Montana Snowbowl Ski Area Master Development Plan. Environmental Impact Statement. Specialist Report Fisheries Resources

Transcription

1 Master Development Plan Environmental Impact Statement Specialist Report Fisheries Resources 1.0 INTRODUCTION Eric Reiland Fisheries Biologist Revised February 2011 This document describes the existing fisheries within the proposed expansion area and identifies potential effects on this resource. Two alternatives are considered in this analysis, the Proposed Action (as described below and in the Master Development Plan [MSB 2004]) and No Action. Information contained in this report will be used in the Montana Snowbowl Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 1.1 Background The Montana Snowbowl Ski and Summer Resort (MSB) is an alpine ski and summer resort located on both private and federal land approximately 12 miles north of Missoula, Montana. The federal land is administered by the Lolo National Forest (LNF). The existing ski area includes 1,138 acres of federal land administered by and under permit with the LNF and 80 acres of private land (owned by MSB) located at the base area (Appendix A, Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The base area is the location of the lodge and other administrative facilities at which skiers and other MSB users congregate and from which MSB is managed. The MSB currently operates a full winter (five to seven days per week) and limited summer schedule (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). Existing facilities on LNF land include ski trails, lifts (both surface and chairlifts), small buildings, buried water and power lines, a snowmaking reservoir, hiking trails, mountain bike trails, and a folf (disc golf) course. Facilities on adjacent private land include ski trails, lifts, a rope tow, buildings, buried water and power lines, a snowmaking reservoir, hiking trails, a mountain bike trail, a potable water system, wastewater disposal systems, and parking areas. The proposed expansion area is on LNF land called TV Mountain. TV Mountain is adjacent to and immediately west of the existing permit area. The west side of TV Mountain is the location of the original Snow Park Ski Area, which was the predecessor to the current MSB. Snow Park operated on LNF land during the 1950s and closed in The ski area was then moved to the Butler Creek drainage and re-opened in 1961 due to the availability of higher elevation terrain, better snow conditions, and greater vertical drop. In addition to the original Snow Park Ski Area, the proposed expansion area includes areas of past timber harvest, existing roads, and utilities. The summit of TV Mountain is a designated communications site (under permit with the LNF) with numerous television, radio, and microwave facilities and would be surrounded by the proposed expansion area. Master Development Plan EIS 1

2 The MSB has operated on the LNF under a Special Use Permit (SUP) since The MSB currently has a 40-year SUP (to expire in 2011). All of the existing SUP area on LNF land was assigned to Management Area (MA) 8 (ski areas) in the 1986 LNF Land and Resource Management Plan (United States Forest Service [USDA] 1986), referred to hereinafter as the Forest Plan. Approximately 706 acres of the proposed expansion area are currently assigned to MA 16 (timber production), and 399 acres are assigned to MA 25 (timber production within the constraint of achieving a visual quality standard of Partial Retention). 1.2 Proposed Action The MSB is proposing to expand its alpine ski and summer resort to LNF land on TV Mountain in the general location of where the original Snow Park Ski Area was permitted and operated. This expansion proposal is summarized in a revised Master Development Plan (MSB 2004) that was received by the LNF on December 6, The proposed expansion would increase the existing SUP area by 1,105 acres to 2,243 acres (Appendix A, Figure 1-1). New facilities on LNF land would include ski trails, lifts, buried lines (power, water, and wastewater), a snowmaking reservoir, hiking and mountain bike trails, two wastewater drainfields, a maintenance building, and a lodge. A new SUP would be required for the Proposed Action. This SUP would authorize additional development, construction, and operation of resort facilities on Forest Service land (in this case, Forest Service land administered by the LNF). The SUP would be granted under the authority of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 United States Code [USC] 497b). This Act authorizes the Forest Service to issue term ski area permits for the use and occupancy of suitable Nordic and alpine skiing operations and purposes (Section 3(b)). The Act also states that a permit shall encompass such acreage as the Forest Service determines sufficient and appropriate to accommodate the permittee s needs for ski operations and appropriate ancillary facilities (Section 3(b)). The Proposed Action would require an amendment to the Forest Plan. This amendment would change approximately 706 acres from MA 16 (timber production) and 399 acres from MA 25 (timber production) to MA 8 (ski areas). The total new SUP area would be 2,243 acres with this addition of 1,105 acres of LNF land in the proposed expansion. The current SUP allows MSB to operate on 1,138 acres of LNF land. The improvements described in the Proposed Action in this analysis (Table 1-1) would not all be constructed during a single year, but would be constructed over an approximately 11-year timeframe Scope of this Analysis The analysis of effects disclosed in this report includes any effects occurring from the entire project. Scope is defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as the range of actions, alternatives, and effects, such as connected and cumulative actions and effects, considered in this report. In addition to the Proposed Action, which is described above, Connected Actions and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are analyzed in this report. Connected Actions. Connected Actions for this project include (1) all activities on private land that would be completed in conjunction with the proposed expansion described above, and (2) Master Development Plan EIS 2

3 some improvements in the existing SUP area that were approved under a 1996 decision by the LNF but have not yet been implemented (Table 1-1) (USDA 1996). Other Connected Actions include new facilities/improvements planned on adjacent private land: Expanded parking (30 more spaces, or 75 more SAOT, created by moving the existing maintenance building) Continuous shuttle service on busy days Buried utility lines (power, water, and wastewater) Services building that would house bathrooms, ticket sales, and food sales Construction of a flow monitor on Butler Creek, maintenance of 30 gpm in Butler Creek at the flow monitor during snowmaking, and monitoring and annual reporting to the LNF. For this analysis, the actual end result and effect of the Proposed Action cannot be accurately disclosed without including the additive improvements that would be implemented as Connected Actions (Table 1-1). Therefore, in this report the existing improvements are defined as all improvements that have already been constructed/completed in the existing SUP area. The components specific to the Proposed Action are discussed, but the cumulative totals related to the Proposed Action plus Connected Actions in the proposed new SUP area (and/or private land) are also identified. Past actions. Past actions include those known management actions (regardless of land ownership) that could potentially have similar effects as identified as resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives. Past actions include the Snow Park Ski Area located on LNF land on the west side of TV Mountain, the construction of the existing MSB resort on LNF land and private land, and an SUP area expansion and improvements approved in 1996 by the LNF (USDA 1996). Other past actions are the 2003 closure of the Marshall Mountain Ski Area, timber harvest, and related road construction. Present actions. Present actions include road maintenance and communications site operation on TV Mountain. Other present actions are vegetative and restoration treatments conducted within and adjacent to the LNF land by the Forest Service and private landowners. Reasonably foreseeable actions. Reasonably foreseeable actions include road maintenance and vegetative or restoration treatments (such as weed control) anticipated to occur inside of and adjacent to the proposed expansion area during the next 11 years. The Grant Creek Fuel Reduction Project was approved by the LNF in a 2007 Decision Notice (USDA 2007a). Although this project has already been approved, there are no implementation plans at this time or in the future (Paulsen 2010 personal communication). That project is therefore not included in the scope of this analysis. Table 1-1 summarizes all existing improvements at MSB completed as of winter , the Connected Actions, and the Proposed Action. Master Development Plan EIS 3

4 Proposed/Planned Ski Area Improvements Overall ski area capacity (SAOT) Table 1-1. Existing Conditions and Proposed Action Existing Conditions Connected Actions Proposed Action Potential Cumulative Total 1,408 skiers 0 skiers 937 skiers 2,345 skiers SUP area size 1,138 acres No change 1,105 acres 2,243 acres Ski trail capacity (SAOT) 1,500 skiers 193 skiers 1,373 skiers 3,066 skiers Lift capacity (SAOT) 1,408 skiers 0 skiers 937 skiers 2,345 skiers Base area capacity (SAOT) 1,629 skiers 771 skiers 0 skiers 2,400 skiers Parking capacity (SAOT) (onsite + offsite lots) Shuttle bus riders per day (from bottom of Grant Creek Road) 2,775 skiers 75 skiers 0 skiers 2,850 skiers 80 skiers skiers 200 skiers Ski trails: acreage 255 acres 20 acres 166 acres 441 acres Ski trails: number 52 trails 8 trails 20 trails 80 trails Ski trail capacity (SAOT): beginner/intermediate Ski trail acreage: beginner/intermediate Ski trail capacity (SAOT): advanced/expert Ski trail acreage: advanced/expert 1,050 skiers 190 skiers 1,250 skiers 2,490 skiers 105 acres 19 acres 125 acres 249 acres 450 skiers 3 skiers 123 skiers 576 skiers 150 acres 1 acre 41 acres 192 Lifts: number Tree removal for new ski trails and lifts only Tree removal for new bike trails only Tree removal for new wastewater drainfields only No change 14 acres 153 acres 167 acres No change No change 5 acres 5 acres No change No change 10 acres 10 acres Total tree removal No change 14 acres 168 acres 182 acres Classified old growth tree removal Grading for transition leveling and construction Wastewater drainfields No change No addition 39 acres 39 acres No change No addition 39 acres 39 acres Leave under main parking lot and base area No change Move to TV Mountain (10 acres) Move to TV Mountain (10 acres) Snowmaking reservoirs Maximum water withdrawal rate 115 gpm 115 gpm 115 gpm 115 gpm Maximum seasonal water withdrawal volume for snowmaking only 28 acre-feet No change 15 acre-feet 43 acre-feet Master Development Plan EIS 4

