Draft Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan

Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area Expansion

July 2010

Prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

922 Bootlegger Trail

Great Falls, MT 594046133

406 / 727 7400

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Refuge Planning

P.O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225

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

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

the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area in western Montana. 

■ The environmental assessment analyzes the environmental effects of expanding the project boundary of 

the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. 

■ The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion land protection plan describes the priorities 

for acquiring 125,000 acres in conservation easements within the expanded project boundary.

Both documents, which stand alone, are contained within this volume. 

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

legal survey. Ownership information may not be complete.
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

1

2

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

2

4

4

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

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

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

5

5

5

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

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

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

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

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

7

7

8

Voluntary Landowner Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 

County Zoning ................................................................................................................................................ 

8

8

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

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

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

9

9

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

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

9

10

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

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................................................... 12

Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 

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

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

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

12

12

12

14

4 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................................... 15

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

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

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

Wildlife Habitat .............................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

15

15

16

16

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

 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment ..................................................................................................... 18

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

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

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development—Alternative A ..................................

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development—Alternative B ..................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18

18

19

20

20

20

Contents 
ii Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Public Use—Alternative A........................................................................................................................... 20

Public Use—Alternative B ........................................................................................................................... 20

Economic Impacts—Alternative A ............................................................................................................. 20

Economic Impacts—Alternative B ............................................................................................................. 20

 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................................................ 21

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................................... 21

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity ............................................................................................. 21

Alternative A .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Alternative B .................................................................................................................................................. 21

 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 22

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

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

5 Coordination and Environmental Review .................................................................................................................. 23

Agency Coordination ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Contaminants and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 23

National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................................................... 24

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ............................................................................................................. 24

Distribution and Availability ............................................................................................................................... 24

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

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

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

Biological Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Conservation Design ..................................................................................................................................... 29

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

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

Coordination ........................................................................................................................................................... 31

Social and Cultural Considerations .................................................................................................................... 32

Appendixes

A List of Preparers and Reviewers ................................................................................................................. 33

B List of Plants and Animals Mentioned in the Text .................................................................................... 35

C List of Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................................................................. 39

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figures

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

 2 Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion project area ............................................... 3

 3 Landownership in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion project area ....... 13

 4 Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services ........................................ 19

 5 Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

 with Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion ........................................................ 24

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

 7 Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion priorities ................................................... 30

Table

 1 Summary of annual operating costs and salaries associated with alternative B ........................... 21

 2 Summary of the project proposal for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem ............................... 22
Abbreviations

 

BL M Bureau of Land Management

BMU bear management units

CA Conservation Area

CoCE Crown of the Continent Ecosystem

EA environmental assessment

FONSI finding of no significant impact

Front Rocky Mountain Front

FTE full-time equivalent

GNLCC Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative

LCC landscape conservation cooperative

LPP land protection plan

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program

NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

NEAT National Ecological Assessment Team

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act

NHPA National Environmental Protection Act

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

PFW Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHC strategic habitat conservation

SWAP Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

TNC The Nature Conservancy

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

1 Purpose of and Need for Action

Among conservation biologists, the Rocky Mountain 

Front (Front) is ranked in the top one percent of 

wildlife habitat remaining in the United States (The 

Nature Conservancy 1999). Virtually every wildlife 

species found in this area upon the arrival of Lewis 

and Clark in 1806, with the exception of free ranging 

bison, remains today in relatively stable or increasing 

numbers. In addition, it is the only remaining area in 

the continental United States with a complete, intact 

assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, including 

the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, pine martin, 

and Canada lynx. 

The Front is part of the Crown of the Continent 

Ecosystem (CoCE), which includes the larger 

Columbia Basin and Upper Missouri/Yellowstone 

rivers watersheds (see figure 1). Within the CoCE, 

an exceptional diversity of wetland types occurs 

including: major riparian areas (including the Teton 

River, Sun River, Blackfoot River, and Dearborn 

River), smaller riparian tributaries, glacial prairie 

potholes, lakes, bogs, fens, swamps, and boreal 

peatlands. The lowlands support over 170 different 

species of wetland plants. Along the elevation 

gradient, large expanses of fescue grasslands phase 

into alpine meadows or sagebrush steppe, which 

then transition into montane forests consisting of 

white pine, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine. These 

transitional zones of valley floors to montane forests 

are extremely important to fish and wildlife.

The continued presence of this large expanse of 

intact habitat and historic wildlife corridors would 

benefit federal trust species such as the grizzly bear, 

gray wolf, wolverine, and Canada lynx; migratory 

birds such as harlequin ducks, red-necked grebes, 

black tern, peregrine falcons, greater sandhill cranes 

and trumpeter swans; and westslope cutthroat trout. 

The Front provides excellent habitat for black bear, 

elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, mountain 

lion, bobcat, coyote, wolverine, and a wide variety of 

small mammals.

PROPOSAL

This proposal involves acquisition of an additional 

125,000 acres of conservation easements within 

an expanded project boundary encompassing 

approximately 918,000 acres (see appendix A, 

list of preparers and reviewers). No land will be 

purchased in fee-title under this project. Depressed 

agricultural markets continue to stress the financial 

solvency of many large family ranches in the area, 

which are being placed onto the real estate market 

and commanding high recreational prices. Adjacent 

ranchers simply can not afford to purchase these 

properties at inflated prices and the land use 

patterns change accordingly. This is the beginning 

of the unraveling of the ecosystem, as historic ranch 

families (and the ranching economy) have been the 

primary reason the landscape has remained largely 

intact.

Upper Teton River watershed in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area.

© Dave Hanna/The Nature Conservancy of Montana
2 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Figure 1. Crown of the Continent ecosystem.

The Front has been a successful model for partnering 

with and connecting to lands already owned by the 

State of Montana, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. 

Forest Service, the Montana Land Reliance, the 

Boone and Crockett Club, and the Bureau of Land 

Management. In addition, local ranchers, business 

owners and representatives of local governments 

have formed a landowner advisory council to identify 

options and strategies for maintaining ranching and 

rural lifestyles in the area. Conservation easements 

are a tool that they strongly support as a means of 

conserving the ranching lifestyle along the Front.

Funding would come primarily from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and potential 

conservation partners. 

PROJECT AREA

The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

(CA) was approved as a unit of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System in 2005 and is a landscape 

conservation strategy to protect a unique, highly 

diverse and largely unfragmented ecosystem in 

north central Montana. The Front encompasses 

the massive ecotone formed by the intersection of 

the western edge of the Northern Great Plains and 

the Rocky Mountains. Mid-grass prairie, foothills 

prairie, montane forest, and alpine tundra occur in 

close juxtaposition, resulting in high species and 

community diversity. 

The expansion encompasses a project area totaling 

approximately 918,000 acres along the eastern edge 

of the CoCE and is centered 65 miles northwest of 

Great Falls, Montana. Lying in the shadow of the 

rugged Continental Divide, Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Area, and Lewis and Clark National Forest marks 

its western boundary. The 1.5 million acre Blackfeet 

Indian Reservation borders the project to the 

north and the eastern boundary is dictated by the 

distribution of fescue grasslands and critical riparian 

areas. The southern boundary falls approximately 

along the watershed of the South Fork of the 

Dearborn River. The Service plans to expand 

the authorized acquisition goal by an additional 

125,000 acres, resulting in the approval to acquire 

conservation easements on up to 295,000 acres of 

private land within the expanded project boundary 

(see figure 2).

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

Based on the analysis in this environmental 

assessment (EA), the Service’s director of Region 6, 

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

and Wildlife Service, will make three decisions:

■ Determine whether the Service should expand 

the boundary of the Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area. 

■ If yes, select an approved, conservation 

easement boundary that best fulfills the habitat 

protection purposes.

■ If yes, determine whether the selected 

alternative would have a significant impact on 

the quality of the human environment. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

of 1969 requires this decision. If the quality of the 

human environment would not be significantly 

affected, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

will be signed and made available to the public. If 

the alternative would have a significant impact, 

completion of an environmental impact statement 

would be required to address further those impacts.

ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND SELECTED 

FOR ANALYSIS

An open house public meeting was held in Choteau, 

Montana on May 17, 2010. Public comments were 

taken to identify issues to be analyzed for the 

proposed project. Approximately twenty-nine 

landowners, citizens, and elected representatives 

attended the meetings and most expressed positive 

support for the project. Additionally, sixteen letters 

providing comments and identifying issues and 

concerns were also submitted. 

In addition, the Service’s field staff has contacted 

local government officials, other public agencies, 

and conservation groups, which have expressed 
Chapter 1 —Purpose of and Need for Action 3

Figure 2. Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion project area.
4 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

an interest in and a desire to provide a sustainable 

future for the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area. Factsheet flyers were distributed at the 

public meeting and project information was also 

made available on the refuge and regional planning 

websites. Following the open house meeting, 

factsheet and flyers were posted in the Benton Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex Headquarter’s 

Visitor Center notifying visitors of the proposed 

project.

Many of the comments received addressed the 

need for a balance between natural and cultural 

systems. There are two main categories of commonly 

expressed issues and concerns.

Biological issues

■ the impacts of habitat fragmentation due to 

residential development 

■ the Service’s role in management of private 

land encumbered with a conservation easement

■ concerns about habitat fragmentation involve 

potential impacts on wildlife habitat and water 

resources. 

Wildlife Habitat

Habitat fragmentation is a concern not only in the 

Rocky Mountain Front, but also in other areas 

of Montana. Given the current strong market for 

scenic western properties, especially when cattle 

prices are low, there is concern that ranches in the 

Rocky Mountain Front will be vulnerable to sale 

and subdivision for residential and commercial 

development. The subdivision process is not difficult. 

Under Montana law, land may be split into lots of 160 

acres or greater without local review or approval. 

Moreover, with no county zoning in place, small-lot 

subdivisions are possible.

Housing development, and the associated 

infrastructure, can disrupt wildlife migration 

patterns. Nesting raptors and grassland bird 

species may be especially vulnerable to habitat 

fragmentation in the Rocky Mountain Front. 

Riparian habitat loss due to development is a key 

concern. Riparian habitat is a key component to 

grizzly bear movement between the mountains and 

valley. Livestock grazing and ranching practices 

tend to be compatible with grizzly bears, which move 

unimpeded up and down riparian corridors. Riparian 

areas also provide nest sites for many species of 

migratory birds that may be negatively impacted by 

development.

The Service, as well as conservation groups and 

people in the region, have voiced concern with the 

fragmentation of habitats in other areas of Montana. 

In a landscape which is largely intact, habitat 

fragmentation poses a substantial threat to the 

continued viability of wildlife populations within the 

Front, including grizzly bear recovery efforts. 

Water Resources

Residential development in the Rocky Mountain 

Front presents a potentially significant threat to 

the aquatic ecosystem. Housing developments can 

bring about sewage-derived nutrient additions to 

streams and lakes, additional wetland drainage, 

water diversion and introduction of invasive plant 

infestations, and nonnative fishes into aquatic 

ecosystems.

