Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 

This Chapter describes aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed action 

and alternatives. Also described are the environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) 

that would result from undertaking the proposed action or alternative. Together, these 

descriptions form the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of effects in Chapter 2. 

Project Area 

The project area contains 43 federal grazing allotments located in the northern third of Billings 

County, and a small portion of Golden Valley County, North Dakota. The allotments encompass 

all or portions of the following 11 townships: T142N, R101 and 102 W; T143N, R99-103W; and 

T144N, R99-102W. The project area contains approximately 118,587 acres of which 87,265 are 

National Forest System (NFS) lands (see Figure 1.1). The allotments in the project area are 

intermingled with private and state lands. This analysis only considers the NFS lands contained 

in an allotment. 

General Setting 

The project area is divided between the Rolling Prairie and Badlands Geographic Areas. The 

Rolling Prairie primarily occurs in the east half of the project area about from seven to eleven 

miles distant from the Little Missouri River. Topography of the Rolling Prairie is relatively 

gentle with broad ridgelines and plateaus divided by first and second order ephemeral or 

intermittent drainages that join perennial tributaries flowing west to the Little Missouri River. 

The area is primarily drained by four perennial creeks Magpie, Whitetail, Blacktail and Mike’s 

Creeks, which flow into the Little Missouri River. Elevation varies from 2,100 along the Little 

Missouri River to 2,800 feet on the plateau in Fairfield Common, located on the eastern side of 

the project area. 

The intermittent/ephemeral drainages support woody draw communities of green ash - American 

elm / chokecherry. Perennial tributaries tend be downcut through level terraces or floodplains 

that support shrubs of silver sagebrush and snowberry. Riparian vegetation along the perennial 

tributaries tend to be dominated by various sedges and rushes (Juncus, spp.), with scattered 

patches of willow shrubs (Salix exigua) and relatively decadent tree patches of plains 

cottonwood and peach-leaf willow (S. amygdaloides). Discontinuous bands of green 

ash/snowberry communities are set back from the true riparian zone. 

Relatively well-developed and productive soils comprise broad plateaus of the Rolling Prairie 

with the potential to support climax communities of western wheatgrass and needlegrass species. 

Areas of less developed or less fertile soil such as occurring on steep sideslopes and narrow 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-2 

ridgelines support climax communities of little bluestem, prairie sandreed, and needle-andthread. 

Much of the gentler terrain was plowed for agricultural production during the early 1900s before 

being returned to the federal government after the dust bowl era. These areas are referenced as 

broken land, and they were either reseeded with crested wheatgrass or simply abandoned and 

allowed to naturally re-vegetate. Most of these lands are now comprised of varying mixtures of 

non-native and native grasses. The non-native grasses exhibit varying degrees of invasiveness 

that have facilitated their establishment in both broken and non-broken land. 

The Badlands Geographic Area exhibits greater topographic relief and general ruggedness that 

can be inhibit livestock access relative to the Rolling Prairie. Sharp topography of the Badlands 

was initiated when glaciers diverted the Little Missouri River eastward through southwest North 

Dakota (Bluemle, 1980). Increased gradients and relatively soft sedimentary strata along the 

new river path resulted in rapid downcutting of the river channel and adjacent tributary channels 

that resulted in the formation of diverse erosional features and exposed sedimentary formations 

of clay, shale, siltstone, fine-grained sandstone, and scoria. Relatively hard or erosion-resistant 

scoria and sandstone layers often occur as caprock formations on variously shaped buttes, knolls, 

and ridge shoulders. The overall landscape in the Badlands is characterized by a repeating 

pattern of relatively barren south aspect slopes, relatively narrow grass dominated ridgelines, 

wooded north aspect slopes, and intervening intermittent/ephemeral drainages. Rocky Mountain 

juniper comprises the dominant woodland on many north aspect slopes with increasing 

prominence towards the Little Missouri River. 

Extensive sedimentary exposures, particularly common on steep south aspect slopes and residual 

knolls and buttes, exhibit poor physical and chemical soil characteristics for the growth of most 

plant species. Total plant cover in these areas is low but the assemblage of species is relatively 

unique in comparison to the typical grassland communities. Common species on fine grained 

and often alkaline substrates include grassessuch as inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and 

Nuttal’s alkaligrass (Puccinellia nuttalliana) along with the more ubiquitous western wheatgrass, 

slender wheatgrass (A. caninum), and blue grama that occur at lower than typical rates. Coarser 

grained substrates derived from weathered sandstone and scoria are relatively non-alkaline and 

supports a different suite of species that includes Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), 

bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), little bluestem, sand bluestem (Andropogon hallii) 

and prairie sandreed. 

Various ridgelines, plateaus, and relatively gentle slopes with increased soil development support 

grassland communities similar to but less extensive than the Rolling Prairie. Sideoats grama 

often occurs with little bluestem along ridge shoulders with mat-forming shrubs of horizontal 

juniper (Juniperus horizontalis). Lower slope positions and drainages support green ash woody 

draw communities that tend to exhibit increased prominence of Rocky Mountain juniper 

compared to drainages in the Rolling Prairie. Floodplains and terraces of the Little Missouri 

River support gallery woodlands of plains cottonwood, green ash, and Rocky Mountain juniper, 

interspersed with shrub communities of silver sagebrush and western snowberry. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-3 

The climate in the area is semi-arid continental with large seasonal and diurnal variations in 

temperature. Annual average temperatures are near 42 degrees Fahrenheit (F) with monthly 

averages ranging from 10 degrees F in January to 71 degrees F in July. Precipitation, in the form 

of rain and snow, averages around 15 inches per year; 75 percent of this precipitation falls in a 6-

month period between April and September, and 35 to 40 percent falls mostly in the form of 

thunderstorms in June and July. In contrast, November through February is a dry period with 

roughly one half inch of precipitation monthly in the form of snow. The average wind speeds in 

the area average about 12 miles per hour with the prevailing wind generally out of the 

west/northwest. Strongest winds occur during the winter and spring months. 

Intermingled private land primarily used for livestock grazing and lesser amounts of agricultural 

cultivation occur in both geographic areas, but are most frequent in the Rolling Prairie. 

Livestock grazing and related infrastructure of fences, water developments, and two-track roads 

have had applicable ecological influence throughout the project area since the late 1800s. 

Currently, the Medora Grazing Association holds a ten year grazing permit for the area. 

Oil and gas production continues to have an increasing influence on existing conditions, 

especially within the Badlands Geographic Area. Most primary travel routes in the project area 

have been considerably upgraded in association with oil field development and many miles of 

new road have been developed to access approximately 370 past or present well sites. 

The project area is roaded with National Forest System Roads (NFSR) #712 (Lower Magpie), 

#711 (Goats Pass), Forest Highway (FH) 2 (Blacktail), #702A (Mike’s Creek) serving as the 

main collector roads for the area. The area is also served by a host of primitive native surface 

roads known locally as “two-tracks”. The two-track road system is used primarily for 

administration of range allotments and oil and gas, however, the roads are open to the public for 

their use and enjoyment. Under the January 2001, USDA Forest Service (USFS) Northern 

Region Off-Highway Vehicle Decision, motorized use is limited to existing roads and trails with 

exceptions for livestock permittees, oil and gas lessees, and for administrative business (DPG 

LRMP ROD, p. 9). Currently travel management on the Little Missouri National Grassland is 

being reviewed and analyzed for updates. 

There are three Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), totally or partially located, within the project 

area boundary. The IRAs are Scairt Woman, Magpie, Blacktail, and Bell Lake. The Top/Big Top 

Research Natural Area (RNA) and the Ice Caves Special Interest Area (SIA) are also located 

within the project area.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

According to the Council of Environmental Quality(CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative 

impact” ( 40 CFR1508.7) is “... the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable 

actions...”( 40 CFR1508.7). Cumulative effects are those effects from other actions that overlap 

in time and space with the proposed action. In determining cumulative effects, the effects of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-4 

following past, present, and future actions were added to the direct and indirect effects of the 

proposed action or alternatives, as appropriate for each resource. 

The CEQ on June 24, 2005 provided guidance related to considering past actions in cumulative 

effects analysis. The guidance states that agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects 

analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the 

historical details of individual past actions. 

Past Actions 

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the first Homesteading Act, making it possible for 

citizens to acquire ownership of 160 acres of land. The Act and the completion of the Northern 

Pacific Railroad across North Dakota in 1881 had a significant affect on the settlement of 

western North Dakota. From 1878 to 1890 North Dakota boomed growing from 16,000 to 

191,000 people reaching a peak population in the late 1920s, which also signaled the end of 

homesteading era. 

Settlement brought farming and ranching operations, fences, livestock water developments, and 

rudimentary roads. Woodlands were heavily utilized for fuel, building materials, fence posts, and 

livestock fodder. Farmers broke up the native prairies for crops and ranchers replaced free 

roaming bison with domestic cattle. 

Loss of the native beaver populations through trapping, construction of reservoirs and dugouts to 

supply water to livestock, overstocking the range, increased overland flow due to reduced upland 

vegetation, trampling of stream banks, and heavy utilization of woodlands affected the riparian 

systems of western North Dakota. The loss of beaver populations impacted groundwater storage 

systems and lowered water tables. Construction of reservoirs and dugouts interrupted runoff 

patterns intercepting water that may have been necessary to maintaining perennial streams. 

Heavily used rangelands, resulting from overstocking, allowed overland flows to increase which 

when combined with impacted woodlands resulted in accelerated down cutting of perennial and 

major intermittent streams. Changes in the water regime also affected associated riparian 

vegetation resulting in total loss or changes in the diversity and abundance of riparian species. 

Cattle have been grazed in western North Dakota since the 1870s. In the early days of open 

federal cattle stocking rates were often excessive. The result was heavily impacted upland 

vegetation, riparian zones, etc. Range abuse was highlighted during the winter of 1886 which 

saw the loss of about three quarters of the range cattle. This event caused Theodore Roosevelt, a 

rancher along the Little Missouri River at the time, to speak out about the need for conservation 

and wise use of the range resources. 

Settlement also resulted in early attempts to control fire on the landscape. With time this has 

developed into fire fighting organizations at the county, state, and federal levels. Controlling fire 

has resulted in both the expansion and decline of woodlands. The lack of fire has allowed 

Ponderosa Pine and Rocky Mountain juniper stands to expand. It has allowed some green ash 

draws to expand but existing green ash stands have lost the regenerative effects of fire. At the 

same time existing green ash hardwood stands are deteriorating due to a lack of fire, which plays 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-5 

a role in maintaining this type of woodland. Native grasses which evolved with fire no longer 

benefit from the nutrient flush and regenerative effects associated with fire. 

Around the turn of the 20th century, Lincoln Lang, an early settler said this about the 

homesteading era. “This was the beginning of the end. Already two waves of commercial 

vandalism had overswept the region- the primary wave of criminally insensate game butchery 

[and] the secondary wave of unintelligent grazing. Now, the third and final disastrous tidal wave 

of ill-advised settlement, was on its way and coming fast” (Lang 1926:335). 

Severson (Undated) observed that “the [Homestead] Act did not recognize the fragile nature of 

the prairie lands, the realities of the wet-dry cycles, and the unsuitability of much of the land for 

continual cropping. This was not common knowledge at the time, and the result was further 

habitat destruction induced by plowing of fragile soils and intensive livestock grazing on small 

acreages”. 

The effects of the settlement era combined with the drought and Depression of the 1930s 

affected both the landscape and populace of western North Dakota. The severe drought and past 

actions such as overgrazing and the cultivation of sub-marginal lands resulted in extensive loss 

of topsoil to wind erosion. The drought coupled with the Depression saw the five counties which 

comprise the LMNG loss 16 percent of their population. 

The government, through the Land Utilization Program (LUP) and other programs, purchased 

many farms during the 1930s and with a goal of stabilizing and reclaiming eroded lands and then 

returning the lands to their most suitable use. This job was given to the Soil Conservation 

Service (SCS), now the Natural Resources Conservation Service. From 1938 to 1954 the SCS 

provided technical and financial assistance for soil stabilization, stock pond construction, 

shelterbelt plantings, and other range improvements. 

During this time the SCS introduced the use of nonnative species such as crested wheatgrass to 

stabilize eroding lands. Crested wheatgrass successfully stabilized soils, however, because it 

breaks dormancy earlier than native species it is able to out compete them for water and 

nutrients. This in turn it has prevented or slowed the process of native grasses re-establishing on 

disturbed lands. Because crested wheatgrass is palatable earlier in the grazing season 

management tries to utilize it first. However, in pastures with mixed crested wheatgrass and 

native grasses this can have a detrimental effect on the native species because they have not 

reached the three and a half leaf development stage which signals their readiness for grazing. 

Other introduced non-natives such as Smooth Brome, Japanese Broom, and Kentucky bluegrass 

have invaded native grass communities. 

In the 1954, the administration of the Land Utilization Program was transferred to the USDA 

Forest Service. Administration of the LMNG under the USFS brought the concept of multiple 

use land management. However, management remained focused on commodity production. The 

creation of the 2001 Dakota Prairie Land and Resource Management Plan has sought to provide 

a more balanced approach between commodity and non-commodity uses. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-6 

Oil and gas were discovered in the Williston basin of western North Dakota in 1950. The mid 

1970s saw an oil boom on the LMNG, which lasted through about 1981. With the boom came 

extensive road development, oil pads, pipeline and utility corridors, visual impacts, and impacts 

air quality from dust and the release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). 

Arguably, the largest impact of the oil boom was the development of an extensive system of 

roads. The new roads allowed all season access into many areas that had formerly been 

accessible only during dry weather conditions, by foot, or horseback. They served as vectors for 

the introduction and/or spread of noxious weeds and nonnative grasses and forbs. Stream 

crossings and road ditching adversely affected some perennial and major intermittent streams. 

The new road system increased access not only for man but also beasts. Livestock were now able 

to move into areas that were formerly inaccessible due to natural barriers. In some cases 

secondary range was converted to primary range. The roads also fragmented wildlife habitat, 

reduced security areas, and exposed wildlife to heavier hunting pressures. 

Summary 

Significant past events across western North Dakota, and what was to become the LMNG, 

included settlement, grazing, farming, drought, and the discovery and development of gas and oil 

reserves. Despite many advances in road building, reclamation practices, grazing management, 

etc. the effects of the past events identified above, to varying degrees, still effect management of 

the lands located in the project area of this analysis. 

The primary effects associated with significant past events include: 

3⁄4 Adverse effects to riparian systems including lowered water tables, accelerated down 

cutting of streams and loss or reduction of riparian vegetative diversity. 

3⁄4 Introduction of non-native grasses which are able to invade and gradually gain dominance 

within native grass communities. Thus effecting wildlife habitat, forage for wildlife and 

livestock, livestock management practices, etc. 

3⁄4 Modification of grazing systems, to take advantage of the non-native grass species, which 

in mixed native and non-native situations can adversely affect the native component. 

3⁄4 Loss of natural fire on the landscape, which in turn adversely affects vegetation adapted to 

fire. 

3⁄4 Development of an extensive road network which resulted in: 

• Fragmentation of wildlife and botanical habitats. 

• Impacts to riparian systems. 

• Vectors for introduction/spread of non-native plant species. 

• Changing secondary range into primary range. 

• Providing year round motorized access into areas which were formally accessible 

only by foot or on horseback. 

3⁄4 Cultivation and reclamation of unsuitable agricultural lands that fragmented and altered 

wildlife habitat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-7 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

The following table lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis. All actions do not apply to each resource. Only those actions with 

relevant impacts to a specific resource were analyzed and discussed in the following resource 

sections. 

Table 3-1. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Project/Activity Location Effects 

Livestock grazing Throughout the project area. Fences, water developments, and other range 

facilities were constructed and two-track roads were 

created. Livestock grazing has changed the 

disturbance pattern and that change has contributed 

to altered herbaceous structure, green ash woody 

draws, and riparian areas. 

Oil and gas 

development 

Throughout project area Construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, and 

production facilities. The construction of all -season 

roads for oil and gas activities opened up country 

that was historically accessible only by horseback or 

seasonal two-track road systems. The improved road 

systemhas provided access for livestock into 

formerly inaccessible or poor areas. Secondary range 

has become primary range in some instances, the 

roads have served as vectors for noxious weeds and 

invasive grasses, high structure herbaceous habitat 

has been reduced. 

Lease holders may travel off road for oil and gas 

location development and maintenance activities. 

Developed and 

dispersed recreation 

Magpie, Elkhorn campgrounds, 

Whitetail Picnic Area, Maah 

Daah Hey Trail, IRAs, Research 

Natural Areas, Special Interest 

Ares 

The array of alternatives will have essentially no 

effect on current or foreseeable recreation use. See 

Ch 2, Issues Dropped from further analysis. 

Spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive 

grasses and treatment 

The project area contains 

noxious weeds but infestations 

are not extensive. 

Treatment is addressed in the 2007 Noxious Weed 

Management Project FEIS and ROD. 

Wildfire Throughout the project area Wildfire is aggressively fought when it occurs. This 

has allowed woodlands to expand but has also 

adversely affected those woodlands that need fire to 

help maintain the health of different woodland 

components. Native vegetation which evolved with 

fire, no longer benefit from the nutrient flush and 

regenerative effects associated with fire. 

Drought Throughout the project area Drought is a normal cyclic event which occurs in 

Western North Dakota. Drought limits moisture so 

all fauna and flora to one degree or another are 

affected. This analysis has adopted the 2007 NE 

McKenzie FEIS drought strategy as interim direction 

until the DPG wide strategy is completed. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-8 

Range 

Introduction 

The range discussion is taken from the Range Report which is located in the Project Record. 

The North Billings Allotment Management Plan (AMP) revision project area is located in the 

northern one-third of Billings County, North Dakota and a small portion of one township in 

northeastern Golden Valley County, North Dakota on the Little Missouri National Grassland. 

The project area extends from the eastern boundary of the Medora Ranger District of the DPG to 

the western boundary encompassing some 87,262 acres of NFS lands within 43 grazing 

allotments which can be intermingled with private and state lands as well. Geographic Areas 

within the project area include both the Rolling Prairie and the Badlands as described within the 

Land and Resource Management Plan (Grasslands Plan) for the DPG. 

The history of the national grasslands and their management provides context for current 

livestock management on the allotments within the analysis area. The federal government 

encouraged homesteading in the Great Plains by enacting the Homestead Act of 1862 and other 

similar laws; however, the soils and climate of the region were not conducive to productive 

farming. Western North Dakota reached its peak population in the 1920s, and by the end of that 

decade many people had left. The 1930s drought exacerbated the problems of farming in the 

semi-arid west. 

Environmental and economic devastation of the 1930s led to federal action to assist people and 

communities in the Great Plains. Through several acts, the federal government repurchased land 

and relocated families. This effort to purchase lands was called the Land Utilization Program. 

The program culminated with passage of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act in 1937, which 

provided management direction for the purchased lands. As part of the Land Utilization Program 

in western North Dakota, cooperative grazing associations were formed to integrate management 

of the purchased lands with private ranch and farm operations. This led to the formation of the 

Medora Grazing Association (MGA) sometime between 1935 and 1938. How grazing 

allotments and stocking were allocated to the new permittees seems lost to history. 

In 1954, administration of the Land Utilization Program was transferred from the then USDA 

Soil Conservation Service to the USDA Forest Service (USFS). In 1960, the USDA created the 

Little Missouri National Grassland which was administered under Title III of the BankheadJones Act, as amended. In the same year, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 was 

passed, which applies to national grasslands as well as national forests, calling for multiple use 

management on these lands. 

Management of the grasslands was built on a cooperative approach between the USFS and the 

grazing association. The USFS issues a permit to an association covering a specific area of a 

ranger district. Some USFS Ranger Districts have one grazing association, others multiple 

associations. The permit is based on a Grazing Agreement and Rules of Management agreed to 

between the USFS and grazing association. Through the Grazing Agreement an association 

issues grazing permits to its members. The permits typically describe the length of the grazing 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-9 

season, the number of livestock which individuals may graze, and may also designate where 

winter grazing and feeding can occur. 

In the 1970s and 1980s AMPs were developed for the grazing allotments on the Little Missouri 

National Grassland. An AMP guides the management of an allotment based on the management 

direction contained in the overarching land and resource management plan. The first plan was 

the Custer National Forest Plan in 1974 (Management Prescription for the Badlands Planning 

Unit Little Missouri National Grasslands), 1975 (Management Plan Rolling Prairie Planning Unit 

Little Missouri National Grasslands), 1986 Custer National Forest Plan and most recently the 

2001 Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Prior to the development of AMPs, the majority of the allotments within the Badlands and some 

of the Rolling Prairie were run as commons. Individual members were allocated to run in a 

particular common from May 1st to December 31st. The individual member then wintered, 

January 1st to April 30th, on a headquarters allotment (2240 files and old AMPs found in 2210 

files). These commons and their names were mostly linked to a watershed such as Ash Coulee, 

Blacktail, Whitetail, and Magpie, however, a few individual commons extended beyond the 

watershed such as Ash Coulee and the Lower Thirty. Natural barriers and fencing were used to 

keep livestock within the allotment boundaries. During the development of AMPs many of the 

commons were crossed fenced creating new allotments which were allocated to a specific 

permittee for their sole grazing use. There are 23 remaining commons on the Medora Ranger 

District. 

By the 1990s, due to the age of the existing AMPs and an increase in technology and research, 

many of the permittees requested a deviation from the current rotations set forth within their 

AMPs. Changes were agreed upon based on the approval of the MGA and the USFS through an 

Annual Operation Plan (later changed to Annual Operating Instructions-AOI). Over the last five 

to seven years it is a requirement that all association members fill out an AOI/Allotment 

Worksheet prior to turn out. 

 The MGA currently holds the permit which includes grazing within the project area .There are 

several different grazing association permits issued by the MGA to its membership. The most 

common are inventory, turn-in, private allocation inventory, and private allocation turn-in. An 

inventory permit normally has eight months of summer grazing (May 1st to December 31st), two 

months of winter grazing (January and February), and two months of winter feeding (March and 

April). Under this type of permit, livestock are located within the allotment twelve months out 

of the year. Typically, there are intermingled land ownerships, and wintering on NFS lands may 

occur. If adjustments are made due to resource conditions, normally those adjustments are taken 

in the number of livestock grazing for the season. With such a permit management decisions can 

be difficult to make, since the livestock are on permit twelve months out of the year. 

A turn-in permit’s grazing season can be no longer than eight months (May 1st to December 

31st), has no wintering on NFS lands, and the allotment consists typically of solely NFS lands, 

meaning that adjacent private lands are normally fenced out. Private and or state lands may be 

included within the allotment if they are not conducive to fencing out or the permittee chooses 

not to fence them out. Turn-in permits allow for a certain number of Animal Months (AMs) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-10 

providing for some flexibility in management, such as an increased number of livestock for a 

shorter grazing season. The term private allocation is normally added to the permit to identify 

that at one point in time this allotment was part of a larger common, and now that member has 

been allocated a portion of the common. Several of the allotments within the North Billings 

County AMP Revision project area have the term private allocation included on the permit. 

