Indirect Effects – Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan…………….….. 3.9.13 Cumulative Effects – Bald Eagle and Trumpeter Swan ……………………….….. 3.9.14 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy – Bald Eagle / Swan …..... 3.10 Wildlife - Management Indicator Species ………………………………………………………… 3.10.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Rocky Mountain Elk.………. 3.10.2 Analysis Method - Rocky Mountain Elk .……………………………………………….. 3.10.3 Affected Environment - Rocky Mountain Elk .……………………………………….. 3.10.4 Direct and Indirect Effects - Rocky Mountain Elk ………………………………….. 3.10.5 Cumulative Effects - Rocky Mountain Elk .………………………………………….…. 3.10.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy - Rocky Mountain Elk ….. 3.10.7 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact – Northern Goshawk .………. 3.10.8 Analysis Method - Northern Goshawk…………………………………………………... 3.10.9 Affected Environment - Northern Goshawk …………………………………………. 3.10.10 Direct and Indirect Effects - Northern Goshawk ………………………………….. 3.10.11 Cumulative Effects - - Northern Goshawk ………….……………………………….. 3.11 Wildlife – Bison ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3.11.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact …………….……………………………. 3.11.2 Analysis Method ………………………………………………………….……………………….. 3.11.3 Affected Environment ……………………………………………………………….…………. 3.11.4 Direct and Indirect Effects …………………………………………………………….………. 3.11.5 Cumulative Effects ……………………………………………………….……………………….. 3.11.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy …..………………….……………. 3.12 Economic Comparison of Alternatives …………………………………………………………….. 3.12.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact …………………..……………...……. 3.12.2 Analysis Method ……………………………………………………………………..……..…… 3.12.3 Affected Environment ……………………………………………………….……………..… 3.12.4 Direct and Indirect Effects ……………………………………………….……………….…. 3.12.5 Cumulative Effects …………………………………………………………..……………….…. 3.12.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy …………….…….…….…….….. 3.13 Other Disclosures…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.13.1 Environmental Justice ……………………………………………………………………………

3-58 3-58 3-59 3-59 3-59 3-60 3-60 3-61 3-62 3-62 3-64 3-64 3-64 3-66 3-66 3-67 3-67 3-67 3-67 3-68 3-70 3-70 3-70 3-71 3-71 3-72 3-73 3-74 3-74 3-74 3-75 3-78 3-78 3-79 3-80 3-81 3-81

CHAPTER 4 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 4.1 List of Preparers ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4.2 List of Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Contacted …………………………….….. 4.3 Literature Cited ……………………………………………………………………………………………….… 4.4 Glossary and Acronyms …………………………………………………………………………………..…

4-1 4-1 4-2 4-15

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Additional Issues A.1 Impacts to Private Property/Aesthetics/Safety ……………………………………………….. A.2 Cultural Resources/Archeological Sites …………………………………………………………... A.3 Greenhouse Gasses / Global Warming ………………………………………….……….……….. A.4 Other Wildlife Species ………………………………………………………………………………….…. A.5 Migratory Birds / Cow Birds ………………………………………………………..………………….. A.6 Sensitive Plants …………………………………………………………………………….…………………. A.7 Suitability and Capacity Analysis ……………………………………………………..………………. A.8 Water Quality ……………………………………………………………………………….………………….

A-1 A-1 A-1 A-3 A-9 A-17 A-20 A-27

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.4.2.A - Example of Three Pasture Rotation System, with Desired Utilization Rates and Estimated Dates………………………………………………………………………………………………......... 2-7 Table 2.4.2.B - Example of Two Pasture Deferred Rotation System, with Desired Utilization Rates and Estimated Dates ……………………………………………………………………………………… 2-7 Table 2.6.A - Monitoring Plan and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives 3 and 4 ……. 2-11 Table 2.7.A - Comparison of Alternatives ………………………………………………………………... 2-12 Table 2.7.B - Summary of Current Condition for Issues Analyzed in Detail ……………….. 2-13 Table 2.7.C - Comparison of Effects to Issues Analyzed in Detail by Alternatives ……… 2-15 Table 3.3.A - Summary of Properly Functioning Condition (PFC), Stream Channel Stability and Rosgen Stream Channel Classification for four sites within the South Fork and Watkins Creek allotments. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 3-6 Table 3. 3.B - Bankfull Width Frequency, Cumulative Bankfull Width, Residual Pool Depth Frequency, Particle Size Distribution graphs for Basin Cabin Spring Creek……………….. 3-7 Table 3.3.C - Indicators used to assess cumulative effects from past, present, proposed and foreseeable actions within the two analysis areas for all alternatives …………………….. 3-14 Table 3.5.A – Rangeland Health Indicators ………………………………………………………..…….. 3-21 Table 3.5.B– Vegetation Expected Reference Condition and Current Condition ……….. 3-23 Table 3.5.C – Lists the South Fork Allotment Pastures, Data Sheet Transect Numbers, Habitat and Dominant Vegetation Types, Acres, and Departure from Desired Reference Condition Rating and Rational. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3-26

Table 3.5.D – Lists the Watkins Creek Allotment Pastures, Data Sheet Transect Numbers, Habitat and Dominant Vegetation Types, Acres, and Departure from Desired Reference Condition Rating and Rational ……………………………………………………………………….………… 3-29 Table 3.6.A - Current Weed Species and Population Size, within the Allotments……... 3-35 Table 3.6.B - Risk of Weed Spread by Alternatives……………………………………………………. 3-37 Table 3.7.A - Total Estimated Detrimental Soil Disturbance (DSD) Watkins Creek Allotment based on Conservative Estimates that Over-Estimate Actual Disturbance Levels……… 3-42 Table 3.8.A –NRLM Standards & Guidelines Consistency Evaluation Livestock Grazing…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………... 3-49 Table 3.8.B – Henry’s Lake BMU subunit…………………………………………….……………………. 3-51 Table 3.8.C – Summary of Grizzly Bear Forest Plan Standards………………………………..... 3-53 Table 3.8.D. – Programmatic Biological Assessment Screening Criteria for Grizzly Bear………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….…….. 3-55 Table 3.9.A - Biological Evaluation Effects Determinations for Sensitive Wildlife Species…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3-62 Table 3.12.A – List or Revenues and Costs for Each Alternative, for the Next 10 Years………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3-74 Table A-1. – Reproductive Timing for Bird Species of Concern Possibly Occurring in the area…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. A-10 Table A-2. – Responses of number of migratory songbird species to grazing impacts in various habitat types in the Western U.S………………………………………………………….…………………. A-13 Table A-3 – Sensitive Plants Habitat Summary…………….…………………………………………… A-18 Table A-4 – Grazing Suitability Summary…………………………..……………………………………… A-21 Table A-5 – Vegetation Types on the West Side of Hebgen Lake……..………………………… A-23 Table A-6 – Estimated South Fork Allotment Total Forage Production Based on Landtypes and Acres of Suitable Grazing……………………………………………………………..………………………….. A-23 Table A-7 –South Fork Utilization Scenarios for the Number of Forage Days …………… A-25 Table A-8 – South Fork Summary from Monitoring Notes …………………………..…………… A-25 Table A-9 –Estimated Watkins Creek Allotment Total Forage Production Rate Based on Landtypes and Acres of Suitable Grazing…………………………………………………………………. A-27 Table A-10– Different Utilization Rates and Number of Forage Days for 55 Cow/Calf Pairs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… A-26 Table A-11– Watkins Summary from Monitoring Notes………………………….……………….. A-26 Table A-12. Sediment Yield Effects for Watkins Creek, AMP Alternative 2 ………………….. A-28 Table A-13. Sediment yield effects for Watkins Creek Allotment Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, and all Lonesome Wood 2 Project Fuel Reduction Alternatives………………………………………. A-29 Table A-14. Substrate Sediment and Sediment Delivery by Forest Stream Category…… A-32

South Fork Allotment

Basin Cabin Spring Creek end of season after cattle were removed

Denny Creek below ditch

Denny Creek Ditch

Watkins Creek Allotment

Stream crossing area propose to add rock on west side approach

Watkins Pasture– willow near lake, end of grazing season

Wide angle view of cattle crossing area

Watkins Pasture - end of season, sagebrush and grass

Close up view of crossing

Upper Watkins Pasture - aspen

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

CHAPTER 1 – Purpose and Need 1.1 Background The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and its Council of Environmental Quality Implementing Regulation at 40 CFR 1500 through 1508. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. Where consistent with other multiple-use goals and objectives, there is Congressional intent to allow livestock grazing on suitable lands (Multiple-Use Sustained Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Forest and Rangeland Resource Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976). Forest Service Policy is to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for grazing consistent with land management plans (Forest Service Manual 2203.1).

1.2 Purpose for Action The purpose of this proposal is to maintain or improve desired rangeland and riparian conditions on the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments through the revision of the Allotment Management Plan. This includes maintaining or improving habitat for wildlife species while making forage available to a qualified livestock operator. This proposal follows the direction of the Gallatin Forest Plan which set goals and objectives for livestock grazing on the Forest (Gallatin Forest Plan, p. II-1, II-4, II-13). The needs and objectives for this action are: • • • •

Update the Allotment Management Plan as required by the Rescission Act of 1995, and the Gallatin Forest Plan (p. II-20). Improve or maintain good riparian conditions and upland conditions. Improve distribution of livestock across the allotment to reduce areas of concentrated use. Provide for continued livestock grazing as directed in the Gallatin Forest Plan (p. II-4).

1.3 Allotment Description and History of Use South Fork Allotment – This allotment is located on the west side of the South Fork of the Madison River, near the southern end of Hebgen Lake. The allotment is bordered by grazing pastures on private land on the west, south and part of the east sides of the allotment. The terrain has a few small hills otherwise it is fairly level. The vegetation is mostly grass / forb meadows, with patches of willows adjacent to streams. This area has been grazed, to varying degrees, for the more than 60 years. Historically, from 1950 to 1956 the allotment consisted of two large pastures, the North Pasture (same general location as the South Fork Allotment) and the South Pasture (about 2 miles south next to Highway 20 and Buttermilk Creek)(project file, doc. # E-9). The allotment was historically managed Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 1 - 1

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

under an “on-off” permit issued to the Bar N Ranch Company for 150 head of cattle, of which 20 percent were grazed on National Forest land. The season was from June 1 to October 15. The North Pasture (which is currently known at the South Fork Allotment) was fenced in 1957 and had a stocking rate of 12 head of cattle from June 22 to August 22. The Allotment Management Plan from 1963 implemented a two pasture deferred rotation grazing system in the North Pasture, which required fencing of the pastures. The South Pasture (area near Highway 20) was removed from the allotment. Use of the North Pasture prior to 1950 is likely due to its location adjacent to private land and lack of fenced boundaries. Also, old furrows along a fence line points to cultivation and seeding of a tame pasture (probably consisting of introduced Timothy (Phleum pratense) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). In 1982, a revised management plan change the South Fork Allotment to include only National Forest Land, dropping the private land, expanding the North Pasture by 47 acres, and implemented a three pasture deferred rotation system, with 100 AUMs (Animal Unit Months). Between 1992 and the present, there has been an average of 15 cow/calf pairs (with a range of 12 to 19), from July 1 to September 30 for total of 45 to 60 AUMs each year. Watkins Creek Allotment – Located on the northwest side of Hebgen Lake next to Watkins Creek and the alluvial fan. The allotment is also bordered by grazing pastures on private land. The terrain has a few small hills, otherwise it is fairly level. On the alluvial fan the vegetation is mostly grass / forb meadows, with patches of willows adjacent to streams. Further upstream on Watkins Creek, the meadows are surrounded by steeper slopes and dense forests that create natural barriers to help prevent free roaming livestock. This area has also been grazed, to varying degrees, for the more than 60 years. From 1939 to 1972, grazing in the Watkins drainage was managed as two separate allotments; one was called Upper Watkins Creek S&G (sheep and goats) Allotment and the other Watkins Creek C&H (cattle and horse) Allotment (project file, doc. # E-10). The Upper Watkins Creek S&G Allotment was originally a sheep allotment (1000 to 1500 head) that incorporated large open meadows in the Lionhead area and in the upper Watkins drainage. In 1972, due to deteriorating range conditions in the high elevation pasture, the allotment was closed to sheep grazing, and the lower elevation pasture was allocated to cattle grazing. From 1974 to 1982, fifty cow/calf pairs grazed from July 1 to August 30th in the upper Watkins drainage (101 AUMs). The other allotment, known as Watkins Creek C&H Allotment, incorporated large meadows adjacent to Hebgen Lake and private land (Watkins Creek Ranch Company) from 1942 to 1981. The amount of use varied considerably, ranging from 19 to 111 animal months on Forest land. Also the class and kind of livestock has varied, from cattle and horses, to yearlings and cow/calf pairs. An environmental analysis and decision notice completed in 1981 combined the Upper Watkins Creek Cattle and Horse Allotment, and the Watkins Creek Cattle and Horse Allotment, into one allotment with 2 pastures, using a deferred rotation grazing system. Between 1982 and 1991, 86 cow/calf pairs grazed from July 1 to September 30. In 1992, until present there has been an average of 55 cow/calf pairs, using the same deferred rotation system, for the same dates. In 1991, a fence was constructed parallel to the lower section of Watkins Creek, to keep cattle out of the stream. Monitoring in 2010 verified that this Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 1 - 2

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

fence is effective in keeping livestock out of this area (project file, doc. # E-5). Also, the fence along the northwestern edge of Upper Watkins pasture was moved to its present location to consolidate the pasture.

