Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout029 - Appendix T - Wildlife Memo1 | Page Technical Memo To: Cooper Krause, PE From: Christine Pearcy, Environmental Scientist Date: March 5, 2026 Job: 10130.001 Re: Wildlife Assessment at Laurel Meadow Subdivision This memo documents the presence or absence of wildlife resources and Endangered Species Act (ESA) federally listed threatened and endangered species on an approximately 40.83-acre that is located south of The Lakes at Valley West and north and east of Norton Ranch. Directly to the east of the property lies a significant linear parkland including a perpetual wetland easement encompassing Baxter Creek and creates the extension of Bronken Park to the north. A suite of maps is attached to this memo for reference. A summary of our data sources is provided at the end of this memo. General Habitat In addition to this desktop analysis, A Morrison-Maierle environmental scientist conducted site visits on August 9 and 10, 2025, to assess habitat conditions. A photo log from the field investigation is attached and the results of our investigation are presented below. Field observations confirmed suitable habitat for generalist species adapted to human disturbance. The following species were observed on the subject property:  American robin (Turdus migratorius)  Bedding signs of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)  Chipmunk (Neotamias spp.)  Raccoon (Procyon lotor)  Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)  Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)  Small rodents  Striped skunk (Mephitis Mephitis)  Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) The property is bounded on all sides by residential properties or residential development. This surrounding land use limits connectivity to larger, undisturbed habitat areas and reduces the likelihood of use by wide-ranging or disturbance-sensitive species. Habitat within the property primarily supports generalist species adapted to urban and suburban environments, with limited potential for species requiring extensive, contiguous habitat. 2 | Page None of the species identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) report, which is discussed in the following section, were observed within or near the property during the assessment. The subject property is within the Cultivated Crops and Rocky Mountain Lower Montante Foothill, and Valley Grassland land cover/use areas (MNHP 2025). Threatened and Endangered Species There is no critical habitat for any ESA threatened or endangered (T&E) species at the investigation area (USFWS 2023). Furthermore, the investigation area does not contain typical habitat for any threatened or endangered species. While it is possible for the monarch butterfly to migrate through the investigation area, the lack of milkweed plant communities and other useful forbs make it an unlikely stop for this Candidate species. Table 1 Species ESA Status Present? Critical Habitat? Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened Has potential to be present, not typical habitat No Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) Threatened Has potential to be present, not typical habitat No North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) Threatened Has potential to be present, not typical habitat No Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Proposed Threatened Has potential to be present No Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi) Proposed Endangered Has potential to be present No Nearby Observed Species Species documented by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) within one mile of the investigation area are summarized in Table 2 (MNHP 2025). The complete MNHP Environmental Summary Report (ESR) for the project area is attached to this memo (Attachment 2). Most species listed here are unlikely to have habitat on the subject property due to habitat constraints. The subject property is an undeveloped field and wetland area, bordered to the east by Baxter Creek and N Laurel parkway to the west. Based on habitat, the species that have higher potential to occur on the subject property are the little brown myotis, bobolink, and the long-billed curlew. Table 2 Common Name Scientific Name Species Group Habitat Northern Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Mammals Riparian and forest Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Mammals Generalist Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Mammals Conifer forest Brown Creeper Certhia americana Birds Moist conifer forest Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Birds Conifer forest Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Birds Moist grasslands Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Birds Grasslands 3 | Page Common Name Scientific Name Species Group Habitat Great Blue Heron Ardea Herodias Birds Riparian forest Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Birds Moist conifer forests Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Birds Shrub woodland Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii Birds Drier conifer forest Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Birds Conifer forest Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Birds Sagebrush Monarch Danaus plexippus Invertebrates Milkweed Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee Bombus suckleyi Invertebrates Montane/steppe grassland and shrubland Alberta Snowfly Isocapnia integra Invertebrates Large rivers Hooked Snowfly Isocapnia crinita Invertebrates Mountain Streams to Rivers Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Vascular Plants Fens, damp mossy woods, seepage areas, and moist forest-meadow ecotones Rocky Mountain Twinpod Physaria saximontana var. dentata Vascular Plants Gravelly slopes/talus (Montane/subalpine) Slender Wedgegrass Sphenopholis intermedia Vascular Plants Mesic sites (low elevation) Bat Roost (Non-Cave) Bat Roost (Non-Cave) Other - Golden and Bald Eagle Occurrences There are no documented eagle nests or range areas that intersect with the greater area around the investigation area (MNHP 2025). Sage Grouse Habitat Review The subject property does not contain sage grouse habitat (MT Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program 2025). See Figure 1 attached to this memo for a map of sage grouse habitat in the greater subject property area. Wetland and Riparian Areas The project area contains 6.76 acres of PEM wetland. Morrison-Maierle completed a wetland delineation in May of 2021 utilizing the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). USACE determined these wetlands as non-jurisdictional via an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) on December 9, 2021 (NWO-2007-01084-MTH). A wetland delineation map is attached to this Memo (Figure 2), and the report is available upon request. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is also provided as Attachment 3. Wetlands on the property connect to an adjacent pond and wetland complex, preserved from development. This area provides resources for migratory birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Aquatic habitats offer food, cover, and breeding sites that are scarce in the surrounding developed landscape. Wetlands and ponds can function as small but critical refuges or stopover 4 | Page points for migrating species, particularly in areas where natural habitats have been fragmented or replaced by residential and agricultural uses. The proximity of this habitat to the property increases the diversity of species likely to occur in the area, primarily those adapted to or tolerant of human activity. Wildlife and Habitat Consideration Construction of the proposed subdivision could temporarily disturb wildlife through noise, vegetation removal, and increased human presence. Wetlands and riparian corridors adjacent to the property provide habitat for migratory birds, amphibians, and small mammals; these resources could be indirectly affected by construction runoff, vegetation clearing, or reduced connectivity if not properly protected. At full build-out, increased residential activity, lighting, and domestic pets may further displace disturbance-sensitive species. To help mitigate effects on wetland and their habitat in the project area, Morrison-Maierle has created a wetland mitigation plan to protect and preserve existing wetlands on the property. To offset wetland impacts, a 2.60-acre formerly disturbed area on the southeast area of the subject property, the location of an existing ponded borrow pit, will be converted to wetland. The southeastern area is adjacent to a wetland conservation deed-restricted area. This on-site wetland mitigation will create a more robust and biologically diverse wetland habitat with maximized connectivity. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plans details methods for this project and is attached to this memo (Attachment 2). Wetlands at the project site will be monitored annually during peak growing season, between June and September, to assess project success and identify the need for maintenance and/or adaptive management strategies. The detailed monitoring plan is included in Attachment 2 of this memo. Public Access The proposed project will result in increased public access within and adjacent to the Laurel Meadows Subdivision. The development includes the installation of a gravel walking trail along the east side of the subdivision within the designated open space/park area, creating a new publicly accessible route for pedestrian use. This will enhance local connectivity for neighborhood residents and provide an additional access point to the broader open-space network along Baxter Creek. Because the project area is bordered by existing residential development and is not currently used as formal public recreation land, the subdivision is not anticipated to reduce or restrict access to any existing public lands, regional trail system, or designated outdoor recreation areas such as hunting or fishing sites. Hunting is not permitted within the residential area, and no public fishing access sites occur within the adjacent property. Therefore, the project will have no adverse effect on the public’s ability to reach established hunting or fishing areas. Protective Measures Several measures are incorporated into the Laurel Meadows Subdivision design to reduce impacts on wildlife, maintain habitat connectivity, and protect existing habitat resources. These include a combination of design considerations, mitigation actions, and long-term monitoring commitments that collectively minimize habitat degradation. The wetland mitigation site will convert a heavily disturbed area into functional wetland habitat adjacent to a deed-restricted conservation area. This will create a larger tract of intact habitat rather than fragmenting it further with residential development. A 5-year monitoring period will 5 | Page evaluate the project success, identify maintenance needs, and implement adaptive management if problems arise. Additionally, guidance received from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, detailed below has been incorporated into the project design. Design Considerations and FWP Guidance A letter was received from Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) on November 11, 2025 regarding recommendations for Laurel Meadows Subdivision. Standard FWP recommendations for developments adjacent to riparian and wetland resources were recommended in the letter:  Maintaining undisturbed vegetated buffer zones around wetlands and Baxter Creek.  Preserving native vegetation along riparian corridors to support wildlife movement and prevent erosion.  Clustering development to minimize habitat fragmentation.  Implementing stormwater management practices to prevent sediment and pollutant runoff into aquatic habitats. Incorporating these measures into subdivision planning will help protect wildlife resources and maintain habitat connectivity between the subject property and adjacent open space. The FWP letter is included as Attachment 4. Mitigation Planned to Overcome Adverse Impacts In accordance with FWP recommendations, the project includes mitigation measures to reduce habitat disturbance including: • Maintaining undisturbed, vegetated buffer zones around wetlands and along Baxter Creek. • Preserving native vegetation in riparian corridors to support wildlife movement and reduce erosion. • Buffers help protect habitats from construction and post-construction disturbances. • Residential homes are clustered to reduce habitat fragmentation and preserve larger areas of intact open space. • Stormwater will not outlet to Baxter Creek which will help prevent sediment and pollutants from entering wetlands and aquatic habitat during and after construction. • Construction-related impacts such as noise, vegetation loss, and temporary ground disturbance will be mitigated by fencing off wetland/waterway buffers during construction, adhering to construction stormwater permitting requirements, and stabilizing disturbed areas once construction is completed. Data Sources This memo is informed by science-backed data sources, our expertise, and firsthand observations conducted on the subject property. The two key data sources described below provide much of the data presented above and inform our analysis. The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) collects and manages data on species occurrences, biological communities, and habitat across the state. Data is aggregated into a model and customized reports for a specified project area are provided from the MTNHP upon request. For these reports, the project area is buffered up to one square mile in all directions, 6 | Page and the data is summarized to allow for “consistent and rapid delivery of summaries based on a uniform grid that has been used for planning efforts across the western United States” (MTNHP 2023). Thus, a species listed in a MTNHP data set as occurring within the project area may in fact have habitat in the larger, buffered, search area, and does not necessarily indicate habitat on the subject property. Three categories of data are presented in this report: 1. Species occurrences for species of concern (this includes special status species and important animal habitat) 2. Other observed non-species of concern, or species of concern lacking enough data to be completely mapped 3. Other species that have not been documented in the buffered project area, but that could be present based on habitat distribution The MNHP Environmental Survey Report (ESR) is summarized in Table 2 and attached to this memo. The USFWS manages the Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) database, which provides information about federally protected plants, animals, and designated critical habitats that might be impacted by a proposed project. The IPaC report generates a list of species and resources such as critical habitats that are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and are known or expected to be present in or around the project area. This list may also include resources that are outside the project area but could potentially be affected by activities within the project area (USFWS 2023a). The results of this report are summarized in Table 1, the full report is attached to this memo. Summary There are (a) no direct observations of, and (b) no critical habitat for, T&E species on the subject property. Occurrences of several MNHP-defined species of concern were documented in the past within the greater project area, though most are unlikely to occur on the property due to inadequate habitat. The proposed subdivision has the potential to cause temporary construction-related disturbance and long-term habitat modification; however, implementation of standard FWP design considerations can help reduce impacts and preserve adjacent wetland and riparian habitat values. 