Drought reductions have occurred through out the years within these allotments and the most 

recent were implemented in 2004 and 2005. A review of the USFS range files show that drought 

reductions have taken place during several dry periods. In the past two years, there have been no 

reductions implemented for drought conditions. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands is currently 

working on a drought strategy which when completed will be used to guide grazing management 

during times of drought. 

Spatial and Temporal Setting 

The analysis area for range analysis is the NFS lands contained in the 43 allotments contained in 

the project area (See Figure 1.2). Once the analysis is completed and an alternative selected by 

the District Ranger then AMPs will be created. The AMPs will be written based on the 

management information contained in the FEIS under the selected alternative. Once completed, 

the AMPs will cover a 10 to 15 year timeframe. 

Methodology 

Allotment Inspections 

Various information about the allotments was collected during the period of 2004 through 2007. 

In 2004, the Medora Ranger District Range staff went through allotment folders to review 

historical information, existing AMPs, pasture rotations, and any reference points and their 

documentation. During the growing seasons of 2004 through 2007, allotment inspections were 

performed. These inspections included visiting the allotments to perform distribution mapping, 

deferred maintenance, and taking general notes of what was observed on the ground. During this 

time period robel pole measurements (for VOR readings), vegetation composition readings, and 

riparian Proper Functioning Condition reviews were conducted by several of the Medora Ranger 

District staff that helped give an overall picture of the project area. 

Permittee Meetings 

Initial permittee meetings were scheduled and performed during the fall of 2005. At these 

meetings, the Medora Ranger District Range staff explained the expected process for revising an 

individual’s AMP, discussed some of the applicable goals and objectives stated within the 

Grasslands Plan, and reviewed allotment range development maps, distribution maps, and any 

other notes with the effected permittee and their MGA district director. The FS Range staff also 

took notes on permittee’s comments, concerns, and requests for their particular allotment. 

A second round of permittee meetings was held the summer of 2006. The effected permittee, 

their MGA district director, and Medora Ranger District Range staff attended these meetings. 

During these meetings the USFS Range staff identified the issues for a particular allotment, went 

over the IDT’s initial proposals to address these issues, discussed the pros and cons of these 

proposals, and took any additional input from the permittee &/or director to address the 

identified issues. A permittee also had the opportunity to challenge an identified issue, if he felt 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-11 

that his allotment was meeting Grassland Plan goals and objectives for that issue. A review by 

the IDT would then need to be performed on that particular allotment to address the challenge. 

Several permittees did issue challenges which were reviewed in the field by the IDT and the 

permittee. These challenges all involved herbaceous structure and the results of those reviews are 

discussed in the herbaceous structure section of this chapter. The Range staff also shared the 

concepts of adaptive management, a range tool box, and how the future AMPs would be written 

adaptively to allow for flexibility within the NEPA decision. 

A third round of permittee meetings was held the winter of 2007. Since the last round of 

meetings (2006) the Medora Ranger District Range staff had completed an initial estimated 

carrying capacity analysis, and this information was explained and shared with the permittees 

and their MGA district director. A tool within the grazing management toolbox, adjust AUMs 

based on average cow size, was explained to the permittee, and the Range staff also indicated 

that this information would be displayed in the Allotment Summary Sheet for their allotments 

(see Appendix A). The Range staff also reviewed the Allotment Summary Sheet that now 

included adaptive options. Once again any concerns, comments, or suggestions that the 

permittee had were received and discussed. 

The notes associated with all of the above meetings are located in the Project Record. 

Grazing Association Board of Director Discussions 

Discussions with MGA’s Board of Directors took place all through out the process of gathering 

information for the allotments and Medora Ranger District Range staff analyses. Allotment 

meetings were generally conducted with the District director and the affected permittee, 

however, all directors were invited to join in. At monthly MGA Board of Director meetings 

updates were given as far as data collection being done by Medora Ranger District staff and what 

was going on with the IDT at the time. A description/review of the USFS’s NEPA process and 

the concept of Adaptive Management were discussed at the December 2006 board meeting. 

The 2006 Livestock Grazing Record of Decision (ROD) identified that it was the “.. Forest 

Service intent to implement the SRT’s recommendations consistent with our [FS] final response” 

to the SRT Report (Grasslands Plan 2006 ROD, p.6). One of the SRT recommendations(V-2)

was to “Redefine the Animal Unit to reflect current cow size along with older, larger calves and 

recalculate the corresponding authorized livestock numbers on allotments”. A discussion of cow 

size was held at the January 2007 board meeting to address this SRT recommendation. Medora 

Ranger District Range staff reviewed how other Ranger District offices were addressing this 

issue, some information from the Dickinson Research & Extension Center’s CHAPS program 

that provided area cow weights, and how this would be treated as a tool in the adaptive 

management toolbox. Upon being asked what the Board of Directors felt was the average cow 

size in their grazing association, a range of 1,100 to 1,300 pounds with the median being 1,200 

pounds was provided. Appendix C of the Grasslands Plan provides three different calculations 

to address cow size in determining animal unit equivalents (AUE). After discussion of the three 

methods of calculation, the MGA Board of Directors chose method number 3, a metabolic 

weight formula, utilizing the 1,200 pound average size of a cow if this tool would be applied in 

the AMP. The animal unit equivalency factor would equate to 1.15 AUEs as the median within 

the above stated weight range. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-12 

Upon request, the MGA provided three years (2005 to 2007) of grazing association grazing 

permits within the project area to help the USFS describe current management of the allotments. 

After inspection of the permitted numbers on the grazing permits a question came up as to what 

the label for the grazing association’s Preference (see glossary, Appendix E) should be. The 

grazing permit displays the Preference as so many Animal Units for so many months on the 

allotment as a whole, which includes NFS, private, and state lands. To determine the portion of 

preference attributed to NFS lands in an allotment, the land record contained on the grazing 

permit was reviewed. However, the Federal portion of the preference is labeled as AUMs. It is 

believed by the Medora Ranger District Range staff that this label is not accounting for the true 

definition of an AUM, i.e., a 1,000 pound cow. After discussion at the March 2008 board 

meeting, an e-mail, and a telephone visit with the grazing association President, the FS was 

provided with this definition of grazing association Preference, “so many number of head for so 

many number of months on the allotment” (Clint Schneider personal communication 2008). 

Upon receiving this definition of Preference, the Medora Ranger District Range staff determined 

that the label for current management permitted and or authorized use should be Animal Months 

(AMs) not AUMs since the grazing association Preference number did not account for the size of 

a cow. 

Long before the process for revising the AMPs in this project area began, a need for cooperative 

monitoring was recognized. This is especially important with the concept of adaptive 

management being utilized in the creation of AMPs. Because of this need, the MGA, North 

Dakota State University (NDSU), and the USFS have initiated a cooperative monitoring program 

that’s incorporating a data set within the project area for future analysis and a research project for 

NDSU. The monitoring includes vegetation composition and production analyses, analysis of 

the 17 Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005), hardwood draw health analysis, and 

low level aerial imagery analysis. Some expected outcomes of this cooperative monitoring effort 

are additional data sets to aid in monitoring trends of identified Grasslands Plan goals and 

objectives, additional information to describe the allotments for future analyses, and testing to 

discover if there are less intensive methods of monitoring identified goals and objectives. 

Carrying Capacity Analysis 

Carrying capacity is defined as the average number of livestock and/or wildlife that may be 

sustained on a management unit compatible with management objectives for the unit (Society for 

Range Management 2005). Through the process of revising AMPs an important calculation, 

carrying capacity, was analyzed to help determine a forage allocation to authorize each allotment 

considering the Grasslands Plan goals and objectives. It should be understood that this is a 

starting point, and further on-the-ground production analysis as indicated in the Allotment 

Summary Sheet under the monitoring section for each allotment would better describe the initial 

estimated carrying capacity for a given allotment. The carrying capacity analysis was calculated 

utilizing data downloaded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil 

Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov and intersecting that information with mapping 

information for allotment boundaries and pasture fence lines utilizing ArcView software 

(ArcView GIS 3.3. 2002). Forage production values for each mapping unit within the soil 

survey were calculated using a weighted average of the listed ecological sites within that 

mapping unit. This weighted average figure was based upon the ecological site reference plant 

community production (Representative Value) for each ecological site within the soil mapping 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-13 

unit. Some assumptions to consider about the Representative Value are as follows: 1) 

seasonlong grazing, 2) normal growing conditions, 3) Reference plant community. Once a 

weighted average forage production value was calculated for each mapping unit, then an AUM 

value was calculated by multiplying the production value by 0.25 to account for harvesting 

efficiency and dividing that number by 913 (the amount of pounds of forage, air dried, to 

maintain a 1,000 pound cow with or without calf for one month). Finally, ArcView software 

was used to summarize the number of AUMs for a given land ownership within pastures of an 

allotment. These values were totaled up to provide initial estimated carrying capacities for NFS 

lands within an allotment. 

Through discussions and reviews, there have been some discrepancies discovered of previous 

calculations of carrying capacity. Back in the 1960s and 1970s the calculations of carrying 

capacity considered only 50 percent of the total estimated forage production based on the 

assumption of take half-leave half (USFS Winter Range meeting 2009). No harvest efficiency 

factor was applied in the formula. Harvest efficiency factors have been debated through the 

years, as well. At one point in time 35 percent was used in the formula in North Dakota NRCS 

offices. But through discussion with adjacent states and to be consistent with those offices, 

North Dakota NRCS offices now use the 25 percent harvest efficiency factor (Jeff Printz 

personal communication 2008). Another value that may have been used in the past was dividing 

by 790 instead of 913. The previous value of 790 was an oven dried forage value. The current 

value of 913 is used to be consistent with the production values reported in the ecological site 

description which are air dried values, as well. Technology and accuracy of the soil surveys and 

allotment maps has also evolved over the years, and would explain some of the difference 

between the present carrying capacities and past calculated carrying capacities. All of these 

findings would explain the higher carrying capacities applied to allotments during past analyses 

of allotments and development of allotment management plans. 

To help assure that the carrying capacity analysis was calculated correctly the Medora Ranger 

District Range staff had the analysis, methodology, and calculations reviewed by the USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service and the NRCS. 

Affected Environment 

Existing Condition 

This section provides a general description of range related information for the project area. For 

a detailed description of the existing condition of each allotment please see Appendix C. There 

are two allotments (132A and 248) in the project area which are meeting all the Grasslands Plan 

objectives, goals, standard and guidelines related to the issues in the project area. . 

Permitted and Authorized Use - This analysis is concentrated on NFS lands, although many of 

the allotments have intermingled state and private lands, as well. Currently there are 29,125 

AMs allocated to the 43 grazing allotments covering approximately 87,262 acres of NFS lands 

(2006 Medora Grazing Association grazing permits). The 29,125 AMs are permitted to the 

Medora Grazing Association who in turn allocates those AMs to grazing association members 

through issuance of annual grazing permits. The annual permit provides a Preference number 

which is the maximum number of livestock allocated to that allotment. In USFS terminology 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-14 

this would be the permitted use for the allotment. The permit also lists the kind and class of 

livestock, the number of livestock, and the dates on and off of the allotment applied and 

approved for the grazing season. In USFS terminology, this would be the authorized use for the 

allotment. Typically, the number of livestock authorized on an annual basis is equal to or less 

than the Preference number. It should be noted that the historical Preference number for each 

allotment will remain intact for this project area with no proposed actions to change the historical 

Preference number. The value that may change is the annual authorized use under the various 

action alternatives depending upon if resource objectives are being met or not. 

Actual Use – Ideally, to describe existing condition of an allotment one would review records on 

recent and historical actual use of that allotment to get a good representation of the current 

management on an allotment. It is the Medora Range District’s Range staff belief that actual use 

is not provided to the USFS at this time. When discussing this need with the MGA board of 

directors, the Range staff is told that actual use is provided in the AOIs/Allotment Worksheets. 

These rotation plans are developed by the individual permittees in January through March as a 

tentative plan for the upcoming grazing season, and are recognized as needing updates as the 

season progresses. In some cases, the USFS is provided with updates to the AOIs/Allotment 

Worksheets in a very timely matter by some permittees, but there are other AOIs/Allotment 

Worksheets that never have an update. It’s quite clear that some AOIs/Allotment Worksheets 

are not the actual use when the Range staff are doing pasture inspections and observe a different 

number or class of livestock than indicated on the worksheet or the pasture that the livestock are 

in at the time is not what was planned for in that given time period. 

This is a vital information gap for all specialists and the association to make assessments on 

individual allotments and pastures. This information gap was also identified by the SRT in their 

final report (2005), which recommended to maintain and share detailed, pasture-specific grazing 

records by Grazing Association and FS personnel in recommendation V-1 (page 18). SRT Issue 

V - 1: “The absence of historical pasture-specific grazing records creates serious challenges for 

managers to assess past, present, and future consequences of specific grazing tactics or 

strategies such as kind and number of animals and time and length of each grazing event. This 

information is critical for assessing the consequences of any grazing strategy or tactic. The 

allotment-level animal data provided were of limited value in a historic assessment of stocking 

rates and grazing intensities, because the information did not include estimates of the size or 

weight of the grazing animals, accurate herd size estimates, or the timing and length of grazing 

events.” 

Ebert Ranch Purchase - In 2007 the USFS and partners purchased an area known as the Eberts 

Ranch. As a condition of purchase the USFS was required to sell an amount of NFS lands on the 

Medora Ranger District equal to the amount of land gained from the purchase. As a result of this 

condition, in 2008 allotments 144, 218, 224, 228, 229, 285, and pasture 4 in allotment 127 were 

conveyed to private ownership. Lands gained in the purchase were, with three exceptions, 

outside of the project area. Section 27, T143N, R101W (640 acres), the southwest quarter of the 

northwest quarter of Section 27, T144N, R102W (3 acres), and the west half of the west half of 

Section 35, T144N, R101W (140 acres) are the three outlying parcels of the purchase that are 

located in the project area of this analysis. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-15 

Portions of allotments 128, 135, 158, 256, and 287 were associated with the above mentioned 

sections when they were privately held. These lands are still part of the federal allotments; all 

that has changed is the land owner. Because the purchased lands are not covered by the current 

Grasslands Plan, it has to be amended to bring them under its management direction. When 

completed, the amendment will make the final decisions regarding how all the purchased lands 

are to be managed. In the interim, these lands will be managed for livestock grazing in 

accordance with the allotment that they’re located in and consistent with the adjoining 

Management Area 3.65. 

Infrastructure - Water developments within the project area include springs, artesian wells, 

wells powered by electricity or windmills, water pipeline and stock tank systems, dugouts, and 

reservoirs. Some of the challenges faced with the existing developments are designing a 

rotational grazing system that can be followed. Reservoirs and dugouts depend on measurable 

snow pack and overland runoff to fill their basins. Without this runoff many of these reservoirs 

and dugouts are dry, or the quality of the water is poor for livestock use. Also, due to the age, 

lack of maintenance, and/or location of some of these reservoirs and dugouts many of these 

structures are only two to four feet in depth when full due to sediment from uplands collecting in 

the basins, more so in the Badlands due to its erosive nature. With evaporation, many of these 

reservoirs and dugouts only hold water for a couple of months within a grazing season at best, 

thereby limiting season of use changes in pasture rotations. 

The age of some of the spring developments can affect their reliability. Additionally springs can 

quit flowing if there is insufficient ground water recharge. Many of the spring developments 

only produce enough water to supply a small number of livestock. These water developments are 

identified in the Grasslands Plan as sensitive areas, and are normally located within woody draws 

and in some cases adjacent to riparian areas, thereby potentially compounding resource issues. 

Artesian wells and windmills also provide livestock water in the area. These water sources can 

also become unreliable due to falling head pressures and lack of wind. A challenge, as well, due 

to the well head pressure changing and the change in the level of the aquifer (North Dakota State 

Water Commission 2007). As a result, these types of developments make it difficult to balance a 

grazing rotation for proper use and timing. An indirect effect of this is that livestock tend to 

hang along riparian areas within the project area. 

For the existing range developments within an allotment please refer to Appendix B which 

shows and allotment map for each individual allotment. 

Desired Condition 

The desired condition for range is identified in the following direction from the Grasslands Plan: 

Goal 2: Multiple Benefits to People 

Provide a variety of uses, values, products, and services for present and future generations by 

managing within the capability of sustainable ecosystems. (Grasslands Plan, p. 1-4) 

Objectives: 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-16 

1. Annually, provide forage for livestock on suitable rangelands. 

2. As needed, revise allotment management plans (AMPs) to meet desired conditions described 

 in Geographic Area direction. 

3. Use a standardized process to determine stocking rates (for example, the Natural Resources 

 Conservation Service system) as modified to fit desired vegetative conditions and protect other 

 resource values. (Grasslands Plan p. 1-5) 

4. Rest at least 5 percent of the suitable rangeland each year. (Grasslands Plan p. 2-13, 2-21) 

There are eight different management areas in the project area. However the majority (over 80 

percent) are in Management Area (MA) 3.65 Rangelands with Diverse Natural-Appearing 

Landscapes and MA 6.1 Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis. 

The Desired Condition for MA 3.65 is “These areas have relatively few livestock grazing 

developments, such as fences and water tanks, resulting in a mosaic of livestock grazing patterns 

and diverse vegetation composition and structure. Livestock graze most areas annually, but some 

areas receive little or no grazing due to topography.” (Grasslands Plan p. 3-32). 

The Desired Condition for MA 6.1 is “This management area will display low to high levels of 

livestock grazing developments (such as fences and water developments), oil and gas facilities, 

and roads. Livestock will graze most areas annually, but a spectrum of vegetation structure and a 

high degree of biodiversity will be present. Livestock grazing intensity will vary; however, 

moderate use will prevail over most of the MA. Natural disturbance processes, including grazing 

and fire, will be used to emulate the natural range of variability of vegetation structure and 

composition.” (Grasslands Plan p. 3-43) 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 will have a direct effect on the livestock grazing program as it would result in no 

livestock grazing of NFS lands. There would be a 100 percent reduction in the existing Federal 

AMs allocated on the NFS lands in the project area, which in 2008 equated to 29,125 AMs. No 

grazing fees would be collected which would mean no return to the US Treasury and Billings 

County and Golden Valley County. In 2008, those fees were approximately $39,318. 

Existing range infrastructure such as fences, wells, tanks, developed springs etc. would likely be 

removed from the landscape under this alternative. However, some structures may be kept for 

other resource reasons; those decisions would be made through other NEPA analysis. With the 

removal of these developments there is the potential of state and county listed noxious weeds and 

other invasive species invading areas that have been disturbed. If the infrastructure was not 

removed, a maintenance plan would need to be developed by the USFS to ensure continued 

functionality of the developments, thereby adding an additional dollar expense to the USFS. 

This alternative would also have an effect on private lands intermingled within allotments. If 

private land owners wanted to graze their private land, they would be responsible for fencing out 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-17 

their private land from the NFS lands and new water sources would likely need to be constructed 

on private lands to offset sources lost on NFS lands. 

Alternative 2 

Overall, the effects of Alternative 2 will be very similar to the existing conditions. With the 

current management minimal changes would occur. A cow/calf pair under this alternative is 

treated as 1.0 AUE regardless of the weight of the cow and the forage requirement for this cow 

would remain to be 913 pounds of air dried forage. The authorized numbers in this alternative 

will be displayed in AMs instead of AUMs (See Appendix E - Glossary). The number of AMs 

authorized would be similar to current permitted 29,125 AMs based on conditions. 

Periods of drought would have a direct effect on the available forage for the project area. When 

lack of precipitation occurs during the growing season (April through July) it has a major impact 

on the production of forage (Heitschmidt et al. 1995). Less available forage results in the 

utilization level of fifty percent to be reached earlier in the grazing season. The end result is a 

decrease in the annual AMs authorized for that year. To extend the grazing season the number of 

animals can be reduced, the class of livestock can be changed, or calves can be weaned early. 

Refer to Appendix C for allotment by allotment details. 

Alternative 3 

Allotment 126 – The initial action is to combine allotments 126 and 128. Authorized use would 

be 2355 Federal AMs. 

A direct effect of this action would be that a nine pasture rotation would become an option by 

combining both herds into one. The stocking rate on NFS lands could also be evened out 

between the nine pastures, and a nine pasture deferred/rest rotation would be implemented. 

By implementing a nine pasture rotation individual pastures would be grazed at different times of 

the year (high intensity low frequency grazing). Individual pastures containing 70% crested 

wheatgrass (Grasslands Plan 2002) would be treated as earlier season pastures and grazed during 

the month of May (SRT final report 2005). By doing so, this would defer turnout onto native 

pastures until June 1st, which in most years desirable cool season species have reached 3 1⁄2 to the 

4 leaf stage. There would be one herd of livestock instead of two. The individual permittee 

would no longer have the flexibility of running a yearling herd and a cow/calf herd, which means 

that the individual would end up buying replacement heifers instead of raising his own 

replacements. 

To develop a new water source in pasture 5 to pull livestock away from woody draws and 

riparian areas and to reclaim the existing spring development in pasture 6 is also part of the 

initial action of alternative three for allotment 126 (DPG LRMP p. 1-19 #4 and #9). The direct 

effect of this initial action would be that livestock would no longer use the spring development as 

the primary water source. Which means that there will no longer be an attractant within the 

woody draw that was surveyed and rated as “at risk” (see woody draw report). Another effect of 

this action would be that the distribution of the livestock within the two pastures would change, 

but depending on the season of the use of this pasture livestock may still access the woody draw. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-18 

As stated above livestock distribution will change, however, the unknown is will the change in 

distribution affect an increase in the ability to produce the high structure within pastures 5 and 6? 

During drought years, livestock may be attracted to the woody draws and riparian areas due to 

the available soil moisture and quality of forage within these areas compared to upland sites. 

The installation of a temporary electric fence between pastures 5 and 6 would concentrate 

livestock more in a general area of each pasture, and would allow the focus of grazing pressure 

on the crested wheatgrass stands within each pasture. Both pastures, however, do have native 

communities which will have to be monitored closely to assure livestock grazing pressure was 

focused on the crested wheatgrass stands and not on the native communities (SRT 2005). The 

initial action of placing salt and supplement within the crested wheatgrass stands in pasture 5 

should help minimize the use of the native communities. 

To extend a range water pipeline from allotment 128 pasture 2 into allotment 126 pasture 4 to 

replace the existing spring development in pasture 4 would have similar effects and indirect 

effects as stated above. Although the size, topography, and species composition is different than 

in pastures 5 and 6, the distribution of livestock would not change much at all. Livestock would 

still be accessing the woody draw by trailing through the woody draw and spring area to access 

the east side of this pasture. Due to the topography, most of the livestock grazing will occur on 

the west side of this pasture. 

Under this alternative 489 Federal AMs would be authorized for this allotment. There would be 

no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal months would 

remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would be different than the existing 

condition. With combining allotments 126 and 128 the forage harvested by livestock would 

occur during different periods of the growing season and the duration of grazing would be 

different compared to the existing condition due to the nine pasture deferred/rest rotation. Native 

plant communities along with crested wheatgrass pastures would have the potential for adequate 

initial growth and/or a recovery period during critical growing moisture periods of the growing 

season. 

