Chapter 3.0: Affected Environment and


Environmental Consequences


3.1 Introduction 

This section describes the resources and values on BLM 

administered lands in Montana and the Dakotas that could 

be affected by each alternative, given the analysis 

assumptions listed below. 

Information on the affected environment is summarized from 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM lands in 13 Western States (BLM 1991). 

Much of the detailed information on fire effects on land and 

vegetation is also summarized from the 1991 Vegetation 

Treatments EIS. 

The 14 resources that are “BLM Critical Elements of the 

Human Environment” are identified. In some cases, a 

negative declaration of presence or effect is all that is 

required for a particular Critical Element in relation to this 

proposed action. 

3.1.1 Analysis Assumptions 

3.1.1.1 Priorities for Treatment 

Fuels treatments of grasslands, shrublands, and forestlands 

would be prioritized according to the following order: 

1. Treatments to reduce the risk to human life and property; 

2. Treatments to reduce the risk and cost of fire suppression 

in areas of hazardous fuels buildup; and 3) Treatments 

to achieve other resource objectives. 

The top priority for fuels treatment would be areas in 

Condition Class 2 and 3 in the wildland urban interface 

(including currently identified and future communities at 

risk). This does not mean, however, that all priority 1 and 

2 projects would be completed before any treatments to 

achieve other resource objectives. 

Condition Class: Condition Classes are described as “a 

function of the degree of departure from historical fire 

regimes resulting in alterations of key ecosystem 

components such as species composition, structural stage, 

stand age, and canopy closure. One or more of the following 

activities may have caused this departure: fire exclusion, 

timber harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment 

of exotic species, insects and disease (introduced or native), 

or other past management activities” (Schmidt et al, 2002). 

Condition classes 2 and 3 represent the highest degree of 

departure from historic fire regimes. The attributes of 

Condition Classes 2 and 3 are as follows: 

•	 Fire regimes have been moderately to significantly 

altered from their historical ranges. 

•	 Moderate to high risk of losing key ecosystem 

components. 

•	 Fire return frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by more than one, and in some cases 

multiple, return intervals. This results in dramatic 

changes to one of more of the following: fire size, 

frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns. 

•	 Vegetation attributes have been moderately to 

significantly altered from their historical ranges. 

Communities at Risk: Areas with high potential for escaped 

fire or loss of life or property would be priorities for 

treatment. 

BLM Field Office staff in 1999 completed a survey that 

indicated that 79 priority communities are within 1/2 mile 

of BLM lands. The following characteristics identified for 

these communities are representative of the values that will 

be considered in determining priority for treatment: 

•	 17 have high escaped fire potential (brush, ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer, steep slopes, south aspect, dense 

fuels, ladder fuels, history of high fire occurrence) and/ 

or high potential for loss of life or property (narrow 

dead end roads, steep grades, one-way in/out, no/ 

minimal fire fighting capacity, no fire hydrants, no 

surface water, no pressure water system, no emergency 

operations group, no evacuation plan, fire conducive 

landscape) 

•	 50 have moderate escaped fire potential (moderate 

slopes, moderate fuels and ladder fuels, history of some 

large fires, moderate response time, moderate fire 

occurrence) and/or moderate potential for loss of life 

or property (has some characteristics of both high and 

low potential for loss of life or property). 

•	 9 have low escaped fire potential (grass, sparse fuels, 

little slope, north aspect, history of low fire occurrence, 

low wind exposure, quick response time) and/or low 

potential for loss of life or property (multiple entrances/ 

exits, well equipped fire department, wide loop roads, 

fire hydrants, active emergency operations group, 

evacuation plan in place, fireproof landscape). 

23

Wildland fires have since occurred in or near 6 of the 79 

priority communities identified in 1999. 

Since 1999 additional communities and wildland urban 

interface areas have been developed, and additional areas 

will be developed in the future. 

3.1.1.2 Role of the prescribed fire prescription 

Use of prescribed fire under both alternatives would include 

development of a prescribed fire prescription. These 

prescriptions would be designed with regard to site 

characteristics and the reproductive characteristics of the 

plant species present on the site. Fire effects on a particular 

plant community or species can be controlled through the 

choice of weather and fuel moisture conditions under which 

the fire is staged, the time of year when the site is burned, 

the size of the burned area as it relates to post-fire livestock 

and wildlife use, and pre- and post-fire site management. 

Prescribed burns would generally be conducted in spring or 

fall, when temperatures are cooler and ground and fuels 

moisture is higher Given the prescribed fire prescription, 

the analysis would consider factors such as plant mortality, 

postfire sprouting, reproduction from seed, effect of season 

of burning, effects of weather, postfire plant productivity, 

relationship of fire to animal use, and postfire plant 

competition (BLM, 1991). Background on each of these 

relationships is reviewed in Appendix F of the 1991 

Vegetation Treatment EIS. 

Necessary measures such as artificial reseeding for plant 

communities in poor condition or dominated by undesirable 

species (BLM, 1991, p. F-5) are also considered during the 

prescribed fire planning process. 

The development of prescribed fire prescriptions would 

minimize negative effects on vegetation (and related/ 

dependant resources), as compared to wildland fire. This 

relationship is analyzed further for particular resources in 

the sections that follow. 

3.1.1.3 Description of Treatments 

The National Fire Plan and the 2001 Federal Fire Policy set 

fire and fuels management expectations for federal agencies. 

While these expectations include the need to reduce 

hazardous fuels, none of the treatments listed below would 

be implemented without site-specific analysis. The following 

description of treatments identifies different tools and how 

they would be used in fuels management and resource 

projects under both alternatives: 

a. Prescribed burns and mechanical treatment in 

grasslands and shrublands: The primary objective of 

treating grasslands and shrublands, with mechanical 

treatments and/or prescribed fire, would be to remove 

encroaching conifers. Encroachment is indicated by the 

presence of young conifers (e.g., ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, limber pine, and juniper) progressing from 

a forest or woodland into grasslands or shrublands. 

Mechanical treatments would generally be applied to 

remove these individual conifers within a grassland or 

shrubland, rather than to manipulate the grasses or 

shrubs themselves. 

Prescribed fire may also be used to meet resource 

objectives, such as restoring fire-adapted grass and 

shrublands, or increasing variation of age classes in 

shrublands. Treatments would be designed to achieve 

mosaic patterns, which would also reduce the potential 

of entire stands being destroyed by wildland fire. Most 

sagebrush treatments would be on mountain big 

sagebrush or silver sagebrush 

b. Prescribed burning and mechanical treatments in 

forestlands: Past management practices, including fire 

suppression and timber harvest, have created buildups 

of small-diameter trees in densities beyond what would 

naturally occur. These small diameter trees create 

“ladder fuels” that carry fire from the ground into the 

canopy of the larger overstory trees, where the fire 

becomes more difficult and dangerous to fight. In some 

cases, prescribed fire could be used to thin small 

diameter timber and remove dead and down woody 

vegetation. However, where prescribed burns would be 

difficult or impossible to control because of existing 

fuels buildup, mechanical or manual preparation may 

be needed to reduce stand densities and allow a 

controllable prescribed burn. Non-commercial thinning 

would be used where the trees to be thinned are too 

small to be of commercial value. 

Commercial thinning may be used to reduce density 

and the potential for crown fire. Overstory density is a 

concern where crown continuity creates a high potential 

for wildland fires to become crown fires. Overstoryclass trees may also be removed to reduce competition, 

allowing individual trees to grow larger and acquire 

fire-resistant characteristics. For the purposes of 

reducing wildland fuels, commercial timber harvest 

would be used. The objective of using timber harvest 

as a fuels management technique is to create conditions 

such that, in the future, harvest may not be needed— 

the more open structure could be safely maintained with 

prescribed fire treatments. 

c.	 Support activities, including chemical weed treatments 

for fuels projects: Chemical weed treatments would be 

applied where other fuels treatments would create 

conditions favorable for expansion of noxious weeds 

or other undesirable invasive species. For example, 

weeds are often present in areas of conifer 

encroachment. When the canopy is opened by 

mechanical treatments or prescribed burns, the 

24

conditions are favorable for the weeds or invasive 

species to expand. Nearly all of the weed treatments 

would be applied either before and/or after the areas 

are treated with prescribed fire or mechanical methods. 

The anticipated level of activity identified for the 

alternatives did not include application of chemical 

treatments for purposes other than control of noxious 

weeds in association with fuels treatments. 

Other support activities may include strategic 

development of water sources for fire suppression, 

development of fuel breaks, and construction of access 

roads for vegetation treatments. These roads would be 

rehabilitated after use. Some relocation/redesign of 

existing roads would also be anticipated under both 

alternatives. 

d.	 Fire use: Until a Fire Management Plan is developed 

and approved, fire use would not be a viable 

management option with either alternative. With 

Alternative B, in order to manage naturally ignited 

wildland fire to accomplish specific pre-stated resource 

management objectives, areas must be designated as 

Category C or D and an approved Fire Management 

Plan (FMP) must be developed. 

e.	 Other treatments (e.g., biological): Other activities, 

such as livestock grazing, may also be used to achieve 

specific fuels management objectives. These treatments 

would be used to help achieve and maintain healthy, 

properly functioning ecosystems within the historic and 

natural range of variability for long-term sustainable 

use and to comply with standards for rangeland health 

and guidelines for livestock grazing management. The 

type and level of biological treatments may be 

considered to meet specific objectives at the site-specific 

level, and are not included as part of this detailed 

analysis. 

Treatments would be influenced by RMP decisions and 

objectives. It should not be inferred that all areas that exhibit 

conditions listed above (i.e. conifer encroachment) would 

be treated. Rather, distinct areas would first be identified 

for treatment based on fire/fuels management objectives, 

property values at risk, or resource objectives. The project 

would then be designed using one or more of the treatment 

methods listed above, and the project would be analyzed 

within the context of other resource needs and RMP 

decisions. In general, fuels treatments would focus on 

improving Condition Class 2 or 3 attributes, and would be 

refined for the project/watershed level 

Table 5 lists broad levels of treatment anticipated over the 

next 10 years, by the general vegetation type on which 

anticipated activities would occur under each alternative. 

These treatment levels are used as a basis for impact 

analysis. 

3.1.1.3 Wildland fires 

Past wildland fire history provides a reasonable basis upon 

which to predict future wildland fire activity. 

•	 Between 1980 and 2001, federal agencies responded 

to 18,808 wildland fires in Montana and the Dakotas. 

These fires burned over 3.1 million acres. Maximum 

fire size was 387,400 acres and the average fire size 

was 165 acres. Records are not available for those 

wildland fires to which federal agencies did not respond. 

Between 1978 and 2000, 782 fires were reported to have 

started on BLM land. 

•	 As hazardous fuel loads are reduced, the potential for 

intense, severe wildland fire should also be reduced. 

Everything else being equal, when a wildland fire does 

occur in a treated area, the fire should be characterized 

by: 

· shorter flame length, 

· cooler burns, 

·	 greater chance of being a surface fire instead of a 

crown fire, and reduced chance of being a stand 

replacement fire. 

•	 The fire suppression tactics that are effective in 

controlling wildland fires depend on, among other 

things, the amount of fuel and the flame length. From 

widely held and commonly agreed upon experience, 

the following are reliable rules (Rothermel 1983): 

·	 Flame length of less than 4 feet: Fire lines 

constructed with hand tools, such as shovels and 

axes, can be effective at the front of the fire. These 

tactics are often referred to as “light on the land” 

tactics. 

·	 Flame lengths of 4 to 8 feet: Fire lines constructed 

with bulldozers and heavy equipment are needed 

to be an effective fire line. If bulldozers are not 

available, fire engines with hoses and water may 

be required to “knock down” the flames before fire 

crews with hand tools can be effective. Or fire 

crews must construct a fireline at a considerable 

distance from the fire. 

·	 Flame length of 8 to 11 feet: The use of fire 

suppressing retardant from airtankers or water from 

helicopters may be necessary to reduce the fire’s 

rate of spread before fire lines constructed by crews 

or bulldozers can be effective. 

·	 Flame length more than 11 feet: Direct suppression 

efforts are usually ineffective. Retreating to 

existing roads, streams, and other barriers is 

appropriate. Burning out vegetation between the 

25

Table 5 Comparison of Anticipated Activities within 10 years 

Alternative A Alternative B 

• Most fuels reduction projects would require an integrated strategy in which a combination of prescribed fire, 

mechanical treatments, and chemical treatments would be applied over a period of years. 

• Once an area is treated, it would likely require either mechanical or prescribed fire maintenance treatments. 

Prescribed fire would be more commonly used as the re-treatment method. 

• If noxious weeds exist on the project area, chemical treatments may be applied before and after each treatment 

(both maintenance and original treatments) to limit the spread of noxious weeds. 

Prescribed fire: 158,000 acres would be treated.1 

Treatments would occur on: 

Prescribed fire: 299,000 acres would be treated.1 

Treatments would occur on: 

• 50,000 acres of grass lands 

treatment) 

• 78,000 acres of grass lands (25 percent retreatment) 

• 8,000 acres of shrub lands (17 percent retreatment) • 41,000 acres of shrub lands (1 percent retreatment) 

• 99,000 acres of forest lands 

treatment) 

• 176,000 acres of forest lands (26 percent retreatment) 

• 1,000 acres of agricultural lands (50 percent retreatment) • 4,000 acres of agricultural lands (80 percent retreatment) 

Mechanical treatments: 35,000 acres would be 

treated.1 

Treatments would occur on: 

Mechanical Treatments: 158,000 acres would be 

treated.1 

Treatments would occur on: 

• <200 acres of grass lands • 12,000 acres of grass lands 

• 1,000 acres of shrub lands • 36,000 acres of shrub lands 

• 31,000 acres of forest lands 

treatment) 

• 107,000 acres of forest lands (21 percent retreatment) 

• 3,000 acres of agricultural lands (16 percent retreatment) • 3,000 acres of agricultural lands (16 percent retreatment) 

Chemical weed treatments to support fuels 

treatments: 1, 2 

Treatments would occur on: 

• 500 acres of grass lands 

• 1,900 acres of shrub lands 

• 1,100 acres of forest lands 

Chemical weed treatments to support fuels 

treatments: 185,000 acres would be treated.1, 2 

Treatments would occur on: 

• 46,000 acres of grass lands 

• 103,000 acres of shrub lands 

• 36,000 acres of forest lands 

Support Activities: 

• 1 mile of new road per decade statewide would be 

associated with fuels management, which would be 

rehabilitated after use. 

Support Activities: 

• 3 miles of new road per decade statewide would be 

associated with fuels management, which would be 

rehabilitated after use. 

(32 percent re-

(33 percent re-

(13 percent re3,500 acres would be treated.

1

Re-treatments may increase after the first decade. Acres treated more than once are double counted.
 2

When patches of noxious weeds on a portion of an acre are treated, the entire acre is counted for reporting purposes.


26 
fireline and the advancing fire front may be 

necessary to eliminate wildland fuels. 

•	 The following areas and values would be protected from 

wildland fire on BLM-administered lands: buildings 

and structures; oil and gas fields and related facilities; 

communication sites and related facilities; coal mines 

and related facilities; rock art, cultural sites, and historic 

structures; power lines; communities; important wildlife 

habitat; campgrounds and other developed recreation 

areas; forested areas where potential loss of key 

ecosystem components is high; lands having 

intermingled public, state, and private ownership where 

there are currently no agreements for using wildfire as 

a resource management tool; and other areas identified 

through continued public involvement in fire planning 

efforts. 

•	 Acres burned and intensity of wild fires would decrease 

in treated areas as hazardous fuel loads are reduced. 

Damage to resources and property from wildland fire 

and fire suppression, as well as cost of suppression, 

should decrease on and near treated areas. 

•	 With both alternatives, wildland fire trends concerning 

fire size, intensity, and severity would continue on 

untreated areas. 

3.2 Vegetation 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with 

the alternatives fall into two categories. 

The first category of impacts includes the general effects of 

different vegetation treatment methods, such as the effect 

of prescribed fire on ponderosa pine. The 1991 Vegetation 

Treatments EIS (Chapter 3, Section 1) analyzed these 

impacts separately from any anticipated level of activity or 

alternative (BLM, 1991). This analysis of general effects is 

incorporated by reference into this analysis. 

The second category of impacts would be based on the 

anticipated level of activity specific to each alternative. 

Based on the anticipated levels of activity, the general 

impacts analyzed in the 1991 Vegetation Treatments EIS 

are refined into a comparison of the alternatives. 

The Montana Land Cover Atlas (University of Montana, 

1998) provides a land cover classification system for existing 

vegetation in Montana. The atlas is a product of the Montana 

Gap Analysis project (MT-GAP) that provides digital data 

in geographic information system (GIS). This is used to 

describe the affected environment and to help assess impacts 

to vegetation in Montana. A land cover classification system 

is not available for North or South Dakota. Consequently, 

assessing impacts by vegetation type in the Dakotas is based 

on RMP information, analysis of soils maps, and personal 

observations of resource specialists. 

Information about fire effects is summarized from the 

Northern Rockies Interagency Fire and Aviation 

Management Fire Effects Information System found at 

www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/welcome.htm. See Table 6 for 

a comparative summary of treatments by landcover and the 

relative amount of BLM land cover that would be treated. 

Table 6 Land Cover and 10 Year Fuels Treatments by Land Cover 

Land Cover Total BLM Acres 

by cover type 

Fuel Treatments 

(acres) 1,2 

Percent Treated 

of BLM Total 

Fuel Treatments 

(acres) 1,3 

Percent Treated 

of BLM Total 

Alternative A Alternative B 

Grass lands 

Shrub lands 

Forestlands 

Other (ag land, 

barrens) 

TOTAL 

3,790,000 

2,320,000 

770,000 

1,430,000 

8,310,000 

50,000 

9,000 

130,000 

4,000 

193,000 

1 

<1 

17 

<1 

2 

90,000 

77,000 

283,000 

7,000 

457,000 

2 

3 

37 

<1 

5 

1 Fuel treatments include mechanical and prescribed burns only. Chemical weed treatments are not included because they mostly

occur on areas with other treatments. 

2 Acres treated more than once are double counted. With Alternative A, it is estimated that between 13 percent and 31 percent of the 

treatments would occur on acres previously treated. 

3 Acres treated more than once are double counted. With Alternative B, it is estimated that between 15 percent and 24 percent of the 

treatments would occur on acres previously treated. 

27 
3.2.1 Grasslands 

Affected Environment (Grasslands) 

The MT Gap Analysis Project classifies grasslands as areas 

with more than 15 percent herbaceous cover, less than 15 

percent shrub cover, and less than 10 percent forest cover. 

Grasslands accounted for about 45 percent of the land cover 

(about 3.79 million acres) on BLM administered lands. 

As characterized by the 1991 Vegetation Treatment EIS, 

grasslands in Montana and the Dakotas can be classified 

into mountain/plateau grasslands, which occupy relatively 

higher elevations and are of more limited extent, and plains 

grasslands, which consist of mixed grass communities and 

the tall grass prairie. In addition, the sagebrush analysis 

region has a substantial grass/forb component. 

Grasslands occupy a variety of topographical positions, from 

level areas or valley floors, to alluvial benches and foothills, 

to steep mountain slopes. Soil characteristics vary 

accordingly, ranging from deep and loamy, to poorly drained 

or fairly dry and rocky, or mildly alkaline to mildly acidic 

(Mueggler and Stewart 1980). The grass component of these 

communities is usually the most productive, followed by 

forbs, and then shrubs. 

Important grasses in mountain/plateau grass communities 

include bromes, bluegrasses, sedges, wheatgrasses, fescues, 

needle grasses, hairgrasses, reedgrasses, bentgrasses, and 

junegrass. The forb component varies with site, latitude, and 

management and is diverse throughout the region. 

The plains grassland analysis region includes the mixed grass 

communities of eastern Montana and the Dakotas. Sedges 

and cool season grasses, such as needlegrasses and 

wheatgrasses, dominate these communities; other important 

grasses include needle-and-thread grass, prairie sandreed, 

junegrass, sand dropseed, buffalograss, side-oats grama, and 

little bluestem. (Brown 1982, Mueggler and Stewart 1980). 

Warm season grasses (particularly blue grama) and forbs 

may also be important components of mixed grass 

communities. 

Tall grass communities in the plains grassland are restricted 

to certain soil types and areas where grazing history has not 

been severe (Brown 1985). This type is much more extensive 

in the true prairie of the Dakotas. Tall grass communities 

are dominated by big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, 

switchgrass, and side-oats grama. 

The plains grasslands evolved with grazing by native 

herbivores, and many of the grasses are well adapted to 

grazing. Climate is the dominant factor controlling these 

grasslands, but periodic fire was also an important factor in 

limiting woody vegetation to mosaics or a savanna situation 

(Wright et al. 1980). Fire suppression has led to the 

establishment of fire disclimax associations of shrubs in 

some areas (Brown 1982). 

Encroachment of conifers (e.g. ponderosa pine, limber pine, 

and Douglas-fir) indicates that fire regimes in fire-dependent 

grasslands have been altered, which results in changed 

ecological conditions. 

According to Condition Class spatial data, it is estimated 

that fire regimes are within an historical range and the risk 

of losing key ecosystem components is low on about 94 

percent of the BLM-administered grasslands (Condition 

Class 1). Vegetation attributes (species composition and 

structure) are intact and functioning within an historical 

range. 

The other 6 percent of the BLM-administered grasslands 

are classified as Condition Class 2 or 3. Section 3.1.1.1 

describes characteristics. 

Environmental Consequences (Grasslands) 

Under either alternative, National Fire Plan and 2001 Federal 

Fire policy objectives would focus on reducing hazardous 

fuels and reintroducing fire as a natural process in fireadapted ecosystems. 

Based on the conditions created by fire exclusion in 

grasslands (i.e. encroachment of conifers), prescribed fire 

would be the primary tool used to achieve hazardous fuels 

reduction and function of natural processes in fire-dependent 

grassland ecosystems. Therefore, the analysis of effects 

focuses on the impacts associated with prescribed and 

wildland fires on grasslands. Mechanical treatments of 

grasslands would also largely be used in combination with 

prescribed fire to control conifer encroachment. 

In general, the effect of fire on grasses depends on the growth 

form, and how burning influences soil moisture and other 

environmental and prescribed burning conditions. Many of 

the grass species are fairly fire resistant and can produce 

new shoot growth even after moderate to high-severity burns. 

Prescribed burns can release understory plants present in 

sagebrush communities, which may be desirable or 

undesirable depending on the plant species present. Spring 

or fall fires are most desirable and effective because the 

soils are moist and cool, and the burning is more selective. 

Sprouting shrubs such as bitterbrush, mountain snowberry, 

and Gambel oak respond favorably, and perennial grasses 

are benefited. Burning can be used to increase edge effect 

and increase plant diversity (Bowns 1990). 

Large bunch-grasses are more affected than small grasses 

with coarse stems, and rhizomatous species tolerate fire well 

(Everett 1987a). Bunchgrass plants that survive a fire can 

return to pre-burn coverage and production within 2 years 

28

(West and Hassan 1985), but the recovery time may be 

shorter or much longer, depending on the amount of damage 

sustained by the plant, its recovery potential, site 

productivity, postfire weather, and postfire animal use. 

The tolerance of forbs to burning depends upon the timing 

of the fire relative to active plant growth (Wright and Bailey 

1982). Those forbs that start growing after the burning season 

are least affected, because they have the entire growing 

season to recover from any injury that the fire may have 

caused. Perennial forbs are usually only slightly damaged 

by fire, except those mat-forming species such as Antennaria 

spp. (Wright and Bailey 1982, Everett 1987a). 

Downy brome (Cheatgrass) may increase after burning 

(Wright and Bailey 1982) if it is present in the stand or in 

the area before burning, if few residual native bunchgrass 

plants remain on the site, or if good post-fire grazing 

management practices are not followed. If bunchgrass 

communities are in good condition when the site is treated, 

Downy brome may persist for only a few years. 

Prairie shortgrasses are generally harmed by wild fires during 

dry years. Buffalograss, annual bluegrass, and western 

wheatgrass may take three or more years to recover (Wright 

and Bailey 1982). During years with above normal spring 

precipitation, these grasses can tolerate fire with no herbage 

yield reduction following the first growing season (Wright 

1974a). Burning usually increases production of switchgrass 

but decreases little bluestem production where these grasses 

occur (Wright and Bailey 1982). 

Prescribed burn projects would be planned to allow for 

recovery of key plant species, and typically are scheduled 

during periods of higher soil and fuel moisture, higher 

relative humidity, and lower temperature. Native vegetation 

would be more likely to re-establish naturally (without 

rehabilitation) following fires under these conditions. 

Wildland fires typically occur during summer months, when 

soil and fuel moisture and relative humidity are lower, and 

temperatures are higher. In general, artificial restoration 

(rehabilitation) would be necessary more often following 

wildland fire than following prescribed fire. However, if 

plant communities are not in good condition prior to 

prescribed burning, restoration treatments may be necessary 

to prevent undesirable species such as downy brome 

(cheatgrass) from taking over the site. 

In some cases, short-term reductions in desirable species/ 

uses may be necessary to achieve long-term benefits such 

as increased plant productivity. For example, burning 

rangelands may reduce grass or forage production, thus 

reducing the available forage for livestock and wildlife. 

Livestock and wildlife are often attracted to burned areas. 

When wildland fires or prescribed burns occur, livestock 

grazing would be deferred or temporarily suspended to allow 

establishment and maintenance of new vegetation. 