1.4 Need for Change These allotments have been managed the same way for the last 20 years. While both the riparian and upland vegetation are in good condition, there is a need to make minor modification to improve the management of the allotments. More specifically, the proposed changes to these allotments are designed to achieve the following: 1.) Further disperse cattle and reduce concentrated use areas (by adding an additional water source near Watkins Creek, and installing a water gap along the South Fork River fence line); 2.) Ensure that riparian resources are protected in the future (by incorporating additional riparian guidelines on Basin Cabin Spring Creek and Denny Creek Ditch, plus hardening a stream crossing on Watkins Creek); and 3.) Eliminate problems with gate closure at the trailhead (incorporating the trailhead into the pasture would allow for the gate to be removed) and problems with the fence location near Spring Creek Campground (because livestock walk around fence when water levels are low on Hebgen Lake).

1.5 Proposed Action A “Proposed Action” is defined early in the project level planning process. This serves as a starting point for the interdisciplinary team, and gives the public and other agencies specific information on which to focus comments. Using these comments and information for preliminary analysis, the interdisciplinary team then develops alternatives to the proposed action. All of the Alternatives considered in detail are discussed in Chapter 2. For a detailed description of the proposed action refer to Alternative 3 in Chapter 2. The Gallatin National Forest is proposing to revise the Allotment Management Plans for both South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments. These allotments are on National Forest System land. The Legal description for South Fork Allotment is Township 13 South, Range 4 East, Sections 3 and 10 (Montana Principle Meridian). The Legal description for Watkins Creek Allotment is Township 12 South, Range 3 East, Sections 12, 13, 23 and 24; Township 12 South, Range 4 East, Sections 7, 8, 17 and 18. A vicinity map and a map of the alternatives are located at the beginning of this environmental analysis. If the decision is to continue livestock grazing in these areas, the changes to the infrastructure are intended to occur over the next 1 to 5 years. The associated grazing permit would be reissued to include new management direction.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 1 - 3

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

1.6 Decision Framework This environmental analysis is not a decision document. Rather, it discloses the analysis and environmental consequences associated with implementing the proposal and alternatives to it. Given the purpose and need, and the analysis, the Hebgen Lake District Ranger will review the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: •

Whether to authorize grazing on the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments.

•

If grazing is authorized, what management practices and mitigation measures should be prescribed in the Allotment Management Plan that address permitted classes and numbers of animals, seasons of use, range facilities to be constructed, allowable utilization levels, the term of the new permit and the monitoring actions to be conducted.

1.7 Management Direction National Forest Direction – The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528) states “it is the policy of the Congress that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.” The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for various uses on National Forest System lands. Part of the function of the Forest Service is to manage the grazing of domestic livestock by developing and implementing allotment management plans (36 CFR 200.3 and 222.2). Gallatin Forest Plan Direction – This document tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Gallatin National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1987). The Forest Plan provides overall direction for management of Forest resources. The goals of the Gallatin Forest Plan for range are to “maintain or improve the forage resource” and to provide for a small increase in livestock grazing (p. II-1). One of the Plan’s objectives is that “improved forage management will be used to maintain or enhance the range environment and to provide for increased AUM’s (p. II-4)”. The Forest Plan divides the Forest into management areas (MAs) and provides resource management direction for each of those areas. South Fork Allotment is located in MA 5 (travel corridors that receive heavy recreation use, such as Hebgen Lake) and MA 7 (riparian areas). Watkins Creek Allotment is in MA 7 and MA 15 (open grasslands). The management goal for MA 5 allows for continued livestock grazing in existing allotments, but to manage in such a way as to minimize conflicts with recreation. For MA 7, grazing is allowed provided that impacts are kept at a level compatible with riparian resource needs through the use of pasture systems and improvements (fences and development of water sources), and through riparian area utilization guidelines (40 to 50 % utilization by weight). The management goal for MA 15 is to manage vegetation to provide habitat necessary to recover the grizzly bear and provide forage for livestock so that it meets the grizzly bear mortality reduction goals. The guidelines outlined in Appendix G require the Forest Service to complete a biological review of the allotment affects on grizzly Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 1 - 4

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

bears and informally consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service. The grazing permit would allow for modification to prevent conflict with the grizzly bear and the permit holder is responsible for the removal of unnatural food sources (livestock carcasses, predation of domestic herds, and all food/garbage storage requirements).

1.8 Other Laws, Regulations and Decisions Applicable to this Proposal This proposal follows numerous laws, regulations, and amendments related to management of natural resources. These include, but are not limited to: the Multiple Use Sustained Yields Act of 1960; Clean Water Act of 1948; Endangered Species Act of 1973; 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act; Rescission Act of 1995; National Forest Management Act and Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice. This Environmental Assessment (EA) was developed under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA); the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (1500-1508; the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 210. In accordance with CEQ guidance (guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, 2005), this EA includes a cumulative effects analysis that considers activities in the Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future that may affect the environment in which the project would occur. A comprehensive list of these activities is provided in the beginning of Chapter 3. For each resource issue, the effects of the pertinent activities are discussed individually and in combination, and the net cumulative effect on the resource is disclosed. An allotment management plan (AMP) is defined in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) as a document, prepared in consultation with permittees, that applies to livestock operations on public lands, and (1) prescribes the manner in and extent to which livestock operations are to be conducted in order to meet multiple use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives, (2) describes range improvements to be installed and maintained, and (3) contains provision relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found to be consistent with provisions of FLPMA.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 1 - 5

Chapter 2. Alternatives

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES 2.1 Introduction This chapter contains documentation of the relevant issues that were identified during the scoping process; a description of alternatives considered; and, a summary of environmental effects associated with each alternative. It also contains a description of public involvement, a description of issues and alternatives not given detailed study, as well as mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. Relevant issues were used to design the alternatives to the proposed action. Each alternative reflects a different level of response to the issues. One alternative may do a better job of addressing and resolving certain issues than another alternative. Therefore, the issues are used to evaluate the overall environmental effects of each alternative.

2.2 Public Involvement The proposed action was presented to 35 potentially interested parties in the form of a scoping letter (December 4, 2009). The project was also listed in the quarterly schedule of proposed action for the Gallatin National Forest. In addition, the scoping letter was posted on the Gallatin National Forest web page. A total of eight different individuals commented. The comments were reviewed to identify issues/concerns and alternatives (project file, doc. #B -14). Two individuals expressed interest in extending the scoping period so there could be a field trip to the project area during the summer. The Hebgen District hosted a trip on July 27, 2010. Members from five different environmental groups attended (Buffalo Field Campaign, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Natural Resource Defense Council, Western Watershed, and Buffalo Allies of Bozeman). Their main issue pertained to the management of bison, and that if the cattle are on the allotment then the Department of Livestock may continue to haze bison. The environmental analysis will be mailed to all interested individuals and a legal notice placed in the Bozeman Chronicle. A thirty day comment period (starting when the legal notice is published) allows for additional public involvement in the analysis. All comments received will be reviewed for content and a response to comments will be included with the final Decision Notice.

2.3 Issue Identification The purpose of scoping is not only to inform the public, and to identify issues and concerns regarding a proposal, but also to determine which issues to analyze in depth and to use in the development of alternatives to the proposed action. A list of issues was developed using comments from the public, other agencies and resource specialists. The issues were separated in two groups: those analyzed in detail, and those that were dismissed from detailed analysis because the effects from the project were either outside the scope of the project, already decided by the Forest Plan or higher level decision, irrelevant to the decision to be made, or would have minor effects.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 1

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.3.1 Issues Not Analyzed in Detail All issues or concerns identified from scoping but were not evaluated in detail in Chapter 3 are discussed in Appendix A. These issues include the following: Impacts to Private Property/Aesthetics/Safety Impacts to Cultural Resources/Archeological Sites Impacts to Greenhouse Gasses / Global Warming Impacts to Other Wildlife Species (habitat fragmentation, migration corridors, moose, big horn sheep, antelope, mule deer) Impacts to Migratory Birds / Brown-headed Cow Bird Impacts to Sensitive Plants Suitability and Capacity Analysis Water Quality Bison Management Issue Comments from the public addressed concerns that the presence of cows on the allotments would limit options for bison management policies set forth in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). As a result, a number of alternatives were suggested to help resolve this issue. One alternative suggested by the public was to close the allotments, which is addressed in this environmental analysis under the Alternative 1- No Grazing Alternative. Other suggestions included: change livestock to horses or steers (not cow calf pairs); or turn cattle out on the allotment later in the season when the transmission of Brucella abortus is not likely (for example, after July 15). In response to these suggestions Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action was developed and analyzed in detail. Some believe that if the cows are not in the Hebgen Basin then the IBMP would allow for free roaming bison in this area. The current IBMP would not allow for free roaming bison after May 15 in zone 3 (west side of South Fork Madison River), regardless of the presence or absence of cows on the Forest lands. However, the IBMP allows for the management plan to be modified based on science and management directions set by Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and by State Department of Livestock. APHIS recently published new management guidelines for managing the spread of Brucella abortus in the Federal Register (December 2010)( project file, doc. #M-2 & 3). Additional guidelines will be developed for managing livestock in areas with Brucella abortus. Given the recent changes in how Brucella abortus is being managed it is impossible to know what future bison management direction will involve. Alternative 4 would allow for flexibility in allotment management to accommodate changes in bison management. In response to the public comments regarding the bison management issue, Alternative 4 was developed and the effects of livestock grazing on bison (forage availability, fence barriers, and disturbance) were analyzed in detail.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 2

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.3.1 Issues Analyzed in Detail Issues that were directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action were analyzed in detail to determine if they would have a significant effect on the human environment. For each issue, indicators were selected to evaluate issue resolution, measure attainment of objectives and describe environmental impacts. Indicators are quantified if possible; otherwise, a narrative discussion is included. All of the issues and measurement indicator of effect listed below are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 and in the specialist’s report in the project file. Grazing effects on aquatic stream form and function, and on riparian dependent species: There is a concern that the proposed action may prevent the attainment of a healthy riparian-wetland ecosystem including stream channel stability and riparian dependent species within the allotments. Measurement indicator of effect: Two different indicators were used to evaluate this concern, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment and Stream Channel Stability Rating (SCS). Proper Functioning Condition assessment is used to determine the health of a riparian-wetland ecosystem (BLM, 1998). The capability and potential of the riparian-wetland ecosystem is defined by the interaction of three components: vegetation, landform/soils and hydrology. This assessment uses the following categories: 1.) Proper Functioning Condition – Riparian areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality, filtering sediment, aiding in floodplain development, improving flood water retention and ground water recharge, developing root masses that stabilize streambanks, and developing diverse channel characteristics that provide habitat for riparian species. 2.) Functioning at Risk – These are riparian areas that are functional but an existing soil, water or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. 3.) Non-functional – Riparian areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and are not reducing erosion or improving water quality. 4.) Unknown – used when sufficient information is lacking to make a determination. Stream Channel Stability (SCS) procedure evaluates both the inherent and current physical function, and the stability of stream channels (Pfankuch, 1975). The procedure focuses on the physical function of stream channel stability, not the quality of fish habitat. Generally the most stable channels are steep and coarse textured riffles or cascades which do not provide much fish habitat. Conversely, streams with numerous undercut banks, which provide good fish habitat, are rated lower in the channel stability rating procedure. This rating procedure is used in long term monitoring to measure stream channel characteristics over time. Permanent plots were installed in 2009 (base line data) and is intended to be re-measured every 5 years. The data is then compared to track changes over time. Also, the current SCS data is compared to the expected reference condition for