Allotment 127 – The proposed initial actions under alternative 3 for allotment 127 includes 

implementing a two pasture rotation between pastures 2w and 3; improve allotment boundary 

fence between allotments 127 and 280 to maintain proper stocking; and authorized use would be 

412 Federal AMs. 

Implementation of a two pasture deferred rotation between pastures 2W and 3 with a June 1st

turn out should improve livestock distribution and native grass species should show slight 

improvements. Distribution of livestock would change from the existing condition due to the 

pastures being grazed separately from one another. Supplemental products should be used to 

attract livestock into areas desired to be grazed. Livestock will be confined to one pasture 

instead of the two pastures which could lead to livestock over utilizing areas which would 

potentially have a negative effect on native grass species. By implementing a two pasture 

deferred rotation cool season native grass species should have the opportunity for recovery every 

other year. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-19 

The allotment boundary fences and natural boundaries between allotments 127 and 280 are in 

need of repair. In several locations, the fences between these two allotments need to be 

improved and the natural barriers between the two allotments no longer work, which would 

require installation of fence. This action would prevent additional forage from being harvested 

by unauthorized livestock. It would reduce the intensity of grazing in some areas of the two 

pastures in allotment 127. Livestock would be much more easily managed by improving the 

boundaries. The indirect effect of this would be the cost of maintenance and installation of a 

fence where natural barriers no longer work. 

Allotment 128 – The initial action of combining allotments 126 and 128 was previously 

discussed (See Allotment 126). Under this alternative 1866 Federal AMs would be authorized 

for this allotment. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would be different than 

the existing condition. With combining allotments 126 and 128 there would be 2355 AMs 

available. The forage harvest by livestock would occur during different periods of the grazing 

season and the duration of grazing would be different compared to the existing condition due to 

the nine pasture deferred/rest rotation. Native plant communities along with crested wheatgrass 

pasture would have a recovery period during the growing season and during critical growing 

moisture periods of the growing season. 

The initial action of fencing the developed spring located in the southwest quarter of the 

southwest quarter of Section 25, T144N, R101W and piping the water from the spring to a tank 

location away from the discharge location may or may not change the distribution of livestock. 

Livestock distribution may change if the location of the tank is moved some distance away from 

the existing site, however, due to the topography and location of this tank one may assume that 

livestock distribution would change. Since the tank is going to be moved down the drainage 

closer to Whitetail Creek, livestock may loaf more along the creek bottom which may cause 

additional concerns along the creek. If proper valves were installed, the use of this tank could be 

controlled and concerns of additional pressure along Whitetail Creek could be avoided. 

Installation of a hardened stream crossing/watering area along Whitetail Creek in section six 

should improve livestock distribution and reduce the amount of trailing to other selected creek 

crossings along Whitetail Creek. A negative effect of developing a watering area along the creek 

would be that there would be no control of livestock without installing a structure to control the 

access of livestock to the watering area. In time, this may increase pressure along the creek 

leading to downward trends in the PFC rating if not monitored and proper adjustments aren’t 

made. 

The installation of a stream structure below the headcut on Whitetail Creek to help dissipate 

stream energy would not have any effect on livestock distribution. 

Allotment 129 – Under this alternative authorized use would be 1090 Federal AM’s of which 

1000 Federal AM’s would be available for the 8 month grazing season and 90 Federal AM’s 

would be available for winter grazing. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-20 

The initial action of an exchange of allotment 131 pastures 1 and 2 for allotment 129 pasture 2 

was proposed by the permittees in allotments 129 and 131. This action would provide additional 

flexibility to the permittees and improve livestock distribution in the northwest portion of pasture 

1 in allotment 131. Distribution of livestock would change in pastures 1 and 2 of allotment 131 

due to the change in the season of use compared to the existing season of use. Allotment 129 

would lose approximately 84 acres of NFS lands (more or less depending on where one places 

the natural boundary) and would lose approximately 30 to 35 Federal AMs in the exchange. 

Due to the reduction in acres and AM’s involved with the exchange in pastures, a reduction in 

authorized AM’s would be required. At this time adjustment of the authorized use numbers for 

the two affected allotments have not been determined. Since this allotment is an inventory 

permit and which carries 90 AM’s in winter grazing a decision would be needed to determine if 

the AM’s would be removed from the summer or the winter grazing season. 

The initial action of developing a range water pipeline from a well in allotment 131 pasture 3 

into allotment 131 pasture 1 would aid in changing the distribution within pasture 1 due to the 

lack of reliable water provided by the existing reservoirs. Reclaiming the two reservoirs in 

allotment 131 pasture 1 would have little to no effect on the distribution of livestock since the 

reservoirs are currently seasonal to non-functional. 

The current shape and size of pasture 3 in allotment 131 has created a bottle neck which has had 

an effect on livestock distribution and has increased grazing pressure in this location. By 

removing this bottle neck (the boundary fence between allotment 129 pasture 2 and allotment 

131 pasture 3 in the south half of section 11) livestock will no longer be confined to the area, the 

size of the pasture would increase, and over time the grazing pressure should be lessened in areas 

currently being heavily grazed. Heavier grazing will still occur within 1/8 of a mile from the 

existing water development in pasture 1 of allotment 131. 

The creation of a riparian pasture by installing a fence from the northwest to the southeast in 

pastures 1 and 2 (Sections 11 and 12), and annually changing the season of use within the created 

riparian pastures would change the distribution of livestock in both pastures due to the change in 

seasonality of grazing and palatability of herbaceous species within these pastures. This action 

will allow more control of the grazing pressure along Magpie Creek. Livestock will no longer 

have free access to the riparian area when grazing the north half of these pastures. Available 

Federal AMs will not change from the existing available Federal AMs. 

The initial action of the establishment and enhancement of willows along Magpie Creek by 

resting riparian pastures for one year then annually rotating the season of use, with beginning the 

rotation with a dormant season grazing would initially effect the amount of forage available in 

this allotment. Adjustments would have to be made in the number of livestock stocked in the 

remaining pasture to assure extra grazing pressure is not applied to these pastures. Within this 

allotment the number of livestock would have to be reduced in the first year of implementation. 

Also in the initial actions for this allotment there is a proposal to extend an existing range water 

pipeline from section 15 to the northwest quarter of Section 23, T144N, R101W and reclaim an 

existing spring development in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 14, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-21 

T144N, R101W. These actions would not affect the available Federal AMs, however, it would 

effect the distribution of livestock due to the condition of the existing spring development. The 

spring development currently is seasonal to non-functional. The reclamation of the spring would 

not have any effects on livestock grazing. 

Allotment 130 – The initial action of winter grazing pastures 1, 2, and 6 would have some 

positive and negative effects to livestock distribution, AMs available in each pasture, and the 

grazing rotation. The current permittee would no longer be able to run replacement heifers 

(yearlings) in pastures 1 and 6 as is currently being ran. A rotation, however, could be designed 

so the current ranch operation could still be able to run replacement heifers or yearling steers. 

The distribution of livestock within pasture 6 may change; however, due to the size of this 

pasture it would be minimal. 

Implementing a summer three pasture deferred rotation system between pastures 7, 8, and 9 

would not change the distribution in two of the three pastures. In pasture 7, however, livestock 

distribution may change due to the change in the season of use compared to its current use of 

fifteen days in early May, approximately 21 days in June into July, and returning to the pasture 

for approximately 15 days at the end of December. With a three pasture deferred rotation 

livestock would only have the opportunity of grazing the pasture during a scheduled time and 

would not return. By design, this rotation would allow for herbaceous species to initially grow 

and/or recover during some portion of the grazing season or all of the grazing season depending 

on authorized use and climatic conditions. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. The 

authorized use of 834 Federal AMs would include the eight month summer grazing season of 

634 Federal AMs for the summer grazing season and the 200 Federal AMs required for winter 

grazing season. 

Allotment 131 – Four of the six initial actions have been discussed previously (See allotment 

129). However, changing pastures 1 and 2 to summer pasture and authorizing 273 Federal AMs 

has not. The change in season of use on pastures 1 and 2 will change from the current use; 

however, the authorization of 273 Federal AMs will not have any effect since this is currently 

being authorized. Forage in pastures 1 and 2 will be harvested during active growing conditions 

rather than being harvested during dormant conditions. 

Allotment 132A – Current management on this allotment is meeting the desired condition for 

structure. There are no woody draws or riparian areas in this allotment. The initial actions for 

this allotment would not have any direct or indirect effects to livestock grazing. This allotment 

will be authorized 176 Federal AMs. 

Allotment 132H – The initial proposed actions for this allotment include the development of a 

livestock watering facility, early use of crested wheatgrass, the continuation of the use of a 

temporary fence to defer use of native graminoid species in the northwest portion of pasture 2, 

and a authorized use of 332 AMs. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-22 

Currently, pastures 2 and 3 are being grazed together due to the current livestock water 

developments. The reservoir in pasture 2 doesn’t hold water for very long due to the type of 

basin bottom. With the proposed initial action of developing a rangeland well in either pasture 2 

or 3 and locating a stock tank on the fence line separating the two pastures would assure that the 

two pastures are grazed separately in a rotational fashion. Livestock distribution may change 

some from the existing condition in pasture 2; however, in pasture 3 the livestock distribution 

would not change from the existing condition. The benefits of the installation of this 

development should have a positive effect on the crested wheatgrass. By grazing during the 

proper time of the year for crested wheatgrass, when climatic conditions are right, stimulation of 

tillering should increase the density of the crested wheatgrass stands. Also, by focusing on early 

grazing of these crested wheatgrass pastures, the amount of loafing in the woody draw in the 

southeast to middle of pasture 2 should be reduced. Due to the size of pasture 2 there may, 

however, be some grazing within this woody draw but it should be less than when these pastures 

are grazed for eight months. . 

The use of a temporary fence to defer use of native grasses intermingled with the crested 

wheatgrass in the northwest corner of pasture 2 would ensure that the native species would not 

be grazed prior to range readiness. Livestock distribution may change since there would be an 

increase in livestock numbers and the pasture would be grazed for a shorter period than current 

management. The current grazing association permit issued for this allotment is an inventory 

permit, where a certain number of livestock stay on these two pastures for eight months; which 

would explain the increased pressure on the northwest portion of pasture 2. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. 

Authorized AMs of 332 would remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would 

be different than the existing condition. The available Federal AMs would be harvested in a 

shorter time period compared to the existing eight month grazing season. 

Allotment 133 – The initial proposed action for this allotment includes as needed, early grazing 

of pastures 1 and 2 to stimulate crested wheatgrass, alternate grazing pastures 1 and 2 every other 

year from allotment 256, and to authorize 272 Federal AMs. 

Pastures 1 and 2 currently are being grazed at the same time of year, in the fall. Due to the size 

of the pastures livestock distribution would not change greatly. Grazing the pastures early in the 

month of May for a short time should stimulate tillering of the crested wheatgrass plants. 

Livestock during this period may tend to hang on the areas dominated by crested wheatgrass. 

Because both pastures 1 and 2 are being grazed at the same time, the gates are left open between 

the two pastures so livestock can access both pastures. By grazing these separately, livestock 

distribution could be altered and livestock grazing pressure may reduced in areas. The available 

AMs for this allotment would remain the same, so numbers would not have to be adjusted for 

this action. 

Allotment 133D5 – Since this allotment is currently only authorized to be hayed and the 

proposed action in this alternative is to continue the haying management, there would be no 

direct or indirect effects to livestock grazing. If management practices change and livestock 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-23 

grazing is applied to this allotment, the authorized use proposed would be 49 Federal AMs. An 

indirect effect of livestock grazing would be the need for range water on this allotment as there is 

no water on the NFS lands. 

Allotment 134 – The initial proposed action for this allotment includes implementing a twice 

over grazing system, annually changing season of use within the pastures, alternate salt 

placement in pasture 3 from one side of Whitetail Creek to the other at midpoint of grazing, and 

authorize 254 Federal AMs. 

Implementation of a twice-over rotational grazing system from the existing grazing system of a 

possible three times over would have some direct and indirect effects to livestock grazing. The 

direct effect of this initial action would be that livestock grazing days would have to be balanced 

out for two times over the pasture using the recommended split in grazing time for a recovery 

period before returning to the pasture for the second time through. Livestock distribution may 

change some from the present due to the change in the season of use and plant species 

composition within the pastures, however, due to the size and topography of these pastures there 

would be minimal changes. Available forage may increase with time since the proposed rotation 

is allowing for late season recovery in some of the pastures every year instead of rotating back 

through the pastures a third time. The changing of season of use within the pastures is a standard 

for this type of rotational grazing system. This would be a change from the present condition of 

utilizing the same pasture at the same time year with roughly the same number of livestock 

numbers. 

Authorized Federal AMs would remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would 

be different than the existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during 

different times of the year compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 135 – The initial proposed action for this allotment includes initiate prescribed 

burning or mechanical treatment of encroaching juniper, initiate a three pasture rotation, and 

authorize 1,559 Federal AMs. 

A prescribed burn should increase the amount of forage available as graminoid communities 

replace the existing rocky mountain juniper communities. Livestock distribution should also 

change from the existing conditions. Due to the topography and location of livestock water 

developments, livestock will still concentrate along Mike’s Creek. Regardless of the size of the 

prescribed burn, initially there is high probability that some erosion will take place due to the 

exposed soil. Possible deferment of livestock grazing or rest of the pasture may be necessary 

depending upon the size and intensity of the prescribed burn. 

The use of mechanical treatment on encroaching juniper would not require a deferment of 

livestock grazing or resting of the pastures if isolated junipers are harvested, however, effects 

may be different if large stands of junipers are removed. Distribution of livestock should change 

some once the desired plant communities’ return to the areas treated, however, the topography 

and location of water developments would still draw livestock back to the valley bottoms of 

Mike’s Creek. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-24 

A three pasture rotation would be different than the existing condition where livestock start in 

pasture 8, move into pastures 9 and 10 which are grazed together, and then return in the fall to 

pasture 8. With the proposed rotation, livestock would be grazed in each pasture separately and 

will be used at different times of the year. Livestock distribution would change some due to the 

use of each pasture separately at different times of the year as the rotation is implemented over 

the years. The change in distribution would be due to the change in forage quality of different 

plant communities, and in one out of three years each pasture would be grazed later in the season 

after calves have been weaned off of the cows. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would be different than 

the existing condition. 

Allotment 136/139 – The initial proposed action for this allotment includes using crested 

wheatgrass pastures 136-01 and 139-01 as early season pastures and developing range water in 

allotment 136 pasture 2 to replace a lost water source located on adjacent private property. 

Using both pastures as early season crested wheatgrass pastures may change the distribution 

within the pasture due to the stage of growth the crested wheatgrass is in, but given the smaller 

size of the pastures may not affect livestock grazing distribution. This would also benefit other 

pastures within the allotment that contain native graminoid species by deferring them until range 

readiness. It also may change the distribution of livestock within these pastures; however, again 

given the relatively small size of the pastures it may not affect livestock distribution. 

Developing range water in pasture 2 to replace the lost water source located on adjacent private 

property that was fenced out would have an effect on the current distribution of livestock. 

Because of the lack of water in the past four to five years this pasture has not been grazed or 

grazed for a very short time with approved temporary water limiting the rotation on the 

allotment. With developed dependable water a rotation with the other pastures can once again be 

implemented. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would be different than 

the existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the 

year compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 140 – The initial action for alternative 3 in allotment 140 is to annually change season 

of use between pasture 4 in allotment 140 and pasture 2 in allotment 230. 

Currently, this allotment has two permittees associated with the permit. This action would allow 

one of the two permittees to change the season of use between pastures on two different permits 

using one herd instead of utilizing these pastures at the same time of year every year with two 

different herds of livestock. The effects of this would be that the plant communities within 

pasture 2 would have an opportunity for recovery during the grazing season and pasture 4 would 

not always be grazed in the fall of the year which should help stimulate tillering of native and/or 

introduced plant species. This action would not necessarily change the distribution of livestock 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-25 

due to the relatively small size of the two pastures. This alternative also is consistent with the 

recommendation of the SRT in combining allotments to add flexibility and also to graze pastures 

at the proper time of the year. 

The initial action of annually changing the season of use between pastures 1 and 5 may change 

the distribution of the livestock grazing slightly compared to the current distribution pattern. 

Changing up the season of use within these pastures would allow livestock to utilize more of the 

crested wheatgrass earlier thereby increasing its utilization. In the current rotation desirable 

species may not receive an adequate period for recovery and some species may be grazed too 

soon in the growing season. By changing up the season of use between the pastures, desirable 

grass species would have the proper time to recover and also have the ability to reach grazing 

readiness. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months of 281 would remain the same; however, the use of these Federal AMs would be 

different than the existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different 

times of the year compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 141 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to continue to annually rotate 

season of use between pastures 1 and 3 and to authorize 177 Federal AMs. 

There would be no change from the existing condition to livestock distribution or authorized use 

in alternative 3 since the proposed action essentially continues current management. 

Allotment 142 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to annually change the season 

of use within the grazing rotation and authorize 167 Federal AMs. By changing the season of 

use livestock distribution may change somewhat since grazing may not always occur during the 

heat of the summer, thereby potentially decreasing the amount of loafing the livestock will do in 

the woody draws. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 158 – Initial actions for allotment 158 include annually changing up season of use 

within the grazing rotation, utilize crested wheatgrass pasture 4 as an early season pasture, 

continue use of the once over deferred grazing system, and authorize 1,566 Federal AMs. 

Since the permittee already has started to change up the season of use and uses a once over 

deferred rotation the distribution of livestock should remain consistent with the more recent 

distribution pattern. 

The early utilization of crested wheatgrass in pasture 4 should help in deferring the native 

pastures within allotment 158 until range readiness. This also will benefit the crested wheatgrass 

stand by using it at the proper time and stimulating vigor. The use of a once over deferred 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-26 

grazing within this allotment will allow for changing the season of use and add a recovery period 

on the native pastures. This would also help with the distribution within the pasture due to 

livestock grazing during certain climatic conditions, forage quality, and livestock requirements 

(after weaning of calves for example). 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 220 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to continue to annually rotate 

season of use between pastures and to authorize 153 Federal AMs. 

There would be no change from the existing condition to livestock distribution or authorized use 

in alternative 3 since the proposed action essentially continues current management. 

Allotment 221 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to utilize crested wheatgrass 

pastures 2 and 3 as early season pastures, annually change the season of use in pasture 6, add 

livestock stock tank in pasture 3 from the proposed rangeland water pipeline in allotment 272, 

and authorize 246 Federal AMs. 

The utilization of crested wheatgrass in pastures 2 and 3 should help in deferring the native 

pasture within allotment 221 until key native graminoid species reach range readiness. This also 

will benefit the crested wheatgrass stand by using it at the proper time and stimulating vigor. 

The initial action of changing the season of use in pasture 6 would change the timing of when 

forage is harvested and would allow for graminoid species to be grazed at different periods of the 

growing season. Distribution may change some from the existing distribution pattern, however, 

with the size of pasture there may be no change. In order to change the season of use in pasture 

6, the permittee will have to rotate it with other private “off permit” pasture. 

Adding a stock tank in pasture 3 from the proposed pipeline in allotment 272 would allow for 

more flexibility in the rotation. The existing condition is that the pasture is normally grazed 

early or in conjunction with pasture 2 (open gates between the two pastures) due to the existing 

livestock water source being seasonal or nonfunctional. By adding a stock tank this pasture could 

be rotated with the other early season pasture providing an opportunity for initial growth and/or 

regrowth for both pastures. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 230 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to create a four pasture 

deferred rotation utilizing allotments 230 pasture 1, allotment 288 pasture 2, allotment 256 

pasture 2, and the proposed riparian pasture in allotment 256 pasture 2. Annually change season 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-27 

of use between allotments 140 pasture 4 and allotment 230 pasture 2, and authorize use of 364 

Federal AMs. 

The development of a four pasture deferred rotation may somewhat change the distribution of 

livestock in the smaller pastures; however, due to the size of these smaller pastures this change 

may be slight to none. In the larger pasture distribution would change due to the time and the 

quality of graminoid species, different climatic conditions during the given grazing period, and 

the requirements of cows after weaning of calves. The amount of forage harvested would be 

similar to the existing conditions; however, the forage would be harvested during different parts 

of the growing season. Implementing a four pasture deferred rotation and changing up the 

season of use within the pastures would allow for proper initial growth and/or recovery of 

individual native graminoid species, and may reduce grazing pressure in areas due to the existing 

season long grazing of livestock. 

Annually change season of use between allotment 230 pasture 2 and allotment 140 pasture 4 was 

discussed previously (See allotment 140). All of the above actions would require the permittee 

to run combined herds rather than splitting up his livestock into at least 4 herds. 

 There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. 

Animal months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than 

the existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the 

year compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 237 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to utilize pasture 3 early 

(crested wheatgrass pasture) along with change up the season of use in the remaining two 

pastures, extend the existing rangeland pipeline into pasture 1, and authorize use of 288 AMs. 

Utilization of crested wheat grass in pasture 3 should help in deferring the remaining two native 

pastures until key native graminoid species reach range readiness. This also will benefit the 

crested wheatgrass stand by using it at the proper time and stimulating vigor. 

The proposed initial action of extending an existing rangeland pipeline and adding another stock 

tank to pasture 1 would potentially spread out the livestock distribution instead of it being 

focused in the north/northeast portion of the pasture. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 239 - The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to annually change season of 

use, construct a temporary north/south electric fence and implement a deferred rotation with a 

recommendation of an early turnout into pastures, and authorize 250 Federal AMs. 

By annually changing up the season of use herbaceous plant species would be grazed during 

different phenological stages through the years instead of being grazed at the same time of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-28 

year as is the current situation. This would also allow species proper recovery time before and 

after grazing. The distribution of livestock will change due to forage quality at the time of 

grazing, however, if supplemental protein and minerals are not added to aid in improving 

distribution of livestock in the later part of the grazing season this may not change from the 

existing condition. 

Adding a temporary electric fence from north to south and implementation of a deferred rotation 

would help in concentrating livestock more on the crested wheatgrass areas which are not 

currently being utilized to their full potential. The deferred rotation grazing will provide an 

opportunity for preferred plants and areas to maintain and gain vigor, and works best where 

considerable differences exist between palatability of plants and convenience (Holechek et al. 

1989). 

The effects of an initial action of early turnout into pastures will depend on the flexibility of the 

permittee, however, the permittee has agreed to a May 1 turn-out date. This will allow livestock 

to concentrate on the crested wheatgrass that’s typically range ready the earliest of most 

graminoid species in western North Dakota and Kentucky bluegrass which is typically range 

ready shortly after crested wheatgrass. Caution should be taken to make sure native graminoid 

species are minimally affected by this early turn out. Grazing native rangeland prior to range 

readiness will be the most costly alternative, with both economical losses (in most cases) and 

reductions in production associated with physical damage to the plants (Manske and Sedivec 

1999). The deferred rotation should alleviate this problem since there will be recovery time for 

the native species. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 240 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to complete grazing in 

pasture 4 by March 15, create dependable water in pasture 1 which will allow for a deferred 

rotation and changing up the season use in pastures 1, 2, and 3; and authorize 809 Federal AMs. 