The nature and general objectives for fuels treatments are 

described in section 3.1.1.3. With Alternative A, about 

50,000 acres would be treated with prescribed fire, and 200 

acres would be mechanically treated. See Table 6 for a 

summary comparison of treatment acres by landcover type 

and alternative. 

Chemical weed treatments would be applied to about 500 

acres of grasslands under Alternative A and 46,000 acres 

under Alternative B. Nearly all of the weed treatments would 

be applied either before or after the areas would be treated 

with prescribed fire or mechanical methods. Herbicide 

application would be expected to increase grasses and 

decrease broadleaf species, shrubs and forbs. 

Alternative B would better meet fire management goals on 

nearly twice as many acres as Alternative A (see Table 6). 

In the long-term, total plant productivity would also improve 

with Alternative B. 

3.2.2 Shrublands 

Affected Environment (Shrublands) 

The Montana Gap Analysis (MT-GAP) project classifies 

shrublands as areas with more than 15 percent shrub cover 

and less than 10 percent forest cover. Shrublands account 

for about 28 percent of the land cover (about 2.3 million 

acres) on BLM administered lands. While sagebrush is the 

most common category of shrublands, the shrublands 

category includes other shrub types as well. 

Important shrubs include big sagebrush, black sagebrush, 

low sagebrush, rabbitbrushes, Mormon tea, bitterbrush, 

snowberry, and horsebrush (Cronquist et al. 1972). Important 

perennial grasses associated with these shrub communities 

include bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, Idaho 

fescue, rough fescue, western wheatgrass, Great Basin 

wildrye, junegrass, Indian ricegrass, squirreltail, 

muttongrass, needle-and-thread grass, and Thurber 

needlegrass. Downy brome (cheatgrass) is an introduced 

annual grass that may exist in some areas. 

Environmental diversity has resulted in a comparable variety 

of species, subspecies, and varieties of sagebrush adapted 

to specific habitats (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981). Basin big 

sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush usually dominate 

between 2,000 and 7,000 feet. Basin big sagebrush occupies 

deep, well-drained alluvial soils where annual precipitation 

averages 10 to 16 inches, and Wyoming big sagebrush 

occupies an 8- to 12-inch precipitation zone on shallow soils 

(Wright et al. 1979). Mountain big sagebrush can be found 

at elevations from 5,000 to 10,000 feet where annual 

precipitation varies from 14 to 20 inches (Wright et al. 1979). 

Mixed xeric shrubs are associated with dry rocky sites. 

Dominant species include bitterbrush, creeping juniper, 

29

greasewood, mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush, and shadscale. Mixed xeric shrubs are the dominant species with 20 

to 50 percent cover. This category of shrublands is found on 

about 8 percent of public lands. 

Other shrub species found in Montana and the Dakotas 

include juniper, silver sagebrush, buffaloberry, sumac, 

rabbitbrush, western snowberry, gooseberry, red osier 

dogwood, common chokecherry, American plum, and 

greasewood. 

The fire history of shrublands has not been firmly 

established, but fire was probably uncommon on drier sites 

because of sparse fuels, and more frequent, averaging 32 to 

70 years, on more mesic sites with greater herbaceous 

production (Wright et. al 1979). 

Based on Condition Class information, fire regimes are 

within an historical range and the risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is low (Condition Class 1) on about 

88 percent of BLM-administered shrublands. Vegetation 

attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and 

functioning within an historical range. 

About 11 percent of the BLM-administered shrublands are 

Condition Class 2 and less than 1 percent is Condition Class 

3. 

Environmental Consequences (Shrublands) 

Section 3.1.1.3 describes the treatments anticipated on 

shrublands. Alternative A would treat less than 1 percent of 

BLM-administered shrublands over a 10-year period while 

Alternative B would treat about 3 percent. See Table 6. 

Shrubs are generally less tolerant of fire than grasses. 

However, the season and intensity of fire on shrublands also 

determines the effects of fire. 

In mountain brush communities, certain species of shrubs 

resprout vigorously after fire. Sprouting shrubs, such as 

western serviceberry, true mountain mahogany, chokecherry, 

winterfat, saltbush, rabbitbrush, horsebrush, and silver 

sagebrush may regrow quickly postburn (Wright et al. 1979). 

However, the big sagebrush species (Basin big sagebrush, 

mountain big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush) are 

vulnerable to fire and may take up to 20 years to recover. 

(Harniss and Murray 1973). Basin big sagebrush does not 

resprout and is eliminated by frequent fires. Mountain big 

sagebrush may be killed even by fires of light severity, and 

will not resprout if top killed. Wyoming big sage is also 

killed by fire. An understanding of big sagebrush’s 

vulnerability to fire comes from past use of fire as an 

effective means of reducing big sagebrush to increase forage 

production. 

Other sagebrush species, including the silver sagebrush 

complex, are moderately resistant to fire mortality. 

Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire would primarily 

be used to remove encroaching conifers or open the canopy 

on dense, stagnant, even-aged stands of sagebrush that are 

at risk of destruction by wildland fire. In shrublands where 

conifer encroachment is treated with mechanical treatments 

and prescribed fire, the density and canopy of shrub stands 

would be reduced in treated areas. The duration of the 

reduction would depend on whether the shrubs sprout after 

fire and post-fire management actions (such as reseeding). 

Herbaceous species would increase in density and production 

in response to burning and as canopy cover is reduced. 

Perennial forbs would also increase. 

3.2.3 Forestlands 

Affected Environment (Forestlands) 

The Montana Gap Analysis (MT-GAP) project classifies 

areas with more than 10 percent forest cover as forestlands. 

Forestlands account for about 9 percent, or 770,000 acres, 

of BLM lands. 

Forestlands are a composite of the many high-elevation 

evergreen conifer and deciduous forest types that occur 

throughout Montana and the Dakotas. Species dominance 

varies with altitude, latitude, slope aspect or other 

topographical position, soil characteristics, and climatic 

regime. The BLM administers small acreages of these 

diverse forest types. Important forest communities include 

climax ponderosa pine, seral ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, 

Douglas-fir mixed with other conifers, aspen, lodgepole 

pine, and spruce fir. 

In May 1977 the USDA Forest Service published Technical 

Report INT-34, “Forest Habitat Types of Montana”. This 

report, commonly referred to as Pfister’s Habitat Typing 

book, is a well-known and often-cited publication. 

A general distribution of Climax Series exists throughout 

Montana. The series begins with the grasslands on the driest, 

warmest sites and extends through the Alpine Tundra series 

on the coldest, moistest sites. The first forest type 

encountered is the Limber Pine Series. 

Limber Pine Series: Limber Pine rarely occurs West of the 

Continental Divide and is typically found on the very driest 

sites capable of supporting trees. Trees tend to be very short 

and stubby, (less than 20 ft.) with an understory of native 

grasses and shrubs such as bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho 

fescue and common juniper. These forest stands offer little 

for timber productivity but do provide value as escape cover 

for wildlife and some grazing value for domestic livestock. 

30

Fire history indicates that these areas burned with low 

intensities because of the sparse vegetation. 

Ponderosa Pine Series: If the Limber Pine Series is absent, 

the first forest zone that typically appears is the Ponderosa 

pine Series. Usually there is a “belt” of climax ponderosa 

pine that exists between the grasslands and climax Douglasfir. The difference between the grassland zone (with a few 

scattered trees), and the ponderosa pine- savanna is 

recognized to be capable of supporting 25 percent coverage 

by tree canopy. Fire history indicates that these areas burned 

with frequent, low intensity ground fires and pure stands of 

ponderosa pine were often uneven-aged (Pfister, 1977). 

Stands were probably kept open by light fires that 

periodically burned through the understory. Older trees 

tolerate fire well, but young trees are easily killed 

(Daubenmire 1952). In the absence of frequent understory 

fires that historically occurred, many stands of ponderosa 

pine are now dense and stagnant, with thickets of understory 

reproduction (Wright and Bailey 1982). 

Douglas-fir Series: The Douglas-fir series makes up a large 

portion of the climax forests, but does not extend greatly 

onto the plains. This is a very broad and diverse forest type. 

Douglas-fir is more shade tolerant than other associated tree 

species and the drier stands were maintained through 

frequent fires. This series begins to have some significant 

timber productivity potential although the lower elevations 

and warmer aspects still provide for critical big game winter 

range and livestock forage. 

The range of quaking aspen, which is the most widely 

distributed native North American tree species (DeByle et 

al. 1985), coincides closely with Douglas-fir. Fire is 

responsible for the abundance and even-aged structure of 

most stands throughout the West. Without human 

intervention, fire appears to be necessary for the continued 

well-being of aspen on most sites (DeByle et al. 1985), and 

most stands will die out or be replaced by conifers without 

disturbance. The occurrence of fire in aspen stands has been 

reduced by fire suppression and by lack of understory fuels. 

The lack of understory herbaceous fuel caused by livestock 

grazing precludes the occurrence of fire in most aspen stands 

(Jones and DeByle 1985). 

Spruce, Grand Fir, Red Cedar, Hemlock Series: This series 

is found on the most moist and cool sites and covers a 

significant portion of the landscape in northwest Montana. 

The drier habitat types of this series do extend into the central 

and south central portions of the state. This series includes 

some of the better timber producing sites and supports a 

variety of tree species. These habitat types often occur 

adjacent to streams and other water bodies and are also 

important big game habitat. History shows that these forests 

tended to burn infrequently but with a stand replacing fire. 

Lodgepole pine occurs primarily in western and southcentral 

Montana. At higher elevations, it gives way to spruce fir 

forest. Lodgepole pine forms dense, often pure stands with 

little understory. Fire plays an important role in the 

maintenance of these forests. The Rocky Mountain 

lodgepole pine contains some proportion of closed cones 

that retain seeds but quickly release them after fire or cutting 

(Lotan et al. 1981). Lodgepole pine colonizes burned areas, 

frequently replacing previous stands of lodgepole pine. 

Without fire, lodgepole pine may eventually be replaced by 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Englemann spruce, cedar 

hemlock, or Englemann spruce/subalpine fir stands. 

Lodgepole pine may persist as a climax species on sites too 

cold for Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine, too dry for spruce 

fir, or too wet or infertile for other coniferous species (Wright 

and Bailey 1982). 

Fuel hazard and declined forest health are not necessarily 

the same, but commonalities do exist between fuels and 

ecological conditions. If all fires are excluded from 

ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and western larch forest types, 

which historically had high frequencies of understory fire, 

the result can be the eventual weakening of the stand, an 

increase in activity of bark beetles, and an increase in the 

proportion of dead trees. Barrett (1988) and Stark (1977) 

also cited accumulations of understory dead woody fuels, 

as well as the establishment of trees that provide fuel ladders 

between the surface fuels and the tree crowns, and 

substantially altered forest succession in some forest types 

as resulting from fire exclusion. Fuels and/or bug-killed trees 

lead to stand-destroying fires. Many acres in the West have 

had fire excluded for 50 to 75 years, and some fires in recent 

years are likely a result of the accumulation of fuels and 

insect activity (BLM, 1991, p. F-13). 

Fire exclusion on forests with long stand replacement cycles 

results in increased fire hazard because flammability 

increases over much greater contiguous areas of forest and 

younger, less flammable stands are no longer present. For 

example, lodgepole pine stands that have had time to develop 

an understory of Englemann spruce and subalpine fir are 

much more flammable than before those species became 

established. Complete fire protection will allow less firetolerant species to replace more fire-tolerant species, as well 

as permit coniferous species to take over most sites presently 

dominated by aspen (DeByle et al. 1985). 

Condition Class definitions operate on the degree to which 

fire has been excluded and thus, in these types, the degree 

to which the abovementioned characteristics, including 

ladder fuels, fire sensitive species in the understory, and 

overstocking, may be present. Treatments would focus on 

Condition Class 2 and 3 areas, as described below. 

About 15 percent of the BLM-administered forestlands are 

Condition Class 1, 27 percent are Condition Class 2; and 58 

percent are Condition Class 3. 

31

Environmental Consequences (Forestlands) 

The nature of thinning and prescribed fire treatments in 

forestlands is described in section 3.1.1.3. 

Mechanical treatments and prescribed burning can be 

effective management tools in forested vegetative 

communities in the West. Fire can be used to reduce surface 

fuels in the understories of fire resistant trees; to remove 

understory reproduction in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and 

western larch forests, which provide a fuel ladder to the 

overstory; to thin overstocked stands of trees; to prune lower 

branches from trees; to create seedbed; to reduce vegetative 

competition with naturally regenerated or planted conifers; 

to enhance forage values; to maintain and improve browse 

quality and quantity; and to rejuvenate old stands of 

deciduous trees. 

Prescribed fire can produce favorable conditions for conifers. 

Burning ponderosa pine forests increases grasses and topkills shrubs, such as chokecherry, western serviceberry, and 

bitterbrush, which will sprout the next year. In general, fire 

is beneficial to grasses and forbs in ponderosa pine 

associations but not where shrub understories dominate 

(Wright and Bailey 1982). Burning Douglas-fir forests would 

increase shrubs such as snowbush, ceanothus, Western 

serviceberry, common snowberry, and sticky currant. In 

some Douglas-fir areas, ponderosa pine and quaking aspen 

may become fire climax species. Although easily killed by 

surface fires, quaking aspens quickly sprout from roots, 

making the tree a quick competitor in many Douglas-fir and 

spruce fir forests. 

The understories of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western 

larch communities are all adapted to fire. Some later 

successional species that may have established because of 

fire exclusion might not be favored, but the natural shrub, 

forb, and grass associates of these species would recover by 

sprouting or from seed stored in the forest soil organic layer 

(duff) after fire. The exact response varies by fire 

prescription, season, moisture condition, and plant species. 

Slash from thinning and selective logging can be burned to 

reduce fire hazard without harming the residual trees in these 

communities. Without fire, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 

sometimes invade grasslands and shrublands, and prescribed 

fire can be used to eliminate these trees when they are young. 

Mature stands of juniper are frequently too open or contain 

insufficient herbaceous fuel to carry a fire (Lotan and Lyon 

1981). However, burning can easily kill nonsprouting 

juniper, especially trees less than 4 feet tall (Dwyer and 

Pieper 1967). Larger trees require heavy amounts of fire 

fuel within their canopy coverage to crownkill (Jameson 

1962). Where understories include sagebrush, large juniper 

trees can be killed by fire (Bruner and Klebenow 1978). 

Postfire recovery of juniper after fire depends on seed 

reproduction, and the rate of reinvasion depends on distance 

to seed source, the size of the burned area, and the presence 

of dispersal agents. 

Older trees are generally more fire resistant as bark thickens 

and the crown becomes more open, and may be able to 

survive low intensity fires. It is difficult to kill trees in fairly 

closed stands of juniper because there is little live or dead 

fuel on the surface, and a prescribed fire will not carry unless 

there are extremely high winds, a situation in which risk of 

fire escape is high. A treatment in juniper stands is to 

manually cut the trees, leave the slash scattered, wait several 

years for grasses and shrubs to recover, and then burn the 

site. This removes most of the dead fuel, greatly reduces 

the fire hazard, and kills any residual or newly germinated 

juniper trees. If a site is mechanically or manually treated 

only, forage and browse production will probably be 

enhanced for about 20 years. Prescribed burning of the site 

about 3 to 5 years after treatment, once an understory has 

established, will maintain the productive character of the 

site for about 50 years (West 1979, as cited in Tiemenstein 

1986b, Wright et al. 1979, as cited in McMurray 1986b). If 

high rates of forage utilization (which reduce fuels) and fire 

exclusion continue to be practiced on sites invaded by 

juniper, tree density will continue to increase, and juniper 

will continue to expand onto shrub- and grass-dominated 

sites (Burk-hardt and Tisdale 1976). An active management 

program that includes prescribed fire would reduce the 

amount of tree encroachment and would better achieve the 

desired resource condition. 

The occurrence of fire in aspen stands has been reduced by 

fire suppression and by lack of understory fuels. The lack 

of understory herbaceous fuel caused by livestock grazing 

precludes the occurrence of fire in most aspen stands (Jones 

and DeByle 1985). Without fire, conifers invade many aspen 

stands, gradually eliminating the aspen, because aspen 

sucker replacement is often insufficient to replace overstory 

aspen mortality (Schier 1975). Aspen communities on sites 

not suited for conifer establishment may eventually be 

replaced by grasses and shrubs (Schier 1975). Suckering is 

prevented by the presence of mature trees as the trees and 

roots gradually deteriorate. Loss of aspen stands because of 

this phenomena has been observed in several western states. 

A fire that occurs in an aspen stand that is still producing a 

few suckers, or in a mixed aspen conifer stand is likely to 

result in the rejuvenation of the aspen stand. The amount of 

postfire suckering is enhanced by warmer soil temperatures, 

which usually occur as a result of the blackened soil surface 

and reduced thickness of the litter and organic layer (Jones 

and DeByle 1985). As is true for rangeland sites, an aspen 

site must be rested from grazing until the community 

recovers to some degree (Brown and Simmerman 1985). 

Wildlife use can be regulated to some extent if a large enough 

burned area is selected, or if several areas in the same general 

32

vicinity are burned, thus dispersing use over a greater 

acreage. 

Treatments would provide a range of forested and nonforested vegetative successional stages that reflect natural 

processes and maintain or improve ecosystem health. Both 

alternatives would reduce the amount of dense, multistory 

stand conditions. Both alternatives would maintain mosaics 

of untreated component of high percent canopy cover, 

multistory, dense, mature to overmature stand conditions 

within treated areas. 

Treatments (commercial harvest, pre-treatments, and 

prescribed fire) would result in increased sunlight, increased 

soil moisture, and decreased needle mat, which would 

stimulate growth of understory plants. 

On untreated areas, tree density would continue to increase. 

This would increase competition for limited water, nutrients, 

and light in absence of disturbance. This would result in 

decreased health and vigor of the trees and reduce forest 

health. 

Nearly all of the weed treatments would be applied before 

and/or after the areas are treated with prescribed fire or 

mechanical methods. 

Fewer acres of dense, multi-story stand and closed-canopy 

conditions would be treated under Alternative A. These 

conditions heighten the risk of stand replacement wildfire. 

Forest health would also continue to decline on more areas 

with Alternative A, since fewer dense, overstocked stands 

would be treated. 

Hazardous fuels treatments of ponderosa pine forestlands 

in the Big Dry Planning Area would be affected by an 

existing decision that prohibits sales of sawtimber (except 

for salvage harvest and sale of ponderosa pine affected by 

insects, fire, or other natural causes). Remaining 

management options for treating hazardous fuels would 

include the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments 

that do not include sale of sawtimber (i.e., treatment of smalldiameter trees and cutting but piling or chipping sawtimbersized logs). However, treatments that involve piling or 

chipping sawtimber (rather than making it available to 

sustain the local economy) would be inconsistent with the 

intent of forest manual 5000-1, which establishes utilization 

of commercial products as a basic tenet of the forestry 

program. Therefore, those treatments that necessitate 

removal of sawtimber before prescribed fire can be used 

safely or small-diameter trees can be treated effectively 

would be inconsistent with current RMP decisions. Since 

dry, low elevation forests like ponderosa pine have been 

among those most affected by departure from the nautral 

fire regime, the limitation on management options within 

the Big Dry planning area would severely constrain BLM’s 

ability to treat hazardous fuels and allow fire to play its 

natural role. 

Although Alternative B includes more acres of treatment 

and thus increases potential for spread of noxious weeds, 

chemical weed treatments would be applied in support of 

the fuels project to mitigate the increased potential. These 

treatments would generally be applied before fuels reduction 

treatments, and would also be applied after treatments if 

necessary. 

Under Alternative B, dense, overstocked multistory stand 

conditions would be reduced on more than twice as many 

acres with Alternative B than with Alternative A. The 

intensity and severity of wildland fires would be reduced 

on 37 percent of BLM forestlands over a 10-year period. 

As fires become less severe, the adverse impacts of wildland 

fire suppression activities would also be reduced on these 

areas, as would the extent of rehabilitation needed after 

wildland fire. 

With Alternative B, the sale of sawtimber in the Big Dry 

Planning Area would be allowed. This would make fuels 

treatments less costly, more effective, and more feasible. 

3.2.4 Special Status Plant Species 

Affected Environment (Plants – Special Status 

Species) 

BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and direction for the 

conservation of special status species of plants and animals, 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Categories of 

Special Status Species (SSS) are: A.- Federally Listed 

Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical 

Habitats; B. – Federally Proposed Species and Proposed 

Critical Habitats; C. – Candidate Species; D. – State Listed 

Species; and E. – BLM Sensitive Species. 

An analysis of effects to federally listed threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species, proposed and designated 

critical habitat is provided in the Biological Assessment and 

is summarized in Section 3.8 of this document. The 

Biological Assessment prepared for this proposed action, 

along with the Letter of Concurrence and Biological Opinion 

from the Fish and Wildlife Service, are incorporated in their 

entirety into this Environmental Assessment by reference 

and are available upon request. 

Other plant species that exist in the area of influence and 

are given special consideration under BLM Manual 6840 

include 28 BLM sensitive plants. See Table 7. 

The State (North and South Dakota) threatened and 

endangered species list and the Montana Species of Concern 

list contain other species in addition to those on the federal 

33

list. BLM gives all special status species consideration to 

ensure continued survival. 

Environmental Consequences (Plants - Species of 

Concern): 

Unidentified, unknown populations of special status plants 

in or near a treatment area would be vulnerable to any of 

the impacts discussed under impacts to vegetation. Special 

status plants could benefit from treatments designed to 

enhance habitats; e.g., removal of competing exotics. 

All BLM actions would be evaluated for potential effect on 

BLM Sensitive and federally listed species. However, some 

direct and indirect impacts would occur. 

Little or no impact would be anticipated since sites would 

be inventoried for species of concern prior to treatment. 

Because of current guidance, there would be no impact on 

BLM land to federally listed species, under either alternative. 

BLM would consult with appropriate state agencies for 

adverse impact to state-listed species. Species of concern 

that are not federally protected may be impacted by habitat 

changes or in association with vegetation removal. 

Table 7 BLM (Montana and Dakotas) Designated Plant Sensitive Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Known Occurrence 

Cusick’s horse-mint 

Sapphire rockcress 

Painted milkvetch 

Geyer milkvetch 

Bitterroot milkvetch 

Railhead milkvetch 

Obscure evening-primrose 

Small camissonia 

Craw’s sedge 

Idaho sedge 

Miner’s candle 

Sand wild-rye 

Smooth buckwheat 

Garnet bladderpod 

Pryor Mountains bladderpod 

Beautiful bladderpod 

Taper-tip desert-parsley 

Desert dandelion 

Nama 

Pale evening-primrose 

Lemhi beardtongue 

Whipple’s beardtongue 

Bur oak 

Shoshonea 

Chicken sage 

Rocky Mountain dandelion 

Alpine meadowrue 

Northwestern thelypody 

Agastache cusickii 

Arabis fecunda 

Astragalus ceramicus apus 

Astragalus geyeri 

Astragalus scaphoides 

Astragalus terminalis 

Camissonia andina 

Camissonia parvula 

Carex crawei 

Carex parryana idahoa 

Cryptantha scoparia 

Elymus flavescens 

Eriogonum salsuginosum 

Lesquerella carinata languida 

Lesquerella lesicii 

Lesquerella pulchella 

Lomatium attenuatum 

Malacothrix torreyi 

Nama densum 

Oenothera pallida idahoensis 

Penstemon lemhiensis 

Penstemon whippleanus 

Quercus macrocarpa 

Shoshonea pulvinata 

Sphaeromeria argenta 

Taraxacum eriophorum 

Thalictrum alpinum 

Thelypodium paniculatum 

Dillon FO 

Butte FO, Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

Billings FO 

Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

Billings FO 

Billings FO 

Lewistown FO 

Dillon FO 

Billings FO 

Dillon FO 

Billings FO 

Missoula FO 

Billings FO 

Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

Billings FO 

Billings FO 

Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

Miles City FO 

Billings FO 

Dillon FO 

Butte FO, Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

Dillon FO 

34

Conclusion (Vegetation): 

Condition Class 2 and 3 characteristics occur on 6 percent 

of grasslands, 12 percent shrublands, and 85 percent of 

forestlands administered by the BLM. 

With both alternatives: 

• Little or no impact would be anticipated on Special 

Status plant species since sites would be inventoried 

for species of concern prior to treatment. Because of 

current guidance, there would be no impact on BLM 

land to federally listed species, under either alternative. 

BLM would consult with appropriate state agencies for 

adverse impact to state-listed species. Species of 

concern that are not federally protected may be impacted 

by habitat changes or in association with vegetation 

removal. 

• With proper management, including application of 

Standards for Rangeland Health, most treated lands 

would move toward proper functioning condition. 

• Treatments would help sustain the ecological health and 

function of fire-adapted grasslands, shrublands, and 

forestlands. 

• The size, intensity, and severity of wildland fires would 

be reduced within treated areas. The risk of losing key 

ecosystem components would be reduced. 

• On areas with Condition Class 2 and 3 attributes that 

are not treated, trends (conditions) created by fire 

exclusion would continue, including: 

o	 Dense, overstocked stands of timber in fire adapted 

forests that are beyond their natural fire return 

intervals. These stands are typically vulnerable to 

insects and disease. 

o	 Loss of grassland and shrubland habitats to conifer 

encroachment. 

o	 Moderate to high potential for catastrophic 

wildland fire. 

• Based on the proportion of total BLM lands that would 

be treated over 10 years and application of Standards 

for Rangeland Health, no unacceptable adverse or 

significant impacts on vegetation would be anticipated 

with fuels treatments proposed under either alternative. 