7 | Page References Montana Natural Heritage Program. Environmental Summary Report. for Latitude 45.65521 to 45.70530 and Longitude -111.06869 to -111.15690. Retrieved on 8/8/2025. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. April 2012. Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision in Montana, a Working Document. Accessed August 2025. Retrieved from https://fwp.mt.gov/conservation/living-with-wildlife/subdivision-recommendations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025a. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). 2023. IPaC Resource List for location in Gallatin County, Montana. Accessed August 2025. Attachments 1) Figures 2) IPaC Resource List 3) MNHP Environmental Summary Report (ESR) 4) Letter from FWP 3000 ft Legend EO-Core Area EO-Connectivity Area EO-General Habitat Not In EO Area BLM Priority Habitat Management Area Counties Exempt Community Boundaries Service Areas 8/11/25, 11:47 AM Program Map https://sagegrouse.mt.gov/ProgramMap 1/1 DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: GALLATIN COUNTY MT COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2021 N:\5418\002 - Master Agreement\GIS\Exhibits\2021_WD\Fig 5_WD.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 5418.002 2880 Technology Bldv.Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone: (406) 587-0721Fax: (406) 922-6702 6/23/2021 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( W BABCOCK ST WET 1 WET 2 WET 5 WET 3 WET 4 UDP 1 WDP 1 UDP 2 WDP 3 WDP 2 UDP 3 UDP 4 UDP 5 WDP 4 ±0 250 500125Feet Legend Investigation Area Wetlands (6.76 acres) Stream (780 linear feet) Ditch (1,166 linear feet) Pond (1.54 acres) !(Upland Data Point !(Wetland Data Point  WETLAND DELINEATION MAP Laurel Meadows Subdivision Feature Area (ac)WET 1 2.18WET 2 0.09WET 3 2.58WET 4 1.57WET 5 0.34 IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Gallatin County, Montana Local oce Montana Ecological Services Field Office  (406) 449-5225  (406) 449-5339 585 Shephard Way, Suite 1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC Notice: Solar and wind projects are currently not eligible to utilize the Information for Planning and Consultation website (per the July 15, 2025, DOI memo titled, “Departmental Review Procedures for Decisions, Actions, Consultations, and other Undertakings Related to Wind and Solar Energy Facilities”). For more information, please reach out to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office nearest to your project/activity. × 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 1/20 Helena, MT 59601-6287 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 2/20 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site- specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 2 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 3/20 The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals Insects NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652 Threatened Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis There is proposed critical habitat for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7642 Threatened North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Wherever found This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: Species may be present based on transient occurrence as it moves through or too suitable habitat. Effects should be considered to species and projects should consult with the Service, however, depending on the project, consultation may not be necessary. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Threatened NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Wherever found There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Proposed Threatened Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee Bombus suckleyi No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10885 Proposed Endangered 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 4/20 Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. There are no critical habitats at this location. You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have eects on all above listed species. Bald & Golden Eagles There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area. Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and activity- specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska, please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity. Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden- eagles-may-occur-project-action 2 1 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 5/20 The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. Review the FAQs The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources. BREEDING SEASON Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 6/20 Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 7/20 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Bald & Golden Eagles FAQs What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply). Proper interpretation and use of your eagle report On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort line or no data line (red horizontal) means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide you in knowing when to implement avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities or get the appropriate permits should presence be confirmed. How do I know if eagles are breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If an eagle on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 8/20 The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. Migratory birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden- eagles-may-occur-project-action 1 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 9/20 Measures for Proactively Minimizing Migratory Bird Impacts Your IPaC Migratory Bird list showcases birds of concern, including Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), in your project location. This is not a comprehensive list of all birds found in your project area. However, you can help proactively minimize significant impacts to all birds at your project location by implementing the measures in the Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds document, and any other project-specific avoidance and minimization measures suggested at the link Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds for the birds of concern on your list below. Ensure Your Migratory Bird List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles document, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. Review the FAQs The FAQs below provide important additional information and resources. BREEDING SEASONNAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Black Tern Chlidonias niger surinamenisis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093 Breeds May 15 to Aug 20 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 25 to Aug 21 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 10/20 California Gull Larus californicus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9526 Breeds May 1 to Aug 15 Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462 Breeds May 15 to Jul 15 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 15 to Aug 10 Franklin's Gull Leucophaeus pipixcan This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408 Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 11/20 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Long-eared Owl asio otus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9420 Breeds Feb 15 to Jul 15 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15 Thick-billed Longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Aug 15 Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 5 Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliae This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 12/20 Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 13/20 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black Tern BCC Rangewide (CON) Bobolink BCC Rangewide (CON) Broad-tailed Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) California Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) Calliope Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Cassin's Finch BCC Rangewide (CON) Evening Grosbeak BCC Rangewide (CON) Franklin's Gull BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Lewis's Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 14/20 Long-eared Owl BCC Rangewide (CON) Olive-sided Flycatcher BCC Rangewide (CON) Pinyon Jay BCC Rangewide (CON) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Thick-billed Longspur BCC Rangewide (CON) Western Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Willet BCC Rangewide (CON) Williamson's Sapsucker BCC - BCR Migratory Bird FAQs Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Avoidance & Minimization Measures for Birds describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year-round. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is one of the most effective ways to minimize impacts. To see when birds are most likely to occur and breed in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location, such as those listed under the Endangered Species Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and those species marked as “Vulnerable”. See the FAQ “What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?” for more information on the levels of concern covered in the IPaC migratory bird species list. 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 15/20 The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) with which your project intersects. These species have been identified as warranting special attention because they are BCC species in that area, an eagle (Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, and to verify survey effort when no results present, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. Why are subspecies showing up on my list? Subspecies profiles are included on the list of species present in your project area because observations in the AKN for the species are being detected. If the species are present, that means that the subspecies may also be present. If a subspecies shows up on your list, you may need to rely on other resources to determine if that subspecies may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go to the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating, or resident), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and view the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your IPaC migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it (indicated by yellow vertical bars on the phenology graph in your “IPaC PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY” at the top of your results list), there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 16/20 susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially BCC species. For more information on avoidance and minimization measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts, please see the FAQ “Tell me more about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds”. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Proper interpretation and use of your migratory bird report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical line) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal line). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list does not represent all birds present in your project area. It is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list and associated information help you know what to look for to confirm presence and helps guide implementation of avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate or reduce potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about avoidance and minimization measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about avoidance and minimization measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds". Interpreting the Probability of Presence Graphs Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 17/20 of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. There are no refuge lands at this location. Fish hatcheries There are no sh hatcheries at this location. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 18/20 (NWI) Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1A PEM1C FRESHWATER POND PUBGx RIVERINE R4SBC A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 19/20 Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 8/7/25, 4:49 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/W3WVIJ6JGNCCZCOAWGJGRULC7M/resources 20/20 Page 1 of 35 Environmental SummaryThe Montana Natural Heritage Program is part of the Montana State Library’s Natural Resource Information System. Since 1985, it has served as a neutral and non-regulatory provider of easily accessible information on Montana’s species and biological communities to inform all stakeholders in environmental review, permitting, and planning processes. The program is part of the NatureServe network that is composed of over 60 member programs across North America that work to provide current and comprehensive distribution and status information on species and biological communities. 