Annually completing dormant season grazing by March 15 will assure that native and introduced 

species are not grazed during initial active growing conditions. 

Providing dependable water in pasture 1 will allow for a deferred rotation thereby changing the 

season of use in pastures 1, 2, and 3. The opportunity for initial growth and/or regrowth will be 

provided in the pastures which may increase the amount of available forage over time. Livestock 

distribution may change, as well, since the livestock will not be in the same pasture at the same 

time of year, especially during the heat of the summer/fall months when the livestock are more 

likely to loaf in the woody draws. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-29 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 241 – Essentially, this allotment doesn’t have any initial actions that are different 

from current management except to continue monitoring the woody draw in pasture 7 which 

would have no effect on livestock grazing. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use of 359 Federal AMs in 

alternative 3. Animal months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be 

different than the existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different 

times of the year compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 243 – The initial actions for this allotment include annually changing up the season of 

use within the grazing rotation, adding a stock tank in the southern end of pasture 1, and 

authorizing 375 Federal AMs. 

By annually changing up the season of use herbaceous plant species would be grazed during 

different phenological stages through the years allowing plant species proper recovery time 

before and after grazing. The distribution of livestock may change due to forage quality at the 

time of grazing, however, if supplemental protein and minerals are not added to aid in improving 

distribution of livestock in the later part of the grazing season livestock distribution may not 

change. 

Installation of a tank in the southern end of pasture 1 would change the distribution of livestock. 

By adding a tank to this site livestock would utilize this end of the pasture more than they 

currently due, but may also relieve some of the grazing pressure that typically occurs on the 

northern end of the pasture. Also, between this proposed tank and the existing private tank on 

the northern fenceline separating the two pastures, one could practice water management to 

manage the livestock distribution depending upon the time of year the livestock are in pasture 1. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 244 – The initial actions proposed for this allotment are to annually change season of 

use, cross fence pasture 2 north to south, and authorize 236 Federal AMs. 

Cross fencing pasture 2 from north to south will create a crested wheatgrass pasture on the east 

side which will be grazed early to allow deferment of the remaining pastures which contain 

mainly native species. The remaining two pastures would have a deferred rotation system 

implemented which will provide for the potential of adequate initial growth and regrowth of 

existing herbaceous species. It will also allow species to be grazed at different times of the 

growing season instead of the same time year after year. The action would also confine/restrict 

livestock to a smaller area in which the distribution of livestock would change. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-30 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 248 – Current management on this allotment is meeting the desired conditions. The 

initial actions for this allotment would not have any direct or indirect effects to livestock grazing. 

This allotment will be authorized 312 Federal AMs. 

Allotment 249 – The initial action proposed for this allotment is to manage the existing livestock 

tanks to rotate use, change season of use by alternating the turn in dates over a three year period 

(First year turn in starts in June, second year July, and third year August), rotate salt and 

supplement to pull livestock off ridge tops, and to authorize 204 Federal AMs. 

The effects of using the existing livestock tanks to alter the distribution, along with alternating 

the turning in dates, and the rotation of salt and mineral would have a positive effect on livestock 

distribution along with allowing for the potential of initial growth and/or recovery for key native 

graminoid species. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 256 – The initial actions included in this allotment are to construct a fence in pasture 

2 to create a riparian pasture, drill a range water well to supply water to two stocktanks (one in 

the newly created riparian pasture and one in pasture 2, create a four pasture deferred rotation 

with some of the pastures in adjacent allotments, fence an existing reservoir and a portion of the 

adjacent woody draw, and authorize 1,591 Federal AMs. 

The first two initial actions are to some extent necessary to implement the proposed four pasture 

deferred rotation. The implementation of this rotation will change the distribution of livestock, 

allow key native herbaceous plants to be grazed at different times of their phenological stages 

and will allow for recovery during the growing season. The rotation will also allow for some 

flexibility in reducing the duration of livestock grazing nearby Blacktail Creek. Fencing of the 

existing reservoir and portion of the adjacent woody draw would assist in controlling the 

distribution of livestock in pasture 2. 

Although the authorized use appears to be the same as existing condition, the reality is that we 

would see an increase in harvested forage since the permittee that’s not utilized the allocated 

AMs available has waived them to the MGA who in turn has reallocated them for use. However, 

the use of these AMs would be different than the existing condition. The available forage would 

be harvested during different times of the year compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 258 – The initial actions for this allotment are to manage livestock tank system to 

better distribute livestock, place a tank in the north central portion of pasture 1 to draw cattle 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-31 

away from Ash Coulee creek, create a riparian exclosure by installing an temporary electric 

fence in the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 13 north of Ash Coulee Creek 

and once PFC is reached prescribed grazing would be allowed, and to authorize 2071 Federal 

AMs. 

The effects of these actions would be to change livestock distribution and would create a rotation 

within a pasture by using the water source as the tool. This will allow areas of the pastures to be 

deferred, allowing for a recovery period before being grazed, and for native herbaceous species 

to be grazed at different phenological stages. Due to the size of the temporary electric fence 

exclosure there would not be much of an effect on distribution; however, this would prevent 

livestock from loafing in this area. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 272 – Initial actions for this allotment include fencing a woody with temporary 

electric fence, constructing a range water pipeline and adding four stock tanks, after construction 

of the pipeline complete reclamation of the dugout and reservoir in pasture 2, control the 

livestock distribution through management of access to tanks and reservoirs; and authorize 1,473 

Federal AMs. 

Fencing the woody draw with a temporary electric fence would affect livestock distribution by 

essentially excluding the livestock from access to the woody draw. The construction of the range 

water pipeline system with additional range stocktanks and water management of these tanks and 

the existing fenced reservoirs would distribute livestock throughout the main summer pasture as 

wanted to influence grazing patterns. There would be a potential opportunity for initial growth 

and/or regrowth especially within the summer pasture as livestock are pulled to areas of the 

pasture throughout the growing season. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 277 – The initial action for this allotment is to install a stock tank in Section 24 which 

is supplied by an existing pipeline located in pasture 1, fence the reservoir in southeast quarter of 

the southwest quarter of Section 24 to control livestock access to water, maintain current twiceover grazing system, continue to manage tanks to distribute livestock, authorize 1,129 Federal 

AMs of use. 

Distribution of livestock in Section 24 will change from the existing condition due to the 

installation of a stock tank and the fencing off of the reservoir in SE 1⁄4 SW 1⁄4 of Section 24. 

These actions will draw livestock away from the woody draws in this area that have been 

identified to be at risk or unhealthy. The use of the existing pipeline and stock tanks as tool to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-32 

control grazing pressure in areas of the pasture would allow for proper recovery and use of 

desirable native herbaceous species throughout their phenological stages. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year in 

some instances compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 278 – The initial actions under this alternative include utilizing pastures 1, 2, and 4 as 

crested wheatgrass pastures, reclaiming a reservoir in pasture 2, and authorizing 272 Federal 

AMs. 

Due to the size of these pastures the distribution of livestock would not change from the current 

condition, however, the timing of livestock grazing would allow for recovery of graminoid 

species since livestock would be removed by the end of May or by the first week in June. This is 

currently being carried out on this allotment. These pastures currently are a mixture of crested 

wheatgrass and native. Monitoring should be carried out and adjustments in the season of use 

should be changed to reflect species composition and desired conditions. The reclamation of the 

reservoir in pasture 2 would not change the distribution. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

historical existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during a different time of 

the year compared to the historical existing rotation. 

Allotment 281 – The proposed initial actions for this allotment include the development of a 

water source in pasture 1 to pull livestock away from the surveyed woody draws, annually 

change the season of use in the rotation, and authorize 295 Federal AMs. 

Livestock distribution in pasture 1 will change with the development of a water source. Due to 

the size of the pasture and dependent on the location of the new water source there will still be 

tendency of livestock to visit the woody draws. With the development of new water in pasture 1 

there will be more flexibility in the rotation since this pasture would have reliable water. This 

will allow for the managers to annually change up the season of use and allow for proper 

recovery of desirable native graminoid species. Again the key will be the location of the new 

water source, however, the change in annual use will allow for some change due to palatability 

of herbaceous species during different phonological stages of growth. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 282 – The proposed initial actions for this allotment under alternative three include 

moving an interior fence between pastures 5 and 6 to the ridge top in the southeast portion of 

pasture 5, continue deferred rotation system changing up the season of use within the rotation, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-33 

managing water tanks to better distribute use along Magpie Creek, reduce sagebrush 

encroachment on terrace along east side of pasture 6, move fence in the northeast corner of 

pasture 5 to the west, continue to monitor Fantail creek, and authorize 2,123 Federal AMs. 

Movement of the interior fence between pasture 5 and 6 to the ridge top would reduce the 

trailing along the foot slope of the butte, however there would be little to no change in the 

distribution of livestock. Management of water will change the distribution and can be designed 

to develop a rotation within a pasture without fences. Due to the topography and location of 

livestock water developments along Magpie Creek monitoring will need to be in place to react 

quickly in making adjustments in water management to alleviate future resource concerns along 

riparian areas due to livestock grazing pressure. 

Sagebrush reduction in the terrace along the east side of pasture 6 would promote more 

herbaceous forage growth and should improve native graminoid diversity. Depending on how 

the sagebrush would be treated, livestock would have to be excluded from the treatment area for 

a period of time, which may require the installation of a temporary fence. Depending on the size 

of the treated area available AMs may need to be adjusted until vegetation was re-established. 

Moving the northeast corner of pasture 5 to the west would have minimal effects on the 

distribution of livestock in pasture 5; however, with this move pasture 6 would gain acreage and 

AUMs. This move also would assist in drawing livestock away from Magpie Creek. The area 

gained in pasture 6 currently is not very accessible and therefore not grazed by livestock in 

pasture 5 unless the permittee pushes livestock over the ridge. Through personnel 

communication with the permittee, livestock once pushed over will stay, however, they will not 

leave without herding livestock over the ridge again. 

Continuing to monitor Fantail Creek would not have a direct effect on livestock grazing unless 

future monitoring shows the need to reduce authorized AMs due to a downward trend of Fantail 

Creek as a result from livestock grazing. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 283 – Alternative three would not directly effect this allotment in the sense of 

livestock distribution. The initial actions proposed are to continue the current management 

system and monitor, develop a rangeland well which may be located in the allotment or 

allotment 300 with construction of a water pipeline to supply two stock tanks (one in allotment 

283 and the other in allotment 300), and authorize 300 Federal AMs. 

There would be no change in rotation unless monitoring shows there is a need. The installation 

of well and tank may alter the grazing pressure in areas, however, due to the size, timing of 

grazing, and topography changes should minimal. At this time a site specific location for the 

development has not been chosen. If the placement of the tank is in the general area of the 

existing spring development effects would remain the same. If the placement of the tank is 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-34 

located at the other end of the pasture (next to road) livestock pressure there may be minimal 

change. There would be an increase in pressure around the tank area and lighter pressure in the 

existing development site. 

In this initial action 300 Federal AMs would be authorized. This would not change the amount 

of forage utilized from the existing condition. 

Allotment 286 – The proposed initial actions for this allotment under alternative three include 

implementing a three pasture deferred rotation, construction of a water lot between pastures 2 

and 3, and authorizing 278 Federal AMs. 

A three pasture deferred rotation would be a change from the present rotation. With a three 

pasture deferred rotation there will be flexibility to change up the season of use on the existing 

pastures. By changing up the season of use herbaceous species would be grazed at different 

phenological stages and would allow for the potential of initial growth and/or recovery. 

Currently there are three pastures; however, the current rotation has been essentially a season 

long due to the lack of maintenance of the existing fences and the need for water access in 

pasture 3. Due to the size of the pastures livestock distribution may not change much from the 

existing conditions; however, livestock would be confined to one pasture during certain grazing 

periods. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 287 – Initial actions include managing stock water tanks to pull livestock away from 

woody draws and to control distribution, maintain current grazing system but change season of 

use within rotation, and to authorize 579 federal AMs. 

The management of stock water tanks will assist in changing the distribution of livestock from 

the current distribution pattern. By managing the stock water tanks managers will have the 

ability, through monitoring, to change up the season of use in areas by creating a rotation with 

the water and supplemental mineral and salt. This action will, under normal growing conditions, 

allow native herbaceous species and introduced graminoid species a recovery time and will also 

allow for grazing at different phenological stages through future grazing seasons. Woody draws 

of concern will still have trailing through them due to the topography and location of existing 

water sources. Maintaining the current grazing system but changing season of use within the 

rotation will aid in changing the distribution along with grazing native herbaceous species at 

different phenological stages. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-35 

Allotment 288 – Initial actions include creating a four pasture deferred rotation utilizing 

allotment 230 pasture 1, allotment 288 pasture 2, allotment 256 pasture 2, and the proposed 

riparian pasture in allotment 256 pasture 2. The initial actions also include management of stock 

tanks to control livestock distribution and authorize 268 Federal AMs. 

Implementing a four pasture deferred rotation, managing stock tanks and changing up the season 

of use within the pastures would allow for the potential of initial growth and/or recovery of 

individual native graminoid species throughout deferred periods of the rotation instead of the 

seasonlong livestock grazing that’s occurring currently. The permittee would have to combine 

his existing herds into one herd. Management of stock tanks will assist in controlling livestock 

distribution within the pasture, however, proper monitoring will need to be in place to assure 

over utilization doesn’t occur in areas close to water source. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 289 – Initial actions include managing livestock tanks to more effectively draw 

livestock away from woody draws in pasture 3, add an additional stock tank in both pastures 2 

and 3, fence south boundary of Section 2 and integrate a new pasture into a two pasture deferred 

rotation, and authorize 1,789 Federal AMs. 

The management of livestock tanks and the additional stock tanks would be to improve the 

distribution of livestock and to have the ability to have a rotation within a pasture to allow for 

proper recovery of native herbaceous species in areas that haven’t had this due to the consist use. 

The integration of a new summer pasture would allow for a two pasture deferred rotation to be 

carried out. This action will reduce the size of pasture 2 and a carrying capacity analysis will 

need to be performed on the new pasture to determine the number of grazing days allowed in the 

new pasture and the amount of grazing days lost in pasture 2. 

In this initial action 1789 Federal AMs would be authorized. This would not change the amount 

of forage utilized from the existing condition, however, the timing of the removal of forage 

within the allotment pastures would change from the existing condition. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 300 – The proposed initial actions include the development of a rangeland well which 

may be located in this allotment or allotment 283 and construct a water pipeline to supply two 

stock tanks. A stock tank will be located in each allotment. Once the well is developed the 

spring in the southeast quarter of Section 28 will be reclaimed. Reclaim entrenched livestock 

trails in the water lot located on Magpie Creek and authorize 486 Federal AMs. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-36 

The proposed action in alternative three for this allotment may or may not change the 

distribution of the livestock. Location of the stock tank within this allotment will determine if 

distribution will change. If the stock tank is located away from the existing spring and the spring 

is reclaimed, distribution of the livestock will change. Reclaiming the entrenched livestock trails 

and deferring use of the water lot will alter the distribution of livestock due to the distance of 

other reliable water, in the northwest and east portion of the pasture. Again this would also 

depend on the placement of the stock tank. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the location of the use of these AMs may be different 

than the existing condition. 

Allotment 301 – The initial actions for this allotment include maintenance on existing water 

developments which would offer management opportunities, installing a cross fence in pasture 1 

and implementing a four pasture deferred rotation, fencing out spring areas and installing a check 

valve to dump water back into riparian areas once stock tanks are full, move existing water tanks 

away from seeps/boggy areas, and authorized 1,666 Federal AMs. 

Maintenance on the neglected developments would improve the distribution of livestock within 

this allotment and its pastures by reducing the distance to reliable/functional water 

developments, thereby reducing grazing pressure nearby the currently dependable water sources. 

Installation of the cross fence in pasture 1 will change the distribution due to the pasture being 

split into two pastures which will confine livestock to a certain area. Division of pasture 1 would 

allow for a four pasture rotation versus a three pasture which allows for more flexibility in 

controlling livestock distribution, the number of grazing days in each pasture, reduces distance to 

water developments, allows for a longer deferment of grazing on areas historically over used, 

increases the probability of native herbaceous species reaching grazing readiness, and will allow 

for a longer recovery period for native herbaceous species after being grazed. 

The initial action of fencing out spring areas and installing check valves would not have a direct 

effect on the distribution of livestock throughout the pasture where these devices are installed, 

however, indirectly this action would keep livestock from utilizing the seep/boggy areas. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Allotment 302 – The initial actions for this allotment include changing up the season of use 

between pastures 1 and 2, fencing three reservoirs to control access to water in pasture 2, and 

authorize 1,044 Federal AMs. 

Changing up the season of use may or may not change the distribution of livestock within the 

pastures without the use of other management tools such as supplemental mineral/protein due to 

the palatability of the herbaceous species. Currently these pastures are made up of both crested 

wheatgrass and native graminoid species. The pastures are currently being managed as native 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-37 

pastures. Without an attractant, livestock will tend to avoid the areas of crested wheatgrass later 

in the grazing season and put extra grazing pressure on the native species; however, this depends 

on the season of use and the rotation. This action will allow for a recovery period for native 

species by deferment of pastures compared to the modified deferred grazing being used 

currently. Fencing off the reservoirs in pasture 2 in combination with the two-pasture deferred 

grazing system will allow the manager to monitor and adjust the timing and the 

distribution/duration of livestock grazing within areas of pasture 2. 

There would be no change from the existing condition in authorized use in alternative 3. Animal 

months would remain the same; however, the use of these AMs would be different than the 

existing condition. The available forage would be harvested during different times of the year 

compared to the existing rotation. 

Alternative 4 

Allotment 126 and Allotment 128 – The management actions for this alternative are the same 

as those under Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: a new range water source would not 

be developed in pasture 5 of allotment 126, the existing range water pipeline would not be 

extended from allotment 128 into allotment 126 pasture 4, and hardening stream 

crossings/watering areas along Whitetail Creek in Section 6 of allotment 128 would not occur. 

An initial action different from Alternative 3 is the construction of a riparian exclosure in 

Allotment 128. This exclosure would be approximately 35 acres in size and would be treated as 

a riparian pasture. The riparian pasture would be fenced out of pasture 1 of allotment 128 and 

would have approximately 21 to 22 Federal AUMs available for grazing. Livestock grazing 

would be excluded for the first three years. Once this riparian exclosure has reached the desired 

conditions, livestock grazing will be allowed with a prescribed grazing plan. Due to the size of 

the exclosure, there may be changes in the distribution of livestock. These changes should be 

minimal; however, annual monitoring will be needed to assure that it doesn’t create other 

resource problems along Whitetail Creek. An indirect effect of this action would be the initial 

cost of fencing and annual maintenance. 

Authorized use for this combined allotment would be 1,929 Federal AUMs, which is the initial 

estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to 

AUMs is 2,708 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting 

authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 29 percent reduction from 

existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the 

livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning 

the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 127 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 384 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 474 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 19 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-38 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 129 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the proposed range water pipeline extensions are not 

brought forward nor the reclamation of springs the pipeline extension would replace. Alternative 

4 adds developed water on fence line between allotment 129 pasture 1 and allotment 131 pasture 

1 in Section 3 , reclaiming or fencing one reservoir in allotment 131 pasture 1 (west side), 

constructing a 94 acre riparian exclosure on Magpie Creek and planting willow, cottonwood or 

other native species in the exclosure. No grazing of the exclosure would be allowed for the first 

three years. Authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to 

account for livestock weight. 

An initial action different from Alternative 3 is the construction of a riparian exclosure in pasture 

1. This exclosure would be approximately 94 acres in size and would be treated as a riparian 

pasture. The riparian pasture would be fenced out of pasture 1 and would have approximately 40 

to 42 Federal AUMs available for grazing. Livestock grazing would be excluded for the first 

three years. Once the riparian exclosure has reached the desired conditions, livestock grazing 

will be allowed under a prescribed grazing plan for late to dormant season grazing. Due to the 

size of this riparian exclosure, adjustments should be made in the allowable AUMs harvested 

within this pasture to reflect the lost AUMs. Due to the size of the exclosure there may be 

changes in the distribution of livestock, however, these changes should be minimal however, 

annual monitoring will be needed to assure that it doesn’t create other resource problems along 

Magpie Creek. 

A riparian pasture is also proposed for this pasture in which the north side of Magpie Creek 

would be fenced to divide it into two pastures. Distribution will change more from this action 

than the proposed exclosure. An indirect effect of this action would be the initial cost of fencing 

and annual maintenance. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,090 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 1,359 AUMs, but can not be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage 

than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the 

initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which 

will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,254 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization 

equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers 

will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the 

season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use 

value. 

Allotment 130 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: pastures 8 and 9 would be treated as crested 

wheatgrass pastures and grazed early two out of the three years before rotating to allotment 302. 

In the third year of this rotation early graze the crested wheatgrass areas that would be 

temporarily fenced out of allotment 302 pastures 1 and 2, and recommend to remove winter 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-39 

feeding activities off of NFS lands to private lands. Authorized use is set based on carrying 

capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Allotment 302 and pastures 8 and 9 have plant communities that consist of both introduced 

graminoid species and native species. By fencing out the crested wheatgrass communities the 

native communities would have the opportunity to reach grazing readiness before any grazing 

pressure would be applied. Two out of three years pastures 8 and 9 would be grazed before June 

1st. This would mean that native graminoid species within pastures 8 and 9 would be grazed 

before June 1st once in every three years for each pasture typically before range readiness. 

Moving the winter feeding activities from NFS lands to private in pastures 1 and 2 will reduce 

the chances of introducing or continuing the spread of noxious weed species. The distribution of 

livestock may change because there is no longer an attractant drawing them to specific sites used 

to feed, however, taking into consideration the size and topography of the pastures the change in 

distribution would be minimal. The Grasslands Plan on page 1-19 also guides the district to 

minimize feed storage and routine feeding of domestic livestock on NFS lands. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 833 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 889 AUMs, but can not be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage 

than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the 

initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which 

will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 958 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization equates to a 

13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to 

factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be 

grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 131 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the range water pipeline extension and reclamation 

of two reservoirs in pasture 1 would not occur under this alternative, authorized use is set based 

on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 273 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 475 AUMs, but can not be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage 

than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the 

initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which 

will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 314 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization equates to a 

13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to 

factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be 

grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 132a – The initial actions under this alternative are the same as Alternative 3. 

Even though the initial estimated carrying capacity is 159 AUMs, the current management is 

meeting the resource objectives. Therefore, the authorized use will be maintained at 176 AMs 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-40 

which equates to no adjustment from existing condition. An adjustment for livestock size will 

not be necessary as an initial action. 