5 Proposed/Planned Ski Area Improvements Maximum total seasonal water withdrawal volume for snowmaking and reservoirs Trenching for power, wastewater, and water lines Table 1-1. Existing Conditions and Proposed Action Existing Conditions Connected Actions Proposed Action Potential Cumulative Total 28 acre-feet No change 20 acre-feet 48 acre-feet No change No change 16,000 feet 16,000 feet Buildings METHODS Information was gathered through field visits, literature searches, and discussions with personnel from the LNF, United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP). Information about the proposed project was obtained from the MDP (MSB 2004) and from conversations with the MSB general manager and owner. Similar projects at Bridger Bowl, 49 Degrees North, Lookout Pass, and Discovery ski areas were reviewed. Guidance was obtained from the Forest Plan (especially MA descriptions), from applicable laws and regulations, and from direct communication with LNF fisheries specialists. Field visits to assess channel conditions were conducted as shown in Table 2-1. Field visits provided an understanding of habitat conditions on both public and private property, enabled examination of changes in discharge, and provided knowledge for making determinations concerning alternatives and mitigation factors. During field visits, habitat conditions were documented for Butler Creek and La Valle Creek on public and private property. On LNF land, the channels were walked and photographed, but no habitat data were measured or recorded. On private property, channel conditions were evaluated where access was gained through permission or public road crossings. Only generalized notes were taken on channel condition because snow cover made assessments difficult. Bank pins were installed on Butler Creek and La Valle Creek during one of the habitat field visits (Table 2-1). The pins were installed at the water surface and were used to check the wetted width of the channel. By recording changes in water surface elevations, potential changes in water use or management could be assessed. Bank pins were installed on Butler Creek just below the MSB parking lot. Pins were installed at the La Valle Creek Road bridge crossing due to a lack of access on private land. Access to LNF land on La Valle Creek during the winter was limited due to snow cover and road closures. A wetted perimeter study was conducted for Butler Creek (Reiland 2008) below the MSB parking lot to assess changes in flows and habitat conditions. The wetted perimeter data were collected from summer/winter of 2008 (Table 2-1). Cross-section locations were established prior to Butler Creek reaching bankfull discharge. All instream flow measurements were recorded on the descending limb of the hydrograph to avoid changes in the channel s crosssectional profiles. Master Development Plan EIS 5

6 Winter Table 2-1. Field Visit Summary Season Date Location Action Summary Initial site visit; three Good habitat; good pools; badly 12/11/05 Butler Creek sites from parking lot constructed private road. to LNF boundary. Summer Summer/ Winter 01/08/06 Butler Creek Install pins. 01/21/06 Butler Creek 01/21/06 La Valle Creek Habitat on private and LNF land. Habitat on private and LNF land. Snow depth unchanged; excessive dirt from parking lot. No change in pins; private habitat poor; eroding banks; overgrazed; development; Forest Service good habitat. No change in pins; private habitat poor; eroding banks; overgrazed; fish passage questionable; Forest Service no access. 01/25/06 Butler Creek Check pins. No change in pins; raining. 01/25/06 La Valle Creek Check pins. No change in pins; raining. 02/11/06 Butler Creek Check pins. No change in pins. 02/11/06 La Valle Creek Check pins. No change in pins. 02/27/06 Butler Creek Check pins. No change in pins. 07/09/06 Butler Creek 08/05/06 Butler Creek 08/19/06 La Valle Creek Walk channel; assess habitat. Walk channel; assess habitat and road crossings. Walk channel; assess habitat and roads. 06/10/08 Butler Creek Site evaluation. 06/12/08 Butler Creek Survey cross-sections. 06/13/08 Butler Creek Survey cross-sections. 06/16/08 Butler Creek 06/16/08 Butler Creek Wetted perimeter study. Wetted perimeter study. LNF habitat good condition; private degraded. LNF habitat good condition; private degraded. LNF habitat good condition; private degraded. Locate wetted perimeter sites with LNF Fish Biologist. Survey detailed cross-sectional profiles for each site. Survey detailed cross-sectional profiles for each site. Record flows and measure crosssections. Record flows and measure crosssections. Master Development Plan EIS 6

7 Summer/ Winter Table 2-1. Field Visit Summary Season Date Location Action Summary Wetted perimeter Record flows and measure crosssections. 08/18/08 Butler Creek study. 09/17/08 Butler Creek 10/30/08 Butler Creek 11/06/08 Butler Creek 11/14/08 Butler Creek 11/2908 Butler Creek 12/12/08 Butler Creek Wetted perimeter study. Wetted perimeter study. Wetted perimeter study. Wetted perimeter study. Wetted perimeter study. Wetted perimeter study. Record flows and measure crosssections. Record flows and measure crosssections. Record flows and measure crosssections. Check flow levels; no change. Check flow levels; increasing. Check flow levels; increasing. The most difficult flow to capture was the low flow, or base flow, period during summer. Base flow was needed to set the lower limits of the wetted perimeter instream flow discharge and to develop the rating curve for the inflection point (McMahon et al. 1996; Reinfelds et al. 2004). Butler Creek was divided into three sections based on channel characteristics. Cross-sections were located in each section. Section 1 was located by the MSB main parking lot. Section 2 was on LNF land immediately downstream of the private property in-holding below MSB. The lower location (Section 3) was established just upstream of the LNF boundary. In each section, five cross-sections were established. The cross-sections were located on low-gradient riffles with minimal instream disturbances to provide repeatable discharge measurements. Detailed channel dimensions were recorded to develop cross-sectional profiles that extended above the bankfull discharge markers and onto the floodplain. On one transect in each section, six instream flow measurements were recorded using a Pigmy current meter on a top-setting wading rod. The flow measuring procedures outlined in the American Fisheries Society s Techniques Manual were followed to maintain accuracy (McMahon et al. 1996). 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (EXISTING CONDITIONS) This section describes the affected environment (existing conditions) related to fisheries resources. 3.1 Standards The Clean Water Act and Water Quality Limited (303d) Listings, National Nonpoint Source Policy, USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy, and National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) standards are summarized in the Water Resources Specialist Report (PBS&J 2011b). Master Development Plan EIS 7

8 Endangered Species Act The ESA provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. The ESA is implemented by two federal agencies, the USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, which have the ability to officially list plant and animal species as endangered or threatened. Section 7 of the ESA imposes an affirmative duty on federal agencies to ensure that their actions (including permitting) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or modification of their habitat. The only listed species occurring in the analysis area for fish and wildlife are bull trout, Canada lynx, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. National Forest Management Act The NFMA requires the Forest Service to maintain the viability and habitat for native and desirable non-native species. Lolo National Forest Plan The Forest-wide management direction provides three goals pertinent to fisheries resources: Goal 2. Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species. Goal 7. For TES occurring on the Forest, manage to contribute to the recovery of each species to non-threatened status. Goal 8. Meet or exceed State water quality standards. The objective of these goals is to provide habitat for viable populations of the diverse wildlife and fish species in the Forest through strong standards, quality research, and an extensive Monitoring Program that emphasizes protection of water quality and fishery habitat (USDA 1986; USDA 2002a). Research needs applicable to fisheries and water quality that are outlined in the Forest Plan state that the relationship of types and levels of instream sediment to fish habitat productivity potential, and the importance of fish habitat on the Forest to downstream waters, will be determined. Forest-wide standards that apply to fisheries management are as follows: Standard 15. The application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) will assure that water quality is maintained at a level that is adequate for the protection and use of the National Forest and that meets or exceeds federal and state standards (USDA 2002a). Standard 17. A watershed cumulative effects analysis will be made of all projects involving significant vegetation removal prior to these projects being scheduled for implementation. Standard 19. Human-caused increases in water (and sediment) yields will be limited so that channel damage will not occur as a result of land management activities. Standard 27. If and when additional TES are identified, appropriate measures, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, will be taken to protect the species and its habitat consistent with national goals for species recovery to non-threatened status (USFWS 1998a, 1998b, 2002, and 2005). For plant and animal species that are not threatened or endangered, but where viability is a concern (i.e., sensitive species), manage to maintain population viability. Master Development Plan EIS 8

