United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

July 2012

Environmental Assessment Henry Creek and Swamp Creek Range Allotment Management Plans Revision Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District, Lolo National Forest Sanders County, Montana

For More Information Contact: Dave Wrobleski, Resource Assistant Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District 408 Clayton St. Plains, MT 59859 (406) 826-4321

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 TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment

Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1  Purpose and Need......................................................................................................................................1  Location of the Project Area .....................................................................................................................1  Allotment History .....................................................................................................................................1  Management Areas ...................................................................................................................................4  Public Involvement........................................................................................................................................5  Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................................................5  Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................5  Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................................6  Environmental Effects ...................................................................................................................................6  Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................................6  Soils Resource ...........................................................................................................................................7  Hydrology and Fisheries .........................................................................................................................10  Invasive Species ......................................................................................................................................14  Botany Resources ....................................................................................................................................16  Heritage Resources .................................................................................................................................18  Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................19  Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................................................................................................23  Appendix 1 – Site Maps ..............................................................................................................................24  Tables Table 1. Acres of each allotment within each management area, and on State and private lands.................4  Table 2. Existing permit requirements for each allotment ............................................................................6  Table 3. Summary of weed risk rating for the proposed action...................................................................15  Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map ...................................................................................................................................3  Figure 2. Henry Creek site map ..................................................................................................................24  Figure 3. Swamp Creek site map .................................................................................................................25 

i

Environmental Assessment

Introduction We are proposing to revise the allotment management plans for the Henry Creek and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotments on the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District. We prepared this environmental assessment to determine whether effects of the proposed activities may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing this environmental assessment, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. For more details of the proposed action, see the “Proposed Action and Alternatives” section of this document on page 5.

Purpose and Need The purpose of the revision is to formally incorporate changes to grazing practices into the allotment management plans that were identified in past annual operating plans and permit reissuance procedures, and to incorporate standards and guidelines to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan. These changes were made to address resource concerns related to environmental impacts from the length of grazing season and number of animals permitted. The resource protection measures included in the proposed action are in response to site-specific impacts in localized areas within each allotment that have the potential to impact affect soil and water resources, and invasive species.

Location of the Project Area The Henry Creek Allotment is located in the Henry Creek drainage approximately 5 miles east of Plains, Montana in T20 N, R25W, Sections 14, 15, 22-23, 25-28, 34-35, and T19 N, R25W, Sections 2-4. The Swamp Creek Allotment is located in the Swamp Creek drainage, approximately 5 miles west of Plains in T20 N, R28W, Sections 23-27, 34-36; T20N, R27W, Sections 14-36; T19 N, R28W, Sections 1-3, 11,12; and T19N, R27W, Sections 1-16, 23, and 24 (refer to vicinity map, Figure 1).

Allotment History Henry Creek Allotment Records indicate the Henry Creek Allotment has been grazed under permit since 1932. Use has varied widely from 150 to 400 animal unit months (AUMs). From 1979 until 1983, the allotment was vacant. A temporary and then a term permit were issued for 100 cow/calf pairs; in addition, the State permitted 19 pairs. This lasted until 1990 when the permitted numbers were adjusted to 50 pairs (28 Forest Service and 22 State). This was a 72 percent reduction in the Forest Service permitted numbers. The reduction was sparked over concerns of riparian conditions. Concurrent with this reduction was the closure of the Deemer Creek and Big Draw portion of the allotment for unknown reasons. Wildfire has played a role in this allotment. The Deemer Creek area was burned in 1944 and was aerially reseeded using orchard grass. In later surveys, it was noted that 30 percent of the existing grass was orchard grass and that cattle were keying in on it.

1

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

In 1994, the Henry Peak Fire burned a large portion of the allotment and grazing was restricted for the following 2 years. In 1998, the Boyer fire burned about 80 percent of the allotment. After the fire, an agreement between the permittee, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), and Forest Service restricted livestock from using the allotment in 1999 and the first part of the growing season in 2000 to allow vegetation to recover or reestablish. Anticipated forage increases may have occurred but use patterns by cattle have not changed. There is a long history of overuse on certain portions of the allotment. With adjustments in 1990, subsequent reviews all noted the improvement in the allotment (utilization within parameters, regrowth and increase in vegetation diversity (structural and biological), and improvements in riparian areas (reduced sediment from trampling and overutilization)). In 1996, a new decision was signed for the allotment that maintained a season-long grazing system. Current permitted numbers are 22 cow/calf pairs and 1 bull on National Forest System lands with a season from 7/1 to 9/15.

Swamp Creek Records indicate the Swamp Creek area has been grazed by livestock since at least 1947. In 1957, the current allotment was managed as two separate allotments with 104 head of cattle and some horses permitted for three permittees from 5/15 to 10/15. The majority of the use occurred on State land and on Champion Timber Company lands. Grazing areas were divided into the East and West Forks of Swamp Creek. By 1959 there were two permittees grazing 65 head of cattle (cow/calf pairs) and one horse from 5/16 to 10/15. The season of use changed in 1966 to 6/110/15 while the numbers varied from 65 to 85. In 1967, the two allotments were combined into the current allotment. In 1969, there was only one permittee and the number permitted changed to 46 and remained there until 1991. In 1992, a new allotment management plan was completed to address concerns of grazing on big game winter range and riparian areas. This plan designated a three-pasture deferred rotation and changed the season of use from 6/1-10/15 to 6/1 to 9/1. Numbers were increased to 60 cow/calf pairs. In 2006, Plum Creek Timber Company no longer authorized grazing on their lands, which were formerly owned by Champion Timber Company. Subsequently, numbers on the allotment were reduced to 45 and the system was modified to season long grazing system with between 6/1 and 9/1. This is the current management system for the allotment.

