Department of the Interior
Environmental Impact Statement
BIG DRY
22–
VEGETATION ALLOCATION
DRAFT
FEBRUARY 1982
-- ‘’’-3. Prepared by
... .º.Büreau of Land Management
2% ºf . Möntana State Office
Q rºl
-- * - -
º::... . . . . . . . -
- ** . . . . . State Firector
. . . . ...”. ºš
* * * -- **



NJA
(INITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
B(IREACI OF LAND MANAGEMENT
BIG DRY VEGETATION ALLOCATION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PORTIONS OF GARFIELD, ROSEBCID, McCONE, COISTER, AND
CARTER COUNTIES AND ALL OF DAWSON, FALLON, PRAIRIE, RICHLAND, AND
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discusses
proposed vegetation allocations for about one million acres of
public lands (of which 85% are in good to excellent condition)
administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Miles City
District. Four alternative courses of action, including a preferred
alternative, have been analyzed. Final vegetation allocations and
management action will be decided from these alternatives. The
environmental consequences of each alternative have been anal.
yzed for both the period of implementation, between 1983 and
1988, and for the long term, the 15 years following implementa-
tion.
Alternative A, "Continued Development for Optimum Range
Utilization,” would have the management goal of keeping live.
stock and other uses in line with the estimated grazing Capacity
through continuation of rangeland improvements, grazing Sys:
tems and monitoring programs. Thirty existing AMPs would be
revised and 63 new AMPs would be implemented to bring 49% of
the less than good land into good or better range condition. The
remaining 51% (47,830 acres) of less than good lands are in
holdings considered unsuitable for proper management. These
small holdings are scattered among the remaining 684 permit.
tees. This alternative would continue the present management
system with only minimal increases resulting from improvement
of the few areas presently in less than good Condition.
WIBACIX COOINTIES IN MONTANA
Allocations to both livestock and wildlife and other uses would
increase in the long term due to improved ecological range
condition. This is the BLM's preferred alternative.
Alternative B, “Enhanced Watershed Value and Wildlife Habi.
tat,” would reallocate 19% of the vegetation from livestock to
nonconsumptive and wildlife uses, and would continue the 30
existing Animal Management Plans (AMPs) and implement 63
new AMPs. Range condition would be maintained or improved.
Vegetation condition would improve on riparian areas around
reservoirs, on floodplains and on erosion-susceptible areas. Wild.
life habitat would improve. Rancher income would decrease, but
total area earnings would increase in the short term.
Alternative C, "No Grazing,” would eliminate livestock grazing
on public land. No range improvements would be built or main-
tained unless deemed necessary for protection of watershed or
wildlife resources. Ecological range condition of most rangelands
would improve in the short term. Wildlife habitat would improve
initially but would be negatively affected in the long term.
Rancherincome would decline. Construction of 7,400 miles of
fence would be necessary to implement this alternative.
FEBRUARY 1982
Alternative D, "No Action,” would freeze the current range
program of 30 AMPs with continuation of current range alloca-
tions and no new range improvements being constructed. Eco-
logical range and watershed condition would decline in the long
term. Wildlife habitat would remain static or be reduced in quality.
Fishery reservoirs would be adversely affected by accelerated
sedimentation. Long term ranch income and employment would
likely decline from decreased forage production.
Of the alternatives, Alternative C would have the greatest
implementation cost while regional income would likely increase
only in Alternatives A and B. Range condition would improve
under Alternatives A and B, but would be adversely affected or
decline in the long term under Alternative D. (Inder Alternative C
range condition would improve to a near climax stage and then
level off and stagnate on most soils in the long term.
Components of the four alternatives are presented for public
review in this DEIS. The document is the text and map supple-
ment. The location of the DEIS study area within the state is
shown on Map 1-1 in Chapter 1.
For further information, contact Ray Brubaker, District Man-
ager, Miles City District Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O.
Box 940, Miles City, Montana 59301 or phone (406) 2324331.
7..
The Big Dry Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
includes the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) northern divi-
sion of the Miles City District, the Big Dry Resource Area. The total
area of the Big Dry is around 10.8 million acres, encompassing all
or parts of 10 eastern Montana counties. This area contains about
1.18 million acres of public lands administered by the BLM.
Soil and vegetation inventories, water resource surveys, social
and economic surveys and other resource inventories were
begun in 1977 and completed in 1981. Throughout the resource
inventory and survey process, the public was asked to suggest
issues and concerns on the use of public lands.
Public participation in BLM's planning process was solicited
through individual interviews in the EIS area, newspaper articles
and the mailing of more than 2,600 brochures to livestock opera-
tors using public lands, residents and interested groups in the
area. About 40 comments were received as a result of this bro-
chure. In addition, open house sessions were held in Terry and
Baker, Montana March 23-24, 1981, to solicit responses from the
public. A list of agencies and organizations consulted or Com-
menting on public land issues can be found in Chapter 5.
Based on resource inventories, issues raised by the public and
procedural requirements, four alternative courses of acton were
developed. Alternative A, "Continued Development for Optimum
Range Cltilization,” was selected as the preferred alternative
because of the resource benefits, costand public comment. After
reviewing the draft EIS, decision-makers will select the final range.
land management program to be implemented on publiclands in
the Big Dry EIS area. This management program may be the
preferred alternative or it may incorporate parts of all alternatives.
Major concerns raised by the public were:
Livestock production, wildlife numbers and water develop.
ment. Local residents expressed concerns relating to the
control of undesirable plant species, control of prairie dogs
and making more water available for livestock.
Wildlife concerns of the public included balancing wildlife
and livestock use and maintaining and improving wildlife
habitat. Other public concerns centered on the protection
of watershed and soil resources. Many people felt that
things should be left as they are because longtime resource
conservation practices in effect over the years have main-
tained or improved resource conditions overall on both
private and public lands. BLM resource specialists raised
issues almost parallel to those of the public. Major concerns
broughtforth both by the public and by BLM Specialists are
considered in this DEIS.
The major livestock issue is the need to maintain or improve
ecological range condition. Of the 1,178,777 acres of public
lands in the EIS area, 2,223 acres are in poor ecological range
condition, 93,268 acres are in fair condition, 1,004,061 acres are
in good to excellentecological range condition; and 19,254 acres
are unclassified as to condition. An additional 59,971 acres are
Classed as tame pasture.
In this DEIS, the four alternatives from which the final grazing
management program will be selected are titled: (A) Continued
S(IMMARY
Development for Optimum Range Cltilization, (B) Enhanced
Watershed Value and Wildlife Habitat, (C) No Grazing and (D) No
Action.
These alternatives were developed from information and
recommendations in the Redwater, New Prairie, and Jordan-
North Rosebud Management Framework Plans (MFPs).
Recommendations from the Step || MFP provided the basis for
Alternative A. Recommendations from Step I wildlife and
watershed were used to develop the basis for Alternative B. Alter.
native Dassumes a “freeze" on developments and use of existing
information and projections without further development. Alter.
native C assumes total removal of livestock and projects range
conditions without domestic grazing.
Proposals in Alternatives A and B would reduce the amount of
range in poor and fair ecological range condition. Alternatives A
and B increase the forage allocation to livestock in the long term.
Initial livestock animal unit months (ACIMs) would remain the
same in Alternatives A and D, decrease by 19 percent in Alterna-
tive B and decrease to zero in Alternative C. In the long term (15
years after implementation), Alternative C would result in no
livestock ACIMs; Alternative D would not change livstock ACIMs
and Alternatives A and B would increase the livestock ACIMs
above the short term projections. The preferred alternative would
increase livestock forage by six percent, because of the imple:
mentation of mechanical and grazing treatments and the devel.
opment of range facilities.
Both the public and BLM are concerned with maintaining
adequate wildlife habitat while maintaining a balance between
livestock and wildlife use.
Protecting soil by reducing erosion is another major concern of
both the public and BLM resource specialists. Increasing vegeta-
tion cover through mechanical or grazing treatments would
improve the capacity of the soil to absorb the water necessary for
vegetation production. Increased absorption of moisture into the
soil reduces runoff, erosion and maintains soil productivity. High
levels of vegetation production would increase the amount of
forage for both livestock and wildlife use. Other watershed con-
cerns include limiting early season livestock use on wet soils in
riparian zones to reduce soil compaction.
A summary of the environmental consequences for each of the
four alternatives follows.
Alternative A: Continued Development for Optimum
Range (Itilization
As the preferred alternative, this proposes revision while con-
tinuing operation of the 30 existing AMPs on 227,776 acres of
public lands, implementation of 63 new AMPs on 294,798 acres
and continued permitted grazing on 684 allotments, 651,781
acres, not proposed for AMP implementation.
Watershed condition would improve in the long term, with a
reduction of sediment and water yields by approximately 20% and
18%, respectively.
Ecological range condition would be maintained or improved
to good to excellent condition on most lands with a vegetation
production increase of 54.5 million pounds. The vegetation allo-
cations to livestock and wildlife would increase by six percent in
the long term.
Wildlife habitat would improve with special consideration given
to protect crucial wildlife habitat and wintering areas. Prairie dog
control would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance
with the statewide prairie dog management policy.
Improved watershed and ecological range condition would
reduce the natural destruction of some cultural resource sites by
erosion. Long term loss of scientific data could occur if sites were
destroyed by ground disturbances resulting from implementation
of range projects and land treatments. However, most range
improvements would be located to avoid cultural sites.
Implementaton of this alternative would resultin an increase of
$205,638 in annual total income on 350 ranch operations. Total
permit values would increase by $1,703,000, or 7% of the present
total, in the long term. Social impacts to the ranching community
would be positive in the short and long term.
Regional earnings would increase by $1,635,000 annually and
employment would increase by 134 persons in the short term.
There are no long term changes in either category.
Total implementation cost of this alternative would be
$11,955,751.
Alternative B: Enhanced Watershed Value and
Wildlife Habitat
This alternative proposes continuing the 30 existing AMPs,
implementation of 63 new AMPs and continue permitted grazing
On 684 allotments unsuitable for AMP implementation.
Watershed condition would improve in the long term, with a
reduction of sediment and water yields by approximately 28% and
23% respectively.
Range condition would be maintained or improved to good or
excellent condition on most lands. Vegetation condition would
improve in riparian areas, around reservoirs, on floodplains and
erosion-susceptible areas. Livestock allocations would be
reduced by 48,674ACIMs in the short term due to the reallocation
of ACIMs to nonconsumptive uses and wildlife. In the long term
there would be a 7% increase of ACIMs to livestock and a 6%
increase to nonconsumptive uses and wildlife beyond the short
term projections.
Wildlife habitat would improve for big game, upland game and
waterfowl as would nongame habitat and 33 additional fisheries
reservoirs are proposed.
Improved watershed and ecological range condition would
reduce the natural destruction of some cultural resource sites by
erosion. Long term loss of scientific data could occur if sites were
destroyed by ground disturbances resulting from implementation
of range projects and land treatments. However, most range
improvements would be located to avoid cultural sites.
This alternative would resultin a short term annual decrease of
$544,306 on 418 ranch operations. Long term annual decreases
would be $481,435 on 335 operations and long term annual
increases would be $90,938 on 176 operations. Total permit
values would decrease by $4,866,000 in the short term and
$3,264,000 in the long term.
Ranchers' attitudes toward BLM would be negative due to
decreased forage allocation to livestock. Recreationist and envi.
ronmentalist attitudes would be positive due to increased wildlife
habitat and reduced livestock conflicts.
Total earnings would increase by $1,358,000 annually in the
short term due mostly to increased construction, and decrease by
$231,000 annually in the long term. Total employment would
increase by 106 people in the short term and decrease by 23
persons in the long term.
Total implementation cost of this alternative would be
$15,476,551.
Alternative C: No Grazing
This alternative would eliminate livestock grazing on public
lands affecting 777 allotments. No range improvements would be
built or maintained unless the improvements were considered
necessary for watershed or wildlife resources.
Watershed conditions would improve with a reduction of sedi-
ment and water yield by 54% and 30%, respectively.
|BLM Range Improvement Policy, 1981
Ecological range condition of most rangelands would improve
while areas occupied by prairie dogs would decline or become
poor. Noxious weeds would be controlled when threatening to
private lands.
Wildlife habitat would improve initially, but would trend toward
a climax vegetation which is a less desirable habitat. Prairie dog
control would be necessary to protect private lands and crucial
wildlife habitat affected by expansions of existing towns.
In short and long term, income would decrease on 608 opera-
tions (see Appendix 3.9). The decrease in net income would be
24% of the current total.
Rancher attitudes would be extremely negative toward this
alternative.
Total earnings would decrease $501,000 annually in the short
term and $3,009,000 annually in the long term. Total employ.
ment would have a net decrease of 60 people in the short term
and 303 people in the long term.
Total implementation of this alternative would be $16,944,100
(the cost to the private landowners to fence off public land with
approximately 7,400 miles of fence). -
Alternative D: No Action
This alternative would freeze the current range program of 30
AMPS.Vegetation allocations would remain the same, regardless
of range condition. AMPs in effect would continue, but no new
range improvements would be developed. Maintenance of cur-
rent improvements would be allowed.
Watershed condition would decline with an increase in sedi-
ment and water yields of 15% and 12%, respectively.
Ecological range condition would decline in the long term.
Production would also decline in the long term due to the spread
of prairie dogs, noxious weeds and lack of responsive grazing
management.
Wildlife habitat would remain static or be reduced in quality with
the lack of restor deferment grazing treatments. Prairie dogtowns
would be allowed to expand. Some existing fisheries reservoirs
would be lost as viable fisheries because of accelerated sedimen-
tation.
No changes in ranch income and employment can be quanti-
fied in this alternative. However, reductions in both are likely in the
long term as livestock forage production decreases.
Rancher attitudes toward this alternative would be negative
because of a deteriorating range Condition and less opportunity
for income gain.
There would be no implementation cost for this alternative as
maintenance to fences would be the responsibility of the operator
and by 1984, maintenance cost of reservoirs, springs, etc., would
also be their responsibility."
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Regional Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.6: Reservoir Sediment Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-67
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Earnings and Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.7: Management Systems and Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-69
Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 e 3.8: Montana Department of Fish & Game
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Computer Modeling of Deer Densities. . . . . . . . . . . . A-71
º * & © Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 &
Management Guidance and Resource Coordination . . . . . . 2 Alternative A: Continued Development for 3.9: Maximum Antelope Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-75
Monitoring and Evaluation of AMPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Optimum Ran ge Cltilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.10: Methodology for Ranch-Related
Chapter 2: The Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Economic Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-77
g e e e 3.11: Methodology for Social Impact Assessment. . . . . . . A-81
Vegetation Allocation Alternatives Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 * e
© g 3.12: Methodology for Regional Economic Impacts . . . . . A-82
and the Preferred Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.1: Effects of Land Treatments A-83
Alternative A: Continued Development for Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 tº tº eCUS Oſ La eatments.: ; ; . . . . ; ; . . . . . . . . . .
ge & tº a tº 4.2: Methodology of Calculating Watershed Impacts ...A-84
Optimum Range Cltilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.3: Prodrammatic Memorandum of A nt A-85
Alternative B: Enhanced Watershed Value Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.4. E . ted Positive Lon †: | sºme © 2 tº e º 'º º
and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Alternative B: Enhanced Watershed Value e º º e ti ; ive Long I erm Impacts A-88
Alternative C: No Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ernative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº
e tº e 4.5: Annual Economic Impact—Alternative A . . . . . . . . . A-89
Alternative D: No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 & e
V & 4.6: Estimated Negative Short Term Impacts
º egetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 gº
Summary of Environmental Consequences Livestock - e 35 —Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-90
by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 wildlife........................ º 35 4.7: Estimated Positive Long-Term Impacts
Alternative A: Continued Development for Čutural Resources.............. º 36 —Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-91
Optimum Range Cltilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Social and Econo micimpa as ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.8: Estimated Negative Long-Term Impacts
Alternative B: Enhanced Watershed Value Alternative & Noºrajina.................... 38 —Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-92
and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Watershed 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . º 38 4.9: Annual Economic Impact—Alternative B . . . . . . . . . A-93
Alternative C: No Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Vegetation...................................... 39 4.10: Estimated Negative Long and Short Term Impacts
Alternative D: No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-94
Chapter 3: The Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.11: Annual Economic Impact—Alternative C. . . . . . . . . A-95
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1
Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Gl - G-1
Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Alternative D: No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 OSSaſy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |-1
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Range Condition, Production and Trend. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
*:::: e e s e e e s e e s e e s e s e e s e o e e º e º e º 'º e º e º 'º e º e º e s e is % Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
º eBeer ...................................... 22 Public Involvement and Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
ule Leer ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Agencies and Organizations Consulted . . . . . . . . . . 45
White-Tailed Deer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Comments Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Bighorn Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Clpland Game Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendices:
Sharp-Tailed Grouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.1: Agency Responsibilities in the Big Dry ElS Area ....A-1
Sage Grouse; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.1: Planning System Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
Ring-Necked Pheasant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2: Methods and Range Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11
wº e e e s e e s e º e º e e s e e s e e e º e s e e º e º 'º e º 8 & 9 e º e o e e 23 2.3: Allocation Computations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13
sºil...I. * 24. Allotment Summaries ......................... A-15
ongame Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 25. AMP Rating Criteria ................. . . . . . . . . . . A-41
Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.6: Montana BLM Prairie Dog Policy, April 1980 . . . . . . A-43
Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.7: Alternative Implementation Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-45
Recreation and Wilderness .......................... 24 2.8A: Possible Mechnical Treatments by Soil Series . . . . . A-47
Recreation tº e º 'º e º 'º e º e º 'º e º e º e º e º e º 'º e º e º 'º e º e º 'º tº º º º º 24 2.8B: Soil Response to Range Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-51
Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1: Vegetation and Range Management
Cultural Resources ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Characteristics of the 15 Soil Subgroups . . . . . . . . . A-55
sº . Economic Conditions..................... 25 3.2: Soil Target Covers on Range Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-57
ntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.3: Big Dry Soil Series by SCS Range Sites . . . . . . . . . . A-59
Ranch Related Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.4: Water Bearing Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-61
Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.5: Surface Quality Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-63
Tables Figures Maps
1-1: Big Dry Land Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3-1: Water Bearing Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-2: Land Ownership in the Big Dry EIS Area . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3-2: Soil Subgroups by Erosion Sediment Land Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foldout
1-3: Monitoring Plan Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 and Water Yield Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Allotments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foldout
2-1 Summary Data for Four Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3-3: Typical Area Rangeland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foldout
2-2: Summary of Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . 9 3-4: Typically Rolling Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . foldout
3-1: Percent Range Site Vegetation Composition. . . . . . . . 20 3-5: Riparian Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Allotment Overlay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . envelope inside back cover
3-2: Public Land Range Condition Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3-6: Woody Draw Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3-3: Plants Most Cltilized by Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3-4: Plants Most Cltilized by Pronghorn Antelope . . . . . . . . 22
3-5: Food Habits of Pronghorn Antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3-6: Reservoirs Periodically Stocked
and With Public Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3-7: Summary of Wilderness Study Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3-8: Cultural Resources in the EIS Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3-9: Population Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.10: Estimated Current Dependency of Ranches. . . . . . . . 26
3-11: Estimated Current Ranch Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3-12: Study Area Employment by Source for 1978. . . . . . . 28
3-13: Study Area Earnings by Source for 1978 . . . . . . . . . . 28
4-1: Summary of Watershed Impacts—Alternative A .... 30
4-2: Summary of Watershed Impacts—Alternative B . . . . 34
4-3: Summary of Watershed Impacts—Alternative C . . . . 38
4-4: Summary of Watershed Impacts—Alternative D . . . . 42
INTRODUCTION
The Big Dry Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes
the resource, social and economic impacts of instituting a range-
land management program in the northern portion of the Miles
City District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Mon-
tana.
The BLM is responsible for the management of livestock graz.
ing on public lands in a manner that maintains or improves the
public land resources including soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife
habitat. The Bureau's principal authority to manage public lands
is found in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976, and the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978.
BASIS
This EIS is written in compliance with the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969, Council on Environmental Quality
regulations, and in specific response to litigation in the Natural
Resources Defense Council et alversus Rogers C. B. Morton etal.
1973 (C.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ref. Case No.
1983-73).
The proposed action is to develop a livestock grazing program
consisting of vegetation allocation necessary to equitably allocate
the vegetation among competing consumptive and noncon-
sumptive uses, and implementation of grazing systems and range
improvement projects to maintain or improve vegetation yields
and watershed conditions. The purpose of the proposed action is
to implement decisions needed for management, protection, and
enhancement of the rangeland resources. The proposal would
cover a 15-year period from the time actions are implemented.
SETTING
The planning area selected for the Big Dry EIS consists of all
public lands in the Big Dry Resource Area in the Miles City District
lying to the south and east of those lands analyzed in the Missouri
Breaks EIS. (See Map 1, Map Supplement.) Involved are all or
portions of Garfield, McCone, Richland, Dawson, Rosebud,
Prairie, Custer, Fallon, Wibaux and Carter Counties.
The Big Dry EIS effort relates to the vegetation allocation
capability of an estimated 1.18 million acres of public lands,
potential impacts which can be anticipated from the allocation
process, plus all reasonable alternatives surfaced during the pro-
cess. Map 1-1 shows the resource area and planning units. Table
1-1 is a summary of the Big Dryland status. The major drainages
include the Missouri, Yellowstone, Powder and Musselshell Rivers.
The Big Dry EIS area of eastern Montana (Map 1-1) is character.
ized by rolling prairies, broken by drainages which are sometimes
sharply incised to include river breaks landforms. Population in
the area is mainly concentrated in the Yellowstone River Valley.
Many of the ranch operations are remote from the river valley
townS.
Total acreage in the ten-county EIS area is approximately 10.8
million acres, including 1.18 million acres of public lands under
BLM management (see Map 1, Map Supplement). Most of the
public lands are concentrated in Prairie and Fallon Counties and
include substantial amounts of land utilization (LO) lands re-
acquired by the government under the Bankhead Jones Act of
1937.
The EIS area includes a total of 777 allotments involving ranch
operations. Many of these include some grain and hayfarming in
combination with livestock production. There are three coopera:
tive state grazing districts and two grazing associations in the EIS
area. There are 1,178,777 acres of publiclands that are allotted to
livestock grazing (Map 2, Map Supplement). These lands are
administered through the Big Dry Resource Area Office of the
Miles City District.
While there area few large contiguous tracts of public land, the
primary land ownership pattern consists of scattered tracts of
public lands intermingled with private and state lands. These land
patterns strongly affect grazing management options. Private
lands are usually located along drainage bottoms and on the
more productive uplands. In addition to livestock grazing, public
lands provide wildlife habitat, recreation, and other activities
TABLE 1-1
BIG DRY LAND SOIMMARY
BLM ADMIN. PERCENT
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK SURFACE OF TOTAL OTHER TOTAL
PLAN (MFP)* ACRES ACREAGE SURFACE SCIRFACE
Redwater 181,800 4.0 4,381,200 4,563,000
Jordan - No. Rosebud 252,100 7.8 2,976,400 3,228,500
New Prairie 709,150 23.4 2,323,220 3,032,370
"These acreage figures do not agree with those in Table 1-2 because allotments cross planning unit, planning area and EIS area
boundaries.
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE AND NEED



PURPOSE AND NEED
compatible with multiple resource management.
Table 1-2 summarizes the land ownership and administrative
responsibility for federal land surface in the EIS area.
TABLE 1-2
LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE BIG DRY EIS AREA
Percent
Acres of Total
Federal (BLM Administered) 1,172,724 10.2
*Federal (Bureau of Reclamation) 52,834 0.5
Federal (CISFWS-Lame Steer
National Wildlife Refuge) 1,41 0.01
Federal (USDA Ft. Keogh Agri.
Exper. Station) 9,843 0.09
Private 9,567,497 83.3
State 675,046 5.9
TOTAL 11,479,355
Includes State Fish & Wildlife lands
*NOTE: Bureau of Reclamation withdrawals encompass private
lands, most of which have been patented after the withdrawal
went into effect. These withdrawals still remain on the books,
however.
#. % - -
// /
ſº
%/
ſ ſº L'A.
M. M. |. | º
MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND
RESOURCE COORDINATION
The administration of public lands involves the complex inter-
dependence among lands of different ownership, uses and capa-
bilities. The EIS area contains private lands as well as lands
managed by the Montana Department of State Lands, and the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Development of the proposed rangeland management pro-
gram is guided by mandates to manage the public lands for
multiple use and sustained yield under the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (90 Stat. 2743). The system
begins with land use planning. This involves multidisciplinary
resource inventories contained in the Unit Resource Analysis
(URA) and social and economic data analyzed in the Planning
Area Analysis (PAA). Management decisions are then developed
in the Management Framework Plan (MFP). MFP Step II recom:
mendations provided the basis for Alternative A and MFP Step
recommendations provided the basis for Alternative B. Alterna:
tive C assumes no livestock grazing and Alternative D is based
upon the present grazing management system and vegetation
allocations.
The EIS area includes the Redwater, New Prairie, and Jordan:
North Rosebud planning areas. The Redwater MFP was com:
pleted in September 1979. The Jordan-North Rosebud and New
Prairie MFPs were completed through Step 2 (Multiple Clse
Recommendations) in December 1981. Step 3 decisions will be
made following completion of this EIS. Some revisions of the
Redwater MFP may be required, depending on EIS results.
These planning documents are on file at the Miles City BLM
District Office.
Following the EIS, individual allotment management plans
(AMPs) will be prepared. The analysis developed in the EIS will
help guide AMP development. The full range of Soil Vegetation
Inventory Method (SVIM) data will also then be available to help
select the proper grazing systems, treatments, range improve.
ments, and grazing adjustments to implement individual AMPs.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
OF AMPS
The key to success of any grazing management plan is a
system of monitoring and evaluation that ensures the stated
objectives are being met. Each allotment has different potentials,
opportunities, problems, and objectives. The AMP may involve
various levels of management intensity, including only documen-
tation of present management. The monitoring and evaluation
plan, therefore, must be flexible, cost effective, and tailored to the
needs of the allotments. The basic monitoring and evaluation
plan outline (or matrix) for the Big Dry EIS area is included as
Table 1-3.
Typical monitoring activities include regular visits (preferably
with the ranch operator) to observe how the system is operating
and to resolve any problems. This involves checking utilization
levels in each pasture, collecting actual use information, and
conducting any other necessary studies. These studies may
include wildlife habitat, riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and
water quality.
Allotment evaluation will normally be conducted at longer
intervals than monitoring activities (which are a part of evaluation)
and will measure changes in range condition, vegetation cover,
litter, community age structure, plant vigor, and watershed condi-
tion. Various trend study methods would be employed to docu-
ment trendin key areas. Comparison of vegetation production on
comparable sites must be normalized to account for precipitation
and soil series differences.
The AMPs will be revised as necessary. Revisions may include
changes in the grazing system, livestock numbers, season of use,
additional range developments, or any combination of these
needed to attain management objectives.

MAP 1-1. LOCATION OF BIG DRY EIS AREA
P
T RICHLAND CO.
——
ſ l
R -
MC CONE CO. *Dwa TER MF Hº-T
- D
| \
ROSEBUID CO.
T-- ſ ––––. Dawson co. \
GARFIELD CO. l— © Glendive
J -
*Day | PRAIRIE CO. |—|| A
- - - - - • *OSs. - T-- ––––––.
S. T | Ay WIBACIX CO.
SCID MFP in ºwe | -
*4%, r— "L- " – — -
| - -
Miles City
LEGEND
-- – Management Framework Plan
MONTANA
— — County Boundaries














PURPOSE AND NEED
TABLE 1-3
MONITORING PLAN MATRIX
This matrix displays the types, frequency and responsibility for monitoring resources in the Big Dry Area. Intensive monitoring of areas
selected for comparison will provide bench mark or control data for specific or general area monitoring. Monitoring will consist of analysis
of data collected by BLM and, in some cases, by other agencies or individuals. Concern areas include (but are not limited to): severe
erosion potential areas, floodplains, crucial wildlife winter ranges, riparian zones and woody draws, wetland and aquatic areas, AMPs and
low condition areas. -
DISCIPLINES WITH MONITORING INTERESTS
ELEMENT RANGE SOILS WATERSHED WILDLIFE FREQUENCY RESPONSIBILITY
Soils g
Nutrients X Annual Soils
Productivity X X X Annual Range
Soil Moisture X X Monthly during Soils
growing season
Physical Properties X Annual Soils
Water
Ground X Quarterly (ISGS and State
Surface Monthly during CISGS, State,
flow periods Watershed
Flow X X
Quality X X X
Sediment X X
Vegetation -
Cltilization/Carryover X X X X Annual/Semi Range/Wildlife
Annual
Condition End of grazing Range/Wildlife
cycle but not less
than 5 years
Ecological X X X X
Habitat X X
Trend X X End of grazing Range/Wildlife
cycle but not less
than 5 years
Actual Clse X Annual Range
Productivity X X X X End of grazing Range
cycle but not less
than 5 years
Density X X X X End of grazing Range/Wildlife
cycle but not less
than 5 years
Climate X X X X As needed Primarily NOAA
Animals (Wildlife, X X Annual & 3 year Operators and
Livestock) cycle MTDFWP
VEGETATION ALLOCATION
ALTERNATIVES AND THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
The alternatives are described in both the short and long term.
The short term is a five-year implementation period during which
most proposed actions would take place. An exception to this
time frame would be the proposed land treatments. Before these
treatments are implemented, grazing systems may need to be
carried out for a longer period to determine if further treatment is
needed. All responses to range developments would be assumed
to take place in the long term, the 15 years after implementation
of an action.
Long term vegetation allocations would be 25 percent to live-
stock and 75 percent to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses in the
first two alternatives discussed. Allocations for nonconsumptive
vegetation uses exceed the amount of vegetation removed by
consumptive use in all alternatives.
Due to the limited data on vegetation and production, several
assumptions have been made in computing allocation levels for
the various alternatives. Since these assumptions are based on
professional judgment and current ecological range condition
information in the EIS area, it is believed that the allocations are
valid. However, until the validity of the allocations can be verified
by BLM approved field surveys and studies on allotments, they will
be considered as "target allocations." See Appendix 2.3 for the
descriptions of the computations made to arrive at the allocations
to be found in Appendix 2.4. Assumptions made in the computa-
tions for current vegetation allocations are as follows:
1. Livestock licensed use during 1981 was 98.5 percent
(249,279 of 253,075 AGMs which is 25% of the total vegetation
base) of the vegetation allocated to livestock.
2. Wildlife utilize about 5 percent (35,204 ACIMs) of the vegeta-
tion allocated to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses (3 percent of
the total vegetation based on Montana Department of Fish, Wild.
life and Parks population estimates valid only for the summer of
1980). BLM biologists and range conservationists and Montana
State FWP personnel agree that the present wildlife (big game)
populations in the EIS area are generally provided for adequately
under current allocations. Exceptions are local situations that
would be accounted for in the development of AMPs.
3. With proper consumptive use assumed, vegetation reserved
for range maintenance and watershed protection is 50 percent
(506,170 ACIMs).
Cost estimates for each alternative are made with the under-
standing that any proposed range development will be modified
or reduced in scale to avoid cultural sites that would require major
excavation.
Table 2-1 shows a summary of data for each of the four
alternatives.
Alternative A: Continued Development for Optimum
Range (Itilization
This has been selected as the preferred alternative because of
two factors. Analysis of the alternative by the District and Area
Managers shows that the management goal of bringing livestock
and other uses into line with the estimated grazing capacity, as
outlined by the MFP Step II recommendations, can be reached
through rangeland improvements, grazing systems and monitor.
ing programs.
Secondly, public response received during the scoping pro-
cess revealed astrong desire for continuing management near its
present level with only minimal increases, targeting only areas in
less than good condition for improvement.
This alternative proposes optimum range utilization. Emphasis
for improvementis placed on areasidentified as being inless than
good range condition. The present management program cur-
rently provides 253,075ACIMs to 777 allotments for grazing uses
and 759,255 ACIMs to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses. Long
term allocations, due to increased vegetation production through
grazing systems and various land treatments, will be 270,115
ACIMs to livestock and 810,345 ACMs to nonconsumptive and
wildlife uses (Table 2-2). These vegetative increases are distrib-
uted on the basis of 25 percent to livestock and 75 percent to
nonconsumptive and wildlife uses.
To support these allocations, 30 existing AMPs totaling
227,776 acres would be revised. Where monitoring indicates it is
necessary (Appendices 2.8 and 3.1), 63 new AMPs affecting
294,798 acres would be developed. Six hundred and eighty-four
allotments of 651,781 acres, would not be considered for AMPs at
this time, because the allotments are too small or the majority of
the land is private. A total of 4,442 acres remain as unallocated
land in scattered, small tracts throughout the resource area. AMPs
would be implemented on the average of ten per year.
The 63 proposed AMPs were selected by a system that consi.
dered acreage, range condition, public land percentage,
watershed values or concern, and wildlife habitat values. Appen-
dix 2.5 summarizes AMP rating criteria and factors in evaluation
and implementation priority. On-the-ground inspections may
reveal the need to substitute allotments which are as yet unsche-
duled. While it is expected that AMPs would continue to be
developed beyond the short term implementation period, the
analysis is limited to what is expected to occur in the short term to
provide a comparison between the four alternatives in a common
time period.
Grazing management will include monitoring of livestock graz.
ing, while maintaining or improving range condition manage.
ment would be in one of three categories: allotment management
plans (AMPs), season and number, or custodial. Various grazing
systems including rest rotation, deferred rotation, deferred, sea-
sonal, short duration, or other systems which are variations or
combinations of these would be applied. Season and number
allotments would generally have deferred or seasonal systems,
while custodial allotments would have seasonal use coordinated
with the private land where the public land is a very small part of
CHAPTER 2
THE ALTERNATIVES


ALTERNATIVES
the allotment and/or the goals of management could be met with
this management level.
Development of range improvements on erosion susceptible
areas will be avoided during the April–June period maintenance
and new construction would not be allowed during wet periods
and range improvements would not generally be located on
floodplains. Soil, watershed and plant phenology capabilities will
be considered when it is necessary to graze on floodplains during
this period. Improved management and use supervision would
result in improvement of riparian areas.
Land treatments would be implemented on about 128,000
acres when grazing treatments have not achieved objectives.
About 230 miles of management fences would be needed to
support grazing or land treatments and these would be built to
assure movement of wildlife. There would also be 969 new water
sources developed. Those identified for wildlife needs would be
fenced, with water gaps for livestock access.
Control of noxious weeds such as leafy spurge, canada thistle,
Cocklebur and the knapweeds, is proposed for 4500 acres, using
2,4-D, Tordon and Roundup or any new herbicide providing more
effective control. Biological control will be considered if proved
effective. Special care would be taken with the use of pesticides
around reservoirs and crucial wildlife habitat.
Control of prairie dogs on 2900 acres would be carried out in
accordance with the statewide prairie dog management policy
(Appendix 2.6) using zinc phosphide treated oats.
The estimated cost of range improvements is $11,955,751,
based on current average cost per improvement (Appendix 2.7).
Reservoirs that will be fenced for wildlife needs have not been
identified and the additional cost is not included in the estimate.
TABLE 2-1
S(IMMARY DATA FOR FOUR ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D
Continued
Development for Enhanced Watershed
Optimum Range Value and Wildlife No Grazing NO Action
Cltilization Habitat
Existing AMPs *(acres) 30(227,776) 30(227,776) O 30(227,776)
Proposed AMPs *(acres) 63(294,798) 63(294,798) O O
Non-AMPS *(acres) 684(651,781) 684(651,781) O 747(946,579)
(Inallocated Lands aCTeS *4,422 4,422 1,178,777 4,422
TOTALS 1,178,777 1,178,777 1,178,777 1,178,777
Initial ACIM Allocations
Livestock 253,085 204,411 O 253,085
Nonconsumptive and
Wildlife Clses 759,255 807,929 1,012,340 759,255
TOTALS 1,012,340 1,012,340 1,012,340 1,012,340
Long-Term ACM Allocations *
Livestock 270,115 220,439 O 253,085
Nonconsumptive and
Wildlife Clses 810,345 860,021 1,012,340 759,255
TOTALS 1,080,460 1,080,460 1,012,340 1,012,340
*An additional 4,074 acres of land was withdrawn from grazing use in the Terry Badlands in 1966 and remains unallocated. This land is not
included in this EIS discussion and analysis.
**A 19% reduction from Alternative A:
37,803 ACIMs for crucial wildlife habitat
10,871 ACIMs for spring deferment
Total Reduction: 48,674 ACIMs
Alternative B: Enhanced Watershed Value and
Wildlife Habitat
In this alternative, particular emphasis would be placed on the
watershed and wildlife resources. This analysis shows the benefits
and disadvantages of giving priority in vegetation allocation and
range management to resources other than livestock forage pro-
duction while allowing light to moderate grazing use by livestock.
Initial allocation of vegetation would be 20 percent to livestock
and 80 percent to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses. Livestock
allocations in this alternative are 204,411 ACIMs, 19 percentlower
than the current permitted use of 253,085 ACIMs. Initial alloca.
tions to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses are 807,929 ACIMs.
Long term allocations, based on projected increases in vegetation
production (due to land treatments and various grazing systems)
are 220,439 ACIMs to livestock grazing and 860,021 ACIMs to
nonconsumptive and wildlife uses. See Table 2-2 for summaries
of allocations by alternative and Appendix 2.4 for specific allot.
ment information.
The 30 existing AMPs would be continued and 63 allotments
would be considered for AMP implementation. Monitoring would
be done to maintain or improve range condition. Grazing treat.
ments, including restand/or deferred grazing and AMP objectives
would be governed to meet the resource objectives of deferring
grazing on floodplains and erosion susceptible areas during April,
May and June and eliminating grazing on crucial wildlife winter
range and riparian areas. Livestock would be excluded from
reservoirs identified for wildlife needs with no provisions included
for livestock watering.
Crucial wildlife habitat involving 193 allotments and 179,988
acresis identified on Map2. This habitat reservation would reduce
livestock allocations. by 37,803 ACIMs. An additional 10,871
ACMs would be lost through spring deferment, equaling the
48,674 ACIM (19%) reduction in livestock allocations.
Mechanical treatments (Appendix 2.8) and associated grazing
treatments could occur on about 128,000 acres in this alternative.
Approximately 230 miles of management and 1,532 miles of
exclosure fences built to restrict livestock use of crucial lands with
minimal restriction to wildlife movement and 969 new water
developments are also proposed.
Chemical control of noxious weeds is proposed for 4500 acres.
Special care would be taken with the use of pesticides around
reservoirs and crucial wildlife habitat. Black-tailed prairie dog
ecosystems would be protected and maintained, being controlled
only if they threaten private lands and/or crucial wildlife habitat.
The estimated cost of range improvements in this alternative is
$15,476,551, based on current average cost per improvement
(Appendix 2.7). Reservoirs that would be fenced to exclude live.
stock have not been identified and the additional cost is not
included in the estimate.
VEGETATION ALLOCATION
Alternative C: No Grazing TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
- - - - - SCIMMARY DATA FOR FOUR ALTERNATIVES
No livestock would be permitted to graze on public lands in this
alternative. The analysis provides a basis of comparison for the ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D
environmental, social and economic consequences of the other Continued
alternatives. Development for Enhanced Watershed
Current grazing privileges would be revoked, including the Optimum Range value and Wildlife No Grazing NO Action
present 30 AMPs. All agreements with cooperative state grazing Cltilization Habitat
districts would be affected as well. No range improvements would
be built or maintained unless the improvements were considered
necessary for watershed or wildlife resources.
Grazing Treatments On
Existing 30 AMPs
26 (acres) *DR (199,551) DR (199,551) - DR (199,551)
This program would eliminate the current permitted livestock 3 (acres) **RR (24,639) RR (24,639) - RR (24,639)
USe of 253.075 AGMs. In the worst case analysis, BLM would | (acre) Not Implemented Not Implemented Not Implemented
require fencing of public lands to prevent livestocktrespass. More (3,586) (3,586) - (3,586)
than 7,400 miles of fences would be necessary for this undertak. -
ing, costing $16,944,100, according to current cost estimates Mechanical Treatments aCreS 127,929 127,929 O O
(Appendix 2.7). This would be a cost to the adjacent private
landowners. Chemical Treatment aCreS
Noxious Weed Control 4,500 4,500 As needed to protect O
Alternative D: No Action private lands & crucial
wildlife habitat
This alternative would "freeze" the current range program as it Prairie Dog Control 560 As needed to protect O
is today. Initial and long term allocations under this alternative, private lands & crucial
regardless of range condition, would be 253,085 ACMs to live. wildlife habitat
stock and 759,255 ACIMs to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses as
summarized in Table 2-1 and detailed by allotment in Appendix
24. AMPs in effect would continue but no new range improve- Water Developments * 969 969 As needed for wildlife O
ments (reservoirs, fences, mechanical or chemical treatments, or and watershed
pipelines) would be developed. Changes in levels of permitted
livestock use would not be allowed, regardless of need, and no Additonal Fences (miles) 230 *** 1,762 7,367 (to fence BLM O
new AMPs would be implemented. Maintenance of current lands off)
improvements would be allowed.
Essentially all future options in range management would be *Deferred rotation
eliminated in this alternative. There would be no opportunity to **Rest Rotation
correct erosion problems, to increase or decrease livestock ***See Chapter 4, Alternative B, Livestock
numbers, to change kinds of livestock, to adjust seasons of use or
to improve range management.
By freezing the present use of vegetation, BLM and the public -
can view the consequences of continuing present range trends in Canada Thistle sº ##
the Big Dry EIS area. The analysis shows future conditions of soil, Prairie Dogs
vegetation and watershed. Tºss
There would be no implementation costs for this alternative as
fence maintenance is the responsibility of the operator and by
1984, maintenance cost of reservoirs, springs, etc., would also be
their responsibility.
- -- -
N `s SS- º - - - Tss sº s s sº
N -
N ~~~ - ºftºſ": “… -> -ºvº. --" -
NSS s
NSS sis—
--- º
-
------, --> -- " --------
*****. ---
tº “…”: . . . . . .
..-, ºr, "... ', ;
*… --- ". . . . . .
º
- . . .( - *-ºs.
… -- ‘...ºr ºf … . . . . . . ~.
-- º: tº c. ( . . . . º ... :--->



ALTERNATIVES
suMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE
A comparison of the impacts on major resources is presented
in Table 2-2. It was found that there would be no significant
impacts and no significant differences in impacts between alter-
natives for climate, air quality and geology. These components
are therefore not included in the summary table.
Quantification of resource factors is given when possible. The
reference point for determining change is the existing situation.
During the years 1983-88, the selected grazing management
alternative or combination of alternatives would be implemented.
Short term impacts are those that would occur during this
implementation period, primarily from range developments.
Long term impacts would occur approximately by the year 2003.
The following discussion emphasizes the most significant
impacts by alternative. The preferred alternative, based on benefit.
cost analysis and public comment, is Alternative A, "Continued
Development For Optimum Range Cltilization.”
Alternative A: Continued Development For
Optimum Range (Itilization
Watershed condition would improve in the long term as sedi-
ment yield would be reduced by 20 percent and water yield by 18
percent. Soil losses from range developments would be an insig-
nificant short term consequence. Consumptive water use by live-
stock would increase slightly. More vegetation production would
resultin allocating 50 percent of the increase to nonconsumptive
uses, improving watershed protection.
Ecological range condition would be improved or maintained
in good to excellent condition. Areas in less than good condition
(155,462 acres) would improve in condition with a resultant
increase of vegetation equivalent to 68,120 ACIMs.
Riparian vegetation along streams and below reservoirs would
increase. Livestock, nonconsumptive uses and wildlife would all
realize a 6 percent increase of ACIMs from their present alloca-
tions.
Increases in residual vegetation from restand deferment would
improve habitat conditions for big game, upland game birds and
nongame wildlife. The high value riparian habitat, reservoir shore.
line and saline seep vegetation would improve significantly
because of fencing or periodic rest and deferment treatments.
Reservoirs identified as suitable for fisheries would be fenced.
The number of prairie dogtowns would be controlled if significant
range resource damage is caused.
Improved watershed and ecological range conditions would
reduce the natural destruction of some cultural resource sites by
erosion. Long term loss of scientific data could occur if sites were
destroyed by ground disturbances resulting from implementation
of range projects and land treatments. However, most range
improvements would be located to avoid cultural sites.
A long term economic gain ($205,638 annually) would be
realized by 350 ranch operations. Permit values would increase by
$1,703,000. There would be no change in ranch employment in
the short or long term. These increases would improve the Social
well-being of approximately 350 ranch families in the long term.
The attitudes of ranchers toward BLM resulting from increased
forage allocations would be positive. The attitudes of recreation-
ists and environmentalists would generally favor multiple use of
public lands and would favor the proposed action.
Long term regional earnings would increase by $1,635,000
annually and employment would increase by 134 people.
The total implementation cost of this alternative would be
$11,955,751.
Alternative B: Enhanced Watershed Value and
Wildlife Habitat
Sediment and water yields would decrease by 28 and 23 per-
cent, respectively, which would improve water quality. Consump-
tive use of water by livestock would increase slightly. Improve-
ments in watershed condition would be due mainly to deferment
of grazing for 3 months in the spring.
The proposedland treatments would improve ecological range
condition. Of the resultant increase in vegetation, 25% would be
allocated to livestock. Forage allocations to livestock would
decrease by 48,674ACIMs initially, but would increase in the long
term to 220,439 ACIMs or a 7% increase.
More residual vegetation would result from a July 1 deferment
as well as other rest or deferment treatments on AMPs improving
big game, upland game bird and nongame wildlife habitat. Prairie
dog towns would consume additional acreage and reduce addi.
tional livestock forage. Thirty-three additional fisheries reservoirs
are proposed which would be fenced, removing approximately 50
ACIMs from livestock use.
Improved watershed and ecological range conditions would
reduce the natural destruction of some cultural resource sites by
erosion. Long term loss of scientific data could occur if sites were
destroyed by ground disturbances resulting from implementation
of range projects and land treatments. However, most range
improvements would be located to avoid cultural sites.
This alternative would result in a short term annual decrease in
ranch income of $544,306 on 418 operations. Long term annual
decreases would be $481,435 on 335 operations and long term
annual increases $90,938 on 176 ranches. Permit value would
decrease by $4,866,000 in the short term and $3,264,000 in the
long term. Ranch related employment opportunities would
decrease by 28 positions in the short term and 23 positions in the
long term.
The social well-being of 418 ranch families would decrease in
the short term. The social well-being of 176 families would
increase and 335 would decrease in the long term.
The attitudes of ranchers toward BLM would be negative due to
decreased forage allocations to livestock. The attitudes of recrea-
tionists and environmentalists would be positive, due to increased
wildlife and reduction in livestock conflicts.
Total earnings would increase by $1,358,000 annually in the
short term and decrease by $231,000 annually in the long term.
Total employment would increase by 106 people in the short term
and decrease by 23 persons in the long term.
Implementation costs of this alternative would be $15,476,551.
Alternative C: No Grazing
The net effect of the elimination of livestock grazing on public
lands would be a 54 percent decrease in sediment yield and a 30
percent decrease in water yield in the long term. Additionally,
water quality would improve significantly because of reduced
levels of fecal bacteria, suspended sediments and nutrients con-
tained in runoff water. Consumption of water by livestock would
decrease from 2,794 acre-feet/year to zero.
Ecological range condition would improve in the long term as
Succession to ecological climax progressed. Ecological range
condition would improve in the long term as succession to eco-
logical climax progresses where there is no infestation by noxious
weeds. However, locations where noxious weeds are present,
there would be additional acreages infested with noxious weeds
and a continual decline of range condition. Noxious weeds and
prairie dogs would be controlled only when threatening to private
and or crucial wildlife habitat. The condition of riparian, shoreline
and saline seep vegetation would improve over the entire EIS
area.
Eliminating livestock from public lands would not necessarily
improve habitat for many of the wildlife species. Big game forage
could be reduced as plant communities trend toward climax
vegetation. However, the additional forage and cover available
would satisfy the needs of increased wildlife populations in most
cases. High value riparian habitat would increase. The release of
vegetation that would result from the absence of livestock grazing
could be expected to limit or allow only slight increases of prairie
dog towns.
For the short and long term, income would decrease on all 608
operations. The decrease in net income would be 24% of the
Current total.
Ranchers' attitudes and perceptions of BLM would be very
negative because of the elimination of grazing on public lands in
the EIS area. Attitudes of environmentalists and recreationists
would be mixed as removal of livestock grazing would improve
the naturalness but the reactions of ranchers to their loss of
grazing might result in reduced access to public lands.
Regional economic impacts would be decreases in annual
earnings of $501,000 in the short term and $3,009,000 in the long
term. Employment opportunities would decrease by 60 in the
short term and 303 in the long term.
Total implementation of this alternative would cost
$16,944,100, due to construction of 7,400 miles of exclosure
fences around public lands and control of noxious weed and
prairie dogs.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Alternative D: No Action
Watershed condition would deteriorate with an increase in
sediment and water yields of 15% and 12%, respectively, while the
quality of surface water would deteriorate in the long term. Con-
sumptive uses of water by livestock would remain at 2,794 acre-
feet/year.
Ecological range condition, riparian areas and floodplains
would decline in the longterm. Without the control of prairie dogs
and noxious weeds, forage supplies would be reduced, resulting
in overuse of the range. Vegetation allocations would remain at
their present levels of 253,085 ACIMs to livestock and 759,255
ACIMs to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses.
Wildlife would not be adversely affected, but competition
between livestock and wildlife for crucial wildlife habitat would be
significant, particularly during the spring and winter seasons.
Some viable fisheries reservoirs would be lost due to accelerated
sedimentation. The potential expansion of prairie dog towns
would reduce the yearlong food and cover of many other wildlife
species not associated with prairie dog towns.
Ranchers interviewed anticipated that a no action proposal
TABLE 2-2
would have negative impacts on their operations.
There would be no implementation costs for this alternative as
maintenance to fences would be the responsibility of the operator
and by 1984, maintenance cost of reservoirs, springs, etc., would
also be their responsibility.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNAT | VE
| | | ATFernative ATContinued TATFernative E - Enhanced | Alternative CTNS Gazīng TATFernative DTNSTASTTon
|Environmental | Existing Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | |
| Component | Situation | Range Utilization Wild I i fe Habitat |
| | | | | | | |
| | Short Term | Long Term Short Term Long Term | Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term
|VEGETATION | T |
| ACRES/CLASS | | | | | | | | |
| | |
| Good & | |
| Excel lent | 1,004,061 | Increasing = + | , | | 8,806 + 1, 118,806 + tº- + g- |
|
Fair 95,268 |Decreasing = - || Near 0 tº º Near 0 tº- + gº + |
| |
Poor | 2,225 |Decreasing = - || Near O g- Near 0 tº e + | gº +
| |
Unclassified 19,254 |Stand quality would change in the alternatives but without classification the acres unclassified would not change. |
| | |
Tame Pasture 59,971 |Static = s + S + S | tºº S cº- |
|(Change in | | | | | | | | |
|stand quality) |
. |
Production | 1,012,340 | 1,012,340 | 1,080,460 | 1,012,340 | 1,080,460 | 1,012,340 | 1,080,460 | 1,012,340 | 1,012,340 |
| (AUMs) | |
| Al location | |
| Livestock 253,085 253,085 270,115 204,411 220,459 O O 255,085 253,085 |
| Nonconsumptive |
| & Wildlife | 759,255 759,255 810,345 807,929 860,021 1,012,340 | 1,080,460 759,255 759,255 |
| | | |
|LIVESTOCK | | | | | | | | | |
| Numbers | | | | | | | | | |
| (800s/mo.) | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |
| 6 mo. season | 42, 181 42, 181 45,019 34,069 56,740 O | O 42, 181 42, 181
| | | |
| 8 mo. season | 31,656 31,636 33,764 25,551 27,555 O | O 51,656 51,656
| | |






ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE
TABLE 2-2 (continued )
| | | Alternative A – Continued Alternative B - Enhanced | Alternative C – No Grazing || Alternative D - No Action
| Environmental | Existing | Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | |
| Component | Situation | Range Utilization Wild l if e Habitat
| | | | | | |
| Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term | Short Term Long Term Short Term | Long Term
|WATERSHED* | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |
| Sediment | |
| Yield | 1, 163 1, 163 929 1, 158 831 1, 157 | 533 1, 156 1,327
| | |
| Water Yield | 60, 194 60, 194 49,097 60, 194 46,576 60,070 42,249 |_60, 156 67,272
| | |
| Water Quality | + O + O + O + | O tº-e
| | |
| Water | | | | | | | |
| Consumption | 2,794 | 2,794 | 2,982 | 2,257 | 2,434 | 2,794 | O | 2,794 2,794

* Aſ I figures are acre-feet/year
+ Indicates increased quality
- Indicates decreased quality
O Indicates no change
10
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TABLE 2-2 (continued )
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE
Alternative A – Continued
| Alternative B - Enhanced
Alternative C – No Grazing
Alternative D - No Act ion
| | | | T
| Environmental | Existing | Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | | |
| Component | Situation Range Utilization Wild l if e Habitat | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term | Short Term | Long Term
| WILDLIFE | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Big Game | | | | | | | | | |
| Pops. a/ | 19,508 | S | S | S | (+) | (+) | (-) | º e | tº e |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Up I. Game | | | | | | | | |
| Birds aſ | Unknown | S | (+) | (+) | (+) | + | (-) | S | * * |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Waterfowl a/ | | | | | | | | | |
| NOS | Unknown | S | (+) | (+) | S | + —' (-) | º | tº º |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Crucial | | | | | | | | | |
| Habitats aſ |_240,000ACl S | (+) | (+) | + | + | (-) | tº- | wº |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Prairie | | | | | | | | | |
| Dogs aſ | 2,900AC tº | gºe | (+) | + | S | S | + | + |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Fisheries b/ | 17 | (+)/O | +/O | +/33 | +/33 | +/? | +/? | -/0 | -/O |
a/
Response to proposed actions by a liternative
Stable or neutral response:
Dec 1 ine in cond it ion or numbers:
Improvement or increase:
Number of Reservoirs
S
(+) slight;
(-), slight; – moderate to sign if i cant
+ moderate to sign if i cant
11
ALTERNATIVES
TABLE 2-2 (continued )
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNAT | VE
| | Alternative A – Continued Alternative B – Enhanced | Alternative C – No Grazing || Alternative D - No Action
Environmental | Existing | Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | |
Component | Situation | Range Utilization - W i ! d i fe Habitat
| | | | | |
| | Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term
| | | | | |
CULTURAL | | | | | | | | |
RESOURCE | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | |
Potent i a | | 4,000 to | | | |
Sites (est.) | 13,000 | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Potent a | | 200 to 1,000 200 to 1,000 | O O | O | O
Sites | | Sites | | Sites | | | | |
Disturbed | | | | | | | | |
( İ f no | | | | | | | | |
mitigating | | | | | | | |
measures are | | | | | | | |
applied) | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |


12
SCIMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TABLE 2-2 (Continued )
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNAT | VE
| | | Aſternative A – Continued TATFernative B - Enhanced | Aſternative CTNS Grazing TATFernative DTNS Action T
|Environmental | Existing Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | | |
| Component | Situation | Range Utilization Wild l if e Habitat |
| | | | | | | |
| | | Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term | Long Term
| SOCIAL | | | | | | |
| Economic | | | | | | | | | |
| Ranch Impacts| | | | | | | | | |
| |
| Number of 608 |
| ranches |
| Ranch income | 8,892,655 |
| Number of |
| ranches with | O | 350 | O | 176 | O O O O |
| income inc. | |
| Total dollar | O $205,638 O $90,938 O O O O |
| increase | |
| Nuumber of | |
| ranches with | O | O | 4.18 | 335 | 608 | 608 | O | O |
| income | | | | | | | | | |
| decrease | | | |
| Total Doi Tar | O O 544,306 | 481,435 5,221,688 5,221,688 O | O |
| Decrease |
| Permit values 24,614,800 O + 1,703,000 -4,866,000 -3,264,000 -24,614,800 -24,614,800 |
| Ranch |
| employment 365 | O | O -28 | -25 -505 -303 O O |
| Total Impact | | Moderately Moderately | Moderately Highly Highly |
| Of Increases | None | significant significant I significant I significant significant None | None |




13
ALTERNATIVES
TABLE 2-2 (continued )
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNATIVE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alternative A – Continued Alternative B - Enhanced | Alternative C - No Grazing || Alternative D - No Action
Ennvironmental Component Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | |
| Range Utilization Wi | d | | fe Habitat
Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term
No. Famil ies With Increase -
In Social Well Being O 465 O 234 O O O O
Noe Fami lies With Decrease
in Social Wel Being | | | | | | | |
Unclass if i ed O O 555 445 808 808 O | O
Social Impact -would meet —same as short |-some ranchers |-same as —ranchers would |- same as -continued ab– |-same as
Assessment |approval of |term | would be re- |short term; be required to short term |sence of range |short term;
|area ranchers |quired to | |alter historic | |improvements |
|satisfied with |-in addition |alter historic |-in addi- Imgmt. patterns, | would frustrate |-eventual
|present level
|and kind of |ga in through
|mgmt; | income
| | increases;
|-provisions for could result
|range improve- in enhanced
|ments would also ability to
|meet their
|approval; |ferred life-
| |style
|-local increases|
| in wild life |
|numbers and |
| improvements in
|riparian habitat
|would benefit
|with some res- |
|ervations groups|
|concerned with
| wild life protec-
|tion and also |
|hunters & |
|recreational ists|
|some ranchers
|maintain pre-
|mgmt. patterns, ſtion, some
|forego economic Iranchers
|gain, and in would ex-
|extreme cases, perience
|may be dis- |opportuni-
|placed; |ties for
|-likely cause
|some rancher
|resentment at
| loss of AUMs
|to wild life re-|well being
|sulting in |
|strained rela-
|tions with BLM; |
|- increase in
| local wild life
|numbers & pro-
|tection of |
|riparian areas
| would result in
| increased hunt-|
|ing & recrea- |
|tion opportuni-
|ties on public |
| lands |
|resulting
|forego economic |
|gain, and in ex-
|treme cases, may
|be displaced;
|-wholesale re- |
|sentment of BLM
| income gain would likely re-
|sult and persist
| in enchanc-| into future; |
|ed sense of |-increases in
| wildlife numbers|
|& improved |
|riparian habitat
|would benefit
|wildlife inter-
|est groups & |
|hunters,
|although they
|do not espouse
|wholesale
|removal of
|cattle from
|public lands
|attempts at long-|decline in
|range mgmt. of wild life
|operations; |numbers
|-decrease in |would de-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|ranch income is a |crease |
|possibility, re- |hunting &
|sulting in lower-viewing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


|ed sense of well |opportuni-
|being + std. of |ties on
| living; |public
|-lack of extra- ||ands
|ordinary measures|
|to protect wild- |
| life habitat, |
|especial Iy ripar-
|ian areas could
|meet opposition
|from wild life |
| interest groups.
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
14
SCIMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TABLE 2-2 (continued )
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ALTERNAT | VE
| | | Alternative A – continued TAlternative B - Enhanced | Alternative c - No Grazing TAI-Fernative D - No Action
|Environmental | Existing Development for Optimum | Watershed Value and | | |
| Component | Situation Range Utilization e Wild life Habitat | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term Short Term | Long Term | Short Term Long Term
|REGIONAL | | | | | | | |
| IMPACTs | | | | | | | | | |
| | | |
| Area Earnings |$174,888,000 + 1,635,000 O + 1,558,000 || $1251,000 -501,000 –5,009,000 O | O |
| | |
| Area | |
| Employment 17,631 || + 134 O + 106 tº º 23 tº-e 60 tº e 303 O O |
| Total impact |
| to Area | | Insignificant None | Insignificant|Insignificantl Insignificant | Moderately | None | None |
| Economy | | | | Significant | |
| Implementation | | |
| Cost | | 11,958,051 | 11,955,251 20,769, 100% | O | -
| | |

* Includes $16,944, 100 private investment
15
CLIMATE
The dry continental climate of the Big Dry EIS area is character.
ized by short summers with mild to warm temperatures and long
Cold winters. Mean air temperatures average 72 degrees Fahren.
heit (“F) in July and 15°F in January. Temperatures fluctuate
greatly during all seasons of the year, limiting the growing season
to between 110-130 days.
Precipitation levels fluctuate, averaging 12 to 14 inches. The
Big Dry EIS area receives the greatest concentration (80%) of
precipitation between April and September as rain. The annual
average snowfall in the area is approximately 30 inches.
GEOLOGY
Geologic formations exposed at the surface of the EIS area
consist of sedimentary strata that range from mid-Cretaceous to
early Tertiary age. The older Cretaceous rocks are limited to
exposures along the Missouri River and along structural trends
associated with the Central Montana Uplift and the Cedar Creek
Anticline. The Tertiary formations are the most widespread and
resulted from the accumulation of nonmarine sediment in the
large Williston Basin.
WATERSHED
Soils
The soils of the EIS area are derived mainly from soft sedimen-
tary bedrock, local and regional alluvium from mixed sources,
shale, siltstones, claystones, and to a minor amount, glacial till.
Because of this the area has complex and diverse soil patterns,
varying greatly in character and productivity.
For descriptive purposes in this ElS, approximately 150 soil
Series were grouped into 15 geomorphic soil subgroups (Map 3,
Map Supplement). Each of these soil subgroups has unique
capabilities and limitations for land uses and treatments based
upon topography and soil properties. Selected vegetation charac-
teristics of the geomorphic soil subgroups are also given in
Appendix 3.1.
About 63 percent (742,600 acres) of public lands in the EIS
area have moderate to high potential for water erosion. Allot.
ments in areas dominated by soil subgroups 1, 11, 13, 14 and 15
have a moderate to high water erosion hazard because of infiltra-
tion, permeability, texture, structure and slope. Allotments in
areas dominated by subgroups 3,4,5,6,10 and 12 have slight to
moderate water erosion hazards.
Based on step-point transects, vegetation cover on all 15 soil
Subgroups on public lands range from 9-100 percent under
Current vegetation allocations which are sometimes less than the
minimum necessary for maintaining soil stability and productiv-
ity. Desired soil vegetation cover percentages (called "Target Soil
Vegetation Cover") have been developed for each range site.
(Appendices 3.2 and 3.3) Target soil vegetation covers are
needed to establish acceptable vegetation cover on each range
site. This would help to ensure adequate soil protection and help
prevent sediment loss into nearby watershed and streams. These
target covers would be updated periodically and used in activity
planning and development of allotment management plans.
Soils in subgroups 1, 14 and 15, comprising 163,800 acres of
public lands, are unsuited for season long grazing because of the
severe erosion potential of soils on shale uplands and along
stream channels. These soils are most suited to rest rotation
grazing systems due to the fragile nature of the soils, susceptibility
to trampling and soil compaction during seasonally wet periods
and the clayey textures in shale areas. Soils in these subgroups
are also well suited to deferred and deferred rotation grazing
systems. Because of the topography, slope, soil texture and water
erosion potential, mechanical treatments are not recommended.
Soils in subgroups 2,4,5,7,9,12, and 13 on a total of 878,300
acres of public lands, are suited to all of the grazing systems listed
in the vegetation section of Alternative A. Mechanical treatments
(Appendix 2.8A) could increase production up to four times on
selected soils by changing vegetation composition, improving
infiltration, reducing runoff and catching more snow.
The 136,000 acres of publiclandin soil subgroups 3,8, 10, and
11 are well suited to deferred, deferred rotation and rest rotation
grazing systems. Grazing systems with late spring season of use
would stabilize watershed conditions and maintain water quality in
these areas. -
Riparian soils (located in subgroup 1, which totals 75,000 acres
of public lands) are occasionally saturated with waterinthe spring
and transmit all inflow water except that lost to evapotranspiration
The slow release of water from riparian zones prolongs stream-
flow periods for offsite or downstream users. Riparian zones are
also sources for recharge of subterranean aquifers.
Riparian zones are highly productive forage sites and livestock
use these areas intensively. Riparian vegetation provides rubbing
and shade sources for cattle, in addition to forage. Erosion, with
attendant stream channelization and sedimentation, has devel.
oped as a result of livestock concentrations in these zones. Ripar.
ian soils are best suited to rest rotation grazing and deferred
rotation grazing systems.
Selected series within the 15 geomorphic soil subgroups may
be mechanically treated to increase vegetation production, estab-
lish soil cover or decrease soil erosion.
Pitting, chiselling and ripping may be used on selected soil
series within geomorphic soil subgroups 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13.
Scalping and contour furrowing may be done on selected series
in subgroups 2, 4, 7, 9, 11 and 13. Slopes in excess of 12% are
considered unsuited to these treatments due to increased erosion
problems. Selected soils within 1,2,4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 may
lend themselves to interseeding where an inadequate seed
source of desirable species or a vegetation conversion is desira-
ble. Plowing and seeding on selected soils in subgroups 1,2,4,5,
7,9,11, 12 and 13 may be applied after less destructive and costly
measures have been found inadequate. Chaining (cabling, rail-
ing), dozing and rotobeating on selected soils within subgroups 1,
CHAPTER 3
THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 may be performed if slopes are less than FIGURE 3-1 WATER BEARING FORMATIONS OF THE BIG DRY EIS AREA
8%. Fire may be used on all subgroups, but are most favorable on
subgroups 1,2,4,5,7,10, 11, 12 and 13. Least favorable soils are
in subgroups 6, 14 and 15, because vegetation is so sparse that O
any removal may result in increased erosion beyond acceptable
levels.
Saline seeps are wet, saline soils in drainages below reservoirs
and on some other slopes and drainages. Water impoundment
structures often produce areas of seepage below them. Water
percolates through reservoirs, dams and abutments, dissolving 1000 ". . .
salts from local soils. These salts accumulate at the soil surface by
the upward capillary movement of water and its subsequent
evaporation. Some saline water from the seeps moves down
drainages, causing changes in vegetation composition and
reducing soil productivity, particularly on riparian soils.
2000
Groundwater
The availability of groundwater in the Big Dry EIS area is directly
related to the geology of the area. The Big Dry area is somewhat
like a bowl filled with about 10,000 feet of layered material with
some layers transmitting enough water to supply wells (Figure
3-1).
The chemical quality of the groundwater in the EIS area shows
considerable variation. Water in the shallow aquifers is chemically
dynamic, being subject to dilution by recharge, concentration by
evaporation and transpiration, and chemical reactions by bacte-
rial activity, oxidation, and other factors. Water in deeper aquifers
is chemically static, with chemical changes limited to interactions
between the water and rocks (CISGS 8, MBMG 1978).
The Fort (Inion formation (Figure 3-1 and Appendix 3.4) cov-
ers approximately 80% of the EIS area and is the most widely used
aquifer. Wells drilled 100 to 400 feet into this formation generally
produce adequate water for stock and domestic needs. Two to 12
gallons perminute (gpm) are typical yields. High sodium content
of Fort Union water usually precludes its use for irrigation.
- - - • * * *..."-" . " : " ... . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :. . . .”- “... - - - - - -
* * * * * - . . . . . . . . . ...'.......”...: '... ::, ... : :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : - - -
3000 - - - - - ". . . . . ."... -- - - - - - - - - - - … .". - "." - - - . . . . . " - - -
4000 Hº- *~
-
- *- -
- -
* - -
- *--
-
- -
"-- -- --
* --T"--- -- * --
- - -
-- - - - --
5000 he ------E=====---------------------- =
*-
The Fox Hills-Lower Hell Creek formations form a continuous
aquifer system which is capable of producing water almost any.
where in the EIS area. The depth to this aquifer is 600 to 1,000 6000- *
feet.
Alluvium and terrace deposits occur locally along the Yellow-
stone and Missouri Rivers and along other perennial streams and F WE
their tributaries in the EIS area. These deposits lie above the Fort
Union Formation. Irrigation wells yielding up to 1,000 gal/min.
have been developed from the alluvium in the major river valleys. 7000
However, due to their limited area extent, alluvium deposits are
minor producers of groundwater when compared to otherforma-
tions in the area.
- -
* - - - - - - -
S-
TS-
~
~~
MADISON GROUP AND OTHER PALEOZOIC FORMATIONS – PRODUCTIVE
On public land, there are approximately 250 wells and 100
springs. All supply water for wildlife and livestock consumption.
8000
Surface Water - - - - -
The Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers are the major drainages in The Big Dry EIS Area is underlain by several units that are productive aquifers
the EIS area. The Missouri River, which flows in an easterly direc-
tion, drains most of the northern portion of the area. The Yellow- Source: (ISGS and MBMG, 1978
18