Allotment 132h – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the range water well and installation of stock tanks 

would not occur under this alternative, authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there 

is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 332 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 364 AUMs, but cannot be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage than 

the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the initial 

action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which will 

account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 382 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization equates to a 

13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to 

factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be 

grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 133 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 196 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 313 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 37 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 133D5 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. If livestock grazing would be authorized in this 

allotment again the authorized use would be 35 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs (before haying 

authorization) converted to AUMs is 56 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 38 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers would have to factor in 

the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 134 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 220 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 292 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 25 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-41 

Allotment 135 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: this alternative would implement a five pasture 

rotation, a boundary fence between pastures 9 and 10 would be constructed, two riparian 

exclosures would be constructed in pastures 8 and 9 with no grazing for five years, authorized 

use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

A five pasture deferred rotation would allow for a longer recovery time for native graminoid 

species between grazing periods. The distribution of livestock will change in pastures 6 and 7 

with the change of livestock class from yearlings to cow/calf pairs. The boundary fence between 

pastures 9 and 10 is required because a five pasture deferred rotation would not work without it 

since livestock would not be able to be isolated in one or the other pasture. 

Two riparian exclosures would be constructed, one in pasture 8 and one in pasture 9. The 

exclosure in pasture 8 would be approximately 64 acres in size, and would have approximately 

33 to 35 Federal AUMs available for grazing. The pasture 9 exclosure would be about 40 acres, 

and would have approximately 18 to 20 Federal AUMs available for grazing. Livestock grazing 

will be excluded for the first five years for each exclosure. Once the riparian exclosures have 

reached the desired conditions, livestock grazing will be allowed with a prescribed grazing plan 

for late to dormant season grazing. Due to the size of these riparian exclosures adjustments 

should be made in the allowable AUMs harvested within these pastures to reflect the AUMs lost. 

Due to the size of the exclosures there may be changes in the distribution of livestock; however, 

these changes should be minimal and annual monitoring will be needed to assure that they don’t 

create other resource problems along Mikes Creek. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,559 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 1,965 AUMs, but can not be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage 

than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the 

initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which 

will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,793 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization 

equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers 

will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the 

season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use 

value. 

Allotment 136/139 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 252 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 416 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 39 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 140 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 232 Federal 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-42 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 323 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 28 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 141 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the deferred rotation would start on May 1st one out 

of four years, authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to 

account for livestock weight. 

Initiating a deferred rotation on May 1st one out of four years would address the mixed plant 

composition of native and introduced species. Since this action is only happening one out of 

four years the impacts of grazing native species before range readiness should be minimal, but 

close monitoring of the native species should be observed so that early grazing pressure of the 

native species doesn’t start negatively affecting the native plant community. Livestock 

distribution changes should be minimal due to the relatively small size of the pastures. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 113 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 204 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 45 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 142 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the deferred rotation would start on May 1st when 

beginning in pasture 1 and May 15th when beginning in pasture 2, authorized use is set based on 

carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Initiating a deferred rotation on May 1st or 15th would address the mixed plant composition of 

native and introduced species. Close monitoring of the native species should be observed so that 

early grazing pressure of the native species doesn’t start negatively affecting the native plant 

community. Livestock distribution changes may occur with the early season grazing reducing 

livestock loafing in the woody draws, but may be minimal due to the relatively small size of the 

pastures. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 106 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 192 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 45 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-43 

Allotment 158 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: there is a recommendation under this alternative to 

relocate winter feeding areas from NFS lands to private property, authorized use is set based on 

carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Moving the winter feeding activities from NFS lands to private in land will reduce the chances of 

introducing or continuing the spread of noxious weed species. The distribution of livestock may 

change because there is no longer an attractant drawing them to specific sites used to feed, 

however, taking into consideration the size and topography of the pastures the change in 

distribution would be minimal. The Grasslands Plan on page 1-19 also guides the district to 

minimize feed storage and routine feeding of domestic livestock on NFS lands. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,347 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,801 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at 

the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 25 percent reduction from existing condition. 

It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when 

calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for 

the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 220 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and 

there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 112 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 184 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 39 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 221 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: this alternative would initiate a three-pasture 

deferred rotation with grazing commencing May 1st, authorized use is set based on carrying 

capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

 Initiating a deferred rotation on May 1st would address the mixed plant composition of native 

and introduced species. Close monitoring of the native species should be observed so that early 

grazing pressure of the native species doesn’t start negatively affecting the native plant 

community. Livestock distribution changes should be minimal due to the relatively small size of 

the pastures. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 174 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 283 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-44 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 39 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 230 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 333 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 419 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 21 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 237 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the range water pipeline won’t be extended into 

pasture 1, authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account 

for livestock weight. 

By not extending the range water pipeline into pasture 1 livestock distribution may be focused 

around the existing stocktank in the northeastern portion of the pasture north of Blacktail Creek, 

thereby continuing the grazing pressure in this area. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 236 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 331 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 29 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 239 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 176 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 288 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 39 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 240 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 809 Federal 

AUMs. The initial estimated carrying capacity is 876 AUMs, but can not be authorized since we 

would be authorizing more forage than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to 

be addressed. Therefore, the initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 

and 3, but as AUMs which will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-45 

converted to AUMs is 930 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this 

authorization equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note 

that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head 

and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this 

authorized use value. 

Allotment 241 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: a four acre woody draw in pasture 1 would be 

fenced, authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for 

livestock weight. 

Fencing the woody draw would affect less than one AUM, which would have a minimal effect 

on AUMs allocated to the allotment. Livestock distribution may be affected, but it would 

depend on the location of exclosure. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 358 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 413 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 243 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: no stock tank would be added to pasture 1, a two 

pasture deferred rotation would be implemented, high value woody draws would be fenced, 

authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for 

livestock weight. 

By not installing a stock tank in the southern end of pasture 1 livestock distribution will continue 

to be focused on the northern end of the pasture where the dependable water is located on the 

fenceline on private land. Due to the location of the woody draws being fenced out, overall 

livestock distribution may be minimally affected except for excluding livestock grazing in the 

woody draws. Deferred rotation grazing provides a better opportunity for preferred plants and 

areas to maintain and gain vigor than does continuous grazing and works best where 

considerable differences exist between palatability of plants and convenience of areas for grazing 

(Holechek et al. 1989). 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 347 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 431 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 19 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-46 

Allotment 244 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: high value woody draws would be fenced, 

authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for 

livestock weight. 

Fencing out the woody draws should not affect livestock distribution very much since the 

proposed cross fence in pasture 2 is already affecting livestock distribution in the newly created 

two southern pastures. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 236 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 241 AUMs, but cannot be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage than 

the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the initial 

action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which will 

account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 271 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization equates to a 

13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to 

factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be 

grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 248 – The initial actions under this alternative are the same as Alternative 3, except as 

follows: implement a two-pasture deferred rotation starting May 1st

. 

Initiating a deferred rotation on May 1st would address the mixed plant composition of native and 

introduced species. Close monitoring of the native species should be observed so that early 

grazing pressure of the native species doesn’t start negatively affecting the native plant 

community. Livestock distribution changes should be minimal due to the relatively small size of 

the pastures. 

Even though the initial estimated carrying capacity is 261 AUMs, the current management is 

meeting the resource objectives. Therefore, the authorized use will be maintained at 312 AMs 

which equates to no adjustment from existing condition. An adjustment for livestock size will 

not be necessary as an initial action. 

Allotment 249 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and 

there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 181 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 235 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 23 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-47 

Allotment 256 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: suspend the waived 154 AUMs associated with 

pasture 3, control access to Blacktail Creek with drift fences and native materials, construct a 

riparian exclosure in pasture 3 with no grazing in the exclosure for three years, authorized use is 

set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

The suspension of the waived 154 AUMs in pasture 3 would not add to and compound the issues 

in this pasture that need to be addressed since the AUMs haven’t been utilized for quite some 

time now. 

Utilizing drift fences, native materials (example encroaching juniper trees and rocks) to control 

the access to Blacktail Creek in pasture 3 may change the distribution of livestock within this 

pasture due to the current limited access to Blacktail Creek and the topography of the pasture, 

however, at this time the location of the actions have not been identified and it is not possible to 

accurately predict how the distribution would change. 

A riparian exclosure would be constructed in pasture 3. This exclosure would be approximately 

76 acres in size and would be treated as a riparian pasture. The riparian pasture would be fenced 

out of pasture 3 and would have approximately 34 to 37 Federal AUMs available for grazing. 

Livestock grazing will be excluded for the first three years. Once the riparian exclosure has 

reached the desired conditions, livestock grazing will be allowed under a prescribed grazing plan 

for late to dormant season grazing. Due to the size of this riparian exclosure, adjustments should 

be made in the allowable AUMs harvested within this pasture to reflect the lost AUMs. Due to 

the size of the exclosure there may be changes in the distribution of livestock, however, these 

changes should be minimal however, annual monitoring will be needed to assure that it doesn’t 

create other resource problems along Blacktail Creek. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,509 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,830 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at 

the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 18 percent reduction from existing condition. 

It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when 

calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for 

the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 258 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,529 

Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing 

authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 2,382 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its 

explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity 

equates to a 36 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers 

will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the 

season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use 

value. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-48 

Allotment 272 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the dugout in Section 29 in pasture 1 and the 

reservoir in Section 30 pasture 2 would not be reclaimed, authorized use is set based on carrying 

capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Not reclaiming the two water developments would likely have no effect on livestock distribution. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,472 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,694 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at 

the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. 

It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when 

calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for 

the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 277 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the existing hay lot would be moved from its 

present location to the southwest corner of the pasture, Scairt Woman Draw would continue to be 

monitored to determine what is causing the lower reach to be rated as nonfunctional, authorized 

use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Moving the existing hay lot would have no effect on livestock grazing. Monitoring Scairt 

Woman Draw would not have any effects at this time. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,129 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 1,243 AUMs, but can not be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage 

than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the 

initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which 

will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,298 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization 

equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers 

will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the 

season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use 

value. 

Allotment 278 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the reservoir in pasture 2 would not be reclaimed, 

authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for 

livestock weight. 

Not reclaiming the water development would likely have no effect on livestock distribution. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 230 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 313 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the 

initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 27 percent reduction from existing condition. It is 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-49 

important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating 

the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the 

allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 281 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 272 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 339 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 20 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 282 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: a riparian exclosure would be constructed on lower 

Magpie Creek with no grazing in the exclosure for the first three years, authorized use is set 

based on carrying capacity, and there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

A riparian exclosure would be constructed in pasture 6. This exclosure would be approximately 

167 acres in size and would be treated as a riparian pasture. The riparian pasture would be 

fenced out of pasture 6 and would have approximately 85 to 87 Federal AUMs available for 

grazing. Livestock grazing will be excluded for the first 3 years. Once the riparian exclosure 

has reached the desired conditions, livestock grazing will be allowed under a prescribed grazing 

plan for late to dormant season grazing. Due to the size of this riparian exclosure, adjustments 

should be made in the allowable AUMs harvested within this pasture to reflect the lost AUMs. 

Due to the size of the exclosure there may be changes in the distribution of livestock, however, 

these changes should be minimal however, annual monitoring will be needed to assure that it 

doesn’t create other resource problems along Magpie Creek. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 2,123 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 2,598 AUMs, but cannot be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage 

than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the 

initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which 

will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

2,441 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization 

equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers 

will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the 

season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use 

value. 

Allotment 283 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 300 Federal 

AUMs. The initial estimated carrying capacity is 305 AUMs, but cannot be authorized since we 

would be authorizing more forage than the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to 

be addressed. Therefore, the initial action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 

and 3, but as AUMs which will account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-50 

converted to AUMs is 345 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this 

authorization equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note 

that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head 

and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this 

authorized use value. 

Allotment 286 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 237 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 320 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 26 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 287 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 513 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 666 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 23 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 288 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 192 Federal 

AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized 

use AMs converted to AUMs is 308 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The 

effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 38 percent 

reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the 

size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed 

when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 289 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,789 

Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying capacity is 1,872 AUMs, but can not be 

authorized since we would be authorizing more forage than the existing condition yet issues on 

the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the initial action will be to authorize the same 

numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which will account for the livestock size. The 

existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 2,057 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its 

explanations). The effect of this authorization equates to a 13 percent reduction from existing 

condition. It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock 

when calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the 

rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-51 

Allotment 300 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: the fence on the west side of the alleyway in Section 

27 would be removed, authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and there is an 

adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

The removal of the fence on the west side of the alleyway in Section 27 would remove 

approximately 30 acres from allotment 130 and allotment 300 will gain these acres. These 30 

acres have been figured into the acreage of allotment 300’s initial estimated carrying capacity. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 486 Federal AUMs. The initial estimated carrying 

capacity is 497 AUMs, but cannot be authorized since we would be authorizing more forage than 

the existing condition yet issues on the allotment need to be addressed. Therefore, the initial 

action will be to authorize the same numbers as alternatives 2 and 3, but as AUMs which will 

account for the livestock size. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 559 

Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of this authorization equates to a 

13 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers will have to 

factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the season that can be 

grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Allotment 301 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 except for authorized use. Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,509 

Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing 

authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 1,916 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its 

explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at the initial estimated carrying capacity 

equates to a 21 percent reduction from existing condition. It is important to note that managers 

will have to factor in the size of the livestock when calculating the number of head and the 

season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for the allotment with this authorized use 

value. 

Allotment 302 – The management actions for this alternative are the same as those under 

Alternative 3 with the following exceptions: in pastures 1 and 2 crested wheatgrass areas would 

be temporarily fenced out and grazed early, authorized use is set based on carrying capacity, and 

there is an adjustment to account for livestock weight. 

Fencing and grazing the crested wheatgrass areas early would allow native grasses the 

opportunity to reach range readiness while the crested wheatgrass is being utilized. Distribution 

of livestock will change in allotment 302 when a fence is installed since livestock will be 

confined to a smaller area. Livestock grazing pressure will be higher within the fenced off area, 

and in return other undesirable species may be utilized as a result. 

Authorized use for this allotment would be 1,027 Federal AUMs, which is the initial estimated 

carrying capacity for the allotment. The existing authorized use AMs converted to AUMs is 

1,201 Federal AUMs (see Table 3.2 and its explanations). The effect of setting authorized use at 

the initial estimated carrying capacity equates to a 14 percent reduction from existing condition. 

It is important to note that managers will have to factor in the size of the livestock when 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-52 

calculating the number of head and the season that can be grazed when planning the rotation for 

the allotment with this authorized use value. 

Summary 

The range in percent reduction in authorized use between Alternatives 2 and 3, which both 

maintain authorized use at Preference, and Alternative 4 ranges from 0 to 45 percent (Table 3.2). 

Excluding the allotments for which no reductions are proposed the average reduction is about 20 

percent. 

As noted earlier in Chapter 2 of this analysis Alternatives 2 and 3‘s authorized use is expressed 

in terms of AMs and Alternative 4 is expressed in AUMs. This was unavoidable because the 

product of the carrying capacity calculations are expressed in AUMs. So it became necessary to 

convert to a common unit so the alternatives could be compared. As explained in Chapter 2 this 

was accomplished by multiplying the authorized use AM number (i.e. Preference Number) by 

1.15 (see Grasslands Plan, Appendix I). This assumes that all of the animal units are larger cows 

within the range of 1,100-1,300 pounds with an average of 1,200 pounds to get a conversion 

factor of 1.15. In some cases this will likely result in an over estimate, but again this is done for 

comparison purposes. This assumption is correct for those allotments running only cow/calf 

operations, but results in a higher estimate for others which run different classes of livestock 

such as yearlings. As actual stocking numbers and average livestock weight information was 

unavailable the above assumptions were made to allow a comparison to be made between 

existing authorized use of Alternatives 2 and 3 which have the same authorized use and 

Alternative 4. 

Table 3.2. Comparison of the relative authorized uses 

Table 3.2 Authorized Use relative comparison table 

NOTE DISCLAIMERS ABOVE.

Allot # Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternative 4 Percent 

reduction 

between Existing 

Authorized 

Use(Alt 2& 3) 

and Alt 4 

 AMs *AUMs AUMs 

126/128 0 2355 2708 1929 -29%

127 0 412 474 384 -19%

129 0 1090 1254 1090 -13%

130 0 833 958 833 -13%

131 0 273 314 273 -13%

132A 0 176 202 176 AMs –

Meeting Obj. 0%

132H 0 332 382 332 -13%

133 0 272 313 196 -37%

133D5 0 (Hay) 49 (Hay) 56 (Hay) 35 0%

134 0 254 292 220 -25%

135 0 1559 1793 1559 -13%
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-53 

136/139 0 362 416 252 -39%

140 0 281 323 232 -28%

141 0 177 204 113 -45%

142 0 167 192 106 -45%

158 0 1566 1801 1347 -25%

220 0 160 184 112 -39%

221 0 246 283 174 -39%

230 0 364 419 333 -21%

237 0 288 331 236 -29%

239 0 250 288 176 -39%

240 0 809 930 809 -13%

241 0 359 413 358 -13%

243 0 375 431 347 -19%

244 0 236 271 236 -13%

248 0 312 359 312 AMs – 

Meeting Obj. 0%

249 0 204 235 181 -23%

256 0 1591 1830 1509 -18%

258 0 2071 2382 1529 -36%

272 0 1473 1694 1472 -13%

277 0 1129 1298 1129 -13%

278 0 272 313 230 -27%

281 0 295 339 272 -20%

282 0 2123 2441 2123 -13%

283 0 300 345 300 -13%

286 0 278 320 237 -26%

287 0 579 666 513 -23%

288 0 268 308 192 -38%

289 0 1789 2057 1789 -13%

300 0 486 559 486 -13%

301 0 1666 1916 1509 -21%

302 0 1044 1201 1027 -14%

Cumulative Effects 

Livestock Grazing – Alternative 1 would terminate livestock grazing so there are no cumulative 

effects associated with livestock under this alternative. Alternative 2 keeps the current 

conditions, and so will not change livestock grazing. Therefore there would be no cumulative 

effects from this alternative. 

In Alternative 3, there are no effects that are greater than the direct and indirect effects, and so 

there are no cumulative effects to livestock grazing. Alternative 4, which reduces the number of 

AUMs authorized on NFS lands, could have some cumulative effects on the surrounding private 

and state lands. Livestock that are no longer permitted to be on NFS lands would either be sold, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-54 

or moved to private or state lands. This may have a cumulative effect in increasing the stocking 

rates on private or state lands, or the permittees would have to find additional pasture. 

Oil and Gas Development – Oil and gas exploration and infrastructure development will 

continue into the foreseeable future. Under all alternatives, this project will not affect this 

resource. 

Noxious Weeds – Under all of the alternatives the presence of noxious weeds or invasive grasses 

will continue. Under the alternatives an array of different proposed actions would take place, 

however, none would have much of a controlling or inhibiting effect on the weeds or invasive 

grasses. Control is primarily left to use of herbicides and biological agents. For Alternatives 1, 2 

and 3 no cumulative effects are anticipated. In Alternative 4, there might be a slight positive 

cumulative effect as there would be fewer cows potentially so fewer vectors for noxious weed 

spread and establishment. 

Wildfire –Alternatives 1 and 4 would see increases in fire fuels and the potential for increased 

fire intensity and duration. Alternative 2 and 3 would maintain the current situation. However, 

given the high priority of fire suppression in County, State, and Federal agencies, significant 

increases in uncontrolled wildfire are unlikely. 

Drought - No alternative in this analysis will affect drought or the occurrence thereof. However, 

alternatives 1 and 4 would allow the vegetation within the project area to recover more rapidly 

after drought cycles. Cumulatively this would aid in the general area’s ability to withstand the 

effects of drought (more likely in alternative 4.

Riparian 

Introduction

Water is one of the most valuable natural resources wherever it occurs. It sustains life, 

distributes nutrients, provides energy, and shapes the landscape. In addition, water develops 

transportation corridors and provides diverse recreational opportunities. In the semiarid badlands 

of western North Dakota, water is especially important, as it is a limiting factor on wildlife 

populations and livestock numbers. It greatly influences distribution of livestock in Forest 

Service allotments, which in turn affects other resources. 

Commonly, the first signs of ecosystem failures appear in riparian areas where wildlife and 

livestock concentrate. The creation and maintenance of properly functioning riparian areas is 

imperative in maintaining the long-term sustainability of our nation’s natural resources and the 

long-term sustainability of neighboring families engaged in ranch operations. 

Information provided in this section is taken from the Revision of Allotment Management Plan, 

North Billings County Watershed Report, which is located in the Project Record. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-55 

Spatial and Temporal Setting 

The analysis area for the riparian issue is the project area. This is a sufficient analysis area 

because riparian exclosure fences and allotment fences across streams in the project area 

demonstrate that pasture-specific management actions have localized effects on riparian 

functionality. For example, upstream reaches with impaired riparian areas can show complete 

recovery within tens of meters of entering an allotment with a properly managed riparian area 

(Fig. 3-1). Conversely, upstream reaches that are properly functioning can change within tens of 

meters to nonfunctional reaches upon entry into poorly managed riparian areas. The following 

streams and their associated riparian areas are the focus of the riparian analysis: Ash Coulee, 

Betsy Creek, Blacktail Creek, Fantail Creek, Green River, Magpie Creek, Mikes Creek, North 

Creek, Scairt Woman Draw, Spring Creek, Whitetail Creek. The spatial setting for the riparian 

analysis is 10 to 15 years. 

Figure 3-1. Fenceline contrast shows the 

rapid transition from a reach of Magpie Creek 

with a riparian functionality rating of FAR-D 

(functional-at-risk, downward trend) to the 

left (upstream) of the fence to one with a 

rating of PFC (proper functioning condition) 

on the right (downstream) side of the fence. 

Note that upstream the fence there is no 

riparian vegetation, and sediment-transport 

rates are high. In contrast, abundant riparian 

vegetation has trapped and ponded sedimentladen water within 10 meters of the fence. 

Beyond 10 meters the riparian vegetation is 

dense, vigorous, diverse, andshows no 

evidence of excess edimentation. Photo by 

Mark Gonzalez, July 2006.

Methodology for Analysis 

The condition of riparian areas in the Medora Ranger District was assessed using the Proper 

Functioning Protocol (Prichard et al., 1993, 1994, 1998, 1999 (revised 2003), a copy of the 

protocol is located in the Project Record. Results of earlier riparian surveys were summarized by 

Kurt Hansen and others (USDA Forest Service, 1998) and Larry Brooks (2005). These results 

provide a context for determining if the ecological function of particular stream reaches has been 

improving, declining, or holding steady. Riparian surveys were repeated in the summer and falls 

of 2006 and 2007 in the project area by members of the Interdisciplinary team. 

The Proper Functioning Protocol is an interdisciplinary method to evaluate the existing condition 

of riparian areas, to examine the ecological functions of riparian areas, and to identify potential 

causes of riparian problems. Members of the interdisciplinary team walk the entire length, or a 

representative set of reaches, of a riparian area and complete a checklist to determine the overall 

ecological function of the riparian area. Separate checklists are used to evaluate riparian areas 

that border lotic systems (i.e. those with running water, such as streams) and those that border 

lentic systems (i.e., areas where there is primarily standing water, such as ponds, fens, bogs, etc.) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-56 

Individual riparian reaches are arbitrarily designated based on confluences with tributary 

streams, changes in land ownership (e.g., public-private land boundaries), changes in pastures or 

allotments (i.e., where differences in land management practices create noticeable changes in 

riparian conditions), changes from lotic to lentic systems, etc. The interdisciplinary team assigns 

one of five possible functionality ratings to each riparian reach based on their field observations, 

team discussions, and checklist data: Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Functional-at-risk, 

upward trend (FAR-U), Functional-at-risk, no trend apparent (FAR-NA), Functional-at-risk, 

downward trend (FAR-D), and Nonfunctional. An explanation of ratings is provided in Table 3-

3. 

