Table Of Content

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Dillon Field Office 1005 Selway Drive Dillon, Montana 59725 July 2002 Final Report on Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Determinations Prepared by the Dillon Field Office for the Dillon Resource Management Plan GB 1227 K62 . D723 2002 c 1 . 0 The BureauofLand Managementisresponsibleforthestewardshipofourpubliclands. Itiscommittedtomanage, protect,andimprove these lands inamannertoserve the needsofthe American peopleforalltimes. Managementisbasedontheprinciplesofmultipleuse and sustained yield of our nation’s resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resourcesincluderecreation: rangelands;timber;minerals;watershed;fishandwildlife;wilderness;air;andscenic,scientific,andcultural values. BLM/MT/PL-02/007+161 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES 7 FINAL DOCUMENTATION OF ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENTS 11 CONCLUSIONS 21 REFERENCES CITED 22 TABLE 23 1 MAPS 24 Map 1 Location of Rivers Within Planning Area Map 2 Bear Creek Map 3 Beaverhead River-Pipe Organ to Dalys Map 4 Big Hole River-Divide to Melrose Map 5 Big Hole River-Melrose to Notch Bottom Map 6 Big Sheep Creek Map 7 Madison River-Cliff Lake to Varney Bridge Map 8 Madison River-Powerhouse to N. Wilderness Boundary Map 9 Madison River-N. Wilderness Boundary to Greycliff i BACKGROUND The Montana Bureau of Land The report also provided information Management’s Dillon Field Office (BLM) about the Wild and Scenic River review released the Draft Wild and Scenic process and the kinds of criteria to be Rivers Eligibility Report in March 2002 for considered in the next phase known as public comment and review (BLM 2002). the suitability study. The suitability study The Draft report recommended 10 rivers is conducted as a component of the or river segments as eligible for further broader Resource Management Plan study based on the presence of at least (RMP) being prepared for lands in one (1) outstandingly remarkable value Beaverhead and Madison Counties that and a free flowing nature. Each river or are administered by the BLM’s Dillon river segment proposed as eligible was Field Office. given a tentative classification of wild, scenic, or recreational based on the level BLM requested to receive public of development and human intrusion comments by April 30, 2002, in order to present along each river corridor. A move forward with the review process. number of other rivers were dismissed BLM considered these comments and from further study based on made changes as warranted. This report determinations that they either were not documents the final eligibility free flowing or did not contain at least one determinations for rivers or river outstandingly remarkable value. segments that will be studied further in the planning process. OVERVIEW OF COMMENT LIC The BLM received 37 written responses, Comments Specific to One of the Ten which contained a variety of comments. Rivers or River Segments Some letters were signed by several Comments regarding specific rivers or separate entities. Each letter was read river segments were considered and and comments relating to eligibility where necessary, additional information determinations were considered in was collected to make a final relation to the recommendations in the determination on whether the river met Draft Eligibility Report. This report the eligibility criteria. This included re- provides general discussion on the evaluating the free flow characteristics comments received and how they were and the values identified as outstanding. addressed. Comments related to In some cases, additional field work was suitability issues and identification of conducted in order to better assess the impacts will be used as the BLM moves comments; other comments were forward in the next step of the Wild and addressed by reviewing guidance and Scenic River review. seeking assistance from Wild and Scenic River staff experts. 1 Comments on Eligibility in General rivers identified in the initial screening Comments were received in support of process. BLM found the values present and against some or all of the eligibility along these rivers did not meet the recommendations contained in the Draft eligibility criteria and thus they did not Eligibility Report. Suggestions were move forward in the process. In addition, made that additional rivers needed to be direction provided that values that met the considered eligible and other outstandingly remarkable criteria have to suggestions were that some rivers be present at the time of evaluation. recommended as eligible did not meet Therefore, the potential for fish to be the eligibility criteria. It was suggested reintroduced into a historic habitat or a that all rivers with historic arctic grayling potential change in travel management in habitat should be eligible and that travel order to meet the eligibility criteria is not should be restricted on genetically pure a consideration in the Wild and Scenic westslope cutthroat rivers. These River eligibility review. changes would make those values outstandingly remarkable and those rivers Comments on Free Flow would be eligible. It was also Many comments suggested that rivers recommended that all river segments in with numerous irrigation diversions, rip Wilderness Study Areas and roadless rap, other modifications, and/or alteration areas should be considered eligible as of the natural hydrograph should not be wild rivers. Other comments indicated considered free flowing. In addition, that BLM had not assessed Dyce Creek, some comments suggested rivers that Black Canyon, and the North and South are intermittent, not navigable, and those Forks of Everson Creek. that freeze over should not be considered free flowing. Rivers in the Dillon Field Office were evaluated against the following eligibility While the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act criteria: provides a definition of free flowing as “existing or flowing in a natural condition whether the river was free without impoundment, diversion, 1 ) flowing, and straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway,” the law 2) whether BLM-administered land also goes on to state that “existence of within the river