VEGETATION
stone River flows northeasterly and drains most of the southern
portion. Smaller drainages include the Musselshell River, which
flows northerly to the Missouri River and drains the extreme
western portion of the area, the Powder River, which flows north-
erly to the Yellowstone, and Beaver Creek, which is a tributary to
the Little Missouri River. Both the Powder River and Beaver Creek
drain the southeastern portion of the area. Twenty-nine miles of
perennial streams and 150 miles of major intermittent streams
occur on public lands. In addition, approximately 850 reservoirs
also occur on public lands. Average annual runoff for the EIS area
is approximately 0.5 inch (USGS Water Resources Data for
Montana).
Most major intermittent streams exhibit a sodium sulfate-type
water Appendix 3.5). Total dissolved solids (TDS) in these
streams are generally high enough to preclude human consump-
tion (McKinley 1979; Montana Testing Labs 1981). The water in
these streams is suitable for irrigation only during moderate to
high flows from snowmelt and spring rains. The water is usually of
high enough quality for livestockwatering wheneverthere is flow.
Standing water in these intermittent streams is generally too high
in TDS for any use.
Surface water quality varies among the perennial streams in the
EIS area. Waters in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers are good
for domestic, stock, and irrigation purposes. The Musselshell
River is marginal for domestic and irrigation uses, but good for
stockwater. The Powder River is high in total dissolved solids and
suspended sediment. Its water is fair to good for livestock, but
unsatisfactory for domestic use.
Reservoir sediment studies were conducted on fourteen reser-
voirs in the summers of 1980 and 1981. The reservoirs were
placed into one of four hydrologic geomorphic areas based on
the soils of the respective watershed. Results (Appendix 3.6)
indicate hydrologic geomorphic areas I and Ill tend to be lower
producers of runoff and sediment than areas lland IV. Ranges for
runoff and sediment production appear in Figure 3-2. These
ranges were later used to determine water and sediment yields for
each of the four proposed alternatives.
VEGETATION
The vegetation community on public lands is composed of the
following major types: grassland 45%, badland 23%, Sagebrush-
grassland 21%, tame pasture (primarily crested wheatgrass) 5%,
conifers 3%, halophytic shrub 2%, broadleaf trees with open can-
opy 1%, and broadleaf trees with closed canopy and mesic shrubs
less than 1% each. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 are typical of the area.
Rangelands which are predominately a needlegrass wheatgrass.
grama association. Areas which have more than 10 percent
canopy cover of trees are grazable woodlands. The general vege.
tation communities of the 15 soil subgroups are noted in Appen-
dices 3.1 and 3.2, along with possible management practices.
Plant communities are described in detail by range site in the
(ISDA-SCS MT Technical Guide, 1979.
Riparianzones are defined as a specialized form of wetmeadow
producing specific vegetation types (Figure 3-5). Riparian zones
are wet or subirrigated with vegetation common to wet meadow,
FIGURE 3-2
AGGREGATIONS OF SOIL SCIBGROUPS BY EROSION/SEDIMENT AND WATERYIELD POTENTIAL
(REPRESENTS 96% OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACREAGE)
Sources: BLM 1981A, BLM 1981B, USGS Annual Reports.
WATER YIELD RANGES
(1) 18 : Soil Subgroups 3, 4, 12 HYDROLOGIC
T- 64% of Acreage GEOMORPHICAREA |
22 51 o
(2, 3) H — Soil Subgroups 1, 11, 13 HYDROLOGIC
9 17% of Acreage GEOMORPHICAREA III
37 e 160 HYDROLOGIC
l Soil Subgroups 5, 6, 10 —l
(3) I- 7% of Acreage U GEOMORPHICAREA II
(2.3 22 " So subgroups 14.15 HYDROLOGIC
9 I– 8% of Acreage GEOMORPHICAREA IV
H + | + | | | | —
O 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
AC-FT/SQ MI/YR
SEDIMENT YIELD RANGES
(1) * * solsubgroups 3,412 HYDROLOGIC
64% of Acreage GEOMORPHICAREA I
.18 Soil Subgrou 2.06 HYDROLOGIC
| ps 1, 11, 13
(1) I– 17% of Acreage — GEOMORPHICAREA III
.16 Soil Subgrou 3.19 HYDROLOGIC
l ps 14, 15 |
(1) ſ 8% of Acreage TI GEOMORPHIC AREA IV
.3 1.5 - .
(2) | Soil Subgroups 5, 6, 10 HYDROLOGIC
ſ —l 7% of Acreage GEOMORPHICAREA ||
| + | | H
O 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
AC-FT/SQMJ/YR

19
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
subirrigated or saline lowland range sites. The relative vegetation
composition (by weight) of grasses, forbs, and trees and shrubs
on each rangesite (wet meadow, subirrigated or saline lowland) is
shown in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1
PERCENTRANGE SITE VEGETATION COMPOSITION
Trees 8,
Range Site Grasses Forbs Shrubs Total
Wet Meadow 65 10 25 100
Subirrigated 75 10 15 100
Saline Lowland 75 5 20 100
These zones are used disproportionally more than any other
vegetation type for livestock grazing, watering, shade, travel, wild-
life habitat, and for concentrated waterflow.
Floodplains and overflow range sites are often adjacent to
- - - - - - - FIGURE 3-3 FIGURE 3-4
riparian zones. Vegetation typical of upland sites receives addi- -
tional moisture from overland flow. Woody vegetation may Typical area rangeland with deciduous trees occurring in water- Typically rolling topography with predominantly a grass/shrub
include silver sagebrush, snowberry, rose, buffaloberry, boxelder, ways and north slope drainages vegetation community
elm, chokecherry, and cottonwood.
-TTTE * V º
Range Condition, Production and Trend FIGURE 3.5 §
Ecological range condition expressed as excellent, good, fair, Deciduous trees
poor or unclassified, reflects the current vegetation composition
of the rangeland in relation to the potential climax plant commun-
ity. The ecological range condition of the public lands is 85% good
and excellent, 8% fair, 2% poor, 1.6% unclassified and 5.1% tame
pasture as mapped by BLM specialists in 1979 and 1980. See
Table 3-2. Of the 155,462 acres in less than good condition, 61
percent (95.491 acres) is native range and 39 percent (59,971
acres) is tame pasture. Most of the tame pasture is suitable for
land treatment and 67,958 acres of the native range is suitable for
land treatment. Shrubs —-
The opportunity for improving range conditions and produc-
tion with grazing managementis greatest on clayey and/or loamy Sedges and rushes --> -
sedimentary uplands, alluvial terraces and floodplains. Grazing Emergents N N \
systems that are designed to provide for the needs of the vegeta-
tion would generally improve range condition in a relatively short Y&
- Nº. º \ Mº.
time. - - - - l T L. Sºº-º- º \
Range sites vary widely in production because of differences in - - T – it—º--l- t º º
soils. Silty and clayey are the dominant range sites and are among |\- ) L
the more productive and responsive sites. – - I -
p po Water - 1. ſ
Vegetation production on rangelands varies widely with fluctua- - - - -
tions in precipitation. Timing of precipitation is critical. Production – –
is lower than normal when precipitation is low or when precipita- - - -
tion occurs during plant dormancy periods. Critical rainfall peri- - * —-l-— RPaña" —-l-— “P” —-
ods are in the fall before freeze-up and in the spring during early Zone Zone Zone
plant growth of the dominant cool season grasses.
Riparian zones are identified by the presence of vegetation that requires large amounts of free or unbound water.
Actual use, utilization and trend data has been collected on the
30 existing AMP allotments. Methods of determining trend From: Thomas, J.W.; Maser, C.; and Rodier, J.E. 1979. Riparian zones in managed rangelands — their importance to wildlife. In
include photo-trend plots, point transects, comparison of recur- Forum – Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Ed. Oliver B. Cope, Trout (Inlimited.
20


rent surveys and professional judgment. Trend information on
these allotments is found in Appendix 3.7.
Generally, trend is in a stable or slightly upward direction as
indicated by comparison of several range surveys which cover the
same area and is evidenced by the preponderance of good or
better condition range lands. Those areas in less than good
condition are generally the result of several factors such as prairie
dogs, livestock concentration areas, or noxious weeds. Such
areas generally are not the result of an overallocation of vegeta-
tion, but local overuse.
Leafy spurge is a perennial noxious weed which has created a
serious problem by infesting Montana ranges, including public
lands. It is generally found in small isolated patches; it spreads
rapidly and is extremely difficult to eradicate. Several areas (80
acres) were treated with Tordon beads in 1981 with some appar.
ent success. Repeated treatments would be necessary.
Other noxious weeds in significant amounts are: field bind.
weed, Canada thistle, cocklebur and knapweeds. An occasional
isolated patch of halogeton is found.
Invasion of ranges in excellent condition and displacement of
useful forage is common with noxious weeds. They are not
limited to disturbed or low condition areas, though these areas
favor weed infestation
Vegetation production and range condition are greatly reduced
on prairie dog towns. Range condition on prairie dog towns is
usually poor, because of the continual clipping of vegetation and
the conversion of the plant community to invader and low Suc.
Cessional plants.
No rare or endangered plant species are known to exist on
public lands in the EIS area. One threatened species, yellowcress
(Roripa calycina), does occur in the area.
LIVESTOCK
About 708 operators are licensed to graze a total of 253,075
ACIMs in the 777 allotments in the EIS area.
Grazing usually begins in April and extends through November
on some allotments. For most operations, the total grazing period
on public and private lands is April–November, a total of 7 to 8
months. Livestock are generally fed hay and supplements on
winter pastures, though grazing is not uncommon during open
winter. The overall average dependency upon public lands is
about 20 percent, although many operations depend heavily on
the public lands, especially during spring and Summer.
Cattle ranching is the mainlivestockenterprise on publiclands,
encompassing 777 allotments and 243,714 AGMs. Seven thou-
sand sheep graze on 31 of the 777 allotments and use 9,361
AQIMs, which is about four percent of the totallicensed use on the
public lands. Most ranches are one-family or family Corporation
Cow/calf operations.
The availability and quality of water are limiting factors on Some
allotments.
WILDLIFE
TABLE 3-2
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION SUMMARY BY MANAGEMENT STATUS
(Acres and Percent)
GOOD AND
EXCELLENT FAIR POOR (INCLASSIFIED TAME PASTURE TOTAL
Existing AMPs 202,024 10,433 610 1,914 12,795 227,776
88.7/17.1/20.1 4.6/.9/11.2 .3/.1/27.5 .8/.2/9.9 5.6/1.1/21.3 100/19.4/-.
Proposed AMPs 249,388 35,005 1,052 771 8,582 294,798
84.6/21.2/24.8 11.9/29/37.5 .4/.1/47.3 .3/.1/40 2.9/.7/143 100/25/.
Season & Number 548,780 47,277 561 16.569 38,594 651,781
& Custodial 84.2/46.5/54.7 7.3/40/50.7 .1/.1/25.2 2.5/14/86.1 5.9/33/64.4 100/55.3/.
(Inallocated 3,869 553 4,422
87.5/.4/.4 12.5/.1/.6 100/.5/.
TOTAL 1,004,061 93,268 2,223 19,254 59,971 1,178,777
85.2/.../100 7.9/.../100 .2/~/100 1.6/.../100 5.1/.../100
1 2 3
XXX/XXX/XXX
1. Percent of each management class in each condition class, i.e., 202,024 divided by 227,776 x 100 = 88.7%.
2. Percent of land in each management and condition class, i.e., 202,024 divided by 1,178,777 x 100 = 17.1%.
3. Percent of condition class by management status, i.e., 202,024 divided by 1,004,341 x 100 = 20.1%.
Thirty AMPs were developed cooperatively between ranchers many wildlife species and absolutely necessary to some. Sage.
and BLM prior to June 1975. These AMPs include 19 percent of brush is a key forage and cover for various wildlife, particularly
the public lands in the area. Of the thirty AMPs, three use rest deer, antelope and sage grouse (Bayless 1969, Martin 1970,
rotation grazing systems, 26 use deferred rotation. One approved Schlatterer & Pyrah 1970). Sagebrush vegetation types occupy
AMP has not been implemented. Of the remaining allotments, 63 21 percent of the EIS area.
have been recommended for AMPfeasibility studies. The remain-
ing 684 allotments would be evaluated to determine if manage.
ment changes are necessary.
Range surveys and adjudications in the late 1950s and early
1960s established the current livestock use allocations. Alloca-
tions were also made to provide for wildlife populations. (See
Table 2-2.)
WILDLIFE
Wildlife habitats in the Big Dry Resource Area include diverse
combinations of vegetation, water and topography. A diversity of
species and numbers of individuals occupy the area. Riparian
zones and woody draws (Figure 3-6) and Sagebrush-grasslands
are crucial habitats. Riparian areas and wooded drainages are
estimated at less than five percent of the public acreage in the EIS
area. Wildlife use of riparian and woody draw habitats is dispro-
portionate to their occurrence. Therefore, maintenance and
enhancement of those habitats is important because of the rela- FIGURE 3-6
tionship between these habitats and their use. Woody draw habitat
Shrub-grassland and shrub-steppe habitats are important to
21

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Crucial big game winter ranges may require special vegetation
allocations. Although winter ranges requiring special considera-
tions have not been identified, monitoring would allow manage-
ment decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Wildlife species known or expected to occur in the Big Dry
Resource Area include 58 mammal, 238 bird, 10 reptile, 6
amphibian, and 59 fish. (See (IRA 2 for Jordan, North Rosebud,
Kinsey, Prairie, Baker, Wibaux, Circle, and Richland-Glendive
Planning (Inits.)
The following sections are general discussions of existing wild-
life and their habitats. Extrapolations of animal densities to public
lands as target management levels and as a basis for vegetation
allocations, for the most part, are considered unrealistic and
generally not supported by state wildlife personnel. In coordina-
tion with the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, we
recognized that available information prevented quantifications of
wildlife for allotment level vegetation allocations. The present
situation (75% allocation to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses
and 25% to livestock use) affords the best allocation and the best
opportunities for monitoring and adjusting allocations to meet
special conditions.
BIG GAME
Mule Deer
Mule deer are the most common big game animal of the Big
Dry Resource Area. They are distributed throughout the area and
utilize, to some degree, most of the public land.
Habitats crucial to mule deer in southeastern Montana are
riparian drainages and woody draws, upland shrub complexes
(particularly sagebrush), and the various breaks types. Combina-
tions of vegetation and topographic features provide habitat
diversity and edge which are highly valuable to most wildlife.
Cover and forage needs are generally provided if these vegetative
and topographic features are not too widely separated or over-
used.
Deciduous browse is used significantly during the fall and
winterseasons (e.g. rabbitbrush, skunkbrush, chokecherry). Plant
species commonly used by mule deer in eastern Montana are
listed in Table 3-3.
Mule deer numbers have increased significantly since the
spring of 1979. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FW&P) used a
computer model to obtain high and low densities of deer for
hunting units within the EIS area. These are not to be considered
absolute population estimates, but only represent density esti-
mates for a specific period of time. (See Appendix 3.8 for density
estimates of deer and the assumptions and rationale for these
estimates.) Densities of mule deer by hunting unit ranged from
1.0 to 12.6 (high estimates) animals per square mile.
Wintering areas in 1977-78 and 1978-79 with five or more deer
per square mile are shown on Map 2 (Map Supplement).
TABLE 3-3
PLANTS MOST CITILIZED BY DEER IN MONTANA1
Browse?
Big Sagebrush
Common juniper
Rabbitbrush
Rose
Snowberry
Chokecherry
Silver Buffaloberry
Skunkbush sumac
Willow
Cottonwood
Silver sagebrush
Red-aster dogwood
Serviceberry
Plains poplar
Winter fat
Nuttall saltbush
Creeping juniper
Grass
Prairie junegrass
Sandberg bluegrass
Western wheatgrass
Wheat
Barley
Forbs
Alfalfa
American vetch
Common bastard toadflax
Common dandelion
Hood's phlox
Lomatium
Prairie Onion
Summer cypress
Prairiesmoke
Pussytoes
Sagebrush buttercup
Scarlet gaura
Yellow fritillary
Yellow salsify
Yellow sweetclover
Prickly lettuce
Small soapweed
American licorice
Fringed sagewort
Wild buckwheat
Clover
Fireweed
Antelope are characteristically plains animals and occupy
Open, rolling grasslands and shrub-grasslands. Antelope use
grassland, grassland-shrub, shrub and agricultural vegetation -
types in the spring, summer and early fall while they concentrate
on grassland-shrub and shrub types during the winter.
Browse is vital in the antelope diet; sagebrush constitutes a very
large part of their yearlong forage (Table 3-4). Winter diet usually
consists of at least 80 percent sagebrush. In the spring, succulent
green grasses are used for 1 to 2 weeks before forbs are available.
Also important in the spring, summer and early fall are seasonal
forbs. Plants more commonly used by antelope in central Mon-
tana are listed by season of use in Table 3-5. Similar patterns of
food usage are assumed in eastern Montana.
General antelope winter ranges have been delineated by the
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department (Map 4, Map Sup-
plement). Crucial wintering areas have not been delineated for the
entire EIS area. Crucial winter habitat includes sagebrush and
shrubs between 12 to 24 inches in height, especially when snow
covers the shorter sagebrush plants. Vegetation cover is also
necessary for fawning as it protects the young from predators and
severe winters (Autenrieth 1978).
"From Prairie Potholes EIS
*Browse, forbs and grasses which are important in Montana deer
studies and known to occur in the EIS area
White-tailed Deer
Whitetailed deer densities by hunting unit ranged from 0.1 to
15.6 (high estimates) animals per square mile (Appendix 3.8).
Woodlands are preferred habitats of whitetails; and in the Big Dry
Resource Area, riparian and woody draw habitats are crucial
elements of their range. Plant species found in whitetail diets are
listed in Table 3-3.
Winter concentrations with observed densities of five or more
deer per square mile are shown on Map 2 (Map Supplement).
Antelope
Pronghorn antelope are the second most numerous big game
animals. Densities (minimum counts) by hunting unit ranged
from 0.6 to 4.4 animals per square mile on antelope range within
the hunting units (Appendix 3.9). Herd composition information
indicates good fawn production and survival rates for the area,
probably because of suitable habitat conditions on native range-
lands (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1974-79).
TABLE 3-4
PLANTS MOST CITILIZED BY PRONGHORN
ANTELOPE IN MONTANA1
Browse? Forbs
Big Sagebrush Common bastard toadflax
Silver sagebrush Western yarrow
Greasewood Hairy seed lomatium
Winterfat Hood's phlox
Rabbitbrush Knotweed
Rose Cudweed sagewort
Skunkbrush sumac
Western snowberry
Nuttall saltbush
Grass
Bluegrass
Wheat
Barley
Blue grama
Brome grass
Wheatgrass
Common dandelion
Prairie clover
"From Prairie Potholes EIS
Fringed sagewort
Scarlet glovemallow
Silver scurfpea
Small soapweed
Yellow sweetclover
Thistle (all species)
Onion
Sagebrush buttercup
Wavyleaf agoseris
Yellow salsify
Alfalfa
Aster
Field bindweed
Prickly lettuce
*Browse, forbs, and grasses which are important in Montana
antelope studies and known to occur in the EIS area
22
TABLE 3-5
FOOD HABITS OF PRONGHORN ANTELOPE FOR
EACH SEASON OF THE YEAR IN CENTRAL
MONTANA
Seasonal Preference
Season First Second Third
Spring Browse (71%) Forbs (21%) Grass (8%)
Summer Forbs (66%) Browse (33%) Grass (1%)
Fall Browse (50%) Forbs (48%) Grass (2%)
Winter Browse (98%) Grass (1.5%) Forbs (0.5%)
"From Prairie Potholes EIS
Bighorn Sheep
Bighorns (the Audubon variety) in early history were an inhabit.
ant of the Northern Great Plains area. Badlands and rugged river
breaks were topographically suited to their cover needs. They
have been reintroduced to the breaks along the Powder River;
other reintroductions may be feasible particularly in the Terry
Badlands.
(IPLAND GAME BIRDS
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Sharp-tailed grouse are the most common upland game birds.
Because of their general distribution, they are considered as
occurring over the total 1,178,777 acres of public lands. They are
widely distributed through the grassland, grassland-shrub and
open woodland habitats. Woody draws associated with these
types are particularly important yearlong because of their food
and cover values.
Yearlong residual cover is very important for the sharp-tailed
grouse. Adequate nesting cover is 4 to 6 inches of grass, which
also provides security during the brood-rearing seasons. Brood
rearing takes place in the same area as nesting. Woody draws in
the woodlands, grassland and grassland-shrub habitats are cru-
cial brood-rearing areas.
Important plant species used by sharp-tailed grouse are alfalfa,
clover, common chokecherry, common dandelion, pussytoes,
rose, serviceberry and silver buffaloberry (Marshall et al. 1937,
Martin et al. 1951, and Neilsen 1978).
Buffaloberry, snowberry, juniper and wild rose in the woodlands
are used extensively for food and cover by grouse during the
winter. If snow is not available for burrowing during severe winter
weather, shrubby vegetation must be available to protect the
grouse population from heavy winter kills. Studies show that
grouse may move some distance to find these shrubs (Neilsen
1978). Maintenance of woody draws and riparian habitats is the
key to winter survival of sharp-tailed grouse.
Sage Grouse
Sage grouse are the next most important game birds, having
about 247,500 acres of habitaton public lands. They are primarily
associated with the big and silver Sagebrush communities in
grassland-shrub and shrub vegetation types. Populations seem to
be decreasing because of the continual reduction in habitat,
principally due to expanding cultivation (Martin, personal com:
munication). Distribution of sage grouse in the area is illustrated
on (IRA map overlays in the Big Dry Resource Area Office.
Nesting habitat is located under Sagebrush, usually within 2
miles of mating grounds(Wallestad and Pyrah 1974, Martin 1970,
and Gill 1965).
Sage grouse wintering/nesting complexes should be managed
to sustain a sagebrush component of 15 to 30% canopy coverage
and an average plant height of 18 inches.
Ring-Necked Pheasant
Pheasants are commonly associated with riparian/agriculture
vegetative associations. A smallamount of publiclandisfound on
the riparian zones (less than 5%). Those acres of public riparian
habitat are important areas of cover.
Turkeys
Turkeys occur most commonly in riparian habitats of major
drainages in the EIS area and in the Ponderosa pine habitats of
the Knowlton/Locate area.
WATERFOWL
The Canada goose and 19 species of ducks are found in the
EIS area (URA 2 for planning units). In addition to the Canada
goose, common nesting species are the mallard, pintail, blue.
winged teal, green-winged teal, and American wigeon.
The northern portion of the Big Dry area is part of the larger
continental potholes region (300,000 square miles), the most
important waterfowl producing area in North America (Smith et
al. 1964). In wet years, this total area has the potential of produc.
ing over half of the annual duck population in North America,
while containing only 10 percent of the duckbreeding area. Water
is the limiting factor in duck production.
The Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers are prime waterfowl areas.
Canada goose production on the Yellowstone River and in the
general Sunday Creek area is significant and increasing. Stock.
watering reservoirs in the Big Dry Resource Area also contribute
to waterfowl production and migration.
Livestock tend to periodically concentrate around water sour.
ces, resulting in depletion of vegetative cover.
NONGAME ANIMALS
NONGAME ANIMALS
Mink, beaver and muskrat are the principal fur bearers harv-
ested in the area. All three are associated with water habitat.
Predators that might be observed on public lands are the coyote,
fox, weasel, badger, skunk, bobcat and raccoon.
Numerous nongame birds occupy various habitats on public
lands. Some are specific to a particular habitat type, with the
highest densities occurring in riparian ecosystems (BLM, Non-
game Studies, 1980). Almost all are seasonal and leave the area
during winter.
There are approximately 2900 acres of known black-tailed
prairie dog towns in the EIS area. Prairie dog towns provide
habitat that may be used by more than 30 animal species. The
burrowing owland mountain plover, species of special concern to
the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (1979) may
be found in these towns. Potential habitat for the endangered
black-footed ferret also exists in these towns.
Prairie dogs compete with livestock for forage. In the past,
prairie dogtowns covered thousands of acres in the area and were
reduced or eliminated by local ranchers through control pro-
grams. Prairie dog expansion on public lands may seriously
reduce the forage available to livestock. In response to this con-
cern, BLM in Montana has formulated a prairie dog policy state-
ment (Appendix 2.6) to guide prairie dog managementon public
lands.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
24
FISHERIES
Sportfisheries occur in the Yellowstone, Missouri and Redwater
Rivers. Tributary streams in the area that support sport fisheries
are Fox Creek, Big Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek and Beaver Creek.
Nongame fisheries are supported in the above waters as well as
in persistent pools of ephemeral streams. Public lands provide
some access to sportfishing streams in the area. Fish species are
listed in the CIRA 2 for planning units within the EIS area.
Reservoirs on public lands may also provide fishing opportuni-
ties. Public reservoirs that are periodically stocked with fish are
listed in Table 3-6.
TABLE 3-6
RESERVOIRS PERIODICALLY STOCKED AND WITH
PUBLIC ACCESS ON BLM ADMINISTERED LANDS
LOCATION
Reservoir Legal Descrip. Planning (Init Fisheries'
Gunderson T8N, R59E, Sec. 24 Baker LNWB
Crawford T8N, R61E, Sec. 22 Baker LMB
Clark T13N, R48E, Sec. 18 Prairie RT, YP
South Fork T13N, R48E, Sec. 17 Prairie LMB, BG
Grants T13N, R48E, Sec. 21 Prairie BL
Silvertip T13N, R48E, Sec. 24 Prairie LNWB
Homestead T14N, R49E, Sec. 7 Prairie LMB, SMB
Coal Creek T13N, R5|E, Sec. 35 Prairie LMB, GS
Ole Olson T10N, R52E, Sec. 5 Prairie LMB
Bill Almy T10N, R54E, Sec. 28 Prairie LMB
Ayers *3 T10N, R55E, Sec. 10 Prairie RT
Harms T13N, R48E, Sec. 31 Prairie RT
Cottontail T13N, R48E, Sec. 33 Prairie LMB
Big Drop T13N, R56E, Sec. 9 Wibaux RT
Camp T13N, R56E, Sec. 9 Wibaux RT
Prairie Goat T13N, R56E, Sec. 9 Wibaux LNWB
Upper Labell T13N, R56E, Sec. 14 Wibaux Potential
LMB – Large-mouthed Bass BG — Bluegill
RT – Rainbow Trout BL – Bullhead
YP — Yellow Perch SMB — Small-mouthed Bass
GS — Green Sunfish
7 -
- # - __ –42
- * --
- - J
Blue Gill ... gº tº
- w
* . . / /-/ º
# "Tº Ǻ
! º º
}}}, "ſº y a.
l
y
24
* ,
. . . . /
//
* ~,
*/ , /
\ |AA 7
7% - - - * -4. A- - - | , , , < .
º % º % Ž. // A nº ſ/N | “ŚTS
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
SPECIES
The bald eagle is the only endangered species known to occur
in the area.
Potential for black-footed ferret occurrence exists with prairie
dog towns. A confirmed sighting of a black-footed ferret was
made on a prairie dogtown south of the EIS area in Carter County
in 1978.
Infrequent sightings of peregrine falcons in migration have
occurred in the area.
RECREATION AND WILDERNESS
Recreation
Within the EIS area, the Bureau administers 14% of the surface
property. Although the Bureau manages a small fraction of the
land base, the importance of public land to the sportsman should
not be underrated. As local populations expand in eastern Mon-
tana (due to energy development), the Bureau anticipates
increased pressure on public land.
The most popular recreational activities are hunting and driving
for pleasure. Other recreation activities include fishing, ORV use
(mainly associated with hunting), collecting (agates and fossils),
varmint hunting, camping, hiking and water sports (along the
Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers).
Wilderness
The wilderness inventory has been completed in accordance
with Section 603(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA). Two units, Terry Badlands (MT-024-684) and Mus:
selshell Breaks (MT-024-677), have been identified as Wilderness
Study Areas (WSA) (Map 1, Map Supplement). Both areas pos.
sess the necessary characteristics of size, naturalness and out-
standing opportunity for solitude and/or primitive and uncon-
fined recreation to qualify them for further study.
The Terry Badlands and Musselshell Breaks units (Table 3.7)
will be evaluated to considerall multiple use values in determining
suitability for preservation as wilderness. Until the planning pro-
cess is complete and a final determination on the wilderness
suitability is made, both areas will be managed under the Interim
Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness
Review (IMP) (December 1979). The IMP states that the grazing
use authorized during the 1976 grazing fee year is "grand-
fathered" and may continue. Range developments existing or
under construction as of passage of FLPMA (October 22, 1976)
may continue to be used and maintained. New range improve.
ments and/or changes in grazing levels or seasons of use will be
allowed only if the action is found to be consistent with the IMP.
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS
Terry Badlands Musselshell Breaks
(lnit Number MT-024-684 MT-024.677
Acreage 44,515 8,050
Allotments Haughian Lvst. – 2747 Gordon Dockery – 6372
Affected Reukauf — 2780 Carl Peterson – 6775
Hines — 2750 Rowtan, L. 8, V. – 6377
C.M. Coffee-Nefsy – 2772
COILTOIRAL RESOURCES
The cultural environment of the Big Dry EIS area includes the
remnants of prehistoric and historic human residence during the
past 12,000 years. Evidence of habitation, economic survival,
social ceremony and art occur across the area.
More than 80 percent of prehistoric sites are either lithic scat.
ters or stone circle (tipi ring) sites. The remaining sites are bison
or other animal kill sites, associated cairns and stone alignments,
other kinds of human habitation sites, rock art and burials.
Of the historic properties inventoried to date, the vast majority
are abandoned homesteads. These are characterized by founda.
tions or foundation pits, agricultural equipment, debris and struc-
tures occasionally left standing.
The amount of public land in the Big Dry EIS area (1,178,777
acres), precluded a comprehensive survey to determine all his.
toric and cultural properties that might be eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. BLM has completed an
existing data (Class I) inventory of the entire area, however, and
identified no properties that are included in the National Register
and fewer than 50 that appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in
the National Register. Future inventory can be predicted to iden-
tify more National Register quality sites.
The cultural site inventory for public lands in the area is approx.
imately 2 percent completed. About 150 sites (most of which are
prehistoric) have been recorded. Available sampling inventory
data on about 5 percent of the area indicates a density of 1.5 to 5
sites per 640 acres. Site density varies, however, according to the
general terrain and environment type. Some environmentalzones
in the study area have not been adequately surveyed to accurately
predict site occurrence. The existing data does offer reasonable
understanding of the kinds of cultural properties likely to be
encountered (Table 3-8).