Table 3-3. PFC Functionality Ratings and Definitions (Modified from Prichard et. al. 1998) 

Proper Functioning 

Conditioning (PFC) 

Stream is in balance with the landscape; erosion and deposition are not excessive; 

vegetative cover indicates high soil-moisture (wetland) conditions and has high 

vigor; channel is very sinuous with little or no bank erosion. 

Functional at Risk – 

Upward Trend (FAR-U) 

May indicate past problems that are healing through better vegetative cover, 

decreased erosion, better sinuosity, and better soil-moisture retention 

Functional at Risk – 

Trend not Apparent 

(FAR-NA) 

Some deposition and erosion are occurring; vegetative vigor is moderate; some 

stream banks are drying; but riparian elements are still in place for recovery without 

large inputs; the functionality trend could go either way depending on disturbances. 

Functional at RiskDownward Trend (FARD) 

Plant communities are dominated by more mesic species rather than wetland 

species; erosion is happening at large rates; channel is beginning to straighten with 

increased velocity from lack of streambank cover; and floodplain storage is severely 

decreased. 

Nonfunctional (NF) Stream channel and banks characterized by little or no vegetative cover; stream is 

nonexistent, water not stored in banks due to lack of plant cover and continual 

erosion/deposition. Streambank storage of high flows is short lived due to lack of 

plant cover to slow evaporation rates. Channel has little sinuosity. Mesic and 

possibly xeric upland plant species present where they typically are not found. 

Large expenses required to bring back into a functioning condition 

The PFC protocol has been developed to assess the ecological functionality of riparian areas 

along lentic and lotic systems, as well as in perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral systems. 

Ephemeral systems are not evaluated in this study because water retention is fleeting and the 

concentration of livestock is not as great in ephemeral systems as it is along intermittent and 

perennial systems in this environment. The basis of evaluation is local site potential and 

capability. 

Affected Environment 

Riparian areas have been impacted by herbivory since the time of the bison. These were likely 

random occurrences with heavy impacts to riparian areas followed by years of rest in keeping 

with the nomadic habit of the bison. Settlement brought new impacts to riparian areas that were 

used for building and fencing materials, animal fodder, recreation, irrigation, livestock shelter 

etc. Beaver were trapped out of streams. Roads, which concentrated and funneled runoff into 

streams and riparian zones, were built. Cattle replaced bison with continual grazing replacing 

nomadic grazing. Where bison tended to shun riparian areas due to predators livestock seek 

them because of the water, shelter, forage and shade they provide. Riparian areas in the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-57 

Badlands are used as travel routes due to the gentler terrain. These actions and climatic events 

have all contributed to creating the existing riparian and stream conditions in the project area. 

Existing and Desired Condition 

PFC riparian surveys were conducted on 54 miles of intermittent and perennial streams occurring 

on National Forest System lands in the project area. Surveys were not conducted on private 

lands or state lands, even if these lands were within a federal grazing allotment. The surveyed 

riparian areas are located along the following streams: Ash Coulee, Betsy Creek, Blacktail 

Creek, Fantail Creek, Green River, Magpie Creek, Mikes Creek, North Creek, Scairt Woman 

Draw, Spring Creek, and Whitetail Creek (see Figure 3-1). 

The interdisciplinary team evaluated only riparian areas associated with perennial and 

intermittent water bodies on National Forest System lands. Riparian areas associated with 

ephemeral streams were not evaluated because these areas generally hold water for so short a 

period that livestock rarely concentrate there Therefore, no riparian surveys were conducted in 

20 allotments: Allotments 127, 131, 132A, 132H, 133D5, 136/139, 140, 142, 158, 220, 221, 

239, 241, 243, 248, 249, 272, 281, and 288. However, of concern is the low amount of high 

structure in the project area which has the potential to effect the integrity of ephemeral drainages 

by increasing overland flow and increasing the potential for erosion and gullying of these 

drainageways. 

Table 3-4 provides riparian functionality ratings for the surveyed streams in the project area. The 

table is followed by a map (see Fig. 3-2.) which identifies the surveyed streams and functionality 

rating by stream reach. 

Table 3-4. Riparian functionality ratings (miles and percent miles of channel) for intermittent and 

perennial streams in the North Billings project area. 

Riparian functionality rating* (miles)

Stream PFC FAR-U FAR-NA FAR-D NF Total 

Ash Coulee 2.01 0.45 2.46 

Betsy Creek 0.72 0.42 1.15 

Blacktail Creek 2.89 1.45 4.70 9.04 

Fantail Creek 2.51 2.51 

Green River 1.26 1.26 

Magpie Creek 10.11 0.83 5.86 16.80 

Mikes Creek 6.51 6.51 

North Creek 3.14 3.14 

Scairt Woman 

Draw 0.61 0.08 0.69 

Spring Creek 0.76 0.76 

Whitetail Creek 5.89 0.01 1.63 2.11 9.64 

Total (miles) 26.67 2.51 2.18 2.91 19.68 53.96 

Percent (%) 49.4 4.7 4.0 5.4 36.5 100.0 

*PFC = Proper Functioning Condition; FAR-U = Functional-at-risk, upward trend; FAR-NA = 

Functional-at-risk, no trend apparent; FAR-D = Functional-at-risk, downward trend; NF = 

Nonfunctional. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-58 

The data in Table 3-4 show that approximately one-half (49%) of the reaches (measured by 

length) were in Proper Functioning Condition; and slightly more than one-third (37%) of reaches 

were in Nonfunctional Condition. Functional-at-risk streams comprised the remaining 14% of 

riparian areas. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-59 

Figure 3-2. Surveys streams and functionality ratings. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-60 

A brief summary of each riparian area in relation to the allotment and pasture within the 

allotment it travels through is present below. 

 

Allotment 126. A one-tenth mile segment of Whitetail Creek traverses Pasture 5 in Allotment 

126 and a 1.6-mile reach in Pasture 6. These reaches have a riparian functionality rating of PFC. 

Allotment 128. The segment of Whitetail Creek that crosses Allotment 128 is among the most 

degraded stream reaches in the Little Missouri National Grassland. The channel is deeply 

incised (8 to10 meters; 25 to 30 feet) in Sec. 31, T 144 N/R 100 W and Secs. 35 and 36, T 144 

N/R 101 W (Fig. 3-3A). A channel knickpoint, or headwall, in the SW 1⁄4 of Sec. 31 marks the 

upstream point of channel incision in 2006 (Fig. 3-3B). This knickpoint has migrated several 

miles upstream over the past 80 years (I. Hecker, personal communication, May, 2006). The 

1.4-mile reach downstream the knickpoint has a functionality rating of NF due to the drop in 

water table, the loss of riparian water storage in the banks, the high rates of channel and bank 

erosion, and the scarcity of riparian vegetation. The 1.1-mile reach upstream the headwall (Sec. 

31 T 144 N/ 100 W and Sec. 6, T 143 N/ 100 W) has a functionality rating of FAR-D due to the 

high probability of knickpoint migration and ensuing channel incision. 

Fig. 3-3A. Whitetail Creek is deeply incised 

in Sec. 31, T 144 N/R 100 W and Secs. 35 

and 36, T 144 N/R 101 W. Erosion, 

sediment transport, and deposition rates are 

extremely high and prevent the 

establishment of riparian vegetation. 

Livestock can be temporarily trapped in the 

incised channel. They trail along the channel 

further damaging riparian vegetation. Photo 

by Mark Gonzalez, May 2006. 

Fig. 3-3B. The knickpoint in Whitetail 

Creek in Sec. 31 has been migrating 

upstream for more than 80 years. Headward 

migration of the knickpoint will continue 

without an aggressive effort to control 

erosion and induce channel aggradations. 

Photo by Mark Gonzalez, May 2006. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-61 

Allotment 129. Magpie Creek flows through Allotment 129. The upstream reach (reach 4) in 

pasture 129-02 has a functionality rating of PFC. In pasture 129-01, the functionality rating 

progressively declines downstream, changing from PFC (0.7-mile reach; reach 4) to FAR-D 

(0.6-mile reach; reach 5) to NF (1.4-mile reach; reach 6; Fig. 3-4). 

 

The degraded condition along this reach of Magpie Creek is of concern, because it was rated as 

PFC during riparian surveys in 1998 and 1999, but FAR or NF in 2004 and 2006 surveys. Some 

of the problems noted in the 2006 survey include: 

• Extensive cattle trailing along banks, 

• High forage consumption (>50%) on bottomlands, 

• Sparse riparian vegetation, 

• Lack of moisture storage in banks and loss of baseflow, 

• Vertical banks along downstream end of reach suggesting recent channel incision, and 

• General absence of riparian vegetation on point bars. 

Fig. 3-4. Reaches 5, 6, and 7 of Magpie Creek 

have incised since the 1980s. The high 

width:depth ratio is indicative of high 

sediment transport, excessive channel energy, 

and flashy hydroperiod. Riparian vegetation 

is poorly established along most of these 

reaches. Efforts to establish riparian 

vegetation should lead to increased bank 

stability, decrease in erosion and sediment 

transport, and greater conservation of stream 

discharge through bank storage of moisture. 

Photo by Mark Gonzalez, July 2006. 

Allotment 130. A 2.1-mile segment (reaches 4 and 5) of Whitetail Creek traverses pastures 1 and 

2 in Allotment 130. This reach has a riparian functionality rating of PFC (Table 3B). 

Allotment 133. A four-tenths-mile segment of Blacktail Creek (reach 1) traverses pasture 1 in 

Allotment 133. This reach has a riparian functionality rating of PFC. 

Allotment 134. A 1.5-mile segment of Whitetail Creek (reaches 1 and 2) traverses pastures 1 and 

3 in Allotment 134. This reach has a riparian functionality rating of PFC. Riparian conditions in 

this reach epitomize desired condition (Fig. 3-5). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-62 

Fig. 3-5. The upstream reaches of Whitetail 

Creek have a riparian functionality rating of 

PFC. These reaches epitomize desired condition 

and illustrate that grazing is possible while 

achieving desired riparian conditions. Note 

desired vegetative conditions: vegetative canopy 

of nearly 100% along the channel banks; 

presence of desired native woody species to 

shade channel, cool water, and add root strength 

to banks. Note desired geomorphic conditions: 

low width:depth ratio, low sediment load, 

absence of any visible channel erosion, 

meandering channel to dissipate stream energy, 

and fully vegetated point bars. Beavers maintain 

active dams, which further stabilize channel, trap 

sediment, and recharge alluvial aquifers. 

Allotment 135. Mikes Creek (reaches 1, 2) flows through pastures 2, 8, 9 and 10 of Allotment 

135. A reach through pasture 2 is on private land and was not evaluated. In pastures 8, 9, and 

10, a 6.5-mile segment of the stream that has intermittent flow characteristics was evaluated. It 

has a functionality rating of NF (Fig. 3-6). The interdisciplinary team noted the following 

problems with the functionality of this stream: 

• Channel is incised 2 to 8 meters (5 to 25 feet) and shows signs of recent and 

 continued downcutting. 

• Water table has been lost leading to a sharp reduction in riparian plant species, poor 

 conservation of riparian moisture, and a flashy hydroperiod. 

• Plants in the (potential) riparian area are sparse and dominantly obligate to facultative 

 upland plants. 

• Deposition on point bars is excessive and prevents establishment of desired riparian 

 plants. 

• Noxious weeds are common throughout the (potential) riparian area; 

• Upland hydrology has been altered by road construction, which has concentrated runoff 

 and added sediment to the channel. In addition, upland hydrology is dominated by blue 

 grama sod with few native cool-season grasses present. The blue grama sod exhibits a 

 high percentage of bare ground and shows evidence of high overland flow as indicated 

 by flow paths, pedestals, debris dams, and terracettes. 

• Early season grazing of native species may be exacerbating overland flow conditions. 

• The location and presence of high-flow stage indicators suggest the hydroperiod is short 

 and flashy in Mikes Creek due to poor conservation of moisture in the uplands and high 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-63 

 rates of overland flow. Cattle tend to get temporarily trapped within the vertical walls of 

Mikes Creek and then trail up and down the channel. 

Fig. 3-6. Mikes Creek is deeply incised in Pastures 

8, 9, and 10 of Allotment 135. It has a 

functionality rating of NF. Notice the 

encroachment of mesic upland plants (e.g., 

sagebrush and rabbitbrush) down to the channel 

bed. There is a complete loss of desired riparian 

vegetation from the incised reaches. Also note 

cattle hoof prints in channel bed. Cattle tend to get 

temporarily trapped within the vertical walls of 

Mikes Creek and then trail up and down the 

channel. Finally, the water table has been lost, 

leading to flashy hydroperiod and poor 

conservation of riparian moisture. Riparian plants 

will have difficulty establishing along degraded 

reaches because moisture is limiting. Photo by 

Mark Gonzalez, May 2006.

Allotment 140. A one-tenth-mile segment of Blacktail Creek (reach 2) was evaluated in pasture 

1 of Allotment 140. The interdisciplinary team found this reach in good condition and gave it a 

functionality rating of PFC. 

Allotment 141. A 1.3-mile reach of the upper Green River (reach 1) flows through pastures 1 

and 3 of Allotment 141. The interdisciplinary team gave this reach a functionality rating of PFC. 

The riparian plant community was extremely robust and diverse in this reach. 

Allotment 230. The headwaters of Blacktail Creek (reach 1) flows through Allotment 230. This 

reach was evaluated in 2004 (Brooks 2005) and had a functionality rating of PFC. 

Allotment 237. A headwater reach of Blacktail Creek (reaches 2 and 3) flows through Allotment 

237. This reach was evaluated in 2004 (Brooks 2005) and had a functionality rating of PFC . 

Allotment 240. Two perennial streams flow through Allotment 240. A 1.3-mile segment of 

North Creek (reach 1) flows through pasture 1 (Fig. 3-7A); and a 0.8-mile reach of Spring Creek 

(reach 1) flows through pasture 4 (Fig. 3-7B). No riparian survey had ever been conducted in 

either stream prior to 2006. The interdisciplinary team evaluated both streams in June 2006 and 

gave both reaches a functionality rating of PFC. Spring Creek contained a variety of fish. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-64 

Fig. 3-7A. North Creek has a riparian functionality 

rating of PFC. The headwater reach is 

characterized by a robust riparian plant community 

of sedges, spikerush, and prairie cordgrass. 

Livestock trailing along the channel is light. Photo 

by Mark Gonzalez, June 2006. 

Fig. 3-7B. Spring Creek has a 

functionality rating of PFC. Beaver 

have colonized this reach and 

improved riparian functionality. 

Species composition is a minor 

concern as invasive grasses 

(especially Kentucky bluegrass) were 

noted in the riparian area. Some 

relict bank erosion from hoof shear is 

healing. Photo by Mark Gonzalez, 

June 2006.

Allotment 244. Whitetail Creek (reaches 2 and 3) flows through pasture 2 of Allotment 244. 

The upper 0.3 mile has a functionality rating of PFC . The lower 0.5 mile had a functionality 

rating of PFC in 1998, but was rated as Functional-at risk in a 2006 survey; consequently the 

interdisciplinary team gave this reach a functionality rating of FAR-D, even though the 

ecological function was close to PFC. 

Problems noted in the lower reach included: 

• Cattle trampling evident along accessible banks, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-65 

• Plant diversity very low 

• Banks contained some bare patches leaving them susceptible to erosion and collapse. 

• Width:depth ratio was high, perhaps from repeated livestock entry and egress from the 

channel. 

Allotment 256. Blacktail Creek (reach 4) flows through pastures 2 and 3 of Allotment 256 (Fig. 

3-8). In addition, an unnamed tributary (reaches 9, 10) flows north through pasture 2 into 

Blacktail Creek. Brooks (2005) rated the upper two-thirds of the tributary reach as NF (reach 9) 

and the lower third of the tributary (reach 10) as FAR-NA. Blacktail Creek was resurveyed by 

the interdisciplinary team in 2006. The team gave a functionality rating of NF to most of 

Blacktail Creek, except for the lower 0.7-mile reach in pasture 3 that has a functionality rating of 

FAR-NA. 

Problems noted in these reaches include: 

• Presence of noxious weeds, black henbane, on point bars. 

• Point bars largely devoid of vegetation; riparian vegetation is very patchy. 

• Vegetation cover is sparse and inadequate to protect channel and banks from incision and 

erosion. The banks have almost continuous bare ground 

• Excess sediment is coming from uplands and forming large fans at nearly every tributary 

confluence. 

• Channel is very wide and cobble-lined suggesting very flashy hydroperiod and very high 

rates of sedimentation and sediment transport. 

• Historical incision of about 5-7 m (15-20 feet) is evident from the position of mature 

cottonwoods. Furthermore, there are signs of recent, ongoing channel incision. 

• There is no regeneration of cottonwood trees and only a single patch of peach leaf willows. 

Fig. 3-8. Reach 4 of Blacktail Creek is 

incised and shows evidence of continued 

channel incision. High width:depth ratio, 

paucity of riparian vegetation, and bare 

point bars all indicate that there is excessive 

energy in the channel, poor conservation of 

moisture, and excessive erosion and 

transportation of sediment. Establishment of 

desired riparian vegetation is a priority to 

begin process of restoring proper ecological 

functions to this reach. Photo by Mark 

Gonzalez, May 2006. 

Allotment 258. Ash Coulee (reaches 1, 2 and 3) flows through Allotment 258. In the 1998 and 

1999 surveys, these reaches of Ash Coulee had functionality ratings of FAR-NA and FAR-D. 

Small livestock exclosures (Figs. 3-9A) were constructed along the most severely degraded 

reaches of Ash Coulee. The interdisciplinary team resurveyed Ash Coulee in 2006 and gave a 

functionality rating of FAR-D to 0.6 miles of channel and a functionality rating of PFC to 2.0 

miles. Much of the improvement in the past decade is attributed to the livestock exclosures, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-66 

which have permitted establishment of adequate riparian vegetation to stabilize banks, reduce 

erosion, and decrease sediment transport. 

The remaining degraded reach (Fig. 3-9B) occurs in a fencing corner where Ash Coulee flows 

from pasture 2 into pasture 1 and then back into pasture 2. Livestock tend to bunch in this reach. 

Problems with this reach include: 

• Lack of regeneration of woody plants, especially willows and cottonwood trees. 

• Poor conservation of water in the riparian zone due to high, flashy streamflows. 

• Paucity of riparian plants to stabilize banks and to prevent erosion. 

• Excessive erosion of point bars. 

• Lateral bank migration from bank sloughing. 

• Invasion of upland plants (such as the weakly rooted Kentucky bluegrass) into riparian 

zone due to poor conservation of rangeland and riparian moisture. 

Fig. 3-9A. Livestock exclosure along Ash 

Coulee illustrates desired riparian 

conditions. Note area upstream of road 

crossing where the banks are well vegetated, 

the channel has a low width:depth ratio, 

erosion and sediment transport are minor, 

and channel has high stability. Leafy 

spurge infestations have nearly completely 

disappeared within the exclosures as 

restoration of high soil moisture and desired 

riparian vegetation have choked noxious 

weeds. Sediment in the foreground 

represents spoil placed improperly by the oil 

company that maintains this low-water 

crossing. Photo by Mark Gonzalez, August 

2008. 

Fig. 3-9B. Outside the livestock 

exclosures, the channel of Ash Coulee 

has a high width:depth ratio, high rates 

of channel and bank erosion, high rates 

of sediment transport, and very little 

riparian vegetation. Photo by Mark 

Gonzalez, April 2004. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-67 

Allotment 277. Three perennial streams traverse Allotment 277. North Creek (reach 2) flows 

across pasture 2, and Magpie Creek (reach 1a) through pasture 5. The interdisciplinary team 

gave both reaches a functionality rating of PFC in 2006. 

Scairt Woman Draw (reach 2) traverses pasture 2 (Fig. 3-10A). The interdisciplinary team gave 

this reach a functionality rating of NF in 2006. Note that the reach farther upstream in pasture 3 

of Allotment 289 has a rating of PFC (Fig. 3-10B). The NF condition of Scairt Woman Draw 

appears to be tied to the loss of a water table. In the upstream reach, beavers have created a 

series of ponds, which store water and nourish a robust riparian plant community. These ponds 

may correspond to a reach where springs discharge into the channel. Downstream of the beaver 

ponds, the channel appears to be ephemeral with no evidence of spring or bank discharge. The 

water table has dropped or been lost and the riparian community is missing. Cattle trailing is 

apparent along the channel. Restoration of the plant community may be beyond the control of 

land managers. 

 

Fig. 3-10A. Middle reach of Scairt Woman 

Draw in Allotment 277 does not have any 

beavers. The reach has ephemeral stream 

flow, virtually no riparian vegetation, and a 

functionality rating of NF. 

Fig. 3-10B. Upper reach of Scairt Woman 

Draw in Allotment 289 is at PFC. Beavers 

have constructed a series of ponds that store 

water and nourish riparian vegetation. Photos 

by Mark Gonzalez, June 2006.

Allotment 278. Pasture 1 of Allotment 278 contains a short segment (0.1 mile) of Whitetail 

Creek (reach 1). This segment has a functionality rating of PFC. The headwaters of Betsy Creek 

cross pasture 2 of Allotment 278. The interdisciplinary team examined this reach, noted that it 

was heavily trampled by livestock. However, the reach lacked evidence of riparian habitat, as 

the flow is ephemeral in this reach. This degraded segment of Betsy Creek is more properly 

addressed under woody draws. 

Allotment 282. Parts of three streams flow through Allotment 282. Fantail Creek (reach 1) flows 

through Pastures 3 and 5. This reach has undergone dramatic geomorphic changes following a 

wildfire in 1988. The DPG hydrologist visited Fantail Creek in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2007. He 

observed that riparian vegetation is increasing, sedimentation rates are decreasing, sediment 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-68 

loads are decreasing. Consequently, he gave the creek a functionality rating of FAR-U, although 

this determination was not part of a formal riparian survey. 

Lower Magpie Creek (reaches 6 and 7) passes through Pasture 6. It has a functionality rating of 

NF along its entire length in this pasture (Fig. 3-11A). The channel is incised, has little riparian 

vegetation, high sediment loads, high erosion rates, and little regeneration of riparian trees or 

willows. Cottonwood and willow seedlings are present, but they are repeatedly browsed until 

they die. The riparian vegetation is heavily grazed and trampled; consequently there is little 

vegetation left to stabilize banks and reduce sediment loads. 

Lower Whitetail Creek (reach 11) crosses Pasture 4. About 0.7 miles of this reach have a 

functionality rating of NF (Fig. 3-11B); whereas the lower 0.2 miles of the reach have a rating of 

PFC (Table 3B). Problems with this reach include: 

• Adverse effects from uplands related to poor road design and poor composition of plant 

species, particularly the loss of perennial, cool-season native grasses; 

• Paucity of riparian plant species and inadequate plant cover in riparian zone; 

• Lack of regeneration especially of riparian cottonwood trees; 

• High sediment loads and high rates of channel erosion; 

• Lack of vegetation on point bars; and 

• Historical and recent channel incision. 