S

■ the loss of rural character of the Rocky 

Mountain Front

■ the need to keep private land in private 

ownership

■ the effect of easements on oil and gas 

exploration

■ the impacts of conservation easements on local 

community centers and their ability to grow

■ public access for hunting or other recreational 

opportunities

Landownership and Land Use

The rural character of the Rocky Mountain Front is 

likely to undergo substantial change over the next 10 

to 20 years. 

There is concern that perpetual easements would 

negatively affect future generations of landowners. 

A concern is that conservation easements would 

limit the choices of future landowners, even though 

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

no restrictions. There are concerns that perpetual 

easements would lower the resale value of the land. 

There is concern that the selection process would 

favor landowners whose properties are larger in size, 

over smaller, but biologically valuable properties. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

The potential impact of conservation easements to oil 

and gas development on private lands in the Rocky 

Mountain Front is a concern. 

Wind Energy Development

The potential impact of conservation easements to 

wind energy development on private lands in the 

Rocky Mountain Front is a concern. 

Public Use

The public’s right to use or access lands encumbered 

with a conservation easement is a concern. 
Chapter 1 —Purpose of and Need for Action 5

Landowners are concerned they would be forced 

to allow the public to access their land for hunting, 

fishing, or other recreational uses. 

I

Historically, there has been concern about the 

amount of tax generated to the counties when land 

protection programs take place. Since the proposed 

project is a conservation easement program, the land 

enrolled in the program does not change hands and, 

therefore, the property taxes paid by the landowner 

to the county are not affected.

Development of rural landscapes often leads to 

increased demand for services and higher costs 

to rural counties. There would generally be an 

offset of any perceived reduction in the tax base 

since the county would not incur the expense of 

providing services to rural developments. The use of 

conservation easements serves an additional function 

since easements preclude the necessity for county 

zoning in the project area. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

AND AUTHORITIES c

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

is to preserve a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management and, where 

appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area would continue to be managed as part of the 

Refuge System in accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

and other relevant legislation, executive orders, 

regulations, policies, and management plans such as:

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918)

■ Endangered Species Act (1973)

■ Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) 

■ Migratory non-game Birds of Management 

Concern in the U.S. (2002)

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)

■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(1994)

RELATED ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

The project area lies adjacent to and includes a large 

complex of federal, state, and private conservation 

lands that serve as anchors or core areas for 

numerous trust species. These include the 1.5 millionacre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex; three 

state wildlife management areas (Sun River, Ear 

Mountain, and Blackleaf wildlife management areas 

totaling 34,000 acres); The Nature Conservancy’s 

(TNC’s) Pine Butte Swamp Preserve (13,000 acres); 

two Bureau of Land Management areas of critical 

environmental concern (11,500 acres); two Bureau of 

Reclamation resource management areas (formerly 

Pishkun and Willow Creek national wildlife refuges 

totaling 9,000 acres); and the Boone and Crockett 

Club’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch 

(6,055 acres). In addition, nearly 100,000 acres of 

private land are already protected with perpetual 

conservation easements held by TNC and the 

Montana Land Reliance. 

The Service has been acquiring conservation 

easements on properties with significant wetland 

habitat under the Small Wetlands Acquisition 

Program (SWAP). To date, over 21,000 acres have 

been protected with Migratory Bird Conservation 

Fund monies. LWCF would continue to be used to 

target acquisition of easements on properties that 

don’t meet the wetland requirements of the SWAP.

HABITAT PROTECTION AND EASEMENT 

ACQUISITION PROCESS

The economy of the Front is primarily agrarian and 

attle ranches dominate the private lands within the 

project area. Ownerships are relatively large in size 

(2,000 to 25,000 acre blocks) which helps maintain 

this intact landscape. The human population is sparse 

and towns are widely scattered. Landowners along 

the Front are representative of rural Montana’s 

independent and conservative social fabric. The 

ranchers’ livelihoods depend on natural resources 

(grass, water, and open space) and, while generally 

resistant to regulation, the ranchers have a deeprooted feeling for the land. Unlike many other areas 

in the country, the key to protecting the Front 

lies primarily in sustaining the current pattern of 

ranching and low-density use, not in large-scale 

restoration. 

Other significant public lands within the project area 

include 113,000 acres of state (school trust) lands that 

are managed to generate revenues for public schools 

in Montana. 

On approval of a project boundary, habitat protection 

would occur through the purchase of conservation 

easements. It is the long-established policy of the 

Service to acquire minimum interest in land from 

willing sellers to achieve habitat acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authority for the proposed project 

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

742 a-742j). The federal monies used to acquire 

conservation easements from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund are derived primarily from 

oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, 

motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of surplus 

federal property. There could be additional funds 

to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein for 

fish and wildlife conservation purposes through 
6 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

congressional appropriations, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, the North American Waterfowl 

Conservation Act funds, and donations from non 

profit organizations.

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

interest in private land are the biological significance 

of the area, existing and anticipated threats to 

wildlife resources, and landowner interest in the 

program. The purchase of conservation easements 

would occur with willing sellers only and be subject 

to available funding.
2 Alternatives, Including 

the Proposed Action

This chapter describes the two alternatives identified 

for this project: 

■ alternative A, the no-action alternative

■ alternative B, the proposed action, giving the 

Service the authority to expand the boundary of 

the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area.

The alternatives consider the effects of a 

conservation program within the boundaries 

identified for this project area in this EA.

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

The Service started a conservation easement 

program in the Rocky Mountain Front in 2005. 

The program authorized the Service to purchase 

easements from willing sellers on up to 170,000 

acres of private land in Lewis and Clark, Teton, and 

Pondera counties. 

To date the Service has acquired easements on 

nearly 28,000 acres within the current project 

boundary using LWCF funding. The Service would 

continue to secure conservation easements on the 

remaining 142,000 acres of the acquisition goal. When 

the 170,000 easement-acre goal is reached, no new 

easements would be acquired with LWCF money. 

Habitat enhancement or restoration projects on 

private lands such as water developments, grazing 

systems, and grassland management could continue 

through cooperative efforts with private landowners.

Private efforts by land trusts would continue to 

secure conservation easements. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION) 

This proposal involves acquisition of an additional 

125,000 acres of conservation easements within 

an expanded project boundary encompassing 

approximately 918,000 acres. No land will be 

purchased in fee-title under this project. 

The Service would seek to purchase conservation 

easements from willing sellers on privately-owned 

mountain foothills, wetlands, stream courses, and 

native grasslands. Conservation easement contracts 

would specify perpetual protection of habitat for 

trust species and restrict development. 

Prioritization of areas considered for conservation 

easements within the project areas will be based on 

the biological needs of the wildlife species of concern 

(migratory birds, and threatened and endangered 

species), the threat of development, connectivity 

with other protected lands, and the quality of habitat 

types (including riparian areas, wetlands, and native 

grasslands) for trust species. The land protection 

plan (LPP) within this volume describes these 

priorities in detail. 

The easement program would rely on voluntary 

participation from landowners. Grazing would not 

be restricted on the land included in the easement 

contract. 

Ear Mountain in the Rocky Mountain Front.

Kathleen Burchett/USFWS
8 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Subdividing and development for residential, 

commercial, or industrial purposes would not be 

permitted on properties under a conservation 

easement. Alteration of the natural topography, 

conversion of native grassland to cropland, drainage 

of wetlands, and establishment of game farms would 

also be prohibited. 

Conservation easement lands would remain 

in private ownership; property tax and land 

management, including invasive weed control, 

would remain the responsibility of the landowner. 

The Service would seek to provide participating 

landowners with additional assistance with invasive 

plant control. Control of public access to the land 

would remain under the control of the landowner.

The project area would be managed by the Benton 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex staff 

headquartered in Great Falls, Montana. The Benton 

Lake NWR Complex staff would be responsible for 

monitoring and administration of all easements on 

private land. Monitoring would consist of periodically 

reviewing land status in meetings with landowners 

or land managers to ensure that the stipulations of 

the conservation easement are being met. Photo 

documentation and a baseline inventory study would 

be used at the time the easements are established to 

document baseline conditions. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT 

STUDIED

There was no further analysis for the following two 

alternatives.

Voluntary landowner Zoning

Landowners would voluntarily petition the county 

commissioners to create a zoning district to direct 

the types of development that can occur within an 

area. This is ’citizen-initiated’ zoning. For example, 

landowners would petition the county government to 

zone an area as agricultural, precluding certain types 

of non agricultural development such as residential 

subdivision. ’Citizen initiatives’ are rarely used and 

this alternative was not studied further. 

C

In a traditional approach used by counties and 

municipalities, the local government would use 

zoning as a means of designating what type of 

development could occur in an area. Most counties 

in Montana prefer not to use this method and the 

alternative was not studied further. Comments 

received from county commissioners to date 

have expressed support instead for conservation 

easements (alternative B) as a means of maintaining 

rural area values, and potentially reducing the 

need for future zoning. In addition, zoning would be 

subject to frequent changes, and would not ensure 

the long-term prevention of residential or commercial 

development in the conservation areas. 
3 Affected Environment

This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and 

socioeconomic resources most likely affected by 

establishing the project areas identified in the Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Area.

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The biological environment studied included climate, 

geological resources, habitat, and wildlife.

C

The climate is generally cool and dry, but there is 

considerable variability corresponding to the east–

west elevational gradient that greatly influences 

vegetation and habitat. The weather station at the 

Gibson Reservoir near the western boundary has 

above freezing average maximum temperatures all 

year, with the coldest minimum temperatures in 

January (12.4oF). July and August are the warmest 

months with an average high around 77oF and a 

low near 45oF. The Augusta climatic station at the 

eastern boundary of the Front has similar above 

freezing winter average maximums, but is colder 

at night with January average minimums of 10oF. 

Average summer temperatures are also warmer in 

Augusta with July and August maximums slightly 

over 80oF and minimums around 47oF.

Gibson Dam receives almost 18 inches of 

precipitation annually; May and June are the wettest 

months with about 3 inches per month; all of the 

winter months receive less than 1” of precipitation 

per month.

Augusta has a similar pattern with relatively 

wet springs and dry winters although the total 

precipitation annually averages only about 14 inches. 

This precipitation gradient (along with soils) is key in 

structuring vegetation communities across the Front 

(Kudray and Cooper 2006).

Ear Mountain in Blackleaf Wildlife Management Area.

USFWS

G

The Front lies at the eastern edge of the Rocky 

Mountains where tectonic plates collided and pushed 

large slabs of rock upward in a fold-and-thrust belt. 

The highest elevation landforms are located in the 

most western section of the Front and are mapped 

as Paleozoic Era sedimentary rock composed of 

sandstone, shale, and limestone (including dolomite). 

The Kootenai Formation from the Mesozoic Era 

is found adjacent at lower elevations and is also 

sedimentary rock but composed of conglomerate, 

sandstone, shale and mudstone. The Colorado Shale 

Formation of shale and siltstone is typically found 

at the next lowest topographic position. At lower 

elevations, alluvial deposits are common with layers 

of gravel, sand and silt. There are also significant 

low elevation glacial deposits from the Pleistocene 

Age that have variable, mostly coarse textures. The 

Two Medicine Formation from the Cretaceous Era 
10 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

is one of the most common lower elevation types and 

is sedimentary with clay, limestone, and sandstone. 