9 Standard 28. Land management practices will be designed to have a minimum impact on the aquatic ecosystem, free from permanent or long-term unnatural imposed stress. (A longterm stress is defined as a downward trend of indicators such as aquatic insect density or diversity, fish populations, intragravel sediment accumulations, or channel structure changes that continue for more than one hydrologic year as determined by procedures outlined in the Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements. In addition to these Forest-wide requirements, the Forest Plan emphasizes site-specific protection of fisheries and water quality through MA standards and guidelines (Section III.). The Proposed Action would change the designation to MA 8, which has a goal of providing opportunities for developed facilities to accommodate downhill skiing. No specific standards are identified for fish in MA 8. MA 16 includes guidance for fish in Standard 7, which states, Riparian vegetation, including overstory tree cover, will be managed along all perennial and intermittent streams with defined channels to maintain cover and temperatures for trout habitat, maintain streambank stability, and promote filtering of overland flows. Standard 23 states, Where needed, fish passage will be provided for in stream crossings by maintaining natural flow velocities and channel gradients existing at the crossing site. Other standards are listed for MA 16 related to timber and road practices that would benefit fish but do not directly mention fisheries resources. MA 25 includes guidance for fish in Standard 5, which states, Riparian vegetation, including overstory tree cover, will be managed along all perennial and intermittent streams with defined channels to maintain cover and temperatures for trout habitat, maintain streambank stability, and promote filtering of overland flows. Other standards are listed for MA 25 related to timber and road practices that would benefit fish but do not directly address fisheries resources. Inland Native Fish Strategy The INFISH amended the Forest Plan on August 30, 1995 (USDA 1995b). This interim strategy was designed to provide additional protection for existing populations of native trout, outside the range of anadromous fish, on 22 National Forests in the Pacific Northwest, Northern, and Intermountain Regions. Implementing this strategy was deemed necessary because these species were at risk due to habitat degradation, introduction of exotic species, loss of migratory forms, and over-fishing. As part of this strategy, the Regional Foresters designated a network of priority watersheds. Priority watersheds are drainages that still contain excellent habitat or assemblages of native fish, provide for metapopulation objectives, or are watersheds that have excellent potential for restoration. No watersheds are associated with the MSB fisheries analysis area that are identified as a priority watershed. The INFISH also established Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) and RCHA. Riparian Management Objectives are habitat parameters that describe good fish habitat. Where sitespecific data are available, these RMOs can be adjusted to better describe local stream conditions. RMOs for stream channel conditions provide the criteria against which attainment or progress toward attainment of riparian goals is measured. The LNF has developed site-specific RMOs for most of the habitat variables based on information collected in roadless watersheds (Riggers et al. 1998). Master Development Plan EIS 9

10 RHCAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. The RHCAs are defined for categories based on stream or waterbody, dependent on flow conditions and presence of fish. RHCAs are areas where specific management activities are subject to standards and guidelines in INFISH. 300-Foot RHCA Buffer. For perennial, fish bearing streams, buffer shall extend on both sides of the stream and shall be at least 300 feet, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. 150-Foot RHCA Buffer. (1) For perennial, non-fish bearing streams, buffer shall extend on both sides of the stream and shall be at least 150 feet, or to the outer edges of the 100-year flood plain, or the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. (2) For wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs greater than 1 acre, buffer shall extend to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or 150-foot slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation on constructed ponds, lakes, or reservoirs, or from the edge of the wetland, pond, or lake, whichever is greatest. 100-Foot RHCA Buffer. (1) For intermittent streams, buffer shall extend on both sides of the stream and shall be at least 100 feet, the distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or shall extend to the end of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest. (2) For wetlands less than 1 acre, buffer shall extend to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or shall be at least 100 feet, or shall be the distance of one half of one site-potential tree, whichever is greatest. The INFISH also states that the Forest Service shall Construct new, and improve existing, culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood... (Standards and Guidelines, item RF-4). Memorandum of Understanding for Westslope Cutthroat Trout The MOU and Conservation Agreement for Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Montana was developed to expedite implementation of conservation measures for westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouveri) throughout their respective historical ranges in Montana. This MOU was a collaborative and cooperative effort among resource agencies, conservation and industry organizations, tribes, resource users, and private landowners. The MOU provides goals and objectives for conserving cutthroat trout in Montana. The MOU s management goals for cutthroat trout in Montana are to: (1) ensure the long-term, self-sustaining persistence of each subspecies distributed across their historical ranges as identified in status reviews; (2) maintain the genetic integrity and diversity of populations, as well as the diversity of life histories, represented by remaining cutthroat trout populations; and (3) protect the ecological, recreational, and economic values associated with each subspecies. Implementation of the MOU will be accomplished through regional and/or watershed scale conservation documents that will be developed locally for each subspecies. These documents will identify all known conservation populations (including their genetic status and rationale for their conservation designation), define potential short-term and long-term conservation strategies for maintaining and securing existing conservation populations, and collaboratively identify suitable areas for expansion, replication, and establishment of populations. Actual conservation project planning and implementation will be done at a local level, and these Master Development Plan EIS 10

11 conservation plans will be collaborative efforts with public participation. For most conservation projects, a formal EIS will be prepared that details each project and encourages additional public participation to decide what actions are most appropriate. 3.2 Area of Analysis The area of analysis for direct and indirect effects on fisheries resources is the proposed expanded SUP area on TV Mountain and the current water system that diverts from Butler Creek at the existing base area (Appendix A, Figure 1-1). The area of analysis for cumulative effects on fisheries resources also includes the La Valle Creek and Butler Creek watersheds. 3.3 Fisheries Affected Environment Watershed Characteristics The MSB and the proposed expansion area are located in two 6th HUCs: the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds (Appendix A, Figure 1-1). The Butler Creek and La Valle Creek basins are similar in size and aspect (12.8 square miles and 13.5 square miles, respectively). Both creeks originate on LNF land, progress to private ownership, and are fragmented from the Clark Fork River due to development. These creeks are part of the 4th HUC watershed of the Middle Clark Fork River (NRCS 1995). Butler Creek Butler Creek is a third-order tributary to the Middle Clark Fork River, with a predominant southwest aspect. Its headwaters drain the existing SUP area. The base flow wetted width on LNF land is 8 feet with an average depth of 6 inches in riffles. The pool depths averaged 1 foot, which is typical for a small high gradient stream (5 percent gradient) (Gillin 2001). Butler Creek is formed by three, unnamed tributaries that join within the existing SUP area. These tributaries are high gradient (more than 5 percent), extremely small (less than 1 foot wide), and most likely do not contain fish (Gillin 2001). Photograph 3-1. Butler Creek C3/C4 Channel Type near the LNF Boundary Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System (Rosgen 1996), Butler Creek is a B3 channel at the MSB boundary and progresses to a C3/C4 channel near the Forest Service boundary (Photograph 3-8). The C3/C4 channel and the lower portion of B3 channel have a road paralleling the stream channel. This is an older road and is currently used by local residents as a trail. This road has two ford stream crossings and terminates near the state-owned section. This road is an indicator of past activities of anthropogenic use in proximity to Butler Creek. Past timber harvest along the riparian corridor is evident by the presence of older and decadent stumps. The C3/C4 channel appears to lack habitat complexity. The B3 channel, by nature, has a higher pool frequency. Pools are not only important for summer habitat but also for over-wintering habitat. Master Development Plan EIS 11

12 La Valle Creek La Valle Creek is a third-order tributary to the Middle Clark Fork River. Its headwaters lie entirely on LNF land, and the east side of the watershed drains the existing SUP area. La Valle Creek has a predominant southwest aspect. The base flow wetted width 1 mile below the LNF boundary at the La Valle Creek Road bridge is 9 feet with an average depth of 6 inches in riffles. The pool depths at this location were 1 to 2 feet. The headwaters of La Valle Creek are classified as a B3 stream type, typical for a small high gradient stream (5 percent gradient) (Gillin 2001). La Valle Creek progresses to a C4 channel at the La Valle Creek Road bridge. The headwaters of La Valle Creek follow the Point Six Road, which also separates the existing SUP area lands from LNF property. No perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral tributaries to La Valle Creek were found in the proposed expansion area Water Quality and Water Rights The existing condition of water quality and water rights are described in the Water Resources Specialist Report, PBS&J 2011b Water Quantity and Streamflows Instream flow data were recorded over a 6-month period between June and November 2008 (Table 3-2). Butler Creek flows dropped quickly after the mid-june storms. By early July, Butler Creek had receded to its typical flows. Because Butler Creek had not reached its base flow by mid September, flows were also recorded in October and November. The electronic counter for the Pigmy meter was not working properly after Section 1, Transect B; therefore, Sections 2 and 3 of the October flows were not used in the wetted perimeter analyses. Base flow was reached in November 2008 and none of the channel s inflection points were identified. The November Section 1 discharge was 0.04 cfs, or approximately 18 gpm. While this flow is extremely small, the channel s wetted perimeter inflection point was not reached. Most of November s flow in Butler Creek was coming from the small, unnamed tributary that enters Butler Creek via a culvert underneath the MSB parking lot. It was estimated that about 80 percent of Butler Creek s flow was from this tributary. Butler Creek, below the parking lot s culvert, would need to drop by another 50 percent, to 9 gpm, to reach an inflection point in this section of channel. Table 3-2. Butler Creek Flows and Changes in Flows Discharge (CFS=Q) (Section/Transect) % Change In Flow Section to Section Date (2008) Q (1B) Q (2A) Q (3B) 1 to 2 2 to 3 1 to 3 June July August September October November Master Development Plan EIS 12

