Draft Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan

Swan Valley Conservation Area

July 2010

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

922 Bootlegger Trail

Great Falls, MT 594046133

406 / 727 7400

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Refuge Planning

P.O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225

303 / 236 4378
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, an 

environmental assessment and land protection plan have been prepared to analyze the effects of establishing 

the Swan Valley Conservation Area in western Montana.

■ The environmental assessment analyzes the environmental effects of establishing the Swan Valley 

Conservation Area. 

■ The Swan Valley Conservation Area Land Protection Plan describes the priorities for acquiring 10,000 

acres of conservation easements and up to 1,000 acres of limited fee-title lands within the project 

boundary. 

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

information may not be complete.
Contents 

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

1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...................................................................................

Proposal .....................................................................................................................

Project Area ..............................................................................................................

Decisions to be Made ...............................................................................................

............................................. 

............................................. 

............................................. 

............................................. 

1

3

3

3

Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis .........................................................

Biological Issues ................................................................................................

Socioeconomic Issues ........................................................................................

............................................. 

............................................. 

............................................. 

3

3

3

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

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

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

4

4

4

Habitat Protection and Easement Acquisition Process .................................................................................. 5

2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 7

Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................................................................... 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) ....................................................................................................................... 

Alternatives Considered but not Studied.......................................................................................................... 

7

7

8

County Zoning ................................................................................................................................................ 8

3 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Biological Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 

Climate ............................................................................................................................................................. 

9

9

Geological Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 

Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................. 

9

10

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

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................... 13

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

Landownership ............................................................................................................................................... 

Timber Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 

14

14

Property Tax ................................................................................................................................................... 

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

14

14

4 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................................... 17

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

Climate Change .............................................................................................................................................. 

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

WildlifeHabitat—Alternative A .................................................................................................................. 

17

18

18

WildlifeHabitat—Alternative B .................................................................................................................. 20

Water Resources—Alternative A ............................................................................................................... 20

Water Resources—Alternative B................................................................................................................ 20

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment...................................................................................................... 20

Landownership and Land Use—Alternative A ........................................................................................ 20

Landownership and Land Use—Alternative B ........................................................................................ 

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

Wind Energy Development—Alternative A ............................................................................................. 

Wind Energy Development—Alternative B ............................................................................................. 

Public Use—Alternative A........................................................................................................................... 

20

21

21

22

22

Public Use—Alternative B ........................................................................................................................... 22

Economic Impacts—Alternative A ............................................................................................................. 22
ii Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Economic Impacts—Alternative B ............................................................................................................. 22

 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................................................ 22

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 22

 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................................... 23

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 23

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 23

 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity ............................................................................................. 23

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 23

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 23

 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 23

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 23

5 Coordination and Environmental Review .................................................................................................................. 25

Agency Coordination ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 25

National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................................................... 25

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ............................................................................................................. 25

Distribution and Availability ............................................................................................................................... 26

6 Draft Land Protection Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 27

Strategic Habitat Conservation .......................................................................................................................... 27

Biological Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Conservation Design ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Conservation Delivery .................................................................................................................................. 31

Monitoring and Research .............................................................................................................................. 31

Coordination ........................................................................................................................................................... 33

Social and Cultural Considerations .................................................................................................................... 33

Appendixes

A List of Preparers and Reviewers ................................................................................................................. 35

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

C List of Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................................................................. 47

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................... 49

Figures

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

 2 Swan Valley Conservation Area project area .................................................................................... 2

 3 Landownership in the Swan Valley Conservation Area ................................................................... 15

 4 Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services 

 by service and ecoregion ................................................................................................................ 21

 5 Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Swan Valley Conservation Area . 26

 6 The elements of strategic habitat conservation ................................................................................. 28

 7 Critical habitat for bull trout ................................................................................................................. 30

 8 Swan Valley Conservation Area priorities .......................................................................................... 32

Table

 1 Historical seral stages within the Swan sub-basin ............................................................................ 16

2 1998 distribution of seral stages for the Swan sub-basin .................................................................. 16

3 Forest habitat types of the Swan sub-basin ....................................................................................... 16

4 Swan Valley Conservation Area economic impacts ........................................................................... 22

5 Summary of project proposals for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem ................................... 24
Abbreviations

 

BMU bear management units

CoCE Crown of the Continent ecosystem

dbh tree diameter at breast height

DNRC (Montana) Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

EA environmental assessment

FONSI finding of no significant impact

FTE full-time equivalent

GIS geographic information system

GNLCC Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative

HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

LCC landscape conservation cooperative

LPP land protection plan

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program

NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

NEAT National Ecological Assessment Team

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act

NHPS National Historic Preservation Act

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

PCTC Plum Creek Timer Company

PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHC strategic habitat conservation

SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WUI wildland-urban interface

1 Purpose of and Need for Action

The Swan Valley is part of the Interior Columbia 

River Basin Area which includes the larger Columbia 

Basin and the Upper Missouri/Yellowstone rivers 

watersheds (see figure 1). Swan River originates 

at Gray Wolf Lake in the Mission Mountains and 

flows through Swan Lake at the northern end of the 

valley, before entering the Flathead Lake watershed, 

ultimately flowing into the Columbia River System. 

Swan Valley lies at the western edge of the Crown 

of the Continent ecosystem (CoCE) which is the 

last remaining ecosystem that still supports the full 

assemblage of large mammalian predators including 

grizzly bears, gray wolves, wolverine, and Canada 

lynx. 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. 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, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. These 

transitional zones of valley floors to montane forests 

are extremely important to fish and wildlife.

The continued presence in the Swan Valley of a 

large expanse of intact habitat and historic wildlife 

corridors would benefit federal trust species such as 

the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, pine martin 

and Canada lynx; migratory birds such as harlequin 

ducks, common loons, red-necked grebes, black tern, 

olive-sided flycatcher, peregrine falcons, greater 

sandhill cranes and trumpeter swans; westslope 

cutthroat trout and bull trout. Swan Valley 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, and water howellia. 

PROPOSAL

The Swan Valley Conservation Area is a conservation 

strategy to protect one of the last undeveloped, 

low elevation coniferous forest ecosystems in 

western Montana. Swan Valley is situated between 

the roadless areas of the Glacier National Park/

Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, the Mission 

Mountains Wilderness, and the Bitterroot/Selway 

Wilderness Complex to the southwest. As such, it 

provides an avenue of connectivity between the 

Canadian Rockies and the Central Rockies of Idaho 

and Wyoming.

This proposal focuses on the strategic purchase of 

10,000 acres of conservation easements on private 

lands nestled between the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

and the Mission Mountain Wilderness. This proposal 

also includes the purchase of up to 1,000 acres 

immediately adjacent to Swan River National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (see figure 2). 

Unlike many other rural valleys in Montana, Swan 

Valley has the potential to maintain its role in 

connecting the surrounding landscapes. However, 

a combination of depressed timber markets and 

high recreational values of the land have recently 

threatened not only the connectivity for wildlife, but 

are also impacting the traditional rural way of life 

for residents of Swan Valley. Funding would come 

primarily from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) and potential conservation partners. 

See appendix A for a list of preparers of this 

environmental assessment (EA).

Figure 1. Crown of the Continent ecosystem.
2 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Figure 2. Swan Valley Conservation Area project area.
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 3

PROJECT AREA

The Swan Valley is located on the western edge 

of the CoCE, approximately 30 miles southeast of 

Kalispell, Montana. The Bob Marshall Wilderness and 

Glacier National Park mark the eastern boundary, 

with the Mission Mountains Wilderness and 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribal lands on the 

western boundary, and the Blackfoot River Valley 

flanking the southern side of the watershed. The 

project area encompasses an 187,400-acre landscape 

on the valley floor of the 469,000-acre Swan River 

watershed. The watershed contains approximately 

332,000 acres in protected public ownership.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

Based on the analysis in this EA, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s (Service) director of region 6, with 

the concurrence of the director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, will make three decisions:

■ Determine whether the Service should 

establish the Swan Valley Conservation Area. 

■ If yes, select an approved project boundary that 

best fulfills the habitat protection purposes.

■ If yes, determine whether the selected 

alternative would have a significant impact 

on the quality of the human environment. 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 requires this decision. If the 

quality of the human environment would 

not be significantly affected, a finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) will be signed and 

made available to the public. If the alternative 

would have a significant impact, completion of 

an environmental impact statement would be 

required to address further those impacts.

ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND SELECTED 

FOR ANALYSIS

Open house public meetings were held at the 

community center in Condon, Montana May 18 

and June 2, 2010. Public comments were taken 

to identify issues to be analyzed for the proposed 

project. Approximately thirty-seven landowners, 

citizens, and elected representatives attended the 

meetings and most expressed positive support for 

the project. Following the open house meeting, 

factsheet and flyers were posted in the Benton Lake 

NWR Complex headquarter’s visitor center notifying 

visitors of the proposed project. Additionally, twentyseven letters providing comments and identifying 

issues and concerns were also submitted. 

In addition, the Service’s field staff has contacted 

local government officials, other public agencies, 

and conservation groups which have expressed an 

interest in and a desire to provide a sustainable 

future for Swan Valley. Factsheet flyers were 

distributed at the public meetings; local newpapers 

ran articles on the meetings, and posters were 

displayed at local businesses. Project information 

was also made available on the refuge and regional 

planning websites.

Many of the comments received addressed the 

need for a balance between natural and cultural 

systems. There are two main categories of commonly 

expressed issues and concerns.

Biological issues

■ The impacts of habitat fragmentation due to 

residential development.

■ The Service’s role in management of private 

land encumbered with a conservation easement.

■ Concerns about habitat fragmentation involve 

potential impacts on wildlife habitat and water 

resources.

■ The impact of climate change on the long term 

sustainability and resiliency of the Swan Valley.

■ The value of intact ecosystems.

Wildlife Habitat

Habitat fragmentation is a concern not only 

in the Swan Valley, but also in other areas of 

Montana. Given the current strong market for 

scenic western properties, there is concern that 

properties in the Swan Valley will be vulnerable to 

sale and subdivision for residential and commercial 

development. 

Water Resources

Residential development in the Swan 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. 

S

■ The need to keep private land in private 

ownership.

■ The impacts of conservation easements on local 

community centers and their ability to grow.

■ Concern regarding fee-title purchase of lands 

around Swan River NWR, and the potential 

loss of tax revenue to local counties.

■ Since parcel sizes are typically smaller in the 

Swan Valley than other areas of Montana; the 

need to consider easements for smaller parcels 

(<160 acres) in this region.

■ Wind energy development.
4 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Landownership and Land Use

There is concern that perpetual easements would 

negatively affect future generations of landowners. 

A concern is that conservation easements would 

limit the choices of future landowners, even though 

they may have paid as much for the land as if it had 

no restrictions. There are concerns that perpetual 

easements would lower the resale value of the land. 

There is concern that the selection process would 

favor landowners whose properties are larger in size 

over smaller but biologically valuable properties. 

Public Use

The public’s right to use or access lands encumbered 

with a conservation easement is a concern. 

Landowners are concerned they would be forced 

to allow the public to access their land for hunting, 

fishing, or other recreational uses. 

I

Currently, landowners pay the counties property 

taxes on their private lands. The Swan Valley CA is 

mainly a proposed conservation easement program, 

the land does not change hands, and therefore the 

property taxes paid by the landowner to the county 

are not affected. Minimal changes to the tax base 

are anticipated. Fee-title lands purchased would be 

subject to the Revenue Sharing Act (16 USC 715s) 

which requires revenue sharing payments to counties 

for purchase of the land. The amount is based on the 

greatest of (1) 3⁄4 of 1 percent of the market value, 

(2) 25 percent of the net receipts, or (3) 75 cents per 

acre.

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. Swan Valley CA would be managed 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, policies, and management plans 

such as:

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) 

■ Migratory non-game 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

In 2008, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and 

the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) entered into an 

agreement with Plum Creek Timber Company 

(PCTC) to purchase, in a three-phase project, a 

total of 312,500 acres in western Montana known 

as the Montana Legacy Project. A total of 65,630 

acres are located on the valley floor in the Swan 

Valley. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is scheduled 

to purchase 44,821 acres in 2010 and 20,809 acres 

will be purchased by the Montana Department of 

Natural Resources (DNRC) in 2011. This transfer of 

ownership from corporate lands to public lands will 

have major benefits in reducing the checkerboard 

pattern of ownership within the valley and in 

protecting critical fish and wildlife habitat. 

At the northern end of the valley where the Swan 

River flows into Swan Lake, the Service owns the 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. This 1,568-acre 

refuge with an additional 210-acre USFS inholding 

was purchased for migratory birds under the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715-715. 

Adjacent to the refuge, TNC purchased a 392-acre 

property called the Swan River Oxbow Preserve in 

1986. These critically important fee-title lands form 

a crucial biological anchor in the northern part of the 

Swan River watershed.