There is also a prominent area of Cretaceous volcanic 

rock in the far southern part of the Front (Kudray 

and Cooper 2006).

HaBitat

An ecotone formed by the meeting of two major 

ecoregions along a mountains-plains gradient, the 

Front hosts a rich mixture of glaciated wetlands 

(“prairie potholes”), riparian corridors, mixed grass 

prairie, and coniferous forests. Alpine meadows lie 

on the shoulders of the high peaks along the western 

edge of the Front. Montane forests consisting 

of limber pine, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine 

transition eastward into aspen parklands and a large 

expanse of fescue grasslands. The Front’s varied 

topography and soils give rise to a diverse array of 

plant communities, including some of considerable 

scientific importance. The Montana Natural Heritage 

Program has rated the Rocky Mountain Front as 

highly significant for biodiversity with 114 species or 

communities of special concern found here. 

The landscape is extremely variable and extends 

from higher elevation barren rock or forested stands 

of Douglas-fir or aspen, to mid-elevation limber pine 

woodlands down to a complex mosaic of mixed-grass 

prairie with agricultural grain and hay fields at lower 

elevations and in floodplains. 

Numerous hydrological features bisect the project 

area. The Dearborn, Sun, and Teton Rivers 

form major riparian corridors running from the 

mountains eastward into the prairies. Numerous 

other tributaries provide a diversity of riparian 

and wetland plant communities. Over 700 species of 

vascular plants occur within the project boundary, 

representing roughly one-third of all the plant 

species found in Montana, demonstrating the 

significant biological diversity (MTNHP 1997). 

Approximately 30% of the 700 plus species of plants 

found here are associated exclusively with wetland 

or riparian habitats, including some of the largest 

remaining fens in the Pacific Northwest. The project 

area contains the largest intact expanse of fescue 

grasslands left in the Northern Great Plains (Lesica 

1994). 

Higher elevations also include fescue grasslands 

and a large acreage recovering from a wildfire that 

is now a mix of mostly Douglas-fir regeneration, 

among burned tree trunks over relatively lush fescue 

grasslands. The fescue is often mixed with shrubs; 

creeping juniper and kinnikinnick occur on somewhat 

drier sites, while shrubby cinquefoil is common in 

more mesic areas (habitat with a moderate or wellbalanced supply of moisture). Shrubby cinquefoil 

is particularly common in the northern extreme of 

the Front, but also follows the greater eastward 

expansion of the fescue-type habitat in the southern 

end, where it is more closely associated with stream 

terraces. The aspen stands are typically small clonal 

(genetically identical) patches in landforms that 

receive some additional moisture or have a more 

mesic aspect. Limber pine stands are generally 

in decline, primarily from white pine blister rust 

disease. Dead and dying trees are typical; some 

former stands can only be recognized by the dead 

tree trunks. 

The riparian corridors associated with the larger 

drainage system are especially diverse and rich 

in habitat value. Natural vegetation communities 

generally correspond to the height of the floodplain 

above the water table, although successional 

influences also affect the distribution of shrubby and 

forested types—early shrub establishment can give 

way to later forested stands on suitable sites. 

The shrub communities also respond to a moisture 

gradient; willows and red-osier dogwood dominate 

the wetter sites while chokecherry, Saskatoon 

serviceberry, and Woods’ rose occur on drier sites, 

sometimes with an aspen overstory. Wet meadows 

dominate riparian areas where water tables are 

high and there is not sufficient water movement 

to oxygenate the soil enough for shrubs and trees. 

Flood-irrigated hay meadows are also common where 

the floodplain is wider and soils are suitable.

The fescue grasslands at higher elevation (and 

correspondingly greater precipitation) transition at 

lower elevations to grasslands dominated by various 

grass species in response to soil and topography. 

Western wheatgrass is the dominant species in 

swales (lower elevation land that remain moist) with 

heavier soils and often moisture run-in. Needle and 

thread is the most common species on sandier soils, 

which tend to occur somewhat higher in the local 

landscape. Bluebunch is associated with steeper 

slopes; mixtures of any or all these grasses can occur 

with the variable conditions found in this diverse 

landscape. Blue grama can become very common 

with sustained heavy grazing. The absence of 

sagebrush is notable and currently unexplained.

A variety of wetland types occurs throughout 

the upland matrix in pothole depressions, larger 

shallow basins, or swales with impeded drainage. 

There is considerable diversity; some basins dry to 

bare soil after seasonal flooding while others will 

have a variety of wetland types in a zoned pattern 

dependent on seasonal water table depths and salt 

concentrations. Most of these areas are dominated 

by graminoids (grasses), but shrubby cinquefoil is 

common in swales. Willows may be found, but are 

much more common in riparian wetlands.

Agricultural fields are most common in the central 

part of the study area. In addition to flood-irrigated 

hay fields, there are some central pivot-irrigated hay 

fields and dryland small grain production. Barley and 

wheat are the typical dryland crops but some fields 

have been planted to a variety of introduced species 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment 11

and are used for grazing land or hay production. 

Although a somewhat uncommon practice, fields have 

also been planted back to cultivars (presumed) of 

native species (mostly western wheatgrass) and can 

be identified by their unusual degree of uniformity, 

lack of forb (herbaceous flowering plant) diversity 

and telltale furrowing.

W

About 240 species of birds or approximately 65% 

of all birds found in Montana are known to inhabit 

this area. At least 134 species of birds are known 

to breed, an additional 54 species are suspected 

of breeding within the project area, and some 108 

species of neotropical migrants have been observed 

(see appendix B). 

Mammals

Lying adjacent to Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, 

the diverse habitats of the Front play a critical role 

in sustaining the Northern Continental Divide’s freeranging wildlife populations. It is the last remaining 

area in the continental United States with an intact 

assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, and it is 

the only place in the world where grizzly bears still 

roam from the mountains onto the prairies as they 

did nearly 200 years ago. An estimated 100–150 bears 

frequent the project area, which is included in much 

of the recovery plan for the Northern Continental 

Divide grizzly bear population. Gray wolves continue 

to migrate back into the area from the Canadian 

Rockies and several packs have established home 

ranges in Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. The Front 

supports one of the largest populations of wolverine 

and lynx in the lower forty-eight states and it once 

supported a large concentration of swift fox which 

were nearly extirpated from the state. Swift fox are 

now being reintroduced just north of the project area 

through a partnership between Defenders of Wildlife 

and the Blackfeet Indian Nation and are expected to 

eventually move back into the project area. 

Protecting these private lands from habitat 

fragmentation is a critical step that will ultimately 

assist in the recovery of the Northern Continental 

Divide Ecosystem grizzly bear population 

(Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, University of Montana, Missoula, MT; 

personal interview in person, 11 June 2008). In 

addition protecting these lands may help prevent 

the need for listing of several species the Service has 

been petitioned to list such as the trumpeter swan, 

wolverine, and westslope cutthroat trout.

The windswept plains along the mountains provide 

critical winter range for all large ungulates found 

within the eastern Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex. Thousands of elk and mule deer winter 

primarily on state wildlife management areas along 

the Front. Shiras moose, a subspecies found in the 

central Rocky Mountains, occasionally frequent 

the project area and white-tailed deer are found 

throughout the riparian corridors. The grasslands 

along the eastern portion of the project boundary 

sustain small populations of pronghorn antelope. 

Mountainous terrain along the western edge of the 

project area supports the largest populations of 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep and mountain goats 

in the continental United States (USFWS 1987). 

Grizzly

©Cindie Brunner

Amphibians and Reptiles

A number of amphibians occur along the Front 

including three species of frogs (boreal chorus, 

northern leopard, and Columbia spotted), two species 

of toads (plains spadefoot and western), and two 

species of salamanders (tiger and long-toes). The 

common garter snake, plains garter snake, terrestrial 

garter snake, western rattlesnake, greater shorthorned lizard, and painted turtle are reptiles known 

to occur along the Front (Maxwell et al. 2003). 

Fish

Several streams and rivers along the Front support 

pure strains of westslope cutthroat trout, and are 

considered to be highly significant for the east 

slope population. The Sun River was historically a 

stronghold for fluvial Arctic grayling which were 

eliminated from the system as a result of habitat 

degradation. In the spring of 1999, grayling were 

reintroduced above Gibson Dam into the upper Sun 

River tributaries. A rare hybrid of the northern 

redbelly dace also occurs within the project area 

(see appendix C, list of endangered and threatened 

species). 

Migratory and Other Birds

Lying at the western end of the Prairie Pothole 

Region, the Front provides habitat for a significant 

diversity of wetland dependent species. Some 

seventeen species of waterfowl breed within the 

project area, including the harlequin duck, which is 

found in several mountain streams. Three nesting 

pairs of rare trumpeter swans have been documented 
12 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

in the Bean Lake-Nylan Reservoir Complex, one 

of the few breeding occurrences outside of the 

Centennial Valley in southwest Montana. Hundreds 

of thousands of snow geese migrate along the 

Front, including 40,000 Wrangle Island snow geese, 

representing 50% of the entire known population. 

Peak flights of waterfowl along the Front during 

spring and fall migration often exceed several 

million birds. Six species of grebes are known to nest 

including the red-necked grebe, a species in serious 

decline in many other areas. Eleven different species 

of shorebirds breed in the wetlands and adjacent 

grasslands scattered throughout the area. The 

westernmost breeding occurrence of inland piping 

plovers occurs at Alkali Lake near the northeast 

boundary of the project area. Several thousand 

sandhill cranes from the Rocky Mountain population 

use the river corridors during their spring and fall 

migration, and a portion of the cranes breed in these 

areas as well. 

Cliff and riparian areas provide the two most 

important habitats for nesting raptors within the 

project area. At least twenty-one species of raptors 

breed along the Front, including nine species of 

owls. One of the Nation’s densest populations of 

golden eagles and prairie falcons reside in the rock 

escarpments along the western edge of the project 

area. The Front hosts relatively robust populations 

of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ferruginous hawks, 

and goshawks.

The project area includes one of the largest 

remaining expanses of native prairie left in the 

Northern Great Plains. This “sea of grass” provides 

essential habitat for numerous grassland birds, many 

of which are experiencing significant population 

declines. These include chestnut-collared longspurs, 

Le Conte’s sparrows, bobolinks, Sprague’s pipit, 

burrowing owls, marbled godwits, long-billed 

curlews, and lark buntings. 

Long-billed curlew.

Mike Parker/USFWS

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Service has a trust responsibility to American 

Indian tribes that includes protection of the tribal 

sovereignty and preservation of tribal culture and 

other trust resources. 

Currently, the Service does not propose any project, 

activity, or program that would result in changes in 

the character of, or adversely affect, any historical 

cultural resource or archaeological site. When such 

undertakings are considered, the Service takes all 

necessary steps to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

as amended. The Service pursues compliance with 

Section 110 of the NHPA to survey, inventory, and 

evaluate cultural resources. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The project area includes portions of three 

counties—Lewis and Clark, Pondera, and Teton. 