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 3

Chapter 2. Alternatives

similar stream types (Pfankuch, 1975) to determine the level of departure. The Gallatin Forest Plan monitoring direction requires less than a 20 point departure. (Forest Plan, p. IV-5). Grazing effects on vegetation condition: There is concern that the proposed action could have adverse effects on range condition including riparian and upland vegetation, and the potential establishment or spread of invasive weeds. Measurement indicator of effect on vegetation: Each of the dominant vegetation types within the primary grazing areas were ranked according to the severity of departure from the desired condition for 17 rangeland health indicators (rills, water flow pattern, pedestals, bare ground, gullies, wind erosion, litter movement, soil surface, soil loss, water infiltration, soil compaction, plant functional groups, plant decadence, litter amount, annual production, invasive plants and plant vigor)(Pyke, et al. 2002). An overall rating for each dominant vegetation type was assigned based on the significance of the indicator and the severity of the departure from reference condition. A work sheet for each vegetation type was completed and is in the project file (project file, doc. #E-7). Measurement indicator of effect on invasive weeds: The likelihood that livestock would cause a large increase in weeds was determined based on: the type of weeds present, the probable vector for spreading the weeds, and whether the current level of weed control would be able to control the weeds. Each allotment was given one of the following ratings: 1.) High – The weed species present in the allotment are spread cattle, at a very high rates, and the current weed control level would not be able contain the weed density. Grazing is causing disturbed sites that are becoming colonized by weeds. 2.) Moderate – The weed species present are spread by cattle, along with other vectors, but the current weed control with herbicides would keep weeds at low density. Grazing is not causing disturbed sites that are becoming colonized by weeds. 3.) Low - Cattle are not the main vector of the weed species present in the allotment (probably being spread by vehicles, or wind). Current weed control with herbicides would keep weeds at low density. Grazing effects on soils: Concern arose that livestock grazing may have adverse effects on soil condition, productivity, and stability. Also of concern is whether livestock grazing contributes to levels of detrimental soil disturbance that may be created due to compaction, trampling, and/or increased soil erosion. Measurement of effects on soils: Measurement of detrimental soil disturbance (including compaction, displacement, rutting, severe burning, surface erosion, loss of soil organic matter, and soil mass movement) has been used in Region 1 of the Forest Service as a surrogate measure to ensure that land productivity and soil quality are not impaired. The Region wide standard (USDA 1999) requires that new activities are to be designed so they “do not create detrimental soil conditions on more than 15 percent of an activity area”.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 4

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Grazing effects on threatened and endangered wildlife species: Concerns were submitted that the proposed action may have adverse effects on Canada lynx, and grizzly bear. Measurement indicator of effect: The indicator of impacts to Canada lynx is the acres of suitable and/or occupied snowshoe hare habitat that are altered and/or impacted to a condition unsuitable for snowshoe hares from grazing or infrastructure development. The indicator of impacts to grizzly bear would be those actions that increase road density, disrupt foraging behavior of the bears or distribution of elk, and actions that increase habituation. Grazing effects on sensitive terrestrial wildlife species: Concerns were submitted that the proposed action may have adverse effects on sensitive species (black-backed woodpecker; bald eagle; trumpeter swan; harlequin duck; peregrine falcon; flammulated owl; Townsend’s big eared bat; long eared myotis; long legged myotis; North American wolverine; gray wolf and bighorn sheep). Only bald eagle, trumpeter swans and gray wolf have suitable habitat within the allotments. Measurement indicator of effect: Project impacts to bald eagles would be identified by disturbance of adults, or disruption of foraging or nesting behaviors. One-quarter and one-half mile buffers have been identified for each of the nesting territories found on the Hebgen Lake District. An indicator of impacts of this project on trumpeter swans would be disruption of daily foraging, courtship or breeding activities caused by humans or cattle, or a loss of breeding habitat. Potential effects to gray wolves from this project would be indicated by displacement or disturbance to wolves using the project area, disruption of denning or rendezvous points, a major decline or change in distribution of prey species, or livestock depredation. Grazing effects on management indicator species: Concerns were submitted that the proposed action may have adverse effects on management indicator species (bald eagle, grizzly bear, pine marten, Rocky Mountain elk, and northern goshawk). The bald eagle and grizzly bear are addressed in previous sections. Measurement indicator of effect: Indicators of impacts to pine martens would be alterations to habitat composition or structure resulting in a loss of denning or foraging habitat. For elk, the indicator is the amount of forage remaining after cattle grazing and changes to elk hiding cover resulting from the allotment management practices. Indicators of impacts to goshawks would be reduction in available nesting, post fledging, and foraging habitat. Grazing effects on bison: The issue is whether or not bison habitat would be impacted (i.e., physical barriers, loss of forage, or displaced by human presence) by the reissuance of the Watkins and South Fork grazing permits. Measurement indicator of effect: An indicator of biological impacts to bison would be the prevention of bison movement and dispersion across the landscape because of fences, or the loss of forage because of livestock grazing. The impact would be measured by the presence of fences, the disturbance from humans while administering the terms of the permit such as maintaining the fences, and the presence of forage availability. Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 5

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Economics: This issue addresses the economic and financial feasibility of the project and consists of two separate issues. First, what are the Forest Service costs and benefits in terms of present net value, for the next 10 years (all expenditures expressed in 2011 dollars) of each alternative? This information shows what each alternative would cost and what are the costs of mitigation measures and monitoring. Second, what are the rancher’s costs and benefits in terms of present net value, for the next 10 years (all expenditures expressed in 2011 dollars) of each alternative? Comments received from the public, indicated a desire to know how much of the expenses would be paid for by the government and how much by the rancher. Measurement indicator of effect: For the first issue, the present net value was calculated using only monetary values for the Forest Service to measure which alternative is least costly or most efficient. For the second issue, costs directly related to managing the allotment for the permit holder were analyzed in terms of present net value.

2.4 Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail 2.4.1 Alternative 1 - No Livestock Grazing Under this alternative, domestic livestock use of the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments would be discontinued. All existing structures (fences, corral, and cattle-guards) would be removed. Invasive weed control, with herbicide applications, would continue on the allotments annually. 2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Current Management (also considered the No Action Alternative) Under this alternative, livestock grazing would continue as it has been for the last 20 years. Allowable use is the amount of current forage production by weight that could be removed in order to maintain or improve rangeland conditions. The allowable use level on upland is 55%. This level is based on information gained through field observations and research findings for mountain and foothill cool season settings (Valentine, 2001. p. 390). The allowable use levels for riparian areas as outlined in the Gallatin Forest Plan include the following for deferred rotation systems: for grass / forb meadows 50 % utilization in early season pastures and 35 % utilization in late season pastures; for willow/grass/forest 50% utilization in early season pastures and 40 % utilization in late season pastures, and 50 % leader use on browse material (Forest Plan, 1987, p. III-20). Livestock are moved to new pasture or leave the allotment when utilization levels are met. Fences would be maintained in current locations. Fence maintenance costs are shared between the permit holder and Forest Service. Monitoring and treatment of invasive weeds would continue on both allotments. South Fork Allotment - South Fork Allotment (143 acres), consists of a three pasture deferred rotation system, with 60 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). Between 1982 and the present, there has been an average of 15 cow/calf pairs (but varied between 12 and 19), from July 1 to September 30 (92 days). A map of this area is provided at the being of this document. The table below shows the rotation schedule, desired utilization rates, and timing of grazing. The specific dates are flexible based on seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and availability of forage.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 6

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2.4.2.A - Example of a Three Pasture Rotation System, Desired Utilization Rates, Estimated Dates. Usually you’ll want the pattern to be year 1 early, year 2 late, and year 3 mid treatment – by going year 1 early to year 2 late, you are essentially giving the area one recovery period to seed set and another period of rest until seed set. North Pasture

Middle Pasture

South Pasture

Years 2011, 2014 Late(8/29-9/30) Uplands 55% Riparian 35% Mid(7/29-8/28) Uplands 55% Riparian 50% Early(7/10-7/28) Uplands 55% Riparian 50%

Years 2012, 2015 Early(7/10-7/28) Uplands 55% Riparian 50% Late(8/29-9/30)

Years 2013, 2016 Mid(7/29-8/28) Uplands 55% Riparian 50% Early(7/10-7/28) Uplands 55% Riparian 50% Late (7/29-8/28) Uplands 55% Riparian 35%

Mid(8/29-9/30) Uplands 55% Riparian 50%

Watkins Creek Allotment – The Watkins Creek Allotment (approximately 3620 acres, with 493 acres within the allotment classified as primary range) consists of 2 pasture deferred rotation grazing system. There is an average of 55 cow/calf pairs that graze from July 1 to September 30(220 AUMs). A map of this area is provided at the being of this document. The table below shows the rotation schedule, desired utilization rates, and timing of grazing. The specific dates are flexible (move forward or backward in time) based on seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and availability of forage. Table 2.4.2.B - Example of Two Pasture Deferred Rotation System, Desired Utilization Rates, Estimated Dates. Watkins Pasture

Upper Watkins Pasture

Years 2011, 2014, 2015 Late (8/3-9/30) Uplands 55% Riparian 35% Early (7/1-8/2) Uplands 55% Riparian 50%

Years 2012, 2013 Early (7/1-8/2) Uplands 55% Riparian 50% Late (8/3-9/30) Uplands 55% Riparian 35%

2.4.3 Alternative 3 - Proposed Action This alternative would allow for livestock grazing to continue as outlined under Alternative 2, but with minor changes to the infrastructure (change fence locations, install water gap, cattle guard and water tank, harden stream crossing approach, use down trees to limit impacts to riparian areas) and increase the level of monitoring in riparian areas (measure trampling, stream characteristics and vegetation composition along Denny Creek Ditch, and monitor a long term permanent plots on Basin Cabin Spring

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 7

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Creek and Denny Creek Ditch). A map showing proposed fence location is at the beginning of this environmental analysis. South Fork Allotment – Alternative 3 would have the same type and kind of livestock, same stocking density and same pasture rotation system as described above, under Alternative 2. Actions unique to Alternative 3 include the following: 1.) Monitor Basin Cabin Spring Creek and Denny Creek Ditch every 5 years (re- measure permanent plots) to determine conditions. If conditions are deteriorating it may be necessary reduce the timing, duration, and/or intensity of grazing. 2.) Monitor streambank trampling on Denny Creek Ditch along the lower 50 meter reach that is impacted by grazing (use 30% annual bank alteration based on Beaverhead Riparian Guideline (Bengeyfield and Svoboda, 1998) (project file, doc # H-8), or adopt another accepted methodology). Once bank alteration level has been reached, the cattle need to be removed or the stream bank protected (fenced). The timing, duration or intensity of grazing would be adjusted to reduce the impact on the stream bank. 3.) Install a water gap in the South Pasture so livestock have limited access to the South Fork Madison River. Currently cattle are fenced off from the South Fork River and completely dependent on water outflow from Denny Creek Ditch. The additional water source would reduce some of the impacts to Denny Creek Ditch that flows through the pasture. Watkins Creek Allotment Alternative 3 would have the same type and kind of livestock, same stocking density and same pasture rotation system as described above, under Alternative 2. The only differences with Alternative 3 on the Watkins Creek Allotment are the following: 1.) Install a water tank (siphoned from Watkins Creek) to increase grazing along the western edge of Watkins Pasture. The tank would sit on a flat bench, 50 feet from the stream, on rocky soil. The water would drain back into the stream by flowing down an existing dried-up rocky channel. When the tank is not being used, it would be drained and left empty. Build a short extension to the existing fence (approximately 500 feet) to allow cattle access to the water tank on the flat bench, but still keep cattle out of the stream. 2.) Install a new cattle guard on the Hebgen Lake or Denny Creek Road #167 and move the northwest fence further to the north (install 2200 feet of new fence) to eliminate the problem of people failing to close the gate at the trailhead. The existing gate at the trailhead and the adjacent 1800 feet of fence would be removed. The new fence location would exclude an adjacent aspen stand so cattle grazing would not impact the aspen. The proposal in the scoping letter showed the fence line further to the north and increasing the size of the pasture (27 acres). This proposal has been

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 8

Chapter 2. Alternatives

3.)

4.) 5.) 6.)

modified so that the fence line would run more east/west and increase the size of the pasture by only 15 acres. Harden a water crossing on Watkins Creek (only the western edge of shoreline with gravel, the eastern slope is already stable) and build a fence barrier to direct cattle through the water crossing. The hardened cattle crossing would impact 15 feet along the shore line and 30 feet towards the more stable soil on the west side of the stream (total area approximately 450 square feet). The hardened water crossing would allow cattle to access the water while protecting the rest of the small meadow (100 feet long and 60 feet across, or roughly 6000 square feet). The rest of the Watkins Creek is not accessible to cattle because the adjacent slopes are too steep or overgrown with vegetation and woody material. Monitor Wally McClure Creek every 5 years for excessive trail crossing, if necessary create a small barrier (drop a few trees or build a short drift fence) to re-route trails further away from the stream. Relocate fence next to Spring Creek campground about 100-200 feet to the north, where the shoreline is deeper, so livestock cannot walk around the fence at low water levels. All fence maintenance costs (materials and labor) would be paid for by the permit holder.

2.4.4 Alternative 4 – Modified Proposed Action The intent of this alternative is to allow for livestock grazing (same actions as outlined in Alternative 3), provided that bison management options are not limited by the presence of livestock grazing. In the event that free ranging bison occur in Hebgen Basin, the management of livestock on these allotments would be modified to be consistent with management recommendations for brucellosis disease as stated by the government agencies in charge (such as Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Montana Department of Livestock, Interagency Bison Management Plan, or Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks). For example, to be compatible with different bison management actions these allotments may implement the following possible options: 1.) Allow a change in the type of livestock to horses and/or steers; or 2.) Delay turn-on date of cattle to be consistent with scientific recommendation for avoiding risk of exposure to brucellosis; or 3.) The permit holder may be required to take non-use for resource protection on either one or both allotments for the purpose of minimizing conflicts with bison. A refund or credit would be used if grazing fees have already been paid. Non-use for resource protection might occur if bison are present and cohabitation is not acceptable to the agencies managing the disease, or if the forage is not available due to bison grazing (based on utilization levels outlined above). If only one allotment is not utilized, then some or all of the livestock may be moved to the other allotment (within AUM capacity) until conditions change. 4.) All fence maintenance costs would be paid for by the permit holder. The same resource protection mitigation measures as identified in Alternative 3 would be included in this alternative. For example, when the forage utilization levels are achieved, regardless of what species grazed the forage, the cattle would be removed. Likewise, if stream banks deteriorate beyond Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 9

Chapter 2. Alternatives

acceptable levels (as determined by the hydrologist and fish biologist) regardless of what species caused the trampling, domestic livestock grazing would only occur after the riparian area can be protected or restored (i.e., additional fence may be required). A map of this alternative is at the beginning of this document.