13 The flows in Sections 2 and 3 were also at their lowest level in November, and no inflection points were reached. In Section 2, a 0.3-foot drop in water surface elevation would be needed to trigger the increased loss of habitat that is needed to develop an inflection point on a wetted perimeter graph (Nelson 1980; Stalnaker et al. 1995). In Section 3, the lower reach, the flow would need to be reduced by over half of the volume observed in November to reach its inflection point. After the November 6 instream flow measurements, flows steadily increased in Section 1 of Butler Creek. Butler Creek is a gaining stream throughout the studied length (Table 3-2). Stream flow was the lowest immediately below the culvert that emerges from beneath the MSB parking lot (Section 1). Stream flows on the lower Butler Creek sections (Section 2 and Section 3) showed that the channel gained flow. No runoff entered Butler Creek from the parking lot to the LNF boundary during the summer. While Butler Creek s stream flow dropped throughout the summer, groundwater input continued to supply additional water to the creek. As Butler Creek s Section 1 discharge declined, the effects of this groundwater input also increased. Summertime flow in lower Butler Creek is predominately comprised of groundwater input; therefore, dewatering the headwaters of Butler Creek will not dewater its lower reaches where bull trout were found in 1997 (Section ). The withdrawal of the existing water right, however, is likely negatively affecting over-wintering habitat conditions in Section 1 and the upper portion of Section 2. Table 3-11 shows that October and November flows in Sections 1 and 2 are negatively impacted by the withdrawal rate of 115 gpm (0.26 cfs). This existing condition is linked to the 1996 decision to allow snowmaking on Forest Service land (USDA 1996) Species Descriptions and Habitat Requirements Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) USFWS Status: Listed as a Threatened Species within the Columbia River Basin on July 10, Forest Service Region 1 Status: Sensitive. MFWP Status: Native Species of Special Concern. Bull trout may be present in portions of the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds. Sections and provide more information about the potential presence of bull trout in Butler Creek and La Valle Creek. Bull trout have two distinctive life forms: migratory and resident. Migratory bull trout are either fish that spend most of their adult lives in lakes (adfluvial) or rivers (fluvial) and migrate into tributaries to spawn. Resident bull trout generally spend their entire lives in the tributaries where they hatched. Resident bull trout are usually much smaller in size than their migratory counterparts (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group [MBTSG] 1998). In Montana, most migratory bull trout spawn in a small percentage of the total stream habitat available. Spawning takes place between late August and early November, principally in third and fourth order streams. Spawning adults use low gradient areas (less than 2 percent) of gravel/cobble substrate with water depths between 4 and 24 inches and velocities from 0.3 to 2 feet per second. Proximity of cover for the adult fish before and during spawning is an important habitat component. Spawning tends to be concentrated in reaches influenced by groundwater where temperature and flow conditions may be more stable. Spawning habitat requirements of resident bull trout (non-migratory) are poorly documented (MBTSG 1998). Master Development Plan EIS 13

14 Successful incubation of bull trout embryos requires water temperatures below 46ºF, less than 35 to 40 percent of sediments smaller than one quarter of an inch in diameter, and high gravel permeability. Eggs are deposited as deep as 9.8 inches below the streambed surface, and the incubation period varies depending on water temperature. Spawning adults alter streambed characteristics during redd construction to improve survival of embryos, but conditions in redds often degrade during the incubation period. Egg or fry mortality can be caused by scouring during high flows, freezing during low flows, superimposition of redds, or deposition of fine sediments or organic materials. A significant inverse relationship exists between the percentage of fine sediment in the incubation environment and bull trout survival to emergence. Entombment is a mortality factor in the incubation of bull trout eggs. Groundwater input influences embryo development and survival by mitigating mortality factors (MBTSG 1998). Rearing habitat requirements for juvenile bull trout include cold summer water temperatures (less than 59ºF) provided by sufficient surface and groundwater flows. Warmer temperatures are associated with lower bull trout densities and can increase the risk of invasion by other species that could displace, compete with, or prey on juvenile bull trout. Juvenile bull trout are generally benthic foragers and rarely stray from cover. Juvenile bull trout prefer complex forms of cover to avoid predation. High sediment levels and embeddedness can result in decreased rearing densities. Unembedded cobble/rubble substrate is preferred for cover and feeding and also provides invertebrate production. Highly variable streamflow, reduction in large woody debris, bedload movement, and other forms of channel instability can limit the distribution and abundance of juvenile bull trout. The habitat characteristics that are important for juvenile bull trout of migratory populations are also important for the resident populations of bull trout in streams. However, resident adult bull trout are more strongly associated with deep pool habitats than are migratory juveniles (MBTSG 1998). Seasonal and developmental habitat requirements influence the movements of both migratory and resident bull trout populations in streams. Migratory individuals can move great distances (up to 155 miles) among lakes, rivers, and tributary streams in response to spawning, rearing, and adult habitat needs. Stream-resident bull trout migrate within tributary stream networks for spawning purposes, as well as in response to changes in seasonal habitat requirements and conditions. Open migratory corridors, both within and among tributary streams, larger rivers, and lake systems are critical for maintaining bull trout populations (MBTSG 1998). Most bull trout in the mainstem of the Clark Fork River are fluvial. Adult fish inhabit the mainstem of the Clark Fork River but migrate into tributary streams for spawning. Migration barriers (such as interstate bridges and irrigation withdrawals) fragment the mainstem bull trout populations from their spawning habitats. The juvenile fish of these fluvial adults usually remain in tributaries from 1 to 4 years before migrating back to the main river. Once in the Clark Fork River, these fish remain there until they are sexually mature and ready to spawn (MBTSG 1998). Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) USFWS Status: Petitioned for listing under the ESA Forest Service Region 1 Status: Sensitive MFWP Status: Native Species of Special Concern Westslope cutthroat trout may be present in portions of the Butler Creek and La Valle Creek drainages. Sections and discuss the potential presence of westslope cutthroat trout in Butler Creek and La Valle Creek. Westslope cutthroat trout also have two distinctive life Master Development Plan EIS 14

15 forms: migratory and resident. Migratory westslope cutthroat trout are either fish that spend most of their adult lives in lakes (adfluvial) or rivers (fluvial) and migrate into tributaries to spawn. Resident westslope cutthroat trout generally spend their entire lives in the tributaries where they were reared. Resident cutthroats are usually much smaller in size than their migratory counterparts (MFWP 2007). Spawning occurs from March to early July with water temperatures near 50 F (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Westslope cutthroat trout begin to sexually mature at age three and usually are spawning by ages four and five (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Spawning adults can be as small as 15 centimeters, with females containing as few as 100 eggs (Meehan and Bjornn 1991). Fry will emerge from spawning gravels from June to mid July and will usually stay in their natal streams from 1 to 4 years, if they are the migratory form. Other Aquatic Species Other sensitive aquatic species, such as the western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata), boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and Coeur d Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis), have not been documented in the analysis area but have the potential to occur. No aquatic MIS are known to occur in the vicinity (USDA 2007a) Extinction Risks for Sensitive Fish Species Using the methodology outlined by Rieman et al. (1993), risks of extinctions for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout were estimated at the regional level and local level. The regional level was considered as the entire Middle Clark Fork River drainage. Here the risk of extinction for bull trout was rated as high, and westslope cutthroat trout was rated as low; this is due to increased fish barriers, suppressed native fish populations, introduced fish species, increased fishing pressure, and degraded habitats (MBTSG 1998). At the local level (Butler Creek, La Valle Creek, and Grant Creek), extinction risks are extreme for bull trout and high for westslope cutthroat trout; this is based on the isolation of the populations by local fish barriers, lower population numbers in La Valle Creek, water withdrawal in Butler Creek and lower La Valle Creek, and local stream habitat conditions. These risks are analyzed with respect to the three general mechanisms of extinction: deterministic, stochastic, and genetic (USFWS 1998a, 1998b, 2002, and 2005). Deterministic extinctions occur when there is a cumulative loss of critical component in a species environment (e.g., loss of pool habitat). Stochastic processes are those risks that are a result of chance events (such as forest fires, mud slides, and road failures). The genetic extinction mechanism is the loss of genetic diversity within a population. Depending on the nature of individual effects, the result is usually an increase in the risk of extinction; for example, a culvert that is a fish passage barrier has separated a population in half. Therefore, the population above the culvert is isolated and has a higher risk of extinction based on the inability of re-colonizing from below. In addition to being isolated, the continuation of the deterministic effects continues to deplete the population unless stabilized. Any given individual effect has the ability to become synergistic in relation to the three mechanisms identified above and therefore increasing the overall risk of extinction (Table 3-3). Population/habitat conditions for bull trout are functioning at unacceptable risk (FUR) for all indicators on Butler Creek and La Valle Creek (Table 3-3). Master Development Plan EIS 15