Four communities are within the project area, all 

located along the east boundary on Highway 89/287. 

The largest community is Choteau with a population 

of 1,781. Augusta has 284 people, and Dupuyer and 

Bynum both have less than 200 people (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). 

Most of the rural population is involved in ranching 

and livestock production. Hunting of a wide variety 

of game species occurs on private lands, with elk 

hunting bringing the most people to the Front. 

A seasonal influx of tourists are attracted to the 

Front for opportunities to bird watch, mountainbike, horseback ride, backpack, camp, canoe, fish and 

view archeological and paleontological resources. 

Choteau and Augusta are “gateway” communities 

for recreational activities on the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest, Bob Marshall and Scapegoat 

Wildernesses, and Glacier National Park. 

A

The economy of the Rocky Mountain Front is 

primarily agrarian. Large cattle ranches dominate 

the private lands within the project area. The 

population is sparse and towns are small and widelyscattered. 

LandownersHip

The economy of the Front is primarily agrarian and 

cattle ranches dominate the private lands within the 

project area. Ownerships are relatively large in size 

(2,000 to 25,000 acre blocks) which helps maintain this 

intact landscape. The human population is sparse and 

towns are widely scattered. Towns tend to be service 

centers for the agricultural economy, but also support 

tourism and recreation. 

Other significant public lands within the project area 

include 113,000 acres of state (school trust) lands that 

are managed to generate revenues for public schools 

in Montana (see figure 3).
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment 13

Figure 3. Landownership in the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion project area.
14 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Property ax T

Currently, landowners pay property taxes on their 

private lands to the counties. The Rocky Mountain 

Front Conservation Area is an existing conservation 

easement program; the land does not change hands 

and, therefore, the property taxes paid by the 

landowner to the county are not affected. No changes 

to the tax base are anticipated. 

P

RP A

Hunting and fishing are very popular throughout 

the project area. Hunting for a variety of wildlife 

includes waterfowl, upland game birds, pronghorn, 

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

lion, and furbearers. Private landowners often give 

permission for hunting and fishing on their land. 
4 Environmental Consequences

This chapter assesses the environmental impacts 

expected to occur from the implementation of 

alternatives A or B, as described in chapter 2. 

Environmental impacts are analyzed by issues for 

each alternative and appear in the same order as 

discussed in chapter 2.

EFFECTS ON THE BIOLOGICAL 

ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the estimated effects on 

climate change, wildlife habitat, and water resources 

of carrying out alternatives A and B.

C

Climate change is the pre-eminent issue for 

conservation in future decades. Current trends in 

climate change are expected to affect high mountain 

ecotypes and lower elevation, snow-melt dependent 

watersheds, such as those found in the Front more 

acutely than some other landscape ecotypes. 

 Predictions regarding the specific effects of climate 

change in the Front are in the early stages. Empirical 

data indicates that during the 20th century, the 

region has grown warmer, and in some areas drier, 

especially east of the Continental Divide on the 

Rocky Mountain Front. Annual average temperature 

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

This seemingly modest increase masks much larger 

shifts in minimum winter temperatures (10°F) and 

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

the 2007 Introduction to the Summary for Policy 

Makers Synthesis Report, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change described that average 

air temperatures may raise by up to 6°C by the end 

of this century according to regionally downscaled 

models from the Pacific Northwest (USFWS 2009).

Changes in temperature and precipitation are 

expected to decrease snow pack and will affect 

stream flow and water quality throughout the 

Front. Warmer temperatures will result in more 

winter precipitation falling as rain rather than snow 

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

are near freezing. This will result in

■ Less winter snow accumulation;

■ Higher winter streamflows;

■ Earlier spring snowmelt;

■ Earlier peak spring streamflow and lower 

summer streamflows in rivers that depend on 

snowmelt (USFWS 2009b).

As glaciers and alpine snow fields melt and winters 

warm in Montana, specialized habitat for fish and 

wildlife species is expected to diminish. Snow 

conditions that facilitate hunting success for forest 

carnivores, such as Canada lynx, are now changing 

due to winter warming (Stenseth 2004). High 

elevation forest plants such as whitebark pine, (an 

A grizzly bear roams a streamside in the Rocky Mountain Front.

© Michael Madel
16 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

important food source for grizzly bears) and other 

birds and mammals throughout the Crown of the 

Continent and Greater Yellowstone ecosystems 

(Kendall and Arno 1989) will also be negatively 

impacted by winter warming. Whitebark pine is 

susceptible to increased mortality as the incidence of 

drought, high elevation wildfire, and mountain pine 

beetle attacks, all associated with a warming climate 

increase (Hanna et al. 2009).

This warming may also have impacts on grizzly 

bears. Important food resources are expected to 

decline as warming causes an increase in whitebark 

pine blister rust, reducing the availability of the 

pine to bears. This may result in shifts in foraging 

elevations and a potential increase in grizzly bear 

conflict with humans and livestock. 

According to Service Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, Chris Servheen (University of Montana, 

Missoula, MT; personal interview in person, 11 June 

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

den entry dates and earlier spring-emergence dates 

will begin occurring on the Front as they have in the 

Greater Yellowstone area; a change which is related 

to climate change. This will also potentially increase 

their likelihood of human-caused mortality from 

increased encounters (Endangered Species Coalition 

2009). 

As late summer flows are affected by global 

warming, fewer rivers will be able to supply ample 

cold water required by some species. Some species 

distributions are expected to be interrupted by the 

heightened ambient air temperatures (Endangered 

Species Coalition 2009).

The impacts of climate change will extend beyond the 

boundaries of any single refuge or easement program 

and will require large-scale, landscape level solutions 

that extend throughout the CoCE. A goal of the 

proposed project area expansion is to build resilience 

in ecological systems and communities, so that, even 

as climate conditions change, the Front will continue 

to support its full range of native biodiversity and 

ecological processes. Building resilience includes 

maintaining intact, interconnected landscapes, and 

restoring fragmented or degraded habitats.

A

The Service strategic response to climate change 

involves three core strategies: adaptation, 

mitigation, and engagement (USFWS 2009). Through 

adaptation, the impacts of climate change on wildlife 

can be reduced by conserving habitats expected to be 

resilient. 

Increased landscape connectivity is one of the most 

effective methods to help wildlife adapt to climate 

change. Large landscapes, especially those within 

mountains, and the ability to move between them, 

provide the best chances for plant and animal species, 

as well as ecosystems and ecological processes, 

to survive changing conditions. The ability to 

migrate to higher latitudes, higher elevations, or 

cooler exposures can make possible the successful 

adaptation of plants and animals. The Yellowstone 

to Yukon Ecosystem, which encompasses the Crown 

of the Continent Ecosystem, is the most intact 

mountain ecosystem remaining on Earth and is one of 

the world’s few remaining areas with the geographic 

variety and biological diversity to accommodate 

the wide-scale adaptive responses that might allow 

whole populations of animals and plants to survive 

(Yellowstone to Yukon Conservative Initiative 2009).

One of the results of changing climates is the 

alteration of the habitats upon which wildlife depend. 

Wildlife will have to adapt to changes in habitat to 

survive. Protecting and linking contiguous blocks 

of unfragmented habitat will facilitate movement of 

wildlife responding to climate change. 

Carbon sequestration forms one of the key 

elements of mitigation. The Rocky Mountain Front 

conservation easement program will protect large 

forested areas from subdivision. Forests are critically 

important in the efforts to remove CO2 from the 

atmosphere and mitigate climate change. The CO2 

from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees through 

photosynthesis and stored as carbon in the tree 

trunk, branches, foliage, and roots, with oxygen as 

a byproduct. The organic matter in forest soils, such 

as the humus produced by the decomposition of dead 

plant material, also acts to store carbon.

Engagement involves cooperation, communication, 

and partnerships to address the conservation 

challenges presented by climate change (USFWS 

2009). The proposed project is located in an area that 

is designated as a high priority for conservation and 

linkage protection by many of our partners including 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; The National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation; The Nature Conservancy; 

and The Conservation Fund; and American 

Wildlands. Many of these organizations are involved 

in trans-boundary conservation, protecting and 

connecting habitat in the United States and Canada. 

Strong partnerships have already been developed to 

meet the challenges of climate change and wildlife 

resources.

Given the level of public and private partnerships 

focused on land protection within the Rocky 

Mountain Front, this landscape is arguably one 

of the most promising large-scale opportunities 

remaining in North America for species resiliency 

and adaptation in the face of climate change.

W

The effects on wildlife habitat for alternatives A and 

B are described on the following page.
Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences 17

Alternative A

Although efforts by the Service’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife (PFW) program and partners would 

continue to enhance habitat on some private lands, 

degradation of resources on many unprotected lands 

would continue. These potential impacts could result 

in the further decline of migratory birds, resident 

wildlife, and listed species. 

Many acres of land would likely be developed for 

recreational home sites or isolated commercial uses, 

as economic forces change in the future. In recent 

years, subdivision and the demand for recreational 

property have been spilling over from western 

Montana, posing the greatest single threat to the 

Rocky Mountain Front. Lands adjacent to natural 

areas are choice home sites and are targeted for 

residential development. In particular, burgeoning 

subdivisions occur at the mouths of the Dearborn, 

Sun, and Teton River canyons and land prices have 

increased dramatically. Long-time family ranches are 

beginning to be sold and are commanding very high 

prices as recreational properties. 

No action would result in the loss of opportunity to 

protect historically important upland and wetland 

habitats. Without the protection of private land with 

conservation easements, the future of wildlife habitat 

in the project area would be uncertain. 

Habitat fragmentation is one the greatest impacts 

caused by rural subdivision and residential 

development. The Front has more than 700,000 

privately owned acres, with the majority remaining 

in large ranch ownership. However, under state law, 

the subdivision process is not difficult—land may be 

split into lots of 160 acres or greater without local 

review or approval. Moreover, with no county zoning 

in place, small lot subdivisions are possible. 

Private land subdivision results in smaller 

ownerships. Subsequent effects, including those 

listed below, would likely impact wildlife:

■ fragmentation

■ invasive plant infestations

■ increased fencing, roads, and vehicle traffic

■ loss of habitat and travel corridors for wildlife

In addition, these effects would bring increased 

human presence in the form of snowmobiles, 

predator-prey shifts, and sources of disturbance that 

can disrupt wildlife movement patterns and render 

habitat unusable.

Loss of habitat and travel corridors for wolverine, 

Canada lynx, grizzly bear, gray wolf, and other 

species would likely have a negative impact on these 

species’ populations along the Front. Research has 

shown that grizzly bears move between private 

lands along the Front, Glacier National Park, and the 

Lewis and Clark National Forest, all of which are 

part of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 

(USFWS 1987). These key geographic and biological 

linkages can be lost and wildlife populations isolated 

once an area is fragmented by subdivisions or other 

development. 

Increased human settlement can also result in 

increased human–wildlife conflicts, as well as 

impacting actions to control important natural 

ecological events such as fire and seasonal floods. 