2.5 Alternatives Considered but not Given Detailed Study Throughout the analysis process, a wide variety of alternatives were presented and explored to address certain issues. The decision on whether an alternative would be evaluated in detail was based upon how well it responded to the issues; its compliance with Gallatin Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines; the alternative’s practicality based on past experience; and how well it appeared to meet the project’s purpose and need. The following are alternatives suggested by the public and rationale as to why they were not considered in detail: Allow free roaming bison to use these allotments. Alternative 4 allows for modification of the livestock grazing practices to accommodate management direction for bison and brucellosis. At the current time, bison are managed by Montana Department of Livestock and by the Interagency Bison Management Plan (USDA, IMBP, 2000). Changes to the Interagency Management Plan are beyond the scope of this analysis and the Forest Service alone does not have the authority to revisit this decision. The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, along with the governor of Montana, made the decision on the areas in which bison would be allowed outside of Yellowstone National Park. That decision currently excludes the area west of South Fork Madison River as an area acceptable for native bison occupancy. Therefore, the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotment are currently closed to bison regardless of whether there is domestic livestock or not. That being said, there are numerous changes being proposed for the management of brucellosis and bison. For Example, during the 2011 Montana congressional session there was proposed legislation to make Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks the agency in charge of managing bison and not Department of Livestock (although the legislation was not approved at this time). Another example is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published recent changes to the management of brucellosis outbreaks in the Federal Register which would allow for more flexibility in how the brucellosis disease is managed. Remove livestock allotments from the west side of Hebgen Lake. Some people said that livestock grazing is not in the best interest of the government, or that there are other places better suited for allotments. Alternative 1 addresses these concerns.

2.6 Monitoring and Mitigation Measures The table below describes the type of monitoring and mitigation measures to be included in Alternatives 3 and 4.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 10

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2.6.A - Monitoring Plan and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives 3 and 4. Resource

Action

Desired Sampling Frequency

Personnel responsible

Range Administration Range Administration Range Facilities

Stocking levels, brands, classes of animals* Location and timing of rotation in pastures* Maintenance of improvements, drop fences in the fall* Range readiness (plant development and soil condition), delay turn-on date until plants are ready* Range upland and riparian vegetation utilization

Random

Range management specialist Range management specialist Permit holder

Range Vegetation and Soils Range Vegetation Archeological Sites Range Vegetation Water Quality, Fisheries Riparian Dependant Species Range Vegetation Noxious Weed

Prior to installing new water trough and fence line, complete a resource survey Mapping and control of noxious weeds* Steam bank alteration, stream channel stability, PFC, riparian vegetation condition Western toad breeding site at Spring Cover, fence off lake side if necessary Steam bank alteration, on Denny Creek Ditch Power-wash all off-road vehicles before leaving the road and entering the allotment. Avoid driving equipment through patches of weeds.

Random Annually Cold wet springs

Range management specialist

Every three years or more often if necessary Once, prior to disturbance

Range management specialist

Every year

Range management specialist Fisheries biologist, Range Management specialist

Every five years, or more often if necessary Annually Every year Every time

Archeologist

Fisheries biologist Range management specialist Permit holder and Forest Service personnel

* Also applies to Alternative 2.

If inspection indicates that riparian or upland grazing standards and guidelines would be exceeded prior to the end of the grazing season, the permit holder would be contacted immediately to work out and implement a solution. This could include such actions as moving livestock to a different pasture, reducing livestock numbers, removing livestock for the remainder of the year, or temporarily fencing off particular areas. 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives Considered in Detail The table below provides a summary of key similarities and differences between the alternatives.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 11

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2.7.A - Comparison of Alternatives Component Authorized Livestock, # Animal Unit Months (AUM) Approximate Grazing season

Alternative 1 No Grazing 0

0

Pastures and suitable grazing acres

n/a

Existing structures to maintain

0

New structures (not fences)

0

Upland utilization Riparian use

No livestock No use by domestic livestock

Alternative 2 Current Management South Fork – 15 cow/calf pair, or 46 head month, 61 AUM Watkins – 55 cow/calf, or 168 head month, 222 AUM South Fork – July 1 to Sept. 30 Watkins - July 1 to Sept. 30

Alternative 3 Proposed Action South Fork – 15 cow/calf pair, or 46 head month, 61 AUM Watkins - 55 cow/calf, or 168 head month, 222 AUM South Fork – July 1 to Sept. 30 Watkins - July 1 to Sept. 30

South Fork –141 ac North – 40 acres Middle – 69 acres South – 32 acres Watkins –493 ac Upper Watkins – 246 acres Watkins – 247 acres South Fork – FS fence ( 5359 ft) PVT fence ( 10795 ft) Watkins –FS fence ( 5696 ft) PVT fence ( 9213 ft) FS corral South Fork – none Watkins – none

South Fork –141 ac North – 40 acres Middle – 69 acres South – 28 acres Watkins –508 ac Upper Watkins – 262 acres Watkins – 247 acres South Fork –FS fence ( 5378 ft) PVT fence (10795 ft) Watkins –FS fence ( 5115 ft) PVT fence( 9353 ft) FS corral South Fork – water gap in fence Watkins – harden crossing, cattle guard, water tank 55% 35-50 % Denny Creek Ditch, Use Beaverhead Riparian Guideline - 30% of the area trampled within 100 ft green line (or use most current method), measure permanent plots every 5 years. Basin Cabin Spring Ck – monitor every 5 years to see trend data, if creek impacted then modify grazing

55% 35-50 %

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action South Fork – 15 cow/calf pair, or 16 horses, or 13 steers (61 AUM) Watkins - 55 cow/calf, or 60 horses, or 48 steers (222 AUM) South Fork – July 1 to Sept. 30 Watkins - July 1 to Sept. 30, or current guideline for brucellosis South Fork –141 ac North – 40 acres Middle – 69 acres South – 28 acres Watkins –508 ac Upper Watkins – 262 acres Watkins – 247 acres South Fork –FS fence (5378 ft) PVT fence (10795 ft) Watkins –FS fence (5115 ft) PVT fence ( 9353 ft) FS corral South Fork – water gap in fence Watkins – harden crossing, cattle guard, water tank 55% 35-50 % Denny Creek Ditch, Use Beaverhead Riparian Guideline < 30 % of the area trampled within 100 ft green line (or use most current method), measure permanent plots every 5 years. Basin Cabin Spring Ck – monitor every 5 years to see trend data, if impacted then modify grazing

Page 2 - 12

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2.7.B - Summary of Current Condition for Issues Analyzed in Detail ISSUE Stream Form and Function Proper Functioning Condition

South Fork Allotment Basin Cabin Spring Ck – “proper functioning” Denny Creek Ditch –artificial ditch “non-functioning” , natural stream “proper functioning”

Watkins Creek Allotment Watkins Ck – “proper functioning” Wally McClure Ck – “proper functioning” (

Stream Channel Stability (SCS) Reference/Existing/Departure

Basin Cabin Spring Ck – 64/64/0 Denny Creek Ditch ditch 76/58/18 natural stream 62/58/4

Watkins Ck –73/69/4 Wally McClure Ck -51/48/3

Yes, meets requirement

Yes, meets requirement

Yes, project would not change stream bank cover

Yes, project would not change stream bank cover

- No Effect - No Effect - No Effect - No Effect - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.” - No Effect

- No Effect - No Effect - No Effect - No Effect - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.” - No Effect

North Pasture -28 ac “slight to moderate” departure because more sagebrush than reference; 12 ac “none to slight” departure Middle Pasture – 69 ac “slight to moderate” departure because more bare ground, sagebrush, and non-native plants than reference South Pasture – 11 ac “moderate” departure because noxious weeds; 21 ac “slight to moderate” departure because noxious weeds, and non-native grasses and forbs

Watkins Pasture – 134 ac “slight to moderate” departure because noxious weed, and non-native grasses and forbs; 112 ac “none to slight” departure Upper Watkins Pasture – 359 ac “none to slight” departure, 134 ac “slight to moderate”

Meet Forest Plan monitoring requirement - Less than 20 point increase in SCS - Less than 25 % loss in effective stream bank cover Riparian Species - Yellowstone cutthroat - westslope cutthroat - northern leopard frog - arctic grayling - western toad western pearlshell mussel Upland and Riparian Vegetation Departure from reference condition

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 13

Chapter 2. Alternatives ISSUE Noxious and Invasive Weeds

South Fork Allotment North Pasture – hoary alyssum 0.1 ac Middle Pasture - Canada thistle 0.1 ac South Pasture – yellow toadflax 0.3 ac, Canada thistle 0.1 ac

Watkins Creek Allotment Watkins Pasture - houndstongue 0.5ac, spotted knapweed 5.0 ac, Canada thistle 1.0 ac, musk thistle 1.0 ac Upper Watkins Pasture – houndstongue 0.2 ac, common tansy 0.1 ac, spotted knapweed 0.1 ac, Canada thistle 0.2 ac, common tansy 0.1 ac

Obviously less than 15 % disturbance based on field review, one two track, no area with measureable impact due to cattle.

2.5 % from past timber sales and existing roads

-Not Likely Adversely Affect -Not Likely Adversely Affect

-Not Likely Adversely Affect -Not Likely Adversely Affect

- other sensitive species

-“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” - habitat not present

-“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” - habitat not present

Wildlife – Management Indicator Species - pine martin - Rocky Mt. elk - northern goshawk

- no effects - minor effects - no effects

- no effects - minor effects - no effects

Wildlife – Bison Habitat

- no effects

- no effects

Soils Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Wildlife – Threatened and Endanger Species Canada lynx grizzly bear Wildlife – Sensitive Terrestrial Species - bald eagle, trumpeter swan, and gray wolf

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 14

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2.7.C - Comparison of Effects to Issues Analyzed in Detail by Alternative. ISSUE Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Grazing Current Management Stream Form and Function

Riparian Species - westslope cutthroat - northern leopard frog - arctic grayling - western toad

-western pearlshell mussel Upland and Riparian Vegetation Invasive Weeds Soil Compaction and Detrimental Disturbances

Alternative 3 Proposed Action

Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action

Two sensitive areas on Watkins and Wally McClure Creek, would recover. Basin Cabin Spring Ck, presently in “proper functioning condition,” would remain the same. Denny Creek Ditch has a short section (50 meter) that would recover, the rest would remain the same

Two sensitive areas on Watkins and Wally McClure Creek, presently in “proper functioning condition,” would remain the same as current condition. None of the other streams would change

Two sensitive areas on Watkins and Wally McClure Creek, would recover. None of the other streams would change. Mitigation measure limit amount of trampling along ”green line”

Two sensitive areas on Watkins and Wally McClure Creek, would recover. None of the other streams would change. Mitigation measure limit amount of trampling along ”green line”

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect - No Effect

- No Effect - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.”

- No Effect - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.”

- No Effect - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.”

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

- No Effect

No change from current condition

No change from current condition

Weeds will persist, spread by recreational users, FS will treat weeds Compliance with Northern Region soil standard Disturbed areas would recover

Weeds will persist, spread by recreational users and livestock, FS will treat weeds. Compliance with Northern Region soil standard

No change from current condition, long term monitoring riparian veg on Basin Cabin Spring Creek and Denny Creek Ditch Weeds will persist, spread by recreational users and livestock, FS will treat weeds. Compliance with Northern Region soil standard

No change from current condition, long term monitoring riparian veg on Basin Cabin Spring Creek and Denny Creek Ditch Weeds will persist, spread by recreational users and livestock, FS will treat weeds Compliance with Northern Region soil standard

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives

ISSUE Wildlife – Threatened and Endanger Species Canada lynx grizzly bear Wildlife – Sensitive Terrestrial Species - bald eagle, trumpeter swan, and gray wolf - other sensitive species Wildlife – Livestock Grazing Effects on Bison habitat Wildlife – Management Indicator Species - pine martin - Rocky Mt. elk - northern goshawk Economics – PNV Forest Service Permit Holder

Alternative 1 No Grazing

Alternative 2 Current Management

Alternative 3 Proposed Action

Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action

-Not Likely Adversely Affect -Not Likely Adversely Affect

-Not Likely Adversely Affect -Not Likely Adversely Affect

-Not Likely Adversely Affect -Not Likely Adversely Affect

-Not Likely Adversely Affect -Not Likely Adversely Affect

-“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”

-“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”

-“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”

-“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”

- no effect, habitat not present

- no effect, habitat not present

- no effect, habitat not present

- no effect, habitat not present

- no effects

- no effects

- no effects

- no effects

- no effects - minor effects - no effects

- no effects - minor effects - no effects

- no effects - minor effects - no effects

- no effects - minor effects - no effects

-$ 10,859 ($1085/yr) $0

-$ 22,017 ($2201/yr) -$ 21,269 ($2126/yr)

-$ 24,435 ($2443/yr) -$ 29,731 ($2973/yr)

-$ 24,435 ($2443/yr) -$ 26,771 ($2973/yr)

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 2 - 16

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing condition and the environmental effects (direct, indirect and cumulative effects) that would occur with the implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The following discussions form the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the environmental effects of each alternative. Forest Plans standards and guidelines for each Management Area (MA) are discussed as they pertain to individual resource areas, and are addressed accordingly with each issue in this chapter. Consistent with the Council of Environmental Quality guidance; the past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities were considered in the cumulative effects analysis for each resource area relative to the specific potential future effects of the proposal. Each issue discussed in this chapter, the cumulative effects that pertain to the issue are presented. Because the project’s direct and indirect effects vary in time and space each resource issue has a defined specific spatial and temporal boundary. Within these boundaries, the resource discussions evaluated the degree to which past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions influence or may influence the affected environment.