SOCIAL 8, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
TABLE 3-8
C(ILTOIRAL RESOURCES IN THE EIS AREA
Cultural Period Cultural Evidence
Paleo-Indian stone tools
(10,000 - 6,000 B.C.) camp sites
Early and Middle bison traps
Plains Archaic camp sites
(6,000 - 1,000 B.C.) bone debris
Late Plains Archaic bison traps and pounds
(1,000 B.C. - 500 A.D.) stone tools
tipi rings
fire-broken rock
bone debris
rock alignments
Late Prehistoric stone tools
(500 - 1,800 A.D.) tipi rings
Cairns
rock alignments
buffalo jumps and kill sites
rock art
Early Historic camp sites
(1800 - 1890) habitations
military sites
other structures
early ranching remnants
homesteading remnants
tools, equipment, debris
Schools, churches, cemeteries
other structures
Late Historic
(1890 - )
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Introduction
The Big Dry EIS area encompasses most of a ten county
region. Data limitations prevent the subdivision of counties into
Smaller units which would more closely reflect the EIS boundar.
ies. All of Dawson, Fallon, Richland, Prairie and Wibaux and
portions of Garfield, Rosebud, Custer, McCone and Carter Coun-
ties are in the EIS area.
The EIS area is a sparsely settled region (2.3 people per square
mile) which showed a population growth rate of 7% during the
1970s. This was a slightly lower rate than the state average for the
decade (Table 3-9). Most of the growth in the region occurred in
Richland County in the late 1970s, when energy-related develop.
ment in the county began to flourish. Between the years 1960-70,
sizeable population declines were recorded due to out-migration.
In 1980 the entire EIS area contained 4.5 percent of Montana's
total population. Projections for 1985 and 2000 have populations
slightly declining.
In the study area the proportions of population classified as
rural, nonfarm declined during the years 1960-1980 (Table 3-9).
The proportion increased for urban and rural farm from 1960-80.
Sidney (in Richland County) with a 1980 population of 5,723,
and Glendive (Dawson County) with a population of 6,031 are the
major trade and service centers. All othertownshave populations
of under 2,500 people (Table 3-9). Sidney grew by 26 percent
during the decade 1970-80 while Glendive lost 4 percent of its
population during the same period.
Ranch Related Economic Conditions
Ranch Operations and Related Income
There are currently 708 individual ranch operations with per-
mits to graze public lands. In addition, many ranches are permit.
ted to graze public lands through grazing associations. Where
possible, the larger associations have been divided according to
share holdings and ACIMs assigned to the individual operator;
these operations are included in the 708 total. Operations
included in the cooperative state grazing districts are permitted on
an individual basis and are also included in the individual opera-
tions.
Ranch operations with BLM permits comprise approximately
30 percent of the total ranches in the nine-county area. One
hundred of the 708 operations have permits for fewer than 25
public AUMs. The dependency of these hundred operations on
forage from public lands and the potential impact of grazing
adjustments on their operations is not considered significant.
Therefore, this analysis concentrates on the remaining 608 oper.
ations (see Appendix 3.10).
These 608 ranch operations were placed into 12 categories
according to the number of livestock and the acres of cash crops
raised. (SeeTable 3-10.) Although there are a few operations that
raise sheep and yearlings, the predominant type of ranch is a
cow/calf operation. Where sheep, horses or yearlings are
involved, the total number has been converted to equivalent cow
units. Over 80 percent of the ranches fall into the 6 small and
medium livestock categories, and over 54 percent grow medium
or large sized acreages of Cash Crops.
Dependence of ranch operations on public forage is deter.
mined by a combination of several factors: the percentage of the
total required forage that public lands provide, the seasons the
forage is available and the availability of substitutes for this forage.
The percentage is the primary indicator; Table 3-10 shows the
average dependency according to ranch size categories. Eighty-
nine ranches (14%) are from 41.80 percent dependent on forage
from public lands for their total grazing requirement. The average
ranch is about 20 percent dependent.
Table 3-11 shows that the 608 farms/ranches generate
$13,336,306 annually in returns above cash cost and deprecia.
tion. This is the amount available to the Operators and their
families for their labor and management and their return to their
equity capital. Sixty-seven percent of this($8,892,655) is from the
livestock portion of the operations. Gross livestock sales from
these 608 ranches is approximately $51,847,000. Returns per
TABLE 3-9
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
EIS State of
Area Montana
1980 Population' 35,212 783,698
Population Change 1970-1980,2 +7% +1.3%
Population Change 1960-1970? .9% +3%
Net Migration Rate 1970-19773 .5% +4%
Net Migration Rate 1960-1970% -20% .9%
Projected Population 1985° 33,300 823,100
Projected Population 2000? 32,500 935,600
Density (persons/sq. mi.) 1980',° 2.3 5.3
(Irban Pop. 1980 (% of total)',” +33% * *
(Irban Pop. 1960 (% of total)?,” +32% tº-
Rural Non-Farm Pop. 1980 (% of total),9 +10% {-->
Rural Non-Farm Pop. 1960 (% of total)2.9 +1.6% gººm,
Rural Farm Pop. 1980 (% of total),10 +57% Gº-
Rural Farm Pop. 1960 (% of total)2,10 +52% &mº
Number of Farms, Ranches 1969-1978 -8.9% -1.8%
Avg. Size of Farms, Ranches 1969-1978 +2.5% +0.8%
Population of Incorporated Places of
1,000 Persons or More
Baker Sidney Fairview Glendive
(Fallon) (Richland)(Richland) (Dawson)
1980 Population" 2,357 5,723 1,351 6,031
Change 1970-19804,7 .9% +26% +4.1% -4%
Total EIS area includes: all of Dawson, Fallon, Richland, Prairie,
Wibaux, and portions of McCone, Garfield, Rosebud, Carter and
Custer Counties
'1980 Census of Population and Housing - Preliminary Report,
PHC8-P-28, Census Bureau, CIS Dept. of Commerce, December
1980.
*1970 Census of Population-Advance Report, PC(V1):28, Census
Bureau, CIS Dept. of Commerce, September 1970.
*CIS Bureau of Census, Estimates of the Population, Series P-26,
CIS Dept. of Commerce, 1976.
*County Profiles, MT Dept. of Comm. Affairs, Research Informa-
tion Systems, April 1978.
PMT Population Projections 1980-2000, Research 8, Information
Systems Division, Dept. of Community Affairs, July 1978.
*Lower Yellowstone Area Socioeconomic Analysis, Centaur Man-
agement Consultants, May 1978, P. 9.
'Census of Agriculture, US Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau.
1974 and 1980.
*Clrban classification includes incorporated communities of
2,500 or more population.
*Rural nonfarm includes incorporated communities of 1,000 to
2,500 population.
"Rural farm classification includes unincorporated communities
of less than 1,000 and farms and ranches.
25
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
farm/ranch were estimated by formulating a budget for a repre-
sentative farm/ranch for each of the 12 type and size categories
(Appendix 3.10). Returns for each farm/ranch were then aggre-
gated to determine total amounts.
On the basis of 1977-79 average prices, the representative
farm/ranch in each size and type category earns enough income
to at least cover cash costs and depreciation (Table 3-11). Returns
of $6,810 annually for the small livestock/small cash crop opera.
tion are not enough to pay the operator minimal wages. Also there
is no return to equity capital. Some of these ranch operators and
their families are employed off the ranch to supplement their
incomes. If they do not have off-ranch employment and the
returns are not enough to cover family living expenses, then they
usually allocate funds from the depreciation allowance, at least in
the short run. If this happens, the operators must live with deterio-
rating equipment and withoutimprovements and borrow on their
equity when replacement becomes unavoidable.
Based on the ranch budgets, it is estimated that the equivalent
of one work year of hired labor is required for every 250 cows.
Thus, livestock-related employment for the 608 farms/ranches in
the EIS area is estimated to be the equivalent of 363 full time
employees.
Permit Value
The BLM does not recognize the right of the permittee to treat
grazing permits as real property. These permits do have value,
though, and are bought and sold in the marketplace and used as
collateral for loans (McConnen 1976). The value of the permits
vary considerably. If the permit is for small isolated, landlocked
tracts of public lands, then the value is minor. Where public lands
provide a large block of grazing, the permit value can be substan.
tial. Permit value is difficult to estimate because it usually is not
separated from the total value of the ranch. Also, ranches are
usually valued and sold on a cow-unit basis. It is estimated that an
average value for BLM grazing permits is approximately $100 per
AUM or $1,200 per animal unit.
Total value for BLM grazing permits of the 608 farms/ranches
is approximately $24,614,800. (The value of permits for opera.
tions with fewer than 25 BLM ACIMs and some smaller grazing
associations is not included in this figure.) The 58 very large
livestock/small cash crop farms/ranches have the highest total
permit value, $4,814,000.
Social Conditions
In July and August of 1981, a BLM sociologist conducted a
series of informal telephone interviews with 61 ranchers in the
resource area (8% of total area operators). Highlights of those
interviews, supplemented by written comments gathered during
the MFP public participation process, were used to develop this
section. For an explanation of the methodology used, see Appen-
dix 3.11.
The average age of ranchers interviewed was 56 years. This is
slightly higher than the average age of area operators (50.1 years)
TABLE 3-10
ESTIMATED CURRENT DEPENDENCY OF RANCHES ON BLM GRAZING
Farm/Ranch Category Avg. Herd Size g - Avg. 9%
Size Category # % (Cow (Inits) 0-20% 21-40%. 41-60% 61-80% Dependency
Small Livestock & Small Cash Crop
(0-150 cows; 0.25 acres cash crop) 140 (23.0%) 100 77 (55%) 36 (26%) 11 (8%) 16 (11%) 24.4
Small Livestock & Medium Cash Crop
(0-150 cows; 26-500 acres cash crop) 124 (20.4%) 100 78 (63%) 27 (22%) 17 (14%) 2 (1%) 23.4
Small Livestock & Large Cash Crop
(0-150 cows; 500+ acres cash crop) 36 (5.9%) 100 15 (42%) 9 (25%) 7 (19%) 5 (14%) 31.1
Medium Livestock & Small Cash Crop
(151-375 cows; 0.25 acres cash crop) 104 (17.1%) 250 79 (76%) 13 (13%) 11 (10%) 1 (1%) 15.1
Medium Livestock & Medium Cash Crop
(151-375 cows; 26-500 acres cash crop) 62 (10.2%) 250 39 (63%) 13 (21%) 8 (13%) 2 (3%) 19.5
Medium Livestock & Large Cash Crop
(151-375 cows; 500+ acres cash crop) 27 (4.4%) 250 25 (93%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9.0
Large Livestock & Small Cash Crop
(376-749 cows; 0.25 acres cash crop) 58 (9.6%) 500 47 (81%) 5 (8%) 5 (8%) 1 (2%) 15.6
Large Livestock & Medium Cash Crop
(376-749 cows; 26-500 acres cash crop) 17 (2.8%) 500 12 (70%) 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 1 (6%) 14.4
Large Livestock & Large Cash Crop
(376-749 cows; 500+ acres cash crop) 6 ( 1.0%) 500 6 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4.0
Very Large Livestock & Small Cash Crop
(750+ cows; 0.25 acres cash crop) 29 (4.8%) 1500 25 (86%) 4 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11.0
Very Large Livestock & Medium Cash Crop
(750+ cows; 26-500 acres cash crop) 3 (.5%) 1500 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 16.0
Very Large Livestock & Large Cash Crop
(750+ cows; 500+ acres cash crop) 2 (.3%) 1500 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 21.7
TOTAL 608 (100%)
Source: BLM 1981
reported in the 1978 Census of Agriculture for the nine-county
study area. The median number of school years completed by
operators surveyed was 11 years, with 10 ranchers indicating they
had at least some college background.
All but two of the ranchers interviewed have lived in the
resource area for five years or more. Length of family tenure in the
district varied from 3 to 91 years with most of those interviewed
stating that their families had settled in the area around the turn of
the century. Most of their spouses were also born and raised on
ranches, usually somewhere within or near the resource area.
Fifty-nine of the respondents reported that they presently own
or are in the process of buying the ranch which they are working.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents identified ranching as their
primary occupation. Very few of those interviewed reported that
they or immediate members of their families have outside
employment or income sources other than ranching although
many seemed to think a second source of income is a necessity
for anyone starting out in the livestock business today.
Historically the resource area has been dominated by agricul-
ture which has done much to shape both the economic and social
structure of the area. The prevailing lifestyle is strongly tied to the
land, to a sense of independence, self-reliance and stability char.
acteristic of rural areas.
Ranchers interviewed generally placed a high value on the
lifestyle associated with ranching, although they stated repeatedly
• that it is rarely a lucrative business for the small operator. Attri-
butes of the lifestyle which they found to be particularly appealing
were the opportunity to be their own boss, the ability to work
out-of-doors, the challenging nature of the work and the relative
isolation of the ranch. Oftentimes the ranch was mentioned as an
26
SOCIAL 8, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
attractive and healthy place to raise a family. Children are
assumed to learn at any early age to accept responsibility and to
develop a respect for the land and for nature. Many respondents
noted, however, that their reasons for being in the ranching
business were simply pragmatic: they were born and raised on
ranches, it is the only life they know and the only one they feel they
can comfortably live with.
Only a few ranchers interviewed gave economic reasons for
being in the livestock business. To most ranchers, economics
appeared to be more a barrier to continuation in or entry into the
ranching industry than it was a reason for being there. Escalating
operating costs and low cattle and wheat prices were often men.
tioned as confounding operators' attempts to make a living off the
land. Burgeoning government regulations and interference from
"environmentalists” were also commonly seen as threats to the
continued viability of the ranching industry.
The fact that the average age of area ranchers is so high would
seem to indicate that some major turnover in ranch ownership is
likely to occur in the area in the future. Most ranchers interviewed
expressed a desire to see their children take over their operation
one day, although quite a few respondents felt that it is becoming
increasingly harder for young people to get started in the business
without some type of financial help. Higher wages and better
working conditions available elsewhere were seen as attracting a
lot of young people away from the ranching business. The future
trend in the area according to some ranchers is that big operators
are going to get bigger, as only agribusinesses are assumed to be
financially capable of buying land as it becomes available.
Almost all of theranchers interviewed felt strongly that livestock
should have dominant use of public lands, based not only on
historic use patterns, but also on the belief that the best use of the
land is the most productive one. World food shortages and the
importance of red meat production to the Social and economic
well-being of both local and national populations were also men-
tioned as reasons why the livestock industry should be protected
and encouraged. Also, because of their dependence on public
lands to supplement the forage on their private property, many
ranchers would face added economic difficulties if use of public
lands were withdrawn.
Most respondents believe that, as long-time users of the land,
local ranchers are in the best position to judge the overall quality
of the range. In the same vein, it is felt by some that the BLM has
unrealistic expectations of the land's productivity. Most operators
concurred that the present condition of public rangelands in the
Big Dry area is satisfactory, given the vagaries of the weather and
the natural limitations of the land itself. The majority of respond.
ents felt that, as a class, ranchers would not purposely jeopardize
the land by overgrazing it as their economic future is dependent
on the continued health of the range. Almost all ranchers inter-
viewed reported that they tend to treat public lands as their own.
TABLE 3-11
ESTIMATED CURRENT RANCH INCOME BY RANCH SIZE
Some respondents reported that they often do not take advantage
of their full grazing privileges in years of poor rainfall.
It was the opinion of almost all respondents, however, that BLM
should take positive action to improve range conditions where
needed. More range improvements would, it was felt, benefit both
livestock and wildlife on public lands by increasing the production
of vegetation on the range and by leading to better distribution of
grazing use. Several ranchers reported repeated frustration in the
past in their attempts to get needed range improvements, particu-
larly water developments, constructed on their allotments.
Almost all respondents felt grazing was compatible with multi-
ple use of public lands and emphasized the effectiveness of cattle
as management tools on the public range. The general sentiment
of those interviewed was that multiple use is already a reality on
public rangelands in the area with use of the land well balanced
between livestock, wildlife and recreation. Many ranchers com-
mented that numbers of game and nongame animals in the area
have appeared to stabilize or even increase over the years, partly
because large numbers of deer and antelope are regularly
allowed to feed on deeded lands in the region.
Hunting and other recreation use of public lands in the
resource area has apparently caused some conflict with grazing in
the past as approximately one-third of the ranchers interviewed
stated they have had problems with recreationalists entering pri-
vate land without permission, driving vehicles over pastures, litter-
Returns Above Cash Cost and Depreciation
Livestock &
Gross Sales Livestock Cash Crop Cash Crop
Average of Livestock Enterprise Livestock Enterprise Enterprise Total All
No. of Acres BLM A(IMs No. of Farms/ Enterprise All Average Per Enterprise All Average Per Average per Farms/
Farm/Ranch Size Category No. of Cows of Cash Crop" per Ranch Ranches Ranches Ranch Ranches Farm Farm/Ranch Ranches
Small Livestock-Small Cash Crop 0-150 0-25 179 140 $4,301,360 $6,802 $952,280 $8 $6,810 $953,414
Small Livestock-Medium Cash Crop 0-150 26-500 179 124 3,809,776 6,802 843,448 8,451 15,253 1,891,432
Small Livestock-Large Cash Crop 0-150 500 or more 179 36 1,106,064 6,802 244,872 32,941 39,743 1,430,750
Medium Livestock-Small Cash Crop 151-374 0-25 396 104 8,073,936 15,001 1,560,104 13 15,014 1,561,450
Medium Livestock-Medium Cash Crop 151-374 26-500 396 62 4,813,308 15,001 930,062 8,209 23,210 1,439,014
Medium Livestock-Large Cash Crop 151-374 500 or more 396 27 2,096,118 15,001 405,027 37,514 52,515 1,417,900
Large Livestock-Small Cash Crop 375-749 0-25 830 58 8,988,840 26,458 1,534,564 12 26,470 1,535,237
Large Livestock Medium Cash Crop 375-749 26-500 830 17 2,634,660 26,458 449,786 7,943 34,401 584,810
Large Livestock-Large Cash Crop 375-749 500 or more 830 6 929,880 26,458 158,748 49,360 75,818 454,907
Very Large Livestock-Small Cash Crop 750 or more 0-25 1435 29 12,873,390 53,346 1,547,034 28 53,374 1,547,849
Very Large Livestock Medium Cash Crop 750 or more 26-500 1435 3 1,331,730 53,346 160,038 5,633 58,979 176,938
Very Large Livestock-Large Cash Crop 750 or more 500 or more 1435 2 887,820 53,246 106,692 40,532 98,878 187,756
TOTAL 608 $51,846,882 $8,892,655 $13,336,306
'Average acres harvested annually does not include summer fallow
Sources: BLM 1981, ASCS 1981 (ISDA-ERS 1981
27
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
ing and leaving cattle gates open. Some area ranchers have
suggested that hunters and other users of public lands be
required to pay a small fee for range improvements that increase
the carrying capacity of the land for wildlife, much as ranchers are
required to do for livestock. Multiple use, they believe, should
mean "multiple responsibility". The majority of respondents see
little conflict between recreation use and grazing on public lands,
however.
Mostoftheranchers interviewed expressed satisfaction with the
job being done by the BLMintheir range management programs
in the area and report a good working relationship with the
agency. Over one-half of the ranchers mentioned they have only
limited or very minimal contact with BLM personnel. Concern was
often expressed by respondents, however, about the proliferation
of government regulations and paperwork that has handcuffed
ranchers and local BLM officials in the past and made it hard to
get things done. A few ranchers also expressed dissatisfaction
with what is viewed as BLM's extreme dependence on "the
books", which fails to give due recognition to ranchers' working
knowledge of the range.
Regional Economic Conditions
Earnings and Employment
Figures for 1978 show sources of employment and earnings
for the study area (Tables 3-12, 3-13 and Appendix 3.12). Total
employment in the study area was approximately 17,600. Total
income was approximately 175 million dollars. Agriculture,
government, retail trade, services, transportation and public utili.
ties contribute approximately two-thirds of employment and earn-
ings. Glendive and Sidney serve as major trade and service cen:
ters for the region.
TABLE 3-12
STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT BY SOURCE FOR 1978
(NCIMBER AND PERCENT OF TOTAL)
1978
Source Number Percent
Proprietors &
Agriculture 2,609 14.8
Non-Agriculture 1,477 8.4
Wage & Salary
Agriculture 747 4.2
Ag. Services, Forestry, Fisheries & Other 1811 1.02
Mining 940. 5.32
Construction 824! 4.72
Manufacturing 4981 2.81
Transportation and Public Facilities 1,557. 8.92
Wholesale Trade - 729 4.1
Retail Trade 2,159 12.2
Financial Institutions and Real Estate 3951 2.22
Services 2,097 11.9
Government? 2,818 16.0
TOTAL 17,631 100.0
The data is derived from Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone,
Prairie, Richland, and Wibaux County data.
* Data for one, two or three counties are missing because it was
not disclosed; thus study area total for that sector is under-
estimated. Missing data is included in the totals.
* Percent is underestimated because of missing information (see
1.)
* Figure includes local, state and federal government employees.
SOURCE: (I.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1980.
TABLE 3-13 -
STOIDY AREA EARNINGS BY SOCIRCE FOR 1978
(THO(ISANDS OF DOLLARS)
(NCIMBER AND PERCENT OF TOTAL)
1978
Source Number Percent
Agriculture 26,600 15.2
Ag. Services, Forestry, Fisheries & Other 1,0211 .62
Mining 21,052 12.02
Construction 13,318. 7.62
Manufacturing 6,051. 3.52
Transportation and Public Facilities 32,2291 18.42
Wholesale Trade 9,421 5.4
Retail Trade 16,787 9.6
Financial Institutions and Real Estate 6,148, 3.52
Services 16,942 9.7
Government? 22,414 12.8
TOTAL 174,888 100.0
The data is derived from Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone,
Prairie, Richland, and Wibaux County data.
* Data for one, two or three counties are missing because it was
not disclosed; thus study area total for that sector is under-
estimated. Missing data is included in the totals. -
* Percent is underestimated because of missing information (see
1.)
* Figure includes local, state and federal governmentemployees.
SOCIRCE: CI.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1980.
28
Irretrievable and irreversible commitments of human resour.
ces, materials and money would be made in all of the alternatives.
This commitment would be governed by whetheran alternative is
fully or partially implemented. Some idea of the total implementa-
tion costs can be realized by the dollar amounts listed in Chapter
2, which include manpower, materialand, to a degree, full expend-
itures.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explains the environmental consequences of the
four alternatives discussed in Chapter 2. Environmental aspects
are analyzed to determine the effect of each proposal or combina-
tion of proposals of an alternative. Climate and air quality, recrea-
tion, visual resource management, and geology were not anal.
yzed or discussed in this study, since it has been determined that
these components would not be significantly affected by any of
the alternatives.
The following assumptions have been made in this chapter:
1. BLM would have the funding and staff to implement, monitor
and make revisions in AMPs as necessary.
2. BLM would receive sufficient funding for new developments.
3. All range improvements, grazing systems and most land
treatments would be completed in 1989, five years from the
beginning of the implementation in 1984.
4. Short terminpacts are those which would occur during AMP
implementation (1983 through 1988). Long term impacts are
those following 15 years of AMP implementation (approximately
by the year 2003).
5. Newly implemented grazing systems would be adhered to
through at least one complete cycle. Unauthorized livestock use
would be strictly controlled and would not be a significantimpact
Causing agent.
6. BLM would verify the level of impacts and monitor the AMPs
to make necessary adjustments in plans that are not meeting the
desired multiple use objectives.
7. The principle resource directly affected is vegetation. Any
changes in production, condition, trend, or composition of vege-
tation would affect other resources.
8. Each alternative is analyzed as though it would be fully
implemented as described in Chapter 2.
The effects of the use of various land treatments and grazing
Systems on soils and watershed are shown in Appendix 4.1.
Appendix 4.2 shows the methodology used in calculating
watershed impacts.
ALTERNATIVE A: CONTINUIED
DEVELOPMENT FORRANGE CITILIZATION
The evaluation of the 30 existing and 63 proposed AMPs and
the 684 non-AMP allotments and non allocated lands would
include (but not be limited to): feasibility and need for grazing
treatments ie. rest and/or deferment and mechanical treatments
as indicated by monitoring systems, special management con-
siderations and protection of, for example riparian zones, crucial
wildlife habitat and high erosion susceptible areas, and land
treatments and range developments necessary to improve range
condition while protecting watershed and wildlife resources.
Initial allocations to livestock are 253,085ACIMs, increasing to
270,115 AGMs in the long term and initial allocations to noncon.
sumptive uses and wildlife are 759,255 ACIMs, increasing to
810,345 ACIMs in the longterm. Mechanical treatments based on
soil capabilities (See Appendices 2.8 and 3.1) are proposed on
128,000 acres. Noxious weed and praire dog control are pro-
posed on 4500 and 560 acres respectively. Nine hundred and
sixty-nine new water developments and 230 miles of manage.
ment fences are also proposed.
Watershed
Continued development and revisions of management plans is
expected to decrease overall sediment yield by 20% and water
yield by 18% (Table 4-1.) These decreases would be significant.
Livestock grazing on floodplains during April, May and June,
would be used in conjunction with soils, watershed and plant
phenology capabilities. Proper grazing management would
include rest, deferment and alternating use (Hormay 1970).
Absence of livestock trampling on the wet areas would result in
increased cover and plant vigor. Streambanks and channels
would become more resistant to erosion, water quality would be
improved by reduced suspended sediment and fecal bacteria,
and water temperatures would be lowered by increased shade
(Holechek 1980). Sediment and water yield reductions would be
greatest on soil Subgroups 1, 11, 12 and 13.
Approximately 159,000 acres were classified as being in poor
or fair condition. Of those acres, 128,000 are capable of mechan-
ical treatment. These treatments are only effective on lands with
slopes less than 12% and include soil Subgroups 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9,
10, 11 and 13. Large areas of bare soil would be initially exposed
to potential wind and water erosion. However, infiltration is
improved, leading to increased soil moisture and greater vegeta-
tive cover than before treatment (Wight and Siddoway 1972;
Ryerson et al. 1980; Saulmon 1973; Neff and Wight 1977; Neff
1980). Sediment yield is expected to be reduced by 200 acre feet
peryear (acft/yr) and wateryield reduced by 10,000 acft/yr, both
significant decreases. Long term sediment and water yields are
assumed to be near zero. Runoff and erosion would not occur
from mechanically treated areas unless precipitation exceeds the
storage capacity of the soil (Gifford 1975; BLM 1981b).
Maintenance and new construction of range-related projects
(fences, roads, cattle guards and rubs) would not be allowed
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
during wet periods where watershed damage might occur. Range
facilities which promote extensive cattle concentrations (wells,
fences, salt licks) would not generally be located on floodplains.
Proposed range facilities are not expected to change sediment
and water yields appreciably.
Surface water developments are the primary source of stock
water. Development of 494 new reservoirs would temporarily
disturb soil on approximately 1500 acres. One thousand acres
would be upstream of dams and would not contribute sediment
downstream. The remaining 500 acres is not expected to affect
sediment or water yields.
Any fencing needed for livestock or wildlife purposes is not
expected to result in any measureable changes in sediment or
water yields.
Ground water developments (wells) disturb very little soil. Their
construction would have no effect on sediment or water yields.
Noxious weeds would be controlled. Concentrations of noxious
weeds forces livestock to graze more intensely on nearby non-
infested areas. This causes reduced vegetative cover and
increased sediment and water yields from the heavily grazed
areas (Noble et al. 1979). Treatments would result in a slight
decrease in sediment and water yields. Noxious weeds appear
mainly on soil Subgroups 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13.
Prairie dogs would be controlled, but not eliminated. This con-
trol would result in a very slight decrease in sediment and water
yields. Prairie dogs inhabit soil Subgroups 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.
Alloted lands, not under existing or proposed AMP status, are
still subject to various controls, e.g., season of use and numbers of
ACIM's allocated. By exercising these controls, alloted lands pres:
ently in poor and fair condition would improve to good or excel.
lent condition. It is expected this improvement would occur by the
end of the 15-year period covered by this EIS. Sediment produc-
tion would be reduced by 15% and water yield reduced by 32%,
both significant decreases.
The initial vegetation allocation to livestock of 253,085 ACIMs,
would be increased to 270,115 ACIMs in the long term. This
increase would result in a slight increase in consumptive use of
water by livestock.
Conclusions
This alternative would reduce sediment and water yields signif.
icantly (Table 4-1). On 1,178,777 acres of public lands, sediment
yield would be reduced by 20% and water yield would decrease in
the long term by 18%.
TABLE 4.1
SCIMMARY OF WATERSHED IMPACTS BY TREATMENTS AND FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE A
Sediment Yield Water Yield Consumptive Water (Ise
(acre-feet/year) (acre-feet/year) Water by Livestock (ac-ft/year)
Element Initial Long Term Initial Long Term Quality Initial Long Term
Grazing Treatments 416 405 22,028 21,479 +
Mechanical Land
Treatments on 127,929
aCTeS 209 O 10,140 +
Range Facilities O | O 4 O
Water Developments O | O | O
Chemical Treatments
Noxious Weeds 15 2 549 178 +
Prairie Dogs 9 8 230 189 +
Non-AMPs and (Inalloted 514 514 27,247 27,247 O
Total for Existing and -
Proposed AMPs 1,163 929 60,194 49,097 + 2,794 2,982
I — Insignificant
+ — Increase in Water Quality
0 — No change in Water Quality
— — Decrease in Water Quality
SOURCE: BLM 1980-1981
Water quality would improve significantly in the long term with
reductions in suspended sediment loading of water bodies. Water
consumption by livestock would be 2,982 acre-feet/year in the
long term (Table 4-1).
Increases in vegetation production would provide additional
residual vegetation and litter cover necessary for watershed pro-
tection. Increased cover and litter promotes water infiltration and
reduces runoff and erosion.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss to soil or
water resources in this alternative.
Vegetation
Current vegetation allocations would continue (livestock 25%;
nonconsumptive and wildlife uses 75%). Plant vigor, production
and range condition would be maintained or improved as shown
by monitoring studies. Proper use allocation and improved graz.
ing management would ensure maintenance and/or improve-
ment of vegetation community.
Proper use insures a healthy vigorous plant community. The
proper use factor for major forage plants is 50-55%. Crested
wheatgrass should be used heavily (up to 80%) occasionally to
maintain stand quality. Some browse species can be utilized to
60%. Clse during high growth periods depletes plant reserves and
reduces plant vigor. Repeated use during this period results in
reduced vigor, density, and eventually range condition. Defering
use past critical growth stages, rest, and use during dormancy
improves plant reserves, vigor and range condition. Fast growing
plants, grasses and forbs, generally respond quickly to manage-
ment while slower growing woody species respond more slowly.
Areas in less than good condition (155,462 acres) would improve
in condition with a resultant increase in production of 54.5 million
pounds of vegetation, the equivalent of 68,120 ACIMs.
Improved management, range improvement placement and
use Supervision would result in improvement of riparian areas.
Reduced use of riparian zones as forage areas and shade sources
would result in an increase in cover and plant community struc-
ture and health.
Restricting the placement of salt, oilers and other develop-
ments in these zones would improve habitat condition.
Monitoring and supervision would ensure that range condition
objectives were being achieved.
Grazing management would be in one of three categories:
allotment management plans (AMPs), season and number, and
Custodial. Various grazing systems would be applied in these
Categories. AMPs may include rest rotation, deferred rotation,
deferred, seasonal, short duration, or other systems which are
Variations or combinations of these. Season and number allot-
ments would generally have deferred or seasonal systems while
Custodial allotments would have seasonal use coordinated with
the private land where the public land is a very small part of the
allotment and/or the goals of management could be met with this
management level. Tame pasture seedings, treated areas, ripar.
ian zones, erosion susceptible areas and winter ranges that
30
ALTERNATIVE A
require special management would use these systems also. Spe-
cific system effects are shown in Appendix 4.1.
Land treatment may be necessary to achieve objectives in
Some cases. Mechanical treatments would include: plowing and
Seeding, Scalping, contour furrowing, pitting, chiselling, ripping,
chaining (cabling, railing), dozing, rotobeating and mowing.
Other treatments include: prescribed and natural fire and chemi-
cal treatment. The overall effect of the proper application of these
treatments and associated grazing treatments would be an
improvement of range condition and vegetative production. Spe.
cific impacts are shown in Appendix 4.1. Treatments would follow
guidelines set forthin the MFP and Bureau policy and regulations.
Development of range improvements would reduce available
forage very little, but would improve the overall condition of the
allotments by providing for more even distribution and utilization.
Control of noxious weeds would be accomplished by chemical
(presently most successful), biological, mechanical, or other
acceptable methods of good management and policy. Results
would be increases in desirable plant species, range condition,
Species diversity, useful vegetation production and associated
watershed and economic impacts.
Control of prairie dogs would have the immediate effect of an
improvement in vegetation production and range condition. Pro-
duction would increase because of improved plant vigor and the
transition of the plant community from low to high producing
Species. Increased vegetation, shade and litter would increase site
moisture retention and improve plant growth conditions. Control
is best obtained by poisoning. Shooting slows expansion, but is
not effective in eliminating towns. Grazing management can slow
expansion and has reduced town size (Snell and Hlavachick
1980). Proper forage management is critical to the success of any
method or attempt.
Conclusions
Proper management (stocking, rest, deferment), mechanical
treatment and control of noxious weeds and prairie dogs would
result in an improvement of ecological range condition. Condi-
tion would be maintained or improved on allotments with most
lands in good to excellent condition. Allotments with substantial
acreage in less than good condition would be improved to good
Condition. An increase of 17,030 ACIMs would result from the
improvement. The 30 existing AMPs would be evaluated and
revised, if necessary. The 63 allotments would be evaluated for
AMP feasibility and 684 allotments would be evaluated for overall
management needs (not necessarily system type management).
Condition of riparian areas would be improved.
The long term allocation would increase as shown above.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss of vegetation
TeSources in this alternative.
Livestock
Proper use grazing levels would provide for sustained forage
Production and would also lead to high livestock production. Of
the 68,120 AUM increase discussed previously, 17,030 would be
allocated to livestock and would feed an additional 2,838 adult
cattle for a 6-month grazing season.
Most of the present seasons of use would be maintained,
however, grazing seasons might be extended in the long term to
use the increased forage. This would reduce the winter feeding.
Lost Boy Creek (in Allotment *2750) is used as winter range
with no detrimental effect to the watershed. Grazing systems
would allow for periodic deferment and/or rest of critical
watershed, wildlife, and riparian areas. Treated areas (land treat.
ment, habitat plantings, and forest rehabilitation or development)
would also be provided sufficient deferment and/or rest to facili.
tate treatment success. There would be a temporary loss of
livestock forage during rest periods.
Stress due to moving livestock would increase slightly on pres-
ent and proposed AMPs. Reliable spring forage and cover for
young calves would be provided in rest systems. Livestockbreed-
ing success would be improved by fencing and closer stock
confinement. Changes in the grazing season and systems of
nonmanagement plan allotments would be minor and have little
impact on stock.
Mechanical treatments would increase the forage base, but
certain restrictions would be necessary for animal health. Treated
areas would not be grazed for two seasons after treatment. Live-
stock production would increase and distribution would improve
because of treatments and improvements.
Range improvements (except reservoirs, pits, Springs) would
be placed off floodplains, riparian areas, or critical wildlife habitat
if at all possible. Reservoir developments for wildlife habitat would
be constructed or modified to assure livestockwater by water gap
development or pipeline and tank placement outside exclosure
areas. Developments would not take place on damage suscepti-
ble areas when soils are wet, generally April-June. Fences would
be built to assure movement of wildlife.
The use of vehicles would be restricted on fragile soils and
treated areas.
The loss of livestock forage of varying amounts would result
from the development of habitat management plans. Losses
would be minimal in proposed wetland development, but would
be more substantial on extensive developments (10 Mile Creek
Project) or cooperative cropping of publiclands for wildlife habitat
development and enhancement projects. Loss of forage would
continue on uncontrolled prairie dog towns.
Introduction of bighorn sheep into the Terry Badlands would
not significantly impact grazing initially, as no grazing is presently
allocated in the proposed introduction area. However, if water
projects were developed and drew stock into the area, or the
bighorns were to move into adjacent ranges after establishment,
adjustments would be necessary.
Exploration forminerals generally causes the loss of an insignif.
icant amount of forage. Mineral development could cause sub-
stantial losses in major development areas.
Conclusion
Livestock production would increase and distribution would
improve because of mechanical treatments and range improve-
ments. Grazing seasons might be extended in the long term due
to increased forage. Moving livestock on present and proposed
AMPs would increase stress slightly. There would be no irretrieva-
ble or irreversible loss of livestock resources in this alternative.
Wildlife
With continued development directed at optimum range utili-
zation, local increases in wildlife could be expected. Such
increases cannot be quantified because they would be condi-
tional upon each allotment's characteristics and upon the activi.
ties on neighboring private lands.
Livestock and wildlife management can be very compatible.
Compatibility would be maintained by identifying and resolving
conflicts at the allotment level. Specific actions cannot be dis-
cussed in a general document such as an EIS because of differ.
ences in: 1) soils, topography and vegetation of individual allot.
ments; 2) operation of those allotments; and, 3) distribution,
density, seasonal use and species composition of wildlife occur.
ring on the allotments. Consequently, discussions of impacts
here will be general with specifics referred to the allotment plan.
ning and management level.
Although 85% of the public lands in the EIS area have been
classified in good to excellent range condition, specific habitat
conditions have not been classified. Consequently, monitoring of
allotment management systems would be designed to evaluate
Condition, trend and utilization of wildlife habitats. From the
results of monitoring, adjustments in allocations of vegetation or
grazing systems; or additions of rangeland developments (e.g.
fencing, water source development) would be incorporated to
maintain or improve crucial habitats or specific habitat needs.
Riparian and woody draw habitats are vulnerable to livestock
use (Gjersing 1980). Any type of livestock grazing on riparian and
woody draw habitats diminishes woody vegetation. Of the com-
monly used grazing systems, rest-rotation is the most suitable to
maintaining the vegetative diversity of riparian and woody draw
habitats. Options for improving those habitats include modifying
grazing systems, dispersal of water sources and fencing. A rest.
rotation grazing system should be given priority consideration on
all areas supporting riparian and woody draw habitats.
Developments in crucial habitats would be carefully evaluated
and, if necessary, relocated to protect wildlife values (e.g. mini-
mize placing livestock water and salt sources in riparian and
woody draw habitats).
Big Game
With regard to upland vegetative habitats, big game and live-
stock uses of public lands have been compatible. To the contrary,
extensive conversion of rangelands to grain fields has not sup-
ported previous big game numbers. Surveys by the Montana
Department FW&P (Region 7) show an inverse correlation
between antelope numbers and large-block conversion of range-
31
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
land to grain cultivation. This has locally heightened the value of
public lands to wildlife. Where livestock and wildlife uses conflict,
specific treatments that may be needed (e.g. special vegetation
allocations, modifications of grazing treatments, vegetation
manipulations) will be identified and applied on a case-by-case
basis.
As each AMP is reviewed or implemented, crucial habitats by
Season of use would be identified and evaluated for needs at the
allotment level. Allotment monitoring would be established to
track condition, trend and utilization of crucial habitats and to
prescribe management treatments. Crucial wintering areas are
shown on Map 2 (Map Supplement). Additional crucial habitats
will be delineated and monitored as they are identified (i.e., fawn-
ing areas, crucial summer range, riparian areas and hardwood
draws, etc.)
Because of their importance to big game animals, riparian and
woody draw habitats would be treated as previously discussed to
improve their condition and allow for regeneration of key woody
species.
Proposals for treatments to sagebrush-grasslands would be
evaluated to determine effects upon wildlife species that are
dependent upon sagebrush. Treatments on antelope winter
ranges would be designed to meet the forage needs of antelope
Rest or deferred grazing of areas in less than good condition
would improve vegetative production and the quality and quantity
of big game forage. Grazing systems on Crucial big game ranges
would be selected to maintain key vegetative species. On the
non-AMP allotments, big game forage production would likely
remain the same and the present competition for forage, if any,
would likely remain.
Monitoring would be necessary to: 1) evaluate the success in
meeting vegetation allocation objectives; 2) identify crucial habi.
tats; and, 3) identify special treatment needs.
Techniques to obtain those data could be simple transect
layouts to fence exclosures. Construction costs of facilities would
range from a few dollars each for simple transects to approxi-
mately $1,000 each for two-acre exclosures. Data collection and
analysis and facilities maintenance would cost an estimated
$4,000/year, which is primarily manpower funding.
Transplanting wildlife may be desirable to invigorate a popula:
tion or to utilize currently under used or unused habitats (e.g.
introduction of bighorn sheep into the Terry Badlands). (See
previous livestock section.) Any proposed manipulations of wild
animals must be done in cooperation with the Montana Depart-
ment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Fencing for livestock and other management purposes would
be constructed to allow big game movements as stated in B.5 of
the Methods and Range Developments (Appendix 2.2). If woven
wire is used, antelope passes or other devices for allowing pas-
sage would be provided as needed.
(lpland Game Birds (Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Sage Grouse,
Ring-Necked Pheasant)
In the long term additional residual vegetation from rest or
deferred grazing treatments on all of the AMP allotments would
help provide cover and food for increases in upland game birds.
Livestock grazing on areas identified as crucial to grouse nesting
and brood rearing would be managed to provide a residual grass
cover of 4 to 6inches if the production potential of the site allows.
If the current allocation of 75% to nonconsumptive and wildlife
uses does not meet those needs, additional allocation to wildlife
would be necessary. .
Livestock grazing on sage grouse wintering - nesting com-
plexes would be managed to maintain stands of sagebrush with
15 to 30% crown coverage to meet the annual habitat require-
ments of sage grouse. Manipulations of sagebrush habitats must
be closely evaluated in communication with state wildlife person-
nel because of the potential effect on wildlife.
Riparian and woody draw habitats would be treated as dis-
cussed in the previous section to maintain their values for upland
game birds and other wildlife.
Turkeys
Management for wild turkeys would be provided through main-
tenance and improvement of habitats as the need and/or oppor.
tunities are identified. Treatments to accomplish this would
include prescribed burning, plantings and mechanical methods
of vegetation manipulation.
Waterfowl
The response of vegetation to rest at reservoirs, streamside
riparian areas and saline seeps would increase the quality and
quantity of food and cover used by waterfowl in these areas.
Additional wetlands would be constructed largely in the form of
reservoirs for livestock. Blasted potholes and other forms of
wetlands may be more desireable where conditions are suitable.
The upper ends of existing reservoirs would be considered for
fencing to provide cover for waterfowl use as funding and man-
power capabilities allow. Wetlands developed for waterfowl use
would be managed (using grazing modifications, fencing, etc) to
provide nesting and brood-rearing cover and livestock access to
water. Wetlands with a moderate to high waterfowl production
potential would be managed to provide 8 to 10 inches of residual
COVer.
Nongame
Grazing systems would be selected to provide sufficient cover
for nongame wildlife. Riparian and woody draw habitats and
wetlands would receive either rest or deferred grazing as needed
to provide food and cover to a diversity of nongame wildlife
Species.
Shore bird populations would increase with the improvement
of shorelines around reservoirs and natural potholes. New water
Sources would provide additional shoreline for shore birds.
Allotment boundary, pasture and livestock exclosure fences
would provide additional perching sites for many nongame birds
such as hawks, eagles, larks and lark buntings.
The known prairie dog towns presently occupy approximately
2900 acres in the EIS area. Permittee requests for prairie dog
control on public lands would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis as described in the statewide prairie dog management
policy (Appendix 2.6). Under this alternative, if significant range
resource damage is being caused, towns may be eliminated or
controlled in size. Towns proposed for treatment would have to be
surveyed for black-footed ferrets and certified free of ferrets before
treatment could be authorized. Nontoxic control methods would
be encouraged where feasible to obtain the proposed objectives.
Toxic control would be used where other methods will not pro-
duce the desired results.
Fisheries
Reservoirs identified as suitable for recreational fishing would
be fenced to provide and maintain a quality fisheries environment.
Tanks, water gaps or other means of livestock access to water
would be provided.
Conclusions
The effect of Alternative A on wildlife populations would be
dependent upon the levels and types of grazing practices pro-
posed. Livestock use would moderately limit the capability of
public lands to provide additional wildlife habitat demand. Such
demand would be shifted from private rangelands converted to
intensive farming use.
Overall, wildlife habitats would remain at current condition
levels. Crucial habitats would be moderately improved. Monitor-
ing would be relied upon heavily to determine that wildlife habitats
are not deteriorated and that the objective of crucial habitats are
being met.
In the long term, wildlife numbers would remain about the
same with short term fluctuations above and below the long term
averages. Short term adverse effects on wildlife populations are
irretrievable but the situation may be reversible with the capabili-
ties to change management practices.
Cultural Resources
Cultural evidence is meaningful largely in relation to the degree
that the site from which it comes has remained undisturbed. An
artifact or feature might be important, but the association or
context in which it was found might be much more significant.
When these sites are disturbed, the opportunity for serious analy-
sis by the archaeologist or historian is lost, as is important infor-
mation about the past.
Alternative A calls for the implementation of grazing and land
treatments, including the development of grazing systems, con-
struction of range facilities and water developments and use of
mechanical treatments such as plowing, seeding or scalping.
Because significant adverse effects occur to a cultural site when it
is altered by ground disturbance, mechanical treatments and
water developments could cause adverse impacts to these
TeSOUTCGS.
On the other hand, forage allocation, grazing treatments,
chemical treatments and range facilities each improve ground
Cover, but do not cause significant surface disturbance. Thus,
they should actually improve preservation of cultural resources by
32
ALTERNATIVE A
improving the conditions which maintain the integrity of a site. No
data exists which allows quantification of such a benefit, however,
on the basis of existing cultural resource inventory data for the
study area, a density of 1.5 to 5 cultural sites per 640 acres can be
determined. (This is an estimate of low statistical reliability given
in Chapter 3.) Therefore, under Alternative A, roughly between
200 and 1,000 sites could be adversely affected.
Because a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
(PMOA) is in effect between BLM and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (Appendix 4.3), specific procedures would
be followed to identify actual effects of range projects on cultural
sites and to avoid or to mitigate those impacts. Therefore, adverse
impacts from range developments will generally be avoided
through project design. In a few instances, recovery of cultural
resource data by scientific excavation may be necessary to mit.
igate destruction of cultural information
Conclusion
Inventory and assessment of cultural resources directly
affected by range developments would provide immediate gains
in scientific knowledge of the area and a data base for long term
gains. Long term loss of scientific data could occur if an inventory
did not discover a site that was subsequently destroyed during
construction. However, the loss is not expected to be great. Any
cultural site inadvertently destroyed would be irretrievably and
irreversibly lost.
Social and Economic Impacts
Ranch Economic Impacts
The short term impact on overall ranch income in this alterna-
tive would be minimal. The only change would be the temporary
disruption of grazing as mechanical treatments are applied or
grazing systems implemented.
In the long term 350 operations would show increases in ranch
income while 258 would have no change. These increases are
shown by representative size category in Appendix 4.4. The aver.
age affected operator would receive approximately a 13 percent
increase in public forage and about a 3 percent increase in total
ranch AUMs. The average increases in net annual income for the
representative operations range from $157 for largelivestock and
large cash crop operations to $1,408 for large livestock-medium
cash crop. The average percentage increases in net annual
income range from 6.7% to 0.2%. The smaller representative
operations have the larger percentage increases in net income.
Total increases in gross annual livestock sales and net annual
income to all affected ranch operations would be approximately
zero and $205,638, respectively, an increase of 2 percent of the
current livestock income for all ranches in the study. Greater
income because of increases in public forage would improve the
economic well-being of operators in a number of ways. Those
who might have diverted funds for allowance for depreciation,
deferred maintenance or deferred principal and interest pay-
ments would be in a position to use more funds for these pur.
poses. Increased income might also be used to raise the living
Standards of some operators.
Total permit values in this alternative would increase by
$1,703,000 or 6.9 percent of the present total in the long term.
These increases would have a beneficial effect on ranchers' bor-
rowing capacity and the sale value of affected ranches. There
would be no short term change. The short and long term
increases in ranch employment would be zero because there
would be no changes in herd size.
Recreation/Wildlife Related Economic Impacts
There are no quantifiable impacts on game populations under
this alternative. As such, there are no quantifiable changes in
hunter use, expenditures, or economic impacts.
Social Impacts
Although difficult to quantify, social impacts to the ranching
community from this alternative would be positive overall in both
the short and long terms, as ranchers would be in a position to
benefit from improved vegetative productivity and increased live-
stock numbers allowed on the public rangeland. The opportuni.
ties available to ranchers to increase their income might, in turn,
allow them to improve their standard of living and to strengthen
their overall sense of well being.
This alternative also proposes to allowtreatment of prairie dogs
and noxious weeds. Because this alternative would raise the level
of range improvements constructed, it would agree with the
perception of the majority of ranchers interviewed that the range
must be improved, where needed, if it is to be properly managed.
Overall, ranchers who were interviewed felt the condition of public
rangelands in the Big Dry area is satisfactory, but said they would
welcome the opportunity to be able to adjust management patt.
erns as conditions warrant. .
If this alternative were implemented, it would also be expected
that the current good working relationship that exists between
BLM and the ranching community would be reinforced, as the
proposed action was the preference of the vast majority of
ranchers interviewed or who submitted written comments.
The social well-being of approximately 350 ranch families
would be positively affected in the longterm. There are no signifi.
cant impacts in the short term.
Wildlife advocates and recreationists would experience benefi-
cial impacts from increases in wildlife numbers, resulting in both
the short and long terms under the proposed action. Conserva.
tion groups concerned about the protection and enhancement of
wildlife and wildlife habitat generally favor multiple use of public
lands. Thus they would also approve of the balanced multiple use
aspect of the proposed action. Some people may feel, however,
that the alternative does not depend heavily enough upon use of
fences to protect riparian areas, which are a major concern of
many wildlife groups across the country.Wildlife enthusiasts may,
in addition, anticipate beneficial impacts from additional AMP
implementation planned under the proposed action, although the
number of AMPs planned may be considered insufficient in the
long term.
Conclusions
Impacts resulting to the ranching community from this alterna-
tive would be positive overall in both the short and the long terms.
Ranchers would be in a position to experience income gain due to
the improved productivity of the public range. This, in turn, would
lead to increased levels of well being and sense of security regard.
ing the future. Current positive attitudes toward the BLM would be
reinforced, as this was the preferred alternative of almost all
ranchers interviewed or submitting comments, most of whom say
they are satisfied with the present condition of public rangelands
in the area.
Impacts to members of wildlife groups and to recreationalists
would be beneficial overall, due to the increases in wildlife
numbers expected in both the long and short term.
Regional Economic Impacts
Appendix 4.5 shows the impact on output, earnings and
employment of increased livestock sales, range development
construction, recreationist expenditures and government
employment. Impacts are shown in both the short and long term.
In the short term the largest effect on earnings would be from
increased construction. There would be no effectin the long term
On earnings.
Total employment would increase by 134 people in the short
term and no additional hiring in the long term. Total earnings
would increase by $1,635,000 annually in the short term and none
additional in the long term.
Conclusions
In the short term, there would be no change in incomes, permit
values or employment for ranch operations.
In the long term, income for 350 ranch operations would
increase by $205,638 annually (an increase of 2.3 percent over
the current livestock income for all ranches in the study). Permit
values would increase by 6.9 percent and ranch employment
would not change. These increases would be moderately signifi-
Cant.
The short term direct and indirect increases of less than 1.0
percentin study area earnings and employment would be insignif.
icant overall. There would be no change in the long term.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss under this
alternative.
33
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
ALTERNATIVEB: ENHANCEDWATERSHED
VALCIE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
The area's 30 AMPs (covering 227,776 acres) would be revised
to meet this alternative's objectives of enhancing watershed
values and wildlife habitat. An additional 63 AMPs (covering
294,798 acres) would be developed, incorporating grazing and
land treatments to meet the same objectives. An additional 684
allotments (651,781 acres) would not be considered for AMPs at
this time. A total of 4,442 acres remain as unallocated land in
scattered, small tracts through the resource area. The number of
AMP and nonsystem allotments would be the same as for alterna-
tive A, but grazing treatments and individual AMP objectives
would reflect the change in management emphasis.
The initial allocation to livestock would be 19 percentless than
the current permitted use of 253,085 ACIMs. The reduction in
livestock ACIMs would result from grazing deferment until July 1:
(1) on those areas susceptible to damage by use during wet
seasons, (2) on riparian and wooded areas, and (3) to reserve
winter wildlife forage and vegetation on prairie dogtowns and the
elimination of grazing on 193 allotments (179,988 acres) where
crucial wildlife habitat occurs.
Water development and noxious weed control would be the
same as outlined for Alternative A. Other range developments
and actions would be: (1) pasture or allotment boundary fences;
and, (2) prairie dog control would be applied only to protect
private land and crucial wildlife habitat.
Watershed
Enhancement of watershed and wildlife habitats is expected to
reduce overall sediment yields by 28% and overall water yields by
23% (Table 4-2). The decreases would be significant.
This alternative would have essentially the same long term
effect on watershed as Alternative A except for floodplain areas. In
Alternative B there would be no livestock grazing on floodplains
during April, May and June each year and on the 193 allotments
(179,988 acres) where crucial wildlife habitat exists. In Alternative
A, livestock would be deferred from grazing on floodplains when
and where possible.
There would be about 50,000 less ACIMs allocated to livestock
in Alternative B than in Alternative A. Some of these lost ACIMs are
the result of the three month deferment. This loss in ACIMs would
mean less cattle trampling, soil compaction, streambank slough-
ing and greater vegetative cover. Sediment and wateryields would
subsequently be slightly reduced.
Mechanical treatments, development of range facilities and
water sources, treatment of noxious weeds, and fencing would
have the same effect on sediment and water yields as in Alterna-
tive A.
Prairie dogs would be allowed to increase short of affecting
private lands or crucial wildlife habitats. This would result in a very
slight increase in sediment and water yields.
TABLE 4.2
S(IMMARY OF WATERSHED IMPACTS BY TREATMENTS AND FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE B
Sediment Yield Water Yield Consumptive Water Clse
(acre-feet/year) (acre-feet/year) Water by Livestock (ac-ft/year)
Element Initial Long Term Initial Long Term Quality Initial Long Term
Grazing Treatments 416 405 22,028 21,646 +
Mechanical Land
Treatments on 127,929
aCTeS 209 O 10,140 O +
Range Facilities O | O 4 O
Water Developments O | O | O
Chemical Treatments
Noxious Weeds 15 2 549 178 +
Prairie Dogs 9 10 230 245 O
Non-AMPs and (Inalloted 514 414 27,247 24,473 O
Total for Existing and
Proposed AMPs 1,163 831 60,194 46,576 + 2,257 2,434
| – Insignificant
+ — Increase in Water Quality
0 — No change in Water Quality
— — Decrease in Water Quality
SOURCE: BLM 1980-1981
Consumptive use by livestock would increase slightly in the
long term, but would be lower than Alternative A because of the
loss in ACIMs.
Conclusions
This alternative would result in a 28% decrease in sediment
yield and a 23% decrease in water yield in the long term (Table
4-2).
Water quality would improve significantly with reductions in
suspended sediment in surface waters. Water consumption by
livestock would be 2,434 acre-feet/year in the long term.
Improvements in watershed condition would be due mainly to
the deferment of grazing for 2 months in the spring. Spring
deferment would allow plants time for phenological development
that improves plant production and consequently watershed
COVer.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss to soil and
water resources in this alternative.
Vegetation
Vegetation would be allocated to livestockata lower level in the
short term. There would be a slight increase in the long term, but
the present allocation levels would not be reached. Grazing of
severe erosion potential areas and floodplains would be elimi-
nated during April, May, and June. No livestock grazing would be
allowed on critical wildlife winterrange or riparian areas. Livestock
allocations would be reduced by 19% (48,674 ACIMs).
Because of grazing deferment, rest treatments, or lighterrange
use, about 158,000 acres would improve in ecological condition.
Vegetation production would increase by 68,120 ACIMs (in terms
of livestock ACIMs). A total of 17,030 ACIMs (25%) of the increase
would be allocated to livestock (Appendix 2.4). The remaining
51,090 ACIMs (75%) would be allocated to nonconsumptive and
wildlife uses.
Vegetation on areas deferred from spring grazing would
improve in vigor, density, and production because of rest from
grazing during Critical growth stages. Cool season grasses and
forbs would generally respond quickly to this treatment. Warm
Season grasses, shrubs, and trees would not respond as quickly.
Vegetation on rested or grazing-excluded areas (crucial wildlife
winter ranges, habitat development areas, riparian zones) would
respond similarly. All species would benefit, but slower growing
trees and shrubs would benefit most. Shrub and tree regrowth
would occur more quickly than on deferred areas. Overall plant
production would increase to near potential and then decrease as
ALTERNATIVE B
the vegetation community stagnated.
Vegetation on those areas grazed under other grazing Systems
would improve, but at a slower rate. Plant production, vigor, and
density would increase to that expected on good quality range.
land.
If rangelands fail to respond to grazing treatments and mechan-
ical treatment becomes necessary, about 128,000 acres could be
treated (Appendices 2.8 and 3.1). If sufficient desirable native
seed is available prior to mechanical treatments Orisinterseeded,
vegetation production would increase an equivalent of 55,140
livestock AUMs. Only 25 percent of this total (13,785 ACIMs)
would be allocated to livestock. The remaining vegetation would
be allocated to watershed cover and wildlife habitat.
Livestock trailing along fences would reduce vegetation pro-
duction slightly. Water developments, management fences and
the proper placement of salt and minerals would reduce the use
of floodplains and other concentration areas by improving live.
Stock distribution.
Leafy spurge and other noxious weeds would be controlled, as
discussed previously and resultin an improvement of 4,500 acres
of public land. Prevention of infestation of other lands would
result.
Vegetation production on prairie dog towns would continue at
its present low level. Additional lands would be colonized by
prairie dogs and ecological condition, plant vigor, and production
would decline.
Habitat and forest plantings would become established and
their vegetative production would increase. That increase would
likely coincide with a similar decrease in the natural plant com:
munity.
Monitoring would be done to insure the accomplishment of
management objectives as discussed previously.
Conclusions
Deferment of spring use, light grazing, rest and deferment
treatments, mechanical treatments and noxious weed control
would improve the ecological condition of 95,491 acres. Plant
vigor, litter cover and water infiltration would improve on all
allotments.
Treatments would improve vegetation conditions in riparian
areas, around reservoirs, floodplains and erosion susceptible
areas.
The longterm livestockallocation would be 32,646 AGMs or 13
percent below the present 253,085ACIMs, a significant decrease;
nonconsumptive and wildlife ACIMs would increasefrom 759,255
to 860,021 or 12 percent.
Ecological range condition would improve significantly.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss of vegetation
resources in this alternative.
Livestock
This alternative would reduce current livestock ACIMs by 194
percent. The loss of grazing during April to June on erosion
susceptible areas and floodplains and of all grazing on Crucial
wildlife winter ranges and riparian areas would have a very high
negative impact on livestock. A total of 48,674 AGMs of forage
would be lost from these areas (Appendix 2.4), but a far larger
amount of forage would be lost from other public and private
lands in the same pasture. Grazing would be totally eliminated in
the spring or yearlong on some allotments, if this alternative is
adopted.
Fencing of these areas would allow grazing on noncrucial
lands, but due to the nature (scattered, small, often linear, mixed
ownership) of these tracts, fencing would not be a viable alterna-
tive. A huge investment of labor, materials and construction of
additional water sources would be required for construction and
maintenance offences as required. Management would be made
very difficult by the reduction in pasture size, stocktraps created
by exclosure fences, odd shaped pastures, and additional water
needs. The mixed public-private land ownership pattern rules out
fencing or grazing exclusion on these lands. However, for analysis
purposes, an additional 1532 miles offence would be considered
to exclude or restrict grazing from/on riparian zones, floodplains,
wildlife reservoirs, winterranges, or prairie dogtowns as specified
in MFP 1.
The 204,411 AUMs allocated in the short term and the 220,439
ACIMs allocated in the long term would allow grazing at light use
levels. About 20 percent of the vegetation would be used by
livestock. This levelofuse would be beneficial to livestockproduc.
tion as the stock could be more selective grazers. Any change
from the current livestock production levels would be dependent
on the present degree of use in a particular allotment. Changes
would vary from none to significant improvements in per-animal
production.
Livestock production would also be affected by loss of use of
some plants that are only available or palatable in the Spring.
Bluegrass, prairie junegrass and many forbs complete their life
cycles during the period when grazing would not be allowed and
these plants become dry and unpalatable during the time grazing
would be allowed. Needle and thread, anotherimportantlivestock
forage plant, develops sharp awns in the summer, reducing its
palatability. Although forage supplies would be abundant at the
beginning of the grazing season, livestockwould notfully benefit,
since the greatest livestockgainstake place when forage is green
and growing (Hormay 1970, Smoliak 1960).
Mechanical treatments would increase forage supplies as dis.
cussed previously. Forage increases due tograzing and mechan:
ical treatments would not offset the grazing reduction discussed
above.
Other forage losses would likely result from several recom:
mendations made in this alternative. Habitat management areas
(Ten Mile Creek, westland habitat and fisheries development)
would be devoted to wildlife purposes and the exclusion or reduc.
tion of livestock grazing would be a distinct possibility. Fencing of
selected reservoirs and riparian areas without provision for live-
stock water would improve the vegetation resource in the fenced
areas, but would eliminate grazing on the range dependent on
that water source. (Incontrolled prairie dogs would increase sub-
stantially and decrease livestock allocated forage.
The introduction of bighorn sheep into the Terry Badlands
would have the immediate effect of delaying livestock allocation
increases to adjacent allotments. The ultimate effect of the intro-
duction would vary from none to a reduction of livestock alloca-
tions or prohibition of domestic sheep use on adjacent ranges.
Conclusions
This alternative would result in an increase for watershed and
wildlife of 48,674 ACIMs in the short term and 100,766 ACIMs in
the long term. Livestock numbers would decline as a result in a
loss of 48,674 ACIMs in the short term and a loss of 32,646 ACIMs
in the long term.
There would be an irretrievable reduction in permitted ACIMs in
this alternative but this would not be irreversible.
Wildlife
Vegetation allocations, livestock grazing systems, vegetation
manipulations, mechanical treatments and range improvements
on crucial wildlife habitats would be restricted to those that
enhance the wildlife values of those habitats. Special manage-
ment needs of crucial habitats would be identified through the
monitoring system. Management methods to meet those needs
would be implemented in AMPs.
Acquisition by exchange, purchase or lease agreement of cru-
cial habitats orportions of crucial habitats would be considered to
improve management opportunities.
Big Game (Deer, Antelope and Bighorn Sheep)
A general vegetation allocation of 75% for nonconsumptive
and wildlife uses and 25% for livestock would adequately meet the
general cover and forage requirements of big game species in the
area. However, special management for crucial habitats (e.g.
winter range, fawning areas, crucial summer range) would be
identified through monitoring and implemented. Significant,
permanent increases in deer and antelope numbers are not
expected to occur as discussed under Alternative C.
In accordance with Step 1 of the Management Framework
Plans for the EIS area, all of the vegetation on winterranges would
be allocated to wildlife (all species) and watershed. This involves
approximately 180,000 acres of public land in 193 allotments.
The vegetation reservation would be approximately 30,242,400
pounds. At 800 pounds monthly forage requirement for cows,
winter range reservations for wildlife equate to a loss of nearly
38,000 AQIMs. To effect this reservation, grazing deferments
would be utilized to minimize competition for big game winter
forage. Fencing may be necessary, but only as a last resort.
Areas identified for vegetation manipulation could provide a
diverse plant community if the treatment methods were prudently
Selected and applied. Such treatments would benefit big game
and other wildlife in terms of food and cover.
35
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Resting riparian and woody draw habitats by the most compat-
ible and economic methods (modified grazing, fencing, etc.)
would provide additional forage and cover for big game. Rest
rotation grazing would be given priority consideration, since it is
the most compatible system for sustaining riparian and woody
draw habitats.
Reintroduction of bighornsheep into the Terry Badlands would
be evaluated and implemented, if feasible. There is no present
allocation of forage to livestockin a portion of the Terry Badlands
and that reservation for wildlife would be maintained as long as
introduction efforts produce viable results. Such a program would
be conducted in cooperation with the Montana Fish, Wildlife and
Parks Department. To accommodate expansion in population
and distribution, there would be no increment in livestock forage
allocations on adjacent allotments.
Fences would be the least restrictive to big game movements
as stated in B.5 of the Methods and Range Developments
(Appendix 2.2).
(Ipland Game Birds (Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Sage Grouse, Ring-
Necked Pheasant)
Livestock grazing would be managed to leave 4 to 6 inches of
grass for nesting and escape cover for ground nesting birds on
range sites capable of such production. Spring-early summer
deferment of residual vegetation would provide adequate cover
for nesting and brood rearing for upland game birds on AMP
allotments. Grazing treatments that allow additional rest or de-
ferment would be used to provide residual winter food and cover.
(lpland game bird production would increase slightly.
A variety of food and cover could be made available to upland
game birds (especially sharp-tailed and sage grouse) with well
planned vegetation treatments (burning, mechanical, chemical,
etc.)
Riparian and woody draw habitats would be treated as needed
to improve their condition. Possible treatments include changes
in grazing systems and/or seasons, improved water distribution,
vegetation manipulation, and fencing. These treatments would be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Vegetation plantings would
also be considered to stabilize drainages.
Sagebrush habitats would be maintained to provide stands with
canopy coverage of 15 to 30%. These densities provide the stand
diversity needed to meet sage grouse requirements for nesting,
brood rearing and winter use. Sage grouse population should
show a slight increase.
Turkeys
Vegetation managementon important wild turkey habitats (e.g.
areas used for nesting, wintering, roosting) would include Com-
patible grazing systems, vegetation plantings and prescribed
burning. Suitable treatments would be implemented to meet the
needs of turkeys using those habitats.
Waterfowl
The vegetation response from resting high value riparian vege-
tation and saline seeps would increase the quality and/or quantity
of food and cover and contribute to increased waterfowl produc-
tion.
New and existing fisheries reservoirs would be fenced with a
100-foot buffer strip along the shoreline for wildlife needs.
Depending upon the size of the reservoir (using the smallest and
largest known in the EIS area as outer limits), 200 to 2400 pounds
of vegetation would be removed from livestock use at each reser.
voir site. (See Appendix 2.1, Recommendation WL-3.4 for com-
putation rationale.) At 800 pounds of forage equivalent to one
ACIM, forage removal could cost from 0.25 to 3 ACIMs of livestock
use at each reservoir. Increase in waterfowl use and production
cannot be quantified.
Existing reservoirs with a good potential for use could be
improved for waterfowl production with construction of nesting
islands and installation of artificial nesting structures.
Fencing may become necessary to enhance waterfowl values
of existing reservoirs with a high potential for waterfowl produc-
tion.
On suitable soil types, wetlands other than reservoirs (blasted
potholes, water spreading dikes, canals) might be constructed to
benefit waterfowl. No specific locations or projects have been
identified.
Nongame
Range management and livestockexclosure fences would pro-
vide additional perching sites formany nongame birds. Complete
resting of riparian habitat, periodic resting of woody draw habitat
and fencing of reservoir seeps would provide food and cover to a
wide variety of nongame.
Applications of pesticides on public lands would be carefully
evaluated to prevent indiscriminant treatments. Label cautions
and directions would be followed. Buffer zones would be provided
between treatment areas and water areas. Clse of chlorinated
hydrocarbons (DDT, Endrin, Dieldrin) to control insects would be
prohibited on public lands.
Shore birds would increase with the improvement of existing
and additional reservoir shorelines.
Approximately 2900 acres of prairie dog towns are currently
known to occur in the EIS area. Vegetation on prairie dog towns
would be allocated to wildlife. Restricting water developments to
further than 1/4 mile from prairie dog towns would support such
allocation. If towns were untreated (i.e., except when threatening
to private lands and/or crucial wildlife habitats or becoming a
reservoir for incubation and dispersion of disease), prairie dogs
would consume additional acreage and reduce additional live-
stock forage (assume 5% increase in affected area per year).
Potential habitat for the black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, moun-
tain plover and other species associated with prairie dog towns
would be maintained.
Fisheries
Seventeen existing and 33 proposed reservoirs are identified as
suitable or potentially suitable for fisheries. (See New Prairie and
Jordan-North Rosebud MFPs.) These would be fenced to reserve
all of the vegetation within 100 feet of the high water level. Nearly
40,000 pounds of vegetation would be removed from livestock
use, which equates to almost 50 ACIMs. Additional reservoirs
developed for fisheries use would be treated similarly.
Conclusions
The effect of Alternative B on wildlife populations is less
dependent upon levels and types of grazing practices proposed
than Alternative A. Livestock use would not seriously limit the
capability of public lands to accommodate additional wildlife
habitat demand shifted from private rangelands converted to
intensive farming use. Overall, wildlife habitats would remain at
current condition levels. Crucial habitats would experience accel-
erated improvement in the short term. Certain resultant succes-
sional changes (i.e., reversion of shrub ranges back to grasses)
may not provide optimum big game forage production.
Clnique to this alternative would be the proposal to allocate
100% of the vegetation on winterranges to wildlife. Included in this
Category, is the proposal to fence existing and future fishery
reservoirs to promote cover for nesting waterfowl.
Monitoring would be relied upon heavily to insure that wildlife
habitat objectives are met.
In the short term, wildlife numbers would increase. In the long
term, overall wildlife numbers would average higher than in Alter.
native A. Cycle flutuations above and below the long term average
would still occur.
There would be no short term or long term irretrievable or
irreversible adverse effects to wildlife populations.
Cultural Resources
Cultural evidence is meaningful largely in relation to the degree
that the site from which it comes has remained undisturbed. An
artifact or feature might be important, but the association or
context in which it was found might be much more significant.
When these sites are disturbed, the opportunity for serious analy:
sis by the archaeologist or historian is lost, as is important infor.
mation about the past.
Alternative B calls for the implementation of grazing and land
treatments, including the development of grazing systems, con-
struction of range facilities and water developments and use of
mechanical treatments such as plowing, seeding and scalping.
Because significant adverse effects occur to a cultural site when it
is altered by ground disturbance, mechanical treatments and
water developments could cause adverse impacts to this
TeSOUTCe.
On the other hand, forage allocation, grazing treatments,
chemical treatments and range facilities each improve ground
Cover, but do not cause significant surface disturbance. Thus,
they should actually improve preservation of cultural resources by
improving the conditions which maintain the integrity of a site. No
data exists which allows quantification of such a benefit, however.
On the basis of existing cultural resource inventory data for the
study area, a density of 1.5 to 5 cultural sites per 640 acres can be
determined. (This is an estimate of low statistical reliability given
36
ALTERNATIVE B
in Chapter 3.) Therefore, under Alternative B, between 200 and
1,000 sites could be adversely affected.
Because a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
(PMOA) is in effect between BLM and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (Appendix 4.3), specific procedures would
be followed to identify actual effects of range projects on cultural
sites and to avoid or to mitigate those impacts. Therefore, adverse
impacts from range developments will generally be avoided
through project design. In a few instances, recovery of cultural
resource data by scientific excavation may be necessary to mit.
igate destruction of cultural information
Conclusion
Inventory and assessment of cultural resources directly
affected by range developments would provide immediate gains
in scientific knowledge of the area and a data base for long term
gains. Long term loss of scientific data could occur if an inventory
did not discover a site that was subsequently destroyed during
construction. However, the loss is not expected to be great. Any
cultural site inadvertently destroyed would be irretrievably and
irreversibly lost.
Social and Economic Impacts
Ranch Economic Impacts
There would be short-term decreases and long-term increases
and decreases in net ranch incomes in this alternative.
Appendix 4.6 displays negative short-term impacts to opera-
tions with AMP allotments by representative size category. In
addition, there would be an additional temporary loss in grazing
as mechanical treatments are applied or grazing systems imple-
mented. These losses could represent a significant impact to a
few individual operators when their land is out of production. A
total of 418 operations show a decrease and 190 would have no
change. Of those operators that would receive decreases, the
average decrease is 27 percent in public ACIMs or about six
percent in total ranch AUMs. The average decrease in net annual
income for the representative livestock Categories ranged from
$588 in small livestock/large cash crop operations to $3,434 on
very large livestock/small cash crop operations. The average
percentage decreases in net annual income range from 1.2 to
11.9 percent. The representative operations with more cash crops
generally have smaller percentage decreases in netincome. Total
short-term decreases in annual income to all affected ranch oper.
ations would be $589,306. This is 6 percent of the current live-
Stock income for all ranches in the study.
Appendices 4.7 and 4.8 display impacts in the long term to
operations by representative size category. One hundred and
seventy-six operations show an increase, 335 show a decrease,
and 97 show no change in the long term. For those operations
that would receive an increase, the average increase is 13 percent
in public ACIMs and about 3 percent total ranch AGMs. Those
operations would sustain an average increase in net annual
income of $517. The average increase in net annual income for
the representative livestock categories ranges from $165 on very
large livestock/small cash crop operations to $885 on medium
livestock/medium cash crop operations. The average percentage
increases in net annual income range from 0.3to 6.5 percent. The
smaller representative operations generally have larger percen:
tage increases in income.
For those 335 operations that would receive decreases, the
average decrease is 20 percent in public ACIMs and 5 percent in
total ranch AUMs. These operations would sustain an average
decrease in net annual income of $1,437. The average decrease
in net annual income ranges from $535 on very large livestock/
large cash crop to $3,158 on very large livestock/small cash crop
operations. The average percentage decreases in net annual
income range from 0.5 to 12.0 percent. The smaller representa-
tive operations have larger percentage decreases in net income.
Total increases in annual income to all affected ranch Opera-
tions would be $90,938 and total decreases $481,485. This is a
net decrease of $390,547, four percent of the current livestock
income for all ranches in the study.
Total permit values would decrease by $4.866,000 in the short
term and $3,264,000 in the longterm. The long-term figure is a 13
percent decrease over the present total. Those ranchers who have
an increase in permit value would benefit from an increase in
borrowing capacity and in ranch sale value. Those with decreases
in permit value would have the decreases in borrowing capacity
and ranch sale value.
The decrease in ranch employment would be the full time
equivalent of about 28 (8%) employees in the short term and 23
(6%) in the long term.
Recreation/Wildlife Related Economic Impacts
There are no quantifiable impacts on game populations under
this alternative. As such, there are no quantifiable changes in
hunter use, expenditures, nor economic impacts.
Social Impacts
Social impacts to the ranching community which might result
from this alternative would be negative, as some ranchers would
be scheduled for loss of ACIMs to watershed and wildlife
enhancement. While some ranchers would be faced with having
to alter their present management patterns to accommodate a
change in season of use, other ranchers who are highly depend-
ent on public lands and who could not afford to keep cattle on
base properties or to purchase hay to compensate for the loss of
public forage, may suffer some economic impacts. If their eco-
nomic stability were sufficiently threatened, it could force their
families into lower levels of consumption and increase their anx-
iety about the future. These social impacts are, by their nature,
difficult to quantify.
Many ranchers might also perceive a change in season of use
as unnecessary government interference in grazing patterns
which they feel have worked well for generations to the benefit of
both cattle and wildlife. The majority of ranchers interviewed
consider livestock grazing to be the best and most productive use
of the public lands, one which they feel is conducive to multiple
use. The majority of ranchers interviewed also felt removal of
cattle from public lands for the protection of wildlife was unneces.
sary. Their experience shows that wildlife generally prefer to feed
on private lands and they believe this is unlikely to change in the
immediate future regardless of any policy changes by the BLM.
Consequently, this alternative could have a predominately nega-
tive effect on the ranching community's perceptions of the BLM,
possibly threatening the good working relationship that currently
exists between the groups.
This alternative could also resultinincreased conflicts between
hunters and ranchers, if ranchers reacted by closing off private
lands to hunting.
The social well-being of approximately 418 ranch families
would be negatively affected in the short term. In the long term,
the social well being of approximately 176 families would be
positively impacted, while 335 families would be negatively
impacted.
Impacts to conservation and recreation would be beneficial
under this alternative as viewed by concerned groups. Enhanced
viewing and hunting experiences would accompany increases in
wildlife numbers, especially in the short term. Protection of ripar.
ian areas and upland game bird nesting and strutting grounds
through deferred grazing and mechanical treatments and protec-
tion of crucial winter habitat for the benefit of wildlife would also
meet needs as seen by groups concerned with preserving wildlife
and their habitat for intrinsic reasons. The amount of fencing
planned may not be considered sufficient by some groups, how-
ever. Plans to minimize control of prairie dog towns and to fence
off several proposed fishery reservoirs should also increase
recreational and viewing opportunities on public lands.
Conclusions
Many ranchers in the area would be unaffected directly by this
alternative. However, impacts resulting to some ranchers from
loss of ACIMs to watershed and wildlife enhancement might
include possible loss of opportunity for income gain and a feeling
of weakened control over the future. In addition, many ranchers
interviewed indicated that implementation of an alternative
emphasizing the protection of wildlife over the protection of the
ranching industry could create feelings of resentment toward the
BLM that might threaten future relations between the groups.
Impacts to wildlife and recreation groups should be beneficial,
especially in the short term, as wildlife numbers are projected to
increase due to improved vegetative productivity on watershed
and wintering areas. Preservation of prairie dogtowns and fishing
reservoirs would also result in increased hunting and viewing
experiences on public lands in the area.
Regional Economic Impacts
Appendix 4.9 shows the annual impact on output, earnings and
employment of changes in livestock sales, range development
construction, recreational expenditures and government
employment. Impacts are shown in both the short and long term.
In the short term, the largest effect on earnings would be
increased construction. There would also be a decrease in agri-
Cultural earnings. The only effect in the long term would be
decreased livestock sales. Decreased earnings from this activity
would amount to $231,000 annually and gross output resulting
from livestock sales would decrease $943,000 annually.
37
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Total employment would increase by 106 people in the short
term and decrease by 23 persons in the long term. Total earnings
would increase by $1,358,000 annually in the short term and
decrease by $231,000 annually in the long term.
Conclusions
In the short term income would decrease by $589,306 annually
on 418 operations (or 6.0 percent of the current livestock income
for all ranches in the study). Permit values would show a net
decrease of 19 percent and ranch employment an increase of
eight percent. These short term decreases would be moderately
significant.
In the longterm income would increase by $90,938 annually on
176 operations and decrease by $481,435 annually on 335 opera.
tions in this alternative. The net change in ranch income would be
a decrease of $390,547 annually (or four percent of the current
livestock income for all ranches in the study). Permit values would
show a net decrease of 13 percent and ranch employment a
decrease of six percent. These long term increases and decreases
are considered to be insignificant. These long term decreases
would be moderately significant.
The changes in study area earnings (+0.8 percent in the short
term and -0.1 percent in the long term) and employment (-0.6
percent in the short term, 0.1 percent in the long term) would be
moderately significant.
There would be an irretrievable loss of ranch income in this
alternative. A few ranches might be unable to stay in business in
their present form. There would be no irreversible loss.
ALTERNATIVE C: NO GRAZING
No livestock would be permitted to graze on public lands in this
alternative. The analysis of this alternative provides a basis of
comparison for the environmental, social and economic conse.
quences of the other alternatives.
All current grazing privileges would be revoked. All agreements
with cooperative state grazing districts would be affected as well.
No range improvements would be built or maintained unless the
improvements were considered necessary for resource programs
such as watershed or wildlife. Salvage rights would be granted or
cash reimbursement made to ranchers who had contributed to
range improvement facilities.
This program would eliminate the current permitted livestock
use of 253,085 ACIMs. In the "worst-case" situation, BLM would
require fencing of public lands to prevent livestock trespass.
There would be 7,400 miles offences necessary for this undertak-
ing, costing the private landowners $16.9 million according to
1980 cost estimates.
Watershed
Elimination of livestock grazing on public lands would bring
about an immediate increase in vegetation residue and carryover,
providing more cover and litter to the soil surface. An increase in
soil productivity and development would occur, with an increase
in levels of organic matter and increased soil moisture. In the long
term, sediment yield would decrease 54% and water yield would
decrease 30% (Table 4-3). Both would be significant decreases.
Water quality on public land would improve with the elimination
of livestock grazing. Increased vegetation production on flood-
plain and riparian zones would result in lowered runoff and ero-
sion. Reduced runoff would lower fecal bacteria, suspended sed-
iment and nutrient loading of water sources. Increased riparian
vegetation would improve stream channel stability and reduce
erosion of stream banks and channels (Smeins 1975).
Prairie dog populations would be treated the same as in Alter-
native B. Noxious weeds will be treated as needed to protect
private lands and crucial wildlife habitat.
TABLE 4.3
SCIMMARY OF WATERSHED IMPACTS BY TREATMENTS AND FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE C
Sediment Yield Water Yield Consumptive Water (Ise
(acre-feet/year) (acre-feet/year) Water by Livestock (ac-ft/year)
Element Initial Long Term Initial Long Term Quality Initial Long Term
Grazing Treatments NA NA NA NA O
Mechanical Land
Treatments on 127,929
aCTeS NA NA NA NA
Range Facilities O | O | O
Water Developments O | |
Chemical Treatments --
Noxious Weeds 15 2 549 178 +
Prairie Dogs 9 10 230 245 ems
Non-AMPS and (Inalloted 1,133 521 59,291 41,826 O
Total for Existing and -
Proposed AMPs 1,157 533 60,070 42,249 + 2,794 O
I — Insignificant
NA— Not applicable in this alternative
+ — Increase in Water Quality
0 — No change in Water Quality
— — Decrease in Water Quality
SOURCE: BLM 1980-1981
38
ALTERNATIVE C
Consumptive water use by livestock would be reduced from
2,794 acre-feet/year initially to zero in the implementation period.
In the long term this quantity of water would be available to
downstream users. Existing reservoirs would be maintained for
uses other than for livestock.
Conclusions
The net effect of the elimination of livestock grazing on public
lands would be a decrease in sediment yield of 54% in the long
term (Table 4-3). Water yield would decrease by 30% in the long
term, a significant decrease. Water quality would improve signifi.
cantly with reduced levels of fecal bacteria, suspended sediment
and nutrients contained in runoff water. The 2,794 acre-feet/year
of water that would normally be consumed by livestock would be
available to other users, including wildlife, recreation and down-
Stream users.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss to soil and
Water resources in this alternative.
Vegetation
Eliminating livestock grazing would bring about a rapid
improvement in plant vigor and vegetation cover. Ecological
range condition would improve in the long term as succession to
ecological climax progressed with the more hardy grazing-
resistant plant species giving way to less hardy"climax" species.
Some range sites would improve very slowly, but eventually
would approach climax. Only those ranges in excellent condition
now would not show marked improvement and eventhese would
improve within that class.
Without the stimulation of grazing, plant vigor and production
would level off and stagnate on most soils in the long term.
About 7,400 miles of fences would be needed to exclude
livestock from public lands. Impacts common to construction
and maintenance of fences to include construction of roads and
trails would result. Livestock trailing along the fences could
impact private and state lands, assuming ranchers continue to
graze livestock on their lands.
Noxious weed and prairie dog control would be the same
discussed in the watershed section. With limited control of prairie
dogs, there would be a decrease in vegetation condition and
production on or near prairie dog towns.
Conclusions
Ecological range condition of most rangelands wouldimprove
while those occupied by prairie dogs would remain ator declineto
poor. Plant vigor and vegetation cover would increase on areas
not occupied by prairie dogs, but would then level off and stag:
nate. Fences required to exclude grazing would affect vegetation
slightly.
The loss of vegetation production from the lower ecological
range conditions brought about by the potential expansion of
prairie dogs would be irretrievable but not irreversible.
Livestock
The elimination of livestock grazing on public land would cause
a loss of any livestock production on ranches associated with
public land grazing. This would amount to a loss of 253,085
ACINAS.
The loss of grazing would reduce animal productivity on private
and state lands, too, as livestock would have to trail to make use of
the scattered private and state holdings. Livestock would be
excluded from water, forage and shade areas on publiclands and
would trail along fence lines.
Conclusions
This alternative would eliminate stock use of the public lands
and a loss of 100% of all grazing on ranches associated with the
public lands. Livestockstress on non-publiclands would increase
and result in reduced productivity.
There would be a total irretrievable loss of permitted ACIMs in
this alternative but this would not be irreversible.
Wildlife
Big Game (Deer, Antelope and Bighorn Sheep)
In the short term, absence of grazing would resultin an increase
of forage and cover.
In the long term with the absence of livestock grazing, vegeta-
tion would trend toward a climax vegetation which is less desir.
able habitat for deer and antelope. Without cattle, periodic vegeta-
tive manipulations by fire, mechanical, chemical and/or other
types of treatments could become necessary as a substitute for
maintaining the suitability of some areas for big game. Therefore,
cattle are important in maintaining on some soil subgroups the
vegetation used by big game.
Riparian and woody draw habitats would improve in the
absence of livestock grazing. However, vegetative manipulation
by other than livestock grazing would be periodically necessary,
as discussed above.
Without the need for division fencing on public lands, removal
of such fences could improve big game movements. However,
increased fencing to accommodate more intensive livestock
management on private lands could offset the benefits of remov.
ing pasture fences on public lands. If BLM administered lands
were less scattered, perhaps actions on adjacent private lands
would have less influence on public lands.
Without the availability of public lands for grazing, private land.
owners would guard the rangeland resources on their deeded
land, possibly to the exclusion of big game and hunters.
Reintroduction of bighornsheep into the Terry Badlands would
be evaluated and implemented, if feasible. There is no present
allocation of forage to livestock and that reservation for wildlife
would be maintained as long as introduction efforts produce
viable results. Such a program would be conducted in Coopera.
tion with the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department.
(lpland Game Birds (Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Sage Grouse,
Ring-Necked Pheasant)
With no livestock grazing, residual vegetation on all allotments
would provide cover and food for additional upland game birds.
As discussed in the previous section, maintaining vegetative suc-
cession in the more productive disclimax stages might have to be
accomplished by fire, mechanical, chemical and/or treatments
other than livestock grazing.
Turkeys
Management for wild turkeys would be provided through main-
tenance and improvement of habitats as the need and/or oppor-
tunities are identified. Treatments to accomplish this would
include prescribed burning, plantings and mechanical methods
of vegetation manipulation.
Waterfowl
In the absence of livestock, shoreline vegetation would
improve, providing good nesting cover for waterfowl. Production
and use would increase because of improved water clarity and
additional food and cover on existing reservoirs. The absence of
livestock grazing would also provide additional food and cover in
streamside riparian habitats.
Livestock reservoirs with high to moderate waterfowl use
potential would be maintained. Additional wetlands for waterfowl
would be developed in moderate to high potential use areas as
funding and maintenance capabilities allow.
Habitat improvements would have to be provided through
artificial nesting structures and through vegetation manipulation
by methods other than livestock grazing.
Nongame
Sufficient food and cover would be available to nongame on all
public lands with the absence of livestock grazing. Range man-
agement fences around all public lands would provide additional
perching sites for nongame birds. Nongame wildlife species
would benefit from improvements in riparian and woody draw
habitats. Vegetation manipulation by fire, mechanical and/or
chemical methods might be necessary to maintain a disclimax
which is a more biologically productive successional stage.
Shore birds would increase with the improvement of present
shoreline vegetation.
Prairie dog controls would be necessary under this alternative
to protect private lands and crucial wildlife habitats affected by
expansions of existing towns. A study in Kansas (Snelland Hlava-
chick, 1980) demonstrated that grazing period modifications
resulted in reductions of town size and prairie dog numbers on
mid- to tall-grass prairie.
In the EIS area, similar livestock grazing adjustments would not
likely produce similar results because of the short-grass species.
However, the release of vegetation that would result from the
absence of livestock grazing could be expected to limit or allow
Only slight increases in the acreage of prairie dog towns.
39
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Fisheries
Livestock reservoirs with suitable fisheries potential would be
maintained. Reservoir sites with a good potential for fisheries (e.g.,
Ten-Mile Creek) would be developed for that potential.
Conclusions
All wildlife habitats would improve dramatically in the stort-
term. In the long term, certain resultant successional changes
(i.e., reversion of shrub ranges back to grasses) may not provide
optimum big game forage production.
In the short term wildlife numbers would increase. In the long
term, overall wildlife numbers would average higher than in Alter.
native A but may not average any higher than numbers antici-
pated an Alternative B. Cycle fluctuations above and below the
long term average will still occur.
There would be no short-term or long-term irretrievable or
irreversible adverse impacts to wildlife populations.
Cultural Resources
Cultural evidence is meaningful largely in relation to the degree
that the site from which it comes has remained undisturbed. An
artifact or feature might be important, but the association or
context in which it was found might be much more significant.
When these sites are disturbed, the opportunity for serious analy-
sis by the archaeologist or historian is lost, as is important infor-
mation about our past.
The elimination of livestock grazing on public lands would
reduce natural destruction of some cultural sites by erosion,
because of improved watershed and ecological range condition.
There would be no threat to cultural properties from the construc-
tion of water developments and mechanical treatments.
Conclusions
There would be no adverse effects for cultural resources, but
any cultural sites inadvertently destroyed would be irretrievably
and irreversibly lost.
Social and Economic Impacts
Ranch Economic Impact
In this alternative all grazing on public lands would be elimi-
nated in the short and long term on the 608 affected operations
(Appendix 3.9). The average operation is 20 percent dependent
on public grazing for its total requirement. For 89 operators (15
percent), this loss of public ACIMs means a loss of more than 40
percent of their total ranch grazing. The loss for these operators
would be greater than the 7 to 46 percent decreases as shown on
the representative ranches. Total decreases in net annual income
to all affected ranch operations would be approximately
$3,221,668, a decrease of 36 percent from the current livestock
total or 24 percent of livestock and farm income.
Elimination of federal grazing would reduce permit values for
the 608 affected ranches by the full amount of their current value
of $24,614,800. These decreases in permit value would have a
detrimental effect on ranchers borrowing capacity and the sale
value of affected ranches. For ranches that are heavily dependent
on public ACIMs, the overall reduction in ranch value could be
considerably more than the $100 per AUM because elimination of
federal grazing could virtually destroy the ranch as an economic
unit.
Reduction in hired ranch employment that would becaused by
total elimination of federal grazing permits is estimated to be the
full time equivalent of 303 workers. This would be an 83 percent
reduction from the current level of employment on the 608
operations. However, loss of jobs could be somewhat less than
expected. Many operators would continue to employ the same
number of workers because they could not reduce employees in
small increments as ACIMs were reduced.
Recreation/Wildlife Related Economic Impacts
There are no quantifiable impacts on game populations under
this alternative. As such, there are no quantifiable changes in
hunter use, expenditures, nor economic impact.
Social Impacts
Impacts resulting from this alternative would be significant and
adverse in both the short and long terms with 100% of the area
permitor leaseholders affected by complete loss of BLM grazing
privileges. Running reduced herds on base properties, purchas.
ing hay, or simply taking a cut in income are considered to be the
only feasible options available to ranchers to compensate for loss
of public forage as additional private pasture to buy or lease in the
area appears to be limited.
Impacts from loss of access to public grazing lands would be
most adverse to small operators and to people just starting outin
the ranching business, as many of them are barely managing to
keep pace with inflation and rising interest costs as it is. For many
of them, reduction in personal income and an accompanying
drop in their overall sense of security could be expected to result.
With one or two years of bad weather, negative impacts from loss
of public forage would, of course, be magnified.
Although BLM regulations do not recognize the right to treat
grazing permits as real property, bankers and realtors consider
the permits to have value. One impact to ranchers, therefore, from
loss of public ACIMs would be the devaluation of the ranch prop-
erty. That loss could result in added frustration for area operators
in obtaining loans in the future. Consequently, opportunities for
economic gain and thus opportunities for enhancement of social
well being would be foregone.
Income reduction could also force operators and their families
to seek off-ranch employment. For those ranchers who are
advancing in age or who live 40 to 50 miles from the nearesttown,
however, the prospects of competing in a largerjob market would
be dim.
If a rancher could not afford to purchase hay or to reduce herd
sizes and still maintain a viable operation, he might eventually
have to quit the livestock business. Besides losing the business,
he and his family would also suffer many intangible losses, such
as loss of the opportunity to live a preferred lifestyle, loss of
ancestral ties to the lands and possibly the breakup of extended
families and close circles of friends.
For those ranchers with very limited dependence on federal
lands, the loss of access to public land would likely create more of
an inconvenience than it would a financial hardship. About one-
third of the ranchers interviewed thought they might have to cut
back herd numbers, but indicated the financial reverberations
would likely be manageable. However, because of the dispersed
pattern in which parcels of public land occur throughout their
private holdings, these ranchers anticipated having to deal with
the frustration of seeing their own holdings cut in half or broken
up by fences, meaning some alteration of traditional manage-
ment patterns would have to be made.
The expense of fencing public lands to keep cattle from tres.
passing would fall on the ranchers in the area. Material and labor
costs could be prohibitive for some operators, especially those
with numerous scattered parcels of public land.
Even though some ranchers could expect to suffer only limited
impacts from loss of public forage, they would still likely sympa-
thize with ranchers who they suspected would suffer more
adverse impacts. (Inder this alternative, it could be expected that
wholesale resentment toward BLM policies would grow and likely
persist into the foreseeable future, eroding the good working
relationship that presently exists. All ranchers interviewed
expressed strong feelings toward traditional land uses in the area
and would likely perceive loss of access to federal lands as
increased government interference in the ranching industry and a
real threat to their way of life. Being given sole responsibility for
building and maintaining fences to close off access to public
lands would also likely create feelings of hostility, as ranchers
would be faced with the burden of carrying the costs of a program
from which they were receiving no benefits.
Adoption of this alternative might also result in increased con-
flicts between hunters and ranchers as ranchers might react by
closing their private land to hunting.
The social well-being of approximately 608 ranch families
would be negatively affected by implementation of this alternative.
Wildlife groups that have expressed interest in public range-
lands managed by the BLM have emphasized their commitment
to multiple use of the public lands, with livestock considered a
valid component of that multiple use. This alternative, therefore,
could likely not meet the approval of either wildlife groups or
recreationists. However, members of these groups would be in a
position to experience beneficial impacts in the short term with
increases in wildlife and upland game bird numbers, providing
enhanced hunting and viewing experiences for the public. Protec-
tion of a viable population of prairie dogs for public use and to
provide habitat for associated wildlifespecies would also meet the
approval of conservation groups. In the longer term, however, it is
expected that wildlife numbers would decrease, resulting in nega-
tive impacts to all groups concerned with preservation of wildlife
on the public rangelands.
40
ALTERNATIVED
Conclusions
Social impacts resulting from complete loss of BLM grazing
privileges in the resource area are, by their nature, difficult to
quantify, and would vary from rancher to rancher, based on a
ranch's present dependence on public lands. To some ranchers,
loss of access to public land would pose little more than an
inconvenience, forcing many of them to alter present manage-
ment patterns. Formany ranchers, loss of BLM grazing privileges
could mean reductions in personal income and thus a lowering of
their present standard of living. For some small operations and
those highly dependent on public lands, loss of the use of public
lands could result in a number of them being forced to sell out. In
this event, loss of many important non-monetary aspects of the
ranching lifestyle would also occur. -
Erosion of the current good working relationship with BLM and
increased resistance to recreational use of private lands would
likely result.
Impacts to wildlife and recreational groups would be positive in
the short term, as wildlife numbers increased with the initial
removal of livestock from the public rangeland, allowing for
increased hunting and viewing experiences.
These impacts would be reversed in the long term, however, as
wildlife numbers would be expected to decline in the area.
Regional Economic Impacts
Appendix 4.11 shows the annual impact on Output, earnings
and employment of changes in livestock sales, range develop-
ment, construction, recreationist expenditures and government
employment. In the short and long term the greatest impact
would be from decreases generated by a loss in livestock sales.
These changes would result in a loss of $4,758,788 annually in
earnings and 303 in employment.
Total employment would have a net decrease of 60 people in
the short term and 303 people in the long term. Total earnings
would decrease by $501,000 annually in the short term and
$3,009,000 annually in the long term.
Conclusions
In the short and long term income would decrease on 608
Operations in this alternative. The decrease in net ranch income
would be 36 percent of the current total. Permit values would
decrease by 100 percent and ranch employment by 83 percent.
These impacts are considered to be highly significant.
The overall impact on the attitudes of ranching Oriented resi-
dents would be extremely negative. Recreationists and environ-
mentalists would be expected to hold more moderate views.
The short and long term direct and indirect decreases of 0.3 to
1.7 percent in study area earnings and employment would be
considered moderately significant. The decreases in employment
would be very severe locally.
ALTERNATIVE D: NO ACTION
The current range program would be "frozen" under this alter.
native. The 30 existing AMPs would continue on 227,776 acres,
but no new AMPs would be implemented on the remaining
951,001 acres (747 allotments). No new range developments
(e.g., reservoirs, fences, pipelines) would be constructed even in
support of present AMPs. No changes in current levels of permit.
ted livestock use would be allowed.
Initial and long term vegetation allocations would be the
same: 253,085 ACIMs for livestock, 759,255 ACIMs for noncon-
sumptive and wildlife uses. No additional costs would be incurred
as no new improvements or land treatments would be imple-
mented.
All future options in range management would be foregone
under this alternative. There would be no opportunity to correct
erosion problems, increase or decrease livestock numbers,
change kinds of livestock, adjust seasons-of-use, or improve
range management. Little improvement would be expected on
those AMPs where 50 percent of the allotmentisinless than good
condition.
The analysis shows future conditions in the area likely to occur
as a result of continuing present rangeland trends.
Watershed
Without the option to make changes or adjustments in grazing
treatments, stocking rates and seasons of use would result in a
deterioration of watershed condition and water quality in the long
term. Without the chance to change stocking rates, abuse or
overgrazing of vegetation would decrease vegetation cover and
cause accelerated erosion. Continuation of early season use
without periodic restor deferment would reduce vegetation cover
through compaction of soils and would increase runoff and ero-
sion in the long term. Accelerated erosion would decrease soil
fertility and productivity, further reducing management options.
The loss of the ability to make management changes in livestock
grazing would result in moderately significant increases in sedi.
ment and water yields. Sediment yield would increase 15% in the
long term and water yield would increase 12% (Table 44). Down.
stream users would benefit from water yield increases, but
increases in sediment and water yield would decrease water
quality from increased amounts of suspended sediment, nu-
trients and fecal bacteria in surface waters and increasing sedi-
ment loading of reservoirs and stream channels. Part of the
increase in sediment and wateryields would come from increases
in the spread of noxious weeds and prairie dogs. Grazing pressure
would intensify on noninfested areas. In the long term noxious
weeds and prairie dogs would spread to cover a total of 14,000
acres, providing little, if any, desirable watershed cover.
Lack of new water sources would result in continued concen-
tration and heavy use of vegetation by livestock near reservoirs
and other water sources. Areas more distant from water would
receive light use. Consumptive water use by livestock would
remain at the current level of 2,794 acre-feet/year.
Conclusions
Without the ability to make modifications to grazing treatments,
there would be moderately significant increases in sediment and
water yields (Table 4-4). Sediment and water yields would
increase with the spread of noxious weeds and prairie dogs.
Sediment yield would increase by 15% and water yield would
increase by 12% in the long term. Water quality would be reduced
significantly in the longterm due to increased sediment and water
yields.
Consumptive use of water by livestock would remain at the
current quantity of 2,794 acre-feet/year in the long term.
The loss of soil in this alternative due to erosion would be
irretrievable but notirreversible. There would be no irretrievable or
irreversible loss of water resources.
Vegetation
The current allocations and seasons of use would continue on
allotments where early spring use is contributing to unsatisfactory
resource conditions. Adverse impacts of early spring use would
not be reduced by rest and deferment grazing treatments. This
would resultina continuance of present unsatisfactory conditions
and probably result in a downward trend in the long term, espe-
cially in floodplains, riparianzones and other livestock concentra-
tion areas.
The current grazing systems would be maintained. No revi-
Sions could be made to correct problems. Current trends would
be expected to continue in the short term, but might decline in the
long term, since there is no opportunity to make changes in
response to problems. Many concentration areas would continue
to be heavily grazed season long.
Sites suitable for mechanical treatments and soils responsive
to grazing treatments would continue to produce far below their
potential. Leafy spurge and other noxious weeds would spread
and reduce range condition on the infested acres.
No prairie dog control measures would be taken on public
lands. Livestock forage production would decrease in the long
term due to the increase in prairie dogs.
Maintenance of current allocations and seasons of use without
Control of prairie dogs and noxious weeds would resultin reduced
forage supplies, overuse and deteriorated range condition.
Conclusions
This alternative would resultingeneral maintenance of present
trends and ecological range conditions in the short term and a
significant decline in the long term. Since allocations to livestock
would remain unchanged, a continuing decline in condition and
productivity would result and the decline would be accelerated by
increasing prairie dog populations.
The loss of vegetation production by lower ecological range
conditions and the potential expansion of prairie dogs would be
irretrievable but not irreversible.
41
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
TABLE 4.4
S(IMMARY OF WATERSHED IMPACTS BY TREATMENTS AND FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE D
Sediment Yield Water Yield - Consumptive Water (Ise
(acre-feet/year) (acre-feet/year) Water by Livestock (ac-ft/year)
Element Initial Long Term Initial Long Term Quality Initial Long Term
Grazing Treatments 219 368 11,508 17,930 O
Mechanical Land
Treatments on 127,929
aCTeS NA NA NA NA O
Range Facilities - NA NA NA NA
Water Developments NA NA NA NA O
Chemical Treatments
Noxious Weeds 15 30 549 1,098 sºme
Prairie Dogs 9 16 230 375 gºme
Non-AMPs and (Inalloted 913 913 47,869 47,869 O
Total for Existing and .
Proposed AMPs 1,156 1,327 60,156 67,272 tº- 2,794 2,794
| – Insignificant
NA— Not applicable in this alternative
+ — Increase in Water Quality
0 — No change in Water Quality
— — Decrease in Water Quality
SOURCE: BLM 1980-1981
Livestock
Current allocations would not change in the short or long term
in this alternative, but forage supplies would be expected to
decrease in the long term. Livestock production would remain
fairly static in the short term. Long term reductions in forage
supplies (see "Vegetation" above) would result in heavier grazing
on some allotments if current use is continued. The loss of forage
would probably be drastic on some allotments and minor on
others. For example, those allotments which are stocked at lighter
levels and have good range condition would be little affected,
while an allotment with less good range would lose production.
Those allotments with noxious weeds or prairie dogs would be
especially hard hit.
There would be no change in seasons of use, grazing or land
treatments in response to depleted forage supplies. Poor livestock
distribution would continue where it presently exists and would
contribute to lower animal production, especially under heavy
grazing.
Conclusions
Production would remain static during the short term but would
decline in the long term because of the spread of noxious weeds
and prairie dogs and because of the lack of improved grazing
management.
There would be no irretrievable or irreversible loss of livestock
resources in this alternative.
Wildlife
Without the opportunities for vegetation manipulations, (e.g.,
additional water facilities, adjustments in grazing systems) some
species of wildlife would be adversely affected. Livestock concen-
trations on crucial wildlife habitat would be significantly competi-
tive with wildlife, particularly during the spring and winterseasons.
Big Game (Deer and Antelope)
Natural fluctuations of deer and antelope populations would
occur, but there would be no long-term, significant increase or
balance attained.
Conflicts between livestock and big game would remain and
would increase in the long term.
Concentrated livestock use could not be corrected without
range improvements to give better distributions of water and to
subdivide pastures. Livestock concentrations on crucial winter
ranges could be significantly competitive for big game forage.
Because of the freeze on developments, livestock impacts
would remain concentrated on areas with water and highest
vegetative production. In turn, some prime wildlife habitats (e.g.,
riparian and woody draw, sagebrush) could be heavily impacted
by livestock concentrations.
CIpland Game Birds (Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Sage Grouse,
Ring-Necked Pheasant)
In the long term, no additional vegetation would be available for
upland game birds from season long grazing treatments. Existing
AMP allotments totaling 227,776 acres (19% of the public land in
the EIS area), however, would help provide cover and food to
sustain upland game bird populations.
Turkeys
Turkey populations inhabiting river bottom habitats would be
adversely affected.
Without the capability to modify grazing systems through the
development of improvement projects (i.e., water development
and fencing) destructive use of riparian areas by livestock could
not be prevented.
Waterfowl
No additional residual vegetation would be available to increase
waterfowl production because of season long grazing. Even
though the vegetative character of existing reservoirs would not
be improved, some production of ducks and geese would still
OCCUIT.
Nongame
No additional residual vegetation would be available to non-
game. Some of the existing AMP allotments would provide resid.
ual cover because of completed development and continued
management as prescribed in the AMP.
No additional cover or food would be available to shorebirds on
reservoir shorelines because of season long grazing.
Without prairie dog controls, expansion of towns would occur,
particularly in areas where livestock would be concentrated. The
potential increase in prairie dog towns would provide additional
habitat for the burrowing owl, mountain plover and other species
associated with prairie dogs. Potential habitat for the black-footed
ferret would be increased. The potential expansion of the prairie
dogtowns, however, would reduce the yearlong food and cover of
many other wildlife species not associated with prairie dogtowns.
Fisheries
In the long term, vegetation removal around fisheries reservoirs
would continue. Some of the existing reservoirs would be lost as
viable fisheries because of accelerated sedimentation. No new
reservoirs would be built in this alternative, decreasing the overall
number of viable fisheries reservoirs in the long term.
Conclusions
Wildlife habitats would continue as they are currently trending.
Without the capabilities to manage livestock use (water disper.
42
ALTERNATIVE D
Sion, fencing, etc.), livestock concentrations would locally deterio-
rate habitats. Riparian areas, hardwood draws and reservoir sites
would probably be the most severely affected because of their
Water elements.
Locally, wildlife numbers would be significantly reduced; over-
all, average population levels of wildlife would be moderately
reduced.
Without the capability to effect management changes, these
trends would be both irretrievable and irreversible.
Cultural Resources
Cultural evidence is meaningful largely in relation to the degree
that the site from which it comes has remained undisturbed. An
artifact or feature might be important but the association or
Context in which it was found might be much more significant.
When these sites are disturbed, the opportunity for serious analy-
sis by the archaeologist or historian is lostasis importantinforma-
tion about the past.
The inability to adjust grazing treatments and plan new range
developments would result in long term accelerated soil erosion.
The conditions which maintain the integrity of many cultural sites
would therefore deteriorate.
Conclusions
The integrity of many cultural resources would deteriorate in
the long term and any cultural sites inadvertently destroyed would
be irretrievably and irreversibly lost.
Social and Ecomomic Impacts
Ranch Economic Impacts
In this alternative the present number of public ACIMs would be
authorized in the future, so at least "on paper,” there would be no
impacts. Range condition on public lands would deteriorate in the
long term in many areas and, therefore, the real amount and
quality of forage available to livestock would decrease.
The nature and extent of impacts cannot be projected because
the BLM would not place additional controls on livestock grazing
in this alternative.
There would probably not be any real impact on permit values
because ranch operators would continue to show on paper the
same number of ACIMs authorized in the future as now. In some
cases, however, the authorized amount of livestock forage would
not be available. There probably would be some real impact on
hired ranch employment, but this cannot be estimated because
the BLM would not force any ranch operators to reduce the size of
their livestock herds through grazing reductions.
Recreation/Wildlife Related Economic Impacts
There are no quantifiable impacts on game populations under
this alternative. As such, there are no quantifiable changes in
hunter use, expenditures, nor economic impact.
Social Impacts
Many ranchers who were interviewed anticipated that a no
action alternative would eventually produce very negative impacts
to their operations. It was expected that long-term deterioration of
the public range due to lack of range improvements would even-
tually result, meaning less opportunity for income gain and a
lowered standard of living for many ranchers in the area.
Difficulties in getting needed range improvements in the past
has been very frustrating for some operators who were inter.
viewed. Continued absence of new improvements, primarily
water developments, and lack of controls on prairie dogs and
weeds, would be interpreted by many respondents both as the
loss of opportunity to improve operations in the future, adjusting
for dry years, and as a threat to adjoining private lands. Ranchers
interviewed overall do not consider a no action alternative to be
good range management policy for livestockory/ildlife and would
likely grow to resentselection of this alternative if range conditions
began to deteriorate in the future.
Aprimary concern of many wildlife and conservation groups is
the rehabilitation and protection of public rangelands for the
benefit of wildlife. Ano action alternativelikely would not meet the
approval of most conservationists, since it would provide no
extraordinary measures for protection of riparian areas and would
not plan for any new AMPs. Wildlife numbers could be expected to
decline in the long term if range conditions began to deteriorate,
resulting in diminished hunting and viewing experiences on pub-
lic lands.
Conclusions
Impacts to the ranching community would be adverse, particu-
larly to those ranchers who are highly dependenton publiclands,
because of the continued absence of range improvements. Lack
of controls on prairie dogs on public lands could also threaten
adjoining private lands. The feelings of frustration that many
ranchers have experienced in their attempts togetimprovements
and developments on their allotments would increase.
Wildlife numbers would be expected to decline in the longterm,
if range and watershed conditions deteriorated. This would result
in negative impacts to those groups and individuals wanting to
see wildlife preserved for intrinsic as well as consumptive uses.
Regional Economic Impacts
There would be no grazing adjustments in this alternative and
therefore no quantified changes in expenditures, earnings and
employment. In the long term deteriorating range conditions
could have a real dollar impact on ranch income and therefore on
the regional economy.
Conclusions
No changes in ranch income and employment can be quanti-
fied in this alternative. However, reductions in both are likely in the
long term as forage production decreases. Therefore, long term
reductions in income are a definite possibility.
There would be no quantifiable changes in expenditures so
there would be no change in direct and indirect earnings and
employment in the study area. There would also be no quantifi-
able changes in livestock numbers. The predicted long term
deterioration of the range might, however, negatively affect study
area earnings, employment and livestock numbers.
There would be no recognized irretrievable or irreversible loss
in this alternative.
43
The Big Dry Vegetative Allocation Draft Environmental Impact
Statement was prepared by specialists from the BLM's Miles City
District Office with assistance from BLM's Montana State Office.
Disciplines and skills used to develop this EIS were: vegetation
and rangeland use, animal husbandry, recreation, climate, soci-
ology, economics, geology, hydrology, soils, cultural resources,
wildlife, fisheries, graphics, editing, printing, public affairs and
typing. Writing of the EIS began in June 1981 following a complex
planning and data gathering process. The process included
inventories of resources, public participation, coordination with
other agencies and a planning effort. Consultation and coordina.
tion with agencies, organizations and individuals occurred
throughout this process.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND
CONSUILTATION DURING
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT EIS
An intense public participation process was conducted during
the development of this EIS. An analysis document, a sampling of
public opinion by interviews of people in the Big Dry Resource
Area communities, a program to drawissues from the public and
a notice in the "Federal Register" were all used to elicit public
views on the EIS. This process also drew useful comments from
other agencies.
The major portion of the public participation process was
identifying issues which the public wanted considered in this EIS.
This procedure consisted of the mass mailing of an information
brochure, letter and return mailer asking for issues people felt
should be considered in the Big Dry EIS. A summary of these
reponses was provided in another brochure mailed to the original
recipients.
Included with the first brochure was a schedule for public
meetings held in Terry and Baker, Montana. The meetings were
used to explain the EIS process, gather additional views and
inform people of how the issues would be used. From this proce:
dure, an alternative was designated the "preferred" alternative,
namely, the Continued Development for Optimum Range Cltiliza.
tion.
As can be seen, the public's role was vital in the development of
this EIS.
The Montana State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) was
Consulted and commented on this EIS. SHPO along with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, will have an opportun-
ity to review the draft EIS.
Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding threatened and endangered species also took place
during the preparation of this EIS. Region 7 personnel of the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks informally
reviewed draft sections on wildlife and indicated that their com-
ments were properly depicted in the EIS.
OTHER AGENCIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS CONSOILTED
The Big Dry EIS team consulted and/or received comments
from the following during the preparation of the draft EIS:
Federal Agencies
Soil Conservation Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
National Weather Bureau
State Agencies and Organizations
Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
Montana Cooperative Extension Service
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Montana Historical Society
County Commissioners and Planning Boards
Custer County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
McCone County
Prairie County
Richland County
Rosebud County
Wibaux County
Special Interest Groups
Montana Stockgrowers Association
East Custer Cooperative State Grazing District (CSGD)
Red Butte CSGD
Prairie County CSGD
Further comments are expected from public hearings sche-
duled for the spring of 1982. Copies of the draft EIS will be
available for public review at BLM Offices in Billings and Miles City
and at public libraries in communities in the Big Dry area.
COMMENTS REQUESTED
Comments on the draft EIS have been requested from the
following agencies, organizations and interest groups:
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Soil Conservation Service
CHAPTER 5
CONSOILTATION AND
COORDINATION


