Land Protection Plan
 

Blackfoot Valley 

Conservation Area Expansion 

February 2011 

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

922 Bootlegger Trail 

Great Falls, MT 59404-6133 

406 / 727 7400 

http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake 

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning 

P.O. Box 25486 DFC 

Denver, CO 80225 

303 / 236 4378 

303 / 236 4792 fax 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm 

CITATION 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Land Protection Plan, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 89 p. 
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, a land 

protection plan has been prepared to analyze the effects of expanding the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

in western Montana. 

■	 The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion Land Protection Plan describes the priorities for 

acquiring an additional 80,000 acres in conservation easements within an expanded project boundary of 

824,024 acres. 

Note: Information contained in the maps within this document is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership 

information may not be complete. 
Contents
 

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. iii
 

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Project Description............................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Issues ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Biological Issues Identified During Scoping.............................................................................................. 3
 

Socioeconomic Issues Identified During Scoping...................................................................................... 5
 

Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis................................................................................................. 5
 

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities .......................................................................................... 5
 

Related Actions and Activities ........................................................................................................................... 6
 

Habitat Protection and the Easement Acquisition Process ........................................................................... 6
 

Conservation Easements ..................................................................................................................................... 6
 

2 Area Description and Resources ............................................................................................................................... 9
 

Biological Environment........................................................................................................................................ 9
 

Climate............................................................................................................................................................. 9
 

Climate Change.............................................................................................................................................. 9
 

Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement.................................................................................................. 10
 

Geological Resources..................................................................................................................................... 10
 

Habitat............................................................................................................................................................. 11
 

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................... 14
 

Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................................................... 14
 

Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 15
 

Landownership............................................................................................................................................... 15
 

Property Tax ................................................................................................................................................... 15
 

Public Use and Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities ................................................................... 15
 

3 Threats to and Status of Resources........................................................................................................................... 17


 Effects on the Biological Environment.............................................................................................................. 17
 

Wildlife Habitat .............................................................................................................................................. 17
 

Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 17
 

 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment..................................................................................................... 17
 

Landownership and Land Use..................................................................................................................... 17
 

Value of Intact Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................... 17
 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development................................................................................................ 18
 

Wind Energy Development .......................................................................................................................... 18
 

Public Use ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
 

Economic Effects ........................................................................................................................................... 19


 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................................................ 19
 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................................... 19
 

Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity ............................................................................................. 19


 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 19
 

Past Actions.................................................................................................................................................... 19
 

Present Actions.............................................................................................................................................. 20
 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions................................................................................................... 21
 
ii LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

4 Project Implementation ............................................................................................................................................. 23
 

Land Protection Options...................................................................................................................................... 23
 

Action and Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 23
 

Acquisition Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 23
 

Strategic Habitat Conservation.......................................................................................................................... 24
 

Biological Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 25
 

Conservation Design ..................................................................................................................................... 27
 

Conservation Delivery .................................................................................................................................. 28
 

Monitoring and Research.............................................................................................................................. 28
 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ............................................................................................................ 30
 

Coordination........................................................................................................................................................... 30
 

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 31
 

National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................................................... 31
 

Distribution and Availability ............................................................................................................................... 31
 

Appendixes 

A Name Change Request................................................................................................................................... 33
 

B List of Plants and Animals............................................................................................................................. 37
 

C List of Endangered and Threatened Species............................................................................................. 49
 

D List of Preparers and Reviewers ................................................................................................................ 51
 

E Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................................................................................ 53
 

F Environmental Action Statement................................................................................................................ 57
 

G Environmental Compliance Certificate ...................................................................................................... 59
 

H Section 7 Biological Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 63
 

I Director’s Approval to Expand the Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area .............................. 71
 

J Public Involvement........................................................................................................................................ 75
 

Bibliography............................................................................................................................................................... 87
 

Figures

 1 Crown of the Continent ecosystem ...................................................................................................... 2


 2 Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area expansion project area ........................................................... 4


 3 Landownership in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area ............................................................ 16


 4 Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services ....................................... 18


 5 The basic strategic habitat conservation cycle................................................................................... 24


 6 Blackfoot Valley project area priorities ............................................................................................... 29


 7 Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Blackfoot Valley 


Conservation Area .................................................................................................................................. 30
 

Table

 1 Summary of annual operating costs and salaries associated with the economic 


 impacts of conservation easements in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area expansion ........ 19


 2 Summary of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projects for the Crown of the 


Continent ecosystem............................................................................................................................... 21
 
 

Abbreviations
 

BMU bear management units 

CA conservation area 

CoCE Crown of the Continent Ecosystem 

DNRC (Montana) Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

EA environmental assessment 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GNLCC Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

GNP Glacier National Park 

GPS global positioning system 

LPP land protection plan 

MBTRT Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team 

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 

MFIS Montana Fisheries Information System 

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program 

NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PCTC Plum Creek Timer Company 

PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

PIF Partners in Flight 

RU Recovery Unit 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SHC strategic habitat conservation 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WPA Waterfowl Production Area 

1 Introduction
 

Sandhill cranes in forest opening. 

USFWS 

The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area (CA), 

formally the Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management 

Area (see chapter 1, Issues Not Selected for 

Detailed Analysis, Nomenclature), is one of the last 

undeveloped, low elevation river valley ecosystems 

in western Montana. It is part of the Crown of 

the Continent ecosystem (CoCE), which includes 

the larger Columbia Basin and Upper Missouri/ 

Yellowstone Rivers watersheds (figure 1). 

Within the CoCE, an exceptional diversity of 

wetland types occurs including: major riparian areas, 

smaller riparian tributaries, glacial prairie potholes, 

lakes, bogs, fens, swamps, and boreal peatlands. 

The lowlands support over 170 different species of 

wetland plants. 

In the Blackfoot Valley, wetland densities exceed 

100 basins per square mile. The project area includes 

over 34,000 miles of rivers, creeks, and streams. 

Along the elevation gradient, large expanses of 

fescue grasslands phase into alpine meadows 

or sagebrush steppe, which then transition into 

montane forests consisting of white pine, Douglasfir, and ponderosa pine. These transitional zones 

of valley floors to montane forests are extremely 

important to fish and wildlife.
 

The continued presence of this large expanse of 

intact habitat and historical wildlife corridors will 

benefit federal trust species such as grizzly bear, 

gray wolf, wolverine, pine marten, and Canada lynx; 

migratory birds such as harlequin ducks, red-necked 

grebes, Brewer’s sparrow, black tern, olive-sided 

flycatcher, peregrine falcons, greater sandhill cranes, 

and trumpeter swans; and fish such as bull trout. The 

Blackfoot Valley CA provides excellent habitat for 

black bear, elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, 

mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, wolverine, fisher, and a 

wide variety of small mammals. 

Trumpeter swan. 

USFWS 
2 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Figure 1. Crown of the Continent ecosystem.
 
Chapter 1 —Introduction 3 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The Blackfoot Valley CA easement project is a 

landscape conservation strategy to protect one of 

the last undeveloped, low-elevation river valley 

ecosystems in western Montana (see figure 2). The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will expand 

the existing boundary of the Blackfoot Valley 

Conservation Area from 165,000 to 824,024 acres. 

The Blackfoot Valley provides a vital habitat corridor 

between existing U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

boundaries, Bureau of Land Management properties, 

state wildlife management areas, Service waterfowl 

production areas, Nature Conservancy easements, 

Service conservation easements, and Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife (PFW) projects. A protection 

project based on obtaining conservation easements 

began in the Blackfoot Valley in 1994, and it has 

experienced a great deal of support and success. 

There is new opportunity in the Blackfoot River 

Valley for easements that lie outside of the existing 

boundary. The expansion involves the acquisition 

of up to an additional 80,000 acres of conservation 

easements from willing sellers on private land 

within the watershed. The project also continues to 

complement other components of a broad partnership 

known as the “Blackfoot Challenge.” 

The Blackfoot Valley CA project area encompasses 

an 824,024 acre ecosystem that includes portions of 

Missoula, Powell, and Lewis and Clark counties (see 

figure 2). The parts of these counties make up the 

Blackfoot River watershed in western Montana. The 

watershed is bordered to the east by the Continental 

Divide, to the south by the Garnet Mountains, to the 

north by the Bob Marshall and Lincoln-Scapegoat 

wilderness areas, and to the west by the Rattlesnake 

Wilderness Area. 

The watershed is located at the southern edge of 

the CoCE, a 10 million acre area of the Northern 

Rocky Mountains that extends north into Canada 

and includes Waterton-Glacier International Peace 

Park, Canada’s Castle Wilderness, the Bob MarshallGreat Bear-Scapegoat Wilderness Complex, parts 

of the Flathead and Blackfeet Indian Reservations, 

Bureau of Land Management lands and significant 

acreage of state and private lands. The watershed 

provides critical connections between the CoCE and 

the Selway/Bitterroot ecosystem to the south. The 

center of the project area lies about 55 miles east of 

Missoula. 

ISSUES 

Public involvement was initiated for the proposed 

expansion of the conservation easement project in 

the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area in May 2010. 

A media contact list was compiled and news releases 

and factsheets were developed and distributed to 

media outlets, local organizations, elected officials, 

and interested parties. The news releases and 

factsheets described the proposed expansion of 

the conservation easement project, and announced 

an open house to gather input from the public. 

Personal outreach efforts were made with county 

commissioners and other persons of interest. 

Scoping was conducted during a public open house, 

on May 19, 2010; 7-9 p.m. at the Ovando School, 108 

Birch Street, in Ovando, Montana. The purpose of 

scoping was to seek input from the public regarding 

the proposed expansion of the conservation easement 

project, and to identify the issues that needed to be 

addressed in the planning process. Fifteen people 

attended the open house. Five individuals, two 

agencies, and two organizations provided comments 

during the scoping period. 

Many of the comments received addressed the 

need for a balance between natural and cultural 

systems. The two main categories of commonly 

expressed issues and concerns were biological and 

socioeconomic. 

BIOLOGICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED 

DURING SCOPING 

The biological issues mentioned were 

■	 the impacts of habitat fragmentation due to 

residential development; 

■	 concerns about the effect of habitat 

fragmentation on wildlife habitat and water 

resources. 

Wildlife Habitat 

Habitat fragmentation is a concern not only in the 

Blackfoot Valley, but also in other areas of Montana. 

Given the current strong market for scenic western 

properties, especially when cattle prices are low, 

there was concern that ranches in the Blackfoot 

Valley will be vulnerable to sale and subdivision for 

residential and commercial development. 

Housing development, and the associated 

infrastructure, can disrupt wildlife migration 

patterns. Nesting raptors and grassland bird 

species may be especially vulnerable to habitat 

fragmentation in the Blackfoot Valley. 

Riparian habitat loss due to development was a key 

concern. Riparian habitat is a key component to 

grizzly bear movement between the mountains and 

valley. Livestock grazing and ranching practices 

tend to be compatible with grizzly bears, which move 

unimpeded up and down riparian corridors. Riparian 

areas also provide nest sites for many species of 

migratory birds that may be negatively impacted by 

development. 
4 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Figure 2. Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area expansion project area.
 
Chapter 1 —Introduction 5 

Water Resources 

Residential development in the Blackfoot Valley 

presents a potentially significant threat to the 

aquatic ecosystem. Housing developments can bring 

about sewage-derived nutrient additions to streams 

and lakes, additional wetland drainage, water 

diversion, and introduction of invasive species. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES IDENTIFIED 

DURING SCOPING 

Socioeconomic issues mentioned were 

■	 the need to keep private land in private 


ownership;
 

■	 the impacts of conservation easements on local 

community centers and their ability to grow; 

■	 public access for hunting or other recreational 

opportunities. 

Landownership and Land Use 

There was concern that perpetual easements will 

negatively affect future generations of landowners. 

Specifically, the concern was that conservation 

easements will limit the choices of future landowners, 

even though they may have paid as much for the land 

as if it had no restrictions. 

There was concern that perpetual easements will 

lower the resale value of the land. 

There was concern that the selection process will 

favor landowners whose properties are larger in size 

over smaller, but biologically valuable, properties. 

Concern also exists over “boxing in” rural 

communities which could limit the opportunity for 

development. Suggestions included the placement of 

a no-easement buffer around rural communities to 

ensure potential growth. 

Public Use 

The public’s right to use or access lands encumbered 

with a conservation easement was a concern. 

Landowners are concerned they will be forced to 

allow the public to access their land for hunting, 

fishing, or other recreational uses. 

ISSUES NOT SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS 

There were two issues that were not analyzed, 

property tax and nomenclature. 

Property Tax 

Historically, there has been concern about the 

amount of tax generated to the counties when land 

protection projects take place. Lands encumbered 

by a conservation easement remain in private 

ownership. Property taxes paid by the landowner to 

the county are not affected. 

Development of rural landscapes often leads to 

increased demand for services and higher costs to 

rural counties. There will generally be an offset 

of any perceived reduction in the tax base since 

the county will not incur the expense of providing 

services to rural developments. The use of 

conservation easements serves an additional function 

since easements preclude the necessity for county 

zoning in the project area. 

Nomenclature 

During the scoping for this project, it became 

apparent that the name “Blackfoot Valley Wildlife 

Management Area” causes confusion among the 

public, local agencies, and organizations. Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) commonly use 

the term “wildlife management area” to designate 

wildlife areas that are managed by the state. 

When both the Service and MFWP use this term, 

many people are confused about which agency is 

responsible for managing the area. 

The naming of National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS) units is an internal administrative action, 

and does not require an environmental analysis 

under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). The planning team pursued a name change 

for this unit in a separate administrative process 

from the environmental assessment (EA) and land 

protection plan (LPP). 

The team recommended the new name for this unit to 

be the “Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area” which 

is consistent with other easement projects in the 

NWRS. A memorandum from the Regional Director 

was submitted to the Director of the Service along 

with a Service Organization Code/Name Request 

Form for approval and concurrence. The name 

change was approved on September 30, 2010 (see 

appendix A, Name Change Request). 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM AND AUTHORITIES 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to preserve a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. The Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

expansion project will be administered as part of 

the Refuge System in accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

and other relevant legislation, executive orders, 

regulations, and policies. 

Conservation of additional wildlife habitat in 
6 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

the Blackfoot Valley region will also continue 

to be consistent with the following policies and 

management plans: 

■	 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965) 

■	 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) 

■	 Endangered Species Act (1973) 

■	 Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) 

■	 Migratory Nongame Birds of Management 

Concern in the U.S. (2002) 

■	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

■	 North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(1994) 

RELATED ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES 

Landownership in the watershed is 54% federal 

(U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management), 10% state (Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and University of 

Montana), 31% private, and 5% by corporate timber 

company (Plum Creek Timber Company). Most of the 

middle and high elevation forested lands within the 

watershed are administered by the USFS. Private 

lands are concentrated in the low elevation portions 

of the watershed. Landownership patterns in the 

watershed have changed in recent years due to largescale transfers of Plum Creek Timber Company 

(PCTC) lands. 

In 2002, the Blackfoot Challenge initiated a threephase landscape-level effort to protect, restore, 

and enhance 37,000 acres of biologically significant 

wetlands (5,310 acres) and associated uplands 

(31,690 acres) for migratory birds and other wildlife 

species by 2015. The Blackfoot Watershed I, 

Montana Project was completed in 2007, resulting in 

protection, restoration, and enhancement of a total of 

16,794 acres (3,027 acres of wetland and 13,767 acres 

of associated upland). The Blackfoot Watershed II, 

Montana Project is currently in progress. 