3.2 Activities That May Contribute to Cumulative Effects The activities described below occur on lands in and around the project area and may contribute to cumulative effects. These are activities that have occurred in the past, present or may occur in the foreseeable future. Future activities, including planned projects, may or may not occur. Although not all activities pertain to each resource issue, each resource specialist considered the following activities (provided rational if the activity was considered irrelevant and dismissed) in their analysis (for a complete copy of their reports see the project file). Past Timber Harvesting Within and Adjacent to South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments– 1.) West Hebgen Timber Sale was harvested in 1995 (the last year of harvest activity), 9 acres were within the Watkins Creek Allotment but located high on the ridge (tractor logged) and not accessible to livestock; the remaining 506 acres were harvested on the west side of Hebgen Lake but outside of both allotments (no harvest units within South Fork Allotment). 2.) Quaking Dead Timber Sale was harvest in 1995(the last year of harvest activity), which included 40 ac adjacent to Denny Creek Road (inside Watkins Creek Allotment), and another 16 acres were harvested outside of the allotment. 3.) Moonlight and Trapper Timber Sale was harvest 1995 (last year of harvest activity); inside of the Watkins Creek Allotment 89 ac of tractor logging occurred adjacent to Wally McClure road, 25 acres next to Denny Creek road, and 37 acres of cable logging high on the ridge; outside of the allotment, 332 acres were harvested. Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-1

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

4.) Old Harvest units high on the ridge but inside of Watkins Creek Allotment, harvested 60 acres with tractors in 1960s. Proposed Timber Harvest Within and Adjacent to South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments Lonesome Wood 2 Fuel reduction project is proposed to thin trees adjacent to summerhomes, Denny Creek Road and West Denny Road, implementation anticipated between 2013 and 2018. Two treatment units (#16 and 17) are next to Watkins Pasture, this may create small about of forage for a few years following thinning of the forest canopy. However, it is unlikely that the livestock will find the understory vegetation very palatable (mostly plants that grown in the forest are not grasses) and these units are not close to water. Prescribed Fire and Wildfire Activity: - No prescribed fires have occurred in the west side of Hebgen Lake except for burning of slash piles from timber sales. Prescribed fire other Lonesome Wood 2 is not being proposed for this area. Lonesome Wood 2 proposes to prescribe burn but not within the allotments. There have been no large fires on the west side of Hebgen Lake for more than 50 years. Invasive Weeds and Herbicide Treatment – The Forest Service treats weeds within the allotments and along the road sides. The herbicide effect on the environment was addressed in the 2005 Gallatin National Forest Invasive Weeds Treatment EIS. This environmental analysis tiers to the 2005 weeds EIS for the effects on using herbicide on the environment. Currently, there is less than 10 acres of weeds within the allotments (most of those are next to roads or an old gravel pit), and they are treated with herbicides. The Forest Service treats approximately 50 to 100 acres of invasive weeds along roads and trails on the west side of Hebgen Lake, annually. The acres of weed treatment may increase in the future if the weed population increases. Recreational Use - Most of the recreational use is associated with Hebgen Lake. There are a number of recreational summer homes, rental cabins, campsites, campgrounds, boat launches, and fishing accesses. This area also receives ATV use, mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, hunting and snowmobile use. There is a commercial guest ranch that provides guest cabins and horse riding. The Watkins Creek Trail and Trailhead is located in Upper Watkins Pasture, the trail parallels the creek and runs through most of the meadows. The trail is used by horses and for foot travel. Dispersed Campsites – There is one primitive campsite in the South Fork Allotment (North Pasture) next to the river and has no infrastructure (no outhouse, picnic table, or fire ring). There are five primitive campsites in Watkins Allotment (Watkins Pasture) next to Hebgen Lake and another campsite next to Waktins Creek (on the west side of the Watkins Pasture). Also, adjacent of Watkins Pasture (south side) is Spring Creek Campground, about 5 -10 sites, is “free use” or no-charge to use, contains an outhouse, picnic tables and fire rings). Other campgrounds on the west side of Hebgen Lake include Lonesomehurst (developed site about one mile north of South Fork Allotment), Cherry Creek and Rumbaugh (non-developed sites halfway between the two allotments).

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-2

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Other Forest Service Allotments on the West Side of Hebgen Lake – There are two allotments next to the headwater of Basin Cabin springs. One is used by the Forest Service for a horse pasture. The other is Basin Allotment which has 16 cow/calf pair from mid-July to mid-September (42 Animal Unit Months). Riparian Restoration Projects 1.) Spring Cover Western Toad Interpretive Site –In 2010 a parking area, walking paths and interpretive signs was installed at the breeding site within Watkins Pasture. An exclosure to prevent ATVs from driving through the breeding site was installed in 2008. 2.) Watkins Creek culvert on Denny Creek Road was replaced with a bridge to allow for fish passage in 2011. A temporary small bridge was installed to allow traffic to cross Watkins Creek during the culvert replacement project 3.) Watkins Creek Woody Debris Fish Habitat – In 2010, additional woody debris was added to Watkins Creek by dropping a few trees adjacent to the stream for the purpose of improving fish habitat. 4.) Wally McClure Creek Fish Barrier – In 2007 a cement barrier was installed in the stream to prevent hybridization of west slope cutthroat trout. 5.) Wally McClure Road Culvert Removal – In 2011 the Forest Service removed the culvert just above the fish barrier. The road crossing will still be accessible to livestock and foot traffic. Horses from a guest ranch and other recreational users travel up and down the road and will cross the stream. Old Gravel Pit in Watkins Pasture – Gravel was extracted from this in the early 1980’s for use on the Denny Creek Road. The pit has been “reclaimed” but the bottom of the pit is mostly cobble size rock, grass/forbs are well established adjacent to the pit but very little inside the pit, and patches of spotted knapweed mostly in the pit and road. Existing Road/Trail System and Travel Management 1.) Denny Creek road graded 2-3 times / year. 2.) Implement the 2007 travel management plan which includes the following activities: build ATV connector routes between West Denny road and Contour road in 2010; designated campsites along Denny Creek road in 2009; posted travel signs started in 2007; closed Watkins Creek trail to ATV travel in 2007; and enforce ATV restrictions to stay on designated routes started in 2001. Activities on Adjacent Private Lands 1.) Livestock grazing on private land – Much of the private land around the South Fork allotment is leased for cow/calf and horse grazing. The private land adjacent to Watkins Creek is also used for livestock grazing (small pasture is leased for cattle and the commercial resort grazes horses). 2.) Weed spraying/spreading – Most of the adjacent private land has invasive weeds and are being treated with herbicides.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-3

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.) Building of homes/structures, roads, parking lots – In the South Fork area most of the private land has houses on 5 to 10 acre lots. In the Watkins Creek area there is a commercial resort and a couple of private houses.

3.3 Steam Channel Form and Function 3.3.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact Issue - There is a concern that grazing can change the stream channel form and function through trampling soil and alteration of riparian vegetation. Indicator – Analyze key attributes related to stream channel form and function (such as bankfull width, particle size distribution and residual pool depth). Additional indicators include a determination if stream segments are properly functioning (i.e., functioning-at-risk, non-functioning, or proper functioning) or greater than 20-point departure in Stream Channel Stability rating from a reference condition. Also considered are miles of road in stream influence zones, number of road-stream crossings, logged acres, and acres of primary rangelands grazed are used to display cumulative effects. 3.3.2 Analysis Method Stream channel data from the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and Stream Channel Stability (SCS) assessments, together with monitoring data, will be used to describe anticipated direct, indirect and cumulative effects to stream channel form and function. The effects analysis will characterize the expected reference condition, the current condition, and the possible change (the possible trend and rate of change) for each alternative. Inventory - During the inventory phase for this analysis, two tools were used to assess the health of stream channels and associated riparian areas. These data were used to identify the condition of stream and riparian systems. a. Stream Channel Stability (SCS) procedure (Pfankuch, 1975) – This is a method that evaluates both the inherent and current physical function and stability of stream channels, regardless of stream channel type. The (Pfankuch, 1975) procedure evaluates stream channel stability by rating four attributes along the upper banks (landform, slope, mass wasting, debris jam potential), five attributes along the lower banks (channel capacity, bank rock content, obstructions/flow deflectors, sediment/traps, cutting, and deposition), and six attributes along the channel bottom (rock angularity, brightness, consolidation or bottom particles, percent stable, bottom materials, scouring and deposition, and amount of aquatic vegetation). This procedure focuses on the physical function of stream channel stability, not the quality of fish habitat. Generally the most stable channels are steep and coarse textured riffles or cascades which do not provide much fish habitat. Conversely streams with numerous undercut banks, which provide good fish habitat, are rated lower in the channel stability rating procedure.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-4

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

b. Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment (BLM, 1998) – This is a methodology for assessing the physical function of a riparian-wetland area. It provides information critical to determining the “health” of a riparian-wetland ecosystem. Proper Functioning Condition assessments considers both abiotic and biotic components as they relate to the physical function of riparian areas, but does not consider the biotic component as it relates to habitat requirements. The capability and potential of these riparian-wetland ecosystems is defined by the interaction of three components: 1) vegetation, 2) landform/soils, and, 3) hydrology. This procedure is widely used in the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and is considered best available science for general physical functioning riparian assessments. 3.3.3 Affected Environment Hebgen Lake Sub-watershed – Watkins Creek and Wally McClure Creek Watkins Creek is a 3rd order tributary to Hebgen Lake with its headwater at an elevation of 9,971 feet on Coffin Mountain. This drainage is a typical snow-melt dominated drainage including steep hill slopes with its headwaters originating in several cirque basins which includes Coffin Lakes. Watkins Creek within the allotment is predominately a B3/B4 stream channel type (2-4% gradient) with several short higher gradient A2 stream channel type (> 4% gradient) reaches interspersed (Rosgen, 1996). Watkins Creek within the allotment flows through several dense stands of Engelmann spruce which cattle tend not to congregate. Before entering Hebgen Lake, Watkins Creek flows across a large alluvial fan which is located mostly of private land. Near the top of the transition zone leading into the alluvial fan, Rouf Ditch (located on private land) diverts a large portion of Watkins Creek. Stream flows along lower Watkins Creek are substantially depleted throughout the summer months as a result of porous alluvial materials and Ruof Ditch. Trout Unlimited is presently working with the land owners to lease a portion of their water rights. Rouf Ditch crosses the alluvial fan in the direction of Wally McClure Creek. With the exception of one cattle crossing in a small meadow, cattle do not tend to congregate along Watkins Creek. This single crossing has been identified as a sensitive area to be monitored. On June 18, 2007, this short reach (< 100 m in length) was determined to be in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) exhibiting characteristics of an upward trend (Table 3.3.A). Notes were made that state the lower streambanks exhibit some cutting. The Stream Channel Stability (Pfankuch, 1975) for this short reach was within the 20-point Forest Plan standard (project file, doc. #H-1). Although not measured, sediment levels within Watkins Creek appear to be high based on the presence of large deposits of fine sand. This occurs throughout the entire length of Watkins Creek including upstream of the grazing pasture. It appears that the sediment is coming from naturally unstable areas within the headwaters. Wally McClure Creek is a small second order tributary to Hebgen Lake, and parallels Watkins Creek to the west. This drainage is a typical snow-melt dominated drainage with its headwaters originating at about 9,019 feet in elevation. Although Wally McClure Creek lies within the boundaries of Watkins Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-5

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Creek allotment, cattle only access the lower portion of the drainage. This creek flows through very dense stands of Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. Like Watkins Creek, Wally McClure Creek contains a high level of naturally occurring fine sediment. Like Watkins Creek, Wally McClure enters the same alluvial fan which naturally causes the stream flows to go sub-terrain. Most years, this creek dries up above Ruof Ditch which is on private land. Within the lower reach where cattle have access to Wally McClure Creek, cattle trail up and down the bottom through an open stand of lodgepole pines causing short segments of upper and lower stream bank sloughing. Although no formal PFC was complete, this short reach appears to be in “proper functioning” condition based on ocular observations made during field visits in 2009 and 2010. Because cattle have access to this reach and streambanks consist of moist fine-textured soils, this short reach was identified as a sensitive area requiring additional monitoring. The Stream Channel Stability (Pfankuch, 1975) for this reach was within the 20-point Forest Plan standard (project file, doc. #H-1). Table 3.3.A - Summary of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Stream Channel Stability and Rosgen Stream Channel Classification for four sites within the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments. Stream Watkins Creek

Allotment Watkins Cr.