This jointly owned 2,170 acre area is home to a 

variety of wetland communities, many species 

of birds, and several rare plants including the 

threatened water howellia. Historically, portions of 

this land served as a homestead site and supported 

such activities as farming, logging, grazing, and 

even a muskrat farm. The essential element of this 

landscape is water. Most of the refuge and preserve 

lies within a delta formed by the Swan River as it 

flows north to Swan Lake. The water table is high 

throughout this area due to the flooding of the river 

and a system of perennial springs and seeps along 

the eastern border of the preserve. Water moving 

through the Swan River NWR and TNC Preserve 

supports an amazing variety of wetland communities. 

Spruce forest predominates along the southern 

boundary. A complex of sedge fen and birch carr 

communities lies adjacent to the spring system. To 

the west, cottonwood forest dominates the area. 

TNC has identified five rare plant populations 

and two rare lichens within the variety of wetland 

communities of the Swan River NWR and Preserve. 

Round-leafed pondweed grows in the oxbow and 

adjacent ponds. Northern bastard toadflax inhabits 

the wet spruce forest. Buchler fern is found where 

carr vegetation and spruce forest intermingle. Small 

yellow lady’s slipper grows on the preserve.
Chapter 1 —Purpose of and Need for Action 5

Protecting habitat for the federally listed water 

howellia is a high priority of this project proposal. 

Howellia is thought to be extinct in California and 

Oregon, and is threatened in Washington, Idaho, 

and Montana. On the TNC Preserve, water howellia 

grows in the extensive marshes. Water howellia 

populations fluctuate with changes in the climate and 

it is estimated that the Swan River Oxbow Preserve 

supports approximately 5,000 plants, due in part to 

the variable drying regimes found across the refuge 

and preserve. This population, however, is extremely 

sensitive to climatic change, soil conditions, and 

disturbance.

The Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas 

to the east perpetually protect over 1.5 million acres, 

connecting the Rocky Mountain Front and Blackfoot 

Valley to Swan Valley. To the west lies the 73,877-

acre Mission Mountains Wilderness which provides 

connectivity to the Selway/Bitterroot Wilderness to 

the southwest covering an additional 1.3 million acres 

(see figure 1). 

HABITAT PROTECTION AND EASEMENT 

ACQUISITION PROCESS

Swan Valley Conservation Area includes the 

communities of Condon, Salmon Prairie, and Swan 

Lake in Missoula and Lake counties. 

The proposal would protect 11,000 acres primarily 

through conservation easements and up to 1,000 

acres of fee-title acquisitions. Fee-title purchase 

would be limited to lands immediately adjacent to 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. 

On approval of a project boundary, habitat protection 

would 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. 

Some fee-title acquisition would be authorized within 

the proposed project boundary. 

The acquisition authority for the proposed project 

is the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742 a-742j). The federal monies 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 the 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, and landowner interest in the 

program. The purchase of conservation easements 

would occur with willing sellers only and would be 

subject to available funding.

2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

This chapter describes the two alternatives identified 

for this project: 

■ no-action alternative

■ proposed action, giving the Service the 

authority to establish the Swan Valley 

Conservation Area

The alternatives consider the effects of a 

conservation program within the boundaries 

identified for this project area in this EA.

Swan Range.

© Craig Montgomery

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Currently, Service easements are available 

through the small wetlands acquisition program for 

landowners that qualify in Lake County. 

Habitat enhancement or restoration projects on 

private lands such as wetland restoration, timber 

management, instream restoration, and grassland 

management could continue through cooperative 

efforts with private landowners.

Private efforts by land trusts would continue to 

secure conservation easements. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION) 

This alternative focuses on the strategic purchase 

of up to 10,000 acres of conservation easements on 

private lands nestled between the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness and the Mission Mountain Wilderness. 

Fee-title acquisition would be limited to no more 

than 1,000 acres on lands immediately adjacent to 

Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. A combination 

of depressed timber markets and high recreational 

values of the land have recently threatened not only 

the connectivity for wildlife, but are also impacting 

the traditional rural lifestyle for residents of the 

Swan Valley. The watershed is just over 469,000 

acres with over 332,000 acres in protected public 

ownership. 

The Service would seek to purchase conservation 

easements and fee-title lands from willing sellers 

only. Conservation easement contracts would specify 

perpetual protection of habitat for trust species 

and restrict development. Fee-title lands would be 

managed as additions to the Swan River National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Prioritization of areas considered for conservation 

easements or fee-title acquisition within the project 

areas will be based on the biological needs of the 

wildlife species of concern, (migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species), the threat of 

development, connectivity with other protected 

lands, and quality of habitat types (including riparian 

areas, wetlands, and native grasslands) for trust 

species. The Service generally focuses on parcels 

>160 acres, however parcels <160 acres may be 

considered for conservation easements if unique 

biological values exist. The land protection plan 

(LPP) within this volume describes these priorities 

in detail. 

The easement program would rely on voluntary 

participation from landowners. Grazing would not 

be restricted on the land included in the easement 

contract. 

Development for residential, and commercial or 

industrial purposes, such as energy and aggregate 

extraction would not be permitted on properties 

under a conservation easement. Alteration of the 

natural topography, conversion of native grassland to 

cropland, drainage of wetlands, and establishment of 

game farms would also be prohibited. Haying would 

be permitted after July 15th. Timber harvest is 

permitted on lands with an approved timber harvest 

management plan. 

 Conservation easement lands would remain 

in private ownership; property tax and land 

management, including invasive weed control, 

would remain the responsibility of the landowner. 

The Service would seek to provide participating 

landowners with additional assistance with invasive 
8 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

plant control. Control of public access to the land 

would remain under the control of the landowner.

The project area would be managed by the Benton 

Lake NWR Complex staff headquartered in Great 

Falls, Montana. The Benton Lake NWR Complex 

staff would be responsible for monitoring and 

administration of all easements on private land. 

Monitoring would consist of periodically reviewing 

land status in meetings with the landowners or 

land managers to ensure that the stipulations of the 

conservation easement are being met. A baseline 

inventory study which includes photo documentation 

would be completed at the time the easements are 

established to document baseline conditions. An 

estimated 1.67 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees 

would be hired at an average salary of $54,911 per 

employee under this management alternative.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT 

STUDIED

There was no further analysis for the following 

alternative.

C

In a traditional approach used by counties and 

municipalities, the local government would use 

zoning as a means of designating what type of 

development could occur in an area. Comments 

received from county commissioners to date have 

expressed support for conservation easements 

(alternative B) as a means of compensating private 

landowners for maintaining the rural area values. 

In counties where zoning occurs, conservation 

easements are recognized as a tool to ensure the 

long-term prevention of residential or commercial 

development in the conservation area. 
3 Affected Environment

This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and 

socioeconomic resources most likely affected by 

establishing the Swan Valley CA.

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The biological environment studied included climate, 

geological resources, habitat, and wildlife.

Swan Valley.

Kathleen Burchett/USFWS

C

The Upper Swan Valley is at the eastern limit of 

the Pacific maritime climatic influence, common to 

northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. The 

Mission Mountains experience more of the maritime 

influence than the Swan Range. The climate is 

generally cool and dry with precipitation increasing 

from south to north in the valley. Precipitation in the 

form of snow and rain varies between an average 

of 30 inches on the valley floor to over 100 inches 

along the Swan and Mission divides. The highest 

precipitation usually comes from late October to 

mid-February and again from mid-May to early July. 

The highest precipitation intensity occurs when a 

moist weather front from the Pacific collides with 

cool continental weather. Swan River receives a 

yearly average of 28.36 inches of precipitation with 

125 inches of snow. Maximum snowfall was 256 inches 

from the fall 1996 to spring 1997 period, and the 

maximum precipitation was 37.73 inches in 1964.

At the lower elevations the average annual 

temperature approximates 40°F. The average 

maximum temperature at Swan Lake is 55.3 degrees 

with the coldest average minimum temperature of 

15.6 degrees occurring in January and the warmest 

average high temperature of 81.4 degrees occurring 

in July. Occasionally, cold arctic air slips over the 

Continental Divide from the northeast and down 

the valley, bringing extreme subzero temperatures 

from the continental weather system. Summer 

temperatures average in the 80s at the lower 

elevations with extreme temperatures of 90°F to 

100°F during drought years. The relatively short 

growing season (2 to 3 months) limits widespread 

agricultural development. Frosts can occur any 

month of the year. Therefore, conversion of forest 

types to cultivated crops has been limited in 

comparison to other western Montana valleys. The 

highest temperature recorded was 103°F on August 

24, 1969 and the lowest recorded temperature was 

-40°F on February 29, 1968 (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2010).

The average maximum temperature in Seeley Lake 

in the southern part of the valley is also 55.3°F. 

Annual precipitation in Seeley Lake is 20.9 inches 

with average annual snowfall totaling 120 inches. 

The highest temperature recorded in Seeley Lake 

was 102 degrees on 7/7/2007 and the lowest recorded 

temperature was -53 on 1/7/37 (Western Regional 

Climate Center 2010). 

G

The Mission Mountains and Swan Range resulted 

from the uplifting of ancient sea sediments laid down 

millions of years ago. The first phase pushed and 

bent these compressed sediments eastward along 

fault zones. The sediments were then formed into 

thick beds of compressed limestone, mudstone, and 

sandstone called the Belt Sedimentary Formation. 

Other rock deposits were added over millions of 

years. 

Swan Valley was created by block faulting, with a 

large block of rock being pushed up along the fault 

lines forming the steep Swan Range on the east side 

of the valley and the west side of the fault dipping 

down, forming the Mission Mountains along the 
10 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

west side. The general direction of the faulting was 

northwest to southeast, with the mountain ranges 

tilted in an easterly direction. This faulting history 

generally left steeper and more rugged mountains 

in the Swan Range. Both the Mission Mountains 

and the Swan Range are Precambrian sedimentary 

formations. 

Further alteration of the geological landscape in 

the Swan Valley resulted from mountain valley or 

alpine glaciation. During the Bull Lake Ice Age that 

peaked roughly 100,000 years ago, the northern 

end of the Mission Mountains split the Rocky 

Mountain Trench (or Cordilleran) Glacier which 

flowed south from British Columbia. One lobe of the 

glacier went through the Swan Valley south to the 

Blackfoot River forming a continuous sheet over 

the mountains, especially the northern portion of 

the Mission Mountains. Only the highest peaks and 

ridges remained uncovered. 

Ice again advanced through the valley to the lower 

end of Salmon Lake during the Pinedale Ice Age 

about 15,000 years ago. After this massive ice sheet 

melted, large glaciers repeatedly moved down the 

Mission and Swan valleys. Gravel beds of meltwater 

streams within the receding glaciers remained as 

long ridges (eskers) of sand and gravel. Additionally, 

long tongues of ice thrust out of the mountains into 

the valley, depositing moraines at their edges. The 

last fingers of ice formed the high ridges or high 

moraines that now enclose glacial lakes such as 

Holland and Lindbergh lakes, as well as others at 

the mouths of canyons in the Mission Mountains 

and Swan Range. The alpine glaciers may have 

merged to form a very large ice sheet in the Swan 

Valley that flowed north to meet the Cordilleran ice 

sheet near Bigfork. Giant glacial grooves cut in the 

northern tip of the Mission Mountains and along the 

east flank of the Mission Mountains and the west 

flank of the Swan Range may have been made by 

the south-flowing Cordilleran ice sheet or the northflowing Swan Valley glacier. As the valley glacier 

melted, dirt and debris were left behind. Large piles 

of these sediments remained as humps on the valley 

floor or were pushed into ridges or eskers as the 

glaciers moved. In other areas, pockets of ice were 

left behind. When they melted, they left depressions 

that became lakes, ponds, potholes or wetlands. 

This complex of wetlands intermingled with upland 

terrain is unique. (Swan Ecosystem Center 2004)

The Swan River Basin, tributary to the Flathead 

Lake and the Flathead River in the headwaters 

of the Columbia River, is approximately 1,286 

square miles in area. A wide diversity of lakes, 

riparian areas, rivers, creeks, alpine and subalpine 

glacial lakes, and springs feed the basin (Friessell 

et al. 1995). The Swan and Mission Mountains 

(peak elevations reaching over 9,000 feet), have 

picturesque canyons that were formed by streams 

cutting through the Precambrian Belt Series 

metasedimentary rock (Alt and Hyndman 1997). 

The Swan River, forged from flows through the 

mountains, winds across the morainal foothills and 

through the valleys forming braided delta areas. 