16 The USFWS checklist for documenting environmental conditions and effects in Appendix G-A framework to assist in making ESA determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale was used to make a determination of effects (USFWS 1998a). Species determination was made for the entire 6th HUC, and if reduced to the portions of Butler Creek and La Valle Creek above the LNF boundary, then habitat conditions may be different Butler Creek Below MSB property, Butler Creek is a mixed ownership of private, state, and federally owned land, and consequently has some degraded reaches. Sediment input from surface runoff and snowplowing of the MSB parking lot has impacted Butler Creek below the MSB parking lot. The upper portions of the creek and riparian corridor on public lands are in good condition. The channel s habitat conditions degrade as Butler Creek progresses downstream. Land management practices, especially on the private in-holdings, have affected channel stability. The potential exists for a catastrophic sediment input from a poorly constructed road on one of the private in-holdings located downstream of the existing MSB. This road has previously failed, but the sediment pulse did not enter the creek (Hendrickson 2006; Knotek 2006 personal communications). If this road fails again, the downstream pool habitats will be partially filled with sediment, reducing fisheries potential. Master Development Plan EIS 16

17 Table 3-3. Population/Habitat Conditions in Relation to Bull Trout Diagnostic/Pathways: Butler Creek La Valle Creek Indicator Parameter Indicators* FA/FR/FUR FA/FR/FUR Subpopulation size FUR FUR Subpopulation Growth and survival FUR FUR characteristics Life history diversity and isolation FUR FUR Persistence and genetic integrity FUR FUR Temperature FUR FUR Water quality Sediment FUR FUR Chemical contamination/nutrients FUR FUR Habitat access Physical barriers FUR FUR Substrate embeddedness FUR FUR Large woody debris FUR FUR Habitat elements Pool frequency and quality FUR FUR Large pools FUR FUR Off-channel habitat FUR FUR Refugia FUR FUR Wetted width/max depth ratio FUR FUR Channel condition and Streambank condition FUR FUR dynamics Floodplain connectivity FUR FUR Flow and hydrology Change in peak/base flows FUR FUR Drainage network increase FUR FUR Road density and location FUR FUR Disturbance history FUR FUR Watershed conditions Riparian conservation area FUR FUR Disturbance regime FUR FUR Integration of species and habitat condition FUR FUR * The indicators for bull trout populations were assessed for the entire 6th HUC, not just the portion of the basin on Forest Service lands. FA = Functioning Appropriately FR = Functioning at Risk FUR = Functioning at Unacceptable Risk Master Development Plan EIS 17

18 Below the LNF boundary, Butler Creek habitat conditions deteriorate from private land management practices. Bank erosion and sediment inputs increase from overgrazing, and development has encroached on the floodplain and channel. The channel s pool habitat also decreases in quality and quantity on the private lands. Butler Creek is intermittent at its confluence with the Clark Fork River, reducing its connectivity with the Clark Fork River (Knotek 2006 personal communication). The culvert beneath the existing MSB parking lot is a migratory barrier to fish, reducing the potential of fish to pioneer these tributaries. The tributaries above the MSB parking lot are intermittent, high gradient, and extremely small, and therefore may never have contained fish. On the easternmost unnamed tributary to Butler Creek, a small diversion dam stores and provides water for MSB (Gillin 2001). The middle tributary (Butler Creek) is channelized below the Gelandesprung Lodge and Last Run Inn. The westernmost tributary enters a culvert at the base of the existing T-bar. These three unnamed tributaries come together beneath the parking lot where they form Butler Creek and discharge out of the culvert. The LNF and MFWP have sampled the Butler Creek fishery. The MFWP sampled Butler Creek below the parking lot and captured only westslope cutthroat trout (Hendrickson 2006 and Knotek 2006 personal communications). The trout population in this reach contained multiple age classes, indicating reproduction and suitable habitat for all life stages (MFWP 2005). Butler Creek has not been sampled above the fish passage barrier formed by the culvert beneath the parking lot. It is unlikely that trout exist, or could survive, in these small tributaries given their size, high gradient, and position above the fish barrier. In 1997, the LNF sampled Butler Creek for the presence/absence of bull trout where the stream crosses the LNF boundary. They found both westslope cutthroat trout and low densities of bull trout, but no other fish species (Hendrickson 2006 and 2009 personal communications). Subsequent sampling efforts since 1997 have found no bull trout in Butler Creek; consequently, bull trout may no longer exist in Butler Creek because they may have been extirpated from the drainage. The habitat in this reach is still in good condition, and land management practices have not rendered the stream uninhabitable by trout. Given the degraded habitat conditions further downstream on private lands, bull trout most likely do not exist on private lands. Butler Creek is fragmented from the Clark Fork River; therefore, fluvial populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout most likely do not exist (Knotek 2006 personal communication). Consequently, Butler Creek contains small resident populations of trout that are easily affected by environmental perturbations. Given these conditions, changes in habitat could extirpate a species from the watershed, and natural re-colonization would not be possible. The low densities of bull trout in this basin are symptomatic of fragmented populations; therefore, environmental changes could expedite the loss of this subpopulation La Valle Creek Sediment input is a problem on lower La Valle Creek. Although the channel is in good condition, the potential exists for catastrophic sediment inputs from the Point Six Road and its spur roads (Hendrickson 2006 personal communication). These sediment inputs are located south of the proposed expansion area and not along the Point Six Road where it forms the western boundary of the proposed expansion area. The Point Six Road does not meet Forest Service BMP standards for road design, and upgrading the road would help protect La Valle Creek. This road has produced sediment pulses that have entered the creek from rain and rain-on-snow events (not along the western boundary of proposed expansion area). If this road continues to Master Development Plan EIS 18

19 contribute sediment to La Valle Creek, pool habitats will be degraded, reducing their fisheries value. Below the LNF boundary, La Valle Creek habitat conditions deteriorate from private land management practices. Bank erosion and sediment inputs increase from overgrazing, and development has encroached on the La Valle Creek floodplain and channel. The channel s pool habitat also decreases in quality and quantity on the private lands. La Valle Creek is intermittent at its I-90 crossing and is therefore not connected to the Clark Fork River. Only one potential fish passage barrier has been identified on La Valle Creek upstream of the LNF boundary. The culvert underneath the existing La Valle chairlift may be a barrier. La Valle Creek above this site is very high gradient and extremely small and therefore may not contain fish. The La Valle Creek fishery has been sampled by MFWP and is known to contain only westslope cutthroat trout (Knotek 2006 personal communication). La Valle Creek was stocked with westslope cutthroat trout in 1987 after the Yellowstone Pipeline ruptured in 1982 (Gillin 2001). While bull trout have not been found in La Valle Creek, they may still exist in very low densities. The habitat is suitable for bull trout, but it is unknown if they have been extirpated from this basin. It is unlikely that trout are in the headwater reaches of La Valle Creek due to its size and gradient. La Valle Creek is not connected to the Clark Fork River; therefore, fluvial populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout, most likely do not exist. Consequently, La Valle Creek contains small resident populations of trout that are easily affected by environmental perturbations. Given these conditions, changes in habitat could extirpate a species from the watershed, and natural re-colonization would not be possible. If bull trout exist in low densities in La Valle Creek, any negative change in environmental or habitat conditions could cause a loss of this population. The westslope cutthroat population has the cohorts that would enable it some resiliency to small environmental changes. The LNF sampled La Valle Creek in the summer of Sampling was completed in Section 5 (T14N, R19W), upstream of a decommissioned road crossing. Results demonstrated a low density of westslope cutthroat trout, no bull trout, and no non-native species. The LNF also completed presence/absence sampling in this watershed. The results indicated that the upper end of fish distribution is near the section line of Section 32 and Section 5 (T15N, R19W and T14N, R19W, respectively). These sampling efforts demonstrate that westslope cutthroat trout are present at low densities and are limited to a small length of stream. The limited fish distribution, coupled with low densities, results in the population being at high/extreme risk of extinction. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS) 4.1 Alternative A - The No Action Alternative There would be no change in effects on water quantity or water use as a result of the No Action alternative. MSB would continue to withdraw water from Butler Creek at 115 gpm for the existing permitted period of use (November through March). As indicated in Table 3-2, MSB s current water withdrawal may impact Section 1 and possibly the upper portion of Section 2. Under normal flow conditions (without snowmaking), this channel may irregularly dewater on its own Master Development Plan EIS 19