Location TRS

Stream Channel Type

T12S, R3E S13 SW1/4

B4

Stream Channel Stability Reference

Existing

Departure

PFC Rating

73

69

4

PFC

Wally McClure Watkins Cr. T12S, 34E S12 SE1/4 B4 51 48 3 Creek Basin Cabin Spring South Fork T12S, R4E S10 NW1/4 E4/E5 64 64 0 Creek West Denny Creek - ditch South Fork T12S, R4E S10 NW1/4 No data 76 58 18 - natural stream 62 58 4 ** NF – The ditch section in the south half is “not functioning” and the stream in the north half is “proper functioning condition”

PFC PFC **NF PFC

Lower South Fork Madison River Sub-watershed – Basin Cabin Spring Ck and West Denny Creek ditch Although the South Fork of Madison River flows along the edge of the South Fork Allotment, cattle have been fenced off the majority of the river (except for the North Pasture and half of Middle Pasture). Basin Cabin Spring Creek is a short 2nd order spring creek. This spring creek is fed by several springs which are most likely charged by flood irrigation in the headwaters. Terrain and vegetation throughout this small drainage is relatively flat dominated by sub irrigated meadows and sagebrush. The steeper headwaters are dominated by stands of quaking aspen and Douglas fir. Because of the lack of floods or high water flows, instream habitat conditions are very homogeneous naturally lacking in high quality pools and diversity in substrate composition. In general, spring creeks have very stable flow regimes year around. As a result, they lack the erosive power that typical snow-melt dominated streams have during high flows. Spring creeks tend to break down or widen slower if exposed to excessive streambank trampling. If streambanks do break down, it Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-6

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

takes much longer for streambanks to rebuild because of the lack of high water and subsequent sediment deposition along the streambanks. The portion of Basin Cabin Spring Creek within the allotment was identified as a sensitive area, because cattle have full access to the lower reaches of this spring creek, streambanks consist of moist finetextured soils which can easily be trampled and altered, and spring creeks take considerably longer to recovery once impacted. As a result of the high sensitivity of this spring creek, a long-term monitoring site was installed along the lower reach just above the South Fork Madison River in 2009. A Proper Functioning Condition assessment was completed in 2011 and Basin Cabin Spring Creek was determined to be in “proper functioning” condition because of the lack of impacts to streambanks and riparian vegetation. This long-term monitoring site was read for the first time in 2009 to evaluate changes to the stream condition. The site was monitored according to Range Allotment Stream Channel Monitoring Protocol which a copy can be found in the project file (doc. #H-6). Basin Cabin Spring Creek is characterized as an E4 or E5 stream channel type (< 2% gradient with full flood plain access and wide valley bottom). Bankfull width averaged 2.66 m (ranging from 1.18-4.50 m). Eight pools (or 6.7 pools per 100 m) were encountered within this 120 m monitoring reach with residual pool depths ranging from 0.09–0.41 m. Spawning substrate for both rainbow trout and brown trout is abundant. Table 3. 3.B – Baseline data from 2009; Bankfull Width Frequency, Cumulative Bankfull Width, Residual Pool Depth Frequency, Particle Size Distribution graphs for Basin Cabin Spring Creek (July 20, 2009).

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-7

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-8

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

West Denny Creek Ditch – Flow from Denny Creek is diverted into the West Denny Creek Ditch. Flow from Basin Cabin Spring Creek is also diverted over a low hydrologic divide into the same ditch. The combined flow of both ditches enters a man-made reservoir (estimated size of 5-7 acres) on private land just above the South Fork Allotment. There are two outlet ditches to this reservoir; one flowing easterly back towards Denny Creek staying entirely on private land and the other that flowing northerly back over the same low hydrologic divide previously mentioned onto National Forest System lands. The northern dam outlet appears to have breached within the past 3-5 years. Earthen materials used to construct the dam are widely strewn below the breached outlet as far down as 100 yards to a point (all on private land) just above the South Fork Allotment (on private land). The northerly outlet ditch evidently was constructed for some distance through a wet meadow to get water back over the low hydrologic divide before joining a small natural stream channel. Ditch water, flows into a natural stream and then reenters the South Fork of Madison River. Because this ditch was not constructed at a stable gradient and sinuosity, and lacks flood plain access, the ditch has down cut (estimated 2-4 feet) through the wet meadow. Subsequently, the wet meadow appears to be drying out causing a vegetation type conversion from sedges to mesic grass types. Within a short reach (50 meters estimated length) of this ditch (north half of stream), cattle from the allotment tend to congregate resulting in an over widened channel resulting in sediment delivery to the South Fork of the Madison River. Two Proper Functioning Condition assessment were conducted along the ditch (one for the ditch, another for the stream) in 2011 (project file, doc. #H-7). If this ditch were a natural stream channel, it would be rated as “non-functioning”. Immediately below this point where the constructed ditch ends, the natural stream channel is in good shape with what appears to be natural gradient, sinuosity, flood plain access, and full complement of expected riparian vegetation species. This section of the stream is in “proper functioning condition” based on the small amount of trampling. It is Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-9

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

hard to determine the value of this combined ditch/natural stream channel for fish habitat since the duration of stream flow is unknown. In August 2010 the ditch was flowing less than 1.0 cfs and a couple fish of unknown species were observed. Monitoring Four streams have been identified for future monitoring: Basin Cabin Spring Creek, Watkins Creek, Wally McClure Creek, and West Denny Creek Ditch. The two sites along Watkins Creek and Wally McClure Creek are small localized areas that can visually be monitored. For the Basin Cabin Creek Spring Creek site a permanent monitoring plot was installed in 2009 to insure this stream would remain in its current good condition. Stream channel attributes that were measured include bankfull width, bankfull depth, residual pool depth, particle size distribution, stream gradient, entrenchment, and sinuosity. Many of these attributes were also considered when conducting Proper Functioning Condition and Stream Channel Stability assessments. These attributes were selected because: 1) of lower observer variability, 2) can be measured independent of stream flows, and 3) are good indicators of other related stream channel attributes such as pool habitat quality, bank stability, etc. Baseline data from this monitoring site is included in Table 3.3.B. These attributes will be re-measured in five years, and the data overlaid on the baseline graphs to determine if the management objectives for stream channel form and function are being achieved. As is the case for Basin Cabin Spring Creek, it is desired that the monitoring data in five years would look similar to the data collected in 2009. Any negative indicators would result in immediate feedback to resource specialists such as a hydrologist, fisheries biologists, and range conservationists for corrective action (such as fence off the stream or reduce the amount / duration of grazing). The long-term monitoring site on Basin Cabin Spring Creek was installed in 2009 and then re-measured in 2011 to test repeatability of measurements. Also in 2011, a long term monitoring plot was installed on Denny Creek Ditch. These data are still being analyzed. The areas of concern of Watkins Creek and Wally McClure Creek are too small for sampling transects so ocular observations will be used to document long term trends. Annual bank alteration would be monitored along the Denny Creek Ditch within the South Pasture of the South Fork Allotment in Alternatives 3 and 4. Annual bank alteration of 30% using the Beaverhead-Riparian Monitoring protocol (or most current equivalent method and standard) measure the amount of trampling and the residual stubble height along the green line (project file, doc. #H-8). 3.3.4 Direct and Indirect Effects Domestic livestock grazing can alter stream channel form and function, especially in more sensitive stream types (Rosgen C, E, and fine-textured B stream channel types) by direct modification of the streambed and banks (e.g. hoof shear) and indirectly by modifying riparian vegetation and sediment delivery regimes. Impacted stream channels may widen and aggrade, or become deeply incised, with associated reductions in important fish habitats such as pools, undercut banks, overhead cover, and spawning areas. Increased sediment delivery may result in increased entrainment of fine sediments (< 6.35 mm) in spawning gravels and fill pools that function as rearing and overwintering habitats. Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-10

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Increased sediment delivery may fill interstitial areas surrounding gravel and cobble substrate that are used by aquatic invertebrates and breeding, rearing, and over-wintering habitat for sensitive amphibians. Domestic livestock grazing and associated livestock activities can alter the structural and species diversity of riparian vegetative communities. Riparian vegetation modification may directly remove fish security cover and reduce stream shading, resulting in increased water temperatures in summer and colder temperatures in winter. Riparian vegetation modification may indirectly result in reduced streambank stability, reduced sediment filtering capacity of vegetation, and may modify aquatic food webs and nutrient cycles. Removal of riparian vegetation in amphibian breeding, incubating, and rearing habitats may reduce its suitability for those functions and may increase vulnerability of the amphibians to predation. Direct effects are defined as those effects that occur at the same time and place as the triggering action. For stream channel form and function, it is those actions that result in immediate changes to stream channel morphology such as landslides, debris torrents, catastrophic floods, etc. Indirect effects occur later in time and distance from the triggering action. For stream channel form and function, indirect effects are from those actions that affect the bankfull width, bankfull depth, stream channel gradient, sinuosity, and substrate. Because changes to stream channels from livestock take several decades to manifest, all grazing related effects would be indirect in nature. Alternative 1 (No Grazing) - Two of the sensitive areas along Watkins Creek and Wally McClure Creek that show signs of limited degradation, but considered to be presently in “proper functioning conditions,” would recover under the No Grazing Alternative. The third sensitive area along Basin Cabin Spring Creek that is presently in “proper functioning condition” would remain in its current condition. Habitat conditions at the long-term monitoring site would remain similar to 2009 conditions unless other contributing factors result in degradation. The fourth sensitive area along Denny Creek Ditch would recover in the short section that livestock tend to congregate, but most of the ditch has deep stream banks and is not accessible to livestock so these sections will remain unchanged Because the two sensitive areas along Watkins Creek and Wally McClure Creek are small relative to the total acreage or length of riparian habitat along lakes, ponds, and streams within the analysis area, removing livestock from the Watkins Creek Allotment would have a slight positive benefit on populations of trout species (Management Indicator Species), amphibians, and other aquatic riparian dependent species. Alternative 2 (Current Management) - The two allotments would be grazed similar to the way they are today with the same grazing standards, Animal Unit Months (AUM’s), livestock class, fences and water developments. The sensitive area along Basin Cabin Spring Creek would remain in its current good condition of “proper functioning condition”. Habitat conditions at the long-term monitoring site would remain similar to 2009 conditions unless other contributing factors begin to degrade this stream channel.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-11

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The two areas of limited degradation along Watkins Creek and Wally McClure would also remain in same condition as they are today. Although these areas are considered slightly degraded, both streams as a whole would remain in “proper functioning condition”. If recovery occurs at these sites, the rate of recovery would be much slower as compared to the other three alternatives. The continued negative effects of these two sensitive areas on populations of trout species (Management Indicator Species), amphibians, and other aquatic riparian dependent species would be small, possibly immeasurable. The Denny Creek Ditch would remain in its degraded condition as described in the Existing Condition Section. Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 4 (Modified proposed action) - The two allotments would be grazed similar to the way they are today with the same Animal Unit Months (AUM’s), livestock class (Alternative 4 may graze horses or steers), and fences with minor modifications. Proposed changes that could influence stream channel form and function and aquatic riparian dependent species are as follows: a water gap would be installed within the South Fork Allotment so livestock could water directly out of the South Fork Madison River; within the Watkins Creek Allotment, the cattle crossing as discussed in the Existing Condition Section would be hardened and an off channel stock watering tank would be installed along lower Watkins Creek; and an occasional tree may be felled along lower Wally McClure Creek to prevent excessive trailing along the creek. The above actions listed for the Watkins Creek Allotment are expected to result in improved conditions at the two sensitive areas exhibiting limited degradation along Watkins Creek and Wally McClure Creek. On Watkins Creek the west shore of the stream crossing would be hardened with rock and a short fence constructed to direct livestock across the stream. This improvement (15 feet by 30 feet) would protect the rest of the meadow (60 feet X 100 feet). On lower Wally McClure Creek, the area would be monitored for excessive trailing (as determined by the hydrologist and fisheries biologist) every five years, if problems exists trails would be blocked by a short fence to keep livestock from accessing the stream (this area is dense forest so not very accessible to livestock). Improvements along these two streams would occur but at rate slightly slower than the No Grazing Alternative (Alternative 1). The effects of these improvements on populations of trout species (Management Indicator Species), amphibians, and other aquatic riparian dependent species would be slightly positive but most likely immeasurable. The southern half of Denny Creek Ditch is not being impacted by grazing because the water is inaccessible (steep banks). Potential solutions to preventing further degradation of the ditch include discharge reduction in cooperation with the ditch owners and/or rock check dams. The northern half of the ditch is accessible to livestock and would be monitored for annual bank alteration within the area that cattle tend to congregate. Annual bank alteration of 30% using the Beaverhead Riparian Monitoring protocol (or most current equivalent method and standard) along this ditch would be incorporated into the allotment management plan and annual operating instructions to insure that further degradation is not a result of livestock use. If bank alteration from livestock grazing exceeds acceptable levels (as determined by the hydrologist and fisheries biologist) then grazing practices would be modified (such as a reduction in duration or intensity of grazing, installation of a fence, or combination) would be considered. The instillation of a water gap in the fence along the South Fork Madison River is proposed Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-12