CONSULTATION 8, COORDINATION
Department of Defense
(I.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Mines
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Bureau of Reclamation
Environmental Protection Agency
Congressional Offices
Office of Congressman Ron Marlenee
Office of Congressman Pat Williams
Office of Senator Max Baucus
Office of Senator John Melcher
State Agencies
Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology
Montana Department of Community Affairs
Montana Cooperative Extension Service
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Montana Department of State Lands
Montana Governor's Office
Montana State Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Montana College
Montana State University
Old West Regional Commission
University of Montana
County Commissioners and Planning Boards
Carter County
Custer County
Dawson County
Fallon County
Garfield County
McCone County
Prairie County
Richland County
Rosebud County
Wibaux County
Other Organizations
Audubon Society
Circle Rifle Club
Custer Rod & Gun Club
Defenders of Wildlife
Farm Bureau
Friends of the Earth
Izaak Walton League
Lower Yellowstone Outdoors Association
McCone Agriculture Protective Organization
Montana Chamber of Commerce
Montana Farmers (Inion
Montana Pork Producers Assn.
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Snowmobile Association
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Montana Woolgrowers Association
National Council of Public Land Clsers
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern Plains Resource Council
Sierra Club
Society for Range Management
Wibaux Area Council
Wilderness Society
Wildlife Management Institute
Wildlife Society, Montana Chapter
Individuals
James Morgan (Plaintiff in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., et al. vs. Rogers C. B. Morton, et al.)
46
LIST OF PREPARERS
The following people put together this EIS:
James Murkin: Project Manager
BS Resource Recreation Management, Oregon State Clni-
versity. Jim has worked for the BLM for four years, coming
from the Oregon State Parks Department. He was respon.
sible for the overall coordination of the Big Dry ElS project
and also served as team leader.
Amy Bruner: Technical Coordinator
BS Resource Management, CIniversity of Wisconsin at Stev:
ens Point. A Soil Conservationist with the BLM, Amy
reviewed the EIS as the team's technical Coordinator.
Robert Bump: Soil Scientist
A.S. Engineering, Walla Walla, (Washington) Community
College, BS Range/Forest Management, Washington State
CIniversity, graduate workin SoilScience, CIniversity of Mon-
tana. Bob has worked five years with the BLM after two years
with the USFS. He prepared the "Soils” and "Watershed"
sections of this EIS.
Gerald Clark: Archeologist
BA Anthropology, University of Montana, MA Anthropol.
ogy, Washington State (Iniversity. Jerry has been with the
BLM for five years. He was responsible for the "Cultural
Resources” section of the Big Dry ElS.
Leon Pack: Natural Resources Specialist
BSLifeSciences Education, MSWildlife Biology, Cltah State
University. Leon has worked with the BLM for seven years.
He prepared the “Vegetation” and "Livestock" portions of
this EIS.
Ladd Coates: Outdoor Recreation Planner
BA Geography, University of California at Berkeley, MS
Natural Resource Management, Colorado State Clniversity.
Ladd has been with the BLM for five years. He developed the
“Recreation” sections of this ElS.
Joe Frazier: Hydrologist
BS Business Administration, (Iniversity of Kansas, MS Biol.
ogy, Emporia State University, MS Hydrology, CIniversity of
Wyoming. Joe was responsible for the hydrology section of
the Big Dry EIS.
Gerald B. Gill: Wildlife Management Biologist
BS Wildlife Management, Colorado State (Iniversity, MS
Wildlife Biology, University of Montana. Five years with the
BLM, Gerry was responsible for all the wildlife considera-
tions and sections.
Judy Majewski: Sociologist
BA Sociology, Sangamon State (Iniversity (Ill.), graduate
workin Environmental Studies, University of Montana. With
the USFS before coming to the BLM, Judy has worked in
Nevada as well as in the Miles City Office. She was responsi.
ble for completion of the social impact assessment seg:
ments of the EIS.
LIST OF PREPARERS
Christopher Roholt: Economist
BS Mathematics/Economics, MS Forestry/Economics,
University of Montana. Chris has been with the BLM for
three years. He was responsible for the "Economic" por.
tions of the “Social and Economic” sections of the Big Dry
EIS.
Hubert Livingston: Range Conservationist
BS Range Management, Montana State CIniversity. Hugh
participated in the formulation of the planning documents
on which this EIS was based. He also prepared portions of
the range section.
James Hetzer: Writer/Editor
BA Journalism, University of Colorado. Jim has been with
the BLM for two years and has worked in publications and
information fields in a number of sectors for over 20 years.
He edited, wrote portions and assisted in layout of the EIS.
Bonnie Anton: Mail/File Clerk
Graduated from Custer County High School in Miles City.
Bonnie has been with the BLM for over three years. She
typed and coded the print for this ElS.
Kathy Bockness: Lead Word Process Operator
Graduated from SacredHearthigh School, Miles City, Mon-
tana, and attended Miles Community College. Kathy
worked for a telecommunications company for over five
years beforejoining BLM. Shetyped and coded the print for
this EIS.
Gloria Gunther: Clerk Typist
Graduated from Custer County High School in Miles City.
Gloria worked as a legal secretary for six years beforejoining
BLM in 1980. She typed portions of this ElS and also
assisted in coding.
Diane Schneider: Support Services Supervisor
Graduated from Forsyth High School and received a
Secretarial Certificate from Miles Community College. She
has worked for the BLM for four years. Diane was responsi.
ble for assigning the typing workload of the text for the EIS.
Technical Review
Peter Bierbach, Water Resources
Dan Bricco, Wildlife
Jerry Jacobs, Lands
Verdie Lavin, Range Management
Hank McNeel, Chemical Treatments and Vegetation
Dave Peters, Sociology and Economics
William Volk, Soils
MSO Assistance
These people from the Montana State Office, BLM, assisted in the
preparation of this EIS in various capacities:
Larry Davis — Visuals
Corla Debar — Cartography
Rick Kirkness — Printing
Kathy Ives — Photocomposition
Lea/Ann Stender — Word Processing
Brenda Takes Horse — Word Processing
Larry Pointer: MSO Coordinator
BSGenetics, Iowa State University;MS Agronomy and Plant
Genetics, (Iniversity of Minnesota; MA Librarianship, CIni-
versity of Denver. Larry has written the soils sections of
several environmental impact statements. He was formerly
a junior college instructor.
Donald D. Waite: MSO Review Team
BS Agricultural Business Economics, Montana State (Ini-
versity; MS Resource Economics and Planning, Colorado
State (Iniversity. Don has conducted numerous range and
watershed economic and interagency grazing fee studies.
He was also the consultant on range and livestock devel.
opment economics to the government of Saudi Arabia. He
wrote the "Economics" section jointly with Chris Roholt.
Jerry Jack
BS Agriculture Business, (Iniversity of Wyoming; MS
Regional Planning, CIniversity of Wisconsin at Madison.
Jerry, in 11 years with the BLM, has worked as a specialistin
lands, recreation, range and planning. He coordinated the
MSO review of this EIS for the Division of Resources.
47
APPENDIX 1.1: AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE BIG DRY EIS AREA
The following agencies share regulatory or reviewing respon.
sibility in the Big Dry EIS Area with BLM:
National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (NACHP),
and Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the
National Historic Preservation Act Amendment of 1980 and Sec.
tion 2b of Executive Order 11593 require that BLM consult with
NACHP and SHPO, as outlined in 36 CFR 800 on actions that
might affect cultural values on public lands.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
The SCS (C.S. Department of Agriculture) is primarily concerned
with the stabilization of the soil and watershed resources and
increasing the productivity of privateland. To improve production
on private land, the SCS has developed farm and ranch plan
programs with such soil conservation projects as detention reser.
voirs and seeding. In ranch plan development, grazing systems
are designed to use the private range effectively. In an integrated
program, other rangelands such as public land must be consi.
dered. If the private ranch plan development should incorporate
other uses on public land, conflicts would arise, particularly if use
of public lands would be adjusted. SCS assistance on private
lands is accomplished primarily through five soil and water con-
Servation districts in or near the EIS area.
Through the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS), the Soil Conservation Service provides assistance to
landowners who want to improve their private rangelands. The
ASCS provides cost-sharing on fences, water developments, and
erosion control; the SCS provides technical supportin planning,
Surveying, designing, and laying out each project.
(I.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
CISGS (G.S. Department of the Interior) has jurisdiction over
operational development of oil and gas deposits on public lands
after BLM issues the lease.
Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation has jurisdiction primarily along the
Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers or other major waterways. Many
lands along these major water ways were originally withdrawn
from settlement, location and entry and placed under control of
the Bureau with the enactment and passage of the Reclamation
Act of June 17, 1902. This particular act established a system of
water development projects for the irrigation of arid lands and for
other purposes such as homesteading of public lands, if the land
could be reclaimed through irrigation.
The Act allowed individuals to obtain patent to lands which had
been withdrawn if certain conditions were adhered to and if the
individual could prove upon his claim to validate a particular farm
unit. Most landowners were able to obtain patent to their lands,
however, the withdrawal which originally set aside public lands
under the above acthas never beenformally revoked and remains
a part of the permanent land record.
Cooperative State Grazing Districts
Organized under the 1933 Montana Grass Conservation Act,
these nonprofit cooperative associations of livestock operators
are empowered to lease or buy grazing lands, to develop and
manage district controlled lands and to allocate grazing preferen-
ces among members and nonmembers. BLM has cooperative
agreement with the following cooperative State Grazing Districts
in the Big Dry Resource Area:
Prairie County
East Custer
Red Buttes
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA is authorized under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review
and evaluate environmental impact statements. (Inder Section
208, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, this agency also moni.
tors water pollution control planning through the Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences with which
BLM coordinates land use planning.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior) enfor.
ces the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory waterfowl,
and monitors the aerial hunting of predators.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Fish, Wildlife and Parks is responsible for fisheries, big and small
game species, and outdoor recreation. BLM has an agreement
with Fish, Wildlife and Parks to maintain, manage, and improve
wildlife resources in Montana.
Private Grazing Associations
These associations graze public lands in common, easing the
management of allotments where there would otherwise be
numerous permittees:
Cedar Creek Grazing Assoc.
Sage Hen Grazing Assoc.
Montana Department of State Lands
AMPs often contain varying amounts of state land. Approximately
6 percent of the area is composed of state land, the largest part of
which is managed by the Montana Department of State Lands.
State land, which often is intermingled with BLM land, is generally
leased to individual livestock operators or cooperative state graz.
ing districts on a long term basis. Coordination with the Montana
Department of State Lands is continuing, as the department
becomes increasingly involved in management planning and the
development of range improvements.
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 2.1
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
RM 1. 1
Consider 63 a l lotments for
development and implementation of
intensive grazing management
through AMPs. Increase or decrease
in vegetation al location will be
based on the long-term trend
indicated in the SW IM range
studies. A good or better range
cond it ion will be the management
goal.
RM 1.2
The area's 30 existing AMPs will
be continued and period ical ly
monitored to ensure a lotments are
maintained or improved to provide
for good or better range
cond it ions.
RM 1.3
The remaining 684 allotments are
composed of scattered tracts of
public lands with a relatively low
acreage ration of public lands to
private lands. These areas do not
warrant development of AMPs. No
development wi | | be planned.
APPENDIX 2.1:
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Conf I C+
with Range/Livestock
WATERSHED
WS 1. 1, 1.2
Monitoring the effects of
| i vestock use and the construction
of range-related projects.
Maintain good and excel lent
watershed cond it ion while
improving areas in poor and fair
cond it ion. Establish acceptable
vegetative cover values by range
site and implement them at the
activity planning level. Surface
disturbance from construction and
maintenance of management
facil it i es should not be a lowed
during wet periods to protect
watershed values.
WS 1.4
Evaluate existing roads and trails
as to the ir use and cond it ion. If
a need cannot be shown, they
should be closed.
Discourage development of roads
and tra i l’s unless a positive need
can be shown. Confine off-road
vehicles to established roads and
tra i Is.
WS 1.8
Examine poor and fair cond it ion
range using order I soil surveys
and proceed to rehabilitate these
areas with appropriate land
treatments. Any increase in
vegetation result ing from
treatments are to be a l located for
watershed purposes. No grazing
should be al lowed on treated areas
for at least two growing seasons
to al low vegetation establishment.
MFP Step 1 Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
Where the effects of livestock
grazing is deemed detrimental to
watershed values, deferment,
rotation or exclusion of livestock
may be necessary.
The use of pickups, trailers and
farming/ranching equipment is
needed to do routine livestock
related chores such as fence
building and repairs and
monitoring of livestock on public
lands. This use often requires
off-road travel.
Deferment of range lands for
rehabilitation will require
partial or total exclusion of
livestock until vegetation can be
established. This might include
reductions, deferment or total
exclusion of livestock grazing on
poor or fair condition range until
range is in good or better
cond it ion.
PLANNING SYSTEM.INTERRELATIONSHIPs
MFP Step 2 Recommendation
Continue to monitor the effects of
livestock grazing while improving
range conditions to good or
better. Surface disturbance for
Construction or maintenance on
R/W's that involve significant
public surface should not be
al lowed during wet periods.
Discourage development of roads
and tra i l’s unless a positive need
can be shown. Confine off-road
vehicle use to established roads
and trails in erosion susceptible
areas. Close roads and trails in
areas that are not needed.
Complete order I soil surveys on
problem areas and proceed with the
reCommended treatment to
rehabilitate the areas. Any
vegetation increase result ing from
the treatments would be al located
50% to watershed
Resource Trade-Offs
Trade-offs are not determined at
this time.
Vehicles would not be a lowed of f
established roads and trails, in
areas of critical or severe
cond it ions such as heavily eroded
areas, new ly reseeded areas or
other areas in need of special
management.
Grazing will not be a lowed on
rehabilitated ranges for 2 growing
seasons to al low vegetation
estab I ishment.
A-3
APPENDICES
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Conflict
with Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
MFP Step 2 Recommendation
WS 2, 1
Avoid grazing in severe wind and
Grazing schedules necessitate that
livestock graze public lands
during April, May and June.
Either more intensive livestock
management or fencing will be
necessary on the ident ified areas
in order to curb this problem.
Season of use must be changed to
a low vegetation to maintain plant
growth and vigor during April, May
and June,
The presence of water projects
| ike reservoirs concentrates
| i vestock on creek bottoms and
riparian areas. These areas
receive the heaviest vegetation
US®e
Where deemed necessary to graze
| i vestock on severe wind and water
erosion areas during the months of
April , May and June, proper
grazing management should be used
in conjunction with soils,
watershed and plant phenology
capabil it ics. These should include
rest, deferment or alternating
use. Salt ing, construction of
reservoirs, pipel ines, and other
range related projects in severe
wind and water erosion areas
should be discouraged.
Where deemed necessary to graze
| i vestock on floodpla in areas of
April, May and June, proper
grazing management should be used
in conjunction with soil,
watershed and plant phenology
capabi I it iss and requirements.
Salt ing, construction of
reservoirs, pipel ines and other
range related projects should be
discouraged on floodplains and
riparian areas.
Same as WS 5.4
Resource Trade-Offs
water erosion areas during April,
May and June each year. Sol I cover
values are to be included in
objectives of AMPs. Avoid
reservoir, fence and other project
construction during periods of wet
weather to lessen impact severity
on watershed values,
WS 5. 1
Discourage | i vestock use of
riparian zones to reduce active
streambank erosion, high suspended
sediment concentrations and
occasional high fecal coli form
concentrations. Prevent grazing on
floodpla in and riparian areas
during the wet periods of April,
May and June. Accomplish by
deferment or rest, fencing of
floodplains i.e. treating them as
separate grazing units and grazing
them within the period of July 1
to March 51.
WS 5.4
Range improvements (other than
reservoirs) general I y will not be
located in riparian habitats or
floodplains. Salt ing would not be
a lowed in reservoir spil I ways.
Fences w i ! I be constructed or
designed to prevent the debris
from collecting and closing
Channel S.
In areas where critical or severe
conditions exist, grazing will
have to be more effect i vely
managed, reduced or eliminated.
Activity plans and AMPs must
reflect proper grazing management
systems during April, May and
June. These may include deferment,
reduct ion in season, rest rotation
or other grazing systems to
protect streambank stability,
increase plant vigor and
productivity and reduce sediments.
| f deemed necessary, riparian
areas may be fenced to exclude
livestock during critical periods.
Wells may be located on terraces
or ridgetops away from riparian
areas. Pipe I ines will be located
off riparian areas. Where projects
are located on riparian habitat
and floodplain areas,
rehabi itat ion of the area is
needed. Salt i ng should be away
from water and out of reservoir
spil I ways.
A-4
APPENDIX 2.1
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Conf ict
with Range/Livestock
WS 5. 7
E | iminate a | | activities
( including grazing) in the Lost
Boy Creek Watershed (Prairie
Planning Unit) that remove
riparian vegetation and disturb
the soil because this watershed
yields very high suspended
sediment and high flash peak
flows. Special protect i ve measures
are needed if wilderness status is
not obtained.
WS 3.8
| n the South Pine control led
ground water area, surface water
(i.e. springs and reservoirs) will
be the primary source of water for
BLM water developments. Al I
flowing wel is will be control led
and use of ground water from a
format ion above the Fox Hi ||S
Formation will not be permitted.
WS 5. 1, 5.2, 5.5
Monitor soil , climate, air surface
and ground water on all AMPs to
ensure protect ion of watershed
values. This monitoring will
include continuation of inventory
on soils, water and a ir.
Monitoring is needed to assure
compliance with Montana's 208
Water Quality Program plans,
court-mandated EISs, and SCS
guidelines for livestock grazing.
W i I d l ife
WL 2, 1
Acquire by purchase or easement,
and/or exchange, lands a long Ten
Mi le Creek to benefit wild life and
fisheries.
WL. 2.2, 2.5
Create wet lands by constructing
water-control dikes, ponds,
canals, level ditch, waterways,
etc. for w i ! d life and waterfowl.
MFP Step 1 Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
Natural erosion in this watershed
is very severe. Grazing could only
increase sediment yield on erosion
while decreasing in water quality.
The drilling of wells in the area
is regulated by MDNRC in Helena,
Mt. Use of aquifers in this area
may result in decrease of water
level s.
Where livestock grazing is deemed
harmful to soil or vegetation,
protective measures of reduced
grazing may be enacted.
This proposed dam and reservoir
(T11N, R51E, Sec. 34) is located
on a lotments 2815 and 2810.
Grazing may be excluded or
reduced.
Range conflicts consist of
creating a possible hazard to
livestock if bog-type conditions
OCCUT e
MFP Step 2 Recommendation
Al low livestock to graze Lost Boy
Creek, but under a grazing system
that does not deteriorate the
vegetative cover. This system must
include considerations for soil
cover, compact ion and plant
phenology.
Same as WS 3.8
Same as 5. 1, 5.2, 5.3
Analyze important wild life areas
a long with opportunities and
capabil it iss of these areas. If
they meet a demand, land
acquisition programs should be
in it inted.
Create wet lands habitat at
suitable sites to enhance the
prairie biome diversity.
Resource Trade-Offs
Livestock may be deferred from
using the Lost Boy Creek drainage
in early spring each year.
All flowing wells should be capped
or control led to prevent waste of
Fox Hills aquifer water.
No trade-offs are ident if ied at
this times
AUMs between livestock and
wild life may have to be adjusted
on affected al lotments to
accommodate the Ten Mi le Creek
project if deemed important to
wild life.
Wet land areas may have to be
fenced to exclude livestock. These
areas may also lead to a small
loss of livestock due to an imals
becoming bogged down.
A-5
APPENDICES
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
MFP Step i Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
MFP Step 2 Recommendation Resource Trade-Offs
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Conf ict
with Range/Livestock
WL 2.5
In cooperation with the Montana
Dept. of Fish, Wild life, and
Parks, introduce bighorn sheep
into the Terry Bad lands area if it
can be determined the area wil |
support a viable population. No
determinations of potential
population size has been made,
therefore vegetation al location
needs are not known. No new
fencing of an extensive nature
should be a lowed. Mainta in cattle
as the only class of permitted
| ivestock. Authorize no increases
in livestock forage until bighorn
use patterns and forage needs are
established.
WL 5.5, 5.4
Plant aquatic, emergent and
riparian vegetation a long
streambanks and waterways. With
construct ion of new reservoirs and
repair of existing reservoirs
(with the except ion of fisheries
reservoirs), build goose nesting
is lands and/or instal waterfowl
nesting platforms or boxes as
appropriate. No reservoirs are
ident if i ed for this at present.
Fencing may be necessary to
accomplish this. This will
establish food, water and cover
for w i I d life.
WL 5, 9
Plant food and cover crops on
sites managed intensively by
provision of Habitat Management
Plans (HMPs) for terrestrial
wild life populations. Plant ings
would be on a cooperative-share
basis with irrigation if possible.
Approximately six sections of
public. lands are currently
unal located to livestock near the
Terry Scenic Overlook. Since both
bighorn sheep and cattle are
primarily grazers, compet it ion for
forage would occur if sheep were
to move off the al located port ions
of public lands. This competition
would be minimized as bighorn
sheep prefer and need the steep
slope areas for security and
escape cover. Cattle use of these
areas is minimal. Bighorn sheep
would probably not stay with in the
six-section area, but would expand
to fill I the ava i I able habitat.
Possible mix of domest ic sheep
with bighorn sheep might introduce
the lung worm into the wild life
population. Bighorn sheep may
contract some diseases ( lung
flukes) from domestic sheep.
Allotments 2772, 2797, 2750 and
2747 will be affected .
Conflicts exist if I i vestock is
excluded from possible water
SOUT CeSe
Range management is concerned
about possible loss of productive
hay lands and AUMs by exclusion of
grazing by livestock.
No conflicts are anticipated in
the area as most of the area is
In it idte cooperative eval uations
with MT Dept. of Fish, Wild life,
and Parks and introduce bighorn
into Terry Bad lands, if
introduct ion is deemed
biological I y pract ical. Maintain
variable herd size which will not
cause a decline in the quality and
quantity of available habitat. Use
control measures as needed to meet
this end e
unsuitable for livestock grazing.
Shal low ends of existing
reservoirs would be fenced to
protect planted vegetation. On new
projects deemed suitable for
fisheries, develop a livestock
water source below the dam outside
the fenced area. Require
construction of nest ing is lands in
new reservoirs and when repairing
exist ing reservoirs. Fencing or
rest rotation grazing system with
a ful one year rest on one
pasture would provide residual
nest ing cover.
Livestock would be excluded from
area Se
Same as WL 5.9 plus utilize
irrigation and cooperative share
crop farming where possible.
APPENDIX 2.1
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Conf I C+
with Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
MFP Step 2 Recommendation
WL 4,4
In areas of critical wild life
habitat, restrict or limit
occupancy for surface
disturbances. This will include
the construction of reservoirs,
wells, fences and other
livestock-related projects.
Examples include grouse breeding
areas, deer, grouse and antel ope
wintering areas and raptor
concentration arease
WL 4,6
Protect and mainta in the
black-tailed prairie dog ecosystem
as an integral part of the prairie
environment.
WL 4 e 8
Aſ locate 100% of shorel ine
vegetation with in 100 feet of
existing and future fisheries
reservoirs to wild life needs.
Fence reservoirs to assure
| ivestock exclusion.
WL 4, 10
Maximize production and improve
the vigor of trees and shrub
species in hardwood draws and
riparian zones. These areas are
identified in the MFP.
WL 4, 11
A locate sufficient vegetation to
Reservoirs, fences, pipelines,
waterspreaders and other projects
are needed as part of the AMP
process,
Range management conflicts would
possibly occur with the al location
of vegetation and restrict ions on
range improvements on prairie dog
towns.
Fencing of reservoirs would deny
livestock access to water, plus
there would be a small loss of
AUMs.
Protect ion of hardwood draws and
riparian areas may conflict with
| ivestock management systems.
There is a potential conflict with
| ivestock for vegetation
al location.
In known crucial wild life habitat,
restrict or limit occupancy for
surface disturbance purposes.
These restrict ions may be in the
form of zone protection or
time-of-year limitations.
(1) A low surface disturbance in
dog towns only when the town has
been certified as black-footed
ferret (endangered species) free.
(2) Where watershed has not been
harmed and range is not seriously
depleted, prairie dog towns should
be maintained.
(5) Encourage the use of selective
non-toxic control measures. Use
chemical control only when the
town has been certified free of
black-footed ferrets.
As funds and manpower permit,
fence existing fisheries
reservoirs and leave water gaps
for livestock to gain access.
Develop water sources below dams.
In areas of good cond it ion,
maintain present management, where
deterioration of the woody
vegetation cover is occurring,
institute grazing systems which
will aſ low for regrowth to occur.
Same as WL 4. 1 1
Resource Trade-Offs
support identified mule deer,
white-tailed deer and antel ope
numbers on spring, summer and fall
range.
Livestock may be deferred during
part of the year on areas of
seasonal use by wild life.
Management facilities may have to
be moved to less desirable
locations ( i.e., fences, wells,
etc.) which stil I serve the same
purpose e
Black-tailed prairie dogs may have
to be poisoned periodical ly to
prevent excessive expansion of
towns to prevent damage of
watershed and range.
AUMs will I be lost to livestock
where fenced.
Grazing systems must be
implemented to manage woody
vegetation. Fencing may be
necessary to exclude livestock
from deteriorated arease
Potent ial loss of livestock AUMs
to wild life.
A-7
APPENDICES
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Conf ct
with Range/Livestock
WL 4, 12
A locate 100% of all vegetation on
MFP Step 1 Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
There is a potential conflict with
livestock for vegetation
al location,
Potent ial conf ict of a location
of vegetation and AUMs between
wi d life and livestock,
Potent i a con f l ict with l i vestock
management through distribution
patterns,
May conflict with chemical and
mechanical treatments proposed by
range management to eliminate
problem arease
Many weedy species, while
beneficial to wild life, may not
provide forage for livestock.
Uncontrol led grassphopper and
cutworm infestations can severely
deplete livestock forage.
MFP Step 2 Recommendation
Continue present al location of
vegetation. If overuse occurs,
institute a grazing system which
would maximize shrub product ion.
Minimize winter grazing.
Manage to obtain or maintain good
ecological range condition. Where
possible, institute rotation
grazing systems which will allow
for residual vegetation.
Same as 4, 14 with the add it ion
that fences will be eval uated on a
case-by-case basis.
Adhere to watershed guidelines for
setbacks of mechanical treatments.
Assure that the Clean Water Act
(PL 92–517) and USD 1 guide lines
are adhered to where herbicides
and pest icides are used.
Control weedy species on public
lands (after analyzing their
positive/negative values) using
the most applicable and least
damaging methods. By state law,
some weed control is mandatory.
BLM must comply with EPA
regulations.
deer, antelope and sage grouse
winter range to wild life in the
MFP.
WL 4, 15
Al locate 4 to 6 inches of residual
growth of mid and tall grasses on
a year long basis. This will
provide nest i ng and escape cover
for ground-nest ing birds.
WL 4, 14
Locate and build fences to
minimize restrict ion of wild | | fe
movements. To the extent possible,
locate fences in such a manner
that they do not bisect crucial
big game animal habitat or
movement lanese
WL 4, 17
Prohibit the use of chemical
toxicants and mechanical
treatments immediately adjacent to
streams or ponds,
WL 4, 18
Prohibit the ind i scriminate
spraying of noxious weed species
on public lands,
WL 4, 19
Prohibit the use of ch I or inated
hydrocarbons (DDT, Endrin,
Diel drin, etc.) to be used on
insect species on public lands.
Resource Trade-Offs
Potent ial loss of livestock AUMs
to cattle. Potential change of
season of use.
Potent ial loss of AUMs from
| i vestock.
This w i ! I al low for I iv estock
management and minimize wild life
conflicts.
Settpacks are needed where
mechanical and pest ic ide
treatments are used on rangelands.
Without the spraying of noxious
weeds on public lands, the weed
problem will likely increase
leading to a loss of range lands
and AUMs for livestocks
Possible continued insect problems
on range lands.
APPENDIX 2.1
MFP Step 1 Recommendations
for Range/Livestock
MFP Step 1 Recommendations for
Other Resources That Con f | | Ct
with Range/Livestock
Cultural Resource Management
CRM 1.7
Study selected sites through
testing, data recovery and
analysis to better understand the
nature of cultural resources for
management purposes.
CRM 2. 1, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2.6
Complete a class | | | cultural
resources inventory on all
| ivestock, development and
management projects before the
project may be approved. Nominate
to the National Register those
cultural resources which appear to
qualify for placement on it.
Minera is
M 2. 1, 5.2, 4, 1
Aſ low oil, gas and geothermal
exploration and development on
public lands. Explore and mine
sand and gravel.
Forestry
F 5. 1, 5.2, 5.5
Protect existing conifer and
hardwood stands from significant
depletion.
F 5. 1
Restrict land use (i.e., grazing)
on areas of seed ling
establishment. This is to a low
new seed lings to become
established without damage from
tramp ling.
MFP Step 1 Conflicts and
Multiple Use Considerations
Small areas will be taken out of
grazing for short periods of time
( less than three areas),
| f conflicts arise between the
location of a significant cultural
site and a proposed surface
disturbing activity, the planned
activity (e.g. range project
construction) may be delayed or
abandoned because of the presence
of cultural material ,
Exploration and development of oil
and gas would temporarily diminish
available AUMs for livestock.
Possible water quality degradation
for livestock.
Conifer and hardwood growth
suppresses vegetation needed for
livestock ( i.e. , grasses, forbs
and shrubs). Removal of free
species may be recommended by
range management as a tool to
increase forage and AUMs on timber
types.
Livestock need shade and timber
areas during hot or stormy
weather. Fencing seed ling
establishment areas would reduce
available forage for livestock.
MFP Step 2 Recommendation
Study of selected cultural sites
will continue. Small areas ( 100
sq. meters to 1000 sq. meters)
will be taken out of production
for short periods of time (rarely
exceeding three months).
Continue on-the-ground search for
cultural resources. Examine all
livestock-related projects for
cultural resource values.
Restrict activity up to 500 feet
from reservoirs or intermittent
streams and up to 1000 feet on
perennial streams. Restrict oil
and gas activities on range land
Steeper than 50%. Rehabilitate
areas disturbed by seismic
act iv it iss.
Preserve timber in riparian areas
while managing for maximum forest
products.
Same as F 5. 1
Resource Trade-Offs
Trade-offs are expected to be very
minimal e
Depending upon the sign if i cance of
the cultural resources, a few
livestock-related facilities may
be abandoned or held up pending
recording or salvage of cultural
resour CeSe
AUMs will be lost to seismic
activity. Development would result
in permanent loss of AUMs under
roads, dri l l pads and possible
lower water qual ity for livestock.
Fire, chaining, herbicides may be
used to increase forage for
| i vestock. This must be on a
case-by-case basis at the activity
plan level.
Livestock may be deferred from
timbered areas until see I dings
become established.
Forestry/livestock conflicts and
trade-offs are expected to be
minimal .
A-9
APPENDIX 2.2
APPENDIX 2.2: METHODS AND RANGE DEVELOPMENTS
A. Description of Big Dry Area Soil and Vegetation Inventory
(SVIM)
An extensive inventory of soils and vegetation of the Big Dry EIS
area was conducted in 1979-80 using BLMs Soil and Vegetation
Inventory Method (SVM). The inventory included a total of 1.18
million acres of public land.
The objectives of the inventory were as follows:
1. To determine the ecological condition of the vegetation
TeSOUTCC.
2. To inventory the soils of the area; to understand capabil-
ities and potentials of the soil resource and to link vegetation
Time frames did not allow the use of automatic data pro-
cessing of transect data. Soils, range site, condition class
and vegetation mapping were used in conjunction with SCS
range site and initial stocking rate guides to determine the
current and potential (potential = production at mid-good
condition) grazing capacities of the allotments. The results
of these calculations are shown in Appendix 2.4. The pres-
ent stocking rates (Alternative A Short-Term ACIMs) are the
result of the current condition acreage times the SCS guide
value. The potential (Alternative A Long-Term ACIMs) stock.
ingrates are the result of site acrestimes mid-good values in
the SCS guide.
to soils in order to determine the best management practi.
ces for the area.
3. To determine vegetation production, cover, trend and
watershed condition in order to make appropriate alloca-
tions of vegetation.
B. The following are recommended methods of management
and descriptions of range developments. These are provided to
further clarify the proposed alternatives and provide guidance in
the development of AMPs. Treatments discussed are those
recommended in the respective management framework plans
(MFPs).
4. To develop a base of resource information that could
be added to and improved on in future years.
The inventory was conducted as follows:
1. Soil survey maps were used as a base. Published soil
surveys were available for Dawson and Wibaux Counties.
Copies of SCS photos with completed mapping were used
for McCone, Richland and parts of Prairie and Rosebud
Counties. A cooperative SCS-BLM effort mapped lands in
Fallon and Custer and the remainder of Prairie County. BLM
soil scientists mapped those portions of Rosebud and Gar-
field Counties in the survey area. The published SoilSurveys
and the field photos were Order 2 surveys and the new
surveys were Order 3. Range sites were noted on the base
for each mapping unit.
2. Range condition and vegetation types were determined
and assigned to a strata (each range site/condition class
being called a strata) on the soils/range site maps. Helicop-
ters were used to speed this operation as range Conserva-
tionists estimated ecological range Condition and mapped
vegetation types while traversing the allotments slowly at
altitudes of 10 to 15 feet. Observers landed periodically to
check accuracy of estimates. By this method about 10,000
acres could be mapped in a day.
Two retired SCS personnel (range specialist and soil scien-
tist) condition classed mapped the public lands in Richland,
Dawson, Wibaux, Fallon, Prairie and Custer Counties in
1979. BLM soil scientists and rangespecialists mapped the
vegetative condition of public lands in Garfield and
Rosebud Counties and rechecked some of the previous
years work in 1980.
About 450 transects were located on representative sites to
sample all strata. The transects were assigned to the strata
in the percentage that the strata occurred on the landscape
(more transects were placed on the more abundant strata).
An attempt was made to sample each strata at least three
times, but some strata occurred very few times and were not
sampled three times. Transect work was contracted and
supervised by BLM range specialists and soil Scientists.
1. Vegetation Allocation
Initial allocations in Alternative A and both short and long-
term allocations in Alternative Dare based on Current stock
ing rates. These stocking rates would be verified by actual
use and utilization monitoring and transects established on
the various strata. The present allocation (Alternative A.
Present Situation) is: 25% of vegetation to livestock and
75% of vegetation to nonconsumptive and wildlife uses. The
allocation in Alternative B would allocate all vegetation on
winter range and riparian zones plus the 75% allocation
made in Alternative Ato nonconsumptive and wildlife uses.
The remaining vegetation would be allocated to livestock.
Alternative C: 100% allocation to nonconsumptive and
wildlife uses. Alternative D: Same as Alternative A: frozen
present allocation.
2. Riparian Zone Management
Riparian zones in the area would be managed by grazing
systems, alternative water sources, or fencing which would
provide: periodic rest, reduced use, and opportunity for
vegetation regeneration in Alternative A. Livestock use
would be prohibited in Alternative B.
George D. Lea (1979) stated that: "Grazing and quality
riparian systems are interrelated; grazing and riparian sys.
tems are not mutually exclusive." Also, "Presently, BLMs
riparian managementon rangelands consists of (1) grazing
systems, such as rest-rotation and deferred-rotation grazing,
(2) protective fencing, and (3) alternative sources of Water.”
3. Grazing Treatments
Grazing treatments (systems) would vary and be keyed to
the allotment situation and management needs. Livestock
stress would be limited by designing systems with as few
pastures as necessary and reducing handling require.
ments. Spring pastures would be developed in allotments
when necessary and possible. Grazing systems may include
rest rotation, deferred rotation, deferred, seasonal, short
duration, other systems, or variations or combinations of
these types.
4. Mechanical Treatments
Plowing and Seeding—This treatment would be applied
after less destructive and costly measures have been ap-
plied. Rejuvenation of decadent stands of tame grasses,
development of spring ranges, or returning areas of tame
grasses to native range would use this technique.
Scalping, Contour Furrowing, Pitting, Chiseling, and
Ripping–Would be done to increase ground cover, reduce
runoff, increase vigor and abundance of vegetation. These
methods could be used on soil Subgroups 1,4,5,7,9,11,
12, and 13. They would not be used on steep slopes with
erodable soils. Roads and trails would be excluded, scalp.
ing, contour furrowing and pitting would not be used on
areas used by sheep. Interseeding would not be done unless
there was an inadequate desirable species seed source
(Ryerson 1970, Valentine 1971) or a vegetative conversion
was desirable.
Chaining (Cabling, Railing), Dozing, Rotobeating—Could
be used on soil Subgroups 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13.
Treatments would not be done on steep slopes with eroda-
ble soils. Large blocks of sagebrush could be cleared, but
scattered stands would be left as needed for deer, antelope
and sage grouse winter use. Work would not be done during
the grouse nesting season (Valentine 1971).
Fire—Could be used on soil Subgroups 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13. Treatment would avoid steep erodable areas
and resource considerations would be made during the
burn plan preparation.
5. Range Facilities
Fencing would consider wildlife needs and would provide
for its movement. Range improvements (except reservoirs,
pits or developed springs) would be located off floodplains,
riparian areas, or crucial wildlife habitat if possible. Devel.
opments would not take place on damage susceptible soils
when they are saturated, generally April-June.
Oilers, salt and minerals would be located together, away
from riparian zones and close enough to upland water
sources to be used by livestock.
5. Water Developments
Water Sources–These include wells, springs, pits and
reservoirs. There would be one water source per square
mile on AMPs and one per two square miles on non-AMPs.
Where livestock are excluded, tanks would be located away
from the dam for watering. Topsoil would be saved to place
on the dam fill. Water sources would be located carefully to
protect special habitat zones.
Water Quality—The water quality of stockwater and fishing
reservoirs on public lands would be managed to meet the
state of Montana and federal water quality standards for the
designed purpose of the reservoir. Methods to improve
water quality include development of AMPs, mechanical
treatments and grazing treatments that reduce grazing
intensities and maintain vegetation cover on watershed.
A-11
APPENDICES
Vegetation cover promotes waterinfiltration, reducing over.
land flow that carries sediment, nutrients, fecal bacteria and
other water pollutants to surface water sources.
7. Noxious Weeds
Would be controlled in Alternatives A, B and C. Tordon
beads work well on leafy spurge. They can be hand spread
or mechanically spread depending on conditions. Several
applications may be necessary. Other methods of effective
control may be developed and used. Other noxious weeds
can be controlled with a variety of chemical herbicides
which would be applied in compliance with specifications
and regulations.
8. Prairie Dog Control
Zinc phosphide is the only pesticide presently considered
for control. An accepted procedure is to prebaitactive holes
prior to application of poison bait. One teaspoon per hole is
the recommended rate of application. Baiting should be
done in late summer or fall. Mechanical treatment of con-
trolled dog towns may be necessary.
9. Monitoring
Monitoring plans would be developed to ensure that
resource objectives are being met by management (Table
1-3). Benchmark or comparison sites would be established
and monitored for comparison with general rangelands.
A-12
APPENDIX 2.3
The acreage and range condition of each range site provided the
base for making projections of increased grazing capacity in
response to management. The following procedures were used
to establish the short and long term allocation in each alternative.
Alternative A: Continuation of PresentManagement
Short Term: The present allocation was used. It was originally
developed by applying proper use factors, actual use values, and
the initial stocking rate guides found in SCS Technician Guides.
The allocation is closely approximated by the formula: Grazing
Capacity= Site Productionx.25 + Monthly Forage Requirement.
The initial vegetation allocation was: 25% to livestock, 75% to
wildlife, range land maintenance and other nonconsumptive
UlSeS.
Example:
A site with an average annual production of 1200 lbs/acre would
be allocated as shown below:
1200 lbs x 25 = 300 lbs = .375 ACIMs/acre allocated to livestock
800 lbs 800 lbs
The remaining 900 lbs or 1.125ACIMs/acre were not allocated to
livestock and were allocated to wildlife and nonconsumptive uses
as discussed above. The high percentage of good and excellent
range in the EIS area verifies the adequacy of the guides and the
formula. Those areas in less than good conition are generally the
result of some management problem (primarily caused by live-
stock distribution resulting from water, fencing, tame pasture,
repeated same season grazing, etc.) which results in overuse of an
area; not in an overallocation of vegetation.
Long Term: The allocation is the new grazing capacity which
would result from a projected increase in range Condition on less
than good range and the increase in production of tame pasture
(primarily crested wheatgrass) by rejuvenation or reseeding to
other species.
Alternative B: Watershed and Wildlife Enhancement
Short and long term allocations were achieved by subtracting the
watershed and wildlife MFPI demands from the short and long
term allocation in Alternative A.
The watershed demand was that use of areas susceptible to
damage during April, May 8, June be restricted and total rest of
riparian areas. Aums reduced are those that would be lost without
a change in the current grazing use schedule.
The wildlife demand was for all vegetation on antelope, deer, and
sage grouse critical winterranges, and for all vegetation on prairie
dog towns. These ACIMs are in addition to the allocation made in
Alternative A and are purelytheoretical as all the wildlife demands
have been more than met by the present allocation, with the
exception of the demand for all vegetation on prairie dog towns.
APPENDIX 2.3: ALLOCATION COMPUTATIONS
Alternative C: No Grazing
No allocation to livestock in either the short or long term.
Alternative D: No Action
Continuation of current allocation in both the short and the long
term.
A-13
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER
2084
2549*
2685
25.50%
2686
2568%
2852
2727
2728
2737
2738
2745
2750
2752
2755
2762
2765
NUMBER ACRES
100 8755
101
50 9169
185
51 3586
184
69 3200
350 6708
224 6575
225
226 5747
235 10826
256 2820
244 84.17
249 255.24
251 3675
254 1 1787
262 45.15
265 10244
268 17304
269 6406
270 6958
OTHER
AORES
62796
42967
10737
9265
2877
1990
2160
10282
7009
15385
13277
4264
8050
905
11422
E+G
84.13
7857
2595
2771
5838
5795
5209
9856
2220
7357
21854
3675
1 1097
45.15
10024
15944
FAIR
540
474
690
170
410
550
140
990
POOR
APPENDIX 2.4: ALLOTMENT SCIMMARIES
EXISTING AMPS
UNKNOWN
264
70
40
70
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
858
429
1 10
610
900
º
310
2.
# & CLS
229 Y
3 C
1 10 C
115 C
3 H
420 C
47 C
65 C
62 C
200 C
259 C
162 C
250 C
45 C
117 C
205 C
247 C
900 S
4 C
140 C
142 C
45 C
510 C
266 C
4 C
164 C
400 S
7 H
204 C
160 C
556 C
556 C
556 C
5 H
556 C
556 C
766 C
141 C
154 C
SEASON
O6/16-09/25
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
04/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01-08/51
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/01-06/15
08/01-08/50
O8/01-08/50
09/01-11/05
TOTAL
05/01–09/50
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/15-1 1/14
O3/02–02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
04/01–05/51
O7/01-09/15
05/01-08/51
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01-1 1/50
05/01-1 1/50
O5/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O4/16-1 1/50
04/01–05/25
O5/26–08/25
08/26-1 1/10
O3/01–02/28
04/01-04/07
1 1/11–02/28
TOTAL
05/01-12/15
03/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
% RJBLIC PUBLIC
88
100
100
100
100
100
100
51
51
100
i
72
100
OTHER POTENTIAL
AUMS
CURRENT USE
AUMS AUMS
659 90
30 (Eº º
639 g)
1508 tº sº.
927 tº º
2235
4 28
756 4287
188
948 4315
785 tº ºº º
743 tº eq º
246 54
195 44
132 30
_426. 99
2527 227
212 14
1409 tº-º
T62T T4
105.5 607
1574 1596
1 148 1018
722 2414.
45 tºº
280 tº-e
355 tº º
85 85
765 85
2549 3771
5187 *E. º
41 tº-º-e
587 56]
286 274
25 17
959 852.
2443 tº tº º
1095 108
9.25 80
| 167 410
325 876
54 6
113 13
85 9
2567 1394
4152 1615
1695 tºº-
1845 tºº-
1014
858
1804
212
1409
1 117
2857
812
2475
3325
959
1095
2695
4152
1710
1858
ALTN. A
ST
659
785
1742
212
1409
1055
2722
765
2549
5187
959
2445
1095
2667
4152
1695
1845
LT
690
2264
1014
858
1804
212
1409
11 17
2857
812
2475
3525
959
2509
1095
2695
4152
1710
1858
PUBLIC
ALTN. B ALTN. C
ST LT ST LT
529 560 0 0
OO OO O O
21 14 2143 O O
956 1002 O O
550 605 O O
1742 1804 O O
186 186 O O
1234 12.54 0 0
955 1017 O 0
1815 1950 O O
415 462 O O
22:53 2559 O O
2527 2465 O O
589 589 O O
2354 2420 O O
1071 1071 O O
2286 2.514 O O
5950 35960 O O
1238 1255 O O
438 451 O O
2772
2775
2774
19029
4155
6286
6098
150
340
370
1250
440
ALTN. D
ST LT
659 659
30 30
2255 22:55
785 785
1742 1742
212 212
1409 1409
1055 1053
2722 2822
765 765
2549 2549
3.187 3187
959 959
2445 2445
1095 1095
2667 2667
4152 4 152
1695 1695
1845 1845
A-15
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER
2786
2792
2795
2805
2807
2824
2826
2828
2829
285.1
2838
2861
2875
NUMBER ACRES
282 5640
288 8599
289 4465
299 8512
505 1520
52.5 5840
525
526 3361
327 1971
529 4213
556 8837
356 5496
565 9502
436 14008
OTHER
AORES
1530
146.17
2880
1280
1040
2679
5524
2051
428O
2986
7585
24752
E+G
2360
7649
7572
220
48.50
3271
81
5723
8837
4356
7852
15928
FAIR
600
770
| 10
850
50
700
550
POOR
UNKNOWN
120
40
150
EXISTING AMPS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
580
# & CLS
125 c
30 C
7 C
20 Y
142 C
150 C
150 C
475 C
5 C
72 C
141 C
119 C
60 Y
5 C
100 C
252 C
205 C
204 C
204 C
205 C
470 C
510 C
200 C
1001 Y
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
05/01-10/31
06/01-10/5]
06/19–09/18
05/01-10/31
TOTAL
05/01–02/28
10/11-04/30
05/01-10/10
TOTAL
05/01-10/51
O3/01-02/28
04/01–09/15
TOTAL
05/01-10/51
04/25-10/51
O8/01-10/31
TOTAL
05/01–02/28
O4/15-1 1/14
TOTAL
04/01/12/20
03/01-03/31
04/01–05/14
05/15–09/30
10/01–02/28
TOTAL
04/20-1 1/20
05/15-09/14
05/01–02/28
05/01-10/51
100
100
100
100
27
77
100
97
85
85
85
100
27
75
27
65
100
CURRENT USE
AUMS AUMS
750 gº tº
150 G - e.
21 tºº
120 tº gº
T04T tº º º
1705 * * *
271 719
616 184
337 go7
2499 359
65 gº
385 12
450 T2
721 127
652 112
153 27
T505 256
52 tº º
700 tºº
757
519 1557
56 151
9 291
694 251
275 744
Toº TAT
2074 1216
1239 gº sº
2404 tº-º-º:
3216 12O1
OTHER POTENTIAL
AUMS
1165
1766
960
2589
581
764
ALTN. A
ST
1041
1705
887
2499
450
1506
752
519
1054
2O74
1239
2404
3216
LT
1165
1766
2589
581
1625
764
707
1091
2074
1243
2585
5225
PUBLIC
ALTN. B ALTN. C
ST LT ST LT
104.1 1 165 O O
1566 1629 O O
800 875 O O
2436 2526 O O
424 555 O O
1492 1609 O O
695 707 O O
519 707 O O
670 727 O O
1885 1885 O O
567 571 O O
2554 2553 O O
3020 3027 O O
170
440
890
420
1050
707
1091
2O74
1245
2585
3225
ALTN. D
ST LT
1041 1041
1705 1703
887 887
2499 2499
450 450
1506 1506
752 752
519 519
1054 1054
2074 2074
1259 1239
2404 2404
3216 5216
A-16
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT
NUMBER NUMBER
2005 4
2098 | 16
2109 130
131
21.51 156
2144 168
168
169
170
171
2217 256
2219 258
2225 262
2225 264
2259 280
2257 298
2292 529
235] 596
2377 425
251.4% 15
2675 173
2805 301
2547% 48
2684 182
255] 52
869
485.50
1252
1185
6700
520
4655
7040
4775
| 161
84.49
4260
79
12248
4640
OTHER
AORES
1 1040
9784
9960
5720
217659
14704
1200
281.37
4260
11807
25442
21042
2097
51081
18555
32954
9751
E+G
1664
958
45550
252
865
252
4445
6260
4605
618
7929
1851
79
640
7539
4640
41 39
FAIR
280
52O
265
2360
1000
185
750
780
170
525
520
2539
660
POOR UNKNOWN
420 tºº
135 sº tº
18 sº tº e
tº-e wº 70
PROPOSED AMPS
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
TP
420
65
53
1
650
812
787
1659
170
355
4799
41
101
::
º
C
:
C
SEASON
O3/01–02/28
04/01-1 1/50
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
04/15-09/15
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
05/01-12/51
1 1/01–04/50
05/01-10/51
1 1/O1-04/30
O3/01-02-28
11/01–04/50
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
04/16-1 1/15
05/01–09/50
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
04/10-1 1/50
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–04/50
05/01-12/15
O5/01-12/15
06/01-1 1/50
12/16–02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/01-12/15
06/01-12/01
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
05/01–02/28
05/01-1 1/01
TOTAL
% PUBLIC PUBLIC
100
:
CURRENT USE
OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT
757 º 822 757 822
264 gº ºº º 31 l 264 511
14 “. . egº º 14 14 14
573. *E= 575 575 575
587
121 O 145 121 145
2259 5551 7981 7704 7.981
870 21.30
2057 77.58
764 8786
1754, 17735
7704 41920
410 500 410 500
152 195 152 195
640 1490 1514 1460 1514
18O 420
267 496
515 585
52 814
—º
1460 3805
18O 945 202 180 202
510 1035 414 397 414
87 º
397 to:5
1378 tº ºt- > 1430 1378 1430
372 3761 390 372 590
186 *q-e 257 186 2.57
1044 *E º 1091 1044 1091
60 <-º 1 169 1044 | 169
620 1 102
105 420
17O 640
76 $ºº
13 80
16 28 16 16 16
80 301 80 80 80
T40 257
2225 6527 3419 31.20 3419
57 162
819 2551
21 60
3720 3380
488 sº-º-º: 1056 980 1036
492 115
Toso. TT5
PUBLIC
ALTN. B ALTN. C ALTN.
ST LT ST LT ST
757 822 0 0 757
245 290 0 0 264
O O O O 14
468 468 O O 575
116 140 O O 121
71.54 7432 O O 7704
375 465 O O 410
131 174 O O 152
1054 108 O O 1460
11 33 O O 180
92 109 O O 397
1216 1268 0 0 1378
52 70 O O 372
145 194 0 0 186
953 980 O 0 1044
811 956 O 0 1044
16 16 O O 16
74 74 O O 80
2839 3158 O O 5120
478 534 O O 980
D
LT
757
264
14
573
121
7704
410
152
1460
18O
397
1578
572
186
1044
1044
5120
980
A-17
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2555
2558%
2747
2590
2591
2624
2626
2651
2672
2676*
2682
269]
2744
2748
2802
280.4%
2960
28.10
56
59
246
91
122
124
149
170
174
189
245
247
450
506
5240
10552
24514
1261
1200
1651
12.50
14 || 1
1000
6274
4595
2710
4551
2285
5801
6006
726]
1923
OTHER
AORES
8142
54405
7091
2080
1454
282O
5009
5280
2025
2O74
9251
1550
2160
2400
31.27
104.24
15840
1742
9764
20464
704
:
276
451
5 16
5014
3526
2550
4041
5151
5186
7261
1765
FAIR
1498
768
704
680
1612
726
550
52
590
820
160
250
PROPOSED AMPS (comt. )
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
60
109
554
228
650
652
460
103
260
120
# & CLS
50 C
| 10 Y
990 C
35 H
49 C
1 10 Y
990 C
35 H
95 C
60 C
75 C
28 C
10 C
162 C
28 C
105 C
60 C
10 C
120 C
580 C
260 C
251 C
12 C
221 C
2 H
23 C
250 C
75 C
| 17 C
| 17 C
117 C
1 C
1 C
94 C
1000 S
213 C
213 C
106 C
45 C
OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
AUMS AUMS
O3/01–02/28 100 6O1 sº º
06/01-1 1/15 21 95 362
06/01-1 1/15 21 1145 4502
06/01-1 1/15 21 41 152
03/01–02/28 100 586 tº gº tº
1 1/16-05/31 47 252 288
1 1/16–05/31 47 3024 3411
1 1/16-05/51 47 107 121
O3/01–02/28 100 1159 --
TOTAL 6587 8656
05/01-10/01 75 221 82
05/01-10/31 66 297 153
05/01–02/28 100 538 tº-º-e
O3/01-02-28 100 120 tº e
06/15-1 1/20 46 385 452
TOTAL 505 452
05/01–02/28 100 536 O
O3/01–02/28 37 468 797
10/25–02/28 100 247 tºº.º.º.º.
O3/01–02/28 100 1 16 tº gº
06/15-10/24 92 478 42
03/15–06/14 15 170 96.5
06/15-10/24 52 580 535
TOTAL T59T T540
06/01-1 1/50 77 1160 345
06/15-08/30 77 25 7
TOTAL TT55 352.
05/01–02/28 22 584 2071
03/01–02/28 22 6 21
TOTAL 590. 2092
03/01-02/28 100 270 tº º
O7/15-10/24 89 684 85
06/01–09/50 100 300 tº e º 'º
TOTAL T254 85
O3/01-03/31 13 15 100
04/01-10-15 78 594 168
10/16–02/28 13 69 462
03/01–02/28 100 12 º
TOTAL 690 750
03/01–02/28 100 9
O4/15-10/31 92 565 49
05/01-1 1/15 92 1 198 104
TOTAL T72 T55
11011-05/30 50 746 746
06/01-09/50 65 533 315
O3/O1–02/28 |00 1271 tº e
TOTAL 7.550 1059.
04/15-12/14 88 319 44
AUMS
736
1898
4736
296
351
441
656
437
576
329
1447
1221
610
1287
705
1868
1553.
1271
319
ST
601
1865
4522
221
297
558
536
468
247
1544
1185
590
1254
690
1772
1279
1271
319
LT
736
1898
4736
296
351
44]
656
437
576
329
1447
1221
610
1287
705
1868
1352
1271
319
ALTN.
ST
592
1374
5214
2O3
24
141
489
536
468
247
1265
1176
550
1160
1752
1235
599
278
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
LT ST LT
727 O O
1407 O O
3428 O O
278 O O
78 O O
244 O O
620 O O
437 O O
576 O O
329 O O
1366 O O
1214 O O
570 O O
1 195 O O
699 O O
1828 O O
1508 O O
599 O O
278 O O
ALTN.
ST
6O1
1865
4522
221
297
338
505
336
247
1544
1 183
1254
690
1772
1279
127]
519
D
LT
601
1865
4522
221
297
338
505
356
247
1 183
590
1254
690
1772
1279
1271
3.19
A-18
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER
2815
28 16
2817
28.18
2819
2822
2827
2848
2851
291 1
2952
NUMBER ACRES
312 4716
315 7119
514
315 26.18
316 3523
317 3407
320 1421
576 3500
325 1811
344 22O1
347 2240
401 7756
422 1241
451 1356
447 1861
OTHER
AORES
4516
5551
3140
1467
4290
1241
4540
981
3515
32802
2479
E+G
2796
6459
1838
2685
2827
1051
2620
1151
2121
2240
6255
1241
FAIR
540
590
550
260
170
POOR UNKNOWN
sº 60
tº º 40
17O tº tº
tº tº 40
79 tº tº e
PROPOSED AMPS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
TP
1580
160
650
140
# & CLS
4 H
246 C
246 C
246 C
246 C
504 C
60 C
60 C
279 C
137 C
137 C
1 12 C
| 12 C
162 C
70 C
216 C
216 C
60 Y
9 C
18 C
7 C
29 C
200 S
15 C
89 C
89 C
11 C
120 C
95 C
5 C
46 C
15 C
26 C
O3/01–02/28
04/01–07/15
09/01-1 1/15
1 1/16–03/51
O7/16-08/51
TOTAL
1 1/01-03/51
12/01–03/51
04/01-1 1/50
04/01-10/51
TOTAL
10/16–04/15
04/15-10/15
TOTAL
1 1/01-05/14
05/15-10/51
TOTAL
04/15–09/14
05/01-10/11
O4/15-05/51
O8/01-1 1/50
O8/01-10/51
06/01-07/51
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O5/01-1 1/50
04/01–07/10
04/01-1 1/05
TOTAL
12/16–04/50
05/01-10/51
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O5/01-10/09
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01-10/15
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
03/01–02/28
37
37
:
17
56
:
|
100
71
100
CURRENT USE
OTHER
AUMS AUMS
17 29
316 53B
225 383
401 8150
133 2.56
Tog2 T599.
104 1381
17 225
79 586
1102 866
1302 2355
179 655
463 364
642 999
291 437
482 156
775 829
812 º-º-º:
577 “E-º
156 168
416 448
65 70
9 9
104 112
750 807
86 *{-º
| 1 | 9|
151 tº ºº e
120 tº tº
243 9T
144 256
348. 187
492 445
154 tº ºº e
452 185
586 135
1 115 º
57 tº e º º
256 18
295 T3
177 tº ºº º
512 tºº
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
1520
260
1 102
642
861
871
41 I
874
492
586
ST
1092
200
| 102
642
775
812
577
750
492
586
LT
1520
260
1 102
642
861
871
41 1
874
492
586
PUBLIC
ALTN. B ALTN. C
ST LT ST LT
1065 1295 O O
200 260 O O
869 869 O O
619 619 O O
255 343 0 0
812 871 O O
360 595 O O
669 795 O O
408 462 0 0
475 475 O O
574 574 O O
908 1054 O O
238 258 0 0
| 17 129 O O
292 552 O O
ALTN.
ST
D
LT
1092 1092
1 102
642
775
812
377
750
492
200
1 102
642
775
812
377
750
448
492
586
1 115 11 15
295
295
2941
2957
6574
7020
1224
1419
100
100
1261
295
189
352
1 115
295
177
512
1261
295
189
352
177
312
177
312
A-19
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2958
2994
2995
6574
6376
448
484
485
489
494
495
496
500
515
522
544
546
548
549
847
849
1616
459]
2004
1945
4204
801
750
2670
685
1508
1025
6829
1280
6255
3571
OTHER
AORES
600
10040
2004
4000
21740
2290
1800
2080
1680
20922
7560
5410
| 181
E+G
1454
459)
1701
1597
41 17
801
2670
1255
1025
6829
3894
1268
5295
3571
FAIR
142
POOR UNKNOWN
PROPOSED AMPS (comt.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
TP
:
O3/01-02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/O1–02/28
O3/01–02/28
03/01-02/28
05/02–02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
04/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
05/01–02/28
04/16-06/15
O7/16-01/15
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
AUMS
424
1225
320
341
1202
165
188
752
2O2
272
1726
792
248
74
1056
75
75
143
427
OTHER
AUMS
POTENTIAL
441
1225
375
1210
165
195
752
209
272
1726
79.2
249
| 124
602
ALTN. A
ST LT
424 441
1225 1225
520 348
341 375
1202 1210
165 165
188 1.95
752 752
184 184
2O2 209
272 272
1726 1726
792 792
248 249
1056 1124
602 602
PUBLIC
ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
ST LT ST LT ST LT
357 354 O O 424 424
1201 12O1 O O 1225 1225
282 510 O O 52O 320
282 514 O O 541 34 1
1156 1164 0 0 1202 1202
O O 0 0 165 165
168 17.3 0 0 188 188
659 659 O O 752 752
145 143 O O 184 184
156 165 0 O 202 202
204 204 O O 272 272
555 553 0 0 1726 1726
589 589 0 0 792 792
215 214 O O 248 248
451 525 O O 1056 1056
342 542 0 0 602 602
A-20
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT
NUMBER NUMBER
2000 l
2001 2
2002 480
2004 5
2005 6
2006 7
2007 8
2008 10
2010 12
2011 13
455
2013 16
2019 22
2021 28
29
2027 37
2028 38
2O54 44
2O55 45
2O36 46
2O39 50
2040 51
2041 52
2042 55
20425 54
2044 55
2045 56
2047 58
2048 59
2051 62
2055 64
2059 71
2061 75
2062 76
2O65 77
2O65 78
2066 79
2070, 85
2O72 86
2O75 87
2O75 89
2O77 91
PUBLIC
ACRES
4406
40
80
185
76
40
160
55
487
1320
1320
160
662
120
1905
265
715
40
120
2624
1202
80
140
12055
640
1127
547
1751
605
135
40
962
2152
320
E+G
4406
40
80
105
85
197
1520
1520
140
1 1675
640
487
547
1751
160
447
135
2152
320
275
~~
TP # & CLS
tºº
º º
º
tºº- 10
tº e
cº
3
105
.
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
O3/01–02/28
O5/01–02/28
O3/Ol–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O5/01–09/50
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
05/01-10/15
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01-1 1/50
04/01-10/50
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/18
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-12/31
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/16-09/15
TOTAL
05/01-09/50
05/01-12/28
O3/01–09/50
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
03/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/15–10/15
05/15–10/15
TOTAL
O3/01-12/24
100
100
100
100
100
100
743
12
24
20
24
8
36
34
101
344
5
267
616
39
165
18
24
301
21
55
124
478
285
18
128
74
1200
750
240
2170
121
170
710
1 10
95
148
OTHER
ACRES
8216
1600
2760
3082
616
880
800
486
1280
17491
5120
4.160
1 1158
525
1 160
7646
7776
5120
4175
3730
1311
2280
4540
1005
2520
16057
27676
8373
C
45
114
12
257
536
70
406
32
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
743
12
24
27
50
8
45
38
129
349
267
59
24
165
18
24
305
21
55
124
12
478
335
135
74
2170
121
210
32
ST
743
12
24
20
24
8
36
54
101
349
267
:
l
18
24
3Ol
21
55
124
12
478
285
128
74
2170
121
210
1 10
95
45
114
12
257
52
LT
743
12
24
27
30
8
45
38
129
349
267
59
24
165
18
24
305
21
55
124
12
478
335
133
74
2170
121
210
32
ALTN.
ST
743
12
24
19
22
8
27
34
95
112
267
1 10
74
820
2.
14
95
65
105
12
352
B
LT
274
115
74
820
2.
95
65
40
119
13
352
ALTN. C
ST LT
0 0
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0
O 0
O O
0 0
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
O O
0 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0
ALTN.
ST
743
12
24
20
24
8
36
34
101
349
267
:
24
301
21
55
124
478
285
18
128
74
2170
121
210
1 10
95
45
114
12
12
406
52
D
LT
743
12
24
20
24
8
56
54
101
349
267
39
165
18
24
301
21
55
124
12
478
285
128
74
2170
121
210
1 10
148
45
114
12
12
257
406
32
A-21
APPENDICES
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE PUBLIC
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC OTHER EH-G FAIR POOR UNKNOWN TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A. ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES ACRES AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
2080 94 2097 14637 2097 gº º sº tº gº º * * * > 32 C 03/01–02/28 100 384 tº º 384 384 584 367 367 O O 584 384
2085 99 60 580 60 sº º ºsº tº-ºº: tº º 1 C 05/01–02/28 100 12 sº mº 12 12 12 12 12 O O 12 12
2086 105 40 720 40 tº tº gº º tº º gº º 1 c 03/01-11/30 100 9 º º 9 9 9 9 9 O O 9 9
2087 104 1240 16475 1240 tºº ſº º tº-ºº º º 15 C 03/01-02/28 100 18O º e 180 180 180 180 180 O O 180 180
2088 105 2240 19469 2240 gº tº sº º sº sº tº sº 18 C 03/01–02/28 100 216 gº gº 216 216 216 216 216 O O 216 216
2089 106 184 5237 184 tº eº tºº tº º º 5 C 03/01–02/28 100 64 gº 64 64 64 64 64 O O 64 64
2090 107 320 9627 520 eºs º ºsº tº sº * º 2 C 03/01–02/28 100 25 tº gº 25 25 25 25 25 O O 25 25
2096 1 14 160 1400 160 tº gº tº sº tº º tº º 2 C 05/01–02/28 100 24 gº tºe 24 24 24 24 24 O O 24 24
2097 115 40 15720 40 * > --> -->{º e dº sº * - ſº º 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 1 | tº gº 11 | 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
2105 124 920 2851 920 tºº e º 'º dºº-e º 20 C 05/01-02/28 100 241 24l 241 241 241 241 O O 241 24 1
2109 130 80 1480 80 tº gº º sº sº tº sº 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 14 14 14 14 14 14 0 0 14 14
21 13 134 5840 12431 3180 660 -- tºº tºº º 350 Y 05/01-10/14 21 404 1521 738 679 738 679 738 O O 679 679
200 Y 05/15-09/30 21 189 486
60 Y 10/01-1 1/50 21 25 65
30 Y 10/01-1 1/30 100 61
TOTAL 679 2072.
21 14 135 640 254 15 640 tº EE sº gº º gº tº 9 C 03/01-02/28 100 108 º- 108 108 108 108 108 O O 108 108
21 15 136 1301 28601 1301 sº gº sº e º Es * = º tºº e 105 S 05/01–02/28 100 255 tº º 255 255 255 199 199 O O 255 255
21 17 140 1429 24436 1369 60 –– sº tº * > --> 120 S 03/01–02/28 100 288 tºº. 296 288 296 206 214 O 0 288 291
21 19 145 185 3109 185 g-ºº-e sºº tºº tº eº tº 5 C 05/01–02/28 100 64 * - sº 64 64 64 64 64 O 0 64 64
2120 144 355 4744 355 tº gº tºº •º º tº º 7 C 03/01-02/28 100 84 tº gº tº 84 84 84 84 84 O O 84 84
21.21 145 600 2860 500 100 -- tº-ecº tºº 1 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 132 tºº º 141 132 1.41 125 152 O O 132 132
2122 146 199 1800 199 gº ºne º ºs gº º tº º º 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 38 tº sº. 38 38 38 38 38 0 O 38 38
2125 147 120 10520 120 tº gº tºº tº tº ºº tº sº º 5 C 03/01-12/31 100 33 sºº 33 33 33 33 33 O O 33 35
2126 150 1452 4 160 762 670 –- gº tº tº wº 20 C 05/01-02/28 100 236 tº º 271 236 271 220 255 0 O 256 236
2127 151 916 7640 916 usº º sº tº sº-sº tº tº 12 C 03/01-02/28 100 140 **E* 140 140 140 1 14 1 14 O O 140 140
2128 152 160 4757 150 10 —- gº º gº tº 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 33 tºº 33 33 33 33 33 0 0 33 33
2132 157 352 4560 552 sººs º-e sº tºº º-> 7 C 05/01–02/28 100 81 gºº 81 81 81 72 72 O O 81 81
21.56 160 40 480 40 tº tº sºº º tº tº 2 C 05/01–09/30 100 1 | gº tº 11 | | | | | | 1 | 0 0 1 1 11
21.37 161 245 1084 85 160 —- tº º tºº 4 C 05/01-1 1/50 100 52 tºº 46 52 46 28 42 O O 32 352
2138 162 160 320 160 tº º ºs º º gºº 3 C 03/01-08/31 100 19 gº tº 19 19 19 16 16 O O 19 19
2140 164 5685 19200 5685 tºº º sº {- E → tºº e 109 C 05/01–02/28 100 1311 gºeg tº 1311 1311 1311 1219 1219 O O 1311 131 l
2141 165 400 1260 400 gº º sºº tº º tº º 9 C 03/01–02/28 100 | 1 || gº tº 1 11 111 || 1 92 92 O O 111 || 1 |
2142 166 245 3520 205 •ºº gº º tº eſº 40 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 84 gº º 89 84 89 84 89 O 0 84 84
2143 167 320 13550 320 tº º ºsº tº dº * - tº 3 C 03/01-02/28 100 41 gº tº 51 51 51 51 51 O O 51 51
2145 - 172 1811 40000 2824 20 -- gº º ſº e wº- 35 C 05/01-02/28 100 4.14 gºº 414 414 414 306 506 O O 414 414
175 1033 tº dº tº gº |N 2145 172 ºº: 21 C 03/01-02/28 100 255 {-ºº- 255 255 255 253 255 0 O 253 253
TOTAL 667 –
2147 175 40 1995 40 gº tº sº º eº º tº º 1 C O3/01–02/28 100 1 | e-eº. 11 | 1 || 1 || 1 | O 0 1 1 11
2148 176 497 6240 497 sºº tº sº * pº tºº 9 C 05/02-02/28 100 104 tºº e 104 104 104 97 97 0 0 104 104