Neither alternative would cause a significant impact to the 

ecological health of grasslands, shrublands, or forestlands. 

With Alternative A: 

• About 193,000 acres would be treated within a decade 

(130,000 acres of forestlands, 50,000 acres of 

grasslands, 9,000 acres of shrublands, and 4,000 acres 

of other lands). 

• Fuel treatments would affect about 1 percent of BLM 

administered grasslands and shrublands and about 17 

percent of forestlands. 

• After the treatments completed in the 10 years, 

Condition Class 2 and 3 characteristics would remain 

on an estimated 5 percent of grasslands, 11 percent of 

shrublands, and 68 percent of forestlands. 

• Since fewer acres would be treated, full suppression 

would continue to be necessary on more acres compared 

to Alternative B. The opportunity for wildland fire to 

play its natural role or achieve resource benefits would 

also be limited on these acres. 

With Alternative B: 

• About 457,000 acres would be treated per decade 

(283,000 acres of forestlands, 90,000 acres of 

grasslands, 77,000 acres of shrublands, and 7,000 acres 

of other lands). 

• Fuel treatments would affect about 2 percent of BLM 

administered grasslands, 3 percent of shrub lands, and 

about 37 percent of forestlands. 

• After 10 years, Condition Class 2 and 3 characteristics 

would remain on an estimated 4 percent of grasslands, 

9 percent of shrublands, and 48 percent of forestlands. 

• Alternative B would reduce hazardous fuels, improve 

the ecological health of forestlands, and contribute to 

proper functioning condition on more than twice as 

many acres that are beyond their natural fire cycles as 

compared to Alternative A. Alternative B would better 

meet the goals of increasing protection of human life 

and property, reducing the risk and cost of severe 

wildland fires, minimizing the adverse effects of 

wildland fire suppression, and meeting other fire and 

resource management objectives. 

3.3 Air Quality (BLM Critical Element) 

Affected Environment (Air) 

In undeveloped areas, ambient air pollutant levels should 

be near or below measurable limits. Locations near industrial 

developments and population centers are most vulnerable 

to air quality impacts from emissions sources such as 

automotive exhaust, residential wood smoke, and industrial 

pollution. Noise levels are site specific, and are variable. 

Rural noise levels should average less than 50 decibels Aweighted (dbA), with occasional peak levels to 70 dbA. 

35

National Ambient Air Quality Standards limit the amount 

of specific pollutants allowed in the atmosphere: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and 

particulate matter (inhalable particulates, or PM10, and fine 

particulates, or PM2.5). 

Any decisions or actions related to prescribed burning and 

other fuel reductions projects must comply with air quality 

legislation, including the Clean Air Act of 1977. Through 

the Clean Air Act, Congress established a system for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of areas with 

air pollutant concentrations below the national standards 

(designated as “attainment” or “unclassified”). PSD areas 

are classified by the additional amounts of nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2

), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and inhalable particulate matter 

(PM10) degradation that would be allowed above a legally 

defined baseline level. PSD Class I areas, predominately 

large National parks, wilderness areas, and certain Indian 

reservations, have the greatest limitations; virtually any 

degradation would be apparent. Areas where moderate 

controlled growth can take place have been designated as 

PSD Class II. PSD Class III areas allow the greatest degree 

of degradation. 

The PSD regulations also address potential impacts to Air 

Quality Related Values (AQRVs) within mandatory Federal 

Class I areas. These AQRVs include visibility, odors, and 

impacts to flora, fauna, soils, water, geologic and cultural 

structures. A possible source of impact to AQRVs is acid 

precipitation. 

All BLM administered lands in Montana, South and North 

Dakota are designated PSD Class II. However several areas 

near BLM administered public lands are mandatory Federal 

Class I areas. These include the Anaconda-Pintler 

Wilderness, Gates of the Mountain Wilderness, SelwayBitteroot Wilderness, Glacier National Park, Cabinet 

Mountain Wilderness, Mission Mountains Wilderness, 

Scapegoat Wilderness, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Medicine 

Lake Wilderness, UL Bend Wilderness, Yellowstone 

National Park, Red Rock Lakes Wilderness, Lostwood 

Wilderness, Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North Unit, 

Elkhorn Ranch Unit, and South Unit), Wind Cave National 

Park, and Badlands Wilderness. In addition, the Flathead 

Indian Reservation, Fort Peck Indian Reservation, and 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation have been 

redesignated PSD Class I areas, although the Fort Belknap 

Indian Reservation remains a PSD Class II area. 

Areas that consistently violate federal standards because of 

human activities are classified as “nonattainment” and must 

implement a plan to reduce ambient concentrations below 

maximum pollution standards. Nonattainment areas in 

Montana include Great Falls, Columbia Falls, Flathead 

County (Whitefish and vicinity), Kalispell, Polson, Ronan, 

East Helena, Libby, Missoula, Lame Deer, Sanders County 

(Thompson Falls and vicinity), Butte, Billings and Laurel. 

There are no nonattainment areas in North or South Dakota. 

All Bureau authorized or initiated activities within these 

areas are required to perform a “conformity” applicability 

determination and/or analysis before the action may take 

place. 

Environmental Consequences (Air) 

Fires are a source of air pollutant emissions during 

combustion of various ages, sizes, and types of vegetation. 

The amount of emissions depends on the size and intensity 

of the fire, the fuel type and moisture content, and the 

available fuel loading. The level of resulting air quality 

impact depends on the amount and duration of emissions, 

atmospheric dispersion conditions, and terrain. The most 

effective means of controlling air pollutant emissions from 

wildland fire is to reduce the number of large, catastrophic 

fires through selective vegetation treatments that break up 

heavy, continuous fuels. Depending on the conditions, 

managed natural fires, prescribed fires, and mechanical 

treatments can be effective methods to reduce heavy fuels. 

When properly executed, managed fires may be much 

smaller and involve less combustion, occurring when the 

fuel type, loading and fuel characteristics, as well as weather 

conditions, are optimized to enhance efficient fuel 

consumption and air pollutant dispersion. By reducing the 

risk of uncontrolled wildland fire, the risk of significant air 

quality impacts is also reduced. 

Other impacts to air quality would include moderate 

increases in noise, dust, and combustion engine exhaust 

generated by manual and mechanical treatment methods, 

aerial application of fire retardant, moderate noise and 

minimal chemical drift from application of herbicides. 

Resulting impacts would be temporary, small in scale, and 

quickly dispersed. These factors, combined with standard 

operating procedures, would minimize potential air quality 

impacts. Applicable federal, state, tribal and local air quality 

regulations would not be violated. 

Potential air quality impacts would be assessed before project 

implementation. Site-specific plans would be reviewed for 

compliance with applicable laws and policies, and existing 

air quality would be inventoried so that changes associated 

with the BLM proposals may be determined. Additional 

mitigation may be incorporated into specific project 

proposals to further reduce potential impacts. For example, 

prescribed burning activities must comply with the BLM 

Manual Sections 9211.31 (E), Fire Planning, and 9214.33, 

Prescribed Fire Management, to minimize air quality impacts 

from resulting smoke. This procedure requires compliance 

with individual state and local smoke management programs 

that specify the conditions under which burning may be 

conducted. 

Particulate matter and carbon monoxide are the primary air 

pollutants emitted during prescribed burning. Compliance 

36

with local smoke management programs would minimize 

these effects. The timing, vegetation type, size of burns, 

fuel arrangement and moisture, ignition techniques and 

patterns, and weather conditions are all specified to keep 

smoke concentrations within acceptable limits. The actual 

level of impact will depend on a combination of all these 

factors. Prescribed burning would generally occur under 

more favorable atmospheric dispersion conditions to meet 

air quality regulations since the timing and location of 

wildland fires cannot be controlled. 

The Montana/Idaho Executive Airshed Board, which 

includes members from federal and state agencies and 

private industry, coordinates regional smoke impacts and 

smoke management for prescribed fires. 

Accumulation of smoke from controlled burning is limited 

through scientific monitoring of weather conditions and 

formal coordination of burns. For Montana, BLM submits 

a list of planned burns to the Monitoring Unit in Missoula, 

Montana. For each planned burn, information is provided 

describing the type of burn to be conducted, the number of 

acres, as well as the location and elevation at each site. Burns 

are reported by “airshed,” which are geographical areas with 

similar topography and weather patterns. The program 

coordinator and a meteorologist provide timely restriction 

messages for airsheds with planned burning. Weather 

balloons may be launched and tracked to identify specific 

atmospheric conditions to aid in decision-making. The 

Missoula Monitoring Unit issues daily decisions that can 

restrict burning when atmospheric conditions are not 

conducive to good smoke dispersion. Restrictions may be 

directed by airshed, elevation or by special impact zones 

around populated areas. The Monitoring Unit announces 

burning restrictions through 17 airshed coordinators located 

throughout Idaho and Montana. There is no formal 

organization to coordinate smoke management issues in the 

Dakotas. 

Potential cumulative impacts could occur when multiple fires 

occur simultaneously or when other non-fire related 

activities are also contributing to air quality impacts. Under 

current procedures, if the cumulative impacts are anticipated 

to violate applicable air quality standards, prescribed burns 

are not conducted until conditions improve. 

Conclusion (Air): 

Overall, air quality impacts would be greater from wildland 

fires than from fuel treatments since wildland fires are 

generally larger and often occur under poor atmospheric 

dispersion conditions. Since more severe wildland fires are 

expected to occur under Alternative A, air quality impacts 

are expected to be greater than under Alternative B, even 

though Alternative B would have a greater number of 

prescribed fires and other fuels treatments. Cumulative air 

quality impacts from multiple wildland fires are more likely 

under Alternative A. 

Neither Alternative A nor Alternative B would exceed state 

or federal ambient air quality standards as the result of fire 

and fuels management. 

3.4 Soils 

Affected Environment (Soils) 

Soils are extremely variable across Montana and the 

Dakotas, having different physical characteristics such as 

depth and texture; and different chemical properties such as 

alkalinity and nutrient content. These characteristics are 

influenced by parent material, regional and local climate, 

vegetation, slope, aspect and time. The hundreds of soil types 

that occur on BLM lands are referenced in most BLM 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs), and are available from 

related published soil surveys, electronic data files and 

various web sites. 

Soils located on BLM lands in Montana and the Dakotas 

have developed in a semi-arid environment that provides 

for the many combinations of soil forming factors to affect 

soil development, use and management. These various 

combinations of soil properties influence and in many 

instances control the amount and types of vegetation, land 

use and potential vegetation. 

Environmental Consequences (Soils) 

Prescribed burning affects soils primarily by consuming live 

vegetative cover; litter; organic soil layers; down, dead, and 

wood fuels (Wright and Bailey 1982). Fire may alter soil 

chemical properties, nutrient availability, postfire soil 

temperatures, microorganism populations and their activity 

rates, and erosion. The degree of short-term effect on these 

characteristics depends on the ignition technique; dead fuel, 

live fuel, thickness, and density of litter and organic layers. 

Soil texture, soil moisture at the time of burning, and depth 

and duration of lethal heat penetration into organic and soil 

horizons are all critical factors. Significant deep soil heating 

would be anticipated when there is long duration burning in 

thick organic layers of heavy accumulations of dead woody 

debris, such as slash piles (Frandsen and Ryan, 1986). Moist 

soils limit the depth of soil heating. 

Nutrient and soil losses from a burned site and postfire 

erosion are closely related to burn severity, soil type, 

topography, and remaining plant cover. The single most 

important erosion factor is the timing of vegetative recovery 

with the severity of precipitation events. If postfire rains 

are gentle, some nutrients released by a fire may be 

reabsorbed; however these nutrients are generally lost during 

severe, erosive rainfall. 

37

Changes in soil chemical properties, including soil nutrients, 

caused by burning usually include an increase in soluble 

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, magnesium, 

sodium, and calcium, and an increase in soil pH (Fuller et al 

1955; Summerfield 1976). After very severe burns, however, 

actual increases/decreases may be different. 

Soil microorganism mortality depends on depth and duration 

of soil heating; initial decline is anticipated postburn 

(Jurgenson et al 1979) but populations may quickly recover 

to greater than preburn populations (Wright and Bailey 

1980). Nitrifying bacteria, however, are extremely sensitive 

to fire over wet and dry soil and do not recover quickly 

(Dunn and Debano 1977). Heterotrophic bacteria respond 

similarly but at higher temperatures (ibid). When related to 

metabolic processes, microbial populations are not adversely 

affected by prescribed burning (Wright and Bollen 1961, 

Jorgenson and Hodges 1971, Summerfield 1976). 

Appreciable changes in soil mineral fractions would not be 

anticipated as a result of prescribed burning (Beaton 1959, 

Summerfield 1976). The impacts caused by severe fires; 

e.g., loss of structure and reduced porosity/infiltration rates 

(Ralston and Hatchell 1971) can be avoided with a properly 

designed prescribed fire prescription. 

The potential for significant post-fire erosion depends on 

the amount of residual vegetation and organic matter, the 

rate and amount of vegetative recovery, and slope. These 

factors would be considered before prescribed burning. On 

forestland soils, litterfall of scorched conifer needles may 

minimize erosion. Effects to fragile or erodible soils can be 

mitigated by prescribing for the needed amount of fuel and 

organic layer moisture to minimize organic layer removal; 

timing the fire so that seasonal vegetation recovery would 

occur soon after the burn; and leaving mosaics of unburned 

areas within the fire perimeter. 

Additional information specific to vegetation types is 

provided below. 

Sagebrush: Most litter associated with sagebrush plants is 

located directly under the plant; physical and chemical 

effects from soil heating would primarily occur in this area. 

Wind erosion of topsoil is likely on exposed areas. Seasonal 

timing of the burn in relation to plant recovery is especially 

important; seasonal potential for severe precipitation or high 

winds should be considered for these sites during project 

planning. 

Summerfield (1976) found that organic matter, pH, and 

nitrogen may increase in soil surface layers following 

prescribed burns, but an earlier report by Blaisdell (1953) 

found that pH did not change after sagebrush grass burning. 

Burning sagebrush and leaf mulch may produce short-term 

water repellency in soils under sagebrush plants; however, 

burning while soil and mulch are cool will reduce or 

eliminate this potential (Salik et al 1973). 

Forest/Woodlands: Organic matter reduction is correlated 

to the reduction in total nitrogen on the forest floor; however, 

nitrogen accumulation occurs in the 0-to-2 inch soil layer 

(Wells et al 1979). Phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and 

magnesium may increase in the 0-to-2 inch layer of forest 

soils post-burn (Wells et al 1979), although Campbell et al 

(1977) reported lower levels of potassium in burned (as 

compared to unburned) plots. Prescribed burning does not 

appear to alter soil microorganism populations to the extent 

that soil metabolic processes would be impaired (Jorgenson 

and Hodges 1971); rather, it seems to enhance metabolic 

processes in the short term. 

Physical properties, primarily water infiltration, would be 

most at risk from severe burning, whereas they are only 

slightly affected by light burning (Fuller et al 1955). Low 

moisture in fuels, duff and soil (e.g. during periods of 

drought), in combination with heavy fuel loads, create the 

potential for severe burning. Temporary increases in 

overland water flow and erosion may also result where 

severe fires denude soil cover and alter soil physical 

properties (Hendricks and Johnson undates, Holecheck et 

al 1989). 

Holecheck et al (1989) also found that burning heavy fuels 

such as forest slash may decrease soil aggregates and 

porosity, and increase bulk density for up to four years; some 

forest soils beneath slash piles may also become temporarily 

resistant to wetting after piles are burned. 

Soils that support juniper may show reduced infiltration rates 

following burns (Buckhouse and Gifford 1976a) and 

increased amounts of phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, and 

carbon for the first year following debris pile burns (Gifford 

1981). Buckhorse and Gifford (1976b) noted greater 

amounts of potassium and phosphorus in overland flow from 

burned areas as compared to unburned areas. The 1991 

Vegetation Treatments EIS also noted potential for soil 

sterilization caused by pile burning on soils that support 

juniper. Burning the slash where it falls, rather than piling 

it, can reduce the potential for sterilization, and may improve 

nutrient release and efficacy of the fuels treatment as well. 

Grasslands: Excessive litter accumulations may reduce 

microorganism activity (Wright and Bailey 1982) and 

nitrification; nitrogen-fixing and ammonification are 

increased by pH and the increased concentration of 

electrolytes after burning. Soil losses after burning on most 

grasslands are minimal because the grasses evolved under 

frequent fire regimes and have root systems adapted to fire. 

Roots from sod and bunch grasses remain in place, reducing 

erosion and facilitating rapid vegetation recovery. 

38

Severe (high soil temperature) burns on mountain/plateau 

grassland sites may form a water-repellant layer in some 

soils (USDA 1988). However, this direct impact to soil 

infiltration rates in typically avoided with prescribed burns. 

Conclusion (Soils) 

Treatments associated with Alternative A would help achieve 

soil-related land health standards (soil stability and 

watershed function) on approximately 193,000 acres per 

decade. Indicators to assess soil stability and watershed 

function relate to soil erosion and infiltration or capture and 

use of precipitation. 

The number of acres burned by wildland fires, the severity 

of those fires, and the acres needing rehabilitation, would 

be lower with Alternative B, mainly on category B and C 

fire management zones. 

Treatments anticipated with Alternative B would help 

achieve soil-related land health standards (soil stability and 

watershed function) on more than twice as many acres over 

a 10-year period as compared to Alternative A. 

3.5 Water Quality (BLM Critical Element) 

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 establishes protective 

measures for culinary water systems by providing standards 

that regulate allowable contaminant levels. This would not 

be affected by either fire management alternative. 

The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended by the Water 

Quality Act of 1987 provides national policy and mandates 

the control of non-point pollution. Agencies are directed to 

develop and implement programs to meet the goals of this 

act through the control of both point and non-point pollution. 

Environmental Consequences (Water) 

Wildland fires and fuel treatments reduce vegetation cover 

that buffers raindrops before they hit the soil surface. The 

lack of vegetative cover on burned or treated areas allows 

raindrops to increasing soil loss and sediment input to surface 

waters. Burned sites have lower soil-water infiltration rates 

which increases surface runoff and decreases soil moisture 

available for plants. Increased runoff can stress the stability 

of receiving streams and the associated aquatic biota. The 

seasonal timing, size, duration, and intensity of fires and 

fuels treatments determine the magnitude of impacts. 

Intense wildland fires cause greater increases in water 

temperature, sedimentation, and turbidity by burning off 

vegetative cover, exposing mineral soil, and increasing 

runoff. Accelerated erosion also increases with surface 

disturbing activities such as the use of heavy equipment to 

blade fire lines, hand tool fire line construction, and off road 

vehicle use. Sediment from accelerated soil erosion and 

elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorous from ash are 

common in water after wildfires. Water quality impacts 

related to fire and disturbance depend on the amount of 

accelerated erosion. Often these impacts are short term and 

conditions return to pre-fire levels once vegetation is reestablished. Burning or killing streamside vegetation reduces 

shade and increases water temperature. 

Fire retardant is never intentionally dropped on surface 

waters. However, accidental releases and fish kills do occur. 

When sodium ferrocyanide, commonly used as a corrosion 

inhibitor in fire retardant formulations, is dissolved in water 

and exposed to ultraviolet radiation, it breaks down to form 

hydrogen cyanide, which is toxic to aquatic life. Ammonia 

is highly soluble and typically results when fertilizers or 

retardants are added to water. In highly alkaline waters 

ammonia concentrations increase and can reach toxic levels. 

Guidelines for Aerial Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near 

Waterways require retardant or foam to be kept 300 feet 

from lakes, rivers, streams and ponds. 

Both prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments 

increase stream nutrients, storm flows, and sediment loads; 

the amount of increase depends on fire severity or the amount 

of disturbance. Slash burns increase concentrations of some 

nitrogen compounds and cations; however, drinking water 

standards would not be exceeded. Underburns and grassland 

burns would have no significant effect on nutrients. 

Moderate slash burns may increase storm flow volumes and 

peaks to streams by reducing the water used by remaining 

vegetation. Severe burns expose mineral soil and increase 

surface runoff through decreased soil permeability. 

Decreased permeability is most common in shrub 

communities located on dry sandy soils (Debano et al. 1976), 

but also occur in forest soils (Zwolinski and Ehrenreich 

1967). Underburns would not affect water quality, and 

grassland burns would affect it for only a few weeks until 

grass re-grows. These burns would not significantly affect 

stream flows. 

Invading junipers often compete with and eventually reduce 

understory vegetation. Resulting bare soils are subject to 

accelerated erosion. These trees use much more moisture 

than shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Treatments that removes 

these trees cause increased water yield, rejuvenate springs, 

allow understory to recover, and provide more watershed 

protection. 

To protect water quality and Special Status and sport fish 

habitat, a Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) would be 

maintained around riparian, streamside, lakeside, and 

wetland areas. This 50-foot (minimum) buffer zone helps 

preserve ecological processes by creating a vegetation filter 

that removes sediment before it reaches water bodies 

(Montana State University, 1991). 

39

Properly maintained SMZs protect trout fry and other young 

fish; maintain water temperatures necessary for spawning; 

introduce insects and other fish food to the water from 

streamside vegetation; stabilize streambanks and 

floodplains; and protect bird habitat and wildlife travel 

corridors associated with riparian areas. To minimize erosion 

and the amount of sediment that reaches waterways, care 

would be given to maintaining an SMZ of appropriate width. 

Conclusion (Water) 

In the long term, treatments anticipated with both alternatives 

would help reduce the risks of wildland fire impacts by 

improving the resource condition. Treatments would 

improve the ecological health and function of grasslands, 

shrublands, and forestlands per decade and would help 

maintain water quality in water bodies within the affected 

watersheds. Indicators would include one or more of the 

following: dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH, turbidity, 

temperature, sedimentation, water color, and toxins. 

Alternative B would better meet the land health standard of 

meeting state water quality standards because upland health 

would be improved by treating about 457,000 acres 

compared to 193,000 acres with Alternative A. 

Many of the potential water quality impacts from prescribed 

fires and mechanical fuels treatments would eventually be 

offset by reduced impacts from wildland fires. There is a 

greater expectation of increased water temperature, 

sedimentation, pH, ammonium, phosphate, and turbidity 

under Alternative A because of a greater long-term likelihood 

of severe wildland fire, especially on forestlands. Wildfires 

in these areas burn hotter and are more likely to also burn 

riparian areas that protect stream and ponds. 

3.6 Aquatic Habitats and Species (excluding 

federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and 

Proposed Species) 

Affected Environment (Aquatic Habitat and Species) 

Aquatic environments across the planning area are extremely 

variable, reflecting diverse geological settings, climates, 

disturbance histories, and past management. Aquatic habitattypes range from small, high-gradient montane streams to 

low-gradient large rivers such as the Missouri. Lakes, vernal 

ponds, wetlands and springs are all present across the 

planning area. Riparian and aquatic areas comprise only a 

small portion of the lands managed by the BLM; however, 

their ecological significance is far greater than their limited 

physical scope as these systems form some of the most 

dynamic and ecologically rich portions of the landscape 

(Elmore and Beschta 1987). 

Under natural conditions, riparian and aquatic ecosystems 

have a high degree of structural complexity, reflective of 

past disturbances such as floods, fire, ice floes, wind storms, 

grazing, disease and insect outbreaks (Gregory et al. 1991). 

In planning area riparian woodlands, fires were historically 

infrequent but often severe, generally occurring at 65- 150-

year recurrence intervals when appropriate weather, fuel, 

and ignition conditions were present. In the riparian shrub 

communities, fire was typically more frequent, occurring 

every 25 to 50 years. 

Historically, whether streamside vegetative communities 

were substantially burned or not, fires altered watersheds 

and aquatic systems, primarily through changes in sediment 

and stream flow regimes. These effects, however, were 

extremely variable. Watershed characteristics such as 

vegetation structure and seral-stage, inherent geology, 

pattern of geomorphic proccesses, and local climate and 

weather combined to influence the trajectory and magnitude 

of post-fire change to aquatic systems. 

Humans have altered stream aquatic and riparian 

environments by direct modifications (channelization, wood 

removal, diversion, dam-building, irrigation de-watering) 

and indirect impacts (from timber harvest, mining, grazing, 

and road building). These activities have altered channels 

by changing the rate at which sediment, water, and wood 

enter and are moved through streams. Anthropogenic 

activities have also affected the incidence, frequency, and 

magnitude of the natural disturbance events described above 

(McIntosh et al. 1994; Wissmar et al. 1994). 

Fishes 

Like the variety in aquatic and riparian habitat-types across 

the planning area, aquatic species communities are extremely 

diverse. Patterns of fish species diversity in the planning 

area reflect the glacial history of the area. East of the 

Continental Divide, after the retreat of the Laurentide Ice 

Sheet, the area Missouri River Basin was re-colonized by 

fishes from southern refugia in the Missouri River. In the 

Missouri Basin, salmonid species are present in colder, 

higher-gradient streams; however, a diverse assemblage of 

fishes adapted to warmer waters and lower-gradient streams 

is present. In addition to numerous species in the Cyprinidae 

and Catastomidae families, glacial “relicts” such as pallid 

sturgeon and paddlefish are present. 

Fish species assemblages on the west side of the Continental 

Divide (primarily the Missoula Field Office) are typical of 

formerly glaciated regions: the absence of major refugia 

meant that fewer species survived glaciation, but among 

those species, numerous genetically divergent populations 

or “stocks” evolved. These unique stocks often exhibit 

unique morphology, behavior, and life histories specially 

adapted to their home environment (Wood 1995, Schluter 

1996). 