2

Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity map

3

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

Management Areas The Forest Plan identifies a variety of management areas (MAs) that represent specific philosophies and corresponding opportunities and constraints (Forest Plan, pages III-1 through III-149). The allotments include several of these management areas, summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Acres of each allotment within each management area, and on State and private lands Management Area

Description

Grazing permitted

Henry Creek Acres

Swamp Creek Acres

1

Noncommercial forest

Yes

0

67

11

Large roadless parcel

Yes

0

2,729

14

Riparian, grazing

yes

256

1,165

16

Timber

yes

2,046

7,725

18

Winter range, timber

yes

921

925

19

Winter range, no timber

yes

0

476

21

Old growth

yes

0

3

23

Partial retention – winter range

yes

6

25

Partial retention – timber

yes

111

26

Critical elk summer range

yes

126

27

Commercial forest, not economical

yes

0

1,290 767 271 2,334

Private

Private lands

n/a

0

4,775

State

Montana State lands

n/a

1,270

1,456

4,730

23,985

Totals

Neither allotment is located within a municipal watershed; therefore, any standards related to municipal watersheds would not be applicable in these allotments. Management areas 1, 11, 21, 25 and 27 do not have specific standards for grazing, other than grazing is permitted as long as it is compatible with the goals and objectives of the management area. Management area 14 has specific standards for riparian area management related to grazing. Management area 16 includes a standard for permissibility of grazing related to the availability of forage and protection of forest regeneration. Management areas 18, 19, and 23 include a standard related to permissibility of grazing after big game needs have been met. Management area 26 includes a standard to regulate grazing so as not to conflict with critical elk summer range values. Forest Plan standard 4 addresses conflicts between livestock and big game.

4

Environmental Assessment

Public Involvement The project was included in the Lolo National Forest’s “Schedule of Proposed Action”, and a scoping announcement describing the proposed action and requesting comments on the proposal was mailed to the Forest mailing list (approximately 135 organizations and individuals). The scoping letter was also posted on the Lolo National Forest website. No comments were received from this request. The environmental assessment (EA) will be available for review and comment prior to decision.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action The proposed action would continue grazing on these allotments through the issuance of a 10year term grazing permit (summarized in Table 2), and includes the following resource protection measures to the individual allotment management plans to address site-specific resource needs:

Henry Creek 

Fell small diameter trees along Henry Creek where multiple livestock trails exist to reduce trailing immediately adjacent to Henry Creek (T20 N, R25W, Sections 23, 26) and reduce stream crossings to one armored crossing (Site A and between Sites A and B; see Figure 2 in Appendix 1).



Fell trees to prevent further trampling within seep area adjacent to Henry Creek (T20 N, R25W, Section 23, SW of SE ¼; northwest of Site A).



Remove fence around the old Mill site, including where fence is in Henry Creek (T20N, R25W, Section 26). Fell small diameter trees to discourage access to creek in this area and prevent trampling (Site A).



Include old Mill site (T20 N, R25W, Section 26) in weed spraying program to reduce weed infestations (Site A).

Swamp Creek 

Fence riparian area (Site D; see Figure 3 in Appendix 1) to eliminate grazing/trampling within a riparian area, and construct a water tank to provide water away from the riparian area (T20N, R27W, Section 14, SE of SW1/4.



Include Site D in weed spraying program to reduce weed infestations.



Use woody materials to control cattle trailing in Sites A and C.

Appendix 1 includes maps that identify the location of these sites. No changes to existing permit requirements would occur for either permit (Table 2). These permit requirements are the results of past modifications in annual operating permits, and are being incorporated into the revision of the allotment management plans. All other conditions of the permits would remain the same. Permit administration would be emphasized to ensure utilization standards are achieved.

5

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

Table 2. Existing permit requirements for each allotment Allotment

Permitted AUMs

On/Off periods

Improvements

Grazing System

Henry Creek

22 cow/calf pairs, 1 bull

July 1-September 15

3 fence segments, 1 water development, 2 cattle guards

One pasture “on/off” with adjacent State lands1

Swamp Creek

45 cow/calf pairs

June 1-September 1

2 fence segments

One pasture “on/off” with adjacent State lands

1. “On/off” means the cattle move between State and Forest Service lands freely throughout the season

Alternatives There were no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources identified by the public during the scoping process, therefore there are no additional alternatives other than the no action for this project.

No Action The no-action alternative would continue grazing as it is currently permitted, without implementation of the resource protection measures identified in the proposed action. This alternative would not make any changes to current grazing practices.

Environmental Effects This section summarizes the potential effects of the proposed action and the no-action alternatives. The no-action alternative is addressed in contrast form throughout the analysis of effects (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)). Environmental impacts for each resource area are summarized from individual resource specialist reports that are available in the project record. The project maps in Appendix 1 display the locations of various sites identified in the qualitative range assessments that were competed in 2010. These sites are referenced in the following discussions.

Cumulative Effects To understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Past harvest activities and wildfire impacts were summarized by decade using GIS analysis to support this analysis. The cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions,

6

Environmental Assessment

because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions. The proposed action only changes the existing conditions in a very limited site-specific action. The site-specific impacts are minor in scope and limited in impact, and would not be detectable at larger scales. Therefore, the cumulative effects of the proposed action are not significant for any resource area.

Soils Resource The following discussion summarizes the soils resource analysis reports completed for each allotment. The reports are located in the project record and available upon request.

Summary of Existing Conditions Legacy soil disturbance, disturbance that occurred as a result of past activities and natural disturbance, forms the foundation of the soil conditions on the landscape today. The allotments currently meet the regional soil quality standards and were found to have soil and site characteristics that are resilient with high recovery potential, except as noted in Site A in Henry Creek, and Sites B and C in Swamp Creek (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix 1). Allotment land and soil types are suited to cattle grazing, although forage production is poor to fair under a forest canopy. Primary forage areas are located in openings created either from natural conditions, along road corridors, and in openings created by timber harvest or wildfire.

Environmental Effects to Soils Soil provides a foundation for vegetation establishment and growth as well as providing for the processes of air, gas, water, and nutrient movement into and through the soil profile. These soil processes of air, gas, water, and nutrient movement are dependent on soil porosity and a consistent supply of organic matter. The key for range management is to maintain porosity and a supply of organic matter. Loss of either component may lead to an increased risk of erosion, especially as the slope increases, a loss in soil productivity, or both. Because cattle currently use a small percentage of the overall allotments and would not be encouraged to use new areas with either the no-action alternative or the proposed action, there would be no change to soil conditions over the majority of either allotment. Elk and deer would continue to graze this area so there remains some risk of soil disturbance and annual grass/forb spreading, as well as invasive species. Historic grazing, timber management, and road construction have resulted in the soil and site conditions observed today. In addition, the long history of ungulate use on the low elevation south-facing hillslopes and footslopes (Henry Creek Site A; Swamp Creek Sites A and B) and stream terraces (Swamp Creek Site C) has reduced soil biological function and vegetation