2149 177 40 4920 40 tº º tºº gº º gºtº 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 11 • * *- 11 | 1 || 1 O O 0 0 1 1 ||
2151 182 276 6400 276 sº sº º tºº tºº--> 4 C 03/01–02/28 100 48 tº ºº 48 48 48 48 48 0 0 48 48
2155 185 79 884.75 79 tº Eº º º tº E tº tº 2 C 03/01-02/28 100 27 gºº 27 27 27 27 27 O O 27 27
2156 186 1759 12552 1459 300 –– cº-ºº- tº º 27 C 05/01-02/28 100 328 tº tº 355 328 355 528 355 0 0 328 328
2158 189 80 7950 80 tºº sºº gº tº tºº 2 C 03/01–02/28 100 23 tº º 25 23 23 21 21 0 0 23 23
21.59 190 440 1984 260 180 -- & eº *Eº 8 C 05/01-10/3] 100 64 gº º 80 64 80 46 62 0 0 64 64
2160 191 285 1920 257 46 -- ºs- - tº º 6 C 04/01-1 1/30 100 46 * = tº 55 46 55 29 58 0 O 46 46
216] 192 360 2240 360 gººs º ºs * -º tº et Le 6 C 05/01-01/5] 100 66 tº. ºº 66 66 66 64 64 O O 66 66
2162 195 360 2160 360 * º ºsº tº sº gº tº 5 C 03/01-02/28 100 60 * = &º 60 60 60 51 51 O O 60 60
216.5 194 40 1880 40 tº eqLº tº Eº tºº º tº º º 1 C 05/01–09/30 100 7 tº º 7 7 7 7 7 O O 7 7
2164 195 960 416O 960 ę º sº tº gº tº eº tº 14 C 03/01-02/28 100 169 4- e ∈ 169 169 169 158 158 0 0 169 169
2167 199 556.2 25389 5282 80 -- tº .º.º. º- 295 S O3/01–02/28 100 710 tºº- 715 710 715 710 715 O O 710 710
A-22
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT
NUMBER NUMBER
2168 200
2169 201
2170 202
2171 205
2172 204
2173 205
2174 206
2176 209
2177 210
2179 212
2180 215
2181 214
2182 215
2185 216
2184 217
218
2.185 219
2187 222
2.188 225
2189 224
2190 225
2191 226
2.192 227
21.95 228
2194 229
2195 250
21.96 251
2197 232
2200 237
22O1 238
2202 2.59
220.5 470
2204 107
241
2206 . 245
2208 245
2209 246
2210 247
2218 257
2221 260
2222 261
PUBLIC
ACRES
367
2675
800
1065
4150
1 178
320
6672
528
79
4694
1 164
514
560
1227
1592
320
120
971
490
915
160
1489
520
2869
3251
480
240
480
1760
OTHER
ACRES
10905
7775
4520
6577
18085
1605
880
364
155
14586
24.596
477
13520
27824
8966
1268
3686
1 1592
29789
529
7095
880
3600
144 17
4151
8690
1640
1666
6151
15441
6566
127040
7160
1760
455
3590
2875
2860
12841
E+G
327
2675
800
425
4150
| 138
160
320
30
6552
378
79
314
42.54
1478
520
1227
1592
40
320
200
951
875
160
569
300
2569
2651
480
240
160
1760
FAIR
POOR UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE
TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
AUMS AUMS
tº º 6 C 03/01–02/28 100 72 gºeº
10 S 05/01–04/50 100 2 sº tº
TOTAL 74 –
tº e º 'º 71 C 05/01-1 1/50 100 495 tºº
gº º 17 C 03/01-02/28 100 200 tº sº.
tºº 15 C 03/01–02/28 100 187 *Eº
sºme tº 48 C 03/01-03/51 100 45 tº tº
38 C 09/04–02/28 100 227 tºº
350 C 04/01-05/25 27 168 96
350 C 05/24–07/05 57 264 2O3
550 C 07/04–09/05 11 76 624
TOTAL 780 g25
tº º 23 C 03/01-02/28 100 273 tº º
“Esº 3 C 05/01–02/28 100 31 tºº
tº sº 30 C 04/01-10/51 45 91 121
tºº- 3 C O7/01-07/51 100 3 tºº-e
* - 94 C 03/01–02/28 100 1133 tº sº
tºº- 10 C 03/01–02/28 100 1 18 *Eº
gº sº 2 C 03/01-09/50 100 14 *E* sº
tºº 47 C 06/01-08/51 100 14] &=º-e
100 590 S 03/01-02/28 100 1420 tº º
tº- 21 C 03/01–02/28 100 252 º
112 C 08/01-10/51 18 61. 278.
TOTAL 313 278
sº tºº 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 36 tº sº
º-º 15 C 03/01–02/28 100 18O tºº
tº sº 28 C 03/01–02/28 100 334 gº tº
tºº 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 9 tº º
tº tº 7 C 03/01-02/28 100 89 sº º
º 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 38 º
tº º 2 C 03/01–02/28 100 29 tº gº
tºº 115 S 03/01–02/28 100 276 **
tº sº 4 C 03/01–02/28 100 52 tº º
tº º 16 C 03/01–02/28 100 197 tºº
tº º 2 C 03/01–02/28 100 18 sº tº
tº º e 1 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 132 º
tº ſº 20 S O3/01–02/28 100 46 tº se
sº 18 C 03/01–02/28 100 215 q_º
eº ºr e 55 S 03/01–02/28 100 156 tº-ºº-e
sº 15 C 03/01-08/51 100 91 *º
*Eº-e 10 S 03/01–02/28 100 25 tº º
160 S 03/01–02/28 100 379 dºº-
TOTAL 404 —
480 75 C 03/01–02/28 100 895 tºº
tº º 2 C 03/01-02/28 100 22 tº-º º
tºº 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 12 *Eºº
tº º 9 C 03/01-02/28 100 104 tº sº
º 55 S 05/01-1 1/07 100 69 tºº-
tºº 8 C 03/01-02/28 100 96 tº sº
º 21 C 05/01–02/28 100 252 tº ºº
POTENTIAL
AUMS
74
495
200
187
780
273
31
91
1 144
154
14
141
1452
252
61
40
334
89
33
313
197
136
279
91
962
22
12
104
69
252
ALTN. A
ST LT
74 74
495 495
200 200
187 187
780 780
273 273
31 31
91 91
3 3
1135 | 1.44
118 154
14 14
141 141
142O 1452
252 252
61 61
36 40
180 18O
534 334
9 9
89 89
38 38
29 33
276 315
52 54
197 197
18 18
132 1.36
46 46
215 279
136 136
91 91
404 406
895 962
22 22
12 12
104 104
69 69
96 96
252 252
PUBLIC
ALTN. B
ST LT
74
495
187
780
82
71
965
107
1Ol
1376
227
61
31
180
554
89
25
276
45
175
121
178
91
581
895
22
47
69
252
74
495
200
187
780
27
71
974
145
14
101
1408
227
61
35
180
3.54
89
27
513
47
175
16
125
242
91
383
22
47
69
252
ALTN. C
ST
O
:
:
LT
O
:
i
ALTN. D
ST
74
495
200
187
78O
273
31
91
1133
1 18
14
141
1420
252
6]
18O
334
89
29
276
52
197
18
132
215
156
91
404
895
22
12
104
69
252
LT
74
495
200
187
780
275
31
91
1133
1 18
14 1
1420
252
61
18O
554
89
29
276
197
132
215
91
404
895
104
69
96
252
A-23
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2226 265 1785
2228 267 1440
22.50 270 400
2251 27] 160
2255 273 957
22.54 274 2240
2235 275 40
2257 278 1085
2240 281 640
2241 282 2837
2248 288 160
2249 289 1988
2251 292 1958
2252 295 2915
2258 299 160
2259 300 2864
2262 304 360
2268 508 160
2269 509 660
2271 311 40
2272 312 715
2275 315 120
2276 516 200
2277 317 80
2287 524 40
2288 325 520
2289 526 26
2290 327 800
2291 528 1941
2295 550 480
2294 331 40
2295 352 108
2296 535 4765
2297 3.54 400
2298 355 40
2299 556 80
OTHER
ACRES
8060
21409
15672
10400
10236
3.1475
2O71
4.167
59065
5950
7500
17216
6779
5149
20560
9044
5606
36.21
15250
7880
2197
6550
4467
2566
5452
12084
4040
1572
2560.5
1052
729
E+G
1705
1 590
370
747
2240
40
1085
3247
140
1798
1908
625
160
FAIR
80
POOR UNKNOWN
2240 28]
-- 2290
tº º 40
gºº- 40
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont. )
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
# & CLS
20 C
45 S
109 S
9 C
7 C
30 S
30 S
17 C
21 C
1 C
105 S
2 C
14 C
65 C
25 S
45 C
| 190 S
5 H
24 C
49 C
4 C
37 C
14 C
4 C
10 C
1 C
20 C
3 C
4 C
2 C
5 S
15 C
1 C
2 C
29 C
436 C
10 C
1 C
2 C
40 C
10 C
1 C
2 C
SEASON
O3/01-02/28
05/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
03/01-12/31
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–04/30
09/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-12/3 l
05/01–02/28
O3/01-12/31
O5/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
03/01–02/28
05/01-02/28
TOTAL
05/01-10/51
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
03/01–02/28
TOTAL
03/01-02/28
03/01-12/31
O3/01-12/31
04/01-1 1/50
06/01-08/31
03/01-12/8]
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-12/31
04/01-1 1/30
O3/01-02/28.
03/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01-10/3]
03/01-02/28
03/01-02/28
09/01-02/28
TOTAL
05/01-1 1/50
O3/01–02/28
04/01-1 1/50
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
04/01-1 1/50
O3/01–02/28
CURRENT USE
% PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT
100 240 tº tº 355 546 555
100 106 tºº tº
346 –
100 260 tºº- 355 350 355
100 90 tº e
350 ==
100 84 tº e º 86 84 86
100 12 tº sº º 47 47 47
100 35. –
47 sº º
100 170 tº º 188 17O 188
100 259 º º º 506 259 506
100 10 tº e º º 10 10 10
100 247 * * * 271 271 271
100 24 º
77T ==
100 169 ººm- 169 169 169
100 778 e-º-e 778 778 778
947 –
100 39 gº tº 41 39 41
14 72 442 495 480 495
14 400 2457
14 8 49
480 .2943.
100 288 gº tº gº 290 288 290
100 489 sº- 489 489 489
100 40 º 40 40 40
100 297 tº 307 297 307
100 42 gº tº 42 42 42
100 40 tº e 40 40 40
100 121 t- > - 121 121 121
100 10 gº tº º 10 10 10
100 160 tº º º 160 160 160
100 33 wº- 35 35 33
100 48 tº E- 48 48 48
100 18 sº 18 18 18
100 12 tº-e ‘º 12 12 12
100 91 tºº- 95 91 95
100 12 tº tº 12 12 12
100 21 tºº 192 192 192
100 171 tº º e
T92 −
7 244 5242 262 244 262
100 1 14 tº ºº e 1 14 114 1 14
1OO 8 tº ºf e 12 8 12
100 24 º 24 24 24
100 486 gº tº 486 486 486
100 115 gºe 115 115 115
100 8 tº cº-e 8 8 8
1OO 23 sº-º-º-e 25 23 25
ALTN. C
LT
PUBLIC
ALTN. B
ST LT ST
305 310 O
1 6 O
23 25 O
41 41 O
O O O
224 271 O
10 10 O
262 262 O
164 164 O
O O O
O O O
475 490 O
288 290 O
489 489 O
40 40 O
297 307 O
4 4 O
40 40 O
119 119 O
10 10 O
131 131 O
35 33 O
48 48 O
18 18 O
9 9 O
89 95 O
12 12 O
21 21 O
244 262 O
| 1 || 1 || O
5 9 O
18 18 O
282 282 O
115 115 O
6 6 O
19 19 O
O
:O
O
47
170
259
10
27]
169
778
480
489
40
297
42
40
121
160
35
18
12
91
12
192
244
| 14
24
486
115
25
350
47
170
259
271
169
778
39
489
297
42
40
121
10
160
35
18
12
91
12
192
244
114
24
486
115
25
A-24
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2500
2501
2305
2507
2508
2309
2310
2315
2514
2315
2517
2320
2521
2322
2525
2524
2.526
2327
2528
2329
2550
2540
2541
2546
2548
2549
2550
2352
2355
2357
2358
2361
2.565.
2564
23.65
2366
2367
337
338
359
340
342
345
125
347
349
354
555
356
358
361
365
365
367
3.68
369
370
371
387
481
395
395
397
479
407
410
41 1
412
415
414
4.15
640
440
640
308
6244
5224
535
320
120
2760
1040
520
235|
160
320
320
40
440
4955
1226
1520
436
240
1124
320
1470
658
519
652
160
554
:
OTHER
AORES
4244
3680
5426
2851
5445]
37200
14.399
|980
24885
|O20
905
1885
51304
1401
16180
29.17
| 908
9777
47480
16675
224
4295
1840
10268
4988
3100
5135
7880
661 1
101.26
3718
315
8175
6587
E+G
105
1760
1040
235]
160
:
4845
861
740
436
240
1054
520
970
658
469
652
110
:
l
FAIR
POOR UNKNOWN
$E tº e 680
{E_º tº 780
wº 70
40 tº º
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS (comt.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
14
8|
6|
.
# & CLS
:
:
i
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02-28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
04/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01–09/50
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O5/01–02/28
05/01-10/51
O3/01–02/28
100
100
|OO
100
100
100
100
100
100
71
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
AUMS
60
90
171
63
324
975
737
1712
520
218
24
552
524
213
AUMS
POTENTIAL
AUMS
75
171
1880
520
244
18
577
252
78
22
:
132
892
272
528
*
524
45
129
168
185
151
15
213
ALTN. A
ST LT
60 75
90 90
171 171
65 65
1712
975 1880
520 520
48 84
218 244
54 54
24 24
15 18
552 577
252 252
67 78
22 22
286 286
47 47
59 59
60 60
12 14
132 152
884 892
260 260
258 272
19 28
328 328
84 84
48 48
324 324
45 45
227 262
129 129
104 108
168 168
185 185
24 28
108 151
9 9
36 36
11 15
213 215
ALTN.
ST
60
90
171
65
65|
517
41
218
44
13
165
252
67
22
218
i
215
17
2O7
76
42
524
45
189
i
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
LT ST
75
90
171
65
8|9
517
77
244
44
18
190
252
78
218
:
892
215
2O7
76
42
524
45
224
104
168
185
:
:O
LT
:
:O
ALTN.
ST
60
90
171
65
1712
975
520
218
24
13
552
252
i
132
213
D
LT
60
90
171
65
1712
975
520
218
24
552
252
67
22
286
47
59
12
132
260
258
528
*
324
43
227
129
168
185
24
108
56
11
215
A-25
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT
NUMBER NUMBER
2368 4|| 6
2369 117
2370 418
2572 420
2376 424
2585 429
2385 142
2386 475
2587 476
2588 477
2589 478
2500 l
2501 2
2669% 167
2502 3
2503 4
2504 5
2505 6
171
2506 7
2507 8
2508 9
2509 10
2510 | |
251 1 12
2512 13
2513 14
2515 16
2516 17
2677 175
2517 18
2518 19
PUBLIC
AORES
840
480
200
440
|589
| 281
7582
240
40
138
320
40
960
320
160
E+G
750
480
100
440
| 589
96]
6555
240
40
138
320
40
960
320
160
40
:
315
3035
1548
422
FAIR
| | 0
160
240
351
POOR UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
TP
45
198
218
18
8
5
7
44
14
146
5
1
3
7
l
10
95
54
14
310
40
15
49
354
18
37
160
18
i
:
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
O3/01-02-28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
06/0|-| |/50
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
04/01–02/28
O4/15–09/15
04/15-1 1/15
06/20–08/20
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/15–11/01
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
100
100
100
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
225
96
66
88
586
175
1800
57
9
34
86
10
157
97
38
28
50
109
65
113
215
1540
645
16
67
| 12
1077
165
451
221
359
ST
216
96
57
88
534
175
1748
57
:
60
97
24
50
105
168
1309
ALTN.
LT ST
225 210
96 96.
66 48
88 85
586 531
175 11
1800 1428
57 57
9 8
34 28
86 82
10 10
|57 60
97 97
38 38
28 24
50 O
109 105
65 52
113 53
215 49
1540 1117
645 558
16 12
67 60
122 57
1077 1041
165 164
451 385
221 216
359 13
192 160
PUBLIC
ALTN. C
ST
B
LT
210
96
57
85
583
11
1480
57
8
28
82
10
157
97
:
71
1548
O:
O
LT
:
.
O
ST
216
96
57
88
534
175
1748
57
:
97
24
105
52
168
ALTN. D
LT
216
96
57
88
554
173
1748
57
34
10
97
24
50
105
52
168
1309 1309
587
12
587
60
1050 1050
165
442
216
334
165
442
216
200
320
520
786
4990
2480
40
200
240
3300
620
1565
720
2516
OTHER
ACRES
6722
19000
1720
3356
1907
13271
22499
1440
812
1960
2400
2520
3200
3249
2944
| O357
9120
9189
16359
1920
2726
7557
1600
71.91
4347
8002
2400
CURRENT USE
OTHER
AUMS AUMS
216 tº-e
96 sº º
57 tº Eºº
88 tº º º
534 gº º
173 sº
1748 tº º
57 tºº
9 sº tº
34 e º
86 wºº tº
10 eº tº
60 * - a tº
92 1048
5 8
157 8.
38 * > *- :
24 tº º
50 tº ººº-
105 1041
2 20
51 515
l 11
T57 1535
95 $ºº
168 tº gº º
989 2421
250 612
61 149
—” 21
1309 3205
587 º º
12 tºº
60 gºº
60 tºº
1050 894
165 **
442 tº gº
212 1708
4 52
655 Tao
334 tºº e
164 tºº
334
164
A-26
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT
NUMBER NUMBER
2519 20
2520 21
2521 22
2522 25
2523 24
2524 25
2525 26
2526 27
2527 28
27.11% 209
2528 29
2529 30
2550 31
2551 32
2552 35
2554 35
2555 36
2536 37
2679* 177
2557 38
2558 39
2540 41
2541 42
2542 45
2545 44
2544 45
2545 46
2546 47
2548 49
2552 55
26894 187
2555 54
2688% 186
PUBLIC
ACRES
440
320
800
720
80
160
40
|440
650
160
1280
960
280
1600
576
720
320
797
640
40
1440
1920
320
405
640
640
320
OTHER
ACRES
8440
3400
4504
1200
| ||20
2656
1280
4000
1920
1010
1487
4120
5440
3387
224.5
1267
955
4750
1520
3360
2401
6555
1766
4784
5522
6720
E+G
654
576
410
1920
FAIR
64
45
257
269
301
POOR UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
TP
:
718
HC
i
i
:
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
03/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O5/05-09/04
11/01-1 1/15
TOTAL
05/15-08/14
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
09/01-12/31
O3/01–02/28
06/01–09/50
04/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
06/01-10/15
O3/02-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/02-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01-02/28
05/01–02/28
03/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
:
100
100
100
:
100
100
100
100
CURRENT USE
OTHER
AUMS AUMS
12O -->
100 -º-,
185 --
185 -->
20 -->
38 tºº-º-e
5 - mºs
96 -
322 130
29 12
447 T42
168 --
45 --
2T T
351 621
10 14
36 635
1 14 114
114 --
87 -->
186 134
284 204
470 B33
522 -->
171 729
176 1000
4 20
466 2642
4 20
650 3792
75 º-ºº-
162 -->
16 -->
164 - tº
12 -º-
376 -->
22 -->
492 tº º
96 -->
87 - -
125 560
214 974
357 T53ſ
65 637
l O
225 2248
2 11
289 2905
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
154
139
267
249
20
38
5
559
221
45
401
| 14
114
528
375
171
498
75
162
21
178
16
416
22
ST
120
100
185
185
20
38
5
447
168
43
361
1 14
114
87
470
322
171
470
LT
154
139
267
249
20
38
5
557
221
43
401
1 14
114
528
375
171
190
498
162
21
178
16
416
22
134
89
128
224
125
214
89
128
224
ALTN.
ST
120
100
O
182
20
38
5
447
168
43
361
1 14
114
87
454
309
171
470
149
16
164
12
212
93
78
214
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
ST
LT
154
139
O
246
20
38
5
559
221
45
401
1 14
1 14
106
512
171
498
149
21
178
124
22
224
131
128
224
225
:
.
LT
:
º
ST
120
100
185
185
20
38
5
447
168
45
361
1 14
114
87
470
322
171
470
492
87
214
ALTN. D
LT
120
100
185
185
:
447
168
45
361
1 14
114
87
470
522
171
18O
470
75
162
16
164
12
376
22
492
87
123
214
A-27
APPENDICES
e YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (comt.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE PUBLIC
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC OTHER EHG FAIR POOR UNKNOWN TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A. ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES ACRES AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
2554 55 520 3640 320 gº º ºsº tº º gº º 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 84 tº sº 84 84 84 84 84 O 0 84 84
2556 57 520 3520 275 45 -- tº ºr * > * 3 C 05/01–02/28 100 41 sº- 42 41 42 56 37 O O 41 4 1
2557 58 360 16856 90 tº ºtºe sº tº -- 270 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 88 tºº- 122 88 122 86 120 O O 88 88
2796 292 2241 2882 2171 70 -- º_ºº º º- 38 C 05/01-02/28 1OO 455 cº-eº. 459 455 459 431 435 0 O 455 455
TOTAL -E T
2559 60 222 2640 — 222 -- cº-º tº-ºn- 6 C 05/01-02/28 100 56 tº gº 76 56 76 56 76 O O 56 56
2560 61 488 6856 142 26 –– 320 tºº o 78 C 03/01–02/28 13 122 816 129 128 129 128 129 O O 128 128
3 H 05/01–02/28 13 6 40
2690 188 142 142 tºº º ºr ºf e * >“E → tº gº 21 C 03/01–02/28 13 35 219 54 34 34 34 34 0 O 34 34
1 H 05/01-02/28 13 l 11
TOTAL T62 loss
2561 62 640 52O 640 tº ºº tº sº e gº º 14 C 05/01-02/28 100 174 gºes- 174 174 174 174 174 O O 174 174
2562 65 440 5035 357 sº tº gºº tº º e 85 8 C 05/01–02/28 100 174 tºº e 174 174 174 174 174 O O 174 174
2692 190 640 6100 640 ºº: ºº tº- tº º 40 C 05/01-08/15 100 142 gº º 142 1.42 142 55 35 0 0 142 142
TOTAL 36 T
2565 64 2257 2880 2045 tºº e º sº º 192 25 C 03/01-02/28 100 273 tº º 675 651 675 651 675 O O 651 651
60 Y 05/01–09/15 100 174
40 C 06/15-08/15 100 82
130 C 10/20–12/17 10 122 129
TOTAL 65T T29
2564 65 200 2160 100 tºº e º º ºtº-e 100 5 C 03/01–02/28 1OO 60 cº-º 75 60 75 60 73 O O 60 60
2565 66 581 2772 347 -- 164 º ºgº º 70 12 C 05/01-02/28 100 120 tº º 189 120 189 36 105 O O 120 120
2566 67 2770 3640 2451 519 -- º º * º º 339 C 06/15-09/15 54 346 672 375 346 575 344 373 O O 346 346
2567 68 400 2400 214 *º-e sº º tºº- 186 9 C 05/01–02/28 100 106 $º º 130 106 130 95 | 19 O O 106 106
2570 71 800 10800 725 gº tº º º tº ºtº_º 77 16 C 03/01-02/28 1OO 194 cº º 2O5 194 205 194 2015 O O 194 194
2571 72 1097 2520 713 -- -- -- 384 20 C 03/01–02/28 100 245 e-º º 291 245 291 135 185 O O 245 243
2572 75 3.18 3445 -- 518 -- tºº tº ºn tº 8 C O3/01–02/28 100 96 tºº 124 96 124 95 125 O O 96 96
2575 74 1920 1120 1504 416 — tºº lº e-egº 35 C 05/15-09/14 30 42 98 47 42 47 42 47 O O 42 42
2574 74 tºº- |N #2575 74 60 C 05/15-09/14 30 72 168 82 72 82 70 80 O O 72 72
2575 75 1557 761 | 950 224 –- 320 85 34 C 05/01–02/28 100 408 gº tºº 428 408 428 301 321 0 0 408 408
2577 77 760 4742 760 wº-ºººº tºº º-ºº-e cº-º- is 12 C 05/01-02/28 100 145 º 145 145 145 145 145 0 0 145 145
2715* 213 160 160 * > *- : * * * > tº sº- e- sº 4 C 03/01–02/28 100 42 tº egº 42 42 42 59 59 O O 42 42
TOTAL Tā- —
2578 78 640 6960 640 tº º sº - e º º- ºq 14 C 05/01–02/28 100 164 tº ſº 164 164 164 164 164 O O 164 164
2579 79 320 943 sºº- 40 -- -- 280 21 C 05/01-09/15 1OO 95 º- 106 95 106 95 106 O O 95 95
2580 80 160 3069 77 gº º ºs- •º º 85 5 C 03/01–02/18 100 55 tº º º 94 55 94 55 94 O O 55 55
2581 81 1955 3266 1813 39 — 85 tº ºn e 127 C 06/01-1 1/Ol 39 265 4 14 268 265 268 246 249 0 0 265 265
2582 82 14 || 2960 744 667 -- gºº tº º 26 C 03/01–02/28 100 319 &= ′º 381 319 381 273 355 O O 319 319
2585 85 145 3968 tº º 145 -- $ºº * * > 3 C 05/01–02/28 100 37 º- 66 57 66 57 66 0 O 57 37
2584 84 3520 960 -- 250 — tºº- 90 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 85 tº-ºº º 115 85 115 85 115 0 0 85 85
2585 85 640 1920 497 145 -- tº º * > * > 9 C 05/01-02/28 100 | 10 tº ºf 125 110 125 109 122 0 0 1 10 110
2586 86 440 2592 357 85 — tºº- ºf e 6 C 03/01–02/28 100 76 * tº º 84 76 84 71 79 0 O 76 76
2587 87 360 1160 264 96 -- e-ºn- tº º- 7 C 05/01-02/28 100 80 ºpe- 89 80 89 75 82 0 O 80 80
2588 88 1000 25200 680 gº º sº º 320 gº-ºº: 20 C 03/01-02/28 100 238 & eº º 258 238 258 210 210 0 O 238 258
2589 89 320 1600 186 gº º-º tºº 154 8 C 05/01–02/28 100 97 * -º- 114 97 114 97 114 O O 97 97
2592 92 1260 3840 1 126 gº tº º ºſ- sº tº 154 1 C 03/01-02/28 100 5 & 338 321 558 58 75 O O 321 321
300 S 12/01-03/51 66 158 82
51 C 05/01-06/15 100 76 gº ºg ... e
55 C 06/16–07/51 100 82 gº tº
TOTAL 32T 82
A-28
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2593 95 40
2594 94 4055
2595 95 3055
2596 96 819
2597 97 729
2598 98 160
2599 99 115
2600 100 120
2601 101 320
2602 102 35.50
2605 105 320
2604 104 280
2605 105 255
2606 106 1800
2607 107 1280
2608 108 160
2609 74 º-
26.10 74 sº
2611 109 1250
26.12 110 1299
2615 11 1 320
2614 112 60
2615 115 2080
2616 114 160
26.17 115 400
2618 116 274
2619 117 628
2620 1 18 40
2621 119 40
2622 120 760
2625 121 840
30.58% 528 640
2625 12.5 181
26.27 125 320
2628 126 545
2629 127 240
2650 128 640
265| 129 1040
2632 150 320
2633 131 1280
2654 152 218
2655 153 1 120
OTHER
ACRES
1520
3972
12317
5378
3385
272O
1600
2400
3524
4267
2560
4877
1 1121
:
92.24
56.560
1500
6918
1840
287
382
1360
1560
1718O
1280
2431
1449
2560
1680
1400
6560
2720
6651
2400
E+G
3797
1792
602
149
150
120
5260
320
235
1400
1060
539
781
520
40
1850
524
640
31
173
140
256
896
173
192
FAIR
514
147
160
520
45
POOR UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (comt.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
TP
160
781
l
250
62
15
15
2
3
3
15
20
218
120
30
52
6
6
45
26
3
75
75
16
27
7
l
32
5
39
8
14
15
55
14
2.5
24
100
315
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
AUMS AUMS
O3/01-02/28 100 12 tº-ºº:
O6/10-09/10 45 345 422
O3/01–02/28 100 744 * = º º
O3/01–02/28 100 180 tº ºn tº
O3/01-02/28 100 178 tº E tº
O3/01–02/28 100 24 “E. º.º
O3/01–02/28 100 38 tºº
O3/01–02/28 100 34 tºº
05/15-1 1/17 100 92 tº-
O3/01–02/28 57 89 151
04/15-1 1/14 57 564 962
04/15-1 1/14 100 160 tº E-
06/20-1 1/18 100 149 tº Eº º
TOTAL 962 TTT3
O3/01-02/28 15 95 527
O3/01–02/28 100 72 *E ºr tº
O3/01–02/28 100 72 tº º
–3/01–02/28 100 540 tº º
O3/01–02/28 100 309 tº-e wº
O3/01-02/18 100 39 tº º
05/15-09/14 30 88 205
05/15-09/14 50 88 205
O3/01–02/28 100 190 tº-º-e
O3/01–02/28 100 524 *E ºr e
O3/01-02/28 100 84 tº º
O3/01–02/28 100 12 tº-sº
O3/01–02/28 100 582 tºº
O3/01–02/28 100 58 gº tº
05/01-08/01 100 119 6 º'
O3/01–02/28 100 95 tº º sº
O3/01–02/28 100 170 tº-ºº-e
O3/01–02/28 100 9 tºº
O3/01–02/28 100 10 tº º
O3/01–02/28 100 143 “E tº
O3/01-02/28 100 199 tº º º
O3/01-02/28 100 96 º, º ºs
TOTAL 295 ––
O3/03–02/28 100 44 *E*@- e.
O3/01–02/28 100 72 tº º º
O5/01-10/51 100 92 tº º
05/01-1 1/O1 52 67 142
O3/01–02/28 100 168 gº º
O3/01-02/28 100 268 tº-
O3/01-02/28 100 84 tº Eº
O5/01-02/28 100 289 * tº E
05/01–09/50 100 54 dº eº tº
04/09-05/10 100 107 * -ºº-e
05/01-08/.50 100 255 tº º
TOTAL 360 −
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
12
368
887
2O2
225
25
40
34
122
986
143
i
15
408
167
112
170
14
154
244
55
87
125
79
224
324
526
465
ST
12
345
744
:
.
540
:
l
º:
289
2.
LT
12
568
887
2O2
225
:
l
986
145
167
| 12
170
14
154
244
55
87
125
79
224
524
526
465
ALTN.
ST
12
281
O
140
:
945
i
i
:
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C ALTN. D
LT ST LT ST LT
12 O O 12 12
304 O O 345 345
104 O O 744 744
162 O O 180 180
225 O O 178 178
24 O O 24 24
40 O O 38 38
34 O O 34 54
87 O O 92 92
967 O O 962 962
49 O O 95 95
100 0 0 72 72
72 O O 72 72
391 0 0 540 540
326 0 0 309 309
59 0 0 59 39
99 O O 88 88
99 0 0 88 88
198 0 0 190 190
21 | 0 0 324 324
84 O O 84 84
15 O O 12 12
354 O 0 382 382
48 O O 38 38
167 0 0 1 19 119
| 12 O 0 95 93
170 0 0 17O 170
9 O O 9 9
14 0 0 10 10
65 0 0 143 143
75 0 0 199 199
40 O O 96 96
55 0 0 44 44
87 O O 72 72
125 0 0 92 92
79 O O 67 67
216 O 0 168 168
218 O O 268 268
158 O O 84 84
505 0 0 289 289
38 O O 54 54
465 0 0 360 360
A-29
APPENDICES
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE COND IT ION CURRENT USE PUBLIC
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC OTHER EHG FAIR POOR UNKNOWN TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A. ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
NUMBER NUMBER AORES ACRES AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
2656 154 400 41.31 30 tº gº tº sº -- 370 10 C 03/01–02/28 100 | 14 tºº 161 114 161 88 135 0 0 1 14 114
2657 135 440 3050 440 tº gº tº º gº sº gº tº 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 84 gº tº º 84 84 84 70 70 0 O 84 84
26.58 136 320 680 198 77 -- tºº 45 7 C 05/01–02/28 100 86 g-ºº-e 107 86 107 86 107 O O 86 86
2659 137 4622 57466 5555 1069 –- º & tº sº 62 C 03/02–02/28 100 74 tº dº 805 740 805 713 788 O O 740 740
2640 138 346 650 128 wº- tº sº º -- 218 8 C 05/01–02/28 100 95 tºº 123 95 123 95 123 O O 95 95
264 1 139 655 5696 573 262 -- tº º tº º 12 C 03/01-02/28 100 144 gº tº 161 144 161 82 99 0 0 144 144
2642 140 1121 7860 622 559 -- 160 gº 24 C 05/01–02/28 100 281 tº tº e 311 281 311 40 70 O O 281 281
2645 141 320 24 15 520 º tº sºº tº º * º º 52 C 03/02-02/28 16 99 52O 171 99 171 99 171 O O 99 99
2721* 219 680 35 ºº sº dº — 645 98 C 03/01-02/28 16 189 987 198 189 198 187 196 O O 189 189
TOTAL 235 T507
2644 142 160 1857 160 tº tºº ºn e ∈ *E*s-, tºº 35 C 03/01–02/28 100 36 tºº 36 36 36 36 36 O O 56 36
2645 14.5 320 752O -- 320 -- gºº tº º 6 C 05/01-02/28 100 72 tº ecº 95 72 95 72 95 O O 72 72
2646 144 160 5600 gºº 34 –- 46 80 4 C 05/01–02/28 100 48 tº- 71 48 71 48 71 0 0 48 48
2647 145 480 1455 265 70 -- gº tº 147 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 36 * tº 4-8 136 111 136 || 1 136 O O 111 111
25 Y 05/01-07/31 100 75
TOTAL TTT –
2648 146 800 800 736 tº sº tº gº tºº 64 52 C 05/15–09/30 100 236 gºº 244 236 244 204 212 O O 236 256
2649 147 2495 2755 2425 70 –- tº sº tº gº 445 C 06/15–10/15 47 844. 952 850 844 850 770 776 O O 844 844
2650 148 40 1640 $Eº sº-sº sº ºne º 40 1 C 05/01-02/28 100 10 tº et Ee 15 10 15 10 15 O O IO 10
2652 150 520 1760 tº tº 20 -- -- 3:00 6 C 03/01–02/28 100 70 tº tº 1 10 70 110 70 1 10 O O 70 70
2655 151 320 4786 -- 520 -- tºº e tº e - 5 C 05/01–02/28 100 60 tºº 89 60 89 O 29 O O 60 60
2654 152 160 4640 160 tº º sº gº - tº º : - 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 34 ºº: 34 34 34 25 25 O O 34 34
2655 155 320 6485 320 tºº sºº tºº tº º 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 84 tº ººº-e 84 84 84 84 84 O O 84 84
2656 154 1280 2880 405 268 -- 98 511 78 C 04/01-08/15 76 267 84 555 267 355 244 332 O O 267 267
2657 155 842 480 518 * = <-º º E- -- 324 36 C 03/01–02/28 53 251 205 278 257 278 225 266 O O 257 257
1 H 05/01–02/28 53 6 5
TOTAL 257 270
2658 156 660 5080 241 tº º ºr egº 539 80 14 C 05/01-02/28 100 167 gº tº 207 167 207 167 207 O O 167 167
2659 157 360 2879 40 218 –- tºº 102 8 C 05/01–02/28 100 95 º 115 95 115 95 115 O O 95 93
2660 158 1080 1 1469 1080 tº sº º * = . . sº 23 C 05/01-02/28 100 276 tºº 276 276 276 145 145 O O 276 276
2662 160 40 2480 40 tº dº sº tº tº º ºr e º 'º 1 C 03/01-02/28 100 12 gº º 12 12 12 12 12 O O 12 12
2665 161 840 595 420 420 -- ºgº tºº 16 C 05/01–02/28 100 195 gºº e 233 195 233 195 255 0 0 195 195
2664 162 640 2240 640 * = º ºs gº tº tº Ee 15 C 03/01–02/28 100 174 tº º tº 174 174 174 174 174 0 0 174 174
2665 165 599 5568 346 55 -- ºs- º 8 C OB/01-02/28 100 97 tºº 102 97 102 O 5 O O 97 97
2670 168 1 194 1837 298 205 -- -- 691 87 C 03/01–02/28 38 397 647 516 411 516 411 516 O O 41 || 516
3 H 05/01–02/28 38 14 22
TOTAL ZTT 669
2671 169 1710 5040 776 gº tºº 954 gºº 212 C 05/01–02/28 18 458 2086 471 471 471 457 457 O O 471 471
6 H 05/01-02/28 18 13 59
TOTAL 7T 2745
2674 172 1880 3800 1656 175 –– tº º 51 343 C 03-01/02/28 26 1070 3045 1 103 1082 1103 106.1 ! 105 0 0 1082 1082
4 H 05/01–02/28 26 12 34
TOTAL Tog2 5079
2678 176 640 920 525 65 –- tºº 50 55 C 03/01–02/28 32 212 451 225 212 225 205 218 0 O 212 212
2680 178 1214 3533 254 960 -- tº gº tºº--> 128 C 03/01–02/28 17 262 1274 309 277 309 277 309 O O 277 277
7 H 05/01–02/28 17 15 69
TOTAL 777 T545
A-30
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER
2685 181
2687 185
2695 191
2694 192
2696 194
2697 195
2698 196
2699 197
2700 198
2701 199
2702 200
2705 201
2706 204
2707 205
2708 206
2709 2O7
2710 208
2712 210
2713 21 1
2714 212
2716 214
2717 215
AORES
960
960
520
3544
680
960
1280
1280
815
1520
390
640
254
320
640
520
1440
720
1080
1560
1280
OTHER
AORES
5440
1280
1925
1 1521
10385
571.4
2960
2955
3600
3860
1280
2275
1280
1820
4480
1520
1700
4181
2730
E+G
864
640
455
5058
680
440
51
768
1143
815
1505
4 16
254
546
1254
355
869
1259
1069
FAIR
32
520
65
486
240
102
51
POOR UNKNOWN
320
52
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (cont.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE
TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT
64 172 C 03/01–02/28 12 248 1816 261 252 261
3 H 05/01-02/28 12 4 32
TOTAL 252 TaaS
tº gº 77 C 03/01–02/28 28 259 690 357 270 357
O3/01–02/28 28 11 25
3 H TOTAL 770 775
sº 10 C 03/01–02/28 100 1 16 «Eº º 120 1 16 120
tº e = * 296 C 03/01-02/28 18 640 2912 719 698 719
5 C 05/01–02/28 100 _58. tº º
TOTAL 698, 2912
tºº 12 C 03/01–02/28 100 142 “Eteº 142 1.42 142
280 165 C 03/01–02/28 10 198 1758 354 198 554
327 77 C O3/01–02/28 15 1 59 785 142 1.42 142
1 H O3/01–02/28 15 3 9
TOTAL T42. 794
192 102 C 03/01–02/28 25 306 918 333 309 335
1 H 05/01–02/28 25 → 9
TOTAL 309 927
105 101 C 03/01–02/28 25 305 909 325 312 325
3 H 03/01-02/28 25 —” 27
TOTAL 312 956
tº a tº º 85 C 03/01-02/28 15 154 866 157 157 157
2 H 05/01–02/28 15 → 21
TOTAL 157 837
•º sº 145 C 03/01–02/28 22 391 1385 391 391 591
90 94 Y 05/01-1 1/01 25 98 328 | 10 98 || 10
sº º 70 C 06/10—08/15 100 154 gº tº e 174 154 174
4-ºx tº 6 C 03/01–02/28 100 67 * -->4 º 67 67 67
tº º 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 84 tº º 86 84 86
294 32 C 04/01–09/50 75 143 48 180 143 18O
224 45 C 03/01-02/28 17 88 428 125 88 125
186 135 C 05/01–05/20 87 79 | 1 359 335 359
20 Y 06/01-10/01 87 55 7
75 C 10/01-01/06 87 205. 31
TOTAL 335 49.
365 2 C 03/01–02/28 100 18 ºf egº tº 227 182 227
45 C 05/20-09/07 100 164 * > * >
TOTAL Ta2 II
21 l 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 89 tº º 330 305 550
20 C 05/12–10/11 56 56 44
56 C 06/01-10/51 56 158 122
TOTAL 705 166
250 8 C 05/01-02/28 100 95 tºº 396 360 396
72 C 06/20–10/19 79 227 6.
38 C 06/20–07/19 100 38 * * * * *
TOTAL 360 6T
211 7 C 03/01–02/28 100 80 tº gº 342 .515 542
40 C 05/01-10/26 100 235 sº
TOTAL -ā; —
ALTN.
ST
241
270
108
586
121
198
12]
291
292
157
379
129
| 18
85
182
215
351
297
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
LT ST LT
250 O O
357 O O
112 O O
6O7 O O
121 O O
354 O O
121 O O
315 O O
305 O O
157 O O
379 O O
| | O O
149 O O
O O O
82 O O
155 O O
122 O O
32 O O
227 O O
240 O O
587 O O
324 O O
ST
252
270
| 16
698
142
198
142
312
157
391
154
67
143
88
335
182
303
360
315
ALTN. D
LT
252
270
1 16
698
142
142
512
157
391
98
154
67
145
88
335
182
305
360
315
A-31
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2718 216 750
2719 217 920
272O 218 778
2722 220 2240
2726 224 1485
296 475
2729 227 5058
2750 228 640
2731 229 560
2752 230 520
2733 231 640
2754 232 2248
2755 235 5106
27.56 254 320
2759 257 1500
258 1031
2740 2.59 560
2741 240 160
2742 241 925
2745 242 960
OTHER
ACRES
1880
2880
1980
2240
269
4560
2240
1600
720
1215
1621
1600
640
2280
2672
E+G
352
594
1165
475
2558
640
560
640
1758
2526
240
850
681
560
FAIR
40
POOR UNKNOWN
40
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (comt.)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
358
257
257
320
610
490
450
# & CLS
1 C
10 C
8 Y
30 C
35 C
4 C
59 C
42 C
135 C
135 C
45 C
7 C
52 C
2 C
125 C
101 C
24 C
24 C
8 C
14 C
108 C
72 C
15 C
50 C
92 C
50 C
8 C
24 C
5 C
136 C
| 12 C
25 C
13 C
4 C
105 C
25 C
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
AUMS AUMS
O3/01-02/28 100 12 tº º
04/15–07/15 51 15 B
04/15–07/15 51 9 9
05/01–07/15 51 39 39
05/01-10/31 51 107 107
TOTAL T52 TWO
O3/01-02/28 100 44 º pºe
06/01-10/27 46 160 129
TOTAL 204 T29.
05/01–09/50 100 212 ~gº
05/15-08/04 1OO 360 º º
O8/05-10/07 68 194 90
TOTAL 554. 90
05/15-10/14 94 212 13
03/01-02/28 66 52 27
10/15–02/28 66 94. 50
TOTAL 358 90
05/01–02/28 100 20 tºº-
06/01-10/24 90 540 60
06/01-10/24 56 271 214
TOTAL 35T 274
05/01-10/31 100 144 º-e
05/15–11/15 100 144 * = E_*
05/01–02/28 100 95 tº ºdº
03/01-02/28 100 164 tº
10/15-05/14 34 256 284
05/15-10/14 100 560 tº sº tº
TOTAL 66 234
03/01--2/28 100 176 tº gº tº
05/01–09/30 66 166 85
06/15-12/14 71 392 252
10/01-12/14 71 89 36
TOTAL 325 Eſs
O3/01–02/28 100 90 tº ºº e
05/01-10/30 100 144 tº sº
O3/01–02/28 100 36 tº-º-º:
04/01–04/30 36 49 87
O5/01-07/21 36 109 195
O7/22-1 1/30 36 56 99
TOTAL 750 379
03/01-02/28 100 152 tº º º
O3/01–02/28 100 46 ºº-
05/15-10/14 47 247 278
O3/01–02/28 100 296 tº_4 =
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
251
235
586
212
915
220
1 10
680
885
144
28O
152
ST
182
204
212
554
212
146
851
144
144
164
616
825
144
152
LT
231
255
586
212
915
220
| 10
164
680
885
144
28O
152
PUBLIC
ALTN. B ALTN. C
ST LT ST LT
15 64 O O
204 255 0 O
125 175 0 0
540 572 0 0
212 212 O O
146 186 O 0
575 659 O O
144 144 O 0
144 220 O O
95 || 10 O O
154 154 O O
571 655 O O
700 762 O O
90 95 O O
144 144 O 0
250 280 O 0
O O 0 0
34 34 0 0
251 251 0 0
296 321 O O
ALTN. D
ST
182
204
212
554
212
851
144
144
95
164
616
825
144
152
LT
182
204
212
554
212
146
851
144
144
164
616
823
144
250
925
520
247
321
247
296
247
321
247
295
152
46
247
A-32
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2746
2749
2751
2755
2754
2756
2757
2758
2759
2761
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2775
2776
245
248
250
252
255
255
256
257
258
259
261
265
266
257
256
295
267
369
271
256
272
295
360
800
960
6056
19750
3665
320
520
320
520
1421
2957
OTHER
AORES
1617
1128
2869
|Nº.2155
31699
2701
1194
2788
1280
4920
2880
4819
E+G
360
520
960
5706
19217
890
3665
160
1 10
100
200
1371
2767
FAIR
POOR
UNKNOWN
2759–237
2757–256
2757–256
2757-256
80
2770-295
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NMBER ALLOTMENTS (comtinued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
TP
160
210
270
18O
115
121
35
21
45
24
175
250
º
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
O3/01-02/28
03/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
01/01–06/50
O7/01-12/51
1 1/11–05/51
O1/01-06/50
01/01–06/50
04/01-1 1/10
O3/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
06/01-10/50
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
04/01-10/51
06/11-09/10
TOTAL -
12/10-04/50
05/01-10/51
TOTAL
05/01-10/51
05/01-10/51
05/15-10/14
06/01-10/51
O7/01-10/51
04/01-1 1/15
O5/10-11/09
05/04-10/51
O3/01–02/28
04/01-10/14
05/01-10/51
TOTAL
100
CURRENT USE
OTHER
AUMS AUMS
.89 tº º
195 “E E *
256 º
1603 {`--> E
656 1654
2658 1698
419 1046
1165 1607
258 2554
690 3622
111 129
5957 T230
246 •ºº
240 ‘E ºf e
88 tº º
96 tºº e
96 sº tº
84 wº-ººp
24 º-º
514 14]
—* l
319 TAZ
141 396
105 25
844 alſo
180 * tº º
198 $º- º
271 tº º- e
121 19
84 tºº lº
168 155
144 tº tºº º
404 *E º 'º e
249 1827
872 347
262 50
TT57 224
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
89
215
256
1647
62O2
861
198
271
141
170
144
1367
262
ST
89
195
256
1605
5957
246
240
:
319
844
18O
198
271
121
168
404
| 121
262
LT
89
215
256
1647
62O2
255
240
125
130
107
24
320
861
180
198
271
141
170
144
404
1367
262
PUBLIC
ALTN. B
ST
O
186
75
1423
4777
246
240
i
67
179
135
2O6
O
84
168
144
359
1074
82
LT
O
208
75
1467
5042
255
240
108
125
150
107
287
179
135
2O6
O
84
170
144
359
1520
82
ALTN. C
ST
:
O
LT
:
O
ALTN.
ST
89
195
256
1605
5957
246
240
:
319
844
404
D
LT
89
195
256
1603
5957
246
240
:
319
844
18O
198
27]
121
84
168
144
404
1121 1121
262
262
A-33
APPENDICES
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (continued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE PUBLIC
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC OTHER EHG FAIR FOOR UNKNOWN TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A. ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES ACRES AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
2777 275 3024 1917 2754 gº tº ºtº º -- 270 199 C 12/01-03/31 35 277 519 1245 1209 1243 960 994 O O 1209 1209
10 H 12/01–03/31 35 14 25
199 C 04/01-1 1/50 55 874 718
10 H 04/01-1 1/13 55 44 56
TOTAL T209 T3T9.
2778 274 4628 5077 5248 210 -- 290 880 25 C 03/01-02/28 100 535 tºº 1490 1362. 1490 969 969 O O 1362. 1362
121 C 04/01-1 1/15 52 827 765
TOTAL T552 765
2779 275 1926 576O 1926 tº E tºº tº º * - 4 × 236 C 04/01-12/01 25 47.5 1431 475 475 475 464 464 O O 475 475
2780 276 7598 5050 6948 560 -- 90 tº º 26 C 03/01–02/28 100 310 º, sº e 1815 1777 1813 1594 1630 O O 1777 1777
460 C 05/01-10/09 60 1467 971
TOTAL 1777 971
2781 277 2040 3095 1650 tº EE º º 140 250 1 12 C 04/16-1 1/30 64 557 303 569 537 569 557 569 O O 537 557
2782 2.78 | 120 61.96 520 20 -- tºº e 580 175 C 12/01–03/31 22 154 546 411 336 411 336 41 | O O 336 356
175 C 05/01–05/30 22 39 136
97 C 05/01–07/31 49 143 148
TOTAL 336 350
2785 279 851 779 561 90 — 40 160 50 C 04/15-08/07 100 188 tº-e 216 188 216 188 216 0 0 188 188
2784 280 320 4645 18O ºº sº gº tº tº 140 8 C 03/01-02/28 100 90 tº º 108 90 108 90 108 O O 90 90
2785 281 480 5680 420 ºº e º ºſ- tºº-ºº-e 60 1 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 128 tº º 136 128 136 128 136 0 0 128 128
2788 284 4795 7793 4733 « » «E ºº e gºº 60 100 C 12/01–04/30 8 40 460 1355 1541 1355 1254 1268 O O 1341 1341
150 C 12/01–04/30 29 218 532
117 C 1 1/15-05/14 29 204 498
5 H 1 1/15–05/14 29 9 21
250 C 05/01-1 1/29 50 870 870
TOTAL TEAT 2537
2789 285 1135 1281 1025 60 –- -- 50 57 C 04/01-1 1/30 66 502 154 515 502 315 282 295 O O 302 302
2790 286 2524 6175 2434 50 –– 40 tº e 244 C 12/01–05/31 38 556 908 713 709 713 120 124 O O 709 709
5 H 12/01–05/31 38 12 18
70 S 12/01–05/31 38 32 52
210 C 06/01-1 1/29 8 100 1 160
5 H 06/01-1 1/29 8 2 28
70 S 06/01-1 1/29 8 7 77
TOTAL 709 22:45
27.91 287 2980 2870 2770 ºº gº tº 50 160 125 C 05/15-10/14 100 650 tºº 646 650 646 296 312 O O 650 650
2794 290 21 14 4600 1474 tº ºº e tº e 180 460 5 C 05/01–02/28 100 60 tº tº 658 576 638 355 4 17 O O 576 576
52 C 05/01-12/31 100 4 16 tº sº
45 C 05/01-1 1/30 32 100 170
TOTAL 576 TFO.
295 In § 2770-295 — 71 C 05/15-10/31 84 528 62 328 328 328 105 105 0 0 328 328
2795 291 10 285 tº º sº tº ºº 10 tº ºptiº 1 C 03/01-02/28 100 5 gº tº e 5 5 5 5 5 O O 5 5
2797 569 2089 2590 2059 50 -- tº º gº 46 C 05/01-1 1/50 51 168 154 170 168 170 74 76 0 0 168 168
2798 287 In § 2791–287 -- 27 C 05/20-1 1/19 100 162 tº º ſº 166 162 166 162 166 0 0 162 162
295 In § 2770-295 — 26 C 05/20-1 1/19 84 131 25 131 151 131 41 41 0 0 131 131
294 989 5522 529 º ºgº -- 460 24 C 03/01-02/28 100 287 tº ºº is 345 287 345 0 0 O 0 287 287
TOTAL T;30 T25
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2801 297 1855
2806 302 640
2809 305 1279
281 1 307 491
2812 308 310
2813 509 306
579 640
2814 311 148
2820 518 298
2821 319 1657
2825 321 640
2824 322 320
2825 524 774
2850 328 1600
577 1335
2855 351 320
579
2854 332 160
2835 335 1371
2856 334 2274
2837 355 320
2859 337 958
2840 338 640
284.1 339 2615
2842 340 1289
284.5 341 12560
2844 342 160
368 1505
2847 345 2292
2849 345 3550
2850 346 1850
2852 348 606
2855 349 450
OTHER
ACRES
1750
427
975
1257
16.1
1020
1760
165
3148
2451
1440
8247
1135
915
1904
3414
1460
1628
1976
3835
4O76
4000
E+G
1435
1279
231
150
:
1327
270
774
1545
160
701
1524
180
378
2365
789
1 1010
160
1205
2172
1690
1500
FAIR
110
:
70
880
275
UNKNOWN
40
420
450
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (continued
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
TP
210
140
# & CLS
56 C
56 C
2 H
56 C
2 H
34 C
52 C
34 C
6 C
6 C
51 C
6 C
45 C
58 C
91 C
7 C
37 C
30 C
205 C
8 C
9 C
3 C
54 C
243 C
7 C
53 C
36 C
8 C
113 C
99 C
70 C
65 C
3 C
50 C
65 H
150 C
158 C
344 C
117 C
70 C
10 C
12/01-03/51
04/01–05/51
04/01–05/51
06/01-10/50
06/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
05/01-10/15
05/01-10/51
04/19-12/14
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O5/01-10/51
O3/01-02/28
05/20-10/25
05/01-10/51
06/01–07/51
O3/01–02/28
O5/01-10/51
O3/01–02/28
O5/15-1 1/14
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
05/01-10/51
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
05/01-1 1/50
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
04/01-1 1/50
O4/15— 1 1/15
O3/01–02/28
06/01-1 1/10
25
77
77
85
85
100
7.59
410
450
1030
350
TOTAL
05/01-1 1/50
O4/15-1 1/50
05/15-1 1/01
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
05/15-10/14
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
12/01-05/.51
06/01-1 1/50
TOTAL
O5/01-1 1/Ol
04/15-1 1/14
O5/01-10/51
03/01-02/28
100
71
CURRENT USE
OTHER
AUMS AUMS
58 166
87 105
4 et- >
286 64
10 2
245 337
191 tº º
312 gº tº
129 137
75 tº º- e.
68 tº sº
14] 165
74 tºº
71 155
345 3
182 tºº lº
84 gº tº e
224 º-ºº-e
355 tº gº
368 862
725 B52'
90 tºº e
25, 29
115 29
35 tº º
295 83
466 2450
81 ºº
242 182
163 89
92 tº tºº
555. 48
645 as
309 384
475 52
317 30
790 T22
50 gº tº e
178 72
703 F2,
86 694
64 836
2522 626
Z72. 2156
1075 990
455 364
135 285
122
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
489
24l
312
163
75
78
141
91
71
458
540
91
224
355
126
25
35
374
550
305
195
669
369
855
2O2
474
1239
497
135
124
ST
445
191
312
129
75
14]
74
71
345
224
355
.
35
295
81
242
163
645
790
178
472
1075
455
135
124
LT
489
24!
312
165
75
78
141
35
374
550
305
195
669
369
855
2O2
474
1239
497
135
124
ALTN.
ST
401
191
312
129
61
74
65
118
182
216
340
O
35
279
444
81
242
135
316
668
135
124
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
LT ST LT
445 O O
24l O O
312 O O
165 O O
61 O O
O O O
O O O
91 O O
65 O O
231 O O
340 O O
91 O O
216 O O
340 O O
368 0 0
126 O O
O O O
35 O O
358 O O
528 0 0
98 O O
305 O O
167 O O
340 O O
369 O O
711 0 0
O O O
O 0 0
445 O O
350 O O
350 O O
135 O O
124 0 0
ST
445
191
312
129
75
141
74
71
345
182
224
355
.
35
295
81
242
165
645
790
178
472
ALTN. D
LT
445
191
312
75
141
74
71
345
182
224
355
368
:
35
295
466
81
242
163
645
790
178
472
1075 1073
455
135
124
455
135
124
A-35
APPENDICES
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS (continued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE PUBLIC
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC OTHER E+G FAIR FOOR UNKNOWN TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES ACRES AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
2854 310 2460 -- 2460 tº º ºsº sº º sº tº tº º 44 C 05/01-10/51 100 264 tº º 264 264 264 208 208 0 0 264 264
350 40 2545 40 º ºgº gº tºº º & º tº.º.º. 1 C 05/01–02/28 100 12 *EE > 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 12 12
- TOTAL 225 -
2855 351 640 2250 160 480 tºº gº tº gº g-º- e 62 C 06/01-10/50 50 156 156 192 156 192 O 36 O O 156 156
2856 352 1157 1859 837 52O tº º º tº E tº º, e. 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 30 tº ºn e 284 260 284 88 112 0 0 260 260
120 C 05/10—10/51 33 250 450
TOTAL 760 450
2857 355 1680 40.54 1440 140 gº º 40 60 55 C 05/01-10/31 17 57 275 365 350 365 85 98 0 0 350 350
55 C 05/15-10/31 100 295 --
TOTAL 350 273
2858 367 1920 2040 1920 tº sº º tºº tº º tº tº 65 C 05/01-10/51 89 336 42 336 336 336 336 536 O O 336 336
2859 510 In § 2854-510 65 C 05/01-1 1/01 100 380 º 380 380 380 580 380 O O 380 380
354 160 1262 {º ºº gº º •ºº 80 80 4 C 03/01-02/28 100 _47. tº “E” 57 47 57 47 57 O O 47 47
TOTAL 427
2860 355 1520 1520 770 140 º ºgº 80 330 47 C 05/01-10/31 100 283 * º 466 466 466 466 466 O O 466 466
35 C 05/01-10/31 87 183 27
TOTAL 466 27
2862 357 5044 2595 2764 tº º ºf tº 60 220 145 C 04/01-06/50 100 429 * -º 777 749 777 536 564 O O 749 749
157 C 07/01–09/30 52 246 225
157 C 10/01–02/28 9 74 554
TOTAL 749 779
2865 358 40 74.1 20 20 tº eiº *E*º e tº tº e 1 C 05/01-02/28 100 11 tº º 11 11 1 1 || 1 || 0 0 1 1 ||
2864 484 595 320 295 275 4 º' 25 tº Leº 43 C 05/15–10/14 71 153 62 177 155 177 O O O O 155 153
2865 359 2875 24.15 2815 tº tºº sºº- tºº 60 158 C 05/01-10/31 79 754 194 762 754 762 487 495 0 0 754 754
2866 367 tº º 800 In # 2858-567 tº e º e 25 C 05/01-10/31 89 125 15 125 125 123 98 98 0 0 125 123
482 977 960 677 275 ºt- 25 g-º º 69 C 05/15-10/14 71 245 100 269 245 269 O O O O 245 245
TOTAL 563 TS
2867 485 1749 160 1449 275 wºº 25 tºº- 60 C 05/15-10/14 71 213 87 257 213 237 O O O O 245 245
2868 560 490 1200 250 160 tºº 20 80 39 C 05/15–10/10 42 81 109 97 81 97 O 9 O O 81 81
2869 341 tºº e-ºº- In § 2845–541 cº- 171 C 05/01-10/3] 90 922 104 978 922 978 779 835 0 0 922 922
561 624 3519 624 º gº tº egº ºº tº Eº 35 C 06/01-10/31 100 175 tº ſº 175 175 175 152 152 O O 175 175
TOTAL T097 TGT
2870 371 29 572 tº tº gº tº tº º 29 gº tº 1 Y 03/01–02/28 100 3 tº gº 3 3 3 5 3 O O 5 3
2871 341 tº-º-º: 2760 In § 2845-541 º- 76 C 05/01-10/3] 90 415 45 437 413 437 349 375 O O 415 413
2872 562 2736 2445 206 790 70 60 1610 122 c 04/10-10/21. 100 780 tº º Gº 105.5 780 1055 780 1055 O O 780 780
2874 364 1857 1441 1657 tº eq > cº-esº- gºº 220 2 C 05/01–02/28 100 22 gº 558 510 558 465 495 O O 510 510
94 C 05/01-1 1/30 69 488 170
TOTAL TO TWO
2875 365 2156 1241 2156 tº º º gº º tº ºº e 88 C 04/20–10/19 100 550 tº e º Ee 550 550 550 491 491 O O 550 550
2876 366 646 1200 526 52O gºº- tºº º tº º 84 C 05/01-08/50 44 147 189 176 147 176 147 176 0 0 147 147
2877 578 2552 3252 2022 tºº sº 50 460 50 C 03/01-02/28 100 605 tº º 661 605 661 585 645 0 0 605 605
2881 373 80 2480 80 sº sººn- sº-sº tº e 4 C 04/01-10/51 100 24 — 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 24 24
2882 372 48 385 48 * - EP ºº: tº º tº º 1 C OB/01–02/28 100 4 e-e sº 4 4 4 4 4 O O 4 4
2884 374 80 201 64 16 sº tº º sº-sº g-ºº- 2 C 05/01–02/28 100 20 gº tº º 22 2O 22 O O 0 0 20 20
2885 375 40 9520 40 e-º º * º º tº tº tº º º 1 C 03/01-02/28 100 10 gº tº e 10 10 10 O O 0 0 10 10
2886 376 320 2880 52O sº tº e sº * > *- : tº tº e 6 C 05/01/02/28 100 70 º-ºº- 70 7O 70 55 55 O O 70 70
2887 377 160 3040 141 19 tº e º tº º gº-ºº-e 2 C OB/01–02/28 100 24 {Eº tº 26 24 26 24 26 0 0 24 24
2888 378 960 2640 960 gºº tº º 'º e gº º cº-º-º: 16 C 05/01–02/28 100 195 tºº- 195 195 195 179 179 0 0 195 195
A-36
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
2889
2890
2891
2892
2895
2894
2895
291.5
29.14
2915
2916
29.17
29.18
2919
2921
2922
2925
379
380
381
382
385
B84
385
4.38
386
387
588
389
590
391
392
395
594
395
392
397
398
399
402
487
405
405
406
407
409
410
41 1
412
415
415
4.38
459
440
640
36
640
360
80
80
771
6160
5120
640
101
320
205
320
120
40
360
160
1280
320
520
520
720
1999
71
720
117
147
1200
560
4460
OTHER EHG
AORES
3200 640
3135 36
11592 545
1880 560
12400 80
4400 80
3629 551
-- 5847
17449 2750
6400 640
6651 101
640 320
101.35 205
3040 2520
2560 512
1280 280
2560 120
480 40
3727 958
1097O 960
2840 E60
5575 160
7040 1280
960 520
6960 520
3280 520
3440 720
13370 1862
4615 71
3818 200
6000 720
4520 40
3.16 117
1709 147
8651 900
3736 80
-- 560
8509
tº ºtº º 36
-- 4460
21982 970
FAIR
67
POOR UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS (continued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
# & CLS
03/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
04/01-10/51
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/10-07/07
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/15–07/51
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
44
100
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
AUMS
108
18
147
115
74
33
1 10
AUMS
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
108
18
156
83
14
20
94
226
585
115
20
74
54
35
150
48
26
11
150
185
97
48
2O2
56
107
ST
108
18
147
85
14
20
68
217
552
115
74
33
110
11
110
185
:
107
2926
4 16
1037
C
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
10/16-12/31
04/01-1 1/50
O3/01-02/28
O5/01-10/15
O5/16-10/15
04/01-10/15
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
11
1 10
183
97
2O2
107
T65
57
144
13
40
161
27
32
245
24
75
451
510
31
156
1075
57
144
510
13
40
161
32
270
24
75
470
11
684
57
144
15
40
16]
27
32
245
24
75
451
11
684
LT
108
18
156
:
585
115
74
35
150
11
150
185
97
2O2
107
57
144
310
13
40
161
27
52
270
24
75
470
| 1
684
ALTN.
ST
108
18
| 10
74
10
1 10
49
52
222
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
ST
LT
108
18
119
74
10
20
91
105
517
LT
ALTN. D
ST LT
108 108
18 18
147 147
83 85
14 14
20 20
68 68
217 217
552 552
115 115
20 20
74 74
34 54
33 35
110 1 10
48 48
26 26
11 || 1
110 1 10
185 185
97 97
48 48
2O2 202
56 56
107 107
57 57
144 144
298 298
13 13
40 40
161 161
10 10
27 27
32 - 32
245 245
24 24
75 75
451 451
11 || 1
684 684
192 192
A-37
APPENDICES
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (comtinued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION CURRENT USE PUBLIC
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC OTHER EHG FAIR POOR UNKNOWN TP # & CLS SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER POTENTIAL ALTN. A. ALTN. B ALTN. C. ALTN. D
NUMBER NUMBER AORES ACRES AUMS AUMS AUMS ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
2927 417 80 1840 80 tº dº º sºº º º Pº gº tº a 2 C 05/01–02/28 100 24 gºº 24 24 24 21 21 0 0 24 24
2928 418 39 1880 59 tºº ºr ºqº e tº sº tº gº 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 11 tº º º 11 | 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 0 1 1 11
2929 419 720 520 720 tº gº tºº tºº- tº º gº e 8 C 03/01–02/28 100 94 gº º-> 94 94 94 78 78 O. O. 94 94
2950 420 133 3489 85 50 -- E. e. gº tº 3 C O2/01–02/28 100 30 tº º 34 30 34 24 28 O O 50 30
295] 421 22 576 22 •ºº e º 'º gº ºº º tº e 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 12 tºº º 12 12 12 12 12 O O 12 12
2955 423 242 5282 242 tº gº tººs tº º tº tº 5 C 03/01–02/28 100 60 tº º 60 60 60 57 57 O O 60 60
2954 424 720 2200 720 tº ºººº tº º tº º gº- 15 C 03/01–02/28 100 152 º 152 152 152 118 118 O O 152 152
2955 425 480 1754 1 10 370 -- tº tº tº e º º 8 C OB/01-02/28 100 89 tº tº 122 89 122 80 1 15 O O 89 89
2956 426 365 5825 165 162 38 tº ºº tº tº tº 8 C 03/01–02/28 100 1OO “Eºº º 125 100 123 78 101 0 0 100 100
2937 427 2444 18209 2444 tº º sº º tº º gº º 54 C 03/01-02/28 100 648 tº e sº 648 648 648 648 648 0 0 648 648
3044* 534 960 2 1000 950 30 —- sº tºº 20 C 03/01–02/28 100 240 tº ºº e 242 240 242 l 16 118 O O 240 240
TOTAL 355 T
2958 428 89 6008 89 tº ºº e º 'º- cº-º-º: {E_ºq= 5 C 05/15-10/31 100 27 tºº- 27 27 27 20 20 O O 27 27
2959 429 200 6199 200 gº º sº º tº º tº tº e 4 C 03/01–02/28 100 48 tºº 48 48 48 38 38 O O 48 48
2940 450 200 3496 200 tºº gº tº tº sº e tºº 5 C 03/01–02/28 100 65 tº ºt- 65 65 65 55 55 0 O 65 63
2942 432 520 4800 3520 tº dº º sº tº sº tº º 6 C 03/01–02/28 100 76 tº º 76 76 76 38 38 O O 76 76
2943 435 160 9695 160 sº º ºsº tºº tºº- 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 36 tº tº 56 36 36 8 8 O O 56 36
2944 434 2O74 8001. 2054 40 -- sº º tº º 35 C 03/01–02/28 100 416 tº sº 420 416 420 344 348 0 O 416 416
2945 435 80 12259 80 sº gº gº mº tºº tº º 2 C 03/01–02/28 100 24 gºe 24 24 24 O O O O 24 24
2947 437 37 1480 37 tº tº tº º gºº * a 3 C 10/01-12/31 100 10 tº tº 10 10 10 O O O O 10 10
2948 441 40 4120 40 tº-e sº ºº & ºtº- tº º-º 1 C 05/01–02/28 100 11 * - tº E 11 | 1 || 1 || 1 | 0 0 1 1 11
2949 442 160 640 160 e - tº Eº gº tº º º 3 C 03/01–02/28 100 39 tº tº 39 59 39 33 33 0 O 39 39
295] 441 560 645 560 tº º ſº tº gº tº º tº-º-º: º 15 C 05/01–02/28 100 155 gº tº 155 155 155 142 142 O O 155 155
2952 442 477 840 477 tº º smºº sº º tº º 8 C 03/01–02/28 100 100 tº gº 100 100 100 91 91 0 O 100 100
2955 445 160 4560 160 sº º sº sº * - dº e º º 2 C 05/01–02/28 100 29 gºº 29 29 29 27 27 O O 29 29
2954 444 520 5120 320 « . »º gº tº gº sº tº gº º 8 C 03/01–02/28 100 92 gº º 92 92 92 69 69 O O 92 92
2955 445 360 5240 360 tºº ºsº tºº tº º 10 C 05/01–02/28 100 122 g-º- 122 122 122 107 107 O O 122 122
2956 446 680 9040 680 tº sº gº tº tº º tº gº 12 C 03/01–02/28 100 138 tº dº 138 138 138 125 123 0 0 138 138
2961 451 80 1460 80 tº eº- e º tº sº º e º º º 2 C 05/01–02/28 100 28 * > → 28 28 28 26 26 O O 28 28
2962 452 200 2796 200 tº º º ºs tº ‘E’. tº sº 5 C 03/01-02/28 100 58 tº º 58 58 58 52 52 O O 58 58
296.5 455 99 200 99 sº º Egº tº * - sº tºº e 2 C 05/01-02/28 100 25 cº- 25 25 25 25 25 O O 25 25
2964 454 520 1280 294 -- 26 tºº e g- > --> 8 C 03/01-02/28 100 92 tº º 98 92 98 69 75 0 O 92 92
2965 455 160 742O 160 —- -- <-- sº G. ºe 3 C 05/01–02/28 100 30 tº º 30 30 30 24 24 O O 50 30
2966 456 80 4546 80 gº tº º ºs sº º ºs- tº º 2 C 03/01-02/28 100 26 tº tº 26 26 26 25 25 0 O 26 26
2967 457 160 5790 90 35 35 * = }º sº tº º 4 C 05/01-02/28 100 50 º 60 50 60 57 47 O O 50 50
2968 458 244 3426 250 14 -- tº º tº sº 7 c 03/01–02/28 100 82 sº mº 83 82 85 75 76 O O 82 82
2969 459 80 960 80 sº e Esº * -º º 15 S O3/01-02/28 100 25 tº º 23 23 23 19 19 O O 25 25
2971 461 37 l 7000 71 500 -- tº e ºse tºº 8 C 03/01–02/28 100 99 q-e gº 126 99 126 82 109 O 0 99 99
2972 462 160 1440 160 gºº sº tº *E* sº tº º 5 C 05/01–02/28 100 59 tº tº 59 59 59 48 48 0 0 59 59
2973 463 200 520 200 ºčº º tº sº tºº * * * * 6 C 03/01–02/28 100 68 tº e º e 68 68 68 54 54 0 0 68 68
2974 464 40] 15280 401 tº ºº * = lºgº g-º- e 10 C 05/01–02/28 100 115 º- 115 115 115 92 92 0 0 1 15 115
2976 466 120 5000 120 gº tº gº tº dº tº º º 2 C 03/01-02/28 100 24 tº gº 24 24 24 21 21 0 0 24 24
2977 467 320 984O 320 ºº: º gº &Eºº & º º 5 C 03/01–02/28 100 64 gº-º-e 64 64 64 60 60 0 0 64 64
2978 468 400 2600 355 45 -- gº º tº tº 1 1 C 03/01–02/28 100 154 tº º 138 134 138 127 131 0 0 134 134
2979 469 160 1920 160 º ºgº tº º tº ex ºs 5 C 03/01–02/28 100 55 *ºº 55 55 55 45 45 0 O 55 53
2980 470 969 680 955 34 -- sº sº tº º 25 C 05/01–02/28 100 270 -- 275 270 275 257 260 O O 270 270
A-38
APPENDIX 2.4
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
298] 471 1004
2982 472 712
2983 475 1071
2986 476 120
2987 477 415
2988 478 80
2990 480 320
2991 481 628
2995 485 1600
2998 488 200
3000 490 80
5001 491 66
3002 492 40
3005 495 1713
3008 498 610
301 | 501 54
3012 502 229
3013 505 26
3014 504 992
3015 505 1122
3016 506 81
301.7 507 188
3018 508 320
3020 510 80
3021 511 40
3022 512 469
3025 513 160
5024 514 685
5026 516 480
3027 517 59
3028 518 120
3029 519 305
5050 520 16]
5031 521 120
3055 525 644
3054 524 880
3037 527 160
3O39 529 132
3040 550 80
3041 531 495
3042 552 360
5045 555 400
5045 535 560
5046 536 280
3049 559 40
5050 540 189
OTHER
AORES
4880
5000
4560
2440
10320
320
3160
3440
800
1889
51.90
865
5080
1840
2440
3840
3360
4720
1654
2280
7000
2270
5720
E+G
97.5
649
901
120
357
1059
188
320
469
160
24
107
217
141
495
356
233
557
242
40
189
FAIR
31
POOR. UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NJMBER ALLOTMENTS (continued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC
# & CLS
22 C
16 C
28 C
2 C
7 C
2 C
4 C
14 C
24 C
5 C
2 C
2 C
1 C
27 C
9 C
2 C
6 C
1 C
25 C
27 C
2 C
5 C
3 C
2 C
1 C
7 C
4 C
12 C
11 C
| C
3 C
7 C
3 C
3 C
17 C
16 C
4 C
2 C
2 C
10 C
9 C
11 C
7 C
6 C
| C
5 C
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
03/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
CURRENT USE
AUMS
268
188
350
24
79
20
50
167
288
62
22
20
8
317
1 ||
303
321
214
188
42
122
105
133
69
16
OTHER
AUMS
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
270
194
345
i
22
24
319
111
16
81
305
332
137
122
105
148
81
16
ST
268
188
350
24
79
20
50
167
288
62
22
20
8
317
1 ||
321
105
133
69
16
LT
270
194
345
:
176
288
22
24
319
| | 1
16
8]
305
332
25
32
23
l
157
12
31
85
45
:
214
188
ALTN.
ST
198
162
267
22
58
16
O
70
250
56
16
18
8
O
115
67
22
161
137
37
17
97
77
116
72
16
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
LT
200
178
282
22
65
16
O
79
305
115
161
137
37
44
97
77
131
ST
LT
ALTN. D
ST LT
268 268
188 188
350 350
24 24
79 79
20 20
50 50
167 167
288 288
62 62
22 22
20 20
8 8
317 517
| 1 || 1 || 1
16 16
70 70
13 13
305 303
321 321
25 25
64 64
32 32
25 25
12 12
84 84
46 46
158 158
137 137
10 10
30 30
77 77
41 4 1
30 30
214 214
188 188
46 46
42 42
23 23
122 122
105 103
133 133
80 80
69 69
16 16
54 54
A-39
APPENDICES
RECORD ALLOT PUBLIC
NUMBER NUMBER ACRES
305] 541 160
3052 542 455
3055 543 564
3055 545 2985
3057 547 85
3060 550 80
5062 552 118
3065 555 120
5064 554 120
3065 555 314
5066 556 290
5070 560 160
307| 561 40
3072 562 1005
5073 565 40
5074 564 22
3075 565 40
3076 566 40
5077 567 40
5078 568 40
5079 569 40
3080 570 37
5081 571 44
5082 572 76
5085 575 859
6551 O2] 786
6552 825 120
6555 826 880
6555 828 31.27
6556 829 413
6358 851 965
6559 852 201
6560 855 124
6361 854 5744
6562 835 E68
6365 856 5758
6564 837 950
6572 856 40.5
846 5549
6375 836 776
846 2142
| 14 825
6375 848 699
6377 850 1970
OTHER
ACRES
800
320
5000
19520
96
1840
13305
1680
320
315
3890
1480
2980
3520
1920
1340
760
1920
4440
13728
1 1838
21955
3.185
2150
282
57870
25757
4127
1947.5
1044
1204
1107
126
E+G
160
405
564
2825
85
48
118
120
10
246
290
160
40
941
40
22
40
40
40
40
40
37
62
750
786
880
31.27
415
96.5
201
124
5744
3758
950
405
5491
776
825
FAIR
POOR. UNKNOWN
YEARLONG AND SEASON AND NUMBER ALLOTMENTS (continued)
PUBLIC LAND RANGE CONDITION
TP
# & CLS
3 C
10 C
13 C
55 C
3 C
2 C
2 C
3 C
3 C
7 C
8 C
3 C
1 C
27 C
1 C
1 C
5 S
1 C
| C
| C
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 C
10 C
20 H
77 C
2 C
12 C
52 . C
5 C
8 C
5 C
| C
50 C
6 C
91 C
17 C
37 C
156 C
18 C
55 C
6 C
13 C
5 C
51
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
03/01–02/28
03/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
05/01-1 1/50
O5/01-10/51
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01-02/28
O3/01–02/28
05/15-1 1/15
O3/01–02/28
04/16-12/15
O3/01–02/28
O7/16–11/15
O7/16-1 1/15
TOTAL
04/16-12/15
05/01-1 1/22
03/01–02/28
TOTAL
O3/01–02/28
O3/01–02/28
C 05/01-10/50
100
37
CURRENT USE
SEASON }. PUBLIC PUBLIC OTHER
AUMS
40
121
154
117
33
1 10
Taj
25
139
97
52
851
2O7
358
412
75
40.5
155
AUMS
45
102
POTENTIAL ALTN. A
AUMS
40
125
154
166
143
139
*
97
52
851
2O7
358
229
75
ST
40
12]
154
117
143
:
52
851
504
2O7
358
99
229
75
LT
40
12.5
154
643
41
25
26
35
39
85
97
40
14
851
504
2O7
358
99
75
440]
5269
699
1970
TOTAL
| 14
176
155
176
155
176.
155
176
ALTN.
ST
32
1 10
132
260
41
17
24
35
22
59
97
32
12
276
10
9
13
12
12
10
851
2O7
157
75
155
PUBLIC
B ALTN. C
ST
LT
32
112
132
274
41
20
24
33
51
65
97
52
12
282
121
139
321
52
851
2O7
157
99
229
75
155
27
º
LT
º
ST
40
12]
154
117
145
:38613925
851
207
358
229
75
155
176
ALTN. D
LT
40
121
154
629
41
20
26
35
30
79
97
40
14
328
14
9
15
12
14
13
13
6
11
| 1
117
143
25
159
386
97
52
851
2O7
..
99
229
75
155
176
A-40
APPENDIX 2.5
This point system was used to determine which existing and proposed AMPs would be evaluated/implemented first.
APPENDIX 2.5: AMP RATING CRITERIA AND
EVALUATION/IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITY
Assigned points do not reflect the importance of the resource or criteria, but do reflect the importance of its
evaluation.
* No public land ident ified as less than good
COLUMN COLUMN
NO. FACTOR PO | NTS NO. FACTOR PO | NTS
l Public Land (Acres) Less than Good 5 Percent Public Land (Acres) in A lotment
0–500 O 0-25 l
501-600 l 26- 50 2
601 - 1200 2 51–75 3
120 1-2400 4 4 76- 100 4
2 240 | + 8 Trend
Public Land Range Cond it ion a smºs ºs ºmº Up O
Stab le 2
0-10% less than good O Down 4
11-20% l 5 Wild l if e Habitat
21-50% 2
51-40% 3 Winter Range
4 1-50% 4 Crucia 2
51-60% 5 General l
61-70% 6 6 Prairie Dog Towns 2
71–80% 7 7 Riparian Areas & Woody Draws 2
81–90% 8
91–100% 9
EX | ST|NG AMPS PROPOSED AMPS
RECORD SUB- SUB- GRAND | RECORD SUB- SUB- GRAND RECORD SUB- SUB- GRAND
NO. l 2 3 4 TOTAL 5 6 7 TOTAL TOTAL | NO. l 3 4 TOTAL 5 6 7 TOTAL TOTAL NO. 1 2 3 4 TOTAL 5 6 7 TOTAL TOTAL
2084 1 O l O 2 2 2 4 2003 O l l 2 2 28 10 O O 5 3 3
2549 l O l 2 4 4 2098 l 5 l 5 5 28 15 1 O 3 4 4
2550 2 l 2 - 5 5 21 O9 0 0 ! l 2 2 3% 28 16 l O 5 4 2 2 6
2568 2 O 2 O 4 2 2 6 2151 O 2 l 3 2 2 5 281 7 l l 2 4 4
27.27 O O 4 2 6 2 2 8 2144 8 0 1 9 2 2 | 1 28 18 O O 5 3 2 2 3 7
2728 2 l 5 2 7 2 2 9 2217 2 8 l 11 11 28 19 l l 2 4 4
2737 O O 5 O 3 2 2 5 22.19 l 2 2 5 5 2822 O 1 3 4 4
2758 l l 2 2 6 2 2 8 2225 2 1 l 4 l 2 3 7 2825 O O 2 2 2 2 4
2745 O 0 2 2 4 4 2225 l 4 l 7 l l 8 2827 l 2 3 6 2 2 8
2750 2 O 5 4 9 l l 10 2259 l O 2 3 2 2 5 2848 O O 5 3 3
2752 0 0 2 2 4 2 6% 2257 2 l l 4 4 2851 0 0 2 2 2*
2755 l O 5 2 6 6 2292 l O l 2 2 2 4 291 l 4 l l 6 l l 7
27.62 0 0 4 2 6 6% 2351 2 4 2 8 - 8 2952 O O 2 2 2*
2765 O O 2 2 4 2 2 6% 2377 2 O l 3 1 4 294 | O O l l 2 2 3
2772 2 0 2 O 4 4 2514 4 4 l 9 l 10 2957 l 2 | 4 4
2773 0 0 3 2 5 l l 6% 2547 8 2 2 12 2 2 14 2958 0 0 5 3 2 2 5
2774 0 0 3 2 5 l | 6 2551 2 1 2 5 | 1 6 2994 O O 2 2 l l 2%
2786 l l 3 2 7 7 2555 4 4 2 10 10 2995 1 l 2 4 4
2792 2 l 2 2 7 7 2558 8 l 2 1 | l 2 5 14 2999 | l 2 4 4
2793 O O 5 2 5 l l 6% 2590 2 8 2 12 12 5004 O O l l l
2803 2 O 4 O 6 6 2591 l 5 2 6 1 l 7 3005 O O 2 2 2 2 4%
2807 2 5 5 4 14 14 2624 2 5 2 9 l l 10 3006 O O 2 2 2
2824 O O 5 2 5 5 2626 4 9 | 14 14 3O 10 O O 5 3 3%
2828 O O 4 2 6 6% 2651 2 5 2 9 9 3025 O O l l 1%
2829 2 4 2 O 8 8 2672 l 2 2 5 5 3032 O O 2 2 l l 3
285 1 O O 3 2 5 2 2 7 2676 2 1 2 5 5 3054 O O l 1 1*
2858 O O 5 O 3 5* 2682 2 2 3 8 8 5056 O O l l 2 2 5*
2861 2 | 5 4 10 2 2 12 2691 O O 2 2 2 2 4% 3058 0 O 2 2 2 2 4
2875 l O 5 2 6 6 2744 0 0 3 3 l l 4% 3059 O O 5 3 3
2946 0 0 2 2 4 4 2748 0 0 2 2 2% 6374 0 0 3 5 2 2 5
2802 O O 5 3 2 2 5 6576 O O 5 3 2 2 5*
2804 2 O 2 4 4
A-41
APPENDIX 2.6
APPENDIX 2.6: MONTANA BLM PRAIRIE DOG POLICY AS OF APRIL 1980
The management of prairie dog habitats on public lands in Mon-
tana, administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is
a controversial issue because of the conflicting interests of a
Concerned public. More than 100 public comments were received
in response to a draft Habitat Management Plan for the Prairie
Dog Ecosystem distributed by BLM. This document was widely
reviewed by citizens, private organizations and public agencies
throughout the CInited States. Comments ranged from those
favoring total preservation of prairie dogs to those advocating
large scale population reductions.
BLM policy for managing prairie dog habitat was formulated after
careful review of all public comments received, and consideration
of applicable Federal and state laws and regulations. This policy is
intended to be responsive to those comments and to BLM's legal
mandates.
The Bureau recognizes the authority of the State of Montana for
management of resident wildlife species, including prairie dogs.
Any population management on public land will be accomp.
lished in cooperation with the appropriate state agencies.
All prairie dog towns on public land will be inventoried and
examined for presence of associated wildlife species including
threatened or endangered species. The Bureau will cooperate
where feasible with other agencies, universities and private
groups to accomplish inventories and ecological studies.
The BLM recognizes the prairie dog ecosystem as an integral part
of the prairie environment and its perpetuation should be consist.
ent with multiple use management of public lands. The following
policies shall apply in this regard:
1. Selected prairie dog towns will be maintained at a
determined level to support a viable population of prairie
dogs for public use. Public uses include nature study, scien-
tific research, photography, educational study and sport
hunting.
2. Selected prairie dog towns will be maintained at a
determined level to provide habitats for associated wildlife
species. Prairie dogtowns are used by more than 20 wildlife
species of which 6 have been designated as species of
special concern by Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks.
3. Selected prairie dog towns will be maintained at a
determined level to provide habitat for species designated
as threatened or endangered by Federal and state laws.
Currently, the black-footed ferret is the only endangered
species known to be associated with prairie dog towns,
which are primary habitat for this mammmal. Prairie dog
towns on public lands will be maintained to support at least
one wild self-sustaining population of ferrets in Montana as
prescribed by the Fish and Wildlife Service's Black-Footed
Ferret Récovery Plan.
Although some prairie dog towns may be managed primarily for
wildlife and recreational values, others not selected for these
purposes will be subject to multiple use management. Where
prairie dogs are reported to damage public and adjoining private
rangelands the following policy shall apply:
1. Where it has been documented through field investiga-
tion that prairie dogs cause unacceptable damage to public
resources, such as soil loss or destruction of vegetation, a
variety of land treatments including prairie dog control will
be considered for rehabilitating rangelands. Other treat.
ments may include such practices as watershed improve.
ments and manipulation of livestock grazing. Prairie dog
control will be carried out by appropriate state and Federal
agencies using techniques recommended by them and
approved by BLM. Sport hunting of prairie dogs, as permit.
ted under state law, is recognized as a legitimate recrea-
tional use of public lands; hunters may be directed to towns
approved for control.
2. Before control plans for any prairie dog towns can be
approved by BLM, each town must be intensively invento-
ried for threatened and endangered species. If such species
are present, any proposal for control must clearly demon-
strate that prairie dog control will not jeopardize the con-
tinued existence of the species or destroy or adversely
modify its habitat.
3. All approved control plans will be fully coordinted with
appropriate state and Federal agencies.
The BLM recognizes implementing this policy will require close
coordination with Federal and state agencies and private land.
owners. These include, but are not limited to, Montana Depart-
ment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana Department of Live-
stock, (Inited States Fish and Wildlife Service, livestock operators
on public lands, and private landowners whose property adjoins
public land.
Source: BLM, 1980.
A-43
APPENDIX 2.7
The cost of
a ſº e :
d
APPENDIX 2.7: ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
implement i ng each a litern at i ve
construct ion ( a bor a n d mater i a l s ),
e's ign , a dim in ist ration ), and cultural
over he ad
c e a r a n Ce e
is show n be low.
( project
Cost
ALT E R N AT | V E
it em's
implement at i on ,
in c | u de d
TCONSTRUCT TONTAND TOWER HEAD
Fences 6 $25 00/m i le
Management
En c losure
Water Sources
Non AMPs /2 sect i on s 6
$3800 ea.
Mech an ic a l Treat ment
Noxious Weed Control
Prairie Dog Control
560 acres 6 $ 5/ acre
TOTAL
CULTURAL CLEARANCE
Water Sources $55 each
Mech an i ca | Treatment
$2. 20/acre
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
IT-A Tâ C
| | 3%
| | | |
| | | | 6,944, 00 |
| 529,000 | 529,000 O |
| Unknown | 3,523, 600 O |
| | | |
AMPs /section a $3800 ea. | 1 , 748,000 | * O
| |
| 1 , 934, 200 .*.* O |
| | |
| 27,929 Acres e $28/acre | 3,582, 0 || 2 | * O
| |
4500 acres a $850/acre ** | 3, 825,000 | 3,825,000 | Unknown |
| | | |
| 2,800 O O
| |
| | 1,621, 0 | 2 || 5, 141,812 | 16 944, 100
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| 53, 295 | 53, 295 | O |
| | | |
| 281,444 | 28 1,444 O |
| | | |
| 534, 759 | 334, 759 | O |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| 1, 955, 751 || 5,476,551 | 16, 944, 100
Cost to adjoin i ng Ian downer to fence off the pub l ic
$ 1.6, 944, 1 00 = 1, 178, 777 acres + 640 acres x 4 = 75.67 m i les of fence at
*
** Contro |
$2500 per m i I e.
requires 5 years x $ 1 70/acre = $ 850/acre tot a
treatment cost.
| and wou ! d be
A-45
APPENDIX 2.8A
APPENDIX 2.8A: POSSIBLE MECHANICAL TREATMENTS BY SOIL SERIES”
Soil Subgroup *
|Waterspreaders|
and |Plowing and seeding|Ripping/Chisel ing|Contour Furrowing ( less than 4 Å Erosion
| Selected Soil Names | LCC I, IV |LCC IV, V, vi and Scalping | slopes) susceptability
| 1) Clayey, loamy and sandy |Banks, Cherry, |CFeed, HarTem, Absher, Creed, ſcherry, Creed, I Moderate
|soils on flood plains, and low Creed, Dooley, | Havre |Gerdrum |Dooley, Ger- |
|terraces. Series: Absher, Alona |Glend ive, Havre, | |drum, Havre,
|Banks, Benz, Bowdoin, Cherry, McRae, Lonna, | | | Lonna, McRae,
|Creed, Dooley, Glend ive, Hanly, Trembles | | |Trembles |
|Harlem, Havre, McRae, Trembles | |
| | |
| | | | | |
|2) Loamy and sandy soils on |Farland, Farnuf, | |Farland, Far- | Low
|nearly level to strongly |Marmarth, Parshal I, | |nuf, Marmarth,
|rol ing (2-15% slopes) fans, |Reeder, Regent, | | |Morton, Reeder|
| benches and terraces. Series: |Shambo, Tal ly, | | |Regent, Savage
|Beaverton, Farland, Farnuf, |Turner | | |Shambo, Tal Iy
| Lihen, Marmarth, Morton, | | | | |
|Parshal I, Reeder, Regent, Savage | | | | |
|Shambo, Tally, Turner | | | | |
|3) Loamy and sandy strongly |Chama, Kremlin, |Lehr, | |Chama, Kremlin | High
|sloping to steep (8–45% slopes)|Lambert, Lehr, | | | Lambert, Lehr
|soils on sedimentary bedrock Cambert, | | | |
|plains and hills. Series: | | | | |
|Barkof, Bitton, Blanchard, | | | | |
|Brandenburg, Cabba, Cambert, | | | |
|Chamma, Dast, Dimyaw, Flasher, | | | |
|F leak, Lambert, Lehr, Lisk, | | | | |
|Webar, Wabek, Yetul I, Zahil I | – | |
|4) Clayey, loamy and sandy |Farland, Farnuf, Lehr, Vebar |Reeder, Regent, Arnegard, | Low
|soils on nearly level to |Floweree, Parshal I, |Savage, Marmarth, Chama, Farland
|strongly sloping (0-15% slopes) Reeder, Savage, | |Morton |Farnuf, Flow- |
|sed imentary bedrock plains. |Tally, Arnegard, | |eree, Grail,
|Series: Adger, Arnegard, Barvon, |Grail, Lambert, | | | Lambert, Mar-
|Brandenburg, Cabba, Cambert, |Lehr, Marmarth, | | |marth, Morton,
|Chama, Dast, Dimyaw, Farland, Morton, Regent, | |Parshall, |
|Farnuf, Flasher, Fleak, |Searing, Shambo, | |Searing, Shambol
|Floweree, Grail, Lambert, Lehr, webar | | |Savage, Tally |
|Lisk, Marmarth, Morton, Norbert| | | | |
|Parshall, Reeder, Regent, | | | | |
|Savage, Searing, Shambo, Tally, | | | |
| Vebar, Wabek, Zahi I | | | | |
|5) Loamy soils on undulating to Bowbells, Creed, |Creed |Bowbells, | Low
|strongly rolling (2-15% slopes) |Marmarth, Morton, |Tea lette |Creed, Dooley,
| glacial till plains. Series: Regent, Savage, | | |Marmarth, |
|Bowbells, Dooley, Marmarth, |Tea lette, Telstad, | |Morton, Regent|
|Morton, Reeder, Regent, Savage, Williams | | |Savage, |
|Telstad, Vida, Will I iams | | | |Williams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

