Alternative A – Preferred. Implementation of Alternative A would result in long term beneficial impacts to the wildlife and fisheries within the proposed UCFRB CREP area and to fish and other aquatic wildlife downstream from the area. The agricultural and pastureland eligible for enrollment in the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement consists of previously disturbed landscapes. Wildlife populations have been reduced or displaced on these lands, and wildlife and fish habitats have been degraded by agricultural activities. Associated with improved habitat conditions, wildlife diversity would increase from implementation of the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement. In comparison to the existing conditions on most of the eligible cropland and riparian habitat, wildlife habitat would improve and wildlife diversity would increase after establishment of each CP. Grassland birds would benefit primarily from establishment of native grasses (CP 2). In addition, the establishment of native grasses would be beneficial to ungulate, small mammal and predator populations. Nongame and game wildlife would benefit primarily from establishment of permanent wildlife habitat (CP 4D), shallow water areas for wildlife (CP 9), riparian buffers (CP -22), wetland restoration (CP 23) and marginal pastureland wildlife habitat buffers (CP 29). Increasing of riparian habitat reduces habitat fragmentation by improving wildlife corridors. This habitat connectivity allows for easier wildlife movement between patches of habitat. In addition, establishment of native wildlife populations in the UCFRB CREP area would displace some of the exotic wildlife species in the area. Aquatic biodiversity in the proposed UCFRB CREP area would benefit from reduced levels of nutrients, sediment, organic matter, pesticides, and other pollutants from surface runoff from agricultural activity that would result after implementation of the UCFRB CREP Agreement. In particular establishment of riparian buffers (CP 22), wetland restoration (CP 23), and marginal pastureland wetland buffers (CP 30) would enhance aquatic biodiversity in the UCFRB CREP area and downstream. See Section 4.3 for a discussion of impacts to surface water quality.
Alternative A – Preferred. Every CP that is proposed for implementation under the UCFRB CREP Agreement would contribute to vegetation diversity and long term benefits in the proposed area. In particular, establishment of permanent native grasses (CP 2), permanent wildlife habitat (CP 4D), riparian buffers (CP 22), and wetland restoration (CP 23) would benefit vegetation resources in the proposed UCFRB CREP area. Establishment of native plant communities would help to reduce occurrences of exotic plant species and would provide habitat for wildlife. Establishment of vegetation would act as a buffer to agricultural and other runoff, improving water quality and benefiting aquatic species. See Section 4.3 for a discussion of impacts to water resources.
Alternative A – Preferred. Implementation of the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement would have long term positive impacts on protected species and habitat. All proposed CPs under the UCFRB CREP would have positive impacts, particularly the restoration of rare and declining habitat (CP 25). Benefits to protected aquatic species would be realized after implementation of CPs and would increase in the long term. The bull trout, a Federally threatened species, and the westslope cutthroat trout, a State species of special concern, like other aquatic species would benefit from implementation of the CPs in this area. Benefits to protected species and habitat in terrestrial environments would be minimal in the short term as vegetative communities developed. However, the greatest benefits to terrestrial species and habitats in this category would be expected in the long term following implementation of the proposed CPs. Reestablishment of riparian buffers and other habitats would benefit species such as the Bald Eagle, a Federally threatened species, and the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, a candidate species for listing under the ESA. Temporary minor negative impacts could occur during the preparation of lands for CPs as a result of noise or other disturbance.
Alternative A – Preferred. Due to the rich cultural and archaeological history of the UCFRB CREP Agreement area, the potential for encountering archaeological resources during implementation of CPs is considered high. CPs that are ground disturbing beyond what is normally disturbed from agricultural plowing have the potential to impact known and yet unknown archaeological resources. Such practices include earthmoving for installation of filter strips, firebreaks, fencing, and roads, as well as construction of dams, levees, and dikes in wetland restoration areas and excavation of potholes or other structures to regulate water flow. In order to determine whether proposed ground disturbing practices would impact archaeological resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, an archaeological survey of proposed impact areas would be required prior to implementation of the contract. The archaeological survey should at a minimum meet survey guidelines set forth by the Montana Historic Preservation Office. Results and recommendations from the survey should receive concurrence from the SHPO prior to project implementation.
Alternative A – Preferred. The UCFRB CREP Agreement area contains a rich architectural history related to early settlement and heritage themes of Montana’s history. Should proposed CPs include the removal or modification of historic architectural resources, a historic architectural resources survey would be required in order to determine whether such resources are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Results and recommendations from the survey should receive concurrence from the SHPO prior to project implementation.
Alternative A – Preferred. Because the areas that would be enrolled in the UCFRB CREP are not yet defined, no American Indian sacred sites or TCPs are identified. Once these areas are defined, consultation with American Indian tribes or tribal entities that have traditional ties to the lands may be needed to determine whether such properties exist on affected lands. Federally recognized tribal entities to be contacted may include the (Federal Register, July 12, 2002, Volume 67, No. 134):
1. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Xxxx Indian Reservation, Montana;
2. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana;
3. Chippewa-Cree Indians of Rocky Boys’s Reservation, Montana;
Alternative A – Preferred. Implementation of the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement would have long term positive effects on surface water quality and quantity. The CPs listed in Section 2.1 are designed to improve water quality. Establishing native grasses and wildlife habitat (CP 2 and CP 4D) would stabilize soils and reduce soil erosion and the runoff of nutrients and chemicals associated with agriculture. The establishment of riparian buffers (CP 22) installed adjacent to watercourses would stabilize stream banks and provide areas for the retention of sediment and nutrient runoff from adjacent Activities such as vegetation clearing and soil disturbance may occur during the installation of CPs. These activities could result in temporary and minor negative impacts to surface water quality resulting from runoff associated with these activities. Use of filter fencing or similar practices would reduce these impacts.
Alternative A – Preferred. Implementation of the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement would result in long term positive effects on groundwater quality and quantity. Reductions in nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers are expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Implementation of the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement would reduce depletions of the surficial aquifers.
Alternative A – Preferred. Implementation of the proposed CP 9 (Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife), CP 23 (Wetland Restoration), CP 22 (Riparian Buffer), and CP 30 (Wetland Buffer-Marginal Pastureland) is expected to restore or enhance the acreage of wetlands and riparian habitat in the proposed UCFRB CREP area by as much as 1,000 acres. The positive impacts of restoring wetlands and riparian areas on wildlife and aquatic species is discussed in Section 4.2, biological resources.
Alternative A – Preferred. Implementation of Alternative A would result in positive effects to floodplains. Minor improvements in floodplain areas and stream profiles would occur from implementation of CP 22, CP 23 and CP 30. These CPs would increase floodwater storage capacity through restoring wetlands, stabilizing floodplains, and improving habitat through restorative plantings, and install structures within existing floodplains.