corridor contained small dams, diversion works, or other at least one river-related value minor structures shall not automatically meeting the criteria of disqualify it for consideration.” Page 14 outstandingly remarkable. of the Draft Eligibility Report provided further discussion on the definition of free The Dillon Field Office took a flowing in relation to the Wild and Scenic comprehensive approach in this review. River review. Many of the comments Dyce Creek, Black Canyon, and the North focused on the number and extent of and South Fork of Everson Creek were irrigation diversions on the various rivers. reviewed and included in the list of 52 The eligible rivers were reevaluated to 2 determine if the nature and extent of the consideration of cultural values not in the modifications in each river were of a public record creates an appearance that magnitude to change the finding of free the BLM is designating an area for flowing. The irrigation systems observed outstandingly remarkable values that are along the river and on maps showed in effect “secret.” It was suggested that flows usually returning to the river after the our criteria for considering westslope water right is utilized. Field review cutthroat trout as an outstandingly showed rivers “riverine” in appearance remarkable value should be changed so and even in areas of rip rap, one bank is that population values would override often free to flow unhindered. The free habitat values. It was also suggested that flow definition does not require a river to any river that was not in “proper be perennial or to be navigable, nor does functioning condition” as assessed by it require a natural flow without dams BLM would not meet the criteria as located above or below eligible river outstandingly remarkable. segments. Based on this information, no changes in free flowing determinations BLM did not change the criteria it used were warranted based on the definition in when determining whether or not values the Act and guidance directing the free were outstandingly remarkable. Each flow assessment. value identified in the Draft Eligibility Report was reviewed to ensure it While none of the free flowing occurred on BLM lands in the study assessments changed, some rivers were corridor and that justification was resegmented based on information available that indicated the value met the provided in the comments, and tentative criteria specified in Appendix A of the classifications were reviewed to ensure Draft report. The location of cultural development and access along the river resources is protected from public or river segments was considered. disclosure under the Archaeological Resegmentation is discussed under the Resources Protection Act of 1979, as following sections that document changes amended (ARPA). Every attempt was made to each river or river segment. made in the Draft Eligibility Report to describe the cultural and historic Comments on Outstandingly resources located on BLM land without Remarkable Values disclosing the location of values not Many comments proposed that the values readily apparent. BLM is not free to do identified as outstandingly remarkable otherwise, therefore no changes were may be “significant and important” when made in the amount of information judged on a local scale, but are not disclosed by BLM in regard to cultural or “outstandingly remarkable” when judged historic resources. Finally, if the value on a regional or national scale. Other was not directly related to the “proper comments questioned whether values functioning condition” of the river, it was were truly river related or whether they not considered as a single factor that were located on BLM lands within the would prevent a river from being eligible. study corridor. Comments stated that 3 . Comments on Tentative Comments on Boundary Classification Identification Many public comments confused the Concerns were expressed on the tentative classification of the river with the boundaries established for the Wild and values that were identified along the river Scenic River review, and on the corridor. Classification of a river is delineation of the Ordinary High Water related to the level of development that Mark (OHWM). The public identified four exists along the river corridor (see page 1 different types of Wild and Scenic River and Appendix B of the Draft Eligibility boundaries and asked when maps Report). There are three classifications- delineating all these boundaries would be Wild, Scenic and Recreational. These available for review. There was concern classifications are NOT RELATED to the that the river segments and boundaries type of values that the river may contain included private land. (i.e., recreation value). Since “most of the rivers have intrusions of human The preliminary study boundary development and activities”, most of the established for the eligibility review is not rivers were classified as Recreational a designation boundary. The boundaries rather than Wild or Scenic. It was also delineated for the eligibility review are suggested that was premature to generally one quarter mile from the it OHWM assign tentative classification until there on either side of the river. The is a plan in place for water quality Wild and Scenic River Act does not improvements in accordance with MCA provide a definition of OHWM, thus the MCA 75-5-702 and 75-5-703 (Montana definition as specified under Montana Code Annotated) and the Clean Water statute is acceptable. However, since the OHWM Act specific location of the is difficult to delineate, the preliminary boundaries An impaired stream cannot be classified and study area considered in the % as Wild. However, the classification eligibility review included land mile on criteria specifies that rivers will not be either side of the river. Maps were precluded from scenic and recreational included with the Draft Eligibility Report, classification because of poor water but only BLM lands in the river segment quality at the time of their study, provided were highlighted. This caused confusion, a water quality improvement plan exists but was done because only BLM lands or is being developed in compliance with were evaluated in the eligibility applicable federal and state laws. The assessment. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established a Table 1 at the end of this document more schedule to prepare water quality specifically describes the beginning and restoration plans on all impaired water end of each river or river segment by bodies by 2007. Based on the intent to legal description, and gives the distance develop these plans, rivers were not on BLM lands in comparison to the excluded from being eligible just because distance of the entire segment. Even they are listed as impaired. though the river segment contains private 4 or other lands between the beginning and for water quality improvements in end points of the segment, only BLM accordance with MCA 75-5-702 and MCA lands were considered in the 75-5-703 and the Clean Water Act. assessment. The section on Comments Regarding Management ofEligible The BLM did not originally consider the Rivers also states that private land is not 303(d) list in preparation of the Draft affected by a finding of eligibility. Maps Eligibility report and reconsidered water of each eligible river or river segment are quality on each of the rivers. An impaired included at the back of this report. stream cannot be classified as Wild but Topographic maps at the 1:24,000 scale could be classified as Scenic or can be viewed by making an appointment Recreational. The classification criteria with Lynn Anderson at the Dillon Field specifies that rivers will not be precluded Office. However, these boundaries from scenic and recreational remain study boundaries; only after classification because of poor water designation of a Wild and Scenic River quality at the time of their study, provided are final management boundaries a water quality improvement plan exists established. If a river is designated, the or is being developed in compliance with managing agency has one year, unless applicable federal and state laws. otherwise provided for, to prepare Montana DEQ has established a detailed boundaries. Notice of the schedule to prepare water quality availability of boundaries is then improvement plans on all impaired water published in the Federal Register. bodies by 2007. Boundaries are not effective until ninety days after they have been forwarded to In addition, comments suggested that the President of the Senate and the impaired water quality would not allow for Speaker of the House of outstandingly remarkable fish values if a Representatives. river only partially supported fish or aquatic habitats. BLM assessed each Comments on Water Quality river on a case-by-case basis. For Questions were raised regarding water instance, even with impaired water quality quality considerations in the eligibility on the Beaverhead River, the brown trout review. One comment suggested that fishery is one of the most productive in most if not all of the water bodies Montana and meets the criteria to be an considered eligible are on the Montana outstandingly remarkable fish value. Department of Environmental Quality’s list of impaired water bodies prepared under Comments Related to Suitability Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Criteria and do not meet the water quality criteria Many of the comments received asked necessary to be considered eligible questions and raised concerns that will under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. be addressed when the suitability study is Another comment stated that was completed. Page 4 of the Draft Eligibility it premature to assign tentative Report identified some of the criteria that classification until there is a plan in place are considered in the suitability study. 5 Comments asking us to consider items Scenic Rivers Act, pointing to sections that are reviewed in the suitability restricting development, as well as to assessment are outside the scope of the case studies that described management eligibility review. However, all comments of designated rivers, or controversies related to suitability will be considered as surrounding management of designated that study is completed and the Draft rivers. RMP/EIS is developed. Eligible rivers identified for further study Comments Related to Impacts of through agency planning processes are Designation not protected under the Wild and Scenic A number of public comments indicated Rivers Act. Rather, protection of free that BLM had not considered the impact flow, water quality, and outstandingly a designation would have on current remarkable values occurs through other uses, economics of the area, and a BLM authorities. For an eligible river, variety of other considerations. The Draft there is no regulatory authority to manage Eligibility Report did not include an private land and no ability to acquire impact analysis as it does not result in interest in land. Actions of other local, any designation. An impact analysis will state or federal agencies or private be conducted on alternatives developed landowners are not affected by a for the RMP, which will include determination of eligibility, though alternatives on whether or not eligible voluntary partnerships can assist the rivers should be considered suitable for managing agency in protection of the inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic values, free flow, and tentative Rivers system. While these types of classification. comments are outside the scope of the eligibility review, they will be considered Existing uses occurring at the time of the when the Draft RMP/EIS is written. evaluation will continue on rivers determined eligible for further study. New Comments Related to Management of uses or changes in use that require Eligible Rivers authorization by BLM will be assessed on Concerns were expressed that eligibility a case-by-case basis in an environmental will result in a river being managed as if it analysis to determine whether the is already designated, and that declaring identified values, the free flow, or the eligibility has the potential to tie up river tentative classification would be corridors from active resource degraded with authorization of a new or conservation practices and multiple changed use. This was described in the resource uses. Some comments referred Draft Eligibility Report on page 3 and in to specific sections of the Wild and Appendix C. 6