The river travels over a dense forest floor composed 

of variously graded, porous glacial till and alluvium 

averaging 6.2 miles wide at an elevation range of 

2,500 to 9,000 feet. (Friessell et al. 1995). Several 

large lakes (250 to 2,700 acres) occur along the 

course of the river and its main tributaries. These 

large lakes within the valley were carved by large 

alpine glaciers (Alt and Hyndman 1997). Hundreds 

of kettle lakes, fens, bogs, and other lacustrine and 

palustrine wetlands, with many perched aquifers not 

directly connected to surface streams, lie scattered 

across the glacial and alluvial valley floors and 

foothills (Friessell et al. 1995). Forested riverine 

and palustrine wetlands fringe the river channel 

and dominate its extensive floodplains and relict 

paleochannels (an ancient inactive stream channel 

filled by the sediments of younger overlying rock). 

HaBitat

Swan Valley is a biologically rich coniferous forest 

ecosystem located between the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness and the Mission Mountains Wilderness 

complexes, in the heart of the CoCE. The Swan 

Valley supports Canada lynx, wolves, wolverine, 

grizzly bear, black bear, bull trout, elk, moose, 

goshawks, loons, eagles, and numerous other species. 

The Swan Valley is unique among Montana’s 

spectacular valleys in that it contains over 4,000 

glacially derived wetlands. In fact, approximately 

16% of the land in the Swan Valley is considered 

wetland habitat (lakes, rivers, ponds, marshes, 

wet meadows, peatlands, and riparian areas). By 

comparison, the remainder of Montana averages 1% 

wetland habitat. This fact, along with its diverse 

forest types, makes the Swan Valley ideal habitat 

for a diverse array of wildlife. Rare carnivores, 

threatened trout, and a high diversity of songbirds 

and waterfowl depend upon the Swan Valley’s unique 

habitats.

The Swan Valley contains fourteen ecologically 

significant wetlands as identified in the Montana 

Natural Heritage Program’s report; “Ecologically 

Significant Wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, 

and Swan River Valleys” (Greenlee 1999). There is 

a higher number of wetland-associated rare-plant 

species in the Swan Valley, including, federally 

threatened water howellia. Water howellia is found 

exclusively in small, shallow depressional wetlands 

scattered across the valley floor. The Swan Valley is 

believed to contain the world’s greatest density of 

water howellia. 

The Swan Valley also supports a rich diversity of 

forest types ranging from high elevation white bark 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment 11

pine communities to dry ponderosa pine communities 

on the valley floor, to wet cedar/hemlock and 

Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir communities on the 

east side of the valley. 

Wildlife

The Swan Valley’s moist low elevation forest 

ecosystem supports a rich diversity of fish and 

wildlife species (see appendix B). The federal 

trust species that would benefit from the proposed 

habitat protection include listed and candidate 

species such as grizzly bear, wolf, wolverine, pine 

martin, and lynx; migratory birds such as harlequin 

duck, common loon, red-necked grebe, black tern, 

peregrine falcon, and greater sandhill crane; and 

native salmonoids such as the westslope cutthroat 

trout and bull trout. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

The Montana Natural Heritage Database (MTNHP 

2010) documents ten species of amphibians and 

reptiles on record within the Swan Valley (see 

appendix B). Many of the species documented include 

S4 Status Species (apparently secure, through it may 

be quite rare in parts of its range or is suspected 

to be declining) such as common garter snake, 

painted turtle, rubber boa, Columbia spotted frog, 

long-toed salamander, and Rocky Mountain tailed 

frog. The northern alligator lizard is listed as a S3 

Status Species (species potentially at risk because 

of limited or declining numbers, range or habitat, 

even though it may be abundant in some areas of 

Montana). The western toad is listed as a S2 Status 

Species (species at risk because of very limited or 

potentially declining population numbers, range or 

habitat, making it vulnerable to global extinction 

or extirpation in Montana). The northern leopard 

frog is listed as a S1 Status Species (at high risk 

because of extremely limited or rapidly declining 

population numbers, range or habitat, making it 

highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation 

in Montana). 

Species not listed in the Natural Heritage Database, 

but known to occur in the Valley include: Pacific 

treefrog, western skink, eastern racer, gophersnake, 

terrestrial garter snake, and western rattlesnake 

(Werner et al. 2004). A total of sixteen species of 

amphibians and reptiles are known to inhabit the 

diverse habitats within the Swan Valley.

Garter snake.

USFWS

Fish

Common fish species of the Swan Valley include 

longnose suckers, largescale suckers, and slimy 

sculpin. In addition, potential species of concern 

within the project area include the brook stickleback 

and pygmy whitefish. Westslope cutthroat trout are 

currently a species of special concern, and utilize 

clear, cold lakes and streams found in the project 

area. 

Swan Valley Conservation Area is within the 

designated recovery area for the federally 

threatened bull trout. Critical habitat has been 

designated for bull trout within the project area. 

Mammals

The Montana Natural Heritage Database (Montana 

Natural Heritage Program 2010) documents fortytwo species of mammals on record within the 

Swan Valley (see appendix B). Many of the species 

documented include S2 Status Species such as grizzly 

bear and Townsend’s bat. Other species include S3 

Status Species such as wolverine, fisher, hoary bat, 

fringed myotis, hoary marmot, and Canada lynx, a 

federally threatened species. 

Game species not listed in the Natural Heritage 

Database, but known to occur in the valley include: 

moose, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, big horn 

sheep, and mountain goat (Foresman 2001). Other 

species documented to occur within the Valley 

include: northern pocket gopher, southern red-backed 

vole, long-tailed vole, montane vole, heather vole, 

northern grasshopper mouse, house mouse, Norway 

rat, northern bog lemming, yellow-bellied marmot, 

northern flying squirrel, coyote), red fox, striped 

skunk, long-tailed weasel, mink), badger, raccoon, 

white-tailed jackrabbit, mountain cottontail, and 

porcupine (Foresman 2001).

A total of sixty-nine species of mammals are known 

to inhabit the diverse habitats within the Swan 

Valley. This vast array of species including large 

charismatic megafauna such as the grizzly bear, black 

bear, elk, moose, lynx, mountain lion, and wolf to 

more sublime species such as long-tailed voles and 

yellow-bellied marmots. 

Migratory and Other Birds

Over 160 bird species are known to occur in 

watershed with 110 breeding bird species 

documented.
12 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Wetland complexes in the Swan Valley provide 

important breeding habitat for twenty species of 

waterfowl including: mallard, lesser scaup, wood 

duck, redhead, ring-necked duck, canvasback, 

American wigeon, Canada goose, green-winged teal, 

blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, 

gadwall, common goldeneye, Barrow’s goldeneye, 

harlequin duck, bufflehead, hooded merganser, 

common merganser, red-breasted merganser, and 

ruddy duck.

The Swan Valley is one of the only watersheds in 

the western continental United States that supports 

breeding common loons. Currently, there are a total 

of six breeding pairs in the Swan Valley (Van, Loon, 

Summit, Lindbergh, Swan, and Holland lakes). 

Historical records indicate Shey and Peck Lakes as 

being previously occupied by common loons. 

Species of Special Concern

Twenty-seven of the 160 known bird species in the 

project area are Intermountain West Joint Venture 

conservation priority species. The U.S. Forest 

Service lists flammulated owl, bald eagle, blackbacked woodpecker, common loon, and peregrine 

falcon as sensitive species occurring in the valley.

Partners In-Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan 

for Montana (Rich 2004) identifies thirty-six species 

designated as conservation priority occurring in the 

Swan Valley Conservation Area: 

■ 4 Level 1 Priority Species: Common loon, blackbacked woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, and 

brown creeper.

■ 14 Level 2 Priority Species: Barrow’s goldeneye, 

hooded merganser, bald eagle, northern 

goshawk, peregrine falcon, Vaux’s swift, 

calliope hummingbird, Lewis’ woodpecker, 

ruffed grouse, three-toed woodpecker, pileated 

woodpecker, willow flycatcher, Hammond’s 

flycatcher, Cordilleran flycatcher, winter wren, 

red-naped sapsucker, and red-eyed vireo.

■ 28 Level 3 Priority Species: Northern harrier, 

sharp-shinned hawk, blue grouse, killdeer, 

western screech-owl, treat tray owl, rufous 

hummingbird, downy woodpecker, Clark’s 

nutcracker, chestnut-backed chickadee, 

American dipper, golden-crowned kinglet, 

Townsend’s solitaire, varied thrush, gray 

catbird, Cassin’s vireo, warbling vireo, 

Townsend’s warbler, American redstart, 

MacGillivray’s warbler, chipping sparrow, song 

sparrow, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed 

blackbird, Brewer’s blackbird, Cassin’s finch, 

and red crossbill.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of 

Migratory Bird Management report “Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2008” has identified the 

following twenty-two species of concern occurring in 

the Swan Valley Conservation Area:

■ 7 Species on Bird Conservation Region 

10 (Northern Rockies) List: Bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon, calliope hummingbird, Lewis’ 

woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, and willow 

flycatcher. 

■ 8 Species on USFWS Region 6 (MountainPrairie Region) List: American bittern, bald 

eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie 

falcon, Lewis’ woodpecker, willow flycatcher, 

and Cassin’s finch.

■ 7 Species on National List: Bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon, calliope hummingbird, rufous 

hummingbird, Lewis’ woodpecker, olive-sided 

flycatcher, and willow flycatcher.

Federally listed animal species found in the Swan 

Valley include the threatened bull trout, grizzly bear, 

and Canada lynx. The gray wolf, which was delisted 

from endangered status in March 2009, the bald 

eagle, which was delisted from threatened status 

in July 2007, and the fisher, which is a candidate for 

listing, also occur in the watershed (USFWS 2009b). 

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. Swan River Valley falls 

within the Clark Fork River Recovery Unit, and the 

Upper Clark Fork Recovery Subunit. Within this 

subunit, the watershed has been identified as a core 

recovery area (USFWS 2002). 

Within the Clark Fork Recovery Area (all of western 

Montana, except the Kootenai River, plus parts of 

Idaho), the Swan Lake bull trout population has 

remained strong. The Swan Lake population is 

stable because fish can access about 150 miles of 

high quality tributary spawning habitat. Most bull 

trout populations are declining, because of habitat 

degradation, but many of the Swan Valley’s tributary 

streams are in good to excellent condition. 

Continuous identifiable female bull trout nesting 

areas (redd) count history dating to 1982 is available 

for bull trout for four index streams in the Swan 

River Watershed (MFWP 2009). Bull trout may have 

reached equilibrium in this system at a population 

level of about 2,000 adults and the current trend 

appears stable. 

The total redd count was 598 in 2008, representing 

roughly 2,000 adults in the spawning run. Given that 

some adults do not spawn every year, the total adult 

population is likely over 2,500 adult bull trout.

Grizzly Bear

Grizzly bears are currently listed as a federally 

threatened species in the Northern Continental 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment 13

Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) (USFWS 2009b). The 

NCDE is an area of the northern Rocky Mountains, 

contained within the CoCE, 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 (765 individuals) of grizzly bears in 

the lower forty-eight states. Despite dramatic losses 

of habitat throughout North America, the grizzly has 

maintained a presence in Montana and bears occur 

in many portions of the Swan Valley watershed. 

The watershed is the southern boundary for the 

NCDE grizzly bear recovery zone. The Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) includes all of Swan 

River 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 fortyfive grizzly bears in the Swan Valley in 2003 and 2004. 

The USGS estimates that at least sixty-one bears are 

present during all or part of the year in the watershed 

(USGS 2004). This area has been identified an 

important habitat link for grizzlies moving between 

the Glacier National Park/Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex and the Mission Mountains Wilderness. The 

Swan Valley is also believed to be the key linkage 

zone to the large and important Bitterroot/Selway 

Wilderness Complex to the southwest. As such, it 

provides an avenue of connectivity between the 

Canadian Rockies and the Central Rockies of Idaho 

and Wyoming. Maintaining habitat connectivity is 

critical to sustaining grizzly bear life histories and 

maintaining sustainable subpopulations within the 

southern portion of the NCDE.

Numerous studies by the Service and Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) have documented 

significant grizzly bear use on private lands in 

the Swan Valley. Lakes, ponds, fens and springfed creeks, common in portions of the valley floor, 

provide excellent bear habitat. Additionally, the 

vegetation found along certain reaches of the Swan 

River and its tributaries provide bears with cover, 

food, and natural movement corridors. 

Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf

The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery 

Plan established three recovery zones in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming. The Swan 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 

2009b). The status of the gray wolf, however, is not 

yet resolved due to the likelihood of litigation over 

delisting. As of 2009, MFWP has confirmed the 

presence of three resident wolf packs and estimates 

that at least fifteen to twenty-five wolves inhabit the 

watershed.

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 (Nordstrom 

2005). 

The Swan 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 

Blackfoot and Swan watersheds, lynx populations 

appear stable, although low reproductive rates 

are characteristic of this population. Since 1998, 

over eighty lynx have been monitored in this area, 

providing information on habitat use, reproduction, 

mortality, and movement. This research has shown 

that the Swan and Blackfoot watersheds contain 

some of the best remaining habitat for lynx in the 

continental United States. Large, intact spruce/

subalpine fir forests above 4,000 feet in this area 

provide high quality habitat for lynx and for 

snowshoe hares, the 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). 