In 2003, the Blackfoot Challenge and The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) initiated the Blackfoot 

Community Project, which involved the purchase 

and resale of 89,215 acres of PCTC lands based on 

a community-driven disposition plan. The lands 

encompassed all PCTC lands from the Blackfoot 

River headwaters near Rogers Pass to the 

Clearwater drainage. Approximately 75% of the 

lands have been or will be transferred into federal or 

state ownership, and 25% into private ownership. 

In 2008, the Nature Conservancy and the Trust 

for Public Land entered into another agreement 

with PCTC called the Montana Legacy Project, to 

purchase 312,500 acres of timberland in western 

Montana. As part of the Montana Legacy Project, a 

total of 71,754 acres in the Clearwater and Potomac 

valleys of the watershed will be purchased and 

resold to public agencies and/or private buyers. The 

majority of these lands are intended to be resold 

to the USFS and Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation (DNRC). 

In 2009, the Blackfoot Challenge and Trout 

Unlimited prepared a Blackfoot Sub-basin Plan for 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

The vision for the Blackfoot Sub-basin is for a 

place characterized by dynamic natural processes 

that create and sustain diverse and resilient 

communities of native fish and wildlife, and the 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats on which they 

depend, thereby assuring substantial ecological, 

economic, and cultural benefits. The efforts to 

conserve and enhance those natural resources will 

be implemented through a cooperative partnership 

between public and private interests that will seek 

to sustain not only those natural resources, but the 

rural way of life of the Blackfoot River Valley for 

present and future generations (Blackfoot Challenge 

and Trout Unlimited 2009). Expansion of the 

Service’s easement project boundary supports and 

complements this vision. 

HABITAT PROTECTION AND THE 

EASEMENT ACQUISITION PROCESS 

Habitat protection will occur through the purchase 

of conservation easements. It is the long-established 

policy of the Service to acquire minimum interest 

in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat 

acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authority for the project is the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C.742 a-742j). 

The federal money used to acquire conservation 

easements is received from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, which is derived primarily from 

oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, 

motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of surplus 

federal property. There could be additional funds to 

acquire lands, waters, or interest therein through 

possible sources such as congressional appropriations 

and donations from nonprofit organizations. 

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

interest in private land are the biological significance 

of the area, the biological requirements of wildlife 

species of management concern, existing and 

anticipated threats to wildlife resources, and 

landowner interest in the project. The purchase of 

conservation easements will occur with willing sellers 

only, and will be subject to available funding. 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 

The easement program is a conservation 

tool, complementing other efforts in the area. 

Conservation easements are the most cost-effective 

and socially acceptable means to ensure protection of 
important habitats within the project area. 

Fee-title acquisition is not required for, nor is it 

preferable to conservation easements to achieve 

habitat protection. Fee-title acquisition will triple or 

quadruple the cost of land acquisition, add significant 

increases in management costs, and may not be 

accepted by landowners. 

Chapter 1 —Introduction 7 

A strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, with ranching as 

the dominant land use, is one of the key components 

for ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource 

protection. Conservation easements are a viable 

means to protect wildlife values on a landscape scale. 

2 Area Description and Resources


This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and 

socioeconomic resources most likely affected by 

expanding the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area. 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

In this section climate; climate change; adaptation, 

mitigation, and engagement; responses to climate 

change; geologic resources; habitat; and wildlife of 

the Blackfoot Valley are discussed. 

CLIMATE 

The climate is generally cool and dry, but there is 

considerable variability corresponding to the east– 

west elevational gradient that greatly influences 

vegetation and habitat. The average maximum 

temperature is 54°F with the coldest minimum 

temperatures in January (5oF). July and August are 

the warmest months with an average high around 

81oF and a low near 40oF. On average, the warmest 

month is July, and the coldest month is January. The 

highest recorded temperature was 99°F in 2003 and 

the lowest recorded temperature was -48°F in 1982. 

The Blackfoot Valley receives between 12 and 16 

inches annual precipitation, while western parts of 

the Flathead/Mission Valley tend to be drier. The 

Ovando area receives 17 inches average annual 

precipitation, with average annual snowfall of 79 

inches. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change is the pre-eminent issue for 

conservation in future decades. Current trends in 

climate change are expected to affect high mountain 

ecotypes and lower elevation, snowmelt-dependent 

watersheds, such as those found in the Blackfoot 

Valley CA project area, more acutely than some 

other landscape ecotypes. 

Predictions regarding the specific effects of climate 

change in the Blackfoot Valley are in the early 

stages. Empirical data indicates that during the 

20th century, the region has grown warmer, and 

in some areas drier. Annual average temperature 

has increased 1–3 degrees over most of the region. 

This seemingly modest increase masks much larger 

shifts in minimum winter temperatures (10°F) 

and maximum summer temperatures (7°F). In 

the “2007 Introduction to the Summary for Policy 

Makers Synthesis Report,” the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change described that average 

air temperatures may rise by up to six degrees 

by the end of this century according to regionally 

downscaled models from the Pacific Northwest 

(USFWS 2009b). 

Changes in temperature and precipitation are 

expected to decrease snowpack and will affect 

streamflow and water quality throughout the 

CoCE. Warmer temperatures will result in more 

winter precipitation falling as rain rather than snow 

throughout much of the region particularly in midelevation basins where average winter temperatures 

are near freezing. This will result in 

■	 less winter snow accumulation; 

■	 higher winter streamflows; 

■	 earlier spring snowmelt; 

■	 earlier peak spring streamflow and lower 

summer streamflows in rivers that depend on 

snowmelt (USFWS 2009b). 

As glaciers and alpine snow fields melt and winters 

warm in Montana, specialized habitat for fish and 

wildlife species is expected to diminish. Snow 

conditions that facilitate hunting success for forest 

carnivores, such as Canada lynx, are now changing 

due to winter warming (Stenseth 2004). High 

elevation forest plants such as whitebark pine, an 

important food source for grizzly bears and other 

birds and mammals throughout the Crown of the 

Continent and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems 

(Kendall and Arno 1989), will also be negatively 

impacted by winter warming. Whitebark pine is 

susceptible to increased mortality as the incidence of 

drought, high elevation wildfire, and mountain pine 

beetle attacks, all associated with a warming climate, 

increase (Hanna et al. 2009). 

This warming may also have impacts on grizzly 

bears. Important food resources are expected to 

decline as warming causes an increase in whitebark 

pine blister rust, reducing the availability of the 

pine to bears. This may result in shifts in foraging 

elevations and potential increase in grizzly bear 

conflict with humans and livestock. 

According to Service Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, Dr. Christopher Servheen, (University 

of Montana, Missoula, MT; personal interview, 11 

June 2008) it is highly likely that grizzly bear delayed 

fall den entry dates and earlier spring emergence 

dates will begin occurring in Blackfoot Valley and 
10 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

other portions of the CoCE as they have in the 

Greater Yellowstone area, related to climate change. 

This will also potentially increase the likelihood of 

human-caused mortality from increased encounters 

(Endangered Species Coalition 2009). 

As late summer flows are affected by global 

warming, fewer rivers will be able to supply the 

ample cold water that is required by species such as 

bull trout. Bull trout distribution is expected to be 

negatively impacted by the heightened ambient air 

temperatures (Endangered Species Coalition 2009). 

The impacts of climate change will extend beyond the 

boundaries of any single refuge or easement project 

and will therefore require large-scale, landscapelevel solutions that extend throughout the CoCE. 

The collective goal is to build resilience in ecological 

systems and communities, so that, even as climate 

conditions change, the CoCE will continue to support 

its full range of native biodiversity and ecological 

processes. Building resilience includes maintaining 

intact, interconnected landscapes, and restoring 

fragmented or degraded habitats. 

ADAPTATION, MITIGATION, AND ENGAGEMENT 

The Service’s strategic response to climate change 

involves three core strategies: adaptation, mitigation, 

and engagement (USFWS 2009b). 

Through adaptation, the impacts of climate change 

on wildlife can be reduced by conserving habitats 

expected to be resilient. Increased landscape 

connectivity is one of the most effective methods 

to help wildlife adapt to climate change. Large 

landscapes, especially those within mountains, and 

the ability to move between them, provide the 

best chances for plant and animal species, as well 

as ecosystems and ecological processes, to survive 

changing conditions. The ability to migrate to higher 

latitudes, higher elevations, or cooler exposures can 

make possible the successful adaptation of plants 

and animals. The Yellowstone to Yukon ecosystem, 

which includes the CoCE, is the most intact mountain 

ecosystem remaining on earth and is one of the 

world’s few remaining areas with the geographic 

variety and biological diversity to accommodate 

the wide-scale adaptive responses that might allow 

whole populations of animals and plants to survive 

(Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative 2009). 

One of the results of changing climates is the 

alteration of the habitats upon which wildlife depend. 

Wildlife will have to adapt to changes in habitat to 

survive. Protecting and linking contiguous blocks 

of unfragmented habitat will facilitate movement of 

wildlife responding to climate change. 

Carbon sequestration forms one of the key elements 

of mitigation. The expansion of the Blackfoot Valley 

CA will protect forested areas from subdivision. 

Forests are critically important in the efforts to 

remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and 

mitigate climate change. The carbon dioxide from 

the atmosphere is absorbed by trees through 

photosynthesis and stored as carbon in tree trunks, 

branches, foliage, and roots, with oxygen as a 

byproduct. The organic matter in forest soils, such 

as the humus produced by the decomposition of dead 

plant material, also acts to store carbon. 

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, 

and partnerships to address the conservation 

challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 

2009b). The Blackfoot Valley CA is located in 

an area that is designated as a high priority for 

conservation and linkage protection by many of 

our partners including Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks; The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; 

The Nature Conservancy; The Blackfoot Challenge; 

Trout Unlimited; The Mountain Land Reliance; 

and The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative. Many of 

these organizations are involved in trans-boundary 

conservation, protecting and connecting habitat in 

the United States and Canada. Strong partnerships 

have already been developed to meet the challenges 

of climate change and wildlife resources. 

Given the level of public and private partnerships 

focused on land protection within the Blackfoot 

Valley, this landscape is arguably one of the most 

promising large-scale opportunities remaining in 

North America for species resiliency and adaptation 

in the face of climate change. 

GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Glaciation strongly influenced the current watershed 

landscape as evidenced by numerous moraines and 

associated hummocky topography, glacial pothole 

lakes, and broad expanses of flat glacial outwash 

(Whipple et al. 1987, Cox et al.1998). The watershed 

was subjected to two major periods of glaciation, 

the Bull Lake glaciation (~70,000 years ago) and 

the Pinedale glaciation (~15,000 years ago). During 

these periods, large continuous ice sheets extended 

from the mountains southward into the Blackfoot 

and Clearwater River Valleys (Witkind and Weber 

1982). During the latter part of the Pleistocene Era, 

the Blackfoot Valley was further shaped by the 

repeated filling and catastrophic draining of Glacial 

Lake Missoula, a massive lake formed by a series 

of ice dams that impounded the Clark Fork River 

downstream of Missoula. In the Blackfoot Valley, 

Glacial Lake Missoula extended upstream as far as 

Clearwater Junction (Alt and Hyndman 1986). 

When the glaciers receded, large deposits of glacial 

till, glacial outwash, and glacial lakebed sediments 

were left behind. These deposits cover much of the 

Blackfoot Valley floor, shaping the topography of 

the valley and the geomorphology of the Blackfoot 

River and the lower reaches of most tributaries. 

Glacial features evident on the landscape today 

include moraines, outwash plains, kame terraces, and 
glacial potholes. The landscape between Clearwater 

Junction and Lincoln, for example, is characterized 

by alternating areas of glacial moraines and their 

associated outwash plains. In this area, ice pouring 

down from the mountains to the north spread out to 

form large ponds of ice several miles across, known 

as piedmont glaciers. Muddy melt water draining 

from these piedmont glaciers spread sand and gravel 

across the ice-free parts of the valley floor to create 

large outwash plains. The town of Ovando sits on one 

of these smooth outwash plains (Alt and Hyndman 

1986). 

HABITAT 

Geologic, hydrologic, and geographic features in the 

Blackfoot River watershed combine to produce a 

diversity of vegetation communities including prairie 

grasslands, sagebrush steppe, coniferous forest, and 

extensive wetland and riparian areas. Over 80% of 

the watershed is covered with mixed species conifer 

forests dominated by ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch at the lower 

elevations, and subalpine-fir and spruce in the higher 

regions, especially on cool, moist, northerly aspects. 

The remaining portions of the watershed consist 

of native bunchgrass prairie (10%), agricultural 

lands (5%), and a combination of shrub lands, 

wetlands, lakes, and streams (5%). Less than 1% of 

the watershed is developed (Blackfoot Challenge 

2005). The greatest source of biological diversity 

in the watershed arises from wetland features 

such as glacial lakes, vernal ponds, fens, basin-fed 

creeks, spring creeks, marshes, and riparian areas 

(USFWS 2009a). Lesica (1994) estimates that 600 

vascular plant species occur within the watershed 

of which nearly 30% are associated with wetlands. 

The Blackfoot River watershed supports a number 

of rare plant communities. The three-tip sagebrush/ 

rough fescue plant association is common in the 

Ovando area, yet found nowhere else in the world. 

The big sagebrush/rough fescue plant association, 

endemic to west- and north-central Montana, is 

common in the Kleinschmidt Flat area. Expanses 

of the Drummond’s willow plant association occur 

in riparian swamps along Monture Creek and mud 

sedge, sharp bulrush, mannagrass, and fen peatland 

plant communities are unique to the area’s glacial 

pothole wetlands (USFWS 2009a, MTNHP 2009b). 

According to Montana Partners in Flight (PIF 2000), 

the watershed contains all of the highest priority 

habitats for bird conservation in Montana. These 

habitats include mixed grassland, sagebrush steppe, 

dry (ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir) forest, riparian 

deciduous forest, and prairie pothole wetlands. The 

watershed also contains four of the seven community 

types in greatest need of conservation, according 

to Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005). These include 

grassland complexes, mixed shrub/grass associations, 

riparian and wetland communities, and mountain 

streams. 

Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 11 

WILDLIFE 

The Blackfoot River watershed is one of the most 

biologically diverse and intact landscapes in the 

western United States. The watershed supports an 

estimated 250 species of birds, sixty-three species 

of mammals, five species of amphibians, six species 

of reptiles, and twenty-five species of fish (MTNHP 

2009a)(see appendix B, List of Plants and Animals). 

Mammals 

Because of its rural and largely intact nature, the 

watershed retains the full complement of large 

mammals, many of which have been extirpated 

from portions of their historic ranges. The Blackfoot 

River watershed provides excellent habitat for 

grizzly bear, black bear, elk, mule deer, white-tailed 

deer, mountain lion, Canada lynx, bobcat, gray wolf, 

coyote, wolverine, fisher, and a wide variety of small 

mammals. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

There are currently six reptile species in the 

Blackfoot Valley including common garter snake, 

eastern racer, northern alligator lizard, painted 

turtle, rubber boa, and terrestrial garter snake. 

(MTNHP 2009a) 

There are currently five amphibians that have 

been documented in the Blackfoot Valley including 

Columbia spotted frog, long-toed salamander, Pacific 

tree frog, Rocky Mountain tailed frog, and western 

toad. 