 

Fig. 3-11A. Reach 7 of Magpie Creek in 

Allotment 282 has a functionality rating of NF. 

Notice the absence of water in the channel, the 

high width:depth ratio, the lack of riparian 

vegetation, and livestock trails in the stream 

channel. Photo by Mark Gonzalez, July 2006. 

Fig. 3-11B. Reach 11 of Whitetail Creek in 

Allotment 289 has a functionality rating of NF. 

Notice the paucity of riparian vegetation on 

point bars, the active erosion on the cut bank, 

the amount of sedimentation on the point bar. 

Photo by Mark Gonzalez, May 2006. 

Allotment 283. Two short segments of Whitetail Creek (reach 5) cross National Forest System 

lands in Allotment 283. Both of these short segments (each less than 0.5 miles long) were rated 

as PFC in 1998 and were not reevaluated in 2006. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-69 

Allotment 286. Betsy Creek (reaches 1 and 2) crosses pastures 1 and 3 of Allotment 286. In 

pasture 1, the interdisciplinary team assigned a functionality rating of NF; and in pasture 3 FARNA . Problems with Betsy Creek include: 

• Loss of water table and short hydroperiod leading to a paucity of desired riparian plants in 

the riparian zone; 

• Lack of regeneration of sedges and riparian shrubs and trees; 

• Invasion of mesic upland plants into the riparian zone; 

• Repeated patches of bare ground and sparse plant cover along meander bends. 

Allotment 287. An unnamed tributary of Blacktail Creek (Reach 9) forms the boundary between 

pasture 3 of Allotment 287 and pasture 2 of Allotment 256. See Allotment 256 for a review of 

the existing and desired conditions for this tributary. 

Allotment 289. Two perennial streams flow in Allotment 289. North Creek (Reach 2) crosses 

Pasture 2 and was rated PFC by the interdisciplinary team in 2006. Scairt Woman Draw 

(reaches 1,2) flows in Pasture 3. Most (2.1 miles) of Scairt Woman Draw has a functionality 

rating of PFC, although the lower 0.2 miles has a functionality rating of NF (Table 3-4; see Figs. 

3-10A and 3-10B). The transition from PFC to NF coincides with the presence/absence of 

beavers. Where beavers are present, dams have been constructed, water is stored in ponds, and a 

riparian plant community is thriving. Where beavers are absent, there is no evidence of a water 

table, no water storage in the banks of the channel, and virtually no riparian plant community on 

the floodplain or stream banks. 

Allotment 300. Magpie Creek (reach 1b) flows through the northeastern corner of pasture 1 in 

Allotment 300. This corner has been fenced into a water lot that serves livestock in pasture 1 of 

Allotment 300, Pasture 1 of Allotment 302, and pastures 1 and 5 of Allotment 277. The 

interdisciplinary team gave this water lot a functionality rating of FAR-D in 2006. 

Identified problems with this water lot, include: 

• Unacceptably high concentrations of livestock from multiple pastures in this small water 

lot over too much of the growing season with inadequate rest and recover periods for 

plants; 

• Unacceptable levels of hillslope erosion, livestock trailing, bank erosion, 

• Excessive accumulation of manure in and near the channel, 

• Heavy loss of riparian plants, 

• Poor water quality from manure and suspension of sediment related to livestock, 

• Trampling on the banks and in the channel. 

Allotment 301. Magpie Creek (reaches 2 and 3) traverses pastures 1 and 4 of Allotment 301. 

These reaches have a functionality rating of PFC except for a 0.1-mile reach, which is rated as 

FAR-D, in the north end of pasture 1 near the boundary with Allotment 131 (Fig. 3-12). This 

short segment occurs near the two-track stream crossing that is near a private residence in 

Allotment 131. The following was noted for this segment of stream: 

• Extensive cattle trailing along the banks, 

• Lots of hoof shear on banks and post-holing of riparian soil by livestock, 

• An abundance of manure in and near the channel, 

• Poor water quality as indicated by fish kill , and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-70 

• Loss of water storage in banks and loss of base flow. 

Fig. 3-12. Livestock 

concentrate in the reach of 

Magpie Creek immediately 

south of Allotment 131 and in 

the north end of Pasture 301-

01. The riparian vegetation is 

browsed and trampled here, the 

streamflow is interrupted here 

and water is confined to 

instream palustrine basins 

during the low-flow season, and 

fish kill is common in this reach 

during the heat of summer. 

Photo by Mark Gonzalez, July 

2006.

Allotment 302. Two perennial streams flow in pasture 1 of Allotment 302. Magpie Creek has a 

functionality rating of PFC and is at desired condition. Scairt Woman Draw flows along the 

boundary between Allotments 302 and 277. The condition of this segment has already been 

addressed in the discussion of Allotment 277 above. 

The functionality ratings for the intermittent and perennial streams in the North Billings project 

area are summarized in Table 3-5. The stream reaches identified in the table are displayed in 

Figure 3-2. Information is presented in miles and percent length of channels reported for each 

functionality group. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-71 

Table 3-5. Riparian functionality ratings for streams in the N. Billings project area. 

 Riparian Functionality Rating* (miles) 

Allotment-Pasture Stream (reach) PFC FAR-U FAR-NA FAR-D NF Total 

 126-05 Whitetail Creek (5) 0.11 0.11 

126-06 Whitetail Creek (5) 1.61 1.61 

128-01 Whitetail Creek (6,7) 1.07 1.44 2.51 

128-03 Blacktail Creek 0.70 1.83 2.53 

129-01 Magpie Creek (4,5,6) 0.66 0.58 1.55 2.79 

129-02 Magpie Creek (4) 1.81 1.81 

130-01 Whitetail Creek (4) 1.84 1.84 

130-02 Whitetail Creek (5) 0.27 0.27 

133-01 Blacktail Creek (1) 0.41 0.41 

134-01 Whitetail Creek (2) 0.76 0.76 

134-03 Whitetail Creek (1) 0.73 0.73 

135-08 Mikes Creek (2) 2.79 2.79 

135-09 Mikes Creek (1,2) 1.98 1.98 

135-10 Mikes Creek (1) 1.74 1.74 

140-01 Blacktail Creek (2) 0.07 0.07 

141-01 Green River (1) 0.85 0.85 

141-03 Green River (1) 0.41 0.41 

230-03 Blacktail Creek (1) 0.91 0.91 

237-01 Blacktail Creek (2,3) 1.40 1.40 

240-01 North Creek (1) 1.28 1.28 

240-04 Spring Creek (1) 0.76 0.76 

244-02 Whitetail Creek (2,3) 0.26 0.51 0.77 

256-02 Blacktail Cr (4,9,10) 0.09 0.75 2.43 3.28 

258-01 Ash Coulee (2) 0.06 0.32 0.38 

258-02 Ash Coulee (1,3) 1.95 0.13 2.08 

277-02 North Creek (2) 1.53 1.53 

277-02 Scairt Woman Draw(2) 0.46 0.06 0.52 

277-05 Magpie Creek (1a) 2.37 0.01 2.38 

278-01 Whitetail Creek (1) 0.10 0.10 

282-03 Fantail Creek (1) 0.40 0.40 

282-04 Whitetail Creek (11) 0.22 0.01 0.67 0.90 

282-05 Fantail Creek (1) 2.11 2.11 

282-06 Magpie Creek (6,7) 4.31 4.31 

283-01 Whitetail Creek 0.05 0.05 

286-01 Betsy Creek (1,2) 0.11 0.42 0.53 

286-03 Betsy Creek (2) 0.62 0.62 

287-03 Blacktail Creek (9) 0.43 0.43 

289-02 North Creek (2) 0.33 0.33 

289-03 Scairt Woman Dr (1,2) 0.13 0.13 

300-01 Magpie Creek (1b) 0.01 0.10 0.11 

301-01 Magpie Creek (2) 1.87 0.14 2.01 

301-04 Magpie Creek (2,3) 2.04 2.04 

302-01 Magpie Creek (1c) 0.50 0.01 0.50 

302-01 Scairt Woman Draw(2) 0.03 0.02 0.04 

Total (miles): 26.67 2.51 2.18 2.91 19.68 53.95 

Percent (%) 49.4 4.7 4.0 5.4 36.5 100.0 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-72 

Desired Condition 

The overall desired condition for riparian resources is identified under Goal 1a. of the Grasslands 

Plan - “Improve and protect watershed conditions to provide the water quality and quantity and 

soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and intended beneficial water uses”. 

The Grasslands Plan has two objectives and a guideline that are related to the Proper Functioning 

Condition protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2001, pp.1-2, 1-11): 

• Move at least 80 percent of riparian areas and woody draws toward self-perpetuating plant 

and water communities that have desired diversity and density of understory and overstory 

vegetation within site capability. Objective

• Meet or move toward Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) on at least 80% of perennial 

streams. Objective

• For streams identified as "non-functional" or "functional at risk with a downward trend,” 

begin corrective action within 3 years of stream inventories. Guideline

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

General Effects 

As noted previously no riparian surveys were conducted for allotments 127, 131, 132A, 132H, 

133D5, 136/139, 140, 142, 158, 220, 221, 239, 241, 243, 248, 249, 272, 278, 281, 287, 288 

because any riparian areas in these allotments were associated with ephemeral streams which 

hold water for so short a period that livestock rarely concentrate there. These will not be carried 

forward individually in this analysis, but are discussed in detail in the Watershed Report, located 

in the Project Record. While there were no site-specific surveys or specific ephemeral drainages 

of concern, there are some potential effects. The low amount of high structure in the project area 

has the potential to effect the integrity of ephemeral drainages by increasing overland flow and 

increasing the potential for erosion and gullying of these drainageways. 

There were also a number of riparian areas in the allotments that are currently meeting riparian 

objectives. Those allotments, i.e.130, 133, 134, 141, 230, 237, 240, 283, 289, 302, are not 

specifically addressed in this section (see Watershed Report in the Project Record) for additional 

detail. Even though these allotments are currently meeting riparian objective, there is a potential 

concern that authorizing use at full preference, under Alternative 3, may have adverse impacts to 

herbaceous high structure. Decreasing high structure would have implications for rangeland 

hydrology, specifically, diminished opportunities to capture snow, to induce infiltration, to check 

overland flow, or to diminish erosion along drainageways and channels. If this were to happen 

riparian objective is these allotment may potentially be at risk. 

Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 calls for the cessation of grazing in the project area. This alternative is required by 

federal regulations and agency policy. Analysis of this alternative is designed to display the 

potential ecological processes and habitat recovery in the absence of livestock grazing. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-73 

The cessation of grazing would have an immediate, short-term positive effect on riparian areas. 

Trampled banks, compacted soils, and trailing would heal within one or a few seasons. Riparian 

plant communities would begin to expand in areas where plant density is light, sparse, or absent. 

Woody riparian shrubs and trees would likely see a marked increase in population as seedlings 

would not be trampled and seedlings and saplings would not be browsed by livestock. 

In the long-term, there are likely situations where plant composition would shift, sometimes 

undesirably toward non-native invasive species, such as Kentucky bluegrass and annual brome 

grasses, which have a history of invading idle lands in this area (Brand 1980, Brand and Goetz, 

1986). 

Kentucky bluegrass is a sod-forming plant with a disposition for forming water-repellant thatch. 

Long-term rest with bluegrass invasion could lead to poor nutrient cycling in the soil and poor 

rangeland hydrology with excessive runoff and reduced infiltration in upland soils. Decreased 

infiltration reduces available soil moisture for upland plants. Increased runoff can initiate 

gullying of drainageways and erosion of channels due to increases in peak stream discharge. 

Some increase in woody plants (e.g., silver sagebrush, snowberry, Rocky Mountain juniper, and 

rose) would be expected on some ecological sites with the exclusion of grazing unless episodic 

prescribed fire is introduced as a management tool. Expanding juniper stands have the potential 

to further alter the hydrologic regime of those effected areas. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 calls for no change in livestock operations. Livestock grazing would continue in 

the future as it has for the past decade or more with no new range improvements, no increase or 

decrease in livestock numbers except in response to annual operating instructions, which 

evaluate climatic conditions and seasonal forage production, and no changes in grazing systems. 

The net effect of no change in current management is that areas that are currently at desired 

condition are likely to remain so, and areas that have resource concerns or management problems 

are likely to show continued or additional impairment. Degraded riparian areas are unlikely to 

heal until the cause of the degradation is eliminated or sufficiently altered. Specifically, bank 

erosion, channel incision, cattle trailing are likely to remain and/or increase in severity under 

current management. Also, deficiencies in riparian vegetation, including lack of diversity, 

paucity of cover, problems with composition, invasion of non-native species and noxious weeds, 

and lack of regeneration will persist or intensify under current management. Rates of channel 

erosion and sedimentation will remain high in impaired reaches. Elevated sediment loads will 

impair ability of desired riparian vegetation to colonize and flourish. 

Currently only half of the riparian areas in the project area are at desired condition (Tables 3-3 

and 3-4). Under Alternative 2, all impaired reaches (those rated as FAR-NA, FAR-D, and NF) 

will persist in impaired conditions. The impaired reaches (Magpie Creek reaches 1B, 5, 6, 7; 

Whitetail Creek reaches 3, 6, 7, 11; Blacktail Creek reaches 4, 5, 9, 10; Betsy Creek reaches 1, 2; 

Mikes Creek reaches 1, 2; and Ash Coulee reach 2) are generally located in the Badlands 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-74 

Geographic Area (note: Betsy Creek reaches are in the Rolling Prairie Geographic Area). Plan 

objectives for riparian areas that will not be met, specifically under this alternative include: 

• 2. Move at least 80 percent of riparian areas and woody draws toward selfperpetuating plant and water communities that have desired diversity and density of 

understory and overstory vegetation within site capability. Objective, p. 1-2 of Grasslands 

Plan. 

• 3. Meet or move toward Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) on at least 80% of 

perennial streams. Objective, p. 1-2. 

• 13. For streams identified as "non-functional" or "functional at risk with a 

downward trend,” begin corrective action within 3 years of stream inventories. Guideline, p. 

1-11. 

• 2. Allow only those actions next to perennial and intermittent streams, seeps, 

springs, lakes, and wetlands that maintain or improve long-term proper functioning of 

riparian ecosystem conditions. Standard., p. 1-9. 

• 3. Design activities to protect and manage the riparian ecosystem. Maintain the 

integrity of the ecosystem, including quantity and quality of surface and ground water. 

Standard, p. 1-9. 

• 8. Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow 

patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function and meet regulations found in 

Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The 404 regulations were established by the 

Environmental Protection Agency and constitute the substantive environmental criteria used 

in evaluating activities, p. 1-10. 

• 8e. Protect seeps, springs, wetlands, and riparian ecosystems. Standard, p. 1-10. 

Alternative 3 

From a riparian perspective this alternative is two-fold in purpose: (1) it strives to maintain 

riparian function where it currently is at desired condition; and (2) it attempts to restore or move 

riparian function to desired conditions in places where it is currently impaired. Restoration of 

riparian habitat and stream channels is proposed through installation of range improvements, 

establishment of riparian pastures, and implementation of different rotational grazing system 

where necessary to improve resource conditions. 

Livestock use affects riparian and upland vegetation, both of which affect the function of riparian 

systems. If there isn’t sufficient vegetative structure to slow and absorb overland flow in the 

uplands then it becomes runoff which in sufficient volume and intensity can destabilize and 

degrade riparian areas though excessive deposition of sediment, bank scour, and down cutting. 

 Proposed authorized use for Alternative 3 and 4 is compared to current use (2005-2007) 

information, supplied by the Medora Grazing Association, in Table 3-6. Authorized use under 

Alternative 3 is equal to “Preference,” which is expressed in animal units (AMs). For comparison 

purposes the AMs were converted to animal unit months (AUMs) by multiplying AMs by 1.15. 

This assumes that all of the cattle on an allotment are in the 1000 to 1300 hundred weight class 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-75 

with an average of 1200 pounds which equates to 1.15 AUMs. This table is referenced in both 

Alternatives 3 and 4 in the effects discussions below. 

Table 3-6. Comparative table illustrating preference, current, and proposed authorized use for 

Alternatives 3 and 4 

Preference 

(AMs) 

Carrying 

capacity 

(AUMs) 

Current 

Use 

2005-

2007 

(AUMs) 

Alter 3 

(AUMs) 

Alter 3 

% 

change 

from 

current 

Alter 3 

% 

change 

from 

carrying 

capacity 

Alter. 4 

AUMs 

Alter 4 

% 

change 

from 

current 

Alter 4 

% 

change 

from 

carrying 

capacity 

126/128 2355 1929 2516 2708 7.6 40% 1929 -23.3 0% 

129 1090 1359 1032 1254 21.5 -8% 1090 5.6 -20% 

134 254 220 275 292 6.2 33% 220 -20.0 0% 

135 1559 1965 1647 1793 8.9 -9% 1559 -5.3 -21% 

256 1591 1509 1436 1830 27.4 21% 1509 5.1 0% 

258 2071 1529 1470 2382 62.0 56% 1529 4.0 0% 

277 1129 1243 1158 1298 12.1 4% 1129 -2.5 -9% 

282 2123 2598 2133 2441 14.5 -6% 2123 -0.5 -18% 

286 278 237 184 320 73.8 35% 237 28.8 0% 

300 486 497 501 559 11.6 12% 486 -3.0 -2% 

301 1666 1509 1778 1916 7.8 27% 1509 -15.1 0% 

^AMs = Animal Months (assumes 1200 lb cow and equates to 1.15 AUMs); AUMs = Animal Unit Months using 

1000 lb cows as standard unit

Allotments 126/128. One of the most challenging riparian problems in the project area is found 

in this group of allotments along Whitetail Creek. Whitetail Creek is impaired by channel 

incision and active headward migration of a tall (8-10 m (20-33 feet)) knickpoint. 

Under Alternative 3, allotments 126 and 128 would be combined to create a 9-pasture 

rest/deferred rotational grazing system. Authorized use would be 2355 AMs, which is 8% above 

the current-use level and 40% above the initial estimated carrying capacity. Actions intended to 

improve resource conditions include: 

• Addition of a water source in pasture 5 to attract livestock away from a woody draw and 

riparian area. 

• Construction of a fence around a developed spring in pasture 1. Also, water would be 

piped from the spring to a remote tank. 

• Livestock watering areas and crossings would be hardened on Whitetail Creek to control 

damage from hoof action. 

• Structures would be installed below the headcut on Whitetail Creek to dissipate stream 

energy and control channel incision. 

These proposed actions should improve riparian functionality through the reestablishment of 

riparian vegetation, entrapment of sediment, and stabilization of channel banks and bed. The use 

of riparian exclosures and riparian pastures has proven to be effective in the Little Missouri 

Badlands (e.g., note the riparian response within the exclosures along Ash Coulee) in 

reestablishing desired riparian vegetation and controlling sediment loads. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-76 

The increase in authorized use over current (3-year average) levels may counteract the benefits 

of numerous range structures, so the effectiveness of the initial action is somewhat uncertain. 

Allotment 129. Under Alternative 3, the authorized use would be 1090 AMs, which equals 

preference, is 22% above the current-use level of 1032 AUMs, and 8% below the initial 

estimated carrying capacity. Proposed actions to improve the riparian functionality of Magpie 

Creek include: (1) creation of a riparian pasture within allotment 129 pastures 1 and 2; (2) 

rotation of the season of use with the riparian pasture to provide recovery for key riparian plants; 

(3) rest at key times to promote establishment of willows along Magpie Creek until willows are 

well established and can sustain limited browsing; (4) reclamation of a developed spring in 

section 14; and (5) development of off-stream water sources on the fence line between Allotment 

129 pasture 1 and Allotment 131 pasture 1 to decrease livestock’s dependence on Magpie Creek 

for water. Although the riparian area in Sections 10 and 11 in pastures 129-01 and -02 would 

benefit from creation of a riparian pasture, complete recovery is unlikely because local 

topography funnels livestock into the river bottom, infrastructure (such as corrals, water 

developments, and feeding stations) are concentrated near Magpie Creek, and the most palatable 

vegetation is located along Magpie Creek; therefore, reclamation of a spring and development of 

off-stream water may have limited benefits to the riparian functionality of Magpie Creek. 

Conditions along Magpie Creek warrant more proactive riparian restoration methods, such as a 

livestock exclosure. 

Allotment 135. Under Alternative 3, this allotment’s authorized use is 1559 AMs, which is 9% 

above the current (2005-2007) level of use and equal to preference level, and 9% below the 

initial estimated carrying capacity. Other proposed actions (treatment of encroaching junipers, 

initiation of 3-pasture rotation) would have minor effects on watershed condition. 

The pasture rotation is a good idea in general, but the steep topography, scarcity of vegetation on 

south-facing slopes, and preponderance of juniper trees on north-facing slopes limits grazing 

opportunities in pastures 135-8, -9, and -10). Cattle concentrate in and along the riparian 

corridor where the walking is easiest and forage is most abundant. If the riparian areas were 

already functional, then the three-pasture rotation would assist recover and improve ecological 

condition, but in a non-functional state, the riparian areas require a riparian exclosure to 

reestablish riparian vegetation and ecological processes. 

Prescribed burning could have negative initial consequences by inducing a short-lived (one to 

several years) increase in sediment delivery to the channel. Prescribed burning would likely 

have a positive long-term benefit by replacing juniper with a graminoid dominated plant 

community. Juniper alters the natural hydrologic cycle by transpiring large volumes of soil 

moisture. The graminoid community would tend to better conserve soil moisture, decrease 

runoff, and provide more forage for cattle and wildlife. To avoid negative impacts, prescribed 

fire should be implemented in discrete patches over several years. A mosaic of patches of 

different ages and tree density should be created to replace large continuous stands of dense 

juniper. 

Allotment 244. The authorized use would be adjusted from the current-use level of 254 AUMs 

(2005-2007 3-year average) to 236 AMs, an increase of 7%. The proposed actions to restore 

Whitetail Creek to desired condition include: (1) addition of a cross fence to pasture 2 to create a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-77 

three-pasture deferred grazing rotation, including a crested wheatgrass pasture for early season 

use; and (2) a change in the season of use. These actions could decrease overall forage 

consumption in riparian areas and should provide longer recovery intervals between grazing 

periods. 

It is likely that the degraded reach of Whitetail Creek will benefit from the creation of a third 

pasture in this allotment. Recovery could be retarded by warm-season use. It would be 

preferable to defer use in this pasture until late- (after September 1) or dormant-season (after 

October 1) use so riparian plants could complete their life cycle and propagate. 

A concern with this allotment is the amount of time livestock use pastures. The entire allotment 

is only 590 acres. Meyers (1989) found that riparian areas tended to be degraded when pastures 

are used more than 30 continuous days. Exceeding the 30 days in the riparian pasture could 

negate some of the benefits of creating the riparian pasture due to increased bank damage from 

hoof action and overgrazing in the riparian area. 