40

Fishes in the planning area evolved in habitats characterized 

by frequent and occasionally severe disturbance. Floods, 

fire, and wind storms helped to create and maintain the 

structurally complex environments important for the all life 

stages of many fish species. In montane aquatic 

environments in particular, fire and flood were the two 

primary natural disturbance mechanisms responsible for 

initiating stream dynamics and increasing habitat complexity 

and diversity. Erosion and woody debris recruitment 

following forest fires was critical in re-establishing young, 

biologically rich stream systems (Keane et al. 1999). Over 

longer time periods, fires recycled nutrients, regulated forest 

development, and biomass. The effects of these processes 

were ultimately transferred to stream channels. It is likely 

that drainage-scale extirpations of fishes followed largescale, intense wildfires; however, regional populations were 

strong enough to provide individuals to quickly recolonize 

impacted areas. 

Habitat fragmentation by dams, road culverts, stream 

dewatering, or temperature barriers have isolated populations 

and can preclude fish from moving to avoid localized fire 

effects. Historically, if local extinctions did occur, these 

areas were refounded by nearby populations through an 

“open” stream network. Current conditions often prevent 

this as populations have been isolated by irrigation 

withdrawals, dams, culverts, etc. Thus, local impacts may 

affect population viability more than they would have 

historically. 

Habitat condition (quality) has declined and become less 

diverse, leaving native fish populations less fit and less 

resilient to watershed disturbances. Roads have been 

identified as one of the most significant factors in stream 

habitat degradation (Meehan 1991, USDA 1997). 

Historically, roads were not present and didn’t affect 

hydrologic or erosional patterns. Now, however, extensive 

road networks contribute chronic sediment inputs to stream 

systems. Effects are compounded when fires remove trees 

and other vegetation within drainages. 

The depletions of native fishes in the Planning Area have 

been well documented. Westslope cutthroat trout currently 

occupy only 2.5 percent of their historic range in Montana; 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout are found in 32 percent of their 

historic range (primarily in headwater streams); and fluvial 

Arctic grayling are limited to 4 percent of their native range. 

Only salmonids are described because much more is known 

about their population trends. The 18 Special Status fish 

species are listed in Table 8. 

Amphibians 

Amphibians (salamanders, frogs, and toads) are extremely 

important in aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Because 

they reach tremendously high biomasses in some areas, 

they represent a potentially important food source for 

animals at higher trophic levels and thus probably play an 

important role in energy flow through the system (Plough 

1980). Factors influencing the distribution of amphibians 

include glaciation, the proximity of “source” species for 

post-glaciation recolonization, present geography and 

topography, and local climate. In particular, the presence 

of water or moist conditions is extremely important to 

amphibians and significantly affects their patterns of 

distribution at local and regional scales as well as activity 

patterns and ability to disperse following disturbance 

(Gregory 1988). 

Like fishes, amphibians evolved in environments 

characterized by episodic and occasionally severe 

disturbance. Natural disturbance patterns are important in 

creating and maintaining habitats crucial to their life 

histories. Periodic fires likely contributed to the amount of 

down woody debris required by terrestrial amphibians 

(Russel et al. 1999). 

It is difficult to explain the decline of amphibians. The 

factors most pertinent to the proposed project are: timber 

harvest, livestock grazing, fire and fire management 

activities, road and trail development and on- and off-road 

vehicle use, development and management of recreational 

facilities and water impoundments, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

Amphibians (particularly salamanders) have complex life 

histories, characterized by distinct developmental stages. 

Each stage requires a complex set of habitats connected by 

suitable migratory corridors. Loss or exclusion from any 

one of these habitats may cause the species to decline or be 

extirpated from a local area. Thus, although amphibians 

evolved in an environment characterized by disturbance, 

anthropogenic factors such as stream culverts (blocking 

upstream migration), road system (blocking overland 

migration), timber harvest (exposing large areas of ground 

to increased desiccation from thermal radiation) have 

depleted the capacity of amphibians to re-populate areas once 

local populations are extirpated. 

Amphibians also have suffered substantial regional declines. 

The Planning Area contains seven species of amphibians 

for which low population numbers or extremely rare 

sightings have warranted listing as BLM Sensitive and State 

Species of Concern. One species, the Coeur d-Alene 

salamander is currently a candidate for listing under the ESA. 

See Table 8 for seven Special Status amphibians in the 

Planning Area. 

41

Table 8: Aquatic Special Status Species in the Planning Area 

Species Name Status1 Species Name Status1 

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus LE, S1 Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus S2, SS 

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus LT, S2 Pearl Dace Semotilus margarita S2, SS 

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi LR, S2, SS Sturgeon Chub Macrohybopsis gelida S2, SS 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi S2, SS Sicklefin Chub Macrohybopsis meeki S1, SS 

Arctic grayling (fluvial) Thymallus arcticus montanus LC, S1 Coeur d’Alene salamander Plethodon idahoensis S2,SS 

Paddlefish Polydon spatula S1,S2, SS Canadian toad Bufo hemiphrys S1 SS 

Shortnose gar Lepisosteus platstomus S1, SS Wood frog Rana sylvatica SR, SS 

Northern Redbelly X Finescale Dace Phoxinus eos x P. neogaeus S3, SS Spotted frog Rana luteiventris S4, SS 

Tailed frog Ascaphus truei S4, SS Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina S3, SS 

Spiny Softshell turtle S3, SS 

1

Status 

Federal Status 

LE = Listed as Endangered under the ESA 

LT = Listed as Threatened under the ESA 

LC = Candidate for Listing under the ESA 

LR = Under status review for potential listing 

SS = BLM Sensitive Species: imperiled in at least part of its 

range and documented to occur within area of BLM 

jurisdiction. 

State Status (Montana Only) 

S1 = Critically imperiled because of extreme 

rarity or because of some factor(s) in its biology 

making it especially vulnerable to extinction. 

S2 = Imperiled because of rarity or because of 

other factors demonstrably making it very 

vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

S3 = Either very rare or local throughout its 

range, or found locally (even abundantly in some 

locations in a restricted range, or vulnerable 

throughout its range because of other factors. 

Environmental Consequences - Aquatic Habitat and 

Species 

Aquatic resources could be affected by: 

•	 presence/absence of protective guidelines for aquatic 

species and habitats; 

• changes in wildfire frequency and severity; 

• need for more frequent aggressive wildfire suppression; 

• intensity and scope of projects. 

1. Guidelines for Aquatic Species and Habitat 

Key effect: Implementation of Alternative B would facilitate 

protection of aquatic resources during fuels management 

planning. 

With Alternative A, little guidance for protection of aquatic 

species, especially amphibians, is provided. Except for 

projects where ESA-listed species are present or mandatory 

terms and conditions apply, fuels management must comply 

with State-required minimum Stream Management Zone 

(SMZ) to protect aquatic resources. The SMZ, a 50’ notreatment zone where sideslopes are <35 degrees (Montana 

Dept. of Natural Resources 1995), is intended to limit 

sedimentation; however, these SMZs are often insufficient 

to protect key functional elements of aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems (see review in Quigley et al. 1997). Isolated 

wetlands, which are important amphibian habitats, receive 

no formal protection. Thus, there would be greater 

uncertainty for ecological outcomes under Alternative A 

based on the absence of consistent protection of aquatic 

resources and reliance on state-required minimum riparian 

protections. 

Guidance under Alternative B would provide greater 

protection of aquatic species and habitat. Guidance that 

establishes Riparian Protection Zones (RPZs) would be 

42

incorporated into fuels management projects, where riparian 

resources receive primary management emphasis, and 

require analysis of project-related impacts to specific 

elements of riparian and aquatic function. The configuration 

of the RPZs are based on widely accepted riparian and 

aquatic protection strategies (FEMAT (1993), PACFISH 

(1995), and INFISH (1995)). These RPZs are designed to 

protect a comprehensive suite of ecological processes, and 

would protect amphibians and fishes. Alternative B would 

also require that specific risk analyses at the project scale 

be conducted for fragmented, at-risk populations (such as 

isolated populations of genetically pure westslope cutthroat 

trout) which may be substantially affected or potentially 

extirpated by both wildfire and fuels management activities. 

Thus, fewer adverse effects to aquatic resources would likely 

occur under Alternative B. 

2. Severity and Frequency of Wildfire 

Key effect: Implementation of Alternative B would reduce 

severity of wildfire. 

Wildfire, by itself, does not pose a particular risk to aquatic 

biota. Species have evolved in a dynamic and sometimes 

severe fire regime. Wildfire contributes large woody 

structure critically important in stream ecosystem function. 

Many of the habitat features such as deep pools and beaver 

ponds, extensive riparian wetlands, and saturated floodplains 

that historically enabled aquatic species to survive during 

wildfire and to re-colonize following fire have been 

substantially diminished. In some areas, past management 

activities have reduced the abundance and quality of those 

features. Habitat fragmentation by dams, roads, culverts, 

and dewatering can prevent individuals and populations from 

escaping wildfire effects and may block re-colonization. 

Species found in small, montane streams (e.g., westslope 

cutthroat trout and tailed frog larvae) may be particularly 

vulnerable to wildfire because these hillslope-constrained 

systems lack substantial surface flow, moist floodplains, and 

the associated riparian microhabitats that buffer larger, 

unconstrained systems from adjacent flames. 

Under Alternative A, substantially fewer acres would be 

treated to reduce fire risk. Remaining high fuel loads would 

result in more severe wildfires than historically occurred 

(especially in areas dominated by coniferous forests). 

Although fire is an important component of aquatic 

ecosystem function and a natural disturbance element to 

which native aquatic species are adapted, the severely 

diminished capacity of native species to survive or escape 

from fire is a source of substantial risk to the persistence of 

isolated populations. This has significant implications for 

the persistence of westslope cutthroat trout across the 

planning area. These fish have been severely impacted by 

introgression (interbreeding with exotic species and 

subsequent loss of substantial portions of the historic diverse 

genetic resource). Remaining isolated populations are 

considered critical for maintaining genetically pure stock 

for future broodstock should the fish be restored to historic 

habitats. Many of the remaining genetically pure populations 

are located in small, isolated stream channels on BLMmanaged lands within the area where increased fire risk has 

been identified (particularly in the Garnet Mountains, 

managed by the Missoula Field Office). 

Fuels management projects under Alternative B would 

reduce the risk of severe fires that could potentially threaten 

the survival of populations. Although there are adverse 

impacts associated with the implementation of the projects 

(see Section 4, below), carefully planned reduction of risk 

may be preferable for selected populations without the 

natural capacity to survive a wildfire. 

3. Greater Reliance on Emergency Suppression 

Key effect: Reducing wildfire risk and intensity reduces the 

future need for aggressive emergency suppression. 

The risk of severe wildland fire would be greater under 

Alternative A and there would be more frequent and 

widespread use of fire suppression. Suppression operations 

introduce fire retardant, aviation fuel, or lubricants into 

streams and wetlands; expose soils on steep slopes adjacent 

to streams during fire line construction; damage riparian 

vegetation and soils from use of heavy equipment off of 

established roads; reduce natural streamflow during drafting 

and pumping; and damage vegetation and soils if fire camps 

are established in or adjacent to sensitive riparian areas. 

Although minimum-impact suppression techniques 

(M.I.S.T.) and “light-on-the land” techniques have been 

developed, the primary objective during emergency 

suppression is to protect life and property. Because species 

and habitat protection is logically placed below protection 

of human life and property, there is no assurance that MIST 

techniques can and will be followed in all situations. 

Alternative B would reduce the severity of fires and the use 

of aggressive suppression operations on treated areas. Fuels 

projects would be designed and implemented in a “nonemergency” manner that minimizes impacts to aquatic 

resources. 

Although wildfires may still occur in areas where hazardous 

fuel loads have been reduced, fires that may occur are 

expected to be predominately ground fires rather than crown 

fires. Ground fires are easier to control with lower-impact 

suppression methods (such as hand-built fire line) that are 

less likely to adversely affect aquatic resources. In contrast, 

the crown fires associated with heavier fuel loads often 

require suppression techniques likely to have greater adverse 

impacts to aquatic habitats and species (e.g., retardant drops 

or heavy machinery to construct the wide lines required to 

contain them). Thus, in the long term, the need for 

suppression and the concurrent impacts of aggressive 

emergency suppression should be reduced under Alternative 

B. 

43

4. Intensity and Scope of the Projects 

Key Effect: More acres would be treated with fuels projects 

under Alternative B. 

The nature of fuel treatments would be similar under both 

alternatives. Mechanical treatments would include precommercial and commercial thinning, commercial timber 

harvest, overstory reduction, and construction of fuel breaks. 

Chemical treatments would be used for noxious weed 

control. Permanent water sources would be developed to 

support future fire suppression. Roads would be constructed 

and re-located. The direct and indirect effects of these 

activities are summarized below. 

•	 General Vegetation Management: Meehan (1991) 

reviews the effects of timber harvest and vegetation 

management on aquatic resources. In summary, 

removal of vegetation from hillslopes removes canopy 

cover and increases soil loss, resulting in increased 

stream temperatures and reduced supplies of large down 

wood. Timber harvest in these areas may alter 

streamflow regimes, accelerate surface erosion and 

mass wasting, resulting in increased sediment delivery 

and turbidity in streams. Small streams are likely to be 

more affected by activities on adjacent hillslopes than 

large streams because smaller channels respond more 

quickly to changes in hydrologic and sediment regimes, 

and because riparian vegetation is a more dominant 

factor in terms of organic inputs and shading (ICBEMP 

Vol 2). 

Removal of vegetation to reduce future fuel loads may 

be accomplished with minimal impacts in some areas, 

but in others, sensitivity to ground disturbance from 

loss of vegetation can cause increased erosion, 

compacted soils, and a loss of nutrients (USDA 2000, 

Beschta et al. 1995). Fuels management activities that 

increase the probability of chronic sediment inputs to 

aquatic systems may pose greater threats to fish, 

amphibians and aquatic ecosystem integrity than natural 

events associated with undesired forest stand condition 

(Frissell and Bayles, 1996). 

•	 Road Construction and Maintenance: Impacts of 

building forest roads have been documented by Reid 

and Dunne (1984), Chamberlain et al. (1991), and 

Furniss et al. (1991). Roads contribute more sediment 

to streams than other land management activity and 

most sediment from vegetation management activities 

is related to roads and road building and associated 

increases in erosion rates (Gibbons and Salo 1973, 

Swanson and Dyrness 1975, Swanston and Swanson 

1976, Beschta 1978, Gardner 1979, Reid and Dunne 

1984, Meehan 1991, Rhodes et al 1994). 

One mile of new road construction per decade would 

be anticipated with Alternative A compared to three 

miles of new roads under Alternative B. These would 

be rehabilitated after use. 

•	 Prescribed Fire: Although uncommon, improperly 

planned or “escaped” prescribed fire may burn riparian 

vegetation, reducing shade, exposing streamside soils, 

etc. Prescribed fires conducted in the spring (when 

drainage-bottoms are still snow covered) helps to protect 

streamside vegetation and soils, but may adversely 

affect amphibians. Many of Montana’s amphibians are 

most active on the ground surface during moist periods 

in the spring (see Turner 1957; Beneski et al. 1986; 

Hill 1995). As these animals migrate between terrestrial 

and aquatic habitats they may be particularly susceptible 

to fire because many migrate in mass and most remain 

closer to the ground surface where they may be more 

easily reached by flames. However, fire may also have 

positive indirect effects by restoring natural openings 

that allowed terrestrial amphibians to bask and forage 

(Kirkland et al. 1996). In addition, removal of forest 

trees immediately adjacent to wetlands may enhance 

the length of time ephemeral wetlands are present by 

reducing evapotranspiration (Russell et al. 1999b) and 

may reduce the length of the larval period of many 

amphibians by increasing solar radiation, thereby 

ensuring that metamorphosis takes place prior to pond 

drying (Russell et al. 1999b). 

An estimated 1-2 percent of prescribed fires “escape” 

bureau-wide (Al Carrier, NIFC, personal conversation, 

2003). 

•	 Chemical Treatment: The effects of chemical treatment 

of noxious weeds are summarized in Norris et al (1991). 

The introduction of a variety of chemicals into streams 

and wetlands may result in acute and chronic toxicity 

to aquatic species. Residents of small streams, springs, 

and wetlands are more likely to be affected because 

these habitats contain less water to dilute the chemical, 

and are less easily seen from the air (and avoided) during 

aerial application. Little if any research has been done 

on the effects of herbicides on amphibians in Montana/ 

Dakotas, but it is expected that amphibians would be 

most affected since the habitat-types they often occupy 

(i.e., small streams and seeps) are less efficient at 

diluting herbicide concentrations, and chemicals can 

more easily penetrate the breathable, permeable skin 

of amphibians. 

Following label directions for chemical use, BLM 

Manual 9011, BLM Handbook H9011-1 Chemical Pest 

Control Guidance, and the Riparian Protection Zone 

guidance (under Alternative B, See section 2.5.3.1) 

would reduce the likelihood of introducing chemicals 

44

that may be toxic to aquatic and amphibian species into 

streams and wetlands. 

Protection of life and property would have priority over 

resource objectives relating to aquatic resources and species 

during fire suppression; and maintenance of aquatic habitats 

and species are not included in “Required Outcomes” for 

all fuels reduction projects. Some projects involve multiple 

treatments of the same area, repeated entry into watersheds, 

and the maintenance of a road-based infrastructure. The 

negative effects of wildland fire may be severe, but wildfire 

represents an acute and isolated disturbance. “Refugetaking” by aquatic species is effective for survival during 

periodic, short-lived disturbance (e.g. wildfire), but negative 

effects from road construction and related management can 

be chronic or persistent, with effects lasting for decades (Poff 

and Ward 1990, Rieman and Clayton, 1997). Alternative B 

guidelines are designed to reduce the risk of these impacts. 

The primary difference between the alternatives is the 

magnitude of treatments planned. Although Alternative B 

would more than double the treatment acres, the presence 

of protective guidelines would reduce potentially greater 

impacts. Specific design features of Alternative B would 

be incorporated at the project scale to reduce impacts to 

particularly sensitive populations to the non-significant level. 

Conclusion (Aquatic Habitats and Species) 

Under Alternative A, aquatic organisms (especially isolated, 

depressed populations in smaller streams) would be at greater 

risk from severe wildfire because severe wildfire would be 

more likely. A lower level of fuels projects would occur, 

reducing the risks from management actions as compared 

to Alternative B. However, during fuels projects that did 

occur, a lower level of protection would be provided to 

aquatic species because projects would rely on existing RMP 

decisions and state guidance. 

Under Alternative B, the impacts of severe wildland fire 

and future needs for emergency wildfire suppression would 

be reduced. The potentially greater risks associated with 

higher levels of fuels treatment would not reach significant 

levels because of the guidelines included in the alternative. 

These design features also require that measures be included 

in project plans to reduce impacts to isolated, depressed 

populations of species that are at particular risk of extinction 

to non-significant levels. 

3.7 Terrestrial Species and Habitat (except 

for federally listed Threatened, Endangered, 

and Proposed Species) 

Affected Environment (Terrestrial Species and 

Habitat, including SSS) 

Plant communities on many western rangelands are no 

longer pristine and do not support pristine populations of 

wildlife species. Many rangeland plant communities have 

herbaceous weeds or a higher ratio of woody to herbaceous 

perennial vegetation than under pristine conditions. These 

vegetation conditions may favor certain wildlife species, 

such as chukar partridge, which utilize cheatgrass for food 

(Weaver and Haskell 1967), and disfavor other species, such 

as the pronghorn antelope, which require mixed-plant 

communities rather than those plant communities dominated 

by a few woody or herbaceous species (Yoakum 1975). In 

general, the greater the diversity of the plant community, 

the greater the diversity of the associated animal community 

(Gysel and Lyon 1980). 

Special Status Species 

This section analyzes candidate species, BLM sensitive 

species, and State listed species. The Biological Assessment 

(BA) completed for consultation with US Fish and Wildlife 

Service contains an analysis for federally listed threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species, as well as proposed and 

designated critical habitat. These findings are summarized 

in this document, and the Biological Assessment (BA). 

Designated BLM sensitive wildlife species include 26 

species of birds, 14 species of mammals, and 7 species of 

reptiles and amphibians. A complete list of BLM Sensitive 

Species is summarized in Table 9. 

Environmental Consequences (Terrestrial Species and 

Habitat, including SSS) 

Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire would generally change 

vegetation communities to lower seral (earlier succession) 

stages. Forestlands would change to forest/grass understory 

and treated shrublands would change to grass/forb 

communities. Wildlife adapted to lower seral stage habitat 

would benefit and possibly increase. Species that reproduce 

and feed in grass/forb vegetation such as ground squirrels, 

elk, mountain plover, and species of birds are examples of 

wildlife that would benefit. Refer to Table 10 for a brief 

listing of wildlife adapted to different habitats. For example, 

in areas occupied by elk and mule deer, elk would be favored 

where vegetation moves toward a higher percent 

composition of grass. Big game populations would move 

toward stability in the long term, but occupy different 

proportions of habitats . 

45

Table 9: BLM Sensitive Species within the analysis area 

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Field Offices* In Range (R) and 

with Habitat Present (H) 

Field Offices* with 

documented occurrence 

Bairds sparrow 

(Ammodramus bairdii) 

R - all but MT 100 

H - 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 070, 090, 92 

MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 

090, 092 

Black-backed woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus) 

R - MT 010, 020, 050, 060, 070, 

100 H - same as above 

MT 020, 050, 060, 070, 100 

Black Tern 

(Chlidonias niger) 

R – all 

Habitat - all 

MT 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 064, 

090, 092, 100 

Boreal owl 

(Aegolius funereus) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT - 050, 060, 100 

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) 

R – all 

H – all 

All except MT100 

Canvasback duck 

(Aythya valisineria) 

R – all 

H – all 

All 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

(Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

R - MT 050, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 050, 070, 100 

Common loon 

(Gavia immer) 

R - MT 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 064, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 020, 040, 050, 060, 064, 100 

Dickcissel 

(Spiza Americana) 

R - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

MT 020, 040 

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis) 

R – all 

H – all 

All, except MT100 

Flammulated owl 

(Otus flammeolus) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 070, 100 

Great gray owl 

(Strix nebulosa) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 050, 060, 070, 100 

Hairy woodpecker 

(Picoides villosus) 

R – all 

H – all 

All 

Harlequin duck 

(Histrionicus histrionicus) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - MT 050, 070, 100 

MT 050 

LeConte’s sparrow 

(Ammodramus leconteii) 

R - 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

MT 020 

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius Ludovicianus) 

R – all 

H – all 

all 

Long billed curlew 

(Numenius americanus) 

R – all 

H – all 

all 

Northern goshawk 

(Accipiter gentiles) 

R – all 

H - 010, 020, 040, 050, 060, 090 

MT 020, 040, 050, 064, 

Peregrine falcon1 

(Falco peregrinus) 

R – all 

H - MT 010, 020, 050, 060, 064, 070, 100 

MT 010, 020, 050, 060, 070, 100 

Pileated woodpecker 

(Dryocopus pileatus) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

MT 050, 100 

Sage grouse2 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) 

R- all 

H- all 

MT 010,020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 

064, 070, 090, 092 

Sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli) 

R - MT 010, 020, 040, 050, 060, 064, 070, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

MT 020, 040, 050 

Swainson’s hawk 

(Buteo swainsoni) 

R – all 

H - all 

all 

46
Table 9: BLM Sensitive Species within the analysis area (continued) 

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Field Offices* In Range (R) and 

with Habitat Present (H) 

Field Offices* with 

documented occurrence 

Three-toed woodpecker 

(Picoides tridactylus) 

R -MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H -MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

Trumpeter swan 

(Cygnus buccinator) 

R - all 

H - all 

MT 010, 020, 040, 050, 060, 064, 

070, 100 

White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi) 

R - all 

H - all 

MT 020, 050, 060, 062, 092 

Black-tailed prairie dog3 

Cynomys ludovicianus 

R - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 064, 070, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 

070, 090, 092 

Fisher 

(Martes pennati) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 050, 060, 070, 100 

Meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius) 

R - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 

H - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 090, 092 

MT 010, 020, 

Merriam’s shrew 

(Sorex merriami) 

R – all 

H - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 070, 064, 090, 092 

MT 010, 020, 060, 064, 

North American wolverine 

(Gulo gulo luscus) 

R - 010, 050, 060, 064, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 010, 050, 060, 064, 070, 100 

Northern Bog Lemming 

(Synaptomys borealis) 

R - MT 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 050, 060, 100 

Preble’s Shrew 

(Sorex preblei) 

R – all 

H – all 

MT 010, 020, 060, 070, 

Pygmy rabbit 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) 

R - MT 050, 070 

H - 050, 070 

MT 050 

Spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum) 

R - MT 010, 020, 050 

H - MT 010, 020 

MT 010 

Swift fox 

(Vulpes velox) 

R - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 064, 070, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064, 

070, 090, 092 

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Plecotus townsendii) 

R – all 

H - all 

MT 010, 020, 040, 050, 060, 064, 

070, 090 

Western spotted skunk 

(Spilogale putorius) 

R - MT 010, 020, 040, 050, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 010, 040, 050, 070, 100 

White-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys leucurus) 

R - MT 010 

H - MT 010 

MT 010 

Woodland caribou 

(Rangifer tarandus caribou) 

R - MT 100 

H - MT 100 

none 

Snapping turtle 

(Chelydra serpentina) 

R – all 

H - all (except 050) 

MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 100 

Spiny softshell turtle 

(Trionyx spiniferus) 

R - MT 010, 020, 050, 060, 064, 070, 090, 092 

H - MT 010, 020, 060, 064 

MT 010, 020, 060, 064, 

Canadian toad 

(Bufo hemiopharys) 

R - 030, 060, 064, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

none 

Coeur d’Alene salamander 

(Plethodon idahoensis) 

R - MT 050, 100 

H - MT 050, 100 

MT 050 

Spotted frog4 

(Rana pretiosa) 

R - MT 010, 050, 060, 064, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 050 

Tailed frog 

(Ascaphus truei) 

R - MT 050, 060, 064, 070, 090, 100 

H - MT 050, 060, 070, 

MT 050, 060, 070, 090, 100 

47 
Table 9: BLM Sensitive Species within the analysis area (continued) 

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Field Offices* In Range (R) and 

with Habitat Present (H) 

Field Offices* with 

documented occurrence 

Wood frog 

(Rana sylvatica) 

R – all 

H - all (except 050) 

MT 040 

Arctic grayling (fluvial population)5 

(Thymallus arcticus) 

R - MT 050, 070,100 

H - MT 050, 070, 100 

MT 050, 070 

Blue sucker 

(Cycleptus elongates) 

R - MT 020, 090, 092 

H - MT 020, 090, 092 

MT 020, 092 

Northern redbelly X Finescale dace 

(Phoxinus eos X Phoxinus neogaeus) 

R - MT 020, 092 

H - 020, 092 

MT 020, 092 

Paddlefish 

(Polyodon spathula) 

R - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 064, 090, 092 

H - MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 060, 064,090,092 

MT 020, 040, 064, 090 

Pearl dace 

(Margariscus margarita nachtriebi) 

R - MT 020, 040 

H - MT 020, 040 

MT 020, 040 

Shortnose gar 

(Lepisosteus platostomus) 

R - MT 020, 030, 040, 090, 092, 

H - same as above 

MT 020, 092 

Sicklefin chub 

(Macrhybopsis (Hybopsis) meeki) 

R - MT 040, 090, 092 

H - MT 040, 090, 092 

MT 040, 090, 092 

Sturgeon chub 

(Macrhybopsis (Hybopsis) gelida) 

R - MT 020, 040, 060, 064, 090, 092 

H - same as above 

MT 020, 040, 092 

Westslope cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhychus clarki lewisi) 

R - MT 050, 060, 070, 100 

H - same as above 

MT 050, 060, 070, 100 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhychus clarki bouvieri) 

R - 010, 020, 050 

H - 010, 020, 050 

MT 010, 050 

Comments 

1 recently delisted from Endangered

2interim BLM sensitive species (pending list revision)

3federal Candidate species

4this should be the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)

5Federal Candidate

Effects on wildlife from fire management depend on the 

timing, intensity, and vegetative species burned. Treatments 

that cause changes in wildlife forage and habitat, may be 

beneficial or negative, depending on the species. 