Garter snake. 

USFWS 

Fish 

There are currently twelve native fish species and 

thirteen nonnative fish species in the Blackfoot 

Valley watershed, as well as several hybrid salmonids 

(MFIS 2009). 
12 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Migratory and Other Birds 

The Blackfoot River watershed also provides high 

quality breeding, nesting, migratory, and wintering 

habitat for a diversity of bird species. Wetland 

complexes in the watershed provide important 

breeding habitat for twenty-one species of waterfowl: 

northern pintail, mallard, lesser scaup, wood duck, 

redhead, ring-necked duck, canvasback, American 

wigeon, Canada goose, green-winged teal, bluewinged teal, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, 

gadwall, common goldeneye, Barrow’s goldeneye, 

harlequin duck, bufflehead, hooded merganser, 

common merganser, red-breasted merganser, and 

ruddy duck. 

During the nesting season in 1995, 1996, and 1997, 

the University of Montana Wildlife Cooperative 

Unit and the Service conducted breeding-bird 

productivity studies in three separate properties 

within the Blackfoot Valley watershed, including 

the Blackfoot Waterfowl Production Area (WPA). 

Nest success (measured by the Mayfield method) for 

upland nesting waterfowl, including pintail, mallard, 

and lesser scaup, was found to be 49, 30, and 45 

percent, respectively (Fondell and Ball 1997). These 

nest success estimates are some of the highest in 

North America for upland nesting ducks. Fondell and 

Ball (1997) stated that “Because the [Ovando] Valley 

is relatively undisturbed, these estimates may reflect 

nest success over large areas of the watershed.” 

Blackfoot Waterfowl Production Area. 

USFWS 

Brood surveys of northern shoveler, gadwall, 

American wigeon, cinnamon and blue-winged teal, 

canvasback, redhead, ring-necked, ruddy, and 

Barrow’s goldeneye ducks in 1995 and 1996 on the 

Blackfoot Valley WPA averaged sixty-three broods 

on five wetlands totaling 104 acres, or 0.62 broods 

per acre, with pre-fledge brood sizes of 5.2 in 1995, 

and 5.9 in 1996, which is higher than brood sizes 

reported in studies conducted at Freezeout Lake 

Wildlife Management Area and at Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge on the east side of the 

Continental Divide (Fondell and Ball 1997). This high 

productivity is due to the large expanses of relatively 

undisturbed native grassland in association with 

wetland habitat, a coyote-dominated predator base, 

and a high concentration of glaciated wetlands. 

Breeding waterfowl pair counts have indicated 

relatively high pair densities per square section 

for redhead and canvasback ducks. Redhead duck 

numbers over the past 15 years have averaged 

twelve pairs per section and canvasback ducks have 

averaged nine pairs per section. 

Species of Special Concern 

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

database (MTNHP 2009a) there are forty-one animal 

species of concern in the Blackfoot River watershed. 

These include invertebrates, birds, fish, mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians. Eight of the fourteen bird 

species ranked by Montana Partners in Flight (PIF 

2000) as Level I priority species in the state are 

found in the watershed: common loon, trumpeter 

swan, harlequin duck, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, 

black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, olivesided flycatcher, and brown creeper. 

Black terns are considered a species of special 

concern by the Service in region 6 and on the 

Montana Priority Bird Species List, they are listed 

at a Level II which dictates that Montana has a high 

responsibility to monitor the status of this species, 

and design conservation actions. The Blackfoot 

River watershed hosts the largest black tern colony 

documented in Montana. 

The Blackfoot River watershed supports western 

Montana’s largest population of Brewer’s sparrow, 

one of the highest priority songbirds in Montana 

(Casey 2000). This sagebrush obligate was the most 

abundant breeding species found at sagebrush 

sites on the Blackfoot and Kleinschmidt Waterfowl 

Protection Areas during Service productivity 

surveys in 1996 (Fondell and Ball 1997). The longterm viability of Brewer’s sparrows in Montana 

will depend on the maintenance of large stands of 

sagebrush in robust condition (PIF 2000). 

The watershed is perhaps also the best breeding and 

nesting area for the long-billed curlew in western 

Montana. This species is declining nationally and has 

been identified as a priority in both the shorebird 

and Partners in Flight conservation plans. Local 

surveys on Kleinschmidt Flat in 1997 found thirtyone pairs on 3,840 acres, or greater than eight pairs 

per 1,000 acres. Production was not monitored, but 

many broods were noted. This species is highly 

reliant on grassland nesting habitat, and will also 

nest in sagebrush steppe, and relies more heavily 

on wetlands during migration. Small population 

size and negative population trends, combined with 

threats of habitat degradation on both breeding 

and wintering grounds, make the long-billed curlew 

a high conservation priority (National Audubon 

Society 2007). 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 13 

Long-billed curlew. 

Mike Parker/USFWS

Federally listed animal species found in the 

Blackfoot River watershed include the threatened 

bull trout, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and Canada 

lynx (see appendix C, List of Endangered and 

Threatened Species). The gray wolf was delisted 

from endangered status in March 2009, and relisted 

in August 2010. The bald eagle was delisted from 

threatened status in July 2007. The fisher, a candidate 

for listing occurs in the watershed (USFWS 2009c). 

The relationship of the watershed to Endangered 

Species Act planning units is as follows: 

Bull Trout 

For listing purposes, the Service divided the range 

of bull trout into distinct population segments and 

twenty-seven recovery units (RU). The Blackfoot 

River watershed lies within the Clark Fork River 

RU and the Upper Clark Fork Recovery Subunit. 

Within this subunit, the watershed has been 

identified as a core recovery area (USFWS 2002). 

The watershed has been proposed as critical habitat 

within the Clark Fork River drainage (USFWS 

2010). 

Within the watershed, bull trout densities are very 

low in the upper Blackfoot River, but increase 

downstream of the North Fork. Streams that appear 

to be particularly important for the spawning of 

migratory bull trout include Monture Creek, the 

North Fork Blackfoot River, Copper Creek, Gold 

Creek, Dunham Creek, Morrell Creek, the West Fork 

Clearwater River, and the East Fork Clearwater 

River. Bull trout spawner abundance is indexed by 

the number of identifiable female bull trout nesting 

areas (redds). Data indicate that Monture Creek 

has an upward trend from ten redds in 1989 to an 

average of fifty-one redds in subsequent years 

(Pierce et al. 2008). The North Fork also shows an 

upward trend from eight redds in 1989 to an average 

of fifty-eight redds between 1989 and 2008. The 

Copper Creek drainage (including Snowbank Creek) 

has experienced a resurgence of bull trout redds— 

from eighteen in 2003 to 117 in 2008—since the 2003 

Snow Talon Fire. The total number of redds counted 

in these three streams (Monture Creek, North Fork, 

and Copper Creek) increased from thirty-nine in 

1989 to 217 in 2000. With the onset of drought, bull 

trout redd counts then declined to 147 in 2008. These 

changes are attributed to protective regulations 

first enacted in 1990, restoration actions in spawning 

streams during the 1990s and a period of sustained 

drought between 2000 and the present (Pierce et al. 

2008). 

Grizzly Bear 

Grizzly bears are currently listed as a federally 

threatened species in the Northern Continental 

Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)(USFWS 2009c). Many 

scientists recognize the grizzly bear as an “umbrella 

species,” as the preservation and management of 

good-quality grizzly bear habitat will benefit many 

wildlife resources and plants. Grizzly bears require 

large amounts of land to roam in search of food and 

mates. The population numbers of grizzly bears are 

a publicly and scientifically recognized indicator of 

the health of many ecosystems. The NCDE is an 

area of the northern Rocky Mountains with large 

blocks of protected public land containing some of 

the most pristine and intact environments found in 

the contiguous United States. The NCDE supports 

the largest population of grizzly bears in the lower 48 

states. Despite dramatic losses of habitat throughout 

North America, the grizzly bear has maintained 

a presence in Montana and occurs in portions of 

the Blackfoot Valley watershed. The watershed is 

the southern boundary for the NCDE grizzly bear 

recovery zone. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1993) includes most of the watershed as 

suitable or occupied habitat. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Divide 

Grizzly Bear Project, designed to estimate population 

size and distribution, confirmed the presence of 

twenty-nine individual grizzly bears in the Blackfoot 

River watershed in 2003 and 2004. The USGS 

estimates that at least forty bears are present during 

all or part of the year in the watershed (USGS 2004). 

In recent years, grizzly bear activity has increased in 

the watershed. This area appears to be an important 

habitat link for grizzly bears that are re-colonizing 

historical ranges to the south. Maintaining habitat 

connectivity is critical for maintaining sustainable 

subpopulations of grizzly bears within the southern 

portion of the Northern Continental Divide 

Ecosystem. 

Grizzly bears breed, forage, and migrate throughout 

the watershed and den above 6,500 feet. They move 

from high mountain elevations to lower valley 

bottoms to forage seasonally for available food. 

Lakes, ponds, fens, and spring-fed creeks, common 

in portions of the valley floor, provide excellent 

bear habitat. Additionally, the vegetation found 
14 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Collared grizzly bear movement data is used to assess 

populations. 

© MFWP 

along certain reaches of the Blackfoot River and 

its tributaries provide bears with cover, food, and 

natural movement corridors. 

Canada Lynx 

The Canada Lynx Recovery Outline categorized lynx 

habitat and occurrence within the contiguous United 

States as (1) core areas, (2) secondary areas, and 

(3) peripheral areas. Core areas are defined as the 

areas with the strongest long-term evidence of the 

persistence of lynx populations. Core areas have both 

persistent verified records of lynx occurrence over 

time and recent evidence of reproduction. Six core 

areas and one “provisional” core area are identified 

within the contiguous United States. The Blackfoot 

River watershed is located within the Northwestern 

Montana/Northeastern Idaho Core Area (Ruediger 

et al. 2000). The watershed is a stronghold for the 

Canada lynx in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Based on ongoing research in the upper and middle 

Blackfoot areas, lynx populations appear stable, 

although low reproductive rates are characteristic 

of this population. Since 1998, over eighty lynx 

have been monitored in the watershed, providing 

information on habitat use, reproduction, mortality, 

and movement. This research has shown that the 

watershed contains some of the most critical habitat 

for lynx in the continental United States. Large, 

intact spruce/subalpine fir forests above 4,000 feet in 

the watershed provide high quality habitat for lynx 

and for snowshoe hares, which are a primary lynx 

food source. Regenerating forest stands are often 

used as foraging habitat during the snow-free months 

while older, multi-storied stands serve as denning 

and year-round habitat (Blackfoot Challenge 2005). 

Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf 

The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery 

Plan established three recovery zones in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming. The Blackfoot River 

watershed is in the Northwest Montana Recovery 

Area (USFWS 1987). In March 2009, the Service 

removed the gray wolf from the list of threatened 

and endangered species in the western Great Lakes; 

the northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho and 

Montana; and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah 

(USFWS 2009c). As of 2009, Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks confirmed the presence of four resident 

wolf packs and estimates that at least twenty-five to 

thirty-five wolves inhabit the watershed. In August 

2010, the gray wolf was relisted as an endangered 

species. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Service has a trust responsibility to American 

Indian tribes that includes protection of the tribal 

sovereignty and preservation of tribal culture and 

other trust resources. 

Currently, the Service does not propose any project, 

activity, or program that would result in changes in 

the character of, or adversely affect, any historical 

cultural resource or archaeological site. When such 

undertakings are considered, the Service takes all 

necessary steps to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

as amended. The Service pursues compliance with 

Section 110 of the NHPA to survey, inventory, and 

evaluate cultural resources. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The Blackfoot River watershed includes the 

communities of Lincoln, Helmville, Ovando, Seeley 

Lake, Greenough, Potomac, and Bonner, and spans 

portions of Missoula, Powell, and Lewis and Clark 

counties. There are approximately 8,100 people and 

2,500 households in the watershed. In this 1.5 millionacre watershed, this amounts to less than one person 

per square mile. The population is spread throughout 

the valley, with population densities reaching 300 

people per square mile in Seeley Lake, Potomac, and 

Bonner. The middle and high elevation portions of 

the watershed remain largely undeveloped. In 1995, 

between 8% and 18% of the current residents of the 

watershed had their primary residence located out of 

state (Blackfoot Challenge 2005). 

Most of the rural population is involved in ranching 

and livestock production. Hunting of a wide variety 

of game species occurs on private lands. A seasonal 

influx of tourists are attracted to the Blackfoot Valley 

for opportunities to bird-watch, mountain-bike, 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 15 

horseback ride, backpack, camp, canoe, fish, and view 

archeological and paleontological resources. 

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 

The economy of the Blackfoot Valley is largely 

agrarian. Large cattle ranches dominate the private 

lands within the project area. The population is 

sparse and towns are small and widely-scattered. 

LANDOWNERSHIP 

Landownership in the watershed is 54% federal 

(U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management), 10% state (Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and University 

of Montana), 31% private, and 5% by corporate 

timber company (Plum Creek Timber Company) 

(see figure 3, map of landownership). Most of the 

middle and high elevation forested lands within the 

watershed is administered by the USFS. Private 

lands are concentrated in the low elevation portions 

of the watershed. Landownership patterns in the 

watershed have changed in recent years due to largescale transfers of PCTC lands. Project areas where 

a mosaic of private and public ownership exist are 

under the greatest threat and are in most need of 

conservation protection. 

PROPERTY TAX 

Currently, landowners pay property taxes on their 

private lands to the counties. The Blackfoot Valley 

CA expansion is a conservation easement project; 

the land does not change hands and, therefore, the 

property taxes paid by the landowner to the county 

are not affected. No changes to the tax base are 

anticipated. 

PUBLIC USE AND WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

 Hunting and fishing are very popular throughout 

the project area. Hunting for a variety of wildlife 

includes waterfowl, upland game birds, elk, moose, 

deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and 

furbearers. Private landowners often give permission 

for hunting and fishing on their land. Public access to 

conservation easement lands will remain under the 

control of the landowner. 
16 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Figure 3. Landownership in the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area project area.
 
3 Threats to and Status of Resources
 

This chapter discusses the effects of expanding the 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area. 

EFFECTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL 

ENVIRONMENT 

The expansion of the Blackfoot Valley CA has a 

variety of effects on wildlife habitat, and water and 

soil resources. 

WILDLIFE HABITAT 

Expanding the Blackfoot Valley CA will provide for 

the conservation of up to an additional 80,000 acres of 

important habitat on private land. This project will 

help maintain the uniqueness of the Blackfoot Valley 

and complement conservation efforts of the MFWP, 

TNC, and other federal and state agencies. 

The fact that the Blackfoot Valley remains 

biologically and ecologically intact is a tribute to 

the area’s ranchers and residents, who have long 

recognized what this unique and important landscape 

represents for ranching and wildlife. The project 

aims to ensure habitat for wildlife remains intact in 

perpetuity and, by doing so, strengthen the ranching 

heritage of the Blackfoot Valley. 

Conservation easements within the Blackfoot 

Valley CA will help alleviate habitat fragmentation 

issues. Key biological linkages will facilitate 

wildlife movement and provide for wildlife habitat 

requirements. The potential for human–wildlife 

conflicts will be greatly reduced and resiliency in 

response to climate change will be maintained. 

Compatible agricultural practices such as livestock 

grazing or haying will continue, while sodbusting 

(breaking of native rangeland) will be prohibited. 