Conservation easements protecting critical forested/

wetland habitats including ponderosa pine, cedar/

hemlock and Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir 

communities on the valley floor as well as riparian 

areas will have long lasting benefits for the species 

listed above. 

See appendix C for a list of federally listed animals 

present in the project area. 

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. 
14 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

This section discusses landownership, timber 

resources, property taxes, and public use and 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities. 

L

The Swan Valley watershed ownership consists 

of 286,798 acres of federal (U.S. Forest Service 

and Service) lands, 45,676 acres of state (Montana 

Department of Natural Resources) land, 66,066 acres 

owned by The Nature Conservancy, 12,154 acres 

owned by Plum Creek Timber Company, and 51,808 

acres of private lands. Most of the middle and high 

elevation forested lands within the watershed are 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Private 

lands are concentrated in the low elevation portions 

of the watershed. See figure 3, map of landownership 

in Swan Valley Conservation Area.

In 2008, The Nature Conservancy and the Trust 

for Public Lands entered into an agreement with 

PCTC to purchase, in a three-phase project, a total 

of 312,500 acres in western Montana known as the 

Montana Legacy Project. A total of 65,630 acres are 

located on the valley floor in the Swan Valley. The 

USFS is scheduled to purchase 44,821 acres in 2010 

and 20,809 acres will be purchased by the Montana 

DNRC in 2011. The Montana Legacy Project is the 

single largest conservation effort in the country to 

date. This transfer of ownership from corporate lands 

to public lands will have major benefits in reducing 

the checkerboard pattern of ownership within the 

valley and in protecting critical fish and wildlife 

habitat.

T

The Swan Valley lies at the border of the maritime 

and continental climates and thus has a mixture 

of Pacific Coastal Forest and inter-mountain tree 

species (see tables 1–3). Western red cedar, grand 

fir, western hemlock, and western larch grow in the 

valleys, along with more familiar species such as 

Douglas-fir, Englemann spruce, ponderosa pine, and 

lodgepole pine.

Forest types range from wet riparian forest to drier 

ponderosa pine/snowberry communities. Cottonwood, 

aspen, and birch commonly surround the wetland 

and riparian areas or in other wetter upland sites. 

Cottonwood and spruce also dominate much of the 

Swan River’s floodplain. Most of the lower elevation 

uplands consist of mixed conifers dominated by 

Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa pine, and 

lodgepole pine. Other common species include grand 

fir and subalpine fir. Stand types at most of the low 

elevation lands range from regenerated seedling and 

pole stands, to mixed-aged stands of mature timber. 

For the lower elevations, typical forest rotations for 

saw timber range from 50–75 years. 

Forest types on the higher lands consist primarily 

of subalpine fir and lodgepole pine, with components 

of western larch, Douglas-fir, whitebark pine, and 

other species. Given the higher and colder conditions, 

typical forest rotations for saw timber range from 

60–80 years. 

P

Currently, landowners pay the counties property 

taxes on their private lands. The Swan Valley CA is 

mainly a proposed conservation easement program; 

the land does not change hands and, therefore, the 

property taxes paid by the landowner to the county 

are not affected. Minimal changes to the tax base 

are anticipated. Fee-title lands purchased would be 

subject to the Revenue Sharing Act (16 USC 715s) 

which requires revenue sharing payments to counties 

for the purchase of the land. The amount is based on 

the greatest of (1) 3⁄4 of 1 percent of the market value, 

(2) 25 percent of the net receipts, or (3) 75 cents per 

acre. 

P

Hunting and fishing are very popular throughout 

the project area. Hunting for a variety of wildlife 

includes waterfowl, upland game birds, pronghorn, 

elk, moose, deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain 

lion, and furbearers. Private landowners often give 

permission for hunting and fishing on their land. 

Under a conservation easement, control of public 

access to land would remain under the discretion 

of the landowner. Any parcels acquired in fee-title 

adjacent to Swan River NW, would be administered 

and managed as part of the refuge, where a variety 

of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities are 

available to the public.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment 15

Figure 3. Landownership in the Swan Valley Conservation Area.
16 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Table 1. Historical seral stages within the Swan sub-basin.

Terrestrial Community Group

Subalpine Montane Lower Montane

Seral Stage Approx. Historic Range Approx. Historic Range Approx. Historic Range

Late Seral (dominant 8-10% 20-22% 2-6%

trees >15” dbh*)

Mid Seral (dominant 7-10% 31-37% 2-5%

trees 5”–15” dbh*)

Early Seral (dominant 2-3% 7-18% 0-1%

trees <5” dbh*)

*dbh is tree diameter at breast height

Table 2. 1998 distribution of seral stages for the Swan sub-basin.

Terrestrial Community Group

Subalpine Montane Lower Montane

Seral Stage Approx. Historic Range Approx. Historic Range Approx. Historic Range

Late Seral (dominant 2% 10% 1%

trees >15” dbh*)

Mid Seral (dominant 11% 52% 1%

trees 5”–15” dbh*)

Early Seral (dominant 2% 11% 1%

trees <5” dbh*)

*dbh is tree diameter at breast height

Table 3. Forest habitat types of the Swan sub-basin.

Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir/grass types

Warm Dry Most Douglas-fir and dry grand fir types

Douglas-fir/twinflower and most grand fir types

Warm Moist

Grand fir/queencup beadlilly types

Western redcedar and western hemlock/queencup beadlilly and menziesia types

Cool Moist Subalpine fir/queencup beadlilly and menziesia types

Subalpine fir/beargrass and dwarf huckleberry types

Riparian

Western redcedar/devil’s club types

Subalpine fir/bluejoint types

Cold Subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry and woodrush types

Whitebark pine and alpine larch types
4 Environmental Consequences

This chapter assesses the environmental impacts 

expected to occur from the implementation of 

alternatives A or B, as described in chapter 2. 

Environmental impacts are analyzed by issues for 

each alternative and appear in the same order as 

discussed in chapter 2.

EFFECTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL 

ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the estimated effects on 

climate change, wildlife habitat, and water resources 

of carrying out alternatives A and B.

Coniferous forest of the Swan Valley.

© Craig Montgomery

C

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, snow-melt dependent 

watersheds, such as those found in the Swan Valley, 

more acutely than some other landscape ecotypes. 

Predictions regarding the specific effects of climate 

change in the Swan Valley are in the early stages. 

Empirical data indicates that during the twentieth 

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 

shifts in maximum summer temperatures (7°F). In 

the 2007 Introduction to the Summary for Policy 

Makers Synthesis Report, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change stated that average air 

temperatures may rise by up to 6°C by the end of 

this century, according to regionally downscaled 

models from the Pacific Northwest (USFWS 2009c).

Changes in temperature and precipitation are 

expected to decrease snowpack and will affect 

stream flow and water quality throughout the Swan 

Valley. 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 2009c).

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 a potential increase in grizzly bear 

conflict with humans and livestock. 

According to Service Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, Chris Servheen (University of Montana, 

Missoula, MT; personal interview in person, 11 June 

2008), it is highly likely that grizzly bear delayed fall 

den entry dates and earlier spring-emergence dates 

will begin occurring in the Swan Valley as they have 

in the Greater Yellowstone area, related to climate 

change. This will also potentially increase their 

likelihood of human-caused mortality from increased 

encounters (Endangered Species Coalition 2009). 
18 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

As late summer flows are affected by global warming, 

fewer rivers will be able to supply ample cold water 

required by species such as bull trout. Bull trout 

distribution is expected to be interrupted 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 

program and will require large-scale, landscape level 

solutions that extend throughout the CoCE. The 

collective goal of each of the proposed project areas 

(Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, Swan 

Valley) 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.

A

The Service strategic response to climate change 

involves three core strategies: adaptation, mitigation, 

and engagement (USFWS 2009c). Through 

adaptation, the impacts of climate change on wildlife 

can be reduced by conserving habitats that are 

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 Yellowstone to Yukon 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 Swan Valley CA will protect large 

forested areas from subdivision. Forests are critically 

important in the efforts to remove CO2 from the 

atmosphere and mitigate climate change. The CO2 

from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees through 

photosynthesis and stored as carbon in the tree 

trunk, 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 

2009c). The proposed project 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 Kootenai River Network; 

The Swan Ecosystem Center; The Northwest 

Connections; Vital Ground; Trout Unlimited; Trust 

for Public Lands; 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 Swan Valley 

CA, this landscape is an extremely promising largescale opportunity in North America to improve 

species resiliency and adaptation in the face of 

climate change.

Wildlife HaBitat—alternative a 

Although efforts by the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife (PFW) program and other partners 

would continue to enhance habitat on some private 

lands, degradation of resources on many unprotected 

lands would continue. These potential impacts could 

result in the further decline of migratory birds, 

resident wildlife, and listed species. 

Increasing urbanization which causes increased 

fragmentation of habitat from housing developments 

and associated road development is a major threat 

to Swan Valley. Most current published statistics 

(2000–2009) by the U.S. Census Bureau reported 

Missoula and Lake counties experiencing a 13.4% 

increase in population from 2000. Montana as a whole 

experienced a 10.5% increase within that same period 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010).

Many acres of land would likely be developed for 

recreational home sites or isolated commercial uses, 

as economic forces change in the future. In recent 

years, subdivision and the demand for recreational 

property has been present in western Montana, 

posing the greatest single threat to the Swan Valley. 

Lands adjacent to natural areas are choice home sites 

and are targeted for residential development. 

No action would result in loss of opportunity to 

protect historically important upland and wetland 

habitats. Without the protection of private land with 
Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences 19

conservation easements, the future of wildlife habitat 

in the project area would be uncertain. 

Habitat fragmentation is one the greatest impacts 

caused by rural subdivision and residential 

development. In the Lake County portion of the 

proposed project area, the county has established 

density and development regulations (Lake County 

2009). The private lands within the proposed project 

area have been restricted to between 10–40 acres 

per unit, depending on location. As long as these 

regulations are in place, this does provide some 

protection against high density housing units. 

However, some landowners did secure subdivision 

rights prior to the enactment of these regulations. 

In Missoula County, there are currently no zoning 

regulations and therefore rural subdivision and 

associated habitat fragmentation are a greater 

concern.

Private land subdivision results in smaller 

ownerships. Subsequent effects such as invasive 

plant infestations; increased fencing, roads, and 

vehicle traffic; and loss of habitat and travel corridors 

for wildlife would likely impact wildlife. In addition, 

these effects would bring increased human presence 

in the form of snowmobiles, predator–prey shifts, 

and sources of disturbance that can disrupt wildlife 

movement patterns and render habitat unusable.

Dispersed development leads to an increase in open 

road density and road use. Households in Montana 

are increasing faster than the population, due to an 

increase in second home development. An increase 

in the numbers of roads, cars, and truck traffic 

also accompanies this development. Numerous 

studies have shown the negative effects of open 

road densities on wildlife, which include wildlife 

displacement and increased mortality due to wildlife–

vehicle collisions (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). 

Increased human settlement can also result in 

increased human–wildlife conflicts, a known cause 

of increased mortality to bears. In addition, these 

effects would bring increased human presence in 

the form of snowmobiles, predator–prey shifts, and 

sources of disturbance that can disrupt wildlife 

movement patterns and render habitat unusable.

Loss of habitat and travel corridors for wolverine, 

Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and other 

species would likely have a negative impact on 

these species’ populations in Swan Valley. These key 

geographic and biological linkages can be lost and 

wildlife populations can be isolated once an area is 

fragmented by subdivisions or other development. 

Dispersed development results in expansion of the 

wildland–urban interface (WUI). The WUI is the 

zone where structures and other human development 

are within the vicinity of forests and other wildlands. 

In the 1990s mining, logging, and wood product 

industries were declining while health services, 

trade contractors, business services, and real estate 

development were growing. A major difference 

between the old economy (timber, mining, and 

ranching) and the new economy (residential 

development and amenities) is the level of 

permanence. Impacts from logging, and to a lesser 

extent, mining can be reclaimed; trees and other 

vegetative cover can regenerate and logging roads 

can be closed and obliterated. However, subdivisions 

and developments are more permanent and offer 

fewer possibilities of wildlife habitat restoration in 

the future.

Riparian habitat loss due to development is also 

a concern. Riparian habitat is a key component to 

grizzly bear movement between the mountains 

and valley. Riparian areas also provide nest sites 

for many species of migratory birds that may be 

negatively impacted by development. In addition, 

riparian habitat in the Swan Valley is important for 

the threatened bull trout. 

When development occurs in close proximity to 

streams and rivers, riparian vegetation may be 

impaired and the natural flooding regime that helps 

to maintain riparian communities may be altered. 