Conversion of native prairie to cropland, especially 

within the eastern portion of the Front, has an effect 

on bird populations. In the fescue prairie region of 

Alberta, Canada, total passerine populations and 

diversity have decreased significantly as native 

rangeland has been converted to cereal grain 

production (Owens and Myers 1972). Overall, 

grassland bird populations are decreasing faster 

and over a larger area than any other avian species 

group, including Neotropical migrants (Knopf 1996). 

Alternative B

Expanding the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area would provide for an increase in conservation 

protection on up to 125,000 acres of important habitat 

on private land. This program would help maintain 

the uniqueness of the Rocky Mountain Front and 

complement conservation efforts of the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), 

TNC, Boone and Crockett Club, Montana Land 

Reliance, and other federal and state agencies. 

The fact that the Front remains biologically and 

ecologically intact is a tribute to the area’s ranchers 

and residents, who have long recognized what this 

unique and important landscape represents for 

ranching and wildlife. The project aims to ensure 

habitat for wildlife remains intact in perpetuity and, 

by doing so, strengthens the ranching heritage of the 

Rocky Mountain Front. 

Conservation easements along the Rocky Mountain 

Front would help alleviate habitat fragmentation 

issues. Key biological linkages would facilitate 

wildlife movement and provide for wildlife habitat 

requirements. The potential for human-wildlife 

conflicts would be greatly reduced. 

Compatible agricultural practices such as livestock 

grazing or haying would continue, while sodbusting 

(breaking of native rangeland) would be prohibited. 

Easements would maximize the connectivity with 

other protected grasslands and decrease the negative 

impacts of habitat fragmentation on grassland birds 

(Owens and Myers 1972). 

W

The effects of alternatives A and B on water 

resources are described on the following page.
18 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Alternative A

The prospect of residential development along 

the Front represents a potentially significant 

threat to the aquatic habitat. Sewage-derived 

nutrient additions to streams and lakes could have 

detrimental effects on the aquatic ecology (Wernick 

et al. 1998). 

Housing developments can also result in additional 

wetland drainage, water diversion, and introduction 

of invasive species. Development could also 

change drainage patterns or rate of surface runoff, 

increasing soil erosion and non-point source pollution.

As demand for potable water increases for new 

subdivisions, water rights could be questioned 

and challenged to a greater extent in the future. 

Groundwater aquifers would receive more demand, 

resulting in potential degradation to the hydrology of 

some wetland areas.

Conversion of grasslands to cropland has been 

documented to increase sedimentation and pesticide 

runoff into wetlands. Tillage increases the sediment 

load into wetlands when compared to grasslands 

(Gleason and Euliss 1998, Kantrud et al. 1989), 

primarily due to wind erosion (NRCS 1992). 

Alternative B

Water resources on 125,000 acres would be protected 

from increased non-point source pollution from 

residential subdivision, commercial development, 

and draining of wetlands, all of which are prohibited 

under the proposed easement program. 

Compatible agricultural practices such as livestock 

grazing or haying would continue, while sodbusting 

would be prohibited. The landowner would continue 

to own and control water rights. 

EFFECTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the estimated effects of 

alternatives A and B on land ownership, land use, oil 

and gas exploration and development, wind energy 

development, public use, and economic impacts.

L

The effects on land ownership and use are described 

below.

Alternative A 

The resources studied by the Service for 

conservation easements along the Rocky Mountain 

Front would remain in private ownership with no 

restrictions. Ranching opportunities could be reduced 

when landowners begin to split tracts into smaller 

lots. 

Landowners that subdivide could increase their 

revenue by developing recreational home sites. With 

subdivision, tracts could potentially increase in value 

if there is a desire to cluster housing or to keep open 

space for future housing developments. 

The community would lose open space and the 

aesthetics of the Front would diminish significantly. 

Subdivision and development would reduce hunting 

and wildlife observation opportunities and diminish 

revenue associated with these activities to local 

communities.

Alternative B 

The expanded easement program would enhance the 

protection of trust resources through conservation of 

wildlife habitat and protection of land from surface 

disturbance or development. 

The proposed action would affect location and 

distribution, but not rate or density, of human 

population growth. Ongoing, traditional agricultural 

uses such as livestock grazing would allow 

compatible ranching to continue. This alternative 

would maintain open space on a large landscape scale, 

thereby preserving the rural lifestyle of the area. 

Preventing subdivision and development could 

decrease future tax revenues in a defined market 

area. However, open space could actually provide 

a net savings to local governments when compared 

to the revenues generated and costs of services 

associated with residential development (Haggerty, 

1996). 

Positive effects may occur from increased public 

wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting opportunities. 

Open space also may enhance property values 

on adjoining lands as people begin to seek out 

undeveloped lands in the future.

The purchase of an easement would not result in a 

transfer of land title and, therefore, the property 

taxes paid by the landowner to the county are not 

affected. No changes to the tax base are anticipated. 

The land remains under private ownership.

The easement program would have no effect on tribal 

jurisdiction or tribal rights because it is outside of 

reservation land . 

Value of intact ecosystems

Humans influence every ecosystem on earth, leading 

to impairment of natural ecosystem structure and 

function (MEA 2005). Converting native land to rowcrop agriculture, suppressing fire, diverting water 

flow, increasing nutrient and toxic pollution, altering 

global precipitation patterns and gas concentration, 
Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences 19

and homogenizing and lowering global biodiversity 

are a few of the ways humans have altered 

ecosystems. North American forests, savannas, and 

grasslands have experienced substantial losses, 

whereas woody savanna, shrubland, and desert 

areas have expanded because of desertification and 

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

inevitably leading to changes in ecosystem function 

(Dodds et al. 2008). 

The Montana Natural Heritage Program has rated 

the Front as one of the most significant natural 

landscapes in the state, a tribute to its intact 

ecological systems, expansive wetlands, and diverse 

native fauna and flora, including a concentration of 

rare species.

Alternative A

Under the no action alternative, the threat of habitat 

fragmentation will continue unabated. Landowners 

may continue to face economic pressures to subdivide 

their ranches. Tree encroachment and urban 

fragmentation will compress the project area, leaving 

fewer larger parcels of intact habitat.

Alternative B

Conserving native land cover is an important 

component of maintaining ecosystem structure and 

function. Under the proposed action, native forest 

habitats would remain intact, continuing to provide 

ecosystem goods and services to landowners and 

local communities. Ecosystem services include: 

soil erosion control, water supply, biodiversity, and 

carbon sequestration. Forested ecoregions (eastern 

temperate, western mountain, and west coast 

marine) have less than 5% of native area remaining. 

The proposed action would help protect valuable 

ecosystem services (see figure 4). Furthermore, 

it would prevent the prohibitively high cost of 

restoration.

O

Oil and gas development would continue to occur 

on private lands along the project area. Stipulations 

to protect the surface estate would be governed by 

existing state regulations.

Figure 4. Relative native and restored benefits of ecosystem goods and services. The relative value, RI, is 

determined as the ratio of estimated benefits derived from native and restored acreages per year.

(Source: Dodds et al. 2008)
20 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

O

The proposed easement program would not preclude 

oil and gas exploration or development on private 

land. Typically, conservation easements do not affect 

subsurface estates (oil and gas deposits) because the 

Service only acquires rights associated with surface 

ownership. In many places where the subsurface 

estate has been severed from surface ownership, 

including those in the Rocky Mountain Front, the 

landowner does not own the subsurface rights; this 

means that the easement that the Service acquires 

from the landowner is junior to the subsurface rights. 

In instances where a landowner owns both the 

surface and the subsurface estate, the Service would 

treat oil and gas development as a permitted use 

and provide for such development in the easement 

document. Easements would contain reasonable 

surface stipulations for such actions as revegetation 

of disturbed areas, access, and site reclamation. 

Easements would not be acquired on federal lands 

where the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

administers the oil and gas leasing program. The 

BLM program is concentrated on public lands, 

whereas the Service’s conservation easements are 

concentrated on private lands. 

W

The new interest in wind development has 

heightened the very real threat of accelerated 

fragmentation along the Front. Under the no action 

alternative wind speculators would be unencumbered 

to move across the landscape tying up large tracts 

of lands through wind leases for future wind farm 

development projects. In addition to the negative 

impacts of fragmentation due to the development of 

roads, turbine pads, collection lines, and transmission 

lines, the project area would be susceptible to 

increased exposure of noxious weed infestations. 

W

Conservation easements purchased from willing 

sellers on private land would not allow for the 

development of commercial wind resources on 

those lands. The easement program would enhance 

the protection of an intact ecosystem through 

conservation of wildlife habitat and protection 

from surface disturbance or development of wind 

energy infrastructure while providing some financial 

compensation to landowners through the sale of the 

easements. 

The proposed action would affect only lands on which 

the Service has acquired a conservation easement. 

Location and distribution, and sales by willing 

sellers of wind energy development on adjacent 

lands without Service conservation easements 

would not be restricted by the Service. Ongoing, 

traditional agricultural uses such as livestock grazing 

would allow compatible ranching to continue. This 

alternative would maintain open space on a large 

landscape scale, thereby preserving the rural 

lifestyle of the area.

P

Landowners would continue to manage public use.

P

Conservation easements purchased on private tracts 

would not change the landowner’s right to manage 

public access to their property. 

Under the expanded easement program private 

landowners would continue to retain full control 

over their property rights, including allowing or 

restricting hunting and fishing on their lands. This 

is different from the MFWP’s block management 

program, where participating landowners are paid to 

provide hunter access to their private lands. 

E

Under alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

economic impacts will remain at current levels. 

There are currently 4.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees at the Rocky Mountain Front CA whose 

total wages amounted to $151,875, or an average 

of approximately $35,000 per employee. Assuming 

employees spend 79 percent of their earnings locally, 

the existing annual economic impacts related to 

the employment at Rocky Mountain Front CA is 

$119,981. 

According to Service staff, operating expenditures 

are $3,076 annually. When combined with 

employment related economic impacts, the annual 

baseline economic activity associated with the 

existing Rocky Mountain Front CA is $123,057. 

E

Under alternative B, increases in employment, 

annual operating expenditures, and easement 

purchases would contribute to the economic 

activity that the Benton Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex generates in the study area. The 

socioeconomic impact of visitor expenditure is not 

included in this analysis, as historical public visitor 

data at conservation areas is not available and visitor 

increases due to public awareness of conservation 

activities is difficult to quantify. 

According to Service staff, new employment 

associated with Rocky Mountain Front CA 

alternative B will increase by 1.67 FTEs to a total 
Chapter 4 — Environmental Consequences 21

of 6 FTEs. New employee salaries total $91,518, or 

an average of $54,911 per new employee. Assuming 

employees spend 79 percent of their earnings locally, 

the direct socioeconomic impacts of increased 

employment at Rocky Mountain Front CA is $72,299 

annually.

Alternative B would add approximately $29,365 in 

operating expenditures associated with landowner 

management, employee training, and travel 

expenses. These funds are spent on local goods and 

services and therefore directly impact the economy 

in the study area. 