20 due to drought or dry year conditions. Because Butler Creek is a gaining stream, MSB s water withdrawal may not completely dewater the channel; however, the frequency of dewatering may increase during snowmaking activities in the winter months. Erosion and sediment delivery to Butler Creek has been known to occur at the MSB base area and main parking lot. The MSB plans improvements to these potential contamination sources as Connected Actions (on private land) associated with the Proposed Action. With the No Action alternative, wastewater drainfields would remain in their current locations within 200 feet of Butler Creek and would not be moved to new locations approximately 3,000 feet from the creek. The maintenance building would remain at its current location approximately 50 feet from Butler Creek and would not be moved to the proposed location 500 feet from Butler Creek. These potential contamination sources would therefore remain as they are. The planned changes on the existing MSB private land (Connected Actions) may not be implemented unless the proposed expansion is permitted. The expenditures for these improvements may not be justifiable without the proposed expansion. 4.2 Alternative B - The Proposed Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action would allow the expansion of MSB onto TV Mountain and would reclassify the expansion area as MA 8. Direct and indirect effects are those that would result from Proposed Action components; they include effects from short-term and long-term construction, maintenance, and ski area management activities. Direct and indirect effects on fisheries resources highlighted in this analysis are: Water Quality. The potential for increased sediment from ground disturbances, the potential for decreasing sediment from the main parking lot and base area, and the potential for decreasing contaminants from wastewater drainfields and maintenance facilities by relocating these facilities. Water Quantity. The potential for increasing the period of snowmaking and the potential for increasing streamflows due to timber removal. Water Quality Potential new sediment sources from projects of this type could include stream crossings and other activities near streams. No new stream crossings or activities are near streams included in the Proposed Action that would create new sediment sources with the potential to deliver sediment to streams. Short-term construction related to infrastructure, buildings, and lifts would not occur within 500 feet of any surface water except in one case described below. No trails would be cleared, and no surface grading would occur within 500 feet of surface water as a result of the Proposed Action. Sites proposed for timber removal, grading, or other activities are separated from streams by well-vegetated areas that act as sediment filters and infiltration zones for surface flow carrying sediment from these disturbances. See the Water Resources Specialist Report (PBS&J 2011b) for details about water quality impacts. Water Use and Water Rights See the Water Resources Specialist Report (PBS&J 2011b) for details about water use and water rights impacts. Master Development Plan EIS 20

21 Between September 2003 and April 2004, and on multiple dates in 2008 (Section 3.0), water measurements were taken at the existing diversion, which is one of three tributaries entering Butler Creek on MSB private land. The flow rate remained relatively constant, varying between 80 gpm and 116 gpm. The average flow rate was calculated from mid October to the end of March and was estimated to produce a volume of 74 acre-feet. The maximum MSB water right withdrawal of 48 acre-feet represents 64 percent of the total water available during the measurement period and leaves 26 acre-feet available for downstream users (Water Resources Specialist Report, PBS&J 2011b). The existing water rights listed in the DNRC records for wintertime uses of both surface water and groundwater wells in the lower Butler Creek area total approximately 17 acre-feet from October to March. Therefore, if the drainage produces 74 acre-feet, and the current total plus the increased demand yields 65 acre-feet, 9 acre-feet would be available for winter uses, including fish and other aquatic resources. This 9 acre-feet is the water available from only one of the three tributaries, which represents only a small portion of the watershed. The MSB diversion would not operate continuously, nor would it operate in a manner that diverts all the water in the tributary at any point in time. The diversion would operate only during snowmaking periods and when storage reservoirs need to be filled for snowmaking. Because there would be no changes in the amount of water that can be diverted from the current permitted amount (115 gpm), the base flows in Butler Creek would not change. Pool depths, widths, and quality would not be degraded below the current permitted conditions; however, Butler Creek may experience these base flow conditions for, at most, an additional 39 days during the winter. Consequently, the wintertime base flow habitat conditions in Butler Creek would be maintained at existing conditions but for a longer period of time. To ensure that minimum flows (30 gpm) are maintained in Butler Creek for fish habitat, MSB would construct a flow monitoring station on Butler Creek and monitor the flow rate during the winter season. These results would be reported annually to the LNF for review. The LNF would confirm that the flow is protective of aquatic organisms during crucial overwintering conditions. Water would continue to flow to downgradient habitat locations even during times that the diversion would be operating. Water Quantity and Streamflow No effects on streamflow from timber harvest are expected as a result of the Proposed Action and Connected Actions because the area of timber removal is small (182 acres) and represents tree removal on less than 1 percent of the Butler Creek watershed and approximately 2 percent of the La Valle Creek watershed. The Water Resources Specialist Report (PBS&J 2011b) provides further discussion on water quantity and streamflows. A wetted perimeter study was conducted in 2008 (Reiland 2008) and assumed that the summertime modeled stream flows mimicked the winter flows (Annear and Conder 1984; Gippel and Stewardson 1998). The Butler Creek summertime base flows were not reached until early November, and no inflection points were reached at any of the wetted perimeter sites. Winter flows (2005, 2006, and 2008) were observed in Butler Creek, and during these periods, the instream flows were greater than the base flows recorded in November Butler Creek had more water in the winter than in late summer and fall (December to February and August to November, respectively). Master Development Plan EIS 21

22 The Butler Creek volume increases as it flows downstream. The steady increases in volume can only be attributed to groundwater interception (Gippel and Stewardson 1998); therefore, Butler Creek is a gaining stream above the LNF boundary. It is unlikely that the wetted perimeter inflection points would be reached in Sections 2 and 3 even if Butler Creek were dewatered at the parking lot. This would limit the impacts of dewatering to just the upper reaches of Butler Creek. Westslope cutthroat and bull trout are present in the lower Butler Creek drainage, but only cutthroat trout are present in its upper reaches. Because Butler Creek is a gaining stream even in its upper reaches, any possible effects of MSB s water withdrawals would diminish downstream, ending before known bull trout locations. The conclusions from the 2008 wetted perimeter study are summarized below. Application of the wetted perimeter method on Butler Creek is problematic due to the presence of an uneven streambed. This is common when trying to apply this method to headwater streams. A lower inflection point was not reached on any of the three cross sections monitored in the wetted perimeter study. Observations made throughout the 2005, 2006, and 2008 winter seasons documented that stream flows are higher throughout the latter half of the snowmaking season than in the summer/fall months and are higher than the minimum flows needed to protect aquatic habitat. During early snowmaking (October, November, and December), instream flows may be reduced by the existing withdrawal rates, which could impact westslope cutthroat overwintering habitat (Table 3-2). Butler Creek is a gaining stream throughout the monitored sections, and the effects of water withdrawal would diminish below the upper study location. Extending MSB s water withdrawal to mid October would extend Butler Creek s low flow conditions and could potentially dewater riffle habitats in Section 1 as early as mid October. This withdrawal would, most likely, not affect the upper reaches of Section 2. A minimum instream flow would protect the riffle habitats in upper reaches of Section 1 (at the cross section B location). Butler Creek s base flow was measured at 17 gpm, which provided 2.4 inches of water at cross section B in Section 1 (Reiland 2008). Using the body depth of resident adult cutthroat trout, which are approximately 6 inches long and 1.8 inches deep, a minimum instream flow of 30 gpm would adequately protect these habitats. Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Fish and Other Aquatic Species No endangered aquatic species have been recorded at MSB or within the proposed expansion area. Bull trout, which are listed as threatened by the USFWS (USFWS 2005), have been found in lower Butler Creek at low densities. They have not been found in La Valle Creek. Butler and La Valle Creeks are considered bull trout habitats because they are in historic bull trout watersheds. However, Butler and La Valle creeks were not identified as Critical Habitat by the USFWS (USFWS 2010). Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout (sensitive species and a State of Montana species of special concern) occur in both Butler Creek and La Valle Creek. Westslope cutthroat trout have been petitioned for listing, but they have not been listed by the USFWS (Hendrickson 2009 personal communication). Other sensitive aquatic species that have not been documented, but may occur, include the pearlshell mussel, boreal toad, Northern leopard frog, and Coeur d Alene salamander. No aquatic MIS are present at MSB or in the proposed expansion area. Master Development Plan EIS 22