Dispersed residential development can have multiple 

impacts on riparian communities, particularly if there 

is no stream setback zoning in the county where the 

watershed is located.

Residential and resort development, and its 

associated human activity near streams, lakes, 

and rivers can also impact native salmonids. 

Salmonids are a family of fish containing salmon, 

trout, and whitefish. Increased water use because 

of development can lead to reduced stream flows, 

elevated stream temperatures, and further 

constraints on rearing habitats and migratory 

corridors. Additionally, deforestation and 

Grizzly bear movements.

Google
20 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

development along the stream banks can contribute 

to surface runoff and subsequent soil erosion which 

can cause excessive sedimentation. Sedimentation 

can degrade water quality and instream and riparian 

habitats, and can impact the health of fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, and aquatic plants.

Wildlife HaBitat—alternative B 

Establishing the Swan Valley CA would provide for 

the conservation of up to 11,000 acres of important 

habitat on private land. This program would help 

maintain the uniqueness of the Swan Valley and 

complement conservation efforts of the MFWP, TNC, 

TPL, Montana Land Reliance, Vital Ground, Swan 

Valley Ecosystem Center, and other federal and state 

agencies. 

Conservation easements within the Swan Valley 

would help alleviate habitat fragmentation 

issues. Key biological linkages would facilitate 

wildlife movement and provide for wildlife habitat 

requirements. The potential for human—wildlife 

conflicts would be greatly reduced. 

Compatible agricultural practices such as livestock 

grazing or haying would continue, while sodbusting 

(breaking up of native rangeland) and wetland 

drainage would be prohibited. Easements would 

maximize the connectivity with other protected 

lands and decrease the negative impacts of habitat 

fragmentation on grassland birds (Owens and Myers 

1972). 

Water resources—alternative a

The prospect of residential development in the Swan 

Valley represents a potentially significant threat to 

aquatic habitat. Sewage-derived nutrient additions to 

streams and lakes could have detrimental effects of 

the aquatic ecology (Wernick et al. 1998). 

Housing developments can also result in additional 

wetland drainage, water diversion, and introduction 

of invasive species. Development could also 

change drainage patterns or rate of surface runoff, 

increasing soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution. 

As demand for potable water increases for new 

subdivisions, water rights could be questioned 

and challenged to a greater extent in the future. 

Groundwater aquifers would receive more demand, 

resulting in potential degradation to the hydrology of 

some wetland areas. 

Water resources—alternative B

Water resources on the 11,000 acres of conservation 

easements and the additional fee-title acquisitions 

would be protected from increased nonpoint source 

pollution from residential subdivision, commercial 

development, and draining of wetlands, all of 

which are prohibited under the proposed easement 

program. This protection would also improve water 

resources throughout the Swan Valley watershed. 

Landowners participating in the conservation 

easement program would continue to own and control 

water rights. 

EFFECTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the estimated effects of 

alternatives A and B on land ownership and land 

use, the value of intact ecosystems, wind energy 

development, public use, and economic impacts.

L

The resources studied by the Service for 

conservation easements and fee-title acquisition in 

the Swan Valley would remain in private ownership 

with no restrictions. 

Landowners that subdivide could increase their 

revenue by developing recreational home sites. With 

subdivision, tracts could potentially increase in value 

if there is desire to cluster housing or to keep open 

space for future housing developments. 

The community would lose open space and the 

aesthetics of the Swan Valley would diminish 

significantly. Subdivision and development 

would reduce hunting and wildlife observation 

opportunities and diminish revenue associated with 

these activities to local communities.

L

 The Swan River watershed includes the 

communities of Condon, Salmon Prairie, Swan Lake, 

Ferndale, and Bigfork and spans portions of Lake 

and Flathead counties. 

The remaining private land in the Swan Valley 

is relatively undeveloped except for two small 

communities totaling less than 400 people. 

The Service will purchase up to 1,000 acres of 

fee-title land, and approximately 10,000 acres of 

conservation easements. Only willing sellers would 

be considered and paid appraised market value for 

these lands. Buffer areas will be maintained around 

rural communities to provide them with the ability 

to meet their community development goals and 

objectives. 
Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences 21

V

Humans influence every ecosystem on earth, leading 

to impairment of natural ecosystem structure and 

function (MEA 2005). Converting native land to rowcrop 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). 

Alternative A (no action)

Under the no action alternative, the threat of habitat 

fragmentation will continue unabated. Landowners 

may continue to face economic pressures to subdivide 

their property. Habitat fragmentation would 

compress the project area, leaving fewer larger 

parcels of intact habitat.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Conserving native land cover is an important 

component of maintaining ecosystem structure and 

function. Under the proposed action, native forest 

habitats would remain intact, continuing to provide 

ecosystem goods and services to landowners and 

local communities. Ecosystem services include: 

soil erosion control, water supply, biodiversity, and 

carbon sequestration. The proposed action would 

help protect valuable ecosystem services (see 

figure 4). The Swan Valley is a relatively intact 

system. Protecting this system is cheaper than the 

prohibitively high cost of restoration.

Wind energy development—alternative a

Wind development within the Swan Valley may 

occur, however, the valley is not conductive to large 

scale commercial or industrial development of 

wind energy. Wind energy effects on the landscape 

include habitat fragmentation and vertical structural 

barriers. The Service would focus on assisting with 

proper sighting of towers, because the placement 

of towers and associated infrastructure is critical in 

reducing impacts to habitat and wildlife. 

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)
22 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Wind energy development—alternative B

Wind development within the Swan Valley 

Conservation Area would not occur on conservation 

easement and fee-title properties 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 and helps reduce human-bear conflicts. 

Restricting wind towers also prevents mortality from 

direct strikes of towers by migratory birds and other 

avian wildlife species. 

P

The Service would not purchase conservation 

easements, and landowners would manage public use. 

No additional public use opportunities in the Swan 

Valley would occur. 

P

Conservation easements purchased on private tracts 

would not change the landowner’s right to manage 

public access to their property. Under the proposed 

easement program private landowners would retain 

full control over their property rights, including 

allowing or restricting hunting and fishing on their 

lands. 

Lands purchased in fee-title would be managed 

as part of the Swan River NWR, which is 

provides public use. Wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities at the Swan River NWR include 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, interpretation, and environmental 

education. Fee-title acquisition would provide 

additional recreational opportunities on the refuge.

E

Under alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

economic impacts will remain at current levels. 

The Swan Valley CA does not currently exist; 

therefore there are no FTE employees or operating 

expenditures. There are no current economic impacts 

associated with the Swan Valley CA.

E

Under alternative B, increases in employment, 

annual operating expenditure and easement 

purchases would contribute to the economic 

activity that the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex generates in the project area. 

The socioeconomic impact of visitor expenditure 

is not included in this analysis as historical public 

visitor data at conservation areas is not available, 

and visitor increases due to public awareness of 

conservation activities is difficult to quantify. 

According to Service staff, new employment 

associated with alternative B will require 1.67 FTE 

employees and $91,518 in salaries or an average of 

$54,911 per new employee. Assuming employees 

spend 79 percent of their earnings locally, the direct 

socioeconomic impact of increased employment at 

Swan Valley CA is $72,299 annually.

Alternative B would add approximately $15,210 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 study 

area. 

The direct economic impact of easement acquisitions 

are more difficult to attribute to the study area 

as it is less obvious where landowners may spend 

this income. In the Swan Valley CA, easements are 

worth an estimated $25,000,000. Table 4 presents 

a summary of annual operating costs and salaries 

associated with Alternative B. 

Table 4. Swan Valley Conservation Area economic 

impacts.

Current 

 

Alternative B 

Impacts Impacts

Salaries - $72,299

Operations - $15,210

Total Impacts - $87,509

Increase above baseline $87,509

As shown above, the total direct economic impacts 

related to the Swan Valley CA under management 

Alternative B are estimated at $87,509. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable while 

carrying out alternatives A and B are described on 

the following page.

A

The adverse impacts of degradation and habitat 

fragmentation would be expected to be more 

widespread and prevalent in the project areas. 

A

No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts 

to the environment would result from the selection 

of alternative B. The easement program would 

not result in unavoidable adverse impacts on the 

physical or biological environment. The selection of 

an approved boundary would not, by itself, affect any 

aspect of land ownership or values. 
Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences 23

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Any commitments of resources that may be 

irreversible or irretrievable as a result of carrying 

out alternatives A and B are described below.

A

There would be no additional commitment of 

resources by the Service if no action is taken. 

A

There would not be any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources associated with 

establishing the conservation easement program, as 

lands will only be acquired as funding is available. 

Once easements are acquired, irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of funds to protect these 

lands (such as expenditure for fuel and staff for 

monitoring) would exist. 

SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

This section discusses the short- and long-term 

impacts for alternatives A and B.

A

Properties may be sold to developers for short-term 

gains, which would have a negative impact on the 

long-term biological productivity of the area. 

Over the long term, the costs to counties to sustain 

development in rural areas could be significant (see 

the “Landownership and Use” section on page 20). 

A

The proposed conservation easement program would 

maintain the long term biological productivity of the 

Swan Valley and increased protection of endangered 

and threatened species and maintenance of biological 

diversity. 

The nation would gain the protection of a variety of 

wildlife species for future generations of Americans. 

The public would gain long-term opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities from the 

continued presence of wildlife in the Swan Valley. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This section describes the cumulative impacts 

that may result from the combination of expected 

actions in alternatives A or B, together with other 

biological and socioeconomic conditions, events, and 

developments.

A

Current Service program work such as Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife would continue within the 

Swan watershed. The Service would continue to 

work cooperatively with landowners to voluntarily 

improve habitat on private land and minimize bear–

human conflicts. 

A

Through the proposed easement program and limited 

fee-title purchase, approximately 11,000 acres of 

privately owned biologically important habitats 

would be added to the 332,000 acres within the 

Swan Valley watershed project area that already 

have some level of protection. This would 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 Swan River 

watershed.

Within the CoCE, areas that were not suitable for 

homesteading and settlement were designated 

as federal lands. Settlers selected the milder 

and fertile valleys for homesteading. Land use 

was predominately ranching, a lifestyle which 

maintained economic feasibility for the landowners 

and prevented the loss of habitat for residential 

or commercial development. These areas are now 

currently under the greatest developmental pressure 

as cattle prices continue to decline and developers 

offer large cash incentives.

The Swan Valley CA is one project area within the 

CoCE. All project areas within the CoCE focus on 

(1) maintaining biological diversity related to wildlife 

values, (2) linking together existing protected 

areas, (3) preserving existing wildlife corridors, 

and (3) protecting a large, intact, functioning 

ecosystem, while maintaining the rural character and 

agricultural lifestyle of western Montana. Funding 

would come primarily from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and potential conservation 

partners. Table 5 shows the proposed acquisition 

acreage, type of acquisition tool, focal species, 

and key partners for each of the three project 

areas, Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management Area 

expansion, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area expansion, and Swan Valley Conservation Area.

The annual operations budget related to the current 

easement programs within the Benton Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex is $22,123. These funds 

are spent on local goods and services and therefore 

directly impact the economy in the study area. An 

estimated 6.167 FTE are devoted to the two existing 

project areas (Blackfoot Valley Wildlife Management 

Area and the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area). These 6.167 FTEs have an average salary of 

$46,838 per employee or a total of $288,832. Using the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure 
24 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

If all three conservation area proposals occur, as 

described by Alterative B, new total direct economic 

impact would be $531,620 annually, an increase of 

$281,320 from current baseline impacts.

 

Survey data for individuals in these income 

categories, roughly 79 percent of annual income is 

spent locally. Assuming employees spend 79 percent 

of their earnings locally, the socioeconomic impacts of 

increased employment among all conservation areas 

is $228,177 annually.

Combining the effects of USFWS employment and 

operations, the total economic activity generated by 

the conservation areas is approximately $250,300 

annually.

Table 5. Summary of project proposals for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem.

Potential Type of 

Proposed New Acquisition 

Project Area Project Area Acreage Tool Focal Species Key Partners

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 527,000 Sprague’s pipit, Richard King Mellon 

Area acres to McCown’s longspur Foundation

Expansion 918,000 

acres

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

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

Wildlife area from westslope cutthroat Nature Conservancy, Trout 

Management 165,000 trout, migratory Unlimited

Area acres to birds

Expansion 824,024 

acres

Swan Valley New 11000 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
5 Coordination and Environmental 

Review

The Service coordinated within the agency, as well 

as with other federal agencies and local agencies, 

while developing this EA. Coordination efforts for 

contaminants and hazardous materials is described 

below.

The Service conducted this environmental analysis 

under the authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The resulting document will be 

distributed to the project mailing list; copies can be 

requested.