7

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

understory species diversity and has not allowed for recovery. Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Sites B and C have a lower rangeland site potential. Research has found that conservative or moderate levels of grazing may provide for native plant diversity, an increase in total basal vegetation cover, and a reduction in exotic species similar to or greater than the effect of removing grazing from the landscape (either through a rest-rotation strategy or permanent basis). Herbivores exhibit influence on soil carbon by modifying the patterns of decomposition or changing the amount and patterns of input (e.g., vegetation species or litter amounts). The primary mechanism by which decomposition rates are changed is through a decrease in soil moisture; most decomposition occurs with moist soils and cool soil temperatures. In Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Site C, a combination of cattle- related effects, timber management, and milling operations has modified decomposition rates. At Henry Creek Sites B and C where cattle use is moderate and utilization approaches 60-80 percent, decomposition rates and nutrient cycling is retarded. Under the proposed action, these rates would improve slowly over time. The application of grazing best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures would afford protections to soil resources as well as meet standards and guidelines in the Lolo Forest Plan, the R1 soil quality standards, and National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Range BMPs are implemented with both alternatives as part of the range allotment permitting process. Under the proposed action, additional permit administration emphasis on forage utilization and moving cattle once utilization standards have been met, means vegetation processes would allow for increased soil cover and organic matter accumulation and decomposition, as well as reduced soil erosion. As a result, the proposed action would allow for a slow improvement to soil and site conditions as compared to the no-action alternative. For the proposed action, the following summarizes the effects using Region 1 soil quality and productivity evaluation protocol.

R1 Soil Quality Standards Evaluation 1. Compaction has occurred and would not expand with the proposed action since no changes in cattle management are proposed. Cattle would continue to use old roads and skid trails or established game/cattle trails to move around the accessible portions of the allotment. 2. Rutting and displacement are not expected. The proposed action would place wood down near the spring feature on the cattle trail between Henry Creek Sites B and A, and the Swamp Creek wetland area, reducing displacement and trampling. 3. Severely burned soil is not expected, as prescribed fire is not part of the range management plan. 4. Surface erosion would remain unchanged or be slightly reduced because of close monitoring of the utilization standards and moving the cattle when utilization standards are met. 5. Mass movement at the landscape scale would not be changed.

Productivity Evaluation 1. Amount and size of the coarse rock fragments would not be altered. 2. Soil horizon development (morphology and genesis) is in a static trend at Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Site B, and would remain static because of the harsh growing conditions, even though the proposed action would leave more vegetation top growth on the site. Soil 8

Environmental Assessment

horizon development is slowly progressing in an upward trend at Swamp Creek Site C where there is an indication that a thin layer of organic matter has accrued since the last harvest entry. Elsewhere across the allotments, soil horizon development would continue at its current rate and trend. 3. Soil fertility and biological activity are functioning across the majority of the allotment. At Henry Site A and Swamp Sites B and C, they are diminished, and would continue in a static trend until soil horizon development supports late seral stage vegetation. Currently the color, limited soil aggregation, and thin root-tight organic layer and duff/litter layers is indicative of soils with low soil organic matter, low biological activity, and low inherent fertility in these areas. At Henry Creek Sites B and C and Swamp Site C, soil fertility and biological activity would improve under the proposed action as more plant material would remain on the soil surface after the grazing season. 4. Soil-water interactions would not be changed across the majority of the allotment. At Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Sites B and C, the interactions are diminished and would be altered into the future; the soils are well drained and drier than expected. The major soil limiting factor is the hot, dry surface soil environment which leads to seedling desiccation. This situation would continue until Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Sites B and C supports tree growth with a canopy cover sufficient to break up wind and solar evaporation and a soil organic layer has formed to hold moisture. Secondarily, soil biological function, soil organic matter, and nutrient availability are limiting site evolution for these sites. Weed management and monitoring forage utilization would improve the conditions at Henry Creek Site A as vegetation evolves to later seral stages and more vegetation is left on the soil surface. 5. Coarse woody material is adequate across most of the allotment; exceptions occur in Henry Creek Area A and Swamp Creek Areas A and a portion of C. Down solid and soil wood is critical for improving site and soil conditions in Henry Creek Area A and Swamp Creek Areas A, B and C. The proposed action would increase the amount of large woody material only where wood is used to direct cattle movement. 6. Ground-cover vegetation is adequate across most of the allotment and would increase slowly at all Sites in both allotments because utilization monitoring and moving of the cattle after utilization standards have been met. 7. Invasive species are common and would persist in Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Sites B and C. In Swamp Creek Site C with continued canopy closure, invasive species would gradually reduce since they are less competitive under dense tree canopy. Weed treatments and monitoring are currently done and would continue along system roads and be initiated in Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Site D.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Both allotments currently comply and would continue to comply with the Lolo Forest Plan, the R1 soil quality standards, and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) for soil resource protection and conservation, based on the analysis and conclusions documented in the soils specialist reports and summarized in the preceding section. The rate or trend of soil development, vegetation community growth and seral stage development and surface erosion would continue at the present rate under the no-action alternative. Static or slowly improving trends would be realized for the specified sites in either alternative for both

9

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

allotments, while all other areas within the allotments outside of these sites would continue to exhibit a positive, upward trend. Landscape-scale mass movement was not observed and the mass movement risk would not change with implementation of this alternative. The proposed action is consistent with the goals, objectives, and standards for soil resources set forth in the Lolo Forest Plan because project design criteria and mitigation have been included to protect soil resources. In addition, the Forest soil scientist has been involved in project planning and will work through implementation and monitoring to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of soil resources. The Forest soil scientist visited the sites with the Forest Service planning team as well as independently to develop site-specific prescriptions. Using this data, the soil scientist was able to plan, design, and prepare implementation measures to protect soil productivity, minimize soil loss caused by accelerated surface erosion or mass wasting, and protect water quality by controlling surface erosion. Forest Service Manual 2500-99-1 establishes guidelines to limit detrimental soil disturbance. This guidance requires that soil properties and site characteristics be managed in a manner consistent with the maintenance of long-term soil productivity, soil hydrologic function, and ecosystem health. The proposed action would meet the R1 soil quality standards because the soil conditions would not be changed with project implementation. In fact, soil condition would be improved because of proposed resource protection measures. This proposal would provide the building blocks for soil development (for example, aggregate formation, soil horizon development, the addition of soil organic matter) and vegetation growth. The National Forest Management Act requires that all lands be managed to ensure maintenance of long-term soil productivity, hydrologic function, and ecosystem health. The proposed action is consistent with this direction. The majority of the allotment is functioning properly related to soil and groundcover vegetation. Exceptions occur and have been disclosed in Henry Creek and Swamp Creek Sites A, B, and C. The proposed design criteria would improve soil recovery and resiliency in Sites A, B, and C in the long-term. Soil conditions at Henry Creek Site A and Swamp Creek Site B would remain static because of the harsh growing conditions, until soil horizon development supports late seral stage vegetation. Upland surface erosion would not change from the existing condition.