Prescribed fires may change forage quality and quantity, 

intersperse new feeding areas with areas providing cover, 

and rejuvenate decadent browse plants. Changes in 

vegetation structure and dispersion of burned areas are key 

factors when planning prescribed fires for wildlife purposes. 

Many different wildlife (vertebrate) responses to fires have 

been reported. Fire effects on wildlife vary with (1) animal 

species complex, (2) mosaic of habitat types, (3) size and 

shape of fire-created mosaic, (4) fire intensity, (5) fire 

duration, (6) fire frequency, (7) fire location, (8) fire shape, 

(9) fire extent, (10) season of burn, (11) rate of vegetation 

*Field Office Codes: 

MT 010 - Billings MT 064 - Havre 

MT 020 - Miles City MT 070 - Butte 

MT 030 - North Dakota MT 090 - Malta 

MT 040 - South Dakota MT 092 - Glasgow 

MT 050 - Dillon MT 100 - Missoula 

MT 060 - Lewistown 

recovery, (12) species that recover, (13) change in vegetation 

structure, (14) fuels, (15) sites, and (16) soils. Other factors 

that alter fire effects on vegetation and soils also influence 

wildlife responses to burning. 

Fires kill the less mobile birds and animals, alter 

environments, and influence postfire habitat succession 

(Lyon et al. 1978). Killing vertebrates by prescribed burning 

is rare (Lyon et al. 1978). The most exposed habitat sites 

are dry, exposed slopes, hollow logs with a lot of exposed 

wood, burrows less than 5 inches deep, lower branches of 

trees and shrubs, and poorly insulated underground/ground 

nesting areas (Lawrence 1966, as cited by Peek 1986). 

Effects of prescribed burning on ground cover depend on 

fire severity. Less severe fires on wet sites would remove 

less cover than more severe fires on dry sites. 

48

Fire may create habitat diversity by recreating lost or 

degraded habitats for indigenous species, and by allowing 

the reintroduction of extirpated species when habitat 

degradation was significant to their extinction. Immediate 

postfire conditions raise light penetration and temperatures 

on and immediately above and below soil surfaces and can 

reduce soil moisture (Lyon et al. 1978). 

Burning cover and removing trees, shrubs, and forage will 

modify habitat structure (Lyon et al. 1978, Peek 1986). The 

loss of small ground cover and charring of larger branches 

and logs (with diameters greater than 3 inches) can affect 

small animals and birds. Early, vigorous vegetation growth 

immediately after a fire alters feeding and nesting behaviors 

(Lyon et al. 1978). Postfire plant and animal succession 

effects creating seral and climax mosaics in habitat cannot 

be generalized in their effects on wildlife (Lyon et al. 1978, 

Peek 1986). Adverse impacts can be lessened if the 

treatment avoids the bird nesting season and other critical 

seasons when loss of cover would be critical to wildlife; for 

example, during critical reproductive periods and prior to 

severe winter weather conditions. 

No significant changes in small mammal species were 

observed for one year postburn in sagebrush-grassland 

(Frenzel 1979, as cited by Starkey 1985), but shrews and 

other species with narrow niches require patches of unburned 

vegetation to sustain populations, although total small 

mammal numbers may not be altered (McGee 1982). Habitat 

changes induced by fire may temporarily decrease the 

number and diversity of small mammals in sagebrush 

vegetation (Klebenow and Beall 1977). By increasing habitat 

diversity, associated bird communities may be increased by 

burning (Starkey 1985). 

Low fire frequencies may be useful in maintaining 

productive habitat for sage grouse (Peek 1986). Large intense 

fires affect other bird species, such as yellowthroat, yellowbreasted chat, Traill’s fly-catcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo, 

because they require dense shrub cover (McAdoo and 

Klebenow 1978). Conversely, sparrow species require 

relatively less shrub cover (McAdoo and Klebenow 1978). 

Because chuckar partridge rely heavily on cheatgrass, fire 

could conceivably be used to improve the habitat for this 

species (Wright and Bailey 1982). Prescribed burning in 

these types also may improve the habitat for higher numbers 

of sheep, pronghorn antelope, and mule deer (Klebenow 

1985). Fire suppression has favored the expansion of mule 

deer populations in some sagebrush areas because of the 

increased forage or cover (Crouch 1974). In areas of limited 

rainfall and forage production the thermal cover provided 

by sagebrush may be critical to deer and other wildlife 

survival (W. A. Molini, pers. comm. 1990). Big sagebrush 

is a valuable forage plant on critical deer winter range and 

should be protected from fire in these areas (Vallentine 

1980). 

While complete type conversion of juniper sites to grassland 

may reduce wildlife diversity, creating a mosaic of 

successional stages with prescribed burning can benefit 

wildlife (Severson and Medina 1984). Spotty burning would 

favor the greatest diversity of rodent and bird species (Wright 

and Bailey 1982). Fire suppression has favored expansion 

of mule deer populations in some juniper areas because of 

the increased forage or cover. Deer and elk use of burned 

juniper areas depends on postfire successional stages (Stager 

and Klebenow 1987), because burning can eliminate some 

important deer browse species (McCulloch 1969). An 

important factor in the degree of use of burned juniper 

habitats by deer and elk is the interspersion of burned 

habitats, which provide food, and unburned sites, which 

provide thermal and hiding cover. Old growth juniper stands 

may offer unique and valuable wildlife habitats, adding to 

the variety within juniper stands. When planning site-specific 

treatments, it should be recommended that these old growth 

communities be left standing as islands and edge 

communities to the prescribed burning areas. 

Fire can improve habitat for some species of prairie wildlife. 

Dabbling ducks and sharp-tailed grouse production increased 

on burned grassland as compared to undisturbed grassland 

in North Dakota (Kirsch and Kruse 1972). Prescribed 

burning also improved upland plover production. Fires that 

burn shrubs destroy songbird nesting habitat (Renwald 

1977). Periodic burning is desirable to maintain ideal prairie 

chicken habitat in tallgrass prairie, but burned areas may 

not be preferred habitat for sharp-tailed grouse for several 

years postfire (Wright and Bailey 1982). 

Fire alters grassland habitat, by reducing shrub cover 

(Samson and Knoph). Reduced shrub cover could enhance 

areas for prairie dogs (Player and Urness, 1982), but the 

loss of sagebrush habitat and the threat of exotic grass 

introduction appear to make fire an undesirable tool for 

prairie dog habitat management.” 

Fire effects on wildlife in coniferous forests depend on 

ecological relationships and animal habitat needs. Ground 

fires have little direct influence on tree squirrels and may 

even be favorable by perpetuating ponderosa pine 

communities (Wright and Bailey 1982). Ground squirrels 

initially decreased in burned ponderosa pine communities 

but increased later as early successional advances were made 

(Lowe et al. 1978). Fire would probably adversely affect 

chipmunks in those communities where drier conditions 

prevail, but chipmunks may increase postburn on more moist 

sites (Lowe et al. 1978, Wright and Bailey 1982). Total bird 

numbers increased initially after burning in ponderosa pine 

communities but fell to below prefire levels later, although 

some individual species responded in an opposite manner 

(Lowe et al. 1978). 

In one study, both deer and elk decreased their use of areas 

immediately following a burn but quickly increased levels 

49

of use as compared to control plots. Benefits to deer and elk 

from fires in these types are generally related to increases 

in understory vegetation (Leege and Hickey 1971, Severson 

and Medina 1983). Burns in Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine 

communities improved forage palatability to mule deer 

(Keay and Peek 1980). Prescribed fire also can improve 

winter forage for mountain sheep (Hobbs and Sporwart 

1984). Prescribed fire can be used to rejuvenate old aspen 

stands, increasing habitat for moose, elk, deer, ruffed grouse, 

and snowshoe hare, all of which depend on the forage or 

cover produced in a young aspen community (DeByle 1985). 

Mechanical Treatments: About 123,000 acres more would 

be mechanically treated with Alternative B than with 

Alternative A. Because mechanical treatments have the 

advantage of being highly selective, impacts to wildlife can 

be minimized through properly designed treatment plans 

developed in site-specific environmental analyses. These 

treatments would benefit wildlife that adapt to lower seral 

stages of vegetation referred to in prescribed fire. See Table 

10 for a general list of wildlife habitat preferences. Wildlife 

species diversity may be reduced in the treatment areas, but 

the habitat edges created by the treatments will have 

increased wildlife species diversity. 

Mechanical methods can result in soil compaction, damaging 

the subterranean habitat used by burrowing animals. In 

general, mechanical treatments can be beneficial for wildlife 

if the treatment areas are arranged in strips and patches and 

if methods are selected that increase browse and forage 

availability. 

Chemical Weed Treatments: Chemical treatments have 

traditionally been applied most frequently to decrease woody 

plant cover and increase the production of grasses. The most 

common objective of chemical treatments in the fuel 

treatment areas is to control noxious weed infestations. Most 

of the noxious weed infestations will be small isolated 

populations that would be spot treated on the ground using 

vehicles or manual application devices. Large area chemical 

applications, with aircraft or vehicles, would only be used 

occasionally in extreme large area weed infestations. 

The control of broadleaf woody plants and noxious weeds 

with selective herbicides often results in the control of 

associated broadleaf forbs. Both categories of vegetation 

have plant species that may be important food for many 

different wildlife species. The spraying of 185,000 acres 

for weeds (Alternative B) would reduce habitat for wildlife 

species dependent on some broadleaf forbs and affected 

shrubs in the short term (1-2 years). Examples of species 

associated with broadleaf forbs would be sage grouse, 

ground squirrels, and prairie dogs. Species associated with 

shrubs, such as sagebrush or bitterbrush, are sage grouse, 

mule deer, white-tailed deer, antelope, and several species 

of passerine birds. 

The impacts to the wildlife will usually be greater by 

allowing noxious weeds to displace native habitat and create 

a monoculture of weeds. A monoculture of weeds reduces 

habitat and species diversity. 

BLM Sensitive Species 

Effects from the proposed fire management activities and/ 

or fuels reduction treatments to BLM sensitive species of 

wildlife depend on the type of activities or treatments (e.g., 

wildfire control activities, prescribed burn, mechanical 

treatment, chemical treatment), timing, duration, intensity, 

and habitat type or vegetative community treated. 

Treatments that cause shifts or changes in the vegetative 

community, changes in the seral stage of the plant 

association, or changes in the structural integrity of the 

habitat, may have beneficial or negative effects, depending 

on the species considered. 

Wildland Fire Management: 

Management activities resulting from wildfire management 

would be similar for both alternatives. These activities 

would include all suppression actions and the associated 

activities and infrastructure necessary to support the 

suppression effort. Activities such as fire camps, helibases, 

helispots, opening of closed roads, creation of temporary 

roads, development or improvement of water sources (pump 

chance), staging areas, are some of the activities that may 

occur. 

Direct and indirect effects to BLM sensitive species could 

result from these actions/activities. These effects would, 

for the most part, be limited to insignificant, short-term 

negative effects due to disturbance and possible 

displacement of individuals. 

There would be some risk of direct take on individual 

animals from vehicle collisions, aerial suppression (retardant 

or water drops), heavy equipment operations, and human 

activities. These effects would generally be limited to 

juvenile individuals or the less mobile species such as 

amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. There could also 

be some risk of long-term indirect effects from loss of 

essential habitat. Destruction of courting (grouse leks), 

nesting, denning, communal roosts, or other habitat 

necessary to maintain or improve reproductive levels could 

result. Conservation and protection measures should be 

incorporated into activity plans to mitigate these potential 

effects. 

Prescribed Fire: 

Comparison of Alternative A and B for effects to BLM 

sensitive species from prescribed fire finds no significant 

difference for potential impacts on grasslands or shrublands. 

When compared with the total acres of each cover type 

available on BLM administered lands, the differences 

between Alternative A and B are negligible. 

50

Table 10: Example1

 of Wildlife Life-forms/Habitat Requirements 

Reproduces Feeds No. of 

Species1 

Examples 

In water In water 1 bullfrog 

In water On the ground, in bushes, and/or 

in trees 

9 long-toed salamander, western toad, 

Pacific treefrog 

On the ground around 

water 

On the ground, and in bushes, 

trees and water 

45 common garter snake, killdeer, 

western jumping mouse 

In cliffs, caves, rimrock 

and/or talus 

On the ground or in the air 32 side-blotched lizard, common raven, 

pika 

On the ground without 

specific water, cliff, 

rimrock,or talus association 

On the ground 48 western fence lizard, dark-eyed junco, 

elk 

On the ground In bushes, trees, or the air 7 common nighthawk, Lincoln’s 

sparrow, porcupine 

In bushes On the ground, in water, 

or the air 

30 American robin, Swainson’s thrush, 

chipping sparrow 

In bushes In trees, bushes, or the air 6 dusky flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, 

American goldfinch 

Primarily in deciduous 

trees 

In trees, bushes, or the air 4 cedar waxwing, northern oriole, house 

finch 

Primarily in conifers In trees, bushes, or the air 14 Golden-crowned kinglet, yellow-rumped 

warbler, red squirrel 

In conifers or deciduous 

trees 

In trees, in bushes, on the 

ground, or in the air 

24 goshawk, evening grosbeak, hoary bat 

On very thick branches On the ground or in water 7 great blue heron, red-tailed hawk, great 

horned owl 

In own hole excavated 

in tree 

In trees, in bushes, or on the 

ground, or in the air 

13 common flicker, pileated woodpecker, 

red-breasted nuthatch 

In a hole made by another 

species or in a natural hole 

On the ground, in water, or 

in the air 

37 wood duck, American kestrel, northern 

flying squirrel 

In a burrow underground On the ground or under it 40 rubber boa, burrowing owl, Columbian 

ground squirrel 

In a burrow underground In the air or in the water 10 bank swallow, muskrat, river otter 

Total 327 

1 Species assignment to life-form is based on predominant habitat-use patterns. Based on Thomas et al 1979, Blue 

Potential effects resulting from prescribed burning in the 

grassland or shrubland cover types could include direct 

effects resulting in mortality of individuals as well as 

disturbance and displacement of individuals. 

Some immature and less mobile animals unable to escape 

the effects of smoke and fire may perish. Others may become 

separated from the adults and succumb either to the effects 

of the fire or to indirect effects from starvation or predation. 

Certain species may be inherently more susceptible to 

mortality due to more sedentary lifestyle or small size and 

inability to cover long distances. Timing burns to avoid 

risk to immature animals and design of burns to avoid high 

potential habitat for sensitive species that may be unable to 

escape the effects of a burn would be important conservation 

measures to incorporate into burn prescriptions. 

51

Displacement of individuals would generally be short-term 

in nature unless the treatment significantly changes the plant 

association (shifts to an earlier succession stage), shifts the 

seral stage of the plant community, changes the composition 

of plant species, or significantly alters the structure of the 

habitat. Any of these changes in the vegetative conditions 

could result in long-term habitat modification that would 

make the area (stand, patch, watershed) unsuitable for an 

indeterminate time for certain species. This shift in 

conditions could also make the area more suitable for some 

species. 

Treatment of grassland cover types would generally not 

cause long-term changes to the plant association, shift the 

seral stage, or significantly change the composition of plant 

species. Grassland species are generally more resilient and, 

having adapted to fire, recover fairly quickly if consideration 

is given to timing and intensity of burns. 

Shrubland species are more variable in their response to fire. 

Many shrub species (basin big sage, Wyoming big sage, 

black sage, mountain mahogany, shadscale) do not recover 

from burning by means other than regeneration from seed. 

This can require 10 years or more and may leave a stand 

altered from preburn conditions. Based on site specific 

environmental analysis, projects would not be recommended 

where burning these vegetative types is anticipated to cause 

long-term effects on wildlife habitat. 

Other shrub species, (three-tip sagebrush, rabbit brush, 

snowbrush) resprout after fire and recover more quickly. 

Burning of these types may have short-term negative effects 

but long-term beneficial effects by rejuvenating the stand 

and making the vegetation more productive, more palatable, 

and/or nutritious (if used as a forage). 

Burning of shrublands can also alter the structure of the 

stand. Large, decadent stands of basin big sagebrush 

(Aremesia tridentatatridentata) may provide excellent 

nesting conditions for certain species of passerine birds 

(Brewer’s sparrow) but very poor conditions for sage grouse 

brooding habitat. Burning might improve the habitat 

conditions for sage grouse brooding but make it totally 

unsuitable for passerine nesting. 

The potential effects to species dependant on forestlands 

would be essentially the same as those effects to the grassland 

and shrubland species. However, due to a larger proportion 

of the cover type being proposed for treatment, effects would 

be proportionately greater. There is also an inherently greater 

likelihood for loss of structure and changes in plant 

composition due to the greater diversity of plant species in 

a forested community. If treatment significantly changes 

the plant association (shifts to an earlier succession stage), 

shifts the seral stage of the plant community, changes the 

composition of plant species, or significantly alters the 

structure of the habitat it would generally constitute a longterm effect due to the longer timelines for regeneration of 

the forest community types. 

When the effects from prescribed burning are considered 

alone, neither Alternative A nor B pose significant risks to 

populations of sensitive species. The magnitude of proposed 

treatments in both alternatives is minimal in relation to the 

availability of habitat on BLM administered lands. However, 

when considered along with past, present, and future 

activities the cumulative effects may pose substantial risks 

to isolated populations of certain species. 

This is especially true if one considers effects from probable 

wildfire. If wildfire burned areas of essential habitat for 

certain species, nearby unburned patches of suitable habitat 

would be infinitely more important. To ensure persistence 

of certain species, adequate patch size and spatial 

arrangement of suitable habitat must be maintained 

This preplanning would allow for the analysis of effects of 

proposed fuels treatment projects at a larger landscape scale 

than just the project area and compare the proposed action 

in relation to any recent wildfire events. This would enable 

decision makers to ensure their actions would not lead 

sensitive species toward federal listing. 

Mechanical Treatments: 

Mechanical treatments pose similar threats to sensitive 

species as prescribed burns except the risk of direct mortality 

is much lower. Mechanical treatments have the advantage 

of being a more “controlled” treatment and thereby being 

more capable of minimizing direct effects if a sensitive 

species or previously unknown key habitat is discovered. It 

is far more likely (as compared to prescribed burning) that 

mechanical activities could be modified to avoid a nest or 

den site or to move activities from an area where a sensitive 

species is discovered. 

Mechanical treatments could still cause disturbance and 

displacement both from direct effects of the treatment 

activities as well as changes in habitat conditions. As with 

prescribed burning, any changes in the vegetative conditions 

could result in long-term habitat modification that would 

make the area (stand, patch, watershed) unsuitable for an 

indeterminate time for certain species. This shift in 

conditions could also make the area more suitable for certain 

other species. 

Comparison of alternatives for effects to BLM sensitive 

species from mechanical treatments finds an increase in 

potential impacts from Alternative A to Alternative B. 

However, when compared to the total BLM administered 

acres, even the upper limit of treatments under Alternative 

B represents less than 2 percent of the total BLM acreage in 

Montana and the Dakotas. 

This comparison carries through when the proposed 

52

treatments by the various cover types (grass, shrubs, forest) 

are compared for Alternative A and B. The potential effects 

for all three cover types are far greater under Alternative B 

due to the significant increase in acres proposed for 

treatment. 

Although Alternative B represents substantial increases in 

acres proposed for treatment as compared to Alternative A, 

when compared in context with the total acres under BLM 

administration of each cover type, even the upper level of 

treatment would be insignificant. The higher level of 

treatment under Alternative B represents 0.3 percent of the 

grasslands, 1.5 percent of the shrublands and 10.1 percent 

of the forestland administered by BLM. 

Beneficial effects would result from mechanical treatments 

for some sensitive species. Removal of encroaching tree 

species from shrub and grassland communities would 

maintain the habitat over time to benefit species dependent 

on those communities. Reducing stocking levels of forested 

stands by removal of seedling, sapling, and pole size 

understory vegetation would reduce the risk of stand 

replacement fires which in turn would maintain the forest 

stands over time to benefit species associated with forestland 

communities. 

Chemical Weed Treatments: 

Chemical treatments are planned in support of other fuels 

reduction treatments. The objective of chemical treatments 

is to control noxious weed infestations that may exist prior 

to the primary fuels treatment or result post treatment. In 

some cases where there is a significant weed component in 

a proposed fuels treatment area, chemical control may be 

used both prior to and post fuels treatment projects. Most 

chemical treatments will be on relatively small isolated 

populations that would be spot treated using ground vehicles 

or manual application devices. 

Chemical treatments would be used on 3,500 acres in 

Alternative A and 185,000 acres in alternative B. Although 

the specific locations of these treatments have not been 

identified, acres of chemical weed treatments would have 

nearly a complete overlap with other types of fuels reduction 

treatments. Thus, effects from chemical treatments would 

not contribute additional acres of disturbance but would 

contribute to the cumulative impacts on those acres treated. 

Direct effects from chemical control would result if 

individuals were directly exposed to the application. Some 

take of individuals could occur depending on the type of 

chemical and the amount of exposure an individual incurred. 

The potential effect should be limited to small mammals, 

amphibians, reptiles, and juveniles that are relatively 

immobile and unable to flee the treatment area. If timing of 

treatments were planned to avoid applications when young 

of the year are present, most effects may be mitigated. 

Direct effects could also result from disturbance and 

displacement of individuals due to the human presence and 

associated activities with the treatment. These effects would 

be short-term in nature and should not pose a risk of take. 

Indirect, long-term effects may result from a change in plant 

composition on the treatment area. Application of herbicides 

to control noxious weeds would generally remove other 

desirable broad leaf forbs and possibly shrubs. This change 

in species composition could render the area unsuitable or 

at least lower the productivity of the site for use by certain 

species. If control is limited to relatively small areas or 

spot treatment the effects should be insignificant due to the 

availability of adjacent habitats for animals to move to. 

An indirect, long-term beneficial effect should result from 

the control of noxious or invasive species. Many noxious 

weeds can out-compete and displace native plant species 

thereby reducing productivity of a site or rendering the site 

unsuitable for many species. Control of noxious weeds could 

help maintain the native species plant composition over time 

thereby maintaining the suitability of the habitat for use by 

many more species than would be provided for if infested 

with noxious or invasive plant species. 

Conclusion (Terrestrial Habitat and Species, including 

Special Status Species) 

At first, comparing Alternative A to Alternative B involves 

comparing effects of wildland fire on wildlife to the effects 

of prescribed burning on wildlife. While some vertebrates 

are killed directly by fire, it is rare to kill vertebrates by 

prescribed burns. The other major effects of fire on wildlife, 

altering immediate postfire environments and influencing 

postfire habitat succession, would be determined as 

rehabilitation after wildland fire but could be considered as 

part of prescribed burning activity. Additionally, Alternative 

B would involve the selective introduction of fire to certain 

habitats and could be avoided in areas or at times where fire 

is not desired (e.g., in the immediate vicinity of sage grouse 

leks during nesting season). Eventually, application of 

prescribed fire on more acres (Alternative B) would reduce 

the likelihood of wildland fire and the associated impacts 

on wildlife and restore a more natural habitat to fire-adapted 

wildlife to a greater extent than with Alternative A. 

Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire would be applied when 

timing, season, and the severity of the fire can be controlled. 

Wildlife impacts would be mitigated by controlling fire 

effects on vegetation and habitat. Size, intensity, pattern, 

fuel, and soil moisture can be manipulated in the burn plans 

to have desirable effects on local wildlife. Prescribed fires 

would be less severe than wildfires, and the recovery of 

wildlife habitat and the associated vegetation would be 

quicker with prescribed fire. 

53

Alternative B would favor wildlife species adapted to lower 

seral stages on an additional 106,000 acres of forestlands 

and shrublands treated with prescribed fire. Grasslands and 

agricultural lands would remain in the same seral or 

ecological succession stage. 

Refer to Table 10 for a summary of wildlife habitat 

associations from a similar area. Wildlife that feed and 

reproduce on the ground and in grasslands would be favored 

on these treatment acres. 

Mechanical Treatments: 

An additional 123,000 acres would be mechanically treated 

in Alternative B. These treatments would benefit wildlife 

adapted to lower seral stages of vegetation referred to in 

prescribed fire. Wildlife species diversity may be reduced 

in the treatment areas, but the habitat edges created by the 

treatments would increase wildlife species diversity. 

Chemical Weed Treatments: 

In the fuel treatment areas, 185,000 acres of chemical 

treatments will be used to treat noxious weeds. This will 

reduce habitat for wildlife species dependent on some 

broadleaf forbs and affected shrubs in the short term (1-2 

years). Examples of species associated with broadleaf forbs 

and shrubs would be sage grouse, ground squirrels, prairie 

dogs, sage grouse, mule deer, white-tailed deer, antelope, 

and several species of passerine birds. 

Greater cumulative impacts on the wildlife community 

would occur from allowing noxious weeds to displace native 

habitat and create a monoculture of weeds, as compared to 

applying chemical treatments. A monoculture of weeds 

reduces habitat and species diversity. 

All Treatments: 

Site-specific environmental assessments for each vegetation 

treatment will ensure that local wildlife specie concerns are 

addressed. All treatments would affect some change in the 

wildlife communities, which would be analyzed in the sitespecific environmental analysis. The project would not be 

recommended if the impacts to the wildlife community are 

unacceptable or cannot be mitigated. Properly designed 

treatments can enhance wildlife and species diversity by 

creating edge effect. The amount of edge per unit area is 

directly related to habitat and species diversity. Any 

improvement of vegetative communities that increases 

structural (both horizontal and vertical) and species diversity 

would indirectly benefit wildlife. 

Vegetation treatments can be considered tools for wildlife 

habitat management when vegetation responses and habitat 

requirements are understood. Accordingly, determinations 

on whether particular vegetation treatments will increase or 

decrease wildlife populations must be made on a site-specific 

basis, with consideration for local vegetation and wildlife 

information and responses to treatment. 

The proposed action would result in fewer cumulative 

impacts to wildlife species and habitat compared to 

cumulative effects of the large, catastrophic wildfires that 

would be prevented. If fuels are left untreated, many of these 

wildfires would be stand replacement fires with a drastic 

change in ecological condition from late seral climax 

vegetation to an early seral stage. 

Refer to Appendix B for possible wildlife design featuers 

based on the identifications of risk included in this analysis. 

Conclusion - BLM Sensitive Species 

Effects to sensitive species would result from either 

alternative. Although Alternative A would have fewer acres 

of fuels reduction treatments it could potentially result in 

greater number of acres burned by wildlfire. Either of these 

activities could disturb and displace individuals, injure and/ 

or kill individuals, and change habitat conditions that could 

make the site unsuitable for use by certain species. Changes 

in habitat conditions could also make a site more suitable 

for certain species thereby having beneficial effects. 

It is impossible to quantify these effects without having sitespecific project proposals. Even with specific project design, 

the effects of fire, either wildfire or prescribed fire, can be 

significantly different even on the same vegetative 

communities. Response of different vegetative communities 

(even in similar cover class (e.g., shrub, grass, forestland)) 

can have vastly different responses to similar treatments let 

alone different treatments or timing and intensity of 

treatments. 

About 2.4 percent and 5.7 percent of the BLM administered 

lands would potentially be affected by Alternative A and 

Alternative B respectively. Chemical treatments for weeds 

may cause additional or cumulative effects but would be on 

the same acres as treated with prescribed fire and/or 

mechanical treatments. Considering that these treatments 

would be applied over a period of 10 years, the difference 

between the effects from Alternative A and B are negligible. 

Impacts would occur from more acres of treatment on BLM 

administered lands under Alternative B (457,000 acres) 

compared to Alternative A (193,000 acres), and the overall 

effects of these impacts could result in disturbance, 

displacement, harm, or death of individual animals. 

Fire (wildland fire and prescribed fire) would also change 

conditions of the habitat. Effects from wildfire should be 

considered in terms of cumulative effects and presumably 

would be greater in Alternative A. 

It is assumed that fire risk would be reduced on treated acres. 

Given that the treatments would occur over a ten-year period, 

the difference between acres affected (protected from 

wildfire) is relatively negligible when considered in context 

54

of the entire project area. Thus, although some beneficial 

effects would result from fuels treatments and reduced risk 

of wildfire, it is questionable that either alternative poses 

any greater or lesser cumulative effects that the other. 

Of primary importance for conserving and recovering any 

sensitive species is to maintain suitable habitat in adequate 

patch size, spatially arranged across the landscape to allow 

for dispersal of young and availability of alternate home 

range should an individual be displaced from its current 

territory. 

To ensure desired conditions are maintained to provide 

adequate amounts of suitable habitat, fuels treatment projects 

must be considered in context with recent wildfire events. 

Due to the uncertainty of wildfire, maximum limits of 

allowable habitat conversion (by habitat type) should be 

established within specific geographic areas to ensure habitat 

is maintained throughout the range over time. 

Mitigation and protection measures will be used as design 

criteria in the specific project planning to minimize adverse 

impacts to the species. With application of these design 

criteria and attention paid to providing adequate amounts 

of suitable habitat spatially arranged across the landscape, 

no BLM sensitive species should be moved toward federal 

listing. 

3.8 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and 

Proposed Species (BLM Critical Element) 

Affected Environment (T/E/P Species): 

There is potential for six endangered species, eight 

threatened species, and one species proposed for listing to 

occur within the project influence area in Montana and the 

Dakotas. There is also designated critical habitat for piping 

plover and proposed critical habitat for bull trout. 

Distribution by field office is summarized in Table 11. 

Environmental Consequences (T/E/P Species) 

Wildland Fire Management: 

Management activities resulting from wildfire management 

would be similar for both alternatives. These activities 

would include all suppression actions and the associated 

activities and infrastructure necessary to support the suppression effort. Activities such as fire camps, helibases, 

helispots, opening of closed roads, creation of temporary 

roads, development or improvement of water sources (pump 

chance), staging areas, are some of the activities that may 

occur. 

Prescribed Fire: 

Comparison of Alternative A and B for effects to federally 

listed and proposed species from prescribed fire finds no 

significant difference for potential impacts to species that 

inhabit grasslands or shrublands. When compared with the 

total acres of each cover type available on BLM administered lands, the differences between Alternatives A and B 

are negligible. 

For treatment of forestlands, Alternative A would treat 

99,000 acres (less than 13 percent) and Alternative B would 

treat 176,000 acres (less than 23 percent) of the total 760,000 

acres of forestland administered by BLM Montana/Dakotas. Thus the effects of Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) would be nearly double that of Alternative A (No Action). Although Alternative B proposes to treat less than 23 

percent of the forestland administered by BLM, treatment 

of 176,000 acres would pose risk of adverse affects to forest dwelling T&E species (Canada lynx, grizzly bear, grey 

wolf, bull trout, bald eagle). 

Mechanical Treatments: 

Mechanical treatments pose similar threats to federally listed 

species as prescribed burns except the risk of direct mortality is much lower. Mechanical treatments have the advantage of being a more “controlled” treatment and thereby 

being more capable of minimizing direct effects if a species 

or previously unknown key habitat is discovered. It is far 

more likely (as compared to prescribed burning) that mechanical activities could be modified to avoid a nest or den 

site or to move activities from an area where a T&E species 

is discovered. 

Comparison of alternatives for effects to BLM sensitive 

species from mechanical treatments finds an increase in 

potential impacts from Alternative A to Alternative B. Alternative A would treat 35,000 acres total compared to the 

158,000 acres under Alternative B. However, when compared to the total BLM administered acres, even the upper 

limit of treatments under Alternative B represents less than 

2 percent of the total BLM acreage in Montana and the 

Dakotas. 

This comparison carries through when the proposed treatments by the various cover types (grass, shrubs, forest) are 

compared for Alternative A and B. The potential effects for 

all three cover types are far greater under Alternative B due 

to the significant increase in acres proposed for treatment. 

Although Alternative B represents substantial increases 

(6,000 percent in the grassland communities) in acres proposed for treatment as compared to Alternative A, when 

compared in context with the total acres under BLM administration of each cover type, even the upper level of treatment is somewhat insignificant. The higher level of treatment under Alternative B represents 0.3 percent of the grasslands, 1.5 percent of the shrublands and 10.1 percent of the 

forestland. 

Chemical Weed Treatments: 

Chemical treatments are planned in support of other fuels 

reduction treatments. The objective of chemical treatments 

55

Table 11: Threatened and Endangered Species, by Field Office 

Species Listed by FWS 

on 8/24/02 in MT, 

ND, SD 

Common Name 

Scientific Name 

Status BLM Field Offices** 

with administrative 

jurisdiction in counties 

identified by FWS with 

species present1 

Field Offices** 

with habitat 

present2 

Field Offices** with 

documented occurrence 

within the project area 

of influence 

Eskimo Curlew 

Numenius borealis 

Endangered None N/A N/A 

Interior Least Tern 

Sterna antillarum 

Endangered MT 020, 030, 040, 092 MT 010, 020, 030,040, 

060, 064, 090,092 

MT 020, 030, 040 

Whooping Crane 

Grus Americana 

Endangered MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 

050, 060, 064, 090, 092 

MT 010, 020, 050, 090, 

092 

MT 020, 050 

Black-footed Ferret 

Mustela nigripes 

Endangered MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 

060, 064, 070, 090, 092 

MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 

060, 064, 070, 090, 092 

MT 040, 090 

Gray wolf 

Canis lupes 

Endangered MT 010, 050, 060, 064, 

070, 100 

MT 010, 050, 060, 064, 

070, 100 

MT 010, 050, 070, 100 

Pallid Sturgeon 

Scaphirhvnchus albus 

Endangered MT 020, 030, 040, 060, 

064, 090, 092 

MT 020, 030, 040, 060, 

064, 090, 092 

MT 020, 030, 040, 060, 

064, 090, 092 

Topeka Shiner 

Notropis topeka (South Dakota) 

Endangered MT 040 None N/A 

White Sturgeon 

Acipenser transmontanus 

Endangered MT 100 None N/A 

Scaleshell Mussel 

Leptodea leptodon 

Endangered None N/A N/A 

American Burying Beetle 

Nicrophorus americanus 

Endangered MT 040 MT 040 None 

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Threatened All All All 

Piping Plover 

Charadrius melodus 

Threatened MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 

060, 064, 090, 092 

MT 010, 020, 030, 040, 

090, 092 

MT 020, 092 

Canada Lynx 

Lynx canadensis 

Threatened MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 

100 

MT 050, 060, 070, 100 MT 050, 070, 100 

Grizzly Bear 

Ursus arctos horribilis 

Threatened MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 

100 

MT 010, 050, 060, 070, 

100 

MT 050, 060, 070, 100 

Bull Trout 

Salvelinus confluentus 

Threatened MT 100 MT 100 MT 100 

Spalding’s Catchfly 

Silene spaldingii 

Threatened MT 100 None N/A 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

Spiranthes diluviali 

Threatened MT 050, 070, 100 MT 050, 070, 100 MT 050, 070 

Water Howellia 

Howellia aquatilis 

Threatened MT 100 MT 100 None 

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid 

Platanthera praeclara 

(North Dakota) 

Threatened MT 030 MT 030 None 

Mountain Plover 

Charadrius montanus 

Proposed All but MT 100 All but MT 100 MT 010, 020, 050, 060, 

064, 070, 090, 092 

1 If BLM administered lands are not present in County identified by FWS no effects determination is needed 

2 If habitat is not present within the area of influence no effects determination is needed. 

**Field Office Codes 

MT 010—Billings MT 050—Dillon MT 090—Malta MT 020—Miles City MT 060—Lewistown 

MT 092—Glasgow MT 030—North Dakota MT 064—Havre MT 100—Missoula MT 040—South Dakota 

MT 070—Butte 

56

is to control noxious weed infestations that may exist prior 

to the primary fuels treatment or result post treatment. In 

some cases where there is a significant weed component in 

a proposed fuels treatment area, chemical control may be 

used both prior to and post fuels treatment projects. Most 

chemical treatments will be on relatively small isolated populations that would be spot treated using ground vehicles or 

manual application devices. 

Large area chemical applications, with aircraft or vehicles, 

should be the exception and would only be used in areas of 

extreme weed infestations. 

Chemical treatments would be used on 3,500 acres in Alternative A and 185,000 acres in alternative B. Although the 

specific locations of these treatments have not been identified, acres of chemical weed treatments would have nearly 

a complete overlap with other types of fuels reduction treatments. Thus, effects from chemical treatments would not 

contribute additional acres of disturbance but would contribute to the cumulative impacts on those acres treated. 

Obviously, the level of disturbance will be considerably 

greater on an additional 181,500 acres of treatment under 

Alternative B. This disturbance would be in addition to 

other effects resulting from the fuels treatments. 

Alternative A (No Action) may result in greater cumulative 

impacts on the wildlife community from allowing noxious 

weeds to spread and potentially displace native habitat and 

associated species, as compared to the application of chemical treatments under Alternative B. 

Interior Least Tern (Endangered)


There is no known nesting or roosting occurring on BLM


administered lands. However, one island in the Yellowstone


River adjacent to BLM land (Miles City Field Office)


contains a colony of nesting least terns. There is high


likelihood that foraging occurs in sections of the Missouri


and Yellowstone Rivers with BLM administered lands.


Due to the limited areas of use by interior least terns and the 

specific nesting habitat requirements, it is unlikely that any 

activities from wildland fire management or fuel reduction 

treatments would ever occur in close proximity of nesting 

birds. Given the characteristics of typical nest sites being 

dry, flat, sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars within a 

wide, unobstructed, water-filled river channel there would 

be no fuels treatment planned for this habitat and therefore 

no direct effect from this activity. 

There may be potential for indirect effects resulting from 

associated actions of fuels treatments in the uplands. Heavy 

equipment for mechanical treatments, equipment for 

prescribed burning, and/or chemical control all pose risk of 

hazardous fuel spills. Chemical treatments in the watershed 

also pose risk of down stream contamination. These hazards 

could indirectly effect the preybase (fish) and/or nesting 

habitat. The likelihood of these effects is so small as to be 

discountable and would not adversely affect the species. 

There is potential for insignificant direct and indirect impacts 

from wildland fire suppression activities. Wildland fires 

are not common along the major tributaries. When they occur 

they are usually small and quickly contained. If a fire occurs 

on a wooded island or wooded shoreline, human activities 

associated with suppression may cause short-term direct 

effects. Human traffic from fire crews, vehicle traffic, and 

possibly aircraft could disturb terns. It is discountable these 

actions would occur. If they did, they would be insignificant 

and would not adversely affect the species through 

abandonment of a nest site or other impact. 

Suppression activities associated with fires near river 

corridors would usually use the corridor as a natural 

firebreak. Aerial suppression (fixed wing retardant drops 

or helicopter bucket drops) may be used to contain the fire 

near the river. Helicopter buckets may be filled in deep calm 

pools in the rivers. These pools usually are not close to 

suitable nesting sites and the prey base (fish). Effects of 

filling buckets, if any, would be short-term and discountable 

and would not adversely affect the species. 

Cumulative Effects – When considered in context with past, 

present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the 

Proposed Action seems very insignificant. In relation to 

effects from large dams, irrigation ditch diversions, nonpoint source pollution, channelization, urban development, 

and instream alterations, the proposed action becomes moot. 

Although there is potential for insignificant minor effects 

these would not contribute, cumulatively, to cause adverse 

effects to the species. 

Whooping Crane (Endangered)


Whooping cranes migrate over the analysis area and


potential habitat exists but there has been no documented


nesting, roosting, or foraging on BLM lands in the analysis


area.


Since cranes prefer wetland sites with wide, open panoramas, 

they would be naturally insulated from the effects of wildland 

fire management activity and there would be no direct or 

indirect effects. 

No fuels reduction treatments are planned for any riparian 

or wetland areas. 

Cumulative Effects – There would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects. 

Black-footed Ferret (Endangered)


Prairie dog towns are naturally insulated from wildfire


effects due to the lack of vegetative cover resulting from


prairie dog grazing. Wildfire would generally not burn a


57

prairie dog town but may burn areas around and between 

prairie dog towns. Fire suppression activities are not likely 

to effect prairie dog towns but could occur in nearby areas. 

Direct effects to black-footed ferrets would be limited to 

disturbance from fire suppression activities and effects from 

smoke. These short-term effects would be insignificant, and 

not likely to adversely affect any black-footed ferrets. 

Indirect effects may result from changes in vegetative cover 

and species types in areas disturbed by fire suppression 

activities. These effects would generally be limited to narrow 

corridors of fire line or travel ways on the fringes of prairie 

dog towns and in the surrounding areas. These effects could 

result in some reduced expansion rates of prairie dogs and/ 

or reduced densities of prairie dog numbers on the edges of 

towns. This would be discountable and insignificant and 

would not likely adversely affect the black-footed ferret. 

Due to the inherently low fuel levels on and around prairie 

dog towns there are no fuels treatments planned for these 

habitats and therefore no effects. 

Cumulative Effects – When considered in context with past, 

present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the 

alternatives are insignificant. Although there is potential 

for insignificant minor effects, these would not contribute 

to cumulative adverse effects to the species. 

Gray Wolf (Endangered)


Effects from wildland fire management activities would


generally be limited to disturbance and displacement.


Suppression activities, except aerial support, are usually


restricted to the flanks of a fire. Fireline construction, and


associated human presence and motorized equipment, should


not cause direct effects to wolves. Wolves would usually


flee in advance of an approaching fire and be out of the area


of influence associated with suppression activities.


Aerial support could encounter wolves fleeing the area and 

cause some short-term direct effect from disturbance. There 

may also be short-term direct effects from disturbance caused 

by the increase in human activity, vehicle traffic, and 

associated infrastructure such as fire camps. These effects 

would be insignificant. 

If fire suppression activities occur in suitable wolf habitat 

from April 15 to June 30, disturbance or displacement of a 

den or rendezvous site could result in adverse affects. 

Disturbance or displacement of a pack from a denning area 

or rendezvous site at this time could result in pups being 

separated from the pack thus leaving them susceptible to 

predation or, if orphaned for longer period of time, starvation. 

Indirect, short or long-term effects resulting from fire 

suppression activities may result if new roads are created or 

previously closed roads are opened. Wolves may be 

inhibited from returning to the area if vehicular traffic and 

human presence increases. This increased disturbance, 

resulting in the displacement of a wolf pack from an area, 

could potentially lead to adverse affects if the packs 

productivity is reduced. If a pack were displaced from an 

area that had provided suitable denning habitat for the pack 

to successfully reproduce and the pack subsequently 

relocated to an area that did not provide adequate habitat 

for successful reproduction, the resulting affect would be 

reduced productivity of the pack. Reduced productivity of 

a species resulting from the direct or indirect effects of an 

agency’s action would constitute adverse affects to the 

species. 

Fuels reduction treatments would target areas of overstocked 

stands of fire climax forest types, primarily ponderosa pine. 

Priority areas of treatment would be near communities but 

would not be limited to those areas. Generally, these are 

not areas frequented by wolves due to the presence of 

humans and/or marginal habitat. 

Fuels treatments are proposed on over 280,000 acres of 

forested lands per decade. These treatments would include 

approximately 176,000 acres of prescribed fire and 107,000 

acres of mechanical treatments. This represents 3 percent 

of the total BLM land acreage and up to 37 percent of the 

forested land type under BLM administration. If fuels 

reduction treatments are conducted in areas frequented by 

wolves it may cause both direct and indirect effects to the 

gray wolf. 

If fuels treatments are conducted in the spring or early 

summer in areas inhabited by wolves there is potential for 

direct effects from disturbance and displacement of a pack 

and associated family unit. Juvenile, young of the year wolf 

pups could be fairly mobile at the time of project 

implementation; however, any project activities prior to June 

30 pose the risk of adverse effects resulting from the 

displacement from a den site and the possible abandonment 

or segregation of a pup from the pack. If a pup were 

separated from the pack at this early age it would be very 

susceptible to predation or starvation. 

To avoid possible adverse effects, fuels treatments shall be 

planned using the screening guidelines for gray wolf, as 

provided in the Northwest National Fire Plan Consultation 

Packet for Public Lands. These guidelines require that “no 

human disturbance or associated activities should be allowed 

within one mile of a den or rendezvous site from April 15 to 

June 30.” 

If fuels treatments are conducted in areas of existing or 

potential den sites, indirect effects could result from changed 

conditions that could render an area unsuitable for denning. 

Given the limited area of BLM jurisdiction that provides 

suitable wolf denning habitat, the lack of known den sites 

on BLM administered lands, and the relatively small acreage 

58

of potential denning habitat that may be treated per decade, 

it is extremely unlikely and therefore discountable that fuels 

treatments would cause changed conditions of potential den 

sites such that it might impair the reproductive capability of 

a wolf pair and thereby adversely affect gray wolves. 

Cumulative Effects – When considered in context with past, 

present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the 

proposed action may cause adverse effects as a result of the 

incremental increase of effects. Due to the potential for 

direct and indirect effects from this action to result in the 

displacement of an individual or pack, and if other actions 

in the area (past, present or future) result in an animal being 

unable to find secure habitat and it results in an animal being 

harmed, injured, or killed as a result of this displacement, 

these effects would contribute, cumulatively, to cause 

adverse affects to the species. 

Pallid Sturgeon (Endangered) 

The primary factors associated with the decline of sturgeon 

are the past and present destruction and modification of 

habitat (USDI 1999b). The development of water resource 

projects within the Missouri River basin during the 1950’s 

and 1960’s, continued maintenance and operation of these 

projects, construction and operation of main stem and 

tributary dams and reservoirs, construction of river training 

structures, construction of levees for navigation and flood 

control, and water diversion projects have degraded sturgeon 

habitat. 

The past and continuing destruction and alteration of the 

large river functions and habitat once provided by the 

Missouri and Mississippi Rivers is believed to be the primary 

cause of declines in reproduction, growth, and survival of 

large river fish such as the endangered pallid sturgeon. 

The possibility of increased wildfire severity (under 

Alternative A) is not expected to adversely affect the 

endangered pallid sturgeon because it inhabits lowerelevation habitats in the Missouri River that are less 

responsive to federal land management and wildfire effects. 

Some increased sedimentation could result from wildland 

fire management actions and fuel treatments in the uplands. 

Increased sedimentation could cause minor effects to water 

quality. These effects would be negligible, given the current 

non-point sources of pollution, existing levels of 

sedimentation, and natural erosion near large rivers. 

Because of the great size of the rivers that pallid sturgeons 

inhabit and the typical water depths in which they have been 

found, the proposed activities would not contribute to direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects and would not further 

compromise the status of the pallid sturgeon. 

American Burying Beetle (Endangered)


This endangered species is very rare and listed only for the


South Dakota portion of the project area. Within South


Dakota it is only known to occur in Gregory and Tripp


Counties of which BLM has 172 and 160 surface acres,


respectively. There is no documented occurrence of the


species on BLM lands.


There is a very low likelihood of the species occurring within


the area of influence of the proposed action; however, if the


American burying beetle did occur in the project area,


activities associated with wildland fire management and/or


fuels treatments may disturb and/or displace individual


beetles. Since the American burying beetle is capable of


flight it would generally flee in advance of activities


associated with wildland fire management and/or fuels


treatments; it is therefore so unlikely as to be discountable


that any adverse effects would result.


Cumulative Effects – When considered in context with past,


present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the


proposed action is insignificant. Although there is a remote


chance for activities to displace beetles the effects would


not contribute, cumulatively, to cause adverse affects to the


species.


Bald Eagle (Threatened) 

Specific direction is provided in the July 1994 Montana Bald 

Eagle Management Plan to eliminate potential threats to 

nesting bald eagles through the use of nest site management 

zones. These zones have various levels of restricted use. 

BLM has adopted these guidelines as standards in addition 

to recovery plans and conservation strategies. In general, 

fuels projects are not planned for areas inhabited by bald 

eagles. Adherence to these standards and guidelines in site 

specific project planning would ensure that no adverse 

effects result from fuels reduction projects. 

Although it is unlikely that any activities from fuels 

treatments would affect eagles, there is potential for effects 

from wildland fire management activities. 