The analysis and documentation was prepared by a 

combination of field and regional Service staff, along 

with partners and private consultants.

Wetland restoration on private land in the Swan Valley.

Kathleen Burchett/USFWS

AGENCY COORDINATION

The Service has discussed the proposal to establish 

the Swan Valley CA expansion with landowners; 

conservation organizations; other federal agencies; 

tribal, state, and county governments; and other 

interested groups and individuals. 

The Service held two public meetings to provide 

information and discuss the proposal with landowners 

and other interested citizens. Information on the 

proposed Swan Valley Conservation Area has been 

made available to county commissioners in each of 

the two counties included in the project area. 

At the federal level, the Service staff has briefed 

Senators Baucus and Tester as well as the 

Congressional delegation, and coordinated with 

representatives from other federal agencies such 

as the U.S. Forest Service. At the state level, 

Governor Schweitzer’s staff, along with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks, was briefed on the project. 

In addition, the Service provided information to 

the Confederated Salish and Kooteni Tribes on this 

project. 

Nongovernmental conservation groups are key to 

the success of the proposed project. Service staff has 

coordinated with partner organizations such as The 

Nature Conservancy, The Montana Land Reliance, 

and the Swan Valley Ecosystem Center. 

CONTAMINANTS AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS

Fieldwork for the pre acquisition contaminant 

surveys would be conducted, on a tract-by-tract 

basis, prior to the purchase of any land interest. 

Any suspected problems or contaminants 

requiring additional surveys would 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 NEPA. An environmental 

assessment is required under NEPA to evaluate 

reasonable alternatives that will meet stated 

objectives, and to assess the possible impacts to the 

human environment. The EA serves as the basis 

for determining whether implementation of the 

proposed action would constitute a major federal 

action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

The analysis for, and development of this EA, 

facilitated the involvement of government agencies 

and the public in the decision making process. 

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION 

COOPERATIVES 

The Service will use Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs) as a means to reach across 

broad landscapes, involve many partners, and 

function at a scale necessary to address wildlife 

adaptation in response to climate change. 
26 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

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

and Wildlife Service’s Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) (see figure 

5). 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’ woodpecker, 

trumpeter swan, cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, 

wolverine, willow flycatcher, sage grouse, burrowing 

owl, and Columbia spotted frog. Eight of the 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 Swan Valley, through a conservation easement 

program and fee-title acquisition, 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 Swan Valley to further refine 

priorities and leverage resources for acquisition. 

Figure 5. Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Swan Valley Conservation Area.

DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY

Copies of the EA were sent to federal and state 

legislative delegations, 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

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Refuge Planning

P.O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225

303 236-4378
6 Draft Land Protection Plan

The land protection plan provides a general 

description of the operations and management of 

the Swan Valley Conservation Area, as outlined in 

alternative B, the proposed alternative of the Swan 

Valley Conservation Area environmental assessment. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed 

this LPP during the planning process to provide 

local landowners, governmental agencies, and the 

interested public with a general understanding of the 

anticipated management approaches for the proposed 

easement program. The purpose of the LPP is to 

present a broad overview of the Service’s proposed 

management approach to wildlife and associated 

habitats, public uses, interagency coordination, public 

outreach and other operational needs.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Swan Valley Conservation Area is a 

conservation strategy to protect one of the last 

undeveloped, low elevation coniferous forest 

ecosystems in western Montana. The Swan Valley 

is situated between the roadless areas of the Glacier 

National Park/Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, 

the Mission Mountains Wilderness, and the equally 

large Bitterroot/Selway Wilderness Complex to 

the southwest. As such, it provides an avenue of 

connectivity between the Canadian Rockies and the 

Central Rockies of Idaho and Wyoming.

The Swan River Valley is part of the Interior 

Columbia River Basin Area. The Swan River 

originates at Gray Wolf Lake in the Mission 

Mountains and flows through Swan Lake at the 

northern end of the valley, before entering the 

Flathead Lake watershed, ultimately flowing into 

the Columbia River System. The Swan Valley lies 

at the western edge of the Crown of the Continent 

ecosystem that is the last remaining ecosystem that 

still supports a full assemblage of large mammalian 

predators including grizzly bears, gray wolves, 

wolverine, and Canada lynx. 

The project area encompasses an 187,400-acre 

landscape on the valley floor of the 469,000-acre 

Swan watershed. The Swan Valley is located on the 

western edge of the CoCE, approximately 30 miles 

southeast of Kalispell, Montana. The Bob Marshall 

Wilderness and Glacier National Park mark the 

eastern boundary, with the Mission Mountains 

Wilderness and Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

tribal lands on the western boundary, and the 

Blackfoot River Valley flanking the southern side of 

the watershed.

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) is a means 

of applying adaptive management across large 

landscapes. SHC involves an ongoing cycle of 

biological planning, conservation design, conservation 

delivery, outcome-based monitoring, and assumptionbased research. SHC uses science to focus 

conservation in the right places (USFWS 2008). 

In 2004, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service’s 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 

(HAPET) office then assisted with gathering and 

creating spatially-explicit models and data sets for 

priority trust resources. In addition, the scientificbased planning efforts of partner agencies and 

conservation organizations were incorporated. These 

include the Strategic Habitat Conservation Report 

prepared by the National Ecological Assessment 

Team (NEAT); 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 develop and 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 Swan Valley CA is within the identified focus 

areas. 

The preparation of this project area LPP addresses 

the four key elements of SHC: planning, design, 

delivery, and monitoring and research (see figure 6). 
28 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Figure 6. The elements of strategic habitat 

conservation.

Biological planning

The Swan Valley is unique among Montana’s 

spectacular valleys in that it contains over 1,000 

glacially derived wetlands. In fact, approximately 

16% of the land in the Swan Valley is considered 

wetland habitat (lakes, rivers, ponds, marshes, 

wet meadows, peatlands, and riparian areas). By 

comparison, the remainder of Montana averages 

1% wetland habitat. There is a higher number 

of wetland-associated rare-plant species in the 

Swan Valley, including, federally threatened water 

howellia. Water howellia is found exclusively in small, 

swallow depressional wetlands scattered across the 

valley floor. The Swan Valley is believed to contain 

the world’s greatest density of water howellia. 

This fact, along with its diverse forest types, makes 

the Swan Valley an ideal habitat for a diverse array 

of wildlife. The federal trust species that would 

benefit from the proposed habitat protection include 

listed and candidate species such as grizzly bear, 

wolf, wolverine, pine martin, and lynx; migratory 

birds such as harlequin duck, common loon, rednecked grebe, black tern, peregrine falcon, and 

greater sandhill crane; and native salmonoids such as 

the westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout.

Focal Species 

In order to strategically conserve habitat within 

the Swan Valley, the Service chose to focus on the 

grizzly bear and native salmonids, including the 

threatened bull trout. 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 Swan Valley, 

and there is sufficient information about them to 

develop a land protection plan. Water howellia was 

not chosen as a focal species because a significant 

number of known populations occur on land that is 

already protected. However, water howellia depend 

on dynamic, healthy, and functional wetlands and 

in Swan Valley the wetlands, streams, and rivers 

are connected through complex hydro-geomorphic 

processes (Frissell et al. 1995). Focusing on healthy 

rivers, streams and associated wetland complexes for 

bull trout may capture some of the needs for water 

howellia on private lands. 

Population Objectives

Because each of the focal species for the Swan Valley 

are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 

specific mission-based population objectives have 

been defined that correspond to the species’ recovery. 

Bull Trout

The Swan Valley core area lies within the Clark Fork 

Recovery Unit (RU). For the Swan Lake 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 in 

Swan Lake (USFWS 2002).

Grizzly Bear

The Swan 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. For the 

NCDE, 10 females with cubs inside Glacier National 

Park and 12 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. 

Limiting Factors 

Increasing urbanization which causes increased 

fragmentation of habitat from housing developments 

and associated road development is a major threat 

to the Swan Valley and the entire CoCE. Most 

current published statistics (2000–2009) by the U.S. 

Census Bureau reported Missoula and Lake Counties 

experiencing a 13.4% increase in population from 

2000 (US Census Bureau 2010). Communities within 

the Swan Valley experienced a similar growth rate 

increase of 25%. Montana as a whole experienced a 

10.5% increase within that same period (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010). 
Chapter 6 —Draft Land Protection Plan 29

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 historic 

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 (Lolo National 

Forest 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 loss of population and genetic 

viability. More than 17% of the NCDE is private 

land and as 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 in person, 11 June 2008). 

Minimizing attractants on private lands and limiting 

subdivision are keys to reducing this threat to grizzly 

bears. 

Ultimately, unmanaged growth and residential 

sprawl may be one of the biggest threats to the 

recovery of bull trout in the Clark Fork Recovery 

Unit as well. The entire Recovery Unit 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 the 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

For grizzly bears, the Service used a computer based 

geographic information system (GIS) to map the 

Swan Valley and identify the areas of highest human 

influence. Less developed areas, called “linkage 

zones,” where human activity is still fairly light and 

appropriate cover (for example, in riparian areas) 

exists were identified (Pelletier 1995, Servheen 

et al.2001). If protected, linkage zones can serve 

to connect the Mission Mountains to the west and 

the Swan Range and Bob Marshall Wilderness to 

the east, thus preserving feeding, breeding and 

travel opportunities for the bears. Models such as 

these simplify reality in order to make complex 

interactions manageable for conservation planning. 

While this analysis cannot capture all of the fine-scale 

aspects of how grizzlies move across the landscape, 

it represents the best available scientific information 

on how human activity influences grizzly bears. In 

general, as interactions with humans are lowered, 

bear mortality will also be lowered (Servheen et al. 

2001). 

Subdivision development impacts habitat connectivity.

USFWS
30 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

For the bull trout, critical habitat (figure 7) has been 

designated and explicitly mapped in each recovery 

unit (RU). Critical habitats are those stream reaches 

and lakes deemed essential to the conservation of the 

species (USFWS 2009a). 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 and 2004 bull trout draft 

recovery plans and seven newly developed “guiding 

principles” (USFWS 2002, 2004). 

The four biological indicators are distribution, 

abundance, trend, and connectivity. The seven 

guiding principles are to (1) conserve opportunity 

for diverse life-history expression, (2) conserve 

opportunity for genetic diversity, (3) ensure bull 

trout are distributed across representative habitats, 

(4) ensure sufficient connectivity among populations, 

(5) ensure sufficient habitat to support population 

viability (for example, abundance and trend indices), 

(6) consider threats (for example., climate change), 

and (7) ensure sufficient redundancy in conserving 

population units. In addition to proposed critical 

habitat, we also considered spatially explicit analysis 

of river linkages and hydro-geomorphic connectivity 

of bull trout habitat to key wetland complexes 

(Frissell et al. 1995). 

Figure 7. Critical habitat for bull trout.

C

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 

the entire study area, indicating a good reproductive 

potential for the species. Analysis of hair samples has 

allowed researchers to determine genetic health of 

the grizzly bear population. Although overall genetic 

variation indicate 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 Clark Fork Recovery Area, the Swan 

Lake bull trout population has remained strong. 

The Swan Lake population is stable because fish 

can access about 150 miles of high quality tributary 

spawning habitat. Most bull trout populations are 

declining because of habitat degradation, but many 

of Swan Valley’s tributary streams are in good 

to excellent condition. The core area populations 

(Swan, Holland, and Lindbergh lakes) represent 

working models for creating and sustaining bull trout 

recovery opportunities in heavily managed timberproducing watersheds (USFWS 2002). 

Continuous identifiable female bull trout nesting 

areas (redd) count history dating to 1982 is available 

for bull trout for four index streams in the Swan 

River Watershed (MFWP 2009). Bull trout may have 

reached equilibrium in this system at a population 

level of about 2,000 adults and the current trend 

appears stable. 

The total redd count was 598 in 2008, representing 

roughly 2,000 adults in the spawning run. Given that 

some adults do not spawn every year, the total adult 

population is likely over 2,500 adult bull trout.

Formulate Habitat Objectives

There are currently approximately 36,000 acres of 

private land in the proposed Swan Valley CA. 117 

miles of bull trout critical habitat and 10,000 acres 

of grizzly linkage zones occur on private lands. With 

the current levels of development and fragmentation 

within the Swan Valley, bull trout populations 

appear stable, however, the pressure of human-cause 

mortality on grizzly bears is higher than acceptable 

for recovery. How much more fragmentation or 

development could occur, yet still keep bull trout 

populations stable, and not significantly add to 
Chapter 6 —Draft Land Protection Plan 31

grizzly mortality, is unknown. 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 Condon and Salmon Prairie, we have set a 

goal to protect 11,000 acres of existing private lands. 

Long-term monitoring of grizzly bears and bull trout 

will be conducted and the goal of 11,000 acres will be 

periodically re-evaluated. 