Hydrology and Fisheries These resource areas were combined for analysis purposes, and are documented in the fisheries and hydrology report completed for each allotment. The reports are located in the project record and available upon request.

Summary of Existing Conditions Henry Creek Watershed Within the Henry Creek Grazing Allotment boundary, the main forage areas are found in lower gradient open areas such as the upper northern and upper eastern portions of the allotment. Access between these areas follows a portion of the upper riparian corridor of the Henry Creek (T20N, R25W, Sections 23 and 26). Of the 34 mapped stream miles in the Henry Creek watershed, the primary grazing activity within the Forest Service allotment currently occurs along less than a

10

Environmental Assessment

half mile of upper Henry Creek and along less than 100 feet of the far northwest headwater tributary to Henry Creek. Wetlands observed in the Henry Creek watershed during the hydrology and fisheries inventories were primarily associated with riparian areas, although a few isolated seeps were located in the saddle between Henry Peak and the southern headwaters of Henry Creek. For the most part, current grazing activity on National Forest System lands in wetland areas on the Henry Creek Allotment is within acceptable use levels. However, excessive grazing use within a seep area adjacent to Henry Creek was documented in T20N, R25W, Section 23, SW of SE ¼ (less than ½ acre). Cattle likely congregate in this area as it provides a source of water once the creek goes dry (post-runoff). Wetland functions at this site are impacted by hoof shear and heavy browsing of riparian vegetation. This necessitates the current proposal for selective tree felling to keep cattle out of this area and allow for wetland functions to recover. In conjunction with the use observed at the seep in Section 23, cattle trails exist along about ½ mile of the upper riparian corridor of Henry Creek and cross the creek in about five places (T20N, R25W, Sections 23 and 26). The majority of this section of Henry Creek is intermittent and the channel is relatively narrow, shallow and well armored with cobble and gravels. The creek is slightly overwidened at the observed crossings, and a few segments of the trails likely deliver fine sediments during runoff. Reducing the length of trail adjacent to the creek and limiting the use to one crossing is currently proposed. Also just downstream of the cattle trails, an old fence crosses Henry Creek in two locations and the fence is blocking bedload movement. Removal of the fence is proposed to correct the aggradation and overwidening that is occurring from this obstruction. Additional cattle use was observed in only one other stream/riparian area of the allotment in the far northwest headwater tributary to Henry Creek (T20N, R25W, Section 22). There is a stockwatering tank located above Road 17382, which is about 100 feet away from the adjacent stream channel. The stream appears to be perennial in this section and is very steep, narrow, and shallow. Hoof shear and pockmarks were observed along the riparian corridor, but appeared to have little detrimental effect beyond slight compaction and micro-pedestaling (less than 100 feet of total disturbance). Additionally, vegetation was abundant in this area, which reduced the amount of bare ground. Overall, grazing impacts within the allotment appeared to have minor effects on stream stability, water quality, and fisheries habitat. According to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ’s) 2010 303(d) list, Henry Creek is only partially supporting the beneficial uses of aquatic life, cold water fisheries, and primary contact recreation. The impairment listing covers the entire length of Henry Creek, and just under half of the stream falls within the boundary of the Henry Creek Grazing Allotment (upper portion). Henry Creek is listed for impairment caused by alteration in streamside or littoral vegetative covers, low flow alterations, total phosphorous, sediment/siltation, and total nitrogen. Listed sources of impairment are channelization, forest roads, grazing, water diversion, and unknown. The DEQ assessment notes that conditions associated with grazing have been improving in the Henry Creek Allotment due to Forest Service management changes post 1991, when a 73 percent reduction in AUMs was implemented and grazing was eliminated along the lower 1½ miles of Henry Creek (within the allotment boundary). Sediment and nutrient TMDL1

1

Total maximum daily load: The sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background, and a margin of safety. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other appropriate measures that relate to a state's water quality standard. (Source: EPA http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/glossary.cfm#t)

11

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

allocations will be developed for Henry Creek under the Central Clark Fork Basin Tributaries planning process and are scheduled to be completed by 2014. Bull trout have not been sampled in Henry Creek or its tributaries and may not currently exist within this stream. However, historically they likely populated this stream. Currently the culvert under the freeway near the Clark Fork River is a barrier to fish passage. Henry Creek contains westslope cutthroat trout (surveys completed by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 2002 detected only westslope cutthroat trout). Genetic testing conducted by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 2002 determined that westslope cutthroat trout were genetically pure in Henry Creek.

Swamp Creek Watershed Within the Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment boundary, there is very little open range because much of the landscape is heavily forested. The main forage areas are located in the lower portion of the allotment, adjacent to private, State, and Plum Creek lands (T20N, R27W, Sections 23 and 14). Of the 100 mapped stream miles in the Swamp Creek Watershed, the primary grazing activity within the Forest Service allotment currently occurs along less than 1 mile of the lower West Fork Swamp Creek and along less than ½ mile of the lower East Fork of Swamp Creek. Wetlands observed in the Swamp Creek Watershed during the hydrology and fisheries inventories were associated with riparian areas. For the most part, current grazing activity on National Forest System lands in wetland areas on the Swamp Creek Allotment is within acceptable use levels. However, excessive grazing use of a wetland along an unnamed intermittent tributary to Swamp Creek was documented in T20N, R27W, Section14, SE1/4 of SW1/4 (approximately 2-3 acres). Cattle tend to stay in this area as it is shaded, wet, and close to the property where the cows move to at the end of the season. Wetland functions at this site are impacted by hoof shear and heavy browsing of riparian vegetation. This necessitates the current proposal for fencing and construction of a water tank to keep cattle out of this area and allow for wetland functions to recover. Aside from the use observed at the wetland site in Section 14, the 2011 surveys in the Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment found that streams and riparian areas were relatively undisturbed in the higher elevation areas. Slight grazing disturbances were noted in the stream riparian/floodplain area near the confluence of the West Fork Swamp Creek with the East Fork Swamp Creek. Hoof shear and pockmarks were observed in some wetter areas, along riparian corridors, and in large open “pasture” areas, but appeared to have little effect on stream stability, water quality, and fisheries habitat. Vegetation was abundant in this area and as expected for most areas, which negated the erosional effect often associated with overgrazing. Tributaries to Swamp Creek (West Fork, East Fork and Bemish Creek) all contain westslope cutthroat trout and varying densities of brook trout, with the highest densities of brook trout occurring in the West Fork. In general, westslope cutthroat trout are seen higher in the drainage. Genetic testing conducted by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the 1990s determined that westslope cutthroat trout were genetically pure in the West Fork Swamp Creek and Bemish Creek, and are expected to be genetically pure in East Fork Swamp Creek. Bull trout have not been sampled in Swamp Creek or its tributaries and may not currently exist within this stream. However, historically they likely populated this stream system.