Wildland fires are not common along major waterways and 

when they do occur they are generally small and quickly 

contained. Suppression activities along a wooded shoreline 

may cause direct effects resulting from disturbance due to 

human activities. Human traffic from fire crews, vehicle 

traffic, and possibly aircraft could disturb eagles. These 

actions could take place during the nesting period; if they 

did, the disturbance could potentially cause the abandonment 

of a nest site, thus resulting in adverse affects to the species. 

It is possible that wildland fire suppression activities, 

primarily aerial support, could cause the loss of a nest 

structure. Any known nest sites would be protected from 

effects of suppression activities including aerial retardant 

or water drops from fixed wing or helicopter. However, with 

59

the recent increased recruitment of new nest sites, a 

previously undiscovered nest could be impacted. If a low 

level flight, retardant drop, or helicopter bucket drop 

occurred near an occupied nest, birds could be hit, nests 

could be destroyed (blown from the tree), young eagles could 

be displaced from the nest at too early of an age, nest trees 

could be damaged (top breakage), or other impacts could 

result in long-term loss of pair productivity or direct take of 

a bird. 

Cumulative Effects – When considered in context with past, 

present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, 

cumulative effects from proposed actions would be no 

greater than the direct and indirect effects. 

Piping Plover (Threatened)


There would be very little likelihood that wildland fire would


occur in the types of areas that typically contain nest sites,


(e.g., barren sand-pebble beaches, islands in freshwater and


saline wetlands, and shorelines or exposed beds of larger


reservoirs and rivers). If wildland fires occurred near


occupied nesting habitat, it is not likely that suppression


activities would disturb suitable nesting habitat, since the


nesting habitat would act a natural firebreak.


There is potential for insignificant direct and indirect effects 

from wildland fire management activities. Should a fire 

occur on a wooded island or on a wooded shoreline, 

suppression activities may cause direct effects resulting from 

disturbance due to human activities. Disturbance resulting 

from fire crew activity, vehicle traffic, and possibly aircraft 

could present disturbance factors. It is discountable these 

actions would take place in close proximity to nesting piping 

plover and if they did the disturbance would be short-term, 

insignificant and would not adversely affect the species. 

Although no fuels treatments are planned for piping plover 

habitat, there may be some potential for indirect effects 

resulting from associated actions of fuels treatments in the 

uplands. Heavy equipment for mechanical treatments, 

equipment for prescribed burning, and/or chemical control 

all pose some risk of hazardous fuel spills. In addition, any 

chemical treatments in the watershed pose some risk of down 

stream contamination. All of these hazards pose some threat 

of indirect effects to nesting habitat. The likelihood that 

any effect resulting from these risks is so small as to be 

discountable, and therefore are not likely to adversely affect 

the species. 

When considered in context with past, present, and 

foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the proposed action 

is insignificant. In relation to effects from large dams, 

irrigation ditch diversions, non-point source pollution, 

channelization, urban development, instream alterations, 

etc., the proposed action quickly becomes moot. Although 

there is some potential for insignificant minor effects these 

would not contribute, cumulatively, to cause adverse affects 

to the species. 

Piping Plover Designated Critical Habitat


BLM does not have surface management authority on any


areas of Designated Critical Habitat for the Piping Plover.


Proposed Critical Habitat is within the area of influence of


the proposed action and there may be short-term effects from


smoke, increased vehicle traffic on existing roads and trails,


and possibly application of aerial retardant or water for fire


suppression. These effects would be insignificant and not


likely to adversely affect critical habitat.


Canada Lynx (Threatened) 

Wildland fire management activities may disturb and 

displace Canada lynx. Suppression activities, except aerial 

support, usually flank fires. Fireline construction, and 

associated presence of humans and motorized equipment, 

should not cause direct effects to lynx. Lynx would usually 

flee in advance of an approaching fire and be out of the area 

of influence associated with suppression activities. An 

exception to this would be if an early season fire occurred 

in the vicinity of a den site. If kittens are not able to keep in 

contact with the mother, or if fire suppression activities 

encounter young that are temporarily left by the female while 

she is hunting, segregation or abandonment could result in 

direct adverse affects. 

Aerial support, including fixed wing and helicopter, could 

encounter lynx fleeing the area and cause direct effect from 

disturbance. There may also be direct effects from 

disturbance caused by increased human activity, including 

vehicular traffic and associated infrastructure such as fire 

camps. These short-term effects would be insignificant. 

Indirect, short or long-term effects from fire suppression 

activities may result from opening previously closed roads, 

constructing new or temporary roads, and building firebreaks 

and machine lines, etc. Effects would be most likely on 

ridges, saddles, or areas that would create permanent travel 

ways that could facilitate increased access by competitors 

(e.g., coyote, bobcat). Lynx may also be inhibited from 

returning to the area, after being displaced, due to reduced 

prey base or increased human presence as a result of 

increased vehicular traffic from increased open road 

densities. Increased access by competitors may cause 

indirect effects from competition for prey base. 

Fuels treatments are proposed on over 280,000 acres of 

forestlands per decade. These treatments would include 

approximately 176,000 acres of prescribed fire and 107,000 

acres of mechanical treatments. This represents 3 percent 

of the total BLM land and up to 37 percent of the forested 

land type under BLM administration. Fuels treatments 

conducted in areas frequented by lynx may cause both direct 

and indirect effects to the Canada lynx. 

60

Fuels treatments would target areas of overstocked stands 

of fire climax forest types, primarily ponderosa pine. Priority 

areas of treatment would be near communities and 

developments but would not be limited to those areas. These 

are not areas frequented by lynx due to the presence of 

humans and unsuitable habitat. Any treatments prescribed 

in suitable lynx habitat shall follow the appropriate 

conservation measures provided in the Canada Lynx 

Conservation Strategy (LCS) and incorporated by this 

Proposed Action through land use plan amendments. Sitespecific projects shall design fuel reduction treatments using 

the screening guidelines for Canada lynx, as provided in 

the Northwest National Fire Plan Consultation Packet for 

Public Lands and will also be subject to consultation 

requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. 

If fuels treatments are conducted in the spring or early 

summer in areas inhabited by lynx, there is potential for 

direct effects from disturbance and displacement of a family 

unit. Juvenile, young of the year lynx would generally not 

be very mobile at the time of project implementation. Any 

project activities prior to June 30 pose the risk of adverse 

effects resulting from the displacement from a den site and 

the possible abandonment or segregation of young from the 

female. If a kitten were separated from the female at this 

early age it would be very susceptible to predation or 

starvation. For that reason, seasonal restrictions would be 

imposed on fuels treatments in suitable lynx denning habitat 

to eliminate the potential for adverse effects. 

If fuels treatments are conducted in areas of existing or 

potential den sites, there is potential for indirect effects 

resulting from changed conditions. By adhering to the 

conservation measures prescribed in the LCS, these effects 

would be insignificant, and suitable denning habitat would 

be retained in a spatial arrangement over time that would 

maintain the suitability of the area for denning. 

Cumulative Effects – When considered in context with past, 

present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the 

proposed action may lead to adverse effects. Due to the 

potential for direct and indirect effects from this action to 

result in the displacement of a female with young, and if 

other actions in the area (past, present or future) result in 

the female and/or juveniles being unable to find secure 

habitat, and it results in an animal being harmed, injured, or 

killed as a result of this displacement, these effects would 

contribute, cumulatively, to cause adverse affects to the 

species. 

By applying the conservation measures provided in the Lynx 

Conservation Strategy, habitat would be maintained or 

improved by any fuels treatment projects. Wildland fire 

management actions would also adhere to LCS guidelines. 

If lynx denning habitat is limited in an area of BLM 

treatments, the treatment(s) must be consistent with the intent 

of the LCS and maintain suitable quantity and quality of 

foraging and denning habitat. If LCS standards are followed, 

no cumulative effects would result. 

Grizzly Bear (Threatened)


There are no BLM administered lands within defined core


areas. Effects to the grizzly bear would be limited to impacts


outside the core areas. Use of BLM administered lands by


grizzly bears outside the core areas is limited to transient


bears moving between seasonal forage or moving between


blocks of core areas.


Wildland fire management activities outside of core areas 

would be limited to insignificant short-term effects from 

disturbance and displacement. Suppression activities such 

as fireline construction with the associated presence of 

humans and motorized equipment should not cause any 

direct effects to grizzly bears. Bears would usually flee in 

advance of approaching fire and be out of the area of 

influence associated with suppression activities. If however, 

suppression activities were staged in advance of an 

approaching fire, grizzly may be encountered prior to their 

voluntary departure. Aerial support, including fixed wing 

and helicopter, could encounter grizzly either prior to their 

fleeing the area or while they are fleeing the area. Any 

interaction with the bear would cause some direct effect from 

disturbance. 

There may also be some direct effects from disturbance 

caused by increased human activity in the area. These 

activities may increase vehicle traffic and the associated 

infrastructure such as fire camps. There is also a remote 

possibility of a direct encounter with a grizzly by an 

individual or group involved in fire management activities. 

Any direct encounter would most likely result in the bear 

being displaced from the area and could potentially result 

in adverse affects resulting from vehicular collision or human 

depredation. 

Indirect, long-term effects from fire suppression activities 

may result from opening previously closed roads, 

constructing roads, firebreaks, machine lines, etc., and would 

contribute to the open and total route densities that are limited 

in these areas to protect grizzly bears. In accordance with 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, BLM would make 

such routes inaccessible to motorized use or the routes would 

be included in access density calculations and thereby subject 

to appropriate access limitations. 

Fuels treatments are proposed on over 280,000 acres of 

forestlands per decade. These treatments would include 

approximately 176,000 acres of prescribed fire and 107,000 

acres of mechanical treatments. This represents 3 percent 

61

of the total BLM land acreage and up to 37 percent of the 

forested land type under BLM administration. If fuel 

treatments are conducted in areas frequented by grizzly bears 

it may cause short and long-term, direct and indirect effects. 

Fuel treatments would target areas of overstocked stands of 

fire climax forest types, primarily ponderosa pine. Priority 

areas of treatment would be near communities but would 

not be limited to those areas. These are not areas frequented 

by grizzly due to the presence of humans and other 

disturbance factors. Treatments prescribed in suitable grizzly 

habitat shall follow the appropriate measures for the specific 

ecosystem (Northern Continental Divide or Greater 

Yellowstone), as provided in the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Guidelines and incorporated by this Proposed Action through 

land use plan amendments. Site-specific projects shall 

design fuel reduction treatments using the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Guidelines as well as the grizzly bear screening 

guidelines provided in the Northwest National Fire Plan 

Consultation Packet for Public Lands and will be subject to 

consultation requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Cumulative Effects—When considered in context with past, 

present, and foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the 

proposed action may cause adverse affects as a result of the 

incremental increase of effects. Due to the potential for 

direct and indirect effects from this action to result in the 

displacement of an individual and, if other actions in the 

area (past present or future) result in an animal being unable 

to find secure habitat and it results in an animal being 

harmed, injured, or killed as a result of this displacement, 

these effects would contribute, cumulatively, to cause 

adverse affects to the species. 

Bull Trout (Threatened)


Because sediment delivery and removal of riparian


vegetation due to land management activities are commonly


considered an impact to aquatic species, it is logical to


conclude that preventing intense wildfire and the resulting


decrease in post-fire erosion and sedimentation would be a


benefit.


Suppression of wildfires can also, in certain situations, have 

adverse effects on aquatic populations. Fire lines, water 

drafting, and fuel spills can have significant short and longterm impacts on stream and wetland systems, especially the 

smaller streams where much of the activity often occurs takes 

place. Fire behavior is rarely predictable and commonly 

requires a host of suppression activities across many 

locations to cover contingencies should a fire change 

direction or character. One unfortunate (but often 

unavoidable) result is a network of firelines (hand or 

machine-built), in and outside the fire perimeter, which can 

have similar impacts as roads designed below-standards. 

Water drafting, fuel spills, and inputs of retardant also may 

also adversely impact aquatic species, especially in smaller 

streams (Norris et al. 1991). 

Attempts to reduce future fire risk may result in significant 

impacts to fisheries with no guarantee of positive return. 

Salvage of burned trees to reduce future fuel loading may 

be accomplished with minimal impacts in some areas, but 

in others, sensitivity to ground disturbance from loss of 

vegetation can cause increased erosion, compacted soils, 

and a loss of nutrients (USDA 2000, Beschta et al. 1995). 

Post-fire activities that increase the probability of chronic 

sediment inputs to aquatic systems may pose greater threats 

to bull trout and the aquatic ecosystem integrity than natural 

events associated with undesired forest stand condition 

(Frissell and Bayles 1996). Bull trout (Missoula Field Office 

only) occupy streams where protective habitat features and 

downstream refugia are still present. As a result, should 

severe wildfires occur, bull trout are expected to persist. 

Although minimum-impact suppression techniques (MIST) 

have been developed, the primary objective during 

emergency suppression is to protect life and property. As 

described above, the impacts of suppression are typically 

greater to aquatic species than the impacts of the fire. 

Additionally, because species and habitat protection is 

(naturally) ranked below protection of life and property, there 

is no assurance that MIST techniques can and will be 

followed. 

Specific impacts to aquatic species and habitats that have 

been documented during suppression operations in the past 

include: introduction of fire retardant in streams and 

wetlands, spillage of aviation fuel or lubricants in streams 

or introduction into water tables, construction of fire line 

(hand- and machine-built) and exposure of soils on steep 

slopes adjacent to streams, damage to riparian vegetation 

and soils from use of heavy equipment off of established 

roads, eliminating natural streamflow during drafting, 

establishment of fire camps in or adjacent to sensitive 

riparian areas. 

Prescribed fire activities are often identical to those described 

in the suppression category. However, because prescribed 

fires are not an emergency, it is assumed that there will be 

sufficient planning to develop design features for the projects 

that will prevent adverse impacts to aquatic habitat and 

species. 

Because the activities in prescribed fire may be similar to 

those in suppression, potential impacts may be the same. 

Additionally, improperly planned or “runaway” prescribed 

fire may severely burn riparian vegetation, reducing shade, 

exposing streamside soils, etc. Therefore, even though there 

are no fuels reduction treatments planned for riparian habitat 

types, there would still be some potential for adverse effects 

to bull trout from these activities. 

62

All wildland fire management activities and fuel treatments 

will follow the conservation measures provided in the 

Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy. If these 

measures are followed, effects to bull trout from wildfire 

activities and fuels treatments would be minimized but may 

still lead to adverse affects. 

Bull Trout Proposed Critical Habitat


With application of the Interim Bull Trout Habitat


Conservation Strategy, effects from wildfire management


activities and fuels treatments would be insignificant.


Conservation measures that provide protective buffer area


(Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) would ensure that no


adverse modification to proposed critical habitat occurs.


Ute Ladies’-tresses and Water Howellia (Threatened) 

Surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses were conducted to delimit 

the range of distribution in Montana, including the most 

likely BLM and NFS lands. This species was not found on 

NFS or BLM lands (B. Heidel, pers. comm. 2000). 

BLM lands with potential habitat for the Water Howellia 

have been inventoried and no occurrence of the species has 

been documented Due to low likelihood of occurrence for 

either species on BLM lands, the habitat for either species 

not being prone to wildland fire, and no fuels treatments 

planned for the habitat types that support either species, there 

would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to either 

species. 

If either species is located on BLM lands in the future, 

consultation for the action shall be reinitiated. 

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Threatened)


This threatened species is restricted to areas in North Dakota.


Due to the scattered nature and low number of BLM lands


in North Dakota, the low likelihood of the species occurrence


on BLM lands, and no fuels treatments planned for habitat


types that support this species, there would be no direct,


indirect, or cumulative effects.


Should populations of the species be located on BLM 

administered lands in the future, consultation for this action 

shall be reinitiated. 

Mountain Plover (Proposed)


Due to the close association of the mountain plover with


black-tailed prairie dog towns, the analysis for effects to


this species are much the same as for black footed ferret.


Mountain plover would be most susceptible to effects caused


by disturbance and displacement during the nesting and


brooding season, which extends from mid-April through


August. The preferred alternative may potentially cause


direct effects to mountain plover during this time as a result


of fire suppression or fuels reduction activities and effects


from downwind smoke.


Areas suitable for mountain plover nesting such as prairie 

dog towns or habitat characterized by sparse vegetation with 

at least 30 percent bare ground are very unlikely to incur 

effects from wildfire. Prairie dog towns are naturally 

insulated from wildfire effects due to the lack of vegetative 

cover resulting from prairie dog grazing. Wildfire would 

generally not carry across a prairie dog town or other suitable 

nesting habitat but may burn areas around and between 

potential nesting areas. For this reason, it is discountable 

that fire suppression activities would be employed on prairie 

dog towns or come in contact with suitable nesting habitat, 

and therefore this action is not likely to adversely affect the 

mountain plover. 

Indirect effects may occur as a result of changes in vegetative 

cover or species types in areas disturbed by fire suppression 

activities. These effects would generally be limited to narrow 

corridors of fire line or travel ways on the fringes of prairie 

dog towns and in the surrounding areas impacted by fire. 

These effects could result in some reduced expansion rates 

of prairie dogs and/or reduced densities of prairie dog 

numbers on the edges of towns. However, these corridors 

could also serve as dispersal corridors for prairie dogs to 

move off and colonize new areas, thereby creating additional 

habitat in the long term. Overall, it is discountable that these 

effects would occur and those that did would be insignificant 

in terms of acres of affected habitat, and therefore is not 

likely to adversely affect the mountain plover 

Due to the inherently low fuel levels on and around prairie 

dog towns and other suitable nesting habitat, there are no 

fuels treatments planned for these habitats types at this time 

and it is unlikely that these habitat types would ever be 

targeted for fuels treatments. Therefore, no effects, either 

direct or indirect, would occur as a result of fuels reduction 

activities. 

When considered in context with past, present, and 

foreseeable future (non-federal) actions, the proposed action 

would not cumulatively contribute to cause an adverse affect 

or jeopardy to the species. Since any effects would be 

insignificant or discountable they would not cumulatively 

cause adverse affects or jeopardy. 

Conclusion (T/E/P Species):


The Biological Assessment (BA) of Threatened,


Endangered, and Proposed Species provides direction to


protect these species and to mitigate potential adverse effects.


The mandatory direction contained in section 2.5.3.1 was 

designed to reduce potential adverse effects to federally listed 

and proposed species. These measures were included as 

mitigation in the Biological Assessment for this action and 

consulted on with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the 

requirements of Section 7 of the ESA. These measures 

would be followed during wildland fire management 

activities and fuels reduction projects, unless there is risk to 

63

human life or a more preferable way of minimizing the 

effects, based on characteristics of individual projects, could 

be developed through consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Wildland fire management and fuels reduction activities 

would also operate under applicable guidelines, standards 

and protection measures as established in this document and 

incorporated into the land use plans through amendment. 

Based on the mitigation and protection afforded by the 

guidance and direction contained in this assessment, the 

following determinations of effect to federally listed 

threatened, endangered, and proposed species, and proposed 

critical habitat are made for the area of influence of the 

proposed action. 

No Effect 

· Whooping Crane 

· Pallid Sturgeon 

· Ute Ladies’-tresses 

· Water Howellia 

· Western Prairie Fringed Orchid 

· Critical Habitat for Piping Plover 

May Affect but Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

· Interior Least Tern 

· Black-footed Ferret 

· American Burying Beetle 

· Piping Plover 

· Mountain Plover 

May Affect and Is Likely to Adversely Affect 

· Gray Wolf 

· Bald Eagle 

· Canada Lynx 

· Grizzly Bear 

· Bull Trout 

· Proposed Critical Habitat for Bull Trout 

Not Likely to Jeopardize the Species 

· Mountain Plover – (under the current proposed status); 

and 

May Affect but Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect (under 

the Threatened status if the Mountain Plover is listed). 

3.9 Cultural (BLM Critical Element) and 

Paleontological Resources 

The BLM will comply with requirements in the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and will ensure the 

identification of cultural resources that may be affected by 

a federal undertaking (e.g., fire restoration activities). 

Cultural resources considered eligible for or listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places should either be avoided 

or a plan for mitigating the effects of the proposed action 

should be formulated and implemented. BLM will consider 

effects to eligible cultural resources according to existing 

agreements developed for purposes of fulfilling 

responsibilities under the NHPA. If no agreements are in 

place, eligible cultural resources will be considered 

consistent with regulations at 36 CFR 800. 

Environmental Consequences 

The effect of wildland fire and prescribed burning on cultural 

resources depends on the location of the resource with 

respect to the ground surface, the proximity to fuels that 

could provide a source of heat, the material from which 

artifacts are made, and the temperature to which artifacts 

are exposed. Threshold temperatures for damage to cultural 

artifacts manufactured from different materials, such as 

ceramic or stone, vary significantly. 

Surface or near-surface cultural materials may be damaged, 

destroyed, or remain essentially unaffected by fires, 

depending on the temperatures reached and the duration of 

exposure to that temperature. Wooden structures or wooden 

parts of stone structures are susceptible to fire. Combustible 

artifacts lying directly on the ground surface could be 

damaged or destroyed. The ability to date noncombustible 

surface artifacts may be adversely affected if exposed to 

specific high temperatures. Subsurface materials are usually 

affected by fire only if excessive amounts of soil heating 

occur (where dry accumulations of dead woody fuel or duff 

layers are consumed, as by wildland fire). 

Prescribed fires in areas of cultural significance would not 

be ignited under conditions dry enough to cause significant 

subsurface heating. Subsurface cultural resources are 

generally more subject to harm from construction of fire 

lines around planned fire boundaries than from the fire itself. 

The heat, smoke, and soot from fires can also damage 

cultural resources, especially prehistoric rock art, by causing 

spalling which physically destroys the resource or by 

obscuring the surface of the resource with smoke and soot. 

Smoke and soot can damage cultural resources by either 

increasing chemical deterioration or obscuring carvings and 

painted motifs. 

Damage to cultural resources, prehistoric and historic, also 

results from fire suppression related activities. Cultural 

resources may be more at risk from activities such as blading 

fire lines, setting camps and staging areas, or using vehicles 

off road, than by the fire. 

Impacts from smoke, heat, or soot are not believed to produce 

measurable effects on fossil resources unless those elements 

are in close proximity the resources. 

The effect of fire on fossil resources is directly related to 

the location of the resource with respect to the ground 

64

surface, the proximity of the fuels which provide the source 

of heat, and the location and use of hand tools, motorized 

vehicles, fossil collecting activities, and heavy equipment. 

Fossils lying at or near the surface would likely be located 

in an area lacking vegetation or fuel. 

Wildland fire and prescribed burns make sites more 

susceptible to the effects of erosion and it also results in a 

more visible resource. Illegal collecting may increase on 

burned areas, especially along access routes. 

The greatest risk for these resources would likely come from 

the equipment and activities associated with fire 

management activities. This includes any surface disturbing 

activities such as camp preparation, fire line construction, 

motorized vehicle use, and heavy equipment operation. If 

these activities are isolated from the fossil producing 

formations, the impacts to these resources should be 

negligible. 

For fuel reduction projects where mechanical treatments are 

proposed, a Class III inventory would be conducted. If 

prehistoric or historic resources are located, the mechanical 

treatment would be changed to avoid or provide treatment 

to the resource to eliminate harm to heritage resources. 

Given these procedures, impacts to significant cultural 

resources are not anticipated from mechanical treatments. 

In areas where fossil resources are known or anticipated, 

mechanical treatments will include provisions to avoid areas 

containing sensitive fossil producing formations. If those 

areas cannot be avoided by the treatments or associated 

activities, a qualified paleontologist will be retained to 

recover specimens subject to direct impact. 

Conclusion: 

With Alternative A, wildland fires would be anticipated on 

over 47,000 acres over the next decade. Any or all of the 

impacts associated with wildland fire and fire suppression 

described above could also be anticipated. 

Cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would 

either be avoided, or a plan for mitigating the effects of the 

fuel treatments would be formulated and implemented. This 

would minimize the effects on cultural resources of treating 

an estimated 193,000 acres within a decade. 

Alternative B would provide additional fire management 

guidance for wildland fire suppression and, in addition, 

continue with current survey guidelines for prescribed burns 

in Montana and sets guidelines for prescribed burns in North 

and South Dakota. The continuation of existing policy on 

prescribed burns for Montana, the implementation of new 

prescribed burn guidelines for North and South Dakota, and 

changes in the way cultural resources are considered in a 

wildland fire suppression environment are all aimed at the 

protection of cultural resources. 

Little or no impact would be anticipated from fuels 

management activities on 457,000 acres per decade since 

sites would be examined for cultural and paleontological 

resources before any activity would occur. Impacts would 

be avoided or mitigated. 

Under Alternative A, management of paleontological 

resources for prescribed burns or for wildfire management 

is generally absent. Alternative B does provide fire 

management objectives and guidance for wildland fire 

suppression and rehabilitation and also provides guidance 

for prescribed fire. These guidelines are intended to provide 

added protection to paleontological resources during wildfire 

suppression and prescribed fire activities. 

3.10 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(BLM Critical Element) 

Over 40 areas within Montana and the Dakotas have been 

found suitable for designation as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs). These areas have 

received special designations and ACEC management plans 

have been adopted to protect unique resources and values. 

Fire management zone categorizations for each ACEC are 

listed in Table 12. Neither alternative would result in 

negative effects to ACECs because ACEC status would be 

considered for both fire management actions and in sitespecific implementation assessments for hazardous fuels 

reduction projects. 