Easements will maximize the connectivity with other 

protected lands and decrease the negative impacts 

of habitat fragmentation on migratory birds (Owens 

and Myers 1972). 

WATER RESOURCES 

Water resources on the up to 80,000 additional acres 

will be protected from increased nonpoint source 

pollution from residential subdivision, commercial 

development, and draining of wetlands, all of which 

are prohibited under the easement project. 

The landowner will continue to own and control 

water rights. 

EFFECTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Landownership and land use, the value of intact 

ecosystems, oil and gas exploration and development, 

wind energy development, public use and economic 

effects on the socioeconomic environment are 

discussed. 

LANDOWNERSHIP AND LAND USE 

While many western Montana valleys are 

experiencing rapid population growth, the rate of 

population growth in the Blackfoot Valley watershed 

remains modest. The population in the watershed 

is projected to increase to approximately 8,680 

by 2010 (Blackfoot Challenge 2005). Much of the 

population increase is attributable to immigration 

from other states. New residents are attracted to 

the area because of its outstanding scenic beauty, 

intact landscapes, abundance of wildlife, recreational 

opportunities, rural character, and proximity to the 

urban centers of Missoula and Helena. 

VALUE OF INTACT ECOSYSTEMS 

Humans influence every ecosystem on earth, leading 

to impairment of natural ecosystem structure and 

function (MEA 2005). Converting native land to row 

crop agriculture, suppressing fire, diverting water 

flow, increasing nutrient and toxic pollution, altering 

global precipitation patterns and gas concentration, 

and homogenizing and lowering global biodiversity 

are a few of the ways humans have altered 

ecosystems. North American forests, savannas, and 

grasslands have experienced substantial losses, 

whereas woody savanna, shrubland, and desert 

areas have expanded because of desertification and 

woody expansion into grasslands (Wali et al. 2002), 

inevitably leading to changes in ecosystem function 

(Dodds et al. 2008). 

Conserving native land cover is an important 

component of maintaining ecosystem structure 

and function. Under the easement acquisition 

project, native forest habitats will remain intact, 

continuing to provide ecosystem goods and services 

to landowners and local communities. Ecosystem 
18 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

services include (1) soil erosion control, (2) water 

supply, (3) biodiversity, and (4) carbon sequestration. 

The project will help protect valuable ecosystem 

services (see figure 4). Furthermore, it will prevent 

the prohibitively high cost of restoration. 

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

The easement project will not preclude oil and 

gas exploration or development on private land. 

Typically, conservation easements do not affect 

subsurface estates (oil and gas deposits) because the 

Service only acquires rights associated with surface 

ownership. In many places where the subsurface 

estate has been severed from surface ownership, 

including those in the Blackfoot Valley, the 

landowner does not own the subsurface rights; this 

means that the easement that the Service acquires 

from the landowner is junior to the subsurface rights. 

In instances where a landowner owns both the 

surface and the subsurface estate, the Service will 

treat oil and gas development as a permitted use 

and provide for such development in the easement 

document. Easements will contain reasonable surface 

stipulations for such actions as revegetation of 

disturbed areas, access, and site reclamation. 

WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 

Wind development within the Blackfoot Valley 

CA will not occur on conservation easements due 

to restrictions on wind development. This reduces 

fragmentation within the Valley from the placement 

of towers and associated infrastructure development. 

This improves wildlife corridors’ integrity 

throughout the valley. Restricting wind towers also 

prevents mortality from direct strikes of towers by 

migratory birds and other avian wildlife species. 

PUBLIC USE 

Conservation easements purchased on private tracts 

will not change the landowner’s right to manage 

public access to their property. 

Under the expanded easement project private 

landowners will continue to retain full control 

over their property rights, including allowing or 

restricting hunting and fishing on their lands. This 

is different from the MFWP’s block management 

program, where participating landowners are paid to 

provide hunters access to their private lands. 

Figure 4. Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services. 

The relative value, RI, is determined as the ratio of estimated benefits derived from native and restored acreages per year. 

(Source: Dodds et al. 2008) 
Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of Resources 19 

ECONOMIC EFFECTS 

Increases in employment, annual operating 

expenditures, and easement purchases will 

contribute to the economic activity that the easement 

project generates in the study area. According to 

Service staff, new employment associated with the 

expansion of the Blackfoot Valley CA will add 1.67 

full-time equivalents (FTEs) to a total employment of 

3.5 FTEs. New employment totals $91,518 in salaries 

or an approximate average of $54,801 per new 

employee. Assuming employees spend 79 percent 

of their earnings locally, the direct socioeconomic 

impacts of increased employment at Blackfoot Valley 

CA is $72,299 annually. 

The project will add approximately $19,848 in 

operating expenditures associated with landowner 

management, employee training, and travel 

expenses. These funds are spent on local goods and 

services and therefore directly impact the economy 

in the area. 

The direct economic impacts of easement acquisitions 

are more difficult to attribute as it is less obvious 

where landowners may spend this income. In the 

Blackfoot Valley CA, easements are worth an 

estimated $64,000,000. The total direct economic 

impacts related to the Blackfoot Valley CA for the 

project are estimated at $219,390, an increase of 

$92,147 over baseline. 

The socioeconomic impact of visitor expenditure is 

not included in this analysis as historic public visitor 

data at conservation areas is not available and visitor 

increases due to public awareness of conservation 

activities is difficult to quantify. 

Table 1 presents a summary of annual operating costs 

and salaries associated with the economic impacts. 

Table 1. Summary of annual operating costs and 

salaries associated with the economic impacts in the 

Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area expansion. 

Current Project 

Impacts Impacts 

Salaries $108,196 $127,243 

Operations $19,047 $38,895 

Total 

Impacts $127,243 $219,390 

Increase 

above $92,147 

baseline 

As shown above, the total direct economic impacts 

related to the Blackfoot Valley CA expansion are 

estimated at $92,147. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts 

to the environment will result from the easement 

project, and it will not result in unavoidable adverse 

impacts on the physical or biological environment. 

The selection of an approved boundary will not, by 

itself, affect any aspect of landownership or values. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

There will not be any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources associated with the 

conservation easement project. Once easements are 

acquired, irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

of funds to protect these lands (such as expenditures 

for fuel and staff for monitoring) will exist. 

SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

The conservation easement project will maintain 

the long term biological productivity of the 

Blackfoot Valley watershed, and increase protection 

of endangered and threatened species and the 

protection of biological diversity. 

The nation will gain the additional protection of one 

of the last undeveloped, low-elevation river valley 

ecosystems and the fish and wildlife species that 

depend on it for future generations of Americans. 

The public will gain long term opportunities for 

wildlife dependent recreational activities. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts are defined by National 

Environmental Policy Act policy as the impacts on 

the environment which result from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 

§ 1508.7). 

This section describes the cumulative impacts that 

may result from the combination of expected actions 

of the project, together with other biological and 

socioeconomic conditions, events, and developments. 

PAST ACTIONS 

Landownership in the watershed is 54% federal 

(U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of Land Management), 10% state 

(Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and University of 

Montana), 31% private, and 5% by corporate timber 

company (Plum Creek Timber Company). Most of the 
20 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

middle and high elevation forested lands within the 

watershed are administered by the USFS. Private 

lands are concentrated in the low elevation portions 

of the watershed. Landownership patterns in the 

watershed have changed in recent years due to largescale transfers of PCTC lands. 

In 2002, the Blackfoot Challenge initiated a threephase landscape-level effort to protect, restore, 

and enhance 37,000 acres of biologically significant 

wetlands (5,310 acres) and associated uplands 

(31,690 acres) for migratory birds and other wildlife 

species by 2015. The Blackfoot Watershed I, 

Montana Project was completed in 2007, resulting in 

protection, restoration, and enhancement of a total of 

16,794 acres (3,027 acres of wetland and 13,767 acres 

of associated upland). The Blackfoot Watershed II, 

Montana Project is currently in progress. 

In 2003, the Blackfoot Challenge and The Nature 

Conservancy initiated the Blackfoot Community 

Project, which involved the purchase and resale of 

89,215 acres of PCTC land based on a communitydriven disposition plan. The area encompassed all 

PCTC land from the Blackfoot River headwaters 

near Rogers Pass to the Clearwater drainage. 

Approximately 75% of the lands have been or will be 

transferred into federal or state ownership, and 25% 

into private ownership. 

In 2008, the Nature Conservancy and the Trust 

for Public Land entered into another agreement 

with PCTC called the Montana Legacy Project, to 

purchase 312,500 acres of timberland in western 

Montana. As part of the Legacy Project, a total of 

71,754 acres in the Clearwater and Potomac valleys 

of the watershed will be purchased and resold to 

public agencies and private buyers. The majority of 

these lands are intended to be resold to the USFS 

and Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation. 

In 2009, the Blackfoot Challenge and Trout 

Unlimited prepared a Blackfoot Sub-basin Plan for 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

The vision for the Blackfoot Sub-basin is for a 

place characterized by dynamic natural processes 

that creates and sustains diverse and resilient 

communities of native fish and wildlife, and the 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats on which they 

depend, thereby assuring substantial ecological, 

economic, and cultural benefits. The efforts to 

conserve and enhance those natural resources will 

be implemented through a cooperative partnership 

between public and private interests that will seek 

to sustain not only those natural resources, but the 

rural way of life of the Blackfoot River valley for 

present and future generations (Blackfoot Challenge 

and Trout Unlimited 2009). 

PRESENT ACTIONS 

Within the CoCE, areas that were not suitable for 

homesteading and settlement were designated 

as federal lands. Settlers selected the milder and 

fertile valleys. These areas are currently under the 

greatest developmental pressure. Because of these 

threats and pressures, the Service has defined three 

priority project areas within the CoCE which will 

(1) maintain biological diversity related to wildlife 

values; (2) link together existing protected areas; (3) 

preserve existing wildlife corridors; and (4) protect 

the large, intact, functioning ecosystem, while 

maintaining the rural character and agricultural 

lifestyle of western Montana. The Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and potential conservation 

partners will provide funding for these efforts. Table 

2 shows the proposed acquisition acreage, type of 

acquisition tool, focal species, and key partners for 

each of the three project areas, Blackfoot Valley 

Conservation Area expansion, Rocky Mountain 

Front Conservation Area expansion, and Swan 

Valley Conservation Area. 

Economic Effects of Present Actions 

Combining the effects of Service employment 

($228,177) and operations ($22,123), the total baseline 

economic activity generated by the conservation 

areas in the 12-county region is approximately 

$250,300 annually. 

If all three conservation area proposals (two 

expansions, one new area) occur, as described in 

Table 2, total operational expenditures will increase 

by $64,423. A total of 5.01 new FTE employees will 

be hired at a combined salary of $274,554. Assuming 

79 percent of salaries are spent within the impact 

region, there will be an additional $216,897 in direct 

economic impacts to the study area. The increased 

operational ($64,423) and employment ($216,897) 

expenditures added to baseline direct economic 

activity ($250,300) yields a total direct economic 

impact of $531,620 annually, which is an increase of 

$281,320 from current baseline impacts. 

Other Present Actions by the Service 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

continues to develop strong partnerships with 

private landowners in the Blackfoot Valley through 

the implementation of habitat restoration and 

management projects on private lands. Strong 

partnerships have also developed with a variety 

of agencies and organizations jointly involved to 

accomplish similar objectives through restoration 

and protection projects. Habitat restoration efforts 

currently focus on wetlands, streams, native 

grasslands, and riparian areas. Typical projects 

include wetland restoration, riparian corridor 

enhancement (revegetation), instream restoration, 
Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of Resources 21 

Table 2. Summary of the project proposal for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. 

Potential Type of 

Proposed New Acquisition 

Project Area Project Area Acreage Tool Focal Species Key Partners 

Blackfoot Expand 80,000 Conservation Grizzly bear, Canada Private landowners, The 

Valley existing acres easement lynx, bull trout, Blackfoot Challenge, The 

Conservation area from westslope cutthroat Nature Conservancy, Trout 

Area 165,000 trout, migratory Unlimited 

expansion acres to birds 

824,024 

acres 

Rocky Expand 125,000 Conservation Grizzly bear, Private landowners, The 

Mountain existing acres easement migratory birds, Nature Conservancy, 

Front area from long-billed curlew, The Conservation Fund, 

Conservation 561,700 Sprague’s pipit, Richard King Mellon 

Area acres to McCown’s longspur Foundation 

expansion 918,000 

acres 

Swan Valley New 11,000 Conservation Grizzly bear, Private landowners, The 

Conservation proposed acres easement Canada lynx, bull Nature Conservancy, 

Area area of and limited trout, migratory Trust for Public Lands, 

187,400 fee title (less birds: Lewis’ Swan Valley Ecosystem 

acres than 1,000 woodpecker, black Center, Plum Creek 

acres) tern, trumpeter Timber Company, Vital 

swan, olive-sided Ground, Trout Unlimited, 

flycatcher Northwest Connections 

and the development of grazing systems to 

rejuvenate native grasslands. 

Several grant programs administered by the 

Division of Ecological Services, are available to 

tribes, states, and individual private landowners, for 

projects that benefit federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species. The Blackfoot Valley provides an 

opportunity for the Service to collaborate with many 

public and private partners to conserve endangered 

species. 

Conservation easements will protect and maintain 

the integrity of the Blackfoot Valley’s unique 

complex of wetland, grassland, and riparian habitats 

and their diverse complement of fish, wildlife, and 

plants. These easements will also provide a vital 

link or protected habitat corridor between the 

existing protected “biological anchors” including the 

Blackfoot Community Project, Bob Marshall and 

Lincoln-Scapegoat wilderness areas, and Service fee 

title and conservation easements. 

The easement project will have long term positive 

impacts on wildlife habitat and result in the long 

term conservation of migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, native plants, and the overall 

biological diversity of the Blackfoot Valley CA 

project area and the CoCE. 

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS 

Based on past conservation successes within the 

Crown of the Continent ecosystem, we anticipate 

nonprofit organizations continuing to promote 

and secure conservation easements on additional 

private lands. It is likely the bulk of the nonprofit 

work involving conservation easements will be in 

partnership with the Service’s goal of protecting 

216,000 additional acres within the Crown of the 

Continent ecosystem. 

Missoula and Lewis and Clark Counties Open 

Space Bonds 

Two counties (Missoula and Lewis and Clark 

counties) within the Crown of the Continent 

ecosystem have established bonds with over 

$5,000,000 apiece dedicated to protecting private 

lands, while keeping the land in private ownership 

and on the tax rolls. Future partnerships to protect 

private land and the associated fish and wildlife 

resources are expected to occur with the Service 

under this initiative. 
22 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

The Nature Conservancy of Montana Blackfoot 

Community Project 

On July 27, 2010, The Nature Conservancy of 

Montana announced their recent purchase of 

18,000 acres in the Blackfoot Valley as part of an 

ongoing conservation effort. The land, in the North 

Chamberlain area, was purchased from the Plum 

Creek Timber Company as part of the Blackfoot 

Community Project. The purpose of the acquisition 

is to shelter portions of Chamberlain, Bear, and 

Pearson creeks which feed into the Blackfoot River, 

and are important spawning areas for westslope 

cutthroat trout. The area also provides important 

habitat for wildlife such as Canada lynx, grizzly, black 

bear, and a number of game species. The Nature 

Conservancy has purchased more than 70,000 acres 

from PCTC and, working cooperatively with The 

Blackfoot Challenge and many public and private 

partners, permanently protected these lands. 