A-47
APPENDICES
| So i ! Subgroup * | | | |Waterspreaders|
| and |Plowing and Seeding |Ripping/Chisel ing|Contour Furrowing ( less than 4%| Erosion
| Selected So i ! Names | LCC | | | , IV | LCC IV, V, VI | and Scalping | slopes) |Susceptability
|6) Loamy soils on strongly |Lambert, Williams |Lambert, | High

|rol ling to steep (8–45% slopes) |
|dissected glacial ti | | |
|plains. Series: Cabba, Lambert,
|Norbert, Sunburst, Tinsley, |
|Will lams, Zahl |
|Williams
|
|
|
|
|nearly level to hiſ I y (0-25%
|slopes) glacial till plains.
|Series: Lambert, Vida, Williams,
|Zahil |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| - |
|7) Clayey, loamy and sandy |Attewan, Chinook, Gerdrum, Ethridge|Attewan, Chi- || Moderate
|soils on nearly level to steep |Degrand, Ethridge, | |nook, Degrand,
| (0–45% slopes) fans, |Evanston, Kremlin, | |Ethridge, |
| benches and terraces. Series: |Yamac | | |Evanston, |
|Attewan, Beaverton, | | | |Kremlin, |
|Chanta, Chinook, Degrand, | | | |Yamac |
|Ethridge, Evanston, Gerdrum, | | | |
|Kremlin, Li hen, Yamac | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|8) Cayey and sandy soils on | | | | High
|strongly sloping to steep (8- | | | | |
|45% slopes) dissected | | | | |
|sedimentary bedrock plains and | | | |
|h I I Is. Series: Blackhal I, | | | | |
|Cabbart, Neldore, Rentsac, | | | | |
|Twilight, Yawd im | | | | |
|9) Cayey and Toamy soils on TIBonfri, Chinook, Ethridge, |Ethridge, |Bonfrt, chi- | Low
|nearly level to strongly |Ethridge, Evanston, Evanston, Forel le|Evanston, Pinel I i |nook, Evanston |
|sloping (0-15% slopes) sedi- |Forelle, Pinelli, Pinell i | |Forel le, |
|mentary bedrock plains. Series: | | |Pinel I |
|Bon fri, Chinook, Ethridge, | | | |
|Evanston, Forel le, Pinel II | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| 10) Clayey and loamy soils on Vida, Williams | |Vida, Williams | Moderate
| |
| |
| |
| |


A-48
APPENDIX 2.8A
| Soil Subgroup *
| and
|Waterspreaders
|Plowing and Seeding|Ripping/Chisel ing|Contour Furrowingſ ( less than 4%|
Erosion
| Selected So i ! Names | LCC | | | , ! V | LCC IV, V, VI | and Scalping | slopes) |Susceptability|
| 11) Clayey and loamy soils on | Attewan, Busby, |Pinel |Gerdrum, Weingart |Attewan, Creed| High
| nearly level to steep (0–45% |Degrand, Gerdrum, | | |Degrand, Ger- |
|s lopes) fans, benches, and |Yamac | | |drum, Pinel I i
| terraces. Series: Attewan, | | | |Yamac |
|Busby, Degrand, Gerdrum, | | | | |
|Pinel I i, Weingart, Yamac | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| 12) Clayey, loamy and sandy TBusby, Cambeth, | | |Cambeth, Chi- || High
|soils on strongly sloping to Chinook, Del point, | |nook, Kobar,
| steep (8–45% slopes) dis- |Kobar, Kremlin, | | |Kremlin, |
|sected plains and h i ! I s. |Lambeth, Lonna | | | Lambeth, Lonna
|Series: Abor, Arch in, Armel is, | | | |
|Birney, Blackhal I, Blanchard, | | | |
|Busby, Cabbart, Cambeth, | | | | |
|Chinook, Cooers, Del point, | | | | |
|Kirby, Kobar, Kremlin, Lambeth, | | | |
| Nel dore, Nihil I, Parch in, | | | | |
|Pierre, Rent sac, Yamac, Yawdim, | | | |
|Yetul I | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| 15) Clayey, loamy and sandy |Assiniboine, |Absher, Creed, Arnegard, | Moderate
|soils on nearly level to |Busby, Chinook, |Gerdrum, Tealer |Assiniboine,
|moderately steep (0–25% slopes) |Creed, Ethridge, | |Bonfri, Cam- |
|sed imentary bedrock plains.
|Evanston, Floweree,
|Series: Absher, Alona, Archin, Gerdrum, Lambeth,
|Armel is, Arnegard, Assiniboine, Yamac
|Birney, Bitton, Blackhal I,
|Bonfri, Busby, Cabbart, Cambeth
|Chinook, Cooers, Creed, Del-
| point, Ethridge, Evanston,
|Floweree, Forel le, Gerdrum,
|Kirby, Kobar, Kremlin, Lambeth
|Marias, Marmarth, Marvan,
|McRae, Parch in, Tealer, Vebar,
|Yamac
,
|beth, Chinook,
|Creed, Evans- |
|ton, Floweree,
|Gerdrum, Kobar|
|Kremlin, Marias |
|Marmarth, |
|McRae, Yamac
A-49
APPENDICES
| So i ! Subgroup * | | T |Waterspreaders|
| and |Plowing and Seeding |Ripping/Chise ling |Contour Furrowing ( less than 4%| Erosion
| Selected So i ! Names | LCC | | | , IV | LCC IV, V, VI | and Scalping slopes) |Susceptability
|14) Clayey soils on strongly Kobar, Bascovy |Bascovy, | |Kobar | High
|sloping to steep (8–45% slopes) | |Bickerdyke, |
|dissected shale plains. Series: Boettcher
|Abor, Bascovy, Bickerdyke, | |
|Boettcher, Di Its, Jul in, Kobar, |
| Neldore, Yawdim | |
| | |
| | |
| 15) Clayey, silty and sandy | |
|sol is on highly dissected (25- | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 70% slopes) river breaks and
|bad lands. Series: Abor, Bad lands]
|(misc. land type), Blackha | 1 , |
|Cabbart, Neldore, Yawd im, |
|shales and sandstone rock out-
|crops |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | High
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
* See legend and soils map in Map Supplement
** Soil series list will be updated as more data become available. Treatments will be made after on site investigations
during activity plans.
A-50
APPENDIX 2.8B
APPENDIX 2.8B; SOIL RESPONSE TO RANGE TREATMENTS
So i ! Subgroup * |A. Mechanical Treatments needed B. Respond to Grazing Treatments |C. Unsuited for Treatments,
in combination with grazing
treatments (series)
| 1) Clayey, loamy and |Absher, Benz, Cherry, Dooley,
|sandy so i ! s on flood |Gerdrum, Havre, McRae, Trembles|Hanly, Harlem, Lo! lie, McKenzie,
|plains, and low terraces. Tealer
|
| and |
| Selected Soil Names |
|Series are Absher, Alona,
|Banks, Benz, Bowdoin, |
|Cherry, Creed, Dooley,
|Glend ive, Hanly, Harlem,
|Havre, McRae, Trembles,
|Tealer |
|2) Loamy and sandy soils IFarland, Farnuſ, Marmarth,
|on nearly level to |Morton, Parshall, Reeder,
|strongly rolling (2-15% Turner, Shambo, Tal ly
|slopes) fans, benches and
|terraces. Series are |
|Beaverton, Farland, |
|Farnuf, Li hen, Marmarth,
|Morton, Parshall, Reeder,
|Regent, Savage, Shambo,
|Tally, Turner |
|3) Loamy and sandy; |Chama, Kremlin, Lambert, Lehr
|strongly sloping To steep
|(8–45% slopes) soils on |
|sed imentary bedrock |
|plains and hills. Series:
|Barkof, Bitton, Blanchard
|Brandenberg, Cabba, |
|Cambert, Chama, Dast, |
|Dimyaw, Flasher, Fleak,
| Lambert, Lehr, Lisk, |
|Yebar, Wabek, Yetul I |
|4) Clayey, loamy and [Adger, Arnegard, Chama, Farland [Barvon, Cambert, Dast, Flasher,
|sandy soils, on nearly Farnuf, Floweree, Grail,
|Trembles
Lihen, Regent, Savage
|Blanchard, Cambert, Dast,
|Flasker, Fleak, Lisk, Vebar,
|Zah I I I, Yetul I
|Fleak, Norbert, Zahi II, Cabba,
| level to strongly sloping|Lambert, Lehr, Macar, Marmarth, Dimyaw, Norbert, Parshall
| (0-15% slopes), sedi- |Morton, Reeder, Regent, Savage,
|mentary bedrock plains. ||Searing, Tally, webar
|Series: Adger, Arnegard,
|Barvon, Brandenberg, |
|Cabba, Cambert, Chama, |
|Dast, Dimyaw, Farland,
|Farnuf, Flasher, Fleak,
|Floweree, Grail, Lambert,
|Lehr, Lisk, Marmarth, |
|Morton, Norbert, Parshal ||
|Reeder, Regent, Savage,
|Searing, Shambo, Tally,
|Vebar, Wabek, Zahi I |
improve to next cond it ion
| class in 15 years (series)
|Alona, Banks, Bowdoin, Glend ive,
| unresponsive to grazing
| management
Beaverton, Wabek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T

|Barkof, Bitton,
|Brandenburg, Cabba, Dimyaw,
|Wabek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|Brandenburg, Wabek
A-51
APPENDICES
| Soil Subgroup *
| and
| Selected Soi | Names
|5) Loamy soils, on
|undulating to strongly
|rol ling (2-15% slopes)
|A. Mechanical Treatments needed|B. Respond to Grazing Treatments|C. Unsuited for Treatments,
| unresponsive to grazing |
| in combination with grazing
|_ treatments (series)
|Bowbel is, Creed, Dooley,
|Marmarth, Morton, Regent,
|Savage, Tealette, Telstad,
|glacial till plains. |Williams
|Series: Bowbel is, Dooley,
|Marmarth, Morton, Reeder,
|Regent, Savage, Telstad,
| Vida, will iams
|Vida, Zahil
improve to next cond it ion
| class in 15 years (series)

management

|6) loamy soils on
|strongly rolling to steep
| (8–45% slopes) |
|dissected glacial till
|plains. Series: Cabba,
|Lambert, Norbert, Sun- |
|burst, Tinsley, Williams,
|Zah I I I |
Lambert, Will iams
Sunburst, Zah i ! I, Cabba, Norbert
Tinsley
|7) Cayey, Toamy and |Attewan, Degrand, Ethridge,
|sandy soils on nearly |Evanston, Kremlin, Yamac
| level to steep (0-45% |
|slopes) fans, benches,
|and terraces. Series:
|Attewan, Beaverton,
|Chanta, Chinook, Degrand,
|Ethridge, Evanston,
|Kremlin, Li hen, Twilight,
|Yamac
|
|
|
|
|
|8) Clayey and sandy soils
|on strongly sloping to
|steep (8–45% slopes)
|
#
|dissected sedimentary
| bedrock plains and hills.
|Series: Cabbart,
|Blackhal I, Neldore,
|Rent sac, Twilight, Yawd im
Li hen, Twilight, Chinook
Nel dore, Riedel, Twilight,
Cabbart
Beaverton

Blackhal I, Rent sac
A-52
APPENDIX 2.8B
| Soil Subgroup * |A. Mechanical Treatments needed B. Respond to Grazing Treatments|c. Unsuited for Treatments,
| and | in combination with grazing improve to next condition |or unresponsive to grazing |
| Selected Sol I Names | treatments (series) . | class in 15 years (series) || management |
|9) Clayey and loamy soil s! Bonfrº, Ethridge, Evanston, |Chinook
|on nearly level to |Forelle, Pinel II |

|strongly sloping (0-15%
|slopes) sedimentary |
|bedrock plains. Series:
|Bonfri, Chinook, Ethridge
|Evanston, Forel le,
|Pinel I

| 10) Clayey and loamy Theony TWTTTTams, Vida, Zahl
|soils on nearly level to
|hilly (0-25% slopes)
|glacial till plains.
|Series: Theony, Vida,
|Williams, Zahl, Zahil
| 11) Clayey and loamy |Attewan, Creed, Degrand, Yamac, Busby, Cabbart, Del point, Yewdim

|soils on nearly level to Pinel 11, Weingart
|steep (0–45% slopes) fans|
|benches and terraces. |
|Series: Busby, Attewan,
|Cabbart, Degrand, Del pointſ
|
|Del point, Gerdrum, |
|Pinell i, Weingart, Yamac | |

| 12) Clayey, loamy and |Cambeth, Delpoint, Gerdrum, |Armel is, Birney, Busby, |Blackha I, Cabbart, Nobe,
|sandy soils on nearly |Kobar, Kremlin, Lambeth, Lonna, Blanchard, Chinook, Del point, Vaeda, Vanda, Kirby, Nihil
| level to steep (8-45% |Marias, Archin, Parch in |Lisam, Neldore, Riedel, Twilight|Rentsac
|slopes) dissected | |Yawdim, Yetul |
|sed imentary bedrock
|plains and
|
|
|Series: Abor, Archin, |
|Armel is, Birney, Black- |
|hall, Blanchard, Busby,
|Cabbart, Cambeth, |
|Chinook, Cooers, Creed,
|Del point, Gerdrum, Kirby,
|Kobar, Kremlin, Lambeth,
|Lisam, Nobe, Neldore, |
|Nihil I, Parchin, Waeda,
|Vanda, Yawd im, Yetul |
| - |
| |
| |
A-53
APPENDICES
| So I | Subgroup * |A. Mechanical Treatments needed B. Respond to Grazing Treatments |C. Unsuited for Treatments,
| and | in combination with grazing improve to next condition | unresponsive to grazing
| Selected Sol I Names treatments (series) | class in 15 years (series) management
| 13) Clayey, loamy and |Absher, Arch in, Arnegard, |Alona, Armel is, Birney, Bitton, |Blackhal I, Kirby, Nobe,
|sandy soils on nearly |Ass in iboine, Busby, Bitton, |Cabbart, Del point, Kobar, |Waeda, Vanda
| level to moderately steep |Bonfri, Cambeth, Chinook, |Marias, Marvan, Riedel, Thebo, |
| (0–25% slopes) sedi- |Creed, Cooers, Del point, |Twilight
|mentary bedrock plains. |Ethridge, Evanston, Floweree,
|Series: Absher, Alona, Forelle, Gerdrum, Kremlin,
|Archin, Armel is, Arnegard | Lambeth, Lonna, Marias,
|Ass in iboine, Birney, |Marmarth, McRae, Parch in,
|
|
|
|Bitton, Blackhal I, Bonfr I | Vebar, Yamac |
|Busby, Cabbart, Cambeth, |
|Chinook, Cooers, Creed, |
|Del point, Ethridge, | |
|Evanston, Floweree, | |
|Forel ſe, Gerdrum, Kirby, |
|Kobar, Kremlin, Lambeth, |
|Marias, Marmarth, Marvan, |
|McRae, Nobe, Parch in, | |
|Tealer, Valda, Vanda, | |

|Yamac | |
|14) Clayey soils on |Absher, Creed, Gerdrum |Abor, Bascovy, Bickerdyke |Boettcher, Waeda, Nobe,
|nearly level to steep | |Dilts, Dimyaw, Gomar, Jul in, |Vanda
| (8–45% slopes) dissected | |Kobar, Lisam, Midway, Neldore,
|shale plains. Series: | |Yawd im
|Abor, Bascovy, Bickerdyke, |
|Boettcher, Dilts, Jul in,
|Kobar, Nobe, Neldore,
| Waeda, Vanda, Yawd im
|
|
|
|
|
| 15) Clayey, silty and |
|sandy soils on highly |
|dissected river breaks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|and bad lands. Series:
|Abor, Bad lands (misc.
| land type), Blackhal I,
|Cabbart, Neldore, Yawd im,
|shales and sandstones
|rock outcrops
* See legend for soils map in Map Supplement
**So i ! series list will be updated as more data becomes available. Treatments will be made after on site investigations
during activity plans.
A-54
| | | | | | |Suitability| Other | |
| Soi | Subgroup * | Percent | | | Response for | Suitable |
| and |of Public | Vegetation Key | | to Grazing |Mechanical Land | |
| Selected So i ! Names |Land ( 1) | Type (2) Species | Increasers | Management Treatments | Treatments Other |
| 1) Clayey, loamy and sandy soils on | 6.4% grasslands western and |wil drose, Responds Suited on Waterspreaders Benz soils is
|nearly level to strongly sloping | ( 109,000) and |thickspike |snowberry, lauickly, |slopes < 12%|on slopes <4%, strongly |
| (0-15% slopes) flood plains, low | |deciduous wheatgrass, |cactus, | livestock on selected | prescribed |al ka line. |
|terraces. Series: Absher, Alona, | |wood lands green needle- |bluegrass congregate series |burning, |Bowdoin has a |
|Banks, Benz, Bowdoin, Cherry, Creed, | |grass, willows, |here | |seeding, fer- |heavy clay
|Dooley, Dimmick, Glend ive, Hanly, | | |cottonwood | | | |til ization |surface tex- |
| Harlem, Havre, Haverlon | | | | | | | |ture.
| | | | | | | | | |
|2) Loamy and sandy soils on nearly | 1.5% |grassland western wheat- |blue grama, Moderate to |Suited on | Prescribed |Wind erosion |
| level to strongly roll inq (2-15% | ( 26,000) | |grass, green |Drairie |s low |s opes < 12%|burning, |on |
|slopes) dissected glacial till plains. | |need legrass |Juneqrass | |on selected | fertilization, |unprotected
|Series: Cabba, Lambert, Norbert, | | | | | |series |seeding |soils |
|Sunburst, Tinsley, Williams, Zahl | | | | | | | | |
|3) Loamy and sandy, strong sloping T9.5%TTgrassland Twestern wheat-Tyucca, blue Twoderate |Well suited | Prescribed |Shal low soils
| (8–45% slopes) soils on sedimentary | ( 159,000) | |grass, qreen |grama, red |on slopes |burning, |and steep |
| bedrock plains and hiſ is. Series: | | |need learass |three awn, |< 12% on | fert iſ ization slopes will
|Barkof, Bitton, Blanchard, Brandenburg, | | |need le-and- | |selected | | limit activi-
|Cabba, Cambert, Dast, Dimyaw, Flasher, | | |thread | |series | |ties |
|F leak, Lambert, Lehr, Lisk, Vebar, | | | | | | | | |
|Wabek, Yetul I | | | | | | | |
|4) Cayey, loamy and sandy soils, on | 10.5% grassland western wheat- |needle-and- Slow due to | Well suited | Prescribed Shallow soils |
|nearly level to strong Iy sloping (0–15% ( 180,000) and
|grass, need le- thread, blue |clubmoss and |on slopes burning, |wi | | | imit
|on dissected sedimentary bedrock plains |
|and hills. Series: Blackhal I, Midway,
|Neldore, Rent sac, Travess iſ la, Twilight|
|activities
|need le-and- |
|thread grass
|slopes) sedimentary bedrock plains. | |grassland land-thread |grama, club-land blue |< 124 on | waters Dreaders|activities
|Series: Adger, Arnegard, Barvon, | |sagebrush | |moss, frinqelgrama |selected |on slopes <4%, |
|Brandenburg, Cabba, Cambert, Chama, | | | |sagewort, |series |seeding, | |
|Dast, Dimyaw, Farland, Farnuf, Flasher, | | |cactus | | |fertilization | |
|Fleak, Floweree, Grail, Lambert, Lehr, | | | | | | | |
|Lisk, Marmarth, Morton, Norbert, | | | | | | | | |
|Parshall, Reeder, Regent, Savage, | | | | | | | | |
|Searing, Shambo, Tal ly, Vebar, Wabek, | | | | | | | |
|Zah i ! I | | | | | | | | |
|5) Loamy soils, undulating to strongly 5.9% |grassland western wheat- |need e-and- Slow due to Moderately Fertilization, | Local areas |
|rol ling (2-15% slopes) on glacial till ( 101,000) |qrass, qreen thread grass|clubmoss and suited on prescribed |have gravels
|plains. Series: Bowbells, Dooley, | | |need legrass |blue grama, blue grama | slopes <8% burning, |and stones |
|Marmarth, Morton, Reeder, Regent, | | | |fringe sage-lgrass |selected seeding, |which |
|Savage, Telstad, Vida, Williams | | | |wort, cactus| |series | waters preaders | influence |
| | | | | | | |<4% slopes |suitability |
| | | | | | | | | for mechan i-
| | | | | | | | |cal treatment
|6) loamy soils on strongly rolling to ſo.5% grassland |green need le- |needle-and- Islow due to ſwell suited Fertilization | Local areas
|steep (*8–45% slopes) on dissected |( 9,000) | |grass, western thread grass|clubmoss and |on slopes |prescribed |have gravels |
|qlacial t i ! I plains. Series: Cabba, | | |and thickspike |blue grama, and blue |< 12% on |burning |and stones or
|Lambert, Norbert, Sunburst, Tinsley, | |wheatgrass | clubmoss, grama |selected | |are shal low
| Williams, Zah iſ | | | |fringe sage- |series | | which may |
| | | | |wort, needle- | | | influence |
| | | | |and-thread | | | |suitability
| | | | |grass | | | |for mechani- |
| | | | | | | | |cal treatment
|7) Clayey, loamy and sandy soils on | 1.8% |grassland western and |big sage- |Moderate to Well suited |Prescribed |Wind, erosion |
|nearly level to steep (0–45% slopes) on ( 31,000) | |thickspike |brush, fringe slow |on slopes |burning, |on |
|fans, benches and terraces. Series: | | |wheatgrass |sagewort, |<8% on |fert iſ ization, |unprotected
|Absher, Attewan, Beaverton, Busby, | | | |needle-and- | |selected waters preaders soils |
|Chanta, Chinook, Degrand, Ethridge, | | | |thread grass| |series |seeding | |
| Evanston, Kremlin, Li hen, Marmarth, | | | | | | | | |
|McRae, Morton, Parshal I, Reeder, Regent | | | | | | |
|Rhoades, Sappington, Savage, Searing, | | | | | | |
|Tally, Turner, Vebar, Wabek, Yamac | | | | | | | |
|8) clayey and sandy soils on strongly o.4% grassland |bluebunch |bluegrama, Moderate |Poorly |Shallow soil s]
|s I oping to steep (*8 -45% slopes) soil s! ( 7,000) |wheatgrass, |yucca | |will limit
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Yawd im |
|
|
|
|
|suited |
|
|
|
|
!
.