Priority Areas

The Service is proposing to establish the Swan 

Valley Conservation Area to purchase conservation 

easements in order to reduce future impacts of 

development and habitat fragmentation. Typically, 

the Service will purchase an easement for the entire 

ownership of a landowner, therefore the priorities 

for the Swan Valley Land Protection Plan are 

based on the best available data on existing private 

ownerships. 

Given the models and habitat objectives we 

developed the priority areas shown in figure 8. Areas 

where we can highly benefit both grizzly bears and 

bull trout through conservation easements have been 

designated as Priority 1. Priority 1 also includes 

areas where it appears feasible to link easements to 

create corridors across the valley. Areas where only 

one of the species may benefit significantly or where 

connectivity is more difficult due to small ownerships 

(<80 acres) or other barriers were designated 

priority 2. And the remaining areas are Priority 3. 

These priority areas will be regularly reevaluated 

and may be adjusted as additional quantifiable data 

on the habitat needs and limiting factors for focal 

species in the Swan Valley become available. The 

monitoring and research section provides further 

details on this feedback loop.

Collared grizzly bear movement is used to assess 

populations.

MFWP

C

On approval of a project boundary, habitat protection 

would 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. 

Some fee-title acquisition would be authorized within 

the proposed project boundary immediately adjacent 

to Swan River NWR. 

The acquisition authority for the proposed action 

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 the 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, 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, and landowner interest in the 

program. The purchase of conservation easements 

would occur with willing sellers only and would be 

subject to available funding.

M

As the Swan Valley Conservation Area project 

develops and conservation easements are purchased, 

grizzly bears and bull trout will continued to be 

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

MFWP, and 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, MFWP will 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 
32 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Figure 8. Swan Valley Conservation Area priorities.
Chapter 6 —Draft Land Protection Plan 33

2004 USGS NCDE Grizzly Bear DNA project will 

assist MFWP with bear population size estimation, 

distribution and population trend from that point 

(USGS 2004). 

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 the 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 Swan Valley CA. 

Grizzly bears and bull trout have been identified as 

a focal species for the Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative. 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 population trends and habitat use will be 

used to evaluate and refine conservation efforts on 

the ground within the GNLCC.

COORDINATION

The proposed Swan Valley Conservation Area 

has been discussed with landowners, conservation 

organizations, government officials, and other 

interested groups and individuals. The proposal 

and associated EA address the protection of 

native habitats, primarily through acquisition of 

conservation easements by the Service under the 

direction of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Public open houses were held in Condon, Montana 

on May 18 and June 2, 2010. Public comments were 

taken to identify issues to be analyzed for the 

proposed project. 

Approximately thirty-seven landowners, citizens, 

and elected representatives attended and most 

expressed positive support for the project. 

 In addition, the Service’s field staff has contacted 

local government officials, other public agencies, 

sportsmen’s and women’s groups, and conservation 

groups, all of which have expressed an interest in 

and a desire to protect the Front from the pressures 

brought about by rural subdivision. 

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 

CONSIDERATIONS

The Swan Valley watershed ownership consists 

of 286,798 acres of federal (U.S. Forest Service 

and Service) lands, 45,676 acres of state (Montana 

Department of Natural Resources) land, 66,066 acres 

owned by The Nature Conservancy, 12,154 acres 

owned by Plum Creek Timber Company, and 51,808 

acres of private lands. Most of the middle and high 

elevation forested lands within the watershed are 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Private 

lands are concentrated in the low elevation portions 

of the watershed (see figure 3, map of landownership 

in Swan Valley Conservation Area).

In 2008, The Nature Conservancy and the Trust 

for Public Lands entered into an agreement with 

PCTC to purchase, in a three-phase project, a total 

of 312,500 acres in western Montana known as the 

Montana Legacy Project. A total of 65,630 acres 

is located on the valley floor in Swan Valley. The 

USFS is scheduled to purchase 44,821 acres in 2010 

and 20,809 acres will be purchased by the Montana 

DNRC in 2011. The Montana Legacy Project is the 

single largest conservation effort in the country to 

date. This transfer of ownership from corporate lands 

to public lands will have major benefits in reducing 

the checkerboard pattern of ownership within the 

valley and in protecting critical fish and wildlife 

habitat.

Currently, landowners pay property taxes on their 

private land to the counties. The Swan Valley CA is 

mainly a proposed conservation easement program; 

the land does not change hands and, therefore, the 

property taxes paid by the landowner to the county 

are not affected. Minimal changes to the tax base 

are anticipated. Fee-title lands purchased would be 

subject to the Revenue Sharing Act (16 USC 715s) 

which requires revenue sharing payments to counties 

for the purchase of the land. The amount is based on 

the greatest of (1) 3⁄4 of 1 percent of the market value, 

(2) 25 percent of the net receipts, or (3) 75 cents per 

acre. 

Hunting and fishing are very popular throughout 

the project area. Hunting for a variety of wildlife 

includes waterfowl, upland game birds, pronghorn, 

elk, moose, deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain 

lion, and furbearers. Private landowners often give 

permission for hunting and fishing on their land. 

Under a conservation easement, control of public 

access to land would remain under the discretion of 

the landowner. Any parcels adjacent to Swan River 

NWR acquired by fee-title, would be administered 

and managed as part of the refuge, where a variety 

of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities are 

available to the public.

Appendix A

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

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

Bob Johnson Deputy refuge manager USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, MT

Greg Neudecker Assistant Montana 

State Coordinator USFWS, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Ovando, MT

Jim Stutzman Montana State 

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

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

Appendix B

List of Plants and Animals

MAMMALS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Castor canadensis

Eptesicus fuscus

Ursus americanus

Lynx rufus

Neotoma cinerea

Myotis californicus

Lynx canadensis*

Spermophilus columbianus

Peromyscus maniculatus

Sorex monticolus

Martes pennanti*

Myotis thysanodes*

Spermophilus lateralis

Canis lupus

Ursus arctos*

Lasiurus cinereus*

Marmota caligata

Myotis lucifugus

Myotis evotis

Myotis volans

Martes americana

Sorex cinereus

Microtus pennsylvanicus

Puma concolor

Ondatra zibethicus

Lontra canadensis

Ochotona princeps

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Tamias ruficaudus

Mustela erminea

Lasionycteris noctivagans**

Lepus americanus

Myodes gapperi

Beaver

Big Brown Bat

Black Bear

Bobcat

Bushy-tailed Woodrat

California Myotis

Canada Lynx

Columbian Ground Squirrel

Deer Mouse

Dusky or Montane Shrew

Fisher

Fringed Myotis

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel

Gray Wolf

Grizzly Bear

Hoary Bat

Hoary Marmot

Little Brown Myotis

Long-eared Myotis

Long-legged Myotis

Marten

Masked Shrew

Meadow Vole

Mountain Lion

Muskrat

Northern River Otter

Pika

Red Squirrel

Red-tailed Chipmunk

Short-tailed Weasel

Silver-haired Bat

Snowshoe Hare

Southern Red-backed Vole
38 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Corynorhinus townsendii*

Sorex vagrans

Sorex palustris

Microtus richardsoni

Zapus princeps

Myotis ciliolabrum

Gulo gulo*

Tamias amoenus

Myotis yumanensis**

Townsend's Big-eared Bat

Vagrant Shrew

Water Shrew

Water Vole

Western Jumping Mouse

Western Small-footed Myotis

Wolverine

Yellow-pine Chipmunk

Yuma Myotis

BIRDS

SCIENTIFIC NAME NCOMMO NAME

Recurvirostra americana

Botaurus lentiginosus*

Fulica americana

Corvus brachyrhynchos

Cinclus mexicanus

Spinus tristus

Falco sparverius

Setophaga ruticilla

Turdus migratorius

Picoides dorsalis

Anas americana

Dendroica coronata auduboni

Haliaeetus leucocephalus*

Patagioenas fasciata

Riparia riparia

Hirundo rustica

Strix varia

Bucephala islandica**

Megaceryle alcyon

Cypseloides niger*

Chlidonias niger*

Picoides arcticus*

Pica hudsonia

Poecile atricapillus

Archilochus alexandri

Pheucticus melanocephalus

Amphispiza bilineata

Cyanocitta cristata

Anas discors

Dolichonyx oryzivorus*

Bombycilla garrulus

American Avocet

American Bittern

American Coot

American Crow

American Dipper

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Redstart

American Robin

American Three-toed Woodpecker

American Wigeon

Audubon's Warbler

leBald Eag

Band-tailed Pigeon

Bank Swallow

Barn Swallow

Barred Owl

Barrow's Goldeneye

Belted Kingfisher

Black Swift

rnBlack Te

Black-backed Woodpecker

Black-billed Magpie

Black-capped Chickadee

Black-chinned Hummingbird

Black-headed Grosbeak

Black-throated Sparrow

Blue Jay

Blue-winged Teal

Bobolink

Bohemian Waxwing
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 39

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Poecile hudsonicus* Boreal Chickadee

Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl

Fringilla montifringilla Brambling

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird

Spizella breweri* Brewer's Sparrow

Certhia americana* Brown Creeper

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead

Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole

Stellula calliope Calliope Hummingbird

Branta canadensis Canada Goose

Catherpes mexicanus Canyon Wren

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

Nucifraga columbiana* Clark's Nutcracker

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow

Bucephala clangula Common Goldeneye

Gavia immer* Common Loon

Mergus merganser Common Merganser

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk

Corvus corax Common Raven

Acanthis flammea Common Redpoll

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk

Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran Flycatcher

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco

Junco hyemalis montanus Dark-eyed Junco (Montana Junco)

Junco hyemalis hyemalis / cismontanus Dark-eyed Junco (Slate-colored)

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker

Empidonax oberholseri Dusky Flycatcher

Dendragapus obscurus Dusky Grouse

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird

Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe

Sturnus vulgaris*** European Starling

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak

Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow

Otus flammeolus* Flammulated Owl

Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow
40 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Anas strepera Gadwall

Aquila chrysaetos* Golden Eagle

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet

Ammodramus savannarum* Grasshopper Sparrow

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird

Perisoreus canadensis Gray Jay

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

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed Towhee

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker

Empidonax hammondii Hammond's Flycatcher

Histrionicus histrionicus* Harlequin Duck

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush

Acanthis hornemanni Hoary Redpoll

Lophodytes cucullatus** Hooded Merganser

Passer domesticus*** House Sparrow

Troglodytes aedon House Wren

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer

Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow

Passerina amoena Lazuli Bunting

Ammodramus leconteii* Le Conte's Sparrow

Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher

Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup

Melanerpes lewis* Lewis' woodpecker

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray's Warbler

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren

Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird

Poecile gambeli Mountain Chickadee

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove

Dendroica coronata coronata Myrtle Warbler

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
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 41

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Anas acuta Northern Pintail

Glaucidium gnoma Northern Pygmy-Owl

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl

Lanius excubitor Northern Shrike

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned Warbler

Pandion haliaetus Osprey

Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon

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

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo

Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped Sapsucker

Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe

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

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse

Selasphorus rufus** Rufous Hummingbird

Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow

Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk

Asio flammeus** Short-eared Owl

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

Vireo solitarius Solitary Vireo

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow
42 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Porzana carolina

Actitis macularius

Pipilo maculatus

Falcipennis canadensis

Cyanocitta stelleri

Catharus ustulatus

Vermivora peregrina**

Myadestes townsendi

Dendroica townsendi

Tachycineta bicolor

Cathartes aura

Ixoreus naevius

Chaetura vauxi

Catharus fuscescens*

Pooecetes gramineus

Tachycineta thalassina

Vireo gilvus

Tyrannus verticalis

Sturnella neglecta

Megascops kennicottii**

Piranga ludoviciana

Contopus sordidulus

Sitta carolinensis

Zonotrichia leucophrys

Lagopus leucura*

Aeronautes saxatalis

Loxia leucoptera

Meleagris gallopavo***

Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Empidonax traillii

Phalaropus tricolor

Gallinago delicata

Wilsonia pusilla

Troglodytes troglodytes*

Aix sponsa

Dendroica petechia

Icteria virens

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Dendroica coronata

Sora

Spotted Sandpiper

Spotted Towhee

Spruce Grouse

Steller's Jay

Swainson's Thrush

Tennessee Warbler

Townsend's Solitaire

Townsend's Warbler

Tree Swallow

Turkey Vulture

Varied Thrush

Vaux's Swift

Veery

Vesper Sparrow

Violet-green Swallow

Warbling Vireo

Western Kingbird

Western Meadowlark

Western Screech-Owl

Western Tanager

Western Wood-Pewee

White-breasted Nuthatch

White-crowned Sparrow

White-tailed Ptarmigan

White-throated Swift

White-winged Crossbill

Wild Turkey

Williamson's Sapsucker

Willow Flycatcher

Wilson's Phalarope

Wilson's Snipe

Wilson's Warbler

Winter Wren

Wood Duck

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat

Yellow-headed Blackbird

Yellow-rumped Warbler

* Species of Concern

** Potential Species of Concern

*** Exotic Species (not native to Montana)
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 43

REPTILES

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Thamnophis sirtalis

Elgaria coerulea*

Chrysemys picta

Charina bottae

Thamnophis elegans

Common Garter snake

Northern Alligator Lizard

Painted Turtle

Rubber Boa

Terrestrial Garter snake

AMPHIBIANS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Rana luteiventris

Ambystoma macrodactylum

Rana pipiens*

Ascaphus montanus

Bufo boreas*

Columbia Spotted Frog

Long-toed Salamander

Northern Leopard Frog

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog

Western Toad

FISH

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Culaea inconstans**

Catostomus catostomus

Cottus bairdi

Ptychocheilus oregonensis

Cottus cognatus

Brook Stickleback

Longnose Sucker

Mottled Sculpin

Northern Pikeminnow

Slimy Sculpin

INVERTEBRATES

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Hydropsyche confusa

Lepidostoma unicolor

Dicosmoecus gilvipes

Arctopsyche grandis

Neophylax rickeri

Neophylax splendens

Micrasema bactro

Brachycentrus americanus

Serratella tibialis

Ephemerella excrucians

Baetis tricaudatus

Epeorus longimanus

Drunella coloradensis

Drunella spinifera

Ergodesmus compactus

Endopus parvipes*

Rhyacophila narvae

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Caddisfly

A Mayfly

A Mayfly

A Mayfly

A Mayfly

A Mayfly

A Mayfly

A Millipede

A Millipede

A Rhyacophilan Caddisfly
44 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