1201 11th Ave ▫ P.O. Box 201800 ▫ Helena, MT 59620-1800 ▫ fax 406-444-0266 ▫ phone 406-444-3989 mtnhp.mt.gov Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Suggested Citation Montana Natural Heritage Program. Environmental Summary Report. for Latitude 45.65521 to 45.70530 and Longitude -111.06869 to -111.15690. Retrieved on 8/8/2025. Page 2 of 35 Introduction to Environmental Summary Report Environmental Summary Reports from the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) provide information on species and biological communities to inform all stakeholders in environmental review, permitting, and planning processes. For information on environmental permits in Montana, please see permitting overviews by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Index of Environmental Permits for Montana and our Suggested Contacts for Natural Resource Management Agencies. The report for your area of interest consists of introductory and related materials in this PDF and an Excel workbook with worksheets summarizing information managed in the MTNHP databases for: (1) species occurrences; (2) other observed species without species occurrences; (3) other species potentially present based on their range, presence of associated habitats, or predictive distribution model output if available; (4) structured surveys that follow a protocol capable of detecting one or more species; (5) land cover mapped as ecological systems; (6) wetland and riparian mapping; (7) land management categories; and (8) biological reports associated with plant and animal observations. If your area of interest corresponds to a statewide polygon layer (e.g., watersheds, counties, or public land survey sections) information summaries in your report will exactly match those boundaries. However, if your report is for a custom area, users should be aware that summaries do not correspond to the exact boundaries of the polygon they have specified, but instead are a summary across a layer of hexagons intersected by the polygon they specified as shown on the report cover. Summarizing by these hexagons which are one square mile in area and approximately one kilometer in length on each side allows for consistent and rapid delivery of summaries based on a uniform grid that has been used for planning efforts across North America. In presenting this information, MTNHP is working towards assisting the user with rapidly assessing the known or potential species and biological communities, land management categories, and biological reports associated with the report area. Users are reminded that this information is likely incomplete and may be inaccurate as surveys to document species are lacking in many areas of the state, species’ range polygons often include regions of unsuitable habitat, methods of predicting the presence of species or communities are constantly improving, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species and biological communities in a report area will always be an important obligation of users of our data. Users are encouraged to only use this environmental summary report as a starting point for more in depth analyses and are encouraged to contact state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies for additional data or management guidelines relevant to your efforts. Please see the Appendix for introductory materials to each section of the report, additional information resources, and a list of relevant agency contacts. Table of Contents • Species Report • Structured Surveys • Land Cover • Wetland and Riparian • Land Management • Biological Reports • Invasive and Pest Species • Introduction to Montana Natural Heritage Program • Data Use Terms and Conditions • Suggested Contacts for Natural Resource Agencies • Introduction to Native Species • Introduction to Land Cover • Introduction to Wetland and Riparian • Introduction to Land Management • Introduction to Invasive and Pest Species • Additional Information Resources Page 3 of 35 Native Species Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Filtered by: Native Species reports are filtered for Species with MT Status = Species of Concern, Special Status, Important Animal Habitat, Potential SOC Species Occurrences Global: G3G4 State: S3S4 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Predicted Models: 20% Suitable (native range) (deductive) Global: G4 State: S2S3 USFWS: P USFS: Sensitive - Migratory in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT) Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age/stage. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 2,000meters in order to encompass documented travel distances of some butterfly species as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by thelocational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Mar 19, 2025) Predicted Models: 20% Optimal (inductive), 60% Moderate (inductive), 20% Low (inductive) Global: G2G3 State: S1 USFWS: P Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 1700 meters inorder to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Jun 22, 2022) Predicted Models: 80% Moderate (inductive), 20% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 1,000 meters in order to encompass the maximum foraging distance from nests reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertaintyassociated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Predicted Models: 20% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) USFWSSec7 # SO # Obs PredictedModel Range 1 1 V - Impatiens ecalcarata (Spurless Touch-me-not)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 2 2 I - Danaus plexippus (Monarch)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 3 I - Bombus suckleyi (Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 11 26 B - Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Native / Year-round Summer Winter Migratory Non-native Historical Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 4 of 35 Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 200 meters in order to approximate the breeding territory size reported for the species in Idaho and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associatedwith the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 18, 2024) Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S2S3 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT)FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy based on the documented presence (mistnet captures, definitively identified acoustic recordings, or definitively identified roostingindividuals) of adults or juveniles. Point observation location is buffered by a distance of 1,600 meters in order to encompass the greater than 1,500 meters foraging distance reported forthe species in New Brunswick, Canada and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters. When cavelocations are involved, point observations are mapped in the center of a one-square mile hexagon to protect the exact location of the cave entrance as per the Federal Cave ResourceProtection Act and associated regulations (U.S. Code Title 16 Chapter 63, Code of Federal Regulations Title 43 Subtitle A Part 37). The outer edges of the hexagon are then buffered by adistance of 1,600 meters and otherwise by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters. All of the one-square mile hexagonsintersecting this buffered area are presented as the Species Occurrence record.(Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed nesting area buffered by a minimum distance of 6,500 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing the areas commonly used for foragingnear the breeding colony. If the locational uncertainty associated with the observation is greater than 5,000 meters, the observation is not valid for creation of a species occurrence. (Last Updated: May 02, 2025) Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S3B BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy based on the documented presence (mistnet captures, definitively identified acoustic recordings, and definitively identified roostingindividuals) of adults or juveniles during the active season. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 3,500 meters in order to be conservative about encompassingthe maximum reported foraging distance for the congeneric Lasiurus borealis and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximumdistance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 150 meters in order to conservatively encompass male territory size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 20, 2024) Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 125 meters in order to encompass the breeding home range size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with theobservation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Predicted Models: 30% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: BGEPA; MBTA USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO)BLM: SENSITIVE PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed nesting area buffered by a minimum distance of 2,000 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing the breeding territory and areacommonly used for renesting. Only nesting observations with a locational uncertainty of 1,000 meters or less will be used to delineate a nesting area.(Last Updated: Apr 14, 2025) Predicted Models: 10% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: LT BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3 Delineation Criteria Species Occurrence polygons represent areas delineated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that encompass both home ranges and potential transitorymovements based on verified sightings. Within these areas, the USFWS wants project proponents to consider whether the species “may be present” when evaluating the potential impactsof a project and to work with the USFWS to develop and implement best management practices to minimize or eliminate project effects on the species.(Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing home ranges andotherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 20, 2024) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Delineation Criteria Observations with evidence of breeding activity buffered by a minimum distance of 300 meters in order to be conservative about encompassing the courtship andforaging distance from nesting areas and otherwise buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters. (Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Global: G5 State: S2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 100 meters inorder to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Mar 22, 2016) 1 3 B - Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 M - Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 76 B - Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 M - Northern Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 8 9 B - Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 1 B - Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 88 B - Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)SSS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Special Status Species - Native Species 1 Not AssessedM - Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 4 Not AssessedB - Brown Creeper (Certhia americana)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 6 13 Not AssessedB - Cassin's Finch (Haemorhous cassinii)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedI - Isocapnia crinita (Hooked Snowfly)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species Page 5 of 35 Global: G4G5 State: S2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a resident animal of any age. Point observation location is buffered by a minimum distance of 100 meters inorder to encompass the home range of the individual as well as adjacent habitat likely to support other individuals and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated withthe observation up to a maximum distance of 10,000 meters.(Last Updated: Mar 22, 2016) Global: G5 State: S3S4 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO) Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG, HLC) Global: G3T3 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats CCVI: Moderately Vulnerable Delineation Criteria Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any pre-defined distance. Individualclusters of plants mapped at fine spatial scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50 meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distinctareas of habitat or terrain features. Point observations are buffered to encompass any locational uncertainty associated with the observation.(Last Updated: Dec 12, 2024) Global: G5 State: S3S4 Plant Threat Score: Unknown Delineation Criteria Individual occurrences are generally based upon a discretely mapped area provided by an observer and are not separated by any pre-defined distance. Individualclusters of plants mapped at fine spatial scales (separated by less than approximately 25-50 meters) may be grouped together into one occurrence if they are not separated by distinctareas of habitat or terrain features. Point observations are buffered to encompass any locational uncertainty associated with the observation.(Last Updated: Aug 23, 2017) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Delineation Criteria Confirmed breeding area based on the presence of a nest, chicks, or territorial adults during the breeding season. Point observation location is buffered by aminimum distance of 100 meters in order to encompass the maximum territory size reported for the species and otherwise is buffered by the locational uncertainty associated with theobservation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Dec 26, 2024) Global: GNR State: SNR Delineation Criteria Confirmed area of occupancy based on the documented presence of adults or juveniles of any bat species at non-cave natural roost sites (e.g. rock outcrops,trees), below ground human created roost sites (e.g. mines), and above ground human created roost sites (e.g., bridges, buildings). Point observation locations are buffered by a distanceof 4,500 meters in order to encompass the 95% confidence interval for nightly foraging distance reported for Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (a resident Montana bat Species of Concern) andotherwise by the locational uncertainty associated with the observation up to a maximum distance of 5,000 meters.