Additional purchases are expected in the future 

under this ongoing conservation initiative (The 

Nature Conservancy of Montana 2010). 
4 Project Implementation


This chapter provides a general description of the 

operations and management of the Blackfoot Valley 

CA project area. 

LAND PROTECTION OPTIONS 

Two alternatives were considered for the 

environmental assessment, no-action and the chosen 

alternative, acquiring conservation easements in the 

Blackfoot Valley to expand the conservation area. 

ACTION AND OBJECTIVES 

The analysis and documentation was prepared by a 

combination of field and regional Service staff, along 

with partners (see appendix D). After completion 

and publication of an environmental assessment 

and after conducting a public comment period, 

the proposed alternative of acquiring additional 

conservation easements was chosen. The project was 

found to have no significant impacts on the quality 

of the environment, thus a finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) has been completed and signed 

(see appendix E). Appendix F is the environmental 

action statement, appendix G is the environmental 

compliance certificate, and appendix H is the 

section 7 biological evaluation. Director’s approval 

memorandums are appendix I. 

The Service will expand the existing boundary 

of the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area from 

165,000 acres to 824,024 acres. Up to 80,000 acres of 

conservation easements will be acquired under this 

project. No fee-title acquisition will be considered 

as part of this project. The Service has standard 

conservation easement agreements that have been 

used successfully in other easement conservation 

areas of the United States. With appropriate 

modifications, the Service will use similar language 

and terms, and will develop a standard document for 

the conservation easements to minimize confusion, 

facilitate enforcement, and provide the necessary 

level of protection for the resources. 

The easement project relies on voluntary 

involvement by landowners. The project does 

not involve fee-title acquisitions. Landowner 

management practices such as grazing will continue 

on the land included in the easement contract. 

All land within an easement remains in private 

ownership and, therefore, property tax and grassland 

management activities such as invasive plant and 

tree control, grazing, and burning will remain the 

responsibility of the landowner. Public access, 

including hunting, also remains under the control of 

the landowner. 

The easement project will be managed by staff 

located at the Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. The Service staff will be responsible for 

monitoring and administering all easements on 

private land. Monitoring will consist of annually 

reviewing land status in meetings with the 

landowners or land managers to ensure that the 

stipulations of the conservation easement are being 

met. The Service’s role is to monitor the purchased 

easements to ensure that landowners comply with 

the easement agreement so that the property does 

not undergo subdivision, commercial or industrial 

development, or conversion of native habitat. Photo 

documentation will be used at the time the easements 

are established as part of a documentation of baseline 

conditions. 

Conservation easements are the most cost-effective, 

politically acceptable means to ensure protection 

of critical habitats that occur within the project 

area. Although habitat protection through fee-title 

acquisition is preferable in some locations, it is 

not required and is not preferable to conservation 

easements in the Blackfoot Valley region. Fee-title 

acquisition will triple or quadruple the cost of land 

acquisition in addition to adding significant increases 

in long-term management and operational costs for 

the Service. The Service views a strong and vibrant 

rural lifestyle, of which ranching is the dominant land 

use, as one of the key components to ensure habitat 

integrity and wildlife resource protection. The 

Service views conservation easements as a viable 

means to protect wildlife values on a landscape-scale. 

ACQUISITION ALTERNATIVES 

The Service will acquire conservation easements 

principally by using funds appropriated under the 

Land and Water Conservation Act, which derives 

funds from royalties paid for by offshore oil and gas 

leasing. Such funds are intended for land and water 

conservation projects. These funds are not derived 

from general taxes. Funding is subject to annual 

appropriations by Congress for specific acquisition 

projects. 

Funding from other sources may also be used 

within the project area. Management activities 

associated with easements may be funded through 
24 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

other sources, such as TNC, PFW, and other private 

and public partners. The Service will also consider 

accepting voluntary donations for easements. 

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION 

Strategic habitat conservation (SHC) involves an 

ongoing cycle of biological planning, conservation 

design, conservation delivery, outcome-based 

monitoring, and assumption-based research. SHC 

uses science to focus conservation in the right places 

(USFWS 2008). 

In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife program led a statewide, strategic 

habitat conservation planning effort for focusing 

work in Montana. The state was divided into three 

broad geographic regions based on similar habitat 

types. Within each region, priority federal trust 

species and guilds were identified. The Montana 

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team office 

then assisted with gathering and creating spatially 

explicit models and data sets for priority trust 

resources. In addition, the scientific-based planning 

efforts of partner agencies and conservation 

organizations were incorporated. These include the 

“Strategic Habitat Conservation Report” prepared 

by the National Ecological Assessment Team, the 

“Upper Missouri/Yellowstone/Upper Columbia 

River Ecosystem Team Focus Area Plan,” the 

“Montana Partners Program 1999 Focus Area 

Plan,” “Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy Plan,” and The Nature 

Conservancy of Montana’s “Statewide Conservation 

Plan.” Seven stakeholder meetings were held to 

gather input from other partners to identify focus 

areas, and to develop an appropriate conservation 

strategy. The “2007 Montana Step-down Strategic 

Plan” identified geographic focus areas, habitat 

accomplishment targets, and benefit to federal trust 

species. The comprehensive process ultimately 

produced ten conservation focus areas for Montana. 

The Blackfoot Valley CA is within these identified 

focus areas. 

The preparation of this project area land protection 

plan addresses the four key elements of SHC (1) 

planning, (2) design, (3) delivery, and (4) monitoring 

and research (see figure 5). 

Figure 5. The basic strategic habitat conservation cycle.
 
BIOLOGICAL PLANNING 

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

database (MTNHP 2009a) there are forty-one animal 

species of concern in the Blackfoot River watershed. 

These include invertebrates, birds, fish, mammals, 

reptiles, and amphibians. Federally listed animal 

species found in the Blackfoot River watershed 

include the threatened bull trout, grizzly bear, 

Canada lynx, and the endangered gray wolf. 

Focal Species 

In order to strategically conserve habitat within 

the Blackfoot Valley, the Service chose to focus on 

the grizzly bear, bull trout, and Canada lynx. These 

species were chosen because they are federal trust 

resources, they represent the variety of key habitats 

and capture the needs of several other species in the 

Blackfoot Valley, and there is sufficient information 

about them to develop a land protection plan. 

Population Objectives 

Because each of the focal species for the Blackfoot 

Valley is protected under the Endangered Species 

Act, specific mission-based population objectives 

have been defined that correspond to the species’ 

recovery. 

Bull Trout 

The Blackfoot River core area lies within the Clark 

Fork RU. For the Blackfoot River core area, the 

total adult bull trout abundance, distributed among 

local populations, must exceed 1,000 fish, and adult 

bull trout abundance must exceed 2,500 (USFWS 

2002). Trend criteria will be met when the overall 

bull trout population in the Clark Fork RU is 

accepted, under contemporary standards of the time, 

as stable or increasing, based on at least 10 years of 

monitoring data. 

Bull trout. 

© MFWP 

Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 25 

Grizzly Bear 

The Blackfoot Valley lies within the NCDE recovery 

zone. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1993) specifies multiple thresholds that must be 

maintained before the grizzly bear population in the 

NCDE can be considered recovered. The threshold 

for the NCDE is ten females with cubs inside Glacier 

National Park (GNP) and twelve females with 

cubs outside GNP, over a running 6-year average, 

both inside the recovery zone and within a 10-mile 

area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, 

excluding Canada. Twenty-one of twenty-three bear 

management units (BMUs) occupied by females 

with young form a running 6-year sum of verified 

sightings and evidence, with no two adjacent BMUs 

unoccupied; and known human-caused mortality not 

to exceed 4 percent of the population estimate, based 

on the most recent 3-year sum of females with cubs. 

Furthermore, recovery cannot be achieved without 

occupancy in the Mission Mountains portion of the 

ecosystem. 

Canada Lynx 

Several preliminary objectives have been identified 

in the lynx recovery effort. The one most relevant to 

the Blackfoot Valley CA is ensuring that sufficient 

habitat is available to accommodate the long-term 

persistence of immigration and emigration between 

each core area and adjacent populations in Canada or 

secondary areas in the United States (USFWS 2005). 

Limiting Factors 

For wide-ranging species, such as grizzly bears, 

unplanned development leads to loss of habitat 

connectivity within the project area and, on a larger 

scale, between the CoCE and other historical or 

potential ranges. Riparian zones, for example, 

provide excellent habitat and cover for bears 

moving throughout the watersheds, but they are 

also among the most desired locations for building 

(USFS 2003). An increase in development also leads 

to more frequent conflicts between bears and people 

due in large part to the increased presence of bear 

attractants. Human garbage, dog food, and bird seed 

can condition and habituate bears, leading to more 

interactions and conflicts with people. These factors 

can lead to human-caused grizzly bear mortality, 

which in turn results in a decrease in grizzly bear 

reproduction and a loss of population and genetic 

viability. More than 17% of the NCDE is private 

land and an estimated 71% of bear-human conflicts 

and bear deaths occur on these private lands (Dr. 

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, University of Montana, Missoula, 

MT; personal interview, 11 June 2008). Minimizing 

attractants on private lands and limiting subdivision 

are keys to reducing this threat to grizzly bears. 
26 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Canada lynx move between boreal habitats in Canada 

and the contiguous United States. Immigration of 

lynx from Canada plays a vital role in sustaining 

lynx in the contiguous United States (McKelvey et 

al. 2000). It is essential that landscape connectivity 

between lynx habitats and populations in Canada 

and the contiguous United States be maintained. 

Lynx movements may be negatively influenced by 

high traffic volume roads that bisect suitable habitat 

(USFWS 2005). 

Ultimately, unmanaged growth and residential 

sprawl may be one of the biggest threats to the 

recovery of bull trout in the Clark Fork RU as 

well. The entire RU holds many of the attributes 

that increasingly attract people seeking relief 

from the urban environment. Human population 

growth in western Montana and northern Idaho 

has accelerated. The way in which this growth is 

managed, and our ability to limit the impacts of 

growth, in particular on bull trout spawning and 

rearing streams, is pivotal to the success of bull trout 

recovery effort (USFWS 2002). 

Increasing human populations have a direct impact 

on all of the other categories of risk that affect bull 

trout. Both legal and illegal angling (poaching) have 

direct impacts on bull trout populations, despite the 

implementation of restrictive fishing regulations and 

strong educational efforts. The problem of illegal take 

of bull trout is intensified in stream corridors where 

roads provide access to highly visible (and therefore 

vulnerable) spawning stocks (USFWS 2002). 

Key Habitats for Protection 

The USGS estimates that at least forty bears 

are present during all or part of the year in the 

watershed. In recent years, grizzly bear activity has 

increased in the watershed. Based on collared bear 

locations, the eastern portion of the Blackfoot Valley, 

in particular, appears to be an important habitat 

link for grizzly bears that are recolonizing historic 

ranges to the south (James J. Jonkel, Montana Bear 

Manager, region 2, USFWS; personal interview, 10 

May 2010). Maintaining habitat connectivity provides 

grizzly bears access to breeding, shelter, and foraging 

habitat which is critical for maintaining sustainable 

subpopulations within the southern portion of the 

NCDE. 

Extensive population surveys and focused field 

research conducted since the mid-1990s indicates 

that the Blackfoot Valley watershed contains the 

most critical, currently unprotected lynx habitat 

in the contiguous United States The majority of 

this vulnerable habitat is in the Blackfoot Valley’s 

Clearwater watershed and is managed by Plum 

Creek Timber Company. Although a significant 

portion of this privately-managed lynx habitat will 

be conserved as part of the Montana Legacy Project 

in 2010 and 2011, tens of thousands of acres of critical 

lynx habitat remain vulnerable to conversion and 

development in the Clearwater watershed. 

Dr. John Squires and others with the USFS Rocky 

Mountain Research Station began intensive Canada 

lynx field research in the Blackfoot Valley in 1997. 

This work is ongoing and represents the most 

comprehensive lynx research project ever conducted 

in the contiguous United States. Researchers 

worked to develop a Resource Selection Function 

surface that will help predict lynx habitat suitability 

and use across western Montana where lynx were 

thought to have occurred historically. Relocation 

data from 129 individual lynx and sixty-four known 

80% kernel home ranges were compared to 1,000 

similar kernels randomly located throughout the 

USFWS 

Subdivision development impacts habitat connectivity. 
species’ Montana range. Researchers then analyzed 

topographic, climactic, vegetative, and spectral 

imagery data to develop a spatial model predicting 

lynx occurrence. Lynx were fitted with conventional 

and global positioning system (GPS) collars in 

the Blackfoot Valley between 1997 and 2009. The 

resulting relocation data align closely with the 

predictive habitat model and highlight those lands in 

the watershed important for lynx conservation and 

recovery. 

The most important and vulnerable lynx habitat in 

the watershed occurs in the northwest Blackfoot 

Valley’s Clearwater drainage. These lands are 

important for the long-term viability of lynx in 

western Montana and their conservation will help 

ensure habitat connectivity between the Crown of 

the Continent ecosystem and the Mission Mountains 

and Rattlesnake federal and tribal wilderness 

complexes. 

For bull trout, critical habitat has been designated 

and explicitly mapped in each RU. Critical habitats 

are those stream reaches and lakes deemed essential 

to the conservation of the species (USFWS 2002). To 

identify those habitats within each RU essential to 

the conservation of bull trout, the Service used the 

four biological indicators derived from the 2002 bull 

trout draft recovery plan (USFWS 2002) and seven 

newly developed “guiding principles.” 

The four biological indicators are distribution, 

abundance, trend, and connectivity. The seven 

guiding principles are conserve opportunity for 

diverse life-history expression, conserve opportunity 

for genetic diversity, ensure bull trout are 

distributed across representative habitats, ensure 

sufficient connectivity among populations, ensure 

sufficient habitat to support population viability (for 

example abundance, trend indices), consider threats 

(for example climate change), and ensure sufficient 

redundancy in conserving population units. 

CONSERVATION DESIGN 

The design stage of the SHC process involves 

assessment of the current state of the system, 

formulation of habitat objectives, and determination 

of priority areas. 

Current State of the System 

In recent years, the mortality threshold for grizzly 

bear recovery in the NCDE has been exceeded, 

but the significance of these numbers cannot be 

evaluated until there is accurate information on 

population size. Through the use of genetic analysis 

on collected hair samples, researchers were able to 

determine that an estimated 765 grizzly bears make 

their home in the Northern Continental Divide. 

Of those 765, researchers estimate 470 bears are 

females. Female bears were also found throughout 

Chapter 4 — Project implementation 27 

the entire study area, indicating a good reproductive 

potential for the species. Analysis of hair samples has 

allowed researchers to determine the genetic health 

of the grizzly bear population. Although overall 

genetic variation indicates a healthy population, it 

is only one piece of the puzzle that managers need 

for the recovery of grizzlies in the NCDE to be 

successful (Kendall et al. 2009). 