The direct economic impacts of easement acquisitions 

are more difficult to attribute to the study area as 

it is less obvious where landowners may spend this 

income. In the Rocky Mountain Front CA, easements 

are worth an estimated $48,875,000. Table 1, presents 

a summary of annual operating costs and salaries 

associated with alternative B. 

Table 1. Summary of annual operating costs and 

salaries associated with alternative B.

Current 

 

 

Alternative B 

Impacts Impacts

Salaries $119,981 $192,280

Operations $ 3,076 $ 32,441

Total Impacts $123,057 $224,721

Increase above baseline $101,664

As shown above, the total direct economic impacts 

related to the Rocky Mountain Front CA under 

management alternative B are estimated at $224,721, 

an increase of $101,664 above baseline impacts.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable while 

carrying out alternatives A and B are described on 

the following page.

A

The adverse impacts of degradation and habitat 

fragmentation would be expected to be more 

widespread and prevalent in the project area. 

A

No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts 

to the environment would result from the selection 

of alternative B. The expanded easement program 

would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts 

on the physical or biological environment. The 

expansion of the conservation area boundary would 

not, by itself, affect any aspect of land ownership or 

values. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Any commitments of resources that may be 

irreversible or irretrievable as a result of carrying 

out alternatives A and B are described below.

A

There would be no additional commitment of 

resources by the Service if no action is taken. 

A

There would not be any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources associated with 

expanding the conservation easement program, as 

lands will only be acquired as funding is available. 

Once easements are acquired, irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of funds to protect these 

lands (such as expenditure for fuel and staff for 

monitoring) would exist. 

SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

This section describes the short-term effects versus 

long-term production from the expected actions in 

alternatives A and B.

A

Ranches may be sold to developers for short-term 

gains, which would have a negative impact on the 

long-term biological productivity of the area. 

Over the long-term, the costs to counties to sustain 

development in rural areas could be significant 

(see the Landownership and Land Use section on 

page 18). 

Wind energy and oil and gas development would 

provide short-term income gains, but would have 

a long-term adverse impact on the ecosystem 

of the Front from subsequent effects of habitat 

fragmentation.

A

The proposed conservation easement program would 

maintain the long term biological productivity of the 

grassland, riparian, forest and tundra ecosystems, 

including increased protection of endangered and 

threatened species and maintenance of biological 

diversity by preserving a large intact functioning 

system.

The nation would gain the protection of species for 

future generations of Americans. The public would 
22 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

gain long term opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities from the continued presence of 

wildlife in the Front.

McCown’s longspur.

USFWS

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This section describes the cumulative impacts 

that may result from the combination of expected 

actions in alternatives A or B, together with other 

biological and socioeconomic conditions, events, and 

developments.

A

Current Service program work such as Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife would continue along the Rocky 

Mountain Front. The Service would continue to 

work cooperatively with landowners to voluntarily 

improve habitat on private land. 

A

The proposed easement program would have long 

term positive impacts on wildlife habitat and result 

in the long term conservation of migratory birds, 

threatened and endangered species, native plants, 

and the overall biological diversity of the Rocky 

Mountain Front.

Within the CoCE, areas that were not suitable for 

homesteading and settlement were designated as 

federal lands. Settlers selected the milder and fertile 

valleys. These areas are currently under the greatest 

developmental pressure. Because of these threats 

and pressures, the Service has defined three project 

areas within the CoCE to concentrate strategic 

acquisition to (1) maintain biological diversity related 

to wildlife values, (2) link together existing protected 

areas, (3) preserve existing wildlife corridors, and 

(4) protect the large, intact, functioning ecosystem, 

while maintaining the rural character and 

agricultural lifestyle of western Montana. 

Funding would come primarily from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund and potential conservation 

partners. Table 2 shows the proposed acquisition 

acreage, type of acquisition tool, focal species, and 

key partners for each of the three project areas; 

Blackfoot Valley, Rocky Mountain Front, and Swan 

Valley. 

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

Potential Type of 

Proposed Project New Acquisition 

Project Area Area Acreage Tool Focal Species Key Partners

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

Valley area from acres easement Canada lynx, bull Blackfoot Challenge, The 

Wildlife 165,000 acres to trout, westslope Nature Conservancy, 

Management 824,024 acres cutthroat trout, Trout Unlimited

Area migratory birds

Expansion

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

Mountain area from acres easement migratory birds, Nature Conservancy, 

Front 527,000 acres to long-billed The Conservation Fund, 

Conservation 918,000 acres curlew, Sprague’s Richard King Mellon 

Area pipit, McCown’s Foundation

Expansion longspur

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

Conservation area of 187,400 acres easement Canada lynx, bull Nature Conservancy, 

Area acres and limited trout, migratory Trust for Public Lands, 

fee-title (less birds: Lewis’ Swan Valley Ecosystem 

than 1,000 woodpecker, black Center, Plum Creek 

acres) tern, trumpeter Timber Company, Vital 

swan, olive-sided Ground, Trout Unlimited, 

flycatcher Northwest Connections
5 Coordination and Environmental 

Review

Rocky Mountain Front Advisory Council.

USFWS

The Service coordinated within the agency, as well 

as with other federal agencies and local agencies, 

while developing this EA. Coordination effort for 

contaminants and hazardous materials is described 

below.

The Service conducted this environmental analysis 

under the authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. The resulting document will be 

distributed to the project mailing list, and copies can 

be requested.

The analysis and documentation was prepared by a 

combination of field and regional Service staff, along 

with partners (see appendix A).

AGENCY COORDINATION

The Service has discussed the proposal to expand the 

Rocky Mountain Front project area with landowners; 

conservation organizations; other federal agencies; 

tribal, state, and county governments; and other 

interested groups and individuals. 

The Service held an open house public meeting 

to provide information and discuss the proposal 

with landowners and other interested citizens. 

Information on the Rocky Mountain Front 

project area has been made available to county 

commissioners in each of the three counties included 

in the project area. 

At the federal level, the Service staff has briefed 

Senators Baucus and Tester, as well as the 

congressional delegation, and coordinated with 

representatives from other federal agencies such as 

the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest 

Service. At the state level, Governor Schweitzer’s 

staff, along with the Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, was briefed on the project. In addition, the 

Service provided information to the Blackfeet Tribe 

on this project. 

Non-governmental conservation groups are key to 

the success of the proposed project. Service staff has 

coordinated with partner organizations such as The 

Nature Conservancy, The Montana Land Reliance, 

and the Rocky Mountain Front Land Owner 

Advisory Council. 

CONTAMINANTS AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS

Fieldwork for the pre acquisition contaminant 

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

basis, prior to the purchase of any land interest. 

Any suspected problems or contaminants 

requiring additional surveys would be referred to 

a contaminants specialist located in the Service’s 

ecological services office in Helena, Montana.
24 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT

As a federal agency, the Service must comply 

with provisions of NEPA. An Environmental 

Assessment is required under NEPA to evaluate 

reasonable alternatives that will meet stated 

objectives, and to assess the possible impacts to the 

human environment. The EA serves as the basis 

for determining whether implementation of the 

proposed action would constitute a major federal 

action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

The analysis for, and development of this EA, 

facilitated the involvement of government agencies 

and the public in the decision making process. 

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION 

COOPERATIVES 

The Service will use Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (LCCs) as a means to reach across 

broad landscapes, involve many partners, and 

function at a scale necessary to address wildlife 

adaptation in response to climate change. 

The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area lies 

within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Great 

Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

(GNLCC) (figure 5). GNLCC includes the mountain 

and transitional habitats in regions of Wyoming, 

Montana, Idaho, and the upper Green River basin in 

southern Wyoming and small parts of Colorado and 

Utah, and portions of the Interior Columbia Plateau 

reaching into Oregon and Washington westward to 

the Cascade Mountains. The GNLCC also includes 

the international landscapes of the interior British 

Columbia and Alberta, Canada, and covers the 

entirety of the northern Rocky Mountains and midcontinent lowlands of the interior northwest. 

The GNLCC has identified priority species including: 

bull trout, grizzly bear, Lewis’ woodpecker, 

trumpeter swan, cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, 

wolverine, willow flycatcher, sage grouse, burrowing 

owl, and Columbia spotted frog. 

The GNLCC works with a variety of science partners 

including many of which are also supporters of the 

proposed easement program. The protection of the 

Front, through a conservation easement program 

and fee-title acquisition, will significantly contribute 

to the conservation of GNLCC priority habitats and 

the federal trust species identified above. 

As the GNLCC continues to develop, an overarching 

priority will be to serve as a convening body to bring 

together partners to address existing and future 

issues related to climate change and landscape scale 

conservation. The Service will work with existing 

partnerships within the Front to further refine 

priorities and leverage resources for acquisition.

Figure 5. Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative with Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

expansion.
DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY

Copies of the EA were sent to federal and state 

legislative delegations, agencies, landowners, 

private groups, and other interested individuals.

Additional copies of the document are available from 

the following offices and websites.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex

922 Bootlegger Trail

Great Falls, MT 59404-6133

406/727 7400

and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of Refuge Planning

P.O. Box 25486 DFC

Denver, CO 80225

303/236 4378

6 Draft Land Protection Plan

The land protection plan (LPP) provides a general 

description of the operations and management of 

the expanded Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area, as outlined in alternative B, the proposed 

alternative, of the Rocky Mountain Front CA 

expansion environmental assessment. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service developed this LPP during 

the planning process to provide local landowners, 

governmental agencies, and the interested public 

with a general understanding of the anticipated 

management approaches for the proposed easement 

program. The purpose of the LPP is to present 

a broad overview of the Service’s proposed 

management approach to wildlife and associated 

habitats, public uses, interagency coordination, public 

outreach and other operational needs.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area was 

approved as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System in 2005 and is a landscape conservation 

strategy to protect a unique, highly diverse and 

largely unfragmented ecosystem in north central 

Montana. The Front encompasses the massive 

ecotone formed by the intersection of the western 

edge of the Northern Great Plains and the Rocky 

Mountains. Mid-grass prairie, foothills prairie, 

montane forest, and alpine tundra occur in close 

juxtaposition, resulting in high species and 

community diversity. 

The expansion encompasses a project area totaling 

approximately 918,000 acres along the eastern edge 

of the Crown of the Continent ecosystem and is 

centered 65 miles northwest of Great Falls, Montana. 

Lying in the shadow of the rugged Continental 

Divide, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and Lewis and 

Clark National Forest marks its western boundary. 

The 1.5 million-acre Blackfeet Indian Reservation 

borders the project to the north and the eastern 

boundary is dictated by the distribution of fescue 

grasslands and critical riparian areas. The southern 

boundary falls approximately along the watershed 

of the south fork of the Dearborn River. The Service 

plans to expand the authorized acquisition goal by 

an additional 125,000 acres, resulting in the approval 

to acquire conservation easements on up to 295,000 

acres of private land within the expanded project 

boundary.

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) is a means 

of applying adaptive management across large 

landscapes. SHC involves an ongoing cycle of 

biological planning, conservation design, conservation 

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

conservation in the right places (USFWS 2008). 

In 2004, the Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program led a statewide, strategic habitat 

conservation planning effort for focusing work in 

Montana. The state was divided into three broad 

geographic regions based on similar habitat types. 