(Last Updated: Oct 22, 2019) 1 Not AssessedI - Isocapnia integra (Alberta Snowfly)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedV - Cypripedium parviflorum (Small Yellow Lady's-slipper)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedV - Physaria saximontana var. dentata (Rocky Mountain Twinpod)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedV - Sphenopholis intermedia (Slender Wedgegrass)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 1 Not AssessedB - Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 6 Not Assessed O - Bat Roost (Non-Cave) (Bat Roost (Non-Cave))IAH View in Field Guide Important Animal Habitat - Native Species Page 6 of 35 Native Species Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Filtered by: Native Species reports are filtered for Species with MT Status = Species of Concern, Special Status, Important Animal Habitat, Potential SOC Other Observed Species Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 40% Optimal (inductive), 50% Moderate (inductive), 10% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 10% Optimal (inductive), 80% Moderate (inductive), 10% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 10% Optimal (inductive), 60% Moderate (inductive), 30% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 10% Optimal (inductive), 50% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 10% Optimal (inductive), 20% Moderate (inductive), 50% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: LT; CH BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 50% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 40% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 30% Moderate (inductive), 70% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 30% Moderate (inductive), 70% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 FWP SWAP: SGCN1 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) USFWSSec7 # Obs PredictedModel Range 4 B - Broad-tailed Hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 12 B - Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 4 B - Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 55 B - American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 M - Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 4 B - Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 M - North American Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 13 B - White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Veery (Catharus fuscescens)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Native / Year-round Summer Winter Migratory Non-native Historical Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 7 of 35 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 90% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 80% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Predicted Models: 70% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGIN PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 70% Low (inductive) Global: G3 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC17 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 50% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 50% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 20% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 10% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 10% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: S3 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN Predicted Models: 10% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: MBTA USFS: Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (FLAT)FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Global: G5 State: S3 USFWS: BGEPA; MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 Global: G5 State: S2 USFWS: MBTA FWP SWAP: SGCN2, SGIN Global: G5 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC10; BCC11 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 3 21 B - Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 8 B - Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 5 B - Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Common Poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Pinyon Jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 B - Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 B - Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 B - Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 R - Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) 2 Not AssessedB - American Goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 3 Not AssessedB - Clark's Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 11 Not AssessedB - Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 Not AssessedB - Franklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 2 Not AssessedB - Clark's Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species Page 8 of 35 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO)FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 2 Global: G5 State: S2B USFWS: MBTA Global: G5 State: S3S4B USFWS: MBTA 5 Not AssessedB - Common Loon (Gavia immer)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 6 Not AssessedB - Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 3 Not AssessedB - Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 40 Not AssessedB - Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species 1 Not AssessedB - Tennessee Warbler (Leiothlypis peregrina)PSOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species Page 9 of 35 Native Species Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Filtered by: Native Species reports are filtered for Species with MT Status = Species of Concern, Special Status, Important Animal Habitat, Potential SOC Other Potential Species Global: G4 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats CCVI: Highly Vulnerable Predicted Models: 10% Optimal (inductive), 10% Moderate (inductive), 50% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: PS: LT; MBTA BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 90% Moderate (inductive), 10% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SU FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 80% Moderate (inductive), 10% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 USFS: Species of Conservation Concern in Forests (CG, FLAT, HLC)Plant Threat Score: Unknown CCVI: Less Vulnerable Predicted Models: 60% Moderate (inductive), 30% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S2S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN2-3 Predicted Models: 40% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2S3 Plant Threat Score: Low Predicted Models: 40% Moderate (inductive), 50% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Predicted Models: 40% Moderate (inductive), 50% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 20% Moderate (inductive), 80% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SU Predicted Models: 20% Moderate (inductive), 80% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SU FWP SWAP: SGIN Predicted Models: 10% Moderate (inductive), 70% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3S4 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Predicted Models: 10% Moderate (inductive), 70% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S4 USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 PIF: 3 Predicted Models: 10% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) USFWSSec7 PredictedModel Range V - Potentilla plattensis (Platte Cinquefoil)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species B - Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Uinta Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus armatus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species V - Eleocharis rostellata (Beaked Spikerush)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Dwarf Shrew (Sorex nanus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species V - Carex crawei (Crawe's Sedge)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Impatiens aurella (Pale-yellow Jewel-weed)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Merriam's Shrew (Sorex merriami)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Wyoming Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus elegans)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species M - Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species V - Ranunculus hyperboreus (High Northern Buttercup)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species B - Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Native / Year-round Summer Winter Migratory Non-native Historical Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 10 of 35 Global: G5 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN PIF: 2 Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: G3G4 State: S2 Plant Threat Score: Low CCVI: Highly Vulnerable Predicted Models: 80% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: S3 Predicted Models: 50% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2 Plant Threat Score: No Known Threats Predicted Models: 40% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S4 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3, SGIN Predicted Models: 40% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S2 USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (BD, BRT, KOOT, LOLO)BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 Predicted Models: 30% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2S3 Plant Threat Score: Unknown Predicted Models: 30% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S3 Plant Threat Score: Unknown Predicted Models: 20% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: S2 Plant Threat Score: Low CCVI: Less Vulnerable Predicted Models: 20% Low (inductive) Global: G4 State: S3 USFWS: LT USFS: Sensitive - Known in Forests (LOLO)BLM: THREATENED FWP SWAP: SGCN3 Predicted Models: 10% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: S2 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN2 Predicted Models: 10% Suitable (introduced range) (deductive) Global: G3G4 State: S3B USFWS: MBTA; BCC11; BCC17 BLM: SENSITIVE FWP SWAP: SGCN3 PIF: 1 B - Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Castilleja gracillima (Slender Indian Paintbrush)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Stellaria crassifolia (Fleshy Stitchwort)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)PSOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Potential Species of Concern - Native Species A - Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Dichanthelium acuminatum (Panic Grass)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Atriplex truncata (Wedge-leaf Saltbush)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species V - Erigeron linearis (Linear-leaf Fleabane)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species M - Wolverine (Gulo gulo)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species F - Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus virginalis)SOC View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) Not AssessedB - Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii)SOC View in Field Guide View Range Maps Species of Concern - Native Species Page 11 of 35 Structured Surveys Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) records informaon on the locaons where more than 80 different types of well-defined repeatable survey protocols capable of detecng an animal species or suite of animal species have been conducted by state, federal, tribal, university, or private consulng biologists. Examples of structured survey protocols tracked by MTNHPinclude: visual encounter and dip net surveys for pond breeding amphibians, point counts for birds, call playback surveys for selected bird species, visual surveys of migrang raptors, kick net stream reach surveys for macroinvertebrates, visual encounter cover object surveys for terrestrial mollusks, bat acousc or mist net surveys, piall and/or snap trap surveys for small terrestrial mammals, track or camera trap surveys for large mammals, and trap surveys for turtles. Whenever possible, photographs of survey locaons are stored in MTNHP databases. MTNHP does not typically manage informaon on structured surveys for plants; surveys for invasive species may be a future excepon. Within the report area you have requested, structured surveys are summarized by the number of each type of structured survey protocol that has been conducted, the number of species detecons/observaons resulng from these surveys, and the most recent year a survey has been conducted. E-Eastern Heath Snail (Eastern Heath Snail Survey)Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: Recent Survey: 2023 E-Eurasian Water-milfoil Rake (Rake tows/pulls for Eurasian Water-milfoil)Survey Count: 39 Obs Count: 67 Recent Survey: 2024 E-Invasive Mussel Plankton Tow (Plankton tows for veligers of Invasive Mussels)Survey Count: 46 Obs Count: Recent Survey: 2024 E-Kicknet (Kicknet Collection Survey for Invasive Mussels and Snails)Survey Count: 41 Obs Count: 25 Recent Survey: 2024 E-Noxious Weed, Road-based (Noxious Weed Road-based Visual Surveys)Survey Count: 6 Obs Count: 18 Recent Survey: 2004 E-Visual Aquatic Invasives (Visual Encounter Surveys for Aquatic Invasives on Shorelines or Underwater)Survey Count: 7 Obs Count: 4 Recent Survey: 2024 F-Fish Other Survey (Fish Other Survey (FWP Survey Type))Survey Count: 6 Obs Count: 3 Recent Survey: 1961 I-Aquatic Invert Lotic Dipnet (Invertebrate Lotic Site Dipnet and Visual Encounter Survey)Survey Count: 1 Obs Count: 1 Recent Survey: 1998 I-Bumble Bee (Bumble Bee Collection Surveys)Survey Count: 7 Obs Count: 14 Recent Survey: 2015 I-Crayfish (Crayfish Survey)Survey Count: 2 Obs Count: 2 Recent Survey: 1981 I-Odonates/Butterfly VES (Visual Encounter Survey for Damselfly/Dragonfly/Butterfly)Survey Count: 2 Obs Count: 2 Recent Survey: 1914 M-Bat Acoustic (Bat Acoustic Survey)Survey Count: 2 Obs Count: Recent Survey: 2010 A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 12 of 35 No Image Land Cover Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) 30% (1,906Acres) Human Land Use Agriculture Cultivated Crops These areas used for the production of crops, such as corn, soybeans, small grains, sunflowers, vegetables, and cotton, typically on an annual cycle. Agricultural plant cover is variable depending on season and type of farming. Other areas include more stable land cover of orchards andvineyards. 26% (1,678Acres) Grassland Systems Montane Grassland Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill, and Valley Grassland This grassland system of the northern Rocky Mountains is found at lower montane to foothill elevations in mountains and valleys throughout Montana. These grasslands are floristically similar to Big Sagebrush Steppe but are defined by shorter summers, colder winters, and youngsoils derived from recent glacial and alluvial material. They are found at elevations from 548 - 1,650 meters (1,800-5,413 feet). In the lower montane zone, they range from small meadows to large open parks surrounded by conifers; below the lower treeline, they occur as extensive foothill and valley grasslands. Soils are relatively deep, fine-textured, often with coarse fragments, and non-saline. Microphytic crust may bepresent in high-quality occurrences. This system is typified by cool-season perennial bunch grasses and forbs (>25%) cover, with a sparse shrub cover (<10%). Rough fescue (Festuca campestris) is dominant in the northwestern portion of the state and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) is dominant or co-dominant throughout the range of the system. Bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) occurs as aco-dominant throughout the range as well, especially on xeric sites. Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) is consistently present, often with appreciable coverage (>10%) in lower elevation occurrences in western Montana and virtually always present, with relatively highcoverages (>25%), on the edge of the Northwestern Great Plains region. Species diversity ranges from a high of more than 50 per 400square meter plot on mesic sites to 15 (or fewer) on xeric and disturbed sites. Most occurrences have at least 25 vascular species present. Farmland conversion, noxious species invasion, fire suppression, heavy grazing and oil and gas development are major threats to thissystem. 