23 No negative effects would occur to water quality as a result of the Proposed Action, and water quality improvements would occur as a result of Connected Actions (Water Resources Specialist Report, PBS&J 2011b). There would be additional water withdrawal for snowmaking during dry years but at the same flow rate as in the past. To protect riffle habitats, a flow monitoring station would be established on Butler Creek and a flow of 30 gpm would be maintained. The MSB would record weekly flow during periods of water withdrawals (snowmaking or for the filling of reservoirs) and the results reported to the LNF annually. The LNF would make a determination whether the withdrawals are protective of trout habitat. This withdrawal would occur mainly during November, December, and January, with less snowmaking likely to occur in February and March. The only effect on aquatic resources, including fish, would be the potential for increasing the period of time water is withdrawn at the existing diversion sites on Butler Creek and at the existing flow rate. Because westslope cutthroat and possibly bull trout are present in the lower Butler Creek drainage, there would be a small potential to affect these or other aquatic species that may be present. However, flow measurements prove that Butler Creek is a gaining stream, and the effect of MSB water withdrawal diminishes downstream, ending before the site of known bull trout locations. Bull Trout Species Indicators and Habitat Indicators Table 4-1 shows the checklist for documenting effects of the Proposed Action on individual species and habitat indicators and proposed bull trout habitat (Brewer 2006 and 2007 personal communications). Checklist factors are described below for the proposed MSB expansion. Subpopulation Characteristics. Subpopulation characteristics are based on four indicators: subpopulation size, growth and survival, life history diversity and isolation, and persistence and genetic integrity. In 1997, bull trout were found in the lower reaches of Butler Creek. No bull trout have been found in subsequent samplings of lower Butler Creek. Only westslope cutthroat trout were found in the upper reaches of Butler Creek near MSB. No bull trout have been found in La Valle Creek. Master Development Plan EIS 23

24 Table 4-1. Checklist for Documenting Effects of the Proposed Action on Individual Species and Habitat Indicators and Bull Trout Habitat Butler Creek La Valle Creek Parameter Diagnostic/Pathways: Indicators M/D/R* M/D/R* Subpopulation size M M Subpopulation Growth and survival M M Characteristics Life history diversity and isolation 7 M M Persistence and genetic integrity 7,9 M M Temperature 2,7 M M Water Quality Sediment 1,4 D/R M/R Chemical contamination/nutrients 1,7 R M Habitat Access Physical barriers 7 M M Substrate embeddedness 1,4 M M Large woody debris 3 M M Habitat Elements Pool frequency and quality 3 M M Large pools 3 M M Off-channel habitat 3 M M Refugia 3 M/R M Wetted width/maximum depth ratio 3,7 M M Channel Condition and Streambank condition 3 M M Dynamics Floodplain connectivity 3,6 M M Flow and Hydrology Change in peak/base flows 1,5,7 M/R M Drainage network increase 1,5,7 M D/R Road density and location 1,5 M M Watershed Condition Disturbance history M M Riparian conservation area 3,6 M M Disturbance regime M M Integration of species and habitat condition 8 M/R M/R *M/D/R: maintain/degrade/restore in reference to the existing condition. 1. Permanent water having low levels of contaminants such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 2. Water temperatures ranging from 2 C to 15 C, with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures in this range will vary depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater influence. 3. Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and instream structures. 4. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.63 cm (0.25 in) in diameter and minimal substrate embeddedness are characteristic of these conditions. 5. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic ranges or, if regulated, a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations. 6. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity to contribute to water quality and quantity. 7. Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or chemical barriers between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows. 8. An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 9. Few or no predatory, interbreeding, or competitive nonnative species present. Master Development Plan EIS 24

25 Decreasing or removing current sediment sources to Butler Creek and La Valle Creek (Water Resources Specialist Report, PBS&J 2011b) would have long-term water quality benefits for bull trout. There would be no change to fragmentation of bull trout habitat. There would be a small increase in short-term sedimentation from construction activities. Sediment increases would not last long, after which the base sediment level would recover to a point that is below existing conditions and therefore would not affect bull trout growth or survival. No change in subpopulation characteristics is expected from the proposed expansion project. Water Quality. Water temperature, sedimentation, and chemical contamination/nutrients make up the indicators for water quality. Water temperature would not be impacted; this is based on the implementation of RHCA through INFISH standards. Potential sediment inputs to La Valle Creek would decrease based on additional revegetation efforts between the base of proposed Lift B and the creek. If the proposed improvements are implemented at the MSB base area as Connected Actions, sediment input to Butler Creek would decrease from regrading the base area and main parking lot. The potential for chemical contamination of Butler Creek would also decrease, based on moving the maintenance building and wastewater drainfields to locations away from the creek. These Connected Actions may not be implemented unless the Proposed Action is permitted; therefore, their benefits are described in this report. This potential for sediment to enter Butler Creek as a result of snowplowing would remain. Habitat Access. No fish barriers would be removed or installed in either alternative. Butler Creek and La Valle Creek would remain isolated from Middle Clark Fork River fish populations. Without connectivity reestablished, fluvial and resident fish populations would remain genetically isolated. Middle Clark Fork River fluvial fish would not have access to additional habitat that may be more suitable to spawning and rearing. Due to the fragmentation factors created by development on non-nfs lands outside of, and unrelated to MSB, reconnecting these tributaries to the Middle Clark Fork River would be difficult. The passage barriers at the existing parking lot (Butler Creek) and the potential fish barrier at the La Valle chairlift (La Valle Creek) could be addressed in future actions. The Proposed Action would meet the Forest Plan Standards as amended by INFISH. Habitat Elements. Habitat elements consist of the following six indicators: substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency and quality, large pools, off-channel habitat, and refugia. Substrate embeddedness and large woody debris would not be affected. Pool frequency and quality in Butler Creek and La Valle Creek as well as large pool quality would be improved by reductions in sediment if the MSB base area improvements are performed as Connected Actions. Because there would be no changes in the volume of the Butler Creek base flow discharge, pool frequency and quality as well as large pool quality would not be affected. If the Butler Creek base flow habitat condition is the limiting factor for salmonid survival, extending the base flow conditions may impair fish populations. The additional water withdrawal would not reduce pool depths below current base levels, although the current base level could be maintained for a longer period (as many as 39 additional days). Off-channel habitat and refugia would not be affected in either creek. Channel Condition and Dynamics. Wetted width/maximum depth ratio, streambank condition, and floodplain connectivity are three indicators that make up the channel condition and dynamics parameter. Floodplain connectivity would not be impacted because RHCAs are being implemented. The proposed project would not have an effect on streambank stability on LNF or Master Development Plan EIS 25

26 other public lands. Streambank vegetation would not be altered; therefore, streambank stability would not be affected. Width/depth ratios would not be affected. Watershed Condition. Watershed condition is made up of the following parameters: road density and location, disturbance history, riparian conservation areas, and disturbance regimes. RHCAs would be avoided except at one location (lower lift terminal of proposed Lift A). At this location, the existing intrusion into the RHCA would not be expanded upon; instead, the site would be improved by additional revegetation of the road fill in the RHCA. Improvements as Connected Actions would also be made in the Butler Creek watershed to remove potential existing contamination sources from the RHCA. Based on these changes, the Proposed Action, in conjunction with Connected Actions would improve existing watershed conditions in both La Valle Creek and Butler Creek. Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions. The integration of species and habitat indicators is mainly related to effects from sedimentation. Sediment delivery to the streams would be reduced by this project through mitigation measures in Chapter 2 and with improvements to INFISH RMOs, BMP upgrades, and the Connected Actions. Water withdrawal would occur upstream of a known bull trout population and spawning gravels in Butler Creek. There would be no changes in the rate of water diverted (115 gpm) from the base flows in Butler Creek; therefore, the base flow conditions would not change. Pool depths, widths, and quality would not be degraded below the current permitted conditions. However, Butler Creek may experience these base flow conditions for, at most, an additional 39 days or less per year during the winter based on the stream flow not being artificially drawn below the 30 gpm mitigation flow. Previous MFWP sampling in 2005 (Section 3.0) found no bull trout immediately below the MSB parking lot; however, the LNF found bull trout during their 1997 sampling near the downstream LNF boundary. Subsequent sampling efforts have found no bull trout in Butler Creek. Consequently, while bull trout may exist in Butler Creek, they are some distance from the site of water withdrawal, and Butler Creek is a gaining stream, which reduces potential impacts. Leaving 30 gpm in Butler Creek during snowmaking activities (Connected Action) would maintain habitat conditions related to water quantity. Elimination of sediment and chemical contaminants through Connected Actions would improve habitat conditions. The Proposed Action would not cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical habitat in the Columbia River Basin and would not adversely affect habitat conditions in Butler Creek or La Valle Creek. The Butler Creek bull trout population would benefit from reduced sediment and chemical contaminant inputs from Connected Actions on private land; however, some sediment input from snowplowing activities would likely remain. Given these factors, flow monitoring provisions, and the potential improvements to both Butler Creek and La Valle Creek watersheds through Connected Actions, short-term construction impacts related to the Proposed Action should generate a may affect, likely to adversely affect determination for bull trout consultation on Butler Creek and La Valle Creek in the biological assessment. The Proposed Action should also produce a may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species in the biological evaluation for westslope cutthroat trout. The proposed project at MSB lies within the historical range of bull trout. Bull trout have been found in low densities in lower Butler Creek and have not been found in La Valle Creek. Currently, Butler and La Valle creeks are fragmented from the Clark Fork River; therefore, fluvial Master Development Plan EIS 26