Within the watershed, bull trout densities are very 

low in the upper Blackfoot River, but increase 

downstream of the North Fork. Streams that appear 

to be particularly important for the spawning of 

migratory bull trout include Monture Creek, the 

North Fork Blackfoot River, Copper Creek, Gold 

Creek, Dunham Creek, Morrell Creek, the West Fork 

Clearwater River, and the East Fork Clearwater 

River. Bull trout spawner abundance is indexed by 

the number of identifiable female bull trout nesting 

areas (redds). Data indicate that Monture Creek 

has an upward trend from ten redds in 1989 to an 

average of fifty-one redds in subsequent years 

(Pierce et al. 2008). The North Fork also shows an 

upward trend from eight redds in 1989 to an average 

of fifty-eight redds between 1989 and 2008. The 

Copper Creek drainage (including Snowbank Creek) 

has experienced a resurgence of bull trout redds— 

from eighteen in 2003 to 117 in 2008—since the 2003 

Snow Talon Fire. The total number of redds counted 

in these three streams (Monture Creek, North Fork, 

and Copper Creek) increased from thirty-nine in 

1989 to 217 in 2000. With the onset of drought, bull 

trout redd counts then declined to 147 in 2008. These 

changes are attributed to protective regulations 

first enacted in 1990, restoration actions in spawning 

streams during the 1990s, and a period of sustained 

drought between 2000 and the present (Pierce et al. 

2008). 

Formulation of Habitat Objectives 

There are currently approximately 365,000 acres 

of unprotected private land and 75,000 acres of 

commercial timber company land in the Blackfoot 

Valley CA. With the current levels of development 

and fragmentation within Blackfoot Valley, bull 

trout populations appear to be increasing while the 

pressure of human-cause mortality on grizzly bears 

for the NCDE population is higher than acceptable 

for recovery. Conservation easements provide an 

opportunity to prevent further development and 

fragmentation that might reduce or reverse the 

positive trends in bull trout populations or increase 

human-grizzly interactions, putting further negative 

pressure on the NCDE population. Given that 

conserving all remaining private land with easements 

to prevent additional development is not a reasonable 

or desired goal, especially around the existing 

population centers of Lincoln, Helmville, Ovando, 

Seeley Lake, Greenough, Potomac, and Bonner, 

the Service has set a goal to protect up to 80,000 

additional acres of existing private lands. Long-term 
28 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

monitoring of grizzly bears, lynx, and bull trout will 

be conducted and the goal of up to 80,000 acres will 

be periodically reevaluated. 

Priority Areas 

The Service is proposing to expand the Blackfoot 

Valley CA by purchasing conservation easements to 

reduce future impacts of development and habitat 

fragmentation. Typically, the Service will purchase 

an easement for the entire ownership of a landowner, 

and therefore the priorities for the Blackfoot Valley 

Conservation Area Land Protection Plan are based 

on the best available data on existing private 

ownerships. The Service generally focuses on parcels 

greater than 160 acres, however, parcels less than 

160 acres may be considered if unique biological 

values exist. Also, buffer areas will be maintained 

around communities to provide rural communities 

with the ability to meet their community 

development goals and objectives. 

Given the models and habitat objectives, three 

priority areas have been developed (see figure 6). 

Areas where easements are expected to have the 

greatest benefit to grizzly bears, lynx, and bull 

trout have been designated as Priority 1. Priority 

1 also includes areas where it appears feasible to 

link easements to create corridors across the valley. 

Priority 2 is a high priority for lynx and bull trout, 

but somewhat less important for grizzly bears. 

Priority 3 includes critical habitat for bull trout, but 

lower priority habitat for grizzly bears and lynx. 

These priority areas will be regularly re-evaluated, 

and may be adjusted as additional quantifiable data 

on the habitat needs and limiting factors for focal 

species in the Blackfoot Valley become available. The 

“Monitoring and Research” section below provides 

further details on this feedback loop. 

CONSERVATION DELIVERY 

Habitat protection will occur through the purchase 

of conservation easements. It is the long-established 

policy of the Service to acquire minimum interest 

in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat 

acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authority for the project is the Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742 a-742j). 

The federal money used to acquire conservation 

easements from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund are derived primarily from oil and gas leases 

on the outer continental shelf, motorboat fuel tax 

revenues, and sale of surplus federal property. There 

could be additional funds to acquire lands, waters, 

or interest therein for fish and wildlife conservation 

purposes through congressional appropriations, 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the North 

American Waterfowl Conservation Act funds, and 

donations from nonprofit organizations. 

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

interest in private land are the biological significance 

of the area, existing and anticipated threats to 

wildlife resources, landowner interest in the 

project, and the size of the parcel. The purchase 

of conservation easements will occur with willing 

sellers only and will be subject to available funding. 

MONITORING AND RESEARCH 

As the Blackfoot Valley CA project develops and 

conservation easements are purchased, grizzly bears, 

lynx, and bull trout will continue to be monitored. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, and the USGS all have active 

grizzly bear monitoring and research projects. 

MFWP, in particular, is focused on developing a 

science-based population monitoring program that 

provides the information necessary to successfully 

manage bears in western Montana (Dood et al. 2006). 

Specifically, MFWP will monitor a representative 

sample of twenty-five or more adult females in 

the NCDE to establish population trends, and use 

verified sightings to document changes in bear 

distribution and linkage areas used, especially 

by female bears. MFWP will monitor mortality, 

including timing and causes, and gather survivorship 

data in cooperation with other agencies. In addition, 

results from the 2004 USGS NCDE Grizzly Bear 

DNA project (USGS 2004) will assist MFWP with 

bear population size estimation, distribution, and 

population trends which will provide additional 

information for focusing acquisition efforts. 

The state of Montana began development of a 

bull trout restoration plan in 1993. The final plan, 

published in June 2000, sets goals, objectives and 

criteria for restoration; outlines actions to meet 

those criteria; and establishes a structure to monitor 

implementation and evaluate effectiveness of the 

plan (MBTRT 2000). One of the stated goals of the 

plan is to develop and implement a statistically valid 

population monitoring program. This monitoring 

program will be an effective tool to assess the status 

of bull trout in the Blackfoot Valley CA. 

Grizzly bears and bull trout have been identified 

as focal species for the Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC)(see figure 

7). The GNLCC was established, in part, to 

foster cooperation between agencies and support 

monitoring and research where there are common 

interests. Continual evaluation of grizzly bear, 

bull trout, and lynx population trends and habitat 

use will be used to refine conservation efforts on 

the ground within the GNLCC. Ongoing efforts 

within the GNLCC will help provide information on 

population trends and habitat use for these sciencebased decisions. 
Chapter 4 — Project implementation 29
 

Figure 6. Blackfoot Valley project area priorities.
 
30 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Figure 7. Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area 

expansion. 

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION 

COOPERATIVES 

Strategic habitat conservation is a means of applying 

adaptive management across large landscapes. 

Landscape conservation cooperatives will facilitate 

strategic habitat conservation. 

The Blackfoot Valley CA lies within the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative. GNLCC includes the 

mountain and transitional habitats in regions of 

Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and the upper Green 

River basin in southern Wyoming and small parts 

of Colorado and Utah, and portions of the Interior 

Columbia Plateau reaching into Oregon and 

Washington westward to the Cascade Mountains. 

The GNLCC also includes the international 

landscapes of the interior British Columbia and 

Alberta, Canada, and covers the entirety of the 

northern Rocky Mountains and mid-continent 

lowlands of the interior northwest. 

The GNLCC has identified priority species including: 

bull trout, grizzly bear, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

trumpeter swan, westslope cutthroat trout, Arctic 

grayling, wolverine, willow flycatcher, sage grouse, 

burrowing owl, and Columbia spotted frog. Eight of 

these priority species exist within the project area. 

The GNLCC works with a variety of science 

partners including many of which are also supporters 

of the proposed easement program. The protection 

of the Blackfoot Valley, through a conservation 

easement program, will significantly contribute to 

the conservation of GNLCC priority habitats and the 

federal trust species identified above. 

As the GNLCC continues to develop, an overarching 

priority will be to serve as a convening body, 

bringing together partners to address existing and 

future issues related to climate change and landscape 

scale conservation. The Service will work with 

existing partnerships within the Blackfoot Valley to 

further refine priorities and leverage resources for 

acquisition. 

COORDINATION 

Public involvement was initiated for the proposed 

expansion of the conservation easement project in 

the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area in May 2010. 

A media contact list was compiled and news releases 

and factsheets were developed and distributed to 

media outlets, local organizations, elected officials, 

and interested parties. The news releases and 

factsheets described the proposed expansion of 

the conservation easement project, and announced 

an open house to gather input from the public. 
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 31 

Personal outreach efforts were made with county 


commissioners and other persons of interest. 


Scoping was conducted during a public open house, 


on May 19, 2010; 7-9 p.m. at the Ovando School, 108 


Birch Street, in Ovando, Montana. The purpose of 


scoping was to seek input from the public regarding 


the proposed expansion of the conservation easement 


project, and to identify the issues that needed to be 


addressed in the planning process. Fifteen people 


attended the open house. Five individuals, two 


agencies, and two organizations provided comments 


during the scoping period. Comments identified 


biological, social, and economic concerns regarding 


the proposed expansion of the conservation easement 


project. The issues raised and comments received 


helped the planning team to develop the alternatives 


presented in the draft EA and LPP. Key issues are 


described in Chapter 1 of the draft EA and LPP, 


under “Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis.” 


The EA and draft LPP was issued on July 26, 2010. 


Public comments were solicited until August 25. 


Six written comments were received during the 


comment period. Those detailed comments and their 


responses are included in appendix J.
 

CONTAMINANTS AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

Fieldwork for pre acquisition contaminant surveys 

will be conducted, on a tract-by-tract basis, prior to 

the purchase of any land interest. Any suspected 

problems or contaminants requiring additional 

surveys will be referred to a contaminants specialist 

located in the Service’s Ecological Services office in 

Helena, Montana. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT 

As a federal agency, the Service must comply with 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

An environmental assessment is required under the 

act to evaluate reasonable alternatives that will meet 

stated objectives, and to assess the possible impacts 

to the human environment. The draft EA, published 

in July 2010, served as the basis for determining 

whether implementation of the project will constitute 

a major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. 

DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY 

Copies of the land protection plan were sent to 

federal and state legislative delegations, tribes, 

agencies, landowners, private groups, and other 

interested individuals. 

Additional copies of the document are available from 

the following offices and websites. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

922 Bootlegger Trail 

Great Falls, MT 59404-6133 

406 / 727 7400 

http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake 

and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning 

P.O. Box 25486–DFC 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

303 / 236 4378 

303 / 236 4792 fax 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm 

Appendix A

Name Change
34 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 
Appendix A — Name Change 35 
36 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 
Appendix B 

List of Plants and Animals 

MAMMALS
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Mustela vison American Mink 

Taxidea taxus Badger 

Castor canadensis Beaver 

Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat 

Ovis canadensis Bighorn Sheep 

Ursus americanus Black Bear 

Lynx rufus Bobcat 

Neotoma cinerea Bushy-tailed Woodrat 

Lynx canadensisT Canada Lynx 

Spermophilus columbianus Columbian Ground Squirrel 

Canis latrans Coyote 

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse 

Sorex monticolus Dusky or Montane Shrew 

Cervus canadensis Elk or Wapiti 

Martes pennanti* Fisher 

Myotis thysanodes* Fringed Myotis 

Spermophilus lateralis Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel 

Canis lupusE Gray Wolf 

Ursus arctosT Grizzly Bear 

Phenacomys intermedius Heather Vole 

Lasiurus cinereus* Hoary Bat 

Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis 

Myotis evotis Long-eared Myotis 

Myotis volans Long-legged Myotis 

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed Vole 

Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel 

Martes americana Marten 

Sorex cinereus Masked Shrew 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole 

Microtus montanus Montane Vole 

Alces americanus Moose 

Sylvilagus nuttallii Mountain Cottontail 

Puma concolor Mountain Lion 

Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer 
38 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat 

Glaucomys sabrinus Northern Flying Squirrel 

Thomomys talpoides Northern Pocket Gopher 

Lontra canadensis Northern River Otter 

Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine 

Sorex preblei* Preble's Shrew 

Sorex hoyi Pygmy Shrew 

Procyon lotor Raccoon 

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel 

Tamias ruficaudus Red-tailed Chipmunk 

Mustela erminea Short-tailed Weasel 

Lasionycteris noctivagans** Silver-haired Bat 

Lepus americanus Snowshoe Hare 

Myodes gapperi Southern Red-backed Vole 

Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk 

Corynorhinus townsendii* Townsend's Big-eared Bat 

Sorex vagrans Vagrant Shrew 

Sorex palustris Water Shrew 

Zapus princeps Western Jumping Mouse 

Myotis ciliolabrum Western Small-footed Myotis 

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer 

Lepus townsendii White-tailed Jack Rabbit 

Gulo gulo* Wolverine 

Marmota flaviventris Yellow-bellied Marmot 

Tamias amoenus Yellow-pine Chipmunk 

BIRDS
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Recurvirostra americana American Avocet 

Botaurus lentiginosus* American Bittern 

Fulica americana American Coot 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow 

Cinclus mexicanus American Dipper 

Spinus tristus American Goldfinch 

Falco sparverius American Kestrel 

Anthus rubescens American Pipit 

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart 

Turdus migratorius American Robin 

Picoides dorsalis American Three-toed Woodpecker 

Spizella arborea American Tree Sparrow 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos* American White Pelican 

Anas americana American Wigeon 
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 39 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird 

Dendroica coronata auduboni Audubon's Warbler 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 

Patagioenas fasciata Band-tailed Pigeon 

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow 

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 

Strix varia Barred Owl 

Bucephala islandica** Barrow's Goldeneye 

Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher 

Cypseloides niger* Black Swift 

Chlidonias niger* Black Tern 

Picoides arcticus* Black-backed Woodpecker 

Pica hudsonia Black-billed Magpie 

Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee 

Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned Hummingbird 

Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-headed Grosbeak 

Himantopus mexicanus* Black-necked Stilt 

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay 

Anas discors Blue-winged Teal 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus* Bobolink 

Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl 

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird 

Spizella breweri* Brewer's Sparrow 

Certhia americana* Brown Creeper 

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird 

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead 

Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole 

Larus californicus California Gull 

Stellula calliope Calliope Hummingbird 

Branta canadensis Canada Goose 

Aythya valisineria Canvasback 

Hydroprogne caspia* Caspian Tern 

Carpodacus cassinii* Cassin's Finch 

Vireo cassinii Cassin's Vireo 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing 

Poecile rufescens Chestnut-backed Chickadee 

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow 

Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal 

Aechmophorus clarkii* Clark's Grebe 

Nucifraga columbiana* Clark's Nutcracker 

Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow 
40 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow 

Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye 

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle 

Gavia immer* Common Loon 

Mergus merganser Common Merganser 

Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen 

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk 

Corvus corax Common Raven 

Sterna hirundo* Common Tern 

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk 

Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran Flycatcher 

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco 

Junco hyemalis caniceps Dark-eyed Junco (Gray-headed) 

Junco hyemalis montanus Dark-eyed Junco (Montana Junco) 

Junco hyemalis mearnsi Dark-eyed Junco (Pink-sided) 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant 

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker 

Empidonax oberholseri Dusky Flycatcher 

Dendragapus obscurus Dusky Grouse 

Podiceps nigricollis Eared Grebe 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird 

Anas penelope Eurasian Wigeon 

Sturnus vulgaris*** European Starling 

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak 

Buteo regalis* Ferruginous Hawk 

Otus flammeolus* Flammulated Owl 

Sterna forsteri* Forster's Tern 

Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow 

Leucophaeus pipixcan* Franklin's Gull 

Anas strepera Gadwall 

Aquila chrysaetos* Golden Eagle 

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet 

Ammodramus savannarum* Grasshopper Sparrow 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird 