Within each region, priority federal trust species 

and ’guilds‘ were identified. The Montana Habitat 

and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) office 

then assisted with gathering and creating spatiallyexplicit models and data sets for priority trust 

resources. In addition, the scientific-based planning 

efforts of partner agencies and conservation 

organizations were incorporated. These include the 

Strategic Habitat Conservation Report prepared by 

the National Ecological Assessment Team (NEAT); 

Upper Missouri/Yellowstone/Upper Columbia River 

Ecosystem Team Focus Area Plan; the Montana 

Partners Program 1999 Focus Area Plan; Montana’s 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy Plan; and The Nature Conservancy of 

Montana’s Statewide Conservation Plan. Seven 

stakeholder meetings were held to gather input 

from other partners to identify focus areas and 

develop and appropriate conservation strategy. The 

2007 Montana Step-down Strategic Plan identified 

geographic focus areas, habitat accomplishment 

targets, and benefit to federal trust species. The 

comprehensive process ultimately produced ten 

conservation focus areas for Montana, including the 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. 

The preparation of this project area land protection 

plan addresses the four key elements of SHC: 

planning, design, delivery, and monitoring and 

research (see figure 6). 

Biological planning

Among conservation biologists, the Front is ranked 

in the top 1 percent of wildlife habitat remaining in 

the United States (The Nature Conservancy 1999). 
28 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Virtually every wildlife species found in this area 

upon the arrival of Lewis and Clark in 1806, with 

the exception of free ranging bison, remains today in 

relatively stable or increasing numbers. In addition, 

it is the only remaining area in the continental 

United States with a complete, intact assemblage of 

large mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly 

bear, gray wolf, wolverine, pine martin, and Canada 

lynx. 

Three federally listed mammals would benefit from 

the proposed habitat protection. A stable population 

of grizzly bears occurs throughout the area. Gray 

wolves have migrated back into the Front from the 

Canadian Rockies and several packs have established 

home ranges west of the project boundary in Bob 

Marshall Wilderness. The Front also supports one of 

the largest populations of Canada lynx in the lower 

48 states. 

Riparian areas, wetland and large expanses of native 

prairie provide important habitats for migratory 

birds. There are approximately 240 species of birds 

that use the Front including species of concern such 

as the harlequin duck, trumpeter swan, ferruginous 

hawks, peregrine falcons, chestnut-collared 

longspurs, Sprague’s pipits and long-billed curlews. 

Figure 6. The elements of strategic habitat conservation.

Focal Species 

In order to strategically conserve habitat along the 

Front, the Service chose the grizzly bear as a key 

focal species. Focusing on grizzly bears is likely to 

capture the habitat needs of several of the other key 

trust species. The Service is currently studying how 

waterfowl use wetland and upland habitat along the 

Front, and when that study is complete it will be 

added to the grizzly bear information to update the 

conservation strategy.

Population Objectives for Grizzly Bear

The Rocky Mountain Front CA is part of the 

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem recovery 

zone. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1993) specifies multiple thresholds that must be 

maintained before the grizzly bear population in the 

NCDE can be considered recovered. For the NCDE, 

ten females with cubs inside Glacier National Park 

and twelve females with cubs outside GNP over a 

running 6-year average both inside the recovery zone 

and within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding 

the recovery zone, excluding Canada; Twenty-one 

of twenty-three bear management units (BMUs) 

occupied by females with young form a running 

6-year sum of verified sightings and evidence, with 

no two adjacent BMUs unoccupied; and known 

human-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of 

the population estimate based on the most recent 

3-year sum of females with cubs. 

Subdivision development impacts habitat connectivity.

USFWS

Limiting Factors 

Increasing urbanization causing increased 

fragmentation of habitat from housing developments 

and associated road development is a major threat 

to the Rocky Mountain Front and the entire CoCE. 

For wide-ranging species, such as grizzly bears, 

unplanned development leads to loss of habitat 

connectivity within the project area and, on a larger 

scale, between the CoCE and other historic or 

potential ranges. 

Riparian zones, for example, provide excellent 

habitat and cover for bears moving throughout 

the watersheds, but they are also among the most 

desired locations for building sites (Lolo National 

Forest 2003). An increase in development also leads 

to more frequent conflicts between bears and people 

due in large part to the increased presence of bear 

attractants. Human garbage, dog food, and bird seed 

can condition and habituate bears leading to more 

interactions and conflicts with people. These factors 

can lead to human-caused grizzly bear mortality, 

which in turn results in a decrease in grizzly bear 

reproduction and loss of population and genetic 
Chapter 6 —Draft Land Protection Plan 29

viability. More than 17% of the NCDE is private land 

and as estimated 71% of bear-human conflicts and bear 

deaths occur on these private lands (Dr. Christopher 

Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT; personal 

interview in person, 11 June 2008). Minimizing 

attractants on private lands and limiting subdivision 

are keys to reducing this threat to grizzly bears. 

Key Habitats for Protection

In order to identify which habitats along the Front 

are highest priority for grizzly bears, the Service 

used a model developed specifically for the eastern 

side of the NCDE recovery zone by a multi-agency 

working group. The NCDE model uses logistic 

regression in calculating seasonal resource selections 

functions for grizzly bear habitat (Mace et al. 1999). 

The model considers several characteristics of 

habitat, disturbance/human activity and telemetry 

locations of grizzly bears. 

C

The design stage of the SHC process involves 

assessment of the current state of the system, 

formulation of habitat objectives, and determination 

of priority areas. 

Current State of the System

In recent years, the mortality threshold for grizzly 

bear recovery in the NCDE has been exceeded, 

but the significance of these numbers cannot be 

evaluated until there is accurate information on 

population size. Through the use of genetic analysis 

on collected hair samples, researchers were able to 

determine that an estimated 765 grizzly bears make 

their home in the Northern Continental Divide. 

Of those 765, researchers estimate 470 bears are 

females. Female bears were also found throughout 

the entire study area, indicating a good reproductive 

potential for the species. Analysis of hair samples has 

allowed researchers to determine the genetic health 

of the grizzly bear population. Although overall 

genetic variation indicates a healthy population, it 

is only one piece of the puzzle that managers need 

for the recovery of grizzlies in the NCDE to be 

successful (Kendall et al 2009).

Formulation of Habitat Objectives

Currently, there are approximately 600,000 acres of 

unencumbered private land in the proposed Rocky 

Mountain Front CA. With the current levels of 

development and fragmentation along the Front, 

grizzly bear populations appear stable; however, 

the pressure of human-cause mortality on grizzly 

bears is higher than acceptable for recovery across 

the NCDE. How much more fragmentation or 

development could occur without affecting population 

stability or significantly effect grizzly bear mortality 

is unknown. Given that conserving all of the 

remaining private land with easements to prevent 

additional development is not a reasonable or desired 

goal, especially around the existing population 

centers of Augusta, Choteau, Dupuyer, and Bynum, 

the Service has set a goal to protect 295,000 acres 

of existing private lands. Long-term monitoring 

of grizzly bears will be conducted and the goal of 

295,000 acres will be periodically re-evaluated. 

Buffer areas will be maintained around communities 

to provide rural communities the ability to meet their 

community development goals and objectives.

Priority Areas

The Service is proposing to expand the Rocky 

Mountain Front CA by purchasing conservation 

easements to reduce future impacts of development 

and habitat fragmentation. Typically, the Service will 

purchase an easement for the entire ownership of 

a landowner, therefore the priorities for the Rocky 

Mountain Front CA Land Protection Plan are 

based on the best available data on existing private 

ownerships. 

The Service and its partners recognize that there 

is tremendous opportunity to expand existing 

blocks of conservation lands within the project area. 

This includes state or federal fee-title ownership 

and private lands already under conservation 

easement. This also includes conservation-oriented, 

nongovernmental organization ownership such 

as The Nature Conservancy, and the Boone and 

Crockett Club.

The project area has been split into three priority 

zones (figure 7) for acquiring conservation easements 

using the following criteria:

■ biological significance to grizzly bears (as 

umbrella species for other species)

■ connectivity to other protected lands

Priority 1 includes areas within the project with 

the highest quality grizzly bear habitat and the 

greatest opportunity for connectivity. The eastern 

boundary was based generally on the eastern edge 

of the NCDE grizzly model. Key anchors, which can 

be expanded upon to increase connectivity, are the 

state wildlife management areas, TNC lands, Lewis 

and Clark National Forest, Boone and Crockett 

lands, and private lands with existing conservation 

easements. 

Priority 2 includes other important grizzly bear 

habitat and some opportunities for connectivity. It 

also includes areas where other funding sources are 

available to purchase conservation easements. 

Priority 3 includes the remaining areas within the 

project area. This zone is part of the Front ecoregion, 

and contains large continuous blocks of native prairie. 

Priority 3 also includes the opportunity to protect 
30 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Figure 7. Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area expansion priorities.
Chapter 6 —Draft Land Protection Plan 31

important riparian corridors for grizzlies across the 

entire project area. 

These priority areas will be regularly reevaluated 

and may change as data on the habitat needs and 

limiting factors for focal species in the Rocky 

Mountain Front CA become available. The 

Monitoring and Research section that follows 

provides further details on this feedback loop.

C

On approval of a project expansion, habitat 

protection would occur through the purchase of 

conservation easements. It is the long-established 

policy of the Service to acquire minimum interest 

in land from willing sellers to achieve habitat 

acquisition goals. 

The acquisition authority for the proposed action 

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

742 a-742j). The federal money used to acquire 

conservation easements from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund are derived primarily from 

oil and gas leases on the outer continental shelf, 

motorboat fuel tax revenues, and sale of surplus 

federal property. There could be additional funds 

to acquire lands, waters, or interest therein for 

fish and wildlife conservation purposes through 

congressional appropriations, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, the North American Waterfowl 

Conservation Act funds, and donations from non 

profit organizations.

The basic considerations in acquiring an easement 

interest in private land are the biological significance 

of the area, existing and anticipated threats to 

wildlife resources, and landowner interest in the 

program and size of the parcel. The purchase of 

conservation easements would occur with willing 

sellers only and be subject to available funding.

M

As the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 

project develops and conservation easements 

are purchased, grizzly bears will continued to be 

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

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) all have active grizzly 

bear monitoring and research projects. MFWP, in 

particular, is focused on developing a science-based 

population monitoring program that provides the 

information necessary to successfully manage bears 

in western Montana (Dood et al. 2006). Specifically, 

MFWP will monitor a representative sample of 

twenty-five or more adult females in the NCDE to 

establish population trends, MFWP will use verified 

sightings to document changes in bear distribution 

and linkage areas used, especially by female bears. 

MFWP will monitor mortality including timing and 

causes and gather survivorship data in cooperation 

with other agencies. In addition, results from the 

2004 USGS NCDE Grizzly Bear DNA project will 

assist MFWP with bear population size estimation, 

distribution, and population trends (USGS 2004). 