12

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Effects to Hydrology and Fisheries The no-action alternative fulfills regulatory and Forest Plan direction by managing grazing use on National Forest System lands through the range allotment permitting process. Aside from newly proposed resource protection measures, the no-action alternative is essentially the same as the proposed action. Both alternatives would maintain the existing condition, except that wetland protection measures under the proposed action would provide a site-specific improvement over the no action alternative. For both alternatives, permit administration would be emphasized to ensure utilization standards are achieved. Bull trout have not been sampled anywhere in Swamp or Henry Creek and thus are believed to not be present or impacted. Westslope cutthroat trout are present in both Henry and Swamp Creek. With the exception of a few localized areas, cattle in the allotments appear to not be using stream bottoms because of the dense vegetation in these areas. The risk of trampling to spawning sites while there are eggs and/or alevins within the stream gravels is very low. Indirect effects associated with habitat and channel degradation would be minimized to acceptable levels with the implementation of resources protection measures identified in the proposed action. Water temperatures, sediment, and chemical contamination/nutrients are the indicators for water quality. Implementation of resource protection measures around the wetland in section 14 in Swamp Creek would have a site-specific benefit to the wetland, but would not make any improvements to bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitat. There would be no change to water temperature, sediment, and chemical contamination/nutrients from the reissuance of this permit. Field reviews in the Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment show the cattle are only using riparian areas in very localized areas (less than 2 percent of the total watershed stream miles) and impacts are negligible at these sites. Implementation of resource protection measures near Henry Creek in Sections 23 and 26 (Henry Creek Sites A and B) would have site-specific benefit in sediment and stream temperature reduction. Through the reestablishment of stable banks, the stream function would be allowed to return to desirable conditions, which would further reduce sedimentation and maintain stream temperature, at least at the site-specific scale. At the stream level these improvements may not be measurable but would likely result in a small benefit to the overall watershed. Cattle would not be encouraged to use additional riparian areas within either allotment under either alternative. Under the proposed action, streambank conditions would be improved locally in Henry Creek where tree felling is proposed to mitigate cattle trampling and trailing in the riparian area (Sites A and B). It is expected that the proposed mitigations should be effective at this location and that width/depth ratios and floodplain connectivity should be recovered in 3 to 5 years. No changes are anticipated in Swamp Creek due to the dense riparian vegetation that precludes grazing in these areas. The resource protection measures identified in the proposed action for both allotments would result in site-specific localized improvements in watershed and fisheries habitat conditions. These improvements are localized, and would not be measurable at higher scales; therefore, cumulative effects would be localized and beneficial. The proposed action for both allotments complies with the riparian management objectives along with the standards and guides specified in the 1995 Decision Notice of the Inland Native Fish Strategy. This conclusion is based on no change to the previous grazing permit and under the proposed action, implementation of resource protection measures near Henry Creek in Sections 23 and 26 (Sites A and B) and the wetland in Section 14 of Swamp Creek (Site D).

13

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

The Clark Fork River has been designated as bull trout critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is no critical habitat within the boundary of either allotment. Since critical habitat is over 1 mile downstream and the grazing impacts limited by season of use, riparian fencing or tree felling, there would be no impact to Clark Fork River bull trout critical habitat. There would be no effects to bull trout or westslope cutthroat trout as the proposed action would result in localized, site-specific improvements of watershed and fisheries habitat.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Both alternatives in both allotments meet aquatic related Forest Plan standards and legal requirements; however, the resource protection measures included in the proposed action would provide a site specific improvement over the no-action alternative. Permit administration for both alternatives would ensure that utilization standards are achieved, thereby preventing degradation to fisheries and water resources.

Invasive Species The following section summarizes the analysis and conclusions documented in the invasive species specialist report completed for these allotments, located in the project record and available upon request.

Summary of Existing Conditions Currently, weed populations in the Henry and Swamp Creek drainages are extensive and in some areas at very high concentrations. Past road construction, timber harvest activities, and wildfire have contributed to the spread of weeds. Existing roads have contributed to some spread of weeds into the surrounding forest. Grazing also seems to have contributed to the spread of weeds, especially houndstongue, along roads and into the forest to a small extent. In the key areas of the allotments (Appendix 1), weeds exist to varying degrees ranging from a few plants to 25-50 percent ground cover. The weed composition in these key areas consists predominantly of spotted knapweed, with minor populations of St. Johnswort, whitetop, sulfur cinquefoil, meadow hawkweed complex, Dalmation toadflax, leafy spurge, houndstongue and cheatgrass. Roadside herbicide treatments in the Henry Creek and Swamp Creek drainages have occurred multiple times over the last ten years. Treatments have reduced the weed populations to manageable levels along these roads. Biological controls have been released at multiple locations in the Henry Creek drainage over the last 20 years. The controls were for spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, Dalmation toadflax, and St. Johnswort having varying degrees of effectiveness.

Environmental Effects to Invasive Species The proposed action is essentially the same as the no-action alternative, except that it includes site-specific improvements to protect riparian areas and treats specific weed-infested areas. Livestock grazing serves as a mechanism to spread existing weeds to uninfested areas. The degree to which weed establishment or increases in weed density is likely to occur from grazing activity increases with the severity of disturbance to the forage cover, soil and the susceptibility

14

Environmental Assessment

of the site. The risk of weed expansion or density increase for the proposed action is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of weed risk rating for the proposed action Sites