15% (930Acres) Human Land Use Developed Other Roads County, city and or rural roads generally open to motor vehicles. 8% (529Acres) Human Land Use Developed Low Intensity Residential Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-50% of total cover. These areasmost commonly include single-family housing units in rural and suburban areas. Paved roadways may be classified into this category. A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 13 of 35 No Image 5% (331Acres) Human Land Use Developed High Intensity Residential Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-80% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units in urban areas. Paved roadways, parking lots, and other large impervious surfaces may be classified into this category. 5% (304Acres) Human Land Use Developed Developed, Open Space Vegetation (primarily grasses) planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. This category often includes highway and railway rights of way and graveled rural roads. 4% (264Acres) Human Land UseDeveloped Commercial / Industrial Businesses, industrial parks, hospitals, airports; utilities in commercial/industrial areas. 3% (186Acres) Recently Disturbed or Modified Introduced Vegetation Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual and Biennial Forbland Land cover is significantly altered/disturbed by introduced annual and biennial forbs. Natural vegetation types are no longer recognizable. Typical species that dominate these areas are knapweed, oxeye daisy, Canada thistle, leafy spurge, pepperweed, and yellow sweetclover. 2% (133Acres) Human Land UseAgriculture Pasture/Hay These agriculture lands typically have perennial herbaceous cover (e.g. regularly-shaped plantings) used for livestock grazing or the productionof hay. There are obvious signs of management such as irrigation and haying that distinguish it from natural grasslands. Identified CRP lands are included in this land cover type. Additional Limited Land Cover 1% (54 Acres)Major Roads 1% (46 Acres)Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland <1% (14 Acres)Open Water <1% (10 Acres)Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow <1% (5 Acres)Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow <1% (5 Acres)Big Sagebrush Steppe <1% (0 Acres)Emergent Marsh <1% (0 Acres)Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest <1% (0 Acres)Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland Page 14 of 35 3 Acres x - Excavated 3 Acres PUBFx F - Semipermanently Flooded <1 Acres x - Excavated <1 Acres PUBKx K - Artificially Flooded UB - Unconsolidated Bottom P - Palustrine, UB - Unconsolidated BottomWetlands where mud, silt or similar fine particles cover at least25% of the bottom, and where vegetation cover is less than30%. 27 Acres (no modifier)<1 Acres PABF h - Diked/Impounded 2 Acres PABFhx - Excavated 25 Acres PABFx F - Semipermanently Flooded 14 Acres x - Excavated 14 Acres PABGx G - Intermittently Exposed AB - Aquatic Bed P - Palustrine, AB - Aquatic BedWetlands with vegetation growing on or below the watersurface for most of the growing season. 2 Acres h - Diked/Impounded 2 Acres PUSAh A - Temporarily Flooded 1 Acres x - Excavated 1 Acres PUSCx C - Seasonally Flooded US - Unconsolidated Shore P - Palustrine, US - Unconsolidated ShoreWetlands with less than 75% areal cover of stones, boulders,or bedrock. AND with less than 30% vegetative cover ANDthe wetland is irregularly exposed due to seasonal or irregularflooding and subsequent drying. 376 Acres (no modifier)371 Acres PEMA h - Diked/Impounded <1 Acres PEMAhx - Excavated 5 Acres PEMAx A - Temporarily Flooded 26 Acres (no modifier)13 Acres PEMC x - Excavated 13 Acres PEMCx C - Seasonally Flooded <1 Acres x - Excavated <1 Acres PEMFx F - Semipermanently Flooded EM - Emergent P - Palustrine, EM - EmergentWetlands with erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation presentduring most of the growing season. P - Palustrine Wetland and Riparian Mapping Wetland and Riparian Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 15 of 35 7 Acres (no modifier)7 Acres PSSA A - Temporarily Flooded 1 Acres (no modifier)1 Acres PSSCx - Excavated <1 Acres PSSCx C - Seasonally Flooded SS - Scrub-Shrub P - Palustrine, SS - Scrub-ShrubWetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters(20 feet) tall. Woody vegetation includes tree saplings andtrees that are stunted due to environmental conditions. 5 Acres x - Excavated 5 Acres R3UBFx F - Semipermanently Flooded <1 Acres (no modifier)<1 Acres R3UBG G - Intermittently Exposed UB - Unconsolidated Bottom R - Riverine (Rivers), 3 - Upper Perennial, UB -Unconsolidated BottomStream channels where the substrate is at least 25% mud, siltor other fine particles. 1 Acres (no modifier)1 Acres R4SBA A - Temporarily Flooded 4 Acres (no modifier)3 Acres R4SBCx - Excavated 1 Acres R4SBCx C - Seasonally Flooded SB - Stream Bed R - Riverine (Rivers), 4 - Intermittent, SB - Stream BedActive channel that contains periodic water flow. R - Riverine (Rivers) 3 - Upper Perennial 4 - Intermittent (no modifier)8 Acres Rp1SS SS - Scrub-Shrub Rp - Riparian, 1 - Lotic, SS - Scrub-ShrubThis type of riparian area is dominated by woody vegetationthat is less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. Woody vegetationincludes tree saplings and trees that are stunted due toenvironmental conditions. (no modifier)28 Acres Rp1FO FO - Forested Rp - Riparian, 1 - Lotic, FO - ForestedThis riparian class has woody vegetation that is greater than 6meters (20 feet) tall. (no modifier)1 Acres Rp2SS SS - Scrub-Shrub Rp - Riparian, 2 - Lentic, SS - Scrub-ShrubThis type of riparian area is dominated by woody vegetationthat is less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall. Woody vegetationincludes tree saplings and trees that are stunted due toenvironmental conditions. (no modifier)1 Acres Rp2FO FO - Forested Rp - Riparian, 2 - Lentic, FO - ForestedThis riparian class has woody vegetation that is greater than 6meters (20 feet) tall. Rp - Riparian 1 - Lotic 2 - Lentic Page 16 of 35 Land Management Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Land Management Summary Ownership Tribal Easements Other Boundaries(possible overlap) Public Lands 468 Acres (7%) State 465 Acres (7%) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 16 Acres (<1%) MTFWP Owned 16 Acres (<1%) MTFWP Fishing Access Sites 16 Acres Bozeman Pond Fishing Access Site 16 Acres Montana University System 449 Acres (7%) MUS Owned 449 Acres (7%) Local 3 Acres (<1%) Local Government 3 Acres (<1%) Local Government Owned 3 Acres (<1%) Conservation Easements 192 Acres (3%) Private 192 Acres (3%) Gallatin Valley Land Trust 192 Acres (3%) Private Lands or Unknown Ownership 5,736 Acres (90%) A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 17 of 35 Biological Reports Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Within the report area you have requested, citaons for all reports and publicaons associated with plant or animal observaons in Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) databases are listed and, where possible, links to the documents are included. The MTNHP plans to include reports associated with terrestrial and aquac communies in the future as allowed for by staff resources. If you know of reports or publicaons associated with species or biological communies within the report area that are not shown in this report, please let us know: mtnhp@mt.gov Bauer, Brad. 2016. [AIS surveys of selected waterbodies in Gallatin and Lewis & Clark counties] Report for Montana Department of Natural Resources. Reclamation and Development Grant RITA-16-8821. MSU Extension of Gallatin County. Burns, E.E. 2017. Genetic and physiological characterization and ecological management of non-target site resistance in multiple herbicide resistant Avena fatua L. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 175 p. Gaudet, D.A. 1978. The role of bacteria in the root and crown rot complex of irrigated sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.) in Montana. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 88 p. Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. GYA Weed Mapping Update and Database Augmentation. 2000-04. Hodgson, J.R. 1970. Ecological distribution of Microtus montanus and Microtus pennsylvanicus in an area of geographic sympatry in southwestern Montana. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State University. 65 p. A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Page 18 of 35 Invasive and Pest Species Summarized by: CS0727212 (Custom Area of Interest) Aquatic Invasive Species Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 30% Optimal (inductive), 70% Moderate (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Suitable (introduced range) (deductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Suitable (introduced range) (deductive) Global: G5 State: S5 Global: G5 State: SNA Noxious Weeds: Priority 1A Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Optimal (inductive), 30% Moderate (inductive) Global: G5T5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 60% Optimal (inductive), 40% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 60% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) Global: G4G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 40% Low (inductive) Noxious Weeds: Priority 1B Global: GNRTNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Optimal (inductive), 30% Moderate (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 20% Optimal (inductive), 70% Moderate (inductive), 10% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 20% Low (inductive) Noxious Weeds: Priority 2A # Obs PredictedModel Range V - Iris pseudacorus (Yellowflag Iris)N2A/AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species V - Nymphaea odorata (American Water-lily)AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species V - Nymphoides peltata (Yellow Floating Heart)AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species 8 Not AssessedI - Faxonius virilis (Virile Crayfish)AIS View in Field Guide View Range Maps Aquatic Invasive Species - Native/Non-native Species - (depends on location or taxa) 3 Not AssessedV - Potamogeton crispus (Curly-leaf Pondweed)N2B/AIS View in Field Guide View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species 1 V - Isatis tinctoria (Dyer's Woad)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species 2 V - Phragmites australis ssp. australis (European Common Reed)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species V - Centaurea solstitialis (Yellow Starthistle)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species V - Taeniatherum caput-medusae (Medusahead)N1A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1A - Non-native Species 2 V - Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese Knotweed)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Lythrum salicaria (Purple Loosestrife)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Echium vulgare (Blueweed)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species V - Chondrilla juncea (Rush Skeletonweed)N1B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 1B - Non-native Species A program of the Montana State Library'sNatural Resource Information System Legend Model Icons Suitable (native range) Optimal Suitability Moderate Suitability Low Suitability Suitable (introduced range) Habitat Icons Common Occasional Range Icons Non-native Num ObsCount of obs with'good precision'(<=1000m) + indicatesadditional 'poorprecision' obs(1001m-10,000m) Page 19 of 35 Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Optimal (inductive), 30% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Optimal (inductive), 30% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 30% Optimal (inductive), 70% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Moderate (inductive), 30% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 30% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 20% Moderate (inductive), 80% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 20% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 40% Low (inductive) Noxious Weeds: Priority 2B Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 80% Optimal (inductive), 20% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 20% Optimal (inductive), 80% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 80% Moderate (inductive), 20% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 80% Moderate (inductive), 20% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Moderate (inductive), 30% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 70% Moderate (inductive), 30% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 60% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) 2 V - Ranunculus acris (Tall Buttercup)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Rhamnus cathartica (Common Buckthorn)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Iris pseudacorus (Yellowflag Iris)N2A/AIS View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species V - Ventenata dubia (Ventenata)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Hieracium aurantiacum (Orange Hawkweed)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Lepidium latifolium (Perennial Pepperweed)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Senecio jacobaea (Tansy Ragwort)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species V - Hieracium caespitosum (Meadow Hawkweed)N2A View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2A - Non-native Species 2 V - Berteroa incana (Hoary False-alyssum)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 5 V - Lepidium draba (Whitetop)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 5 V - Cynoglossum officinale (Common Hound's-tongue)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Linaria vulgaris (Yellow Toadflax)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 1 V - Tanacetum vulgare (Common Tansy)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Centaurea diffusa (Diffuse Knapweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 1 V - Linaria dalmatica (Dalmatian Toadflax)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Euphorbia virgata (Leafy Spurge)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species Page 20 of 35 Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 50% Moderate (inductive), 50% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 50% Moderate (inductive), 50% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 30% Moderate (inductive), 70% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Predicted Models: 10% Moderate (inductive), 90% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 10% Moderate (inductive), 80% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 80% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 60% Low (inductive) Global: G5 State: SNA Regulated Weeds: Priority 3 Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 60% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 40% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) Biocontrol Species Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 20% Optimal (inductive), 80% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 100% Moderate (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 50% Moderate (inductive), 40% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 10% Moderate (inductive), 60% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 60% Low (inductive) Global: GNR State: SNA Predicted Models: 40% Low (inductive) 5 V - Centaurea stoebe (Spotted Knapweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 2 V - Convolvulus arvensis (Field Bindweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 3 V - Leucanthemum vulgare (Oxeye Daisy)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 13 V - Cirsium arvense (Canada Thistle)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Acroptilon repens (Russian Knapweed)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Potentilla recta (Sulphur Cinquefoil)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species V - Hypericum perforatum (Common St. John's-wort)N2B View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Non-native Species 3 Not AssessedV - Potamogeton crispus (Curly-leaf Pondweed)N2B/AIS View in Field Guide View Range Maps Noxious Weed: Priority 2B - Aquatic Invasive Species - Non-native Species 3 V - Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian Olive)R3 View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Regulated Weed: Priority 3 - Non-native Species 1 V - Bromus tectorum (Cheatgrass)R3 View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Regulated Weed: Priority 3 - Non-native Species I - Mecinus janthinus (Yellow Toadflax Stem-boring Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Mecinus janthiniformis (Dalmatian Toadflax Stem-boring Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Aphthona lacertosa (Brown-legged Leafy Spurge Flea Beetle)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Oberea erythrocephala (Red-headed Leafy Spurge Stem Borer)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Cyphocleonus achates (Knapweed Root Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species I - Aphthona nigriscutis (Black Dot Leafy Spurge Flea Beetle)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide View Predicted Models View Range Maps Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species Page 21 of 35 Global: GNR State: SNA 1 Not Assessed I - Rhinocyllus conicus (Thistle Seedhead Weevil)BIOCNTRL View in Field Guide Biocontrol Species - Non-native Species Page 22 of 35 Introduction to Montana Natural Heritage Program PO Box 201800 ⚫ 1201 11th Avenue ⚫ Helena, MT 59620-1800 ⚫ fax 406.444.0266 ⚫ phone 406.444.3989 ⚫ mtnhp.mt.gov INTRODUCTION The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is Montana’s source for reliable and objective information on Montana’s native species and habitats, emphasizing those of conservation concern. MTNHP was created by the Montana legislature in 1983 as part of the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) at the Montana State Library (MSL). MTNHP is “a program of information acquisition, storage, and retrieval for data relating to the flora, fauna, and biological community types of Montana” (MCA 90-15-102). MTNHP’s activities are guided by statute as well as through ongoing interaction with, and feedback from, principal data source agencies such as Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Montana University System, the US Forest Service, and the US Bureau of Land Management. Since the first staff was hired in 1985, the Program has logged a long record of success, and developed into a highly respected, service-oriented program. MTNHP is widely recognized as one of the most advanced and effective of over 60 natural heritage programs that are distributed across North America. VISION Our vision is that public agencies, the private sector, the education sector, and the general public will trust and rely upon MTNHP as the source for information and expertise on Montana’s species and habitats, especially those of conservation concern. We strive to provide easy access to our information to allow users to save time and money, speed environmental reviews, and make informed decisions. CORE VALUES • We endeavor to be a single statewide source of accurate and up-to-date information on Montana’s plants, animals, and aquatic and terrestrial biological communities. • We actively listen to our data users and work responsively to meet their information and training needs. • We strive to provide neutral, trusted, timely, and equitable service to all of our information users. • We make every effort to be transparent to our data users in setting work priorities and providing data products. CONFIDENTIALITY All information requests made to the Montana Natural Heritage Program are considered library records and are protected from disclosure by the Montana Library Records Confidentiality Act (MCA 22-1-11). INFORMATION MANAGED Information managed at the Montana Natural Heritage Program is botanical, zoological, and ecological information that describes the distribution (e.g., observations, structured surveys, range polygons, predicted habitat suitability models), conservation status (e.g., global and state conservation status ranks, including threats), and other supporting information (e.g., accounts and references) on the biology and ecology of species and biological communities. Page 23 of 35 Data Use Terms and Conditions • Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) products and services are based on biological data and the objective interpretation of those data by professional scientists. MTNHP does not advocate any particular philosophy of natural resource protection, management, development, or public policy. • MTNHP has no natural resource management or regulatory authority. Products, statements, and services from MTNHP are intended to inform parties as to the state of scientific knowledge about certain natural resources, and to further develop that knowledge. The information is not intended as natural resource management guidelines or prescriptions or a determination of environmental impacts. MTNHP recommends consultation with appropriate state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies and authorities in the area where your project is located. • Information on the status and spatial distribution of biological resources produced by MTNHP are intended to inform parties of the state-wide status, known occurrence, or the likelihood of the presence of those resources. These products are not intended to substitute for field-collected data, nor are they intended to be the sole basis for natural resource management decisions. • MTNHP does not portray its data as exhaustive or comprehensive inventories of rare species or biological communities. Field verification of the absence or presence of sensitive species and biological communities will always be an important obligation of users of our data. • MTNHP responds equally to all requests for products and services, regardless of the purpose or identity of the requester. • Because MTNHP constantly updates and revises its databases with new data and information, products will become outdated over time. Interested parties are encouraged to obtain the most current information possible from MTNHP, rather than using older products. We add, review, update, and delete records on a daily basis. Consequently, we strongly advise that you update your MTNHP data sets at a minimum of every four months for most applications of our information. • MTNHP data require a certain degree of biological expertise for proper analysis, interpretation, and application. Our staff is available to advise you on questions regarding the interpretation or appropriate use of the data that we provide. See Contact Information for MTNHP Staff • The information provided to you by MTNHP may include sensitive data that if publicly released might jeopardize the welfare of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species or biological communities. This information is intended for distribution or use only within your department, agency, or business. Subcontractors may have access to the data during the course of any given project, but should not be given a copy for their use on subsequent, unrelated work. • MTNHP data are made freely available. Duplication of hard-copy or digital MTNHP products with the intent to sell is prohibited without written consent by MTNHP. Should you be asked by individuals outside your organization for the type of data that we provide, please refer them to MTNHP. • MTNHP and appropriate staff members should be appropriately acknowledged as an information source in any third- party product involving MTNHP data, reports, papers, publications, or in maps that incorporate MTNHP graphic elements. • Sources of our data include museum specimens, published and unpublished scientific literature, field surveys by state and federal agencies and private contractors, and reports from knowledgeable individuals. MTNHP actively solicits and encourages additions, corrections and updates, new observations or collections, and comments on any of the data we provide. • MTNHP staff and contractors do not enter or cross privately-owned lands without express permission from the landowner. However, the program cannot guarantee that information provided to us by others was obtained under adherence to this policy. Page 24 of 35 Suggested Contacts for Natural Resource Management Agencies As required by Montana statute (MCA 90-15), the Montana Natural Heritage Program works with state, federal, tribal, nongovernmental organizations, and private partners to ensure that the latest animal and plant distribution and status information is incorporated into our databases so that it can be used to inform a variety of permitting and planning processes and management decisions. We encourage you to contact state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies in the area where your project is located and review the permitting overviews by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the Index of Environmental Permits for Montana for guidelines relevant to your efforts. In particular, we encourage you to contact the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks for the latest data and management information regarding hunted and high-profile management species and to use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information Planning and Consultation (IPAC) website regarding U.S. Endangered Species Act listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. For your convenience, we have compiled a list of relevant agency contacts and links below: Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Fish Species Zachary Shattuck zshattuck@mt.gov (406) 444-1231 or Eric Roberts eroberts@mt.gov (406) 444-5334 American Bison Black-footed Ferret Black-tailed Prairie Dog Bald Eagle Golden Eagle Common Loon Least Tern Piping Plover Whooping Crane Kristina Smucker KSmucker@mt.gov (406) 444-5209 Grizzly Bear Greater Sage Grouse Trumpeter Swan Big Game Upland Game Birds Furbearers Brian Wakeling brian.wakeling@mt.gov (406) 444-3940 Managed Terrestrial Game Data Adam Messer – MFWP GIS Coordinator amesser@mt.gov (406) 444-0095 Fisheries Data and Nongame Animal Data Adam Messer – MFWP GIS Coordinator amesser@mt.gov (406) 444-0095 Wildlife and Fisheries Scientific Collector’s Permits https://fwp.mt.gov/buyandapply/commercialwildlifeandscientificpermits/scientific Kristina Smucker for Wildlife ksmucker@mt.gov (406) 444-5209 Dave Schmetterling for Fisheries dschmetterling@mt.gov (406) 542-5514 Fish and Wildlife Recommendations for Subdivision Development Stevie Burton stevie.burton@mt.gov (406) 594-7354 See https://fwp.mt.gov/conservation/living-with-wildlife/subdivision-recommendations Regional Contacts • Region 1 (Kalispell) (406) 752-5501 fwprg12@mt.gov • Region 2 (Missoula) (406) 542-5500 fwprg22@mt.gov • Region 3 (Bozeman) (406) 577-7900 fwprg3@mt.gov • Region 4 (Great Falls) (406) 454-5840 fwprg42@mt.gov • Region 5 (Billings) (406) 247-2940 fwprg52@mt.gov • Region 6 (Glasgow) (406) 228-3700 fwprg62@mt.gov • Region 7 (Miles City) (406) 234-0900 fwprg72@mt.gov Page 25 of 35 Montana Conservation Districts Clickable map for contact information across Montana: https://macdnet.org/conservation-district-map/ Montana Association of Conservation Districts Resources Directory: https://macdnet.org/resources Montana Department of Agriculture General Contact Information: https://agr.mt.gov/About/Office-Locations/Office-Locations-and-Field-Offices Noxious Weeds: https://agr.mt.gov/Noxious-Weeds Montana Department of Environmental Quality Permitting and Operator Assistance for all Environmental Permits: https://deq.mt.gov/Permitting Opencut Mining Web Mapping Application for review of opencut mining applications https://gis.mtdeq.us/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7b60084bc4c444a19c9a7a0867e7635a Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Overview of, and contacts for, licenses and permits for state lands, water, and forested lands: https://dnrc.mt.gov/Permits-Services Stream Permitting (310 permits) and an overview of various water and stream related permits (e.g., Stream Protection Act 124, Federal Clean Water Act 404, Federal Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10, Short-term Water Quality Standard for Turbidity 318 Authorization, etc.). https://dnrc.mt.gov/Licenses-and-Permits/Stream-Permitting Wildfire Resources: https://dnrc.mt.gov/Forestry/Wildfire Bureau of Land Management Montana Field Office Contacts: Billings (406) 896-5013 Butte (406) 533-7600 Dillon (406) 683-8000 Glasgow (406) 228-3750 Havre (406) 262-2820 Lewistown (406) 538-1900 Malta (406) 654-5100 Miles City (406) 233-2800 Missoula (406) 329-3914 United States Army Corps of Engineers Montana Regulatory Office for federal permits related to construction in water and wetlands https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Program/Montana/ Email for questions: Montana.Reg@usace.army.mil Phone for questions: (406) 441-1375 United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental information, notices, permitting, and contacts https://www.epa.gov/mt Gateway to state resource locators https://www.envcap.org/srl/index.php United States Fish and Wildlife Service Information Planning and Conservation (IPAC) website: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov Montana Ecological Services Field Office: https://www.fws.gov/office/montana-ecological-services (406) 449-5225 Page 26 of 35 United States Forest Service Regional Office – Missoula, Montana Contacts Assistant Regional TES PM Diane