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

Optioservus quadrimaculatus A Riffle Beetle

Ordobrevia nubifera A Riffle Beetle

Zapada cinctipes A Stonefly

Zapada oregonensis A Stonefly

Doroneuria theodora A Stonefly

Hesperoperla pacifica A Stonefly

Erynnis afranius Afranius Duskywing

Rhyacophila alexanderi* Alexander's Rhyacophilan Caddisfly

Oreohelix alpina* Alpine Mountainsnail

Nesovitrea electrina Amber Glass

Cordulia shurtleffii American Emerald

Agapetus montanus** An Agapetus Caddisfly

Plebejus glandon Arctic Blue

Anguispira kochi Banded Tigersnail

Nesovitrea binneyana Blue Glass

Euconulus fulvus Brown Hive

Aeshna canadensis Canada Darner

Oreohelix elrodi* Carinate Mountainsnail

Ladona julia** Chalk-fronted Corporal

Sympetrum internum Cherry-faced Meadowhawk

Arion rufus Chocolate Arion

Cryptomastix mullani Coeur d'Alene Oregonian

Plathemis lydia Common Whitetail

Vertigo modesta Cross Vertigo

Oreohelix strigosa depressa Depressed Rocky Mountainsnail

Leucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface

Eubranchipus serratus Ethologist Fairy Shrimp

Radiodiscus abietum** Fir Pinwheel

Discus whitneyi Forest Disc

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer

Polygonia faunus Green Comma

Diphetor hageni Hagen's Small Minnow Mayfly

Discus brunsoni* Lake Disc

Limenitis lorquini Lorquin's Admiral

Somatochlora semicircularis** Mountain Emerald

Nymphalis antiopa Mourning Cloak

Chlosyne palla Northern Checkerspot

Goereilla baumanni* Northern Rocky Mountains Refugium Caddisfly
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 45

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Caudatella edmundsi**

Arion fasciatus***

Cordulegaster dorsalis

Aeshna palmata

Zonitoides arboreus

Platyprepia virginalis

Punctum californicum

Calopteryx aequabilis

Oreohelix strigosa

Polites sabuleti

Pristiloma wascoense*

Pacifastacus leniusculus

Vallonia cyclophorella

Ophiogomphus occidentis**

Prophysaon humile*

Microphysula ingersolli

Discus shimekii*

Oreohelix subrudis

Vertigo elatior

Libellula pulchella

Aeshna interrupta

Vitrina pellucida

Margaritifera falcata*

Northern Rocky Mountains Refugium Mayfly

Orange-banded Arion

Pacific Spiketail

Paddle-tailed Darner

Quick Gloss

Ranchman's Tiger Moth

Ribbed Spot

River Jewelwing

Rocky Mountainsnail

Sandhill Skipper

Shiny Tightcoil

Signal Crayfish

Silky Vallonia

Sinuous Snaketail

Smoky Taildropper

Spruce Snail

Striate Disc

Subalpine Mountainsnail

Tapered Vertigo

Twelve-spotted Skimmer

Variable Darner

Western Glass-snail

Western Pearlshell

VASCULAR PLANTS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Ophioglossum pusillum*

Eleocharis rostellata*

Bidens beckii*

Potamogeton obtusifolius*

Cardamine rupicola*

Cypripedium fasciculatum*

Dryopteris cristata*

Drosera anglica*

Epipactis gigantea*

Carex rostrata*

Grindelia howellii*

Carex lacustris*

Botrychium lineare*

Liparis loeselii*

Phacelia lyallii

Botrychium minganense**

Synthyris canbyi*

Adder's Tongue

Beaked Spikerush

Beck Water-marigold

Blunt-leaved Pondweed

Cliff Toothwort

Clustered Lady's-slipper

Crested Shieldfern

English Sundew

Giant Helleborine

Glaucus Beaked Sedge

Howell's Gumweed

Lake-bank Sedge

Linearleaf Moonwort

Loesel's Twayblade

Lyall Phacelia

Mingan Island Moonwort

Mission Mountain kittentails
46 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Botrychium lunaria**

Botrychium montanum*

Lycopodium inundatum*

Botrychium pinnatum****

Carex livida**

Scheuchzeria palustris*

Amerorchis rotundifolia*

Mimulus breviflorus*

Eriophorum gracile*

Cypripedium parviflorum**

Cypripedium passerinum*

Botrychium spathulatum*

Mimulus ampliatus*

Botrychium pedunculosum*

Mimulus hymenophyllus****

Trichophorum cespitosum*

Botrychium ascendens*

Schoenoplectus subterminalis*

Howellia aquatilis*

Botrychium crenulatum*

Botrychium hesperium*

Moonwort Grape-fern

Mountain Moonwort

Northern Bog Clubmoss

Northern Moonwort

Pale Sedge

Pod Grass

Round-leaved Orchis

Short-flowered Monkeyflower

Slender Cottongrass

Small Yellow Lady's-slipper

Sparrow's-egg Lady's-slipper

Spoon-leaf Moonwort

Stalk-leaved Monkeyflower

Stalked Moonwort

Thinsepal monkeyflower

Tufted Club-rush

Upward-lobed Moonwort

Water Bulrush

Water Howellia

Wavy Moonwort

Western Moonwort

NONVASCULAR PLANTS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Eurhynchium pulchellum var. barnesii****

Brigantiaea praetermissa**

Bryum calobryoides

Solorina bispora*

Neckera douglasii*

Lobaria hallii*

Ramalina obtusata*

Collema curtisporum*

Parmeliella triptophylla*

Sphagnum magellanicum*

Evernia divaricata**

Pseudocyphellaria anomala*

Ramalina pollinaria*

Verrucaria kootenaica*

Barnes' eurhynchium moss

Brick-spored Firedot Lichen

Bryum moss

Chocolate Chip Lichen

Douglas' neckera moss

Gray Lungwort Lichen

Hooded Ramalina Lichen

Jelly Lichen

Lead Lichen

Magellan's Peatmoss

Mountain Oakmoss Lichen

Netted Specklebelly Lichen

Powdery Twig Lichen

Speck Lichen

* Species of Concern

** Potential Species of Concern

*** Exotic Species (not native to 

****Status Under Review

Montana)
Appendix C

List of Endangered and Threatened Species

MAMMALS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Lynx canadensis (T)

Urus acrctos horribilis (T)

Canada lynx

Grizzly bear

FISH

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Salvelinus confluentus (T) Bull trout

PLANTS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Howellia aquatilis (T) Water howellia

(E) 

(T) 

Endangered—listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction

Threatened—listed in the Federal Register as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable futur

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. 28 p.

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 

Department of 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.

Foresman, K.R. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. 

Special Publication No. 12. The American Society 

of Mammalogists. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc. 

278 p.

Frissell, C.A.; Doskocil, J.; Gnagemi, J.T.; Stanford, 

J.A. 1995. Identifying priority areas for protection 

and restoration of aquatic biodiversity: a case 

study in the Swan River Basin, Montana, USA. 

FLBS Report 136–95. Polson, MT: The University 

of Montana, Flathead Biological Station. 28 p.

Greenlee, J. 1999. Ecologically significant wetlands in 

the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River valleys: 

final report June 1, 1999. Helena, MT: Montana 

Natural Heritage Program. 192 p.

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. 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.

Lake County. 2009. [Lake County density map]. 

[Revision date unknown]. <http://lakecounty-mt.

org/planning/Lake_County_Density_Map. html> 

[Access date unknown].

Lolo National Forest. 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, Seely Lake, MT.

[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 Department of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 116 p.

[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being: current 

state and trends. Washington DC: Island Press. 

[Number of pages unknown].

[MFWP] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2009. 

[Bull trout redd counts completed in the flathead 

system: North Fork, Middle Fork about average; 

Swan and South Fork below average]. Revised 

November 5, 2009. <http://fwpiis.mt.gov/news/

article_8625.aspx> [Access date unknown].

[MTNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

2010. [Field guide]. Revised May 25, 2010. <http://

fieldguide.mtnhp.org> accessed 17 June 2010. 

Nordstrom, L.; Hecht, A.; McCollough, M; Naney, B.; 

Trick, J.; Warren, N.; Zwartjes, M. 2005. Recovery 

outline; vontiguous United States fistinct 

population degment of the Canada lynx. [Place 

of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 p.

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

upon populations of native passerine birds of an 
50 Draft EA and LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT

Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 51:697–713.

Pelletier, K. 1995. Managing private land in the Swan 

Valley linkage zones for grizzly bears and other 

wildlife. Missoula, MT: Swan Valley Linkage Zone 

Working Group.16 p.

Rich, T.D.; Beardmore, C.J.; Berlanga, H.; Blancher, 

P.J.; Bradstreet, M.S.W.; Butcher, G.S.; Demarest, 

D.W.; Dunn, E.H.; Hunter, W.C.; Iñigo-Elias, E.E.; 

Kennedy, J.A.; Martell, A.M.; Panjabi, A.O.; Pashley, 

D.N.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Rustay, C.M.; Wendt, J.S.; 

Will, T.C. 2004. Partners in Flight North American 

landbird conservation plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology. 95 p. 

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]: U.S. Forest Service, Bureau 

of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 120 p.

Servheen, C.; Sandstrom, P.; Waller, J.S. 2001. 

Identification and management of linkage zones 

for grizzly bears between the large blocks of 

public land in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Proceedings of the International Conference on 

Ecology and Transportation. 161–179.

Stenseth, N. 2004. Snow conditions may create an 

invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the 

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

Swan Ecosystem Center. 2004. [Upper Swan 

Valley landscape assessment]. Revised July 1, 

2010. <http://www.swanecosystemcneter.org/

publications.html> [Access date unknown]. 

Trombulak, S.C.; Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of 

ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18–30.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. People QuickFacts: Utah. 

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

quickfacts.census.gov> [Access date unknown].

[USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. 

Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. 

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

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

the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 

Team. 102 p.

———. 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].

———. 2002. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

draft recovery plan. Portland, OR: U.S. 

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

Service, Region 1, Clark Fork Recovery Unit. 285 p.

———. 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. Bull trout proposed critical habitat 

justification: rationale for why habitat is essential, 

and documentation of occupancy. Portland, OR: 

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

Wildlife Service. 41 p.

———. 2009b. Endangered species program. 

[Internet]. Revised July 7, 2010. <http://www.fws.

gov/endangered/> [Access date unknown].

———. 2009c. 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.

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

Divide grizzly bear project]. Revised June 

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

ncdebeardna_detail.htm> [Access date unknown].

Wali, M.K.; Safaya, N.M.; Evrendilek, F. 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. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 

Press. 3–31. 

Werner, K.; Flath, D.L.; Hendricks, P.; Maxwell, 

B.A. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. 

Missoula, MT: Montana Press Publishing 

Company. 262 p.

Wernick, B.G.; Cook, K.E.; Schreiser, H. 1998. Land 

use and streamwater nitrate-N dynamics in an 

urban-rural fringe watershed. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 43(3): 

639–650.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Period of 

record monthly climate summary; April 2, 1950 

to December 31, 2009. [Internet]. [Revision date 

unknown]. <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/

cliMAIN.pl?mt8087> [Access date unknown].

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].