Low Overall Risk

Moderate Overall Risk

High Overall Risk

Henry Creek A

X

B

X

C

X

D

X

Roads

X Swamp Creek

A

X

B C

X X

D E Roads

X X X

Sites B and C in Henry Creek have a low overall risk based on habitat types. The weeds present in these areas are sporadic with a few moderately infested areas (percent cover of 10 to 20 percent). These weeds are not very robust and at population levels that would not threaten the native communities. Sites A and D in Henry Creek have a moderate overall risk based on habitat types. Site A is heavily infested with knapweed and sulfur cinquefoil because of past disturbance (old mill site) and lack of tree and shrub canopy. The proposed action includes a resource protection measure to spray Site A with herbicide to reduce existing weed populations as part of the district weed management program. Site D has sporadic weeds and the road in this area has been sprayed multiple times in previous years. Spraying in Site A would reduce overall infestations, allowing for native species to recover and expand. The roads in Henry Creek (not including the portion of the road through private lands in the bottom of the drainage) have a moderate overall risk based on habitat types and a vector of weed spread. These roads have been sprayed multiple times in previous years. Sites A, C, and E in Swamp Creek have a low overall risk rating based on habitat types. The weeds present in these areas are sporadic with a few moderately infested areas (percent cover of 10 to 20 percent). Site B in Swamp Creek has a high overall rating based on habitat types. There is a heavy infestation of knapweed and cheatgrass in this area. There is little evidence that livestock graze this area much. The probability that livestock will use this area in the future is low because of the lack of palatable forage in the area. Site D in Swamp Creek has a low overall rating based on habitat types. This area does have a heavy infestation of houndstongue in and around a riparian area. Livestock or wildlife likely

15

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

transported this weed into the area. Under the proposed action, this area would be treated with herbicide as part of the district weed management program to reduce existing weed populations, allowing native vegetation to expand. The roads in Swamp Creek have a moderate overall risk based on habitat types and a vector of weed spread. These roads have been sprayed multiple times in previous years.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This is a site-specific analysis. The proposed action complies with the 1986 Lolo National Forest Plan and Lolo Forest Plan Amendment 11, which addresses weed management. This analysis focuses on specific issues pertaining to the project areas; it is not a general management plan for the project area. It provides site-specific direction for implementing the Lolo Forest Plan in compliance with NEPA requirements. Lolo Forest Plan Amendment 11 directs weed control projects to focus where they would have the greatest effect on preventing the spread of weeds or damage to natural resources and where they would have the greatest benefit to people who are actively trying to control weeds on land adjacent to the Lolo National Forest. Plan Amendment 11 further says that the priority would be given to weed control projects in areas relatively free of weeds, the roads that lead into those areas and to new infestations and small patches that threaten areas at high or moderate risk of weed invasion. The actions included in this analysis are designed to implement that direction.

Botany Resources The following section summarizes the analysis and conclusions from the botany biological evaluation report completed for these allotments. The report is located in the project record and available upon request.

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species No federally listed plant species or designated critical habitats occur on the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District or Lolo National Forest. Thus, the proposed action and no action alternative would have no effect on threatened or endangered plant species.

Sensitive Species Environmental Effects to Sensitive Species Botanical surveys were conducted on the two allotments in May-July 2011. These surveys targeted “key areas” and “key points” (primary cattle use locations) identified in the range assessments (Appendix 1). In the Swamp Creek Allotment, a previously documented clustered lady’s slipper population was revisited to determine its current condition, and a new population of western pearlflower was discovered. In addition, whitebark pine trees are located along the ridges above 6,000 feet in elevation that form the southwest and northwest boundaries of the Swamp Creek Allotment. No other sensitive plant species were found in the Swamp Creek Allotment, and none was found in the Henry Creek Allotment. Clustered lady’s slipper was in the Swamp Creek Allotment in 2008. The population of nearly 400 plants is scattered across about 30 well-drained upland acres within Sections 14 and 15, in the northeast corner of the allotment. In 2008, a handful of grazed flower stalks were observed on clustered lady’s slipper plants, but the leaves were intact; this type of occasional selective 16

Environmental Assessment

grazing is typical of deer and elk, not cattle. Cattle use of the site was not evident in 2008 or 2011. If cattle do occasionally venture through and graze the site, they are not having any discernible effects on the clustered lady’s slipper plants. The population remains large with many flowering plants. Western pearlflower was found along the West Fork Swamp Creek Road near the bottom of the Swamp Creek Allotment in Section 23. This population of about 300 plants is on sunny, disturbed soil between the road and a seasonal channel of Swamp Creek; it occupies only 0.01 acre. Light cattle use (grazing and trampling) of the site was observed in July 2011. Western pearlflower has been found on several lightly used forest roads elsewhere on the Plains/Thompson Falls and Superior Ranger Districts. The origin of these populations is “suspicious” in that they are restricted to road corridors – perhaps western pearlflower’s tiny seeds are readily transported on motor vehicles and when they fall off, they occasionally initiate new populations in road corridors. These road populations are of much lower conservation value than populations in native habitats because they are typically small, weed-infested, and restricted to heavily modified road corridors. In contrast, populations in native habitat on the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger Districts collectively contain more than 30,000 plants. The population in the Swamp Creek Allotment is not critical to the conservation of western pearlflower and it does not warrant protection measures. Most likely, this population will persist regardless of cattle use. Scattered whitebark pine trees occur in the Swamp Creek Allotment on the ridges above 6,000 feet. Livestock grazing on the Swamp Creek Allotment would have no effect on whitebark pine because cattle use of these higher elevation areas is rare to nonexistent due to the steep terrain, distance from water, limited road access, and abundant lodgepole pine blowdown. Continued grazing on the allotments would affect potential habitat for tapertip onion, diamond clarkia, clustered lady’s slipper, yellow lady’s slipper, stream orchid, and western pearlflower; however, it would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for these species. Within the allotments, cattle use would be detrimental to potential habitat for tapertip onion and diamond clarkia if it increases the spread of invasive weeds, or neutral if it does not. Potential habitat for these species would remain in the allotments, but the quality of the habitat could be reduced by invasive weed spread. Clustered lady’s slipper habitat is sufficiently shaded that invasive weeds have not been a problem, and cattle use of its habitat in the project area is limited, so the project would have neutral effects on the species. Small patches of potential habitat for yellow lady’s slipper and stream orchid in both allotments have been substantially impacted by cattle grazing and trampling; for example, in portions of the stream corridor and a seep in upper Henry Creek, and a boggy riparian area in the Swamp Creek Allotment. The resource protection measures to fell trees to reduce cattle access at the Henry Creek sites and fence the riparian area in Swamp Creek Allotment would allow native vegetation to recover from cattle use, and would improve potential habitat for yellow lady’s slipper and stream orchid. No native habitat for western pearlflower was found in either allotment, so it would not be affected. Man-made habitat for western pearlflower (seasonally wet road corridors) would be affected, for example, if cattle use contributes to invasive weed spread in road corridors. Although road corridors can contain suitable habitat patches for western pearlflower, the artificial and weedy nature of these sites minimizes their value for the species’ conservation. Although sand springbeauty habitat exists on rocky talus and cliff ledges in the Henry Creek Allotment, the proposed action and no-action alternative would have no effect on it because cattle avoid these rocky, often steep sites. 17