Allotment 256. Under Alternative 3, the authorized use would be set at 1591 AMs, which is 

27% above the current-use level of 1436 AUMs and 21% over the initial estimated carrying 

capacity. The proposed actions to restore desired riparian functionality to Blacktail Creek 

include: (1) creation of a riparian pasture along Blacktail Creek in pasture 2; (2) creation of a 4-

pasture deferred rotation to provide rest between periods of grazing; (3) construction of a new 

well, pipeline, and tanks to draw livestock away from impaired woody draws and riparian areas; 

and (4) fencing to exclude livestock from a reservoir and woody draw. 

The creation of a riparian pasture to limit the time when livestock can access the stream in 

pasture 2 should improve riparian conditions in this reach. However, this alternative provides no 

actions to benefit directly the riparian area along Blacktail Creek in pasture 3. 

The installation of the proposed tanks in pastures 1 and 4 to draw livestock away from riparian 

areas has worked elsewhere. However, it remains uncertain whether this tool will work as 

desired in this group of allotments where topographic limitations severely restrict animal 

movement and strongly dictate animal behavior. The success of these proposed actions should be 

closely monitored. 

Allotment 258. Alternative 3 authorized use is 2071 AMs, which is 62% above the current-use 

level (2005-2007 3-year average), and 56% above the initial estimated carrying capacity. 

Proposed actions to restore desired riparian functionality to Ash Coulee include: (1) 

constructions of a riparian exclosure in Section 13; and (2) addition of tank in pasture 1 to draw 

cattle away from the creek. 

The riparian exclosure is a direct attempt to improve riparian conditions along Ash Coulee. Two 

other exclosures along Ash Coulee have led to rapid improvement in riparian conditions. A 

similar improvement is likely here. 

Allotment 277. The authorized use under alternative 3 for allotment 277 would be set at 1129 

AMs, which is 12% above current-use level and about 5% over the initial estimated carrying 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-78 

capacity. Other proposed actions in alternative 3 include installation of a stock tank in Sec. 24, 

fencing a dam in Sec. 24 in pasture 1, and moving a hay lot from one place to another within 

pasture 277-05. 

Three perennial streams traverse Allotment 277. North Creek (reach 2) flows across pasture 2, 

and Magpie Creek (reach 1a) through pasture 5. The interdisciplinary team gave both reaches a 

functionality rating of PFC in 2006. The third stream is Scairt Woman Draw. 

There are no proposed actions to restore desired riparian functionality to the lower reach of 

Scairt Woman Draw because the cause of nonfunctionality is unknown at present. The natural 

expansion of beaver along Scairt Woman Draw may improve riparian functionality. This reach 

will be closely monitored to determine the cause(s) of riparian dysfunction. Cattle trailing and 

forage consumption in the riparian areas does not appear to be a problem along Scairt Woman 

Draw. 

Allotment 282. Alternative 3 proposes an authorized use in allotment 282 of 2123 AMs, which 

is 14% over the current-use level, but 6% under the initial estimated carrying capacity. 

Alternative 3 includes provisions for deferred rotational grazing system, reduction of sagebrush 

encroachment along Magpie Creek in pasture 6, and management of stock-watering facilities. 

All of the water developments in pasture 3 (two wells and a stock pond) are within quarter mile 

of Magpie Creek, so livestock will likely continue to hang along Magpie Creek and riparian 

impacts associated with livestock are likely to continue regardless of tank-management 

strategies. 

Repeated inspections of Fantail Creek indicate that its riparian functionality is on an upward 

trend following a wildfire in the watershed in 1988. Consequently, there is no proposed action to 

remediate Fantail Creek at this time. 

Allotment 286. Alternative 3 proposes use an authorized use of 278 AMs, which is 74% above 

the current-use level of 184 AUMs and 35% above the initial estimated carrying capacity. 

Proposed actions to restore desired riparian functionality of Betsy Creek include: Construction of 

a water lot between pastures 1 and 3 to draw livestock off Betsy Creek; and Implementation of a 

three-pasture rotation to increase the recovery interval for riparian and upland plants. 

These proposed actions are insufficient to see any improvement in the condition of riparian areas 

along Betsy Creek. When the proposed authorized use is so much higher than current-use levels 

or the initial estimated carrying capacity, uplands and riparian areas will both be overgrazed. 

With forage in short supply across this allotment, adding a tank in the uplands will do little to 

decrease pressure on the riparian area. The riparian area is unlikely to improve under an 

authorized use that is as high as proposed in this alternative. 

Allotment 300. Under Alternative 3, the authorized use would be set at 486 AMs, which is 12% 

above current-use levels (501 AUMS) and the initial estimated carrying capacity (497 AUMs. 

Proposed actions include: development of a rangeland well which may be located in this 

allotment or allotment 283; construction of a water pipeline to supply two stock tanks one each 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-79 

allotment; reclamation of a spring in the southeast quarter of Section 28 once well is developed; 

and rehabilitation of entrenched livestock trails inside the waterlot located in the northeast 

corner of the allotment. 

The proposal to add a water source in the uplands to decrease livestock’s dependence on Magpie 

Creek for water might permit improvement in riparian conditions along Magpie Creek. At the 

proposed authorized use, uplands and riparian areas may both be overgrazed. With forage in 

short supply across this allotment, adding a tank in the uplands will do little to decrease pressure 

on the riparian area. Also, upland drainageways have begun to gully. Moving animals to 

overgrazed uplands will not improve watershed function. Decreasing stocking to improve plant 

vigor and plant composition and to retain more litter to improve rangeland hydrology is a more 

appropriate action. 

The riparian area is unlikely to improve under an authorized use that is as high as proposed in 

this alternative. Topography may also exacerbate resource conditions related to animal 

distribution. Animals have shown varying use of off-stream water where topographic relief 

affects the distribution and movement of livestock. 

Allotment 301. Alternative 3 proposes authorized use at 1666 AMs, which is 8% above the 

current-use level of 1778 AUMs and 27% above the initial estimated carrying capacity of 1509 

AUMs. 

Magpie Creek is mostly at desired condition, except for a short segment that is rated FAR-D. 

Proposed actions to improve the riparian functionality of the impaired reach of Magpie Creek 

and other degraded resource concerns in this allotment include: (1) installation of crossfence in 

pasture 1 and implementation of a four-pasture deferred rotation; (2) construction of exclosure 

fences around springs with relocation of stock tanks away from seeps and boggy areas and 

installation of check valve to return water to riparian areas when stock tanks are full; and (3) 

repair of existing water developments. 

The four-pasture deferred rotation should, in theory, lead to longer recovery periods and 

improved plant health and riparian conditions. The key will be to control the length of each 

grazing period, especially in those pastures that are used during the warm season. Because the 

proposed ns are heavier than current use and the initial estimated carrying capacity, it is likely 

that forage will be in short supply, especially in those years with average or below average 

moisture. Therefore the success of these efforts is uncertain. 

Allotment 302. The proposed action would set an authorized use of 1044 AMs. Uncertainty 

exists on the balance between federal, state, and private AUMs in this allotment. The proposed 

authorized use would appear to be 17% above the initial estimated carrying capacity, yet 34% 

below the current use levels. 

There are no proposed actions to restore desired riparian functionality to the lower reach of 

Scairt Woman Draw because the cause of nonfunctionality is unknown at present, see Allotment 

277. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-80 

Adaptive Management - This alternative is based on adaptive management, as described in 

Chapter 2. If monitoring reveals that an initial action(s) is/are not successfully resolving a 

resource concern then a team comprised of different specialists, the affected permittee, and 

affected Grazing Director, would recommend to the District Ranger a possible course of 

action(s) based on the adaptive options identified in the Allotment Summary Sheets and/or 

Grazing Management Toolbox (Table 2.2). An effects discussion of the different tools, available 

under adaptive management, is located in Appendix D, Grazing Management Tool Box. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 utilizes many of the same management tools as Alternative 3; however, it differs by 

setting authorized use based on carrying capacity and the condition of the resources. This 

alternative also considers livestock weight and would adjust herd numbers or timing and 

numbers depending on the type of grazing permit a permittee has i.e. inventory or turn-in. 

Allotment 126/128. The combination of these two allotments would establish a seven-pasture 

rotation, which is beneficial for plant health by permitting long periods of recovery between 

intense periods of grazing. Adjustment in the authorized use (from the three-year average of 

2355 AMs (approximately 2516 AUMs) to 1929 AUMs) should permit greater retention of 

vegetation and litter on the ground, which could improve nutrient cycling and hydrologic 

processes in the watershed by enhancing infiltration, retarding overland flow, and increasing 

base flow. Additional actions include constructing a 35-acre riparian exclosure on Whitetail 

Creek in Allotment 128 pasture 1 and planting native trees and constructing sediment 

traps/stream stabilization structures. No grazing in the exclosure would occur for first three 

years. 

The proposed activity that would have the greatest and most direct effect on riparian condition is 

the riparian exclosure immediately above and below the knickpoint on Whitetail Creek in Secs. 6 

and 31. This would provide the best opportunity for riparian vegetation to re-establish itself in 

the least amount of time. The planting of native trees and shrubs and construction of sediment 

traps and channel stabilizing structures along Whitetail Creek would accelerate restoration of this 

reach and better ensure a positive outcome. 

Allotment 129. Under this alternative authorized use would decrease from 1090 AMs to 1090 

AUMs. In addition a riparian pasture would be created by installing a northwest to southeast 

fence in pastures 1 and 2 (Sections 10 and 11). To establish or enhance willows along Magpie 

Creek, the new riparian pasture would be rested for one year and then the season of use would be 

rotated annually beginning with dormant season grazing. Also in pasture 1, a 94-acre riparian 

exclosure would be constructed on Magpie Creek. There would be no grazing of exclosure for 

first three years. Willow, cottonwood or other native species would be planted in the exclosure. 

The proposed riparian pasture in pastures 1 and 2 should improve riparian function. The change 

in grazing rotation is intended to improve establishment of riparian willows, which greatly 

strengthen channel banks and entrap stream sediment. The riparian exclosure would provide the 

best opportunity for riparian vegetation to re-establish itself in the least amount of time. The 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-81 

planting of native willow and cottonwood would accelerate restoration of this reach and better 

ensure a positive outcome. 

Allotment 135. Under Alternative 4, allotment 135 would be grazed with a 5-pasture deferred 

rotation in pastures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.; a 64-acre riparian exclosure would be installed in pasture 

8 and a 40-acre exclosure would be installed in pasture 9 with no grazing of the exclosure for the 

first five years; encroaching juniper would be treated with prescribed fire or mechanical cutting, 

and the authorized use would decrease from 1559 AMs to 1559 AUMs. 

The establishment of the 5-pasture deferred rotation would give the riparian community more 

time to recover between grazing periods. The riparian exclosure would provide the best 

opportunity for riparian vegetation to re-establish itself in the least amount of time. 

 Prescribed burning or mechanical treatment of encroaching juniper could have negative initial 

consequences by inducing a short-lived (one to several years) increase in sediment delivery to 

the channel. Prescribed fire should be implemented with several fires over several years to 

create a mosaic of vegetative conditions to break up continuous juniper stands. Juniper treatment 

would likely have a positive long-term benefit by replacing juniper with a graminoid dominated 

plant community. Juniper alters the natural hydrologic cycle by transpiring large volumes of soil 

moisture. The graminoid community would tend to better conserve soil moisture, decrease 

runoff, and provide more forage for cattle and wildlife. 

Reducing the authorized use to 1559 AUMs should help improve the uplands vegetation which 

in turn reduces overland flow which decreases adverse effects to the heavily impacted Mikes 

Creek. The initial authorized use may not be sufficient to significantly improve Mikes additional 

adjustments may be needed. 

Allotment 244. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except the authorized use would change 

from 236 AMs to 236 AUMs. It is likely that the degraded reach of Whitetail Creek will benefit 

from the creation of a third pasture in this allotment. Recovery could be retarded by warmseason use. It would be preferable to defer use in this pasture until late- (after September 1) or 

dormant-season (after October 1) use so riparian plants could complete their life cycle and 

propagate. 

A concern with this allotment is the amount of time livestock use pastures. The entire allotment 

is only 590 acres. Meyers (1989) found that riparian areas tended to be degraded when pastures 

are used more than 30 continuous days. Exceeding the 30 days in the riparian pasture could 

negate some of the benefits of creating the riparian pasture due to increased bank damage from 

hoof action and overgrazing in the riparian area. 

Allotment 256. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 with several exceptions. First, a 76-

acre exclosure would be constructed in pasture 3. Also, authorized use would be reduced from 

1591 AMs to 1509 AUMs (Tables 5 and 7). In addition, drift fences and native materials (e.g., 

juniper trees, rocks) are proposed to control livestock access to Blacktail Creek. 

The creation of a riparian pasture provides greater control of animal distribution by limiting the 

length of season and determining the season of use of riparian areas. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-82 

Riparian exclosures are recommended for reaches that have a riparian functionality rating of 

FAR-D or NF. Typically areas recommended for exclosures have been chronically overgrazed 

or trampled by livestock trailing, and there is currently insufficient vegetation to protect banks 

and channels from catastrophic erosion. The exclosures on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands 

(including Ash Coulee) have proven highly successful in a matter of a few years, provided 

suitable weather conditions exist to promote recovery of riparian vegetation. 

The installation of the proposed tanks in pastures 1 and 4 to draw livestock away from riparian 

areas has worked elsewhere. However, it remains uncertain whether this tool will work as 

desired in this group of allotments where topographic limitations severely restrict animal 

movement and strongly dictate animal behavior. The effectiveness of these proposed actions 

should be closely monitored. 

The addition of drift fences and native materials (e.g., juniper trees, rocks) in critical areas along 

the stream to control access should reduce impacts to the banks from hoof action and provide 

additional time for riparian plants to recover. 

Allotment 258. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except authorized use would be 

adjusted from 2071 AM to 1529 AUMs. 

The riparian exclosure is a direct attempt to improve riparian conditions along Ash Coulee. Two 

other exclosures along Ash Coulee have led to rapid improvement in riparian conditions. A 

similar improvement is likely here. 

Allotment 277. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except a hay lot would be moved and 

the authorized use would be adjusted from 1129 AMs to 1129 AUMs. 

Three perennial streams traverse Allotment 277. North Creek (reach 2) flows across pasture 2, 

and Magpie Creek (reach 1a) through pasture 5. The interdisciplinary team gave both reaches a 

functionality rating of PFC in 2006. The third stream is Scairt Woman Draw. 

There are no proposed actions to restore desired riparian functionality to the lower reach of 

Scairt Woman Draw because the cause of nonfunctionality is unknown at present. The natural 

expansion of beaver along Scairt Woman Draw may improve riparian functionality. This reach 

will be closely monitored to determine the cause(s) of riparian dysfunction. Cattle trailing and 

forage consumption in the riparian areas does not appear to be a problem along Scairt Woman 

Draw. 

Allotment 282 Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3, except the authorized use would be 

adjusted from 2123 AMs to 2123 AUMs and a 170-acre exclosure would be constructed along 

Magpie Creek in pasture 6. No grazing would be allowed in the exclosure for three years. 

The exclosure would provide the best opportunity for riparian vegetation to re-establish itself in 

the least amount of time. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-83 

Allotment 286 . Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except the authorized use would be 

adjusted from 278 AMs to 237 AUMs. 

These proposed actions are insufficient to see any improvement in the condition of riparian areas 

along Betsy Creek. See Alternative 3 for discussion. 

Allotment 300 Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 in several respects. Under Alternative 4, 

a spring in the southeast quarter of Sec. 28 would be fenced and reclaimed; access to a water lot 

should be restricted until riparian vegetation is reestablished on 80% of the banks; an alleyway 

fence in Sec. 27 would be removed; and authorized use would be adjusted from 486 AMs to 486 

AUMs. These actions should all contribute to an improvement in riparian functionality. 

Allotment 301. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except authorized use is adjusted from 

1666 AMs to 1509 AUMs. This action alone should increase retention of high structure in the 

allotment. Fencing springs, creating a 4-pasture deferred rotation, and repairing existing water 

developments should all improve riparian conditions along Magpie Creek. 

Allotment 302. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except authorized use would be 

adjusted from 1044 AMs to 1027 AUMs. This adjustment should increase the likelihood of 

attaining high vegetative structure and should allow riparian conditions to be maintained or 

improved by reducing total animal impacts to riparian areas. 

Adaptive Management - This alternative is based on adaptive management, as described in 

Chapter 2. If monitoring reveals that an initial action(s) is/are not successfully resolving a 

resource concern then a team comprised of different specialists, the affected permittee, and 

affected Grazing Director, would recommend to the District Ranger a possible course of 

action(s) based on the adaptive options identified in the Allotment Summary Sheets and/or 

Grazing Management Toolbox (Table 2.2). An effects discussion of the different tools, available 

under adaptive management, is located in Appendix D, Grazing Management Tool Box. 

Cumulative Effects 

Livestock Grazing –Under Alternative 1 no livestock grazing would be allowed. The cumulative 

effects within the 10- to 15-year time horizon for this project would essential be the same as the 

direct and indirect effects described above. No grazing would have the same effects on riparian 

areas as exclosures. As demonstrated by the existing exclosures on Ash Coulee, the cumulative 

effect of this alternative would likely be that most Nonfunctional streams improve to PFC or 

functional upward trends, other at-risk streams should improve to PFC. However the absence of 

grazing may improve vegetative cover in uplands and riparian areas initially, but may tend 

toward higher runoff in the long-term if certain plant invasive communities displace desired 

native grass communities. If this were to occur riparian conditions may decline on some 

streams. 

Alternative 2 maintains the status quo in terms of range management and authorized use which is 

preference. Cumulative effects are the same as direct and indirect effects described above. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-84 

Streams that are at PFC would likely remain there, although if every allotment were consistently 

stocked at preference numbers some PFC reaches may degrade. At-risk and nonfunctional 

streams would continue in that state. 

Alternative 3 maintains stocking and utilizes range management tools to address riparian 

concerns. The Badlands Geographic Area is of most concern as most stream reaches have a 

functionality rating of FAR or NF. Riparian vegetation is in short supply or shows low vigor due 

to overgrazing. Banks are bare due to sparse vegetation cover, excessive hoof shear, or cattle 

trailing. Desired woody shrubs and trees are not reestablishing or being recruited along riparian 

areas. Instead, the few seedlings found are heavily browsed, preventing their development into 

mature shrubs and trees. Actions such as the of creation of riparian pastures and exclosures, 

addition of off-stream water sources, and combination of allotments to create multi-pasture 

rotations generally help in restoring riparian functionality and cumulatively may help in moving 

some reaches towards PFC. However, maintaining authorized use at preference has the potential 

to offset these potential gains in the riparian areas with the exception of areas in exclosures. 

Preference is generally above initial estimated carrying capacity for the allotments. This affects 

the condition of upland and riparian vegetation which affects the hydrology of the system. So 

cumulatively the initial actions of this alternative may result in maintaining or worsening riparian 

conditions. 

Alternative 4 is utilizes management actions similar to Alternative 3; however, there is an 

increased use of riparian exclosures, authorized use is set at initial estimated carrying capacity, 

and there is an adjustment for livestock weight. These initial actions should result in improved 

riparian and vegetation condition and a reduction in direct physical effects from livestock and 

cumulatively provide the best opportunity to maintain existing PFC and to move degraded 

stream reaches towards PFC. 

Oil and Gas Development - None of the alternatives will have a cumulative impact on oil and gas 

development, however, oil and gas development will continue with the following effects. The 

exploration, development, and recovery of oil from the project area has been accompanied by the 

development of an extensive road system. Developed roadways alter hydrologic patterns. In 

particular, developed roadways concentrate runoff in ditches, direct water through culverts, 

accelerate runoff, deprive some downslope segments of moisture from natural run-on, and induce 

incision of channels and erosion of drainageways due to the increased volume and velocity of 

runoff. Channel incision and gully formation generate lots of sediment that overwhelms the 

transport capacity of downstream reaches. Deposition ensues downstream with adverse affects 

on riparian vegetation. Noxious weeds and invasive species commonly benefit from 

disturbances related to excessive deposition and erosion. 

Cumulatively oil and gas activities have adversely affected some streams within the project area 

such as parts of Mikes Creek in Allotment 135, and reaches of Blacktail Creek, Whitetail Creek, 

and Ash Coulee that have low-water crossing to serve oil wells. Magpie Creek has a number of 

impacts related to oil and gas activities, from the straightening of its channel in nearby McKenzie 

County, to another low-water crossing, and roads that parallel the creek on both sides. The 

adverse affects of roads can be addressed with the implementation of best management practices 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions

3-85 

(BMPs) designed to attenuate runoff, diffuse runoff, and diminish the erosive power of runoff. 

Specific problems related to roads are addressed under routine road maintenance. 

Wildfire – Wildfires have been actively suppressed on the Little Missouri National Grassland and 

adjacent private and state lands for a hundred years. The result has been an increase in some tree 

and shrub communities and a reduction or loss of vigor in plant communities were fire plays a 

role in maintaining the health of those systems. Active wildfire suppression is likely to continue 

into the future. Though there would likely be different amounts of fuel available under the 

different alternatives, the cumulative effect is believed to be essentially equal to the current 

situation because wildfire suppression will likely remain a high priority. Some tree communities 

such as juniper will continue to expand in the absence of fire and others like the Green Ash 

draws will see regeneration opportunities forgone. The hydrology associated with these systems 

will continue to be effected accordingly. Riparian areas would also continue to forgo the 

regenerative effects associated with fire. 

A caveat to the above is that due to the exclusion of fire the fuel loading in some plant 

communities has increased to high levels which often results in higher intensity fires then would 

be expected under a normal fire frequency regime. A high intensity fire may adversely effect 

the hydrology of an area through accelerated runoff caused by water-repellant soils and lack of 

vegetative cover necessary to slow the rate of runoff. In terms of this scenario Alternative 1 

would have the greatest potential for adverse affect to streams and riparian areas followed by 

Alternative 4, 3, and 2. 

Noxious Weeds – Noxious weeds and invasive grasses alter or replace native plant communities 

which in turn effects the rangeland hydrology allowing for absorption and higher rates of 

overland flow, which in turn has adverse effects on stream and riparian areas. Noxious weeds are 

present in the project area but affect less than one percent of the federal lands. Alternative 1 may 

potentially see the greatest increase in these species even with the loss of the livestock as 

possible vectors for the spreads of noxious weeds and invasive grasses. The remaining 

alternatives may all experience increases in both these groups of species. If not controlled or 

managed, there is potential for continued spread which if reached in great enough proportions 

has the potential to alter the hydrologic cycle, affecting the amount of precipitation that can 

infiltrate as soil moisture and the amount of runoff, which would increase peak stream discharge 

and adversely affecting streams. 

Drought –Riparian areas in PFC would generally be the least impacted or maybe the last to be 

impacted by drought. However, impacted systems have a reduced ability to withstand the effects 

of drought due to the lose of or lowered water tables, increased evaporation due to the loss 

shading vegetation, etc. Alternative 1 would have the greatest ability to withstand the effects of 

drought due to the increase in vegetative cover and general restoration of impaired riparian 

systems. As the ability to restore riparian vegetation decreases so does drought resistance thus 

Alternative 4 would be the next most resistant followed by Alternatives 3, and 2.