§
| | | | | | |Suitability| Other | |
| So il Subgroup * | Percent | | | Response for (3) | Suitable |
| and |of Public | Vegetation | Key | | to Grazing |Mechanical Land | |
| So i ! Names |Land (1) || Type (2) | Species | Increasers | Management Treatments | Treatments | Other |
|9) clayey and Toamy so TTs on nearly | 0.5% |grassland |needle-and- |Sandberg |Slow to |wei Tsuited | Prescribed ſwind erosion
| level to strongly sloping (0-15% ( 9,000) | |thread grass, bluegrass, moderate |on slopes |burn inq, |on |
lslopes) on sedimentary bedrock plains. | |thickspike and |big sage- | |<8% on | fert I lization, |unprotected
|Series: Bonfr I, Chinook, Ethridge, | |western wheat- |brush, | |selected seeding, |soils |
|Evanston, Forel le, Marmarth, Morton, | |grass |ponderosa | |series | waters preaders| |
|Pinel II, Reeder, Regent, Renohi 1, | | |Dine | | | | |
|Sappington, Terry, Travessi i la | | | | | | | |
| 10) Clayey and Toamy so TTs on nearly 0.9% |grassland western [BTUe grana, TSTow due to Tweſſ suſted TPFescribed |Local areas |
|
| |
|
|
|
| | wheatgrass |need ſe-and- |clubmoss and |on slopes |burning, |have surface
|qlacial till plains. Series: Briggsdale | |thread grass|blue grama |<8% on | fertilization, stones which
|Telstad, Theony, vida, Williams, Zahl | | | clubmoss, |selected seeding | influence
| | | |fringe | |series | |suitability
| | | |sagewort | | | | for mechan i-
| | | | | | | |cal treatmentſ
| 11) Clayey and loamy soils on nearly 1.0% grassland western and |big sage-Tſvoderate to TWeſTsuited TFrescribed |Wind erosion |
| level to steep (0–45% slopes) fans, |( 17,000) | |thickspike |brush, fringe rapid |on slopes |burning, |on |
| benches and terraces. Series: Absher, | |wheatgrass |sagewort, |<8% on | fertilization, |unprotected |
|Busby, Attewan, Creed, Degrand, Gerdrumſ | | |needle-and- |selected seeding, |soils |
|McRae, Parch in, Pinelli, Renohil I, | | | |thread grass| | series | waters preaders| |
|Rominel I, Wanetta, Yamac | | | | | | | | |
|12) Cayey, Toamy and sandy so ITs on TT44.35 TTgrassland TBTuebunch and TToonderosa TTSTowTro [we] Tsuited TPrescribed |Wind erosion
|strongly sloping to steep (8–45% |(758,000) |or wood- western |pine, blue |moderate |on «8% |burning, |on unprotec- |
|slopes) on dissected sedimentary bed- | | land and wheatgrass, |grama, yuccal |slopes on | fertilization |ted areas.
|rock plains and hills. Series: Absher, |grassland |need le-and- |juniper | |selected |Shal low soils |
|Along, Archin, Armel is, Bad lands (misc. | |thread, little | |series | |and steep |
| land type), Birney, Blackhal I, | | |bluestem | | | | |s opes will
|Blanchard, Busby, Cabbart, Cambeth, | | | | | | | | limit |
|Chinook, Cooers, Creed, Del point, | | | | | | | |activities.
|Gerdrum, Kirby, Kobar, Kremlin, Lambeth | | | | | | | |
|Lisam, Marias, Marvan, Midway, Neldore, | | | | | | | |
|Nih I I I, Parch in , Pendroy, Pierre, | | | | | | | | |
|Rentsac, Travessi I ſa, Yawd im, Yetul | | | | | | | | | |
| 13) Clayey, loamy and sandy soils on T 10% grassland western wheat-bluegrass, slow to |Well suited | Prescribed |Wind erosion
|nearly level to moderately steep (0–25%|( 171,000) | |grass, little ſponderosa rapid |on slopes |burning, |on unprotec- |
|slopes) on sedimentary bedrock plains. | |bluestem |pine, annual |< 12% on | fertilization, |ted soils |
|Series: Absher, Alona, Archin, Armel is, | | |bromes, | |selected |Shal low soils |
|Arnegard, Assiniboine, Birney, Bitton, | | |blue grama | |series | |and steep |
|Blackhal I, Bonfri, Busby, Cabbart, | | | | | | | |s opes will
|Cambeth, Chinook, Cooers, Creed, Del- | | | | | | | limit |
|point, Ethridge, Evanston, Floweree, | | | | | | |activities
|Forelle, Gerdrum, Kirby, Kobar, Kreml in | | | | | | | |
|Lambeth, Marias, Marmarth, Marvan, | | | | | | | | |
|McRae, Parchin, Renohil I, Terry, Thebo, | | | | | | | |
|Vebar, Wanetta, Yamac | | | | | | | | |
|14) Clayey soils on strongly sloping to 5.5% ſponderosa western and |ponderosa |Slow to |Poorly |Prescribed |Wind erosion |
|steep (8–45% slopes) on dissected shale|( 58,000)|pine/ |thickspike |pine, creep-lmoderate |suited due |burning, |on |
|plains. Series: Abor, Absher, Bascovy, |grassland wheatgrass, |ing juniper, |to slope | fertilization |unprotected
|Bickerdyke, Boettcher, Creed, Diſts, | |green need le- |big | | | |soils |
|Gerdrum, Gomar, Jul in, Kobar, Lisam, | |grass, prairie |sagebrush | | | |Shallow soils |
|Midway, Neldore, Dimyaw, Yawdim | | |sandreed, little | | | |and steep |
| | | |bluestem | | | | |slopes will
| | | | | | | | | limit |
| | | | | | | | |activities |
|T5) Cayey, Toamy and sandy so ITs on TTA. Tº Tjuniper/TTBTuebunch and TTSTue grana, Tvery slow TTNor surred T. |Shaſ low soils
|highly dissected river breaks and | ( 70,000) |grassland western lyucca, | |due to | |and steep |
|bad lands. Series: Bad lands (misc. land |or limber wheatgrass |annuals, | |slope | |slopes will
|type), Cabbart, Lisam, Waeda, Yawd im, |pine/ | |weedy forbs, | | | limit |
|shale and sandstone rock outcrops | |grassland |broom | | | |activities |
| | | | |snakeweed | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| level to hilly (0-25% slopes) on | ( 15,000)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Assume soils are randomly distributed regard less of ownership.
(2) Grasslands are dominated by short and mid grass species.
(3) Mechanical treatments (contour furrowing, scal ping, chisel ing) subject to on-site investigation of soils.
* See legend for soils map in Map Supplement
:


§
APPENDIX 3.2
APPENDIX 3.2; SOIL TARGET COVERS ON RANGE SITES
( 10" to 14" Precipitat ion Zone)
Percent Ground Cover
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
+
Range Site
Wet Meadow
Subirrigated
Sal ine Low lands
Over flow
Sands
Sandy
Si | ty
Clayey
Th in Hill ly
Th in Sandy
Th in Si | ty
12. Thin C layey
15. Clay Pan
14. Sha low to Gravel
15. Shal low
16. Grazable Wood lands
17. Gravel ly
18. Sha I low to Clay
19. Shale
20. Very Sha I low
21. Th in Breaks
22. Pan Spots
25. Sa I ine Up lands
24. Dense Clay
25. Dense Shale
26. Bad lands
H
% cover is
Excel lent
Cond it ion
x - 75 =
Low %
COVer e
9
©
O
©
l
l
©
Target
COverS = -
X
O

LN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#F
*SCS Soil/Range Site are arranged into most productive to least productive. —A- Target Cover Value
A-57

APPENDIX 3.3
APPENDIX 3.3: BIG DRY SOIL SERIES BY SCS RANGE SITES
RANGE SITE
Wet Meadow
EXAMPLES OF SO | L SERIES
Lal lie, Loh ler
2. Subirrigated Aeric Fluvaguents, Colvin, Dimmick
5. Sal ine Low lands Alona, Benz, Cherry (sa line phase), Gomar, Ustic Torriorthents
4. Overflow Arnegard, Adger, Cherry, Glend ive, Grail, Harlem, Havre, Havre lon, Hanly, Lohler,
Lohmi I ler, McKenzie, Rivra, Torrif luvents, Trembles
5. Sands Blanchard, Li hen, Hanly, Yetul I
6. Sandy Assiniboine, Banks, Busby, Chanta, Chinook, Cozberg, Dast, Degrand, Dooley, Flasher,
Glend ive, Lisk, Manning, Parshal I, Remmit, Tally, Trembles, Turner, Tusler, Twilight,
Vebar
7. Silty Alona, Arnegard, Attewan, Ba inville, Bonfri, Bowbells, Briggsdale, Cambeth, Cambert,
Camborth ids, Chama, Chanta, Cherry, Cooers, Creed, Cushman, Degrand, Del point, Ethridge,
Evanston, Farland, Farnuf, Floweree, Forel le, Hiſ lon, Kremlin, Lambert, Lambeth, Lonna,
Marmarth, McRae, Morton, Pinel I i , Ridge lawn, Reeder, Searing, Shambo, Telstad, Turner,
Wanstel, Williams, Yamac, Zah i ! I , Zahl
8. Clayey Abor, Barkof, Bascovy, Bickerdyke, Boettcher, Bowdoin, , Dimmick, Ethridge, Harlem, Havre,
Hesper, Hoffmanville, Ju lin, Kobar, Lohler, Macar, Marias, Marvan, Moreau, Nunn, Pendroy,
Regent, Savage, Teigen, Thebo .
9. Thin Hil Iyº Bitton, Del point, Lambert, Nihil I, Zah i ! I
10. Th in Sandy Dast, Flasher, Webar
11. Th in Silty Bonfri, Cambeth, Cambert, Chama, Cushman, Del point, Marmarth, Nihil I, Searing
12. Th in Clayey Abor, Sunburst
15. Clay Pan Absher, Adger, Arch in, Creed, El loam, Hovan, Ladner, Parch in, Rhoades, Rominel I, Weingart
14. Shal low to Gravel Beaverton, Wabek, Lehr
15. Shal low Blackhal I, Brandenburg, Cabba, Cabbart, Flasher, Kirby, Rent sac, Riedel
16. Grazable Wood lands Armel is, Barvon, Birney, Bitton, Kirby, Lamdeer, Ring ling, Twin Creek
17. Gravel ly Rivra, Tinsley, Bitton
18. Shal low to Clay Dimyaw, Lisam, Lismas, Midway, Neldore, Norbert, Yawdim
19, Shale Dilts, Bascovy, Vol borg
20. Very Shal low Kirby, Travess iſ la, Wibaux
21. Th in Breaks” Armel Is, Cabbart, Del point, Flasher, Yawd im
22. Pan Spots” Absher, Gerdrum, Nobe, Tea ler, Thoeny
25. Sal ine Up lands Louscot
24. Dense Clay Absher, Lohler, Marias, Tealer, Waeda, Vanda
25, Dense Shale Volborg, eroded phase
26. Bad lands* Bad lands (a miscel laneous land type, combination of many soils)
*A combination of other range sites
(a) Due to ongoing SCS and BLM soil surveys, additional soil series will be ident ified with in the EIS area.
(b) Some soil series may be found in more than one range site, depending upon slopes, surface textures, and other
factors which inf-14sence its production and potential management. Some series are more productive than others,
but may be found in the same range site and, hence, have the same soil target cover assigned.
A-59

|shale
|
|
Layer
|aquifer, forms a
| lying shal low
Rock Un it | Geologic | Approximate | Lithology | Water Bearing | Water
Youngest to Oldest Age | Thickness | | Characteristics | Quality
| | ( feet) | | . |
| | | |5 to 1000 gpm |Fair to good quality, used
| | | |reported, most wel is for stock & domestic.
Al luvium | Quaternary | 0 to 40t | Sand, qravel, lyield 10–20 gpm. |Typical dissolved salts are
| | | silt, clay |Most productive |CA, MG, Na2SO4; HCO3
| | | |aquifer in area, |
| | | |however, areal |
| | | |extent limited to
| | | |major river valleys
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
- | | | | |
Glacial | Quaternary | Unreported | Fine sand, silt | Unreported | Unreported
| | | & clay, patchy |
| | | distribution | |
| | | . | |
| | | |5 to 500 gpm re- |Ranges from highly mineral-
| | | |ported, most wells || zed to satisfactory for
Terrace | Quaternary | 0 to 120+ | Sand, gravel, |yield 5 to 20 gpm. |domestic and stock uses
| | | silt, clay |Adequate for stock,
| | | |domestic & small |
| | | |scale irrigation |
| | | | in local ized areas |
| | | | |
|
|
| | | | |
Flaxv i l l e | Tertiary | 0 to 40+ | sand & gravel | Unreported | Unreported
| | | patchy distri- | |
but ion
2 to 20 gpm re- Adequate for stock & domes-
| | | |ported most wel Is It ic, unsuited for irriga-
Fort Union | Tertiary | 0 to 1200+ | Interbedded buffſ yield 2-12 gpm. |tion. Shal low aquifers have
| | | sandstone & |Most widely used |2500–4000 mg/1 dissolved
| | | shale, coal |aquifer in E. I.S. solids. Dominate ions are
| | | seams also |area |Na, Mg, Soa. Deeper
| | | present | |aquifers have 1500–2000
| | | | lmg/1 and are sodium bicar-
| | | | |bonate type. Sandstone
| | | | |squifers are often mineral-
| | | | |ized while coal seam aqui-
| | | | |fers are often pure & low
| | | | | in minerals
| | | | - |
Upper Hell Creek | Cretaceous | 0 to 600+ irregular & dis- |General Iy unproduc- Unreported
| | |continuous inter-|tive |
| | |bedded gray-brown | |
| | |sandstone & carb- |
| | |onaceous gray | |
| | |shale | |
| | | | |
Lower Hell Creek - | Cretaceous || 0 to 500 [Fine to medium |Most producing wel Isldissolved solids concentra-
Fox Hi || ||s | | |grained, cross ||are in southeastern It ions range from 500 to
| | |bedded sandstone ſportion of E. I.S. |2000 mg/1. Major ions are
| | | |area with yields of sodium and bicarbonate.
| | | |8 gpm |Chloride concentration is
| | | | | greater than in overlying
| | |Ft. Union Formation.
| | |
Bearpaw Confining | Cretaceous | 200 to 1200 |Dark colored |Not normal ly an Unreported
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|base for the over- |
|
|
|aquifer system.
SOURCE: Montana Water Resources Board, Water Resources Surveys
1970B, 1971 A, 1971 B; (Stoner and Lewis 1980)
1960, 1970A,
!
!








§
APPENDIX 3.5
Muster
Creek near
Kinsey, Mt.
Cherry
Creek near
Terry, Mt.
Seven Mile
Creek near
Lindsay, Mt
Burns
Creek near
Savage, Mt.
Beaver
Creek near
Wibaux, Mt.
Redwater
River near
Circle, Mt.
Hor Se
Creek
Crow Rock
Creek near
Station
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
Cohagen, Mt.
Sampl ing
Date
3- 15
4-5
5–31
7–26
10-5
1 1-7
4-12
5-10
6- 14
10-5
3-1 5
4-6
5-10
6–22
1-12
5–22
4-10
5- 18
6- 14
2–27
3–29
4-10
5–1 7
6- 14
2–20
3-19
4–1 l
5-9
1 1-14
3- 19
4- 1 1
5-9
6-5
5-22
4-4
5–31
6-1 5
Discharge
cfs
32
1.0
O. 19
0.72
E. 10
E = 10
29
6.5
O. 14
3. 7
99
655
25
7. 9
1 4 3
489
50
13
• 99
20
126
15
2.8
97
6, 7
.01
Total
Dissolved
So I ids
185
551
1090
850
2290
2140
1 100
21 50
1770
93 l
1290
1 450
1790
1260
454
284
1310
1210
1920
674
539
171 O
1860
4040
488
84.1
3040
3440
6060
1060
475
2540
4040
262
797
3340
5600
APPENDIX 3.5: SCIRFACE QUALITY SCIRVEY
Conductivity
unhos
field
300
865
1610
1 150
3 170
2990
1660
2350
3020
2450
1300
1740
1920
2090
1750
760
440
1860
1780
2720
1025
895
2320
2500
5700
820
1290
4000
4500
7200
1670
749
3480
6150
397
1 160
4650
4450
pH Total
Field Akal inity
as CaCO,
mg/l
8.4 76
8. 5 150
8.4 180
8, 5 220
8.4 400
8.5 400
8.2 220
8, 5 560
8. I 580
8.0 420
8.2 210
8.0 310
8.4 360
8. 1 400
7.5 480
8. I 160
8.0 1 1 O
8.4 440
8.4 440
7. 9 360
7.6 130
7. 9 120
8. 35 380
8, 1 260
7.7 490
8.0 1 10
8.2 160
8.4 450
8. 5 480
8, 5 810
7, 8 200
8.0 1 10
8. 3 380
8, 5 690
7.8 86
8, 1 180
8.6 480
8, 6 460
Bicarbonate
as HCO3
mg/l
88
180
220
270
510
260
380
420
490
1 10
220
490
520
1.4
2.4
5.8
22
14
9.8
5, 8
8.9
8, 9
12
7, 5
7.6
8. 6
7. 5
5.6
2.4
7.2
6, 9
8.2
3.2
5.0
7.6
8.2
3.2
5.8
10
17
24
5.4
2.4
5.0
6.4
2. 7
4.0
19
Ch I or i de Nitrate +
Dissolved Nitrate
as CL
mg/
as N
mg/
0.46
0.67
5.6
2. 7
• 01
• 01
• 04
•00
•00
•01
• 54
• O7
.00
• 08
• Ol
• 51
.21
• Ol
18
• 27
• 1 1
• 01
•01
Tota |
Hardness
as CAC03
mg/l
39
96
1 10
140
640
610
4 10
690
670
940
460
740
850
880
560
250
170
640
540
700
290
260
680
620
1200
250
420
1200
1300
1600
540
210
860
1 100
1 10
250
8.10
760
Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Su fate
Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
as CA as MG as NA as K as S04
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
1 | 2.9 49 5.4 69
22 10 150 3.0 270
25 11 310 0.4 620
30 16 180 5, 9 430
1 10 88 520 9. 7 1500
1 10 81 480 8, 5 1200
64 60 200 5, 6 620
120 95 280 6.7 910
120 91 460 9, 7 1200
130 150 280 10 92O
68 70 140 9.4 500
100 120 150 8, 5 700
1 10 140 170 7.8 800
120 1 40 260 8.8 1000
83 85 240 9, 2 530
39 36 62 8.4 200
32 22 28 5, 2 120
91 100 210 8.4 620
64 93 250 8.6 530
130 92 350 9, 3 1 100
55 57 100 11 380
50 52 75 8 290
120 95 310 8.8 950
1 10 83 380 9.8 1 100
140 210 850 12 2500
40 32 70 8, 6 260
62 64 120 7.7 480
69 240 550 1 1 1900
150 220 550 10 2200
1 10 320 1400 14 3700
41 57 250 9. 3 590
32 32 76 6, 5 250
81 160 450 1 | 1600
87 220 900 10 2400
27 9.6 42 9 1 1 0
47 31 160 9, 5 430
1 10 130 800 14 2000
89 1 50 880 15 2200
A-63
APPENDICES
Station Sampling Discharge Total Conductivity pH Total Bicarbonate Ch I or i de Nitrate + Total Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Sulfate
Date cfs Dissolved unhos Field Akal inity as HCO3 D is so I ved Nitrate Hardness Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
So I ids field as CaCO, mg/l as CL as N as CAC03 as CA as MG as NA as K as S04
mg/ mg/ mg/l mg/ mg/l mg/ mg/ mg/l mg/
Timber #9 5–21 47 1 180 1770 8.2 230 tº º 5.7 • 15 25 33 40 300 8.2 650
Creek near 4- 1 7 128 g- 2080 8. 5 210 gº gºe • 1 1 42 58 67 290 6, 5 tº
Van Norman, 5-08 27 3210 4220 8.5 440 tº- 9, 1 • 01 75 84 130 800 13 1900
M+ 6–04 3 5 140 6500 8.5 770 º 1, 5 tº- 94 81 18O 1400 12 3000
Prairie #10 3-50 55 349 590 8.2 150 Q_e 7.2 • 5 l 1 1 27 9, 3 82 6, 5 120
El k Cre near 4- 10 794 180 320 8.0 78 tº º 2.5 • 22 5 14 5.0 41 4.4 60
Oswego, Mt. 5- 14 8 21 10 3000 8.6 460 tº º 16 .02 42 70 60 570 7. 7 1 100
6-6 5.6 1610 2460 8, 7 650 tº º 7.8 • 18 18 29 27 500 6, 1 650
Nelson # 1 1 12- 12 E. 10 6960 9200 8, 1 | 160 tº 37 .02 1 10 68 230 26 20 3900
Creek near 3-25 52 273 447 8. 5 66 G. º 4. 5 • 15 8 16 10 3 4.5 130
Van Norman, 4- 17 125 627 1080 8.2 1 10 tº 2.4 1.0 19 31 27 5.8 4.5 370
Mt. 5–3 5.2 5820 4820 8, 5 550 “E. | 1 • 02 89 77 170 13 9, 6 2500
6–4 0.98 6090 7380 8.4 750 º 18 •05 1 10 83 220 17 | 1 4000
Mussel she | # 12 3-7 3.13 1520 2000 8.0 280 º 15 • 47 76 160 88 200 5.0 870
River near 3- 12 1700 456 700 8.2 69 gº º 7. 1 • 58 19 40 22 74 6.4 260
Mosby, Mt. 4-5 1 340 1710 2260 8.5 270 tº 20 • 5 l 75 150 92 270 5.8 1000
5-10 1900 1 180 1725 8.4 250 tº- 16 • O7 38 1 50 14 190 4.5 670
6- 15 454 | 170 1610 8.4 220 tº 12 • 02 54 1 10 65 18O 4.6 660
C lear #13 2–22 E.04 1 100 1560 7.5 220 270 8.4 .05 65 97 95 130 5.6 650
Creek near 3- 18 26 503 720 8.0 170 203 4.2 • 55 50 49 43 50 7.8 240
Hoyt, Mt. 4-8 14 1210 1670 8.0 310 375 8, 8 • 12 77 1 10 120 120 8, 1 640
5- 1 1 | 1 1570 2050 8. 35 360 454 9, 9 .00 100 1 40 160 140 6.9 890
6-22 1.2 1200 1650 8, 5 340 4 10 7.7 •04 70 100 1 10 130 6.6 650
Deer #14 3-14 24 482 730 8, 1 130 160 5.7 .42 16 33 19 100 8.5 230
Creek near 4-5 33 1260 1800 8, 1 300 370 10 • 51 49 80 70 240 7, 8 660
Glend ive, Mt 5-10 17 21 50 2700 8.5 440 500 14 •00 73 1 10 | 10 430 8.4 1200
6-21 • 48 1970 2620 8.4 390 460 16 • 05 56 1 10 70. 420 9, 1 1 100
8-8 •04 2210 2720 8.5 550 660 18 .02 59 78 95 470 | 1 1200
Cottonwood #15 12- 1 E. 10 3790 4400 7.7 680 gº 15 • 02 12O 170 18O 800 17 2200
Creek near 35–25 27 71.4 1080 7. 9 150 * --> 5. 5 • 24 50 49 42 120 11 590
| ntake, Mt. 4-12 21 1030 1550 8, 1 210 * 5.4 • O7 42 56 67 18O 6, 7 580
5- 17 • 96 3580 4450 8. 5 580 tº º 5. 5 .02 130 170 220 720 11 2100
6- 14 • 09 4500 518O 8.4 52O cº-e 8, 5 .00 1 50 120 240 910 12 2700
Lift le #16 1 1-7 • 14 2720 1350 8.0 570 º 15 e-e 85 1 10 140 590 16 1500
Beaver Creek 3- 17 58 950 1375 8.2 160 tº- 8, 1 tº º 45 65 70 120 10 550
near Wibaux, 5–25 15 1560 1550 7. 9 270 gº 9.8 º 75 120 1 10 230 1 | 910
Mt. 6-21 • 14 26.50 3250 8, 5 460 gº 16 º 92 120 150 550 1 1 1500
A-64
APPENDIX 3.5
Ye lowstone
River near
Sidney, Mt.
Missouri
River near
Culbertson,
M+
Powder
River near
Locate, Mt.
Source:
Station
# 17
#18
#19
Sampl ing
Date
2- 15
4-29
5-16
6-1 5
7-51
2-14
4- 19
5-15
6- 19
2-8
4-24
5–22
6-26
Discharge Total
cfs Dissolved
So I ids
6890 581
1 5600 740
1 1500 652
19400 280
10600 428
13300 499
48880 373
22500 578
13700 579
120 1940
835 21.30
652 21 10
514 1310
Conductivity pH Total Bicarbonate
unhos Field Akal inity as HCO3 Dissolved
field as CaCO, mg/l as CL
mg/l mg/
960 8.0 18O tº e 18
1130 8, 35 190 tº 15
998 8, 5 160 gº . 18
455 8, 1 90 tº 6.8
685 8.5 130 tº e 10
810 8, 5 150 tº e 9.4
605 8. 1 1 10 tºº 5. 7
910 8, 1 150 tº e 9.8
864 8.2 150 * -º 9. 4
2800 7, 8 370 gº º 210
2950 8.2 250 º | 10
2880 8, 2 220 tº e 1 10
1890 8, 1 160 sº 72
USGS Water Resources Data For Montana, Water Year 1979
Ch I or ide Nitrate +
Nitrate
as N
mg/l
• 55
• O9
• 26
• 18
• 58
• 41
.54
• 355
Tota |
Hardness
as CAC03
mg/l
500
330
300
150
200
260
170
250
280
760
760
710
580
Calcium Magnesium Sodium Potassium Su fate
Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
as CA as MG as NA as K as S04
mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/ mg/l
71 29 76 4.0 260
67 39 120 5. O 370
71 30 95 4.0 31 O
35 14 37 2. 5 120
44 21 61 4.2 200
58 27 72 4.5 250
39 18 60 4, 9 170
59 26 91 5,4 290
66 29 84 4.6 290
180 76 360 8, 1 870
170 82 4 10 8.0 1200
160 75 400 21 1200
140 57 210 7, 5 720
A-65
APPENDIX 3.6
Reservoir
Name
Barley
Brackett
Bradac
Chickie
Cornwel
Don's
Gray
Haugh i an
Keltner
Lark
Lockie
MacKenzie
Shaw
Woodruff
Location
Twp-Rng.-Sec
8N
16N
6N
15N
6N
12N
9N
| 1 N
13N
14N
7N
5N
14N
7N
4.3E
39E
60E
46E
59E
37E
54E
49E
49E
55E
44E
53E
31E
53E
10
12
12
30
20
15
APPENDIX 3.6: BIG DRY EIS AREA RESERVOIR SEDIMENT SCIRVEY
Age in
Years
Date
Constructed
MO/YR
4/47 33
/39 41
9/58 22
9/36 44
3/47 33
7/53 27
/52 28
/53 27
/56 44
/68 13
7/44 36
/51 29
/71 9
/50 30
Existing
Sediment
Volume
in
% Sediment
Trapped
98
98
64
72
98
98
97
98
98
95
98
98
89
So i !
12
12
12
14
12
13
| 1
12
15
12
15
13
Hydrologic Reservior Sediment
Subgroup Geomorphic
Area
|W
|W
| V
|W
| V
| | |
Yield
(ac-ft/mi2/yr)
Oe 69
0.24
0.21
0.07
0.26
1, 18
0. 51
2.02
Oe 25
O. 15
0. 54
O. 19
3, 13
• 16
50
10
Designed
Water
Storage
Capacity
(ac-ft.)
7. 74
8, 6.5
1 - 20
8,92
4. 70
16. 10
5, 61
8,50
2.48
2.86
5, 92
2.90
29.05
0.76
Reservoir
4.09
2.55
O. 95
1,44
1.37
7, 50
2.28
4.92
1,86
0.57
1.09
0.44
3.95
0. 55
Existing
Water
Storage
Capacity
(ac-ft.)
3.65
6,08
0.25
7, 48
3. 35
8, 80
5, 55
3, 58
0.62
2, 29
4.85
2.46
25, 10
0.45
Date
Surveyed
MO/DAY/YR
07/22/80
06/15/80
09/12/80
08/19/80
06/26/80
O7/1 1/80
08/22/80
08/07/80
O7/31/80
06/25/81
O6/50/80
08/21/80
06/17/80
08/12/80
Average Annual
Water Yield
ac-ft/mi2/yr)
5.91
8, 20
10, 54
15. 73
9.96
11 e 90
13, 24
4.40
5.53
18, 58
2, 80
5.25
7.00
3.53
A-67
APPENDIX 3.7
AppENDIX 3.7; MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND TREND ON EXISTING AMPS
| TTTRENDTTTTFASTUREST SysIEM_I_ACRES__ RE MARKS |
| 2084 | UET 4 | DR | 8753 | •=-“ses º ---
| 2549-268.5 | STABLE | 3 | DR | 9169 | |
| 2550-26.86 | | | | 3586 | Not implement ed |
| 2568–2832 | UP 4 | DR | 9.908 | |
| 2727 | STABLE | 5 | DR | 6575 | |
| 27 28 | STABLE | 7 | DR | 3747 | |
| 2737 | UP | 6 | DR | 10826 |
| 2738 | STABLE | 3 | DR | 2820 | |
| 2745 | STABLE | 4 | DR | 84 17 | |
| 2750 | Dow N 5/6 | DR | 25324 | |
| 2752 | STABLE | 3 | RR | 3673 | |
| 27 55 | STABLE | 8 | DR | 11 787 | |
| 27.62 | STABLE | 3 | DR | 43 15 |
| 2763 | STABLE | 6 | DR | 10244 |
| 2772 | UP | | 2 | DR | 17304 |
| 2773 | STABLE | 5 | DR | 6406 | |
| 2774 | STABLE | 6 | RR | 6958 | |
| 2786 | STABLE | 2 | DR | 3640 | |
| 2792 | STABLE | 3/2 | DR | 8599 | |
| 2793 | STABLE | 2 | DR | 44.65 |
| 2803 | UP 4 | DR | 85 12 |
| 2807 | Dow M 2 | DR | 1520 |
| 2824–2826 | STABLE | 2 | DR | 5840 | |
| 2828 | STABLE | 3 | DR | 3361 | |
| 2829 | UP | 13 | DR | 1971 | |
| 283 | STABLE | 3 | DR | 4213 | |
| 2858 | UP | 3 | DR | 8837 |
| 286 | Dow N | 4 | DR 5496 |
| 28.75 | UP 3 | DR | 95.02 | |
| 2.946 | UP | 3 | RR__ L__1.4008 - --> --
TOTAL 227 7.76
SUMMARY
T-TFUETTETAND TREND *º- -----T
| AC RES | UP – STATIC DOWN UNCLASS 1 F 1 ED
-º- -- | |
R E S T RO TAT | ON # 5 24, 659 | 14,008 || 1 0, 65 O O |
# 1 0 | 10.8 | 56.9 || 43. 1 || 0 | O |
DEF ERRED ROTAT I on # 26 | 199, 55.1 | 75,613 | 93,598 || 30, 340 | O |
# 8 7 | 8 7, 6 | 37.9 || 46.9 || 1 5. 2 O |
NOT IMPLEMENTED # 1 | 3, 586 | 0 | O | 0 | 3, 586 |
# 3 | 1 .. 6 | 0 || O | 0 | 1 OO |
TOTAL # 50 227,776 89, 621 1 04, 229 30, 540 5, 586
§ 1 00 100. 0 39, 5 45, 8 1 5 - 5 1 .. 6
A-69
APPENDIX 3.8
APPENDIX 3.8: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
COMPUTER MODELING OF DEER DENSITIES
ST, ATE q}F NHAPNT. MSNA
* HPEP.WRTSEIHENT OF
• ? p. 4
W, *. - sº * N
§eA. Fhsºn AND GAshL.
&
&
Box 4.30
Miles City, Montana 5930l
January 9, 198 l
Ray Brubaker, District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
Miles City, Montana 5930]
SUBJECT: Computer modelinq of deer densities for
forage allocations on public lands
Dear Mr. *
Since you have asked for our assistance in providing deer numbers for
consideration in forage allocations on Bureau of Land Management lands, I
feel that these data must be qualified if our support is to be sustained.
I further request that this qualification be emphasized in formal and/or
legal document.
The computer run densities are derived from various population
characteristics obtained during Standard Surveys. Some of these Surveys
include partial, incomplete censuses each of which reflect the limitations
inherent in any known wildlife Census technique. Differences in observers,
densities and types of cover, time of day, behavior of the animals being
observed, etc. all limit the completeness of a wildlife census. None of the
census surveys used were intended to produce a number representing actual
population conditions.
Further it is understood that results from computer modeling do not
represent an absolute population estimate. Numbers generated are the best
estimates currently obtainable with given Survey procedures and only
illustrate conditions during late summer 1980. The purpose of the computer
estimates is to assist and not to Stand as the sole indicator to determine
wildlife forage allocations.
These qualifications must be emphasized so that anyone receiving the
data does not incorrectly interpret their exactness. If the qualifications
preface any discussion of the data, We Will Support them within the limits
described.
Sincerely,
.# G. Seaburg
Regional Supervisor
KGS: dm
•º
ST.&H'HE TDF RIC[BN"T&N.&A.
* IDEEP, SAHRTN’ſ EN’tt (NF
,3 jº $
§ & 2. Fhsºn ANNP {ANME
- Sº,
ASSUMPTIONS AND RATIONALE FOR DEER POPULATION
EST IMATES IN SOUTHEASTERN MONTANA
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks does not prefer to
make total population estimates of deer by hunting districts due to the many
variable factors necessary to make such estimates. However, due to the
imperative need of the Bureau of Land Management, we have attempted to do
this by computer population modeling and will defend our estimates as long
as the assumptions and limitations are well understood.
Mule Deer:
Estimates of total mule deer numbers and densities were estimated at
late summer, 1980 levels by hunting district (Table 1). The original basis
for the estimate Was the number observed during intensive winter aerial Surveys
of the entire hunting district (see 1980 P.R. report for Region 7). The counts
were expanded to a late winter population estimate using the rates of observability
by habitat type listed in Table 2. The rates used to obtain the population
estimates are from personal communication with Dr. Richard J. Mackie and David
Pac, deer research biologists who have worked with this problem. The high and
low estimates are based on the range of observability rates of those found by
Mackie and Pac.
These populations were then modeled from the winter survey date to late
summer 1980, which varied from 1-3 years. For this modeling, we had to
input data about age and sex composition, fawn production, hunter kill and
natural mortality. Winter age and sex structure was assumed to be 20% adult
bucks, 13.3% coming yearling bucks, 52.6% adult does and 14% coming yearling
does, based on field observations and age structure of the harvest. Fawn
production was obtained from annual September – October production surveys.
Hunter kill was from the Department's harvest survey and corrected for a
20% crippling loss, based on Department studies. Natural mortality rates were
based on prior computer modeling work on prairie mule deer populations.
Summer mortality was assumed to be 2% for older age classes; it was not
necessary to Calculate summer fawn mortality since fawn: doe ratios were
obtained in September-October. Winter mortality varied with winter severity
and was assumed to be that presented in Table 3.
White-tailed Deer:
The whitetail population estimates (Table 4) were not derived from computer
models due to the lack of sufficient data. The basis for the estimate was
the Winter survey results, using the same observability rates as for mule
deer (Table 2). The finai estimate was computed by adding fawn production,
using the September-October 1980 fawn: doe ratios and a SSuming that does
comprised 67% of the yearling plus adult population.
A-71
APPENDICES
Table l. Estimates of total mule deer numbers in late summer 1980.
High Estimate
Table 3. Mortality rates for winter
Low Estimate
Hunting Hunt. Unit
Di Strict Total Number Deer/mi2 Total Number Deer/miº (Sq. Mi). Yearling Yearling Adult Adult
Year Fawns Males Females Males Females
700 | 1.064 4.2 12,064 4.6 2,634
710 3,779 2.6 4,483 3. l 1,452 1977-79 35% 8% 10% 8% 18%
7]] 6,325 7.4 7.874 9.2 854 1978-79 40% 8% 10% 8% 18%
712 5,669 4.2 7,225 5.4 1,346 1979–80 20% 4% 4% 4% 8%
713 4,042 4.9 5,215 6.3 830 .*- —r-
714 659 1.9 1,009 3.0 34]
730 6,740 3. l 7,943 3.7 2, 155
73] 8,916 4.8 ll,535 6. 3 l,836
732 6,323 5.2 7,544 6.2 1,224 Table 4. Estimates of total white-tailed deer numbers in late summer 1980.
733 2,014 0.8 2,53] 1.0 2,450
750 3,552 3.8 4,094 4.4 929 e Low Estimate High Estimate
760 7,815 9.7 10,089 12.6 803 Hunting
76] 16,826 8.7 20,117 10.4 1,929 District C Total Number Deer/Mi.2 Total Number Deer/mi.2
770 8,026 7.7 9,529 9. 1,043
782 2,634 4.4 3.152 5.6 599 700 533a 0.2 813a 0.3
*=ºms *mºnºmºus ºft 710 240 0.2 279 0.3
94,383 l 14,404 711 74 0. l | 10 0.
712 188 0. l 243 0.2
713 _b _b
714 3, 199 9,4 5,326 15.6
73ſ) 1,016 0.5 1,514 0.7
731 5,800 3.2 7,250 3.9
732 6,04l 4.9 7,488 6. l
Table 2. Observability rates by habitat type for winter deer surveys. 733 6,597. 2.7 9,384 3. 8
750 6,022 6.5 9,776 10.5
Low Estimate High Estimate 760 78] l.0 812 1.0
Observability Percent Observatility 76] 4,002 2. l 5,930 3. l
Habitat type Percent Observed Rate Observed Rate 770 l,015 1.0 l, 269 l. 2
-*— 782 347 0.6 467 0.8
Thick pine 30 3.33 30 3.33 ºmºsºmºmºmº
Scattered pine Total 35,882 50,876
and juniper 40 2.50 35 2.86
Nontimbered rough breaks 45 2.22 35 2.86
Creek riparian - 5ſ) 2.0 40 2.50 * Exluding the east bank of the Mussel shell River.
River riparian 50 2.0 30 3. 33
Grassland and dryland * No whitetails observed during the winter flight.
aqriculture 60 1.67 50 2.0
* See Table 1 for Hunting District Size.
A-72
APPENDIX 3.8
Conclusions:
The deer population estimates by hunting district presented in Table l
and 4 are for the late summer 1980 period only. This period was chosen
because the estimates best reflect the deer populations during the summer
qrazing period. Mackie (pers. Communication) indicated that the higher
population estimates were probably closer to the true population Size,
especially for white-tailed deer. We concur with this. We will defend these
estimates, but only for late Summer 1980 because the mule deer populations
are increasing and the white-tailed deer populations are fluctuating,
showing rapid increases and Sporadic, die-offs due to winter and epizootic
mortalities. With additional data these estimates could be updated and
refined.
January 9, 1980
Bernie Hildebrand, Fish and Wildlife Biologist II
Stephen J. Knapp, Fish and Wildlife BIologist III
Jon E. Swenson, Fish and Wildlife Biologist III
A-73
APPENDIX 3.9
APPENDIX 3.9: MAXIMUM ANTELOPE OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE EIS AREA
BY HCINTING DISTRICT
Hunt ing Survey Number of Hunt i ng Area of H. D. Ant e I ope
D is trict Ye a r Ante I ope D is trict Used by Per
*sº sº tº Size ( sq. m i . ) Ante ope ( sq. m . . ) Sq. M. i.
| | | | | |
| 700 1974 5, 872 2, 6 52 1, 55.8 2. 5
|
|- 719.--_l 1972 L_1,804 699 sº 4 83 3 - 7
| | º sºº &
| 71 | 1975 2,994 | 854 68.7 4 - 4
| | | |
|- 712 1975 | 592 | 94 3 tºº º 565 1 - 0
| | |
| 713 | 1975 | 1,406 | 94.6 | 5 1 1 | 2. 8
| | | | | |
| 714 1973 | 1, 353 95.3 243. | 2 - 5
| H-----T---—--- T
| 729 –L 1974 || 3,393 1, 458 559 | 2. 5
| ſ ſ
|_ 731 | 1975 | 1,251 | 1,056 | 950 | 1 .. 5
| | | | | |
| 732 | 1975 942 | 1, 242 | 902 1 - 0
| | | | |
—”—-l—1975 L 1,299 | 2, 435 — 2, O 50 0. 8
| | | | |
| 750 | 1973 | 287 | 929. -l- 47 O | 0, 6.
| | | | | |
| 760 | 1975 567 | 8 || 6 522 | 1 - 1
| | | | |
|_ 761 | 1975 | 1,911 | 1, 922 1, 282 1 .. 5
| | | |
l___770 | 1975 | 1,825 | 1,055 778 2. 5
| | | |
|_ 780 | 1975 | 1,462 | 94.7 | 72 | | 2- 0.
SOURCE: Montana Department of F is h, Wild life and Parks, Region 7,
Pittman - Ro be rt son ( P. R. ) Report S
Tab I e 4 )
( a rge I y from PR W- 3 O-R-1 1,
i

A-75
APPENDIX 3.10
APPENDIX 3.10: METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING
The first step in the process involved matching each allotment in
the EIS study area with the respective ranch operation. Some
ranch operations have only one public grazing allotment, others
have a number of allotments involving existing allotment man-
agement plans (AMPs) or proposed AMPs and non-AMPs.
There is a total of 708 individual ranch operations with public
grazing privileges in the study area. One hundred of these 708
ranches have 25 or fewer public ACIMs. The public ACIMs are
virtually unimportant to these ranches, so the analysis concen.
trates on the 608 remaining ranch Operations.
Through the use of BLM grazing records, personal knowledge of
Miles City District BLM employees and Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (ASCS) crop records, the 608 ranches
were placed in 12 size-and-type categories (Table 3-11). The
predominate type of ranch is a cow/calf operation. Also, as indi.
cated on Table 3-11, many of the Operations also produce cash
crops, primarily wheat.
To determine dependency of ranches on public grazing, the total
ACIM grazing requirement for the ranches was computed. This
was accomplished by multiplying 7.5 times the total estimated
number of animal units (ACls) in each ranch. Seven and one-half
was used because it is estimated that, on the average, ranch
operations in the EIS study area graze seven and one-half months
and feedhay and supplement the other four and one-half months.
To determine the percentage of dependency of each operation
on public grazing, the number of public ACIMs permitted was
divided by the total ranch AUM requirements. Table 3-10 sum-
marizes these determinations: Percentage dependency = public
ACIMs divided by (7.5 months x number of ranch ACls).
The number of livestockon ranches within each size category was
averaged. Results of the averaging indicated the following: 0-150
cows, average 100 cows; 151-374 cows, average 250 cows; 375.
749 cows, average 500 cows and 750 plus cows, average 1500
COWS.
Ranch budgets were constructed for each of the four average size
ranches. A representative crop enterprise budget was developed
for those farms/ranches having cash Crops. The Crop budgets are
for producing hard red winter wheat following fallow.
The Economics and Research Service (CISDA, ERS) developed
the representative budgets, using, in part, budget data gathered in
a national cost of production study in 1979. This data was sup-
plemented by location information gathered by BLM regarding
such production items as calf crops, calf weaning weights, forage
requirements, etc. (Cornelius, 1977). The BLM gathered this type
of data to arrive at, for example, the average weaning weights for
heifers and steers in the study area. Appendices 3.10A through
3.10E summarize the representative livestock and crop budgets.
RANCH RELATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A linear programming model was developed by ERS for each of
four livestock sizes. The linear programming model maximizes
ranch income based on a series of production parameters and
constraints. To determine the economic impacts on the ranch,
the level of public grazing was varied (increased, decreased or
eliminated) according to the proposed change in public ACIMs
under each alternative. For example, under the no grazing alterna-
tive, 100 percent of the public ACIMs are eliminated from the
representative ranch.
It is very difficult to project how ranchers would adjust their
operations given a change in public ACIMs. Each ranch operation
is unique, and the adjustment by each rancher to a change in
public ACIMs would probably vary somewhat. It was assumed that
the most likely response of ranchers to decreases in public ACIMs
would be to reduce thesize of the ranch operation. Small ranches
would probably be less likely to reduce the size of their operations
and would probably purchase hay, for example, to compensate
for the loss of public grazing. If BLM increased the number of
ACIMs, ranchers would not necessarily increase the size of their
cow/calf operations. They might, run more yearlings, for exam.
ple, or they might reallocate grazing in spring and fall to public
pastures, so that less winter feed must be purchased.
The impact on ranch income is measured only interms of change
in the number of BLM ACIMs. There may be changes in ranch
returns that do not directly relate to the change in quantity of
ACIMs. Notenough data are available at this time in the study area
to conclusively quantify the extent of these additional ranch
returns due to ACIM quality, so they were not evaluated in the
analysis.
Implementation of grazing systems would increase the cost to
ranch operations in such areas as increased fence maintenance,
more movement of livestock and increased effort in monitoring
forage conditions. These costs are included in the budget models.
Clsing the linear programming model, then, the change in ranch
income (gross receipts about cash costs and depreciation), was
calculated given a change in public ACIMs. Private and state lands
are intermingled with public lands, so a reduction in public graz.
ing can cause a reduction in private and state grazing. However, in
the calculations, grazing on state and private lands are not
reduced.
It is interesting to note the decreases in income per AUM under
various decreases in public and associated State and private
ACIMs. For example, with a 50 percent decrease in public ACIMs,
income (gross receipts above cash cost and depreciation) on a
100 cowranch would decrease $9.38 per ACIM. The loss inforage
value to the nation amounts to $11.74 per ACIM ($9.38 + $2.36
(1980 grazing fee) = $11.74). A 15 percent increase in public
ACIMs for the same size ranch would increase ranch income $3.77
er ACIM. The increase to the nation in forage value would be
7.53 ($5.17+ $2.36 = $7.53). The decrease per AQIM is greater
than the increase largely because of coststructure. Ranches have
a certain amount offixed costs that are not reduced proportionally
with reduced ACIMs. They must continue to pay these fixed costs
at least in the short term.
In the ranch budgets developed by ERS, different responses for
income maximization were necessary depending on whether
there were decreases or increases in public ACIMs. With income
maximization, a decrease in public ACIMs results in a decrease in
herd size. However, an increase in public ACIMs results in no
increase in herd size. However, costs do decrease, so income
increases.
Also of interest is a comparison of this forage value for an ACIM
with the fair market value as determined by the ERS. In Montana
the average monthly rate perhead for pasturing cattle on private
land in 1980 was $9.40 (USDA, ESS, 1980, Farm Real Estate
Market Developments). This is very close to the value arrived at
through linear programming and ittends to support the data and
approach used in the analysis.
It is estimated that an average value for BLM grazing permits in the
study area is approximately $100 per AQIM. For those ranchers
who have purchased BLM permits at $100 per AQIM or $1,200 per
ACI, it is possible to calculate the price they are paying for public
ACIMs. Clsing an opportunity cost of capital of 9.3 percent, the cost
of owning the BLM permit is $9.30 per AQIM. Adding the grazing
fee of $2.36 results in a total price per AQIM of $11,66.
As mentioned above, the assumption is made that ranchers
would vary herd size in response to changes in BLM grazing.
These changes in herd size would affect the number of ranch
employees needed. Changes in ranch workers were calculated
using the following assumptions: one employee is needed for
each 250 cows above the initial 250, and the number of
employees would vary directly according to herd size changes.
Thus if an operation increased its cow herd from 500 to 750 it
would be assumed that 1 equivalent to full time worker would be
needed in addition to the 1 already employed.
The economic analysis uses average livestock prices for 1977,
1978 and 1979. Cost figures are for 1979. Historically, livestock
prices have changed dramatically everythree to five years, where.
as production costs have risen consistently. A point could be
raised as to the validity of using these figures to projecteconomic
impacts into the future. It has been assumed in this analysis that
the cost/price relationship would remain fairly constant over the
long term, with upward pressure on both costs and prices due to
economy-wide inflation. Therefore, although the magnitude of
the figures will increase the relative impact would remain
COnStant.
A-77
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1OA: COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF HERDS
APPENDIX 3.1OB: COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF HERDS
OF O-150 COWS OF 151-374 COWS
Price Total Price Total
| tem Un it Quantity Average Weight Cwt Value | tem Un it Quantity Average Weight Cwt Value
Sales: Sa | es:
Steer ca ves Head 39 430 82.00 13,751 Steer calves Head 98 450 82.00 34,555
He i fer calves Head 22 390 73. 90 6, 54 l He i fer calves Head 54 590 75. 90 15,565
Year I ing steers Head 4 700 71 - 54 1,998 Year ling steers Head | 1 700 71 - 54 5,495
Year ling he if ers Head 650 67. 435 3,506 Year ling he i fers Head 21 650 67. 4.5 9,204
Cu | | cows Head 12 1,000 42. 7.5 5, 128 Cu | | cows Head 30 1,000 42.75 12,819
Total 50, 724 Total 77,634
Total /cow 307, 24 Tota I/cow 5 || 0, 54
º Tot a Val ue/ Tota | Value/
Value Cow Value Cow
Cash Costs: *º-e sº-º-º-º-º-º: Cash Costs:
BLM grazing fee 351 5. 51 BLM grazing fee 875 5.50
Forest grazing fee wº tºº Forest grazing fee º tº e
Private range lease/rent 461 4, 61 Private range lease/rent 1, 145 4.58
State lease 246 2.46 State lease 61.2 2, 45
Hay (product ) 3,61 l 36. 1 1 Hay (product) 9,019 56,08
Hay (purchase) 1,089 10.89 Hay (purchase) 2,706 10. 82
Prote in supplement 707 7. O7 Prote in supplement 1,662 6.65
Irrigated pasture * * tº º Irrigated pasture g- º
Salt and mineral 152 1 - 52 Salt and mineral 381 1,52
Concentrate feeds 226 2.26 Concentrate feeds 357 1. 43
Veterinary and medicine 351 5, 51 Veterinary and medicine 1,067 4, 27
Hired trucking | 49 1.49 Hired trucking 545 2, 18
Marketing 277 2. 77 Market ing 108 .45
Fuel and lubricants 1,619 16. 19 Fuel and lubricants 5,890 15, 56
Repairs 1, 15 l 11. 51 Repairs 5,351 15, 40
Real estate taxes 2,600 26.00 Real estate taxes 6, 542 25, 37
Other taxes 145 1.45 Other taxes 4.09 1.64
| nsuranoe 661 6.61 | nsurance 1,627 6, 51
Interest on operating capital 929 9, 29 Interest on operating capital 2, 185 8,74
General farm overhead 226 2.26 General farm overhead 1,721 6, 88
Interest on long term debt 5,200 52. OO Interest on long term debt 13,000 52.00
Hired labor 781 7.81 Hired labor 3, 679 14, 72
____ Total cash costs 20,932 209, 52 Total cash costs 54,681 218, 7.5
Other Costs: Other Costs:
Famil y labor 3,550 35. 50 Family labor 4,680 18, 72
Depreciation 2,990 29.90 Depreciation 7,952 5 1. 81
Interest on investment, other than land 10,465 104. 65 Interest on investment, other than land 25,994 105.98
| nterest on land investment 45, 729 457. 29 Interest on land investment 11 1,213 444, 85
Total other costs 62,732 627. 52 Total other costs 149,839 599, 36
Total a | | costs 85,664 856, 64 Total a l l costs 204,520 818, 08
Return above cash costs 9,792 97.92 Refurn above cash costs * 22,955 91.81
Return above cash costs & family labor 6,242 62.42 Return above cash costs & family labor 18,273 73,09
Return to total investment 3,252 32. 52 Return to total investment 10,321 4 1,28
Return to and –7,21 1 –72. 1 | Return to and - 15,673 -62. 70
Herd size 250 cows; 92% calf crop; 5% calf loss; 3% annual cow loss; 25 year ling
loss; 20% replacement rate; and 25 cows per bul I.
Herd size 150 cows; 92% calf crop; 5% calf loss; 3% annual cow loss; 2% year ling
loss; 20% replacement rate; and 25 cows per bul I.
A-78
APPENDIX 3.10
AppENDIX 3.10C: COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF HERDS
APPENDIX 3.1OD: COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF HERDS
OF 375-749 COWS
Price Tota |
| tem Un it Quantity Average Weight Cwt Value
Sales:
Steer calves Head 196 450 82.00 69, 110
He i fer calves Head 107 590 75, 90 30,838
Year I ing steers Head 22 700 71 - 54 10,986
Year ling he i fers Head 42 650 67. 4.5 18,408
Cul I cows Head 60 l,000 42, 75 25,658
Total 154,980
Total /cow 509, 96
Total Value/
Value Cow
Cash Costs: -
BLM grazing fee 1,767 5,55
Forest grazing fee gº « . »
Private range lease/rent 2,518 4.64
State lease 1,240 2.48
Hay (product) 18, 170 56, 354
Hay (purchase) 5,500 l 1, 00
Prote in supplement 2,790 5.58
Irrigated pasture tº e • *
Salt and mineral 761 1,52
Concentrate feeds 71.4 1.45
Veterinary and medicine 1,585 5, 17
Hired trucking 1, 518 2, 64
Market ing 1,773 3.55
Fuel and lubricants 5,450 10. 90
Repairs 7,609 15, 22
Real estate taxes 10, 562 20, 72
Other taxes 1, 104 2.21
| nsurance 5,487 6, 97
Interest on operating capital 4,21 1 8.42
General farm overhead 1,998 4.00
Interest on long term debt 26,000 52.00
Hired labor 3,992 7. 98
Total cash costs 102, 149 204. 50
other costs:
Family labor 9,778 19.56
Depreciation 26,573 52.75
Interest on investment, other than land 54,955 109. 91
Interest on land investment 176,956 353. 91
Total other costs 268,060 556. 13
Total all costs 370,209 740, 45
Return above cash costs 52,831 105.66
Return above cash costs & family labor 45,055 86. 10
Return to total investment 16,680 35. 55
Return to I and –38,273 -76. 56
Herd size 500 cows; 92% calf crop; 5% calf loss; 3; annual cow loss; 2% year I ing
loss; 20% replacement rate; and 25 cows per bull.
OF OVER 750 COWS
Price Total
| tem Un it Quantity Average Weight Cwt Value
Sa | eS:
Steer calves Head 578 450 82, 00 205, 805
He i fer calves Head 545 390 75, 90 98,856
Year ling steers Head 64 700 71 - 54 51, 960
Year ling he i fers Head 50 650 67. 4.5 15, 149
Cu l l cows Head 225 1,000 42. 75 96, 142
Tota | 445,910
Total / cow 295. 94
Total Value/
Val ue Cow
Cash Costs: -
BLM grazing fee 5,220 5. 48
Forest grazing fee º º
Private range lease/rent 7, 580 4, 92
State lease 5,946 2.65
Hay (produce) 42,857 28. 56
Hay (purchase) 15,760 10. 51
Prote in supplement 5, 720 2.48
Irrigated pasture gº & º
Salt and mineral 2,284 1 - 52
Concentrate feeds 895 • 60
Veter inary and medicine 4,755 5. 1 7
Hired trucking 3,765 2, 5 l
Market ing 5,595 3.75
Fuel and lubricant s 12, 590 8. 26
Repairs 13,965 9.5 l
Real estate taxes 46, 129 50. 75
| nSurance 9,559 6.36
Interest on operating capital 18, 200 12. 1 3
General farm overhead 7,550 4.90
Other cash costs 76,500 21.00
Hired labor 29,556 19.56
Total cash costs 309,564 206. 38
Other Costs:
Family labor 11,970 7. 98
Depreciation 57,877 25.25
Interest on investment, other than land 126,685 84. 4.5
Interest on land investment 872,768 581.85
Total other costs 1,049,298 699, 55
Total a l l costs 1,558,862 905. 91
Return above cash costs 134, 346 89, 56
Return above cash costs & family labor 122, 576 81.58
Return to total investment 84,499 56. 55
Return to and –42, 184 –28. 12
Herd size 1,500 cows; 92% calf crop; 5% calf loss; 3% annual cow loss; 2% year ling
loss; 20% replacement rate; and 25 cows per bul I.
APPENDICES
AppENDIX 3.10E: MONTANA–HARD RED WINTER WHEAT
FOLLOWING FALLOW
| TEM | UNIT | PRICE/UNIT | QUANTITY | VALUE/ACRE
Sales: | | |
Wheat | BU 5, 19 | 26, 2 | 85, 58
Total Receipts | | | | 83. 58
|
Cash Costs: |
Preharvest: |
| n sect ic ide | • 07
Herbic ide | 1.00
Seed | 5.50
Nitrogen | 5.25
Phosphate | 2.59
Fert i li zer App I. | • 21
Tractor fuel and lube | 1.78
Tractor repairs | 1, 16
Mach ine fuel and lube | .89
Mach ine repairs | 2, 15
Mach ine labor | 5. 42
|
|
Harvest : |
Custom combine and haul | 2.64
Machine fuel and lube | • 84
Mach ine repairs | 1. 55
Mach in e labor | 1 - 08
Taxes | 1.06
Insurance | • 65
Gene farm overhead | 5.24
Interest on oper capital | 2, 35
Total Cash Costs: | 35. 1 7
|
|
Other Costs: |
Depreciation | 12.98
Interest on investment |
Other than land | 5,62
Tota | Other Costs: | 18, 60
|
|
Total a | | costs | 53.77
Return above cash costs | 48. 4 l
Return to total investment | 55.45
Return to land | 29, 81
SOURCE: BLM 1981
A-80
APPENDIX 3.11
APPENDIX 3.11:
A BLM Sociologist conducted a total of 61 interviews with permit.
tees in the Big Dry Resource Area(approximately 8% of total area
permittees) during July and August of 1981. All but one of the
interviews were conducted on the telephone. A random sample of
ranchers to be interviewed was drawn from the area range users
list using a table of random numbers. The original sample drawn
included 71 area ranchers, or 10% of total area permittees. How.
ever, due to time constraints and the difficulty involved in contact.
ing some area permittees during haying season, only 61 useable
interviews were obtained.
Because of OMB restrictions, the interviews resembled guided
Conversations rather than a structured survey. Consistency of
data from one interview to the next was obtained by using a list of
key topics which were covered in most interviews. Responses
were later analyzed for information and attitudes regarding signif.
icant Social and natural resource issues. Natural resource issues
covered included existing range condition and trend, uses and
nonuses of public land, and attitudes regarding the proposed
action and alternatives under consideration. Social issues
included values and beliefs about the local lifestyle, perceptions of
the BLM, and some demographic data. Additional information
regarding attitudes relevant to the EIS was obtained via written
comments submitted as part of the earlier public participation
process, and via a BLM survey of community leaders and
ranchers conducted in July and August of 1979, which was
designed to identify public issues relevant to natural resource
management of public lands.
The interviews that were conducted for the social impact assess-
ment are not assumed to be fully representative of the views of
every member of the affected community. Therefore, caution
must be used in interpreting this information to represent the
entire range of attitudes in the EIS area, or in saying the percen-
tage of respondents with a given belief can be generalized to a
proportion of the entire population.
METHODOLOGY FOR SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A-81
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.12: METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING
Analysis of the impacts of the alternatives on intensive study area
output, earnings and employment is based on the Water
Resource Council Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS).
The system was developed by the Regional Economic Analysis
Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department
of Commerce. A complete explanation of the methodology and
procedures for RIMS is provided in Water Resources Council
Guide 5: Regional Multipliers. Also, an example of the
application of RIMS to river basin planning is available to
Regional Industrial Multiplier System—A Guide for
River Basin Analysts, (ISDA Forest Service.
This section briefly explains RIMS and shows how it is applied in
the regional impact analysis. RIMS is essentially a technique for
estimating regional output multipliers which can be used to mea-
sure the impact of EIS alternatives on output. Changes in income
and employment can be estimated from this output base.
RIMS is based on an input-output (l-O) model. The l-O model is
composed of three parts; a processing sector, a final demand
sector and a payments sector. The processing sector is divided
into industries and displayed as a matrix; each industry is repre-
sented by a column showing purchases of that industry and a row
showing its sales to others. Each element in the matrixshows the
sales of the producing (row) industry to the purchasing (column)
industry.
To the processing sector are added several rows for the payments
sector (which includes imports, payments to governments,
depreciation and payments to households) and several columns
for the final demand section (which includes government pur-
chases, exports from the region and purchases of goods and
services by households). It is important to remember that the final
demand sector is the only autonomous sector in the economy
and any change in production in the processing sector is a
response to a change in demand.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The input-output table is constructed, in this case, for the BEA
Economic Area - 095 - Billings, Montana. Since the BEA area
represents a larger geographic area than the study area, the RIMS
multipliers tend to overestimate impact.
The industry-specific multipliers are calculated by first assuming
that the regional economy is similar, but not identical to the
national economy. The regional l-O table is constructed by
"regionalizing” the nationall-O table. The results of this procedure
give the following gross output multipliers and components for
the BEA Economic Area - 095 (Table 1). Only the industrial
sectors whose final demand will change under the various EIS
alternatives are listed. -
Based on these gross output multipliers, the impact on the study
area output, earnings and employment for each of the alternatives
can be calculated. In this analysis the ranching and construction
industries are being examined. (Increases in study area earnings
and employment due to increases in federal government
employment are calculated directly from estimates of the number
of new employees that will be needed in each alternative.) The first
step in the analysis is to estimate increases/decreases in final
demand. With respect to the ranching industry, this is accomp-
lished by calculating the changes in gross livestock sales due to
changes in public ACIMs.
The change in final demand is multiplied by the appropriate gross
output multiplier to determine the impact on gross output for the
region. The gross output is then multiplied by the gross output to
earnings factor to determine changes in earnings in the region.
Earnings are then multiplied by the employment/earnings ratio
for the region to determine the impact on employment.
TABLE 1: BEA ECONOMICAREA-095–BILLINGS, MONTANA
WRC Direct Effect
Industrial Sector Sector No. Component
Meat, Animals O3 .863
Construction 18 .545
Trade 54 .667
Services 56 .682
Indirect Effect Gross Output Household
Component Multiplier Coefficient
.718 2.581 .158
.447 1.992 .289
.550 2.217 .513
.563 2.245 .487
A-82
APPENDIX 4.1
APPENDIX 4.1: EFFECTS OF LAND TREATMENTS
MECHANICAL TREATMENTS (ALT. A, B AND C) GRAZING SYSTEMS ( ALT. A, B AND D)
|MPACTS ON SO | LS AND º o
WATERSHED Plowing & Ripping Contour Chaining Water Rest Deferred Deferred Seasonal No No
Seeding Chise ling Furrowing Cab ling Spreader Fire Chemical Rotation Rotation Grazing Act ion
50% of Rail ing (Ait. D)
Surface Dozing
ST LI ST. LT ST. LT ST. LT ST. LT ST. LT ST LI ST. LT ST. LT ST LT ST LT ST LT ST LT
Erosion and Sedimentation + = + - º -> + - -> º + º + º + - O - O -> O -> - º O +
Vegetation Production - + tº º + º + cº- + + + + + + + O + O + O + O + + + O –
Nutrient Ava i labi lity + - - + + - + O O + + O O O O O O O O O O O + + 0 -
Soi | Moisture + + + + + + + + + + + + + + O + O + O + O + + + 0 -
Water Quality - + º + º + {--> + + + - + - + O + O + O + O + + + O -
Soi | Salts + + + + + -> O O - tº e O O O O O O O O O O O O O º O O
Change in grazing pattern + + + + + + + + + + + + --> + O + O + O + O + -> º O O
and intensity
Soi | Development - + O + º + º-> + + + - + O + O + O + O + O + + + O –
Soi |
Surfact texture changes + + O + + + + + O + O + O + O + O + O + O + O -: O +
(amount of clay content)
A-83
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 4.2:
METHODOLOGY OF CALCOILATING WATERSHED IMPACTS
The effects of grazing on sediment and water yields depend upon
the grazing duration, intensity and season of use, as well as Soil,
climate, vegetation and topographic interactions. Because of the
complexity of these interactions, only generalizations are possi-
ble. The figures for sediment and water yields appear as exact
numbers, but are actually estimates
The figures for sediment yields were derived from data taken in a
reservoir sediment survey. Fourteen reservoirs from three of the
four hydrologic geomorphic areas (glossary) were surveyed in the
Big Dry EIS area. Data from the fourth hydrologic geomorphic
area, glaciated plains, was taken from the Prairie Potholes EIS,
since data was unavailable in the Big Dry area
Sediment yield ranges were produced for each hydrologic geo-
morphic area. It is assumed the low end of the range represents a
watershed in good to excellent condition, the middle of the range,
a watershed in fair to good condition, while the high end of the
range represents a watershed in poor condition
Initial or existing sediment yields were estimated using sediment
yield ranges, SVIM inventory, and range condition mapping.
Effects of each alternative were projected on each of the four
hydrologic geomorphic areas. For instance, in the existing situa-
tion hydrologic geomorphic areal has approximately 2,400 acres
in poor condition. It was projected that by applying the grazing
treatments proposed in Alternative A, the sediment yield from
those 2,400 acres would shift from the high end to the middle of
the range. Multiplying that yield by the number of acres involved,
resulted in an amount of sediment produced per year from those
aCTeS
This method was applied to each of the treatments in each
alternative, resulting in the Summary of Watershed Impacts found
at the end of the discussion of each alternative in chapter four.
Water yields were estimated using mean annual runoff curves
from small watersheds for eastern and central Montana devel-
oped by BLM hydrologists at the Lewistown District Office. It was
assumed that water yields varied directly with sediment yields.
Therefore, the same methods used to predict sediment"yields
were also used to predict water yields
APPENDIX 4.3
APPENDIX 4.3: PROGRAMMATIC MEMORANDCIM OF AGREEMENT
Advisory 1522 K Street NW
O treet NW.
Council On Washington D.C.
Historic 20005
Preservation
PROGRAMMATIC MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION,
AND THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
REGARDING THE
LIVESTOCK GRAZING AND RANGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of land
Management, administers public lands, Principally in the ll
Western States and Alaska, under concepts of multiple-use and
sustained yield, and, among other responsibilities, the Bureau
of Land Management is charged with management of rangeland and
forage products under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C.
315) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(43 U.S. C. 1701), which also charges the Bureau of Land
Management with the management and protection of cultural
resources; and
WHEREAS, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) requires that
the head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect juris-
diction over a proposed Federal, federally assisted, or federally
licensed undertaking affecting properties in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places shall afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (hereafter Council) a reasonable
opportunity for comment; and
WHEREAS, livestock grazing and range improvement activities
undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management may have an effect
upon properties in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places and will require compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 2 of Executive
Order 11593, May 13, 1971, "Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment," and the Council's regulations, "Protection
of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800); and
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Land Management is currently engaged
in an ongoing program of rangeland management which involves the
preparation, by 1988, of approximately 145 environmental state-
ments on specific areas where grazing is permitted on approximately
Encl ire 1–1
Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
Livestock Grazing & Range Improvement Program
Bureau of Land Management
Page 2
174 million acres of public lands in the Western states and
has requested Council review of the rangeland management
program; and
WHEREAS, the Council and the Bureau of Land Management
have met and reviewed the livestock grazing and range
improvement Program of the Bureau of Land Management and its
relation to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive order
ll393, as implemented by the Council's regulations (36 CFR
Part 800) and the responsibilities for historic and cultural
resources under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) as implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality in the "National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations" (40 CFR Parts l500-lb.08).
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the Bureau
of Land Management will ensure, through the stipulations
outlined in this Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement, that
historic and cultural properties will be given adequate
consideration in grazing management program decisions and
implementation which includes, but is not limited to, the
preparation of grazing environmental statements, thereby
meeting its responsibilities under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
STIPULATIONS
1. The Bureau of Land Management will conduct Class I
(existing data inventory) and Class II (sampling field
inventory) inventories of historic and cultural properties,
as specified in BLM Manual Section 8111, to be completed
at the appropriate planning stage and prior to the
Preparation of the draft environmental statement.
Inventory results will be evaluated, in consultation
with the appropriate State Historic Preservation officer,
to identify properties included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
a • The inventory requirement may be modified on a
case by case basis for interim grazing environ-
mental statements (i.e., those prepared during
fiscal years 1979 through 1981) if an alternative
is acceptable to the appropriate State Historic
Preservation Officer.
A-85
APPENDICES
Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
Livestock Grazing & Range Improvement Program Livestock Grazing & Range Improvement Program
Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management
Page 3 Page 4
b. If an acceptable alternative cannot be negotiated 6. Where it is not prudent or feasible to avoid adverse
with the appropriate State Historic Preservation effects on properties included in or eligible for
Officer, then the Bureau of Land Management will inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
proceed with the preparation of the environmental as part of a livestock grazing and range improvement
statement and request the comments of the Council program authorization and the property is not a National
in accordance with 36 CFR 800. The Council's Historic Landmark or National Historic Site, the Bureau
comments will be included in the final environ- of Land Management will consult with the appropriate
mental statement State Historic Preservation Officer and will:
2 This Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement and the a • Develop mutually acceptable measures to mitigate the
inventory reports identifying historic and cultural impact of the proposed action; and
:::::::::: will be referenced in each environmental b. Notify the Council in writing of agreements reached
with the State Historic Preservation Officer under
3. Prior to commencement of any range improvement activities the provisions of 6(a) above. The Council need not
which involve land disturbance, the Bureau of Land be afforded further opportunity for review and comment.
Management will conduct a Class III inventory, as © . e. &
specified in the BLM Manual Section 8111. 4, supplementing 7. The provisions of this Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
previous surveys to locate, identify, and evaluate shall apply to the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
properties in the impact area that may be eligible for Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. and Wyoming.
* rbance
ºr:*:::::::::::::: :*::::::::::::::::" 8. If it is determined that the affected property is a National
construction of fencing and corrals, water development, Historic Landmark or National Historic Site, or agreement
chaining, and controlled burning. if properties that cannot be reached between the Bureau of Land Management and
may be eligible for the National Register are found the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer on
the Bureau of Land Management will consult with the ' satisfactory mitigation measures, the Bureau of Land Manage-
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and ment will request the comments of the Council in accordance
forward the documentation to the Keeper of the National with 36 CFR Part 800.
º ai e © i - g
::::::::::"... 3. *::::::::iºn of eligibility in 9. At the request of the President or a Member of Congress, the
Council may advise the Bureau of Land Management, that a
4. The Bureau of Land Management will provide the appropriate particular action, authorized by a grazing permit or lease,
State Historic Preservation Officer with copies of the will require individual review and comment pursuant to 36 CFR
reports of the Class I, II, and III inventories in Part 800. In that event, the Bureau of Land Management will
accordance with Sections 102(a)(2) and 202(c) (9) of the comply with the provisions of the Council's regulations.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 for
inclusion as part of the State inventory conducted 10. The Council and the Bureau of Land Management will review the
pursuant' to 36 CFR Part 6l. provisions of this Agreement on an annual basis to determine
whether modification or termination is appropriate. Should
5. The Bureau of Land Management will design the livestock the current livestock grazing program of the Bureau of Land
grazing and range improvement program to avoid adverse Management be revised, the ratifying parties will mutually
effects on properties included in or eligible for determine whether the provisions of the Agreement will
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, continue to apply.
unless this is not prudent or feasible.
A-86
APPENDIX 4.3
Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
Livestock Grazing & Range Improvement Program
Bureau of Land Management
Page 5