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forest Service sensitive plant species, identified by the regional forester, are species “for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in (1) population numbers or density and/or (2) habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution” (Forest Service Manual 2670.5). Forest Service management practices should “avoid or minimize impacts” on sensitive species to ensure they “do not become threatened or endangered species because of Forest Service actions” and to “maintain viable populations of all native species throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands” (FSM 2670.22 and 2670.32). For tapertip onion, diamond clarkia, clustered lady’s slipper, yellow lady’s slipper, stream orchid, and western pearlflower, the project may affect individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species. This determination is based on the potential for impacts due to grazing, and the beneficial impacts of the proposed resource protection measures. For sand springbeauty, whitebark pine, and all other species on the sensitive species list (which have no potential habitat in the allotments), the project will not affect the species.

Heritage Resources The following section summarizes the analysis and conclusions from the heritage report completed for these allotments. The report is located in the project record and available upon request. The Lolo National Forest contains a rich and diversified cultural history represented in prehistoric and historic sites. Prehistoric resources date to the Pinedale Ice Age in the Late Pleistocene, about 10,000 years ago. Representative prehistoric and early historic Native American sites in the geographic area include campsites, quarries and lithic scatters, rock cairns, game drives and traps, rock art, and peeled trees. This area was used by the Salish-speaking Pend d’Orielle and Kootenai peoples. These groups were nomadic, living primarily along the rivers and major drainages of the Clark Fork River, but frequenting higher elevation mountainous areas during the summer months for travel and subsistence. There are no previously recorded prehistoric cultural resource sites within the allotments. There is one previously recorded historical site (Irrigation Ditch) in Swamp Creek, and three in Henry Creek (Henry Peak Lookout, and two logging camps). There have been 13 cultural resources investigations within these two allotments for other projects since 1975, which resulted in the recordation of these sites.

Environmental Effects to Heritage Resources Qualified Forest archaeologists conducted field reconnaissance inspections. There are no significant heritage resources located within the analysis area. Continued use of the grazing allotments under the proposed action or no-action alternative would cause no effects to existing cultural resources because use would not change. Current use does not affect existing cultural resources due to location, type and occurrence.

18

Environmental Assessment

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Consistent with the Forest Plan and American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Forest Archaeologist discussed the proposed action with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Preservation Department in April 2011. Representatives from the Salish and Kootenai cultural committees expressed no concerns about cultural resources within the Allotments. The proposed action and no-action alternative are consistent with all standards for cultural resource management requirements.

Wildlife The following section summarizes the analysis and conclusions from the wildlife report completed for these allotments. The report is located in the project record and available upon request.

Environmental Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species Grizzly Bear The proposed action would have no effect on grizzly bears. The two grazing allotments are not within any Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone is the nearest area where grizzly bear populations exist. The Swamp allotment is about 2 miles from the southeastern-most tip of the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone. This portion of the recovery zone (the Mount Headley Bear Management Unit) has not had documented bears in many years. The Henry allotment is more than 10 miles from any recovery zone. Neither allotment is within any identified linkage zone. In addition, there is no recent history of any grizzly bear predation issues on either allotment.

Canada Lynx The proposed action would have no effect on Canada lynx. Although this species has been observed on rare occasions in several locations across the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District, no reliable observations have occurred within about 10 miles of either allotment. Lynx habitat was mapped in 2010 across the Lolo National Forest. This mapping was based on the best available research and forest type data. No habitat was mapped within the Henry Creek Allotment. The Henry Allotment is not within a lynx analysis unit. 2 In the Swamp Creek Allotment, there is currently 14,960 acres of mapped habitat contained within the 44,694-acre Superior Lynx Analysis Unit. Within the mapped habitat in the Swamp Creek Allotment, only about 20 acres (in two patches) of commonly grazed areas overlap lynx habitat. These two areas are mature, multistory, forested stands that likely have little grass in them except what grows on the roadsides. Thus in a very small part of the available lynx habitat, cattle may be present for up to about 2½ months under both the proposed action and no-action alternative. This would occur during mid-summer when food is more abundant for lynx. Continued grazing on the allotment would have no effect on lynx because: (1) the overlap between grazing and lynx habitat is so limited (20 acres), (2) cattle use remains almost entirely on the roadsides, and (3) all objectives and guidelines in the 2007 Northern Region Lynx Management Amendment are followed. 2

A lynx analysis unit is a mapped area of land about the size of a female lynx home range used to measure the amount of habitat available for lynx (Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 2000).

19

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

Environmental Effects to Sensitive Species Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Common Loon, Harlequin Duck, Northern Leopard Frog, Black-backed Woodpecker, Northern Bog Lemming, Townsend’s BigEared Bat The proposed action and no-action alternative would have no impact on these species because no suitable habitat for them exists within the allotments (wildlife report, pages 2-4).

Gray Wolf Gray wolves have been increasing in number in Montana for several years and were removed from the Endangered Species List in 2011. Although no wolves are radio-marked within the two grazing allotments, wolves are present to some degree in both. Wolf sign has been observed within the Swamp Allotment and within 1-2 miles of the Henry Allotment. Since 2009, wolves have been very common in Sanders County and have been observed frequently. Both alternatives would have no impact on wolves because there would be no changes in road densities, human access, or prey populations, and no disturbance to den or rendezvous sites. However, there is the potential for wolves harming cattle; therefore, there is additional risk of wolf mortality from controlled removals of depredating animals to reduce future depredations. Although this is the least-preferred option, if lethal removal of wolves is conducted, it is governed by the Montana Wolf Management Plan (2004) which insures that removals don’t place the species at risk. Thus even if some wolves are removed for depredation, the proposed action and no-action alternative would impact only individuals and not contribute to a trend toward federal listing.

Flammulated Owl Flammulated owl surveys were conducted throughout the Swamp Creek Allotment in 2010 and in the northeastern corner of the allotment in 2006 (Swamp Fuels Timber Sale area). One owl was detected in 2010 on a ridge where little cattle use has been observed. Within both allotments habitat is available on drier forested areas with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir and a welldeveloped herbaceous understory. The continuation of grazing with the proposed action and no-action alternative would continue the existing condition of having limited areas in each allotment where the understory does not develop to its potential. This would likely result in reduced moth and insect populations and therefore reduced forage for flammulated owls. However, because this would occur over a relatively small proportion of the available habitat, the proposed action and no-action alternative would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species.