Perisoreus canadensis Gray Jay 

Perdix perdix*** Gray Partridge 

Leucosticte tephrocotis* Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch 

Ardea herodias* Great Blue Heron 

Ardea alba Great Egret 

Strix nebulosa* Great Gray Owl 

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl 

Centrocercus urophasianus* Greater Sage-Grouse 
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 41 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs 

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal 

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker 

Empidonax hammondii Hammond's Flycatcher 

Histrionicus histrionicus* Harlequin Duck 

Zonotrichia querula Harris's Sparrow 

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush 

Lophodytes cucullatus** Hooded Merganser 

Podiceps auritus* Horned Grebe 

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark 

Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch 

Troglodytes aedon House Wren 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer 

Passerina amoena Lazuli Bunting 

Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher 

Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper 

Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup 

Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs 

Melanerpes lewis* Lewis’ Woodpecker 

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow 

Lanius ludovicianus* Loggerhead Shrike 

Numenius americanus* Long-billed Curlew 

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher 

Asio otus Long-eared Owl 

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray's Warbler 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 

Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit 

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren 

Falco columbarius Merlin 

Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird 

Poecile gambeli Mountain Chickadee 

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove 

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler 

Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker 

Colaptes auratus cafer Northern Flicker (Red-shafted) 

Accipiter gentilis* Northern Goshawk 

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier 

Surnia ulula** Northern Hawk Owl 

Icterus galbula Northern Oriole 

Anas acuta Northern Pintail 

Glaucidium gnoma Northern Pygmy-Owl 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow 

Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl 
42 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler 

Lanius excubitor Northern Shrike 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush 

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher 

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned Warbler 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey 

Seiurus aurocapilla** Ovenbird 

Myioborus pictus Painted Redstart 

Falco peregrinus* Peregrine Falcon 

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe 

Dryocopus pileatus* Pileated Woodpecker 

Pinicola enucleator Pine Grosbeak 

Spinus pinus Pine Siskin 

Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon 

Sitta pygmaea Pygmy Nuthatch 

Loxia curvirostra Red Crossbill 

Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser 

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo 

Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped Sapsucker 

Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe 

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird 

Aythya americana Redhead 

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull 

Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck 

Columba livia*** Rock Pigeon 

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren 

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak 

Chen rossii Ross's Goose 

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk 

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse 

Selasphorus rufus** Rufous Hummingbird 

Xema sabini Sabine's Gull 

Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane 

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow 

Tyrannus forficatus Scissor-tailed Flycatcher 

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 

Tympanuchus phasianellus* Sharp-tailed Grouse 
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 43 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Asio flammeus** Short-eared Owl 

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting 

Chen caerulescens Snow Goose 

Bubo scandiacus Snowy Owl 

Vireo solitarius Solitary Vireo 

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow 

Porzana carolina Sora 

Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper 

Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee 

Falcipennis canadensis Spruce Grouse 

Cyanocitta stelleri Steller's Jay 

Melanitta perspicillata Surf Scoter 

Buteo swainsoni** Swainson's Hawk 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush 

Myadestes townsendi Townsend's Solitaire 

Dendroica townsendi Townsend's Warbler 

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow 

Cygnus buccinator* Trumpeter Swan 

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan 

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture 

Ixoreus naevius Varied Thrush 

Chaetura vauxi Vaux's Swift 

Catharus fuscescens* Veery 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow 

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green Swallow 

Rallus limicola Virginia Rail 

Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo 

Sialia mexicana Western Bluebird 

Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Grebe 

Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark 

Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager 

Contopus sordidulus Western Wood-Pewee 

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow 

Plegadis chihi* White-faced Ibis 

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow 

Loxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill 

Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter 

Meleagris gallopavo*** Wild Turkey 

Tringa semipalmata Willet 

Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson's Sapsucker 

Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher 

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope 
44 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler 

Troglodytes troglodytes* Winter Wren 

Aix sponsa Wood Duck 

Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed Blackbird 

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler 

REPTILES
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

Coluber constrictor 

Common Gartersnake 

Eastern Racer 

Elgaria coerulea* 

Chrysemys picta 

Charina bottae 

Northern Alligator Lizard 

Painted Turtle 

Rubber Boa 

Thamnophis elegans Terrestrial Gartersnake 

AMPHIBIANS
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog 

Ambystoma macrodactylum Long-toed Salamander 

Pseudacris regilla Pacific Treefrog 

Ascaphus montanus Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog 

Bufo boreas* Western Toad 

FISH
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Salvelinus confluentusT Bull Trout 

Cottus cognatus 

Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi* 

Slimy Sculpin
 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

INVERTEBRATES
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Rhyacophila betteni A Caddisfly 

Parapsyche elsis A Caddisfly 

Lepidostoma cascadense A Caddisfly 

Lepidostoma unicolor A Caddisfly 

Chyrandra centralis A Caddisfly 

Dicosmoecus atripes A Caddisfly 

Dicosmoecus gilvipes A Caddisfly 

Anagapetus debilis A Caddisfly 

Arctopsyche grandis A Caddisfly 
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 45 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Neophylax splendens A Caddisfly 

Neothremma alicia A Caddisfly 

Micrasema bactro A Caddisfly 

Helicopsyche borealis A Caddisfly 

Hesperophylax designatus A Caddisfly 

Onocosmoecus unicolor A Caddisfly 

Brachycentrus americanus A Caddisfly 

Brachycentrus occidentalis A Caddisfly 

Eukiefferiella brehmi A Eukiefferiellan Chironomid 

Eukiefferiella devonica A Eukiefferiellan Chironomid 

Eukiefferiella gracei A Eukiefferiellan Chironomid 

Ephydatia cooperensis* A Freshwater Sponge 

Helobdella stagnalis A Leech 

Nemotaulius hostilis A Limnephilid Caddisfly 

Serratella tibialis A Mayfly 

Ephemerella excrucians A Mayfly 

Baetis bicaudatus A Mayfly 

Baetis tricaudatus A Mayfly 

Epeorus longimanus A Mayfly 

Drunella coloradensis A Mayfly 

Drunella doddsi A Mayfly 

Drunella grandis A Mayfly 

Drunella spinifera A Mayfly 

Attenella margarita A Mayfly 

Acentrella turbida A Mayfly 

Timpanoga hecuba A Mayfly 

Plauditus punctiventris A Mayfly 

Caudatella hystrix A Mayfly 

Ergodesmus compactus A Millipede 

Lophomus laxus* A Millipede 

Endopus parvipes* A Millipede 

Rhyacophila brunnea A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 

Rhyacophila alberta A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 

Rhyacophila narvae A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 

Rhyacophila verrula A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly 

Zaitzevia parvula A Riffle Beetle 

Heterlimnius corpulentus A Riffle Beetle 

Cleptelmis addenda A Riffle Beetle 

Lara avara A Riffle Beetle 

Narpus concolor A Riffle Beetle 

Ordobrevia nubifera A Riffle Beetle 

Despaxia augusta A Stonefly 
46 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Amphinemura banksi A Stonefly 

Prostoia besametsa A Stonefly 

Zapada cinctipes A Stonefly 

Zapada columbiana A Stonefly 

Zapada oregonensis A Stonefly 

Yoraperla brevis A Stonefly 

Doroneuria theodora A Stonefly 

Hesperoperla pacifica A Stonefly 

Claassenia sabulosa A Stonefly 

Setvena bradleyi A Stonefly 

Kogotus modestus A Stonefly 

Atherix pachypus A True Fly 

Tvetenia bavarica A Tvetenian Chironomid 

Cordulia shurtleffii American Emerald 

Pteronarcys dorsata American Salmonfly 

Agapetus montanus** An Agapetus Caddisfly 

Hyalella azteca*** An Amphipod 

Euphydryas anicia Anicia Checkerspot 

Papilio zelicaon Anise Swallowtail 

Sympetrum semicinctum Band-winged Meadowhawk 

Leucorrhinia proxima Belted Whiteface 

Sympetrum danae Black Meadowhawk 

Rhionaeschna multicolor** Blue-eyed Darner 

Leucorrhinia borealis* Boreal Whiteface 

Euconulus fulvus Brown Hive 

Rhionaeschna californica** California Darner 

Nymphalis californica California Tortoiseshell 

Speyeria callippe Callippe Fritillary 

Aeshna canadensis Canada Darner 

Ladona julia** Chalk-fronted Corporal 

Pontia protodice Checkered White 

Sympetrum internum Cherry-faced Meadowhawk 

Anax junius Common Green Darner 

Plathemis lydia Common Whitetail 

Leucorrhinia glacialis** Crimson-ringed Whiteface 

Lacinipolia cuneata Cuneate Arches 

Leucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface 

Libellula forensis Eight-spotted Skimmer 

Lestes dryas Emerald Spreadwing 

Discus whitneyi Forest Disc 

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer 

Euphydryas gillettii* Gillette's Checkerspot 

Polygonia faunus Green Comma 
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 47 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

Sphaerium simile Grooved Fingernailclam 

Sphaerium occidentale Herrington Fingernailclam 

Leucorrhinia hudsonica Hudsonian Whiteface 

Allogona ptychophora Idaho Forestsnail 

Oreohelix carinifera* Keeled Mountainsnail 

Aeshna eremita** Lake Darner 

Aeshna constricta** Lance-tipped Darner 

Lycaena cupreus Lustrous Copper 

Udosarx lyrata* Lyre Mantleslug 

Magnipelta mycophaga* Magnum Mantleslug 

Deroceras laeve*** Meadow Slug 

Aglais milberti Milbert's Tortoiseshell 

Somatochlora semicircularis** Mountain Emerald 

Enallagma annexum Northern Bluet 

Chlosyne palla Northern Checkerspot 

Lestes disjunctus Northern Spreadwing 

Ischnura cervula Pacific Forktail 

Cordulegaster dorsalis Pacific Spiketail 

Aeshna palmata Paddle-tailed Darner 

Ophiogomphus severus Pale Snaketail 

Papilio eurymedon Pale Swallowtail 

Gnophaela vermiculata Police Car Moth 

Zonitoides arboreus Quick Gloss 

Sympetrum madidum** Red-veined Meadowhawk 

Dasyfidonia avuncularia Red-winged Wave 

Calopteryx aequabilis River Jewelwing 

Colligyrus greggi* Rocky Mountain Duskysnail 

Oreohelix strigosa Rocky Mountainsnail 

Sympetrum costiferum Saffron-winged Meadowhawk 

Pteronarcys californica Salmonfly 

Polites sabuleti Sandhill Skipper 

Aeshna juncea** Sedge Darner 

Aeshna umbrosa Shadow Darner 

Pacifastacus leniusculus Signal Crayfish 

Prophysaon humile* Smoky Taildropper 

Epitheca spinigera** Spiny Baskettail 

Lestes congener Spotted Spreadwing 

Microphysula ingersolli Spruce Snail 

Hyles euphorbiae*** Spurge Hawkmoth 

Sympetrum pallipes Striped Meadowhawk 

Oreohelix subrudis Subalpine Mountainsnail 

Coenagrion resolutum Taiga Bluet 

Libellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer 
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Polygonum austiniae* Austin's Knotweed 

Bidens beckii* Beck Water-marigold 

Potamogeton obtusifolius* Blunt-leaved Pondweed 

Centunculus minimus* Chaffweed 

Cardamine rupicola* Cliff Toothwort 

Carex crawei* Crawe's Sedge 

Carex chordorrhiza* Creeping Sedge 

Castilleja cervina* Deer Indian Paintbrush 

Drosera anglica* English Sundew 

Collomia debilis var. camporum* Flexible Collomia 

Juncus hallii* Hall's Rush 

Grindelia howellii* Howell's Gumweed 

Hutchinsia procumbens* Hutchinsia 

Physaria carinata* Keeled Bladderpod 

Drosera linearis* Linear-leaved Sundew 

Botrychium minganense** Mingan Island Moonwort 

Phlox kelseyi var. missoulensis* Missoula Phlox 

Carex livida** Pale Sedge 

Nymphaea leibergii* Pygmy Water-lily 

Eriophorum gracile* Slender Cottongrass 

Schoenoplectus subterminalis* Water Bulrush 

Howellia aquatilis*T Water Howellia 

Brasenia schreberi* Watershield 

* Species of Concern E Endangered—listed in the Federal Register as 

** Potential Species of Concern being in danger of extinction. 

*** Exotic Species (not native to Montana) T Threatened—listed in the Federal Register as 

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future. 

48 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Helisoma anceps Two-ridge Rams-horn 

Aeshna interrupta Variable Darner 

Sympetrum corruptum Variegated Meadowhawk 

Vitrina pellucida Western Glass-snail 

Margaritifera falcata* Western Pearlshell 

Amphiagrion abbreviatum Western Red Damsel 

Cupido (Everes) amyntula Western Tailed Blue 

Sympetrum obtrusum White-faced Meadowhawk 

Stagnicola caperata Wrinkled Marshsnail 

Aeshna sitchensis** Zigzag Darner 

VASCULAR PLANTS
 
Appendix C 

List of Endangered and Threatened Species 

MAMMALS
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Lynx canadensis (T) Canada lynx 

Canis lupus (E) Gray wolf 

Urus acrctos horribilis (T) Grizzly bear 

FISH
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Salvelinus confluentus (T) Bull trout 

PLANTS
 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
 

Howellia aquatilis (T) Water howellia 

(E) Endangered—listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction. 

(T) Threatened—listed in the Federal Register as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. 

Appendix D 

List of Preparers and Reviewers 

Author’s Name Position Work Unit 

Kathleen Burchett Project leader USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, MT 

Mark Ely Geographic information 

system (GIS) specialist 

USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

CO 

Kevin Ertl Wildlife refuge 

specialist USFWS, H2-O Waterfowl Production Area, Helmville, MT 

Vanessa Fields Wildlife biologist USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, MT 

Randy Gazda Wildlife biologist USFWS, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Great Falls, MT 

Toni Griffin Planning team leader USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

CO 

Greg Neudecker Assistant Montana 

PFW coordinator 

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, MT 

Jason Steigert Economist BBC Research & Consulting, Denver, CO 

Reviewer’s Name Position Work Unit 

Laurel Bowen Writer-editor TBC Solutions, Clinton, TN 

David Lucas Chief of planning USFWS, Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning, Lakewood, 

CO 

Jim Stutzman Montana state 

coordinator USFWS, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Great Falls, MT 

Appendix E

Finding of No Significant Impact
54 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix E — Finding of No Significant Impact 55
56 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix F

Environmental Action Statement

Appendix G

Environmental Compliance Certificate
60 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix G — Environmental Compliance Certificate 61

Appendix H

Section 7 Biological Evaluation
64 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix H — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 65
66 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix H — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 67
68 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix H — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 69

Appendix I

Director’s Approval to Expand the

Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area
72 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT
Appendix H — Director’s Approval to Expand the Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area 73

Appendix J
 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement was initiated for the proposed 

expansion of the conservation easement project in 

the Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area in May 2010. 

A media contact list was compiled and news releases 

and factsheets were developed and distributed to 

media outlets, local organizations, elected officials, 

and interested parties. The news releases and 

factsheets described the proposed expansion of 

the conservation easement project, and announced 

an open house to gather input from the public. 