27 populations of bull trout most likely do not exist. Butler and La Valle creeks were not identified as Critical Habitat by the USFWS (USFWS 2010). No Critical Habitat lies within the proposed expansion area or immediately downstream, and the closest Critical Habitat lies in Grant Creek and the Clark Fork River; therefore, the Proposed Action and Connected Actions would generate a No Effect determination for effects to Critical Habitat for bull trout because no Critical Habitat exists. Cumulative Effects There are many historic and current effects to fisheries in the analysis area; these include agricultural water withdrawals, fish barriers, forest and paved roads, grazing, residential development and septic systems, and releases of petroleum products to groundwater and surface water. These historic and current factors would cumulatively affect individuals or the habitat of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in Butler Creek and La Valle Creek. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES No alternatives were identified based on fisheries. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING Mitigation 1. INFISH standards and guidelines for forestry practices would be met as a minimum. All activities would comply with LNF BMPs. 2. RHCA boundaries would be flagged where activities come close to the RHCA to exclude ground-based equipment and other activities. 3. Where the potential exists for sediment delivery to water, erosion control measures (such as straw bales, wattles, silt fences, and hydro mulching) would be in place before and during ground-disturbing activities. To ensure effectiveness, erosion control measures would remain in place and functional until disturbed sites (such as roads, culverts, and landings) are stabilized, typically for a minimum period of one growing season after ground-disturbing activity occurs. 4. Prior to timber haul (or any heavy traffic use of the road), all BMPs and associated soil and water conservation practices designed to control surface drainage from roads would be in place on road segments to be used and would be maintained to ensure functionality. All BMPs would be inspected by a hydrologist or sale administrator at the end of each operating season to assure their ability to protect water quality during spring snowmelt runoff season. 5. Mitigation measures pertaining to trails would meet or exceed road and skid trail BMP requirements. 6. Slash filter windrows would be placed on relief culvert outlets that are within 300 feet of a waterway. 7. Cross drain spacing would be approximately 500 feet for road grades 0 to 3 percent, and approximately 300 feet or less for grades 3 to 10 percent. Master Development Plan EIS 27

28 8. The perimeter trail would have its travel-ways constructed with a minimum of a 4 percent outslope and would be constructed to a width only necessary to support skiing/biking and maintenance. The surface would also be left in a roughened condition (revegetated) to maximize infiltration capabilities. This trail would be off limits to motorized use. 9. A Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) stormwater pollution prevention plan would be required for this project. This plan would provide specific details on the design, location, and implementation of all erosion controls. 10. For the existing La Valle chairlift lower terminal area, vegetation cover would be increased by reseeding and mulching or adding organic matter. Water bars would be installed to divert runoff away from stream, if necessary, and discharge to vegetated area away from stream. 11. For the existing La Valle chairlift lower terminal area, sediment fence, berm, or other features would be installed between the construction area and La Valle Creek. Vegetation buffer effectiveness would be increased by re-seeding fill slope below site and placing mulch or organic material. 12. The existing trails would be inventoried to determine whether they are adequately revegetated and inhibiting erosion and runoff. Identified sites would be corrected through the annual operations and maintenance plan. 13. Any failure of culverts within the existing SUP area would require them to be upgraded to meet Q100 flood flow and Aquatic Organism Passage standards. 14. To ensure that minimum flows are maintained in Butler Creek for fish habitat, MSB would construct a flow monitoring station on Butler Creek and monitor the flow rate during the winter season. These results would be reported annually to the LNF for review. MSB would leave 30 gpm of flow in the tributary to Butler Creek from October through March to minimize the impact of water withdrawal upon the fisheries in Butler Creek Monitoring MSB would perform weekly monitoring of flows sufficient to maintain a mean riffle depth that is adequate to allow fish movement (minimum flow of 30 gpm) between pools. Records would be kept and reported annually to the LNF. 7.0 COMMENT REVIEW Concerns regarding the Proposed Action s effects on increased sediment levels in La Valle Creek were received. These comments are addressed in this Specialist Report. Master Development Plan EIS 28

29 8.0 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY AND MANAGEMENT AREA CHANGE The impacts of the Proposed Action on wildlife would be consistent with MA 8 of the Forest Plan and other regulatory framework. No specific wildlife standards are listed for MA 8, the existing ski area designation. Tree removal for safety and forest health reasons is permitted (MA 8 Standards 1 and 6). The MA designation change that would be required as part of the Proposed Action would not have direct or indirect effects to wildlife resources. 9.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION Annear, T., and A. Conder Relative bias of several fisheries instream flow methods. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 4: Brewer, D and Personal Communication. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. Helena, MT. Communication with Eric Reiland, Fisheries Specialist. Gillin G Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Bull and Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Snowbowl Ski Area Road and Parking Improvements, Missoula, MT. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Lolo National Forest by Apex Aquatics, Missoula, MT. 46 pp. Gippel, C., and M. Stewardson Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 14: Hendrickson, Shane and Personal communication between Shane Hendrickson, USFS, Lolo National Forest, Fisheries Biologist and Eric Reiland, Fisheries Specialist. Knotek, Ladd Personal communication between Ladd Knotek, Middle Clark Fork River Fisheries Biologist, MFWP and Eric Reiland, Fisheries Specialist. McIntyre, J.D., and B.E. Rieman Westslope Cutthroat Trout, in Conservation Assessment for Inland Cutthroat Trout. M. K. Young (Technical Editor). USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report, RM-GTR-256. McMahon, T., A. Zale, and D. Orth Aquatic habitat measurements. Pages: In B. Murphy and D. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Meehan, W.R., and T.C. Bjornn Salmonid Distribution and Life Histories, in W. Meehan, editor. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group (MBTSG) Blackfoot River Drainage, Bull Trout Status Report. Report Prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, MT. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Middle Clark Fork Fish Population Monitoring Data. Prepared by Ladd Knoteck, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, MT. Master Development Plan EIS 29

30 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Memorandum of Understanding and Conservation Agreement for Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. Montana Snowbowl (MSB) Montana Snowbowl Master Development Plan. Prepared for Montana Snowbowl by Alpentech and Robert Brandenberger. December Nelson, F Evaluation of selected instream flow methods in Montana. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Paulsen, Tami Lolo National Forest. Personal communication with Stephanie Lauer of PBS&J. PBS&J. 2011b. Master Development Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Specialist Report - Water Resources. Paul Callahan, PBS&J. Revised February Reiland, Eric : Butler Creek Wetted Perimeter Study. Prepared for PBS&J at request of USFS, Lolo National Forest. Pp. 35. December Reinfelds, I., T. Haeusler, A. Brooks, and S. Williams Refinement of the wetted perimeter breakpoint method for setting cease-to-pump limits or minimum environmental flows. River Research and Applications. 20: Rieman, B.B., D. Lee, J. McIntyre, K. Overton, and R. Thurow Consideration of Extinction Risks for Salmonids. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin, No. 14, Dec. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Boise, Idaho. 14 pp. Riggers, B. W., A. Rosquist, R. Kramer, and M. Bills An Evaluation of Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Conditions in Developed and Undeveloped Watersheds on the Lolo National Forest. USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Rosgen, D.L Applied River Morphology, Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, MN. Stalnaker, C., B. Lamb, J. Henriksen, K. Bovee, and J Bartholow The instream flow incremental methodology, a primer for IFIM. Biological Report 29. U.S. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. 44 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA) Lolo National Forest (LNF). Forest Plan. Online at: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 1995b. Inland Native Fish Strategy, Environmental Assessment. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA) Lolo National Forest (LNF). Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Snowbowl Master Development Plan Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Missoula Ranger District, April United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 2002a. Lolo National Forest (LNF). Best Management practices effectiveness monitoring report. Compiled by Renee Hanna. March pp. Available at: http// United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 2007a. Lolo National Forest (LNF). Environmental Assessment: Grant Creek Fuels Reduction Project. 159 pp. Master Development Plan EIS 30

31 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Mapping and Digitizing watershed and Sub-watershed Hydrologic Unit Boundaries. National Instruction No Natural Resources Inventory Division, Washington, D.C. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a. A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale. Prepared by the USFWS. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998b. Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guidance. Prepared by the USFWS. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments of Bull Trout. Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 230: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout; Final Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 185: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Proposed Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 7, No. 9: Master Development Plan EIS 31

32 Appendix A Figures Master Development Plan EIS

33 Figure 1-1. Montana Snowbowl Vicinity Map Master Development Plan EIS A-1