Wolverine and Fisher Within the two allotments, habitat is available for both species However, according to trapping and snow-tracking records from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, neither species has been trapped (or observed) in the project areas for at least 15 to 20 years, but trapping pressure may be very sporadic. Both wolverines and fishers have been trapped or observed (tracks) in the last 10-15 years within the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District. Snow tracking and DNA hair snaring surveys in 2011 did not detect these species on the portions of the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District that were surveyed (these areas did not include the allotment areas). Both species inhabit mature

20

Environmental Assessment

coniferous forests with wolverines denning at very high elevations. Wolverines are more likely to occur in remote areas, can use a wide variety of habitats, and can travel long distances. Six areas of wolverine denning habitat exist in the highest basins of the Swamp Creek Allotment near Penrose Peak and Greenwood Hill but no use of these areas has been observed. Fishers are most likely to occur in complex and diverse stands with an abundance of dead wood, downed wood, and layers of overhead cover (often occurring in moist, coniferous stream bottom forest types). These habitats are most common along the bottoms of Swamp and Dee Creeks. The allotment areas are not large enough to support more than about 20 percent of a wolverine home range, and possibly one fisher home range each based on reported sizes of home ranges in northwest Montana, California, and Wisconsin/Michigan. The areas may be used as a portion of a larger home range, however. The proposed action and no-action alternatives would have no impact on either species due to the lack of known use in the areas and the lack of conflict related to grazing.

Coeur d’Alene Salamander The Coeur d’Alene salamander inhabits areas with cold water, moss, and fractured rock, which include mossy hillside seeps, waterfall spray zones, and high gradient streamsides. This species has not been found within Swamp and Henry Creeks although there is a possibility that they could be present. Potential impacts to the species could exist from livestock grazing that concentrates around occupied streamside habitats. To date, none of the most heavily used grazing areas appear to have suitable habitat for the species. Other areas with potentially suitable habitat are either not used by cattle, or such a small area is used for watering that the potential for impact on the salamander are practically nonexistent. Thus, the proposed action and no-action alternative would have no impact on this species.

Boreal Toad Boreal toads have been observed within a few miles of both allotments. Toads breed and live as tadpoles in many types of wetlands and after metamorphosis they move into upland areas where they can be found far from water. The greatest potential conflict with grazing within these allotments is from impact on breeding wetlands such as trampling, sedimentation, and pollution. Additionally, insignificant impacts may occur in the unlikely event that an adult toad is trampled by a cow. Because no known breeding areas exist in the allotments, and potential mortality of adult toads from trampling would not be widespread, the alternatives may impact individuals or habitat but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of species viability.

Environmental Effects to Management Indicator Species Northern Goshawk The northern goshawk is designated a management indicator species for old growth forests on the Lolo National Forest. In recent years, its habitat has been more clearly defined. Based on recent broad-scale habitat and inventory and monitoring assessments conducted in the Northern Region, breeding goshawks and associated habitats appear widely distributed and relatively abundant on national forest lands. Within the allotment areas, goshawk habitat exists throughout many of the forested stands. No goshawks have been observed in the last 10-15 years in either allotment. Several areas in the Swamp Creek Allotment were surveyed for goshawks in 2006 and 2010 and no goshawks were detected.

21

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

Since cattle grazing at current levels are not altering patterns of forest development and succession within the allotments, the proposed action and no-action alternative will not change in the amount or quality of goshawk habitat. Thus, continued grazing on these allotments would have no effect on goshawk or its habitat.

Pileated Woodpecker The Lolo Forest Plan lists pileated woodpeckers as the management indicator species for mature forest/snag habitats. The pileated woodpecker is a large woodpecker that nests and forages in larger trees specializing on carpenter ants and eating a variety of insects from within dead and dying trees. The species is common throughout the Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger District. Habitat models for the species indicate use of most forest types where trees are larger than 39 centimeters and 25 centimeters in diameter for nesting and foraging habitat respectively. On National Forest System lands in the two grazing allotments, forests trees of this size are very abundant. Pileated woodpeckers have been observed in the Swamp Allotment in 2004, 2006, and 2007. Because the existing low levels of cattle grazing have very little effect on individual trees, and even less effect on forests as a whole, there will be no alteration of pileated woodpecker habitat with either alternative. Thus, both alternatives would have no impacts on pileated woodpecker habitat.

Big Game (Elk) The Lolo Forest Plan designates elk as a management indicator species for the Forest’s ability to provide habitat for other ungulate species as well as hunting and wildlife viewing recreation opportunities for the public. Elk and cattle utilize the same type of forage. Forest Plan standard 4 (page II-9) requires that big game forage needs be met before those of domestic livestock when there are conflicts. In the Swamp Creek Allotment, there is no conflict between big game and livestock. Big game populations are at an adequate level and have been somewhat steady according to the Montana Elk Management Plan (2004) and recent surveys (MFWP 2010). Within the Henry Creek Allotment, cattle grazing may have reduced the forage availability for elk in some of the more heavily grazed areas in recent years. More stringent management of permit requirements could easily remedy the issue and allow more full growth of grasses in specific areas. This will occur beginning with the next year’s grazing season. The proposed action and no-action alternative would meet Forest Plan standards because the short livestock grazing season (2½ months) and full management of stock when they are on the allotment lands would maintain a condition where domestic livestock use and elk use can coexist without conflict.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The proposed action would have no effect on any federally listed threatened or endangered species and would not reduce the viability of any species identified as sensitive in the Forest Service Northern Region. The proposed action is consistent with the Endangered Species Act, the Lolo Forest Plan, and other laws providing direction and requirements for the management of wildlife species and habitat.

22

Environmental Assessment

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment:

Federal, State, and Local Agencies:    

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Montana Department of Natural Resources State of Montana

   

Montana Department of Environmental Quality United States Environmental Protection Agency Flathead County Commissioners Sanders County Commissioners

Tribes: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation

Others: A scoping letter was mailed to all individuals on the district scoping list, which is included in the project record. No comments were received from any agency, tribe or individual in response to the scoping notice.

23

Henry and Swamp Creek Grazing Allotment Management Plan Revision

Appendix 1 – Site Maps These site maps reference areas that were identified in the range assessments, and are referenced in the analysis.

Figure 2. Henry Creek site map

24

Environmental Assessment

Figure 3. Swamp Creek site map

25