Personal outreach efforts were made with county 

commissioners and other persons of interest. 

Scoping was conducted during a public open house, 

on May 19, 2010; 7-9 p.m. at the Ovando School, 108 

Birch Street, in Ovando, Montana. The purpose of 

scoping was to seek input from the public regarding 

the proposed expansion of the conservation easement 

project, and to identify the issues that needed to be 

addressed in the planning process. Fifteen people 

attended the open house. Five individuals, two 

agencies, and two organizations provided comments 

during the scoping period. Comments identified 

biological, social, and economic concerns regarding 

the proposed expansion of the conservation easement 

project. The issues raised and comments received 

helped the planning team to develop the alternatives 

presented in the draft environmental assessment 

(EA) and land protection plan (LPP). Key issues 

are described in Chapter 1 of the draft EA and LPP, 

under “Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis.” 

The draft EA/LPP was presented to the public July 

26, 2010 for a 30-day comment period. Six written 

comments were received during the comment period 

on the draft EA and LPP. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The following issues, concerns, and comments are a 

compilation of those expressed during public scoping, 

and during the July–August 2010 comment period for 

the draft EA and LPP. Comments were provided by 

local and county governments, state agencies, private 

organizations, and individuals concerned about the 

natural resources of the Blackfoot Valley. Comments 

were received verbally at meetings, via email, and in 

writing. 

The refuge staff recognizes and appreciates all input 

received from the public. To address this input, 

several clarifications and some changes are reflected 

in the final EA and LPP. 

The issues, comments, and concerns are presented 

as received, followed by responses from the 

Service. Comments about editorial and presentation 

corrections were addressed in the production of the 

final EA and LPP, and are not detailed here. 

Comment 1. I am writing in support of the US Fish 

& Wildlife Service proposal to use Land and Water 

Conservation money to purchase easements in 

3 areas of Montana, the Blackfoot Valley, Rocky 

Mountain Front and Swan Valley. 

During the last 40 years I have recreated in each 

of the areas in question and I value the relatively 

uncluttered space there greatly. What better way to 

spend tax dollars than to preserve a landscape that 

can be enjoyed by everyone in perpetuity. 

I would like to continue hunting, fishing, camping 

and sightseeing in these areas. By purchasing these 

easements, we can keep the private lands a viable 

source of income for the owners and at the same time 

keep the landscape unchanged for visitors like me. 

Response 1. Thank you for your comments. The 

goals of the conservation easement project are to 

protect fish and wildlife resources while concurrently 

maintaining the rural character of the area. 

Implementation of the expansion will support your 

values of preserving a landscape in perpetuity, 

keep private lands a viable source of income for the 

owners, and keep the landscape relatively unchanged 

for visitors to the Blackfoot Valley. 

Comment 2. I noticed that the checkerboard 

ownership west of Placid Lake is excluded from the 

proposed expansion. These lands have been identified 

as some of the highest conservation value lands in 

the Clearwater Valley (see recent discussion among 

Missoula County, Rural Initiatives and MT FW&P 

[Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks], USFS [U.S. 

Forest Service], USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service], and Plum Creek Timber [Company] in 

their IAG [interagency group] proposal for the land 

use plan). Was this decision based on other potential 

conservation strategies for these lands or other 

reasons to exclude this area? 
76 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Response 2. Thank you for your comments. The 

Service agrees that the checkerboard area west 

of Placid Lake has high conservation value. The 

proposed boundary has been modified in the final 

LPP to include this area within the project boundary. 

Comment 3. Please consider parcel sizes smaller 

than 160 acres in Missoula and Lewis and Clark 

Counties. These counties generally have smaller 

lot sizes than Powell County and these smaller 

parcels have high conservation value. Also, please 

consider allowing other entities to hold conservation 

easements because some landowners don’t want the 

government holding their easement. The proposed 

expansion is great! 

Response 3. Thank you for your comments. The 

Service agrees, and the following language was 

included in the draft EA and LPP, Chapter 2— 

Alternatives, page 7, “Alternative B (Proposed 

Action),” “The Service generally focuses on parcels 

greater than 160 acres, however parcels less than 160 

acres may be considered for conservation easements 

if unique biological values exist.” A similar statement 

is also included in Chapter 6—Land Protection Plan, 

“Priority Areas,” page 29, first paragraph. 

Comment 4. Lincoln area may have some smaller 

acreages that are critical connecting corridors. 

Response 4. Thank you for your comments. See 

Response 3. 

Comment 5. I believe it is very important to consider 

a smaller acreage when dealing with Missoula and 

Lincoln County (given that biological values can be 

conserved on a landscape). 

Response 5. Thank you for your comments. See 

Response 3. 

Comment 6. US Fish and Wildlife Service needs to 

look at smaller acreages for special species & wildlife 

corridors. 

Comment 6.1. Also take a hard look at small 

communities to analyze effects of easements. 

Response 6. Thank you for your comments. See 

Response 3. 

Response 6.1. The Service is very sensitive to the 

needs of communities to remain economically healthy. 

We engage the communities to ensure this, by such 

actions as: coordinating with local communities to 

establish buffer zones as requested, maintaining the 

land in private ownership so not to affect tax roles, 

meeting with county commissioners and community 

planning boards. 

Comment 7. The 160 acre minimum won’t work 

for much of the watershed. In Potomac, there are 

key pieces of meadow-creek bottom that need to be 

protected that may be 100 acres or less. 

Response 7. Thank you for your comments. See 

Response 3. 

AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION 

COMMENTS 

Agency and organization comments received include 

the original letter received and our responses. 

Comment 8. I will be unable to attend the upcoming 

meetings regarding easements. I do want to express 

my support for the easement expansion along 

the Front and in the Blackfoot. I also support 

establishment of an easement program in the Seeley/ 

Swan region. As you know, there are significant 

amounts of state trust land in all the areas which 

we manage in cooperation with neighboring 

landowners. Maintaining these working lands for 

habitat and open space as well as livestock and 

timber productivity is critical for the state and local 

communities. 

Thank you for this opportunity to support 

conservation easements as a vital tool for 

maintaining working lands in these important areas 

of Montana. 

Mary Sexton, 


DNRC [State of Montana, 


Department of Natural Resources 


and Conservation] Director
 

Response 8. Thank you for your comments. 

The Service will continue to maintain close 

communication and implement collaborative 

conservation efforts with Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation in the future. 
Appendix J — Public Involvement 77 

Letter # 9 

Response 

Response 9. Thank you for your comments. 
Letter # 10 

Response 

78 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Response 10. Thank you for your comments. 

Response 10.1 See Response 3. 
Appendix J — Public Involvement 79 

Letter # 10 

Response 

Response 10.2 Current policy does not permit Service interests to be managed by other 

agencies or organizations. There are a variety of agencies and land trusts that offer conservation 

easements in the Blackfoot Valley, and landowners are free to pursue a conservation easement 

with the agency or organization that best meet their individual needs. 
Letter # 11 

Response 

Response 11. Thank you for your comments. 

Response 11.1 See Response 3. 

80 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 
Letter # 11 

Appendix J — Public Involvement 81 

Response 

Response 11.2 See Response 10.2. 
82 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Letter # 12 

Response 

Response 12. Thank you for your comments. 

Response 12.1 See Response 3. 

Response 12.2 See Response 10.2. 

Response 13. Thank you for your comments. 
Letter # 13 

Response 

See next page for response. 

Appendix J — Public Involvement 83 
Letter # 13 

84 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

Response 

Response 13. Thank you for your comments. 
Appendix J — Public Involvement 85 

Letter # 14 

Response 

Response 14. Thank you for your comments. 

Response 14.1 The Service also looks forward to continuing our conservation partnership 

with the National Elk Foundation. 

Response 14.2 Fish and wildlife benefits generated from conservation easement projects 

expand to a large suite of species. These benefits are expected to include large herbivores 

such as elk. 

Bibliography
 

Alt, D.; Hyndman, D.W. 1986. Roadside geology 

of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press 

Publishing Company. 5–7. 

Blackfoot Challenge. 2005. The Blackfoot watershed: 

state of the basin report. Understanding our 

natural resources and rural lifestyle. Ovando, MT: 

Blackfoot Challenge. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Blackfoot Challenge and Trout Unlimited. 2009. 

Blackfoot subbasin plan. Ovando, MT: Blackfoot 

Challenge. [Number of pages unknown]. 

Casey, D. 2000. Partner’s in Flight bird conservation 

plan, Montana. Version 1.1. Kalispell, MT: 

American Bird Conservancy. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

Cox, B.; Gignoux, T.; McCulloch, R. 1998. Economic 

geology in the western Montana portion of the 

Blackfoot river region: discussion and field trip 

guide. Abstract. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Northwest Geology. Volume 28:101–109. 

Crown Managers Partnership. 2011. Figure 1 Crown 

of the Continent ecosystem [map pdf]. [Internet]. 

[Revision date unknown]. <http://crownmanagers. 

org> accessed 10 February 2011. 

Dodds, W.K.; Bertrand, K.N.; Dalgleish, H.J.; Falke, 

J.A.; Knight, G.L.; Rehmeirer, R.L.; Wiggam, S.; 

Wilson, K.C. 2008. Comparing ecosystem goods 

and services provided by restored and native 

lands. Bioscience 58:837–845. 

Dood, A.R.; Atkinson, S.J.; Boccadori, V.J. 2006. 

Grizzly bear management plan for western 

Montana: final programmatic environmental 

impact statement. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. 163 p. 

Endangered Species Coalition. 2009. America’s 

hottest species; ten endangered wildlife, fish, and 

plants impacted by climate change. Washington 

DC: Endangered Species Coalition. 16 p. 

Fondell, T.F.; Ball, I.J. 1997. Breeding bird 

productivity in the Blackfoot Valley, Montana. On 

file at Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 

Hanna, D.; Bay, L.; Bergman, E. 2009. Proposed 

climate change case statement for The Nature 

Conservancy in Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Kendall, K.C.; Arno, S.F. 1989. Whitebark pine— 

an important but endangered wildlife species. 

In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J.; compilers. 

Proceedings of symposium on whitebark pine 

ecosystems: ecology and management of a highmountain resource. U.S. Forest Service Technical 

Report INT-270: Proceedings, Symposium on 

whitebark pine ecosystems; 1989 March 29–31; 

[Place of proceedings unknown]. Bozeman, MT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 


Service. 264–273.
 

Kendall, K.C.; Boulanger, J.; Macleod, A.C.; Paetkau, 

D.; Stetz, J.B.; White, G. C. 2009. Demography 

and genetic structure of a recovering brown 

bear population. Journal of Wildlife Management 

73(1):3–17. 

Lesica, P. 1994. The distribution of plant community 

diversity associated with glacial wetlands in the 

Ovando Valley, Montana. On file at The Nature 

Conservancy, 32 S. Ewing, Helena, MT. 26 p. 

[USFS] U.S. Forest Service. 2003. Biological 

assessment for grizzly bears: Clearwater Roads 

Project. On file at U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

U.S. Forest Service, Lola National Forest, Seeley 

Lake Ranger District, Seeley Lake, MT. 

McKelvey, K.S.; Buskirk, S.W.; Krebs, C.J. 2000. 

Theoretical insights into the population viability 

of lynx. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, 

S.W.; et al., editors. Ecology and conservation of 

lynx in the contiguous United States. Boulder, 

CO: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being: current 

state and trends. Washington DC: Island Press. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

[MBTRT] Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team. 

2000. Restoration plan for bull trout in the Clark 

Fork River basin and Kootenai River basin, 

Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. 116 p. 
88 LPP, Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area Expansion, MT 

[MFIS] Montana Fisheries Information System. 

2009. [Name of publication unknown]. Helena, MT: 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2005. 

Montana’s comprehensive fish and wildlife 

conservation strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. [Number of pages unknown]. 

[MTNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

2009a. Natural resource information system 

search results for the blackfoot subbasin. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

________. 2009b. Montana field guide. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. [Number of 

pages unknown]. 

Owens, R.; Myers, M.T. 1972. Effects of agriculture 

upon populations of native passerine birds of an 

Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 51:697–713. 

Pierce R.; Davidson, M.; Knotek, L.; Podner, C.; 

Thabes, J. 2008. The Big Blackfoot River fisheries 

and restoration investigations for 2006 and 2007. 

Missoula, MT: Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks. [Number of pages unknown]. 

[PIF] Partners In Flight. 2000. Partners in flight bird 

conservation plan Montana. Version 1.1. [Place 

of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Ruediger, B.; Claar, J.; Gniadek,, S.; Holt, B.; Lewis, 

L.; Mighton, S.; Naney, B.; Patton, G.; Rinaldi, 

T.; Trick, J.; Vandehey, A.; Wahl, F.; Warren, N.; 

Wenger, D.; Williamson, A. 2000. Canada lynx 

conservation assessment and strategy. [Place 

of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

Stenseth, N. 2004. Snow conditions may create an 

invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Science 101(29):10632–10634. 

The Nature Conservancy of Montana. 2010 [More 

Blackfoot land conserved for fish, wildlife and 

people]. Revised July 27, 2010. <http://www. 

nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ 

montana/press/press4613.html> accessed 

27 July 2010. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. 

Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. [Number of pages unknown]. 

———. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, 

MT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 181 p. 

______. 2002. Draft recovery plan for three of the 

five distinct population segments of bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 1, Clark Fork Recovery Unit. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

______. 2005. Recovery outline: contiguous United 

States distinct population segment of the Canada 

lynx. Helena, MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation 

handbook—a guide to implementing the technical 

elements of SHC. [Place of publication unknown]: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 22 p. 

_______. 2009a. Montana Partners for WildlifeBlackfoot River Watershed focus area. [Internet]. 

[Revision date unknown]. <www.fws.gov/ 

mountain-prairie/pfw/montana/mt5b.htm> 

[Access date unknown]. 

_______. 2009b. Strategic plan for responding to 

accelerating climate change in the 21st century. 

[Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

41 p. 

______. 2009c. [Endangered species program, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. [Revision date 

unknown]. <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/> 

[Access date unknown]. 

______. 2010. [Bull trout proposed critical habitat 

revision, 2010]. Revised January 13, 2010. 

<http://fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/ > [Access date 

unknown]. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Service. 2004. [Northern 

Divide grizzly bear project]. Revised June 

2010. <http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/ 

ncdebeardna_detail.htm> [Access date unknown]. 

Wali, M.K.; Evrendilek, F.; Safaya, N.M. 2002. The 

Americas: With special reference to the United 

States of America. In Perrow, M.R.; Davy, A.J., 

editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. 

Volume 2. Restoration in progress. Cambridge 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 3–31. 

Whipple, J.W.; Earhart, R.L.; Mudge, M.R. 1987. 

Geologic map of the Rogers Pass area, Lewis and 

Clark County, Montana. USGS Miscellaneous 

Investigation Series Map I-1642. [Place of 

publication unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. 
 Bibliography 89 

Witkind, I.J.; Weber, W.M. 1982. Reconnaissance 

geologic map of the Bigfork-Avon environmental 

study areas, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, 

Missoula and Powell counties, Montana. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1380. 

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 

2009. [Frequently asked questions]. [Revision 

date unknown]. <http://www.y2y.net/Default. 

aspx?cid=378&lang=1#Q3> [Access date 

unknown].