3.11 Prime or Unique Farm Lands (BLM 

Critical Element) 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1985 and 1995 

requires that actions be identified if they would affect any 

lands classified as prime and unique farmlands. Neither the 

wildland fire suppression nor the fuels treatments anticipated 

with either alternative would contribute to the unnecessary 

and irreversible conversion of prime or unique farmland to 

non-agricultural uses. 

65

Table 12 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACEC Name Acres Reason for Designation Category and Fire Management 

Zone (Alternative B) 

Billings Field Office 

Four Dances 

East Pryor Mountains 

Weatherman Draw 

Meeteetse Spires 

Bridger Fossil 

Stark Site 

Petroglyph Canyon 

Pompey’s Pillar 

Castle Butte 

765 

29,500 

4,268 

960 

575 

800 

240 

470 

185 

Archaeology, cultural values, 

scenery, natural hazards, historic 

Wildlife, wild horses, paleontology 

Cultural 

Rare plant, hazardous cliffs, scenery 

Paleontology 

Cultural 

Cultural 

Historic, cultural, recreation 

Cultural 

B Billings Grasslands 

C Pryor Mountains 

B Billings Grasslands 

B Billings Grasslands 

B Billings Grasslands 

B Billings Grasslands 

B Billings Grasslands 

B Pompeys Pillar 

B Billings Grasslands 

Butte Field Office 

Sleeping Giant 11,609 Recreation, scenic, fish and wildlife C Sleeping Giant/Sheep Creek 

Lewistown Field Office 

Sweetgrass Hills 

Kevin Rim 

Acid Shale-Pine Forest 

Judith Mountains Scenic Area 

Collar Gulch 

Square Butte ONA 

Cow Creek 

7,952 

4,657 

2,463 

3,702 

1,618 

1,947 

14,000 

Cultural, T&E, wildlife, recreation 

Wildlife (raptors), cultural, recreation 

Endemic plant community 

Scenic, wildlife, recreation 

Westslope cutthroat trout 

Natural endemic systems, cultural, 

scenic, geologic 

Riparian, natural hazard, geology, 

scenic, natural system, Nez Perce trail 

B Grass/Rangelands 

B Grass/Rangelands 

B Grass/Rangelands 

B Timber/Mountain Ranges 

B Timber/Mountain Ranges 

B Grass/Rangelands 

C Missouri Breaks 

Malta Field Office 

Prairie Dog Towns 

Big Bend of the Milk River 

Azure Cave 

12,346 

2,120 

140 

Black-footed ferret reintroduction 

habitat 

Archaeological resources 

Cave resources, bats 

B Grass/Range Lands 

B Grass/Range Lands 

B Timber/Mountain Range 

Miles City Field Office 

Powder River Depot 

Hell Creek 

Sand Arroyo 

Smoky Butte 

Black-Footed Ferret 

Piping Plover 

Jordan Bison Kill 

Seline 

Ash Creek Divide 

Hoe 

Big Sheep Mountain 

Bug Creek 

Finger Buttes 

Howrey Island 

Battle Butte 

Reynolds Battlefield 

1,386 

19,169 

9,056 

80 

11,166 

16 

160 

80 

7,931 

144 

360 

3,840 

1,520 

321 

120 

336 

Cultural 

Paleontology 

Paleontology 

Geology, recreation 

Wildlife 

Wildlife 

Cultural 

Cultural 

Paleontology 

Cultural 

Cultural 

Paleontology 

Scenery 

T&E Wildlife 

Cultural 

Cultural 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

Missoula Field Office 

Bear Creek Flats 

Rattler Gulch Limestone Cliffs 

Squaw Rock 

564 

20 

640 

Riparian, fish, old growth pine, 

Geological 

Scenic, wildlife, recreation, T&E 

fish (bull trout) 

C Blackfoot 

B Clark Fork Front 

B Flintrock 

South Dakota Field Office 

Fort Meade Recreation Area 

Fossil Cycad 

6,700 

321 

Historic, cultural 

Paleontology 

B Ft. Meade Rec. Area ACEC 

B Remainder of SD Field Office 

66

3.12 Floodplains (BLM Critical Element) 

Executive Order 11988 was enacted to “avoid to the extent 

possible the long-term and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative.” No developments or effects of development 

by the BLM would be anticipated in a floodplain with either 

alternative. 

3.13 Invasive and Non-Native Species (BLM 

Critical Element) 

Some of the activities and land uses would introduce and/or 

spread noxious weeds. Chemical treatments considered in 

this analysis are mostly related to weed treatments. 

Anticipated levels of treatments for each alternative are 

displayed in Tables 2 and 5. A brief description of these 

treatments is available in section 3.1.1.3. 

3.14 Native American Religious Concerns 

(BLM Critical Element) 

Contact was initiated with Native American groups. No 

concerns were submitted that either alternative would 

interfere with the inherent right of freedom to believe, 

express, and exercise traditional religions, including access 

to religious sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and 

freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites 

as established in the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act of 1978. 

3.15 Wastes, Hazardous or Solid (BLM 

Critical Element) 

Activities associated with either alternative would be 

conducted to be in compliance with the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),that provides 

“cradle to grave” control of hazardous waste and solid wastes 

by imposing management requirements on generators and 

transporters of the wastes. Spills of retardant, fuels, and other 

chemicals may be subject to the spill reporting requirements 

of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Clean Water 

Act. These reporting requirements are contained in the 

National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). In general, 

with “proper housekeeping procedures,” compliance with 

these environmental laws and regulations would not be a 

significant concern for any of the activities associated with 

the two alternatives. 

3.16 Wetlands/Riparian Zones (BLM Critical 

Element) 

Management considerations must comply with Executive 

Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, which requires federal 

agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation 

of wetlands while preserving and enhancing their natural 

and beneficial values on federal property. The order restricts 

most activities that could affect wetlands administered by 

the federal government. Activities mentioned in the EO 

include federal activities and programs affecting land use. 

See Aquatic Habitats in Section 3.6 for impact analysis. 

3.17 Wild and Scenic Rivers (BLM Critical 

Element) 

BLM currently manages one designated Wild and Scenic 

River segment. The Upper Missouri National Wild and 

Scenic River (UMNWSR) is located between Fort Benton 

and US Highway 191 in northcentral Montana. This 149-

mile stretch of river flows generally west to east through 

Chouteau, Blaine, Fergus, and Phillips counties. Neither 

public input nor analysis identified issues/concerns on the 

relationship of fire and fuels management to the Upper 

Missouri Wild and Scenic River designation. 

3.18 Recreational and Visual Resources 

Environmental Consequences (Recreation and Visual) 

Large severe wildland fires change the landscape in a way 

that degrades visual quality and recreation opportunities and 

recreation experiences, especially on fragile soils and 

forestlands where the duration of impacts is also longer. The 

use of heavy equipment to blade fire lines and the use of 

staging areas leaves lasting visual scars that degrade the 

visual quality and recreation experience. The landscape may 

be blackened until vegetation is reestablished. 

Full suppression could change the landscape to clearly 

appear altered by man. For example, a bladed fire line may 

create a visual contrast that makes human intervention 

apparent. 

Potential visual effects from a severe wildland fire may 

include loss of living timber, blackening the landscape, and 

blackened deadfall. 

Smoke from fires degrades air quality, visual quality, and 

recreational experiences. Visitation to burned areas would 

decline or cease altogether until recovery. Visitation could 

increase fairly soon if the fire creates more “edge effect”, 

i.e. the richness of flora and fauna occurring in a transition 

67

zone where two plant communities or successional stages 

meet and mix (USDA 1988). 

During periods of high fire danger and extensive wildland 

fire activity, such as in the summer of 2000, recreation use 

may be restricted or prohibited on large areas of public lands 

to protect public safety 

Prescribed burning creates contrasting blackened areas and 

releases smoke into the air that temporarily impairs visibility. 

Burning does lessen the amount of logging debris that is 

seen and darkens the color of stumps and snags that, if not 

burned, would become more noticeable as they bleached 

over time. 

The recreation and visual impacts described above would 

be more common with Alternative A because wildland fires 

would be expected to burn hotter and be more severe than 

with Alternative B. Alternative A also provides less guidance 

to protect visual and recreation resources. 

Short-term adverse visual impacts would be associated with 

mechanical and chemical treatments. For example, thinning 

hazardous forest fuels would change the visual character of 

the forest viewshed. Slash piles would create short-term 

visual impacts until piles are burned and the burned spots 

are seeded These treatments would reduce the potential for 

negative long-term visual impacts associated with a standreplacement fire. Measures such as feathered fuel breaks 

and treating areas in a mosaic pattern would help reduce 

visual impact of reducing hazardous fuels by thinning 

forestlands or using prescribed burns. These impacts would 

be more likely with Alternative B since more areas would 

be treated. 

Conclusion (Recreation and Visual) 

With Alternative A, more severe wild fires would be 

expected especially near priority interface areas where visual 

quality is often a public concern of rural residents. Most of 

the wildfires on untreated forestlands would be stand 

replacement fires that change the visual quality and visual 

resource management (VRM) class for many years and the 

recreation experience for almost as long. 

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatments on 50,000 acres 

of grasslands, 9,000 acres of shrublands, and 130,000 acres 

of forestlands over a 10-year period would also affect visual 

quality and recreation experiences. 

Treatments anticipated with both alternatives would help 

reduce the risks of wildland fire impacts 

With Alternative B, wildland fires would be expected to burn 

fewer acres and cause less severe visual impacts. The longterm potential for stand-replacement wildland fires would 

decrease, with a corresponding decrease in visual and 

recreation impacts. 

Visual quality and recreation opportunities would be affected 

by prescribed fire and mechanical treatments applied to more 

areas (90,000 acres of grasslands, 77,000 acres of shrublands, 

and 283,000 acres of forestlands). New guidance for fuel 

treatments (see section 2.5.3.1) would help mitigate adverse 

impacts. 

3.19 Wilderness (BLM Critical Element) and 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Affected Environment (Wilderness and Special Areas) 

One 6,000-acre BLM site in Montana/Dakotas is a 

designated Wilderness Area, and 40 BLM sites totaling 

452,563 acres are Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The 

WSAs meet the criteria set forth for potential wilderness 

designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964. These criteria 

include size, influence of man, absence of human habitation, 

and opportunities for solitude of primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. All Wilderness and WSAs are classified 

as VRM Class I unless specifically exempted from this 

classification in an RMP. 

Fire is a natural component of many wilderness ecosystems 

and WSAs. Lightning caused fires should be allowed to play, 

as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within 

wilderness and wilderness study areas. 

Special consideration and restrictions must be applied in 

wildland fire suppression and hazardous fuel reduction 

efforts in wilderness and wilderness study areas. Actions in 

WSAs are guided by the Interim Management Policy (IMP) 

until Congress makes a final wilderness determination. The 

Interim Management Policy and BLM Handbook H-8560-

1 provide for the management of designated Wilderness 

Areas, including objectives for fire management. 

In conjunction with allowing naturally occurring fires to play 

their natural ecological role, fire plans for WSAs need to be 

developed. Fire suppression in designated wilderness and 

WSAs would use methods that are least damaging to 

wilderness values, including Light-on-the-land and MIST, 

and consider minimum tool requirements. Prescribed 

burning and other fuels management are not exceptions to 

the Nonimpairment Mandate. Any such activities proposed 

must not impair wilderness values and must be analyzed 

with pre-IMP screens, IMP screens, public notification and 

the Nonimpairment environmental analysis. Managementignited fires should not be used to achieve wilderness 

objectives where lightning caused fires can achieve them. 

Environmental Consequences (Wilderness and Special 

Areas) 

There would be very little difference in impacts on 

wilderness and wilderness values anticipated between the 

68

Table 13 BLM Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 

Name(Acres) WSA Catalog Number Category and FMZ 

Burnt Timber Canyon (3,430) 

Pryor Mountain (13,397; 4,352 additional in WY) 

Big Horn Tack On (3,308; 353 additional in WY) 

Twin Coulee (6,870) 

Billings Field Office 

MT-067-205 

MT-067-206 

MT-067-207 

MT-067-212 

C Pryor Mountain 

C Pryor Mountain 

C Pryor Mountain 

B Twin Coulee WSA 

Humburg Spires (11,175) 

Sleeping Giant/Sheep Creek 

Black Sage (5,926) 

Yellowstone River Island (53) 

Elk Horn MT Section 202 (3,585) 

Butte Field Office 

MT-ISA-003 

MT-075-111 

MT-075-115 

MT-074-133 

MT-075-114 

C McCartney-Rochester 

C Sleeping Giant-Sheep Creek 

C Three Forks 

A Bozeman-Livingston Scattered Tracts 

C Elkhorn Mountains 

Bear Trap Canyon WILDERNESS (6,000) 

Ruby Mountains (26,611) 

Blacktail Mountains (17,497) 

East Fork, Blacktail Deer Creek (6,230) 

Hidden Pasture Creek (15,509) 

Bell/Limekiln Canyons (9,650) 

Henneberry Ridge (9,806) 

Farlin Creek (1,139) Section 202 

Axolotl Lakes (7,804) 

Centennial Mountains (27,691) 

Tobacco Root Tack On 

Dillon Field Office 

MT-076-001 

MT-076-002 

MT-076-007 

MT-076-022 

MT-076-026 

MT-076-028 

MT-076-034 

MT-076-069 

MT-076-069 

MT-ISA-002 

Section 202** 

C East Madison 

D North Rubys 

C Blacktail Mountains 

C Sweetwater-Ruby 

C Tendoy Mountains 

C Tendoy Mountains 

C Tendoy Mountains 

C Southeast Foothills-Pioneers 

C Gravelly Mountains 

C Centennial 

C Tobacco Root Mountains 

Square Butte (1,947) 

Stafford (4,800) 

Ervin Ridge (10,200) 

*Cow Creek (34,050) 

Dog Creek South (5,150) 

Woodhawk (8,100) 

Beaver Meadows (595) 

North Fork Sun River (196) 

Lewistown Field Office 

MT-ISA-004 

MT-068-250 

MT-068-253 

MT-066-256 

MT-068-244 

MT-068-246 

Section 202** 

Section 202** 

B Range/Grasslands 

C Missouri Breaks 

C Missouri Breaks 

C Missouri Breaks 

C Missouri Breaks 

C Missouri Breaks 

B Range/Grasslands 

C Rocky Mountain Front 

Burnt Lodge (13,730) 

Bitter Creek (59,600) 

Antelope Creek (12,350) 

Malta Field Office 

MT-065-278 

MT-064-356 

MT-065-266 

B Range/Grasslands 

B Range/Grasslands 

C Missouri Breaks 

Billy Creek (3,450) 

Seven Blackfoot (20,330) 

Bridge Coulee (5,900) 

Musselshell Breaks (8,650) 

Terry Badlands (44,910) 

Zook Creek (8,438) 

Buffalo Creek (5,650) 

Miles City Field Office 

MT-024-633 

MT-024-657 

MT-024-657 

MT-024-677 

MT-024-684 

MT-027-701 

MT-027-702 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

C Special Management Areas 

Wales Creek (11,580) 

Hoodoo Mountain (11,380) 

Quigg West (520) 

Missoula Field Office 

MT-074-151A 

MT-074-155 

MT-074-150 

C Hoodoo 

B Flintrock 

C Blackfoot 

*Management responsibility is shared with Malta Field Office 

**Section 202: Study not complete 

69 
two alternatives at this level of planning. The guidelines, 

regulations, and policies are established and must be 

followed. Analysis of the impacts would be determined in 

any project-level analysis. However, with Alternative B, 

there may be more of an awareness of the special 

considerations required for fire management of wilderness 

and WSAs and also a heightened awareness of their locations 

and boundaries. 

3.20 Environmental Justice (BLM Critical 

Element) 

Neither alternative would result in identifiable effects or 

issues specific to any minority or low-income population or 

community. BLM has considered all input from persons or 

groups regardless of age, race, income status, or other social 

or economic characteristic. 

3.21 Social, Human Health, and Safety 

Affected Environment (Social, human health and safety) 

In 2002, the populations of Montana, North Dakota and 

South Dakota were each less than one million people, 

resulting in population densities of 6 people per square mile 

in Montana, 9 people per square mile in North Dakota and 

10 people per square mile in South Dakota. Montana’s 2000 

population of 902,165 was a 13 percent increase over 1990. 

During the same time period South Dakota’s population 

(754,844 in 2000) grew by nine percent and North Dakota’s 

population (642,200 in 2000) grew by less than one percent. 

The populations of all three states are expected to grow in 

the next 25 years. 

Populations projections for Montana in 2025 range between 

1,121,000 and 1,187,000. Populations projections for North 

Dakota in 2025 range between 729,000 and 778,000. The 

same figures for South Dakota are between 866,000 and 

962,000 in 2025. 

The movement of people into some rural areas began in the 

1970s and is expected to continue into the 21st century. In 

scenic areas, particularly those suited for recreation, lands 

are being developed for recreation uses or subdivided for 

homes and cabins. New rural subdivisions are appearing 

across Montana and the Dakotas. 

In some cases, these subdivisions are adjacent to public 

lands. In 1999, BLM field office personnel completed a 

Wildland/Urban Interface Risk Questionnaire for areas 

adjacent to public lands. Of 79 priority communities 

identified as part of the 1999 survey, 67 had moderate to 

high escaped fire potential and/or moderate to high potential 

for loss of life or property; 11 were considered to have high 

level of community support for actions to reduce hazardous 

fuels; 16 were considered neutral or not to have an opinion; 

and seven were considered to be averse to hazardous fuels 

projects. The level of community support was unknown 

for the other communities. Since that survey was completed, 

wildland fire has occurred in or near six of the priority 

communities. 

The extreme fire season of 2000 brought a surge of interest 

in attitudes toward wildfires and vegetative treatments that 

could address fire potential. A national level survey 

conducted in the summer of 2001 asked questions about 

attitudes toward vegetative treatment on public forests and 

rangelands (Schindler and Brunson, 2002). About 40 percent 

of the respondents supported the use of prescribed fires 

“whenever managers see fit,” while an equal number of 

respondents indicated prescribed fires should be done “only 

infrequently, in carefully selected areas.” Nearly half of the 

respondents indicated that mechanical vegetation removal 

on public lands is a legitimate tool that resource managers 

should be able to use whenever they see fit, with another 

quarter of the respondents indicating that it is something 

that should be done only infrequently in carefully selected 

areas. Concerns about prescribed fire include loss of wildlife 

and fish habitat (64 percent of respondents indicated that 

this was of great to moderate concern), damage to private 

property (59 percent), deteriorated public water supply (56 

percent), increased levels of smoke (53 percent), economic 

loss of usable timber (44 percent), reduced scenic quality 

(42 percent), and effects on recreation opportunities (41 

percent). 

A survey of attitudes toward forest and fire management in 

the urban-wildland interface was conducted in Ravalli 

County after the severe fire season of 2000 (University of 

Montana (UM), Bureau of Business and Economic Research 

(BBER), 2001). Respondents indicated that the following 

were important or very important: 

•	 Educating landowners about fire hazards (88 

percent of respondents), 

•	 Reducing fuels and fire hazards (84 percent of 

respondents), 

• Thinning trees (83 percent of respondents), 

•	 Using prescribed burning (66 percent of 

respondents), and 

•	 Doing nothing in the urban-wildland interface (5 

percent of respondents) 

Protection of human life is the top priority established by 

the 2001 Review and Update of the Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy. During wildland fire management 

(suppression) activities, human safety will be considered 

above other values and response will be designed 

accordingly. 

70

Environmental Consequences (Social, human health 

and safety) 

Under Alternative A, in an average 10 year period, 158,000 

acres would be treated with prescribed burns, 35,000 acres 

would be mechanically treated, and 3,500 acres of weed 

would be chemically treated. The existing fire trends 

concerning fire size, intensity, and severity would continue 

on untreated areas. 

Smoke can have a short-term impact on air quality. 

Individuals may experience eye, throat, or lung irritation 

from these exposures. People with asthma, allergies, and 

other breathing difficulties are likely to be especially 

sensitive to smoke from both wildland fires and from 

prescribed fires. 

Other potential effects of wildland fires include potential 

injury, loss of property, and reduced recreation potential (UM 

BBER, 2001). 

Alternative A would be less responsive to the preference for 

active fire management as reported in the study by UM 

BBER. There would be more disruption of daily living 

patterns if wildfires were to occur and health and safety 

concerns could not be addressed. Visual impacts would 

not be mitigated under this alternative. 

With Alternative A, fuels treatments and protection of 

communities near the Missouri River Breaks, Ingomar 

Village, and Masurve may be more costly, less effective, 

and implemented later because the Big Dry RMP limits the 

use of timber sale contracts as a tool to reduce hazardous 

fuels. Fuels treatment and protection of communities of 

Pine Hills, Moon Creek, Ekalaka Hills, Camp Needmore, 

Molstad Ranch, and West Pines would likely be more costly, 

less effective, and implemented later because the anticipated 

use of prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels in the Powder 

River RMP areas would proceed at 20 acres per year, based 

on existing analysis. 

Under Alternative B, in an average 10-year period, 299,000 

acres would be treated with prescribed burns, 158,000 acres 

would be mechanically treated, and 185,000 acres of weed 

would be chemically treated. The severity of wildfires 

should be lower, especially near communities at risk, 

resulting in lesser effects than under Alternative A. In 

addition, public lands near communities with high or 

moderate escaped fire potential/high or moderate potential 

for loss of life or property would likely be treated within 10 

years. 

Alternative B is more responsive to the preference voiced 

for active fire management. There would be disruption of 

daily living patterns for activities such as prescribed burns, 

mechanical and chemical treatments, but these activities 

would be scheduled to take health and safety concerns into 

consideration and would be conducted in a manner to avoid 

or minimize impacts to local residents. 

Permitted public land users would be consulted when 

planning treatments. Some uses, e.g., livestock grazing, may 

have to be altered immediately after prescribed burns. 

However, affected users would generally be willing to accept 

temporary restrictions because the alternative could be 

greater risk of uncontrolled wildfire. The potential visual 

impacts of fuel treatments would be less than under 

Alternative A because timing and planning of treatments 

would be managed and effects would be mitigated. Local 

communities would benefit when local hires and use of local 

businesses occur. 

With Alternative B, fuels treatments and protection of 

communities in the Big Dry and Powder River RMP areas 

would not be subject to the limitations noted for Alternative 

A. Human health and safety near the communities at risk 

would receive more protection. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B is more responsive to the preference voiced 

for active fire management and human health and safety 

would receive more protection in the communities at risk in 

the Big Dry and Powder River RMP areas. The effects would 

be preferable to those from Alternative A because activities 

would be mitigated to minimize health and safety concerns, 

visual impacts, etc. Local communities would benefit 

because local hires and use of local businesses would be 

emphasized. 

3.22 Economics 

A restoration/fuel-reduction program in Montana would 

reduce fire hazard, improve ecological conditions of forests, 

and result in economic benefits that exceed hazard reduction 

costs (Keegan, C.E, C. E. Fiedler, and T.A. Morgan, 2002). 

Keegan et al. 2001) concluded that the economic benefits 

of reducing wildland fire hazard and improving ecological 

condition would be protection of recreation opportunities 

and property values, reduced firefighting costs, and a 

sustainable supply of timber which could increase 

employment opportunities and revenues. 

If fuel treatments result in the use of sawlog/veneer logsized material, production would increase in the forest 

products industry that has 145 MMBF of unutilized capacity 

(Keegan et al. 2001a) and often struggles to find timber to 

fill orders. An indirect result of fuel reduction would be a 

long-term increase in timber supply. Mills and companies 

would likely use more of existing capacity and may bring 

additional capacity online (Adams 2002a). However, there 

would likely not be immediate or long-term increase in 

capacity to use pulpwood unless there was a substantial 

71

increase in worldwide demand for pulp and paper products 

(Keetgan et al. 2001). 

Harvesting and processing sawtimber would generate about 

nine full-time jobs per MMBF, and moving pulpwood to a 

landing and burning it would employ about 12 full-time 

workers per MMCF (BBER 2001a, BBER 2002a, BBER 

2002b). 

Conclusion 

Mechanical fuels reduction would positively impact BLM’s 

forests and the forest products industry in Montana and South 

Dakota. The sawlogs generated as a byproduct of hazardous 

fuel reduction would increase employment, boost labor 

income, and provide additional government revenue. 

Alternative B would increase employment and labor income 

by about three times as much as with Alternative A. 

Maintaining timber stand conditions (e.g., density, structure, 

and species composition) for continued fire resistance would 

also help provide a sustainable timber supply (Keegan et al. 

2002). 

3.23 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and 

Long-term Productivity 

Fire is a critical natural process that helps maintain healthy 

ecosystems and guards against natural disasters. 

While the total number of acres burned by wildland fire 

under either alternative may be essentially the same in the 

short term, eventually the severity of wildland fires will be 

reduced by a greater amount with Alternative B as hazardous 

fuels are reduced. 

In some instances, trade-offs are made with prescribed 

burning. Some short-term negative effects on preferred 

species would occur to have desired results on species that 

are targets for removal (BLM, 1991, F-5). For example, 

controlled fires on rangeland can promote seasonal growth 

of forage and a mosaic of wildlife habitats, although grazing 

may have to be deterred immediately following the burn. In 

combination with pre-treatment where necessary, lowintensity fires in forestlands clear understory ladder fuels 

that could otherwise carry fires into tree tops and cause 

crown (or canopy) fires. Prescribed fires conducted under 

specified conditions would improve the health of the natural 

landscape and reduce the hazardous build-up of vegetation. 

Prescribed fires and other hazardous fuel reduction projects 

would help reduce the risk and devastation of catastrophic 

wildland fire. 

72