Probasco diane.probasco@usda.gov (307) 709-2292 Assessment/Planning Wildlife Ecologist T.J. Fontaine jospeh.fontaine@usda.gov (406) 802-0617 Interagency Grizzly Bear Coordinator Scott Jackson scott.jackson@usda.gov (406) 329-3664 Regional Botanist Amanda Hendrix amanda.hendrix@usda.gov (651) 447-3016 Regional Vegetation Ecologist Mary Manning mary.manning@usda.gov (406) 329-3304 Invasive Species Program Manager Michelle Cox michelle.cox2@usda.gov (406) 329-3669 Regional Hydrologist Andy Efta james.efta@usda.gov (406) 329-3447 Tribal Nations Assiniboine & Gros Ventre Tribes – Fort Belknap Reservation Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes – Fort Peck Reservation Blackfeet Tribe - Blackfeet Reservation Chippewa Creek Tribe - Rocky Boy’s Reservation Crow Tribe – Crow Reservation Little Shell Chippewa Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe – Northern Cheyenne Reservation Salish & Kootenai Tribes - Flathead Reservation Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in Surrounding States and Provinces Alberta Conservation Information Management System British Columbia Conservation Data Centre Idaho Natural Heritage Program North Dakota Natural Heritage Program Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre South Dakota Natural Heritage Program Wyoming Natural Diversity Database Invasive Species Management Contacts and Information Aquatic Invasive Species Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Aquatic Invasive Species staff Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation's Aquatic Invasive Species Grant Program Montana Invasive Species Council (MISC) Western Montana Conservation Commission Noxious Weeds Montana Weed Control Association Contacts Webpage Montana Biological Weed Control Coordination Project Montana Department of Agriculture - Noxious Weeds Montana Weed Control Association Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks - Noxious Weeds Montana State University Integrated Pest Management Extension Integrated Noxious Weed Management after Wildfires Fire Management and Invasive Plants Page 27 of 35 Introduction to Native Species Within the report area you have requested, separate summaries are provided for: (1) Species Occurrences (SO) for plant and animal Species of Concern, Special Status Species (SSS), Important Animal Habitat (IAH) and some Potential Plant Species of Concern; (2) other observed non Species of Concern or Species of Concern without suitable documentation to create Species Occurrence polygons; and (3) other non-documented species that are potentially present based on their range, predicted suitable habitat model output, or presence of associated habitats. Each of these summaries provides the following information when present for a species: (1) the number of Species Occurrences and associated delineation criteria for construction of these polygons that have long been used for considerations of documented Species of Concern in environmental reviews; (2) the number of observations of each species; (3) the geographic range polygons for each species that the report area overlaps; (4) predicted relative habitat suitability classes that are present if a predicted suitable habitat model has been created; (5) the percent of the report area that is mapped as commonly associated or occasionally associated habitat as listed for each species in the Montana Field Guide; and (6) a variety of conservation status ranks and links to species accounts in the Montana Field Guide. Details on each of these information categories are included under relevant section headers below or are defined on our Species Status Codes page. In presenting this information, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is working towards assisting the user with rapidly determining what species have been documented and what species are potentially present in the report area. We remind users that this information is likely incomplete as surveys to document native and introduced species are lacking in many areas of the state, information on introduced species has only been tracked relatively recently, the MTNHP’s staff and resources are restricted by budgets, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Thus, field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species and biological communities will always be an important obligation of users of our data. If you are aware of observation datasets that the MTNHP is missing, please report them to the Program Botanist apipp@mt.gov or Senior Zoologist dbachen@mt.gov If you have animal or plant observations that you would like to contribute, you can also submit them via Excel spreadsheets, geodatabases, iNaturalist, or a Survey123 form. Various methods of data submission are reviewed in this playlist of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRaydtZpHu2qOHPoSPq9cnM9uXGmEXACx Observations The MTNHP manages information on several million animal and plant observations that have been reported by professional biologists and private citizens from across Montana. The majority of these observations are submitted in digital format from standardized databases associated with research or monitoring efforts and spreadsheets of incidental observations submitted by professional biologists and amateur naturalists. At a minimum, accepted observation records must contain a credible species identification (i.e. appropriate geographic range, date, and habitat and, if species are difficult to identify, a photograph and/or notes on key identifying features), a date or date range, observer name, locational information (ideally with latitude and longitude in decimal degrees), notes on numbers observed, and species behavior or habitat use (e.g., is the observation likely associated with reproduction). Bird records are also required to have information associated with date-appropriate breeding or overwintering status of the species observed. MTNHP reviews observation records to ensure that they are mapped correctly, occur within date ranges when the species is known to be present or detectable, occur within the known seasonal geographic range of the species, and occur in appropriate habitats. MTNHP also assigns each record a locational uncertainty value in meters to indicate the spatial precision associated with the record’s mapped coordinates. Only records with locational uncertainty values of 10,000 meters or less are included in environmental summary reports and number summaries are only provided for records with locational uncertainty values of 1,000 meters or less. Page 28 of 35 Species Occurrences The MTNHP evaluates plant and animal observation records for species of higher conservation concern to determine whether they are worthy of inclusion in the Species Occurrence (SO) layer for use in environmental reviews; observations not worthy of inclusion in this layer include long distance dispersal events, migrants observed away from key migratory stopover habitats, and winter observations. An SO is a polygon depicting what is known about a species occupancy from direct observation with a defined level of locational uncertainty and any inference that can be made about adjacent habitat use from the latest peer-reviewed science. If an observation can be associated with a map feature that can be tracked (e.g., a wetland boundary for a wetland associated plant) then this polygon feature is used to represent the SO. Areas that can be inferred as probable occupied habitat based on direct observation of a species location and what is known about the foraging area or home range size of the species may be incorporated into the SO. Species Occurrences generally belong to one of the following categories: Plant Species Occurrences A documented location of a specimen collection or observed plant population. In some instances, adjacent, spatially separated clusters are considered subpopulations and are grouped as one occurrence (e.g., the subpopulations occur in ecologically similar habitats, and their spatial proximity likely allows them to interbreed). Tabular information for multiple observations at the same SO location is generally linked to a single polygon. Plant SO's are only created for Species of Concern and Potential Species of Concern. Animal Species Occurrences The location of a verified observation or specimen record typically known or assumed to represent a breeding population or a portion of a breeding population. Animal SO’s are generally: (1) buffers of terrestrial point observations based on documented species’ home range sizes; (2) buffers of stream segments to encompass occupied streams and immediate adjacent riparian habitats; (3) polygonal features encompassing known or likely breeding populations (e.g., a wetland for some amphibians or a forested portion of a mountain range for some wide-ranging carnivores); or (4) combinations of the above. Tabular information for multiple observations at the same SO location is generally linked to a single polygon. Species Occurrence polygons may encompass some unsuitable habitat in some instances in order to avoid heavy data processing associated with clipping out habitats that are readily assessed as unsuitable by the data user (e.g., a point buffer of a terrestrial species may overlap into a portion of a lake that is obviously inappropriate habitat for the species). Animal SO's are only created for Species of Concern and Special Status Species (e.g., Bald Eagle). Other Occurrence Polygons These include significant biological features not included in the above categories, such as Important Animal Habitats like bird rookeries and bat roosts, and peatlands or other wetland and riparian communities that support diverse plant and animal communities. Page 29 of 35 Geographic Range Polygons Geographic range polygons are still under development for most plant and invertebrate species. Native year- round, summer, winter, migratory and historic geographic range polygons as well as polygons for introduced populations have been defined for most vertebrate animal species for which there are enough observations, surveys, and knowledge of appropriate seasonal habitat use to define them (see examples to left). These native or introduced range polygons bound the extent of known or likely occupied habitats for non-migratory and relative sedentary species and the regular extent of known or likely occupied habitats for migratory and long-distance dispersing species; polygons may include unsuitable intervening habitats. For most species, a single polygon can represent the year-round or seasonal range, but breeding ranges of some colonial nesting water birds and some introduced species are represented more patchily when supported by data. Some ranges are mapped more broadly than actual distributions in order to be visible on statewide maps (e.g., fish). Predicted Suitable Habitat Models Predicted habitat suitability models have been created for plant and animal Species of Concern and are undergoing development for non-Species of Concern. For species for which models have been completed, the environmental summary report includes simple rule-based associations with streams for aquatic species and seasonal habitats for game species as well as mathematically complex Maximum Entropy models (Phillips et al. 2006, Ecological Modeling 190:231-259) constructed from a variety of statewide biotic and abiotic layers and presence only data for individual species for most terrestrial species. For the Maximum Entropy models, we reclassified 90 x 90-meter continuous model output into suitability classes (unsuitable, low, moderate, and optimal) then aggregated that into the one square mile hexagons used in the environmental summary report; this is the finest spatial scale we suggest using this information in management decisions and survey planning. Full model write ups for individual species that discuss model goals, inputs, outputs, and evaluation in much greater detail are posted on the MTNHP’s Predicted Suitable Habitat Models webpage. Evaluations of predictive accuracy and specific limitations are included with the metadata for models of individual species. Model outputs should not be used in place of on-the-ground surveys for species. Instead model outputs should be used in conjunction with habitat evaluations to determine the need for on-the-ground surveys for species. We suggest that the percentage of predicted optimal and moderate suitable habitat within the report area be used in conjunction with geographic range polygons and the percentage of commonly associated habitats to generate lists of potential species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Associated Habitats Within the boundary of the intersected hexagons, we provide the approximate percentage of commonly or occasionally associated habitat for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state; a detailed list of commonly and occasionally associated habitats is provided in individual species accounts in the Montana Field Guide We assigned common or occasional use of each of the ecological Page 30 of 35 systems mapped in Montana by: (1) using personal knowledge and reviewing literature that summarizes the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species; (2) evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species’ range and habitat requirements; (3) examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system; and (4) calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of numbers of observations versus availability of habitat. Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system. However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system. Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in the scientific literature. The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association. We suggest that the percentage of commonly associated habitat within the report area be used in conjunction with geographic range polygons and the percentage of predicted optimal and moderate suitable habitat from predictive models to generate lists of potential species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. Users of this information should be aware that land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections). Page 31 of 35 Introduction to Land Cover Land Use/Land Cover is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The layer records all Montana natural vegetation, land cover and land use, classified from satellite and aerial imagery, mapped at a scale of 1:100,000, and interpreted with supporting ground-level data. The baseline map is adapted from the Northwest ReGAP (NWGAP) project land cover classification, which used 30m resolution multi-spectral Landsat imagery acquired between 1999 and 2001. Vegetation classes were drawn from the Ecological System Classification developed by NatureServe (Comer et al. 2003). The land cover classes were developed by Anderson et al. (1976). The NWGAP effort encompasses 12 map zones. Montana overlaps seven of these zones. The two NWGAP teams responsible for the initial land cover mapping effort in Montana were Sanborn and NWGAP at the University of Idaho. Both Sanborn and NWGAP employed a similar modeling approach in which Classification and Regression Tree (CART) models were applied to Landsat ETM+ scenes. The Spatial Analysis Lab within the Montana Natural Heritage Program was responsible for developing a seamless Montana land cover map with a consistent statewide legend from these two separate products. Additionally, the Montana land cover layer incorporates several other land cover and land use products (e.g., MSDI Structures and Transportation themes and the Montana Department of Revenue Final Land Unit classification) and reclassifications based on plot-level data and the latest NAIP imagery to improve accuracy and enhance the usability of the theme. Updates are done as partner support and funding allow, or when other MSDI datasets can be incorporated. Recent updates include fire perimeters and agricultural land use (annually), energy developments such as wind, oil and gas installations (2014), roads, structures and other impervious surfaces (various years): and local updates/improvements to specific ecological systems (e.g., central Montana grassland and sagebrush ecosystems). Current and previous versions of the Land Use/Land Cover layer with full metadata are available for download from the Montana State Library’s GIS Data List More information on the land cover layer is available at: https://msl.mt.gov/geoinfo/msdi/land_use_land_cover/ Within the report area you have requested, land cover is summarized by acres of Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Ecological Systems. Literature Cited Anderson, J.R. E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological systems of the United States: A working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Page 32 of 35 Introduction to Wetland and Riparian Within the report area you have requested, wetland and riparian mapping is summarized by acres of each classification present. Summaries are only provided for modern MTNHP wetland and riparian mapping and not for outdated (NWI Legacy) or incomplete (NWI Scalable) mapping efforts; described here. MTNHP has made all three of these datasets and associated metadata available for separate download on the Montana Wetland and Riparian Framework web page. Wetland and Riparian mapping is one of 15 Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure framework layers considered vital for making statewide maps of Montana and understanding its geography. The wetland and riparian framework layer consists of spatial data representing the extent, type, and approximate location of wetlands, riparian areas, and deep water habitats in Montana. Wetland and riparian mapping is completed through photointerpretation of 1-m resolution color infrared aerial imagery acquired from 2005 or later. A coding convention using letters and numbers is assigned to each mapped wetland. These letters and numbers describe the broad landscape context of the wetland, its vegetation type, its water regime, and the kind of alterations that may have occurred. Ancillary data layers such as topographic maps, digital elevation models, soils data, and other aerial imagery sources are also used to improve mapping accuracy. Wetland mapping follows the federal Wetland Mapping Standard and classifies wetlands according to the Cowardin classification system of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Cowardin et al. 1979, FGDC Wetlands Subcommittee 2013). Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands differently than the NWI. Similar coding, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conventions, is applied to riparian areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). These are mapped areas where vegetation composition and growth is influenced by nearby water bodies, but where soils, plant communities, and hydrology do not display true wetland characteristics. These data are intended for use at a scale of 1:12,000 or smaller. Mapped wetland and riparian areas do not represent precise boundaries and digital wetland data cannot substitute for an on-site determination of jurisdictional wetlands. See detailed overviews, with examples, of both wetland and riparian classification systems and associated codes as a storymap and companion guide Literature Cited Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. 103pp. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 2009. A system for mapping riparian areas in the western United States. Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Branch of Resource and Mapping Support, Arlington, Virginia. Page 33 of 35 Introduction to Land Management Within the report area you have requested, land management information is summarized by acres of federal, state, and local government lands, tribal reservation boundaries, private conservation lands, and federal, state, local, and private conservation easements. Acreage for “Owned”, “Tribal”, or “Easement” categories represents non-overlapping areas that may be totaled. However, “Other Boundaries” represents managed areas such as National Forest boundaries containing private inholdings and other mixed ownership which may cause boundaries to overlap (e.g. a wilderness area within a forest). Therefore, acreages may not total in a straight-forward manner. Because information on land stewardship is critical to effective land management, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) began compiling ownership and management data in 1997. The goal of the Montana Land Management Database is to manage a single, statewide digital data set that incorporates information from both public and private entities. The database assembles information on public lands, private conservation lands, and conservation easements held by state and federal agencies and land trusts and is updated on a regular basis. Since 2011, the Information Management group in the Montana State Library’s Digital Library Division has led the Montana Land Management Database in partnership with the MTNHP. Public and private conservation land polygons are attributed with the name of the entity that owns it. The data are derived from the statewide Montana Cadastral Parcel layer Conservation easement data shows land parcels on which a public agency or qualified land trust has placed a conservation easement in cooperation with the landowner. The dataset contains no information about ownership or status of the mineral estate. For questions about the dataset or to report errors, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program at (406) 444-5363 or mtnhp@mt.gov. You can download various components of the Land Management Database and view associated metadata at the Montana State Library’s GIS Data List at the following links: Public Lands Conservation Easements Private Conservation Lands Managed Areas Map features in the Montana Land Management Database or summaries provided in this report are not intended as a legal depiction of public or private surface land ownership boundaries and should not be used in place of a survey conducted by a licensed land surveyor. Similarly, map features do not imply public access to any lands. The Montana Natural Heritage Program makes no representations or warranties whatsoever with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this data and assumes no responsibility for the suitability of the data for a particular purpose. The Montana Natural Heritage Program will not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of errors displayed here. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. Page 34 of 35 Introduction to Invasive and Pest Species Within the report area you have requested, separate summaries are provided for: Aquatic Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds, Agricultural Pests, Forest Pests, and Biocontrol species that have been documented or potentially occur there based on the predicted suitability of habitat. Definitions for each of these invasive and pest species categories can be found on our Species Status Codes page. Each of these summaries provides the following information when present for a species: (1) the number of observations of each species; (2) the geographic range polygons for each species, if developed, that the report area overlaps; (3) predicted relative habitat suitability classes that are present if a predicted suitable habitat model has been created; (4) the percent of the report area that is mapped as commonly associated or occasionally associated habitat as listed for each species in the Montana Field Guide; and (5) links to species accounts in the Montana Field Guide. Details on each of these information categories are included under relevant section headers under the Introduction to Native Species above or are defined on our Species Status Codes page. In presenting this information, the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) is working towards assisting the user with rapidly determining what invasive and pest species have been documented and what species are potentially present in the report area. We remind users that this information is likely incomplete as surveys to document introduced species are lacking in many areas of the state, information on introduced species has only been tracked relatively recently, the MTNHP’s staff and resources are limited, and information is constantly being added and updated in our databases. Thus, field verification by professional biologists of the absence or presence of species will always be an important obligation of users of our data. If you are aware of observation or survey datasets for invasive or pest species that the MTNHP is missing, please report them to the Program Coordinator bmaxell@mt.gov Program Botanist apipp@mt.gov or Senior Zoologist dbachen@mt.gov If you have animal or plant observations that you would like to contribute, you can also submit them via Excel spreadsheets, geodatabases, iNaturalist, or a Survey123 form. Various methods of data submission are reviewed in this playlist of videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRaydtZpHu2qOHPoSPq9cnM9uXGmEXACx Page 35 of 35 Additional Information Resources Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife Laws, Treaties, Regulations, and Agreements on Animals and Plants MTNHP Staff Contact Information Montana Field Guide MTNHP Species of Concern Report - Animals and Plants MTNHP Species Status Codes - Explanation MTNHP Predicted Suitable Habitat Models (for select Animals and Plants) MTNHP Request Information page Montana Cadastral Montana Code Annotated Montana Fisheries Information System Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Subdivision Recommendations Montana Forestry Best Management Practices Montana GIS Data Layers Montana GIS Data Bundler Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Project Submittal Site Montana Guide to Streamside Management Zone Law and Rules Montana Ground Water Information Center Montana Index of Environmental Permits, 21st Edition (2018) Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Montana Environmental Policy Act Analysis Resource List Montana Native Plant Conservation Strategy Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure Layers Montana State Historic Preservation Office Review and Compliance Montana Stream Permitting: a guide for conservation district supervisors and others Montana Water Information System Montana Web Map Services National Environmental Policy Act Penalties for Misuse of Fish and Wildlife Location Data (MCA 87-6-222) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (Section 7 Consultation) Uses of Information from the Montana Natural Heritage Program Web Soil Survey Tool Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Resources Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region 3 Headquarters 1400 S 19th Avenue Bozeman, MT 59718 November 7, 2025 Morrison Maierle 2880 Technology BLVD. W. P.O. Box 1113 Bozeman, MT 59771 RE: Laurel Meadows Subdivision Dear Ms. Pearcy, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Laurel Meadows Subdivision. An important project goal should be ensuring the completed subdivision poses no direct or persistent environmental threat to Baxter Creek or the existing wetlands on the proposed development site. FWP anticipates that your construction plans will include actions to reduce or mitigate sediment delivery, and to prevent discharges of petroleum products or other harmful substances into streams or lands capable of delivering these substances to nearby waterways. FWP recommends that stormwater management systems in the development do not convey runoff directly into nearby streams without first having the opportunity for groundwater filtration to occur. Per FWP’s subdivision guidelines, FWP recommends a minimum stream setback of 200 feet. This includes 150 feet of vegetation buffer plus an additional 50 feet of building setback along Baxter Creek. Therefore, FWP recommends not only a building setback, but also maintaining an intact riparian zone free of disturbance (e.g., trails associated infrastructure) along any streams to help protect the integrity of surrounding streams and downstream habitats. Stream setbacks also provide the opportunity to restore and maintain functioning riparian areas, which also help to reduce water temperatures of surrounding aquatic habitats. FWP also recommends a minimum of 100 feet of vegetated buffer plus 30 additional feet of building setback from the existing and proposed mitigation wetlands on site. Any proposed development that may physically alter or modify the beds or banks of the adjacent stream (e.g., horizontal directional drilling, trails, riparian vegetation removal) is subject to approval and permitting by the local conservation district under Section 75-7-101 (The Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975; “310 Law”). Laurel Meadows Subdivision 2 For further questions or concerns, please reach out to the following FWP personnel. Keith Wellstone, fisheries biologist (406-581-5568, keith.wellstone@mt.gov) Jen Smitham, R3 comment coordinator (406-495-3262, jsmitham@mt.gov) Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Kelly Proffitt Region 3 Supervisor , acting \\EgnyteDrive\BOZ Projects\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\04 Design\Reports\Wildlife\Field Photos 081325 Laurel Meadows WildlifeBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 13, 2025 Photo 1: Representative view of the subject property (facing southeast). Photo 2: View of wetlands on the subject property (facing south). \\EgnyteDrive\BOZ Projects\10130\001.04-PDZandPPLAT\04 Design\Reports\Wildlife\Field Photos 081325 Laurel Meadows WildlifeBozeman, Montana Photo Date: August 13, 2025 Photo 3 Representative view of the subject property, from Babcock Street (facing north).