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

with these alternatives. The additional water source would allow for another water source besides the Denny Creek Ditch. The above actions listed for the South Fork Allotment would maintain current conditions along Basin Cabin Spring Creek and improve conditions along Denny Creek Ditch. If a negative trend or undesirable shift in field data at the established long-term monitoring sites unexpectedly occurred, new management actions (such as fencing off the riparian area or reduce the amount of grazing) would be developed by the Forest Service and permittee. 3.3.5 Cumulative Effects Spatial Boundary: The two analysis areas were designed to include the downstream extent of where management actions could directly or indirectly affect stream channel form and function and aquatic riparian dependent species (maps in specialist’s report in the project file, doc. #H-1). Livestock grazing related effects to stream channel form and function are very localized within these two allotments and do not extend beyond the allotment boundaries, with the exception of sediment which is transported downstream to Hebgen Lake and the South Fork Madison River. These two distinct analysis areas are truncated at Hebgen Lake and South Fork Madison River. Parcels of private land (in holdings) are included within these two analysis areas. Temporal Boundary: The earlier temporal bound for addressing cumulative effects is 1972. Sheep were allowed to graze within two allotments within the entire Watkins Creek drainage prior to 1972. At that time, the class of animals was switched from sheep to cattle and area that was allowed to be grazed was reduced to its current configuration and acres. Although 21 acres were logged in the South Fork analysis area in 1964 and 47 acres in the Watkins Creek analysis area in 1966 and 1970, the major of logging and associated road building in both analysis areas occurred in 1987 and 1988. The later temporal bound coincides with the proposed management objective of obtaining full restoration of all non-functioning and functioning-at-risk stream reaches to their site potential by the year 2030. Indicators used to describe cumulative effects on stream channel form and function and aquatic dependent species are displayed in following cumulative effects Table 3.3.C for each alternative. The table reflect existing and proposed cumulative effects of the larger land management activities such as: past timber harvest; private land management; existing road and trails system; South Fork, Watkins Creek, and Basin Allotments; and the proposed Lonesome Wood 2 Fuels Reduction project. Watkins Creek Analysis Area: An additional 199 acres within this analysis area are proposed to be treated as part of the Lonesome Wood 2 Fuels Reduction Projects. One hundred thirty six of the proposed 199 acres are to be mechanically treated with the remaining to be treated by hand crews using chain saws. All proposed mechanically or hand treated acres were designed not to increase sediment delivery to Watkins Creek and/or Wally McClure Creek or have any other long lasting effects to these streams or their fisheries. An additional 0.5 mile of temporary project roads is proposed to be constructed and obliterated upon project completion. One road or stream crossing (a culvert) is proposed to be removed as part of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (May 24, 2006). Other land management activities designed to have beneficial effects to aquatic organism are Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-13

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ongoing within Watkins Creek analysis area. These projects include the replacement of existing culverts, placement of instream large woody debris, and construction of barriers to insure genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout. Although these projects were designed to be beneficial to aquatic species, the effects do not change the indicators selected to describe cumulative effects. South Fork Analysis Area: An additional 537 acres within this analysis area are proposed to be treated as part of the Lonesome Wood 2 Fuels Reduction Projects. Two hundred eighty seven of the proposed 537 acres are to be mechanically treated with the remaining to be treated using prescribed burning techniques. All proposed mechanically or prescribed burning acres are located high within the analysis area away from Basin Cabin Spring Creek. An additional 1.0 mile of temporary project roads (for Lonesome Wood project) is proposed to be constructed and obliterated upon project completion. No additional roads within stream crossings are proposed to be obliterated or decommissioned within this project area, as part of the Gallatin National Forest Travel Management Plan (May 24, 2006). Table 3.3.C - Indicators used to assess cumulative effects from past, present, proposed and foreseeable actions within the two analysis areas for all alternatives. th

6 Field HUC

Indicator

Sites Not in PFC or > 20 Point Stream Channel Stability (SCS) Departure (#) Primary Rangeland in Allotment (acres) Alternative 1 Primary Rangeland Grazed (acres) Hebgen Lake Alternative 2 (Watkins Primary Rangeland Grazed (acres) Creek Alternatives 3 & 4 Analysis Timber Harvest or Fuels Treatments Area Only) (acres) Roads (miles) Road Stream Crossings (#) Roads in Stream Influence Zones (SIZ) (miles w/in 300 feet) Sites Not in PFC or > 20 Point SCS Departure (#) Lower South Primary Rangeland in Allotment (acres) Alternative 1 Fork Primary Rangeland Grazed (acres) Madison Alternatives 2,3 and 4 River (South Fork Timber Harvest or Fuels Treatments (acres) Analysis Area Only) Roads (miles) Road Stream Crossings (#) Roads in SIZ (miles)

Past To Present (1972-2011)

Proposed change

Foresee-able (2011-2030)

Cumulative (Total)

0

0

0

0

493

-493

0

0

493

No Change

0

493

493

+15

0

508

+199

0

735

0 -1

9.3 4

/a

536

9.3 5

/b

+0.5/-0.5 0

1.5

0

0

1.5

0

0

0

0

141

-141

0

0

141

141

0

141

+537

0

689

0 0 0

17.4 9 3.2

/a

152

17.4 9 3.2

/b

+1.0/-1.0 0 0

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-14

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences a

/ = Timber stands considered to be mature in 2010. b / = All proposed temporary roads as part of the Lonesome Wood 2 Fuels Reduction Project would be obliterated upon project completion.

The majority of the roads within this analysis area are driveways to private summer homes. It is expected the number of homes, miles of roads, stream crossings, and miles of roads with Stream Influence Zones (w/ in 300 feet) would increase over time. It is expected that livestock grazing and grass hay production would also continue to occur on these private lands. With the exception of the number of primary rangeland acres grazed within the National Forest System portion of the two analysis areas, indicators of cumulative effects would remained essentially the same for all alternatives. Under Alternative 1 (No Grazing), livestock grazing on primary rangelands on South Fork Allotment would be reduced 100 percent. Basin Allotment would continue to be grazed on National Forest system lands; this is a very small allotment (16 cow/calf pair from mid July to mid September) next to the headwater spring to Basin Cabin Spring Creek. Plus, the Forest Service would continue to graze a few horses on the administrative pasture immediately adjacent to the Basin Cabin Spring. Also, grazing would continue on adjacent private land. Under Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 4 (Modified Proposed Action), livestock grazing would continue on all of primary rangeland on National Forest system lands within the two analysis areas. Sensitive areas along Watkins Creek and Wally McClure exhibiting limited degradation would improve from their current condition. Sensitive areas along Basin Cabin Spring Creek would remain their current condition. Summary Conclusion Under all four alternatives, all streams and stream reaches would be expected to remain in “proper functioning condition.” The degraded reach of the Denny Creek Ditch would improve to the extent possible under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. Long-term monitoring conducted by resource specialists would ensure that these streams remain in “proper functioning condition.” The main difference between alternatives is the rate at which those sensitive areas exhibiting limited degradation recover. The No Grazing Alternative (Alternative 1) would recover the fastest whereas the No Change from Current Management Alternative (Alternative 2) would recover the slowest. Because of the limited degree of degradation at these sites, the difference to populations of trout (Management Indicator Species), amphibians, and other aquatic riparian dependent species would most likely be immeasurable. For more information on riparian dependent species refer to pages 3-16 thought 3-20. In a recently written document entitles “Distribution and Status of Gallatin National Forest Aquatic Management Indicator Species”, it was determined that wild redd spawning trout (classified as Management Indicator Species) are widespread and common or abundant on the Gallatin National Forest (project file, doc. #H-9).

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-15

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy All streams within the South Fork and Watkins Creek analysis areas are considered Class A streams by the Gallatin National Forest Plan because they either flow directly into Hebgen Lake or are occupied by westslope cutthroat trout such as Wally McClure Creek. As defined in the Forest Plan, Class A streams are those that support sensitive fish species or provide spawning or rearing habitat to Hebgen Lake. These streams are to be managed at a level which provides at least 90 percent of their inherent fish habitat capability. All alternative are consistent with laws, regulation, policy, and Forest direction as related stream form and function and aquatic riparian dependent species. Forest Plan direction for riparian areas (Management Area 7) requires the Forest to "manage riparian vegetation, including overstory tree cover, to maintain streambank stability and promote filtering of overland flows and maintain suitable habitat for those species of birds, mamamls, and fish that are totally or partially dependent upon riparian areas for their existience.” The Forest Plan (Table IV-1) lists two monitoring requirements which relate to limits of cumulative allowable management caused change to sediment filtration (more than a 25% loss in effective streambank cover) and stream channel stability (20 point increase in stream channel score within 5 years due to management practices). These Forest Plan monitoring requirements would be met for all streams under all alternative being considered. This project will not change streambank cover and all streams are currently within the 20 point stream channel score ( see table 3.3.A). All alternatives are consistent with the State of Montana Water Quality Act as well as other applicable laws policies, and the Gallatin Forest Plan (USDA 1987). Specific Montana water quality standards that would be met include Administrative Rules of Montana 17.30.623 (1), which requires that B1 waters after conventional treatment are suitable for growth and propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life and 17.30.623 (2) (f) that does not allow increases above naturally-occurring concentrations of sediment that would render the waters harmful to public health, recreation, safety, livestock, fish or other wildlife.

3.4 Riparian Dependent Species 3.4.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact Issue- There is a concern that livestock grazing may have detrimental impact on fish and amphibians. Indicator – Presence of sensitive riparian species and likelihood of detrimental interaction (altered habitat such as increased sediment, and changes in stream characteristics). 3.4.2 Analysis Method The analysis method included field surveys to identify the presence of sensitive fish and amphibians; and literature review to ascertain possible impacts.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-16

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4.3 Affected Environment Hebgen Lake Sub-watershed Rainbow trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and rainbow x cutthroat hybrids inhabit the entire length of Watkins Creek from its confluence with Hebgen Lake to lower Coffin Lakes in the headwaters (Travis Lohrenz, personal communications, 2009). Hebgen Lake rainbow trout use lower Watkins Creek for spawning. Twelve rainbow trout redds (spawning nests) were observed in 2002 in the lower 4.9 km and 27 redds observed in 2003 making up 2 percent or less of the total number of observed redds within all Hebgen Lake tributaries that were surveyed (Watscke, 2006). Issues regarding the local fisheries include depleted flows along lower Watkins Creek, a partial barrier culvert at the FS Road # 167, entrapment by Ruof Ditch, naturally occurring high sediment levels, and lack of instream large woody debris along certain reaches. Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout inhabit Wally McClure Creek from approximately FS Road # 2544 upstream. This population has been maintained for many generations as a result of natural dewatering around FS Road # 167. Both rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout have been captured in Ruof Ditch near the point where Rouf Ditch enters the dry reach of Wally McClure Creek. In 2006, Wally McClure Creek did reach Ruof Ditch during a late spring rain storm. PPL – Montana funded the construction of a concrete fish passage barrier along a fishless reach of lower Wally McClure Creek to protect this genetically pure population from the invasion of non-native trout. The core of the population resides in the headwaters considerable distance upstream of this newly constructed barrier. Livestock have access to the lower reaches of Wally McClure Creek below this barrier. No livestock or sign of livestock have been observed in the headwaters where the core population resides. Hebgen Basin is inhabited by five species of amphibians including plains spadefoot, Columbia spotted frog, boreal chorus frog, western toad, and tiger salamander. High densities of the later four species can be found throughout the basin including on the Watkins Creek Allotment. Spring Creek Cove along the Hebgen Lake shoreline and the Watkins Creek alluvial fan is one of the largest breeding sites within the basin for western toad. The Spring Creek Cove breeding site has been monitored periodically since 2002 (Atkinson and Atkinson 2003, Sestrich 2006, and Roberts and Swilling 2010). Large numbers of tadpoles and/or metamorphs have been observed each year that this breeding site has been monitored. This site was fenced to prevent off highway vehicles from accessing this site late summer when Hebgen Lake is drawn down. Cattle have access to this breeding site since the east side is not fenced. Radio-tagged adult western toads were tracked from the Spring Creek Cove breeding site into the forested uplands during 2008. Many of their migration routes bisected suitable livestock range within the Watkins Creek Allotment. One such route included the riparian zone along Watkins Creek which was used by several adult males (Sestrich 2009, Clint Sestrich, personal communications). Two perennial ponds along Watkins Creek within an open Douglas fir stand are inhabited by western toads, tiger salamanders, and Columbia spotted frog. With the exception of one small corner of one pond, grazing impacts around these ponds was considered to be light. The western toad sub population around Hebgen Basin, Hebgen Lake, and Watkins Creek Allotment would remains stable according to criteria established by Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW 2001) and the Forest. Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-17