44-ſºº... sºlº
Deputy Executive †: * (date)
Advisory Council on UHistoric
Preservation
*A 44-4, /2/2//zr
Director, Bureau of land Management (date)
sº 2 ôº Blzelna
*:::::::: National Conference of (date)
State Historic Preservation Officers
Associate


sº
T; , N. , i.
64- ū Yº \lu 80
Chairman ." . (date).
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
A-87
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 4.4: ESTIMATED POSITIVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVEAON NET ANNOIALRANCHINCOME ONAFFECTED RANCHES
Average Average
Size By Average Average In- Percent In- Percent
Number Number Number crease in crease in | norease in | n creased Annua | | noome
Of Brood of Brood Of Public AUMs Public AUMs Total AUMs Average Percentage Al I
Cows Cows Ranches Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Ranches
Sma | | Livestock
Small | Cash Crop 0–150 100 77 29 16.2 35, 9 4.54 6, 7 34,956
Sma | | Livestock
Medium Cash Crop O- 150 100 75 29 16. 1 5.8 4.52 5.0 33,872
Sma | | Livestock
Large Cash Crop 0- 150 100 22 32 18. O 5, 6 505 1. 5 11, 116
Medium Livestock ©
Small Cash Crop 151-374 250 52 56 9. 1 1.4 568 5.8 29, 511
Medium Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 151-374 250 36 44 1 l. 2 2.2 697 5.0 25, O75
Medium Livestock
Large Cash Crop 151-374 250 19 46 11 - 5 1 - 0 718 1.4 15,638
Large Livestock
Sma l l Cash Crop 375-749 500 36 51 10. 0 1.6 795 5.0 28,605
Large Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 575-749 500 10 90 17.7 2.5 1408 4. 1 14,081
Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 375-749 500 4 1 O 2.0 O. l 157 0.2 629
Very Large Livestock
Sma l l Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 14 122 8.5 2.6 895 1 .. 7 12,527
Very Large Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 750 or more 1 500 4 28 1.9 0. 5 2O2 0. 5 807
Very Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 l 1 15 8.0 1 - 7 84 5 0. 9 843
TOTAL 350 205,658
Source: BLM 1981
APPENDIX 4.5
APPENDIX 4.5: ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE A
ON THE STUDY AREA
PCt of
Agriculture Government Services” Trade” Construct iOn Total 1978 Total
Existing Situation (1978)
Earnings ($1,000) 26,600 22,414 16, 942 16,787 13,318 174,888° 100
Employment 3,4567 2,818 2,097 2, 159 824 17,631° 100
Short-Term Changes”
Sales“ ($, 1000) O * > O O 1,853 – cº-
Gross Output" ($1,000) O tº º O O 5,652 gºe tº
Earnings" ($1,000) O 558 10 O O 1,077 1635' 0.9
Employment? O 2510 O O 109 1341 0.8
Long-Term Changes?
Sales% ($1,000) O tº º O O O tº tº
Gross Output 6 ($1,000) O gº O O O * * > wº
Earnings? ($1,000) O 010 O O O 011 O
Employment? O 010 O O O 01 i O
l
2.
5.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10,
Figures for existing situation indicate employment and earnings within the itemized sectors for 1978.
Figures for short-term and long-term changes indicate direct and indirect output, earnings and employment
generated by the change in sales for the itemized sector (except for government section, see #10).
The short-term changes for employment indicate the total change from existing situation during the first 5
years of implementation.
The short-term changes for output, earnings and employment indicate the average annual change from the
existing situation during the first 5 years of implementation.
Long-term changes for employment indicate the total change from the existing situation during the 10 years
of implementation following the first 5 years.
Long-term changes for output, earnings and employment indicate the average annual change from the existing
situation during the 10 years of Implementation following the first 5 years.
Includes wage and salary and proprietory employment.
Recreation expenditures are divided into the service and trade sectors. The changes are displayed as zero,
because no quantitative changes in wildlife population are specified.
This is the total listed for all sectors in Tables 3-12 and 5-15.
This is only the direct change associated with government earnings and employment.
Total for changes in agriculture, construction, services, trade and government.
1 1,
SOURCE: BLM 1981
A-89
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 4.6: ESTIMATED NEGATIVE SHORT-TERM IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE BON NET ANNOIALRANCHINCOMEONAFFECTED RANCHES
Average Average
Size By Average Average Percent Percent
Number Number Number Decrease Decrease Decrease in Decreased Annual income
of Brood of Brood Of in Pub I ic AUMs in Pub I ic AUMs Total AUMs Average Percentage Al I
Cows Cows Ranches Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Ranches
Small I Livestock
Small Cash Crop O-1 50 100 89 56 51, 3 7.6 814 11.9 72,415
Smal | Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 0-150 100 82 43 25. 7 5.5 618 4.0 50,638
Sma | | Livestock
Large Cash Crop 0-150 100 29 40 22.5 7.0 588 1 - 5 17,046
Medium Livestock
Sma | | Cash Crop 151-374 250 70 94 23.7 5.6 1471 9,8 102,997
Medium Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 151-374 250 4 | 12O 350e 5 5, 9 1874 8, 1 76,836
Medium Livestock
Large Cash Crop 151-374 250 19 60 15, 1 1.4 937 1,8 17,805
Large Livestock
Smal l Cash Crop 375-749 500 4 | 177 35.0 5.5 2770 10.5 115,571
Large Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 375-749 500 16 194 25, 5 5.4 3026 8.8 48,410
Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 375-749 500 6 122 24, 1 0, 1 1902 2.5 11,412
Very Large Livestock
Small Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 21 482 55.6 10, 1 34.54 6.4 72, 123
Very Large Livestock -
Medium Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 2 258 18.0 2.9 1852 5, 1 3,705
Very Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 2 164 11 e 4 2.5 1174 1 - 2 2,348
TOTAL 4 18 589,306
Source: BLM 1981
A-90
APPENDIX 4.7
APPENDIX 4.7: ESTIMATED POSITIVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVEB ONNET ANNUALRANCHINCOMEONAFFECTED RANCHES
Average Average
Size By Average Average Percent Percent
Number Number Number Increase Increase Increase in |ncreased Annual Income
of Brood of Brood Of in Public AUMs in Public AUMs Total AUMs Average Percentage Al
Cows Cows Ranches Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Ranches
Small I Livestock
Small Cash Crop 0-150 100 44 28 15. 7 5, 8 440 6, 5 19,566
Small Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 0-150 100 48 28 15, 4 5, 6 431 2.8 20,678
Small Livestock
_Large Cash Crop 0–150 100 12 29 16, 5 5 e 1 459 1, 2 5,502
Medium Livestock
Small Cash Crop 151-374 250 22 34 8.6 l. 3 533 35.6 1 1,755
Medium Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 151-374 250 21 56 14, 2 2.8 885 5, 8 18,595
Medium Livestock
Large Cash Crop 151-374 250 10 51 12.9 1.2 805 1.5 8,054
Large Livestock
Small Cash Crop 375-749 500 12 26 5, 1 0, 8 408 1, 5 4,895
Large Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 375-749 500 3 25 4.9 0.7 388 1, 1 1, 164
Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 375-749 500 O O 6 º' tº º « » tº e O
Very Large Livestock
Smal | Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 2 25 1.6 0.5 165 0.5 330
Very Large Livestock A
Medium Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 2 45 5.0 (), 5 312 0. 5 623
Very Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 O O tº e tº º * … O
TOTAL 176 90,938
Source: BLM 1981
A-91
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 4.8: ESTIMATED NEGATIVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE BONNET ANNOIALRANCHINCOMEONAFFECTED RANCHES
Average Average
Size By Average Average Percent Percent
Number Number Number Decrease Decrease Decrease in Decreased Annual Income
of Brood of Brood Of in Pub I ic AUMs in Pub I ic AUMs Total AUMs Average Percentage Al
Cows Cows Ranches Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Ranches
Small Livestock
Smal | Cash Crop O– 150 100 73 56 31, 5 7.6 814 12.. O 59,449
Smal | Livestock
Medium Cash Crop O- 150 100 58 45 25, 2 5.9 656 4, 5 38,055
Small | Livestock
Large Cash Crop 0-150 1 OO 22 42 25.6 7, 5 6 16 1 - 5 15,542
Medium Livestock
Small | Cash Crop 151-374 250 56 97 24, 5 5. 7 1520 10, 1 85, 135
Medium Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 151-374 250 32 129 32.7 6, 4 2017 8, 7 64,555
Medium Livestock
Large Cash Crop 151-374 250 14 55 15. 7 1.2 853 1,6 11,946
Large Livestock
Small I Cash Crop 375-749 500 56 168 55, 2 5, 2 2625 9e 9 94,500
Large Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 375-749 500 14 163 52, 2 4.6 2552 7,4 35,727
Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 375-749 500 6 115 22e 7 0. 9 1798 2.4 10,785
Very Large Livestock
Small Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 20 445 30, 8 9, 35 3 158 5.9 65, 166
Very Large Livestock -
Medium Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 2 246 17. 1 2, 7 1763 5.0 3,525
Very Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 750 or more 1500 2 75 5, 2 1 - 1 535 0. 5 1,070
TOTAL 555 481,435
Source: BLM 1981
A-92
APPENDIX 4.9
APPENDIX 4.9: ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE B
Existing Situation (1978)
Earnings ($1,000)
Employment
Short-Term Changes?
Sales* ($, 1000)
Gross Output 4 ($1,000)
Earnings" ($1,000)
Employment.”
Long-Term Changes?
Sales” ($1,000)
Gross Output 6 ($ 1,000)
Earnings° ($1,000)
Employment”
Agriculture Government Services” Trade
26,600
3,4567
- 4.38
- 1, 151
– 277
- 28
- 368
- 950
- 25 1
- 25
ON THE STUDY AREA
22,414
2,818
558 10
2510
010
010
16,942
2,097
:
:
8
16,787
2, 159
:
:
Construction
15,518
824
1,853
5,652
1,077
109
:
Total
174,888
17,6519
1358!!
106.1 !
–231'
–23' |
Pct of
1978 Total
100
100
0.8
0.6
0. 1
0. I
1. Figures for existing situation indicate employment and earnings within the itemized sectors for 1978.
2. Figures for short-term and long-term changes indicate direct and indirect output, earnings and employment
generated by the change in sales for the itemized sector (except for government section, see #10).
3. The short-term changes for employment indicate the total change from existing situation during the first 5
years of implementation.
4. The short-term changes for output, earnings and employment indicate the average annual change from the
existing situation during the first 5 years of implementation-
5. Long-term changes for employment indicate the total change from the existing situation during the 10 years
of implementation following the first 5 years.
6. Long-term changes for output, earnings and employment indicate the average annual change from the existing
situation during the 10 years of implementation following the first 5 years.
7. Includes wage and salary and proprietory employment-
8. Recreation expenditures are divided into the service and trade sectors. The changes are displayed as zero,
because no quantitative changes in wildlife population are specified.
9.
This is the total listed for a sectors in Tables 5-12 and 5-15-
10.
This is only the direct change associated with government earnings and employment.
ll.
Total for changes in agriculture, construction, services, trade and government.
SOURCE:
BLM 1981
A-93
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 4.10: ESTIMATED NEGATIVE LONG AND SHORT-TERMIMPACTS
OF ALTERNATIVE CON NET ANNUAL RANCH INCOME
ON AFFECTED RANCHES
Average Average
Size By Average Average Percent Percent
Number Number Number Decrease Decrease Decrease in Decreased Annual Income
of Brood of Brood Of in Pub | | C AUMS in Pub I ic AUMS Total Average Percentage Al
Cows Cows Ranches Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Per Ranch Ranches
Sma | | Livestock
Small Cash Crop 0-150 100 140 179 100 24, 8 2,596 38 563,486
Small I Livestock
Medium Cash Crop O- 150 100 124 179 100 24,8 2,596 17 521,945
Small | Livestock
Large Cash Crop 0-150 100 36 179 100 24,8 2,596 7 95,468
Medium Livestock
Small Cash Crop 151-374 250 104 596 100 15. 7 5,852 39 608,565
Medium Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 151-374 250 62 396 100 15. 7 5,852 25 362,798
Medium Livestock
Large Cash Crop 151-374 250 27 396 100 15.7 5,852 11 157,995
Large Livestock
Small Cash Crop 375-749 500 58 850 100 14, 5 12, 183 46 706,599
Large Livestock
Medium Cash Crop 375-749 500 17 850 100 14 e5 12, 185 35 207, 107
Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 375-749 500 6 850 100 14.5 12, 183 16 73,096
Very Large Livestock
Small Cash Crop 750 or more 1,500 29 1,435 100 12.9 9,606 18 278,580
Very Large Livestock &
Medium Cash Crop 750 or more 1,500 3 1,435 100 12, 9 9,606 16 28,819
Very Large Livestock
Large Cash Crop 750 or more 1,500 2 1,435 100 12.9 9,606 10 19,212
TOTAL 608 5,221,668
Source: BLM 1981
A-94
APPENDIX 4.11
APPENDIX 4.11: ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE C
ON THE STUDY AREA
PCt of
Agriculture Government Services.” Trade” Construction Total 1978 Tofa |
Existing Situation (1978)
Earnings ($1,000) 26,600 22, 414 16, 942 16,787 13,318 174,888° 100
Employment 3,4567 2,818 2,097 2, 159 824 17,6519 100
Short-Term Changes?
Sales" ($, 1000) – 4,759 * - O O 5,992 tº tº º
Gross Output" ($1,000) - 12,282 tº e O O 7,952 wº gº e
Earnings” ($1,000) – 5,009 16210 O O 2,546 –501' ' 0. 5
Employment? - 505 710 O O 256 -601 | 0. 5
Long-Term Changes?
Sales” ($1,000) – 4,759 tº O O O gº *
Gross Output 9 ($1,000) - 12,282 tº te 0 O O tº tº e
Earnings” ($1,000) – 5,009 010 O O O -3009'' 1. 7
Employment? - 503 010 O O O -505'' 1. 7
l
©
2.
5.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I 0.
l
l
figures for existing situation indicate employment and earnings with in the itemized sectors for 1978.
figures for short-term and long-term changes indicate direct and indirect output, earnings and employment
generated by the change in sales for the itemized sector (except for government section, see #10).
The short-term changes for employment indicate the total change from existing situation during the first 5
Years of implementation.
The short-term changes for output, earnings and employment indicate the average annual change from the
existing situation during the first 5 years of implementation.
Long-term changes for employment indicate the total change from the existing situation during the 10 years
of implementation following the first 5 years.
Long-term changes for output, earnings and employment indicate the average annual change from the existing
Situation during the 10 years of implementation following the first 5 years.
Includes wage and salary and proprietory employment.
Recreat ion expenditures are divided into the service and trade sectors. The changes are displayed as zero,
because no quantitative changes in wildlife population are specified.
This is the total listed for a sectors in Tables 5. 12 and 3. 15.
This is only the direct change associated with government earnings and employment.
Total for changes in agriculture, construction, services, trade and government.
SOURCE: BLM 1981
A-95
REFERENCES
Autenrieth, R. (Ed.). 1978. Guidelines for the management of
pronghorn antelope. Pronghorn Antelope Workshop Pro-
ceedings 8:473-526
Bayless, S.R. 1969. Winter food habits, range use and home range
of antelope in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
33(3):538-551.
Cornelius, J. 1977. Enterprise costs—200 Cow-calf ranch—
Powder River County. Montana State (Iniversity Cooperative
Extension Service Bulletin ll'72. Bozeman, Montana. Two
hundred and fifty head cow-calf ranch in Blaine County.
Montana State University Cooperative Extension Service
Bulletin 1173. Bozeman, Montana.
Gifford, G.F. 1975. Beneficial and Detrimental Effects of Range
Improvement Practices on Runoff and Erosion. In
Watershed Management, A Symposium. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Logan, Cltah: pp 21648.
Gill, R.B. 1965. Effects of Sagebrush Control on Distribution and
Abundance of Sage Grouse. Colorado Game, Fish and
Parks, Job Completion Report, Project W-37-R-17, 185 pp.
Gjersing, F.M. 1980. Effects of grazing on riparian zones in North
Central Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks. Mimeo, ll pp.
Holechek, J. 1980. Livestock grazing impacts on rangeland eco-
systems. Journal of Soiland Water Conservation 35(4):162.
64.
Hormay, A.L. 1970. Principles of rest rotation Grazing and multi-
ple use land management. (I.S. Forest Service (USDA)
Training Text 4 (2200), Washington, D.C.
Lea, George D. 1979. BLM management and policy for riparian/
stream ecosystems. In forum, Grazing and Riparian/
Stream Ecosystems, Ed. Cope, Oliver B. Trout (Inlimited,
Inc.
Lower Yellowstone Area Socio Economic Analysis. Centaur Man-
agement Consultants
Marshall, W.H. and Jensen, M.S. 1937. Winter and spring studies
of the sharp-tailed grouse in Cltah. Journal of Wildlife Man-
agement l;87-99.
Martin, A.C., Zim, H.S., and Nelson, A.C. 1951. American Wildlife
and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Martin, N.S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage
grouse occurrence. Journal of Wildlife Management.
34(2):313-320.
McKinley, P.W., 1979. Water quality of selected streams in the
coal area of east-central Montana. CIS. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations 78-142.
Montana Department of Fish and Game. 1979. Nongame Spe.
cies of Special Interest or Concern. Montana Fish and
Game. Public. Prepared by Flath, D.
REFERENCES
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1974-1979. Big
game survey and inventory (antelope) Region 7. Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Project W-130-R-11, Study No. 1.
Montana Research and Information Systems Division. 1978.
Montana population projections, 1980-2000. Montana
Department of Community Affairs. Helena, Montana.
Montana Testing Laboratories, Inc. and Systems Technology, Inc.
Draft Final Report. Water quality and quantity in the Big Dry
resource area, Montana. Great Falls, Montana.
Montana Water Resources Board. 1960. Water Resources Survey
for Carter, Fallon and Wibaux Counties, Montana. Helena,
Montana.
.1970A. Water Resources Survey for Prairie County, Mon-
tana. Helena,Montana.
.1970B. Water Resources Survey for Dawson County,
Montana. Helena, Montana. &
.1971A. Water Resources Survey for Richland County,
Montana. Helena, Montana.
.1971B. Water Resources Survey for McCone County,
Montana, Helena, Montana
Neff, E.L. 1980. Snow trapping by contour furrowing in South-
eastern Montana. Journal of Range Management
33(3):221-23.
Neff, E.L. and Wight, J.R. 1977. Overwinter soil water recharge
and herbageproduction as influenced by contourfurrowing
on eastern Montana rangelands. Journal of Range Man-
agement 30(3):193-95.
Nielson, L.S. 1978. The Effects of Rest-Rotation Grazing on the
Distribution of Sharp-tailed Grouse. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis,
Montana State (Iniv., Bozeman, Montana.
Noble, D.L., Dunn, P.H. and Andres, L.A. 1979. The Leafy Spurge
Problem. Proceedings, Leafy Spurge Symposium. Bis:
marck, North Dakota.
Regional Economic Information System. 1981. County Data
Books. Montana Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Ryerson, F., Houlton, H.A.R. and Wambolt, C.L. 1980. Range
Improvement Tools. Montana State (Iniversity Agricultural
Experiment Station. Bozeman, Montana.
Saulmon, R.W. 1973. Snowdrift management can increase water.
harvesting yields. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
14:118-21.
Schlatterer, E.F., and Pyrah, D.B. 1970. Ecological Effects of
Chemicals and Mechanical Sagebrush Control. Montana
Fish and Game Department, Job Completion Report, Pro-
ject Number W-105-R4. 121 p.
Smeins, F.E. 1975. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Runoff and
Erosion. In Watershed Management. A Symposium. Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 267-74. Logan, Utah
Smith, A.G., Stoudt, J.H. and Gollop, J.B. 1964. Prairie potholes
and marshes. In: Waterfowl Tomorrow, Ed. Linduska, J.P.,
(J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CISDI), Washington, D.C.
Snell, G.P. and Hlavachick, W.D. 1980. Control of prairie dogs—
the easy way; rangelands 2(6):239-240.
Stoner, J.D., and Lewis, B.D. 1980. Hydrogeology of the Fort
Clnion Coal Region, Eastern Montana. (I.S. Geological Sur-
vey Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1236.
Thomas, J.W., Maser, C., and Rodiek, J.E. 1979. Riparian Zones in
Managed Rangelands—Their Importance to Wildlife. In
Forum on Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems, ed.
Cope, Oliver B., Trout Unlimited.
(Inited States Bureau of the Census. 1981. Census of Agriculture,
1978: Montana state and county data. CISDC. Washington,
D.C.
.1978. County and city data book, 1977. (ISDC. Washing.
ton, D.C.
.1980. Census of Population and Housing–Preliminary
Report, PHC8-P-28, U.S. Census Bureau, CISD.C. 1980.
.1970 Census of Population, Advance Report PC(VI)-28,
(J.S. Census Bureau, CISD.C. 1970.
CInited States Census Bureau, Estimates of the Population, Series
P-26, (ISDC.
CInited States Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1980. Earnings and
personal income by major sources, 1974-1978. CISD.C.
Washington, D.C.
CInited States Economic Statistics and Cooperative Service.
1979. Farm real estate market development. (ISDA. CD-84,
Washington, D.C.
CInited States Bureau of Land Management. 1981A. Inventory
Report of Sediment and Water Yields. CInpublished Manu-
script. BLM (CISDI). Miles City, Montana.
.1981B. Draft Prairie Potholes Environmental Impact
Statement on Vegetation Allocation. Billings, Montana.
.n.d. Miles City District Class I Cultural Resource Inventory
(Draft).
CInited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service. 1980. Personal communica-
tion to collect Crop data in these Montana counties: Custer,
Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, Richland,
Rosebud, Wibuax.
Cl.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. estab-
lished soil series. National Cooperative SoilSurvey, U.S.A.
(I.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1979.
Technical Guide Section Il-E-8, Technical Range Site Des:
cription.
United States Forest Service. 1977. Regional Industrial Multiplier
System: A Guide For River Basin Analysis. (ISDA,
Washington D.C.
R-1
REFERENCES
Cl.S. Geological Survey and Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology.
1978. Ground Water of the Fort Clnion Coal Region, Eastern
Montana. Special Publication 80.
(I.S. Geological Survey, issued annually, Water Resources Data
for Montana: (I.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report.
(Inited States Resources Council. 1977. Guidelines: regional
multipliers. Washington, D.C.
Wallestad R. and Pyrah, D.B. 1974. Movements and nesting
requirements of sage grouse hens in central Montana.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 38(4):630-633.
Wight, J.R. and Siddoway, F.H. 1972. Improving Precipitation-Clse
Efficiency on Rangeland by Surface Modification. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 27(4):170-74.
GLOSSARY
ACCELERATED EROSION. Erosion processes increased by the
activities of man. See "Erosion.”
ACID SOIL. Soil with a pH value less than 6.6.
ACRE-FOOT. A unit for measuring volume, equal to the quantity
of water or other material required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1
foot or a volume of 43,560 cubic feet.
ACTUAL (ISE. (1) The actual amount of grazing by livestock
and/or game animals (2) The index of actual use submitted by
livestock operators (*s, class of stock, season) expressed in
ACIM's.
ADJUSTMENTS. Changes in animal numbers, seasons of use,
kinds or class of animals or management practices as warranted
by specific condition.
ALKALINESOIL. A soil that is alkaline throughout most or all of
the parts occupied by plant roots. It is any soil horizon having a pH
value greater than 7.3.
ALLOTMENT. An area of land where livestock operators graze
their livestock.
ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP). A written program
of livestock grazing management, including supportive measures
if required, designed to attain specific management goals in a
grazing allotment.
ALLOWABLEUSE. The amount of use the various plant species
can withstand and still maintain their vigor and reproductive
capabilities.
ALLUVIAL SOIL. A soil developing from recently deposited allu.
vium and showing essentially no development of layers or modifi.
cation of the recently deposited materials.
ALLCIVICIM. Soil and rock debris deposited by streams.
ANIMAL UNIT (AU). Considered to be mature (1000 lb) cow or
the equivalent, based on an average consumption of 26 lbs of dry
forage per day (800 lb/month).
ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (ACIM). (1) The amount of forage neces.
sary for sustenance of one animal unit for one month; (2) The
measurement of the privilege of grazing one animal unit for one
month.
APPRECIATION. Increase in cost, price or value over the cost,
price or value from a previous time or period.
AQ(IATIC. Living or growing in or on the water.
AQUIFER. Arockformation, group of rockformations or part of a
rock formation that contains enough water-saturated permeable
material to yield water to a spring or well.
ASPECT. The orientation of a slope with respect to the Compass;
a position facing or fronting a particular direction; also, the visual
first impression of vegetation ata particular time or as seen from a
specific point.
AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY. The portion of water in a soil
that can readily be absorbed by plant roots. It is rated on soil
characteristics that influence the ability of the soil to hold water
such as content of organic matter, soil texture and soil structure.
GLOSSARY
AWNS. A slender bristle found at the tips of the spikelets in many
grasses.
BEDROCK. The solid unweathered rock underlying Soils.
BROWSE. To browse is to graze a plant; also, browse (noun) is the
tender shoots, twigs and leaves of trees and shrubs often used as
food by cattle, deer, elk and other animals.
BUFFERZONE/BUFFERSTRIP. Area of land adjacent to a body
of water which filters sediment from overland runoff and has a
stabilizing influence on the bank or shoreline.
BULK DENSITY (SOIL). The mass of dry soil per unit of bulk
volume.
CALCAREOCIS SOIL. Soil containing sufficient free calcium car.
bonate or calcium magnesium carbonate to effervesce visibly
when treated with cold hydrochloric acid.
CALF CROP. The number of calves weaned from a given number
of cows bred, usually expressed in percentages.
CANOPY COVER. The percentage of ground covered when a
polygon drawn around the extremities of the undisturbed canopy
of each plant is projected on the ground and all such projections
on a given area are added together.
CHANNEL. An open conduiteither naturally or artificially Created
which periodically or continuously contains moving water or
forms a connecting link between two bodies of water.
CHANNEL STABILITY. A relative term describing erosion or
movement of the channel walls or bottom due to water flow.
CHARACTERISTIC LANDSCAPE. The established landscape in
an area, not necessarily a natural area. It could refer to a farming
community, urban area or any other landscape which has an
identifiable character.
CHISELING. Shallow tillage of the range to speed range
improvement by increasing infiltration and reducing competition
to desirable species from a dense stand of less desirable vegeta-
tion.
CLAYEY. A soil containing more than 35% clay. The textural
classes are sandy clay, silty clay, clay, clay loam and silty clay
loam.
CLAYPAN. A dense, compact layer in the subsoil having a much
higher clay content than the overlying material from which it is
separated by a sharply defined boundary.
CLIMAX. The highest ecological development of a plant com:
munity capable of perpetuation under the prevailing climatic and
Soil conditions.
COMPACTION. The process of packing firmly and closely
together; the state of being so packed, e.g., mechanical compac-
tion of soil by livestock or vehicular activity. Soil compaction
results from particles being pressed together so that the volume
of the soil is reduced. It is influenced by the physical properties of
the soil, moisture content and the type and amount of compactive
effort.
CONTRAST. The effect of a change in the form, line, color or
texture of an existing landscape resulting from the addition of a
manmade feature.
CONTOUR FORROW. A plowed strip on the contour of the land
for water retention.
COWCALF OPERATION. A livestock operation in which a basic
breeding herd of cows, heifers and bulls is maintained. The cows
produce a calf crop each year and the operation keeps some
heifer calves from each crop for breeding herd replacements. The
operation sells the rest of the calf crop between the ages of 6-12
months along with old or non-productive cows and bulls.
CRCICIAL BIG GAME WINTER RANGE. Observation(s) of 5 or
more animals per square mile. e
CRCICIAL WILDLIFEHABITAT. Parts of the habitat necessary to
sustain a wildlife population at critical periods of its life cycle. This
is often a limiting factor on the population, such as breeding
habitat, winter habitat, etc.
CCILTCIRAL RESOURCES. A term that includes items of histori-
cal, archaeological or architectural significance which are fragile,
limited and non-renewable portions of the human environment.
CULTURAL SITE. Any location that includes prehistoric and/or
historic evidence of human use.
DEFERMENT. The withholding of livestock grazing to provide for
plant reproduction, establishment, or vigor recovery.
DEFERRED GRAZING. The use of deferment in grazing man-
agement.
DEFERRED ROTATION GRAZING. Deferment of livestock graz.
ing on various parts of a range in succeeding years; systematic
rotation of grazing deferment among pastures.
DEPRECIATION. As used in this EIS, depreciation is the annual
expense incurred in writing off costs of depreciable assets over
their useful life.
DETENTION DAM. Adam constructed for the temporary storage
of flood flows where the release opening is offixed capacity and is
not manually operated.
DIET OVERLAP. The presence of the same forage plant in the
diet of several herbivores.
DIRECT INCOME. Income coming from a specific source.
DISCLIMAX. A relatively stable ecological community which dis.
places the climax because of a disturbance.
DISTRIBUTION. The uniformity of livestock grazing over a range
area. Distribution is affected by the availability of water, topog-
raphy and type and palatability of vegetation as well as other
factors.
DRAINAGE(INTERNALSOIL). The property of a soil that permits
the downward flow of excess water. Drainage is reflected in the
number of times and in the length of time water stays in the soil. It
is influenced by the physical characteristics of the soil profile, the
underlying layers and the depth of the water table.
G-1
GLOSSARY
DRAINAGE CLASSES (OF SOILS).
"Very Poorly Drained." Water is removed from the soil so slowly
that free water remains at or near the surface during most of the
growing season. Soils of this drainage class occupy level or
depressed sites and are frequently ponded.
"Poorly Drained." Water is removed from the soil so slowly that
the soil remains wet and the water table remains near the surface
during a large part of the year.
"Somewhat Poorly Drained." Water is removed from the soil
slowly enough to keep the soil wet for significant periods during
the growing season.
"Moderately Well-Drained.” Water is removed from the soil
somewhat slowly during some periods. The soil is wet for a small
part of the growing season.
"Well-Drained." Water is removed from the soil readily but not
rapidly. Water is available for plant growth through most of the
growing season and wetness does not inhibit growth of roots.
"Somewhat Excessively Drained." Wateris removed from the soil
rapidly. Soils may be shallow or sandy and rapidly pervious. Some
are so steep that much of the water they receive is lost in runoff.
"Excessively Drained." Water is removed from the soil very
rapidly. These soils are commonly coarse textured, rocky, shallow
or steep.
ECOLOGICAL RANGE CONDITION CLASSES. Four classes
used to express the degree to which the composition of the
present plant community reflects that of climax. They are:
“Condition Class” Percentage
Excellent 76-100
Good 51.75
Fair 26-50
Poor O-25
ECOSYSTEM. An ecological community together with its physi-
cal environment. Its functioning involves the circulation of matter
and energy between organisms and their environment.
EDGE. A diversity of habitats available in a relatively small area,
i.e. where habitats "edge” into one another.
ELIMINATION OF GRAZING. Relinquishment or cancellation of
livestock grazing on public lands currently being grazed by live-
stock.
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES.
Determined for plants and animals by one or a combination of the
following factors:
1. The present or threatened destruction, modification or cur.
tailments of a species habitat or range.
2. Over utilization of a species for commercial, sporting, scien-
tific or education purposes.
3. Disease or predation of the species.
4. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
5. Other natural or human caused factors affecting a species'
continued existence.
ENVIRONMENTALINPACT STATEMENT (EIS). A written anal.
ysis of the impacts on the environment of a proposed action.
EPHEMERAL STREAM. A stream that flows only after rains or
during snowmelt.
EQUITY CAPITAL INVESTMENT. The net value of a ranch prop-
erty obtained by subtracting from its total value the amount owed
On it.
EROSION. The wearing away of the land surface by running
water, wind, ice or other geological agents.
EROSION CONDITION CLASSES. Expression of current ero.
sion activity by use of the following ratings (soil surface factor):
stable,0-20; slight, 21-40; moderate, 41-60; critical, 61-80; severe,
81-100.
EROSION SUSCEPTIBILITY. The susceptibility of a soil to ero-
sion when no cover is present. The rate of soil displacement
depends on the physical properties of the soil, rainfall intensity
and slope gradient.
EXPOSCIRE. Direction of a slope in respect to points of the
compass.
FECAL COLIFORM. Bacteria that are present in the intestine and
feces of warm blooded animals. Their presence in waterindicates
fecal containmination.
FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976
(FLPMA). Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, often referred to
as the BLMs “Organic Act,” which provides the majority of the
BLM's legislated authority, direction, policy and basic manage-
ment guidance.
FLOODPLAIN. The relatively flat area or lowland adjoining a
drainage.
FORB. A broadleafed herb that is not grass, sedge or rush.
FRIABLE. A soil with a loose surface that is easily crumbled or
pulverized.
GEOMORPHIC. Pertaining to the form of the earth or its surface
features.
GEOMORPHIC SOIL SUBGROUP. A group of soils having a
unique kind and degree of limitation for alternative land use and
treatment based on parent material, soil quality and landscape
features.
GLACIAL TILL. (Instratified glacial drift deposited directly by the
ice consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders intermingled
in any proportion.
GRANDFATHERED ACTIVITY. For wilderness purposes, any
land surface disturbance or alteration that had occurred within a
Wilderness Study Area prior to the passage of FLPMA (October
21, 1976).
GRAZING DISTRICT. Established by the Taylor Grazing Act, graz.
ing districts are administrative subdivisions of the rangelands
under jurisdiction of the BLM.
GRAZING SYSTEM. The manipulation of livestock grazing to
accomplish a desired result.
GROUND COVER. Vegetation, mulch, litter, rocks, etc.
GROUNDWATER. Water contained in pore spaces of consoli-
dated and unconsolidated subsurface material.
GCILLYING. The erosion process whereby water accumulates in
narrow channels and, over short periods, removes the soil from
this narrow area to considerable depths, ranging from 0.5 meter
(1.6 feet) to as much as 25 to 30 meters (83 to 100 feet).
HABITAT. A specific set of physical conditions that surround a
species, group of species or a large community. In wildlife man-
agement, the major constituents of habitat are considered to be
food, water, cover and living space.
HYDROLOGIC GEOMORPHICAREAS.
Rolling Plains: Soils sedimentary in origin with loamy and sandy
textures. Vegetation is grassland (short and midgrasses). In the
Big Dry Resource Area, all soil series described by soil subgroups
3, 4, 7, 8 and 12 commonly occur in these watersheds.
Glaciated Plains: Soils are complex and derived from glacial till,
sedimentary bedrock and allivium from mixed rock sources.
Within these complexes, soils have loamy textures, and claypanto
dense clay textures. Vegetation is grassland—sagebrush type
(short to midgrasses). In the Big Dry Resource Area, all soil series
described by soil subgroups 5,6 and 10 commonly occur in these
watersheds.
Rolling Plains: Soils are sedimentary in origin, and have clayey
and loamy textures. Vegetation is grassland, sagebrush, and
juniper. In the Big Dry Resource Area, all soil series described by
soil subgroups 1, 9, 11 and 13 commonly occur in these
watersheds.
River Breaks: These geomorphic areas are confined to lands
adjacent to the Missouri, Musselshell, Powder and Yellowstone
Rivers, including some major tributaries to these rivers. Soil tex-
tures are clayey and shallow soils are common. Vegetative types
most represented are grassland, sagebrush, juniper, and ponder-
osa pine. In the Big Dry Resource Area, all soil series described by
soil subgroups 14 and 15 commonly occur in these watersheds.
HYDROLOGY. The science dealing with the behavior of water as it
occurs in the atmosphere, on the surface of the ground and
underground.
INDIRECT BUSINESS ACTIVITY. Total income produced in
other economic sectors (such as in retail trade) by the receipt of
income in a different sector (such as in the livestock industry).
|NDCISTRY INCOME MULTIPLIER. An indicator of the income
stimulated from the regional economy by an economic sector
(e.g. government, agriculture) above and beyond the initial
income produced by that sector.
INFILTRATION. The penetration of water into the soil surface
through pores of the soil. The rate and amount of infilitration is
limited by the size and abundance of pores, organic matter con-
tent and the water absorption capacity of the soil.
INFILTRATION CAPACITY. The maximum rate at which the soil,
when in a given condition, can absorb falling rain or melting snow.
G-2
GLOSSARY
INTERIM MANAGEMENT POLICY AND GCIIDELINES FOR
LANDS (INDER WILDERNESS REVIEW (IMP). A BLM docu-
ment, dated December 12, 1979, which defines the policy for
management of Wilderness Study Areas until a final determina-
tion on Wilderness designation is made by Congress.
INTERMITTENT STREAM. A stream which flows most of the
time but ocassionally is dry or reduced to pool stage.
INTERSEEDING. The practice of seeding native or introduced
plant species into native range in combination with various
mechanical treatments. Interseeding differs from range seeding
in that only part of the native vegetation is removed to provide a
seed bed for the seeded species.
KEY SPECIES. Major forage species on which range manage.
ment should be based.
LAND CAPABILITY CLASS (LCC). A soil Conservation service
system where land is classified according to a suitable sustained
use that can be made of it while providing for adequate protection
from erosion or other means of deterioration.
LANDSCAPE. All natural features such as fields, hills, forests, etc.,
which distinguish one part of the earth's surface from another
part.
LAND TREATMENT. All methods of artificial range/soil
improvement and stabilization such as reseeding, brush control
(chemical and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, waterspreading,
prescribed fire, etc.
LEASE (GRAZING). A document authorizing use of the public
lands outside grazing districts under section 15 of the Taylor
Grazing Act for grazing livestock.
LIVESTOCK OPERATION. The management of a ranch or farm
so that a significant portion of the income is derived from the
continuing production of livestock.
LOAMY. Soil that is intermediate in texture and properties
between sandy and clayey soils. Textural classes are sandy loam,
fine sandy loam, very fine sandy loam, loam, silt liam, silt, sandy
clay loam, and clay loam with clay content between 18 and 35
percent.
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN (MFP). A planning deci.
sion document that establishes, for a given planning area, land
use allocations, coordination guidelines for multiple use, and
management objectives to be achieved for each class of land use
or protection. It is the BLM's land use plan. An MFP is prepared in
three steps: (1) resource recommendations, (2) impact analysis
and alternative development, and (3) decision making.
MECHANICALTREATMENTS. Treatment by mechanical means
of an area of range including contour furrowing, pitting, plowing
and seeding, chiseling, scalping, water spreaders, etc.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Methods or procedures Committed to
by BLM for the purpose of reducing or lessening the impacts of an
action.
MULTIPLE USE. Balanced management of the various surface
and subsurface resources, without permanent impairment of the
productivity of the land, that will best meet present and future
needs.
NET RANCH INCOME. The personal income available to the
operator and his family for their labor and management and the
return to their equity capital investment. Net ranch income is
figured as the gross cash receipts of the ranch minus Cash
operating expenses and depreciation.
NONCONSUMPTIVE USES. Those uses of public lands which no
actual utilization of vegetation occurs. These uses consist of
watershed, nonconsumptive recreation, esthetics, etc.
NONUSE. Grazing capacity which is not licensed during a given
time period.
NCITRIENT LOADING. A weight/time measure used to express
the amount of elements or compounds in water, such as Carbon,
oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous, which are essential as raw
materials for organism growth.
OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (ORV). Any motorized tract or wheeled
vehicle designed for cross-country travel over any type of natural
terrain.
OPPORTUNITY COST OF CAPITAL. The most favorable eco-
nomic return that capital could accrue if it were invested in
something other than the ranch operation.
“PAPER CHANGE” IN PERMIT VALUE. The change in permit
value caused by an increase or decrease in the authorized use of
BLMACIMs with no real increase or decrease in the actual number
of ACIMs being grazed by livestock.
PARENT MATERIAL. The unconsolidated and more or less
chemically weathered mineral or organic matter from which the
horizons of soils are developed by natural processes.
PEAK DISCHARGE. The highest stage or channel flow attained
by a flood, usually expressed as the volume of water in cubic feet
passing a given point in a one second time period, hence, cubic
feet/second.
PEDESTALING. Aphenomenon of erosion where plants or rocks
are left standing on pedestals of soil. Pedestals are formed
because a rock or plant has protected the soil underneath from
wind and water erosion.
PERCENT OPTIMUM COVER. That percent of soil stabilizing
cover consisting of vegetation, rocks, logs, etc.
PERCENTAGE OF USE. Grazing use of current vegetation
growth, usually expressed as a percentage of weight removed.
PERENNIAL (PERMANENT) STREAM. A stream which flows
nine or more months out of a year.
PERMEABILITY. The ease with which gases, liquids or plant roots
pass through a layer of soil. Accepted as a measure of this
property is the rate at which soil transmits water while saturated,
and may imply how well water passes through the least permea.
ble soil layer.
pH. The degree of acidity or alkalinity of a soil.
PERMIT (GRAZING). An authorization that permits the grazing of
a specified number and kind of livestock on a designated area of
public lands for a period of time, under authority of the Taylor
Grazing Act.
PERMITVALUE. The market value of a BLM grazing permit which
is often included in the overall market value of the ranch.
PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS (PAA). The PAA analyzes present
and future public demand for lands, renewable and nonrenew-
able resources. Based on data in the CIRA, the socio-economic
profile and other information from the region, the PAA shows the
significance of the land uses within a planning area to users and
operators, to the community and to the region.
PLANT SCICCESSION. The process of vegetative development
whereby an area becomes successively occupied by different
plant communities of higher ecological orders.
PROPER USE. The degree and time of use of the current year's
plant growth which, if continued, will either maintain or improve
the range condition consistent with conservation of other natural
resources.
PROPER USE FACTOR. The degree of use a kind of grazing
animal will make of a particular plant when the range is properly
grazed.
PUBLICLANDS. Any land and interestin land (outside of Alaksa)
owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of
the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Part of BLM's planning system that
provides the opportunity for citizens as individuals or groups to
express local, regional, and national perspectives and concerns in
the rule making, decision making, inventory and planning pro-
cesses for public lands. This includes public meetings, hearings,
or advisory boards or panels that may review resource manage-
ment proposals and offer suggestions or Criticisms for the various
alternatives considered.
RANCHDEPENDENCY. As used in this EIS, the amount of public
grazing divided by the total grazing requirements of a ranch
operation.
RANGE CONDITION. The present state of vegetation of a range
site in relation to the climax plant community of that site. It is an
expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions
and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the
climax plant community for that site. Range condition is basically
an ecological rating of the plant community. Air-dry weight is the
unit of measure used in comparing the composition and produc-
tion of the present plant community with that of the climax
community.
RANGE DEVELOPMENT. A structure, excavation, treatment or
development to rehabilitate, protect or improve public lands to
advance range betterment. “Range Development" is synomym.
ous with "Range Development.”
RANGE FACILITIES. Any structure or excavation such as water
sources, oilers, etc. designed to facilitate range management.
G-3
GLOSSARY
RANGE IMPROVEMENT. Any of a number of facilities or land
(e.g. fences, water developments, reseeding etc.) to increase
range production and improve the utilization of the range by
grazing animals.
RANGE SEEDING. The process of establishing vegetation by
mechanical dissemination of seed.
RANGE SITE. A distinctive kind of rangeland that differs from
other kinds of rangeland in its ability to produce a characteristic
natural plant community. A range site is the product of all the
environmental factors responsible for its development. It is capa-
ble of supporting a native plant community typified by an associa-
tion of species that differs from that of other range sites in the kind
or proportion of species or in total production.
RANGE TREND. The direction of change in range condition.
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY. Those outdoor recreation
activities which offer satisfaction in a particular physical, social
and management setting. In the Big Dry EIS area, these activities
are primarily hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, picnicking and, in
some areas, boating and camping.
REPRESENTATIVE RANCH BUDGET. A schedule of average
costs, receipts and income for a typical ranch of a given size and
type.
RESIDCIALGROUND COVER.That portion of the total vegetative
ground cover that remains after the livestock grazing season.
REST ROTATION GRAZING. An intensive system of manage.
ment where grazing is deferred on various parts of the range
during succeeding years, allowing the deferred part complete rest
for one year. Two or more units are required. Control by fencing is
usually necessary on cattle range but may be obtained by herding
on sheep ranges.
RIPARIAN AREA. A specialized form of wetland with vegetation
that requires large amounts of free or unbound water, usually
associated with wet meadows, subirrigated or saline lowland
range sites.
RIPPING. The mechanical penetration and shearing of soils to
break hardpan layers to facilitate penetration of plant roots, water,
organic matter, and nutrients. Used where native grasses of a
rhizomatous nature can spread into the ripped soil.
RCINOFF. The water that flows on the land surface from an area in
response to rainfall or snowmelt. As used in this EIS, runoff from
an area becomes streamflow when it reaches a channel.
SALINE SEEP. Areas of recently developed salinity in soils that
are non-irrigated but are wet some or all of the time and often have
white salt crusts. Grass production on saline seeps is reduced or
eliminated.
SALINE SOIL. A non-sodic soil containing sufficient soluble salt
to impair its productivity. The electric conductivity of the satura-
tion extractis more than two michrohms percentimeter at 25°C.
SALINITY. A measure of the mineral substances disolved in
Water.
SANDY. A soil containing a large amount of sand. Textural
classes are sands and loamy sands, with less than 18 percent clay.
SCALPING. Removing 10 to 25 inch wide strips of native vegeta-
tion and leaving undisturbed strips between. This mechanical
treatment speeds range improvement by retaining rain, water and
Snowmelt and by reducing competition to desirable species from
a dense stand of less desirable vegetation.
SCOPING (PUBLIC). The process for determining the scope of
issues addressed and identification of significantissues related to
a proposed action. The participation is invited of affected federal,
state, and local agencies and affected Indian tribes and other
interested persons to participate in this process.
SEASON OF CISE. The time of livestock grazing on a range area.
SEASONAL GRAZING. Grazing use throughout a specific sea-
SOI).
SEDIMENT. Soil, rock particles and organic or other debris car.
ried from one place to another by wind, water or gravity.
SEDIMENTATION. The action or process of deposition of mate.
rial borne by water, wind or glacier.
SEDIMENTARY ROCK. A rock formed from materials deposited
from suspension or precipitated from solution and usually being
more or less consolidated. The principal sedimentary rocks are
sandstone, shales and limestones.
SEDIMENTYIELD. The total amount of sediment given up by a
watershed over aspecified time period, usually a year. Ordinarily it
is expressed as tons, acre feet or cubic yards of sediment per unit
of drainage area per year.
SHEET EROSION. The detachment of soil material from the land
surface by raindrop impact and its subsequent removal removal
by runoff.
SHRCIB. A low woody plant, usually with several stems, that may
provide food and/or cover for animals.
SODICSOIL. A soil containing sufficientexchangeable sodium to
interfere with the growth of most crop plants. A soil in which the
sodium absorption ration of the saturation extract is 15 or more.
SOIL. The unconsolidated mineral material on the immediate
surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth
of land plants.
SOLASSOCIATION. A mapping unit used on general soil maps
in which two or more defined series occuring togetherina charac.
teristic pattern are combined. This could be because the scale of
the map or the purpose for which it is being made does not
require delineation of the individual series.
SOILLOSS. The detachment of material from the land surface by
raindrop impact and its subsequent removal by prechannel or
Overland flow. Synonymous with "Sheet Erosion.”
SOIL MAP. A map showing the distribution of soil series or other
Soil mapping units in relation to the prominent physical and
Cultural features of the earth's surface.
SOIL MOISTURE. Water held in the root zone by capillary action.
Part of the soil moisture is available to plants, part is held too
tightly by capillary or molecular forces to be removed by plants.
SOIL SERIES. The basic unit of soil classification, being a subdi-
vision of a family and consisting of soils which are essentially alike
in all major profile characteristics except in the texture of the "A"
horizon (or surface layer).
SOIL SURFACE FACTOR (SSF). An expression of current ero.
sion activity. Seven categories of surface features are considered
in the examination of the area with both wind and water being
considered for each category. The categories are: soil move.
ment, surface litter, surface rock, pedestaling, rills, flow patterns
and gullies. Numerical values are assigned to each category, and
these are totaled to determine the SSF. This value determines the
erosion condition class of the area. See also "Erosion Condition
Classes.”
SOIL TEXTCIRE OR SOIL TEXTURAL CLASSES. The relative
proportions of the various soil separates (sand, silt, and clay) in a
soil material.
SPECIES OF SPECIAL INTEREST OR CONCERN. Species not
yetlisted as "endangered or threatened" but whose status is being
reviewed because of their widely dispersed populations or their
restricted ranges. A species whose population is particulrly sensi-
tive to external disturbance.
STREAMBANK (and CHANNEL) EROSION. This is the removal
and transport of material by concentrated flows.
STREAM COURSE. See “Channel”
SURFACE SOIL OR SURFACE LAYER. The upper most part of
the soil, ordinarily moved in tillage, or its equivalentin uncultivated
soils and ranging in thickness from 4 to 8 inches. Frequently
designated as the "Plow layer,” the AP layer or the Ap horizon.
SCISTAINED YIELD. The achievement and maintenance of a
high level annual or periodic yield of the various renewable
resources of public lands consistent with multiple use.
THREATENED SPECIES. A species that the Secretary of Interior
has determined to be likely to become endangered within the
forseeable future throughout all or most of its range. See also
"Endangered or Threatened Species.”
TOPOGRAPHY. The exact physical features and configuration of
a place or region; the detailed and accurate description of the
landforms of a place or region.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS. The dry weight of dissolved mate.
rial, Organic and inorganic, contained in water.
TRESPASS. The grazing of livestock on public lands without
proper authority.
TURBIDITY. An interference to the passage of light through water
due to insoluble particles of soil, organics, micro-organisms and
other materials.
(INDERLYING MATERIAL. The weathered parent material (See
“Parent Material")
(INITRESOURCEANALYSIS(URA). A comprehensive displayof
physical resource data and an analysis of the current use, produc-
tion, Condition and trend of the resources and the potentials and
opportunities within a planning unit, including a profile of ecolog:
ical values.
GLOSSARY
VEGETATION (GROUND) COVER. The percent of land surface
covered by all living vegetation (and remnant vegetation yet to
decompose) within 20 feet of the ground.
VESICCILAR. Soil pores are spherical or elliptical in shape. Pores
of this type are enclosed by unaggregated soil, often in the form of
a surface crust.
VISCIAL RESOURCE(S). The land, water, vegetation and animals
that comprise the scenery of an area.
VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM). The planning,
design and implementation of management objectives to provide
acceptable levels of visual impacts for all BLM resource man.
agement activities.
VISCIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASS. Classification of
landscapes according to the kind and degree of visual change
that is acceptable within that characteristic landscape.
WATER INFLUENCE ZONE. That land within and adjacent to a
stream channel which is within the perimeter of the maximum
probable flood.
WATER QUALITY. The chemical, physical and biological charac.
teristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular USé.
WATERSHED. All lands which are enclosed by a continuous
hydrologic drainage divide and lie upslope from a specified point
On a Stream.
WATERSHED COVER. The material (vegetation, litter, rock) cov.
ering the soil and providing protection from, or resistance to, the
impact of raindrops and the energy of overland flow, and
expressed in percent of the area covered.
WATER SPREADER. A terrace, dike or other structure intended
to distribute surface water runoff and increase the area of infiltra-
tion.
WATERYIELD. The quantity of water derived from a unit area of
watershed.
WETLANDS. Permanently wet or intermittently flooded areas
where the water table (fresh, Saline or brackish) is at, near or above
the soil surface for extneded intervals, where hydric wet soil
conditions are normally exhibited and where water depths gener.
ally do not exceed two meters.
WILDERNESS STUDY AREA. A roadless area determined to
have wilderness characteristics. Study areas will be subjected to
interdisiplinary analysis and public Comment to determine wil.
derness suitability. Suitable areas will be recommended to the
President and Congress for wilderness designation.
WOLF PLANT. A plant that, though the species is considered
palatable, is not grazed by livestock. The term "wolfy" is often
used to describe this condition which is Common on underutilized
Crested wheatgrass seedings.
G-5
Agencies and organizations consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Allocation, vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i, 5, 8, 29
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 31-33
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Summary of environmental consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i, 6, 8, 34
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 34-37
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary of environmental consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii, 7, 8, 38
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary of environmental consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii, 7, 9, 41
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 41-43
Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Summary of environmental consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
AMPs. See Grazing management
Antelope. See Wildlife. ...
Bighorn Sheep. See Wildlife
Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Consultation and coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Costs, implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i, ii
Cultural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 32, 36, 40, 43
Deer, mule. See Wildlife
Deer, white-tailed. See Wildlife
Developments, range. See Grazing management
Draft EIS, development of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Economic conditions. See Social and economic conditions
Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Endangered and threatened species
Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 .
Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Facilities, range.See Grazing management-methods and range
developments
Fisheries. See Wildlife
Fishing opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Grazing management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Alternate programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
AMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abstract
Chemical treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Grazing systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Mechanical treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, Appendix 2.8
Monitoring and evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Range developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2.2
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Grouse, sage. See Wildlife
Grouse, sharp-tailed. See Wildlife
Guidance, management and resource coordination . . . . . . . . 2
Hydrologic geomorphic areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Implementation of the alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Improvements, range. See Grazing management—methods
and range developments
Income. See Social and economic conditions
Involvement, public during development of the Els. . . . . . . i, 45
Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 31, 35
Management Framework Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i, 1
Nongame wildlife. See Wildlife—nongame
Noxious weed control. See Grazing management-chemical
treatments
Plants, endangered and threatened. See Endangered
and threatened species
Preparers, list of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Public lands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
AMP allotments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Non-AMPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CInallotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Purpose and need of the EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Ranch operations and related income. See Social and
economic conditions
Ranch related economic conditions. See Social and
economic conditions
Range condition, production and trend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Range developments. See Grazing management
Recreation and wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Reservoirs periodically stocked and with public access. . . . . 24
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Social and economic conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Attitudes toward range resources and management. . . . . . 5
Earnings and employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
General attitudes and perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Permit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Ranch operations and related income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ranch related economic conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Ranch related economic impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Recreation/wildlife related economic impacts .... 33, 37, 40
Regional economic conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Regional economic impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 33, 37, 41, 43
Social conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 33, 37, 40, 43
Soil subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 19
Surface water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Turkeys. See Wildlife
Clnit Resource Analysis (CIRA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 19, 30, 35, 39, 41
Waterfowl, See Wildlife
Water, consumptive use of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 34, 39, 41
Water quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 31, 35, 39, 42
Antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 35, 39
Bighorn Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 35, 39
Deer, mule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 35, 39
Deer, white-tailed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 35, 39
Endangered and threatened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 32, 36, 40, 42
Grouse, sage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 32, 36, 39, 42
Grouse, sharp-tailed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 32, 36, 39, 42
Nongame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 32, 36, 39, 42
Pheasant, ring-necked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 32, 36, 39, 42
Turkeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 32, 36, 39
Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 32, 36, 39, 42
|-1
LOCATION OF BIG DRY EIS AREA
ſ
|- RICHLAND CO.
|-
* { §% /… º |
º, . . . -
S.
MC CONE CO. °Wars, MFP Hº-T
| \
T- - F-----. Dawson co. \
i 1– | © Glendive
GARFIELD CO. | |
*ORD | PRAIRIE co, T- A
*-w, T Tu- . _. --T TL. "----—
°SEso, ſ - ^Sw weaux.co.
| */s/. " – —-
ROSEBOID CO. | --T" *
|
Miles City
MONTANA LEGEND
— — — Management Framework Plan
— — County Boundaries
Table of Contents
Land Status
- Allotments
This map supplement displays resources and land ownership in -
the Big Dry Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) area, of which Soils
1.18 million acres are managed by the Bureau of Land Manage- il/-lliſ
ment (BLM). Wildlife
An overlay depicting grazing allotment numbers is included in the Allotment Overlay (map pocket)
map pocket inside the back cover.

















LAND STATUS
º
3%%
º ñº H M ſº º
ſº
ºl zºrrº's - -- _-
(0 tº Luº. 28/
- tº \ , , ^, c6
-








- § -
{\ Sºs
I -2. - /?” & - - -
- * -
TU- ºS lº
Haystack B - – - – -
y C utte - º - D
--- O
º - O
º 489 |
-
- -
—— is
- - - - --
Vegetation Allocation º E Sioux Pass
- ºn
- - - -
* -
- - -
6THI · sºmeºne
º
* | Z
- <
O
º: ºf 24
L–IT
~ -
- º-
- 20 $/
- X2/Sid
- º I
ex 20 - 22
23
|
º - o
º º
- (Crane | 2 ||
) / / /~
5TH | stan DARD; PARALLEL / / / º
Z - -
< Z
º <
º C
ul Dr I
uſ
-
| Bloomfield
—J T
ul |
-e-
5
Van Norman |-H-
18 | W S
|-- º
#| || -
ºjº |
32 S.
33 Lind
| Z - 34 l 35 36 37; 38 indsay 280/-
< . H --
C -- | 52 NS&_|_|_ 53 5 56 57 58
º - - # Q º | SH DARD || PARALLEL T
- - > º - |
- - Sánd Spring • 34.09 16 * - H
- sº
- - Alſo | 2.
7's - - O
— Glendive -J
- … * -- =
º vº \º I
º cº ºr
- º - H
-- &
º º Y& Pacific
º - */ - * Hodges Wibaux -
T- lº = C
H yt - - - I. —l r i P
C. LT ; 28
_T - ~ || || O
| - -º- 13| -
- - -- - - r- - - I P
3RD st ANDARD PARALLEL |
| T,
- 121
2.
*
C
Dr. jº
> -o Dr.
- uſ 11
Mildred >
- - ananda - -
I *~~~ --
- - # 7 º
N 2 T º
LAN D S A U S | —— - ăl - artersville –
Forsyth
LEGEND
| | Area Covered by the Missouri Breaks EIS
| Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
[T] Federal Land
[T] State Land
Wilderness Study Areas
(due to scale, areas are only approximations) * ...--º-º-º:
Z - * /
- Scale 1:500,000
1 inch equals approximately 8 miles
10 O 10 20
FTETECEITEL -
10 O 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers º l
ETETETETELE H H - —-
. , 1967.
1059 Source: BLM 1040

























































LLOTMENTS
º
|.
º ºwn-
º º º:
º!”
|{}
º
ſº".
º
|
º
W
º z |
- r - Tºw
\\y ºffº
—- ^ º- Zºº *
^- § -
A
\
~~ -
~ -> *
- 2.
º º
º
*
^2.
º
-
2-


BIG DRY EIS
489
Vegetation Allocation
[] 251
• Lone
RD PARALLE
STANDARD PARALLEL
Z
< Z
C) <
º C
ul Dr.
> Lu
>
Van Norman
18
s
G
º
º Lu
º Sán Spri >
2
O
-J
=
r
479 |
cific
Wibaux
:
- -
3
i
Rock Springs
º º
Angela
Sumatra
|-
ALLOTMENTS ºr
LEGEND
|
|
|
w
%
Area Covered by the Missouri Breaks EIS
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
| ]
|
| Existing AMPs
[T]
[T]
|
º
f
:-
º
-
-
/
º
Proposed AMPs
Non AMPS
Unleased AMPs
|
"...º.º. 469–
| AMP's Covered in Missouri Breaks EIS - gº "º ~
~ *k, –––. Tº Scale 1:5CO,OOO
| Private Land º -- = ºrie - / ,-(4→ 1 inch equals approximately 8 miles -
_-- --- --- (* –1 º- . - *H H_-_E. F. º 19 20 30 _* Miles
- ºr -- - - - ~~~~ - - ºh I TL I l - r
NOTE: Shown is a graphic description of allotment — = ***** = - * . ": . . . . Z - - , *H = H == # = *= Kilometers
boundaries. Allotment numbers are composed of , -º-º-º-ºw------- - - - - º
four digits (example – 2609). Allotment numbers
are located on overlay in back pocket. - -
1070 O Source: Based on URA data — Redwater, New Prairie and O
º º Jordan-North Rosebud Resource Areas 104









































OILS

- BIG DRY EIS
Vegetation Allocation
ºte
PARALLEL
--in
º
Hiſ
H/-
NJ
5 .
-
-
- º
loomfield N
–-
s ) .
2 so N.
º
Creº
Van Norman
º
3.
3.
H – it
--
- - -
–
Rock S
13
2.
Angela f −. –º
1
2 -
T
Mildred
" soils Tº
14. º |\ ^T
SUBGROUPS sº
AN D I =rl N
ECOLOGICAL RANGE SITES lºº
LEGEND Forsyth \ºpen
Area Covered by the Missouri Breaks EIS [ ] Soils of Fans, Benches and Terraces [2] : "...º.º.º.º.º.º.º. -
- - - [2] MOLLISOLS: nearly level to strongly rolling (0.15% slopes) slopes) clayey, loamy and sandy soils on dissected sedimen.
| Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
-
-
-
1.
3.
4.
U
–
º
-
|
loamy and sandy soils on fans, benches and terraces. tary bedrock plains and hills.
13 ARDISOLS–ENTISOLS: nearly level to moderately slop.
—ARIDISOLS: ly level to st
- - [7] ...... ing (0.25% slopes) clayey, loamy and sandy soils on sedimen.
Soils of the Floodplains, Fans and Low p y - - tary bedrock plains.
Terra CBS ARDISOLS-MOLLISOLS: nearly level to steep (0.45%
T1 slopes) clayey and loamy soils on fans, benches and terraces. - - -
[1] Hºº | | Soils of Dissected Shale Plains -N-
nearly level to strongly sloping (U- slopes) clayey, loamy
- - - - - ENTISOLS-ARDISOLS: strongly sloping to steep (8.45%
d d | floodpl d low t - gly sloping p
- and Sandy soils on floodplains and low terraces | Soils of Dissected Sedimentary Bedrock slopes) clayey soils on dissected shale plains.
Soils of the Glaciated Till Plains Plains and Hills - - -
MOLLISOLS-ENTiSOLS: undulating to strongly rolling [3] ENTiSOLS-INCEPTISOLS-MOLLISOLS: strongly slop. Soils of Dissected Badland Areas
[5] (2-15% slopes) loamy soils on glacial till plains. ing to steep (8.45% slopes, loamy and sandy soils on sedi. BADLANDS-ENTiSOLS: steep and very steep (25.45% Scale 1:500,000
ENTiSOLS-MOLLISOLS: strongly rolling to steep (8.45% mentary bedrock plains and hills. slopes) clayey and loamy soils of highly dissected river 1 inch equals approximately 8 miles
[5] slopes) loamy soils on dissected glacial till plains. [4] MOLLISOLS-ENTISOLS: nearly level to strongly sloping breaks. 10 O 10 20 30 40 Miles 2.
(0.15% slopes) clayey, loamy and sandy soils on sedimentary ETETELE E E —I | H
10 MOLLISOLS-ARDISOLS: nearly level to hilly (0.25% bedrock plains. 10 O 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers
slopes) clayey and loamy soils on dissected glacial till plains. ETELETETELE |- E
[8] ENTISOLS-MOLLISOLS: strongly sloping to steep (8. _
45% slopes) clayey and sandy soils on dissected sedimentary
bedrock plains and hills. --- - -
- Source: Modified from the general soils map prepared by the United States
[9] ENT sols–ARDSOLS strongly sloping to steep (8.45% Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Montana
slopes) clayey, loamy and sandy soils on dissected sedimen. - - - - - b
tary bedrock plains and hills. Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana State University, October 1040
1059 1978.
1079 1069










































Jºy---> ºf
wrº-
ºf 2.
/º
2
- nº % Y
~Fº 3. S ---. __-- *-
\ ~
( -
ſº >====
J º - % *
LV
L18VH E-IIT CITIM



*-2 ºn
B G D R E S ºnna
| 489
- - | Andes
Vegetation Allocation -
STANDAR
\ º 5TH sIANDARD; FARALLEL - ſ |
\- \ º º 77-I-H l
: - º º º y º
o Q - - § º
L^ *|| ~ º - -
N loomfield - º ( -
- - \-QS
crejº -
Van Norman v º N
18 O º
ſº
- - C. N -
- - - º In
– º of
3 35 º, 2^ -
36 Fº -
3. Cººk -O % º
C Tº 54 55/ſº 56 57
º º lºſ, PARALLEL I i
- \ X. - | - i
º Sánd Spring • 34.09 º 15 Y,Z) -
º - - - |10 94 º 2
º - g - | O
º º lendi
* º, enCII & \_º :
Mosby § - --- CAE - --— & - sº
º º | O - -
º 479
º - ~
º - º 14 I
- - - _ſ _
º GNº. ZFT 3.
ºr Dr. º, -
--- - *H -- -º- - 13| =
fºLI º ——ſ | P
Rock Springs 2. PARALLEL * St Phill
- | - - º - T.
* - e. 12.
* - Z I
Angela |- →
| O -
g
LL - I
> • 337.2 º
2 - >
º i) Carlyle
Z *~~– |.
º MN Sº É 2. 1 O
Nº. I
| - - Ollie |
>\| \ #| |
º
T_J^-94
I
sIANDARD /...S.
WILD LIFE -7 _–2
- ---
- º, # 7 lſ
HABITAT i l- ºr (, ºngºº ZT”
* *- - º :H- – –
Forsyth º - -
LEGEND - || -
o - -
- - º - I
| Area Covered by the Missouri Breaks EIS | Mule Deer/Antelope' K-H - —
Sº -
Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge Mule Deer/White-tailed Deer/Antelope' s!
+ V. +
[ ] Antelope Mule Deer/Antelope/Sage Grouse C I *
Tº ºf N - I
- - Z º - -
[ ] White-tailed Deer Mule Deer/Sage Grouse - ſeedee º .
- - - -N- -
| ] Mule Deer [ ] White-tailed Deer/Antelope" H-1
I
% º +
Sage Grouse Antelope/Sage Grouse a
- - --_ _ _ _ - - - H 469–
| Mule Deer/White-tailed Deer Crucial Winter Habitat ! Scale 1:500,000 I
.*.*.*W. -- tº M C . - 1 inch equals apprºximate, s miles
º º º . zºr- s *…*& -º- - |
*:::::: * : * ~ * ~ *s--- *= H. H. H. H. * £ * sº * Miles 2.
10 O 10 20 30 40 50 Kilometers —-
ETH HIT-TH − - |- L- -
1070 1069 O Source: Based on URA data – Redwater, New Prairie and Jordan-North
06 105 Rosebud Resource Areas. 1040































































*
|
il
41 *; lºſſ
0.2–013–01 sea.
08/98
Sºº wala pºt, ºs ºs - e.
3001
%r
2002
2346
§
2075
2341–
2182 2326
2375
2327 L - 2152
3027
6374
^
2784
2759 3040
2757
D 3049
2740
2796
2535 2376
2809
2864 2860
2877
2624 2526
2514
2675
2505
-
º
&
\O2