Grizzly bears and bull trout have been identified as 

a focal species for the Great Northern Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative. The GNLCC was 

established, in part, to foster cooperation between 

agencies and support monitoring and research where 

there are common interests. Continual evaluation of 

grizzly bear population trends and habitat use will be 

used to evaluate and refine conservation efforts on 

the ground within the GNLCC. 

Collared grizzly bear movement data is used to assess 

populations.

© MFWP

COORDINATION

The proposed expansion of the Rocky Mountain 

Front Conservation Area has been discussed with 

landowners, conservation organizations, government 

officials, and other interested groups and individuals. 

The proposal and associated EA address the 

protection of native habitats, primarily through 

acquisition of conservation easements by the Service 

under the direction of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

An open house public meeting was held in Choteau, 

Montana on May 17, 2010. Public comments were 

taken to identify issues to be analyzed for the 

proposed project. 
32 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Approximately twenty-nine landowners, citizens, and 

elected representatives attended and most expressed 

positive support for the project. 

In addition, the Service’s field staff has contacted 

local government officials, other public agencies, 

sportsman and woman groups, and conservation 

groups, all of which have expressed an interest in 

and a desire to protect the Front from the pressures 

brought about by rural subdivision. 

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 

CONSIDERATIONS

The economy of the Front is primarily agrarian and 

cattle ranches dominate the private lands within the 

project area. Ownerships are relatively large in size 

(2,000 to 25,000 acre blocks) which helps maintain 

this intact landscape. 

The human population is sparse and towns are widely 

scattered. Private lands are used for hunting, with 

elk-hunting season bringing the most people to the 

Front. A seasonal influx of tourists is attracted to the 

Front for opportunities to bird watch, mountain-bike, 

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

archeological and paleontological resources. 

Choteau and Augusta are ’gateway‘ communities 

for recreational activities on the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest, Bob Marshall and Scapegoat 

wildernesses, and Glacier National Park.

Historically, residents and county governments have 

been concerned about the amount of taxes paid to 

the counties when land protection programs such 

as this occur. Because this project is a conservation 

easement program, the land enrolled does not 

change hands and taxes paid to the counties by the 

landowner are not affected. 

Over the short-term, money paid by the Service for 

a conservation easement becomes another source 

of income for the landowner, with a portion of those 

dollars likely to be spent locally in the region. In 

addition, development of rural landscapes often leads 

to increased demand for services and higher costs 

to rural counties. These costs likely would not be 

incurred if the rural landscape were to remain intact. 

In addition, the use of conservation easements 

precludes the necessity for county zoning within 

the program area. Proximity of protected lands also 

tends to enhance the property value of adjoining 

lands. 

The ranchers’ livelihood depends on natural 

resources (grass, water, and open space). The key 

to protecting the Front lies primarily in sustaining 

the current pattern of ranching and low-density use. 

The easement program is not expected to cause any 

significant changes to the socioeconomic climate 

along the Front, but rather, would help sustain the 

current condition. 
Appendix A

List of Preparers and Reviewers

Author’s Name Position Work Unit

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

Falls, MT

Mark Ely Geographic information 

system (GIS) specialist

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

CO

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

Falls, MT

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

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

CO

Jim Lange Wetland district 

manager 

USFWS, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Great 

Falls, MT

Gary Sullivan Realty supervisor USFWS, Montana Acquisition Office, Great Falls, MT

Reviewer’s Name Position Work Unit

Laurel Bowen Writer-editor TBC Solutions, Clinton, TN

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

CO

Appendix B

List of Plants and Animals

PLANTS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Populous tremuloides

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Festuca idahoensis

Pinus flexilis

Pinus ponderosa

Aspen

Douglas-fir

Idaho fescue

Limber pine

Ponderosa pine

FISH

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Thymallus arcticus 

Phoxinus eos

Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi

Arctic grayling 

Northern redbelly dace

Westslope cutthroat trout

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Pseudacris maculata

Rana luteiventris

Thamnophis sirtalis

Phrynosoma hernandesi

Ambystoma macrodactlyum

Rana pipiens

Chrysemys picta

Thamnophis radix

Spea bombifrons

Thamnophis elegans

Ambystoma tigrinum

Crotalus viridus

Bufo boreas

Boreal chorus frog 

Columbia spotted frog 

Common garter snake 

Greater short-horned lizard

Long-toed salamander 

Northern leopard frog

Painted turtle

Plains garter snake 

Plains spadefoot

Terrestrial garter snake 

Tiger salamander

Western rattlesnake 

Western toad 

MAMMALS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Taxidea taxus

Castor canadensis

Ovis canadensis

Badger

Beaver

Bighorn sheep
36 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Bison bison

Lynx canadensis

Cervus elaphus

Canis lupus

Ursus arctos horribilis

Spermophilus elegans 

Onychomys spp., Peromyscus spp., 

Reithrodontomys spp.

Mustela vison 

Alces alces

Felis concolor

Odocoileus hemionus

Ondatra zibethicus

Antilocapra americana

Lutra canadensis

Sorex spp.

Vulpes velox

Microtus spp.

Odocoileus virginianus

Gulo gulo

Bison

Canada lynx

Elk

Gray wolf

Grizzly bear

Ground squirrel

Mice

Mink

Moose

Mountain lion

Mule deer

Muskrat

Pronghorn

River otter

Shrews

Swift fox

Voles

White-tailed deer

Wolverine

BIRDS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON AMEN

Falco peregrinus

Ammodramus bairdii

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Chlidonias niger

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Athene cunicularia

Calcarius ornatus

Buteo regalis 

Aquila chrysaetos

Histrionicus histrionicus

Calamospiza melanocorys

Ammodramus leconteii

Melanerpes lewis

Numenius americanus

Limosa fedoa

Circus cyaneus 

Charadrius melodus

Podiceps grisegena

Buteo jamaicensis

Grus canadensis 

American peregrine falcon

Baird's sparrow

Bald eagle

Black tern

Bobolink 

Burrowing owl

Chestnut-collared longspur

Ferruginous hawk

Golden eagle

Harlequin duck

Lark bunting

Le Conte's sparrow

Lewis’ woodpecker

Long-billed curlew

Marbled godwit

Northern harrier

Piping plover 

Red-necked grebe

Red-tailed hawk

Sandhill crane
Appendix B — List of Plants and Animals 37

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl

Chen caerulescens Snow goose

Anthus spragueii Sprague's pipit

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan

Appendix C

List of Endangered and Threatened Species

MAMMALS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Lynx canadensis (T) Canada lynx

Canis lupus (E) Gray wolf

Urus acrctos horribilis (T) Grizzly bear

BIRDS

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (T) Bald eagle

Charadrius melodus (T) Piping plover

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

Wilson, K.C. 2008. Comparing ecosystem goods 

and services provided by restored and native 

lands. Bioscience 58:837–845.

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

Grizzly bear management plan for western 

Montana: final programmatic environmental 

impact statement. Helena, MT: Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 163 p.

Endangered Species Coalition. 2009. America’s 

hottest species; ten endangered wildlife, fish, and 

plants impacted by climate change. Washington 

DC: Endangered Species Coalition. 16 p.

Gleason, R.A.; Euliss Jr., N.H.; 1998. Sedimentation 

of prairie wetlands. Great Plains Research 

8(1):97–112. 

Haggerty, M. 1996. Costs of county and educational 

services in Gallatin County, Montana. Bozeman, 

MT: Local Government Center, Montana State 

University. 9 p.

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

climate change case statement for the nature 

conservancy in Montana. [Place of publication 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of 

pages unknown].

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

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

and genetic struture of a recovering grizzly bear 

population. Journal of Wildlife Management 

73(1)3–7.

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

important but endangered wildlife species. In: 

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

Proceedings of symposium on whitebark pine 

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

Report INT-270: Proceedings, Symposium on 

whitebark pine ecosystems; 1989 March 29–31; 

[Place of proceedings unknown]. Bozeman, MT: 

U.S. Forest Service. 264–273.

Kantrud, H.A.; Krapu, G.L.; Swanson, G.A.; 

1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: a 

community profile. Biological Report 85 (7.28). 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 116 p.

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies—birds. In: Samson, 

F.B.; Knopf, F.L. editors. Prairie conservation: 

preserving North America’s most endangered 

ecosystem. Washington D.C: Island Press. 

[Number of pages unknown].

Kudray, G.M.; Cooper, S.V.; 2006. Montana’s Rocky 

Mountain Front: vegetation map and type 

descriptions. Report to the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Helena, MT: Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, 26 p.

Lesica, P. 1994. The distribution of plant community 

diversity associated with glacial wetlands in the 

Ovando Valley, Montana. On file at The Nature 

Conservancy, Helena, Montana. 26 p.

Lolo National Forest. 2003. Biological assessment 

for grizzly bears: Clearwater Roads Project. 

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

Forest Service, Lola National Forest, Seeley Lake 

Ranger District, Seely Lake, MT.

Mace, R.D.; Ake, K.; Manley, T.L.; Waller, J.S.; 

Wittinger, W.T. 1999. Landscape evaluation of 

grizzly bear habitat effectiveness in western 

Montana. Conservation Biology 13(2):367–377.

[MEA] Milennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being: current 

state and trends Washington DC: Island Press. 

[Number of pages unknown]. 

[MTNHP] Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

1997. [Name of publication unknown]. Helena, 

MT: [Publisher unknown]. [Number of pages 

unknown].

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

1992. Estimated average annual wind erosion in 

relation to T value on non-federal rural land, by 

land cover/use and by year; table 215. Washington 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service. [Number of pages 

unknown]. 

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

upon populations of native passerine birds of an 

Alberta fescue grassland. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 51:697–713.

Rudzitis, G. 1996. Wilderness and the changing 

American West. New York: Wiley. [Number of 

pages unknown].
42 Draft EA and LPP, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion, MT

Stenseth, N. 2004. Snow conditions may create an 

invisible barrier for lynx. Proceedings of the 

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

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Ecoregional 

conservation in the Northern Great Plains Steppe.

[Place of publication unknown]: Northern Great 

Plains Ecoregional Planning Team. [Number of 

pages unknown].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 census of 

agriculture, Volume 1, geographic area series, par

31—Montana, state and county data. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Number of pages 

unknown].

[USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. 

Interagency Rocky Mountain Front wildlife 

monitoring/evaluation program: management 

guidelines for selected species. Washington DC: 

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

Wildlife Service. 71 p.

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

MT: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 181 p. 

———. 2008. Strategic habitat conservation 

handbook—a guide to implementing the technical 

elements of SHC. [Place of publication unknown]: 

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

Wildlife Service. 22 p.

.

t 

———. 2009. Strategic plan for responding to 

accelerating climate change in the 21st century. 

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

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

41 p.

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

Divide grizzly bear project]. Revised June 

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

ncdebeardna detail.htm> [Access date unknown].

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

Americas: With special reference to the United 

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

editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. 

Volume 2. Restoration in progress. Cambridge 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 3–31.

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

use and streamwater nitrate-N dynamics in an 

urban-rural fringe watershed. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 43(3):639–

650.

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. 2009. 

[Frequently asked questions]. <http://www.y2y.

net/Default.aspx?cid=378&lang=1#Q3> [Access 

date unknown].