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Lower South Fork Madison River Sub-watershed South Fork Madison River is inhabited by the full complement of native and native fish species that occupies Hebgen Lake including rainbow trout, brown trout, mountain whitefish, eastern brook trout, and mottled sculpin. The confluence of the South Fork and Hebgen Lake is located near the mouth of Basin Cabin Spring Creek at full reservoir pool. The South Fork upstream of the confluence is wide, shallow and lacks in structure used as habitat. Fish that are observed within this short reach of the South Fork are most likely migrating either upstream or downstream. Thirty one percent and 41 percent of the rainbow trout redds observed in 2002 and 2003 in Hebgen Lake tributaries, respectively, were observed in upper South Fork or Black Sands Spring Creek upstream of the South Fork Allotment (Watschke, 2006). Because of the close proximity to Hebgen Lake and slow water velocity Utah chubs most likely also inhabit this reach of the South Fork periodically. Arctic grayling have been reported being caught by anglers along the lower South Fork (Andy Pils, personal communications). It is unknown if these fish were native fluvial grayling that historically occupied the upper Missouri River drainage or descendents of lake stocked grayling trickling out of Yellowstone Park. No Arctic grayling have been observed or collected in the South Fork since 1997 (Travis Lohrenz, personal communications). No formal spring or fall redd surveys have been conducted along Basin Cabin Spring Creek. During a site visit in July 2007, what appeared to be old redds or nest depressions most likely constructed by rainbow trout in the previous spring were observed at several locations along lower Basin Cabin Spring Creek. It is suspected that both rainbow trout and brown trout use this creek for spawning. No formal amphibian surveys have been conducted within the South Fork Allotment along Basin Cabin Spring Creek, South Fork Madison River, or South Fork Arm of Hebgen Lake. An abundant number adult and juvenile Columbia spotted frogs were observed along Basin Cabin Spring Creek during a site visit in July 2007 and July 2009. Western toad and Columbia spotted frog tadpoles have been observed across the South Fork Arm from the South Fork Allotment. There is reason to believe that breeding sites for both species occur within the South Fork Allotment. 3.4.4 Direct and Indirect Effects Biological Evaluation The South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments lie outside the native range for Yellowstone cutthroat trout and northern leopard frogs. Westslope cutthroat trout do inhabit Wally McClure Creek within the boundaries of the Watkins Creek Allotment but reside a considerable distance upstream of where cattle have access. Although a few arctic grayling (no longer on the Sensitive Species list, project file doc. #K-3) are occasionally caught around Hebgen Lake and tributaries by anglers and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks during their annual fish sampling surveys, there are no data to suggest that fluvial arctic grayling native to Missouri River drainage still exist in the Madison River system above Hebgen Dam. These fish are thought to be introduced lake dwelling fish trickling out of Grebe Lake in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. The implementation of proposed alternatives would have “No Effect” on these the species within the boundaries the South Fork and Watkins Creek Allotments because impacts to riparian areas are minimal (EA. p. 3-14, 3-15). Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-18

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There are two known and two suspected western toad breeding sites located along Hebgen Lake and lower Watkins Creek. The larger of the two known breeding sites (Spring Creek Cove) is presently fenced on three sides to prevent ATV’s from driving through during periods when Hebgen Lake is drawn down in late summer. The two ends of this fence extend out into Hebgen Lake. Until the lake elevation drops three or four feet below full pool, cattle do not have access to this breeding site. According to Bryce Maxell – Montana Natural Heritage Program (personal communications), western toads have evolved in areas of disturbance. He felt that grazing could be beneficial to western toads if allowed to occur at the right time to reduce the height of shoreline vegetation. This was substantiated in a paper by Burton et al. (2009) that stated that species within the toad family may benefit from controlled grazing. Western toads seek warmer areas of higher humidity to bask which can be enhanced by increased solar radiation and reduced shoreline vegetation. Adult and tadpole toads are unpalatable to vertebrate predators making shoreline vegetation less importance for protection. Conflicts between western toads and livestock can be avoided if livestock are excluded from the breeding site when metamorphs congregated along the shoreline. Bartelt and Peterson (1995) documented that a band of domestic sheep being actively pushed through a western toad breeding site when metamorphs were congregated result in high mortality. Bull (2009) stated that cattle trampling also resulted in mortality around an eastern Oregon reservoir. If it is determined that livestock are accessing this breeding site during this period, the lower bounds of the existing exclosure could be closed with wire to prevent cattle from accessing. There are several known western toad breeding sites located around Hebgen Lake. Several of these sites including the Spring Creek Cove breeding sites have been monitored periodically throughout the last decade. It has been determined using criteria in Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW 2001) that the sub-population around Hebgen Lake remains viable. Many of the known breeding sites are located in areas away from livestock grazing. The Spring Creek Cove breeding site within the Watkins Creek Allotment existed for many years before the three sided exclosure was ever constructed. There is no reason to believe that this breeding population would not remain strong even under current management (Alternative 2). With the added protection of closing off the exclosure when needed to protect metamorphs and adding large woody debris for cover, this breeding sub-population would continue to remain viable as well as the larger Hebgen Basin population. Because all known and suspected breeding sites within the Watkins Creek Allotment are not protected, the implementation of Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.” It is thought that the biggest threat to western toads within the Watkins Creek Allotment will continue to be vehicle use along FS Road # 167 (Hebgen Lake / Denny Creek Road) along the southwestern shore of Hebgen Lake. Western pearlshell mussels are native to western Montana (upper Missouri River, Clark Fork, and Flathead River drainages). This species, as do most freshwater mussels, require an intermediate fish host to be present (Montana’s State Official Website 2010) to fulfill their life cycle. The nearest known population of western pearlshell mussel is located in Duck Creek and Madison River upstream of Hebgen Lake. If present in the project area, they would most likely inhabit low gradient fish bearing streams with wetted widths greater than 2.0 meters. This would include such streams as South Fork Madison Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-19

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

River, Basin Cabin Spring Creek, and Watkins Creek. Upper South Fork Madison River, Black Sands Spring Creek, Basin Cabin Spring Creek, and Watkins Creek were all surveyed in 2008. No live mussels or shell fragments were observed during those surveys. Because of the absence of the species, the three action alternatives would have “No Effect” on the species. Summary of Biological Evaluation Effects Determination for Riparian Sensitive species (same for all alternatives): Yellowstone cutthroat – No Effect, species hybridized and outside native range; Westslope cutthroat – No Effect, cattle have no access to specific stream reach; Western toad – May Impact Individuals or Habitat; Northern leopard frog – No Effect, species not present; Western pealshell mussel - No Effect, species not present. 3.4.5 Cumulative Effects Spatial and Temporal Boundaries - This analysis used the same spatial and temporal boundary that are described under Stream Form and Function ( EA, p. 3-13). Also, refer to the cumulative effects analysis as described under the Steam Form and Function section (EA, p. 3-13 to 3-16). 3.4.6 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy Sensitive animal species are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is of concern. All Forest Service planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities are to be reviewed for possible effects on sensitive species (FSM 2672.4). This biological evaluation complies with Forest Service Manual direction.

3.5 Upland and Riparian Vegetation 3.5.1 Statement of Issue, and Indicator of Impact Issue – There is a concern that livestock grazing might adversely affect the desired plant community composition and the maintenance of native plant communities. To address this issue there are four main subsections: 1.) Is the land suitable for livestock grazing and what is the grazing capacity of the allotments (this is disclosed in Appendix A since it does not change with different alternatives); 2.) What is the impact on sensitive plants (since no sensitive plants were found in either allotments this is also discussed in Appendix A); 3.) What is the impact to upland and riparian vegetation (discussed below); and 4.) What is the impact on invasive weeds (discussed in the next section).

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-20

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indicator – Impact to upland and riparian vegetation was ranked according to the severity of departure from the desired condition (i.e., none to slight, slight to moderate, moderate, moderate to extreme, extreme). 3.5.2 Analysis Method The vegetation analysis, started with a walk through assessment of the primary range (see the project file for a more complete description of the process and the raw data used in this analysis, doc. #E-7). The assessment evaluated 17 indicators for rangeland health that describe three ecological characteristics (D. Pyke, et al., 2002): 1.) Soil and site stability – considered long term soil productivity and nutrient cycling. 2.) Hydrologic Function – incorporates vegetation ability to intercept precipitation, control runoff, promotes infiltration, and capture available water in the soil. 3.) Biotic Integrity – evaluates plant composition, species abundance and regeneration at sustainable level. The table below lists rangeland health indicators, and describes the degree of similarity between the current condition and the ecological reference condition.

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Page 3-21

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.5.A – Rangeland Health Indicators Indicator

Soil Stability

Hydro- Biotic Current Condition Degree of Departure From Reference Condition logic None to Slight Slight to Moderate Moderate

1. Rills

X

X

2. Water flow patterns

X

X

3. Pedestals. / terracettes

X

4. Bare ground

Mod to Extreme

Total Severe rill formation Unstable active erosion

No current or past formation of rills Minimal evidence of soil deposition or erosion

Old rills blunted or muted Minor erosion, flow patterns are stable and short

Active rills infrequent

X

Absent or uncommon

Active formation rare; some past formation

Slight active pedestals, occasional terracettes

Some rills active and throughout the area Deposition and cut areas are common; occasionally connected Common formation, occasional exposed roots

X

X

Matches expected amount for the site

Bare areas are small and rarely connected

Bare areas are large and sporadically connected

Bare areas are large and occasionally connected

5. Gullies

X

X

Drainages are natural stable channel, vegetation common, no signs of erosion

No signs of active headcuts, nick points or erosion

Headcuts are active, downcutting is not apparent

6. Wind scoured or deposition 7. Litter Movement

X

None

Infrequent and few

Signs of active erosion, vegetation is intermittent on slopes, occasional headcuts Occasionally present

Common

Extensive

X

None

8. Soil surface resistance to erosion

X

Slight movement of small sized litter being displaced Some reduction in surface stability

Moderate amount of movement of small size class Significant reduction in at least half of the plant canopy interspaces

Moderate to small size class of litter have been displaced Stabilizing agents present only in isolated patches

Most size classes of litter have been displaced No organic matter or biological crust.

X

X

Surface is stabilized by organic matter, or biological crust

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Minor erosion with some instability and deposition

Numerous formations, exposed roots are common Bare areas are large and generally connected Indicators of active erosion and downcutting

Page 3-22

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Indicator

9. Soil loss / degradation 10. Plant composition and distribution relative to infiltration 11. Compaction layer 12. Functional /structural groups 13. Plant decadence 14. Litter amount 15. Annual production 16. Invasive plants 17. Plant Vigor

Soil Stability

Hydro- Biotic Current Condition Degree of Departure From Reference Condition logic None to Slight Slight to Moderate Moderate

X

X

X

X

X

Total

Severe degradation throughout site

Soil surface horizon is absent.

Infiltration is greatly decreased due to adverse changed in plant composition

Sever decrease due to change in plant community. Extensive, severely restricts water and roots Number of groups dramatically altered Dead/ decadent plants very common Extreme difference Less than 20 %

Soil structure and organic matter match that expected for site

Some loss or degradation

Infiltration and runoff not affected by change in plant composition and distribution

Infiltration is slightly affected by minor changes in plant composition,

Soil structure is degraded, soil organic matter content is reduced. Infiltration moderately reduced by change in plant composition

X

Not restrictive to water and roots

X

Number of species or groups match expected

Slight restrictive to water movement and roots Number of species or groups slightly reduced

Moderately restricts water movement and roots Number of species or groups moderately reduced,

Widespread, greatly restricts water and roots One group replaced by another

X

Matches expected

Slight mortality

Dead/ decadent plants somewhat common

X

Matches expected

Slightly more or less

X

Exceeds 80 % of potential If present matches expected Capability to produce seed or tillers not reduced

60-80% of potential

Some dead /decadent plants present Moderately more or less 40-60% potential Scattered

Common throughout site Capability to produce seed or tillers greatly reduced

X

X

Mod to Extreme

X X

In disturbed areas only Capability to produce seed or tillers slightly reduced

Environmental Assessment: South Fork And Watkins Creek Allotment Management Plan

Capability to produce seed or tillers moderately reduced

Greatly different from expected 20-40% potential

Dominates site Capability to produce seed or tillers severely reduced

Page 3-23

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The ecological reference condition is based on site descriptions for each habitat type as described in Mueggler and Stewart (1980). From these descriptions the following characteristics were derived: the expected amount of bare soil, moss/crust, litter, and canopy cover for each functional group. The tables below displays the expected amount of ground cover and canopy cover based on the habitat type; and the current condition as observed in 2010. The final assessment is discussed under the “affected environment” section below. Table 3.5.B– Vegetation Expected Reference Condition and Current Condition South Fork Allotment Habitat 1 Type ARTR/FEID (Mtn Sage/Idaho fescue)

DECA-Carex tufted hairgrass/ sedge

Reference condition/ transect # 1 Mean

Percent Ground Cover Bare Litter Rock Ground 3 61 7

Lichen Moss 22

Canopy Cover Grass Forbs

Shrubs

52

27

21

742